[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 18]
[Senate]
[Pages 25079-25144]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




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

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. 1689, which the clerk will report.
  The 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:

       Byrd/Durbin amendment No. 1819, to prohibit the use of Iraq 
     Relief and Reconstruction Funds for low-priority activities 
     that should not be the responsibility of United States 
     taxpayers, and shift $600 million from the Iraq Relief and 
     Reconstruction Fund to Defense Operations and Maintenance, 
     Army, for significantly improving efforts to secure and 
     destroy conventional weapons, such as bombs, bomb materials, 
     small arms, rocket-propelled grenades, and shoulder-launched 
     missiles, in Iraq.
       Bond/Mikulski amendment No. 1825, to provide additional VA 
     Medical Care Funds for the Department of Veterans Affairs.
       Durbin amendment No. 1837, to ensure that a Federal 
     employee who takes leave without pay in order to perform 
     certain service as a member of the uniformed services or 
     member of the National Guard shall continue to receive pay in 
     an amount which, when taken together with the pay and 
     allowances such individual is receiving for such service, 
     will be no less than the basic pay such individual would then 
     be receiving if no interruption in employment had occurred.
       Daschle amendment No. 1854, to achieve the most effective 
     means of reconstructing Iraq and to reduce the future costs 
     to the American taxpayer of such reconstruction by ensuring 
     broad-based international cooperation for this effort.
       Reid (for Landrieu) amendment No. 1859, to promote the 
     establishment of an Iraq Reconstruction Finance Authority and 
     the use of Iraqi oil revenues to pay for reconstruction in 
     Iraq.
       Boxer modified amendment No. 1843, to make retroactive the 
     relief of hospitalized members of the uniformed services from 
     the obligation to pay for food and subsistence while 
     hospitalized.
       Reid (for Chafee/Leahy) modified amendment No. 1807, to 
     provide for humanitarian assistance and reconstruction in 
     Liberia.
       Durbin amendment No. 1879, to provide funds for the 
     prevention, treatment, and control of, and research on HIV/
     AIDS.
       Corzine amendment No. 1882, to establish a National 
     Commission on the Development and Use of Intelligence Related 
     to Iraq.


                           Amendment No. 1837

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there are now 2 
minutes evenly divided prior to a vote on the Durbin amendment No. 
1837.
  The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. This amendment would require Federal agencies to pay any 
difference between military pay and civilian compensation for employees 
of the Federal Government who are called to active duty. We have 
concerns about requiring all Federal agencies to absorb the cost of 
implementing this

[[Page 25080]]

program. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the initial cost is 
$80 million this year.
  We have not opposed this amendment. I offered to take it to 
conference. The authors have demanded a vote. I will not oppose the 
vote. I intend to work with the two authorization committees that have 
jurisdiction over this matter, the Senate Armed Services and 
Governmental Affairs Committees, to ensure this is the appropriate 
policy to address the Guard and Reserve retention. I believe it will be 
modified in conference.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Of the nearly 1.2 million members of the National Guard 
and Reserve, 120,000, or 10 percent, are Federal employees; 14,000 
Federal employees are currently mobilized and serving on active duty. 
We ask with this amendment that the Federal Government treat its 
employees the way State after State after State has decided to treat 
them. If they are activated, we will make up the difference in their 
lost pay, the difference between their pay as activated members of the 
military and what they would have earned with the Federal Government.
  We know we are asking the Guard and Reserve to accept greater and 
longer responsibilities, with more hardship for their families. I would 
like to make it clear with a record vote this morning that we want the 
Federal Government to serve as an example for governments across 
America to stand behind the men and women in uniform, to make up their 
difference in pay, stand by their families, as they risk their lives to 
serve our country.
  I urge my colleagues to give this a strong, overwhelming vote so the 
conference will stand behind it and this will become the law of the 
land.
  Mr. STEVENS. Have the yeas and nays been requested?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have not been requested.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I call to the attention of the Senate there will be a 
normal time limit on this amendment. All amendments thereafter will be 
limited to 10 minutes, with 2 minutes equally divided, 1 minute each 
before each amendment. I urge Senators to stay in the Chamber so we can 
move on this bill as rapidly as possible.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment. 
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. 
Lieberman) is necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 96, nays 3, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 390 Leg.]

                                YEAS--96

     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 (FL)
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--3

     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Nickles

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Lieberman
       
  The amendment (No. 1837) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay 
that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Sarbanes be added as a cosponsor of my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1854

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there are now 2 
minutes evenly divided on the Daschle amendment No. 1854.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this amendment will cap future funds for 
reconstruction unless the President certifies that additional funds are 
``equal to or exceeded by'' an amount contributed by members of the 
international community. The President may waive the requirement if he 
deems it in the interest of national security. But part of this money 
is money for reconstruction and development of Iraq. The amendment will 
potentially impact on the momentum for reconstruction which, as we have 
said, is critical to bringing our troops home as soon as possible. I 
don't think you can have it both ways. I don't think you can support 
the troops for military operations and oppose reconstruction efforts.
  At the appropriate time I intend to move to table the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the essence of this amendment is really 
very simple. We have to demonstrate at some point that we are not 
alone, that we have help from the international community. We are going 
to have committed this year $166 billion in help for Iraq. That may be 
unprecedented. I don't know of another time in all of history when we 
have committed that much money to one country in 1 year. What this 
simply says is that from here on out, after that $166 billion is 
committed, the President needs to go to the international community and 
make the case and ask for help. That is all it does. It says we have to 
get some additional help from the international community after we have 
expended the $166 billion. But even if we don't get it, the President 
can come back and certify that it is still in our national interest for 
us to dedicate more of American resources to this effort.
  I hope our colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment, and I ask 
for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to table amendment No. 
1854. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. 
Lieberman) is necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 391 Leg.]

                                YEAS--55

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

                                NAYS--44

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham (FL)
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)

[[Page 25081]]


     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Lieberman
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we have a 10-minute limit and that vote 
went over again.
  The next amendment is the Landrieu amendment.


                           Amendment No. 1859

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there are now 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to the vote on the Landrieu 
amendment No. 1859.
  The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, on October 14, an amendment offered by 
the Senator from North Dakota was tabled by a vote of 57-39. This is a 
similar amendment.
  This amendment states that no further funds will be committed for 
reconstruction beyond those in the underlying bill; all future 
reconstruction funds must come from revenues from Iraqi oil production.
  They could not spend any State Department money. They could not spend 
any Defense Department money--no funds except from moneys secured 
through oil production.
  This is another one of those amendments that will slow down the 
momentum of reconstruction in Iraq and really is another amendment that 
possibly will delay the return of our troops.
  I intend at the proper time to make a motion to table this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition? The Senator from 
Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, with all due respect to the chairman, who is doing a 
good job of leading us through this bill, I say emphatically this 
amendment is in line with Security Council Resolution 1483, which was 
drafted in large measure by this administration when we lifted the 
sanctions on Iraq. Resolution 1483 passed by the Security Council was a 
U.S.-led effort.
  This resolution says we should use the oil reserves in Iraq for 
Iraq's reconstruction. This resolution says we should ask Iraq to be a 
partner, not a begger. This resolution says we should not create a 
welfare state in Iraq but we should create a strong and vibrant 
democracy.
  Iraq, at conservative estimates, can generate $40 billion a year, and 
it could go up to $100 billion a year.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Landrieu 
amendment. The amendment would require the President to direct the 
Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq to establish, in consultation 
with the Iraqi Governing Council or a successor entity in Iraq, an Iraq 
Reconstruction Finance Authority. The authority would be required to 
obtain financing for the reconstruction of Iraq's infrastructure from 
three sources: First, issuing securities or other financial 
instruments; second, international loans; and third, collateralizing 
this debt with revenue from future sales of Iraqi oil.
  This amendment does not require a single dollar of Iraqi oil revenue 
to be paid to the United States to reimburse us for the substantial 
costs we have already paid and will continue to pay to stabilize and 
rebuild Iraq. Instead, it establishes a body in Iraq that would be 
designed to use future oil receipts as collateral to fund Iraq's 
reconstruction after the $20 billion in this bill is expended. That is 
a critical distinction and it is why I am supporting this amendment.
  Because of the huge investments that will be required to increase 
Iraqi oil output beyond pre-war levels of 2.5 to 3 million barrels per 
day, we should not expect that collateralizing future oil receipts will 
significantly impact the huge investments that we will continue to have 
to make even after we pass this bill. Iraqi oil is not the bonanza that 
it was advertised to be by some in the administration prior to the war.
  I would have preferred to give the President the option to set up the 
Iraq Reconstruction Authority rather than requiring him to as the 
amendment does, and I would have preferred giving the authority the 
option to collateralize oil rather than requiring it to do so. However, 
I believe that the Senator from Louisiana has written her amendment in 
such a way that it meets my fundamental concern that we not be 
perceived as attempting to ``steal'' Iraqi oil.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chaffee). The Senator's time has expired.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Senator Levin, Senator Dorgan, and Senator Stabenow 
offer this amendment for the Senate's consideration.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and ask for 
the yeas and nays, and I ask that the Chair instruct the clerks to 
deliver to the Chair this vote at the end of 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to table amendment No. 
1859. The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. 
Lieberman) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 392 Leg.]

                                YEAS--52

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

                                NAYS--47

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
      Lieberman
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1843

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes of debate prior to the vote on Boxer amendment No. 1843.
  The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. This amendment, which we offered to accept, deals with 
reimbursement for the costs of services and food to military personnel 
while in the hospital. We offered to accept the amendment, but the 
Senator demands a vote. I have already accepted the amendment so I 
would renew my request that we pass it by a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. The amendment I have offered would continue the good work 
of Congressman Bill Young, Senator Stevens, and Senator Graham. It 
would reimburse our troops, who are injured and in hospital, for the 
meals they were charged for. What we have done previously, with the 
help of Senator Stevens, is prospectively say they will not be charged 
for meals, but those who went into Afghanistan and Iraq are getting hit 
with $200 and $300 bills. Maybe they lost a leg or an eye and

[[Page 25082]]

when they come out they go back to their job. One was a sheriff who got 
hit with a $200 bill. This would completely remove that burden. I would 
ask that there be a recorded vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays were previously ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1843. The clerk will 
call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. 
Lieberman) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 393 Leg.]

                                YEAS--99

     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 (FL)
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Lieberman
      
  The amendment (No. 1843) was agreed to.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1879

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there are 2 minutes 
equally divided prior to the vote on the Durbin amendment.
  The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this is the morning's headline in the 
Washington Post: ``Global Fund Slows Aid.''
  That is aid going to fight HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria. There is 
not enough money to fight the global epidemic which, like no other, 
threatens this Nation and every nation on Earth.
  Don't take my word for it. A quote from Secretary of State Colin 
Powell before the General Assembly just days ago:

       AIDS is more devastating than any terrorist attack, any 
     conflict or any weapon of mass destruction.

  We promised $3 billion in the authorization bill to fight global 
AIDS. We have failed to come up with that money. The President of the 
United States promised that he would pledge $15 billion over 5 years to 
fight global AIDS. We have failed to come up with the money. Over 70 
Members of the Senate voted, saying we will stand for $3 billion this 
year even if it breaks the budget. And we failed to come up with the 
money. With this amendment, $879 million will move out of the 
reconstruction part of Iraq into the global AIDS fight. The House has 
already cut $20.6 billion out of this bill. Certainly we can come up 
with the $800 million needed to keep our word to the world.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the Senate has already defeated a similar 
amendment by a vote of 71 to 24 on July 17. This amendment would cut 
funding that will help bring our troops home from the region at the 
earliest possible date.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter dated October 
16, 2003, to Chairman Stevens from Joseph O'Neill, Deputy Coordinator 
and Chief Medical Officer, Office of the Global AIDS Coordinator, 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, October 16, 2003.
     Hon. Ted Stevens,
     Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Stevens: It is my understanding that an 
     amendment regarding funding for HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and 
     malaria may be offered today to the Fiscal Year 2004 
     Supplemental Appropriations bill currently under 
     consideration on the Senate floor.
       I want to reiterate the Administration's strong support for 
     the Fiscal Year 2004 budget request of $2 billion for all 
     international HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria activities, 
     including $200 million for the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, 
     Tuberculosis and Malaria, as part of the President's larger 
     commitment to spend $15 billion over the next five years 
     through the Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. I also want to 
     highlight that it is by careful design that the President's 
     Fiscal Year 2004 budget request is for $2 billion.
       The cornerstone of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS 
     Relief is its focused approach to use $9 billion in new 
     funding over the next five years to bring comprehensive and 
     integrated HIV/AIDS prevention, care and large-scale 
     antiretroviral treatment to 14 countries in Africa and the 
     Caribbean. These countries are home to nearly 70 percent of 
     HIV-infected persons in Africa and the Caribbean and 50 
     percent of the HIV-infected persons in the world. There are 
     considerable challenges inherent in meeting the bold goals 
     the President has set for these 14 countries which must be 
     addressed in the early years of implementation. We believe it 
     is important to ramp up spending on these countries in a 
     focused manner, increasing the amount spent each year to 
     efficiently and effectively create the necessary training, 
     technology, and infrastructure base needed to deliver 
     appropriate long-term medical treatment in a sustainable and 
     accountable way.
       Similarly, the U.S. Government's support for the Global 
     Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria is strong. 
     Currently, the United States is responsible for 40 percent of 
     all contributions made to the Global Fund. We have reached a 
     critical time in the Global Fund's development, and other 
     nations must join the United States in supporting the work of 
     the Global Fund.
       For the reasons stated above, the Administration strongly 
     opposes any efforts to increase funding beyond the $2 billion 
     requested in the President's Fiscal Year 2004 budget. I 
     appreciate your support on this issue and look forward to the 
     continued strong bipartisan support of the Senate in ensuring 
     the success of this lifesaving initiative.
           Sincerely,
                                       Joseph F. O'Neill, MD, MPH,
       Deputy Coordinator and Chief Medical Officer, Office of the 
     Global AIDS Coordinator.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the Senate should reject the amendment. I 
move to table the amendment, and I 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 to table amendment No. 1879, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. 
Lieberman) is necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 43, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 394 Leg.]

                                YEAS--56

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

                                NAYS--43

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham (FL)
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl

[[Page 25083]]


     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Lieberman
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that motion 
on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sununu). Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1882

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask the Chair to lay before the Senate 
the Corzine amendment No. 1882.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I could not hear.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on this 
matter there be 20 minutes under the control of Senator Roberts, 5 
minutes under the control of Senator Rockefeller, and 5--whatever time 
Senator Corzine requests.
  Mr. REID. I ask Senator Corzine, how much time do you desire on your 
amendment? You spoke last night.
  Mr. CORZINE. I would presume 10 minutes.
  Mr. REID. Ten minutes.
  Mr. STEVENS. And 10 minutes for Senator Corzine, and there be a vote 
in relation to that amendment upon the expiration of that time, with no 
amendments in order to this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. No objection.
  Mr. STEVENS. Let's have the Chair state the understanding of the time 
limitation. Can the Chair state the time limitation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eighteen minutes for the Senator from Kansas, 
Mr. Roberts--
  Mr. STEVENS. No. That is 20 minutes, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty minutes for the Senator from Kansas, 
Mr. Roberts; 5 minutes for the Senator from West Virginia, Mr. 
Rockefeller; and 10 minutes for the Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. STEVENS. With no amendments in order. That is my unanimous 
consent request.
  Mr. CORZINE. Reserving the right to object, I could not hear.
  Mr. REID. You have your 10 minutes.
  Mr. STEVENS. It is 20 minutes for Senator Roberts, 5 minutes for 
Senator Rockefeller--
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. And 10 minutes for the Senator from New 
Jersey.
  Mr. STEVENS. Senator Rockefeller, 5 minutes. Twenty minutes for the 
Senator from Kansas. Ten minutes for the Senator from New Jersey. There 
are five Members sharing the 20 minutes.
  Mr. CORZINE. I know we will have some Members who want to speak. I 
wonder, could we increase the 10-minute agreement to 15 on my side?
  Mr. STEVENS. We have no objection. We can change the Corzine 
limitation to 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding that following the 
disposal of that, by vote, we would move to the Byrd-Durbin amendment 
No. 1819. It is my understanding that Senator Byrd would speak no 
longer than 20 minutes on that amendment. There would be no other 
limitation of time. I ask my friend from Alaska if he would approve 
that.
  Mr. BIDEN. Reserving the right to object, did you say the Byrd 
amendment?
  Mr. REID. Byrd-Durbin amendment.
  Mr. BIDEN. Byrd-Durbin, I am sorry. I would like some time on that 
amendment.
  Mr. REID. The only limitation, Mr. President, on my unanimous consent 
request would be Senator Byrd speaking no longer than 20 minutes. Of 
course, there would be no amendments in order, and there would be a 
vote on or in relation to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. STEVENS. The limitation applies only to Senator Byrd; is that 
correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1882

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise to express my very strong 
opposition to the Corzine amendment, not in terms of intent but in 
terms of substance.
  Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the 
Senate Intelligence Committee, a new Member of the Senate who has had a 
great deal of experience serving as a valued member of the House 
Intelligence Committee, Senator Chambliss.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment. The amendment establishes bad policy. Let me tell you why.
  I had the privilege of serving on the House Intelligence Committee 
for 2 years. I had the privilege of serving under Chairman Porter Goss 
in the House. I served side by side with now ranking member Jane 
Harman. We did an outstanding job in the House Intelligence Committee 
of conducting oversight work of the intelligence community worldwide.
  I have had the privilege of serving under the strong leadership of 
Chairman Roberts and Vice Chairman Rockefeller in the Senate 
Intelligence Committee, and, once again, they have led a terrific 
effort from an oversight perspective of the intelligence community, 
whether it is Iraq, whether it is North Korea, whether it is any other 
issue. They have done a great job in a bipartisan way.
  I have to commend all members of the Senate Intelligence Committee. 
We have asked the tough questions time and time again because that is 
our job. We are charged with the responsibility of conducting this 
oversight.
  Now to send this outside the Intelligence Committees establishes 
simply bad policy and moves the intelligence community in the wrong 
direction.
  I was a member of the Joint Inquiry Committee that was established 
last year between the House and Senate Intelligence Committees to look 
at 9/11. That Joint Inquiry Committee was unable to function properly 
because most of the real hard substantive issues are classified issues. 
No joint committee can really do their work without having the 
availability of classified information.
  The Senate Intelligence Committee and the House Intelligence 
Committee have the availability of that classified information at their 
fingertips. That is the way the system is designed to work. That is the 
way it should work. That is the way it is working. It is working 
properly, and it is working in a very bipartisan way.
  Whatever the intelligence failures were involved in Iraq will be 
disclosed. Whatever the wrong things that were done will ultimately be 
disclosed. But it has to be done within the right framework. And that 
right framework is within the Intelligence Committees of the House and 
the Senate.
  Again, I commend the strong, bipartisan leadership of Vice Chairman 
Rockefeller and Chairman Roberts. They are leading us in the right way 
on this issue, and that is the way it needs to continue.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the 
distinguished Senator from Mississippi, another valued member of the 
Senate Intelligence Committee, Mr. Lott.

[[Page 25084]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Kansas, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. President, should we just go ahead and eliminate committees in 
Congress? Should we just go ahead and limit the House and the Senate? 
We have a job to do. Are we going to turn everything over to so-called 
independent commissions that drag their feet. It takes months to get 
people appointed. They hire staff. What are we here for? Another 
``independent'' commission?
  We have one underway right now, headed by former Governor Kean. It is 
a very good, bipartisan group of capable men and women looking at the 
events prior to 9/11 but also looking at the intelligence component of 
what happened there. So there is already one independent commission.
  But I have never liked these commissions. I have been involved in 
creating some of them. They are always an excuse to shove it off on 
somebody else. It is as if we are trying to put hands over our eyes and 
say, ``Oh, no, we can't do it'' or, ``Don't show me. Let's let somebody 
else do the job.''
  What do we have the Intelligence Committee for? Formerly I would get 
briefings related to intelligence information, but I am a new member, 
actively sitting on the Intelligence Committee. I have faith in this 
bipartisan committee. It should be, and for the most part it is, a 
nonpartisan committee.
  I have faith in Pat Roberts. He is not exactly a pushover on any 
issue, whether it is agriculture, defense, or intelligence. Jay 
Rockefeller, the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, is very 
aggressive on this issue. We are doing our job. We are having hearings, 
lots of hearings. And we are going to get at the truth of the 
intelligence.
  Do they have what they need? Were they giving us some bad analysis of 
the intelligence?
  We are in that process. We are doing our job. Let's let the 
Intelligence Committee do its job. We don't need another independent 
commission. I trust this committee. The Senate should give us the 
chance to do the job. We should not have another commission out there 
spending money, hovering around and accomplishing very little.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, may I inquire of the Senator from New 
Jersey if he would like to respond on his time or what his plans are? I 
have several speakers. I did not want to dominate the discussion.
  Mr. CORZINE. If the distinguished Senator from Kansas will recall, I 
gave a presentation last night of about 30 minutes on this subject. I 
will be happy to respond to different elements. I thought I would hear 
what the arguments were and then make a response. If you would like to 
see it all now, I would be more than happy to do some responding, but I 
would like to hear the overall argument.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I understand. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, a valued member 
of the Intelligence Committee, the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished chairman. I say 
with all due deference to our distinguished colleague from New Jersey 
that on its face there is a very serious flaw. I am opposed to the 
principle of having a commission at this time examine the subject, but 
on its face it reads:

       There is established a National Commission on Development 
     and Use of Intelligence Related to Iraq.

  Iraq is but one piece of a matrix of nations in that region of the 
world. You cannot focus on just the narrow Iraq situation without Iran, 
without looking at the other areas of the world which are being 
affected by this spread of terrorism. I say to my good friend, his 
intentions may well have been the best, but personally I think it is 
inappropriate and ill-advised at this time to usurp in many respects 
the responsibility of the Congress, certainly not in a way in which you 
just look at one small area of intelligence unrelated to the broad 
picture throughout that region.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, Senator Rockefeller, our distinguished 
vice chairman, has been granted 5 minutes. I think from a parliamentary 
standpoint, however, it is my responsibility to yield to him at this 
particular time. If that is not correct, I stand to be corrected by the 
Presiding Officer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia controls 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I ask the Senator from West Virginia if he may want to 
make his remarks at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator 
from Kansas.
  I oppose this amendment. I oppose this amendment for a variety of 
reasons. I do not oppose this amendment because of the intent of trying 
to get to the bottom of all of the problems we face in the work we are 
doing in the Intelligence Committee, on which I serve as vice chair. 
But I oppose it because it would have the effect of undermining what we 
are doing, further diluting the focus on the issue of WMD prewar 
intelligence, all the rest of it.
  I do not mean to imply by that that the investigation is moving at 
the speed with which I would like to see it in the committee. Those 
issues are being addressed between the chairman and myself and members 
on each side of the aisle trying to work in a bipartisan fashion. This 
is an investigation which not only has the comparison of prewar 
intelligence to what we more recently discovered or may be discovering, 
but it also has the whole question of wherever the trail leads, which 
is a phrase the chairman of the committee has used.
  There are other aspects of this, whether you use the word 
dissemination of intelligence; you collect it; you analyze it, and then 
it gets put over to the policy people. Then they use it in one way or 
another. The use of that, whether there was any pressure brought to 
bear, all of those things are areas that we are in the process of 
examining right now. It is a difficult subject.
  There is already another commission on this subject, the Kean-
Hamilton Commission, but that is covering something of a different 
area. If another commission is set up, another group is set up to look 
at prewar WMD, postwar WMD, intelligence on all of that, it just simply 
duplicates what we are or will shortly be doing.
  As the chairman knows and as my members know, if we do not reach the 
depth and breadth of satisfaction of investigation on this, then we 
will have to come back and reconsider all of this at another time. It 
is my judgment that because of talks and things going on now, dynamics 
which are internal and intense, we are making that kind of progress, 
and the threshold of making the kind of progress we have to make to 
reach a final conclusion and do a report is on the move.
  This would be damaging to us. I don't say that as turf because one is 
on this committee for 8 years and then one is off this committee. That 
is a whole other subject for another day. But we need to focus this. We 
do not need to dilute it. I understand the purpose of the amendment of 
the Senator from New Jersey. I do not happen to support it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. May I ask how much time I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas has 12 minutes 
remaining. The Senator from West Virginia has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining, 
and the Senator from New Jersey has 15 minutes remaining.
  Mr. ROBERTS. If I might inquire of the Senator from New Jersey if he 
is ready to make a comment now or would he prefer to wait?
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I would still like to hear the full 
development of the argument. I understand very clearly the comment that 
the committee is in the midst of its work. I appreciate and believe 
very strongly in

[[Page 25085]]

the distinguished Senators from Kansas and West Virginia about this 
process. But to my knowledge, there have not been public hearings even 
on things that can be talked about in public. I am very clear in my 
amendment that the Congress underscores its commitment to and support 
for ongoing congressional views regarding the collection and analysis 
of intelligence related to Iraq.
  This is not an attempt to usurp. It is trying to bring additional 
attention to a very difficult issue. As I said last night, there has 
been since the last time we debated this on the floor a long litany of 
weaknesses, questions about the development and use of intelligence.
  It is in that vein that I will be speaking, as I did last night. I 
would like to hear why it is so important only to do it in one vein 
when we certainly thought it was important to look at the intelligence 
operations failures.
  Mr. ROBERTS. If the Senator will yield, I would like to make a 
parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is controlling the 
floor right now.
  Mr. ROBERTS. So the Senator is making a speech on my time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. CORZINE. If the Senator from Kansas will yield a couple of 
minutes to my side back.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I would like to reclaim my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. How much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas has 10 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I have two other requests for time: Senator Bond and 
Senator Stevens.
  Let me simply say, when we first considered the Iraq commission 
proposal during debate on the Defense appropriations bill, the Senate 
voted it down. I urge my colleagues to oppose it again today.
  My opposition to this amendment is simple. I disagree with its 
underlying principle that Congress somehow is incapable of thorough, 
independent, and nonpartisan analysis of the prewar intelligence on 
Iraq. As I address you today, the professional staff, 10 of them, of 
the Senate Intelligence Committee are diligently conducting the very 
review this amendment now seeks. Working together, as has been 
indicated by the distinguished vice chairman, Senator Rockefeller and I 
have broadly framed the mandate for the committee's review. Our efforts 
have focused on the following: The quantity and quality of U.S. 
intelligence concerning Iraqi WMD programs; Iraq's ties to terrorist 
groups; the regime's human rights violations; and the effect of Saddam 
Hussein on regional stability. Secondly, the objectivity, the 
reasonableness, the independence, and accuracy of the judgments of the 
intelligence community--whether those judgments were properly 
disseminated to policymakers; and finally, whether inappropriate 
pressure regarding politics was brought to bear on intelligence 
analysts.
  I can report to you that after interviewing many analysts--and I will 
not get into specifics here--there has been no evidence of that as of 
today.
  Those are the goals of the mission of the current inquiry of the 
Senate Intelligence Committee, and they mirror exactly the nine 
functions called for in the independent commission as proposed by the 
Senator from New Jersey. This review is well underway; in my opinion, 
it is probably 85 to 90 percent done. It is being conducted in the 
unique nonpartisan atmosphere of the select committee. The work our 
staff has done is worthy of the Senate's praise. Over 19 volumes of 
prewar intelligence, thousands of pages of text have been carefully 
reviewed.
  As a matter of fact, I offer an opportunity to the distinguished 
Senator. I will play Bob Barker and say, come on down, come to room 
219, and I will be happy to show you the national intelligence 
estimate, our committee work, and the staff work. I think the Senator 
would be very impressed with the work of our staff. Additional 
information has been sought and provided in a manner of cooperation by 
the executive branch. Numerous interviews of the intelligence community 
and officials from the administration have also been conducted. Status 
reports have been provided on several occasions to committee members.
  In addition to these efforts, committee members have been able to 
question several in the intelligence community and officials from the 
administration at a series of closed hearings. The reason it is not 
public is simple. At the top of every document, and regarding every 
subject, it says ``top secret code word.'' That doesn't mean we will 
not have public hearings or a public report. I have promised that and 
so has the vice chairman.
  I have also invited all Members of this body who are interested in 
prewar Iraq intelligence to seek answers to their questions from the 
committee. I renew that invitation to Senator Corzine. Come on down; 
take a look at our committee's work. Our staff can direct you to the 
information that will answer every question set forth in your 
amendment. I remind the Senator that ours is not the only review of the 
intelligence community's performance. The able members of the House 
Intelligence Committee have conducted their review. The President's 
Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board is examining the topic. The State 
Department and the CIA have carefully examined the Niger uranium issue. 
This list doesn't include the efforts of the 9/11 Commission, the joint 
inquiry of the congressional intelligence committees, and the efforts 
of the other congressional committees. All told, over 40 Members of 
Congress, numerous professional staff, and countless career and 
nonpolitical employees of the executive branch will have looked into 
this topic. We don't need another 12 members to duplicate that effort.
  When we set out on this review, I promised to follow the facts 
wherever they might lead. I will do so. I remain committed to that 
promise. We will report our findings and, as necessary, we will 
recommend any needed improvements. Most important, we will continue our 
efforts to ensure the intelligence community does provide the 
policymakers with unbiased and actionable intelligence. As we approach 
completion of the committee's review, I ask Members not to prejudge our 
thorough, nonpartisan efforts.
  At this time, would the Senator like to take his time?
  How much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I made a few opening remarks last night. 
I want to start by saying we are all looking for the same objective; 
that is, to get to the bottom of understanding the development and the 
use of intelligence that was the basis on which we entered into a 
conflict during which we have now lost 335 men, and literally thousands 
have been injured. There is a reason to understand whether the 
development and use of that intelligence was appropriately handled.
  The commission I am suggesting, as I read before, underscores its 
commitment to the process the distinguished Senator from Kansas 
outlined. It is not to usurp; it is to make sure everyone will have the 
view that it is bipartisan, that it is independent of any kind of 
political process. It is to build upon what is going on in the 
intelligence committees, not to usurp it.
  There is no intention to undermine the credibility of the individuals 
who are involved in it. I will say that 10 people, as staff, working on 
and reviewing the intelligence that involves 250,000 troops, where 
there has been untold loss of life, and the arguments that were made 
preceding, do not match the reality of what we are finding afterwards--
whether it is in regard to aluminum tubes and centrifuges, yellow cake 
from Niger, connections of al-Qaida and Iraq, claims about mobile 
laboratories, missile technology, and now the Kay report which, at 
least at this stage--and it is an interim report--has disputes about 
almost all elements that were used as the basic

[[Page 25086]]

topic. I think the public has a reason to be concerned.
  I have other issues when I look at how the 9/11 Commission has 
actually been able to operate. I don't know whether the same kind of 
concerns are operating with regard to the Intelligence Committee. I 
know the 9/11 Commission chairman, who is a respected New Jersey former 
Governor, a person of great esteem, a Republican, is saying there is 
difficulty in getting the information to be able to look at the events 
that led up to 9/11. As a matter of fact, subpoenas have had to be 
issued to get the records of the FAA. It strikes me when you add the 
difficulty the 9/11 Commission has had in getting the information--and 
we don't know what has gone on in the Intelligence Committee. You look 
at the fact that senior administration officials have been willing to 
out a CIA agent, to discredit somebody who actually comes into the 
public to talk about it. I think the public has a reason to want to 
have independence in making an assessment of whether the intelligence 
has been used properly and the development and the use of it have been 
done properly. That is where my interest is.
  I know the distinguished Senator from Kansas and the distinguished 
Senator from West Virginia want to get to the bottom of this just as 
much as this Senator does, as much as this body ought to want to; and 
the people of America ought to have an understanding that we are not 
developing intelligence for purposes of winning political arguments or 
winning arguments on the floor of the Senate but to form what is the 
proper policy. To me, I think we ought to do everything possible to 
make sure intelligence is properly developed. That is what I have been 
trying to suggest. I did it earlier in July and I am doing it again.
  I believe very strongly that this is an important issue. There are a 
whole series of issues about which there are questions. There are very 
visible examples of challenges to the facts by people who were either 
close or near to the effort. I will go ahead and say it. On Wednesday 
night, there was a follow-through by an individual who was in a senior 
position in the State Department, and I will quote how he felt the 
intelligence was framed. ``Plenty of blame to go around,'' according to 
Mr. Thielmann, who, by the way, was a senior officer in the State 
Department, a 25-year veteran in the Office of Strategic Proliferation 
and Military Affairs.
  He said:

       The main problem is senior administration officials have 
     what I call a ``faith-based approach to intelligence.'' They 
     knew what they wanted the intelligence to show. They were 
     really blind and deaf to any kind of countervailing 
     information the intelligence community would produce. I would 
     assign some blame to the intelligence community and most of 
     the blame to senior administration officials.

  I just believe there are enough questions in the public's mind, and 
they grow incrementally all the time, that it is time for us to have an 
independent view of this matter. That in no way is undermining what is 
going on in the Intelligence Committee. It builds on it. That is the 
purpose. That is certainly where I come from. That is the argument I 
have tried to make and I will continue to make.
  Again, I have great respect for the leadership on the Intelligence 
Committee. I am sure there is a good-faith willingness to try to get to 
the bottom of this situation. I think this is very important.
  We have other questions: North Korea, Iran, and the terrorist 
networks that exist across this globe. If we cannot trust our 
intelligence, then we are going to have a hard time making fundamental 
decisions in this Chamber, and the American people are going to have a 
hard time judging whether we made the right decisions and whether we 
are working in their best interests.
  I yield to my distinguished colleague from New York.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. I will be brief. I 
rise in support of the amendment. The bottom line is, in our post-9/11 
world, we have learned that intelligence is more important than ever. 
To prevent terrorism, in essence, small groups of people who can do 
real damage to us, depends on intelligence.
  Maybe things are working fine, but maybe they are not. The amendment 
of my colleague from New Jersey casts no aspersion on the job the 
Intelligence Committee is doing. But it seems to me perfectly logical, 
in our post-9/11 world, to get as many voices with different 
perspectives as possible, especially early on because this war on 
terrorism is going to be with us for decades. It makes eminent sense.
  I have never served on the Intelligence Committee, and I have no 
doubt that the 10 staffers on that committee who were mentioned by my 
friend from Kansas and praised by my friend from West Virginia are 
excellent, but they have one perspective. They have been involved day 
to day in dealing with intelligence matters, and to have a new outside 
commission take a look at these specific instances can only benefit the 
American people.
  Having some experience with this leak of the name of the CIA agent, I 
am utterly amazed at what is going on here and among some--not all, not 
a majority but some--in the administration, there is an idea that we 
should not get at the full truth; an idea that if someone tells you 
something you don't like, they are to be disparaged and, in the case of 
Ms. Plame, hurt much worse than that.
  The bottom line is very simple: If we are going to stay a great 
power--and I hope and pray we will--we need the truth. We need to know 
what is going right and we need to know what is going wrong. There is 
no greater time than now.
  To say that a 10-staff-member group that has been thoroughly involved 
in intelligence matters cannot add much perspective is totally wrong, 
but just as much, to say that a new commission of fresh blood with a 
new look at the matter might come to some different conclusions than 
that 10-member staff is equally totally wrong and hurts America.
  This amendment of my colleague from New Jersey is not aimed to be 
nasty; it is not aimed to be political; it is not aimed to be partisan. 
It is aimed to find different ways to get to the truth because we all 
know in the wake of 9/11 that our intelligence was not what it should 
be. It probably was good enough for a preterrorism world, but it is not 
good enough for a terrorism world.
  I hope my colleagues will support this amendment. It is not, again, 
to disparage what the committee is doing, but to say we should only 
have one voice at a time when intelligence is so important, to me at 
least makes no sense, and I hope my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle will support this very much needed amendment.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey controls 4\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the time used by the Senator from New 
Jersey in answering the question of the Senator from Kansas was taken 
out of the time of the Senator from Kansas?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas yielded to the Senator 
from New Jersey for the purpose of a question.
  Mr. STEVENS. I want some time. I ask unanimous consent that 4 minutes 
be added to this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The assistant minority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have no problem whatsoever if the majority 
gets 4 minutes, but why not add 4 minutes to this side also?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification of the 
unanimous consent request?
  Mr. STEVENS. I withdraw the request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The request is withdrawn. Who yields time?
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the 
Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am appalled by the statement of the 
Senator from New York. There is no distress in this country of the 
intelligence system. The distress is all political. We have had a 
problem. There has been a

[[Page 25087]]

leak. There have been leaks before. This President relied on the same 
intelligence that President Clinton did when he made the speech in 1998 
saying: We are going to invade Iraq.
  I don't know what is going on here that suddenly this becomes another 
subject to send more people into harm's way to find out what went on in 
Iraq.
  Under amendments already adopted, we have two different inspectors 
general, and we have the GAO going in on two different amendments, and 
now we want to send another independent commission into Iraq. What is 
going to happen when they get there? They are going to use all the 
people in uniform to protect them. Last night, four more people were 
killed in Iraq.
  What is going on here? I don't see any reason to bring the campaign 
of 2004 to this Chamber on this bill, but that is what is going on with 
what has just been said by the Senator from New York. I take great 
offense at that. We are investigating this matter. There is no question 
we are investigating it. It is being investigated by the commission, it 
is being investigated by the Department of Justice, and it is being 
investigated by the CIA. To get into the political harangue I just 
heard is just absolutely nonsense.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. CORZINE. I yield 1 minute to my friend.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, as aggravated as my colleague from Alaska 
is with me, I am with him. This is not intended to be political. I 
believe that our intelligence needs improvement. I think most 
Americans--Democrat and Republican--believe that. And if every time we 
say improve intelligence, look for different ways, people get accused 
of being political, that is the very point I am making.
  Let's debate this on the merits. Let's not call people names because 
they happen to disagree that our intelligence is doing a fine job. I 
don't. It may have been doing a fine job in the cold war for a cold-war 
era, but the whole tectonic plates of foreign policy have changed. 
Maybe it works and maybe it doesn't.
  I ask my colleague to go on the streets of any city in New York or 
any city in America, mine or his--in New York or Alaska--and ask the 
average citizen do they think the intelligence is working fine. My 
guess is they will say it needs tuning up. That is all this Senator is 
trying to do, without being political.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. Who yields 
time?
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Each side has approximately 3 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I thought there was granted--
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There was no unanimous consent request for 
additional time. That request was withdrawn.
  Mr. CORZINE. The unanimous consent request was withdrawn, if I am not 
mistaken, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 
2 minutes so I may conclude my remarks and also yield to the 
distinguished Senator from Missouri for 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. I ask that be modified to allow 2 additional minutes to the 
Senator from New Jersey.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification? 
Without objection, 2 additional minutes will be added to each side. The 
Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask for an additional 1 minute for the 
distinguished vice chairman of the committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection for an additional minute to 
be added to the time controlled by the Senator from West Virginia?
  Mr. CORZINE. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from West Virginia now controls 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. ROBERTS. I would like to recognize the distinguished vice 
chairman, the Senator from West Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I tremendously regret the argument 
that took place between the Senator from Alaska and the Senator from 
New York, because that is exactly what we do not need around here. I 
thought the Senator from Alaska, as much as I respect him, should not 
be trying to cast political aspersions, and then I thought the Senator 
from New York should not be saying we are not in any sense being 
political, we only want the truth, and talking about weapons of mass 
destruction and the intelligence, because we all agree that the 
intelligence was wanting.
  We all agree that it is very different from the cold war, but what is 
really important that has to happen and something which only the 
Intelligence Committee can do, and which has to be in continuity with 
the work we are doing now, is after we finish investigating what went 
wrong is to figure out what we are going to do to make it go right. 
That is a whole other chapter. That is getting rid of the stovepipes 
and determining whether we want a director of national intelligence.
  It is an entirely different relationship now between intelligence and 
warfighting. Intelligence and warfighting used to be separate. They are 
now integrated. Intelligence and policy used to be separate. They are 
now integrated. That is what our committee is doing, but first we need 
to finish the investigation and then we get to that.
  Our problem is we are doing so much investigating we cannot get to 
that. It is very frustrating to me. We have not finished doing a lot of 
the investigating that we need to do.
  As the chairman has said, we will follow all trails to where they 
lead. There is a lot of work and it is very sensitive. It is not just a 
matter of creating another commission to start all over again and to do 
what will probably be virtually the same work with something called a 
fresh idea. The people on the Intelligence Committee, on both sides, 
are smart. They are invigorated. They are determined. There is 
controversy in the committee, which is good. There is no single 
approach to it. There is a lot of discussion going on. That process 
must continue and that is what the Intelligence Committee was created 
for. We are becoming a new Intelligence Committee because we are in an 
entirely different world.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. CORZINE. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey has 5 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished 
colleague from Illinois and a member of the Intelligence Committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, as a member of the Senate Intelligence 
Committee, I salute the chairman and the ranking member for the fine 
work they do and for the fine staff we have. As the Senator from Kansas 
has said, we have 10 people who are working hard in this committee. Put 
it in perspective: 10 excellent staffers, responsible for overseeing 
the intelligence agencies of the Federal Government; 10 excellent 
staffers who in addition to that are initiating an investigation of the 
intelligence that led up to Iraq. It is totally inadequate. We are 
totally understaffed. That is why Senator Corzine's amendment is so 
important.
  We have lost 335 American lives. Thousands have been wounded. We have 
put ourselves in a position in Iraq where we will be vulnerable for 
years to come, and we want to ask the hard questions with the Corzine 
commission. Was our intelligence right in leading us into this war? It 
is a difficult question and a painful question but it must be asked.

[[Page 25088]]

  When Dr. Kay comes back emptyhanded, after more than 5 months of 
inspections, with hundreds of inspectors, with no evidence of weapons 
of mass destruction, it is a condemnation of one of two things: either 
our intelligence gathering or the use of that intelligence leading to 
the war. As painful as it is, we have to face that reality.
  The reality is this: Next to the failure of the United States to 
recognize the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the cold war, 
this could be the most colossal intelligence failure in our history. 
Can we face that reality? I think we can and we should, because 
intelligence is key to America's security. Intelligence is key to 
winning the war on terrorism.
  What Senator Corzine has said is turn this over to an independent, 
nonpartisan group to get the job done. I do not think that is a 
reflection on the Senate Intelligence Committee. They are doing a fine 
job, and I am glad to be a part of it, but for goodness' sake, do not 
be afraid to get to the truth. That is what the Corzine commission 
amendment is all about.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. CORZINE. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from New York.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I echo the words of my colleagues who 
support this amendment. I really do see it as a way of getting it out 
of politics, of taking it away from partisanship.
  I could not agree more with the argument that something went wrong. 
We can pretend it did not or we can face up to the fact that it did.
  This is not just about the past. It is also about the present and the 
future. We face continuing threats. Those of us in this Chamber who 
have that intelligence information given to us know that, and we have 
to be as vigilant and well prepared as we possibly can.
  I do not ever want to have to face another constituent of mine and 
say, well, we missed it, we did not get it right.
  Yes, we do have to go forward with new plans. But how can we build a 
new intelligence system, with all due respect to the chairman and the 
ranking member, both of whom I hold in the highest regard, without 
having an honest and independent appraisal of what went wrong?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, the goal of this commission is not about 
blame. This is about trying to find out what went wrong and why we had 
the kind of development and use of intelligence that is so patently 
inconsistent with the facts that seem to be coming out.
  Most of us do not sit inside those quiet halls of the Intelligence 
Committee. The public does not, but they are seeing fact after fact 
refuted. They see CIA agents outed. They see people who were a part of 
the intelligence community complaining. One of the ways to restore the 
confidence in something that is absolutely necessary to be able to 
carry out the war on terrorism, which we all believe in and want to 
support, is to have confidence in our intelligence community. It is not 
to undermine the Intelligence Committee.
  This amendment underscores a commitment to support the ongoing 
congressional reviews regarding the collection and analysis of data. It 
is not to undermine it. We all have tremendous faith in the chairman 
and the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, but this is to 
restore the confidence of the American people, to restore the 
confidence of all of us who have to use the information to draw the 
conclusions that are necessary as to whether we are going to put men 
and women in harm's way.
  I could not agree more with the Senator from West Virginia. 
Intelligence and military operations now are absolutely intimately 
linked. They are one in the same. If it is faith based, then we will 
reach the wrong conclusions. I hope the Senate will support my 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas has 5 minutes 
remaining. All other time has expired.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Missouri, a valued member of the intelligence community.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, comments were made by the distinguished 
Senator from New Jersey saying that the intelligence was faith based. 
He insinuated that intelligence had been changed somehow perhaps by the 
administration.
  Let me first point out that this intelligence has been acted upon by 
previous administrations. I quote from President Clinton, 1998:

       If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our 
     purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat 
     posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program.

  Madeline Albright, Secretary of State, February 18, 1998:

       Iraq is a long way from here, but what happens there 
     matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of 
     a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological 
     weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security 
     threat we face.

  Sandy Berger, National Security Adviser, same day:

       He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he 
     has 10 times since 1983.

  Having said that, I think we all agree we need better intelligence. 
That is why I made the same commitment that my colleagues, Democrat and 
Republican, have made to serve on the Intelligence Committee and spend 
the time, without our personal staff but in intelligence hearings, 
going through the testimony and looking at the documents, as is 
required of the Intelligence Committee.
  It is frustrating for some of us on the Intelligence Committee to 
listen to speeches by people who have not taken the time to read the 
classified information, and be briefed, as all Senators are entitled 
to, after we have done the work. We listened to speeches that, 
unfortunately, reflected a lack of information about what is going on 
in Intelligence that is available. The insinuation has been made of 
improper influence. The Intelligence Committee will and has examined 
that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I renew the invitation to my friend from 
New Jersey to take a look at our committee's work. Our staff is not 
understaffed. I know some people like to have more staff. They have 
been working very hard. I can direct you to the information that will 
answer every single one of the questions set forth in your amendment 
which reflects exactly the mission of our inquiry. All told, over 40 
Members of Congress, numerous professional staff, and countless career 
nonpolitical employees in the executive branch have looked into this 
topic which you are suggesting we have another 12 Members do the same 
thing.
  Washington has been overrun with independent blue ribbon commissions. 
The intelligence community has been a frequent target of these 
activities--Aspin, Brown, Hart, Rudman, and the Bremer Commission, the 
9/11 Commission, and the list goes on and on.
  We have to consider the unseen effects caused by the constant, 
unrelenting reviews of the intelligence community. I do not discount 
the importance of reexaminations of our past actions. We have had 
oversight responsibility. If we don't know the mistakes of the past, we 
are bound to repeat them.
  But following September 11, we asked intelligence analysts to 
aggressively pursue all available leads: Please connect every possible 
dot, even when the connections may seem weak. We cannot continue to 
castigate these analysts when they make reasoned judgments based on the 
available information. This second-guessing erodes morale and it 
discourages the thoughtful analysis we need. These people have their 
lives on the line.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  How much time do I have?

[[Page 25089]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Senator from 
California, Mrs. Feinstein.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the 
Intelligence Committee. Regretfully, I must oppose this amendment. As a 
member of the committee, I believe we have set upon a course which is 
the soundest course in terms of getting at any flaws that may exist 
among the variety of intelligence agencies.
  I think to establish another commission at this time is to very much 
undercut the oversight commitment and mandate of the Intelligence 
Committee. I believe it would be a mistake to do so at this time. There 
may be a time that would come where that might be the case, but I do 
not believe now is the time. We have set upon a course. The chairman is 
committed to public hearings. We will be having those hearings. The 
investigations are taking place.
  Regretfully, I must oppose this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. Under the previous 
order, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska moves to table the 
amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to table amendment No. 
1882. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. 
Lieberman) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 67, nays 32, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 395 Leg.]

                                YEAS--67

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

                                NAYS--32

     Akaka
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Reed
     Reid
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Lieberman
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 1884 To Amendment No. 1819

  Mr. BYRD. I call regular order with respect to amendment 1819, and I 
send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the second-degree 
amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd], for himself, Mr. 
     Durbin, Mr. Biden, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Dorgan, Ms. Mikulski, Ms. 
     Landrieu and Mrs. Feinstein, proposes an amendment numbered 
     1884 to amendment No. 1819.

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

    Purpose: to reduce unnecessary spending in the Iraq Relief and 
Reconstruction Fund; increase reconstruction assistance to Afghanistan; 
    protect our troops by increasing funding for the destruction of 
 conventional weapons in Iraq; provide disaster relief in Liberia; and 
provide funding to repair Hurricane Isabel damage to military and Coast 
                            Guard facilities

       In the amendment, strike all after (a) in line 1 and insert 
     the following:
       Sec. 3002. Notwithstanding section 3001 of this Act, all of 
     the amounts provided in section 3003 of this Act, excluding 
     amounts contained in subsections (j), (k), (1) and (m) of 
     section 3003 of this Act, are designated by the Congress as 
     an emergency requirement pursuant to section 502 of H. Con. 
     Res. 95 (108th Congress).
       Sec. 3003. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     Act, amounts appropriated under the heading ``Iraq Relief and 
     Reconstruction Fund'' shall be reduced by $1,655,000,000 and 
     the total amount appropriated under this heading shall be 
     allocated as follows:
       (1) $3,243,000,000 for security and law enforcement; (2) 
     $1,268,000,000 for justice, public safety infrastructure, and 
     civil society, of which not less than $107,000,000 shall be 
     made available for the Iraqi Civil Defense Corps; (3) 
     $5,646,000,000 for the electric sector; (4) $1,850,000,000 
     for oil infrastructure; (5) $4,332,000,000 for water 
     resources and sanitation: (6) $500,000,000 for transportation 
     and telecommunications; (7) $240,000,000 for roads, bridges, 
     and construction; (8) $850,000,000 for health care; (9) 
     $155,000,000 for private sector development; and (10) 
     $245,000,000 for refugees, human rights, democracy, and 
     governance: Provided, That none of the funds appropriated by 
     this Act may be used to fund (1) traffic police buildings, 
     fleet, and equipment; (2) parking lots and cosmetic 
     improvements at airports; (3) electric sector institutional 
     strengthening; (4) solid waste management; (5) an Iraqi-
     American Enterprise Fund; (6) wireless internet capabilities 
     for the Iraqi Telephone Postal Company (ITPC); (7) technical 
     and management training for ITPC; (8) postal information 
     technology architecture and systems; (9) management for Iraqi 
     television and radio; (10) a numbering schema and 911 
     initiative for ITPC; (11) new housing communities and new 
     government buildings; (12) a national security communications 
     network; (13) market-oriented specialized training; (14) 
     municipal public information centers; and (15) catch-up 
     business training: Provided further, That of the funds 
     appropriated by this Act, not more than $765,000,000 may be 
     made available for petroleum product imports, and not more 
     than $100,000,000 may be made available for new prison 
     construction.
       (b) In addition to amounts made available elsewhere in this 
     Act, there is hereby appropriated to the Department of 
     Defense $363,300,000, to be used only for recovery and repair 
     of damage due to natural disasters including Hurricane 
     Isabel, to be distributed as follows:
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Army'', $66,600,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Navy'', $118,400,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps'', $9,200,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Air Force'', $166,900,000; and
       ``Other Procurement, Air Force'', $2,200,000.
       (c) For an additional amount for ``Military Construction, 
     Army'', $65,200,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     2008, to be used only to repair facilities damaged by 
     Hurricane Isabel at Fort Monroe, Virginia: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, such funds may be 
     obligated or expended to carry out military construction 
     projects not otherwise authorized by law.
       (d) For an additional amount for ``Military Construction, 
     Navy'', $45,530,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     2008, to be used for facilities damaged beyond repair by 
     Hurricane Isabel, including $40,920,000 to replace the 
     central chilled water plant at the United States Naval 
     Academy, Maryland, and $4,610,000 to replace Building 3104, 
     Lucas Hall, at Quantico, Virginia: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, such funds may be 
     obligated or expended to carry out military construction 
     projects not otherwise authorized by law.
       (e) For an additional amount for ``Family Housing, 
     Operation and Maintenance, Army'', $8,151,000 to repair 
     family housing units damaged by Hurricane Isabel at Fort 
     Monroe and Fort Lee, Virginia: Provided, That notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law, such funds may be obligated or 
     expended to carry out military construction projects not 
     otherwise authorized by law.
       (f) For an additional amount for ``Family Housing, 
     Operation and Maintenance, Navy and Marine Corps'', 
     $6,280,000 to repair family housing units damaged by 
     Hurricane Isabel at various locations in Virginia and North 
     Carolina: Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, such funds may be obligated or expended to carry out 
     military construction projects not otherwise authorized by 
     law.

[[Page 25090]]

       (g) For an additional amount for ``Family Housing Operation 
     and Maintenance, Air Force'', $6,981,000 to repair family 
     housing units damaged by Hurricane Isabel at Langley Air 
     Force Base, Virginia: Provided, That notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, such funds may be obligated or 
     expended to carry out military construction projects not 
     otherwise authorized by law.
       (h) For an additional amount for ``Operation and 
     Maintenance, Navy'', $23,183,000, which may be transferred to 
     the Department of Homeland Security for Coast Guard 
     Operations.
       (i) In addition to the amounts otherwise made available in 
     this Act, $600,000,000 shall be made available for 
     ``Operation and Maintenance, Army''; Provided, That these 
     funds are available only for the purpose of securing and 
     destroying conventional munitions in Iraq, such as bombs, 
     bomb materials, small arms, rocket propelled grenades, and 
     shoulder-launched missiles.
       (j) For an additional amount for ``United States Emergency 
     Fund for Complex Foreign Crises'', $150,000,000: Provided, 
     That not less than $200,000,000 of the funds made available 
     under this heading shall be made available for humanitarian 
     relief and reconstruction activities in Liberia: Provided 
     further, That funds appropriated under this heading shall be 
     made available for Sudan.
       (k) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     amounts appropriated for accelerated assistance for 
     Afghanistan under the heading ``Economic Support Fund'' shall 
     be increased by $261,000,000 and the total amount 
     appropriated under this heading for Afghanistan shall be 
     allocated as follows:
       (1) not to exceed $60,000,000 should be used for activities 
     related to disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration of 
     militia combatants, including registration of such 
     combatants, notwithstanding section 531(e) of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961; (2) not to exceed $120,000,000 for 
     major and provincial road construction and repair; (3) not to 
     exceed $95,000,000 for schools and education; (4) not to 
     exceed $55,000,000 for private sector development including 
     to repair and procure electric power generation and 
     distribution infrastructure; (5) not to exceed $50,000,000 to 
     support the Government of Afghanistan; (6) not to exceed 
     $2,000,000 for additional policy experts in Afghan 
     ministries; (7) not to exceed $65,000,000 for elections, 
     governance, and human rights; (8) not to exceed $50,000,000 
     for projects directly involving requirements identified by 
     provincial reconstruction teams; (9) not to exceed 
     $66,000,000 for health services; (10) not to exceed 
     $25,000,000 for water projects; (11) not to exceed 
     $25,000,000 for environmental projects related to drought 
     relief; (12) not to exceed $25,000,000 for emergency food, 
     fuel, clothing and shelter materials for Afghans who are 
     internally displaced; and (13) not to exceed $45,000,000 for 
     additional activities that are specifically targeted to 
     advancing the social, economic, and political rights and 
     opportunities of women.
       (l) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     amounts appropriated under the heading ``International 
     Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement'' shall be increased by 
     $50,000,000.
       (m) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     amounts appropriated under the heading ``Foreign Military 
     Financing Program'' shall be increased by $75,000,000.
       (n) The entire amount in:
       (i) subsection (b) shall be available only to the extent 
     that an official budget request for that amount, that 
     includes designation of the entire amount of the request as 
     an emergency requirement as defined in H. Con. Res. 95 (108th 
     Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal 
     year 2004, is transmitted by the President to the Congress;
       (ii) subsection (c) shall be available only to the extent 
     that an official budget request for that amount, that 
     includes designation of the entire amount of the request as 
     an emergency requirement as defined in H. Con. Res. 95, the 
     concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004, is 
     transmitted by the President to the Congress;
       (iii) subsection (d) shall be available only to the extent 
     that an official budget request for that amount, that 
     includes designation of the entire amount of the request as 
     an emergency requirement as defined in H. Con. Res. 95, the 
     concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004, is 
     transmitted by the President to the Congress;
       (iv) subsection (e) shall be available only to the extent 
     that an official budget request for that amount, that 
     includes designation of the entire amount of the request as 
     an emergency requirement as defined in H. Con. Res. 95, the 
     concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004, is 
     transmitted by the President to the Congress;
       (v) subsection (f) shall be available only to the extent 
     that an official budget request for that amount, that 
     includes designation of the entire amount of the request as 
     an emergency requirement as defined in H. Con. Res. 95, the 
     concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004, is 
     transmitted by the President to the Congress;
       (vi) subsection (g) shall be available only to the extent 
     that an official budget request for that amount, that 
     includes designation of the entire amount of the request as 
     an emergency requirement as defined in H. Con. Res. 95, the 
     concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004, is 
     transmitted by the President to the Congress;
       (vii) subsection (h) shall be available only to the extent 
     that an official budget request for that amount, that 
     includes designation of the entire amount of the request as 
     an emergency requirement as defined in H. Con. Res. 95, the 
     concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004, is 
     transmitted by the President to the Congress;
       (viii) subsection (i) shall be available only to the extent 
     that an official budget request for that amount, that 
     includes designation of the entire amount of the request as 
     an emergency requirement as defined in H. Con. Res. 95, the 
     concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004, is 
     transmitted by the President to the Congress;

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, by now it has become evident to even the 
most die-hard supporter of the President's goals for the reconstruction 
of Iraq that the $20.3 billion request presented to Congress contains 
scores of questionable projects and programs: $95 million for basic 
cosmetics at Iraq's airport; $19 million to build a wireless Internet 
system for the Iraq post office; $9 million to outfit Iraq with ZIP 
Codes; $54 million for a computer study for the Iraq Postal Service. 
The list goes on and on and on.
  In fact, the budget request for the reconstruction of Iraq is riddled 
with frivolous, preposterous items. This is not just my conclusion. The 
Republican-controlled House Appropriations Committee last week found a 
total of $1.655 billion in questionable and unnecessary expenditures 
buried deep within the President's $20.3 billion request for Iraq's 
reconstruction. As a result, the Republican-controlled House 
Appropriations Committee reallocated that money to other priorities. I 
applaud the actions of the House Appropriations Committee.
  The amendment I am proposing, and which is cosponsored by Senators 
Durbin, Biden, Leahy, Dorgan, Mikulski, Landrieu, and Feinstein, would 
mirror the cuts made by the House Appropriations Committee and 
reallocate those funds to four areas of far more urgent priority: $600 
million to secure and destroy conventional weapons in Iraq; $386 
million to accelerate reconstruction activities in Afghanistan; $200 
million for disaster relief for Liberia, of which $50 million is 
allocated from funds in the bill; and $519 million to repair critical 
military and Coast Guard facilities in the United States damaged by 
Hurricane Isabel.
  The projects for which the President is seeking $1.655 billion in 
funding have nothing to do with protecting American troops in Iraq, and 
they have nothing to do with enhanced security in Iraq.
  Why does the administration need to spend $2 million on 40 garbage 
trucks, at $50,000 each? Why does the administration need $20 million 
for a 4-week business course at $10,000 per student? Why does a country 
rich in oil reserves--the second largest in the world--need $900 
million to import petroleum products?
  According to the Congressional Research Service, if we purchased 
those petroleum products at market prices, it would cost $704 million. 
I wonder who is profiting from this sweetheart deal at the U.S. 
taxpayers' expense. And that is to say nothing about the billions of 
dollars being requested to upgrade the transportation, water, and 
energy sectors of the Iraq economy to levels not seen in decades.
  These are not funds to buy body armor for our troops or secure 
munitions that may be used against them. We are talking about building 
dams in the middle of the desert. There is no need more urgent than the 
need to protect U.S. troops in Iraq from the vicious guerrilla warfare 
that has been overshadowing their operations and causing intolerable 
deaths and injuries.
  Almost 200 U.S. troops have been killed in Iraq since the President 
declared an end to major combat operations last May, more than half as 
a result of guerrilla warfare. American soldiers have been the victims 
of assassinations, mortar attacks, rocket-propelled grenades, snipers, 
and road mines. These are all conventional weapons attacks.
  Earlier, senior American officials estimated that as much as 650,000 
tons of ammunition remained unguarded at

[[Page 25091]]

thousands of sites used by the Iraqi security forces. This week, the 
New York Times reported that military officials now believe there may 
be as much as 1 million tons of leftover weapons and ammunition 
scattered throughout Iraq.
  Even more troubling, the Times asserted that two recent suicide 
bombings in Baghdad and virtually every other attack on American 
soldiers and Iraqis were carried out with weapons looted from Saddam 
Hussein's arsenal.
  GEN John Abizaid, commander of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, 
told the Senate Appropriations Committee last month:

       [T]here is more ammunition in Iraq than any place I've ever 
     been in my life, and it is all not securable . . . I wish I 
     could tell you that we had it all under control, but we 
     don't.

  Mr. President, we know that scores of conventional weapons sites are 
not secure. We know these sites are being looted. We know these weapons 
could be and are being used against our troops. Yet the administration 
is asking us to believe that garbage trucks and parking garages are a 
higher priority than securing these weapons sites.
  The President's budget request includes only $300 million in a 
catchall account that lumps munitions security in with critically 
needed bulletproof vests and the rapid fielding of technological 
advances. This is the same budget request that includes $697 million 
for sewage improvements in Iraq, $150 million for the aforementioned 
garbage trucks and landfill sites, $200 million for an America-Iraqi 
Enterprise Fund, and $110 million for something called Market Oriented 
Specialized Training.
  Where on Earth is the administration getting its priorities? The 
Defense Department needs significantly more than an unspecified web of 
an already underfunded account to accelerate the effort to shut down 
Iraq's weapons dumps.
  This amendment is an attempt to restore a measure of sensibility to 
this bill. This amendment would delete $600 million from some of the 
most egregious provisions included in the President's request, and 
would reallocate those funds for the search and destruction of 
conventional weapons.
  The amount of money that is being redirected to this crucial mission 
is not a random figure. It is equal to the amount of money the media 
has reported was requested in this bill for the--so far--futile search 
for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and it is the sum U.S. 
authorities say they could use to expedite the efforts to secure and 
destroy loose conventional weapons in Iraq.
  Without additional funding, and a stepped-up program, U.S. officials 
estimate it could take 18 years to disarm Iraq.
  Mr. President, America's soldiers in Iraq cannot wait that long. We 
have already spent substantial sums of money in Iraq in an effort to 
find some scrap of evidence that Saddam Hussein possessed and was 
poised to use weapons of mass destruction.
  In the first Iraq war supplemental last spring, Congress approved 
$300 million for that purpose. For some reason, the administration has 
classified the current funding request for the Iraq survey team. It is 
unclear to me why this should be a classified figure. The creation of a 
group to locate weapons of mass destruction is not classified. Their 
mission to find weapons of mass destruction is not classified. The 
funding request included in the first supplemental for Iraq was not 
classified. It seems the only reason to classify that information now 
is to protect this administration from further embarrassment about how 
much it is spending to justify its largely discredited claims.
  This administration made a momentous effort out of preparing our 
troops for attack from weapons of mass destruction, and here we are 
losing a life almost every day to common, generic, conventional weapons 
being dug out of piles without even a simple fence. So accelerating the 
effort to secure and destroy conventional weapons in Iraq is a matter 
of the highest priority.
  Another priority in the war against terror is to speed the 
stabilization and reconstruction of Afghanistan. Contrary to assertions 
by Vice President Cheney that Iraq is the central front on the war on 
terror, Afghanistan, the Taliban, and most especially al-Qaida and 
Osama bin Laden represent the true heart of the war on terror. And 
these demons are not to be found in Iraq. Their power base is in 
Afghanistan. We cannot afford to forget Afghanistan.
  The President's budget request includes just $799 million for relief 
and reconstruction in Afghanistan. This is not enough. The situation in 
Afghanistan appears to be deteriorating as the Taliban shows signs of 
reconstituting itself. The House Appropriations Committee allocated an 
additional $375 million to speed up the reconstruction efforts in 
Afghanistan. The Senate should do no less. So this amendment adds $386 
million for Afghanistan.
  We need to deal with the damage that Hurricane Isabel inflicted on 
U.S. military installations and Coast Guard facilities in the United 
States. As sympathetic as I am to the need for garbage trucks and 
vocational training institutes and employment offices in Iraq, I am 
even more concerned about the devastation Hurricane Isabel brought to a 
number of our east coast military and Coast Guard facilities. The 
operational facilities and family housing units alike suffered severe 
damage.
  Unfortunately, the military cannot tap into homeowners insurance when 
a storm sweeps through. The cost of repairing the damage caused by 
Hurricane Isabel comes out of operating expenses or it comes at the 
expense of other needed facility improvements.
  We have many glaring needs in Iraq and elsewhere that the President's 
budget request fails to meet. I believe we can be far more effective 
than the President by redirecting a small portion of the funds 
requested for dubious programs in Iraq to programs of obvious and 
immediate priority.
  I urge my colleagues to endorse the reduction made by the House 
Appropriations Committee and to redirect the $1.655 billion in funding 
to secure and destroy conventional weapons in Iraq, to accelerate the 
relief and reconstruction activities in Afghanistan, to provide 
emergency relief to Liberia and Sudan, and to help the United States 
military and Coast Guard recover from the devastation of Hurricane 
Isabel.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I 
don't want to take too much time. The hour grows late and all of my 
colleagues would like to finish up with this legislation.
  Everybody knows there are two phases to the Iraqi conflict. One is 
the military phase, which for all intents and purposes expired, 
finished, and was completed some months ago. Now we face the most 
difficult challenge; that is, the rebuilding and reconstruction of this 
country which was damaged not only in the conflict--and, by the way, 
surprisingly little given the brevity of the conflict and the enormous 
success our military enjoyed--but mostly because of the cruel and 
criminal neglect of the infrastructure and on the people of Iraq 
inflicted by Saddam Hussein.
  There were several mis-estimations concerning the conflict. But 
perhaps the greatest mis-estimation was our failure to understand the 
degree of deterioration of the goods, fundamental services, and 
infrastructure of Iraq.
  We all know, whether we support or oppose our effort in Iraq, that a 
vital ingredient is the reconstruction. Without the people of Iraq 
being provided with the fundamental services they need to conduct a 
normal life, sooner or later the people of Iraq will turn against us. 
They will fall prey to the propaganda of our enemies who say the United 
States invaded, will not help you rebuild your country, and wants to 
take your oil--one of the unfortunate aspects of the vote last night.
  I don't know if every single item the administration asked for is 
most necessary. I had a chance to review most of these projects. More 
importantly, the Appropriations Committee, in its deliberations and 
hearings, did also. We had hearings in the Armed Services Committee, of 
which I am a member. This was a subject raised.

[[Page 25092]]

  I note in the amendment of the Senator from West Virginia that no 
funds could be used to build maximum security prisons, as one example. 
I am sure the Senator from West Virginia knows that one of the most 
terrible aspects of the postcombat phase is the tragic deaths of young 
American soldiers. What if we have no place to put these people we 
capture who are killing American soldiers? If we agree to the amendment 
of the Senator from West Virginia, no maximum security prisons can be 
built.
  No communications network: One of the greatest difficulties for the 
Iraqi police force--that we are trying to rebuild and actually build--
is their ability to communicate with one another.
  These are security projects: Traffic police buildings, fleet, and 
equipment. It seems to me that one of the fundamentals and first 
priorities would be to build a capable police force. That is Ambassador 
Bremer's priority. That is an Iraqi ruling council priority. Yet we 
couldn't spend any money if the amendment of the Senator from West 
Virginia were approved to help traffic police buildings, fleet, and 
equipment.
  I will not go through every one of these items on which the Senator 
would like to prohibit us from spending any money. Some of them are 
legitimate questions. But we have hearings. That is why we have 
congressional scrutiny. That is why there will be, when this bill is 
passed, a conference with the other body whose changes will be 
considered as well.
  Again, legitimate debate will go on for years and years. Historians 
will judge, of the 77 Senators who voted in favor of authorizing the 
President of the United States to go to Iraq and the 23 who voted 
against it, which ones were right. History will make that judgment. But 
there is no one who believes that once we are there in Iraq that we 
don't have an obligation, an absolute obligation, to do what we can to 
help them rebuild their country, which is a fundamental if we expect 
democracy to take root in a place in the world which has never known 
it.
  I travel a fair amount. I believe it is part of my duties as a member 
of the Armed Services Committee. Frankly, I enjoy it because I find it 
to be the most informative way for me to be able to understand our 
national security, our foreign policy, and many other issues.
  I went to the city of Basra. I wish the Senator from West Virginia 
could have been with me. Since 1991, Saddam Hussein allowed that city, 
the second largest city in Iraq, to deteriorate to the point where it 
is a total disaster. It is a giant slum. Stagnant water is sitting 
around everywhere. There is filth, disease, the threat of cholera. I 
notice that the Senator from West Virginia wants to remove a Basra 
water pipeline and treatment plant.
  I say to the Senator from West Virginia, if he doesn't want to travel 
there, I would be glad to show him pictures of the absolute criticality 
of taking care of the sewage and waste that abound throughout that 
city, if only from a humanitarian standpoint, to save the children who 
are dying every day there because of the lack of basic sanitation.
  Mr. WARNER. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. McCAIN. I am glad to yield.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I, too, have traveled to the region, as 
has the Senator from Arizona. It was clear to me that there is a direct 
correlation between the efforts to repair the infrastructure in Iraq 
and, frankly, lowering what is in the minds of us every day: the danger 
to the individual men and women of the Armed Forces and the coalition 
forces. On every vote I cast in connection with this important measure, 
I have focused and faced that soldier patroling in Iraq and said: Does 
this help him or her, or not?
  I wonder how the Senator from Arizona feels about this amendment in 
correlation to the infrastructure and the reduction of the risk and 
danger of those undertaking the military mission.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from Virginia who I know made a trip 
to Iraq as well. Again, I am sure Ambassador Bremer will kill me, but I 
urge all of my colleagues. The Chair and I took a trip together. You 
cannot appreciate the degree of devastation to that country inflicted 
by Saddam Hussein--not by the U.S. military--until you see it. Yes, any 
student of history knows that democracy cannot take hold where there 
are no fundamental services that allow people to deal with issues other 
than their own survival. And unless this democracy moves forward, then 
the forces in opposition grow and the risk to American lives is 
obvious. Parts of Iraq are still up for grabs; we are still trying to 
win the hearts and minds of the people in the Sunni triangle, and to 
say we will not help them build their infrastructure, in my view, would 
be a serious error.
  As the Senator from Virginia said, it could increase the casualties 
and risks to the American men and women fighting there. I am sure that 
that is not the intent of the Senator from West Virginia. So I hope we 
can dispense with this amendment rapidly. I do believe that in the 
upcoming weeks and months we will be examining our programs and 
progress. There are numerous amendments that require auditing by the 
GAO. They require reporting as to how money is expended. There are 
numerous requirements included in this legislation, both in its 
original form and through amendments.
  The Senator from Delaware and I have added an amendment, that was 
accepted, that requires GAO auditing of this money and how it is spent, 
regular reporting to the Congress. I believe this money will be as 
heavily scrutinized as any appropriation that the Congress has 
allocated in history, and that is justified because this is a huge 
amount of money. So I hope we will understand that taking these items 
out of our aid to reconstruct the country of Iraq would be a serious 
mistake.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, let me say at the outset that I am an 
original cosponsor of the Byrd amendment. I seldom have disagreements 
with my friend from Arizona on these issues. But I argue that this is a 
place where reasonable men and women can differ.
  At the outset, I wish to be clear that I am going to support final 
passage of this bill. I announced that when the President announced his 
initiative. I am sorely disappointed that the President failed to tell 
us how we were going to pay for this, other than adding to the debt of 
my grandchildren, and we are approaching a debt of $600 billion. I 
think that is a terrible abdication of responsibility. I do believe 
that, notwithstanding the fact that I am not going to get what I want 
out of this legislation, we have no choice. To paraphrase President 
Clinton: We went in; we broke it; we paid for it; we own it; we have to 
fix it.
  Let's get to the reality. I voted to go in. It was the right vote, 
the correct vote. I did not count on the incompetence of the 
administration in handling the aftermath--their failure to anticipate 
what many of us on both sides of the aisle, most think tanks, and the 
State Department warned we would have to face. Nonetheless, that 
doesn't absolve me of the responsibility for trying to make sure it 
works.
  What Senator Byrd and I and others are doing here is what is the 
Congress's responsibility: we are overseeing whether the money asked 
for by a President is being spent in the most appropriate way. That is 
our job. I say to my friend from the State of Virginia, the chairman of 
the Armed Services Committee who asked my friend from Arizona the 
question about whether or not this amendment would enhance or diminish 
in the minds of the average soldier over there their security.
  I can tell you, having been the first Senator to go over there, that 
it will enhance them. If you give them a choice of whether they agree 
with Senator Byrd and me, that we should redirect the money from 
garbage trucks to securing those stockpiles of weapons, I guarantee 
what they will say.
  Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. BIDEN. Sure.
  Mr. McCAIN. I noticed the Senator was talking about how the money 
would be spent in the amendment. It includes $200 million available for 
relief in Liberia, and $50 million should

[[Page 25093]]

be made available for Sudan. What in Sudan would this money go for, I 
wonder.
  Mr. BIDEN. I will be happy to respond to all of that in my statement.
  Mr. McCAIN. While you are at it, if I may continue my question, not 
to exceed $50 million to support the Government of Afghanistan. Of 
course, not surprisingly, there is specific money for Fort Monroe, VA.
  Mr. BIDEN. I am happy to respond.
  Mr. McCAIN. My question is, Why is $50 million made available for 
Sudan and $50 million to support the Government of Afghanistan, which 
was not requested by the administration in any way, not scrutinized? 
Congratulations; hello, Sudan; here is $50 million.
  I ask my colleague, if he is concerned about how some of the money is 
being spent, should he not justify how the amendment would like to have 
that money spent?
  Mr. BIDEN. If the Senator will allow me to continue my statement, I 
will be delighted to. I was responding to the comment of the Senator 
from Virginia, at the outset of my statement, as to what he thought the 
average soldier on the ground in Iraq would think of this amendment. My 
answer to that is, I believe because of how the money is redirected to 
be spent, that portion is redirected to be spent in Iraq, most 
soldiers--if you walked up to them and told them Senator Byrd and 
Senator Biden had this idea that, instead of paying $35,000 per pickup 
truck, we should pay $19,000; instead of building the following $499 
million worth of prisons, build $199 million worth of prisons now; 
instead of going out and spending thirty-some thousand dollars per unit 
of housing--we don't know who is going to live in it and how it is 
going to be paid for--would you rather have us do those things or go 
and secure those arms depots that are now not being secured because our 
administration tells us they don't have the manpower or the money to do 
it?
  The New York Times article that I have lays out in detail what we all 
know. It says:

       The compound--part factory, part warehouse, with several 
     reinforced bunkers sprinkled about the grounds--is rubble 
     now, demolished by American bombs. But missiles are 
     everywhere. There is a 30-foot missile with Russian markings, 
     still on its trolley, on a sidewalk. The propellant appears 
     to have been removed, but the nose cone is intact.
       Two Exocet missiles--clearly labeled as such and stamped 
     ``Aerospatiale''--lie on the ground several hundred yards 
     away. They seem to have been rendered largely useless by the 
     bombing, but parts may be of some value.
       The best-preserved missile, the 15-footer, appeared to be 
     another Exocet--

  Et cetera, et cetera.
  All I am saying is I believe it is totally legitimate for us to sit 
here and do what we do on every appropriations bill--just as the 
distinguished chairman of the committee does when the Pentagon says we 
want to build a certain aircraft. You may come along and say we studied 
it, we know as much as you do about it, and we don't think you should 
build it.
  The chairman and I have been here a long time. I have been here 31 
years, and he has been here longer than that. I know as much or more 
about this than Bremer. I have more experience than he does. So I am 
not going to sit here and, because Bremer--and he is a great guy--says, 
this is what I think, say, yes, sir, Mr. Bremer, lord high counsel, you 
are right. I am not going to do that. I know as much as he knows.
  I may be wrong. I used to tell the old joke about the Texan. I don't 
say ``Texan'' now because people think I am talking about the 
President. The old joke used to be: I don't know much about art, but I 
know what I like. Well, I may be wrong, but I know what I think.
  I think in terms of priorities--and I am voting for this $87 billion, 
and I voted against raiding Iraqi oil, and I voted against many of the 
amendments my Democratic colleagues have put forward. But the idea that 
our reallocating $1.7 billion out of a total of $21 billion is somehow 
going to ruin this--hey, if you want to go back and look at the record 
at who is more likely right in predicting what will happen in Iraq--
Bremer, the Defense Department, Cheney, or me--I will take that bet.
  These guys have an incredibly lousy track record on judging what was 
going to take place after Saddam fell.
  The only point I want to make is, we are not doing anything radical. 
We are saying: Hey, look, don't pay 30-some thousand bucks a pickup 
truck. Pay 19 like you do at home. Some of us think, and I am one of 
them--clearly, no one speaks for the Senator from West Virginia ever, 
so I am not pretending to speak for him. He may not wish to associate 
himself with the remark I am about to make. But the fact is, I think 
there is some padding in this request. I think they padded this request 
because they don't want to come back to us again.
  Remember, I said this on the Senate floor, and I hope I am proved to 
be wrong--this is a dangerous thing to do, to make a prediction before 
all the world on the floor of the Senate--but the prediction I made and 
many others made, not just me, 9 months ago was this was going to cost 
us billions of more dollars. Guess what. It is costing billions of more 
dollars.
  I was not, nor was, I suspect, my friend from Arizona, surprised the 
President came along with an $87 billion request. Guess what, folks. He 
is going to have to come back again, even with international support. I 
think part of this was padded. Pad a little bit more of another several 
billion dollars so we get through the next election and don't have to 
come back. They are going to have to come back, whether it is a 
Democratic President or a Republican President.
  We should level with the American people. This is not done. This is 
nowhere near done, and the $87 billion will not do it. Even if we don't 
put an extra penny in reconstruction from this moment on, it is still 
going to cost us 4 billion bucks a month to keep our troops there. So 
they are going to come back for that. I don't hear anybody, I say to 
the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, suggesting we are not 
going to have 100,000-plus troops there a year after this.
  Look, all I am saying is, this is our responsibility. Senator Byrd 
and I and others have looked at this very closely. I had a bill that 
was slightly different than Senator Byrd's. We have a slight 
disagreement on what we would cut and wouldn't cut. It is called 
compromise. I wouldn't have cut as much out of the prisons. I didn't do 
it that way, and I would have put more money in other places.
  The bottom line is this: There are very serious problems that warrant 
our attention. Yesterday, the World Bank and the United Nations 
released their assessment of Iraqi needs. They anticipate the total 
cost of reconstruction through 2007 will be on the order of $56 
billion. That is $35 billion above what we are about to vote on.
  From where is it going to come? Based on what we were told by 
Ambassador Bremer, if all goes well, Iraqi oil will generate--and I 
appreciate his candor--$5 billion to $6 billion a year above and beyond 
the operating expenses through the year 2005. That still leaves you $20 
billion short.
  I remember talking with the chairman of the Armed Services Committee 
when I came back from my trip. He is an incredible gentleman, I must 
say, and straight as an arrow. He said: Joe, what did you think? Is 
there enough oil there? I think he will remember this.
  I said: Our folks over there said, Mr. Chairman, no; oil can't pay 
for this, can't get it done.
  Guess what. We all acknowledge oil can't get it done.
  I have joined Senator Byrd, Senator Durbin and others, not because I 
oppose the underlying request, but because I think it needs to be 
improved--it seems that this request was not adequately vetted by the 
Office of Management and Budget.
  In addition to that, as my friend from Virginia remembers, we sat in 
a leadership meeting with the three leading Iraqi members of the 
council from Iraq. We asked them: Did anybody vet this with you? He 
will remember, they said no.
  We said: You want the $21 billion for reconstruction, but would you 
do it this way?

[[Page 25094]]

  They said no.
  Then they said: If you let us do it, we could do it more cheaply. And 
they said: You are wasting money.
  That is what they said.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BIDEN. I will not yield at this moment. I want to finish.
  Mr. WARNER. I am not asking the Senator to yield the floor, but the 
other part, in fairness--
  Mr. BIDEN. I will be happy to yield to my friend.
  Mr. WARNER. I do add the fact that I was present and I recall being 
somewhat concerned, I say to my distinguished colleague, but they had 
only been in office several weeks. The head of the electricity board, a 
magnificent woman, very well-skilled in technical matters, and the head 
of water and sewage, a gentleman--I was so impressed with them, but 
they said: We have only been in office 2 or 3 weeks.
  We ought to add that fact to the Senator's point. I am somewhat 
concerned when you say Bremer padded. Do you have any evidence on this?
  Mr. BIDEN. Yes, if my colleague will let me speak, I will be happy to 
show you. I have not spoken once on this entire legislation since it 
has been on the floor. The answer is yes, not padding in the sense they 
think this is some nefarious scheme, but I can't fathom how you can 
justify spending $34,000 for a pickup truck. We are not talking 
Humvees. We are not talking armored personnel carriers. We are talking 
plain old Ford pickup trucks. Where the heck do you get that? That may 
not be padding in the sense--and I am not suggesting there is some 
nefarious activity going on here. I am saying it is better for them to 
err on the side of having this a higher number than a lower number now, 
and the reason is because they know they are going to have to come 
back. They know this is not going to get the job done.
  As the predecessor to my friend John McCain--and I do consider him a 
great friend--his predecessor, Barry Goldwater, with whom I served, 
used to say: In your heart, you know I'm right, John. In your heart, 
you know I'm right. This is not going to be enough. They are going to 
have to come back again.
  I can't understand some of the earmarks in this request. I don't deny 
the good intentions, but as I said, and I know my colleagues are not 
saying this, but for me not to have the right to question their 
judgment on what is right for Iraq would be a little like my saying the 
Armed Services Committee has no right to question the judgment of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff when they make a recommendation as to what they 
need.
  The point I am making here is, we are talking about essentially 
redistributing, reallocating, as we do on every single bill, $1.655 
billion of this money to other purposes. We are not even cutting it. We 
are not eliminating it. We are not building housing in Dubuque, which 
we should, or Wilmington--wherever. We are just saying we don't think a 
portion of what you are asking for is appropriately allocated.
  Let me tell you what we want to do. Among the items in our amendment, 
we cut $100 million that is going to be used to build 3,258 housing 
units. Do they need housing units in Iraq? Yes, they do. Should the 
international community go along with that and help rebuild the 
Government? Yes, they should. But this seems to be a disproportionately 
large sum relative to the small number of units that will be built.
  It is also unclear for whom these units are being built and whether 
the residents are going to be paying for housing when it is built. We 
just need some facts. It doesn't mean we are never going to come back 
and help people with housing. While we cut $100 million from, I think, 
this dubious purpose--dubious in the sense that in terms of 
priorities--we have left intact $130 million for government buildings 
and other construction projects, as well as $240 million for roads and 
bridges.
  We also cut $200 million from the American Iraqi Enterprise Fund. 
Enterprise funds can be very effective in places where there is no 
prior expertise or entrepreneurship. As we heard repeatedly in the 
Foreign Relations Committee from witnesses of this administration for 
the last year and a half, the Iraqis are very sophisticated folks. They 
need capital; they don't need enterprise funds. They are good 
businessmen.
  This is not like going into Liberia and trying to get a business 
class educated. That is what we do with enterprise funds. This is an 
established, educated business class. Businessmen are not in short 
supply in Iraq. The country has a strong business community, even if it 
was squeezed under Saddam's rule. In fact, we might be able to learn a 
thing or two about Middle Eastern commerce by working with Iraqi 
businessmen, not to mention getting more value out of our assistance 
fund.
  That was one of the things said by the Iraqis who came to see us from 
the Iraqi Governing Council. They said: Let us get in on these 
contracts. Let Iraqi businessmen build some of this stuff. We will 
employ more Iraqis. We will do it more cheaply. We know the business.
  Again, keep in mind what we are talking about here. Out of $21 
billion, we are talking about reallocating $1.655 billion of it. The 
savings we think should be obtained by these and other cuts we apply to 
critical programs in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Liberia.
  Now I hope I can answer some of the questions my friend from Arizona 
raised. First, we have redirected $600 million in savings to the Army 
to accelerate securing and destruction of Iraqi's vast stockpiles of 
conventional weapons.
  I ask unanimous consent that an article entitled ``At Iraqi Depot, 
Missiles Galore And No Guards'' by Mr. Bonner and Mr. Fisher of the New 
York Times October 17, 2003, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the New York Times, Oct. 17, 2003.]

             At Iraqi Depot, Missiles Galore and No Guards

                   (By Raymond Bonner and Ian Fisher)

       Musayyib, Iraq, Oct. 16.--It weighs more than a thousand 
     pounds, so carting it away could present a few logistic 
     problems for the average looter. But the fact remains that 
     there is a very nice 15-foot-long missile, in mint condition, 
     there for the taking, at one of Saddam Hussein's defense 
     factories a few miles west of here.
       The missile, along with a dozen ready-to-fire 107-
     millimeter antitank rounds, just a few feet away, is part of 
     a problem that the American military has only begun to 
     grapple with: as much as one million tons of ammunition is 
     scattered around Iraq, much of it unguarded--like the 
     armaments here--simply because the United States does not 
     have the personnel to keep watch.
       On Thursday in Baghdad, an American brigadier general, 
     Robert L. Davis, acknowledged the scope of the problem, 
     saying that there are 105 large ammunition dumps as well as 
     scores of smaller sites, not all of them guarded regularly. 
     But General Davis, who is overseeing the cleanup, sought to 
     give assurances that the Pentagon is working as fast as 
     possible.
       In the past three weeks alone, he said, recently deployed 
     private civilian contractors have destroyed more than 2.5 
     million pounds of ammunition, whereas American soldiers were 
     able to destroy only a million pounds in the last six months.
       ``It's a very high priority,'' General Davis told 
     reporters.
       But on Thursday, not a single soldier or guard was to be 
     seen at this compound in the desert 40 miles south of 
     Baghdad. A few Iraqis wandered about, and vehicles drove on 
     the roads in the compound; one man drove off on his three-
     wheeled motorcycle with a bounty of long sections of pipe.
       Evidently, American soldiers were here during the war. 
     Their graffiti attests to that--``Saddam Free Zone,'' ``Go 
     Team USA #1.'' Apparently, they left before thoroughly 
     searching the site, or perhaps they simply lacked the time or 
     expertise to clean it up.
       The compound--part factory, part warehouse, with several 
     reinforced bunkers sprinkled about the grounds--is rubble 
     now, demolished by American bombs. But missiles are 
     everywhere. There is a 30-foot missile with Russian markings, 
     still on its trolley, on a sidewalk. The propellant appears 
     to have been removed, but the nose cone is intact.
       Two Exocet missiles--clearly labeled as such and stamped 
     ``AEROSPATIALE''--lie on the ground several hundred yards 
     away. They seem to have been rendered largely useless by the 
     bombing, but parts may be of some value.
       The best-preserved missile, the 15-footer, appeared to be 
     another Exocet, though because of the container's position 
     against the

[[Page 25095]]

     wall, only the cone could be seen. The writing on the 
     shipping tube, in French and English, was inconclusive.
       Outside in the rubble was a shoulder-fired SA-7, a Russian-
     made surface-to-air missile, caked with dirt.
       It is impossible to know how much has been looted from this 
     factory. In the desert about five miles away is the shell of 
     a truck. Bedouins said the truck had belonged to looters who 
     were captured several weeks ago by Americans.
       The desert sand around where the truck was found is 
     littered with mounds of mortar and artillery shells. Most of 
     them appeared to have been defused, but a few live, small 
     rockets, as well as several hundred live large caliber 
     rounds, were found among the litter. It is not clear how the 
     munitions got here.
       The issue of unguarded Iraqi ammunition dumps has taken on 
     greater urgency recently as the pace of bomb attacks against 
     American forces and other targets has increased. Military 
     officials say much of the explosives being used in the 
     attacks come from ammunition sites like this one, which had 
     once belonged to Mr. Hussein's army.
       As if to underscore the threat, six rockets were fired on 
     Wednesday into the green zone in Baghdad, the heavily guarded 
     cocoon that protects senior American officials, including L. 
     Paul Bremer III, the top civilian administrator. No one was 
     hurt. It was the second such attack.
       After American troops took over in Iraq, they were 
     confronted with an astonishing number of obvious weapons 
     caches: in schools and mosques, and in houses in 
     neighborhoods where the residents had apparently been moved 
     out before the war.
       Sometimes those dumps exploded, killing and wounding people 
     and stoking Iraqis' anger against the Americans.
       Soldiers are finding more dumps every day. General Davis 
     said that in one military zone in northern Iraq, commanders 
     first reported 730 weapons caches. More recently, the number 
     climbed to 1,089, though General Davis said all but 12 had 
     been destroyed.
       General Davis said the military had not ignored the 
     problem. He said that the Pentagon had hired private 
     contractors, but that they had only been working about three 
     weeks and were still not here in full force.
       ``I don't think we've been slow to recognize the problem,'' 
     he said. ``You can already see the difference in what we 
     could do in about a six-month period and what they can do in 
     a three-week period at partial mobilization.''
       While he said the job of guarding the dumps was not under 
     his command, he said many of them were either protected by 
     American soldiers or at least patrolled regularly.
       But he conceded that some were not. ``I don't know why we 
     could not guard them all,'' General Davis said.
       Another military official said that 6,000 American soldiers 
     had been assigned to manning the dumps, but that more were 
     needed.
       General Davis said $285 million had been allocated in the 
     next year to clean up the ammunition, a job that he said 
     would take several years.
       Right now, there are 160 civilian contractors from four 
     private companies, with another 120 in Kuwait. In total there 
     will be 430 people dedicated to destroying the ammunition 
     when the operation is at full capacity in December, he said.

  Mr. BIDEN. I would ordinarily read it, but I know a lot of my friends 
want to head home, and I do not want to hold them up very much longer 
in terms of keeping us late today.
  No one doubts this is a critical issue, dealing with and securing 
this stockpile of conventional weapons, which our military tells us on 
the ground is now being used in more sophisticated ways by the old 
Fedayeen, by the thugs, by the old Iraqi Army, by the people attacking 
us. The need in this area is enormous.
  Consider these facts: The head of the central command, General 
Abizaid, testified before the Senate Appropriations Committee on 
September 24:

       There is more ammunition in Iraq than anyplace I've ever 
     been in my life.

  Continuing:

       And it is all not securable.

  He goes on to say:

       I wish I could tell you that we had it all under control 
     but we don't.

  General Abizaid estimates Saddam Hussein amassed 650,000 tons of 
ammunition. That is about a third of the entire United States military 
stockpile. Take all of the amassed ammunition the United States of 
America has stockpiled, with our close to $400 billion military budget, 
and Saddam has amassed about a third that much, and 650,000 tons is 
sitting in Iraq right now.
  Now, of that 650,000, only 70,000 to 80,000 tons have been secured by 
the American military. Why? They do not have the manpower. CENTCOM has 
estimated it will take 5 years to destroy those weapons already 
confiscated.
  I say to my friends, as important as housing is, that is more 
important. General Abizaid, and these are his words, not mine. 
According to a front-page story in USA Today of September 30:

       Coalition forces had uncovered 102 large caches of small 
     arms throughout Iraq and hundreds of more smaller caches. A 
     large cache is defined as requiring at least 10 tractor-
     trailer loads to remove. Of the several hundred arms caches, 
     50 remain unguarded, monitored only by cameras. Easy access 
     to arms and explosives poses the most immediate threat to 
     coalition troops.

  That is what I meant when I said to my friend from Virginia I believe 
he asked the coalition troops what they are most worried about, if they 
are worried about whether Senator Byrd and I are cutting housing money 
and garbage trucks and adding it to getting these arms caches, or 
whether they would rather have us build the housing and the garbage 
trucks.
  Experts estimate there are enough guns in these stockpiles to arm 
each and every one of Iraq's 25 million people. The same USA article 
says: An AK-47 with ammo can be bought on the street, as we both know, 
having been there, for 10 bucks.
  People are walking around after going to these caches and saying, I 
have a little AK-47 with all the ammo, 10 bucks will get it for you.
  A story last Wednesday in the New York Times:

       U.S. can't locate missiles once held in arsenal of Iraq.

  They related that coalition soldiers--that is basically American 
soldiers, although there are brave Poles and brave Brits, but we are 
the bulk of it--have been unable to locate possibly hundreds of 
shoulder-fired missiles, which as all of us who pay a lot of attention 
to what is going on in Iraq know is why the Baghdad Airport is not 
open.
  We are going to get all this commerce going in Iraq. We have the 
Secretary of Commerce over there saying invest in Iraq; it is a good 
deal. The airport cannot even be open. Why? Because we cannot account 
for--and this is not a criticism; it is an observation--shoulder-fired 
missiles that have gone missing from these stockpiles.
  In case someone thinks I am exaggerating, the coalition put the word 
out on the street, we will pay 500 bucks to anybody--it is like a gun 
retrieval program in Richmond or Wilmington--who brings in that 
shoulder-held missile and gives it back to us. Three hundred Iraqis 
have walked up to coalition soldiers with a shoulder-held missile and 
said, here is a missile. Where is my 500 bucks?
  These weapons can fetch as much as $5,000 on the black market. Do I 
need to explain to anybody on this floor--I clearly do not--how porous 
the Iraqi border is? Every day the administration is talking about 
Iranians crossing the border, about al-Qaida, about terrorists. Here we 
are unable to account for hundreds of shoulder-held missiles that are 
selling for $5,000 on the black market.
  Again, to make the point, do my colleagues think our soldiers would 
rather have us be able to confiscate those missiles and not let any 
more get out or spend $30,000 for a pickup truck? Given Iraq's porous 
borders, this is a disaster.
  Second, our amendment redirects $386 million of the $1.655 billion 
from what we believe to be nonemergency spending to Afghanistan in 
areas where every dollar counts. That is less money than I would like 
to see devoted to Afghanistan, but it is nearly a 50 percent increase 
in the funds the President requested.
  We held a hearing yesterday with the administration in our Foreign 
Relations Committee. They are pointing out to us they do not have the 
money, I say to my friend from Arizona, to train up the ANA, the Afghan 
National Army, because, as we both know, the President announced after 
he came back from Tokyo the new Marshall plan for Afghanistan--not 
Biden's words, not McCain's words, not Warner's words, but Bush's 
words. He announced the Marshall plan for Afghanistan, God love him. 
Well, guess what. The Marshall plan is the Marshall without the 
general, because the money is not there.
  So what is Karzai saying? We have this new plan to train up 
immediately the ANA, the Afghan National Army.

[[Page 25096]]

There is not enough money. So we say we are going to take $386 million 
of this and give it to spend in Afghanistan.
  Now, why Afghanistan? Look, there are bookends around a little 
country called Iran, with 40 million people, which is seeking a nuclear 
weapon. It is now run by an oligarchy made up of ayatollahs who control 
the military and all the security apparatus. You have a failed state on 
your east and a failed state on your west. You have an incredibly 
emboldened Iran. Kiss goodbye modernity--the fancy word we like to use 
for modernizing the Arab world. Kiss goodbye democracy.
  We cannot afford to let Afghanistan fail.
  So, just as in Iraq--and my friend from Arizona and I agree we need 
more forces in Iraq, not fewer. I am getting my brains kicked in for 
that and he is, too, but we are right. We have General Abizaid saying 
we don't need more forces. Guess what. We can't secure these depots. 
Come on. If you can't secure the depots, why can't you secure them? 
Because you don't have the forces.
  Oh, I get it. Then you don't need the forces because you don't think 
these 650,000 tons of ammunition matter. Is that what you are saying to 
me?
  Mr. WARNER. Will my colleague yield?
  Mr. BIDEN. I will not yield. I will not yield. I am almost finished, 
and you can have the floor, and I will be happy to discuss it in any 
way.
  To keep the continuity of the point I am trying to make here, the 
same thing exists in Afghanistan. They don't have the money to do what 
this administration says it wants to do. So guess what. We are trying 
to help them. We are trying to help them. So we are reallocating $386 
million of the $1.655 billion, out of $21 billion. We are reallocating 
it where we think--we may be wrong, but we have a right to think it--to 
allocate it where we think it is needed.
  Where will it go in Afghanistan? Mr. President, $75 million of that 
$366 million will go to the Afghan National Army, which currently pays, 
I might add--do you know how much they pay? Let's everybody remember 
this. I know we know it, but sometimes there are so many facts it is 
easy to forget.
  We are trying to get an army in Afghanistan that is made up of 
Tajiks, made up of Pashtun, made up of all the ethnic groups. That is 
what we are trying to do. You know, that is our objective. But right 
now the war lords, who historically control them all and have armies 
bigger than the national army, are paying their armies that they have 
made up--they are paying them a fair amount of money. They are also the 
biggest opium traders, now, in the world.
  Do you know what we are paying the Afghan Army, what Karzai gets to 
pay them? It is $50 a month--$50 a month. We went back and looked, 
Senator Lugar and I. That is less money than we are paying the guy to 
clean the latrines in the army barracks where we are training them.
  Look, I am not a businessman, as is often pointed out to me by my 
Republican friends. But let me tell you, if I am trying to attract from 
the warlord in Herat, Ismael Kahn, some of his folks to come and join 
the Afghan National Army, then it seems to me I have to be able to 
compete in the marketplace for them. Fifty dollars?
  So what do we do? We follow through. We follow through with what the 
administration says it needs. We give them the money. We give them, of 
this money, 75 million more dollars to train up an Afghan National 
Army.
  Again, why is that important? The reason that is important is, as 
long as we do not have an Afghan National Army, we have to have 
American forces there. I don't want American forces to stay there, 
which is the administration's rationale. I agree with the rationale, 
just as we are saying in Iraq, train up an indigenous force as quickly 
as you can.
  What are we trying to do here? What we are trying to do here is meet 
the objective stated. The objective stated is train up, as fast as you 
can, an army. So we give them $75 million more. We take $50 million, I 
say to my friend from Arizona--and there is accountability under the 
existing legislation--for more police.
  The one thing everybody says in Afghanistan, which I have also 
visited, is that we don't have enough police, especially outside of 
Kabul. The local Governors and mayors cannot control Kandahar, cannot 
control all the various cities. We already have a program for police. 
We say: We are going to give you $50 million more for that program.
  We also increase schools.
  You say: OK, Biden, now you get the fuzzy stuff, $55 million for 
schools. You just got done saying you don't want housing in Iraq, but 
you take Iraqi housing money and use it for schools? Simple reason: The 
Saudis and the Wahabi extremists have built 7,000 madrasahs, 7,000 
hate-spewing institutions in the country of Afghanistan.
  President Karzai says: Help me.
  My friend, the Presiding Officer, is a very well educated guy. He 
remembers why so many people in the Middle Ages sent their kids to 
monasteries. It wasn't because they wanted them all to be priests. It 
was because they had a roof over their heads, three square meals, and 
clothes on their back. They were ready to trade for that, in their 
view, to have them indoctrinated or otherwise. That is why the people 
are in madrasahs.
  Karzai said--listen, I spent hours with him, as many of you have--I 
need more schools. How can I get you to take your kid out of that 
madrasah unless I have someplace to put him? Guess what; $20,000 will 
hire you a schoolteacher for a year and build you a rudimentary school 
in Afghanistan.
  Then we take $38 million for public health and $15 million for road 
construction.
  I will not go into any more detail. I apologize for taking this long, 
but it is the first time I have spoken on this entire matter.
  We heard testimony in the Foreign Relations Committee about one of 
the major projects. I ask staff to correct me if I am wrong here, but I 
believe a road project from Herat to Kabul, being built by the 
international community with U.S. funds, is considered essential but 
they don't have enough money to finish it. So guess what. We are 
helping out. We think it is a higher priority to build that road than 
it is to reestablish the swamps now in Iraq.
  This is all about, as my dad, who just died, used to say:

       Joey, if everything is equally important to you, nothing is 
     important to you.

  You have to prioritize. We are prioritizing based on what Senator 
Byrd, who views Iraq very differently than do I, and I know is the best 
bang for the buck in United States interests.
  It provides $41 million for more support for human rights, free 
elections, and the day-to-day functioning of the Karzai government.
  Moreover, this amendment provides funds for priorities that are 
completely omitted from the Administration's request.
  It provides $45 million for projects targeted to women and girls.
  It gives $50 million for drought relief and other urgently-needed 
water projects. It directs $25 million to help internally-displaced 
people, most of whom had returned from squalid refugee camps abroad 
only to find that their homes were scarcely less horrific.
  Finally, our amendment also adds $200 million for Liberia.
  The Administration made a glaring oversight by not including a 
request for Liberia funding in its request. Our amendment corrects that 
deficiency.
  There is a glimmer of hope for a lasting peace in Liberia after 
nearly 14 years of civil war. President Charles Taylor has been forced 
out of the country, and the UN has begun to deploy a 15,000 person 
peacekeeping force.
  We're not part of that force, but we should be a part of the effort 
to help Liberia recover from over a decade of violence and misrule.
  Over the course of the war, Liberia's development has taken a quantum 
leap backwards. There is no running water or electricity in the 
capital.
  The current generation of school-aged children in Liberia is less 
literate than the preceding one.
  Nearly one hundred thousand people have been forced out of their 
homes and are living in make-shift camps.

[[Page 25097]]

  Sickness and hunger have affected much of the population.
  The State Department has estimated that $200 million in assistance 
will be needed from the U.S. to assist Liberia over the next year. Our 
amendment provides the State Department with the full amount that it 
says will be needed.
  I am about to conclude, believe it or not, folks. The fact is, we are 
not eliminating this fund. We are not in any way fundamentally altering 
what this administration is asking.
  We are saying that the Congress, based on priorities, sends the wrong 
message with $1.5 billion of the $20 billion. That is an oversight 
responsibility of the Congress, whether it is Iraq, whether it is a 
missile system, or whether it is a leave-no-child-behind proposal for 
education.
  I want to emphasize again that I intend to vote for this supplemental 
bill, notwithstanding the fact--because I have nothing left but a 
Hobson's choice here--we are not paying for it the way we should. We 
are just sending it to the deficit column.
  I believe we have a responsibility to scrutinize the bill before us, 
decide on priorities, and to cut spending that is not the highest 
priority and direct those funds to efforts which we think have been 
shortchanged. That is precisely what our amendment does. It is 
precisely what our Republican colleagues on the House Appropriations 
Committee have done.
  I will conclude by saying the reason I amended my legislation to 
conform with that of my friend from West Virginia precisely is because 
he is a smarter parliamentarian and legislator than anybody here. He 
knows the chances of this becoming law are increased in direct 
proportion to the degree to which it matches with the House. What we 
have done is take the House language, which I would like to modify in 
the margins--and I expect maybe Senator Byrd would even like to modify 
in the margins. But as an old bad joke goes, it is close enough for 
government work. What will happen is it gets us on the same page and 
will not slow up, if this passes a conference, reporting out this 
entire bill and the money getting to where it needs to be.
  I know no one, particularly the four leading Senators on this floor, 
including myself--the Senator from Alaska, the Senator from Virginia, 
the Senator from West Virginia, the Senator in Arizona--I know them. I 
have watched them for years and years. None of them believes we should 
be a rubberstamp. I am not about to be a rubberstamp, nor are any of 
them. This is our honest assessment of what we should do to make this 
$21 billion go further with greater priority, more rapidly, and enhance 
our chances at success in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Remember: The 
President's proposal covers both Iraq and Afghanistan.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to be extremely brief.
  We spent a long time on this amendment. There are other amendments 
pending. I in no way criticize or take exception to the rights of the 
Senator from Delaware, nor the Senator from West Virginia. In fact, I 
wish more would exercise scrutiny in the work of the Appropriations 
Committee. But I think we ought to know what this amendment is about. 
It is taking $1.65 billion from the reconstruction of Iraq and putting 
it to work in Fort Monroe, VA, the Sudan, Liberia--places that are 
worthy and deserving, perhaps. The purpose of this legislation is to 
provide money for the military and reconstruction of Iraq plus 
Afghanistan. Tough choices have to be made on other issues.
  I share the concern of the Senator from Delaware about the situation 
in Afghanistan. But I don't share his open-ended desire to send money 
just to the Sudan, just to Liberia, and another open-ended $75 million 
for foreign military financing programs.
  I think we need to stick to what we have. It has already been 
examined by the Appropriations Committee. It has been examined by all 
Members. I hope the motion to table will be agreed to.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I would be happy to yield and enter into a 
colloquy and questions with the Senator from Delaware and to address my 
good friend from Arizona.
  Mr. BIDEN. I will be very brief.
  Senator McCain raises an important point about the Sudan. Why are we 
all of a sudden sending money to the Sudan? The answer is that this 
amendment does not send funds to Sudan. I know of no one other than 
Senator Howard Metzenbaum who scrutinizes legislation more precisely 
than my friend from Arizona. The legislation which the committee 
reported out and which we are about to vote on--$21 billion--and which 
we are debating right now contains an additional $150 million for new 
complex emergency funds in addition to the $100 million already in the 
bill. That is what is in the legislation. If this amendment passes 
there will be an additional $150 million available for complex foreign 
emergencies and these funds shall be available for the Sudan. Notice I 
didn't say these funds are for the Sudan--they are available to the 
Sudan. The reference in the Byrd amendment will allow these funds to go 
to the Sudan.
  That is what the administration said they are working on: to spend 
part of this complex emergency funding. They have already said as it 
came out of the committee that they want to spend some of this $100 
million--$250 million if our amendment passes--in the Sudan. We didn't 
make this up out of whole cloth. We are giving them more money than 
they are likely to want to spend on the Sudan. It is not like all a 
sudden we picked out Northern Ireland, and, by the way, why don't we 
help them, too. That is a generic point.
  Mr. McCAIN. I think the Sudan is important. I don't think it is as 
important right now, to be honest with you, as the projects the Senator 
from West Virginia cuts out: Iraqi national community network, maximum 
security prisons, traffic police, water pipelines, treatment plants, on 
and on. These are cut out so we can send money to the Sudan.
  We have taken a long time here. Our colleagues are getting restless 
in their offices all over the Capitol. I don't want to continue this. 
We have a difference of opinion as to this amendment and to how the 
money should be spent. But to take money from Iraq and send it to Fort 
Monroe, VA, which is a worthy cause, is not appropriate for the way 
this bill was designed.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, on that one point, there is a compromise. 
It is a good one. We essentially reprioritize and stand by those 
priorities.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I could direct a question to my 
colleague, first, I hope in the course of this debate we have not 
impugned in any way the integrity of Ambassador Bremer.
  Mr. BIDEN. Just his judgement; I mean that sincerely.
  Mr. WARNER. That is an important addition the Senator just made 
because this is a man who uprooted himself from a difficult situation 
here at home, volunteered to go over there, and, as the Senator knows, 
those living conditions are not the best.
  Mr. BIDEN. Absolutely.
  Mr. WARNER. The point being, he is on the scene 14 hours a day. He is 
working.
  Mr. BIDEN. Agreed. Agreed.
  Mr. WARNER. When the Senator says he has experience and he 
understands things, I defer to that. I have a great deal of experience, 
and he does, too. I admire him. He knows that. But my point is we 
certainly have to have a degree of confidence in those who render their 
best judgment on the various items.
  The Senator raised the question, and I have a document here to refer 
to. If I could just pose a question, the Senator pointed out the 
seriousness of these vast ammunition depots. No matter how great Saddam 
Hussein may have been with his military--from the debriefings, they 
have no explanation why he put in every corner of Iraq these enormous 
caches of ammunition. The Senator from Delaware brings out the 
necessity to go in and eradicate those in various ways as quickly as 
possible so they do not fall into the

[[Page 25098]]

hands of those who are acting against us.
  The point I wish to make is, in the document and carefully buried in 
the $67-plus billion for the Department of Defense is the specific item 
of $300 million for initiatives for battlefield cleanup. It is in 
there. You don't have to take it out of other portions. That is in 
addition to $24 billion for the Department of the Army which they are 
going to expend for those purposes.
  Has the Senator examined in detail to know that some of the items he 
is asking for, such as the cleanup of the battlefields, is already 
included?
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I have. I have looked in great detail. That 
is not just for ammunition dumps. That is across the board.
  I also point out the military said there is no explanation for why 
Saddam would have these caches all over the country. I suggest we look 
to history. It is for the same reason Tito had the same kind of caches 
all over the former Yugoslavia. He trusted no one anywhere, and he 
wanted to be certain that if he was ever deposed or moved, he would 
have access to a cache sufficient to keep him in the game. That is why 
it is done. Read history.
  Lastly, we have looked at that. We do know there is money for 
battlefield cleanup. This goes well beyond the depots. Assume that the 
Senator is right, that it is sufficient; it is not sufficient to do the 
whole job.
  Lastly, in response to my questioning, Paul Bremer is a fine man. I 
have come back praising him. However, you are entitled to question a 
person's judgment--I am not questioning his motive--just as the 
Secretary of Defense was entitled to question the judgment of General 
Shinseki. He did not say he was not an honorable man. The day a U.S. 
Senator, particularly one with 30 years of experience, can not question 
the judgment of an ambassador is the day we should close up this shop. 
He may be right; I think he is wrong. I am just questioning his 
judgment.
  I do not think these are the priorities. To state it another way, 
$19.5 billion of this we are not even talking about.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, there is some concern about the 
individual items pledged. We are going to take care of the problem of 
some of the allocations that have been listed in the report from Mr. 
Bremer's office about how this money should be spent.
  I ask unanimous consent Senator Bond be added as an original 
cosponsor to Cantwell amendment No. 1857.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am a cosponsor of this amendment, which I 
strongly support.
  I will be brief. Senator Byrd has already described in detail what 
the amendment does.
  It has only been a few weeks since the White House sent us a bill for 
$87 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan. This amendment deals with the $21 
billion that the President wants for reconstruction activities in these 
countries. Of that amount, only $799 million--less than \1/20\th--is 
for reconstruction in Afghanistan, a country where the standard of 
living for most people is reminiscent of the Middle Ages.
  It is also a country whose former Taliban government harbored Osama 
bin Laden, and in doing so enabled al-Qaida to plan the attacks of 
September 11. But for whatever reason, and despite the difficulties and 
dangers that our troops and our aid workers are facing in Afghanistan, 
the White House has only asked for a tiny fraction of these 
supplemental funds to be provided to Afghanistan.
  I have looked at what the administration wants this $21 billion for. 
Much of it makes sense. But there are expenses here unlike any I have 
seen before in a foreign aid bill.
  Let me be clear. We all want to help Iraq. But we also have a duty to 
protect the taxpayers' money, and this request is extravagant.
  Let's look at just a few examples. These are some of the amounts we 
are being asked to spend for these items, for Iraq, compared to how 
much it would cost if they were purchased right here in the United 
States: $33,000 pickup trucks; $6,000 satellite telephones; $400 
million to build two prisons; and, studies costing tens of millions of 
dollars.
  What is going on here? Who is profiting from these unnecessary 
expenses? We know who isn't--U.S. taxpayers.
  We have never, in my 29 years here, given foreign aid on such a scale 
to a country that in a few years could be the second largest oil 
producing nation in the world.
  Help Iraq, yes. But $20 billion? All at once? Out the door, with no 
real strings attached? And for things like this?
  There are communities in our own country that don't have internet 
access, whose citizens can't get free computer training, that need new 
garbage trucks, or police cars, or prisons. The list goes on and on.
  This amendment attempts to make the best use of the funds in this 
bill, by cutting $1.6 billion of the Iraq reconstruction funds and 
shifting them to other needs, including for urgent humanitarian needs 
in Afghanistan, Liberia and Sudan.
  Frankly, I think we should cut more than $1.6 billion. From what I 
have seen in the meager justification materials we got from OMB, there 
is a lot of money here that is going to be spent on consultants and for 
things that the Iraqis could do themselves for a fraction of the cost.
  But at least this amendment would get at some of the unnecessary 
things, and use the funds for things that are necessary.
  Senator Byrd has spoken about the use of $600 million to locate and 
destroy ammunition caches in Iraq, that are the source of weapons being 
used to kill and maim our troops. It is beyond comprehension why the 
Pentagon has not acted sooner to deal with this problem. This amendment 
would finally address it.
  But I want to speak briefly on the $386 million that would be 
transferred to programs in Afghanistan, because I don't think there is 
anyone here who would not agree that we need to do more to prevent the 
situation in Afghanistan from unraveling. My friend from Kentucky, the 
chairman of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, Senator McConnell, 
just returned from Afghanistan. I am sure he saw how urgent the needs 
are.
  The Karzai government is fragile, at best. Warlords continue to rule 
vast areas of the country. Our troops are in a continuing fight with 
al-Qaida and remnants of the Taliban, who strike from their sanctuaries 
in Pakistan.
  Many Afghans remain displaced, living in squalor. They have too 
little to eat, not enough fuel for the winter, and many tens of 
thousands remain homeless.
  Women and girls continue to face great hardships. Girls schools are 
being destroyed. Health care remains a dream for millions of rural 
Afghans.
  The crop of opium poppy is the largest in years.
  The list of needs is long, but a little money can make a big 
difference in Afghanistan if it is spent wisely--not for internet 
access, but to build primary schools and irrigation systems.
  The $386 million that would be transferred to Afghanistan in this 
amendment mirrors what the House Appropriations Committee did last 
week. Both Democrats and Republicans in the House agreed that these 
funds were better spent in Afghanistan. For health clinics, to train 
and equip the army, for anti-drug programs, for irrigation, to support 
elections and governance.
  The amendment also provides $45 million for programs that 
specifically help women, and $25 million for Afghans who are internally 
displaced and need emergency aid.
  This amendment would bring the total in this bill for reconstruction 
in Afghanistan, a country of 22 million impoverished people, a country 
that could easily revert to a terrorist haven, to slightly over $1 
billion. That compares to $20 billion for Iraq, a country of 25 million 
people with a standard of living that already far exceeds what most 
Afghans could dream of.
  Let's inject a little common sense into this process. Both Iraq and 
Afghanistan need help. Both are security issues for the United States.
  I thank the Senator from West Virginia for his amendment.

[[Page 25099]]


  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent when I yield the 
floor that I be permitted to yield to Senator Byrd to finish his 
remarks. He has time remaining on his allocation; following his 
remarks, I be recognized for the purpose of making a motion to table 
the Byrd amendment. I would like to have 2 minutes for my time before 
making that motion to table. I ask the two cloakrooms as a courtesy to 
Senators at lunch to send out word there will be a vote on a motion to 
table within 15 minutes.
  I further ask that the time on that vote not be 10 minutes because 
people are out of the building and they have to return. I ask this 
amendment not be a 10-minute vote, that it be a regular vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. I ask my friend to modify the request. I just received a 
message from the cloakroom that Senator Kennedy wishes to speak for 15 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to Senator Kennedy also 
being allowed to speak for 15 minutes?
  Mr. STEVENS. I have no problem with that. I just ask his time occur 
after or before Senator Byrd's time but at his discretion.
  Mr. REID. Maybe afterwards.
  Mr. STEVENS. I leave that up to Senator Byrd, whether he wants to 
speak before or after.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, in response, I think everything has been 
said as far as I, personally, am concerned. I would say that a good bit 
has been said about the funding for a prison. There are funds in the 
bill for 26 detention facilities. It will take years to build the new 
prison that is proposed by the President. I don't know how a prison 
that will not be finished for years protects our troops today or 
tomorrow or a year from now. I find it hard to imagine that our troops 
would be protected by projects such as this.
  As far as I am concerned, I am ready to yield back time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there any objection to the unanimous 
consent request as modified?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. As I understand, there is an allocation of 15 minutes 
for Senator Kennedy; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. The Senator from West 
Virginia still controls 7\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent the previous order be amended to 
withdraw the time of Senator Kennedy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Senator Byrd still has time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 7\1/2\ minutes, and the 
Senator from Alaska has been allocated 2 minutes prior to a motion to 
table.
  Mr. BYRD. I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. STEVENS. I merely point out, as the Washington Post editorial did 
on Wednesday, rebuilding the electricity grid, fixing the water supply 
system, getting oil flowing, maintaining public safety is all central 
to the hopes for stability and a representative government that is the 
means of getting our troops back.
  I have had conversations--as a matter of fact, I just could not 
answer a call from Ambassador Bremer. I have great admiration for him. 
He has said there is no doubt the funds will help contribute to the 
peace and stability of not only Iraq but the entire region being 
stabilized. To deny them will delay the return home of our U.S. troops.
  I understand there is pending an underlying amendment and second-
degree amendment. I make a motion to table the underlying amendment 
which will take both amendments, if I am successful, and I ask for the 
yeas and nays on that amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table the amendment. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL, I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. 
Domenici) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID, I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. 
Lieberman) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 396 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

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

                                NAYS--47

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

                             NOT VOTING--2

       Domenici
     Lieberman
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request to 
make that will terminate the consideration of this bill if the Senate 
will listen.
  I ask unanimous consent that the only remaining amendments in order 
be the following: Senator Byrd, regarding flexibility of money, 10 
minutes equally divided; Senator Byrd, National Guard deployment, 10 
minutes equally divided; Senator Byrd, amendment No. 1819 as a 
substitute, 10 minutes equally divided; Senator Brownback, an amendment 
on rescission of money, 20 minutes--15 minutes for him and 5 minutes 
for the manager of the bill. Those will be the last votes.
  We also have the Leahy amendment; the Dorgan amendment on oil; the 
Boxer-Schumer amendment on shoulder-fired missiles, as modified by the 
two managers; Senator Domenici wishes to speak for 5 minutes; and we 
have a Bond amendment which we believe will be adopted and will not 
require a vote. We have at this time four votes.
  I further ask unanimous consent that upon the disposition of the 
above-listed amendments and any final debate, the bill be read a third 
time and the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill, with no 
intervening action or debate. I further ask unanimous consent that when 
the Senate receives from the House H.R. 3289, the House companion, that 
all after the enacting clause be stricken and the text of S. 1689, as 
amended, be inserted in lieu thereof; that the bill then be read for a 
third time and passed, with no intervening action or debate.
  I further ask unanimous consent that following passage of the bill, 
the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the 
House, and the Chair be authorized to appoint the full Committee on 
Appropriations as conferees on the part of the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LEAHY. Reserving the right to object.
  Mr. WYDEN. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I do not intend to object. I want to 
clarify, based on the discussions we have been having with the 
distinguished chairman of the committee, the Dorgan-Wyden amendment 
involves a number of savings provisions. We are going to be working 
with the chairman's staff 


[[Page 25100]]

and the staff of Senator Byrd. We think we can find common ground on a 
provision that will save upward of $1 billion. I withdraw my 
reservation.
  Mr. LEAHY. Reserving the right to object.
  Mr. STEVENS. The Leahy amendment, the Dorgan amendment, the Boxer 
amendment, Domenici, and the Bond amendment will be worked out with the 
managers and accepted without a vote.
  Mr. LEAHY. Reserving the right to object, to make sure we are clear 
on this, on the Leahy amendment, am I correct, Mr. President, the yeas 
and nays have already been ordered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, they have. The Senator from Vermont is 
correct.
  Mr. LEAHY. We would need, am I further correct, Mr. President, a 
further unanimous consent request to vitiate the yeas and nays on the 
Leahy amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is correct.
  Mr. STEVENS. I thought this unanimous consent request says there are 
only four votes left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Under the unanimous consent request propounded, there will still be a 
requirement to vitiate the yeas and nays on the Leahy amendment.
  Is there objection to the unanimous consent request?
  Mr. BOND. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I was off the floor, and I am not sure 
whether the chairman asked for a vote on the Bond-Mikulski amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. I have not.
  Mr. BOND. We would like to have a vote on that amendment. This is an 
extremely important amendment providing veterans health care. It will 
be vitally important. I would like to have a recorded vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. I have an objection to that. I have to withdraw the 
request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The request is withdrawn.
  Mr. STEVENS. 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. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I renew my request, but I ask that all 
references to votes be deleted. We have no agreement on how many votes 
there will be. We believe there will be four, maybe five, maybe six.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Senator Byrd is first in line.


                           Amendment No. 1886

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

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1886.

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

 (Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds for the involuntary deployment 
   overseas in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom of members of the 
 National Guard and Reserves who have been involuntarily deployed for 
          more than six months during the preceding six years)

       At the end of title I, add the following:
       Sec. 316. No funds appropriated or otherwise made available 
     by this Act may be obligated or expended for the involuntary 
     deployment overseas in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom of 
     a member of the National Guard or Reserves if that member has 
     been involuntarily deployed for any period of six months or 
     more during the six-year period ending on the date the 
     involuntary deployment overseas would otherwise commence.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, the National Guard has been stretched to the breaking 
point. Not since the Korean war has the United States deployed so many 
members of the National Guard and the Reserves. Right now, more than 
160,000 members of the National Guard and the Reserves are on active 
duty around the world, and more reservists are getting ready to ship 
out to Iraq.
  Last month, the President activated 10,000 more guardsmen for service 
in Iraq and put an additional 5,000 troops on alert. More callups are 
doubtlessly in the works. I have heard from many families anxious to 
know when their deployed loved ones might return home. I expect that 
all Senators have received similar letters and telephone calls.
  All of these families expressed a deep frustration with the open-
ended, unfocused deployment of Guard and Reserve units. While the 
Nation's citizen soldiers are proud to serve their country overseas, 
they also have obligations at home. These part-time soldiers are full-
time doctors, firemen, policemen, and a host of other roles which are 
critical to the security of American communities. We must do better to 
balance their commitments at home with their deployments overseas.
  The amendment before the Senate will help to relieve the strain that 
is being placed on our citizen soldier. It would prohibit the 
involuntary deployment of a member of the National Guard or the 
Reserves to support Operation Iraqi Freedom if that member has been 
deployed for a period of more than 6 months in the previous 6 years.
  This amendment would put an end to the back-to-back deployments that 
are causing the most strain on our reservists and their families.
  The amendment is based in part upon the direction that Secretary 
Rumsfeld issued on July 9, 2003, that members of the National Guard and 
Reserves should not be subject to more than one long deployment every 6 
years. We are engaged in a long-term occupation mission under hostile 
circumstances. There are better ways to get the troops we need for this 
mission than calling tens of thousands of Guard and Reserve troops away 
from their homes, away from their jobs, away from their communities for 
1 year at a time.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. There is 10 minutes equally divided. I yield our 5 
minutes to Senator Bond, chairman of the National Guard caucus.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we have addressed this matter before. I 
think all of us are concerned about the time that has been taken up 
with the National Guard and Reserve being deployed overseas. This, 
however, is what they signed up for. We are in a war on terrorism. The 
war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq are very important and critical 
elements in that war. We believe the Defense Department has to be more 
concerned about the time the Guard and Reserve are deployed. There is 
no question it causes strain on the families and causes strain on 
employment opportunities.
  I have talked to members of the Reserves who have been stationed from 
my State. They are concerned about the effect on employment. All of 
these things, however, are what we need to deal with without taking a 
hatchet to the effectiveness and the utility of the Guard and the 
Reserves. It is not hard to assume that if one looks at the provision 
that no one who has been deployed in the past 6 years could be deployed 
in Operation Iraqi Freedom, that would probably have wiped out all of 
the most experienced and most needed people in the Guard and Reserves.
  Whatever we do, we do not want to take away from the important 
missions the Guard and the Reserves play with this blanket prohibition 
across the board that all of the Guard and Reserve who have gained 
experience, perhaps serving in Afghanistan, perhaps serving earlier in 
Iraq, perhaps serving in Bosnia or Kosovo, cannot be sent to Iraq. We 
hope that if this supplemental

[[Page 25101]]

is passed, we will be bringing troops home sooner rather than later, 
particularly if we give the full $87 billion to the President. That 
will be undercut if this blanket prohibition goes through. I have heard 
previously from the leaders, the Guard caucus, the members of the Guard 
in August, and others, who do not believe such a prohibition is 
worthwhile.
  I yield to the Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I point out that Senator Byrd's amendment 
would prohibit the obligation of funds to deploy to Operation Iraqi 
Freedom a member of the National Guard or Reserves if that member has 
been involuntarily deployed for any period of 6 months or more during 
the 6-year period ending on the date the involuntary deployment 
overseas would otherwise commence.
  As I understand it, that would mean these people could be deployed to 
Pakistan, Afghanistan, or anyplace except to Iraq, where they are 
needed most.
  When the Senator has completed his time, I ask that I might be 
recognized to make a motion to table the amendment.
  How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining. The Senator from West Virginia has 2 minutes 13 seconds.
  Mr. STEVENS. I yield the remainder of our time to Senator Warner, but 
I ask at the end to be recognized to make a motion to table the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I would simply say, briefly, the Secretary 
of Defense has issued policy guidance that covers members of the 
Reserve and Guard, and that guidance says they should not be subject to 
more than one long deployment every 6 years. That has enabled them to 
continue their civilian pursuits and their family lifestyles. Of 
course, that can be waived in times of national emergency, as it is 
right now. But to impose this management restriction on the President 
as Commander in Chief I think would severely begin to limit, for 
planning and other purposes, the utility of the Guard and Reserve.
  I remember serving under Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird when the 
concept of the total force was evolving, and that is that men and women 
of the Guard are respected and treated with equal effectiveness as 
those of the regular Active Forces. I think this would be a very 
serious step backward in what I believe has been an absolutely glorious 
contribution by the National Guard and the Reserve Forces for some 
years now in their deployments in the war on terrorism.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. BYRD. How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia has 2 minutes 
13 seconds remaining.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, we need to restore predictability in the 
lives of those who serve in the National Guard and the Reserves. This 
amendment would stop the back-to-back deployments that are straining 
the Guard and the Reserves to the breaking point. It adopts the 
approach suggested by none other than Secretary Rumsfeld. Our men and 
women in the National Guard and the Reserves need relief from their 
long missions in Iraq. We should not look to other units of the Guard 
and Reserve for relief. We need more help, and it all boils down to 
this point that we should have thought of long ago, that we need more 
help from the international community. It is the administration's fault 
that that help has not been sought more diligently, more timely, and 
more intensely.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized for a 
motion.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move that the Senator's amendment be 
tabled. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask that this be the first vote in the stacked order 
when we agree to a time later and ask that we temporarily set aside 
this amendment so we might take up the next amendment on the list.
  Mr. REID. What was that, Mr. President?
  Mr. STEVENS. I asked that the amendment be set aside temporarily 
after the yeas and nays have been ordered so we may have a series of 
stacked votes later on. There is another Byrd amendment, a third Byrd 
amendment, and a Brownback amendment. We wish to consider all of those 
and have stacked votes after they are completed.
  Mr. REID. Would the Senator yield?
  Mr. STEVENS. Yes.
  Mr. REID. I have spoken to the distinguished Senator from West 
Virginia. He desires to have a vote right now. The Senator has made a 
motion to table.
  Mr. STEVENS. Well, I did make a motion to table. I apologize to the 
Senator from West Virginia. I thought we had an understanding we would 
go through these and have one series of votes that would be 10 minutes 
apiece.
  Mr. REID. That was not the agreement.
  Mr. STEVENS. All right. The Senator is entitled to his vote, if there 
is an objection to putting it off.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator wish to withdraw his motion 
to table?
  Mr. STEVENS. No; we will just go to the vote. The other request was 
objected to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to table amendment No. 
1886. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. 
Alexander) and the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici) are 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from 
Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would vote ``Yes.''
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. 
Lieberman) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 82, nays 15, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 397 Leg.]

                                YEAS--82

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

                                NAYS--15

     Akaka
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Dayton
     Graham (FL)
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Alexander
     Domenici
     Lieberman
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LOTT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1887

  Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent there be 10 minutes on the 
Dorgan-Wyden amendment, 4 minutes apiece for Senators Dorgan and Wyden, 
and 2 minutes for myself.

[[Page 25102]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan], for himself and 
     Mr. Wyden, proposes an amendment numbered 1887.

  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To reduce unnecessary spending for reconstruction in Iraq)

       On page 25, strike lines 7 through the colon on line 18, 
     and insert the following:
       For necessary expenses for security, rehabilitation and 
     reconstruction in Iraq, $18,449,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended, to be allocated as follows: $3,243,000,000 
     for security and law enforcement; $1,318,000,000 for justice, 
     public safety infrastructure, and civil society; 
     $5,560,000,000 for the electric sector; $1,900,000,000 for 
     oil infrastructure; $4,332,000,000 for water resources and 
     sanitation; $500,000,000 for transportation and 
     telecommunications; $370,000,000 for roads, bridges, and 
     construction; $793,000,000 for health care; $153,000,000 for 
     private sector development; and $280,000,000 for education, 
     refugees, human rights, democracy, and governance:

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, when this bill was considered by the House 
Appropriations Committee there were a number of reconstruction spending 
requests for Iraq they decided to delete. For example, the House 
Appropriations Committee deleted $4 million for a telephone numbering 
system, $9 million for ZIP Codes and a postal architecture, $10 million 
to modernize the business practices of the Iraqi television and radio 
industries, $312 million for unspecified transportation and 
communication projects, including cosmetic improvements at airports; 
$100 million to build 7 housing communities including roads, schools, 
mosques, markets, clinics; $200 million to establish an American-Iraqi 
Enterprise Fund; $90 million to open public information centers in 
Iraq's 266 municipalities; a month-long catchup business training 
course at $10,000 per pupil, which is twice as much as the Harvard 
Business School would cost for an equivalent period; and $100 million 
to buy 2,000 garbage trucks.
  The point is that there is a long list of specifics dealing with 
reconstruction in Iraq that are not urgent and are not, in fact, 
emergencies. The House Appropriations Committee deleted these. When 
they deleted them, they indicated these were not emergencies and were 
not urgent. As a result of that, Senator Wyden and I have put together 
an amendment that deletes the identical accounts from the 
reconstruction part of this bill as the House cut, which comes to 
$1.655 billion.
  In addition, our amendment cuts $200 million from the amount the 
administration is requesting to import fuel into Iraq, which the 
Congressional Research Service indicates may be in excess to what is 
actually needed.
  I ask my colleague Senator Wyden if he could comment on that piece of 
the legislation. In total, our amendment would reduce the 
reconstruction piece of this legislation by $1.855 billion from the 
$20.3 billion requested for Iraq reconstruction.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, obviously $87 billion is an eye-popping sum 
of money, and taxpayers want the Congress to turn every penny over 
twice. That is what Senator Dorgan and I have done. We've gone through 
every number with a sharp pencil. This amendment, without in any way 
hampering the efforts to deal with the grave concerns in Iraq, could 
save taxpayers $1.8 billion.
  For example, in a report for Senator Bingaman and myself, the 
Congressional Research Service found $200 million could be saved in 
connection with the purchase of petroleum products. They have indicated 
it would be significantly cheaper to buy gasoline in neighboring 
countries such as Saudi Arabia and Turkey.
  Without the Dorgan-Wyden amendment, in effect, the Senate would be 
saying to the American taxpayers the Federal Government cannot get a 
better price per gallon for gas when buying a 30-day supply of gas for 
a country the size of California than you and I could get at the gas 
station just down the street from the Capitol.
  So we believe this is an important amendment. I have worked on these 
issues with a number of colleagues, particularly Senator Collins. We 
are able to get competitive bidding now on all of the contracts. The 
Dorgan-Wyden amendment complements this effort.
  I particularly want to thank Senator Stevens and Senator Byrd for 
working closely with us to be able to save at least $1.8 billion, at 
the end of this debate, in a responsible fashion, in a fashion that 
will not injure our troops, that will not injure the reconstruction 
effort.
  This is a significant step forward for the Senate, and I urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment, and thank again Senator Stevens 
for working with us.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, is all time yielded back on the other 
side?
  Mr. WYDEN. Yes.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we have agreed to take this to 
conference. The House has deleted approximately the same amount of 
money. I do not think it is precisely the same items covered but very 
close. The allocations are close to what the House made. We want to do 
our best to work in conference. We accept the fact the Congress is 
going to reduce this bill, but I do want to make certain the urgent 
needs particularly of oil production are met.
  I know the Senator from Oregon and I may have a little disagreement 
on that. I do not think he disagrees that all production means should 
be really modernized sufficiently so we can be assured of that oil 
production. That oil production is essential to Iraq taking on their 
own future.
  We will work in conference. Senator Dorgan will be in the conference, 
so we will keep them informed of what is going on. But we are going to 
take this amendment and adopt it. As I said, it is quite similar to 
what the House has done, and we are going to work it out to the best of 
our ability, to use this money and prioritize it in a way that meets 
the needs of those people who have the job to do in Iraq.
  I yield back the remainder of my time and ask for the adoption of the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1887) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DORGAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Now, Mr. President, Senator Byrd has an amendment No. 
1819, 10 minutes equally divided.
  I ask the Senator, are you prepared to go forward now?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.


                           Amendment No. 1888

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may I say to the distinguished manager of 
the bill, Mr. Stevens, I wish to go forward with the amendment 
protecting the powers of the Congress, striking broad new executive 
authorities.
  Mr. STEVENS. Which amendment is that?
  Mr. BYRD. No. 1888.
  Mr. STEVENS. Very well.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd], for himself, Mr. 
     Lautenberg, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Wyden, Mr. 
     Jeffords, and Mr. Dayton, proposes an amendment numbered 
     1888.

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

[[Page 25103]]



   (Purpose: To eliminate the flexibility given to the President to 
  reallocate all of the $20.3 billion Iraq Relief and Reconstruction 
                  Funds, without approval by Congress)

       On page 27, line 9, strike ``Provided further, That the 
     President may reallocate funds provided under this heading:''
       On page 27, line 21, strike ``used for such purpose'' and 
     insert ``shall be available only to the extent that the funds 
     are made available in a subsequent appropriations act''.
       On page 12, line 11, strike, ``, and in addition such funds 
     as necessary, not to exceed $5,000,000,000, as approved by 
     the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, Subcommittees 
     on Defense'';
       On page 15, strike Section 312;

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I offered this amendment on behalf of 
myself, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Wyden, Mr. 
Jeffords, and Mr. Dayton.
  On page 27 of the supplemental bill it reads:

       Provided further, That the President may reallocate funds 
     provided under this heading.

  Those 12 little words, disguised as legalese, mean the President can 
spend $20.3 billion for the reconstruction of Iraq in any manner in 
which he pleases. The fine print in the bill allows the President to 
spend $20.3 billion in Iraq as he pleases.
  On page 27 I believe we find this language, beginning on line 9. This 
is page 27, line 9, of the bill:

       Provided further, That the President may reallocate funds 
     provided under this heading.

  The President may reallocate those funds regardless of what the rest 
of this bill may say under this heading. The President may reallocate 
this.
  Now, if we want to make the President a king, this is the place to 
start. All those who believe in a monarchy in this country, support 
this against my amendment. That is what it says. Read the fine print:

       Provided further, That the President may reallocate funds 
     provided under this heading.

  What is the heading? The heading is as follows: ``Iraq Relief and 
Reconstruction Fund.'' So that is the heading. And in the very first 
line, it reads as follows:

       For necessary expenses for security, rehabilitation and 
     reconstruction in Iraq, $20,304,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended, to be allocated as follows.

  And then it goes right down the line, item after item after item 
after item, and the dollar amounts. And then come over here to the fine 
print. Now hear me. Look at the fine print:

       Provided further, That the President may reallocate funds 
     provided under this heading.

  Here is what it does. Here is what it does to the bill. It tears it 
up. The President can just reallocate it. The heck with the bill.
  Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  Mr. SARBANES. I say to the Senator from West Virginia, this is a very 
important item. We do this provision, we set out all these numbers--
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  Mr. SARBANES. We link the numbers with particular activities, and 
then, when you go over and look at the next page, and look at the fine 
print, you discover the President can reallocate the funds provided 
under this heading.
  This is giving the President $20,304,000,000 in effect to do as he 
pleases, without reference to the money figures that are set out.
  We may argue about how much should be appropriated and what it should 
be appropriated for, but there ought not to be any argument it is the 
Congress that is to determine what the appropriations are to be and 
what the money is going to go for. To simply hand over $20 billion, and 
then have a clause that enables the President to use it for any of 
these purposes he chooses is to completely abdicate the congressional 
responsibility and the power of the purse.
  Mr. BYRD. It does. The Senator has stated the situation very well.
  Our forefathers disdained even a gentle master. Now here we are, we 
come along, and we pass this bill with these provisions, fulfilling the 
control of the power of the purse by the Congress, and then we turn 
around and say: The President may reallocate these funds as he pleases.
  Do we want to be like that? I am not ready to make a King George. It 
is President George Bush now. I am not ready to make him King George 
Bush. If that is what you want to do, this is the place to start.
  So I hope Members will vote for my amendment. Congress should retain 
its power of the purse. But always read the fine print. That is what 
the fine print says.
  Then the supplemental bill also gives the Secretary of Defense the 
authority to transfer among accounts up to $5 billion of the $65.6 
billion in funds for the military.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. BYRD. Very well.
  I hope the Senate will support my amendment.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I agree with Senator Byrd that the more 
that one reads the fine print of this legislation, the worse it gets. 
The budget document submitted by the Coalition Provisional Authority, 
CPA, leaves one with the distinct impression that money will be spent 
on specific items.
  For example, $9 million will be spent on projects for ZIP Codes, $100 
million will be spent on the witness protection program, $75 will be 
spent on irrigation pumps. And so on and so forth.
  But, after a little digging, one uncovers a provision on page 27 of 
the supplemental appropriations bill that the Senate is now 
considering. This is a provision that the administration requested. It 
says ``Provided further, That the President may reallocate funds 
provided under this heading.''
  What does this means? It means that you can take the CPA's 53 page 
budget justification and throw it in the garbage can. Its just for show 
saying how much money is appropriated for any item in this bill. What 
the Senate is doing is giving the President all of the money for Iraq 
reconstruction, and saying ``do what ever you want with it.''
  If you want to doubled the amount of money for pickup trucks and pay 
$66,000 a truck instead of $33,000 a truck, go ahead.
  If you want to buy even more satellite phones, go ahead. If you want 
to spend more money on wireless internet, which many American 
communities don't have, go ahead. If you want to slash money for 
refugees or police training, go ahead. If you want to spend every 
dollar to pay consultants, go ahead, because, Mr. President, it is up 
to you.
  It is certainly true that the President can spend the money the way 
it is spelled out in the CPA's budget justification.
  But, nothing, absolutely nothing, in this legislation requires the 
President to even come close to meeting the amounts that are justified 
to Congress.
  This is not some inside-the-beltway, policy-wonk issue. This issue is 
about the Constitution. This issue is about our duty as Senators.
  The Constitution unequivocally gives the Congress the power of the 
purse.
  And this provision all but hands over the power of the purse to the 
President with respect to Iraq reconstruction. It essentially says 
``you decide, because we won't''.
  It sets a dangerous precedent. And, we all know that once we give 
away authority to the executive branch, it is almost impossible to get 
that genie back in the bottle.
  Moreover, this new authority is completely unnecessary.
  We didn't include this provision in the previous Iraq supplemental.
  The administration never complained that we did not give them enough 
flexibility before. Why should we do this now? Like last time, we can 
easily come up with an approach that gives the administration the 
flexibility it needs, but maintains important protections to ensure the 
money is accounted for.
  This provision is not unlike the use of force resolution that we 
passed last fall. Congress has the sole responsibility to declare war.
  Instead of having a vote on that, we passed a resolution that said, 
``Mr. President, you decide.''
  Let's not go down that road again.
  This is not some partisan issue. I would be saying the same thing if 
a Democrat was in the White House.
  This is about our responsibility. This is about watching out for the 
taxpayers' money. This is about making

[[Page 25104]]

sure the Senate does not become a rubberstamp for blank checks.
  We should not give this power to this administration or any other 
administration. I urge my colleagues to support the Byrd amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we had extended in the previous 
supplemental similar discretion to the President. During the period of 
great change, such as the global war on terrorism, we have done that 
since from September 11, 2001. This provision in our bill does not 
eliminate or reduce congressional oversight. Every transfer of these 
funds above the threshold must be--notice must be given in advance to 
the Appropriations Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee.
  We have done this in the past, and it is necessary for the future. We 
put up the money. They come to us and tell us how they are going to 
spend it. We approve it or modify it, but we have oversight, and we 
continue to have oversight.
  The commander of the special operations command seeks and needs 
authority to prevent new terrorist cells from forming. We have enormous 
needs from the combatant commander who really has the key job in Iraq 
in fighting the war on terrorism that is now developing even more 
intensely in Iraq after the magnificent victory of our forces. We 
believe the authority is no different than what the Congress has 
approved in the past.
  Madam President, has all time been yielded back?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). The time of the Senator from 
West Virginia has expired.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I yield back the remainder of my time. 
I move to table the amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to table amendment No. 
1888. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL, I announce that the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. 
Alexander), the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Lott), and the Senator 
from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from 
Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would vote ``yes.''
  Mr. REID, I announce tha the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) 
and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily 
absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 46, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 398 Leg.]

                                YEAS--49

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

                                NAYS--46

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

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Alexander
     Domenici
     Kerry
     Lieberman
     Lott
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, if I can have the attention of 
Senators, I have three amendments we have worked out. We have one more 
to work out. I ask unanimous consent that there be 1 minute for Senator 
Boxer and 1 minute for Senator Schumer to explain the modification of 
their amendment, which we will accept. I have a statement to make with 
Senator Domenici on his amendment. Senator Brownback has his amendment. 
He has agreed to limit his remarks to 8 minutes, and we have 5 minutes 
if we want to use them after that.
  I remind the Senate, after these amendments are handled, there will 
just be one more vote. We then have to proceed to a vote on final 
passage. I understand there are some Senators who wish to make a 
statement before final passage.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
  The Senator from Florida, Mr. Graham, was going to speak. He has now 
indicated he will very briefly address the Senate and make his speech 
after the passage of the bill--I assume passage. Senator Byrd is going 
to speak for up to 25 minutes.
  Mr. STEVENS. Before passage?
  Mr. REID. Before passage. We are still working with Senator Leahy on 
our side.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. STEVENS. After those speeches, there still will be a vote on 
final passage.


Amendments Nos. 1807, As Further Modified, 1850, As Modified, and 1860, 
                          As Modified, En Bloc

  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I send to the desk three amendments 
that have been cleared by both sides: Senator Leahy's amendment No. 
1807, which is on the list; Senator Clinton's amendment which is 
amendment No. 1850, which is on the list; and Senator Harkin's 
amendment which is amendment No. 1860. Two of them are modified. I ask 
that they be modified and presented to the Senate so we may call them 
up en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are 
considered en bloc and agreed to en bloc.
  The amendments were agreed to, as follows:


                    amendment no. 1807, as modified

 (Purpose: An amendment, with offsets, to provide emergency assistance 
                       to the people of Liberia)

       On page 29, line 17, strike ``$100,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended'' and insert ``$200,000,000, which 
     shall be made available for assistance for Liberia of which 
     $100,000,000 shall be derived by transfer from funds 
     appropriated under any other heading of this Chapter''
       On page 29, line 18, after ``heading'' insert ``, shall 
     remain available until expended, and''


                           amendment No. 1850

(Purpose: To provide for an audit of funds appropriated under this Act 
       by the General Accounting Office, and for other purposes)

       On page 28, line 15, before the period, insert the 
     following: Provided further, That funds appropriated under 
     this heading shall be made available to the General 
     Accounting Office for an audit of all funds appropriated 
     under this Act, including tracking the expenditure of 
     appropriated funds, a comparison of the amounts appropriated 
     under this Act to the amount actually expended, and a 
     determination of whether the funds appropriated in this Act 
     are expended as intended by Congress.


                    Amendment No. 1860, as Modified

(Purpose: to provide up to $13,000,000 for conflict resolution, rule of 
                     law and democracy activities)

       On page 28, line 15, insert before the period:
       : Provided further, That of the funds appropriated under 
     this heading, up to $13,000,000 may be made available to 
     facilitate inter-ethnic and inter-religious dialogue, 
     conflict resolution activities, support rule of law programs, 
     and train Iraqi leaders in democratic principles.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, let me take a very short time to summarize 
what amendment No. 1807 does. This is a very important amendment 
offered by myself and the Senator from Rhode Island.
  The Chafee-Leahy amendment is supported by the Archbishop of 
Monrovia. A man, who for years, stood up to the brutal regime of 
Charles Taylor.
  It provides $200 million to address basic needs--food, water, 
shelter--of the people of Liberia. There is a humanitarian emergency in 
that country, as 74% of Liberians lack access to safe drinking water, 
60 percent lack access

[[Page 25105]]

to acceptable sanitation, and 75 percent live in poverty.
  The administration's own number for Liberia is $200 million. In 
testimony before the House, the top Africa official at the State 
Department said the U.S. needed $200 million to address this crisis.
  The amendment is extremely flexible. It allows the administration to 
spend these funds virtually any way it wants, including humanitarian, 
reconstruction, long-term development, or security assistance.
  The amendment is fully offset. It does not add a dime to the Iraq 
supplemental.
  Relief groups with operations in Liberia strongly support this 
amendment. Catholic Relief Services, Amnesty International and a range 
of other NGOs strongly support this amendment.
  Mr. President, I want to thank the cosponsors of this amendment 
Senators Coleman, Biden, Lieberman, Dashle, Reid, Feingold, Reed, 
Lautenberg, Landrieu, and Jeffords.
  I especially want to thank the chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee for working with me on this amendment. This amendment will be 
adopted, and I will not insist on a rollcall vote. This is a very 
important amendment and I am glad that the Senate has acted decisively 
to approve it.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank the managers of the bill for 
accepting my amendment, directing that $13 million of the relief and 
reconstruction funds in the bill may be used to facilitate inter-ethnic 
and inter-religious dialog, conflict resolution activities, support 
rule-of-law programs and train Iraqi leaders in democratic principles. 
In my view, the United States Institute of Peace is uniquely qualified 
to undertake these activities.
  We have been debating the President's request for $87 billion in 
supplemental funds for Iraq and Afghanistan. At times, it has seemed 
that we in the Senate agree on very little. But there is one goal that 
I believe every Senator strongly endorses: We all want to bring our 
American troops home from Afghanistan and Iraq as soon as possible.
  Without so much as batting an eye, we appropriate billions for war, 
billions for weapons, and billions for post-war reconstruction. 
Meanwhile, it seems that we overlook one key activity--conflict 
resolution and peacemaking. Conflict resolution and peacemaking must be 
addressed specifically and not simply as a by-product or hoped for 
outcome of rebuilding roads and repairing infrastructure.
  The U.S. Government has one agency that can help to reduce conflict, 
build democratic institutions, and even assist in the drafting of the 
new Iraqi constitution--all prerequisites to bringing our troops home 
sooner rather than later. I am talking about the United States 
Institute of Peace. This institute has a proven track record of 
accomplishing those prerequisites which I just mentioned.
  I am going to take a few minutes to explain the origins of the United 
States Institute of Peace because I am concerned that very few 
Americans know about this institute and its remarkable work.
  Throughout our long history, America has been proud of its strong, 
well-led military. And this outstanding military leadership is no 
accident. It is possible because we maintain prestigious, world-class 
military academies which train some of the best and brightest minds in 
America in the art and science of war.
  But Americans also have a long history as a peace-loving people. Time 
and again, we have brokered peace between warring nations, and we have 
intervened to head off potential conflicts. The Institute of Peace 
draws on this proud tradition, and today makes a vital intellectual 
investment in the art and science of peacemaking.
  Today's Institute of Peace is the fruit of a dream and vision that 
goes back to our Nation's Founders. Benjamin Banneker, often called 
``the first black American man of science,'' and physician Benjamin 
Rush, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, noted and lamented 
the Constitution's failure to establish a Department of Peace to 
balance the Department of War. In their correspondence with Thomas 
Jefferson in 1792, Banneker and Rush envisioned a ``Peace Office'' 
which would be on an equal footing with the Department of War and would 
be charged with promoting and preserving perpetual peace in the United 
States.
  George Washington also supported the establishment of a Peace Office. 
And his support was not just casual. He believed that such an office 
should be an essential pillar of the new Nation. When he died in 1799, 
Washington's last will and testament bequeathed in perpetuity 50 acres 
in Potomac County to be used ``toward the endowment of a university--
under the auspices of the general Government.'' This bequest was 
intended to make possible the proper ``Peace Establishment'' that 
President Washington had written about as early as 1783.
  More recently, in a 1980 report by the Matsunaga Commission strongly 
recommended the establishment of the United States Academy of Peace. In 
the course of more than 70 meetings and hearings all across the United 
States, Senator Matsunaga of Hawaii and other Senators surveyed the 
full range of threats to world peace, and explored ways to counter 
those threats.
  After much thoughtful debate a compromise was reached and the United 
States Institute of Peace Act was passed and signed into law by 
President Ronald Reagan in 1984. A board was installed and the 
Institute's first meeting was held in February 1986. Since that time, 
the Institute has done remarkable work in such disparate nations as 
Afghanistan and Korea, Bosnia and the Philippines.
  Today, at the direction of Congress, the Institute actively pursues 
six interrelated activities:
  Expanding society's knowledge about the changing nature and conduct 
of international relations and the management of international 
conflict;
  Supporting policymakers in the legislative and executive branches;
  Facilitating the resolution of international disputes;
  Training international affairs professionals from the United States 
and abroad in conflict prevention, management, and resolution 
techniques;
  Strengthening the education of emerging generations of young people 
in the United States and in foreign zones of conflict;
  Increasing public understanding about the nature of international 
conflicts, as well as approaches to their prevention, management, and 
resolution.
  I also want to stress that in accord with the agency's enabling 
legislation, the Institute of Peace does not advocate specific 
policies, nor does it take policy positions.
  In recent years, the Institute has pursued several special 
initiatives that I believe are particularly noteworthy and germane to 
our debate on the Iraq supplemental bill.
  I especially want to highlight the Institute's work in Bosnia. After 
the Dayton Accords of 1995, the Institute activated the Bosnian Inter-
religious Council, which now provides a model for reconciliation among 
Bosnia's Muslim, Catholic, Serb and Jewish communities. The Institute 
worked on the ground in both Bosnia and Washington addressing 
contentious issues such as rule of law, peace agreements, political 
restructuring, and the role of religion in conflict.
  I would also cite the Institute's Special Initiative on the Muslim 
World, which addresses a broad range of political, social, cultural, 
and religious issues--many of which are acutely relevant in the wake of 
the September 11 terrorist attacks.
  At the same time, the Institute's Religion and Peacemaking Initiative 
is doing excellent work enhancing the capacity of faith communities to 
be forces for peace.
  In another example of the Institute's work with a Muslim community, 
in May 2003 the administration asked the Institute of Peace to play a 
facilitating role in peace talks between the government of the Republic 
of the Philippines and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front. A team from 
the Institute visited the Philippines in August. And in meetings I 
conducted just 2 days ago, I learned that significant progress is being 
made.

[[Page 25106]]

  In Afghanistan the institute, through its role of law program, has 
participated in efforts to reconstruct the judicial system. USIP was 
the originator of the concept to establish a judicial commission. The 
institute is also working on the integration of new judicial system 
with traditional Afghani legal practice.
  The Institute stands alone among U.S. agencies in these efforts to 
work with the international Muslim community. Based on the Institute's 
brilliant work in other Muslim countries, I believe that it can play an 
especially constructive role in Iraq. In particular, it will take a 
lead role in building up Iraq's civil society, and in nurturing Iraq's 
fledgling democratic institutions.
  With adequate funding, the Institute wants to go to Iraq to 
facilitate inter-ethnic and inter-religious dialogue among community, 
political and civic-society leaders. One of the biggest threats to our 
reconstruction effort in Iraq is the possibility that full-fledged 
fighting could break out between religious and ethnic communities. The 
Institute can play a vital role in preventing this. The Institute also 
will work to establish the rule of law by supporting the constitution-
writing process and designing a framework for bringing to justice 
leaders of the former dictatorial regime. So, exactly as envisioned by 
our Nation's founders, the United States Institute of Peace is playing 
a vital role in restoring and strengthening peace around the world--and 
now, in particular, in Iraq. As I said, this is the key to bringing our 
troops home soon, with their mission truly accomplished.
  I am pleased that we have allocated $13 million for conflict 
resolution and peacemaking in Iraq. In order to adequately fund the 
Institute's work in Iraq the Institute needs only one hundredth of one 
percent of the President's total request. Surely this is not too high a 
price to pay for ``making peace.''
  Time and again in recent years--including in Iraq--our Nation has 
shown that it is brilliant at winning wars. But time and again, we have 
had difficulty winning the peace. As we continue to increase funding 
for the Department of Defense by tens of billions of dollars each year, 
we must also be generous in our support and funding for this all-
important agency, the United States Institute of Peace.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, through the Chair to the Senator from 
Alaska, Senator Schumer does not wish any time.
  Mr. STEVENS. Very well.
  Mr. REID. I ask that that be stricken.
  Mr. STEVENS. Does Senator Boxer wish her time?
  Mr. REID. Yes, she does.
  Mr. STEVENS. I yield to Senator Boxer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.


                    Amendment No. 1845, As Modified

  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I thank Senator Stevens for helping me 
on this amendment, and I thank Senator Cochran as well.
  Senator Schumer and I have been very concerned about the threat of 
shoulder-fired missiles to American commercial aircraft. What we have 
found out is that there are a number of planes--about 900 planes--that 
are also used in the civil reserve air fleet, meaning that many times 
our military will ask a commercial company, such as United Airlines or 
USAir, to make planes available for our armed services personnel. We 
simply say in this amendment that when countermeasures are placed on 
commercial aircraft, the first priority will be those planes.
  To conclude, all we are saying in this amendment is when we do start 
to make sure that our commercial aircraft are protected from shoulder-
fired missiles and we place those defenses on those commercial 
aircraft, the first priority will be the civil air reserve fleet 
because, again, that entails protecting our men and women in uniform.
  I again thank everyone. Madam President, is this going into the 
managers' package, I ask Senator Stevens, or do we need a separate vote 
on it?
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I send to the desk amendment No. 1845, 
as modified, the one Senator Boxer just described, and I ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer], for herself, Mr. 
     Schumer, and Mr. Lautenberg, proposes an amendment numbered 
     1845, as modified.

  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) In May 2002, the Federal Bureau of Investigation issued 
     a warning to law enforcement personnel to be alert to the 
     potential use of shoulder-fired missiles against U.S. 
     aircraft;
       (2) In May 2002, al-Qaeda was suspected of firing a 
     shoulder-fired missile at U.S. military aircraft near Prince 
     Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia;
       (3) In November 2002, an Israeli commercial jetliner was 
     fired upon by a shoulder-fired missile shortly after take-off 
     in Mombasa, Kenya;
       (4) In August 2003, a weapons smuggler was arrested after 
     agreeing to sell a Russian SA-18 to an undercover FBI agent 
     posing as a Muslim extremist;
       (5) During recent operations in Iraq, U.S. commercial 
     airlines--as part of the Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF)--flew 
     nearly 2,000 flights carrying U.S. troops and supplies into 
     Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and 
     Bahrain;
       (6) No U.S. commercial airliners are currently equipped 
     with defenses against shoulder-fired missiles.
       (b) Prioritization.--
       When counter measures against the threat of shoulder-fired 
     missiles are deployed, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in 
     conjunction with the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary 
     of Transportation, shall make it a priority to equip the 
     aircraft enrolled in the Civil Reserve Air Fleet.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, what is the modification? I thought we 
had agreed on this amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. It is the one the Senator sent to us.
  Mrs. BOXER. It is the same one. Absolutely. I just ask that we do 
this by voice vote and get this done.
  Mr. STEVENS. That is what we seek to do.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, during the recent operations in Iraq, and 
as recently as this June, U.S. commercial airliners, such as Delta and 
U.S. Airways, flew nearly 2,000 flights carrying U.S. troops and 
supplies into Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, 
and Bahrain.
  Unlike U.S. military transport aircraft, such as the C-17, none of 
these commercial jets were equipped with defenses against shoulder-
fired missiles.
  Yet these aircraft, known as the civil reserve air fleet, CRAF, are 
contractually obligated to support Department of Defense airlift 
requirements during times of emergency, when the need of airlift 
exceeds the capability of military aircraft. Civil reserve air fleet 
carriers must make aircraft available for the start of assigned 
missions within 24 hours after callup when stages I or II are activated 
and within 48 hours when stage III is activated.
  These constitute our most vulnerable aircraft. They land in areas 
that are highly volatile, where we know terrorists groups operate, 
where we know they have shoulder-fired missiles, and where they have 
attempted to use them.
  The bottom line is, it is only a matter of time before terrorist 
succeed in bringing down a commercial airplane with a shoulder-fired 
missile. We cannot afford for our luck to run out.
  The administration has presented a plan that would fail to equip any 
aircraft until fiscal year 2006, at the earliest. We need to move 
faster. Thousands of these weapons are in the hands of terrorists all 
around the world and are easily available on the black market.
  The Federal Bureau of Investigation has issued a warning to law 
enforcement personnel to be alert to the potential use of shoulder-
fired missiles against U.S. aircraft given al-Qaida's demonstrated 
objective to target the U.S. airline industry, its access to U.S. and 
Russian made systems and its targeting of U.S.-led military forces in

[[Page 25107]]

Saudi Arabia. In August 2003, a weapons smuggler was arrested after 
agreeing to sell a Russian SA-18 to an undercover FBI agent posing as a 
Muslim extremist. At least 19 missiles have been launched against 
coalition aircraft since the end of major combat operations in Iraq. In 
November 2002, an Israeli jetliner was fired upon seconds after takeoff 
in Mombasa, Kenya; al-Qaida is suspected. And, in May 2002, al-Qaida 
was suspected of firing a shoulder-fired missile at U.S. military 
aircraft near Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia.
  That is why I am pleased that the Senate has accepted my amendment to 
ensure that when countermeasures are placed on commercial aircraft, the 
civil reserve air fleet receives first priority. This is a commonsense 
amendment that will protect our flying public and our military 
personnel.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, without 
objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1845), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mrs. BOXER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators 
Feinstein and Crapo be added as original cosponsors to amendment No. 
1864.


                    Amendment No. 1864, As Modified

  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I send amendment No. 1864, offered by 
Senator Domenici and others, to the desk and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Mr. Domenici, 
     for himself, Mr. Bond, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Crapo, and Mr. 
     Alexander, proposes an amendment numbered 1864, as modified.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To require reports on the United States strategy for relief 
                  and reconstruction efforts in Iraq)

       Insert where appropriate in the bill:
       Sec.  . (a) Initial Report on Relief and Reconstruction.--
     Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the President shall submit to Congress a report on the 
     United States strategy for activities related to post-
     conflict security, humanitarian assistance, governance, and 
     reconstruction to be undertaken as a result of Operation 
     Iraqi Freedom. The report shall include information on the 
     following:
       (1) The distribution of duties and responsibilities 
     regarding such activities among the agencies of the United 
     States Government, including the Department of State, the 
     United States Agency for International Development, and the 
     Department of Defense.
       (2) A plan describing the roles and responsibilities of 
     foreign governments and international organizations, 
     including the United Nations, in carrying out such 
     activities.
       (3) A strategy for coordinating such activities among the 
     United States Government, foreign governments, and 
     international organizations, including the United Nations.
       (4) A strategy for distributing the responsibility for 
     paying costs associated with reconstruction activities in 
     Iraq among the United States Government, foreign governments, 
     and international organizations, including the United 
     Nations, and for actions to be taken by the President to 
     secure increased international participation in peacekeeping 
     and security efforts in Iraq.
       (5) A comprehensive strategy for completing the 
     reconstruction of Iraq, estimated timelines for the 
     completion of significant reconstruction milestones, and 
     estimates for Iraqi oil production.
       (b) Subsequent Reports on Relief and Reconstruction.--(1) 
     Not later than 60 days after the submittal of the report 
     required by subsection (a), and every 60 days thereafter 
     until all funds provided by this title are expended, the 
     President shall submit to Congress a report that includes 
     information as follows:
       (A) A list of all activities undertaken related to 
     reconstruction in Iraq, and a corresponding list of the funds 
     obligated in connection with such activities, during the 
     preceding 60 days.
       (B) A list of the significant activities related to 
     reconstruction in Iraq that the President anticipates 
     initiating during the ensuing 60-day period, including--
       (i) the estimated cost of carrying out the proposed 
     activities; and
       (ii) the source of the funds that will be used to pay such 
     costs.
       (C) Updated strategies, objectives, and timelines if 
     significant changes are proposed regarding matters included 
     in the report required under subsection (a), or in any 
     previous report under this subsection.
       (2) Each report under this subsection shall include 
     information on the following:
       (A) The expenditures for, and progress made toward, the 
     restoration of basic services in Iraq such as water, 
     electricity, sewer, oil infrastructure, a national police 
     force, an Iraqi army, and judicial systems.
       (B) The significant goals intended to be achieved by such 
     expenditures.
       (C) The progress made toward securing increased 
     international participation in peacekeeping efforts and in 
     the economic and political reconstruction of Iraq.
       (D) The progress made toward securing Iraqi borders.
       (E) The progress made toward securing self-government for 
     the Iraqi people and the establishment of a democratically 
     elected government.
       (F) The progress made in securing and eliminating munitions 
     caches, unexploded ordinance, and excess military equipment 
     in Iraq.
       (G) The measures taken to protect United States troops 
     serving in Iraq.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this amendment requires reporting on the 
reconstruction of Iraq. This amendment ensures congressional oversight 
for the $20.3 billion portion of the supplemental bill designated for 
the reconstruction of Iraq.
  As I look at what is going on in Iraq, I see tremendous progress and 
good that is taking place. Unfortunately, the media have not seen fit 
to report on these good things and the fact that our men and women 
there are making life better for the Iraqi people.
  But my amendment puts in place a way to measure that progress so as 
to clearly show the American people what we are doing. It requires that 
the plan for reconstruction is regularly reported so Americans can 
plainly see that Iraq is moving toward independence and toward a day 
when our troops will come home.
  I have been fortunate enough to talk to people in Iraq with firsthand 
knowledge of the situation on the ground. Based on my conversations 
with these individuals, it seems to me there are a few critical 
elements that must be met in order to achieve the kinds of things we 
want.
  For example--we need to get the electricity working. We also need to 
get the water running. We need to get the oil pumping, and the police 
trained. I believe improving these services is the key to a new civil 
society in Iraq, and I think Mr. Bremer is working very hard to make 
them happen.
  My amendment gives clarity for measuring the progress that is being 
made in these areas because it calls for the reporting of specific 
timelines and objectives relating to that progress.
  In a word, this amendment ensures accountability--accountability 
through reporting requirements. And I would submit that these are 
substantially detailed reporting requirements and that they are fair 
requirements.
  For example, my amendment contains provisions such as submission of a 
``master plan'' for reconstruction efforts within 60 days of enactment. 
Also, it requires submission of subsequent reports every 60 days 
thereafter detailing how funds have been expended and how they will be 
expended.
  Furthermore, these reporting requirements cover many specific issues, 
such as a description of expenditures and the progress made in 
restoring basic services such as water, electricity, sewer and oil 
infrastructure; a description of the goals to be achieved by these 
expenditures; a description of the roles of foreign governments and 
international organizations in the Iraq reconstruction efforts; and a 
description of the progress made toward securing Iraqi democracy.
  This is a very fair amendment because it respects the Constitution by 
giving the executive branch primacy in the area of foreign affairs 
policymaking, while at the same time giving Congress appropriate 
oversight of the funds used for implementing that policy. I also think 
this is a very important amendment because it satisfies the concerns of 
many Senators--especially in the area of submitting a clear plan that 
has guideposts for measuring progress.
  It is my hope that Senators will support this amendment that will 
ensure funds are spent wisely and in a way that will hasten the day 
when our troops will come home.

[[Page 25108]]


  Mr. STEVENS. I ask for consideration of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is considered 
and agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1864), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1825

  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I yield 3 minutes each to Senator Bond 
and Senator Mikulski concerning amendment No. 1825.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator from Missouri 
is recognized.
  Mr. BOND. Madam President, I rise to speak in support of this 
amendment on behalf of my colleague, Senator Mikulski, and a number of 
other colleagues. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Specter be added 
as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BOND. This amendment provides $1.3 billion in emergency funding 
for VA medical care to address the medical care needs of returning 
service members from Iraq and Afghanistan. I believe the $1.3 billion 
in emergency funding meets the criteria under section 502 of the budget 
resolution. This is consistent with the final figures approved in the 
budget adopted. This meets the figures included in the original budget. 
Unfortunately, the Office of Management and Budget sent us a budget 
that achieved these goals by increasing fees on veterans, and neither 
body has shown any enthusiasm for that.
  Under section 502, an expenditure may be designated an emergency if 
it meets five criteria: One, necessary, essential, or vital; two, 
sudden, quickly coming into being, and not building up over time; 
three, an urgent, pressing, and compelling need requiring immediate 
action; four, unforeseen, unpredictable, and unanticipated; and five, 
not permanent, temporary in nature. It is clear that this amendment 
meets the five criteria due to the compelling, vital, and essential 
needs of veterans who seek medical care services from the VA.
  As I trust all of our colleagues know, the VA cannot currently keep 
up with the demand of the current veteran population. Tens of thousands 
of veterans have been told to wait at least 6 months. Even more 
distressing is the fact that many of them have to wait up to 2 years to 
see a doctor. That is unacceptable. If the VA cannot help those who are 
in the system, how will they help the veterans returning from 
Afghanistan and Iraq?
  In the legislation before us today, we provided the funds that I 
think are vitally needed to the Department of Defense to fight these 
wars and reconstruction funds to ensure that the peace is secure and we 
bring our troops home. I strongly support these funds, but I believe we 
must ensure that when our troops do return home, the Government will be 
there to treat their medical care needs. If we are willing to provide 
emergency funding to fight wars, we must be willing to provide 
emergency funding to meet the medical care needs to treat injuries and 
wounds suffered from the war.
  In other words, we would have to ensure there is a continuum of care 
for our service members from basic training to deployment to discharge.
  Let me illustrate the urgent and pressing needs for these emergency 
funds. According to a recent VA analysis, 15,813 service members who 
served in Operation Iraqi Freedom have separated from military duty as 
of September 22, 2003. Among these service members, almost 2,000, or 
12.4 percent, had sought VA health care during 2003. I point out that 
these numbers do not include those military men and women who are 
returning from Afghanistan and other parts of the world fighting the 
war on terrorism.
  Every day in the news we hear the unfortunate and sad news of 
American soldiers killed in Iraq, but as illustrated by the VA's 
analysis and scores of news reports, there are thousands of service 
members who were fortunate to live but who were wounded in combat.
  As reported in the October 1, 2003, edition of the USA Today: ``At 
least seven times as many men and women have been wounded in battle'' 
as those killed in battle. As these wounded service members are 
discharged from the military and confront new and challenging hardships 
in piecing together a new life, most of them will depend on the VA to 
meet their needs.
  According to the VA, some of our returning servicemen and women are 
currently being served through VA/DoD sharing agreements and others, 
such as Pvt Jessica Lynch, are being discharged and turning to VA for 
specialized services, services that only the VA can provide not found 
in the private sector. This level of demand for VA services has not 
been foreseen or anticipated.
  Further, we know that the overall demand for VA medical care is not 
going to lessen. We have already seen the VA medical care system being 
overwhelmed by the staggering increase in demand for its medical 
services. Since 1996, the VA has seen a 54 percent in growth or 2 
million patients in total users of the medical care system. Further, 
the VA projects that its enrollments to grow by another 2 million 
patients from a current level of 7 million to 9 million in 2009.
  Again, I urge my colleagues to support these emergency funds. In a 
time of war with thousands of injured troops returning from battle, it 
is clearly an emergency to include these funds. It is our moral 
responsibility to ensure that we provide adequate resources to the VA 
to meet the vital medical needs of our veterans. If these emergency 
funds are not included in this bill, the VA will have enormous 
difficulties in treating veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan 
due to the current backlog of veterans waiting for medical care. 
Without these funds, those waiting veterans will wait longer for 
medical care and the VA will be forced to deny medical care to another 
585,000 veterans. I cannot accept these outcomes. This is medical care 
they have earned through risk of life and all too often at the cost of 
their limbs and their long-term health.
  I ask my colleagues to think about our service members who have 
already returned from service, about our service members who are 
currently serving, and about those who want to serve. If we do not 
provide these funds, what kind of message does this send to those 
currently fighting overseas and those who will be sent overseas? I hope 
my colleagues agree with me that we want to tell these men and women 
that we will not turn our backs on them and that we will keep our 
promises to them. I urge your support on the Bond-Mikulski amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. I am sorry to interrupt the Senator from Maryland. I ask 
consent that the Senator from Vermont be recognized to speak for 1 
minute following the Senator from Maryland.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. STEVENS. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Maryland is recognized for 3 minutes.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I rise as an enthusiastic advocate of 
the Bond-Mikulski VA medical care amendment. I ask unanimous consent 
that Senator Debbie Stabenow be added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, along with Senator Bond, I urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment. It provides $1.3 billion for 
veterans medical care. It is necessary for three reasons: One, it will 
deal with the growing long lines in which some of our veterans have to 
wait in order to see a doctor or a specialist. Second, it rejects the 
concept of having to pay a membership fee to get veterans medical care 
if they are a category 7 or a category 8. Third, it also rejects the 
ballooning copayments that were suggested by the administration.
  First, in the administration's budget, the request was to charge 
veterans $250

[[Page 25109]]

a year to be able to pay their dues. Well, Senator Bond and I believe 
the veterans did pay their dues. They paid them at Iwo Jima, Pork Chop 
Hill, the Mekong Delta, and now the burning sands of the Iraqi desert. 
We are working on a bipartisan basis to reject these new co-fees and 
these new toll charges. We need this amendment to ensure that the VA 
can care for returning service members.
  Under the legislation that was passed by this Congress, the law 
requires the VA to provide 2 years of medical care for returning 
service members. You bet we ought to do that. But if we are going to 
pass the legislation, we should not only put it in the Federal law 
books, we have to put it in the Federal checkbook, and that is what 
Bond-Mikulski does.
  The VA has already treated 2,000 returning soldiers from the war, but 
this VA system, with its wonderful doctors and nurses, is strained to 
the limit. There are now many who are waiting for care. There are many 
who ought to get care. They should not have to pay membership fees. 
Adopt Bond-Mikulski and keep the promises made to America's veterans.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I believe that most Americans are very 
aware of the human cost of the Iraq war and the significant toll it has 
taken on the lives and health of many American military personnel. We 
all have anguished over the casualties and rejoiced in the moments of 
relief, such as the rescue of Jessica Lynch. Americans, regardless of 
their views on the war, hung on every bit of news of her recovery, and 
watched with fascination as she spoke her few but powerful words upon 
returning home to West Virginia. We just assumed that the cost of her 
health care and rehabilitation would be covered by the U.S. Government. 
After all, that is only fair.
  The system that is responsible for caring for wounded service members 
after they are discharged is over-burdened and under-funded. The 
Veterans Administration health care system has been shortchanged for 
years, with health care budgets falling well short of inflation. While 
the Bush administration proposed a slight increase in funding this 
year, it is still not enough to keep up with inflation. Vietnam 
Veterans of America has estimated that at expected appropriations 
levels for this coming fiscal year, the VA health care system is $52 
million short of the amount needed to implement existing VA programs 
and to keep pace with inflation since 1997. Every VA hospital has been 
forced to do more with less, to continuously reduce costs, year after 
year, and to limit services to veterans. Long waiting lines have 
developed at many VA centers, sometimes keeping veterans waiting as 
much as a year for an initial appointment. Due to inadequate funding, 
Secretary Principi, a strong advocate for veterans, has been forced to 
deny an entire category of veterans treatment at VA hospitals.
  I compliment my colleagues, Senator Bond and Senator Mikulski, for 
their efforts to address this funding shortfall. As the chair and 
ranking member of the subcommittee with jurisdiction over 
appropriations for the Veterans Administration, they are well aware of 
the urgency of the VA's needs. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of their 
amendment to add $1.3 billion to this legislation specifically for VA 
health care. In drafting the VA's appropriations bill for the coming 
fiscal year, they identified this funding as urgently needed by the VA, 
and it is imperative that this funding be provided in this bill.
  Our top priority must be caring for the men and women who answered 
the President's call and stepped into harm's way. They must be taken 
care of. If the Federal Government has any obligation to its people, is 
not its first obligation to care for the wounds of its soldiers?
  Every day we hear of more Americans injured in Iraq. I cringe for 
them and for their families. It is a great burden that most of them 
will carry all their lives. I also fear that in the years to come, we 
will learn that the harsh conditions in Iraq today have in more subtle 
ways damaged the health of our troops stationed there. The burden of 
studying these problems and caring for these soldiers will fall on the 
VA health care system.
  I, for one, cannot stand by while the VA is starved for resources. 
This is the time to act. I urge all my colleagues to support the Bond-
Mikulski amendment to add $1.3 billion to care for America's veterans.
  Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Madam President, as ranking member on the 
Committee on Veterans Affairs, I rise to lend my support to the Bond-
Mikulski amendment for an additional $1.3 billion for VA health care. I 
think it is abundantly clear to everyone in the chamber that the VA 
health care system is in dire need of additional and significant 
resources.
  The administration has extolled the proposed VA budget as a historic 
increase, when in reality this type of increase is beyond what anyone 
could expect in the current economic climate. It has been touted as an 
increase of 7 to 11 percent over last year's budget, depending on who 
is speaking.
  When you look at the budget proposed by the administration, a 
different story comes to light. Once the new copayments and fees are 
stripped away, the theoretical management efficiencies discounted for 
what they really are, and the accounting tricks are identified, we are 
left with an appropriation that barely keeps pace with inflation.
  As we shape VA's budget for the next year, we must move beyond 
hopeful rhetoric and quack accounting to take an honest assessment of 
the needs of veterans.
  We all know--and many of us have mentioned--that more than 100,000 
veterans must wait more than 6 months to see VA physicians. While VA's 
committed professionals are struggling to handle the increased patient 
load, they are doing it without a corresponding increase in resources. 
This must be rectified.
  When we debated and voted on the first war supplemental bill in 
April, I secured additional health dollars for VA to care for 
servicemembers returning from the Gulf. This money was simply a start, 
since VA will continue to see troops coming home and seeking health 
care in the coming years. If we can afford to send tens of billions of 
dollars overseas to support the troops while in conflict, how can we 
possibly not fully fund their care when they return home?
  Veterans groups know that the VA health care system is in crisis--and 
so do both the House and Senate. Congress passed a $3.1 billion 
increase in the budget resolution, meeting the mark for VA health care 
determined by experts in the veterans community. Yet, it has proven 
difficult to secure these funds for VA.
  It is important to note that there is still a $300 million deficit in 
veterans health spending for next year. While the Bond-Mikulski 
amendment ensures that a large portion of the money will be there for 
veterans without the subjective emergency spending designation, it is 
just a first step. We need to finish the job and make sure that health 
care is fully funded for our veterans.
  I am proud to lend my name to this amendment. Indeed, my good friend 
Jay Rockefeller and I were planning on offering a similar one to the VA 
spending bill. I urge all my colleagues to support this amendment--we 
owe our servicemembers and veterans nothing less.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, is amendment No. 1825 before the Senate 
now?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, it is.
  Mr. STEVENS. We have held this until last because of the budget 
problem involved. This takes $1.3 billion from the amount that has 
already been allocated to the VA/HUD Subcommittee that causes 
considerable consternation as to what we are going to do with it in the 
future. We all admit that is the problem. We all know there is a severe 
problem for veterans to deal with medical care, and we look forward to 
working with the Senators

[[Page 25110]]

from Missouri and Maryland to work out this problem.
  To the best of my knowledge, we now have one remaining amendment to 
be debated, and that is the amendment of Senator Brownback.
  I ask that amendment 1825 be adopted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
1825.
  The amendment (No. 1825) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Could we make the inquiry as to who intends to speak 
after the Brownback amendment so Members might know how long it will be 
before the vote on final passage?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, through you to the distinguished Senator 
from Alaska, Senator Byrd wishes to speak for not to exceed 25 minutes. 
Senator Graham, as I indicated, will make a very brief statement, a 
matter of a couple of minutes, and then give his full statement after 
passage of the bill.
  Senator Leahy, we will talk to him to find out what is his desire.
  Senator Dayton desires to speak after the vote.
  At this stage, I ask unanimous consent Senator Byrd be recognized for 
not to exceed 25 minutes. We will work on the others.
  Mr. STEVENS. We have no objection to that, but I do not want to 
indicate--we have not had any requests yet from this side. We will have 
to determine that. But it will mean a vote on final passage will start 
sometime after 4 o'clock.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Kansas.


                    Amendment No. 1885, As Modified

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 1885, as 
modified, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Brownback] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1885, as modified.

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

(Purpose: To reduce the amount appropriated for reconstruction in Iraq 
by $600,000,000 and to increase the amount available to the Iraqi Civil 
 Defense Corps by $50,000,000, the amount available for Afghanistan by 
          $400,000,000, and the amount available for Liberia)

       On page 38, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following 
     new sections:
       Sec. 2313. (a) The total amount appropriated in chapter 2 
     of this title under the subheading ``Iraq Relief and 
     Reconstruction Fund'' under the heading ``OTHER BILATERAL 
     ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO THE PRESIDENT'', is 
     hereby reduced by $600,000,000.
       (b) Of the total amount appropriated in chapter 2 of this 
     title under the subheading referred to in subsection (a), 
     $5,186,000,000 shall be available for security, including 
     public safety requirements, national security, and justice, 
     of which not less than $126,000,000, shall be available for 
     the Iraqi Civil Defense Corps.
       Sec. 2314. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may 
     be used to fund the following:
       (1) Solid waste management in Iraq.
       (2) WiFi capabilities for IPTC in Iraq.
       (3) Housing in Iraq.
       (4) Market-oriented specialized training for Iraqis.
       (5) Catch-up business training for Iraqis.
       (6) Development or construction of the Abu Gharaib 
     Memorial, or any similar memorial.
       (7) The Athletes Committee in Iraq, including any 
     conference or memorial that addresses atrocities committed 
     against Iraqi athletes.
       Sec. 2315. Not more than $450,000,000 of the funds 
     appropriated by this Act may be used to fund petroleum 
     product imports.
       On page 28, beginning on line 18, strike ``$422,000,000'' 
     and all that follows through ``Provided,'' on line 20 and 
     insert ``$822,000,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 2005, for accelerated assistance for Afghanistan, of 
     which not less than $60,000,000 shall be available for 
     disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration; $50,000,000 
     shall be available for a venture capital fund to promote 
     development of the private sector; $150,000,000 shall be 
     available for accelerated funding for the National Army of 
     Afghanistan; $60,000,000 shall be available for the 
     Government of Afghanistan to provide security and minimal 
     services, collect revenue, and pay salaries for military and 
     civilian officials; $15,000,000 shall be available for power 
     generation projects; $35,000,000 shall be made available for 
     additional activities that are specifically targeted to 
     advancing the social, economic, and political rights and 
     opportunities of women; $25,000,000 shall be made available 
     for emergency food, fuel, clothing and shelter materials for 
     Afghans who are internally displaced; and $5,000,000 shall be 
     available for natural resources assessments: Provided,''.
       On page 29, line 17, strike ``$100,000,000'' and all that 
     follows through ``Provided'' beginning on line 17, and insert 
     ``$250,000,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     not less than $200,000,000 shall be made available for 
     humanitarian relief and reconstruction activities in Liberia: 
     Provided, That funds appropriated under this heading shall be 
     made available for Sudan: Provided further,''.

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, this is a very simple, 
straightforward amendment. It does some of what the House has done. I 
will explain this briefly because I think most of the people are 
knowledgeable of these particular issues.
  What we do with this particular amendment is rescind $600 million 
from nonsecurity accounts--none of the security money, all nonsecurity 
grant funding--that is not immediately necessary for reconstruction. It 
prohibits projects such as memorials, athletic committees, solid waste 
removal, catchup business training, telephone/postal company, housing. 
It would limit some of the petroleum product imports. That is where we 
take the funds from.
  The resulting savings would be reallocated to a couple of areas--
enhancing security efforts in Iraq, where we would put $50 million 
above the President's request for the Iraq civil defense corps. It 
would, too, bolster funding for reconstruction of Afghanistan. There we 
put $400 million into Afghanistan. We take the funds there and 
reallocate them into Afghanistan, into a series of areas that are high 
priority.
  I think it is important to remember we invaded and fought to remove 
terrorists in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is somewhat the forgotten child. 
We have not put nearly the resources forward that resource-poor country 
needs. This is in line with some of the thinking and the actions the 
House took.
  We also put a portion of resources into the United States Emergency 
Fund For Complex Foreign Crises, increasing this account to $250 
million--80 percent of which, or $200 million, will go to Liberia, 
earmarked for humanitarian relief and reconstruction in Liberia. I 
think colleagues are well familiar with what is taking place in that 
country.
  So we have taken $600 million from nonsecurity accounts, key areas a 
lot of people identified as areas that may be useful to fund but not 
high priorities, not things into which we need to put these emergency 
funds, and shifted them into Afghanistan, Liberia, and $50 million to 
increase the civil defense in Iraq. This is what is going to help us 
bring our troops home faster, the faster we stand up an Iraqi military 
and paramilitary force.
  It is pretty straightforward. This is a Brownback-Leahy amendment. It 
is a bipartisan amendment a number of my colleagues are supporting. I 
ask for favorable consideration.
  I do ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  The Senator has asked for the yeas and nays. Is there a sufficient 
second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, $600 million from Iraqi reconstruction 
funds? The Senate has just acted along with the House to cut 
approximately $1.6 billion. This amendment also prohibits funds 
appropriated in this act from being used for solid waste management, 
housing, and other items.

[[Page 25111]]

  Some of the solid waste management involves contaminated materials, 
materials with unexpended ordnance, all sorts of hazards. We have 
already reduced this amount, as I said, by $1.6 billion. Any further 
reduction, as far as I am concerned, would further weaken the 
assistance we are trying to give the Iraqi people in order to bring our 
people home.
  I move to table this amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to table can only be made after the 
sponsor's time has expired.
  The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I yield a minute to my colleague from Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I urge this amendment be adopted. I 
think Senator Brownback has been very careful in what he has taken out 
of the measure. It does mirror pretty much what the House did. The 
lion's share of the $20 billion is going to be there. But I think 
Congress has the right to prioritize, and I think these are better 
priorities.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS. Do I have any time left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska has 4 minutes 20 
seconds remaining.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I merely point out we voted now on this 
subject, further reductions, reconciliation moneys, six times today. We 
have finally agreed to reduce by $1.6 billion, as much as the House 
has. I think this would be a further redundant reduction and I urge the 
motion to table.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  Has the Senator yielded the remainder of his time?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Senator Leahy is a cosponsor. I wanted to offer a 
minute. I just saw Senator Leahy step inside.
  I do have one other comment I would like to make.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I think these are very carefully 
crafted areas we are going at. We have looked through this bill. I have 
worked in this region for some period of time. So I think it is 
important we consider higher priorities and we really think about what 
we are doing in shifting some of these resources. It is important to 
take from lower priority areas in Iraq which a lot of people 
identified, and put in higher priority areas.
  With that, I yield a minute to my colleague from Vermont, who is a 
cosponsor of this particular amendment, if he seeks recognition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I will not add to what the Senator from 
Kansas has said other than to say I do support this amendment. I think 
it shows the priorities that have to be met by the United States, 
priorities we sometimes overlook.
  I commend the Senator for his support of this. I hope the Senate will 
pass it overwhelmingly.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, has the vote started?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to table has not yet been formally 
made.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, if I could direct this question to the 
Senator from Alaska, does the Senator wish to table or just an up-or-
down vote?
  Mr. STEVENS. I was willing to agree to go ahead with the Senator's 
speech, if he wishes to do that.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, the Senator from Alaska has been gracious 
enough to allow the Senator from West Virginia to proceed. Under the 
previous order, he is to be recognized to speak up to 25 minutes on 
this bill. I ask that time begin now.
  Mr. STEVENS. So there is no misunderstanding, I make the motion to 
table this amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask that be set aside so the Senator may speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens, and I also thank the 
distinguished Democratic whip for their courtesies.
  Madam President, in 1837, Danish author Hans Christian Andersen wrote 
a wonderful fairytale which he titled ``The Emperor's New Clothes.'' It 
may be the very first example of the power of political correctness. It 
is the story of a ruler of a distant land who was so enamored of his 
appearance and his clothing that he had a different suit for every hour 
of the day.
  One day two rogues arrived in town, claiming to be gifted weavers. 
They convinced the emperor that they could weave the most wonderful 
cloth, which had a magical property. The clothes were only visible to 
those who were completely pure in heart and spirit.
  The emperor was impressed and ordered the weavers to begin work 
immediately. The rogues, who had a deep understanding of human nature, 
began to feign work on empty looms.
  Minister after minister went to view the new clothes and all came 
back exhorting the beauty of the cloth on the looms even though none of 
them could see a thing.
  Finally a grand procession was planned for the emperor to display his 
new finery. The emperor went to view his clothes and was shocked to see 
absolutely nothing, but he pretended to admire the fabulous cloth, 
inspect the clothes with awe, and, after disrobing, go through the 
motions of carefully putting on a suit of the new garments.
  Under a royal canopy the emperor appeared to the admiring throng of 
his people--all of whom cheered and clapped because they all knew the 
rogue weavers' tale and did not want to be seen as less than pure of 
heart.
  But, the bubble burst when an innocent child loudly exclaimed, for 
the whole kingdom to hear, that the emperor had nothing on at all. He 
had no clothes.
  That tale seems to me very like the way this Nation was led to war.
  We were told that we were threatened by weapons of mass destruction 
in Iraq, but they have not been seen.
  We were told that throngs of Iraqis would welcome our troops as 
liberators. They have not been seen as liberators but as occupiers.
  We were told that the throngs of Iraqis would welcome our troops with 
flowers, but no throngs or flowers appeared.
  We were led to believe that Saddam Hussein was connected to the 
attack on the twin towers and the Pentagon, but no evidence to that 
effect has ever been produced.
  We were told in 16 words that Saddam Hussein tried to buy ``yellow 
cake'' from Africa for production of nuclear weapons, but the story has 
turned into empty air.
  We were frightened with visions of mushroom clouds, but they turned 
out to be only vapors of the mind.
  We were told that major combat was over but 101--as of October 17--
Americans have died in combat since that proclamation from the deck of 
an aircraft carrier by our very own emperor in his new clothes.
  Our emperor says that we are not occupiers, yet we show no 
inclination to relinquish the country of Iraq to its people.
  Those who have dared to expose the nakedness of the administration's 
policies in Iraq have been subjected to scorn. Those who have noticed 
the elephant in the room--that is, the fact

[[Page 25112]]

that this war was based on falsehoods--have had our patriotism 
questioned. Those who have spoken aloud the thought shared by hundreds 
of thousands of military families across this country, that our troops 
should return quickly and safely from the dangers half a world away, 
have been accused of cowardice. We have then seen the untruths, the 
dissembling, the fabrication, the misleading inferences surrounding 
this rush to war in Iraq wrapped quickly in the flag.
  The right to ask questions, debate, and dissent is under attack. The 
drums of war are beaten ever louder in an attempt to drown out those 
who speak of our predicament in stark terms.
  Even in the Senate, our history and tradition of being the world's 
greatest deliberative body is being snubbed. This huge spending bill--
$87 billion--has been rushed through this Chamber in just 1 month. 
There were just three open hearings by the Senate Appropriations 
Committee on $87 billion--$87 for every minute since Jesus Christ was 
born--$87 billion without a single outside witness called to challenge 
the administration's line.
  Ambassador Bremer went so far as to refuse to return to the 
Appropriations Committee to answer additional questions because, and I 
quote: ``I don't have time. I'm completely booked, and I have to get 
back to Baghdad to my duties.''
  Despite this callous stiff-arm of the Senate and its duties to ask 
questions in order to represent the American people, few dared to voice 
their opposition to rushing this bill through these halls of Congress. 
Perhaps they were intimidated by the false claims that our troops are 
in immediate need of more funds.
  But the time has come for the sheep-like political corrections which 
has cowed Members of this Senate to come to an end.
  The emperor has no clothes. This entire adventure in Iraq has been 
based on propaganda and manipulation. Eighty-seven billion dollars is 
too much to pay for the continuation of a war based on falsehoods.
  Taking the nation to war based on misleading rhetoric and hyped 
intelligence is a travesty and a tragedy. It is the most cynical of all 
cynical acts. It is dangerous to manipulate the truth. It is dangerous 
because once having lied, it is difficult to ever be believed again. 
Having misled the American people and stampeded them to war, this 
administration must now attempt to sustain a policy predicated on 
falsehoods. The President asks for billions from those same citizens 
who knew that they were misled about the need to go to war. We 
misinformed and insulted our friends and allies and now this 
administration is having more than a little trouble getting help from 
the international community. It is perilous to mislead.
  The single-minded obsession of this administration to now make sense 
of the chaos in Iraq, and the continuing propaganda which emanates from 
the White House painting Iraq as the geographical center of terrorism 
is distracting our attention from Afghanistan and the 60 other 
countries in the world where terrorists hide. It is sapping resources 
which could be used to make us safer from terrorists on our own shores. 
The body armor for our own citizens still has many, many chinks. Have 
we forgotten that the most horrific terror attacks in history occurred 
right here at home? Yet, this administration turns back money for 
homeland security, while the President pours billions into security for 
Iraq. I am powerless to understand or explain such a policy.
  I have tried mightily to improve this bill. I twice tried to separate 
the reconstruction money in this bill, so that those dollars could be 
considered separately from the military spending. I offered an 
amendment to force the administration to craft a plan to get other 
nations to assist the troops and formulate a plan to get the U.N. in, 
and the U.S. out, of Iraq. Twice I tried to rid the bill of expansive, 
flexible authorities that turn this $87 billion into a blank check. The 
American people should understand we provide more foreign aid for Iraq 
in this bill, $20.3 billion, than we provide for the rest of the world.
  I attempted to remove from this bill billions of dollars in wasteful 
programs and divert those funds to better use, but at every turn my 
efforts were thwarted by the vapid argument that we must all support 
the requests of the Commander in Chief.
  I cannot stand by and continue to watch our grandchildren and their 
children become increasingly burdened by the billions of dollars that 
fly out of the Treasury for a war and a policy based largely on 
propaganda, hype, and prevarication. We are borrowing $87 billion to 
finance this adventure in Iraq. The President is asking this Senator to 
pay for this war with increased debt, a debt that will have to be paid 
by our children and by those same troops who are currently fighting 
this war.
  I cannot support outlandish tax cuts that plunge our country into 
potentially disastrous debt while our troops are fighting and dying--
four more died within the last 24 hours--in a war that the White House 
chose to begin.
  I cannot support the continuation of a policy that unwisely ties down 
150,000 American troops for the foreseeable future with no end in 
sight.
  I cannot support a President who refuses to authorize the reasonable 
change in course that would bring traditional allies to our side in 
Iraq.
  I cannot support the politics of zeal and ``might makes right'' that 
created the new American arrogance and unilateralism that passes for 
foreign policy in this administration.
  I cannot support this foolish manifestation of the dangerous and 
destabilizing doctrine of preemption that changes the image of America 
into that of a reckless bully.
  The emperor has no clothes and our former allies around the world 
were the first to loudly observe it. I shall vote against this bill 
because I cannot support a policy based on prevarication. I cannot 
support doling out 87 billion additional of our hard-earned tax dollars 
when I have so many doubts about the wisdom of its use.
  I began my remarks with a fairytale. I shall close my remarks with a 
horror story in the form of a quote from the book ``Nuremberg 
Diaries,'' written by G.M. Gilbert, in which the author interviews 
Herman Gehrig:

       We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, 
     contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common 
     people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and 
     destruction.
       . . . But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who 
     determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag 
     the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist 
     dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.
       There is one difference. . . . In a democracy the people 
     have some say in the matter through their elected 
     representatives, and in the United States only Congress can 
     declare wars.
       Oh, that is all well and good, but voice or no voice, the 
     people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. 
     That is easy. All you have to do is tell them that they are 
     being attacked and denounce the pacifists for a lack of 
     patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the 
     same way in any country.

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sununu). The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Senator's speech demonstrates the 
greatness of our country in terms of freedom of speech. I could not be 
more proud to stand where I am standing today to support our President 
and to support our people in uniform and those who are part of this 
authority trying to restore freedom and democracy in Iraq.
  Sometimes I wonder how I ended up here. I have no real background 
that ever gave me thought I would ever be here. But when I hear 
speeches like that, I know why I am here. I believe in this President. 
I believe in this military.
  I voted for this intervention. The Senator from West Virginia did 
not. I am urging the Senate to support this bill, $66 billion for our 
men and women in uniform and $20.3 billion--they have taken $1.6 
billion out--but nearly $20 billion for the operation to try to assure 
there is a new government in Iraq, Iraq committed to freedom and 
committed to work with the United States in trying to bring peace to 
that region.

[[Page 25113]]

  If there is a volatile part of the world, it is the Middle East. We 
have been involved in strife there longer than I can remember. I 
remember when President Eisenhower sent troops into Lebanon. This has 
been a thorn in our side as long as I have been involved in government. 
That is over 50 years.
  Again, the Senator is entitled to his point of view. I saw those 
intelligence reports. I believe there were weapons of mass destruction 
being thought of and being prepared in Iraq. I believe they had 
chemical weapons. I believe they were trying to buy uranium and sought 
a new weapons program as they did before the Iraqis destroyed that 
first program with their famous raid on Iran which was 15 years ago. I 
don't understand people who say this was a falsehood. Think of the 
young men and women in Iraq. They are watching this program. They get 
it on C-SPAN. They get it on the Internet. Think of what they are 
thinking when a Senator says they are over there because of a 
falsehood, because the President of the United States lied. I don't 
believe he lied. I believe he told the truth.
  I believe he is now on an important mission around the world. I have 
never heard a President criticized so much when he was overseas as this 
President has been criticized. He is on a mission to China. He is on a 
mission to many places in the Pacific. I believe the Senate should vote 
today in support of this bill.
  Those who vote against this bill will be voting against supporting 
our men and women in the field. They are still in harm's way. That is 
one point on which I agree. There are too many people still being 
killed in Iraq, but they are being killed because there is too much 
confusion over there. There is not the ability to bring about the 
control we should have. We need a civilian force from the Iraqis. We 
need to stand up a new army for the Iraqis as we are trying to do in 
Afghanistan. This is an important move of the United States, a move to 
establish freedom in the Middle East.
  We are dependent upon oil now. I wonder how many know that within 10 
years we will be dependent upon Qatar for liquefied natural gas. They 
have 1,000 times the amount of natural gas we have in our State of 
Alaska, and we have half the natural gas in the United States. That 
region of the world will be important to the United States for 50 to 
100 years from now. Our future depends upon having people there who 
understand freedom, who seek freedom, who seek stability through 
governmental control and are willing to make agreements and keep them 
and not willing to build up armaments such as Saddam Hussein did. He 
was a threat not only to that part of the world, he was a threat to the 
whole world. I said I believed he was a new Hitler, and he would have 
been a new Hitler.
  I urge the Senate to vote for this bill, to vote for it and vote to 
support the men and women in uniform who have fought the war we asked 
them to fight.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, do I have any time remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia has 8\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. May I say to the distinguished Senator from Alaska that he 
holds no monopoly on the support for the troops. I was supporting 
American troops before the Senator from Alaska ever came to Washington. 
I have been supporting the American troops for over 50 years.
  And let the Record not stand with the Senator's words, if I 
interpreted them correctly, that those who vote against this bill are 
voting against the troops. I defy that statement. I defy that 
statement, and I hurl it back into the teeth of the Senator from 
Alaska.
  I support the troops. I would say that every Senator here, regardless 
of how he or she votes, supports the troops. So do not throw that old 
canard over here, over this way.
  I am sorry that the Senator from Alaska takes that view. I thought 
each of us could have our own viewpoint here without being charged with 
not supporting the troops. I regret the Senator from Alaska takes this 
view.
  I am sure that there are a lot of the American people out there--
millions of them--for whom I speak and for whom those who vote against 
this bill today speak who do not believe that this war was justified, 
who do not believe in the doctrine of preemption, who do not believe 
that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. They have not been 
found yet.
  So, Mr. President, I close by congratulating those Senators who have 
the courage to speak their will, to stand up for their own consciences, 
and who speak for those soldiers, men and women, who are in Iraq today 
who did not ask to go there but who feel that those of us who speak our 
will speak for them and who do not support the doctrine of preemption.
  Fie on that doctrine of preemption! Fie on it! Here we have an 
America that has invaded another country that did not invade our 
country, that did not attack us. That is a dangerous doctrine. Those 
who vote against this bill are voting against that doctrine. So do not 
be ashamed of it.
  I close with the words written on a statue to Benjamin Hill that 
stands in Atlanta, GA:

       Who saves his country, saves himself, saves all things, and 
     all things saved do bless him! Who lets his country die, lets 
     all things die, dies himself ignobly, and all things dying 
     curse him!

  Vote to save your country, I say to my colleagues. Vote to save your 
country. I was not brought here by any Commander in Chief. No Commander 
in Chief brought me here, and no Commander in Chief is going to send me 
home.
  My first and last stand by which I live and by which I hope to die is 
this Constitution of the United States. It says I have a right, and the 
men and women of this Chamber have a duty, to speak the people's will.
  There are millions of people out there, millions of men and women, 
there are many men and women in Iraq who believe that we who vote 
against this bill today speak for them. I am not ashamed to do it. I am 
proud to do it.
  Yes, I voted against sending American troops into Iraq. Yes, I am one 
of the 23. And if I had it to do over again, I would vote the same way 
again--10 times, 10 times 100 against this doctrine, this doctrine of 
preemptive strikes.
  Fie on that doctrine! Fie on it!
  Now, if the Senator from Alaska wishes to talk further, I will be 
glad to hear him.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, at the conclusion of 
Senator Byrd's time, a vote was to take place on the motion to table 
the Brownback amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, there is still my minute and a half left 
of time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Alaska has 
expired.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, is there 2 minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thought I had a minute and a half left 
on Brownback.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska has no time remaining.
  The Senator from West Virginia has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. BYRD. Does the Senator wish for me to yield him 2 minutes?
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized for 2 
minutes.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank you, Mr. President.


                    Amendment No. 1885, As Modified

  Mr. President, I want to speak on the Brownback amendment. It will be 
the last signal that we send before final passage.
  My colleagues should know that it diverts $450 million out of Iraq 
into what are largely unspecified projects. It ignores the fact that 
the reconstruction of Iraq is as vital as is the defense of Iraq and 
the military portion of it.
  Basically, the sponsor of the amendment has decided what is necessary 
and what is not necessary to be allocated to Iraq, whether it be 
housing or other

[[Page 25114]]

programs that have been deemed necessary by the administration, and 
decided that $450 million would go to Afghanistan and to Liberia.
  So the fact is, this is another micromanagement amendment, point No. 
1. No. 2, it ignores the fact that the reconstruction of Iraq is 
equally as vital as the military side of it.
  There are some provisions that I do not particularly agree with, but 
the fact is, these have been scrutinized, and I believe it would be a 
terrible mistake to divert this money from the projects for which they 
are intended. The Appropriations Committee had hearings and discussion 
with the administration and with Ambassador Bremer.
  This amendment is not very much different from the Byrd-Biden 
amendment which the Senate decided not to accept some time ago.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the part of my colleagues on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question is on the 
amendment.
  The assistant Democratic leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request. I ask 
unanimous consent that there be no speeches prior to the final passage 
vote, except for a 2-minute speech by the Senator from Florida, Mr. 
Graham. All other speeches would come after final passage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. STEVENS. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Hearing none, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to table Brownback 
amendment No. 1885, as modified. The yeas and nays have been ordered. 
The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. 
Alexander) and the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Craig) are necessarily 
absent.
  I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from 
Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would vote ``yes''.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 43, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 399 Leg.]

                                YEAS--55

     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--43

     Akaka
     Bayh
     Biden
     Brownback
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham (FL)
     Harkin
     Hutchison
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Sununu
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Alexander
     Craig
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. The Senator from Florida has 2 minutes. After that 2 
minutes, there will be a vote on final passage. After the vote, there 
will be some speeches concerning the bill. This next vote will be the 
final vote on this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Florida will be recognized for 2 minutes.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, just for the information of our colleagues, 
on Monday we will have a vote in the afternoon around 5 or 5:30. I am 
discussing with the Democratic leader what we will be doing on Monday. 
We initially talked about bringing forward Healthy Forests, but I think 
we will not be doing that at this juncture. We will have an 
announcement later about that.
  I know a lot of people will be leaving after the vote, so for their 
information, we will be having one vote I know for sure on Monday 
around 5 or 5:30. We will pin that down later tonight.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant minority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have conferred with the distinguished 
chairman from Alaska and he has no objection. I hope no one else does. 
I ask unanimous consent that Senator Leahy be the first speaker after 
the final vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, it is my intention to vote no on final passage of this 
legislation. I am deeply concerned about the implications of this $87 
billion expenditure on domestic fiscal issues, such as the enormous 
addition this will make to an already enormous deficit this fiscal year 
and the effect this will have on pursuit of important priorities within 
the United States of America.
  My fundamental reason for voting against this is that I think we have 
two choices: We can either continue to go it alone in Iraq, or we can 
seriously internationalize this occupation and reconstruction. By 
seriously, I mean something beyond the words of the U.N. resolution 
that was passed yesterday and the reality of troops on the ground and 
dollars in the Treasury for reconstruction.
  I believe this $87 billion blank check appropriation removes whatever 
incentive this administration may have had to negotiate seriously a 
burden sharing and a decisionmaking sharing with those countries which 
have the capability of providing real support in Iraq.
  Because I believe the effect of the $87 billion appropriations will 
be to make our troops less secure, more exposed to danger without any 
exit strategy, I will vote no.
  At an appropriate time after this vote, I am going to ask recognition 
to give a fuller statement of my position.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question is on the 
engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read 
the third time.


                        afghan women's programs

  Mrs. MURRAY. I ask the Chairman, as you know, late last night a very 
important amendment regarding funding for Afghan women's programs 
previously authorized by the Afghanistan Freedom Act of 2002 was 
accepted in the House version of this bill. The amendment was 
introduced by Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney of New York.
  I know you share my concerns about the treatment of women in 
Afghanistan. And as we discussed earlier today, I have agreed not to 
offer my amendment, which was similar to the one accepted in the House 
bill, with the understanding that you will support this issue in 
conference.
  Mr. STEVENS. I am aware of the House amendment. I appreciate your 
interests in this area and will work with my colleagues in conference 
to support funding for women's programs in Afghanistan.
  Mr. BYRD. I would like to echo Chairman Stevens' remarks and thank 
the Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray, for bringing this issue 
before the Senate.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Chairman and Senator Byrd.


                      usna hurricane isabel damage

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I have introduced an amendment to 
provide for recovery of the United States Naval Academy from damage 
caused by Hurricane Isabel. I appreciate Senators Cochran, Sarbanes, 
and McCain cosponsoring this amendment. The four of us serve on the 
U.S. Naval Academy's Board of Visitors. We share a

[[Page 25115]]

commitment to this outstanding institution to educate and develop 
America's future military leaders.
  On September 18, Hurricane Isabel struck the eastern seaboard. It was 
one of the worst storms in the last 100 years. Isabel left some 
Marylanders homeless and most Marylanders without electricity. From 
Bowley's Quarters to Shadyside, the storm surge caused by Isabel 
flooded homes and businesses. I appreciate the help that FEMA has 
provided to so many of my constituents in their time of need.
  The U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, MD was one of the places most 
devastated by Hurricane Isabel. Over 8 feet of water surged through 
Bancroft Hall, where the midshipmen live, as well as the kitchens and 
dining hall where they eat. Classroom and laboratory facilities were 
flooded, leaving them unusable.
  I went to Annapolis to see the damage with the new Naval Academy 
Superintendent, ADM Rod Rempt. Bancroft Hall still had several feet of 
standing water. A few midshipmen were boating across the yard. Boats 
and debris littered the fields. Labs were under water. The chiller and 
electrical systems were flooded. Mold and rot was beginning to set in, 
despite great efforts to contain the damage.
  The U.S. Naval Academy was not shut down by a storm. Classes are 
being held on a barge tied up on the Severn River. But we must get the 
Naval Academy repaired and restored. As the Senior Senator from 
Virginia has pointed out, the military can't turn to FEMA, they have to 
turn to Congress.
  I joined with Senator Warner and others in offering an amendment 
which provides $500 million to address storm damage to military and 
NASA facilities. I believe that amendment covers what I intended with 
my amendment. The Warner amendment was accepted last night. The funds 
should be sufficient to provide the Navy Operations and Maintenance and 
Military Construction funding needed to make the Naval Academy whole. I 
would appreciate the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services 
Committee, and the former Secretary of the Navy, confirming that that 
was his intent in offering his amendment. But first I would yield to 
one of the Naval Academy's distinguished alumni, the Senator from 
Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I share Senator Mikulski's commitment to 
the U.S. Naval Academy, and I greatly appreciate her outstanding 
leadership in addressing all matters that concern the health and 
welfare of midshipmen, especially in this matter of the serious damage 
which occurred at the Academy. I join her in seeking assurances from 
the Appropriations Committee and the Department of Defense that the 
funding provided by Chairman Warner's Amendment will include funding to 
fully meet the needs of the Naval Academy to recover from Hurricane 
Isabel. Admiral Rempt, the Superintendent of the Naval Academy, and 
Mullen, the Vice Chief of Naval Operations, are still determining the 
extent of the damage and its total costs caused by the hurricane. 
According to ADMs Rempt and Mullen, there may be additional resources 
that may be required to relocate the Chiller Plant which provides 
critical heating and air conditioning and was seriously damaged by the 
floods from Hurricane Isabel. I thank Senator Mikulski for her 
leadership in this matter.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank Senator Mikulski for joining with 
me in offering the amendment to address the damage done by Hurricane 
Isabel to military facilities, and for her help in getting that 
amendment adopted. I can assure you that I intend the needs of the U.S. 
Naval Academy and all other military facilities damaged by the storm to 
be fully met from the funds provided by that amendment.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. The House also provides funding in its bill to address 
Hurricane Isabel's damage to military facilities. I would appreciate 
assurances that the conferees will work to ensure that the needs of the 
U.S. Naval Academy will be funded as this supplemental bill goes to 
conference.
  Mr. BYRD. I am fully in agreement with the Senator from Maryland on 
this issue. I look forward to working in conference so that the needs 
of the U.S. Naval Academy to recover from Hurricane Isabel are fully 
funded.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the emergency 
supplemental spending bill before us that will give our troops the 
resources they need to do their jobs; hold the President more 
accountable for his postwar plan; and help the Iraqi people get back on 
their feet.
  I believe that the Iraqi people very much deserve U.S. assistance 
getting their country back on its feet. It is for this reason that I am 
supporting funding in this supplemental appropriations bill for Iraqi 
reconstruction.
  However, I am very concerned that the administration does not have a 
clear, comprehensive and convincing plan to do this.
  It is for this reason that I have strongly opposed providing the Bush 
administration with a blank check in the expenditure of funds in this 
supplemental.
  Instead, this supplemental bill includes a broad set of reports and 
oversight mechanisms, including:
  A permanent inspector general charged with overseeing the Coalition 
Provisional Authority on its operations and financial transactions.
  Audits for the use of reconstruction funds, including how they are 
solicited, bid and granted.
  A monthly report from the Coalition Provisional Authority on its 
progress in the stated goal of replacing U.S. troops with multinational 
forces and Iraqi security personnel.
  A report on the administration's utilization of National Guard and 
Reserves, and the impact that this has on our country's homeland 
security.
  A requirement for the President to submit to Congress its projected 
costs for Iraqi operations through 2008 and any changes to these 
projections.
  Quarterly reports to Congress on the status of the hunt for weapons 
of mass destruction.
  These are important mechanisms that demonstrate clearly that this 
funding does not come without strings attached. On the contrary, these 
mechanisms will hold the administration accountable for developing a 
strategy and ensure transparency in supporting Iraqi reconstruction.
  We also need to be clear that the U.S. cannot do this alone. I 
believe the U.S. must take the leadership role to ensure that Iraq 
benefits from the legitimacy, cooperation and money that only a broad 
coalition can guarantee.
  That is why I supported a provision in this bill that requires the 
President to report to Congress on his efforts to increase 
international donations and to assess how the U.S. can best leverage 
U.S. taxpayer dollars for international support and international debt 
forgiveness.
  The administration has had some successes in gaining international 
support, notably yesterday's United Nations Security Council 
resolution, which was a unanimous statement supporting multilateral 
efforts to stabilize, reconstruct and support Iraq's transition towards 
a sovereign democracy.
  Also, the administration has taken an important step in engaging 
foreign countries to commit troops, including the recent agreement from 
Turkey. The administration has also shown progress in soliciting 
financial contributions, including the $1.5 billion Japanese 
commitment.
  However, this is really just a start. Foreign troops and foreign 
contributions remain terribly lower than where they need to be.
  The administration needs to be committed to broadening its coalition 
of support and making the Iraqi reconstruction a global challenge met 
by the international community.
  I believe that it is also very important that the administration 
speaks with a solid, unified voice regarding its efforts and strategy 
in Iraq.
  It seems that every day we hear a different plan, a different 
projection, a different statement on needs and demands from one of 
several agencies and ``spokespeople'' that claim to speak for the 
administration.
  The American people need and deserve accountability and clarity--not

[[Page 25116]]

only on the challenges that we face, but on the solutions that we are 
seeking to execute.
  This clarity is particularly important for the central questions of 
how long reconstruction will take, what the U.S. role will be, and, 
perhaps most importantly, how long our troops will remain in harm's 
way.
  The uniformed men and women of our armed forces have served their 
country well. Their military efforts have demonstrated historic 
success, and they continue to sacrifice for our country on a daily 
basis in securing and stabilizing Iraq.
  Washington State is proud to be the home of thousands of troops, 
sailors and airmen that have served in Iraq and Afghanistan from home 
bases from such places as Fort Lewis, Fairchild Air Force Base, and 
Everett Naval Station.
  These men and women are meeting the call of duty superbly and we must 
provide them with the equipment and support that they deserve.
  We also owe a particular debt of gratitude for our National Guard and 
Reserve units, which have been mobilized in historic numbers and for 
sustained lengths of time--leaving their jobs and families to serve 
their countries. In fact, in my state, the 81st Armored Brigade--almost 
4,000 citizen-soldiers--were alerted for a possible deployment to Iraq.
  Given this important sacrifice made by reservists, I am particularly 
pleased that this supplemental package includes my bipartisan fair 
deployment amendment.
  Like many guard and reservists--including the National Guard 
Association, the Reserve Officers Association, and the National 
Military Families Association--I was disturbed last month by the 
administration's sudden change in deployment policy.
  My amendment addresses the change by requiring that deployment times 
for guard and reserves begin as soon as they are activated, we ensure 
that every day of service counts.
  I have long said that we need to be consistent in how we calculate 
the deployment times for our Guard and Reserve personnel and this will 
do this by starting the clock ticking when their boots are out of the 
house.
  In addition, this includes resources for health care for reservists 
and their families, as well as critical funding for our veterans.
  First, I was a proud co-sponsor of an amendment that will extend 
TRICARE coverage to reservists and their families who are not currently 
covered by health insurance, and provide assistance to those reservists 
who are called up to duty so that they do not have to cancel their 
existing health care coverages.
  Second, I also proudly cosponsored a Bond-Mikulski amendment that 
will provide $1.3 billion in funding for veterans health care. This 
amendment means that Washington State will receive approximately $30 
million in new VA health care funding, providing care to approximately 
6,000 veterans who would not receive it.
  This has been an important, productive and historic debate for the 
future of Iraq, the Middle East region and, most importantly, in 
shaping America's role in the world.
  This ultimate bill ensures that Congress will retain a major role in 
overseeing the way this money is spent and I remain committed to 
ensuring that we give our troops the tools they need to do their jobs; 
get the international support that we need; and making sure that our 
mission in Iraq is completed quickly and that our troops can come home.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President. I rise today to address the historic 
legislation before the Senate. I refer to S. 1689, the Emergency 
Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan Security and 
Reconstruction Act, 2004.
  Let me begin with what seems to be the reaction of most Americans. I 
am captivated by the sheer sum of the bill--$87 billion.
  Once beyond the initial sticker shock, I began to look at the content 
of this package. I was sent to the Senate by Arkansans in part to watch 
over the Federal budget so I wanted to know what Americans were getting 
for their hard-earned $87 billion--$87 billion that will propel our 
Nation even further into debt.
  I want to go on record commending the work of my colleagues on the 
Appropriations Committee. They did the best that they could given the 
circumstances. I think that I am a fair-minded American but this $87 
billion request was dumped in Congress's lap by the President on 
September 17, 2003.
  Today is October 17 only 4 weeks since we have received this package. 
It takes most people longer to do their taxes than we have had to 
figure out an $87 billion package. And while we have heard testimony 
from the top brass in the Defense Department, we have not from any 
outside witnesses with views that might differ from the administration. 
For instance, would it not make sense to hear from the Iraqi Governing 
Council regarding this bill?
  Regardless, here we are, and I have made every effort to fairly 
examine this package. This is what I have found.
  The $87 billion package is broken down into two titles--National 
Security and International Affairs.
  Title I, the National Security section of the bill, provides $66.5 
billion to carry out the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. The committee 
report accompanying S. 1689 says that these funds are for increased 
operational tempo, military personnel costs, military construction, 
procurement of equipment, increased maintenance and military health 
care support.
  Title II, the International Affairs section of the bill, provides $21 
billion to help secure the transition to democracy in both Iraq and 
Afghanistan. The committee states that these funds are for enhanced 
security and reconstruction activities including border enforcement, 
building a national police service in Iraq, standing up a new Iraqi 
army and continued building of the Afghan National Army, reconstituted 
judicial systems, rehabilitation of Iraq's oil infrastructure, and 
provision of basic electricity, water and sewer services and other 
critical reconstruction needs in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  Let me tell you that once into the details, there is much in this 
bill that is straightforward and I wholeheartedly support.
  For example, under the National Security section, this bill contains 
$1.2 billion for enhanced Special Pays including Family Separation 
Allowance, Imminent Danger Pay, and Hostile Duty Pay. The Senate 
Appropriations Committee should be commended for their decision to 
support the continuation of the Family Separation Allowance and the 
Imminent Danger Pay at the levels authorized for all of fiscal year 
2004, rather than the Defense Department's request.
  Title I contains other essential funding for personnel, operation and 
maintenance, procurement, the Defense Health Program, and military 
construction that one would expect to support our obligations to the 
uniform services totaling around $62-$63 billion.
  I support this funding. It is responsible. It is necessary and part 
of our obligation to our troops.
  The National Security section further provides funding for the Iraq 
Freedom Fund, the Overseas Humanitarian account, the Disaster and Civic 
Aid account, drug interdiction and counterdrug activities, and the 
intelligence community management account. While I wish we had greater 
details about these programs, I will put my trust in this 
administration who believes that these funds are needed to support the 
missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  However, I can only extend so much good faith and trust--which brings 
us to Title II of the bill. Title II or the International Affairs 
section of the supplemental is intended to help secure the transition 
to democracy in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Its price tag is $21 
billion.
  Some of this reconstruction request makes sense to me, such as the 
$35 million to establish a U.S. diplomatic presence in Iraq and 
Afghanistan and the $90 million for emergencies in the Diplomatic and 
Consular Service which includes reward funds to be paid for information 
leading to the capture or

[[Page 25117]]

whereabouts of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. It is expensive, but 
we have to back the work that our troops have done and keep our 
commitment to the Iraqi people.
  But overall I, along with many Arkansans, struggle to embrace the 
administration's obtuse and costly approach to reconstruction in Iraq.
  I have followed the progress of the war in Iraq keenly. I have 
attended the administration's war briefings faithfully. I have gone to 
the Senate Armed Services Committee hearings consistently. I have had 
the benefit of firsthand accounts from Secretary Rumsfeld, Ambassador 
Bremer, and General John Abizaid, to name a few.
  Yet I was not prepared for the strategy, or lack thereof, of 
rebuilding Iraq.
  I was never told that the American people would be footing the entire 
bill for Iraqi reconstruction. Therefore, I understand the reaction of 
many Americans. I understand that they have questions and concerns. So 
do I, and they are reasonable questions:
  We must ask: One, what reconstruction efforts should the U.S. be 
solely responsible for and what should the Iraqis pay for? Two, what 
does Iraq need, and what does Iraq need right now?
  There are many reconstruction items that this administration is 
asking for that should be scrutinized so we can properly determine 
whether they are truly needed to stabilize Iraq. I fully understand 
that Iraq has needs, but Arkansas has needs, too.
  The Senate has just had an important debate on this bill and I have 
used this time to be open to fresh ideas. There have been a few good 
alternatives to consider and I have supported several alternatives. One 
such measure was Senator Byrd's amendment that would have split U.S. 
troop funding from the Iraqi reconstruction proposal and given Congress 
an opportunity to sort through some of the administration's more 
questionable funding requests.
  I want to hold this administration accountable but I do not wish to 
hold our troops hostage. By separating this money, we can ensure our 
troops get the support they need while making sure we are spending 
taxpayers' money in a wise and effective manner.
  I also supported Senator Dorgan's amendment that would have used 
Iraqi oil revenues to offset the U.S. direct grant payments. 
Unfortunately, both amendments failed.
  I came to Washington to protect the best interests of my constituents 
and all Americans. In spite of the rhetoric that many Americans hear 
every day about the partisan nature of Capitol Hill, last night a vote 
was held on the Senate floor that demonstrates that my friends on both 
sides of the aisle take their commitments very seriously.
  In the spirit in which this Nation was founded, last night the Senate 
adopted, with my support, a bipartisan agreement on Iraqi 
reconstruction. I am proud to support this bipartisan agreement 
sponsored by Senators Bayh, Ben Nelson, Ensign, Graham and Chambliss, 
to name a few.
  Under the bipartisan agreement, the proposed $20 billion grant to 
rebuild Iraq will be divided into two parts: One, a $10.2 billion grant 
for security efforts in Iraq; and, two, a $10 billion loan.
  Importantly, the $10 billion loan will be converted into a grant if 
90 percent of Iraq's preliberation debts are forgiven. I am told that 
Iraq may have the largest oil reserve in the world, but is currently 
captive to more than $100 billion in foreign pre-war debt owed to 
countries such as Saudi Arabia, France and Russia. Even if the United 
States were to provide the $10 billion up front as a grant, Iraq will 
have a very difficult time recovering economically from the burden of 
the $100 billion debt. This amendment encourages the international 
community to forgive the debt incurred by Saddam Hussein by leveraging 
our negotiations for debt relief with the incentive that the United 
States will provide a $10 billion reconstruction grant--above the $10 
billion already provided for in the supplemental--if the international 
community forgives 90 percent of its bilateral debt.
  I support this proposal. It would help the Iraqi people and it would 
provide a long-term solution to rebuilding Iraq. More importantly, it 
helps the United States to move forward on our own important domestic 
spending, as the Iraqi debt issue will hopefully be resolved. I hope 
that the administration will join in supporting this bipartisan plan.
  Wars must be paid for and I intend to honor our commitments. I will 
support the amended version of the $87 billion Iraq supplemental bill. 
It supports our troops and it starts to address a long-term solution 
for the economic viability of Iraq. I believe that this amended request 
offers a better solution than what was originally offered by 
administration. It is a small, but positive step toward meeting our 
obligations in Iraq while protecting the American taxpayer.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, as we continue discussion on the 
supplemental spending request to support military operations and 
reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan, I would like to take a few 
minutes to again express my strong support for the funding included in 
this bill.
  I believe these resources are essential to our efforts to secure a 
stable future for the people of Iraq. This funding is also crucial to 
American soldiers serving on the ground in Iraq, providing necessary 
resources to help them finish the job, and to bring them back home as 
quickly as possible.
  This is true not only of the military portion of the request, 
totaling approximately $66 billion, but also the $20.3 billion in 
funding for reconstruction in Iraq.
  Some of my colleagues believe this funding for reconstruction should 
be in the form of a loan. While I understand their rationale, after 
carefully considering the situation and listening to the points raised 
by Ambassador Bremer and our colleagues, I have concluded this funding 
must be in the form of a grant. It is important for several reasons.
  First, if we tell the American people we are going to loan this money 
and that it is going to be paid back somewhere down the road, many of 
them will be very cynical about whether or not we will get the money 
back. There is no Iraqi government to agree to repay a loan. I think we 
ought to level with them and say, this initial grant is a grant. If we 
are asked to look at additional funding down the road, then that is a 
different story. However, there is very little chance that Iraq would 
be able to pay back this money in the near future.
  Next, as we look to increase contributions from the international 
community, I think this funding must be in the form of a grant and not 
a loan. This is particularly important as we approach the Donors' 
Conference in Madrid next week. We must do all that we can to make this 
a shared responsibility, and if we make U.S. funds for infrastructure 
projects contingent upon a loan, I do not think our friends and allies 
would be willing to come to the table and support additional money for 
Iraq.
  This is also crucial as we call on those countries that did business 
with Saddam Hussein to eliminate the debt owed to them by the former 
Iraqi dictator. I would suggest to those who have made loans to the 
former regime in Iraq that they step up quickly and waive those loans. 
This will go a long way in helping a new, democratic Iraq move forward.
  I am pleased that the Senate accepted an amendment that I introduced 
on October 2, 2003, which requires the President to report to Congress 
within four months regarding steps taken to increase financial 
commitments from the international community. The amendment also 
requires a detailed list of countries that have contributed funds, as 
well as information on those countries that have eliminated debt owed 
to them by the former Iraqi regime.
  Further, as we encourage other countries to eliminate their debt, we 
should not saddle Iraq with any more loans. Countries that chose to do 
business with Saddam should, as I said, eliminate that debt as a way to 
share in the task of rebuilding a democratic Iraq.
  Iraq's debt is already mountainous, totaling nearly $200 billion in 
debts and

[[Page 25118]]

reparations. As Ambassador Bremer has pointed out, Iraq can hardly 
service its existing debt, let alone take on more. As a matter of fact, 
as one member of the Iraqi Governing Council has said, in his opinion, 
those loans are morally repugnant to the Iraqi people because they were 
made to a dictator who killed thousands of their brothers and sisters 
and who made them live under a 35-year reign of terror.
  Finally, providing assistance to Iraq at this time in the form of a 
grant is the right thing to do.
  As I remarked on the floor of the Senate on October 1, 2003, we now 
have the chance of a lifetime to create a new paradigm of democracy in 
the Middle East, and to do for this part of the world what we did for 
Germany and Japan in the aftermath of World War II.
  As we consider this question, it is appropriate that we look to the 
lessons of history. We should look to the peace that prevailed in 
Europe following World War II under the Marshall plan, when our 
assistance was given as a grant, as contrasted with the events that 
took place following the signing of the Treaty of Versailles.
  Ambassador Bremer said it well in testimony before the Senate a few 
weeks ago. He observed that after World War I, the allied forces 
``celebrated their victory, mourned their dead and demanded the money 
they were owed.''
  He said, ``We know the results of that policy. Extremism, bred in a 
swamp of despair, bankruptcy and unpayable debts, gave the world 
Fascism in Italy and Nazism in Germany.''
  Today we find ourselves with another historic opportunity to promote 
a new era of peace, stability and democracy in Iraq and in the Middle 
East. By extending support to help Iraq in the form of a grant, our 
actions will demonstrate better than any rhetoric could that we are 
genuinely interested in supporting humane reconstruction in Iraq, as we 
did following World War II.
  We must remember that our war on terrorism began after 9/11. Two 
years ago, after it happened, I said, ``Our actions must be ongoing and 
relentless, and dedicated to excising the cancer of terrorism wherever 
it raises its ugly head. We owe it to the victims and their families, 
especially their children and grandchildren, to make sure this never 
happens again. Most of all, we owe it to the American people and the 
world community to bring an end to terrorism everywhere and forever.''
  There are millions of young people under the age of 20 in the Middle 
East and we want them chanting, ``Freedom and Democracy!'' not Jihad 
against the rest of the world.
  This funding is critical as we continue that effort.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, as debate about the supplemental 
appropriation for military operations and reconstruction in Iraq and 
Afghanistan comes to a close, I would like to ensure that our focus 
remains on the welfare of our Nation's troops.
  That is why I would like to speak on behalf of the men and women who 
are serving in our Nation's Armed Forces--those currently on active 
duty as well as in the National Guard and Reserves--who are serving 
today in Iraq, Afghanistan, and across the globe.
  Since the President declared an end to major combat operations in 
Iraq 5\1/2\ months ago, 195 American troops have died in action, and 
over 1,900 have been wounded.
  Even if combat in Iraq is being waged at a lesser level than it was 6 
months ago, it is still agonizingly clear that, in many parts of Iraq, 
our troops remain in danger.
  The imminent and ever-present danger of guerilla attacks is one of 
the most severe threats that our soldiers in the field are facing.
  Many U.S. troops have expressed concern that they are not adequately 
trained for the specialized demands of peacekeeping and policing that 
the reconstruction effort requires. Despite the fact that many of these 
soldiers are burdened with jobs and responsibilities outside their area 
of expertise, they have shown themselves to be resourceful and 
resilient in taking hold of their assignments.
  But, alarmingly, the dangers and difficulties that our troops face go 
far beyond the threat posed by attacks from insurgents and guerillas.
  There are additional threats to their safety and security that we 
cannot neglect. I have grown increasingly concerned about the 
conditions under which many of our troops are being forced to serve in 
the Middle East.
  Currently, the difficult conditions posed by a desert deployment--
including brutal temperatures of 120 degrees or even higher in the 
summer months, along with high winds and sandstorms--are compounded by 
shortages of quality water and food.
  While the military has emphasized to these troops the need to drink 
plenty of fluids and to eat properly, we have seen reports that 
military field hospitals in Iraq are contending with cases of 
dehydration and heat exhaustion on a fairly regular basis.
  Given the nature of the desert climate, are our soldiers adequately 
supplied? It has become quite clear that they are not.
  Troops are limited to a ration of two 1-liter bottles of water per 
day, according to numerous reports we have heard from the field.
  I know of at least one mother in Arkansas who has routinely shipped 
cases of bottled water to her son who is serving in Iraq. I hear 
frequently from spouses or mothers who are forced to ship food, water, 
or other needed supplies to their loved ones in the field, at their own 
expense.
  In many respects, the food supply situation is also a cause for 
concern.
  One news report from this summer detailed the dismay of American 
troops who, while surviving on MRE rations, learned that Italian troops 
serving alongside them were being fed freshly cooked pasta.
  These shortages of quality water and food are causing troop morale to 
flag.
  On top of that, many soldiers are growing concerned, confused, and 
frustrated by the length of their deployments--particularly members of 
the National Guard and Reserves who are now bumping up against what 
should be the end of their deployment time.
  Many of these soldiers have already served longer than they had been 
led to believe, causing great stress and hardship for them and for 
their families.
  Adding to the uncertainty and frustration, news reports from earlier 
this summer indicated that the Bush administration was exploring a 
cost-cutting proposal to reduce the pay of reservists and guardsmen.
  The administration quickly back-pedaled from this plan in the face of 
an outcry from the public, but the pay-cut proposal was the next in a 
series of indignities and insults to the thousands of brave men and 
women who left their jobs and families for what they were led to 
believe would be a short stay in the Middle East.
  On the front page of yesterday's Washington Post is a story about the 
dissatisfaction of our troops in the field, based upon an informal 
survey of soldiers conducted by the Stars and Stripes newspaper. 
According to the survey, half of the troops questioned rated their unit 
morale as ``low'' or ``very low.'' Forty percent, according to the 
survey, believe that the jobs they are doing have ``little or nothing 
to do'' with what they have been trained to do.
  Right now, Arkansas reservists in the 39th Infantry Brigade have been 
called up for rotation into Iraq beginning early next year. Nearly 
3,500 Arkansas soldiers are being activated, which is the largest 
deployment of troops from our State in Arkansas history. As a Senator 
and as an Arkansan, I want to know that these troops are going to 
receive the supplies that they need to do the job, and the pay that 
they deserve for their service.
  When this President ran for office 3 years ago, one of his central 
promises was that he would make the needs of the uniformed military a 
paramount concern.
  But the record of this administration in supporting our troops and 
their families suggests otherwise.
  Now the President comes to Congress seeking an additional $87 billion 
to sustain our engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[[Page 25119]]

  While this legislation was being crafted, I asked that the President 
use his leadership to place a higher priority on the well-being and 
quality of life of American troops serving in these war-torn nations.
  The President has expressed his great pride in our troops, and I 
share that pride. I ask that he now match that pride with a commitment 
to these troops and their families.
  First, the President and the Pentagon need to review the allocation 
of rations, water, and supplies to our troops to ensure that they can 
maintain their strength and health, as well as a modicum of comfort, in 
an extremely harsh desert environment.
  Third, the President should instruct military commanders to develop 
greater certainty with regard to the length of combat assignments, so 
that troops and their families can plan for their futures.
  Finally, the President should continue working to build an 
international coalition of countries to share in the burden of post-war 
Iraq.
  American troops have paid with their lives and American taxpayers are 
paying for the reconstruction at rates that are greatly 
disproportionate to the rest of the free world.
  The model of international forces working together for security and 
reconstruction has worked before. In fact, this model is working right 
now in places like Afghanistan, where troops from Germany and Holland, 
among other countries, are working alongside United States troops to 
bring security and peace to that nation.
  Although Afghanistan still faces a number of security challenges and 
we still face a long commitment to the Afghan people, there is no doubt 
that the country is much better off now than it was at this time 3 
years ago. This progress is a direct result of the multinational force 
working to secure and reconstruct Afghanistan today.
  We should continue to seek a similar force structure for the 
stabilization and reconstruction of Iraq. The United Nations Security 
Council resolution that was passed today is one step in the right 
direction. Even if we don't yet have concrete commitments of troops or 
funding, it does help bring our allies to the table. It does give us an 
opportunity to begin the process of healing the rifts in the global 
community and perhaps to ensure a more peaceful future. I urge the 
President to continue working to secure the support of our allies and 
the United Nations.
  At this point, it is clear that there is a great deal of work to be 
done in Iraq, and that our commitment of troops in the Middle East is 
going to last for several more years at the least.
  This latest request for billions of dollars to support operations and 
reconstruction in Iraq is the clearest suggestion from the 
administration that our commitment is only going to grow more intense 
in the coming months and years.
  It is important to recognize that these decisions are not made in a 
vacuum. We have a responsibility to ask how these funds are being 
spent. We have a right to know what further resources will be needed 
beyond this supplemental appropriation. And we have an obligation to 
ask what effects this spending will have on our domestic priorities and 
the needs of our constituents.
  I have heard repeatedly from my constituents in Arkansas, who are 
deeply concerned about this funding and how it is being spent. In 
Arkansas, we have a tremendous need for water projects, for education 
funding, for health care, for infrastructure, and for all the 
necessities that federal investment can bring. My constituents ask, how 
can we afford $87 billion for Iraq when we're repeatedly told that 
there is no money for projects at home? Where is this money going to 
come from? How is it going to be spent?
  Further, I support providing a substantial portion of the funding in 
this legislation designated for reconstruction projects in the form of 
a loan. I do not believe my children and possibly my grandchildren 
should be required to pay for this effort without at least some help 
from the Iraqi people. I was pleased the Senate approved an amendment 
with my support that converts $10 billion of the reconstruction funding 
contained in the bill into a loan.
  I also believe that to be successful in the long run, the Iraqi 
people and the global community must have a vested interest in this 
reconstruction effort.
  When constituents from Arkansas come to ask me for help with projects 
in their communities, I have to tell them in most cases that I can't 
help them with funding to construct buildings, but I can help secure 
money for equipment, training and programming.
  The rationale behind this Federal policy is that projects are much 
more likely to succeed if the participants have a vested interest. I 
think the same policy holds true for Iraq.
  I am voting in favor of this supplemental appropriations bill, 
because I believe it is important that we support our troops and it is 
important that we assist the people of Iraq with rebuilding their 
country so that our men and women in uniform can finish the job and 
return home to their loved ones as soon as possible.
  Even though we have made some significant improvements in this bill 
during consideration in the Senate, I do have some reservations. I 
remain concerned that we are spending too much money on reconstruction 
projects of dubious value, and too little on ensuring the safety and 
security of our troops. And I am deeply, deeply concerned of the effect 
of this additional spending on our burgeoning deficit--a burden that 
our children and grandchildren are going to have to bear.
  In the weeks and months to come, I expect the administration to make 
a better effort to improve communications with Congress on the progress 
we are making in Iraq. I expect the administration to keep Congress 
better informed about progress in Iraq, and to present a clear plan for 
the future--how this money is being spent, how it is to be paid for, 
and what the results of this spending will be. I have supported 
legislation that promotes greater disclosure from the administration, 
and encourage the President to cooperate with Congress in good faith.
  President Bush and members of his administration have told us 
repeatedly that this funding is needed in order to ensure that Iraq is 
stabilized and secured, and to ensure that we can bring down troop 
levels and casualty levels. I, along with the people of Arkansas, 
intend to hold them accountable for those goals.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, after giving this matter considerable 
thought, I have decided to vote for this emergency supplemental. I do 
so with great reluctance, and I wanted to take a few moments to explain 
how I came to this decision.
  Let me begin by saying that I voted in October 2002 against the 
resolution to give the President broad authority to go to war in Iraq. 
At the time, I believed the administration had failed to make the case 
that Iraq posed an imminent threat; had failed to develop a meaningful 
international coalition with whom to share the burdens and costs of 
war; had failed to prioritize the more serious risks of global 
terrorists, North Korea and Iran; had failed to develop a plan for 
reconstruction once the war was over, and had failed to be straight 
with the American people about why we were going to war in the first 
place.
  Looking back at my decision, I am more convinced than ever that it 
was correct. It has become increasingly clear that numerous 
administration claims about the Iraqi threat were either exaggerated or 
simply wrong. With little international support, America has been left 
to fight the war and rebuild Iraq largely on our own. America is 
shouldering 90 percent of the costs, providing 90 percent of the 
troops, and tragically bearing 95 percent of the casualties on the 
ground. In that context, the administration still has not put forward a 
meaningful, long-term plan to rebuild Iraq and move toward its self-
governance. And, after all this time, the Bush administration still has 
not developed a consistent position about the rationale for this war. 
In fact, each passing day leads me to be more certain that the 
development and use of intelligence pre-conflict has been misused for 
political justification, not informed policy

[[Page 25120]]

formulation. This is why I continue to call for an independent, 
bipartisan commission to investigate the development and use of 
intelligence related to Iraq.
  Having said all that, the decision to go to war has long since 
passed. And the question before the Senate today is how to move forward 
from here.
  Needless to say, all of us are glad that Saddam Hussein, a tyrannical 
dictator, is out of power. However, notwithstanding Saddam's departure, 
Iraq is now a country with very serious problems. Violence against 
American soldiers, and crime generally, plagues the country. Iraq's 
economy is struggling. Many Iraqis have lost jobs and are having a hard 
time making ends meet. And we have made very little progress in 
shifting power from American forces to Iraqis themselves.
  While I opposed this war, I also am convinced that we cannot and must 
not just walk away from Iraq at this point. Having invaded the country 
and created a situation with such problems, we have a responsibility to 
help address them. Even more fundamentally, helping Iraq get back on 
its feet is very much in the interests of the United States itself.
  A strong, democratic Iraq could well help stabilize the entire Middle 
East region, even if this rationale is often overstated. By contrast, 
an unstable Iraq would not only destabilize the region, but is likely 
to further become a breeding ground for terrorists. Our own national 
security could be put at risk as a result, as it was by a festering 
Afghanistan.
  So, I do think we need to address the problems facing Iraq in a 
meaningful way. And that, inevitably, is going to cost money. I voted 
for the first supplemental appropriations bill, which provided almost 
$80 billion for the effort. And I recognize that we are going to have 
to provide much more in future years.
  At the same time, we in the Congress have a responsibility to do it 
right. And I have had serious concerns about the approach recommended 
by the administration.
  Let me be clear: I fully support the funding requested for our 
military. But, as I see it, the administration's request for 
reconstruction funding was problematic in many ways.
  First, the administration asked for a huge amount of money, but 
failed to identify a single penny in savings to offset that cost. Every 
dollar requested was a dollar to be added to the debt that our 
children, and their children, will be forced to bear long into the 
future. That, in my view, is fiscally irresponsible. And that is why I 
was pleased to join Senator Biden in cosponsoring an amendment to fully 
offset the bill's cost by merely scaling back a portion of the large 
new tax breaks for those with taxable incomes well over $300,000. 
Unfortunately, our amendment was defeated. So this bill now will be 
financed entirely by new debt. That is troubling to me.
  I also am concerned about the sheer size of the administration's 
request. There is no need to appropriate $87 billion today. Funds 
already appropriated are sufficient to get us through the end of this 
year, and perhaps well beyond that. And we could sustain operations 
well into next year at a cost far below $87 billion. In my view, 
Congress would be wiser to keep the Iraq operation on a short leash, to 
help ensure greater accountability.
  Along the same lines, I remain very concerned about the widespread 
reports of abuses in the management of the reconstruction effort. Huge 
contracts have been awarded to companies with close ties to 
administration officials, often without any bidding, and there already 
have been major cost overruns. Halliburton is the most notorious 
example. But there are others. I was pleased to cosponsor an amendment 
with Senator Lautenberg in an effort to address some of these abuses, 
and I am pleased that another amendment, proposed by Senator Collins, 
should help block future no-bid contracts. It is important that this 
type of protection be included in the final conference report.
  Another concern I have had about the administration's $87 billion 
request is that it has not been matched by an effective or coherent 
outreach to bring other countries into the reconstruction process. So 
far, America has borne the overwhelming share of the costs of Iraq 
operations, and there is little evidence that this will change in the 
foreseeable future. While I was pleased that the U.N. approved a 
resolution yesterday that seemed to signal at least some outreach to 
the international community and some reciprocal accommodation, many of 
our allies who voted for the resolution, including France, Germany, and 
Russia, said that because the resolution did not go far enough, they 
will not provide any additional resources beyond those already pledged. 
As a result, American soldiers, and American taxpayers, will continue 
to bear a grossly disproportionate share of the operation's ongoing 
costs. That needs to change.
  I believe it would be especially appropriate to ask the Iraqi people 
themselves to help share in the immediate costs of reconstruction, 
given that Iraq has vast oil reserves that, in the long term, will 
produce a huge stream of--revenue conservatively estimated $30- to $40 
billion per year. As I see it, Iraq should securitize those revenues--
borrowing today, using future oil production as collateral. That 
securitization would help relieve the huge burden that the President is 
imposing on American taxpayers.
  Unfortunately, the administration has been unyielding in its 
determination to simply hand out $20 billion in grants to Iraq, with no 
strings attached. As I see it, that is not a responsible way to manage 
the people's money. Nor is it an effective way to build long-term 
public support for the effort in Iraq. That is why I supported the Bayh 
amendment, which would turn half of the President's requested grants 
into loans that could be forgiven only if most of our allies agree to 
forgive debts incurred by the regime of Saddam Hussein.
  Another concern of mine about the administration's request is that it 
failed to include sufficient mechanisms to ensure that reconstruction 
money is well spent, and well accounted for. The request asks Congress 
to give the executive branch largely unfettered discretion to shift 
funding approved by Congress for virtually any other purpose related to 
Iraq. That is why I was pleased to support amendments by Senator Byrd 
to eliminate these broad grants of authority, and to improve reporting 
requirements. I also supported the proposal to establish an inspector 
general to review related spending. These accountability measures must 
remain in the final conference report.
  Yet better reporting and monitoring of spending in Iraq still does 
not address the more fundamental need for the administration to develop 
a long-term plan for operations in Iraq. Some will argue that the 
administration recently did submit a document to the Congress. But that 
document contains few details about the number of troops that will be 
needed, the cost of operations beyond this year, or the process by 
which power eventually will be shifted from the Coalition Provisional 
Authority to Iraqis. In my view, it is premature, at best, to 
appropriate such a massive amount of money until the administration 
produces a real long-term plan, and until that plan is subject to full 
public debate.
  Having said that, I was pleased that the Senate did approve an 
amendment I drafted that will require the President to report every 90 
days to the Congress about the long-term costs of Iraq operations, 
including military operations and reconstruction. This requirement 
would force the administration to think beyond the short-term. And it 
would give Congress the ability to plan long term. I hope the provision 
will be retained in the final version of the legislation.
  Today I have detailed many of the problems associated with the 
administration's request for Iraq. Some of those problems have been 
addressed on the floor through the amendment process, and I am proud to 
have been part of those efforts. Yet serious shortcomings remain, and 
the bill before us remains substantially flawed.
  At the end of the day, however, I have reluctantly concluded that 
this flawed bill, for all its problems, is better than nothing. There 
is no getting

[[Page 25121]]

around the fact that our troops are in Iraq, and they must be 
supported. Similarly, we have to accept that, even if we shouldn't have 
begun this conflict, it is now our Nation's responsibility, and it is 
in our Nation's interest, to ensure that Iraq is rebuilt and emerges as 
a modern democratic state in the context of its own culture. We simply 
can't walk away from Iraq. And it is imperative that we demonstrate to 
the Iraqi people, and the international community, that Americans 
across the political spectrum are committed to this cause, and will 
fully support the Iraqi people as they move toward a free Iraq.
  Reluctantly, after balancing these many considerations, I will cast 
my vote ``aye.''
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, 2 weeks ago when the Appropriations 
Committee marked up this $87 billion supplemental spending request from 
the President, we spent an entire day attempting to improve one of the 
largest supplemental requests in our history. Most of the amendments 
voted on that day were defeated on party-line votes, but the issues 
raised remain unresolved and continue to engage this body and the 
American people. We voted to send this request to the floor without 
prejudice, and it is no surprise that there has been tremendous 
interest in continuing to debate the substance of the funding proposed 
for Iraq, and the timing for disbursing that funding. The interest in 
this bill reflects the broader concerns that persist about the 
direction of our policy in Iraq.
  We need to take as much time as necessary to review the 
administration's plans to rebuild Iraq. By way of comparison, when 
Congress approved the Marshall plan, it spent 11 days debating an 
authorization bill submitted by the Truman administration before 
appropriating any funds. The time, planning, and extensive oversight 
that went into the Marshall plan helped ensure its success. Given the 
miscalculations that have occurred during our time in Iraq, it behooves 
us to be cautious and put in place mechanisms to ensure the most 
vigorous oversight of the reconstruction of Iraq.
  If we approve this supplemental--and I believe we will--every 
provision that we have added to this measure to increase accountability 
and to hold the administration to benchmarks and timetables must be 
retained in conference. I voted to support Senator Byrd's amendment to 
add reporting requirements for the Coalition Provisional Authority and 
to mandate GAO audits of Iraqi reconstruction activities and numerous 
other amendments were adopted by voice vote that strengthen our ability 
to oversee the disbursement of these funds. We could have done even 
more to guarantee the success of the ambitious nation building proposed 
by the administration if we had adopted the Leahy-Daschle amendment to 
transfer reconstruction authority from the Pentagon to the Department 
of State. It makes sense that those with the most expertise in this 
area be in charge of Iraq's reconstruction. The administration's 
indecision about how to manage the reconstruction suggests that we have 
not heard the last on this matter.
  Americans' sense of unease about United States policy in Iraq is 
compounded by the sheer size of this supplemental. I have heard from 
countless constituents who are concerned that we are spending vast 
resources in Iraq when we have so many pressing needs here at home. I 
share their sense of irony that we are sending money to Iraq to build 
roads and schools, to construct housing and health facilities, and to 
spur economic development, when these same needs go unmet in our own 
States. That is why I would have voted to support the Stabenow 
amendment to spend $5 billion on veterans' health care, school 
construction, health care and transportation needs here in the United 
States. Addressing these vital needs would have helped create as many 
as 95,000 jobs at a time when the numbers of unemployed who have given 
up and stopped looking for work at all is climbing.
  In this time of economic uncertainty, I have joined many of my 
colleagues in questioning why we have not been more responsible in 
paying for military operations and reconstruction costs in Iraq now, 
instead of burdening future generations with the staggering cost of 
this operation. That is why I voted for the Biden amendment that asked 
the wealthiest 1 percent of this Nation's taxpayers to give up a small 
portion of their future tax breaks to fully offset the $87 billion cost 
of the supplemental before us. And that is why I would have voted for 
the Dorgan amendment to require that Iraqi oil revenues be used as 
collateral to pay for the reconstruction in Iraq, an amendment I 
supported in the Appropriations Committee. Iraq is not a poor nation it 
has the second largest oil reserves in the world--and it is only a 
matter of time before the oil will begin flowing again. How can we 
worry about burdening the Iraqis with debt when our own debt looms so 
large? I hope that when Congress completes action on this bill, the 
Bayh amendment is a part of the final version and we will have found a 
way to have the Iraqis help pay for the cost of reconstruction.
  We also need to do much more to gain the support of the international 
community in this endeavor. The U.N. Security Council vote on Thursday 
was an important step in that direction but the resolution itself 
glossed over important differences with our allies. After the vote, 
representatives from Russia, France, and Germany made clear that they 
do not plan to lend further support issuing a joint statement saying, 
``The conditions are not created for us to envisage any military 
commitment and no further financial contributions beyond our present 
engagement.''
  I have always believed that before we commit troops abroad, we must 
do so with international support and involvement. As I said when I cast 
my vote to authorize the President to use force against Iraq, I did so 
with the belief that ``moving to disarm Saddam Hussein--in concert with 
the international community--was the President's great goal.'' And last 
year, before we voted, the President vowed to seek the support of the 
international community on Iraq. Working with the support of the 
international community made sense when we waged war against Iraq in 
1991, and it would have made sense last year.
  I wish the President had taken the time to build a broader 
international consensus before we went into Iraq. The price of going it 
alone is being paid in many ways. We have damaged our relations with 
some of our oldest allies. Our attitude in Iraq, coupled with this 
administration's approach to other international efforts has done real 
damage to our image in the world. While reasonable people can disagree 
about whether the treaties, protocols, and conventions the United 
States has opted out of over the last few years were good or bad for 
our national security, the fact remains that our friends around the 
world were surprised, and in some cases snubbed by our actions. At the 
time we may have thought the cost of leaving them behind was small but 
the bill has now arrived--and the first installment is $87 billion.
  Even the ``coalition of the willing'' has come with a price. While 
the United Kingdom has stuck by us admirably, many of the other 
countries that the administration points to as cooperating with us in 
Iraq are being compensated for their efforts. A Washington Post article 
this summer pointed out that the international division headed by 
Poland will face roughly $240 million in expenses, $200 million of 
those will be paid by the United States. The supplemental before us 
contains some $900 million for Pakistan--to pay them to police part of 
their own border.
  Last year, the Congress and the Nation heard all about the advantages 
of unilateralism. We heard that only weak countries that could not 
control their own destinies had to wait for the approval of the United 
Nations or the international community. But now we are learning the 
limits of our own strength. We hear stories about how our military is 
stretched thin and we are asking more and more of our Reserve Forces. 
The United States military strategy was to be ready for two nearly 
simultaneous major military

[[Page 25122]]

conflicts, but now it appears that our operations in Iraq and 
Afghanistan are pushing the military to the limit. I believe our Armed 
Forces are up to the job that lies before them, but we did not have to 
ask this much of them. Better coordination with our allies earlier this 
year, or even now, could do a lot to ease the burden on our men and 
women in uniform.
  While there has been a great deal of discussion regarding the 
reconstruction dollars included in this bill, no one has disputed that 
the military funding is crucial to the support of our troops in Iraq. 
Our men and women in uniform need the $67 billion included in this 
package to replace damaged equipment and stores of spare parts. They 
need it to buy necessities like body armor and improve security around 
facilities. They need it so they can move out of tents and into air 
conditioned barracks. Some of my colleagues may have opposed the war 
from the beginning, and others may now be doubting the value of this 
military adventure, but we all agree that the troops who are over there 
now need the best that we can give them to accomplish their mission 
quickly and safely. In that spirit, I supported the Dodd amendment that 
would have taken $322 million from Iraqi prison building and witness 
protection funds on the reconstruction side of this bill and would have 
used those funds to pay for sorely needed personnel equipment for our 
troops.
  I wish we could have considered the reconstruction funding 
separately. Much of that funding is far less urgent than the military 
spending in this bill. That is why I supported the Byrd amendment that 
would have separated the reconstruction funds from the $67 billion in 
defense funds. If we had approved that amendment, we surely would have 
approved the military and security funds expeditiously and then taken 
the necessary time for the administration to provide us with more 
specificity on the plan for the political and economic reconstruction 
of Iraq.
  Mr. President, we are being asked to approve this $87 billion request 
for Operation Iraqi Freedom; yet, no one can say authoritatively how 
long this operation will last. We are being asked to approve $87 
billion when we have no information on the extent to which the 
international community will shoulder some of the burden of stabilizing 
and reconstructing Iraq. And we are being asked to approve $87 billion 
with no idea of how much more we will be asked to commit in taxpayer 
dollars and human lives.
  I plan to support this supplemental. I do so after having supported 
amendments to try to improve the reconstruction package, and I do so 
because we cannot delay any further the military spending so crucial to 
making this mission a success. We owe our fighting men and women in the 
field our full support and we owe the Iraqi people a fighting chance to 
rebuild their nation. And while it may be true that these debts were 
amassed through misguided policies of unilateralism, they are debts 
nonetheless, and they must be paid. So I will vote for this 
supplemental and urge my colleagues to do the same.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, it has been a year since the full Senate 
debated military action in Iraq, and now the President is asking 
Congress for $87 billion.
  It is time to assess where things stand, to look at the reality 
facing our troops, and to see if we are on the right track in Iraq.
  Unfortunately, it is clear to me that today we are not where we need 
to be in protecting our troops, gaining international support, or even 
having a plan to win the peace.
  As the daughter of a disabled World War II veteran and the 
representative for hundreds of thousands of Washington State veterans 
and military families, I will fight for every dollar our troops need to 
protect themselves, and to complete their mission successfully, and I 
am deeply troubled that the President still does not have a plan for 
success in Iraq.
  I have invested a lot of time examining the President's $87 billion 
request.
  I am taking a close look at what is needed and who will foot the 
bill.
  I have attended hearings and briefings where I have questioned 
administration officials, from Defense Secretary Rumsfeld to Ambassador 
Bremer. And I have heard a great deal from the citizens I represent in 
Washington State.
  Everywhere I go at home, I am approached by people who have a family 
member who is now serving or a family member who is going to be called 
up.
  As we speak, 3,500 soldiers with the Army's 1st Stryker Brigade 
Combat Team at Fort Lewis are being deployed to Iraq. About 2,100 
Washington reservists are serving in Iraq today. About 300 Washington 
National Guard are already serving in Iraq and another 3,300 are on 
``ready alert.''
  Like their families, I am very concerned about what they--and all of 
our troops--will encounter overseas.
  Each day in Iraq, our American soldiers face vicious attacks from 
snipers, car bombs, roadside explosives, and rocket-propelled grenades. 
These attacks are taking a deadly toll. We learned this morning that 
four more soldiers were killed in Iraq. Our hearts and prayers go out 
to their families as we continue to support all of the men and women 
who are still there.
  Five months ago, President Bush stood on an aircraft carrier--under a 
sign that read ``Mission Accomplished''--and told us that major combat 
operations had ended. Since that day, however, more than 180 American 
soldiers have been killed, including four from Washington State. Their 
families will never be the same. Their communities will never be the 
same. They--and all of our troops--deserve our thanks and our 
gratitude. But they deserve much more.
  They deserve a plan that will help them complete their mission 
successfully and return home safely. So far, there is no plan.
  Many of the questions I asked on the Senate floor a year ago still 
have not been answered, but today we must focus on the reality on the 
ground.
  We have about 130,000 troops in Iraq, according to the Defense 
Department. They are working hard in dire circumstances, and they are 
facing deadly attacks every day. There is still no plan for winning the 
peace. There is still no real international support, either in troops 
or treasure.
  Anyone who asks a legitimate question or who talks about what is 
really happening is criticized. And now the administration wants $87 
billion without accountability.
  The way to fix this is for the White House to ``swallow some pride,'' 
face reality, be accountable, and offer a credible plan. But instead of 
a plan, the administration is offering a public relations campaign.
  Today we have complaints about media filters and a lively policy 
debate within the administration, but we still have no plan.
  So as I assess where things stand in Iraq, I see no real 
international support; no tolerance for important questions; no 
consistent policy--even within the administration; no accountability as 
to how money is spent in Iraq; no plan for success; and a PR campaign 
to ``paper-over'' the failures.
  With all due respect, that is not a formula that will help bring our 
troops home.
  We have to deal with the situation as it is and figure out how to 
make it better.
  Sound bites and speeches are not going to help our troops finish 
their mission and come home. A credible plan, accountability, and 
international support will. We do not need a PR campaign to make it 
look like things are going well. We need a plan that will actually help 
our troops succeed, and the American people are losing patience. That 
is the context in which we are having this debate.
  Now I wish to turn to the specifics of the President's $87 billion 
request.
  Most of it--about $65 billion--would go to military operations. I 
absolutely support that. Without question, we must provide our military 
men and women with the resources they need to complete their missions 
in Iraq, Afghanistan, and every corner of the global war on terrorism.

[[Page 25123]]

  About one-quarter of the $87 billion is being proposed to rebuild 
Iraq. I am concerned with how the burden for Iraq's reconstruction is 
being shared with the rest of the world.
  The Bush administration is proposing to spend more than $20 billion 
in Iraq, while the rest of the international community has currently 
pledged only $3 billion--$20 billion from American taxpayers and $3 
billion from the rest of the world. This is far different than the 1991 
gulf war.
  In 1991, the first President Bush put together a coalition of 
countries to liberate Kuwait. The cost of that operation was $60 
billion. Because that President had won the support of our allies and 
had secured the support of NATO and the United Nations, America's 
allies paid 90 percent of the cost of that war. The U.S. paid only $6 
billion.
  I am also troubled, both as a citizen who cares about my country and 
as a Senator who will cast a vote on this bill, that Americans were 
told a lot of things about Iraq before the war which have turned out to 
be false.
  One repeated assertion was that Iraq's vast oil reserves could pay 
for its own reconstruction. In fact, the Deputy Defense Secretary Paul 
Wolfowitz said:

       There's a lot of money to pay for this that doesn't have to 
     be U.S. taxpayer money. We're dealing with a country that can 
     really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.

  Just a few months later, it is clear that the bill to reconstruct 
Iraq is massive, and that bill is being handed to every American 
family.
  As my Republican colleague, Senator Lindsey Graham, said last night:

       It's very hard for me to go home and explain how you give 
     $20 billion to a country that is sitting on $1 trillion worth 
     of oil.

  The American people were told that Iraq's oil reserves would finance 
its reconstruction but now we are getting stuck with the bill and I 
believe the American people deserve an explanation. We all agree that 
we must help Iraq and Afghanistan get back on their feet quickly, but 
we should not carry the burden alone while our own schools, hospitals, 
and communities are in need.
  We all understand the importance of helping the Iraqi people, but it 
need not come at the expense of our needs here at home. Even though the 
administration says that Iraq should be able to produce $35 billion in 
oil revenues in a few years, the American taxpayer is still getting 
stuck with the bill.
  Let's remember, there is no guarantee that President Bush will not 
come back to ask U.S. taxpayers to provide even more money for Iraq's 
reconstruction. The World Bank says Iraq's reconstruction will cost at 
least $60 billion.
  Today our families and communities are being asked to do more with 
less. Americans everywhere are sacrificing to make up the difference. 
American families will feel this $20 billion impact in crowded 
classrooms, delayed transportation improvements, and less access to 
health care. One of the reasons American taxpayers are so upset is 
because we need those kinds of investments here at home. This 
administration's priorities are wrong.
  The people I represent want to see that level of effort and resources 
put back into our own country. After all, we will only be strong abroad 
if we are strong here at home.
  Let's not forget no matter how much we are sacrificing at home, the 
burden is always far higher on our soldiers overseas. That is why, 
while they are fighting for us, we must continue to fight for them. We 
have to make sure they come back to a country that has jobs that can 
support them, health care they can count on, retirement they can look 
forward to, and education and opportunity for their children.
  Before we reach for our wallets again, the American people deserve to 
know how this money will help bring our troops home as soon as 
possible. It is clear that our concerns and questions will not be fully 
addressed before we are forced to vote on this legislation. It is also 
clear that we cannot afford to fail in Iraq.
  We have situations in Iraq and Afghanistan that can go either way. 
Both Iraq and Afghanistan could become either havens for terrorism or 
nations that can inch their way toward stability. We have to get it 
right. We cannot allow Iraq or Afghanistan to descend into chaos.
  We have tried to make this proposal better through amendments. I 
voted to separate the military funding from the reconstruction funding. 
I voted to make the entire $20 billion a loan. I voted to require a 
long-term plan for the reconstruction. Unfortunately, those amendments 
failed, but I am very pleased that last night, the Senate took a 
positive step to improve the proposal.
  The Senate passed an amendment that will ensure the burden of debt is 
shared and will give the Iraqi people a greater stake in their own 
reconstruction. The progress last night is a dramatic improvement over 
the President's proposal and is a good reason to support the modified 
funding request.
  At the end of the day, we cannot afford to fail in Iraq. The reality 
is that we have got 130,000 troops over there. We cannot fail to give 
them what they need to protect themselves and complete their mission. 
Reluctantly, I will vote for this $87 billion request because we cannot 
deny our troops the resources they need even as we demand that the 
administration offer a real plan.
  To illustrate just how badly our troops need resources and equipment, 
I want to read an email I received on Wednesday from David Willet of 
Bellingham, WA, about his son Ian Willett.
  David writes:

       My son, Specialist Ian Willet, a 2001 graduate of Sehome 
     High School, was deployed to Iraq on September 5th, his 21st 
     birthday.
       Prior to him leaving he came to me to request money in 
     order to help him buy combat gear he would need to take with 
     him to Iraq. This is gear the Army either would not issue him 
     or was as old and outdated as to be virtually useless. I, of 
     course, bought the gear that he requested.
       After talking with other men who have come home or are on 
     their way to combat, I have become quite angry that our 
     government has placed our sons and daughters in combat 
     without the best equipment in the world. As an example, Ian 
     spent $50.00 his grandfather gave him for his 21st birthday 
     on knee pads. The Army-issue knee pads fall down around your 
     ankles when you run with them on.
       Now I read a quarter of the combat troops in Iraq don't 
     have the right body armor. I am outraged that it has taken 
     over four years to get this ceramic body armor to our combat 
     troops, and that our troops would even be sent into combat 
     without this necessary technology. The reason front line 
     troops don't have this body armor? Delays in funding, 
     production and shipping. Small solace to family that has 
     their loved one killed in combat for lack of the proper vest.
       Other stories in the press talk about wounded soldiers 
     being given bills for food they ate while in the hospital in 
     the U.S. recovering from combat wounds. The Bush 
     Administration wants us to focus on the good news coming out 
     of Iraq.

  It is outrageous that we are sending our soldiers to Iraq without the 
equipment they need, forcing their parents and grandparents to buy 
things that our government should be providing.
  Ian is married and has two children. His family can't wait for him to 
return home, and the burden of protecting Ian should not fall on his 
family. It is the job of our Government. I am voting for this amendment 
so that soldiers like Ian won't have to ask their parents for the 
equipment they need to protect themselves.
  Even as I support this funding, I want to be very clear that this is 
not over. I am going to watch this administration very closely. I am 
going to watch how they spend this money; how accountable they are; how 
our soldiers fare; and how much international support we get.
  We will hold this administration's feet to the fire. I will continue 
to be an aggressive advocate for moving us in the right direction 
because there is too much at stake to just trust that the President has 
learned from his failures so far.
  America is a strong nation, and Americans are a determined people. In 
our Nation's history, we have confronted adversity. We have dealt with 
the challenges that have threatened our democracy. In each case, we had 
a clear vision and a plan to get there. There were bumps in the road, 
but at

[[Page 25124]]

the times of our greatest need, America has come together with resolve 
and determination. Today is no different.
  The American people are ready, and we are waiting for the President 
to face reality in Iraq and to give us a credible plan to win the war 
and win the peace.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I wish to address my amendment No. 1831 to 
the Iraq supplemental appropriations bill.
  Mr. President, today, our Nation faces three simultaneous challenges. 
This amendment would address each.
  First, we need to support our troops and protect our national 
security. Second, we must not worsen our fiscal crisis. And third, we 
must work to restore our ailing economy.
  We are considering today a bill that, among other things, provides 
resources to support our troops.
  Now many of my colleagues have made the case, and made it well, that 
our government could well have avoided the quagmire that has become 
Iraq. And others of my colleagues have also made the case that the bill 
before us includes spending that is not appropriate for an emergency 
supplemental appropriations bill.
  The merits of these disputes aside, that is not the subject of my 
amendment. The bill before us includes funding that will help our 
fighting men and women who valiantly serve our Nation. For that reason, 
I, and I expect the vast majority of Senators, will support this bill.
  But as I noted at the outset, our entanglements in Iraq and 
Afghanistan are not the only challenges that face our Nation. We also 
face crises of fiscal solvency. And we also face a stagnant economy. 
This amendment would address these two challenges as well.
  As would the amendment offered by my colleague from Delaware, Mr. 
Biden, my amendment would pay for the spending in the bill before us 
today. As was so ably argued by the Senator from Delaware, the two 
Senators from North Dakota, and others, our Nation faces a fiscal 
crisis. Even for something as important as this bill, we must now seek 
to pay for what we do.
  The Government's two most-authoritative estimators of our fiscal 
condition, the President's Office of Management and Budget and the 
Congressional Budget Office, are agreed: The year just ended set an 
all-time record for budget deficits.
  In its October Monthly Budget Review, CBO stated: ``The federal 
government incurred a total budget deficit of about $374 billion for 
fiscal year 2003, CBO estimates, more than twice the deficit recorded 
in 2002.''
  And OMB and CBO also agree that the deficit for the year just 
started, fiscal year 2004, will again set a record. This summer, OMB 
projected this year's deficit at $475 billion. CBO projected it at $480 
billion. Either way, it will once more be the largest ever.
  And these summer projections did not include all of the new funding 
that we are debating today for the military occupation and 
reconstruction of Iraq. The bill before us today would provide $87 
billion in additional funding, beyond the $79 billion already approved 
in this spring's supplemental appropriations bill. Of this new funding, 
the administration says $50 to $60 billion will spend out in fiscal 
year 2004. This would raise OMB's projection for next year's deficit to 
$525 to $535 billion.
  This number would be in line with private forecasts. For example, the 
investment firm of Goldman Sachs projects a $525 billion deficit next 
year.
  Now some say that we should ignore that these are record deficits 
because the numbers are smaller when compared to the size of the 
economy. But these deficits are large even as a percent of the GDP.
  A deficit of $535 billion this year would equal 4.7 percent of the 
GDP. This would be the same percent of the economy as was the record 
$290 billion deficit in 1992. It is close on the heels of the 4.8 
percent to 5.1 percent deficits of the mid 1980s. And it is not far 
from the all-time record 6.0 percent of fiscal year 1983.
  And if one excludes Social Security surpluses from the calculation, 
as required by law, this year's deficit would be almost $700 billion. 
Not only would this set an all-time record in dollar terms, it would 
also set an all-time record as a share of the economy.
  Over the years to come, both OMB and CBO continue to project 
unacceptably large deficits. OMB projects deficits larger than $200 
billion for as far as it projects--the next 5 years.
  And CBO's August report indicates that if one simply extends expiring 
tax provisions other than the bonus depreciation provision, reforms the 
alternative minimum tax, and spends the expected $400 billion on a 
Medicare prescription drug benefit, then the Government will still end 
the next 10 years running a deficit of more than $400 billion a year.
  In other words, if the Government simply stays on its current fiscal 
course, CBO projects that the Government will still be running 
unacceptably large deficits in 2013.
  Under this realistic, indeed, conservative, scenario, over the next 
10 years, the Government will run deficits totaling nearly $4 trillion. 
And 10 years from now, the amount of Federal Government debt held by 
the public will almost double, to nearly $8 trillion.
  Again, private forecasters back up these scenarios. If anything, 
their projections are more pessimistic. The investment firm of Goldman 
Sachs is projecting a $5.5 trillion 10-year deficit.
  Using the CBO projections adjusted as I have discussed, from 2001 to 
2013, the Government will have piled up $4.6 trillion in debt held by 
the public, or roughly $15,000 in debt for every man, woman, and child 
in America. Every American child born in 2013 will come into this world 
owing $15,000 more in taxes because of the economic decisions that the 
Government is making right now.
  That $4.6 trillion in new debt will come in addition to the $3.3 
trillion in debt that we already owed in 2001. So that new baby born in 
2013 will have a total debt burden of roughly $26,000 hanging over his 
or her head.
  And more and more of the Government's debt is being held by 
foreigners, like China. With this greater debt, we are transferring to 
overseas powers a greater ability to affect our economy.
  And that level of debt means that by 2013, the Government will be 
spending roughly $400 billion on interest on the debt alone. Before the 
Government can choose to spend anything in 2013 on fighting terrorism 
or education or national defense, it will have to spend $400 billion--
that's about 11\1/2\ percent of the total budget--that is nearly 2\1/2\ 
percent of the entire country's economic output--just to pay the 
interest on the debt that the Government will have accumulated by then.
  But that is not all. If the Government stays on its current fiscal 
course and runs persistent and increasing budget deficits, it will 
increase its borrowing requirements. It will increase the Government's 
demand for money.
  It will thus raise interest rates for mortgages, car loans, and 
student loans. It will thus lower economic growth. And it will thus 
lower the standard of living for millions of Americans.
  Our Nation's high national debt and high deficits at the end of the 
next 10 years will leave our Nation in a vulnerable fiscal condition at 
exactly the wrong time, as the baby boom generation starts to retire.
  We know to a near certainty the number of people who will reach the 
age of 65 in 2013. Unlike the likely results of particular economic 
policies, reasonable people cannot and do not disagree significantly 
over how many people were born in 1948--and thus over how many will be 
eligible for Social Security and Medicare in 2013. We know that we have 
a substantial budgetary challenge ahead of us, finding the money to pay 
for the retirement needs of the baby boom generation.
  If we head into the next decade with high deficits, the Government 
will have no room to accommodate those retirement needs. The current 
policy will thus leave the Government with fewer choices to respond to 
the growing entitlement costs of the decades to come. The current 
policy will thus leave us with the grim choice of raising taxes,

[[Page 25125]]

cutting long-promised and much-needed benefits, or dramatically cutting 
defense, education, and other core Government services.
  So the first thing we need to do is to stop making things worse. We 
need to bring back the rule of paying as we go.
  And that is what this amendment would do. It would suspend some of 
the tax cuts that Congress enacted earlier this year.
  But my amendment would not do one thing that the amendment offered by 
my colleague from Delaware would have done. My amendment would not 
alter any of the tax cuts that Congress enacted in 2001. It would only 
affect tax cuts enacted earlier this year.
  My amendment makes this distinction because I--and many of my 
colleagues--supported the 2001 tax cuts. We believed then and still 
believe that the tax law changes enacted in 2001 were important to our 
economy. And these tax cuts are still important to our Nation's 
economic growth. And so my amendment would not change them. Not at all.
  Instead, it would postpone some of the tax cuts enacted earlier this 
year. When these tax cuts were debated, we were at war with Iraq. I 
believe--and continue to believe--that it is irresponsible to enact tax 
cuts during a time of war. The very fact that we are here debating an 
additional $87 billion for Iraq proves that.
  This amendment would postpone some of the tax cuts that are targeted 
to wealthy individuals in order to pay for this $87 billion.
  It would allow all of the funding in the underlying bill to go 
forward. It would thus support our troops.
  It would pay for the spending in the bill. It would thus keep us from 
worsening our Nation's deficit crisis.
  And it would pay for the spending in this bill without altering the 
2001 tax cuts. It would preserve the economically beneficial effects of 
that tax cut in place. It would thus help our ailing economy.
  I shall not press my amendment to a vote on this bill. The votes on 
this bill are now clear. But I urge my colleagues to consider the 
policies that I am seeking to advance with this amendment.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, just this past April, I voted for the 
emergency supplemental appropriations bill authorizing $70 billion for 
our military operations in Iraq. I felt that funding was necessary at 
the time. But I expected that the administration would move us toward a 
multilateral approach, one that would take the burden off our troops 
and our taxpayers.
  Now the President is asking for $87 billion more for Iraq.
  While war inevitably carries great costs, both in terms of financial 
losses and losses in human life, the American people and the families 
of our troops should not be alone in shouldering those costs and 
burdens.
  We cannot afford to continue down this path without legitimate 
burden-sharing. Our troops are overstretched, our financial obligations 
are becoming more taxing by the day, needs at home are going unmet, and 
the Federal deficit is absolutely soaring.
  In Congress we have a responsibility to our constituents to debate 
and decide upon the path that is best for our country. We should not 
rubberstamp every proposal the administration puts forward, 
particularly when lives are being lost.
  The American people are not satisfied with the direction of this 
country. But all that the administration has offered so far is the 
status quo, another blank check for Congress to sign that offers no 
plan to genuinely decrease the strain on American resources.
  That is why I supported an alternative proposed by Senator Byrd. The 
Byrd amendment put the needs of our troops first by authorizing 100 
percent of the funding requested for military operations, and requiring 
the administration to gain commitments of funding and manpower from 
other nations to ease our Nation's incredible burden.
  It also would have carefully reviewed the Iraq reconstruction 
process.
  I also supported several worthy amendments that, if passed, would 
have greatly improved this bill:
  The Biden amendment to pay for the cost by reducing the Bush tax cuts 
for the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans;
  The Dorgan amendment to pay for the reconstruction of Iraq with Iraqi 
oil revenues;
  The Dodd amendment to shift $322 million in funding for new Iraqi 
prisons to protective gear for our troops;
  The Stabenow amendment to provide $5 billion in funding for important 
American domestic priorities such as veterans health care, education, 
community health centers, and transportation. This amendment was paid 
for by delaying $5 billion of Iraq's reconstruction money to 2005.
  Compared to this $87 billion that will be spent abroad, we are 
spending annually, $23.9 billion on veterans health care, $23.4 billion 
on higher education, and $31.8 billion in total highway spending. Our 
domestic priorities are going unmet.
  I am pleased that my amendment to reimburse wounded soldiers for 
hospital meals was successful, as well as my amendment to call 
attention to the need to protect commercial aircraft from shoulder-
fired missiles.
  But basically, we are left with one huge $87 billion check which will 
be used to continue a policy that has led to 194 American postwar 
deaths and 903 Americans wounded in action to date.
  Administration officials, including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld 
and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, repeatedly, and perhaps 
even deliberately, downplayed the cost of reconstructing Iraq. They 
claimed that we would pay for this war with Iraqi oil revenues and with 
support from the other nations. They told us this would be easy.
  No one is suggesting that we abandon our efforts in Iraq. The Byrd 
alternative responsibly addressed the situation in Iraq by proposing a 
road map for success. It would have put an end to this blank check 
policy and established a realistic and responsible plan for the future.
  My decision to vote no on the $87 billion request and for the Byrd 
amendment is a stand against the status quo and for a change in this 
administration's go-it-alone, pay-it-alone strategy.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I do not support the administration's 
policy in Iraq. After listening to the administration's hard sell, 
after hearing a series of ever-shifting justifications for our policy, 
after discovering that some of these justifications were of extremely 
dubious credibility, after confronting the administration's reluctance 
to straightforwardly acknowledge the costs and commitments entailed in 
the occupation of a major Middle Eastern country, after watching the 
administration alienate potential allies who could help us share this 
burden--after all of this, I do not support the notion that American 
taxpayers should be saddled with astronomical burdens and tremendous 
debt to support this misguided approach.
  I wish our policy had been different. But I must deal with the 
reality before us today. The stakes are too high to do anything else.
  I cannot oppose this bill. I cannot pull the rug out from under our 
brave troops on the ground, who were called to serve and now find 
themselves in harm's way, confronting suicide bombings and guerilla 
warfare tactics. This bill contains resources that they need, and I 
will cast my vote to get them those resources.
  I also recognize that stability and reconstruction in Iraq are in our 
national interest. For years now, I have urged my colleagues to 
recognize the dangers inherent in weak and failing states around the 
world. I have studied the appeal that such states hold to criminal 
opportunists, including terrorists. And I know that a weak or failing 
Iraq would present a threat to this country. To abruptly pull the plug 
on reconstruction, to leave Iraq to the disorder that filled the vacuum 
left by the fall of the Saddam Hussein regime, would make us less safe, 
less secure.
  So I will not vote against the final passage of this very problematic 
bill.
  But I want to be very clear about two points. My vote does not 
suggest that I am resigned to accepting the administration's policy. I 
am not, and I will continue to urge them to change it. That is my 
responsibility as a Member of this body, and I will not abandon it.

[[Page 25126]]

  My vote also does not mean that I will support future funding for the 
Iraq mission if the administration fails to put that mission on a 
sounder footing. Over 330 U.S. troops have lost their lives in Iraq--
and over 190 of those deaths occurred after the President declared an 
end to major military operations. Many more have been seriously 
injured.
  The administration has tried to argue that Iraq is the central 
battlefield in the war on terror. I strongly disagree with that point 
of view. Iraq is at best a distraction from that war, which should be 
our country's main focus. At worst, our invasion and occupation of Iraq 
may well turn out to be a major setback in our efforts to combat 
terror. The extremely well-respected International Institute for 
Strategic Studies recently released a report indicating that ``war in 
Iraq has probably inflamed radical passions among Muslims and thus 
increased al-Qaida's recruiting power and morale and, at least 
marginally, its operating capability.''
  I remember what the Vietnam war did to this country. I remember when 
good people convinced themselves that they had to keep accepting 
terrible losses because of sunk costs, I remember those desperate and 
destructive efforts to salvage the credibility of long-since 
discredited policy. Iraq is not Vietnam, but the lessons of history 
must not be forgotten. Without a better plan, without burden sharing, 
without a clear strategic vision that refocuses on this country's first 
foreign policy priority--he fight against the terrorists who attacked 
this country on September 11, 2001, and their allies--without these 
changes, withdrawing from Iraq will be the right thing to do.
  I would like to comment on one of the most contentious issues that 
arose during the debate on the supplemental bill--the debate about 
grants versus loans. This week I was unable to support the amendment 
offered by Senator Dorgan to the supplemental bill before the Senate. I 
do not believe that it is in our national interest to have U.S. 
authorities making decisions about how to use future Iraqi oil 
revenues. On this point, the President is right. To do so would play 
into the hands of those who would promote the ugliest, most distorted 
images of American motives abroad, conjuring images of imperialism and 
corruption, and undermining one of our greatest sources of strength 
internationally--the compelling power of our principles and ideals.
  But while the President is right about that point, he is wrong to 
place this heavy burden almost entirely on the shoulders of American 
taxpayers. I am by no means enthusiastic about financing Iraqi 
reconstruction with huge grants. Iraq's reconstruction needs should be 
met, to the extent possible, by Iraqis themselves. But the decisions 
about the use of Iraqi oil should be Iraqi choices, not decisions made 
by American occupation authorities.
  That is why I was pleased to support the amendment offered by 
Senators Bayh and Nelson, which converted a portion of the grants to 
loans, and leverages this approach to encourage international debt 
forgiveness. This amendment did not involve any U.S. decisions about 
Iraq's future oil revenues, rightly leaving those decisions to the 
Iraqi people.
  Once again, I urge the administration to take concrete steps to build 
meaningful international support and ensure real burden-sharing in the 
international community. I was pleased to support the amendment offered 
by Senators Byrd and Kennedy, which called on the administration to 
present a concrete and detailed plan for working with the rest of the 
world to bring stability to Iraq. I am disappointed that the amendment 
was defeated. The best way to avoid making unfair demands on the Iraqi 
and American peoples is to give our allies a meaningful role in the 
country and ask that they in turn contribute to reconstructing the 
country.
  I am pleased that three amendments I offered to this bill were 
adopted. First, I offered an amendment to establish an inspector 
general for the Coalition Provisional Authority, so that there will be 
one auditing body completely focused on ensuring that taxpayer dollars 
are spent wisely and efficiently, and that this effort is free of 
waste, fraud, and abuse. I am troubled by some of the seemingly 
inexplicable requests and figures contained in the administration's 
funding request--the $6,000 phones, the state-of-the-art postal system, 
the new monuments, all of them in an ``emergency'' request. At the very 
least, we should take concrete steps to ensure that vigorous oversight 
and auditing mechanisms are in place to protect each and every taxpayer 
dollar.
  I also offered an amendment to help alleviate some of the 
difficulties faced by families of military personnel deployed or 
preparing to deploy for a contingency operation. My amendment allows a 
spouse, son, daughter, or parent who already qualifies for benefits 
under the Family and Medical Leave Act to use their benefits for issues 
arising from one additional set of circumstances--the deployment of a 
family member. Our military families--be they active duty, Guard, or 
Reserve--are coping with tremendous strains and a great deal of 
unpredictability. Longstanding childcare arrangements can be suddenly 
upended; in a matter of days, legal powers may need to br transferred 
to allow a spouse to maintain control of the home while his or her 
partner deploys. This amendment has been endorsed by the Military 
Officers Association of America, the Enlisted Association of the 
National Guard of the United States, and the National Partnership for 
Women and Families. I am delighted that it was adopted, and I hope it 
brings some measure of relief to the families who are sacrificing so 
much.
  I was also pleased that two other amendments to help our Guard and 
Reserve were adopted. One was an amendment offered by Senator Bill 
Nelson to provide $10 million for the Family Readiness Program of the 
National Guard. This program provides needed support services and 
assistance for Guard families prior to, during, and after deployment. 
And I was pleased to vote for an amendment offered by Senator Durbin, 
which also passed, that would ensure that Federal employees who take 
leave without pay in order to serve do not see a reduction in their 
pay.
  In addition, I thank the managers for accepting a very modest 
amendment that I offered calling for the Coalition Provisional 
Authority to regularly post up-to-date information in both English and 
Arabic on its Web site about oil revenues, seized and frozen assets, 
and how these resources are spent. Recently the Advisory Group on 
Public Diplomacy for the Arab and Muslim World reported on how much 
needs to be done to address the inadequacies of our current public 
diplomacy efforts. Making a good-faith effort to be transparent when it 
comes to what is happening to Iraqi resources is just basic good sense, 
and that means making an effort to communicate in Arabic.
  I believe that the amendments I have discussed are small steps in the 
right direction, but I remain deeply concerned about where the 
administration's policy is leading us overall. I hear the concerns of 
my constituents every day--constituents who wonder when their loved 
ones in the military will come home, constituents concerned about the 
massive deficit, constituents who feel betrayed by the mixed messages 
and shifting justifications of the administration. Voting on this bill 
does not mean that Congress can set aside the issue of Iraq. In fact, 
voting on this bill should make it painfully clear to all of us--we 
have a great deal of work to do to get our policy on a firm footing and 
we cannot afford to wait any longer.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, 1 year ago, America was on the brink of 
war. One year ago, Congress debated whether America should go it alone 
to confront Saddam Hussein or get international support to bring the 
world with us. Now we are finishing work on the President's request for 
$87 billion for Iraq. Again we have debated whether we go it alone or 
find a way to share the burden and the cost of war.
  Today, I will vote in favor of the supplemental bill for Iraq and 
Afghanistan because I will not fail in my commitment to support our 
troops and because

[[Page 25127]]

the Senate voted to provide loans and not just giveaways.
  Through this debate, I fought for five principles I continue to 
believe are critical for the Iraq supplemental:
  First, we need to support for our troops. The men and women putting 
their lives at risk to serve our country deserve our support.
  Second, we need international burden sharing. If the stability of 
Iraq is in the world's interest, then the world should help pay for the 
reconstruction.
  Third, we need to give Iraq loans, not giveaways. Iraq has the 
world's second-largest oil reserves and is capable of pumping out 
millions of barrels a day. This oil revenue should help with the 
reconstruction.
  Fourth, we need accountability and responsibility with the money we 
provide. We need to stop waste, cronyism contracting and profiteering.
  Fifth, we need for a plan to end the occupation of Iraq. There was a 
plan for war. Now we need a plan for peace.
  I have used my voice and my vote in the Senate to stand up for these 
principles as we considered the supplemental bill.
  America's Armed Forces are made up of ordinary men and women that are 
called upon to do extraordinary, difficult and dangerous things. Last 
year, when we debated whether to send our troops to Iraq, I asked 
whether they would be met with flowers or with land mines. Now we know. 
Our troops are at risk and they need our help. Our troops need 
equipment and gear, like modern body armor and replacement vehicles to 
help them complete their missions as safely as possible. Military 
families need financial support to make ends meet.
  The men and women putting their lives at risk to serve our country 
deserve our support not just with words but with deeds. That Is why I 
voted for amendments to increase combat pay, to end the practice of 
charging wounded soldiers for hospital meals, and to improve veterans 
health care.
  I believe we need international burden sharing to share the risks and 
share the costs of occupying and rebuilding Iraq. We need more troops, 
but not more American troops. We need more money, but not just American 
money. Last year, when we debated the war, I voted to go to the United 
Nations, to have international legitimacy and international burden-
sharing. If the stability of Iraq is in the world's interest, then the 
world should help pay for the reconstruction. That is why I voted 12 
times for amendments to promote greater burden sharing.
  Wherever possible, American aid should be loans, not give-aways. Iraq 
has the world's second-largest oil reserves. Iraqi oilfields are 
already producing close to 2 million barrels a day. That means billions 
of dollars a year in oil revenue. According to Ambassador Bremer, by 
2005 Iraq will produce enough oil to take care of its basic needs and 
have additional funds.
  Congress already provided $75 billion for Iraq last April. It also 
included $2.5 billion for Iraq relief and reconstruction. That was 
grant aid. Now the President wants to give Iraq another $20 billion. A 
better solution would have been to loan Iraq the money and have it 
repaid from Iraq's oil.
  The facts are simple: There is a loan. $87 billion is added to our 
national debt. The question is whether the American taxpayer must pay 
it back or whether the Iraqi people will pay some of it back with their 
oil.
  That is why I cosponsored amendments to provide loans rather than 
grants. I am so glad the Senate voted to make $10 billion of the aid 
loans. These loans would only be forgiven if the rest of the world 
forgives its loans to Iraq.
  We need to safeguard our troops and safeguard our money. We need 
responsibility and accountability to stop waste, cronyism contracting 
and profiteering. We need to use American taxpayer dollars to invest in 
America. That is why I supported an amendment to require full and open 
competition for contracts in Iraq. That is why I voted for an amendment 
to end cronyism contracting by preventing these funds from going to a 
company in which the President or Vice President or a cabinet member 
has a financial interest.
  The administration must lay out a plan to end the occupation of Iraq. 
There was a plan for war. Now we need a plan for peace. The American 
people deserve full disclosure and a real assessment of where we are 
going and how long we will be there. We must not let Iraq turn into a 
quagmire. We cannot just send more money and more troops with no end in 
sight. The President needs to present a clear exit strategy. That is 
why I voted for an amendment to require a comprehensive plan for Iraqi 
reconstruction to include goals and timelines.
  I worked to fulfill my principles on this bill: to support our 
troops. International burden sharing; loans, not giveaways; 
accountability; and the need for a plan to end the occupation of Iraq.
  Marylanders are patriotic people, willing to do what's necessary to 
defend our country and help other people when we can. But they have 
children to educate, parents to support, houses to buy and retirements 
to fund. It is not fair to ask them to pay for the rebuilding of Iraq 
just because this administration made critical mistakes in foreign 
policy.
  I am going to vote for this bill because I will fulfill my commitment 
to America's men and women in uniform, who are risking their lives for 
the American people in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  I will continue to press for an exit strategy to bring our troops 
home. I will continue to fight for greater accountability. I will 
continue to demand that President Bush bring in other nations to share 
the burden, to share the risks by sending troops to Iraq and to share 
the costs by contributing to Iraq's reconstruction.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I have said many times, and I will say it 
again, it is critical that we succeed in Iraq. But it is equally 
important that we do the job the right way--the way that best protects 
our troops on the ground, enhances our security, and shields the 
American taxpayer from undue burden. President Bush's approach fails 
this test.
  I support our troops in Iraq--and their mission. I believe we must do 
our part to reconstruct Iraq and make it a force for peace and 
stability in the region. I am prepared to spend whatever it takes to 
win the peace. But I want to spend that money responsibly and 
effectively--pursuant to a strategy that will maximize our prospects 
for success through greater internationalization and burden sharing and 
provide the transparency and accountability that American taxpayers 
expect and deserve when we spend their hard-earned money. I want to be 
sure that the financial costs are distributed, in the spirit of shared 
sacrifice, among those Americans who can best afford to pay. 
Unfortunately, the President and his advisers disagree.
  I cannot vote for the President's $87 billion request because his is 
not the most effective way to protect American soldiers and to advance 
our interests. Simple common sense tells us that we need more countries 
sharing the burden and more troops on the ground providing security. We 
need a fairer way to pay the bill.
  I had hoped that the Administration would prepare for building the 
peace in Iraq as well as it prepared for fighting the war. But that was 
not the case.
  Over eager to rush to war, the administration failed to plan 
adequately or effectively for the peace. American forces are being 
targeted daily by remnants of Saddam Hussein's Ba'athist regime, newly 
arrived terrorists hoping to capitalize on anti-American sentiment, or 
a combination of both. The attacks are becoming more lethal and more 
sophisticated, and increasingly the attackers are going for high 
profile targets associated with us or our allies. But the 
administration played down or, worse yet, ignored the likelihood of 
this kind of resistance when planning for the postwar period.
  It low-balled the number of forces that would be needed to seize the 
alleged WMD sites for which we fought the war, to protect the 
infrastructure needed for reconstruction, or to contain civil unrest. 
It failed to put together a meaningful military coalition to help us 
meet these needs.

[[Page 25128]]

  The administration underestimated the magnitude of the reconstruction 
task and, as we now know, misrepresented the ease with which oil would 
flow for rebuilding. It refused to tell the American people up front 
the long-term costs of winning the peace. And it refused, until 
recently, to ask the international community to join us in this very 
difficult endeavor.
  This administration's brazen go-it-alone policy has placed our 
soldiers at unnecessary risk and our hopes for success in jeopardy. It 
has turned American liberators into occupiers in the eyes of many 
Iraqis. It has created a terrorist presence in Iraq where none 
previously existed and made Iraq a recruiting poster for terrorists of 
the future. It has undermined the legitimacy of our efforts at home, 
abroad, and in Iraq. And it has left Iraqis wondering when they will 
get their country back. We cannot continue on this course. The stakes 
are too high--for our troops, for the Iraqi people, for the region, and 
for American security.
  A year ago when we were debating the use of force resolution for 
Iraq, I said: ``If we do go to war with Iraq, we have an obligation to 
the Iraqi people, and to other nations in the region, to help create an 
Iraq that is a force for stability and openness in the region.'' That 
obligation is upon us. We are now committed--as a result of our 
military victory and postwar occupation to building a democratic Iraq 
that is reasonably secure and economically viable. Our credibility and 
our interests demand that we succeed.
  Successful reconstruction of Iraq is critical to peace and stability 
in the Mideast and to the security of Israel, our closest ally in that 
volatile region. We cannot allow Iraq to become a failed state or let 
the Ba'athists return to turn their wrath once again on innocent 
Iraqis. We must not allow Iraq to be fragmented into mini-states, 
warring with one another and further destabilizing the region. Nor can 
Iraq be dominated by Iran or any other state in the region. Success in 
Iraq is also crucial to our war on terrorism. The terrorist violence 
which has emerged in the wake of our military victory in Iraq poses a 
major challenge, but it is one we must meet. Iraq cannot become a 
terrorist sanctuary like Afghanistan, either as a platform for al-Qaida 
or Israeli-directed violence.
  It is imperative that we succeed in Iraq, but to do so, we have to 
tackle the challenge of rebuilding Iraq an effective way, not the Bush 
administration's failed way. We need a detailed plan, including fixed 
timetables and costs, for establishing civil, economic and political 
security in Iraq.
  We need to internationalize both the military and civilian sides of 
the occupation and build a coalition that will provide tangible 
assistance in terms of boots on the ground and money in the coffers for 
Iraqi reconstruction. Only in this way will we reduce the risk to 
American service members and alleviate some of the financial burden on 
the American taxpayer for reconstruction.
  We have to give the United Nations a clearly defined, central role in 
the reconstruction of Iraq and in the process of establishing a new 
Iraqi Government, and we must provide the necessary security so that 
U.N. personnel will go back to Iraq. The United Nations is not perfect, 
but it has far more experience and capacity in these areas than the 
Pentagon and the Coalition Provisional Authority. The process of 
reconstructing Iraq and its political system must be an international 
process--not an American process. Only then will it have legitimacy in 
the eyes of the Iraqi people and the world.
  We have to involve Iraqis more in the process of rebuilding their 
country and assure them through concrete steps that political power and 
responsibility will be transferred to them as quickly as possible.
  The administration, albeit belatedly, has recognized that we need 
help in Iraq. The resolution adopted this week by the U.N. Security 
Council is a step in the right direction. It will provide greater 
international legitimacy to our efforts in Iraq. It does require that 
the Iraqi Governing Council lay out by December 15 of this year a 
timetable and program for the drafting of a constitution and national 
elections, but this resolution does not fundamentally change the lines 
of authority and responsibility for the reconstruction and governance 
of Iraq. It is really more show than substance. Whether it will gain 
meaningful international support for our efforts in Iraq remains to be 
seen but the prospects do not look good. Already three of our allies 
who voted for it--Russia, France and Germany--have indicated that they 
will not provide troops or funds to support our efforts. And Pakistan, 
which had been expected to provide troops once a resolution was passed, 
has now declined. If he is serious about generating funds and troops 
for the operation in Iraq, President Bush must see this resolution as 
the beginning of a process of diplomacy--not the end.
  The President is asking us to give him $87 billion for Iraq. As we 
decide whether or not to vote for this package, there are some 
fundamental questions each of us should be asking.
  First, what is it for? Much of it some $66 billion is for our troops 
on the ground. Another $20 billion is supposed to be for reconstruction 
of basic services, such as water, sewer, and electricity, and for 
training Iraqi security forces. It also includes $82 million to protect 
Iraq's 36 miles of coast line, new prisons at a cost of $50,000 per 
bed, a witness protection program at a cost of $1 million per family, 
nearly $3 million for pickup trucks at a cost of $33,000 each, $2 
million for museums and memorials, and a whopping $9 million for a 
state-of-the-art postal service. I could go on, but the point is 
obvious: This supplemental is padded with requests that go far beyond 
Iraq's emergency needs.
  Second, who reaps the benefit of this $20 billion for reconstruction? 
On one level, of course, it is the Iraqi people. But let's not fool 
ourselves. Halliburton and other select American companies with close, 
high-level connections to the Bush administration are getting the 
lion's share of the contracts funded by this money. No one can object 
to giving contracts to American firms, but those contracts ought to be 
offered on a competitive, open bid basis. And at a minimum, these firms 
should be required to seek subcontractors from outside of the United 
States including Iraqi companies where feasible. Opening and 
internationalizing the contracting process would provide much-needed 
transparency and give others in the international community a stake in 
the success of the reconstruction process.
  Third, what is the plan for spending the $20 billion? We don't really 
know because the administration has only given us a set of goals and 
vague timetables--not a detailed plan. The President wants us to give 
him $87 billion on faith. His administration has failed miserably in 
anticipating the risks to our troops, planning for the peace, and 
building international support for our effort. Why should we trust him 
now?
  Fourth, how does President Bush intend to pay for rebuilding Iraq? He 
wants to saddle future generations of American taxpayers with the bill 
by adding to the Federal deficit. This is fundamentally unfair. There 
is a better way--the one Senator Biden and I offered when we proposed 
that the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans be repealed. At a time 
when men and women in uniform are sacrificing for our interests in 
Iraq, it is only fair to ask those Americans who can afford it to do 
their fair share, but President Bush's refusal to accept this approach 
betrays the spirit of shared sacrifice that has made our nation great.
  Fifth, what is the urgency for rushing forward with such a large 
proposal now? There isn't one. Ambassador Bremer, the head of the 
Coalition Provisional Authority, has told us that his funds for 
reconstruction will last until the end of the year. Whether or not Iraq 
can absorb $20 billion over the next year is another question. The 
World Bank recently estimated that Iraq could absorb only $5.2 billion 
in reconstruction funds for next year. Instead of rushing to complete 
this bill, the administration should be doing more of the hard work of 
diplomacy to generate contributions from other countries and to 
generate a more accurate assessment of what Iraq's real needs are over 
the next year.

[[Page 25129]]

  Finally, it is incumbent upon us to ask what needs at home are 
underfunded? The answer is: plenty, including health care, education 
and homeland security.
  The President must be held accountable and he must change course. 
While he may still salvage success in Iraq, the question we must ask 
is: at what cost--in terms of dollars and lives? We should do this the 
right way. We can win the peace in Iraq but we cannot--and should not--
do it alone. Our troops on the ground deserve a strategy that will take 
the target off their backs and bring them home more quickly. The 
American people deserve a strategy that decreases the bill, pays our 
costs fairly, and makes America safer. We must have a new approach, one 
that maximizes international cooperation and burden sharing and 
minimizes the risk of failure. If the President adopts that new 
approach, I will gladly support any proposal that funds it.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, it is with great frustration that I come 
here today to address the President's request for an additional $87 
billion to pay for the war in Iraq and to confront the aftermath of 
this conflict.
  One year ago, I addressed this body, arguing against the notion that 
Iraq posed an imminent threat to the United States. I feared that the 
administration's single-minded obsession with Iraq would cost American 
lives, poison our relations around the world, divert resources from the 
real war on terror, and deal a crippling blow to critical domestic 
needs. I pleaded with the administration to work with the international 
community to address the Iraqi problem in a cooperative manner. I urged 
my colleagues not to grant the President a blank check to launch a 
reckless, unilateral, preemptive attack against Iraq.
  Those words fell on deaf ears. The President got his blank check, and 
we now have to deal with the consequences. While the military campaign 
in Iraq was predictably swift and effective, the aftermath is a mess. 
It is now obvious that there was a shameful lack of planning for 
anything beyond the initial war, leaving us in a much worse position 
than predicted. Our military is suffering daily losses. The Iraqi 
population is increasingly restive and hostile. Terrorists are flowing 
into the region, eager to take a shot at American forces and undermine 
our reconstruction efforts. Longtime allies are so put off by the 
administration's arrogant approach to this war that they are reluctant 
to lend a hand when we, and the people of Iraq, so clearly need the 
assistance.
  Through it all, the administration has refused to give straight 
answers to the Congress or the American people. It has misrepresented 
intelligence on the threat posed by Iraq. It has dodged the issue of 
how much the war and Iraq's reconstruction will cost. And it has 
refused to provide Congress with a detailed plan for post-war political 
and economic reconstruction.
  Now the President is back before the Congress, asking for what I 
believe amounts to another blank check. Our economy is in dire straits. 
Our schools are woefully underfunded. Millions of Americans are seeking 
work, and many have given up trying. The number of people without 
health insurance is soaring. This Nation's budget deficit is spiraling 
out of control, in no small part because of huge tax cuts for the 
wealthiest Americans pushed through by this administration. 
Nevertheless, while the President seeks to reduce funding for pressing 
needs at home, he urges the Congress to quickly pass his $87 billion 
request for Iraq and Afghanistan.
  Just like a year ago, we are presented with incomplete plans for how 
the money will be spent. We have not been provided with detailed 
information on steps the administration is taking to involve the 
international community in the reconstruction effort. Moreover, we are 
treated to blank stares when we seek concrete answers on how much more 
this occupation and reconstruction will cost and how long our men and 
women will be stationed on the ground in Iraq.
  Ambassador Bremer testified recently concerning the administration's 
plan for rebuilding Iraq. This plan is striking in its failure to 
address the most critical issues. It is silent on the size of the U.S. 
troop commitment, a timetable for the return of U.S. troops, the 
financial or troop contributions we might expect from other nations, 
and the short-term and long-term costs associated with the U.S. 
invasion of Iraq. Beyond that, the plan makes assumptions that are so 
unduly optimistic that they call into question the credibility of other 
key elements of the plan. For example, the plan assumes that U.S. 
forces will defeat internal armed threats and deter external aggression 
and subversion by the end of October. That is 2 weeks from now. Anyone 
who reads a newspaper or watches TV would have difficulty believing 
this will happen. This plan seems based upon the notion that merely 
opening the spigot of taxpayer dollars will ultimately overcome 
whatever shortcomings may exist in our policies toward Iraq.
  We have it in our power to do something about this situation. This 
Senate must demand answers to these critical questions. It has learned 
the hard way the consequences of granting this administration a blank 
check in Iraq. Enough is enough. Additional funding for Iraq should be 
withheld until the administration develops and presents a 
comprehensive, credible plan that details how the money will be spent, 
how the administration plans to broaden the international involvement 
in reconstructing Iraq, how much more this operation will cost, and 
when our military men and women will come home to their families. We 
owe at least that much to the American people. And we owe it to our 
brave forces on the ground in Iraq.
  As a former officer in the U.S. Navy, I know firsthand the importance 
of supporting our troops and have great respect and admiration for 
their efforts. On the whole, American military personnel have done an 
outstanding job of providing leadership and direction in countless 
Iraqi communities in the wake of the collapse of Saddam Hussein's 
regime. Our officer corps has received widespread praise for their wise 
and humane conduct in a role for which they received little 
preparation. I am proud of many Vermonters' unsung acts of bravery, 
leadership and humanity. RADM Barry Costello of Rutland, VT, served 
with distinction and played a pivotal role in Operation Iraqi Freedom 
as the Commander of the U.S.S. Constellation battle group. But Vermont 
has also suffered great losses. We grieve for Mark Evnin of South 
Burlington, Eric Halverson of Bennington, Kyle Gilbert of Brattleboro, 
and Justin Garvey of Proctor, VT. My heart goes out to their families. 
They are but 4 of over 350 American troops killed since the war began.
  We cannot continue to accept such losses. We need to make decisions 
that will help our troops in the long run. It is our job to ensure that 
scarce resources are being spent wisely, and it is our responsibility 
to demand something better than the floundering postwar effort we have 
seen to date. Writing a blank check for Iraq does a disservice to our 
military if there is no coherent plan for securing the peace and 
bringing them home.
  Meanwhile, the war in Iraq has distracted the United States from the 
real fight against terrorism, an issue of critical importance to 
American security. We have reduced our forces in Afghanistan and lost 
focus in our hunt for Osama bin Laden. As a result, the stabilization 
and reconstruction of Afghanistan have suffered serious setbacks in 
recent months. One could even argue that the U.S. invasion of Iraq 
actually created an opening for terrorists. Osama bin Laden had long 
targeted Saddam Hussein, whose secularism he loathed. There is no 
evidence that Iraq under Saddam Hussein had any significant connection 
with al-Qaida, even though the Bush administration has tried hard to 
link the two. Ironically, in the chaos that has followed the collapse 
of Baath Party rule, Iraq has now become a haven for terrorists who see 
an opportunity to strike against U.S. forces.

[[Page 25130]]

  For over 50 years, America's Presidents have led the world in 
constructing a web of relationships and institutions that have 
succeeded in promoting peace, stability, and respect for the rights of 
each and every human being on the face of this Earth. They worked 
closely with allies to meet common threats and they supported the 
United Nations and other world bodies as mechanisms that fit naturally 
with our goals of promoting freedom, trade and democracy around the 
world.
  This administration has turned its back on the work of the last 50 
years. This administration has demonstrated time after time that it has 
neither the patience nor the will to engage in real consultations with 
allies and world bodies such as the U.N. President Bush and his 
administration frequently assert that the attacks of September 11 made 
the world a different place. Their response has been to abandon long-
held American policies and justify radical new approaches like the 
doctrine of preemptive war. I disagree wholeheartedly with this 
response. While the attacks of September 11 were a horrific, senseless 
act of evil, they have not diminished the value of the international 
structure that America and its allies have worked to build since the 
close of World War II. The new challenges are different, but now more 
than ever, they demand a strong and unified international community. 
They demand more international cooperation, not less.
  The United States needs its traditional allies and it needs the U.N. 
It needs them to ensure that the situation in Iraq does not continue to 
slide toward an American occupation and to help defray the costs and 
challenges associated with rebuilding a deeply troubled nation. It 
needs them to undercut assertions that the primary interest of the 
United States is in controlling Iraqi oil. Moreover, America needs its 
allies and the U.N. because we have too many pressing needs at home to 
continue hemorrhaging money in Iraq.
  Having spurned the international community on the way to war in Iraq, 
the administration must be prepared to go the extra mile to enlist 
international support at this hour. We must be prepared to cede 
meaningful control over the political and economic rebuilding of Iraq. 
And we must do more than adopt the ``join us if you want'' approach the 
President set forth in his recent speech to the U.N. President Bush is 
correct when he says that it is in the world's interest to join with us 
in working toward the reconstruction of Iraq. Our longtime allies and 
other countries around the world are equally correct, however, when 
they ask for a measure of control over their efforts. While I am 
encouraged that the U.N. Security Council stands ready to approve a 
resolution backing American plans for reconstruction of Iraq, this may 
be too little too late. Our closest allies still have deep reservations 
about how we have conducted ourselves thus far in Iraq, and it remains 
to be seen if any of them will contribute any significant funds or any 
troops at all. Meanwhile, because of the worsening security situation, 
the U.N. has been forced to withdraw nearly all of the 600 employees it 
had in Iraq just a couple months ago. There must be a turn-around in 
current conditions on the ground before most international relief 
organizations can do any effective work in most of the country.
  We are caught in a real bind. Iraq clearly needs our help. Yet the 
American economy is hurting and basic domestic needs are crying out for 
funding. While asking for $87 billion more for the war in Iraq, the 
President's proposed budget shortchanges his No Child Left Behind 
initiative by $6.2 billion. Special education will receive less than 
half of what it is authorized by law to receive. The President has 
proposed cutting $400 million in afterschool programs, and has 
undermined efforts to make up for the shortfall in early education 
funding. Pell grants now cover only 40 percent of the cost of attending 
a 4-year public college, whereas in 1975 they covered approximately 84 
percent of the cost. Our entire Department of Education receives only 
$53 billion.
  The list goes on and on, and it speaks to an administration with 
misplaced priorities. While the administration seeks $87 billion for 
Iraq, water quality grants have been reduced by 32 percent, 
environmental enforcement staff has been cut by 6 percent, and funding 
for land acquisition and conservation has been reduced by 50 percent. 
The entire Department of Homeland Security is receiving less than half 
of what the President seeks in this bill. Meanwhile, our borders are 
porous, and first responders in our State and local governments are 
starved of resources. The administration seeks $87 billion for Iraq 
when there are over 1.1 million Americans who have exhausted their 
unemployment benefits without finding a job and the President's 
supporters in Congress have refused to extend their benefits.
  Meanwhile, tax cuts weighed heavily in favor of our most wealthy 
citizens are driving up the deficit and politically well-connected 
firms such as Halliburton and Bechtel are reaping millions from no-bid 
contracts handed out by the administration.
  Just as the President must live up to his responsibilities, so must 
the Congress. It has a corresponding responsibility to the American 
people, and to our military forces, to demand from the administration a 
credible plan for bringing U.S. involvement in Iraq to an end and for 
bringing U.S. troops home. The Congress must demand that the 
administration develop a plan for involving other countries in the 
process. We must have a credible, detailed plan for turning over 
political and military control to the Iraqis. And the Congress must 
demand a credible, detailed projection of the costs associated with our 
continuing presence in Iraq. Previous administration statements and 
testimony on these subjects have been markedly lacking in candor.
  This is the largest supplemental funding request in my memory. 
Clearly, our military must have the funding needed to carry out its 
tasks. I also realize that our own security will be damaged if 
reconstruction efforts in Iraq are not successful. Yet this is the 
moment for Congress to demand answers to these critical questions, 
rather than simply hand the administration another blank check to 
pursue its policies in Iraq. We must get our efforts on the right track 
before it is too late.
  I am left with no choice but to oppose this bill. Anything less does 
a disservice to the men and women of our military and to the American 
public.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, there are very many things in the Emergency 
Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan Security and 
Reconstruction bill with which I strongly disagree. For example, I 
object to the virtually unfettered ability of administration officials 
to move dollars from one classification of Iraqi relief and 
reconstruction to other classifications. And I object to Ambassador 
Bremer's unilateral approach to spend U.S. taxpayer's money on such 
things as zip codes for Iraq, expensive business school scholarships, 
and a honey pot for high-priced U.S. consultants.
  Nevertheless, I will vote in favor of this bill. I do so in order to 
provide $67 billion to support the American troops who are in harm's 
way in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere. And I do so because the 
Senate wisely decided last night to provide one-half of the funding for 
Iraqi reconstruction as a loan, which could become a grant only if 90 
percent of Iraq's bilateral debt was forgiven. I have long maintained 
that Iraqis must have a stake in the reconstruction of their own 
country and Iraqis must have a say in decisions that affect their 
future. The Bayh, et al., amendment gives them the investment in their 
own future that is so important to them and to us.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, 2 weeks ago the Senate began debate on 
President Bush's $87 billion emergency funding request for Iraq and 
Afghanistan. Since that time, many amendments have been considered by 
this body. Most of them have failed largely along partisan lines. That 
is unfortunate in my view. After all, we are talking about spending 87 
billion American taxpayer dollars, and this during a time when so many 
of our national priorities remain unaddressed. Our education system, 
our health care system,

[[Page 25131]]

and our homeland security priorities are all drastically underfunded. 
More and more Americans are finding themselves out of work. Certainly 
we need to continue to support our troops in Iraq and to assist the 
Iraqi people to rebuild their country. But we can't do this alone and 
ignore the vital domestic needs that so many Americans are today 
facing.
  About a month ago, I rose in this Chamber to share my thoughts about 
United States policy toward Iraq. I did so shortly after President 
Bush's September 7th televised address to the Nation on the same 
subject. In that speech, the President was candid with the American 
people about what we should expect in Iraq, namely that it is going to 
be ``difficult and costly'' to rebuild that country and to bring 
democracy to a people who have had no tradition of political freedom or 
self-determination.
  This Senator welcomed the President's honest assessment of what we 
are likely to be facing in Iraq. It was a positive change from the 
doublespeak and ``non-answers'' that the Congress and the American 
people have been hearing from some officials in the administration 
since before the outset of our military engagement in that country.
  Of course, what the President told us wasn't news. The difficulty and 
the cost of our involvement are painfully apparent. More than 150,000 
coalition forces remain in Iraq 5 months after the President declared 
the end to major hostilities. One hundred and thirty thousand of those 
men and women are Americans. And every day there are reports of yet 
another American service man or woman being killed.
  With the approval of this $87 billion emergency supplemental, the 
United States will have committed more than 150 billion of American 
taxpayers' dollars in a matter of months for our missions in Iraq and 
Afghanistan--the vast majority of those sums for the Iraq mission.
  In light of those statistics, who could disagree with the President 
that our mission in Iraq has become difficult and costly--both 
monetarily and in human terms. I only question why it took our 
President so long to come to that realization. In fact, it now appears 
that estimates of human and monetary costs that were formerly 
discounted by the Bush administration--statements made by Army General 
Eric Shinseki and the President's former Chief Economic Advisor 
Lawrence Lindsey--might not have been so far off the mark.
  During his most recent address to the Nation, President Bush also 
explained, in simple terms, United States policy objectives: destroy 
terrorists, enlist the support of other nations for a free Iraq, and 
help Iraqis assume responsibility. He was less clear on how he intends 
to achieve those objectives, or to mitigate the myriad of costs to the 
American people.
  That is why many of our colleagues who have spoken on the floor have 
decried the fact that at the very time we are being asked to approve 
$87 billion in additional money for the military and reconstruction 
costs of Iraq and Afghanistan, the administration has yet to lay out a 
clear plan for how any of the objectives mentioned by the President are 
to be achieved. Perhaps progress is now possible in internationalizing 
the rebuilding of Iraq. I take note in particular of yesterday's 
unanimous U.N. Security Council vote in support of the United States-
sponsored resolution on Iraq. However, it is important to remember that 
this resolution is only the first step toward achieving a broad 
international coalition with additional governments and international 
organizations willing to share the burden of this difficult and costly 
occupation.
  Our military has done an exemplary job in winning the war. They 
should be commended. But they also need help winning the peace. Our 
forces are stretched thin and our troops are tired. Tragically, more 
than 332 American military personnel have now died in Iraq, 1,511 have 
been wounded, and 335 have sustained other injuries. One hundred and 
twenty of those deaths were unrelated to hostile fire dehydration, auto 
accidents, and other causes.
  These deaths have prompted legitimate questions about the adequacy of 
the equipment our troops have been provided for the hostile environment 
being encountered. Efforts by the U.S. Army to address some of these 
equipment shortcomings have not been fully funded in the pending 
legislation. That is the Army's assessment--not mine.
  That is why I offered an amendment on October 2, to transfer $300 
million from Iraqi reconstruction funds to U.S. Army accounts for the 
purchase of equipment vital to the safety of our troops or to reimburse 
them for equipment they were forced to buy for themselves. In the 
broader scope of things, I continue to believe that those few hundred 
million dollars were a mere drop in the bucket. But this drop could 
have helped protect and provide our troops with hydration and other 
lifesaving equipment that they need. I was very disappointed that my 
amendment failed, largely along partisan lines, because I strongly 
believe that the first and most important priority of this funding bill 
should be to protect our troops.
  United States liberation of Iraq has not ended the suffering of the 
Iraqi people. They continue to suffer, and they are frustrated as well. 
While the decades of fear and brutality perpetrated by the dictatorial 
regime of Saddam Hussein are now gone, uncertainty and hardship 
continue despite the best efforts of U.S. Ambassador Paul Bremer and 
members of the Coalition Provisional Authority. And this uncertainty 
and hardship have brought resentment--resentment against U.S. forces, 
resentment against the U.N. mission headquartered in Baghdad, 
resentment between and within local communities.
  That resentment has brought with it increasing acts of violence.
  While I have not yet had an opportunity to make a first-hand 
assessment of the situation in Iraq, many who have believe that 
security remains the most immediate and pressing challenge confronting 
the Provisional Coalition Authority. It is my hope that the monies 
contained in this legislation for our troops, coupled with the $5 
billion allocated to assemble and train Iraqi police and security 
forces will improve the security climate so that the road is clear for 
the equally difficult task of rebuilding the country. I fully support 
those elements of the supplemental request.
  However, I have serious questions about some of the so-called 
reconstruction priorities that the administration intends to pursue 
once the emergency supplemental is approved--projects that the 
administration has identified as high priorities in need of immediate 
funding. A number of these misplaced priorities have been mentioned 
during the course of this debate. Let me remind my colleagues of some 
of these:
  No. 1, a $100 million witness protection program for 100 Iraqi 
families--that is $1 million per family;
  No. 2, two maximum security prisons at a total cost of $400 million--
$50,000 per prison bed;
  No. 3, $15 million for the purchase of computers, with a price tag of 
$3,000 per computer;
  No. 4, $20 million for 4 weeks of business training classes at 
$10,000 per student; and
  No. 5, $30 million to teach English as a second language to Iraqis.
  These are just a few of the questionable spending priorities embedded 
in the measure before us.
  I supported President Bush last year when he sought authority from 
Congress to use all necessary means to secure Iraq's compliance with 
U.N. resolutions. But even while doing so I was deeply concerned that 
absent broad international support for preemptively removing Saddam 
Hussein, the American taxpayer and our troops would be left holding the 
bag when the time came to win the peace in Iraq. That concern has 
proven well placed.
  Indeed, I am not only troubled by the so-called emergency programs 
that I just mentioned; what concerns me even more is that we all know 
that Iraq is going to need more money--above and beyond this current 
request. A lot more. Yet despite the recent U.N. Security Council 
resolution, many doubts

[[Page 25132]]

remain as to the administration's willingness or ability to ensure that 
other governments and international organizations will begin to share 
some of those future costs.
  The President did not listen to those of us who cautioned him about 
the implications of removing Saddam Hussein unilaterally. This debate 
gives him a second chance to listen to similar concerns being 
articulated about attempting to unilaterally deliver democracy to Iraq. 
Without significant and meaningful help from others we risk an even 
more ``costly and difficult'' engagement in Iraq than the President has 
contemplated. Equally serious, the President risks losing the support 
of the American people for his policy. Without that support continued 
U.S. involvement will not be sustainable.
  During consideration of this legislation, Members of this Congress 
have taken certain steps to press the administration on the issue of 
burden sharing. These were not partisan efforts because this is not a 
partisan issue. It is not partisan to insist that the President not 
have a blank check to pay for all of Iraq's reconstruction. It is sound 
fiscal policy. Quite simply, we cannot afford to write endless checks 
for this purpose.
  Even before the administration's supplemental request, the 
Congressional Budget Office had calculated that the annual budget 
deficit would reach $480 billion--the largest in history. Over the past 
3 years, 3.2 million Americans have lost their jobs--44,000 alone in 
July. So there are clearly pressing needs at home that remain unmet. We 
could do a lot with an additional $20 billion on the domestic side of 
the Federal ledger.
  We could do a lot in the area of health care: $20 billion could 
provide health coverage for approximately 1.3 million Americans; 
current Medicare prescription drug proposals include large gaps in 
coverage; the $20 billion could be used to close those gaps; and $20 
billion would provide Medicaid coverage for an additional 300,000 
children, adults, senior citizens, and individuals with disabilities.
  We could do a lot in addressing our Nation's education shortfalls: 
$8.5 billion would fully fund No Child Left Behind; $6.15 billion would 
fully fund title I programs--programs to help our poorest schools 
better serve our children; $750 million would bring afterschool 
programs to their fiscal year 2004 authorized levels; $29 million would 
restore the Troops to Teachers Programs.
  We could also do a lot in supporting important programs for our 
Nation's children. Twenty billion dollars would: provide 4.4 million 
more kids with childcare; enable participation of 2.8 million kids in 
Head Start; fund enrollment of 26.7 million kids in afterschool 
programs; or 16.6 million more kids covered by health care.
  The bottom line is that we are not going to be able to do any of 
those things if we continue to go it alone in Iraq. Moreover, the huge 
and unprecedented amounts of national debt that we are incurring are 
going to cripple our economy for the foreseeable future.
  Why do we go through this silly budget exercise of declaring all 
these projects an emergency? It is so that our budget rules won't 
apply--so somehow it won't count. Well, Mr. President, it does count. 
And I think we should agree here and now that this is real money. Other 
programs, real programs, important programs, won't be funded because of 
the so-called emergency projects I mentioned earlier. There are trade-
offs.
  It is now clear that these trade-offs aren't going to be confronted 
by the President unless the voices of the unilateralists in the Bush 
administration are silenced, or at least the President stops listening 
to them. The recent U.N. resolution was an important first step toward 
that end. Hopefully it has taught this administration an important 
lesson: that to garner international help in building democracy in--
Iraq help we desperately need--there must be compromise and respect for 
other points of view.
  There is nothing wrong with compromising or with sharing the costs 
and responsibilities for Iraq's future. In fact, I believe that 
Congress has a responsibility to see that those costs and 
responsibilities will be shared. International burden sharing was a 
condition of congressional support for funding U.S. peacekeeping 
efforts in Bosnia and Kosovo. This very Congress included a burden 
sharing requirement in the legislation passed earlier this year 
authorizing U.S. participation in the Global HIV/AIDS Fund. Why should 
Iraq be different? Senate adoption last night of the Bayh amendment, 
which would convert a portion of the reconstruction monies to loans, 
should be understood as one small step toward more equitable burden 
sharing in the rebuilding of Iraq.
  During consideration of this legislation we have taken some important 
first steps. But these are only small steps, and much more needs to be 
done if the $87 billion we are about to approve is to be effectively 
used. I will reluctantly support final passage of this bill because I 
believe we have an obligation to support our troops. However, I want to 
make it clear, here and now, that if this President expects my future 
support, he is going to have to bring together a much broader 
international coalition than currently exists--one that will provide 
significant financial and military support to our efforts.
  The recent U.N. resolution holds out the promise that this may be 
possible, but it is only a promise--it is up to the President to see it 
become a reality.
  We cannot and must not let this administration continue to deny what 
we all know to be true; namely, that ``multilateralizing'' the 
reconstruction and democratization of Iraq is the right thing to do. It 
is the right thing for America. It is the right thing for Iraq. And it 
is the only way to ensure that we will be able to fulfill our 
responsibilities to the American people. Let us hope that the 
administration will use the resources and authorities contained in this 
bill to accomplish that goal.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I oppose this appropriation because we 
refuse to pay for it. Foreseeing our venture into Iraq, in early 
January I introduced a value added tax to pay for it. On this current 
bill I was a strong supporter of the Biden amendment. In fact, I 
negotiated the rewording to require that we forego the tax cut for the 
top one percent of income tax payers and use that money to pay for this 
appropriation. Led by the Republican opposition, it was voted down.
  Ambassador Bremer testified that by next July oil from Iraq would be 
flowing at the rate of three million barrels a day, a net export 
revenue of $16 billion a year and a 10-year net export revenue of $160 
billion. Iraq is not Afghanistan. With the second highest oil reserves 
in the world Iraq is one of the richest countries and could easily pay 
the bill. Again with White House opposition, the collateralization of 
this $20.3 billion cost was voted down.
  This bill includes many items not just to rebuild, but to build 
facilities that did not exist at the time of war. While we are denying 
many facilities and services for our people here in the United States, 
we are going to the extreme financially to correct the mistake of 
President Bush. I supported the Stabenow amendment for our facilities 
and services which also was defeated by the White House.
  The attempt to equate 9/11 with Saddam fails. Al-Qaida was not 
operating from Iraq. Saddam was not a threat to our national security. 
We had overflights in both northern and southern Iraq. We knew what was 
going on. We had economic sanctions on Iraq. The resolution I voted for 
had two resolution clauses: One, to enforce the United Nations 
resolutions and, two, to protect the national security of the United 
States. Saddam was not a threat to our national security and we all 
know it. The United Nations at the time was in Iraq on a search for 
weapons of mass destruction. We preempted the search with invasion. I 
don't know whether it was oil or finishing the unfinished business of 
Desert Storm, but be that as it may, they have not met us with 
rejoicing in the streets. Saddam still exists. There is a daily killing 
of our soldiers.
  At this moment we are an occupation army and the enemy. While we try 
to internationalize our effort, there is no

[[Page 25133]]

question that terrorism has been internationalized in Iraq. The borders 
are porous and deployment for law and order is inadequate. I call Iraq 
a mistake because we have more terrorism since our invasion rather than 
less. As reported in the Financial Times: ``The London-based 
International Institute for Strategic Studies said in its newly 
published Military Balance survey that while the invasion of Iraq might 
have isolated al-Qaida from potential state sponsors, it was also 
likely to have had the effect of `swelling its ranks and galvanizing 
its will.' War in Iraq has probably inflamed radical passions among 
Muslims and thus increased al-Qaida's recruiting power and morale and, 
at least marginally, its operational capability, the report states.''
  You can't stop the killing until you have law and order. The twelfth 
Roman Canon still applies: Salus popli sumprema lex--the safety of 
people is the supreme law. In order to get safety, in order to get law 
and order we need more troops. The administration's approach is to 
regenerate the wetlands, build a sewer system, put in internet, make 
the people happy and then they will stop killing us. It could happen, 
but first you have to establish the people's security and we are trying 
to do it on the cheap with troops.
  As I have told Secretary Rumsfeld on two occasions, more than a money 
supplemental we need a manpower supplemental. If our troops are sent to 
secure, there are too few and if they are sent to be killed daily, 
there are too many. The cheer to support the President and support the 
troops by proponents of this supplemental misleads. The cheer should be 
to stop the killing of our troops by supplying more manpower. My vote 
supports the troops by emphasizing the need for more manpower. But more 
particularly, it emphasizes the reality of our situation.
  Money will not stop the daily killings, nor will a constitution by 
December. With the passage of this appropriation we are not only trying 
to do it on the cheap. We are telling the GI in downtown Baghdad, ``We 
hope you don't get killed. And the reason we hope you don't get killed 
is that we want you to hurry home to pay for it. My generation is not 
going to pay for it. This Congress is not going to pay for it because 
we need a tax cut to get re-elected next year.''
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Leahy 
amendment to strike wasteful funding from this supplemental and 
redirect that spending for humanitarian and peacekeeping assistance to 
Liberia. I commend my colleague for advancing this important amendment.
  Last month, I had a moving meeting with Archbishop Frances of 
Monrovia. He relayed to me stories of suffering and pain in Liberia, a 
country that has been ravaged by war and brutal government. He also 
relayed to me the great hope the people of Liberia place in the United 
States and pleaded with us to help Liberia in this time of great need. 
This amendment is an answer to the pleas from Archbishop Frances--and a 
response to the hope invested in us by millions of Liberians.
  Though 85 percent of Liberians are unemployed and 75 percent do not 
have access to clean drinking water, there are reasons for hope in 
Liberia. A new leader, Charles Gyude Bryant, has assumed the task of 
shepherding the people of Liberia from war to peace, from violence and 
destruction to rebuilding and reconciliation. The open violence that 
has plagued the country for over a decade has been checked.
  An international peacekeeping force will be necessary to ensure 
outright war does not return. This amendment would help pay for an 
international peacekeeping force--an African force to stabilize an 
African nation.
  In addition to renewed security, this amendment ensures that disaster 
relief and humanitarian assistance will get to thousands of Liberian 
families uprooted by years of conflict and children who have been 
separated from their parents. The amendment will provide relief for 
Liberians denied access to food and basic services for years.
  In this supplemental appropriations package, Congress is providing 
funding to our Nation's efforts to restore stability and democracy in 
Afghanistan and Iraq. We do so not because we are obliged to, but 
because we need to see democratic government flourish in these 
countries that have been so crippled by violence and corruption. 
Liberia, a country to whom we are bound by shared history, enduring 
interest, and national security, needs our help as much as Afghanistan 
and Iraq.
  I urge my colleagues in the Senate to answer their call.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill, as amended, pass?
  Mr. BOND. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. 
Alexander) is necessarily absent.
  I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from 
Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would vote ``yes.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 87, nays 12, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 400 Leg.]

                                YEAS--87

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

                                NAYS--12

     Boxer
     Byrd
     Edwards
     Graham (FL)
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Sarbanes

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Alexander
       
  The bill (S. 1689), as amended, was passed.
  (The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to the consideration of H.R. 3289. All after the enacting 
clause is stricken and the text of S. 1689, as amended, is inserted in 
lieu thereof. The bill is read a third time and passed, and the motion 
to reconsider is laid upon the table.
  Under the previous order, the Senate insists on its amendments, 
requests a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes on this 
measure, and the Chair is authorized to appoint conferees.
  The Presiding Officer (Mr. Sununu) appointed Mr. Stevens, Mr. 
Cochran, Mr. Specter, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Bond, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Burns, 
Mr. Shelby, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Craig, Mrs. 
Hutchison, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Inouye, Mr. 
Hollings, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Harkin, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Reid of Nevada, Mr. 
Kohl, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Dorgan, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Johnson, 
and Ms. Landrieu conferees on the part of the Senate.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I take the opportunity to express my 
appreciation to the Appropriations Committee staff for the many hours 
and days they worked on this bill. Their commitment and professionalism 
is critical to the bill. I have the list of the names of the majority 
and minority staff who worked so hard on this

[[Page 25134]]

bill and I ask it be printed in the Record in recognition of their 
efforts.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                           The Majority Staff

       Jim Morhard, Andy Givens, Sid Ashworth, Kevin Linskey, 
     Katherine Hennessey, Dennis Balkham, Jill Shapiro Long, 
     Shannon O'Keefe, Jessica Roberts, Jennifer Chartrand, Alycia 
     Farrell, Menda Fife, Tom Hawkins, and Robert Henke.
       Lesley Kalan, Mazie Mattson, Kraig Suiacuse, Brian Wilson, 
     Nicle Royal, Paul Grove, Brendan Wheeler, Dennis Ward, Sean 
     Knowles, Rebecca Davies, Leo Spivey, Bettilou Taylor, Lisa 
     Sutherland, and Christine Drager.

                           The Minority Staff

       Terry Sauvain, Charles Kieffer, Charles Houy, Nicole 
     DiResta, Betsy Schmid, B.G. Wright, A. William Simpson, Lila 
     Helms, Kate Elrich, Chad Schulken, Tim Rieser, Mark Lippert, 
     and Christina Evans.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I know the regular order is to now 
recognize Senator Leahy. I ask unanimous consent that we alternate 
between Republican and Democratic Senators following Senator Leahy in 
speeches regarding the vote just taken.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
recognized for a very short colloquy prior to the time Senator Leahy is 
recognized for his remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I discussed the appointment of the 
conferees on this important legislation with Senator Stevens and the 
distinguished majority leader. As I mentioned on the floor earlier, we 
in the minority have been concerned about our lack of input in 
conferences that are now ongoing. And that is unsatisfactory. I have 
made that clear to the majority leader.
  This bill enjoys bipartisan support, as we have just seen from the 
vote, and provides an opportunity to begin anew. As a result, I sought 
and received the assurance of the chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee that the minority will be full participants in this 
conference on the bill. That should be the norm when the Senate seeks 
to resolve its differences with the House. This means the minority will 
have the opportunity to provide input on key issues for the duration of 
the conference and be kept fully apprised of all developments as we 
seek to get a conference report on this legislation which will enjoy 
the same broad bipartisan support as did the bill before us today.
  I ask if that is in keeping with the understanding of the 
distinguished manager of the bill.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Democratic leader is correct. The 
conference will meet and the minority will be full participants in the 
conference.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the manager of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Chair recognizes 
the Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Presiding 
Officer, my friend and neighbor from across the Connecticut River.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, will the Senator from Vermont, who has been 
so patient, withhold so that the Senator from Pennsylvania, who is 
here, can make a very important unanimous consent request?
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will withhold with the understanding that 
I be recognized after my colleague speaks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Senators from Nevada and Vermont for their 
indulgence.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 7

  Mr. President, I rise to ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 7, which is the 
charitable choice bill. I further ask unanimous consent that all after 
the enacting clause be stricken and the Snowe amendment, which is the 
amendment on the child tax credit, and the Grassley-Baucus amendment, 
which is an amendment for the tax extenders, which are at the desk, be 
agreed to en bloc; that the substitute amendment, which is the text of 
S. 476, the Senate-passed version of the charitable choice bill, which 
has the Charitable Giving Act as well as the military fairness 
provisions, as amended by the Snowe-Grassley-Baucus amendment, be 
agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed 
and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; further, that the 
Senate insist upon its amendments and request a conference with the 
House; and, lastly, that the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees 
of a ratio of 3 to 2 and that any statements relating to the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I want the 
Record to be spread with the fact that this is why Senator Daschle just 
entered into a colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee. Conferences haven't worked very well in this 
Congress.
  We are willing to pass this bill, send it directly to the House. 
There would be a simple amendment. We can do that quickly, soon. We 
feel that would be the most expeditious way to handle this most 
important legislation. We favor the legislation. The minority favors 
this legislation.
  I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, what the Senator from Nevada has 
suggested is instead of taking the normal course, which is the House 
has passed a bill, the Senate has passed a bill, and for us to go to 
conference to negotiate the differences, the Senator from Nevada is 
suggesting we take our bill and send it back to the House where the 
House would simply take it and put a bill there and send it back here, 
which would be fully amendable again, and it would go back to the House 
and it could go back to the Senate and we never reach a conclusion. I 
suggest the way to solve this problem is to go to conference. I hope we 
can do so.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.


                           PASSAGE OF S. 1689

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I speak today about the Senate's vote on 
the President's request for an additional $87 billion in emergency 
funding for Iraq and Afghanistan, of which $65 billion is for military 
operations and $21 billion is for relief and reconstruction. The lion's 
share of the funds are for Iraq.
  I attended the three hearings in the Appropriations Committee, when 
Ambassador Bremer, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, General Pace, and 
several other witnesses testified. Unfortunately, there was not nearly 
enough time in those hearings to discuss the details of a budget 
request of such enormous size and complexity. I was also disappointed 
that the hearings provided a one-sided perspective, as there were no 
witnesses from the U.S. Agency for International Development or the 
State Department, and no witnesses from outside the government.
  I also reviewed the materials provided by the Office of Management 
and Budget in support of the request, which are useful but devoid of 
detail. For example, a request for $800 million for police training in 
Iraq is justified with only three vague sentences.
  It is also one thing to ask for $400 million to build two new 
prisons. It is another to fail to explain why on Earth it costs so 
much, when the price of labor in Iraq is half what it is in the United 
States. This is one of many examples--$33,000 pickup trucks that cost 
$14,000 in the U.S. and $6,000 satellite phones that sell in 
neighboring Jordan for $500, are others--that have been cited in the 
press and in speeches by Senators.
  Of course there are things that need to be done in Iraq. But some of 
these costs are shocking and inexplicable.
  The administration is cutting food aid for poor children in 
Nicaragua; a million children die of measles each year because they 
can't get the vaccine which costs pennies; a third of the world's 
people live in conditions most Americans would find appalling. Yet we 
are going to build wireless internet access on the Euphrates. It makes 
no sense.

[[Page 25135]]

  And then we saw in last Thursday's New York Times that although this 
is a 1-year, emergency appropriation, only $6 billion, not $20 billion, 
can be effectively spent in Iraq next year. Could it be that the reason 
the White House wants this $20 billion now, and not a penny less, is 
because they do not want to have to defend this increasingly unpopular 
policy again next year before the November elections? I think the 
answer is obvious.
  I cast my vote against this supplemental. This decision did not come 
easily. There are strong arguments pro and con. I know that I will be 
among a small minority. But for me, this is a matter of principle, and 
after a great deal of thought I have concluded that I can not support 
this proposal. I did not support the policy that got us into war alone. 
I do not support the tactics the White House has used to get this 
supplemental passed. And I do not support appropriating so much money, 
at one time, for an oil rich nation when the responsible thing would be 
to approve a portion of the money today and to revisit this again next 
year.
  Before I explain how I reached this decision, I want to make three 
points.
  First, I want to mention the issue of support for our troops. We all 
support our troops, who have endured great hardship and fought bravely. 
We worry about their safety. We have spoken to the grieving families of 
soldiers who have died. I and other Senators have worked to get them 
better protective equipment, after we learned that some were sent into 
battle in Iraq without bulletproof vests or the latest available armor 
for their vehicles.
  But supporting the troops is not simply a matter of spending billions 
of dollars so they can remain in Iraq indefinitely, with no exit plan, 
targets in a guerrilla war that is likely to drag on for years. The 
President's policy that caused them to be sent there, and that will 
require them to remain there, must also be a policy that each of us who 
has to vote on this supplemental can support. And if we are to make 
good use of the taxpayers money, there must be an effective plan to 
implement that policy.
  Second, it is beyond dispute that Iraq is infinitely better off 
without Saddam Hussein, whose rein of terror was a disaster for the 
Iraqi people and a blight on the civilized world. The Iraqi people have 
a chance to build the foundations of a more open, tolerant, peaceful 
and prosperous society. Whether they will succeed in that endeavor may 
not be know for many years, but I credit President Bush, Secretary 
Rumsfeld, our troops, and the Iraqi people themselves, for giving them 
this chance.
  Third, I am voting against this proposal. If, instead, I thought the 
administration was being honest with the American people about its 
motives and its policy in Iraq and the Middle East; if this 
supplemental were designed to implement a credible plan to 
internationalize our policy rather than to continue a unilateral 
approach; and if this had not been a one-time only, take-it-or-leave-
it, partisan approach in which almost every amendment offered by 
Democrats was defeated along party lines, my vote today might be 
different.
  I want to be clear. Since 1989, I have served as either chairman or 
ranking member of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee. I am a strong 
believer in foreign aid. Spent wisely, foreign aid is in our national 
interests. I am not opposed to helping Iraq rebuild. In fact, I 
supported the supplemental, passed in April, which contained billions 
of dollars to rebuild Iraq and to support our military operations 
there. I also voted for several amendments, which were defeated along 
party lines, which I believe would have improved this supplemental in 
important ways.
  For example, the Byrd-Kennedy-Leahy amendment would have allowed $10 
billion of the Iraq reconstruction funds to be spent immediately. The 
balance of $10 billion would be withheld pending a certification by the 
President that the U.N. Security Council has authorized a multinational 
force under U.S. command in Iraq and a central role for the U.N. in the 
political and economic development of Iraq, and a second vote by 
Congress. I am convinced that if we do not truly internationalize our 
policy in Iraq our troops will continue to face daily attacks, our 
efforts to rebuild will be in jeopardy, and U.S. taxpayers, virtually 
alone, will pay the skyrocketing costs.
  The Biden amendment would have paid for the $87 billion by repealing 
a tiny fraction of the President's huge tax cut for the wealthiest 
Americans. I have no doubt that if the American people had been able to 
vote on the Biden amendment it would have passed overwhelmingly.
  The Dorgan amendment would have paid for the reconstruction with 
revenues from future Iraqi oil sales. Yearly revenues from Iraqi oil 
are expected to reach $100 billion in less than a decade. This 
amendment, had it passed, would have lifted a portion of the staggering 
financial burden of this war off the backs of American taxpayers.
  I offered an amendment, with Senator Daschle, to shift responsibility 
for rebuilding Iraq from the Secretary of Defense to the Secretary of 
State. The Pentagon's role is fighting wars, which they do superbly. It 
is not nation building. That is the role of the State Department. It is 
ironic that President Bush, who ridiculed the Clinton administration 
for nation building in the former Yugoslavia, is today defending the 
Pentagon's role in the biggest nation-building effort in half a 
century.
  These are only four of the amendments that I supported, each of which 
was voted down because the White House and the Republican leadership 
opposed them.
  Mr. President, in the weeks and days leading up to this vote, I have 
been guided by several things.
  First is the importance of multilateralism. There is no realistic 
alternative in the 21st century to working collectively with other 
nations to combat terrorism and other grave threats to our security 
which extend far beyond our borders. Iraq, perhaps more than any 
foreign policy adventure in recent memory, illustrates the costs we pay 
for unilateralist thinking--the cost to our soldiers, to our relations 
with allies and the Muslim world, to our influence with other nations 
on so many critical issues, and to American taxpayers.
  Second, I did not vote for the resolution that President Bush used to 
justify the invasion of Iraq. I felt it gave the President sweeping 
authority that the Constitution reserves for the Congress. I was also 
convinced that the White House, despite its protestations to the 
contrary, was determined to short circuit the U.N. inspectors and go to 
war alone.
  This administration's policy has been driven by lofty, unrealistic 
ambitions; White House and Pentagon officials who were so convinced of 
their own version of reality that they felt no need to ask questions, 
not to mention listen to the answers; a presumption that other nations 
would follow us simply because of who we are; and a naive assumption 
that we would be embraced as liberators and that the Pentagon's chosen 
exiles, unknown to most Iraqis, would be quickly enthroned in the seat 
of power.
  Detractors were silenced. Other nations were bullied. Members of 
Congress who did not fall into line were called unpatriotic. The 
administration's justification for a preemptive war, carried out not in 
self defense, not in response to 9/11, and without United Nations 
support, has changed from month to month, depending, it seems, on what 
the White House's polls say the American people will believe.
  And third is my concern that in the 2 years since the tragedy of 
September 11th, President Bush has squandered the support of the rest 
of the world and has largely failed to build an effective global 
response to terrorism.
  Mr. President, I am not among those who feel that everything we have 
done in Iraq has been a failure. To the contrary, thanks to the heroics 
of our soldiers--many hundreds of whom have paid with their lives and 
limbs--the Iraqi people have a chance to build a government they can be 
proud of. But the issues before us are far more complex than whether or 
not we should help Iraq. We should help in ways that are right for the 
Iraqi people, and right for the American people.

[[Page 25136]]

  The question each of us must answer, for ourselves and our 
constituents, is whether this $87 billion, for the purposes for which 
the Administration has requested it, is the right way to do that.
  Thinking back, as I have often done since President Bush launched an 
essentially unilateral, preemptive war against Iraq, I believe the 
President got off on the wrong foot from the moment he made that 
famous, or infamous, remark ``if you are not with us, you are against 
us.'' That statement was made shortly after September 11th, when the 
American people were feeling the brunt of that national tragedy, and it 
may have been reassuring to hear the President express his world view 
in such bold terms. But I, like many Vermonters, was uneasy about what 
the President said, and in retrospect I believe it represented a 
fundamentally flawed approach to the threat our Nation faced then, and 
will continue to face for years to come.
  What the President's challenge has come to mean is that regardless of 
who you are, including our oldest, closest allies, if you do not agree 
with us we will ignore what you say, we will dismiss you as irrelevant, 
we will punish you if we can, and we will go our own way in spite of 
you. That, I believe, is a recipe for failure. It is beneath the United 
States. It weakens the United States.
  Not only has the White House done grave damage to our foreign 
relations, it has squandered its credibility with the Congress and the 
American people.
  After handily defeating Saddam Hussein's army, virtually everything 
this administration predicted about Iraq has turned out to be wrong. 
Yet one would hardly know that from listening to senior administration 
officials on television or in testimony before Congress. Rather than 
give an honest assessment of the pros and cons, they have preferred to 
make personal attacks against those of us who ask legitimate questions. 
Since jamming through a Gulf of Tonkin-like resolution last year, top 
administration officials have continually ridiculed those opposed to 
the war in Iraq, calling them pro-Saddam Hussein or pro-Osama bin 
Laden.
  Only weeks ago, Secretary Rumsfeld accused those who were asking 
questions about the deteriorating security situation in Iraq of giving 
comfort to our enemies.
  That is baloney. Every one of us wanted Saddam Hussein gone. But it 
is the duty of each Senator to ask questions when young Americans are 
dying overseas.
  The administration said, over and over, that the reason we had to 
invade Iraq was because of weapons of mass destruction. The Vice 
President said, ``We believe he [Saddam Hussein] has, in fact, 
reconstituted nuclear weapons,'' although there was apparently 
virtually no evidence to support that.
  But after blaming the United Nations inspectors for being duped, and 
after months of searching without any interference, the administration 
has yet to find any weapons of mass destruction. And now, as reported 
in the press, they want to spend another $600 million to continue the 
search.
  Not long ago, the Secretary of State said the weapons were the 
chemical weapons used against the Kurds in 1988, before the first gulf 
war. The gassing of the Kurds was a horrific war crime, but as much as 
I respect the Secretary, it is absurd, and contrary to everything we 
were told a year ago, to use an atrocity of 15 years ago to justify a 
pre-emptive war.
  In fact, when Saddam Hussein used mustard gas against the Kurds, the 
Reagan-Bush administration did little about it. And they continued to 
sell weapons to Saddam Hussein for years after. The Secretary of State 
was a member of that administration.
  This Administration apparently has no idea what happened to the 
weapons of mass destruction, did next to nothing to secure the sites 
where it believed them to be after the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime, 
and now seems to want to forget about them altogether.
  This time last year, there were daily warnings about mushroom clouds. 
Yet in his speech to the Nation on September 7, the President barely 
mentioned the issue.
  This is not, as some have suggested, a partisan issue. It is an 
American issue. These are questions that get to the heart of U.S. 
security and credibility. Where are these weapons? Were they destroyed? 
Are they in the hands of terrorists, like the Islamic extremists who 
are flooding into Iraq to attack our troops? Are they in Syria or Iran? 
Was this a massive intelligence failure?
  The administration's handling of this issue has severely undermined 
the credibility of our intelligence and of the President's 
justification for rushing into war.
  The White House's other major justification for the invasion of Iraq 
was to fight al-Qaida and combat international terrorism. Over and over 
again, hardliners in this administration tried to make this connection. 
They created a special unit in the Pentagon. They worked hard to link 
Saddam Hussein with 9/11, even if the facts did not support it.
  Only recently, after misleading a majority of the American people, 
did the President publically concede that there is no evidence of a 
link. Yet, Vice President Cheney continues to suggest there is. It 
would be helpful if the Vice President would agree with the President 
on this point.
  Mr. President, I want as much as any person to mount an effective 
campaign to deter, prevent, and combat terrorism. But what we have been 
given is a partisan, ``take it or leave it,'' rushed approach costing 
scores of billions of dollars that is not backed up with a credible 
plan.
  And by a plan I mean a detailed strategy that shows us a way to 
internationalize this policy and bring our troops home within a 
reasonable time.
  Many in Congress, Democrats and Republicans, warned of the costs and 
pitfalls of fighting a war to enforce U.N. resolutions without the 
support of the U.N. Security Council, and of rebuilding Iraq without 
the support of other nations. Iraq is a complex country with a long 
history of ethnic and religious conflict, and it was crucial to have a 
sound postwar plan and a viable exit strategy. But the administration 
did not want to hear those warnings. I think my good friend Senator 
Hagel spoke for many of us, when he said the administration ``did a 
miserable job of planning the post-Saddam Iraq'' and ``treated many in 
the Congress, most of the Congress like a nuisance.''
  We also know that the White House ignored concerns expressed by some 
in the administration, especially in the CIA and the State Department, 
about the difficulties and dangers involved. Instead, a small, 
secretive group in the Pentagon dominated postwar planning, and 
miscalculated. Vice President Cheney said ``[t]here's no question [that 
the people of Iraq] want to get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will 
welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that.''
  Many Iraqis are grateful. But the Vice President says almost nothing 
about the fact that our soldiers, who have performed so bravely, are 
under constant attack or threat of attack from terrorists and remnants 
of the Baathist regime. He and others in the White House don't talk 
about the hundreds of Americans who have died, or the nearly 2,000 
wounded. And many of these injuries are not just a broken bone or 
scrapes. They are lost limbs. Lost eyesight. Lifetime disabilities.
  The Secretary of Defense does not talk about the billions of dollars 
in this supplemental to repair damage caused by the catastrophic 
looting of government buildings, electric generating equipment, 
hospitals, oil refineries, railroads, and communications 
infrastructure, because the Pentagon did not plan for the war's end and 
did not have enough troops in place to keep order after the fall of 
Saddam's government.
  This $87 billion request is made by the President of the party that 
just a few years ago gave great speeches in support of a constitutional 
amendment for a balanced budget. In fact, it was the Clinton 
administration that actually had the fiscal discipline to achieve a 
balanced budget, which President Bush inherited. President Bush and

[[Page 25137]]

Vice President Cheney say they are deficit hawks. Yet today we are on 
the road to putting a $1 trillion deficit squarely on the backs of our 
children and grandchildren.
  This is also a President who says we cannot spend another $1 billion 
in emergency funds to combat AIDS this year, a disease that kills 8,000 
people every day. This Administration's AIDS initiative, which has such 
promise, is starting looking like more talk than action. Others here 
have recounted the statements of former chief economic adviser Lawrence 
Lindsey, who estimated that it would cost between $100 billion and $200 
billion to rebuild Iraq. He was right, but his analysis was disputed 
again and again by administration officials who wanted to paint a much 
rosier picture. For telling the truth, he was forced out of the 
administration.
  Former OMB Director Daniels said between $50 billion and $60 billion.
  Deputy Defense Secretary Wolfowitz said ``We're dealing with a 
country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively 
soon. The oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 
billion over the course of the next two or three years.''
  Andrew Natsios, Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International 
Development, said that $1.7 billion was all that America's taxpayers 
would have to pay. $1.7 billion. That is incredible.
  These estimates were wildly off the mark. After so many 
misstatements, misjudgments, and distortions, I have no idea who to 
believe. This Administration has been wrong, wrong, and wrong.
  As Senator Byrd has pointed out, this $87 billion brings to $194 
billion the amount the United States is spending in Iraq and 
Afghanistan--more than twice what the administration had led the public 
to believe just a few months ago.
  The 1991 gulf war, by contrast, cost $61 billion, of which the United 
States paid only $7 billion. That is $7 billion spent in 1991 compared 
to $194 billion today--almost 28 times higher, and this is only the 
beginning.
  The $20 billion that the President wants for rebuilding Iraq is more 
than we are spending this year on foreign aid for the entire rest of 
the world. The $87 billion is one and a half times the amount we spend 
on education in the United States. It is larger than the total 
economies of almost half the states of the Union.
  The administration hopes that it will receive an additional $55 
billion for Iraqi reconstruction from other countries and Iraqi oil 
revenues over the next 2 years. But that, again, may be wildly 
optimistic.
  We are going to rebuild Iraq and put the Iraqis back to work. The 
President says there is money for that--$87 billion. But there is no 
supplemental to help the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs 
here at home. There is no money to fix our broken public schools. There 
is no money for health care for 44 million Americans who are without 
insurance. None for affordable housing for the growing number of 
Americans living in poverty.
  Instead of a plan, we get more rhetoric about winning the war on 
terrorism. Instead of specifics, we get abstract talk about democracy 
in the Middle East--civilizations that predate ours by a thousand 
years. This administration continues to support autocratic regimes in 
the Middle East, Central Asia, and elsewhere, whenever it suits them. 
Instead of a timetable and a detailed justification of costs, we get 
simplistic and inaccurate comparisons with the Marshall plan.
  The Marshall plan, as I, Senator Daschle, and others have pointed 
out, bore little resemblance to what we are dealing with here. The most 
specific thing the President has talked about is the pricetag: $87 
billion. This is staggering. It gave many Americans sticker shock and 
awe.
  Their so-called ``plan'' is a July 23rd document, totaling 8 pages of 
text and 19 pages of a hypothetical time line. It is not a plan of 
anything. It is a vague statement of objectives, which begins by 
saying, not a little presumptiously, that ``now that Saddam Hussein's 
regime has been removed, the Iraqi people have the opportunity to 
realize the President's vision'' for Iraq. I wonder if anyone asked the 
Iraqi people about their own vision for their country.
  This plan, which we did not receive until August 22--the day 
Ambassador Bremer came to testify before the Appropriations Committee--
tells us only what has become obvious to everyone--the President sent 
our troops into war without a postwar plan.
  Is everything going badly? No. Iraq is not engulfed in flames, as 
some press reports might suggest. The port has been rebuilt. Businesses 
and schools are opening. Electric power and health services are being 
restored. Rubble is being cleared. A new police force is being trained. 
There has been progress, and I commend Ambassador Bremer, USAID, and 
the many private voluntary organizations who are working assiduously in 
extremely difficult and dangerous conditions.
  But there is another picture that the White House prefers not to talk 
about. The coordinated, deadly attacks against our troops and Iraqi 
police are growing in frequency. Aid workers are facing daily threats 
and acts of sabotage. Many relief organizations are evacuating their 
employees, as the U.N. has done. Horrific bombings of civilian targets 
are becoming routine. There is growing resentment among the Iraqi 
people.
  Mr. President, we are at a crossroads, not only in Iraq, but in our 
relations with the rest of the world. A year ago, I listened as the 
President suddenly, inexplicably, changed his focus from defeating al-
Qaida in Afghanistan to overthrowing Saddam Hussein. I listened to his 
reasons, which were unconvincing given what we knew at the time, and 
they are less convincing today. Like many, including some of my friends 
on the other side of the aisle, I urged patience. We were ignored.
  We waited for the evidence. It was distorted and manipulated.
  After a brilliant military victory, the postwar strategy and the 
justification for the war itself have largely evaporated. Faced with an 
$87 billion down payment on what is likely to be a far more costly, far 
longer United States involvement in Iraq, I have tried, through 
hearings and amendments, to promote an approach which I believe could 
succeed. But the White House and the Republican Majority have been 
inflexible.
  This has been a difficult process. I do not believe the United 
States, having destroyed Iraq's government, should walk away. But 
neither can I support a policy that was ill-conceived from the 
beginning, has seriously eroded our influence with our allies, further 
poisoned our already frayed relations with the Muslim world and 
weakened the United Nations. It is a policy which cannot succeed over 
the long term without a significant change of course.
  I have listened to some in the majority argue that ``we have no 
choice'' but to ``stay the course.'' We may have no choice but to stay 
in Iraq, but we do have a choice about the course. I believe we need to 
change course.
  We should change course in three key ways.
  First, as I and so many others have urged, we should internationalize 
our policy. The amendment I sponsored with Senator Byrd and Senator 
Kennedy would have helped do that, and the U.N. resolution that was 
adopted yesterday is a welcome and encouraging step, for which I 
commend Secretary of State Powell. But it is nothing more than an 
expression of good intentions. We have no idea if it will change 
anything, as this White House has steadfastly resisted meaningful input 
from other nations.
  Will the multinational force be anything more than a fig leaf for an 
ongoing U.S. military occupation involving over 120,000 troops? Will 
other nations contribute significant resources? Or will U.S. taxpayers 
continue to shoulder 99 percent of the costs?
  We need to know if the U.N. resolution represents the change in 
policy that is long overdue, or if it is nothing more than political 
cover to continue drifting along as we are today alone, with our troops 
under fire and U.S. taxpayers mortgaging their children's savings.

[[Page 25138]]

  Second, we must do a far better job of protecting the taxpayers' 
money. Today we should be voting to appropriate not a penny more than 
the amount of funds that can be spent wisely in Iraq and Afghanistan 
during the next 12 months. It should be paid for by repealing a portion 
of the tax cut for the wealthiest Americans, as proposed by Senator 
Biden, not by increasing the deficit. By mid-year we should hold 
thorough hearings, and vote again on whether to stay the course.
  Third, we should get the Secretary of Defense out of the business of 
nation building and put the Secretary of State back in charge. My 
amendment would have done that.
  These are not radical alternatives, but the President's advisers 
decided that nothing was open for discussion. It has been their latest 
version of ``if you're not with us, you're against us.'' They have 
treated this supplemental as a referendum on the President's policy in 
Iraq, a policy which I believe is fraught with dangers for our Nation. 
It is no more the right way to build the peace than the pre-emptive, 
unilateral use of force was the right way to go to war.
  Mr. President, I voted for every amendment that I felt would make the 
best use of the taxpayer's hard earned money. I voted for every 
amendment that I felt would support our troops and help them do their 
jobs better, and come home safely. I support them by spending money 
wisely. And I support them by voting to change course when I believe 
the course we are on endangers them unnecessarily.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I understood that it 
would go back and forth between Republicans and Democrats.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I take the floor to make a few personal 
observations. I don't want to revisit all of the arguments that have 
been made over and over again. But I do want to make a few statements 
just for the record. I want to make it very clear, speaking for 
myself--and I think for other Members of the Senate, but they can speak 
for themselves--that I have never challenged the patriotism, the 
motives, or the rights of any Senator who has disagreed with the 
President on this vote.
  I have utmost respect for the senior Senator from West Virginia. I 
have watched him serve for many years. I watched him serve while I was 
a staff member for my father. He and my father served together in this 
body for many years. I would never, under any circumstances, suggest 
that I was challenging his patriotism in any way. I do think he is 
profoundly wrong in the decision he has made with respect to this war. 
But I recognize that he has every right to make that decision. He has 
every right to defend that decision in as vigorous language as 
possible, but I want to make it clear to him and to any who may have 
misunderstood that under no circumstances and at no time have I ever 
challenged his patriotism.
  I am not sure I know of any other Senator who has ever challenged his 
patriotism. I hope we will understand that as we disagree, as 
vigorously as we do on this issue, we are not, in fact, engaging in 
what has been called the politics of personal destruction.
  I believe the Senator from West Virginia is wrong because I think his 
world view is wrong with respect to where the world is and where the 
President is going in the postwar world.
  We all celebrated the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the cold 
war. There were books written about it. One was entitled ``The End of 
History.'' We found that history did not come to an end with the end of 
the cold war, that the challenges to American lives and American 
interests around the world did not disappear with the Soviet Union, and 
that we have additional challenges today.
  I will not suggest that the Bush administration has done everything 
right. I have had my moments of disagreement with this administration, 
some of them relatively serious and some of them relatively recent. But 
I am behind the President in this effort because I think his overall 
global view is the correct one.
  The primary challenge to peace in the world right now is coming out 
of the Middle East. For a variety of reasons, for a variety of historic 
patterns, that part of the world is producing the principal challenge 
to peace everywhere.
  Europeans feel more secure than they have ever felt in their lives, 
and perhaps accurately and properly so. The Soviet Union is gone. The 
age-old rivalries between the Germans and the French and the other 
principalities in Europe are over. They are striving to write a 
European constitution and bring themselves together in a legitimate 
economic way. They feel more secure after centuries of war than they 
have ever felt in their lives. They are no longer the target. We are. 
They are no longer the focus of those who would bring instability to 
the world. We are. And we saw that happen in dramatic fashion on 
September 11, 2001.
  The President has said there is no connection between what happened 
on September 11, 2001, and Iraq, and that is true, and the President 
never claimed such a connection. But there is an overall connection in 
the sense that those warriors for their cause who attacked us on 
September 11, 2001, came out of an area and a culture and an attitude 
that exist in the Middle East that must be addressed in the Middle 
East, even if there are no direct links, even if there was no direct 
funding, even if there was not a case that a law enforcement official 
could make in a court of law.
  We must recognize the significance of the Middle East as the source 
of instability in the world and recognize those players in the Middle 
East who are part of that instability. I believe Saddam Hussein was a 
principal player for instability.
  We can argue, appropriately, and we can go back and examine the 
mistakes that were made with respect to Saddam Hussein. We can say 
there are statements made prior to the attack on Iraq which, in 
retrospect, turned out not to be true. I can list some of them.
  No. 1, I heard in this Chamber that we were going to get body bags 
coming back from Iraq by the thousands. We were told in this Chamber 
that we were going to have house-to-house fighting in Baghdad, door-to-
door assaults. We were told that our troops were going to be gassed--
that from people who voted against the resolution to give the President 
the authority to go forward.
  It turns out all of those predictions are not true. Do I attack the 
people who made those predictions as having botched it? I suggest they 
read the intelligence and came to the wrong conclusion. I also 
recognize that whenever this Nation or any nation goes to war, you 
never know exactly what is going to happen.
  This is perhaps a small example, but it has struck me, as I read the 
history of the Second World War. As carefully as we planned the assault 
on Normandy, as carefully as we did the disinformation to get Hitler to 
think we were going to attack someplace other than we did, the 
disguises, the false information that was put out, all of the rest of 
the intelligence that was done, we made one very fundamental and, in 
retrospect, stupid mistake. In all of the training of our troops in 
advance of the Normandy invasion, we assumed that the hedgerows between 
fields in France would be the same height as the hedgerows between 
fields in Great Britain.
  So as we trained in Great Britain, we trained with hedgerows that 
were about knee height and then found ourselves in France with 
hedgerows that were almost as high as a building. It completely 
disrupted all of our tank assaults and plans because as a tank would 
try to go up and over one of those hedgerows, it would be vulnerable to 
fire from the other side. They could hit the underbelly of the tank 
because its tracks were exposed and the base of the tank itself was 
exposed and an artillery shell could take it out instantly.
  It was improvisation on the field from a GI who used to work on a 
farm

[[Page 25139]]

who helped create what would be a version of a snowplow on the front of 
a tank to drive the tank through the hedgerow. An incredible 
intelligence mistake of something as simple as that, and they could 
have determined that if they could have found a French farmer to talk 
to.
  Did this Chamber ring with accusations that President Roosevelt had 
lied to the American people about our plan in Normandy? Were there 
denunciations of General Marshall or General Eisenhower because they 
made that intelligence error? Some would say the analogy doesn't hold, 
and certainly there are many aspects of it that do not, but the point I 
think is legitimate. The intelligence failures that we now know 
occurred with respect to Iraq were not deliberate lies. The 
intelligence failures that have accompanied every American military 
action are the best efforts of human beings doing the best they can 
under pressure and always making mistakes.
  What matters is the overall world view and strategic direction, and, 
as I said, I believe George W. Bush has the right strategic direction. 
He recognizes that the instability in the world is coming from the 
Middle East; that we must do everything we can to deal with those 
characters who are responsible for that instability. And he made the 
decision that one of those characters was Saddam Hussein.
  I cannot believe anyone can look back on it and say that particular 
decision was the wrong one. As I have said here before, one of the 
first people who alerted me to Saddam Hussein and his capacity to 
spread instability throughout the world was Madeleine Albright, 
Secretary of State, as we met with her in S-407 and heard her outline 
the description of weapons of mass destruction that were in Iraq. We 
heard her boss, the President of the United States, President Clinton, 
do the same thing in public fora.
  Was there any reason to believe they were for any purpose trying to 
mislead the American people? We might say they were wrong based on what 
we now know, but they were wrong, if they were, because of the fog of 
uncertainty over the intelligence reports all of us had. They made the 
best judgments they could make on the basis of the best information 
they had, and then they moved ahead. President Bush did exactly the 
same thing.
  There are those who say he has squandered our good will in the world. 
Everybody loved us after September 11. There were demonstrations in the 
streets in Europe, demonstrations of support, demonstrations of 
sympathy. How long would those demonstrations have nourished our 
position if indeed we had done nothing following September 11?
  Oh, it is all right to do something as long as everybody is with you. 
It is all right to do something as long as everybody agrees. Well, it 
seemed to me the United Nations agreed. Fifteen to nothing strikes me 
as a fairly definite vote in the Security Council for resolution 1441.
  Then when the United States said, all right, resolution 1441 is not 
being complied with, resolution 1441 says if it is not complied with, 
there will be serious consequences--serious consequences is U.N. speak 
for war--how about it, U.N.?
  Oh, no, no, said members of the Security Council.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. BENNETT. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Does the Senator know how much longer his remarks 
will be? I ask simply because I follow the Senator and I have an 
airplane to catch. It would be helpful if I could get an estimate.
  Mr. BENNETT. I am glad to have the Senator tell me of his schedule 
and I shall cut it as short as I possibly can, because I do not want to 
disconcert the Senator in any way.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Not at all. When I served in Normandy, I saw a lot of 
things the Senator is talking about. It is very interesting.
  Mr. BENNETT. No, I do not need to go on further because it has all 
been said.
  I will conclude.
  Mistakes have been made. I think both sides can admit that and should 
recognize that. People have been offended by the administration on both 
sides of the aisle. I think we can recognize that and admit that.
  The fundamental question to me is whether the overall direction in 
which the President is trying to take the country is the right one. As 
I study history and as I listen to the reports that come back from 
Iraq, as I talk to the people in Utah who are serving there--we have a 
higher percentage of our Armed Forces who are Reserve and Guard in Iraq 
than any other State--I am convinced the President is right in his 
overall direction. Whatever course corrections need to be made we can 
talk about, but when all is said and done, this President has done the 
right thing.
  I am proud to have voted to give him the authority in the first 
instance, and I am proud to be one of the 87 Senators today who have 
voted to give him the continuing support he requires.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Utah for his 
cooperation. I am sorry to interrupt. He did just what the order called 
for and I respect that.
  I have a couple of things to talk about and I will try not to be too 
long. One of the things I want to talk about is the very important vote 
we just had. I was one of a very small group to have voted against the 
supplemental appropriations bill for Iraq. I want to make sure my vote 
is clearly understood. I support taking care of our military, making 
sure their conditions are as comfortable as they can be under difficult 
circumstances, making sure they have the latest in weaponry, and that 
they are treated fairly and they receive medical care and their health 
care is the best we can offer. I was prepared to vote for that $67 
billion in a flash, but that was not the only thing we voted on. We 
also voted on extending $20 billion to Iraq for reconstruction.
  I think it is a noble effort we are making to show we care about 
other people, but we also have to care about the people here. We also 
have to worry about the schools here that are crumbling, schools where 
it is hard to learn. We also have to understand that when we say Leave 
No Child Behind, we mean all the children, and we need more funding to 
do that. That has to be paid for. We do not seem to have the funds for 
that.
  Thank goodness we have Social Security surpluses we can borrow from--
money we can take from the senior citizens, those who are here now and 
those in the future. So we borrow money from one place and then we lend 
or give that money to another place, to Iraq, to make sure they have 
schools and garbage trucks. And I do not mean to diminish that. I think 
it is important to show we care about those people, but we ought to be 
a little more inventive in the way we do it. We ought to be able to 
find the kind of support we need, true support, in the United Nations 
which we scorned so much as we were preparing to go to war.
  I was a supporter of the war, so I cast a vote I feel very good 
about. I thought very carefully about it. I wore a uniform, as I said 
before. I wore it during the ``Big War.'' I enlisted at the end of 1942 
and got out in 1946. I am very attached to the military and the 
responsibility they have.
  Well, the vote has been cast and shortly, we will be distributing a 
total of $87 billion for reconstruction aid and for the resources our 
military men and women need.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, we have had a busy week as we have 
considered the $87 billion request from the administration. There has 
been a great deal of debate. A number of amendments and senses of the 
Senate have been voted on. In the end, we were faced with the difficult 
choice as to whether we would or would not support this request by the 
administration.
  I have the greatest respect for my colleagues who voted against this 
$87 billion. I listened with great interest and attention to my friend 
and colleague, Senator Leahy, as he laid out a compelling argument with 
a number of

[[Page 25140]]

points concerning the reasons why he voted against the request for $87 
billion.
  I know, from having heard the brief remarks of the Senator from 
Florida, that in a few minutes we will hear his usual thoughtful 
exposition as to why he, too, voted against the $87 billion.
  I think it is imperative we all agree that, whichever way one of us 
voted, for or against this funding, all of us are united in our support 
for our brave men and women who are literally risking, and all too 
tragically losing, their lives on a daily basis in Iraq.
  This was a very difficult vote for many of us. There are those of us, 
such as myself, who voted to give the President authority. We disagree 
with the way he used that authority. We have many questions, and still 
most are unanswered, about the choices the President and his team have 
made over the last year. But the idea of giving our President authority 
to act in the global war against terrorism, if necessary in his 
opinion, against Saddam Hussein, was one I could support and I did so. 
In the last year, however, I have been first perplexed, then surprised, 
then amazed, and even outraged and always frustrated by the 
implementation of the authority given the President by this Congress.
  One can agree on the goal that was adopted in 1998 for regime change. 
I, for one, am in the camp that believes the world is better off 
without Saddam Hussein at the helm of a dangerous, tyrannical regime. 
But it is not enough to say you support the goal. There are many 
different obstacles and difficulties and choices on the way to 
achieving that goal that have both intended and unintended 
consequences.
  A number of my colleagues have addressed the concerns arising out of 
the use and misuse of intelligence. I, for one, have said repeatedly 
the intelligence about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein had been 
consistent--consistent through three administrations: the first Bush 
administration, the Clinton administration, and now this 
administration.
  There was a consensus there had been and were continuing to be 
programs devoted to the creation of weapons of mass destruction. We 
certainly knew, as the world saw, that this man had no compunction 
about using them.
  Nevertheless, I think it is clear, and it is not just a mistake, it 
is not just a wrong assessment--I think now it is clear that, for a 
combination of reasons, the administration gilded the lily, engaged in 
hyperbole, took whatever small nugget of intelligence that existed and 
blew it up into a mountain, in order, I suppose, to make the case more 
strongly and convincingly to the American people. But at what a cost? 
The cost of our credibility, the cost of our national leadership, and 
even more so the cost of perhaps not being able to take actions in the 
future that are necessary to our well-being and our interests because 
we may look like the nation or at least the administration that cried 
wolf. It is a big price to pay.
  Yet continually, rather than saying what I think all of us would 
agree, the consensus turned out not to be right. There were some, such 
as my good friend from Florida, who at the time was serving as the 
chairman of the Intelligence Committee and was in a position to see all 
the different interlocking facts, who said: Wait a minute. We are 
heading off in the wrong direction. We are jumping on the wrong horse.
  But for many of us, looking at the intelligence, being briefed 
continually about what the threats were, being told by the highest 
levels of our Government in public and in private that we were facing 
an imminent threat, it certainly seemed like a bet on which nobody--at 
least speaking for myself--wished to be on the wrong side.
  I think there would be considerable understanding on the part not 
just of Members of Congress but of the American public if leading 
members of the administration would now come forward and say: You know, 
we may have gotten overly invested in the intelligence. We may have 
gotten a little ahead of the game. We may have seen more than there 
was, and we perhaps said a few things and made some claims that we 
can't support--whether it is uranium in Niger or links with al-Qaida by 
Saddam Hussein--but the fundamental fact remains that this man posed a 
threat to his neighbors. There is no doubt in anyone's mind--because we 
had already seen him use it--that he would have employed weapons of 
mass destruction at some future date. Although we may have gone a 
little too far, we believe we made the right decision.
  But you do not hear that from this administration. This 
administration never makes a mistake, in their own eyes. They are never 
willing to back off. They have the Vice President still going on 
national television shows repeating discredited intelligence. That is 
not free. That is costly. That sends a signal not just to those of us 
who serve and vote in this body, not just to the American public, but 
to the entire world that either there is an unwillingness to accept the 
evidence and the facts or there is a commitment on an ideological basis 
to a world view or a point of view that is wrong.
  Time and time again, the administration has had the opportunity to 
level with the American people. Unfortunately, they haven't been 
willing to do that.
  Among the many questions that I and others raised and the many 
criticisms we lodged against the use of the authority, which I and the 
majority of this body voted for, was the administration's aborting of 
the United Nations process and the inspections regime in order to 
launch military action.
  There was never any doubt in anyone's mind with any knowledge of the 
American military what the outcome would be. I, for one, knew there was 
no worry whatsoever; that we have the finest equipped, trained, and 
motivated military probably in the history of the world, and they would 
do the mission they were assigned. So they did.
  But all during the period from the voting on the authority to the end 
of organized major conflict, we kept asking questions: What are the 
plans once we know the military does the job it is sent to do? How many 
troops will we need? How long will they be there? What will this cost 
us in lives and treasure? Over and over, the answer we received from 
the administration was: We are ready; we are prepared. And oftentimes 
it came with an almost embarrassingly romantic view of this conflict--
that we would be met by cheering and rose petals thrown in the streets, 
that we would be in and out quickly, that the oil would be flowing. It 
sounded fabulous. But that is what it turned out to be, a fabulous 
fantasy.
  It is hard for me to really understand how this administration, led 
by many--from the Vice President to the Secretary of Defense to others 
who have been committed to overturning the regime of Saddam Hussein 
since they made the mistake of not going to Baghdad in the first gulf 
war--could be so ill prepared. How on Earth? These people have spent 10 
years obsessing over Saddam Hussein and Iraq. One would think they knew 
what they would do when they arrived.
  They would not answer our questions, and all too often they would 
punish representatives of our civilian and military leadership who did 
answer the questions--most famously General Shinseki who told the truth 
about the numbers of troops it would take, and the number of years it 
would take, and was largely ignored or pilloried by this 
administration. How could they not have been prepared? How could they 
have turned their backs on the most obvious kinds of planning?
  I know for a fact there were many from previous Republican 
administrations who came in over and over again and said: You are going 
to face a looting problem; You don't have enough troops for that; We 
have to be sure we can secure not just a couple of facilities but we 
need the troops to secure a number of the most important institutions--
somehow they were not hurt, to say nothing of those from former 
Democratic administrations who offered the same advice.
  We have the President land on the aircraft carrier, We have him 
declare the end to major conflict, and here we are months later losing 
on average a

[[Page 25141]]

soldier a day, seeing the maiming and disabling of hundreds more, being 
asked to spend, last spring, $70 billion in a supplemental to sustain 
our military function and now being asked to spend $87 billion, $67 
billion, approximately, for our military and $20 billion for necessary 
functions on reconstructing Iraq.
  Given the level of criticism that I and others feel about this 
venture and its failure, it is hard not to see this $87 billion as 
anything but a bill for failed leadership. Yet I, for one, believe this 
mission in Iraq is too important for failure. If we do not stabilize 
Iraq, if we do not protect our forces, if we do not clearly send a 
signal to the Iraqi people who are and certainly will be better off 
because of the removal of Saddam Hussein, we will not just have failed 
in this mission, we will have undermined our long-term stability and we 
will certainly have created a more dangerous world despite our efforts 
to avoid that.
  I understand very clearly the anger and frustration my constituents 
and Americans across the country feel about this $87 billion. I share 
it. It is really hard to vote for this money. It is hard because you 
wonder what is going to actually be accomplished with it given the poor 
track record of this administration. You wonder how you can justify it 
in the face of the irresponsible fiscal policies of this administration 
that has undermined our present obligations and our long-term economic 
security. You wonder how you can possibly support this request when you 
know you don't get the straight story out of this administration time 
and time again. Yet, at the same time, it is hard to walk away now. In 
fact, I don't think we can.
  Yes, we have not found the weapons of mass destruction, but we are 
there. No, we do not really have any links between al-Qaida and Saddam 
Hussein to be proven, but we are there. We have not stabilized the 
country and we have not even secured the weapon caches all over the 
country, but we are there. It is just hard to accept that we are there 
without an adequate plan and understanding of what it will take to be 
successful.
  The fact that the administration purposely left the impression that 
there would be a quick victory and our troops would be home in no time 
is very hard to accept for a lot of the husbands and wives and mothers 
and fathers and sons and daughters of the people serving. We have all 
read the story today from the interviews done by Stars and Stripes, the 
newspaper of the Army, reporting in great detail about the questions 
and concerns and poor morale of many of our soldiers and other forces 
in Iraq.
  I understand completely why people are frustrated and angry, but I 
don't think we can allow our frustration and anger with the 
administration to undermine our commitment to our country and our 
national security.
  So what is it we are called upon to do? For me, the choice as a 
member of the Armed Services Committee was to support the money for our 
troops, wondering, though, as I did, why so many of them still do not 
have the body armor they should have to protect themselves against 
Iraqi attacks and hoping they will shortly. We certainly put enough 
money into the defense budget in the last 2\1/2\ years to at least 
equip every one of our soldiers with adequate body armor.
  I also know that we do have to work to help reconstruct Iraq. We are 
the only people who can and will, in part because the administration 
has alienated those who would have been our natural allies. It is 
frustrating for many, but I don't think we can at this point fail to 
pay this bill of $87 billion for failed leadership.
  We have to put the administration on notice that this vote, 87 to 12, 
was a vote for our troops, a vote for our mission. Speaking as one of 
those who cast a yea vote, it was not a vote for our national 
leadership. We not only can but should expect more than we have been 
given.
  While we confront the reality of our present situation in Iraq, we 
cannot find ourselves in this position again. Many will no longer be 
able to support this administration if they do not start listening, 
occasionally even admitting when they make a mistake that has life-and-
death consequences, reining in their most rabid neocon ideologues when 
they try to ``out'' CIA operatives or continue to claim nonexistent 
links between the global war on al-Qaida and everything else that 
happens in the world.
  I hope the administration understands the level of frustration and 
anger that is out there. It is not just Democratic frustration and 
anger, it is not just partisan, it is across the board, people 
wondering: Where are we going? How will we even know when we get there? 
Did we take on this incredible responsibility under false pretenses?
  I hope the administration will build on the vote in the United 
Nations that gives us at least the opportunity of lessening the burden 
and the costs by sharing it with others who should also have a stake in 
a free and functioning Iraq. I hope the administration will change 
course when it comes to working with the rest of the world and start 
acting more like allies instead of bullies. We cannot keep on this path 
and sustain the support of the American people. That is my most 
important point.
  I have had the great privilege of not just traveling around the 
country but spending a lot of time in every State in our Nation. Now I 
have the great honor of representing the most diverse place in America, 
the State of New York. Americans are not only patriotic in the best 
sense of the word but they are so compassionate and caring about other 
people. What other country would free a people from tyranny and then 
reach into their own pockets to help build schools and hospitals and 
roads and fix the electric grid? Americans do not begrudge that. But 
they want to feel they know where we are headed, that their Government 
is leveling with them.
  They also wonder and ask me, How come we are spending $5 billion to 
fix the electric grid in Iraq and we have not spent any money to fix 
our electric grid in the United States? We are building schools and we 
have schools falling down here. We are building hospitals and we have 
hospitals under all kinds of pressures here. Those are totally 
legitimate questions. They will not go away.
  One of the greatest issues for us to address is how we will provide 
for the needs of the American people while we spend this money abroad. 
Americans will stay with you, Americans will be with you and support 
you, if they understand where we are headed and why it is important to 
our future.
  On that count, this administration is losing the confidence of the 
American people even though the mission we face in Iraq is essential, 
in my view, to the long-term safety and security of our country and the 
leadership America should provide to the world.
  This is not just about money. It is not even, tragically, about the 
lives we lose and the issues we confront in trying to stabilize and 
build Iraq. It is about whether this administration can repair the 
trust it has lost with the American people. I hope it can because I 
don't think it is in anyone's interest to have the President of the 
United States and his top team viewed as having misled our Nation and 
having alienated the rest of the world.
  We are in for a long-term battle in the war against terrorism. I take 
it very seriously. We have determined and ruthless adversaries out to 
destroy our way of life, inflict violence on as many Americans as 
possible. I take a back seat to no one in my resolve to root out and 
destroy global terrorism. My question is, What is the right way to do 
it? And how do we prepare the American people to stay the course for 
what will be a long, protracted struggle?
  I worry deeply that this administration is undermining both our 
ability to win the global war on terrorism and the trust that is needed 
to keep the American people committed.
  So I cast a vote for this supplemental for our troops and for the 
work that has to be done in Iraq. But I cannot endorse this 
administration's plans and policies very much longer if they do not 
recognize the reality of what we confront, not just in Iraq but 
elsewhere in the world and here at home.

[[Page 25142]]

  The administration has forced false choices on this Congress and our 
country. It is very difficult for me, having represented New York 
during the horrors of 9/11, to realize that we had the will and good 
wishes and support of the rest of the world and we have dissipated 
that. We desperately need it in this war against terrorism.
  This may be reported as a resounding victory for the administration--
a large vote--but I do not think it was. I think this was, first of 
all, a vote for our troops, a vote to continue to provide the funding 
they need to protect themselves and to fulfill their mission. It was a 
vote to take responsibility for what does need to be done in Iraq. 
There is not, in my view, any doubt about that.
  But the debate in this body, and the frustration, and even anger 
across the country shows clearly that it was not a vote of confidence 
in the administration's leadership. That needs to be won back by their 
actions going forward. And it is essential that they attempt to do so.
  We cannot fail in Iraq. We cannot fail in the war against terrorism. 
Ultimately, we must not fail our own people. The American people 
deserve better. I hope the administration recognizes and accepts that.
  The last 2 years that I have had the privilege to serve in this body 
have been very emotional ones--the attacks of 9/11; the military action 
in Afghanistan; the action in Iraq; the destruction of our budget 
surplus and plunging our Nation into huge deficits and burgeoning 
national debt; the undermining of the future, in my view, of this 
generation.
  I come not as a partisan but as an American to say, we have to do 
better. I hope this administration will do so.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I rise this evening to elaborate on my vote against 
the $87 billion supplemental appropriations for the occupation and 
rebuilding of Iraq and Afghanistan.
  This supplemental appropriation raises significant domestic issues 
for the United States as well as the fundamental question of what will 
be required for an honorable completion of our responsibilities in Iraq 
and an expeditious exit.
  The domestic issues include an enormous addition to our national 
debt. This year's deficit is now estimated to surpass last year's 
record-setting deficit of $455 billion. With this additional $87 
billion, we are imposing another crushing burden on our children and 
grandchildren while assuring that we will escape most of the cost.
  The President, with our concurrence, has avoided any sacrifice by 
most Americans, including the sacrifice of paying for the occupation 
and reconstruction of Iraq. This is in sharp contrast with previous 
occupations and reconstructions such as the Marshall plan.
  The Marshall plan, from 1948 to 1952, was paid for by the generation 
of Americans who were in this country through the period at the end of 
the Second World War. In fact, the national debt--that debt owed to the 
public--actually was lower in 1952 than it was in 1948.
  But today the only Americans who are being asked to sacrifice are our 
brave men and women in uniform and their families, and our children and 
grandchildren who will eventually be called upon to pay this crushing 
debt.
  A second domestic reality is that while American roads, bridges, 
schools, water and sewer lines, and electric grids are deteriorating, 
there will be scant Federal funding to contribute to their 
reconstruction because we are making the decision that it is more 
important to rebuild Iraq. And we are making the decision to do it 
alone.
  In spite of my great concern about those domestic implications, I 
would be prepared to vote for the $87 billion of unpaid funds in this 
supplemental appropriations bill if I had been satisfied that it would 
achieve the goal of an honorable and expeditious exit from Iraq. 
However, it is my assessment that it will not do so. Rather, it could 
well extend our Iraq occupation into a 21st century sequel to Vietnam.
  It is my firmly held belief that we need to extricate ourselves from 
the quagmire that our policy has created in Iraq. We need to refocus 
our foreign policy on the greatest threat facing Americans at home and 
U.S. interests abroad: the networks of international terrorism. We must 
restart the war on terrorism, which has effectively been in abeyance 
since this administration shifted our military and intelligence 
resources from Afghanistan to Iraq in the spring of 2002.
  As I have said previously, that shift was misguided. We have allowed 
al-Qaida to regenerate. We have allowed other terrorist networks--
Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad--to continue their devious 
plotting against us and our allies.
  We still have not caught al-Qaida's and the Taliban's senior leaders, 
including Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar. We are witnessing a 
resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan. International terrorists 
operating from the sanctuary of Syria are now targeting United States 
citizens. As a result, we have again been forced to endure bombings and 
significant loss of life in Riyadh, Israel, the Gaza Strip, and 
elsewhere.
  Last October, I voted against the resolution authorizing the use of 
force against Saddam Hussein's regime. I argued at the time that there 
was no question that Saddam Hussein was anything other than an evil man 
but, further, that he lived in a neighborhood with many evil men and 
women and that we needed to remain focused on the war on terrorism in 
order to deter additional attacks, such as the tragedy our Nation 
suffered on September 11, 2001.
  In fact, I offered an amendment to the Iraqi resolution to expand the 
President's authority to use force against al-Qaida to include five 
other terrorist networks that pose immediate threats to America.
  In the rush to war in Iraq, the amendment failed. I am tempted to 
offer that amendment again to emphasize we need to disengage from Iraq 
as quickly as we can honorably do so and to restart the war on 
terrorism, a war against our real enemies, not those with phantom 
weapons of mass destruction.
  I say: Let us take President Bush at his word, at least the words he 
uttered 9 days after the tragedy of September 11, when he told a joint 
session of Congress:

       Our war on terror begins with al-Qaida but it does not end 
     there.
       It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach 
     has been found, stopped and defeated.

  In his State of the Union speech on January 29, 2002, President Bush 
restated our priority:

       Our Nation will continue to be steadfast and patient and 
     persistent in the pursuit of two great objectives.
       First, we will shut down terrorist camps, disrupt terrorist 
     plans, and bring terrorists to justice.
       And, second, we must prevent the terrorists and regimes who 
     seek chemical, biological or nuclear weapons from threatening 
     the United States and the world.

  Frankly, I did not offer my amendment, although I thought it would 
have provided the legal basis for the President's objectives to be 
accomplished, because I knew my amendment would fail. It would fail 
because a coalition from the right, which has elevated the war on Iraq 
over the war on terrorism and now is attempting to confuse the 
difference between these two, with a coalition from the left which 
opposes any increase in President Bush's authority to use U.S. military 
force. So I did not offer the amendment. But I will remain true to my 
convictions, as I voted no on this supplemental appropriations bill.
  I know a vote against this bill will be described as a vote against 
our troops. I would say, however, the best way to support our troops is 
to get other soldiers from other nations into Iraq. First, we need 
troops from other nations as an addition to the presence of military 
force in Iraq to increase security and, hopefully, end the shooting 
gallery which we have forced our brave

[[Page 25143]]

men and women to endure. I would suggest an additional 50,000 troops 
are needed to secure the peace.
  Second, we need to get additional foreign troops on the ground to 
substitute for American troops so our soldiers, our men and women who 
have been enduring long deployments in hot, dangerous conditions, can 
begin to rotate home. These additional foreign troops should number 
between 50,000 and 100,000.
  Secretary Powell's efforts at the United Nations resulted yesterday 
in a unanimous vote by the Security Council. But that vote was 
immediately followed by firm statements from the French, the Germans, 
the Pakistanis, the Russians, and others that they will not lend 
additional troops or financial aid to the occupation and reconstruction 
of Iraq. The fact that the Security Council passed a resolution is 
commendable, but not one of the 100,000 to 150,000 foreign troops 
needed to secure Iraq and relieve our troops has been provided.
  Without commitments of troops and Euros and rubles and rupees, there 
will be no additional protection or burden-sharing for U.S. troops who 
are on the ground in Iraq.
  I warn my colleagues, I have detected two clocks ticking on our 
almost unilateral occupation of Iraq. The first clock is the increasing 
reluctance of other countries, countries which are capable of doing so, 
to participate in the occupation and rebuilding of Iraq. If the United 
States had requested immediately after the war that these countries 
participate and did so under respectful conditions, it is quite likely 
we would have significant support on the ground in Iraq tonight. 
However, almost 6 months later, as the violence and the cost of 
occupation and restoration in Iraq accelerates, those nations capable 
of sharing the burden and willing to do so have shrunk. On the current 
course their number may evaporate.
  The second clock has been the declining support of the American 
people, as evidenced by recent polls. The decline has steepened since 
the President's request for this supplemental spending bill was 
announced during a televised address on Sunday, September 7, of this 
year. Here are the poll numbers. When Americans were asked, do you 
approve of the President's policy in Iraq, as recently as April, 75 
percent of Americans answered yes. By June, that 75 percent had 
declined to 67 percent. From the latest poll, which was published on 
October 14, just 50 percent of Americans said they approved of the 
President's policy in Iraq. Clearly, the American people are not 
willing to write a blank check for rebuilding Iraq when we have so many 
unmet needs here at home, when the cost of that occupation has been so 
great in terms of loss of life and American dollars.
  A component of this second ticking clock is the ominous state of 
morale among our troops in Iraq, as found in a nonscientific survey 
conducted by the military newspaper, Stars and Stripes.
  This survey demonstrated that fully a third of regular Army troops 
described their morale as either low or very low. Among reservists and 
National Guard members, 48 percent, almost half, described their morale 
as low or very low.
  I ask unanimous consent to print a copy of an article from the 
October 16 issue of Stars and Stripes in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              [From the Stars and Stripes, Oct. 16, 2003]

  In Survey, Many in Iraq Call Morale Low; Leaders Say Job Is Getting 
                                  Done

                          (By Ward Sanderson)

       What is the morale of U.S. troops in Iraq?
       Answers vary. High-ranking visitors to the country, 
     including Department of Defense and congressional officials, 
     have said it is outstanding.
       Some troops on the ground have begged to differ, writing to 
     Stars and Stripes and to others about what they call low 
     morale on their part and on the part of their units.
       There was a correlation between such things as local 
     services and release dates on the one hand, and morale on the 
     other.
       Stars and Stripes sent a team of reporters to Iraq to try 
     to ascertain the states of both conditions and morale. Troops 
     were asked about morale, among many other issues, in a 17-
     point questionnaire, which was filled out and returned by 
     nearly 2,000 persons.
       The results varied, sometimes dramatically:
       Among the largest group surveyed, Army troops, the results 
     looked much like a bell curve. Twenty-seven percent said 
     their personal morale was ``high'' or ``very high.'' Thirty-
     three percent said it was ``low'' or ``very low.'' The 
     largest percentage fell in the middle, saying it was 
     ``average.''
       Among the second largest group, reservists and National 
     Guard members, the differences were much starker. Only 15 
     percent said their own morale was ``high'' or ``very high,'' 
     while 48 percent said it was ``low'' or ``very low.''
       Among Marines, the next largest group, 44 percent said 
     their morale was ``high'' or ``very high,'' and only 14 
     percent said it was ``low'' or ``very low.''
       Among airmen, the smallest of the four major groups 
     surveyed because fewer questionnaires were allowed to be 
     circulated to them, the results were also very positive. 
     Thirty-nine percent said their morale was ``high'' or ``very 
     high,'' and only 6 percent said it was ``low'' or ``very 
     low.''
       Very few Navy servicemembers could be found to question in 
     Iraq.
       The questionnaire findings can't be projected to all the 
     servicemembers in Iraq. Still, the reporting of ``lows'' 
     among the two largest groups surveyed, Army and Reserve/
     National Guard, seemed significant. The views of these 
     troops, at least, appeared to contrast sharply with those of 
     the visiting VIPs.
       Respondents to the survey were not given a definition of 
     morale. They responded according to what they interpreted the 
     word to mean. Some believe morale reflects the degree of 
     well-being felt by the servicemember. On the other hand, 
     commanders say that in measuring morale, they want to know if 
     the servicemember is following orders and getting the job 
     done.
       Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the top U.S. officer in Iraq, 
     said that low morale isn't an issue because troops are 
     fulfilling the mission.
       ``Morale is . . . not necessarily giving them Baskin-
     Robbins,'' he said in a Stars and Stripes interview. 
     ``Sometimes it's being able to train them hard and keep them 
     focused in a combat environment so they can survive.
       ``So as its most fundamental level within our Army, taking 
     care of soldiers and their morale could have very few worldly 
     comforts. But the morale of the soldier is good. He's being 
     taken care of, he's accomplishing his mission, he's being 
     successful in the warfighting.''
       Other military leaders say they are always looking at ways 
     to improve the morale of their troops. ``Morale begins with 
     caring leaders looking their soldiers in the eye,'' said Lt. 
     Col. Jim Cassella, a Pentagon spokesman. ``When senior 
     leaders visit the troops in Iraq, they relate that the troops 
     tell them that moral is good, a fact that's backed up by re-
     enlistment and retention rates.''
       (These rates have been acceptable or good for the services 
     overall. Figures for re-enlistments in Iraq are not available 
     yet, officials said. In the Stripes survey, half or more 
     respondents from the Army, Marines and Reserves said they 
     were unlikely to stay in the service. Officials say 
     reenlistments normally drop after conflicts.)
       Cassella said that leaders visiting Iraq seek out the 
     opinions of troops. Some say the views expressed may be 
     distorted as a result of the nature of the get-togethers, 
     ``dog and pony shows,'' in the words of combat engineer Pfc. 
     Roger Hunsaker.
       ``When congressional delegations came through,'' said one 
     36-year-old artillery master sergeant who asked not to be 
     identified, commanders ``hand-picked the soldiers who would 
     go. They stacked the deck.''
       Others on the ground in Iraq think top leaders are right 
     more times than they are given credit for.
       ``I heard that reports/politicians were trying to say 
     morale was down out here,'' Petty Officer Matthew W. Early 
     wrote on his questionnaire at Camp Get Some in southern Iraq. 
     ``What do people back home expect us to feel after a war? Are 
     we supposed to be as happy here as we are with our friends 
     and families back home? Hell no.
       ``Of course, when confronted by reporters, we're going to 
     voice our opinions about our situation. Unfortunately, some 
     people like to complain about how they live or what they 
     don't have. The complaint concerning morale is the voice of 
     the minority, not the majority.''
       In the Stripes survey, troops consistently rated their 
     unit's morale as lower than their own. John Kay, marketing 
     director for the Army Research Institute, said, ``Soldiers 
     always rate self [personal] morale higher than unit morale. 
     This is nothing new.''
       Troops may wish to report what they perceive as the true 
     morale situation without getting themselves into trouble, a 
     way of saying, ``I'm OK, but the unit's not.''
       Some of the gap can also be the result of hearing other 
     troops complain, compounding the impression that unit morale 
     is low, even if each complainer believes his or her own 
     morale is better.

[[Page 25144]]

       ``Both are true,'' said Charles Moskos, a military 
     sociologist with Northwestern University.
       The military studies morale regularly, but ``the further 
     you go up the chain in the officer corps, the reality of day-
     to-day morale cannot register completely,'' said Lt. Col. 
     Daniel Smith, retired chief of research for the Center for 
     Defense Information. ``Whereas when you talk to the platoon 
     sergeants, platoon leaders and even company commanders, you 
     get a better sense of the true state of affairs. Do the 
     weapons work? Are they getting hot meals? Are they getting 
     enough rest? Are their leaders competent and not taking 
     unnecessary risks?''
       Unlike some officials who have visited Iraq, Defense 
     Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, during a September stop in 
     Iraq, spoke not about morale per se, but about the importance 
     of the mission and about sacrifice.
       ``You're people . . . who weren't drafted, you weren't 
     conscripted, you searched your souls and decided that you 
     wanted to step forward and serve your country,'' he told the 
     4th Infantry Division, according to a Pentagon transcript.
       Another speech to air assault soldiers of the 101st 
     Airborne division echoed the sentiment:
       ``The important thing I would also add is that every one of 
     you is a volunteer. You all asked to do this, and that is 
     impressive and it's appreciated.''

  Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. At this stage we have two options in the 
conflict that has engulfed us in Iraq. We can continue to carry on 
unilaterally, which is the course we have taken, a course which, in my 
judgment, will be continued through this $87 billion supplemental 
appropriation; or, second, to the maximum degree possible, pursue a 
real internationalization of the occupation and reconstruction of Iraq, 
a sharing of the burden of blood and treasure and responsibility for 
decisionmaking while also including a central role for Iraqis in 
determining the future of their country.
  Of these two options, the second, the commitment to real 
internationalization, has significantly more potential to get us out of 
Iraq as honorably and as expeditiously as possible. If we do not change 
from our current unilateral course, we will continue to bear the 
unilateral burdens alone: One soldier killed per day, 10 soldiers 
maimed per day, an increasing cost of occupation. Last year the 
occupation cost $1 billion a week. Under the supplemental appropriation 
we have just voted, it will now be $1.3 billion a week. The total cost 
of reconstruction, including the funds we have just voted, through 
September 30 of next year will be almost $25 billion.
  This administration has avoided answering the question: How much will 
we spend before we exit Iraq?
  As a result, I am concerned that this $87 billion supplemental 
appropriation is in essence a blank check for the President's failed 
policy. It will remove a substantial portion of the pressure for real 
progress in the internationalization of the occupation and 
reconstruction efforts directed at Iraq. Passage of this supplemental 
spending bill will remove the incentive for this administration to 
negotiate.
  Mr. President, the reality is that it is only through significant 
international troops and money, only with significant decision sharing 
by the United States with those foreign countries that our Nation has 
any reasonable expectation of an honorable and expeditious exit from 
Iraq.
  This appropriation leads us in the opposite direction. We will do it 
alone. It will increase the risk to our brave soldiers. It will 
unnecessarily transfer reconstruction costs to the U.S. taxpayer, and 
it will lengthen the time when the United States can honorably and 
expeditiously leave Iraq.
  Mr. President, 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. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________