[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 19]
[Senate]
[Pages 26789-26823]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR DEFENSE AND FOR THE 
    RECONSTRUCTION OF IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN, 2004--CONFERENCE REPORT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to the consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 
3289, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 
     3289) making emergency supplemental appropriations for 
     defense and for the reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan 
     for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other 
     purposes, having met, have agreed that the House recede from 
     its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate and agree to 
     the same with an amendment, and the Senate agree to the same, 
     signed by all conferees on the part of both Houses.

  (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the 
Record of October 30, 2003.)
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I am pleased to bring to the Senate 
this conference report to provide supplemental funding for military and 
reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  The Congress, specifically the Senate, asked the President not to 
request any funds for our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan in the fiscal 
year 2004 appropriations bill. The President honored our request, and 
that bill has already been signed into law. The funding for our efforts 
in Iraq and Afghanistan is in the conference report now before us.
  Our men and women in uniform face life-threatening obstacles every 
day and are counting on us to provide them with the resources they need 
to get the job done. This supplemental will provide the equipment, 
fuel, ammunition and pay our forces need and deserve as they continue 
their tasks in Iraq, Afghanistan, and in the other locations where they 
continue to stand in harm's way fighting the global war on terrorism. 
They are the reason we need to approve this emergency funding.
  One thing is very clear: As the President has said time and again: We 
will not walk away from Iraq. We will not withdraw our forces from 
Iraq; we will not leave the Iraqi people in chaos; and we will not 
create a vacuum for terrorist groups to fill.
  Our Nation has always had one goal--we finish what we start, and we 
will not fail to do so now. This appropriations bill will enable us to 
fulfill our responsibilities to our men and women in uniform and to the 
people of Iraq and Afghanistan.
  This conference report before us provides $64.7 billion for military 
operations. Included in this amount is $17.8 billion for the salaries 
and benefits of active, Guard and Reserve military personnel activated 
for duty in Iraq, Afghanistan and other areas around the world. 
Together they continue to fight our war against terrorists and 
terrorism; $39.2 billion for operations and maintenance in support of 
Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Noble 
Eagle, of which $1 billion is to support coalition partners; $5.5 
billion for procurement, including an additional $62.1 million for 
improved armor for

[[Page 26790]]

humvees; $333.8 million for military research, development, and 
evaluation; and $658 million for the defense health program.
  In addition, this conference report provides benefits to our 
reservists who are ordered to active duty by authorizing coverage of 
their medical and dental screening. The conferees also expanded pre-
mobilization and post-mobilization eligibility for Tricare and made 
Tricare available to reservists who are unemployed or who are not 
offered health care benefits by their civilian employer.
  Our forces are stationed in some of the most dangerous parts of the 
world. They face formidable enemies and serious threats. They face 
these obstacles because they have made a commitment to our freedom; 
they have decided that, if necessary, they will give what Lincoln 
called ``the last full measure of devotion'' to defend freedom. This 
Congress must meet their level of commitment by funding their mission.
  In addition to meeting our obligations, we also support additional 
funds to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan. It's a simple and straight-
forward premise--security brings stability and stability fosters 
democracy. An Iraq and Afghanistan well on the way to economic well-
being and self-governance offers the fastest way to get our military 
men and women home. To that end, this conference report provides $21.2 
billion to carry out the activities of our Government in connection 
with the reconstruction and rehabilitation of Iraq and Afghanistan. The 
majority of these funds, $18.4 billion, is for Iraq for security, 
rehabilitation and reconstruction, including $100 million for democracy 
building activities in Iraq to support the development of a 
constitution and national elections.
  Other items funded include: $983 million for operating expenses for 
the coalition provisional authority; $16.6 million for safe and secure 
facilities for the United States Agency for International Development 
in Iraq and Afghanistan; at least $38 million for operating expenses of 
the United States Agency for International Development for costs 
associated with Iraq and Afghanistan; $872 million to continue 
political and economic development programs in Afghanistan; $170 
million for Department of State narcotics control, law enforcement, 
nonproliferation, anti-terrorism and demining programs in Afghanistan; 
$287 million to continue programs and activities to build the new 
Afghan army; $50 million for peacekeeping expenses in Iraq relating to 
additional foreign armed forces; $35 million for anti-terrorism 
training and equipment needs in Afghanistan. The conferees also agreed 
to provide $200 million for assistance to Liberia, $200 million for 
assistance to Jordan, and $20 million for assistance to Sudan.
  This conference agreement does not stop at funding our obligations; 
it also provides specific mechanisms to account for how our 
appropriated money is spent. This bill creates a new position: The 
Inspector General for the Coalition Provisional Authority. The IG will 
work with Ambassador Bremer, and together they will keep track of the 
funding allocated for Iraq's reconstruction. The IG will issue 
quarterly reports on the CPA's activities. This position ensures that 
we will always have a clear record of who is responsible for the funds 
appropriated to CPA and how they are spent. This position gives us a 
new tracking and record-keeping system, a comprehensive review process, 
and transparency in the allocation of funds. Most importantly, it 
ensures that funds will be used efficiently to build a new and free 
Iraq. We have an obligation to our total force and an obligation to the 
Iraqi and Afghanistan people to finish what we started.
  This legislation meets those obligations, and I urge the Senate to 
promptly approve it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I come to the Senate floor this morning 
with a real sadness in my heart. Yesterday, we learned of the loss of a 
Chinook helicopter in Iraq. During the course of the day, I was 
contacted in Chicago, and then again in Springfield, with rumors that 
it involved the Illinois National Guard. The rumor was confirmed this 
morning. The pilot of the helicopter that was shot down in Iraq was a 
member of the Illinois Air Guard and we believe he was assigned out of 
the Peoria Guard unit. He is one of many who have been lost in this 
conflict from the beginning.
  What we learn every morning as we learn the news of another soldier, 
or 2, or 3, or in this case yesterday, 16, is the real cost of war. I 
have tried to call the families of those in my home State of Illinois 
who have lost a soldier. I have not been able to get through to all of 
them, and it is understandable that in their sorrow and grief, many of 
them are not taking phone calls. Those I have reached are families who 
are proud of the men and women in uniform who volunteered to serve our 
Nation and then gave their lives. They thank the military, too, for the 
kind treatment their family received upon the notification of the loss 
and all of the help and consolation during the funeral ceremonies.
  But we have to face reality. These are the real costs of war. We come 
to the floor of the Senate today to debate an appropriations bill that, 
in all honesty, is just money. The real cost of war is human lives. 
Sixteen were lost in the helicopter crash over the weekend, and another 
soldier was killed in another incident. Now we have lost more American 
servicemen in Iraq since the President declared that the major military 
operations were completed than we did during the invasion.
  It doesn't tell the whole story, though, to just count those who lost 
their lives, as tragic as that may be. Many listed as wounded are 
sometimes forgotten and they never should be. Some of the wounds these 
soldiers have been exposed to are serious, grievous.
  Two weeks ago, I went to Walter Reed Hospital to visit with some of 
the returning soldiers, to meet one soldier from Ohio who lost the 
sight in one of his eyes, to meet with another soldier from my State of 
Illinois, the community of Pleasant Hill, a small farm town, who took a 
mortar round and survived. They didn't think they could take him from 
the scene, but he managed to live long enough. He made it to Germany, 
where they didn't think he would survive, but he did; and he was at 
Walter Reed with his mother and father dreaming of the day when he 
could get back to Pike County, IL, to a small farm town, his home.
  These are the wounded of war who lose limbs, who face grievous, 
serious injuries that will haunt them for a lifetime. These are the 
real costs of war and a reminder, too, that we stand today in Iraq, 6 
months after the end of the so-called military success that the 
President announced, still struggling to bring stability to that 
country. But understand, I don't think we can cut and leave. Those of 
us who warned in the beginning that once we made this decision, we had 
to remember it is easier to get into a war than to get out of a war--we 
have learned that in the last 6 months.
  Our superb military forces went into Iraq and, in a matter of 3 
weeks, took down Saddam Hussein, this dictator, and his cruelty ended. 
We were so proud of the men and women in uniform who did that so 
quickly.
  But then came the second phase. That, unfortunately, has not gone 
nearly as well. The United States made a serious miscalculation when it 
entered this war in Iraq, invaded that nation, without the support of 
its traditional allies. With the exception of Great Britain, the so-
called coalition of the willing was a very thin coalition. There were 
many countries offering some help, a few soldiers; but really when it 
came down to it, this President decided to embark on a war, with the 
approval of Congress, that took us into a wartime situation unlike 
anyone has seen. The President did not follow his father's model of 
bringing the United Nations behind his effort or true global coalition, 
but decided he would take the small coalition into the war in Iraq.
  We didn't need a massive global coalition to win the military battle. 
We knew we had the best military in the

[[Page 26791]]

world. We still do. But after the military battle, it is clear now we 
need allies more than ever. America needs countries to stand beside us 
with their soldiers, with their resources, with their commitment to 
finding stability in Iraq, and every day, when we see these bloody 
headlines of American soldiers being killed, we are reminded that had 
this been a global coalition, a broader coalition, had we moved in 
concert with our traditional allies, what we are facing today could 
have been so much different.
  The burden of Iraq weighs heavy on the shoulders of America, and each 
day as we wake up to hear the news of more deaths of American soldiers, 
more wounded service men and women overseas, we understand that burden, 
but we can never understand it like the families who have suffered the 
losses. Our heart goes out to them. They are in our thoughts and 
prayers every single moment of every day, as they should be.
  We come to the floor today to talk about the other costs of war, the 
appropriations necessary to keep this war going. It is a massive 
emergency supplemental appropriations bill. The total is 
$87,442,198,000. This, of course, represents one of the largest 
emergency supplemental bills we have considered. It represents a 
commitment of at least $1 billion a week to sustain our troops in Iraq, 
and then a commitment beyond it to an effort to build Iraq. It would be 
easy to say reconstruct Iraq if we had destroyed it during the element 
of invasion, but that didn't occur. Most of what we are doing is 
building a country that had been decimated by a dictator. We are 
providing things that for 10 or 20 years Saddam Hussein never provided 
to his people, in the hope that we can prove to them they can move 
toward democracy; that they can move toward a free-market system; that 
they can have stability, perhaps be a beacon of hope for the Middle 
East.
  If that is the ultimate outcome, then there is some success to this 
story, but today, in one of the darkest hours with some of the saddest 
news, it is difficult to look at this and understand how even money is 
going to solve our problems.
  I voted against this preemptive and precipitous war, but today I face 
a moral dilemma. I cannot and will not support President Bush's 
unilateralist, aggressive foreign policy of preemption. It is wrong. It 
was wrong when we voted on it in October of last year. It is wrong in 
November of this year. It is based on the false premise that we can 
somehow identify our enemies even if they haven't threatened the United 
States, even if they have not created a situation of eminent danger. It 
relies, of course, on information and information based on 
intelligence, and what do we have to say today about our intelligence-
gathering agencies leading up to our invasion of Iraq?
  We said we needed to go to Iraq to stop them from obtaining nuclear 
weapons and using them against their neighbors and against us. It turns 
out now that was an empty threat. There is no evidence of nuclear 
weapons nor program in Iraq.
  We said there was an arsenal of biological and chemical weapons, 
weapons of mass destruction, which, again, could threaten the region, 
the people of Iraq, and the United States, and yet Dr. Kay, after more 
than 6 months and millions of dollars and hundreds of inspectors, has 
come up emptyhanded, cannot find a shred of evidence of these weapons 
of mass destruction.
  In the President's State of the Union Address they said, oh, we have 
proof they were moving fissile material from Africa to Iraq to build 
nuclear weapons, and even the President has had to say that was not 
accurate.
  We said as well, if you remember 9/11, you can understand why we 
needed to invade Iraq--because al-Qaida of 9/11 and Saddam Hussein of 
Iraq were linked. Even the President had to come forward and concede a 
few weeks ago that statement is not true, either. It is true we changed 
a regime. We have eliminated Saddam Hussein. But the premise of that 
war has been challenged and has been found faulty.
  So today we consider this supplemental appropriations bill to provide 
the money that our men and women need to sustain the military effort in 
Iraq and to come home safely. All of these funds are emergency 
spending. What that means, of course, is that we are not cutting other 
Government spending nor raising taxes to find the $87 billion. We are 
adding this money to America's mortgage. This is our second mortgage on 
America, $87 billion--the greatest deficit in the history of the United 
States, and it continues to grow as this administration continues to 
call for more tax cuts for wealthy people. This, unfortunately, is part 
of our legacy.
  One of the most difficult parts of this bill is the fact that this 
conference committee stripped out the provision the Senate added on a 
bipartisan rollcall vote. Republicans and Democrats came together and 
said at least $10 billion of the $20 billion to reconstruct Iraq should 
come from the Iraqi people, from their oil reserves. Is that an 
incredible request, that this country with the second largest oil 
reserve in the world would help to pay for its own infrastructure? The 
Bush administration said it was unacceptable. No loan provision will be 
put in this bill. If anyone has to borrow money to build Iraq, it will 
be America's families, not the people of Iraq. That is a sad outcome.
  Frankly, it means that much of what we were told by this 
administration before the war just was not true. Paul Wolfowitz, on 
March 27, 2003, testifying before the House Defense Appropriations 
Subcommittee, said as follows:

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

  Assistant Secretary Wolfowitz said those words to this Congress 6 
months ago. This man, who was urging America to invade Iraq and telling 
us they could pay for their own reconstruction, and where are we today? 
The Bush administration has rejected the idea that Iraq would pay for 
this. No, American taxpayers have to pay for it. It has to come out of 
the Social Security trust fund. It has to come out of investments in 
education and health care in America. The Bush administration insists 
on it.
  Listen to what Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said on the same 
day:

       I don't believe the United States has the responsibility 
     for reconstruction, in a sense . . . and the funds can come 
     from those various sources I mentioned: frozen assets, oil 
     revenues and a variety of other things, including the Oil for 
     Food, which has a very substantial number of billions of 
     dollars in it.

  Six months ago, those were the words of the Secretary of Defense to 
the American people through Congress, and I quote again. He said:

       I don't believe the United States has the responsibility 
     for reconstruction. . . .

  How clear can we be? Yet today, face it, America, taxpayers, and 
families, we are accepting an $87 billion responsibility. Instead of 
asking Iraq to borrow against its bountiful oil reserves, we are asking 
our children and grandchildren to continue to borrow to build Iraq.
  I also want to tell you there is one thing that was done in that 
conference committee which I think was shameful--shameful: the decision 
of this conference committee to strip out a provision in the bill which 
I added on the floor of the Senate. Let me explain it.
  Across America, men and women serving in the Guard and Reserve have 
been activated. Usually their activation was only for a few months but 
now, because of the fact we are stretched thin around the world, these 
guardsmen and reservists, much like the helicopter pilot who was killed 
over the weekend from my State of Illinois, have been activated and 
asked to serve for longer and longer periods of time, causing 
extraordinary hardship to their family.
  Some dismiss it and say they knew what they were getting into. When 
they signed up for the Guard and Reserve, they knew they were going to 
be activated. This is true. I won't argue with that.
  Frankly, I ask my friends and colleagues in the Senate to at least 
show some compassion for those and their

[[Page 26792]]

families who have been activated and, because of that activation, 
suffer an extraordinary economic hardship.
  Across America, dozens of States and local units of government--my 
own home State of Illinois, the city of Chicago--have decided if their 
employees are activated in the Guard and Reserve, they will make up the 
difference in pay so that while they are off serving their country and 
risking their lives they can at least have peace of mind that their 
paycheck will be protected. That State government, that city government 
will make up the difference in pay. Thank God for their charity and 
compassion. Thank God they care enough for these men and women to make 
that commitment, as they have repeatedly. It is not just units of 
government. Private corporations have done the same thing. We applaud 
them. We call them patriot corporations because they stand behind the 
men and women in uniform.
  I came to the Senate floor and I said to my colleagues, if we applaud 
those who stand behind the men and women in uniform to make certain 
they do not lose their pay while they are activated, can we do no less 
for Federal employees, the employees of the U.S. Government? By a 
resounding vote of 96 to 3, this bipartisan vote on the Senate floor, 
we said, yes, we will stand behind the Federal employees who activate.
  How many are involved? Of the 1.2 million Guard and Reserve in 
America today, 10 percent are Federal employees, 120,000. Currently 
23,000 are activated. Some do not see a cut in pay, but many see 
dramatic cuts in pay. What I asked for was the same type of justice and 
caring from the Federal Government we asked from State and local 
governments.
  We passed that amendment, and I felt good that we made this 
commitment. Frankly, I sang the praises of the Senate and those who 
were involved. We went to the conference committee, and on a party-line 
vote, with every Republican Senator voting no, they removed this 
provision from the bill. Many of the Senators who just a few days 
before on this floor had voted for the provision to protect the pay of 
activated Federal employees turned around, within a few days, and voted 
no. That does not set a very good example, does it? If we will not 
provide the same kind of compensation for Federal employees as State 
and local governments do, how can we in good conscience turn to 
businesses and say, stand behind your guardsmen, stand behind your 
reservists; they are serving our country; they deserve your help, when 
we turn our backs on them in this bill?
  It was the first thing we did when we sat down in conference. It was 
the first vote we took. It was a sad day. Unfortunately, I will have to 
offer this amendment again in the hopes that the next time around, if 
it passes on the Senate floor, the Senate conferees will stand up for 
it. They did not do that this time.
  I also want to say we are paying a great amount of money out of our 
Federal Treasury to search for weapons of mass destruction. I cannot 
disclose the sum because it is classified. Trust me, it is very large. 
The Iraq Survey Group is in this so far futile search for weapons of 
mass destruction. I asked in this bill that they at least give us a 
quarterly report on what progress was being made. That was stripped out 
of the bill--no report necessary.
  The amendment would require the special adviser to the Director of 
the Central Intelligence Agency for the strategy in Iraq, Dr. David 
Kay, to provide both classified and unclassified written status to 
Congress on a quarterly basis. That accountability was removed in this 
bill.
  Another provision that was stripped out of this bill relates to 
profiteering by corporations out to make a buck on a war. During World 
War II, Harry Truman called war profiteering treason. President 
Franklin Roosevelt said: I do not want to see a single war millionaire 
created in the United States as a result of this world disaster.
  But when the Appropriations Committee considered this bill, they 
deleted an amendment by Senator Leahy, Senator Feinstein, and myself to 
criminalize war profiteering, price gouging and fraud. The same law 
that was passed during World War II was stripped out in conference. I 
do not understand it. I do not understand how anyone could be opposed 
to prosecuting those who want to defraud and overcharge the U.S. 
Government and the American taxpayers in time of war. It is unseemly 
that this has been stripped out in light of questionable no-bid and 
secretly bid contracts that have been let for Iraq construction.
  Since the late 1980s, the move to privatize just about everything the 
Government does has led to the granting of billion-dollar contracts to 
a handful of huge companies. We have heard the names: Halliburton, 
Bechtel. They go on and on. With no surprise, many of them are 
politically well connected. This amendment was eliminated. It would not 
have hurt this conference, it would not have hurt this country to 
include that provision in the law as fair warning to those who would 
profiteer during a war that we will come down on them like a ton of 
bricks. But, no, it was removed.
  There are many elements in this bill which trouble me. There are some 
which deserve praise. Access to TRICARE was enhanced for members of the 
Guard and Reserve; $100 million was added to secure and destroy 
conventional munitions in Iraq, the ordnance that is being used to 
bring down our helicopters and killing our soldiers every single day; 
$500 million for recent disasters, including the California wildfires 
and Hurricane Isabel; $100 million to help Liberia recover from its 
brutal civil war; $60 million for Afghan women and girls; and a 
modification of language Senator Murray, Senator Landrieu, and I 
offered on the Senate floor to ensure the assistance provided for Iraq 
and Afghanistan advances the social, economic, political rights, and 
opportunities for women and girls.
  I want to especially salute Senator Murray and Senator Landrieu. They 
had to fight to restore this money in the conference committee. Before 
the conference committee came together, a staffer stripped it out and 
they restored it. It took a lot of hard work on their part, but I think 
most of us realize women and girls in Afghanistan have been brutalized 
by the Taliban and by the previous government. Frankly, we need to 
stand behind them. I am glad this money was restored.
  I voted reluctantly for the Iraq supplemental when the Senate passed 
it the first time for the same reason I mentioned earlier. As much as I 
believe this war was begun in a wrong fashion, with a policy that can 
no longer be defended, I have to say that as long as 120,000 of our 
best and brightest soldiers are over there risking their lives every 
single day, we have to stand by them.
  I believe the sensible loan provisions which Senator Dorgan from 
North Dakota, who is now in the Chamber, supported, as well as his 
effort to say that the Iraqis will pay for the cost of the war with 
their own oil were just sensible. They are what American families would 
say, but unfortunately it is not what the Bush administration would 
say, and those have been removed.
  This deletion of the reservist pay provision is one which I hope we 
can visit again. I hope next time instead of 96 to 3, we will have a 
100-to-0 vote in the Senate. Maybe that is what it takes to convince 
conferees to stay with a provision once we have adopted it in the 
Senate.
  The American people will ultimately be the judge of our work today. 
Sadly, they are the ones who are not only paying the bills and writing 
the checks. They understand the costs of war sometimes better than 
elected officials. The families with soldiers overseas and those who 
have seen those soldiers injured or killed understand the costs of war 
far more than anyone on any Appropriations Committee ever could.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from North 
Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I will take a few moments to discuss the 
Iraq supplemental conference report. At the start of this process, we 
attempted to have two portions we might

[[Page 26793]]

consider. One would be the military, which provides almost $1 billion a 
week to support our troops, and the second is the Iraq reconstruction 
fund, which is the amount of money the American taxpayer will be asked 
to fund for the reconstruction of Iraq.
  We were not successful in separating these two, and so this travels 
as one. As a result of that, I offered an amendment to provide that 
Iraqi oil ought to bear the burden of Iraq reconstruction. We did not 
target Iraq's infrastructure. We did not target or attempt to bomb 
their roads, their bridges, their dams, their power structure. So the 
requirement that the U.S. taxpayer should pay for the reconstruction of 
Iraq is a requirement that does not make much sense to me.
  Iraq, by the way, has the second largest oil reserves in the world, 
something people have frequently said on the Senate floor. If they have 
the second largest oil reserves in the world and are capable of 
producing, according to Ambassador Bremer, 3 million barrels of oil a 
day beginning next July, that is $16 billion a year in export value, 
$160 billion in 10 years. There are ample resources, by pumping oil out 
of the sands of Iraq, to pay for the reconstruction of Iraq. It ought 
to be that oil, not the burden of the American taxpayer, that pays for 
the reconstruction of Iraq. I lost that vote on the Senate floor. The 
President did not support it. The majority did not support it. They 
said the American taxpayer must bear the burden of the reconstruction 
of Iraq. I think that is wrong. It does not make any sense to me. But, 
again, the requirement is included with the requirement to support our 
troops.
  This country cannot send its sons and daughters to war and then say 
to them, oh, by the way, when you need some additional money for 
equipment and ammunition and those kinds of things, we will not provide 
them. We have no other alternative. We have an obligation to provide 
that which our military needs to complete this mission. We must do 
that. So this is going to pass today. I will support it. I support 
reluctantly the provisions that have to do with the reconstruction of 
Iraq for the reasons I just mentioned. It is unthinkable to me that the 
American taxpayer will now be required to come up with $18.6 billion. 
The reason it is $18.6 billion is because, with my colleague Senator 
Wyden, I offered the amendment to cut $1.8 billion. The cut of $1.8 
billion, which was accepted by the Senate, includes cutting money to 
construct two new high-security prisons at $50,000 a bed, $100 million 
to restore marshes, $4 million for a nationwide telephone numbering 
system in Iraq, $9 million to create ZIP Codes and do a postal 
architecture in Iraq, $10 million to modernize the business practices 
of Iraqi television and radio, $20 million for 1-month-long catch-up 
business courses at $10,000 per pupil. That is more than twice as much 
as the Harvard Business School costs. You get the point. I was able to 
cut $1.8 billion, so this is $1.8 billion less than it otherwise would 
have been, but it is $18.6 billion.
  I think there is great question of whether that money will be spent 
effectively. Let me give some examples. A contract is let to provide 
air-conditioners in hundreds of public buildings. Then it goes to 
another contractor and then a subcontractor and that which represented 
air-conditioners in that contract has now become $11 ceiling fans. Let 
me say that again. That which was air-conditioners in the contract, 
when installed by the subsequent subcontractor, became $11 ceiling 
fans.
  What happened to the money? Halliburton is importing oil into the 
country of Iraq at $1.59 a gallon. The Iraqi oil officials say we can 
get that oil for 98 cents a gallon. So what is happening? Is the 
American taxpayer getting squeezed to the tune of $300 million here? It 
looks like it to me.
  These are the kinds of questions that I think are very important to 
ask. I am going to be chairing a hearing today at 1:30 on these issues. 
The Democratic Policy Committee is holding a hearing on contracting in 
Iraq to make sure that, if the American taxpayer has to pay for this--
and apparently by this it does because those of us who attempted to 
make it the burden of Iraqi oil to pay for Iraq reconstruction lost--if 
that is the case, when you send $18.6 billion out into the wind, I am 
telling you there is going to be a lot of waste, fraud, and abuse 
unless we set up conditions to watch it carefully.
  This started with sole-source contracts. That is the way this 
started. That is not what we want to have happen in the future. So 
there is a requirement for contracts that are bid, which is important, 
but the question is how do you make sure there is not abuse as a result 
of this, and waste and fraud? We need to care a great deal about that. 
I do not understand. I just don't understand the circumstances here, 
when it is Katie bar the door if you want money for reconstruction of 
Iraq. The taxpayers will ante that up. We have an unlimited supply of 
money.
  That is what some say. I don't think that makes any sense. We are 
going to borrow money in this country so we can send that money to Iraq 
for the reconstruction of Iraq for a whole series of things that have 
deteriorated for 20 years in Iraq. We didn't destroy them. Then Iraq, 
incidentally, is going to pump oil out of the ground. They have liquid 
gold under that soil; the second largest reserves in the world are 
there. Then, guess what. When Ambassador Bremer testified before the 
Appropriations Committee I asked him: Why can't we use Iraqi oil to pay 
for Iraqi reconstruction?
  He said: Very simple; it's because Iraq has a lot of foreign debt.
  I said: Who does Iraq owe money to?
  He said: Germany, France, Russia.
  At that point I didn't know enough to respond to him. I checked after 
the hearing and found, yes, indeed, Iraq owes money to Germany, France, 
and Russia. But that is not the biggest debt it owes. Mr. Bremer didn't 
know, or failed to mention to me, the largest debts are to Saudi Arabia 
and Kuwait--interesting. Wouldn't it be a perversity if the American 
taxpayers are borrowing money to ship it to Iraq to pay for 
reconstruction, and then Iraq is pumping 3 million barrels of oil a day 
beginning July 1 and selling the oil on the open market making $16 
million a year and using the money to pay Saudi Arabia on past debts?
  It is incredible to think of the perversity of that kind of 
situation. I don't know whether Mr. Bremer simply didn't know that Iraq 
owes large debts to the Saudis and Kuwaitis or just neglected to 
mention it. They do owe money to France, Germany, and Russia, but it is 
a lesser amount of money. Most Americans have a right to take a look at 
this and say this is a missed priority and a missed opportunity. The 
reason those of us who attempted to change the construct of this were 
denied the opportunity to do so by a vote in the Senate was we were 
told every single dollar of this is necessary for the support of our 
troops, and the quicker we get things back on track in Iraq, the 
quicker the troops come home. Therefore, we were told it is necessary 
to reconstruct the ZIP Code system in Iraq, number the telephone system 
in a different way, and restore marshlands.
  That, of course, is all patently nuts. I mean only in this town would 
people not laugh out loud at that assertion. You don't need to do that 
to provide for the safety of our troops.
  We have a responsibility, it seems to me, to try to make sure that we 
win this battle in Iraq. Yes, indeed, it is a battle. This weekend 
another 16 soldiers, tragically, lost their lives. All of us are 
heartbroken about those losses. We cannot withdraw from Iraq. Some say 
let's pull out tomorrow. We can't do that. There is not any way this 
country can do that. There would be a bloodbath in Iraq tomorrow if we 
pulled out. So we have a responsibility to stay in Iraq at this point.
  But what we have a responsibility to do, in my judgment, is to put 
this back on track by making it less a U.S. occupation and more an 
international occupation. That means it is very important for us, as 
Secretary Rumsfeld said this weekend, to build up the security forces 
in Iraq--that is very important--and do a lot of other things so at 
some point we can withdraw our troops. But especially we must 
understand that we need to get other countries to commit

[[Page 26794]]

troops so this is, in fact, an international occupation in Iraq, not 
just a U.S. occupation.
  In response to that, some would say it is an international 
occupation.
  It is not. It is not. The overwhelming, 90 percent of the occupation 
is American. We need it to be an international occupation now and we 
need to set the stage to do the things to allow there to be security in 
Iraq, to allow the Iraqis to develop a government, and then to allow us 
to withdraw our soldiers and bring our soldiers home. We can't do that 
this week, we can't do that this month, but our goal is to do that. In 
the context of doing that we provided $66 million requested by the 
Pentagon to keep those troops in Iraq, to provide the funds they need 
while they are in Iraq.
  Attached to this is the $18.6 billion now for the reconstruction of 
Iraq. I regret that is there. Although that reconstruction may well be 
necessary in many cases, it ought not be an obligation borne by the 
American taxpayer. It just should not be. Yet here in the Senate we 
vote, and when we lose a vote, we lose. I lost the vote believing this 
ought to be a burden of Iraqi oil.
  Now we will pass, today, the Iraq supplemental conference report. The 
President will sign it, and the funds will begin to flow for our troops 
and we will also see substantial money that begins to go in contracts 
to reconstruct Iraq.
  This afternoon, as I indicated, I will chair a hearing that looks at 
that, to evaluate exactly what is happening with those funds.
  We had some sole-source contracts with Halliburton, Bechtel, and 
others that were not bid. There was some allegation of substantial 
waste. We will have testimony today about some very wealthy families in 
Iraq who are extracting kickbacks from suppliers and from contractors 
in Iraq. We will have other questions about waste of money and waste, 
fraud, and abuse in this contracting.
  I think all of us want the same thing. I don't think anybody would 
object to making sure that we put a structure in place to protect the 
American taxpayer against the waste, fraud, and abuse.
  You talk about a bunch of hogs in a corn crib, I will tell you how to 
get that sound going. You just provide $18 billion out there and say to 
companies: Come and get a part of this and do something in Iraq. I will 
show you the opportunity for substantial waste, fraud, and abuse. We 
ought to make sure, if we are going to do this--and we are because I 
lost on this--if we are going to do this and provide $18.6 billion in 
taxpayer funds, then let's make sure we shut down the opportunity to 
waste this money.
  Madam President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum. I ask unanimous consent the quorum call be charged equally 
against both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I wish to make special note of thanks to 
staff of the subcommittees who worked so hard on this important 
legislation. This bill before the Senate required the work of seven of 
the appropriations subcommittees--Defense, Foreign Operations, Military 
Construction, Homeland Security, Commerce-Justice-State, HUD-VA, and 
Labor-HHS. The members of our committee staff have put in long hours 
working not only on this bill but on our other regular fiscal year 2004 
appropriations bills. It meant working nights and most weekends of the 
last 5 weeks.
  I especially thank our staff director, Jim Morhard, who has 
shepherded this bill through and coordinated these subcommittees, and 
got us to the place where we are now.
  I especially thank Sid Ashworth, clerk of the Defense Subcommittee, 
and her counterpart on the Democratic side, Charlie Houy; and Paul 
Grove, clerk of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, and his 
counterpart, Tim Reiser. These four hammered out the compromises on the 
major provisions of the legislation before the Senate today. Paul Grove 
deserves special recognition. He is a true professional who has worked 
tirelessly to help us complete action on both the supplemental and the 
fiscal year 2004 Foreign Operations appropriations bill at the same 
time.
  He worked literally around the clock yesterday and into today. I am 
not sure he has seen his family or has gotten more than 2 or 3 hours 
sleep every night for the last 2 weeks. I am serious. He has been a 
totally dedicated man. His efforts represent the dedication of the 
staff of the Senate Appropriations Committee. I am very proud of these 
people. I hope everyone in the Senate realizes how hard they have 
worked to get this bill before the Senate today.
  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. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Agency Funding

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise today to address an issue within the 
Appropriations Committee's jurisdiction, which is the subcommittee that 
I chair, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, and the 
Judiciary, and a letter sent to the committee as a result of the mark 
which came out of the full committee markup process funding those major 
agencies. This subcommittee has very broad jurisdiction. It is an 
exciting committee, quite honestly, of which to be chairman. It has the 
Commerce Department, it has the Justice Department, it has Judiciary, 
the FTC, FCC, and a number of other major agencies, including State 
Department.
  As a result of the allocation process, which is a process by which 
the chairman of the full committee assigns each of the 13 subcommittees 
within the Appropriations Committee an amount of money they can spend 
on the various agencies which they have responsibility for, which 
amount is tied to the overall budget passed by the Senate, so that the 
overall budget, which I believe was $784 billion, is chopped into parts 
and each subcommittee gets a part of that budget which it then 
allocates to the various agencies for which it has responsibility.
  As a result of that process, this subcommittee, the Subcommittee on 
Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary, was the only subcommittee 
which actually received less of an allocation. In other words, our 
number that we had for our agencies was less than what, first, the 
President requested by, I believe, $700 million, and, second, what the 
House had allocated to this same group of agencies by $900 million. Our 
subcommittee, when it was assigned our number, was almost $1 billion 
below the amount which was available to the House subcommittee and even 
more significantly below what the President had requested for these 
agencies. That was a responsibility I was willing to accept.
  I am happy to try to do my job around here. If my job involves being 
fiscally responsible, I am more than happy to do that. So when the 
chairman made this decision, which was a reasonable decision in light 
of the very stringent numbers he had to work with, I worked with them 
and produced a bill which met those numbers.
  Our bill came out at a funding level which was significantly below 
the House number. A number of the agencies which were impacted 
obviously were not happy about that. Most of them, however, were 
sophisticated enough to realize that in the end there was going to be a 
compromise between our committee and the House committee and that I 
suspect our number will move up closer to the House number and, 
therefore, closer to the President's number.
  Most of the other agencies were fairly responsible in their reaction 
to this,

[[Page 26795]]

fairly reserved. For example, we received a letter from the Justice 
Department, which took many of the major cuts--not cuts but reductions 
in increases--that I had to make. This letter was a very matter of 
fact, accurate statement of where they thought they needed more money.
  I cannot argue with their position. In fact, in many ways, if I have 
more money as we move down the road, I will address those concerns very 
aggressively: for example, in the areas of the FBI, ATF, DEA, and 
general operations of the Justice Department. These were reasonable 
objections. They disagreed with our funding levels, but the Attorney 
General understood that we had a problem.
  Then we received a letter from the State Department. Now, the State 
Department is supposed to be diplomatic. I believe that should be one 
of their skills. This was not a diplomatic letter. It was excessive, 
inaccurate, and inflammatory. It essentially attacked the 
Appropriations Committee and the subcommittee in terms which I thought 
were grossly overstated and inappropriate. In it, the Department 
questioned our commitment to national security, questioned our 
commitment to the State Department, and then went on to raise specific 
problems with the bill that were not dollar related, for the most part, 
but were policy related, many of which were actually policy initiatives 
that the State Department knew or had to know were inaccurate. They 
based an inflammatory letter on facts which were wrong.
  I am going to go through that letter, point by point, and address 
those issues. I am not going to address the overall funding issue too 
much because this gets into my allocation, the allocation we received, 
and down the road we will be able to address that. Down the road, we 
will be able to address that. But that was not really the essence of 
this letter.
  This letter was a very vitriolic attack on the Appropriations 
Committee, regrettably, by the Secretary of State, signed by the 
Secretary of State, and I think it has to be responded to.
  I am going to try to do it in a matter-of-fact way. I am not going to 
raise my language to the level he raised his because I think his level 
was inappropriate and extraordinarily undiplo-
matic. But let me pursue the specifics.
  The Department's--when I say ``Department,'' I am referring, of 
course, to the State Department. The Department's appeal letter 
criticizes the bill for not providing full funding for the Diplomatic 
Readiness Initiative. The Diplomatic Readiness Initiative is the State 
Department's plan to hire 1,158 new Foreign Service officers over 3 
years. The $97 million requested in fiscal year 2004 represents the 
third and final year of funding for this unprecedented hiring surge.
  The Department's target levels, both in terms of funding and 
personnel, for the Diplomatic Readiness Initiative were arrived at in a 
rather arbitrary way, in our opinion. State never undertook a 
comprehensive review to determine where and how many additional staff 
might be needed. In fiscal year 2002, the committee asked the 
Department to provide justification for the requested 1,158 new hires. 
The committee repeated that request, and the request went unanswered.
  The committee, this year, asked the State Department to explain where 
the 399 new Foreign Service officers, requested in fiscal year 2004, 
would be stationed--What bureaus? What embassies?--a fairly reasonable 
request from the appropriations committee charged with protecting the 
pocketbooks of American taxpayers. The State Department could not 
answer the question.
  If any internal review process had taken place to determine the 
proper personnel levels for overseas posts, the Department would have 
easily been able to tell the committee where these new FSOs would be 
placed, but they could not.
  The problem concerning the Diplomatic Readiness Initiative goes hand 
in hand with the issue of right-sizing. ``Right-sizing'' refers to the 
configuration of U.S. Government overseas personnel to the minimum 
necessary to support national interests.
  According to the General Accounting Office--this is not our 
committee--but according to a General Accounting Office report, the 
State Department ``has no comprehensive process in place for developing 
the staffing projections that are essential to the right-sizing 
process.''
  In its appeal letter, the Department states that this claim is ``no 
longer accurate.'' But the Department's very use of the words ``no 
longer'' is an admission it did not, in fact, have a right-sizing 
process in place when the Diplomatic Readiness Initiative was put 
forward.
  In the absence of any indicators that State has undertaken right-
sizing on its own, the committee decided to include two provisions that 
would compel the State Department to right-size downward, hopefully, 
two posts in Western Europe.
  For the sake of argument, however, let us assume that State was, in 
fact, able to justify its Diplomatic Readiness Initiative requests and 
that it did have an effective right-sizing program in place.
  The Department's letter claims that the bill provides only $67.4 
million for the Diplomatic Hiring Initiative. That simply is not true. 
It is not accurate, like much else in this letter. The Senate report 
clearly states that $90 million is available for the Diplomatic 
Readiness Initiative. The State Department is dissatisfied because the 
committee considers its request for 68 new consular officers to be part 
of the diplomatic readiness, not an add-on.
  In fiscal year 2004, the State Department requested 68 new consular 
officers in addition to the final tranches of 399 new Foreign Service 
Officers. State claims the increase is necessary due to unanticipated 
personnel needs.
  The last-minute addition of the 68 new FTEs, at a cost of $22.6 
million, confirms the committee's suspicion that the Department, in 
fact, had not undertaken any meaningful workforce planning.
  The second point the Department makes here: the Department's appeal 
letter criticizes the bill for not providing any funding for the Bureau 
of Legislative Affairs, or ``H'', as it is commonly known.
  For the sake of full disclosure, it should be noted that the Bureau 
of Legislative Affairs wrote the letter that was sent to us by the 
State Department, which I think, on its face, should explain why we 
zeroed it out. But I will go into more specifics.
  The House bill contains language capping both the funding and the 
personnel of that Bureau. Why would both the House and the Senate 
Appropriations Committees move to limit or, in our case, strike the 
office's funding? The reality is that both House and Senate 
appropriators are unhappy with the performance of this office and are 
unconvinced of its necessity. There are currently 69 full-time 
equivalents at H at an annual cost of $7.7 million.
  The Senate CJS Subcommittee works almost exclusively with the State 
Department's budget office, not the Bureau of Legislative Affairs. In 
the interest of fairness to my House and Senate colleagues who might 
utilize the H Department, I would consider reducing the Bureau of 
Legislative Affairs' budget by one-quarter to account for the services 
that are not provided to our subcommittee but for which we seem to be 
paying. And possibly the House will take the same position. That would 
allow, of course, H to be able to work with the authorizing committees 
and other Congressional offices. So we are willing to adjust there.
  But I think people can understand why, after I complete my analysis 
of this letter, this Bureau does not merit funding from the committee.
  The Department appeal letter also criticizes the bill for not 
providing any funding for the Office of Legal Adviser, or ``L'', as it 
is commonly known. As the letter points out, the committee certainly 
does not believe the State Department's legal needs should go 
uncovered. Situations will undoubtedly arise that will require a legal 
response from the Department of State. This is why the committee would 
likely have moved in conference to restore at least a portion of this 
office's funding, and we will do that.

[[Page 26796]]

  The committee did not provide funding for L in fiscal year 2004 to 
make a point as to the failures of L's performance in a number of 
areas. This office has several times overstepped its bounds.
  The Office of Legal Adviser is responsible for providing timely legal 
advice and support to the Secretary of State. However, L regularly 
inserts itself into the policymaking process, even to the point of 
telling the Congress what the Congress does and does not intend by the 
laws we pass.
  With all due respect to the good people who work at L, Senator 
Hollings and I and other members of the Appropriations Committee really 
are not interested in having State Department lawyers tell us what we 
meant when we passed laws. This is exactly, however, what L did when 
Senator Hollings tried to pass legislation allowing Americans who were 
held hostage during the Iranian hostage crisis to file claims for 
damages against Iran.
  Whether my colleagues agree or disagree with Senator Hollings' 
position--and it has been a position of some controversy--on this 
particular issue there can be no disagreement over the Office of Legal 
Adviser's slick lobbying tactics and outright refusal to follow the 
congressional direction.
  Another source of frustration is L's past attempts to withhold 
information from the committee. An April, 2003, Department of State 
Inspector General's report described the case of a State Department 
employee who was committing fraud against the Department. The IG report 
did not clarify the outcome of the case, stating only that the employee 
had been recommended for removal. As an oversight responsibility, we 
inquired as to whether the person had been removed or not. L directed 
the Legislative Affairs Office not to provide this information to the 
committee on the basis that it had Privacy Act protection.
  I believe the American people, and certainly the appropriations 
committee, have a right to know whether or not a person accused of 
fraud by the IG has been removed from that office.
  The American people have a right to know whether an employee caught 
stealing their tax dollars remains on the Federal payroll. So, the 
committee reiterated its request. At that point, the State Department 
told the committee what we already knew to be true: that the Privacy 
Act contains a statutory waiver for congressional committees of 
jurisdiction.
  State then told the committee it could have the information only if 
it could produce a letter of request. However, the statutory waiver 
contains no mention of a letter. We refused to sign a letter and gave 
the State Department a deadline to make the information available to 
the committee. This was many months ago, and we are still waiting for 
the information.
  A congressional committee of jurisdiction should not be at the mercy 
of the State Department's legal department and its internal rules for 
access to information. Such rules are obviously intended to withhold 
information from the American people that could potentially embarrass 
the State Department.
  It is regrettable that the Office of Legal Adviser can so flagrantly 
defy the wisdom, the spirit, and the intent of a waiver for 
congressional committees of jurisdiction.
  The Department's appeal letter further criticizes the bill for not 
providing funding for the Office of Brazilian/Southern Cone Affairs and 
the Deputy Assistant Secretary for that office. There is a very 
straightforward reason for the committee's decision not to provide 
funding for this office.
  In 2002, the Department decided to consolidate the Rio de Janeiro, 
Brazil, operations into leased facilities rather than construct a new 
consulate building. This decision left the Department holding several 
properties in Rio de Janeiro that it could not sell due to the 1991 
Brazilian law that requires individuals and businesses to be current on 
their Social Security payments to the Government of Brazil before they 
can legally transfer property title.
  In 1996, the State Department discontinued the payment of employer 
contributions into the Brazilian Social Security system for foreign 
service national employees because the Department deemed the Brazilian 
Social Security system to be fiscally unsound. The Department deemed it 
to be fiscally unsound. The Department set up its own pension system 
for the FSNs.
  The result of this is that the United States now owes approximately 
$10 million in arrears to the Government of Brazil. The State 
Department had in the past refused to pay the arrears. The committee 
supported its decision not to do so because we had already paid that 
$10 million in two accounts to benefit these employers.
  However, when the Department eventually needed to dispose of the 
property in Rio de Janeiro, it requested a reprogramming of $10 million 
to repay the arrears. The committee denied the Department's request, 
citing the principle of the matter and the fact that American taxpayers 
were, in essence, being asked to pay twice for these FSN pensions.
  Shortly thereafter, it was brought to the committee's attention that 
certain officials from the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs were 
trying to arrange a property swap with the Government of Brazil. In 
other words, the committee specifically told the Department not to pay 
back the arrears, and the Bureau sought a way around the committee's 
denial of the funding.
  In light of these inexcusable actions and in light of the low fiscal 
year 2004 allocation, the committee decided that the appropriate 
funding level for the Office of Brazilian/Southern Cone Affairs was 
zero. The bill makes it clear that even the Department of State is 
accountable for the expenditure of the American taxpayers' dollars.
  The Department's appeal letter further criticizes the bill for not 
providing funds for the Bureau of Oceans and International 
Environmental and Scientific Affairs. It is the responsibility of this 
bureau to promote U.S. interests in oceans, manage fish resources, 
protect marine environment through treaties, and promote U.S. interests 
in the international management of fresh water, forests, hazardous 
chemicals, and the atmosphere. Why would anyone want to abolish an 
office with such an important portfolio?
  The answer is that OES is not really getting the job done. The people 
at OES are very skilled diplomats, but they are not using their talents 
to negotiate effective, forceful treaties on fisheries, forests, and 
the atmosphere. They are instead burning time and talent lobbying for 
more resources for themselves or trying to wriggle out of initiatives 
which Congress has asked them to undertake.
  For the record, the bill does not abolish the OES functions, as some 
have accused. The bill transfers all of the OES's oceans-related 
responsibilities to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration. That seems reasonable.
  The bill does not reassign many of OES's other core functions, such 
as climate change, deforestation, et cetera. This is because the 
Commerce, Justice, State Subcommittee does not have jurisdiction over 
the agencies responsible for these activities. It is not our place to 
say that the EPA Administrator should negotiate climate change treaties 
on behalf of the United States since the State Department can't seem to 
manage to do it.
  The committee has received quiet praise from a range of groups, from 
industry to NGOs, on the elimination of this office. These groups share 
our frustration with the OES's inability, and sometimes unwillingness, 
to do its job in what we consider to be an effective manner and have 
congratulated the committee on its decision to move OES functions to 
agencies that actually care about and have expertise in issues such as 
endangered turtles, lumber imports, and global climate change.
  What is the root of the committee's frustration with the OES? OES has 
contravened statutory requirements to seek binding international 
treaties on endangered sea turtles and shark finning. On trade issues, 
OES has consistently pressed a U.S. position that sacrifices the 
environmental and conservation agenda. It is important to note that 
things were no better under prior administrations.

[[Page 26797]]

  Finally, there is widespread frustration with the lack of expertise 
and institutional knowledge of the OES negotiators due to State's 
policy of constantly rotating Foreign Service officers. Simply put, the 
committee got tired of being ignored by OES, and the Congress should 
also be tired of this.
  This year, the committee decided to take action. The action taken was 
constructive. It reassigned these important functions to people who 
actually understand the issues and who are willing to pursue them.
  Further, the State Department's appeal letter objects to the bill's 
inclusion of $52 million for the Center for Anti-Terrorism and Security 
Training. The CAST facility would allow the Department to consolidate 
training for the Bureau of Diplomatic Security and the Anti-Terrorism 
Assistance Program.
  The Department requested $52 million for this project in fiscal year 
2003. The House objected, and the Department ultimately did not receive 
the funding last year. In light of this, the committee included the $52 
million in fiscal year 2004. It was assumed that if the Department had 
requested the funds in fiscal year 2003 it would then want them to be 
included in the fiscal year 2004 funding. However, the Department's 
appeal letter objects to their inclusion this year.
  The State Department's inconsistency on this matter leads one to 
seriously question the processes by which it determines its budgetary 
priorities. In my humble opinion, they do need a center where they are 
able to train their Bureau of Diplomatic Security people, who have 
expanded radically in number over the last few years. State's 
inconsistency on this matter is hard to understand. State's complaints 
about the decisions of this committee are rather bold, given this 
inconsistency.
  The Department's appeal letter next objects to the bill's inclusion 
of $40 million for security enhancements for so-called soft targets. 
These funds are intended to be used to pay for security enhancements 
such as guards, shatter-resistant windows, emergency warning systems, 
and bollards at staff housing and American schools overseas. I started 
this initiative in the fiscal year 2003 budget. A total $15 million was 
included in that bill, along with language drawing particular attention 
to the security needs of our overseas schools. Or at least I thought 
$15 million was included in the bill.
  The State Department has recently informed the committee that it has 
chosen to interpret this figure as $15 million over 3 years, not $15 
million for each of 3 years as the committee intended. And since the 
actual funding level for the soft target initiative will fall $10 
million below what was envisioned for fiscal year 2003, the fiscal year 
2004 level will have to be at least $25 million to meet the goal.
  The Department has argued that $40 million is too much for this 
program. It is the committee's position that this is the right amount, 
especially since the Department appears to be playing budget games with 
this important initiative. It is extremely disheartening, in light of 
the pledges given to us by leadership at the State Department, that 
they would now try to decrease this funding to protect soft targets.
  Some of us are personally very committed to making sure that, when 
our Foreign Service people go overseas and take their families with 
them, we give those families reasonable protection. It appears the 
Department, perhaps, is not.
  The Department's appeal letter objects to the bill's inclusion of 
language limiting the number of personnel working in U.S. Embassies in 
Paris, France, and Berlin, Germany. The letter states: ``This micro-
management circumvents the Department's right-sizing plan process''.
  The bill includes caps on personnel because, as discussed earlier, 
the Department has no right-sizing process in place. And our Embassies 
in Paris and Berlin are a living--and growing--testament to this. I 
addressed this problem of right-sizing earlier, and I will not belabor 
the point.
  There are a couple of factors that led the committee to choose Paris 
and Berlin as the places to begin this mandatory right-sizing. The U.S. 
Embassy in Paris has grown so large that the post now occupies several 
annexes throughout the city in addition to the primary Embassy 
building. Recently, the Department requested to utilize $25 million to 
renovate a building into which personnel from other annexes could be 
consolidated. As if the $25 million price tag weren't bad enough, 
shortly after State made this request the committee discovered that the 
roof of the building had collapsed. State continued to push for 
approval of the funds to renovate the dilapidated building--right up 
until both the House and Senate Appropriations subcommittees denied 
this request.
  As far as Berlin is concerned, the committee had originally been told 
that the new embassy building planned for the historic Pariser Platz 
site would have to be smaller than normal, due to the small size of the 
property--about 1.5 acres. This is how State justified to the committee 
the cost of purchasing and renovating an ample new consular compound in 
Frankfurt, Germany. State's rationale was--and the committee agreed--
that if the embassy building in Berlin had to be smaller than 
necessary, some personnel could be transferred to what was to become a 
``regional hub'' in Frankfurt.
  A little under a year ago, the State Department informed the 
committee that the Berlin building would actually be much larger than 
normal. In fact, the new embassy building envisioned for Berlin is a 
24,000 square meter colossus, what the Department terms a ``special 
project.'' The result is that we have an enormous ``regional hub'' 
compound in Frankfurt and a supersized embassy building in Berlin. The 
convoluted history of the Berlin project leads one to question whether 
the State Department takes the concept of right-sizing seriously at 
all.
  The Department's letter also criticizes the bill for reducing the 
funding level of the Berlin project by $70 million. The Berlin project, 
unlike all of the other capital projects requested in fiscal year 2004, 
is not driven by security needs. The bill redirects this $70 million to 
construction of a new consulate building in Karachi, Pakistan. The 
design/construction phase for Karachi was not scheduled to begin until 
fiscal year 2005. However, given the current security situation in 
Pakistan, the committee felt it should begin as soon as possible.
  Employees of the U.S. Consulate General in Karachi have come under 
attack on four separate occasions during the last decade. On two such 
occasions, the consulate building itself was attacked. The most recent 
attack occurred in February, 2003, when a gunman opened fire on the 
local police assigned to the consulate. In light of this, the committee 
decided that our consulate in Karachi was in urgent need of 
reconstruction. Shrinking the size of an already-too-large building in 
Berlin, Germany, seemed like a very reasonable price to pay for a badly 
needed security construction project in Pakistan. It is the committee's 
policy to address the security needs of our embassies and consulates 
overseas before constructing buildings that are desirable for 
historical and cultural reasons.
  The Department's appeal letter criticizes the bill for not providing 
full funding for the U.S. payment to the United Nations. The difference 
between the requested amount of $1 billion and the recommendation of 
$922 million can be explained by the committee's decision not to 
provide the requested funds for the United States to rejoin UNESCO. 
However, the Department may not be aware of this, but we have had 
significant discussions with the White House and members of the 
administration, and I fully expect we will be funding UNESCO.
  Another factor contributing to the ``cut'' to this account was the 
committee's decision not to provide the funds for the United States 
share of the costs of the U.N. Human Rights Commission. The House bill 
contains a provision that would withhold funds for this U.N. body as 
well. The U.N. Human Rights Commission is notorious because it is 
chaired by Libya and boasts such members as Sudan, Cuba, and Zimbabwe. 
Human Rights Watch this year called

[[Page 26798]]

the U.N. Human Rights Commission: ``An abusers club of governments 
hostile to human rights.''
  The U.N. Human Rights Commission ignores the real human rights 
violators. No resolution in the history of the commission has ever been 
passed on states such as Syria, China, Saudi Arabia or Zimbabwe. The 
commission has not addressed gross and systematic human rights abuses 
in countries such as Bahrain, Chad, Liberia, Malawi, Mali, Saudi 
Arabia, Syria, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, and Zimbabwe. The 
Commission is a platform for Israel-bashing. It has spent more time on 
Israel than any other country. Eleven percent of its total substantive 
meeting time has been spent on Israel alone, while 24 percent of its 
time has been spent on all other U.N. states combined.
  Lastly and most alarmingly, the U.N. Human Rights Commission is being 
used as a forum for the expression of values and positions that run 
completely counter to America's own. One member state objected to the 
inclusion of language calling cross amputation ``cruel, inhuman and 
degrading treatment'' on the grounds that it was an offense to all 
Muslim countries. The Commission has also adopted a resolution 
affirming the legitimacy of ``all available means,'' including suicide-
bombing, ``to resist foreign occupation and for self-determination.'' 
At one meeting, the Libyan Chairman shouted that the U.S. war against 
terror showed that the U.S. ``despised humanity.''
  Should we stand by as American tax dollars are allowed to flow to 
such an organization? The House of Representatives doesn't think so. 
The Senate Appropriations Committee didn't think so. Apparently, the 
Department of State thinks so.
  The last portion of the ``cut'' to this account is explained by the 
bill's discontinuation of funding for a number of the smaller 
international organizations. In the past, the committee has directed 
the State Department to review the list of smaller international 
organizations to which the United States belongs to determine which of 
these may no longer be worthwhile for the United States. State has not 
done so. This year, the committee began making eliminations. The 
committee gave the State Department the chance to review the list 
itself, but it did not act.
  The Department's appeal letter criticizes the bill for not providing 
full funding for the U.S. share of the cost of United Nations 
peacekeeping missions. The bill provides only $483 million for 
peacekeeping while the request was $550 million. This, the State 
Department correctly points out, is a difference of $67 million.
  What the Department's appeal letter does not acknowledge is that, on 
September 30, 2003, the committee approved a reprogramming providing 
that $100 million in this account would be carried forward to fiscal 
year 2004. The result of this? State is not going to have a $67 million 
shortfall, it is going to have a $33 million windfall.
  The State Department knew this $100 million in carryover would be 
available when they wrote their appeal letter. They knew that the 
Senate CJS bill assumed that ample carryover funding would be 
available. This is the most egregious part of the Department's appeal 
letter. It is an outright fabrication.
  But let's turn to the real issues. The report accompanying the fiscal 
year 2004 bill directs the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda 
to complete its work by 2004 and the International Criminal Tribunal 
for the Former Yugoslavia to complete its work by 2006. Both ICTY and 
ICTR have been criticized for being slow and unprofessional, for having 
inadequate staff, for the passivity of their judges, and for their 
insufficient oversight of expenditures and employees. The Department of 
State itself has criticized these tribunals for their shortcomings. For 
these reasons, the Senate report includes language urging the U.N. to 
develop an exit strategy for these Tribunals.
  The committee's disappointment in the performance of the Yugoslavia 
and Rwanda Tribunals had little to do, however, with the level of 
funding they received (about one-third of the requested amount). This 
funding decision had more to do with the fact that the bills for these 
2 Tribunals--that is, the amount the U.N. assesses to the United States 
each year--have been much lower than anticipated for the past few 
years. The State Department has, for several years, budgeted about 
twice what it really needed to pay the U.S.'s bills for the Yugoslavia 
and Rwanda Tribunals. In light of this year's low allocation, we 
decided to hold back these funds and use them elsewhere. State recently 
estimated that the bills for fiscal year 2004 would come in at just 
around the requested level. The committee will likely adjust this level 
upwards in conference, since it is not interested in creating new U.S. 
arrears without a compelling reason. But it is important to note that 
the low Senate level for the Tribunals resulted from State's own 
budgetary ineptitude.
  State was quick to lash out at the committee for not providing full 
funding for the Yugoslavia and Rwanda War Crimes Tribunals. Yet, State 
itself is withholding funds for the Special Court for Sierra Leone. The 
Special Court is assigned the task of prosecuting those who committed 
atrocities during Sierra Leone's gruesome civil war. In fiscal year 
2003, Congress appropriated $10 million for the Special Court. State 
refused to provide the entire $10 million, in a blatant disregard of 
congressional intent. The Chief Prosecutor for Sierra Leone has told 
the committee that without the additional $5 million, the Special Court 
may have to shut down as early as February.
  The Department has criticized this bill for trimming down what, in 
past years, was a grossly inflated budget for the U.N.-run tribunals 
while denies the United States- and British-led tribunals its promised 
funding. This inconsistency is worrisome.
  The Department also objects to report language under peacekeeping 
that directs the United Nations to develop an exit strategy for the 
U.N. Peacekeeping force in Cyprus. The reason for this language is 
simple. It is not fair for U.S. taxpayers to have to pay for missions 
in countries that are on the cusp of joining the European Union.
  The last two years have seen the U.S. take on tremendous new global 
responsibilities, with Afghanistan and Iraq representing the largest. 
The U.S. cannot afford to keep taking on new missions if its existing 
missions never go away. The U.N. mission to Cyprus began in 1964, 39 
years ago. The State Department needs to use the U.S.' voice in the 
Security Council to ensure that U.N. peacekeeping missions are held to 
some sort of reasonable time frame.
  The Department also objects to the bill's failure to include language 
allowing it to carry over 15 percent of the fiscal year 2004 
peacekeeping appropriations into fiscal year 2005. As I mentioned 
earlier, the peacekeeping bills have been coming in much lower than 
expected. In fiscal year 2004, the Department's peacekeeping 
appropriation was $167 million above what it actually needed. Assuming 
this trend continues, the Department's request to carry over 15 percent 
of its peacekeeping appropriations is the equivalent of an advanced 
appropriation, something which the subcommittee of which I am chairman 
has tried to avoid. As a rule, the committee does not provide advanced 
appropriations since they take funding decisions away from the elected 
representatives of the people and hand it over to the agencies. This is 
simply a matter of policy and proper management.
  The Department's appeal letter further criticizes the bill for not 
providing full funding for Educational and Cultural Exchanges, but the 
Department's appeal letter does not tell the whole story. In fiscal 
year 2004, the Office of Management and Budget decided to move the 
former Soviet exchange programs, at a cost of approximately $100 
million, over to the Commerce-State-Justice Subcommittee from the 
Foreign Operations Subcommittee. This maneuver was intended to make 
room for the expanded Middle East exchange programs in the Foreign 
Operations budget. This was an OMB initiative.

[[Page 26799]]

Whether or not one agrees that these programs belong in Commerce-
Justice-State, there were simply not enough funds in the subcommittee's 
302(b) allocation to absorb them.
  The committee has always generously supported the exchanges. They are 
one part of the State Department's public diplomacy program that 
consistently produces good results, but even the committee has to 
question whether, if the former Soviet exchanges are no longer a high 
priority area for the United States--which the administration's budget 
signals they are not--then their funding needs to be reduced and they 
need to be folded into an existing exchange program under Commerce-
Justice-State. OMB and the State Department should be committed, as I 
am, to reprioritizing rather than simply adding more and programs. In 
any event, OMB should not act unilaterally, creating an impossible 
situation for the subcommittee given its low allocation, and then, with 
the State Department, write a letter complaining about it.
  The Department's appeal letter further objects to language in the 
bill designed to prevent the State Department from making a 
reprogramming request more than once. The committee decided to include 
this language after the Department requested to reprogram funding for 
the same project five times. In this particular instance, the committee 
denied the Department's request to utilize Commerce-Justice-State 
funding to construct two USAID annexes. The committee's position has 
always been that the Commerce-Justice-State Subcommittee should not 
have to build buildings for agencies over which it does not have any 
oversight. Seems reasonable to us.
  The USAID's operating budget does not fall under the jurisdiction of 
Commerce-Justice-State and, thus, this subcommittee has no way of 
ensuring that USAID is managing its funds wisely, that its requests for 
new buildings are legitimate, and that all of the personnel it places 
in these buildings are needed in those buildings. Moreover, separating 
USAID's building function from the oversight of its own appropriators--
the Foreign Operations Subcommittee--allows USAID to escape 
accountability for its capital program, which is not good budgeting 
procedure.
  The State Department apparently has failed to grasp this concept that 
when the committee says no it means no.
  The Department's appeal letter further objects to language in the 
bill requiring the Department to submit the U.N.'s budget along with 
its own budget to the committee.
  The regular dues of the United States to the U.N. are paid through 
the Commerce-Justice-State bill. In the fiscal year 2004, these dues 
will amount to $1 billion for the U.N. regular payments and $550 
million for peacekeeping, for a total of $1.5 billion of American tax 
dollars. This amount represents almost 20 percent of the entire State 
Department account, yet none of these funds--none of these funds--are 
justified in any meaningful way or any meaningful detail to the 
committee. All this bill language does is allow the committee to see 
for what this $1.5 billion is being used.
  The Department's appeal letter says it would be ``impractical'' for 
State to submit the U.N.'s budget to the subcommittee. I don't see why. 
Furthermore, the Department's letter states that the fact the committee 
has requested to receive the U.N.'s budget ``suggests that the 
committee would intend to exercise oversight over the U.N. budget to 
the same degree that it does over other accounts in the President's 
budget request.'' This, of course, is preposterous and inaccurate. The 
committee could never exercise this kind of oversight over the U.N. 
budget. The U.N. is an independent international organization. The 
committee can't make the U.N. do anything. Only the Security Council 
can make the U.N. do something.
  All this language does is ensure the committee is able to account for 
the expenditures of U.S. tax dollars. The Appropriations Committee is 
given the responsibility by the Constitution and by the taxpayers of 
the United States to make sure their tax dollars are being spent 
effectively and to know where their tax dollars are going. It seems 
reasonable that we should at least get an accounting from the U.N. of 
how $1.5 billion is being spent, and that is all we are seeking.
  The State Department's appeal letter further objects to language 
included in the bill that provides for an automatic transfer of funding 
in the event of a visa fee shortfall. The Department's Border Security 
Program--essentially its consular operations--is funded exclusively 
from revenue generated through the Machine Readable Visa Fee Program. 
Since September 11, the number of visa applications to the United 
States has declined dramatically. This has created a shortfall in 
excess of $100 million in the Department's Border Security Program. 
This has obvious national security implications.
  The Department has been aware of this problem for more than a year 
now. The committee has asked the Department several times to propose a 
comprehensive solution to this problem. In the absence of a solution, 
the committee vowed to transfer funds from the Department's main 
operating account to cover the shortfall. Consequently, the committee 
included language in the fiscal year 2004 bill that provides just such 
a safety mechanism--an automatic transfer of funds--to ensure that 
funding shortfalls do not disrupt the Department's critical Border 
Security operation.
  For the record, the committee has still not received a proposal from 
the State Department. The Department's current ad hoc system for 
addressing funding shortfalls in the Border Security Program is 
unacceptable. The Department leaves the committee little choice but to 
insist that this language be carried forward in the report.
  The Department's appeal letter objects to language included in the 
bill that would withhold funds for any U.N. peacekeeping mission that 
places U.S. troops under the command of a foreign national. This 
language is part of a larger debate over the International Criminal 
Court. Identical language was included in last year's Commerce-Justice-
State conference report, which passed both the Senate and the House. 
The House included identical language this year. Congress has spoken on 
this matter and the matter rests as it is. Why the State Department 
would write such an inflammatory letter now claiming that this language 
is inappropriate is beyond my understanding, especially given the 
history of this language.
  The Department's appeal letter objects to the language included in 
the report requiring the Department to demonstrate that consolidation 
of its payroll system would result in a savings for the American 
taxpayer. What an outrageous idea that we should ask the State 
Department to prove that something they are planning will save money, 
and then actually have them show us how it does save money.
  There is also report language requiring the Department to submit a 
reprogramming before it obligates any funding for payroll 
consolidation. Last January, the Office of Management and Budget 
announced an initiative to consolidate the Federal payroll system. It 
is estimated that this consolidation will reduce the number of agencies 
processing employee checks from 22 to 4, which could save the taxpayers 
up to $1 billion over the next 10 years.
  The committee is very supportive of this initiative. However, State's 
payroll needs are very different from the payroll needs of domestic 
agencies. The State Department currently pays over 25,000 Americans 
both domestically and overseas and over 35,000 local national employees 
in 180 different countries biweekly in local currencies.
  The purpose of this report language is to ensure that if any payroll 
consolidation takes place at the State Department, that State's unique 
needs are met.
  The committee has a right to exercise oversight over these funds. In 
fact, it is our obligation to do so, and I would think that State would 
encourage it rather than resist it.
  The Department's appeal letter objects to report language that 
requires

[[Page 26800]]

the Department to move the Office of Foreign Missions out of the Bureau 
of Diplomatic Security to the Bureau of Management. The Office of 
Foreign Missions was created to review and control the operations of 
foreign missions in the United States and to administer the benefits 
available to them. The Office of Foreign Missions was originally 
invented as a stand-alone office under the Secretary of State. In 1996, 
however, the office was moved to the Bureau of Diplomatic Security. The 
person who was then the director of the office took OFM with him when 
he was appointed head of Diplomatic Security.
  The committee's reason for including this report language is 
straightforward. We have talked to several foreign ambassadors who say 
the Office of Foreign Missions acts as though its primary mission is to 
police foreign missions rather than assist them. We have even had 
foreign diplomats tell us that they feel as though the Office of 
Foreign Missions treats them like ``criminals''. This is unacceptable. 
I am certain this penchant for heavyhandedness can be explained by the 
Office of Foreign Missions' being housed in the Department's security 
branch.
  For the second year in a row, the committee has asked the Department 
to consider moving the office back. The language was ignored the first 
time and hopefully we can get it to work this time.
  The appeal letter objects to report language that directs the 
Department not to grant visas to any person caught trafficking in 
looted Iraqi antiquities. It objects to that language. This language 
says, essentially, that anyone found to be responsible for looting and 
damaging Iraq's historical and culturally significant works is barred 
from receiving a U.S. visa.
  U.S. visas are not a right. They are a privilege. Any person who 
attempts to profit from the misfortune of the Iraqi people should lose 
this privilege. Why the State Department opposes this is beyond us. It 
is especially disconcerting that the Department objects to this 
language in the context of an inflammatory letter that questions this 
committee's commitment to national security.
  The appeal letter objects to report language requiring that children 
over the age of 1 be present for the adjudication of a U.S. passport. 
This minor change in Department policy, though admittedly an 
inconvenience for passport applicants, would help prevent international 
child abductions. Currently, State Department regulations do not 
require children under the age of 14 to appear personally when passport 
applications are made on their behalf. As a result, passport fraud 
involving the substitution of photographs of one child for another is 
regrettably common.
  The committee included this language following a Department of State 
Inspector General's report that recommended precisely this policy 
change. By law, State Department bureaus are required to respond to the 
recommendations contained in an Inspector General's report. On July 8, 
2003, the Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs sent a memo 
to the Inspector General stating that she not only concurs with the 
IG's recommendation, but is implementing it. This is good news. But one 
wonders why State is attacking us for suggesting it in our bill.
  Included in the appeal letter is an objection to report language 
directing the Department to construct a new office building in 
Kingston, Jamaica, instead of utilizing an existing building for both 
post housing and embassy functions. The committee was under the 
impression this plan also was already being implemented by the Bureau 
of Overseas Building Operations. Perhaps we could get some further 
clarification. It would have been better if the Department had engaged 
us in a constructive dialogue, rather than sending such a letter.
  The appeal letter objects to the report language requiring the U.S. 
Representative to the Organization of Economic Cooperation and 
Development, OECD, to submit OECD reports to the committee prior to 
their release. OECD already submits these reports to its member states. 
The State Department, on behalf of the United States, is responsible 
for approving these reports before they are released.
  Last year, OECD released a report that dealt with a particular U.S. 
domestic issue which at the time was being debated in the Congress. The 
OECD report was not intended to coincide with the congressional action 
on the particular matter. However, the release of the report 
nevertheless unduly influenced congressional debate on the matter. Such 
scenarios must be prevented in the future and this is precisely what 
this report language seeks to address.
  The committee's position on this matter appears to have been 
substantiated by the recent release of an OECD report that made 
recommendations on another politically sensitive issue currently being 
debated by the Congress: vouchers. While in this instance the OECD 
recommendation was in line with my own views and position, I suspect 
the opponents of my position, or others who do not agree with the 
approach to choice and vouchers, might take issue with the OECD's 
timing. The report language merely states the Congress too shall have 
opportunities to review the list of OECD reports before they are 
released. State has twice failed to exercise discretion that should 
have led it to disapprove reports that inappropriately influenced 
congressional action. This report language would try to prevent that 
sort of failure on their part in the future.
  That is a fairly comprehensive response to almost every point in this 
letter, except the overall funding levels, which brings me back to the 
language of the original letter. This is the language which the 
Secretary of State has directed at the Senate and the Senate 
Appropriations Committee. He says in this letter, which I think I have 
responded to in a very factual and reasonably understated way, that the 
bill passed by the full Appropriations Committee would adversely affect 
U.S. foreign policy and national security interests, undermine the 
management of the Department, is unconstitutional, misstates the legal 
requirements of the reprogramming process, and raises separation of 
powers concerns.
  I think it is excessive when the Secretary of State and his 
Department wave the bloody shirt of national security at the Senate as 
a way of attacking a bill they object to for policy and funding 
reasons.
  To say that I and other members of the Appropriations Committee would 
adversely affect national security interests at a time like this is an 
attack that is highly inappropriate, certainly not diplomatic, and that 
is inconsistent with the facts. As I have pointed out, the letter State 
has sent us is inaccurate in many areas. It is a disagreement on 
policies which are reasonable and should have been debated in a 
reasonable context.
  So unlike the Justice Department, which sent us a very matter-of-fact 
and I thought appropriate, thoughtful letter outlining what their 
concerns were, and unlike the Commerce Department, which was pretty 
happy with our bill, the State Department has decided to raise this to 
a higher level of antipathy. I think it is a mistake, and I think the 
record will speak for itself when this letter is reviewed in the 
context of the facts as I have outlined them.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator is recognized.
  (The remarks of Mr. Grassley are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page 26801]]


  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if the Senator will withhold, I certainly 
have no problem with the Senator speaking. But we are on limited time. 
I ask that the time the Senator from Virginia is going to use apply to 
the 3 hours that are available under the control of the majority.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ALLEN. Thank you, Mr. President.
  (The remarks of Senator Allen are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the conference report 
providing supplemental funding for our operations in Iraq and 
Afghanistan.
  I will support the conference report because I believe we cannot 
abandon either Iraq or Afghanistan prior to ensuring that both 
countries are becoming free, democratic, and stable societies. We are 
asking our men and women in uniform to put their lives on the line to 
accomplish this mission. Their sacrifices must not be in vain. We have 
an obligation to ensure that our troops receive the resources needed to 
do their jobs as safely and as effectively as possible. This bill will 
help to accomplish that goal.
  Terrorists operating in Iraq are actively working with the remnants 
of Saddam Hussein's regime against the establishment of a democratic 
government in Iraq. Every time a bomb explodes, we face a test, a test 
of our resolve to stay and finish the job. It is not easy to stay the 
course when our American troops are dying and getting wounded. But to 
walk away from Iraq would hand these terrorists a victory. To walk away 
from Iraq now would abandon innocent Iraqis to yet another 
authoritarian regime that oppresses human rights and threatens the 
entire region.
  Three-quarters of the funding in this bill will help provide our 
soldiers with the tools they need to get the job done as safely and 
effectively as possible. The bill includes additional personnel and 
health care support, much-needed protective equipment, such as body 
armor and fortified Humvees that will help keep our troops safer, and 
funding for expanded military operations to pursue terrorists globally. 
The bill also provides $18.6 billion to build a modern infrastructure 
for Iraq and to strengthen security forces. Basic services are a 
fundamental building block of a modern country. As we recently 
experienced with Hurricane Isabel, the lack of reliable electricity and 
clean water supplies can disrupt the most modern functioning of 
societies. That, obviously, was a very small-scale disruption compared 
to what is being experienced in present-day Iraq.
  I agree with the administration's proposal that we must focus on 
building an infrastructure. When I visited Iraq in July, I was struck 
by how little damage to the infrastructure was caused by the war. Our 
precision targeting spared the bridges and much of the infrastructure 
of this country, but nevertheless the infrastructure is in shambles.
  It is in shambles because of the decades of personal greed and 
neglect of Saddam Hussein. So building a modern infrastructure for Iraq 
is critical to helping this country get back on its feet as a 
functioning economy and a modern society.
  Despite my support for the goal of building an infrastructure, I want 
to make very clear that I am very disappointed that the conferees 
dropped a Senate provision I offered with many of my colleagues, 
including Senators Bayh, Ensign, Nelson, and Graham. That provision 
would have provided for half of the money to be used for the 
infrastructure rebuilding in the form of a long-term loan to Iraq. Both 
the Senate and the House expressed strong bipartisan support for this 
approach. I continue to strongly believe there are ways to structure 
our reconstruction assistance that would provide the Iraqi people with 
the assistance they need, when they need it, while lessening the long-
term impact on the American taxpayers.
  We should make Iraq a partner in this rebuilding venture, not simply 
the recipient of our goodwill. Iraq has abundant human and economic 
resources to enable it to shoulder some of the responsibility for its 
own future. It has been pointed out many times--but perhaps it bears 
repeating--that Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world. 
The administration has estimated that within 2 years Iraq will be 
generating $20 billion in annual oil revenue. With such an economic 
capability, Iraq undoubtedly will have the financial resources to repay 
this loan one day.
  I recognize--I emphasize--the need for help in the short term, but 
surely our taxpayers could be partially repaid in the long term.
  The American people are very generous. They understand that Iraq 
needs our help right now. But in the long term, we will be better off 
if we act in partnership with the Iraqi people, giving them a sense of 
ownership in their own infrastructure by working with them, lending 
money to them, and by making this a shared responsibility.
  Let me point out that the World Bank and the IMF have pledged money 
in the form of loans at the recent donors conference. Although they 
attached some conditions to the establishment of a loan program, these 
international financial institutions clearly believe that administering 
loans to Iraq is doable and that the country will have the capacity to 
repay this money in the future.
  Finally, I remain very troubled that the status of Iraq's 
preliberation foreign debt remains unclear. Saudi Arabia, France, 
Germany, and Russia should not be repaid for debts incurred by Saddam 
Hussein while the United States invests billions of its own dollars in 
reclaiming the country for the Iraqi people. Indeed, if the leaders of 
three of those nations had had their way, Iraq would still be suffering 
under the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein. The American taxpayer will 
be justifiably furious if one dime of his money goes even indirectly to 
repaying the debts incurred by Saddam Hussein.
  As we go forward with the distribution of the aid provided by this 
bill, it is critical that the administration continue to vigorously 
pursue an international agreement that will ensure that the holders of 
Saddam-era debt will not seek repayment. American taxpayers' money 
simply cannot be used, even indirectly, to repay the dirty debts of a 
dictator. That was another advantage of our loan proposal. It would 
have made it very far less likely that that could occur.
  This is particularly important after the donors conference made 
crystal clear that many wealthy nations, such as Saudi Arabia, France, 
and Germany, are apparently unwilling to donate any significant sums to 
the rebuilding cause.
  Despite my reservations, I believe this package will pave the way to 
the day when our soldiers finally come home from Iraq. We must not 
waiver in our mission to eliminate terrorism and bring democracy and 
stability to Iraq and to the Middle East. I hope we will continue to 
consider ways we can achieve this goal that are fair to the American 
taxpayers and that recognize the need for a shared partnership with the 
Iraqi people.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask that I be recognized to speak for up 
to 10 minutes with the time coming from the time previously allotted to 
Senator Kennedy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am disappointed in the conference outcome 
on the emergency supplemental appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan 
Security and Reconstruction. I had hoped that the conferees would have 
followed the Senate's decision to provide one-

[[Page 26802]]

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. A loan would have given the Iraqis a stake in the 
reconstruction of their own country, which is important, I believe, for 
them and for us.
  Beyond that issue, I am also disappointed at the administration's 
response thus far to a proposal most recently made by the October 
presiding officer of the Iraqi Governing Council, Iyad Alawi, in an 
opinion piece in the New York Times on Sunday, October 19. I wrote to 
Secretary Rumsfeld on October 22 to bring Mr. Alawi's proposal that 
Iraqi Army units be recalled at the mid-officer level and below to his 
attention and to ask that he consider it.
  I ask unanimous consent that my letter to Secretary Rumsfeld be 
printed in the Record at the end of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Last week I discussed the proposal with Ambassador Bremer, 
and I urged him to raise this issue with the entire Iraqi Governing 
Council. Last Friday, I discussed the issue further on the Senate 
floor.
  The conference report before us contains $3.2 billion for Iraqi 
security and law enforcement, and an additional $1.3 billion for 
justice, public safety infrastructure, and civil society. Included in 
those amounts is funding for the Iraqi police, border patrol, 
facilities protection services, the Iraqi civil defense corps, and the 
New Iraqi Army. While I strongly support that funding, I again call 
upon Secretary Rumsfeld and Ambassador Bremer to consider reassembling 
the units--and I emphasize units--of the Iraqi Army, and I call upon 
them further to ask the Governing Council in Iraq, which we 
established, for their advice and recommendations on the wisdom of 
reassembling units of the Iraqi Army.
  The security situation is too serious for us to stand on ceremony. 
The decision of May 15 to disband the Iraqi Army may turn out to be a 
major mistake. The decision made on May 15 was against the advice of a 
study conducted under the aegis of the Department of State. It resulted 
in a significant Iraqi security force being tossed to the wind.
  The major reason given by the Department of Defense for not 
reconstituting the Iraqi Army is that the army melted away when we 
attacked. But that happened because most of its members did not want to 
lay down their lives for Saddam Hussein. In fact, it was because Saddam 
Hussein knew the Iraqi Army might not fight for him that he created his 
special security forces.
  The fact that the Iraqi Army would not fight for Saddam is one of the 
reasons we should consider reconstituting it. It is surely not a reason 
for not doing so.
  Let me be clear, it is the units of the Iraqi Army about which I am 
talking. The administration's response to this proposal--that they are 
already signing up members of the Iraqi Army--is disingenuous. While 
they are using individual members for various security functions, the 
New Iraqi Army they are creating from scratch currently has fewer than 
1,000 members.
  We cannot afford to transfer security functions to Iraqis at that 
slow a pace. Americans are the target of more and more deadly attacks. 
The quicker we get the Iraqi Army back in place, the more security we 
are likely to have and the better off Iraq will be.
  Nobody suggests that the Baathist army officers be reinstated. The 
proposal is that mid-level officers and below be called back and that 
they be vetted to rid their number of those who committed crimes under 
the old regime.
  When I personally urged Ambassador Bremer last week to consider doing 
so, I further asked him to commit to taking up this issue with the 
Iraqi Governing Council. His reply was ambiguous, and that will not do 
in this extremely dangerous situation.
  Ambassador Bremer is running Iraq at this time, to the extent that 
anyone is, but that doesn't give him a monopoly on wisdom. We are not 
smarter than everybody else in the world, particularly about other 
countries and their traditions and cultures. We should consult with the 
Iraqis who are presently carrying out governing functions.
  In issuing Coalition Provisional Authority Regulation No. 6 last July 
13, Ambassador Bremer specifically committed to ``consult and 
coordinate on all matters involving the temporary governance of Iraq'' 
with the Iraqi Governing Council. He should do so urgently, and he 
should do so visibly if we truly believe Iraq can become a democratic 
state. The judgment of the Governing Council on this issue may not be 
unanimous, but it is relevant.
  There is another reason to consider shifting course. Today, the Iraqi 
Army is being paid a lot of money to do nothing--$25 million a month. 
We know who the officers and the noncommissioned officers are and where 
they live. Many of them are probably frustrated and angry because they 
believed they were serving their country by refusing to fight for 
Saddam.
  The stubborn refusal to reconsider decisions will not do in the 
dangerous security situation we face in Iraq. Stubbornly staying the 
course we set when we disbanded the Iraqi Army, instead of considering 
changing course to improve the security situation, cannot be tolerated. 
We do not need confessions of error. What we do need is a willingness 
to try some new approaches. At the top of the list should be to 
reconsider the May 15 decision to disband the Iraqi Army and, as part 
of that process, to involve the Iraqi Governing Council in 
reconsidering that decision.

                               Exhibit 1

       Dear Mr. Secretary: Attached is a copy of an OP-ED piece 
     from the Sunday, October 19, 2003 edition of the New York 
     Times written by Iyad Alawi, the president of the Iraqi 
     Governing Council for the month of October.
       This highly-significant article calls for the call up of 
     the Iraqi Army at least up to the mid-officer level, with 
     appropriate vetting by the Coalition and the Iraqi Interior 
     Ministry, as a way of more quickly relieving the burden on 
     American troops and replacing them with Iraqi soldiers who 
     have credibility and legitmacy with the Iraqi people.
       Since it appears that, despite the adoption of a new UN 
     resolution on Iraq, there are unlikely to be large numbers of 
     additional foreign troops made available for duty with the 
     Coalition, Mr. Alawi's proposal strikes me as worthy of 
     serious consideration.
       I would welcome an opportunity to discuss this matter with 
     you personally and, in any event, would solicit your views on 
     this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Carl Levin,
                                                   Ranking Member.
       Enclosure.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). Will the Senator withhold?
  Mr. LEVIN. I do withhold.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
recognized to speak for up to 20 minutes, this time coming from the 
time previously allotted to Senator Kennedy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Chair.
  Mr. President, I come to acknowledge my ``Cambodian moment'' in the 
Iraq war. I refer to the Cambodian moment that Senator Mansfield 
experienced after years and years of opposing the war in Vietnam. He 
had a practice of taking written memoranda time and again to both 
Presidents Johnson and Nixon, supporting the President openly on the 
floor of the Senate, but finally at the time Cambodia was invaded under 
President Nixon, he could not take it any longer and spoke out.
  He went on national TV and said: This war was a mistake from the get 
go. The next day, he got a letter from an admirer who had just lost her 
son. She said: I just buried my son and came home and watched you on 
this program. You said it was a mistake from the get go. Why didn't you 
speak out sooner?
  She said: My regret is that you did not speak out sooner or loudly 
enough for me to hear.
  It is time we speak out, because unless we are going to put in 
100,000 or 150,000 more United States troops and

[[Page 26803]]

get law and order in Iraq, in Baghdad, we are going to have operation 
meat grinder continue, and it is our meat.
  In conscience, I cannot stand silent any longer. What happens if we 
had invaded the city of Atlanta, let's say. We had landed at Hartsfield 
Airport, and then we had gone on to an aircraft carrier and said: 
Whoopee, mission accomplished; when the truth of the matter is, two 
divisions of Republican Guards have blended into the environs of 
Atlanta with all kind of ammunition dumps, and all they do day in and 
day out is raid the dumps, set traps, blow us up, kill more Americans, 
and we talk about schools opening and hospitals working, and that we 
have a water system. This cannot go on. It has to stop.
  Let me start by saying I believe, unlike most of my colleagues, that 
the intelligence we had on Iraq was sound. We knew from the outset a 
lot about Iraq in the sense we had conquered it and we had two 
overflights, one in the north and one in the south. We had to look down 
and see in the middle of Iraq. For 10 years we knew exactly what was 
going on. If we had any doubts, we could check with the Israeli 
intelligence. Don't tell me Israel didn't have good intelligence on 
nuclear weapons because she went in there back in the eighties--she is 
a small country and can't play games and can't wait around for the 
United Nations and conferences. She had to knock that facility out.
  What else did we know about Iraq? We knew they didn't have terrorists 
there at the time. Oh, yes, while we are trying to internationalize a 
defense effort, what we find is, our effort is more or less 
internationalizing terrorism.
  The most ridiculous thing on the TV last night was to hear the 
President say foreigners are in Iraq killing our soldiers. Can you 
imagine us, thousands of miles away, talking about foreigners killing 
our soldiers? Come on. What happened was, it did not have terrorists at 
the time we went in. They tried to connect al-Qaida to Iraq, but now 
the President himself has acknowledged you couldn't connect al-Qaida. 
They didn't have nuclear capability. And, of course, there was no 
democracy. There weren't people yearning for it, as Deputy Secretary of 
Defense Wolfowitz said, meeting us in the streets waving: Whoopee, we 
finally got democracy.
  Anybody who knows the history of the Mideast knows that is a bunch of 
nonsense. They don't have democracy in Iraq, in Syria, in Iran, in 
Jordan, in Saudi Arabia, in Egypt, in Libya--or go right around--Libya, 
in the Mideast. Where does somebody think they are going to meet us in 
the streets and say: Whoopee for democracy?
  I wish the distinguished Chair would pay attention to this one. What 
did George Herbert Walker Bush, the former President, say in his book, 
``A World Transformed''?

       I firmly believed that we should not march into Baghdad. . 
     . . To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, 
     turning the whole Arab world against us and make a broken 
     tyrant into a latter day Arab hero.
       . . . assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a 
     securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in 
     what would be an unwinnable urban guerrilla war.

  That is what President George Herbert Walker Bush, the President's 
daddy, said.
  We all knew that about Iraq. But why did we go in and why did the 
Senator from South Carolina vote for the resolution last October? Why? 
I can tell my colleagues why. On August 7, Vice President Cheney, 
speaking in California, said of Saddam Hussein: What we know now from 
various sources is that he continues to pursue a nuclear weapon.
  Then on September 8: We do know with absolute certainty that he is 
attempting to acquire the equipment he needs in order to enrich uranium 
to build a nuclear weapon.
  Then the President of the United States himself said, in his weekly 
address on September 14, before we voted in October: Saddam Hussein has 
the scientists and infrastructure for a nuclear weapons program and has 
illicitly sought to purchase the equipment needed to enrich uranium for 
a nuclear weapon.
  Then on September 24, Prime Minister Blair said that the assessed 
intelligence has established beyond doubt that Saddam continues in his 
efforts to develop nuclear weapons.
  On September 8 of last year, Condoleezza Rice said that we do not 
want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.
  On October 7, President Bush said: Facing clear evidence of peril, we 
cannot wait for the final proof, the smoking gun that could come in the 
form of a mushroom cloud.
  Now, any reasonable, sober, mature, experienced individual listening 
to that litany knows to vote against that resolution would have been 
pure folly. One has to back the President.
  I am not on the Intelligence Committee. I was not privy to any kind 
of intelligence but I knew we had a lot of intelligence. The truth is, 
I thought the Israeli intelligence was really furnishing all of this 
information and that we were going in this time for our little friend 
Israel. Instead of them being blamed, we could finish up what Desert 
Storm had left undone; namely, getting rid of Saddam and getting rid of 
nuclear at the same time.
  I voted for the resolution. I was misled. Now we hear that this is 
not Vietnam. I read my friends Tom Friedman and Paul Krugman. They say 
this is not a Vietnam.
  The heck it is not. This crowd has got historical amnesia. There is 
no education in the second kick of a mule. This was a bad mistake. We 
were mislead. We are in there now, and I am hearing the same things 
that the Senator heard in 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971 right on 
through 1973.
  At the time I was a young politician, having just come to the Senate, 
listening to those who knew. I knew Leader Mansfield would know about 
Vietnam. I knew my friend Senator Dick Russell was against the war in 
Vietnam from the get-go. Now, if Senator Mansfield had spoken up, he 
could have saved 10,000 lives. We would have followed him in the 
Senate. But he was trying to follow the mistake and the misread of 
Maddox and the Turner joy that brought about the Gulf of Tonkin 
resolution.
  There are similarities. There are the misleading statements that I 
have just given, the litany by the President telling us all there was 
reconstituted nuclear. Here again we are in a guerilla war. It is an 
urban guerilla war, not in the bushes of Vietnam but we still again are 
trying to win the hearts and minds.
  We were trying to victimize Vietnam. In this one we are trying to 
Iraqi Iraq. We are trying to do our best doing the same things over and 
over again. In fact, in this particular war we received the Pentagon 
papers a lot earlier. I ask unanimous consent that this article in USA 
Today entitled ``Defense Memo: A Grim Outlook,'' by Secretary Rumsfeld, 
be printed in the Record at this particular point.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                    [From USA Today, Oct. 22, 2003]

                      Defense Memo: A Grim Outlook

                   (By Dave Moniz and Tom Squitieri)

       Washington.--The United States has no yardstick for 
     measuring progress in the war on terrorism, has not ``yet 
     made truly bold moves'' in fighting al-Qaeda and other terror 
     groups, and is in for a ``long, hard slog'' in Iraq and 
     Afghanistan, according to a memo that Defense Secretary 
     Donald Rumsfeld sent to top-ranking Defense officials last 
     week.
       Despite upbeat statements by the Bush administration, the 
     memo to Rumsfeld's top staff reveals significant doubts about 
     progress in the struggle against terrorists. Rumsfeld says 
     that ``it is not possible'' to transform the Pentagon quickly 
     enough to effectively fight the anti-terror war and that a 
     ``new institution'' might be necessary to do that.
       The memo, which diverges sharply from Rumsfeld's mostly 
     positive public comments, offers one of the most candid and 
     sobering assessments to date of how top administration 
     officials view the 2-year-old war on terrorism. It suggests 
     that significant work remains and raises a number of probing 
     questions but few detailed proposals.
       ``Are we winning or losing the Global War on Terror?'' 
     Rumsfeld asks in the Oct. 16 memo, which goes on to cite 
     ``mixed results'' against al-Qaeda, ``reasonable progress'' 
     tracking down top Iraqis and ``somewhat slower progress'' in 
     apprehending Taliban

[[Page 26804]]

     leaders. ``Is our current situation such that `the harder we 
     work, the behinder we get'?'' he wrote.
       Pentagon spokesman Lawrence DiRita declined to comment 
     specifically on the memo, but he said Rumsfeld's style is to 
     ``ask penetrating questions'' to provoke candid discussion. 
     ``He's trying to keep a sense of urgency alive.''
       Among Rumsfeld's observations in the two-page memo:
       The United States is ``just getting started'' in fighting 
     the Iraq-based terror group Ansar Al-Islam.
       The war is hugely expensive. ``The cost-benefit ratio is 
     against us! Our cost is billions against the terrorists' cost 
     of millions.''
       Postwar stabilization efforts are very difficult. ``It is 
     pretty clear the coalition can win in Afghanistan and Iraq in 
     one way or another, but it will be a long, hard slog.''
       The memo was sent to Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, chairman 
     of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Deputy Defense Secretary Paul 
     Wolfowitz; Marine Gen. Peter Pace, vice chairman of the Joint 
     Chiefs; and Douglas Feith, undersecretary of Defense for 
     policy.
       Rumsfeld asks whether the Defense Department is moving fast 
     enough to adapt to fighting terrorists and whether the United 
     States should create a private foundation to entice radical 
     Islamic schools to a ``more moderate course.'' Rumsfeld says 
     the schools, known as madrassas, may be churning out new 
     terrorists faster than the United States can kill or capture 
     them.
       The memo is not a policy statement, but a tool for shaping 
     internal discussion. It highlights a Rumsfeld trait that 
     supporters say is one of his greatest strengths: a 
     willingness to challenge subordinates to constantly reassess 
     problems. The memo prods Rumsfeld's most senior advisers to 
     think in new ways about the war on terrorism at a time when 
     many are preoccupied with the 7-month-old war in Iraq.
       In public, the Bush administration has been upbeat in 
     describing the war on terrorism. Attorney General John 
     Ashcroft has noted that two-thirds of al-Qaeda's leadership 
     has been captured or killed.
       Last month, Rumsfeld told PBS that ``al-Qaeda has been put 
     under enormous pressure'' and ``their ability to function has 
     been significantly affected.''

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I do not know how many more similarities 
we are going to get. Iraq is Vietnam all over for the Senator from 
South Carolina.
  Now we have to either put the troops in there or else get out as soon 
as we can. I take it the present plan is to Iraqi Iraq; namely, train 
up a bunch of folks together, give them high pay. They have 70-percent 
unemployment so they will all grab and get a uniform and act as if they 
are security, but that will give us a cover and face to leave and leave 
as soon as we can, unless we are going to put the troops in there and 
get law and order.
  What we have done is come into Iraq against the military requirements 
of taking the city. We just stopped at the airport and declared mission 
accomplished, and look around and wonder and say this is part of the 
war on terror.
  This is not and was not a part of the war on terror. Yes, there are 
terrorists in there now, but Iraq was not a part of the war on terror. 
It was quiet. It was not bothering anybody. They did not have al-Qaida. 
They did not have nuclear capabilities. They were not connected in any 
way to 9/11. We went in there under a mislead.
  We learned in World War II that no matter how well the gun was aimed, 
if the recoil is going to kill the guncrew one does not fire the gun.
  Yes, it was a good aim to get Saddam but now look at the headline. I 
ask unanimous consent to include this particular article from the 
Financial Times, ``Al-Qaida Exploits Insecurity in Iraq to Acquire 
Weapons and Swell Its Ranks.''
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Financial Times, Oct. 16, 2003]

 Al-Qaeda, ``Exploits Insecurity in Iraq to Acquire Weapons and Swell 
                              Its Ranks''

                           (By Peter Speigel)

       Continued instability inside Iraq has given terrorist 
     groups easier access to shoulder-launched anti-aircraft 
     missiles and, potentially, chemical or biological weapons, a 
     leading think-tank reported yesterday in its annual 
     evaluation of global security issues.
       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-Qaeda 
     from potential state sponsors, it was also likely to have had 
     the effect of ``swelling its ranks and galvanishing its 
     will''.
       ``War in Iraq has probably inflamed radical passions among 
     Muslims and thus increased al-Qaeda's recruiting power and 
     morale and, at least marginally, its operational 
     capability,'' the report states.
       John Chipman, the IISS director, noted that David Kay, the 
     US's chief weapons inspector, had recently reported that more 
     than 100 spawling Iraqi ammunition storage sites remain 
     unexamined. The inference made by Mr. Kay was that evidence 
     of unconventional weapons could still be uncovered by 
     coalition teams inside Iraq.
       But Mr. Chipman said the unexamined depots also raised 
     grave concerns about what arms might be available to 
     terrorist groups, said by US intelligence officials to be 
     moving into Iraq in greater numbers.
       ``While the number of uninspected sites may be interesting 
     in terms of the struggle to find evidence of weapons of mass 
     destruction, it is even more interesting as a comment on the 
     ammunition that may be available to terrorist who can get 
     access to unguarded or poorly guarded depots,'' Mr. Chipman 
     said.
       He added that shoulder-launched missiles were of particular 
     concern, noting that Soviet-era SA-7s and US Stinger systems 
     could fetch Dollars 5,000 (Euros 4,250, Pounds 3,000) on the 
     black market, while coalition forces in Iraq were offering 
     only Dollars 500 for those handed in to authorities.
       ``This proliferation problem is exacerbated by the porosity 
     of Iraq's borders in the post-conflict stage, making it easy 
     for weapons to flow outside the country and into the Middle 
     East in general,'' Mr. Chipman said.
       The IISS also argued that while it was unlikely that al-
     Qaeda still had the capability of a ``mass-casualty attack'' 
     on US soil, its members might see a large-scale attack on US 
     forces inside Iraq as a ``feasible substitute'' while they 
     worked to reconstitute the network.
       ``It is worth recalling that the operational cycle for 
     large and complex al-Qaeda operations can exceed the 25 
     months that have passed since 9/11,'' Mr. Chipman said.
       The Military Balance study found that global defense 
     spending increased 7 per cent last year in dollar terms, from 
     Dollars 786.6bn to Dollars 842.7bn, largely because of the 
     huge military build-up in the US and a stronger eruo.
       The authors predicted another 7 per cent increase this 
     year, again citing huge Pentagon spending increases for the 
     bulk of the rise. Still, such spending levels account for 
     only 2.6. per cent of global GDP, as compared with 6.2 per 
     cent in 1985.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Chair. We now have more 
terrorism than less terrorism. That is the fact. We have the entire 
world turned against us. When we cannot get Mexico and Canada to go 
along with us, we are in trouble.
  I am hopeful the United States will win back the hearts and minds of 
the world's people, because we were always loved, respected, and looked 
up to for leadership.
  In this particular venture what we have done is exactly what 
President George Herbert Walker Bush warned against. He said to watch 
out; do not go into that place. I quote again, now that my 
distinguished friend is here. I want that particular quote to appear in 
the Record again. He said in his book ``A World Transformed'':

       I firmly believe that we should not march into Baghdad. To 
     occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning 
     the whole Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant into 
     a latter-day Arab hero. Assigning young soldiers to a 
     fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and 
     condemning them to fight in what would be an unwinnable urban 
     guerrilla war.

  Iraq is Vietnam all over again. I know the distinguished Senator from 
Alaska revered our friend Senator Mansfield. I will never forget when 
Senator Mansfield said all Senators are equal, and when they rolled the 
Senator from Alaska on a particular matter he was concerned with, he, 
himself--that is Leader Mansfield--got up, took the floor, and put 
Alaska's amendments up and we passed them.
  So Senator Mansfield took some 5 years and 17 memos to Presidents 
before he finally changed his mind and spoke. That is exactly where I 
am today as I enter this particular debate with respect to the 
supplemental. I would oppose the supplemental on one score, namely we 
will not pay for it. We tell that poor GI, downtown in Baghdad, we hope 
you don't get killed, and the reason we hope you don't get killed is 
because we want you to hurry back. We want you to hurry back so we can 
give you the bill because we are not going to pay for it. We in the 
Congress, my generation, we need a tax cut so we can get reelected next 
year. We are not going to pay for it.

[[Page 26805]]

  This is the first war in the history of the United States where there 
is no sacrifice on the homefront. They all run around the mulberry bush 
here saying ``it's not Vietnam'' and that we have to stay.
  We either have to get in or get out. We can't stand for operation 
meat grinder to continue day in and day out.
  In a war on terror, I just want the administration to know that might 
does not make right. On the contrary, right makes might. Winning the 
hearts and minds of the world's peoples, I can tell you here and now, 
we have to get right on our policy in the Mideast. We all back Israel, 
but we don't back the taking over of these settlements. If you have 
been a conquered people--and I read where the distinguished Senator 
from Alaska went down into those areas for the first time in Israel--
for 35 years you have looked not only for your light and water but your 
jobs up in Israel. Anybody with any get-up-and-go has gotten up and 
gone, after 35 years. You have the disenchanted. They don't have an 
army or anything else like that. So don't be amazed. You have to play 
it with an even hand.
  Might makes right in this terror war. We got onto this Iraqi venture, 
which was a bad mistake from the very beginning. There is not any 
question about it. If I went to a funeral this afternoon of a fallen 
soldier in Iraq, what would I say? Did they fall there for democracy? 
They are not going to have a democracy. It is going to be the Shiite 
democracy, like they have in Iran--at best. That is exactly what 
Secretary Rumsfeld said we were not going to have.
  Was it for nuclear? No.
  Was it for terrorists? No, they didn't have terrorists there.
  Your son gave his life for what? As their Senator, I am embarrassed. 
It wasn't for any of those things. Why we went in, the administration 
has yet to tell us. They keep changing the rules and the goalposts 
every time. But somehow, somewhere they have to really put the force in 
there, quit trying to do it on the cheap, put the force in there and 
clean out that city, so they will quit killing them, or otherwise get 
out as fast as we can.
  I thank the distinguished Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the last 20 
minutes of the time under the control of the previous order be divided 
so that Senator Byrd has 10 minutes next to last and that I have the 
last 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  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. DAYTON. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, it is a sad and somber day to consider the 
conference report on the $87.5 billion supplemental appropriations for 
the continuing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yesterday was the worst 
loss of American lives in any day in Iraq. Sixteen American soldiers 
died in a helicopter brought down by a ground-launched rocket. Twenty 
others were wounded in that horrible moment. Another U.S. soldier was 
killed when his Humvee was ambushed by a roadside bomb in Baghdad.
  Another convoy was attacked in Fallujah, a city west of Baghdad. One 
U.S. vehicle was destroyed and no casualties were officially reported. 
Yet another attack on that city killed two American civilians and 
wounded one. In Abu Ghraib, a western suburb of Baghdad, U.S. soldiers 
and residents reportedly fought in the streets. The residents said at 
least one American soldier had been killed, along with several Iraqis. 
That is in one terrible day.
  Our deepest condolences and prayers go out to the families and 
friends of those brave Americans who gave their lives in the service of 
their country, as those who have lost their lives before them.
  I will support this additional funding for one primary reason, and 
that is to win this war in Iraq, to secure lasting victory there and in 
Afghanistan, and then bring our American troops home as quickly as 
possible. That should be a goal we can all agree on, something that 
unites us all in this Chamber and as Americans. Let's do what we must 
to secure our military victory, to establish the framework for 
continuing success there, and then let's get our troops home as soon 
and as safe as possible.
  Whether we agreed or disagreed with the decision to start this war, 
we are in it now. Whether or not weapons of mass destruction are 
eventually found, whether they were there before or not, whether 
international terrorists were there or not--none of these questions, 
nor their answers, nor the debates over them, change or will change the 
situation we are in today, which is that 138,000 of our sons and 
daughters are in Iraq because they were sent there. They are risking 
their lives. Some are fighting for their lives. Some are losing their 
lives to carry out the orders they have been given to fulfill the 
mission they have been assigned. They have done so courageously, 
heroically and, to this point, successfully. This supplemental funding 
gives their Commander in Chief almost everything he asked us for. It 
gives the military command everything they asked us for, gives the 
soldiers everything they need to complete these assignments 
successfully, to accomplish their mission victoriously, as quickly and 
efficiently and completely as possible, and we do so because they must 
succeed.
  Our country must succeed. We must prevail in the very difficult 
circumstances in which we are entangled in Iraq. We must win a lasting 
victory there militarily, economically, and socially. We must succeed 
and establish a new Iraqi government, which will be able to itself 
succeed after we leave. We must assist and enable the Iraqi people to 
succeed now and after we depart. We must win this war we started 
because the consequences of failure would be catastrophic. Failure is 
not an option--not for our sake, not for Iraq's sake, not for the 
world's sake. We must not lose this war.
  I speak as somebody who voted against last year's congressional 
resolution that authorized the President to start this war. I thought 
it was premature a year ago last October. I thought it was 
unconstitutional. I thought it was a mistake, that it would weaken, not 
strengthen, our national security. I said then I hoped I was wrong. 
Today I don't believe I was, but that is irrelevant to what we face 
today--that we are fighting a war in Iraq. The Americans and the Iraqis 
who are supporting them there are fighting for their lives, and we must 
win the war and secure that peace so we can leave that country with a 
victory that will last.
  Failure, pulling out now or at any time, followed by the collapse of 
that country--whatever government, whatever resulting civil war or 
anarchy, or if a return to power by Saddam Hussein would occur--would 
be a disaster for Iraq and for us. It would be devastating to our 
national security, to our standing in the eyes of the world, to our 
ability to lead that world.
  Failure is not an option, so we must proceed and succeed. How? I have 
my ideas. Everyone else in the Senate has his or her ideas, and House 
Members have their ideas. Every retired general has lots of ideas. What 
matters most is what are the ideas of the Commander in Chief. What is 
his plan of action? What must be accomplished? What is the measure of 
our success? What is the intended timetable for reconciling and 
accomplishing them?
  To the question he was asked at the press conference last week, would 
he

[[Page 26806]]

guarantee there would be less than 200,000 troops in Iraq a year from 
now, he replied, ``That is a trick question.'' That is not a trick 
question. It is essential. What is the timetable for the men and women 
serving over there, suffering over there, fighting and dying? What is 
the timetable to bring them home with a victory accomplished? Those are 
questions that deserve answers. They deserve truthful answers because, 
for $87 billion, the American people--all of us--deserve to be told the 
truth. Mr. President, $87 billion is a lot to pay for the truth. It is 
way too much to pay for partial truths or fabrications or 
misrepresentations or outright lies.
  This administration must tell us the truth, the whole truth, nothing 
but the truth, the good, the bad, the ugly, and the successes and the 
nonsuccesses. If not, the credibility of those who are in command will 
suffer. That loss of faith and trust in our leaders is something we 
cannot afford--ever--in this country, but especially not now.
  On last Saturday, a U.S. commander said that the opposition's attacks 
are ``strategically and operationally insignificant.'' What are we 
supposed to believe the day after the most damaging, fatality-filled 
day of the war for Americans?
  When Democratic Senators were not allowed to travel to Iraq during 
the last recess to see firsthand, as I was able to do with the 
Presiding Officer and a bipartisan delegation in July, when Democratic 
Senators are not allowed to see for themselves what is actually going 
on in that country, then what are we supposed to believe when what we 
are told by others turns out not to be true, such as when we are told, 
as we were last August, that 95 percent of that country is now peaceful 
and is secure, and these atrocities continue day after day taking the 
lives of Americans and maiming and wounding others. Tell us the truth.
  Secondly, it is imperative that the administration spend this $87.5 
billion well and spend it wisely. The President insisted that all the 
money for economic and social rehabilitation be grants, not loans, as a 
majority, myself included, in the Senate would have preferred. The fact 
they are grants is all the more reason to make sure all those dollars 
go to get the job done as soon as possible because American troops' 
lives are depending upon it, because every day they don't come home is 
a day more casualties are likely to occur.
  Any company, any individual, any American corporation, or American 
citizen who is taking money under those pretexts and is not putting 
that money to its proper use is a traitor to this country and to the 
cause for which those men and women are fighting and risking and giving 
their lives.
  The reports we have read of rampant overcharging by certain 
companies, egregious overcharging for the price of oil that is being 
transported into that oil-rich country, reports of kickbacks and bribes 
necessary to secure contracts, reports of sweetheart deals being 
arranged, no-bid contracts being awarded, of people in Washington 
setting up shop and telling those who want contracts over there that 
the means to achieve them, not because they are well qualified, but 
because they have higher up connections--that would be an abomination. 
It would be a waste of taxpayers' money. It would be a desecration of 
the memories of the men and women who have given so much on behalf of 
our country there, and it would delay--and this is what is most 
unforgivable--it would delay the achieving of success that is necessary 
to bring our men and women home with a lasting victory achieved.
  We must get rid of Saddam Hussein. When I was in Iraq last July, I 
was told by a commanding general it was an urgent priority, an urgent 
necessity to remove him and his two sons from power permanently by 
whatever means necessary. The military of the United States is two-
thirds of the way toward that objective. The people of Iraq must be 
assured, and every day they are not again delays our success. They must 
be assured Saddam Hussein will not return to terrorize that country 
ever again.
  Finally, we must treat our Armed Forces in Iraq as well as we 
possibly can during and in the aftermath of this war, and those 
fighting in Afghanistan as well. I am very pleased that the conferees 
included an amendment my colleague from Minnesota, Senator Coleman, and 
I sponsored that earmarked $55 million of this appropriation for the 
travel costs of troops to come back to the United States, to cover 
their airfare to their homes and back, whereas previously they were 
being forced to pay that airfare themselves to get back to their 
families and loved ones. Most of them, in fact, from Minnesota who are 
serving now have had their tours of duty extended from 6 months to a 
year, after they arrived in Iraq with no recourse, no opportunity to 
make those arrangements back home, except after the fact. So the chance 
to come home for 2 weeks is crucial for them, for their spouses, and 
for their children.
  Given the financial sacrifices many of them have incurred by virtue 
of leaving better paying jobs, sometimes losing small businesses they 
had underway, incurring those financial hardships are such that even a 
round-trip plane ticket can be an almost prohibitive expense. It seems 
to be the least we can do and should do and, according to this bill, 
are going to do to thank them and give them a chance to connect with 
their families before they go back to again risk their lives in Iraq.
  I am glad to see included an amendment that Senator Graham of Florida 
proposed, which I was also pleased to cosponsor, that will prevent the 
Pentagon for charging our wounded soldiers for the cost of their meals 
and hospitalization or rehabilitation. It doesn't seem it should be 
necessary, but given they are paying that price for their service, the 
least we can to is feed them at our expense.
  I am also pleased the conferees included the requirement that each 
member of the Reserve or National Guard who is serving in Iraq on 
active duty has to be informed in writing when their tour of duty will 
be concluded so they and their families will know when they can count 
on their return.
  I strongly urge the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff, that the period of demobilization, the time from 
when troops, especially those who are going to be deactivated, Guard 
men and women, reservists, from the time they arrive back home and the 
time when they are released to their families, homes, jobs, that time 
be kept to an absolute minimum--days, at least a week or two, rather 
than the weeks and months I am told typically it takes. It is important 
we treat these men and women well for what they have given on behalf of 
their country so that we retain their services for future needs.
  I support this supplemental appropriations with the regret that it is 
necessary but the resolve that it is what we must do to achieve 
victory. I want to be able to face our fellow citizens with the 
assurance that it is money that is needed, money that is going to be 
spent as it was appropriated, and money that is going to be spent as it 
was intended.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. DAYTON. I ask unanimous consent for 1 minute to conclude my 
remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I want us to walk out of that situation 
with our heads held high--on which the hopes and dreams of the Iraqi 
population now depend--with the victory and success we want to achieve, 
with the result we want to give the Iraqi people--a democratically 
elected government, a country that has hope and means for a better 
future and which restores this country's standing in the eyes of the 
rest of the world, the stature, the respect we have had and that we 
deserve to have and that we must have to be the leader of this world in 
the years ahead.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page 26807]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the order, the Senator has 60 minutes. 
There are 58 minutes 56 seconds remaining on that 60 minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I ask 
unanimous consent that I yield to the distinguished Senator from 
California, Mrs. Boxer, who has been yielded time by the distinguished 
minority leader. I yield the floor to her, if the Chair so recognizes 
her.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I have been yielded 10 minutes by the 
minority leader, which I would like to use at this time.
  I start off by first saying this is a very hard time for our country. 
Clearly, for my State, the kind of horror we have seen from these 
uncontrollable fires has been just unspeakable. Finally, we are getting 
them contained. At this point, we have lost 3,400 homes. Some 750,000 
acres have burned. We have had 20 deaths, one of them a fireman from my 
home county.
  For me, the bill that is before us is a mixed bag in many ways. It 
does have funding for these disasters. It does have money for our 
brave, courageous, and extraordinary heroes and, of course, I support 
all of that. What I do not support is the fact that many of the 
provisions have been dropped that would have made a difference in our 
policy there. We are going down a path that is bringing the American 
people pain deep within their hearts that one just cannot even measure.
  I have long talked about shoulder-fired missiles and what they can do 
to aircraft. We have seen that in the starkest possible way. I feel so 
much sadness given what is happening in my State. I am glad the 
President is coming there tomorrow. I am writing a letter to FEMA. I 
have been calling Director Michael Brown, who has been very 
compassionate, to set up disaster centers. I have been calling on him 
to work with me in encouraging the mortgage companies to be as good to 
their mortgage holders as Fannie Mae has been, giving them a chance to 
recoup and getting those individual and business loans to start 
rebuilding, which we will. We will rebuild.
  I went back to look at my own record on fire issues since maybe 5, 6, 
7 years ago. We have been urging for so many years that communities 
close to national forests be paid special attention. So there will be 
more time to talk about all of that.
  Today, I wish to eulogize our young men and women who have died 
during the war in Iraq, as well as those who have been killed during 
this postwar period. I simply want to call attention to the 
Californians who have died in this conflict. We have lost 73 young 
people in this war from California. My colleagues will note that there 
are 72 on this list behind me. We just learned of the first woman from 
California today. That puts us up to 73. I want to read their names. I 
am not going to tell my colleague about each and every one of them. I 
am going to put that in the Record:
  Michael Bitz, Jose Garibay, Jorge Gonzalez, Thomas Mullen Adams, Jose 
Gutierrez, Randal Kent Rosacker, Michael Vann Johnson, Jr., Ryan 
Beaupre, Therrel Shane Childers, Brian Matthew Kennedy, Kendall Damon 
Watersbey, Kevin Nave, William White, Joseph Menusa, Jesus Suarez Del 
Solar, Patrick T. O'Day, Francisco Flores, Aaron Contreras, Donald May, 
Robert Rodriguez, Michael Lalush, Brian McGinnis, Christian Gurtner, 
Erik Silva, Benjamin Sammis, Chad Bales, Mark Evnin, Eric Smith, Travis 
Ford, Devon Jones, Duane Rios, Edward Smith, Jesus Medellin, Juan 
Garza, Jr., Jeffrey Bohr, Jr., Jesus Gonzalez, Riayan A. Tejeda, David 
Owens, Jr., Jason Mileo, Troy Jenkins, Osbaldo Orozco, Jose Rodriguez, 
Jakub Kowalik, Douglas Marencoreyes, Andrew Lamont, William Moore, 
Timothy Ryan, Aaron White, Kirk Straseskie, Jonathan Lambert, Atanacio 
Marin, Ryan Cox, Andrew Chris, Travis Bradachnall, Paul Nakamura, David 
Moreno, Andrew Tetrault, Cory Geurin, Evan Ashcraft, David Perry, 
Daniel Parker, Kylan Jones-Huffman, Pablo Manzano, Joseph Robsky, Jr., 
Joshua McIntosh, Sean Silva, Jose Casanova, Sean Grilley, Michael 
Hancock, Jose Mora, Steven Acosta, Paul Velazquez, and this is the 
first woman to die in this war from California, Karina Lau, age 20, of 
Livingston, killed on November 2 in Iraq. Karina was onboard a Chinook 
helicopter when it was attacked. She was assigned to B Company, 16th 
Signal Battalion, 3rd Signal Brigade, in Fort Hood, TX.
  We send our deepest love and sympathy to all of these families.
  This is what is happening in Iraq. Maybe we do not see the bodies 
coming home but this is what is happening in Iraq. It was not supposed 
to be thus. I sit on the Foreign Relations Committee and they told us 
we would be welcomed as liberators. They said the purpose was to get 
the weapons of mass destruction, and the purpose was to get rid of 
Saddam Hussein.
  If those were the purposes, it is time now to rethink what we are 
doing there. That means, it seems to me, to admit that it is not going 
the way the American people were promised.
  We are told 80 percent of Iraq is safe. We have been told that by 
many people. We have been told that by Paul Wolfowitz. We have been 
told that by Ambassador Bremer. I am going to take them at their word--
80 percent of Iraq is safe. Then why do we have to have only our young 
people, with a few others sprinkled in, in those areas? What we need to 
do is bring in the peacekeepers, if things are safe in those areas, 80 
percent of the country. We should concentrate our force in the area of 
the country that is so very dangerous. We should get help from the 
entire world to do that. This burden cannot keep on falling on 
America's families.
  Many reporting requirements were dropped from this bill. I asked for 
a specific report detailing the extent to which U.S. military personnel 
have been replaced by international troops or Iraqi forces in secure 
areas of Iraq--the 80 percent solution I talked about. The conference 
report requires a report on U.S. efforts to increase the number of 
international troops, but basically it has dropped the portion where we 
talk about that 80 percent of the country.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mrs. BOXER. I ask for an additional 2 minutes from the time of the 
Senator from West Virginia and then I will conclude.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes of my time to the Senator 
from California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank Senator Byrd. It has been my privilege to work 
with the Senator on this issue. You have been around far longer than I 
have been, but I have been around a long time.
  I have seen Vietnam. I have seen our troops become sitting ducks. I 
have seen it. It doesn't have to be this way. There are other ways to 
deal with this.
  I hope and continue to pray we will have an exit strategy that 
includes help from the entire civilized world. We know Iraq was a haven 
for a most brutal tyrant--one of the most brutal in all history, Saddam 
Hussein. We know that. We know he is essentially gone. That is a plus. 
But now Iraq has become a haven for the terrorists. It was not supposed 
to be thus. Doesn't it mean something when the President and his people 
tell the American people what is going to happen? Doesn't it mean 
something to say: You know what, we predicted this and this. It didn't 
happen. We need a new strategy.
  That is what I was hoping for in this bill. Everything that really 
was leading toward that got voted down. Senator Byrd's amendments, 
Senator Kennedy's, others, the ones that were agreed to here have been 
knocked out, so we do not have the type of reporting requirements that 
would have shown us progress.
  Instead, we have a continuation of the status quo. I am very 
surprised, for example, that the loan turned into a grant. I don't 
think that is good for taxpayers.

[[Page 26808]]

  I thank you for your patience. I thank my colleague. I pray and hope 
for a new strategy.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the very distinguished Senator from 
California, Senator Boxer, for her kind references to me, and for her 
courage, for her foresight and vision, and for the strength she has 
shown, not only on this matter but also on many others, over the years 
I have served with her. I thank her for her friendship. I express only 
the highest of regard for her in the difficult situation she finds her 
State in at this time, and also, Mr. President, for the position she 
has so valiantly held on this particular bill that is before us, and 
the subject matter of this bill, throughout the time it has come before 
the Senate.
  How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 44 minutes remaining.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Iraq supplemental conference report 
before the Senate today has been widely described as a victory for 
President Bush. If hardball politics and lockstep partisanship are the 
stuff of which victory is made, then I suppose the assessments are 
accurate. But if reasoned discourse, integrity, and accountability are 
the measures of true victory, then this package falls far short of the 
mark.
  In the end, the President wrung virtually every important concession 
he sought from the House-Senate conference committee. Key provisions 
the Senate had debated extensively, voted on, and included in its 
version of the bill--such as providing half of the Iraq reconstruction 
funding in the form of loans instead of grants--were thrown overboard 
in the conference agreement. Senators who had made compelling arguments 
on the Senate floor only days earlier to limit American taxpayers' 
liability by providing some of the Iraq reconstruction aid in the form 
of loans suddenly reversed their position in conference and bowed to 
the power of the Presidency.
  Before us today is a massive $87 billion supplemental appropriations 
package that commits this Nation to a long and costly occupation and 
reconstruction of Iraq. Yet the collective wisdom of the House and 
Senate appropriations conference that produced it was little more than 
a shadow play, choreo-
graphed to stifle dissent and rubberstamp the President's request.
  Perhaps this ``take no prisoners'' approach is how the President and 
his advisers define victory. But I fear they are fixated on the muscle 
of the politics instead of on the wisdom of the policy. The fact of the 
matter is, when it comes to policy, the Iraq supplemental is a monument 
to failure.
  Consider, for example, that before the war the President's policy 
advisers assured the American people Iraq would largely be able to 
finance its own reconstruction through oil revenues, seized assets, and 
increased economic productivity. The $18 billion in this supplemental 
earmarked for the reconstruction of Iraq is testament to the fallacy of 
that prediction. It is the American taxpayer, not the Iraqi oil 
industry, that is being called upon to shoulder the financial burden of 
rebuilding Iraq.
  The international community on which the administration pinned such 
hope for helping in the reconstruction of Iraq has collectively ponied 
up only $13 billion, and the bulk of those pledges--$9 billion--is in 
the form of loans or credits, not grants. But still the White House 
claims victory for arm-twisting Congress into reversing itself on the 
question of loans and providing the entire $18 billion in U.S. tax 
dollars in the form of outright grants to Iraq. I readily admit that 
how this convoluted logic can be construed as a victory for the 
President is beyond me.
  But reconstruction is only part of the story. On May 1, the President 
stood on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln--strategically postured 
beneath a banner that declared ``Mission Accomplished''--and pronounced 
the end of major combat operations in Iraq.
  Since that day, however, more American military personnel have been 
killed in Iraq than were killed during the major combat phase of the 
war. According to the Defense Department, 376 American troops have been 
killed to date in Iraq and nearly two-thirds of those deaths, 238, have 
occurred since May 1, when the President declared that the major combat 
had ended.
  When President Bush uttered the unwise challenge, ``Bring 'em on,'' 
on July 2, the enemy did, indeed, ``bring them on,'' and with a 
vengeance. Since the President made that comment, more than 165 
American soldiers have been killed in Iraq. As the death toll mounts, 
it has become clear that the enemy intends to keep on ``bringing 'em 
on.''
  The $66 billion in this supplemental required to continue the United 
States military occupation of Iraq over the next year and the steadily 
rising death toll are testament to the utter hollowness of the 
President's declaration aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln and the careless 
bravado of his challenge to ``bring 'em on.''
  It has been said many times on the floor of this Senate that a vote 
for this supplemental is a vote for our troops in Iraq. The implication 
of that statement is that a vote against the supplemental is a vote 
against our troops. I find that twisted logic to be both irrational and 
offensive. To my mind, backing a flawed policy with a flawed 
appropriations bill hurts our troops in Iraq more than it helps them.
  Endorsing and funding a policy that does nothing to relieve American 
troops in Iraq is not, in my opinion, a support-the-troops measure. Our 
troops in Iraq and elsewhere in the world have no stronger advocate 
than Robert C. Byrd, senior Senator from the great State of West 
Virginia, where mountaineers are always free. I support our troops. I 
have been supporting our troops for more than 50 years as a Member of 
the Congress of the United States. I pray for the safety of our troops. 
I will continue to fight for a coherent policy that brings real help--
not just longer deployments and empty sloganeering--to American forces 
in Iraq.
  The supplemental package before the Senate does nothing to 
internationalize the occupation of Iraq, and therefore it is not a vote 
for our troops in Iraq. We had a chance in the beginning to win 
international consensus on dealing with Iraq, but the administration 
was in too big a hurry, the White House was in too big a hurry. The 
administration squandered that opportunity when the President gave the 
back of his hand to the United Nations and preemptively invaded Iraq.
  Under this administration's Iraq policy, endorsed in the President's 
so-called victory on this supplemental, it is American troops who are 
walking the mean streets of Baghdad; it is American troops who are 
succumbing in growing numbers to a common and all too deadly cocktail 
of anti-American bombs and bullets in Iraq.
  The terrible violence in Iraq on Sunday--the deaths of 16 soldiers 
and the downing of an American helicopter, the killing of another 
soldier, and a bomb attack and the deaths of 2 American civilian 
contractors in a mine explosion--is only the latest evidence that the 
administration's lack of postwar planning for Iraq is producing an 
erratic, chaotic situation on the ground with little hope for a quick 
turnaround. We appear to be lurching from one assault on our troops to 
the next while making little, if any, headway in stabilizing our 
improving security in that unfortunate country.
  The failure to secure the vast stockpiles of deadly conventional 
weapons in Iraq, including shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles such 
as the one that may have brought down the United States helicopter on 
Sunday, is one of many mistakes the administration made that is coming 
back to haunt us today.
  Perhaps the biggest mistake, the costliest mistake, following the 
colossal mistake of launching a preemptive attack on Iraq, is the 
administration's failure to have a clearly defined mission and exit 
strategy for Iraq.
  The President continues to insist that the United States will 
persevere in its mission in Iraq and that our resolve is unshakable. 
But it is time, past time, for the President to tell the American 
people exactly what that

[[Page 26809]]

mission is, how he intends to accomplish it, and what his exit strategy 
is for the American troops in Iraq. It is the American people out 
there--it is the American people--who will ultimately decide how long 
we will stay in Iraq.
  It is not enough for the President to maintain that the United States 
will not be driven out of Iraq by the increasing violence against 
American soldiers. He must also demonstrate leadership by presenting 
the American people with a plan to stem the freewheeling violence in 
Iraq, return the government of that country to the Iraqi people, and 
pave the way for the orderly withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. 
We do not now have such a plan, and the supplemental conference report 
before the Senate does not provide such a plan. The $87 billion in this 
appropriations bill provides the wherewithal for the United States to 
stay in Iraq when what we badly need is a course correction. The 
President owes the American people an exit strategy for Iraq. It is 
time for the President to deliver.
  I have great respect and affection for my fellow Senators and my 
colleagues on the Senate Appropriations Committee. No one could ask for 
a finer committee chairman than Senator Ted Stevens. I have even 
greater respect and greater affection and greater dedication to the 
institution of the Senate and the Constitution of the United States by 
which this Senate was established.
  Every Senator upon taking office swears an oath to support and defend 
the Constitution of the United States. It is the Constitution of the 
United States--not the President of the United States, not a political 
party, but the Constitution--to which all Senators swear an oath of 
loyalty before God and man. I am here to tell you that neither the 
Constitution nor the American people are well served by a process and a 
product that are based on blind adherence to the will of the White 
House and to the will of the President at the expense of congressional 
checks and balances. It is as if, in a rush to support the President's 
policy, this White House is prepared to put blinders on the Congress.
  This supplemental spending bill is a case in point. One of the 
earliest amendments that was defeated on the Senate floor was the one I 
offered to hold back a portion of the reconstruction money and give the 
Senate a second chance--give the Senate a second vote--on whether to 
release that money. Apparently, the President and his supporters did 
not want to give the Senate an opportunity to review the progress--or 
lack of progress--in Iraq and have a second chance to debate the wisdom 
of spending billions of taxpayers' dollars on the reconstruction 
effort.
  Time after time the House-Senate conference committee was given the 
opportunity to restore or impose accountability on the administration 
for the money being appropriated in the Iraq supplemental, and time 
after time the House-Senate conference committee majority beat back 
those measures. The conferees, for example, defeated on a party-line 
vote an amendment I offered which would have required that the head of 
the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq be confirmed by the Senate. 
Senate confirmation of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq 
would have ensured that the person who is managing tens of billions of 
dollars in Iraq for the American taxpayers would be accountable to the 
public--to the people out there who are watching through those 
electronic lenses. The current appointee, L. Paul Bremer III, is not. 
He answers to the Secretary of Defense and the President--not to 
Congress and not to the American people.
  The conferees approved a provision creating an inspector general for 
the Coalition Provisional Authority, but I am dismayed to say that this 
individual is not subject to Senate confirmation. I am dismayed that 
the conferees defeated my amendment that would have required the 
inspector general to testify before Congress when invited. I am 
dismayed that the President can refuse to send Congress the results of 
the inspector general's work. Could it be that the President's 
supporters are afraid to hear what the inspector general might tell 
them? Could it be that the President's supporters in Congress would 
rather blindly follow the President instead of risking reality by 
opening their eyes to what could be uncomfortable facts?
  The conference also stripped out my amendment to the Senate bill that 
would have required the General Accounting Office to conduct ongoing 
audits of the expenditure of taxpayer dollars for the reconstruction of 
Iraq. On the Senate floor my amendment required such audits, and it was 
adopted by a vote of 97 to zero--97 to nothing. But in the House-Senate 
conference, it was blown away. It was defeated in the House-Senate 
conference by the Senate conferees on a 15-to-14 straight-line party 
vote.
  Sprinkled throughout the Iraq supplemental conference report, 
provisions euphemistically described as ``flexibilities'' give the 
President broad authority to take the money--your money--appropriated 
by Congress in this bill and spend it however he wishes. I tried to 
eliminate or limit these flexibilities--and in a few cases succeeded--
but there remain billions of dollars in this measure that can be spent 
at the discretion of the President or the Secretary of Defense.
  Although the money is appropriated by Congress, as it is required to 
be appropriated by Congress in section 9 of article I of the 
Constitution of the United States, these so-called ``flexibilities'' 
effectively transfer the power of the purse from the legislative branch 
to the executive branch.
  The dictionary definition of ``victory'' is simple and 
straightforward: success, conquest, triumph. Within the constraints of 
that simplistic definition, I suppose one could construe this package 
to be a victory for the President.
  But I believe there is a moral undercurrent to the notion of victory 
that is not reflected in the dictionary definition. I believe most 
Americans equate victory more closely with what is right than with 
simply winning. It is one thing to win, and the tactics be damned; it 
is quite another to be victorious. Victory implies doing what is right; 
doing what is right implies morality; morality implies standards of 
conduct. I do not include arm twisting and intimidation in my 
definition of exemplary standards of conduct.
  Moreover, we should not forget that not all victories are created 
equal. In 280 B.C., Pyrrhus, the ruler of Epirus in northern Greece, 
took his formidable armies to Italy and defeated the Romans at 
Heraclea, and again at Asculum in 279 B.C., but suffered unbearably 
heavy losses. ``One more such victory and I am lost,'' he said.
  It is to Pyrrhus that we owe the term ``pyrrhic victory,'' to 
describe a victory so costly as to be ruinous. This supplemental and 
the policy which it supports, unfortunately, may prove to be a pyrrhic 
victory for the Bush administration.
  The conference report before the Senate today is a flawed agreement 
that was produced by political imperative, not by reasoned policy 
considerations. This is not a good bill for our troops in Iraq. This is 
not a good bill for American taxpayers. This is not a good bill for the 
mothers and fathers and sisters and brothers and husbands and wives of 
the troops in Iraq. This is not good policy for the United States of 
America.
  Victory is not always about winning. Sometimes victory is simply 
about being right. This conference report does not reflect the right 
policy for Iraq or the right policy for America.
  I oppose it, and I will vote ``no'' on final passage.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Before doing so, may I ask how much time I have remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). Eighteen minutes 42 seconds 
total, including the 10 minutes to close.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted 
to use the Democratic leader's leader time.

[[Page 26810]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REED. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, we are faced with a very difficult vote this 
afternoon. There are many of us who have questioned the wisdom of our 
policy in Iraq, dating back to October of last year, no one more 
eloquently or intelligently than Chairman Byrd, and his speech today 
echoes that sentiment so well. But for me this is a question of 
providing the resources necessary to support our soldiers, marines, 
airmen, and naval personnel in the field. Despite the questions of 
policy, I do believe we have to render such support, but I have 
reservations about particular aspects of the bill which I would like to 
address today.
  During the debate on the bill, I offered two amendments. The first 
was to increase the resources allocated to acquire uparmored Humvees. 
These are the tactical vehicles that are armored that provide increased 
protection against the improvised explosive devices being used 
throughout Iraq. Particularly I was concerned about the exposure of 
some of our National Guard forces.
  The Presiding Officer and myself represent the State of Rhode Island. 
We have two military police companies. The Presiding Officer supported 
me and worked with me closely in trying to craft this amendment so we 
could increase the number of uparmored Humvees.
  My original proposal was to increase the number in this bill by 800. 
I am very pleased to say this bill contains an additional 318 uparmored 
Humvees.
  I thank Senator Stevens particularly because on the floor he not only 
accepted this amendment, but he did his utmost with his staff to ensure 
these additional uparmored Humvees would be available to our troops in 
the field. This is good news to me, but better news for the troops who 
will use them and the families back here who each day monitor the 
newspapers and the television and watch and hope their soldiers, their 
military personnel, have every margin of safety and protection they 
need.
  The second amendment I offered was with respect to the end strength 
of the active U.S. Army. Unfortunately, this proposal, although it 
succeeded on the floor of the Senate--it resisted a motion to table by 
a vote of 52 to 45--was dropped in conference. I believe eliminating 
this provision is a mistake. We do need additional troops. There are 
some who argue very strenuously we need additional troops right now in 
Iraq.
  If one considers what has happened with the tragic loss of a Chinook 
helicopter, with 16 soldiers killed, and others injured, the fact that 
there are multiple, perhaps hundreds, of ammunition dumps throughout 
Iraq that are unsecured most of the time and subject to looting, the 
fact we are continuing to see a stiffening resistance throughout the 
Sunni triangle around Baghdad, all of that argues to many that we 
should, in fact, increase the forces on the ground.
  Even if you do not concur, even if you believe, as the Secretary of 
Defense says over and over again, that we have enough American troops 
on the ground, if we are going to maintain such a deployment over the 
next several years, we need additional soldiers in our Army for 
rotation, because otherwise we will wear our Army out, and the first 
signs of that will be a diminution in the retention of our reservists 
and National Guard men and women.
  The new threat we are facing in Iraq with shoulder-fired missiles is 
a very ominous one. These are mobile, lightweight, missile systems that 
can be operated by one person. They can be transported in a vehicle, 
easily hidden. They can be popped up, made ready to be fired within 
minutes, and then they can be discarded, and the individual can flee. 
It is a very effective weapon.
  Indeed, one of the ironies of history is we supplied these types of 
weapons to the Mujahedin in Afghanistan, and they played havoc with 
Soviet helicopters, Soviet aircraft. It is one of the factors that 
caused the Soviets to consider their efforts in Afghanistan as futile 
and to leave.
  We have a new threat and that, I think, argues against not only new 
tactics and strategies but a reconsideration of the forces we have in 
Iraq and the strength we have there. Again, I point out we have 
approximately 1 million tons of ammunition unsecured throughout Iraq. 
There are about 100 of these sensitive sites reported by the New York 
Times that are guarded around the clock. The rest are guarded 
intermittently. They are a source, one could infer, for some of the 
munitions that are being used against our troops. Our convoys have been 
attacked by improvised explosive devices, by RPGs, and all of this is 
leading to the casualties we see each day. I think we should be very 
prudent and very responsible in terms of our end strength in the Army 
and our forces within Iraq. Both should be increased, I feel, and I am 
not alone.
  James Dobbins, a former Ambassador, who is one of the leading experts 
on reconstruction, said, in his words:

       Everyone agrees that we need more troops on the ground in 
     Iraq; they just can't agree on more of what. Conservatives 
     want more U.S. troops. Liberals want more allied troops. The 
     Pentagon wants more Iraqi troops. My view is that they're 
     probably all right: We're going to need all three.

  Frankly, given the current end strength of the Army, we do not have 
enough to provide additional American forces on the ground on a 
sustainable rotation basis.
  The Pentagon, Secretary Rumsfeld, is focusing on creating Iraqi 
security forces. That is an important goal. But there seems to be some 
confusion on the number of troops. This weekend, Secretary Rumsfeld 
stated that over 100,000 Iraqis were reporting to duty. Just a few days 
before that, Secretary Wolfowitz and Condoleezza Rice said it was 
80,000 or 90,000. The numbers are unclear.
  What is also unclear is the capabilities of these troops. The Iraqi 
Army was being trained in 8 week courses and is now being trained in 
about 6 weeks so we can get them into the field. This raises questions 
of reliability, questions of adaptability, all of these things.
  Many suggest that we increase our international component. Frankly, 
the Turkish troops were apparently willing to come, but the Iraqis 
objected. It has been reported that Portugal and Bangladesh have 
decided against contributing troops. South Korea is delaying its 
decision. It is becoming increasingly obvious that the burden will fall 
not just in the next few months but in the next few years on the United 
States forces. As a result, I do believe we need more forces.
  We are beginning to see already the stress on our National Guard and 
Reserves. Currently, more than 130,000 Guard and Reserve soldiers and 
airmen are deployed. Approximately 29,000 National Guard soldiers are 
in Iraq and Kuwait. More than 10,000 Reserve forces are in Kuwait, 
Afghanistan, and Iraq. We also have National Guard forces in Bosnia, 
Kosovo, and the Sinai.
  This is tremendous stress. We are seeing, for the first time, 
reports--although they are still preliminary--that National Guard units 
are not able to make their recruiting goals.
  There was a report on NBC News by Jim Avila, who referred to:

       New figures, released this week, show the Army National 
     Guard nearly 10,000 short of its 2003 goal of 62,000 
     recruits.

  Those are the first signs that recruiting and retention are becoming 
a problem in the Reserve component. They will only be made up, I think, 
by increasing the number of Active Forces we have.
  There is a very difficult challenge for Reserve Forces. They have a 
career. They have families. They are not full-time soldiers, although 
they are excellent soldiers, they are professionals. They have taken 
their missions on with great skill and great patriotism. In fact, we 
could not perform the missions of the modern military today without the 
Reserve and National Guard. But they have separate careers and separate 
lives, and eventually they will have to give some credit and some 
interest to those separate lives.
  I believe very strongly we have to ultimately increase the end 
strength of our military forces. I regret it is not in

[[Page 26811]]

this supplemental. I will endeavor in the future to continue to urge 
this position. I hope someday we will have it.
  In the meantime, I thank, again, the chairman and Senator Byrd for 
their efforts. Because ultimately this bill is putting resources into 
the hands of our fighting men and women who are engaged in combat 
today, I will support the measure.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for 
the $87 billion supplemental conference report, and I want to take a 
few minutes to explain why I support this conference report, even 
though I have serious misgivings about some of its provisions.
  I support this conference report because I believe the United States 
now has an inescapable responsibility in Iraq.
  We must stay the course and to do that, we must provide our troops in 
the field with the resources necessary to complete their mission. The 
defense title of this conference report provides nearly $65 billion for 
that purpose, including important funding to improve the safety of our 
troops by securing Iraqi small arms caches which are the source of much 
of the munitions used to attack U.S. forces.
  We must rebuild Iraq's infrastructure and assist in resurrecting a 
viable Iraqi economy. We must see that a stable government is put in 
place. We must prevent civil war. And we must see to it that Iraq does 
not become a base for terror and instability throughout the region.
  Nothing could be more disastrous for U.S. national security than, 
after bringing about regime change, if our nation were to turn tail and 
run and not accomplish the mission.
  We would send precisely the wrong message to both our friends and our 
foes around the world.
  If the United States were to pull out without completing the job, I 
believe that we would see civil war and a return of the Baathist 
regime, perhaps headed by someone as bad or worse than Saddam.
  For many of us, the challenges that we now face in Iraq illustrate 
the shortcomings of a doctrine of unilateral preemption and preventive 
war.
  When we use force against a state and seek regime change we are left 
with an inescapable role: Nation building.
  This conference report is not perfect. Far from it. But it is 
critical that we do not leave the hard work of post-war reconstruction 
undone.
  When the supplemental bill was before the Senate, I did what I could 
to see if it was possible to structure at least some of this package as 
loans--and the Senate adopted an amendment which would have made $10 
billion of the reconstruction loans.
  That provision, unfortunately, was dropped in Conference over my 
objections and those of many of my colleagues.
  I also worked with Senator Domenici to include additional reporting 
language in this bill. This amendment, which was adopted by the Senate, 
provided Congress and the American people real oversight over what the 
administration's plans were in Iraq and how the money in this 
supplemental was being spent.
  Unfortunately, many of these reporting requirements were also 
stripped out in conference.
  I also supported efforts to include provisions in this bill so that 
there would be greater international contributions to the 
reconstruction effort, to see if Iraqi oil could be quickly bought on-
line to underwrite costs, to earmark some of the funds to be spent in 
Iraq on domestic priorities instead, and to try to pay for this 
supplemental by deferring the large tax cut for those Americans earning 
more than $340,000 a year.
  So if I had my way in putting this package together we would have 
before us a very different conference report.
  Unfortunately, all these options were either debated and voted down 
by the Senate when we considered this bill earlier or, in the case of 
the loan provision, stripped out by the Republican majority in 
conference.
  I would also like to note a provision of this bill that strikes close 
to home for me and my constituents. I am pleased that the conference 
report provides $500 million for FEMA disaster relief activities 
associated with recently declared disasters, such as the wildfires in 
California. Representative Jerry Lewis and I sponsored this funding as 
a downpayment on what we all can expect to be a costly reconstruction 
effort in southern California. We in California are resilient, and I 
hope that this funding will help us to bounce back quickly from the 
catastrophic fires still burning in California.
  So in the final analysis, even without the inclusion of many of the 
Iraq provisions I would have liked to have seen in this bill, I have 
come to the conclusion that the United States must step up to the plate 
and meet its obligations in Iraq. The United States must win the peace 
in Iraq.
  The United States must also seek to repair the breach that exists 
between our nation and some of our friends and allies in the 
international community.
  As I stated on the floor earlier when the Senate considered this 
supplemental, it is my sincere hope that in the reconstruction of Iraq, 
the United States can repair some of this damage by working with our 
allies, the United Nations, and the international community.
  The United States has lost a great deal of good will throughout the 
world in the past year due to the perception that the American attitude 
has become ``our way or the highway.''
  We must signal clearly and unambiguously that our attitude has 
changed and that we welcome the full partnership of others in the 
international community in Iraq.
  On balance I find that I must support this conference report. Our 
national security and the safety and well-being of our troops demand 
it.
  Indeed, how the United States approaches the reconstruction of Iraq 
may well prove to be one of the greatest tests of American leadership 
since World War II.
  To fail in this endeavor could well escalate chaos in the Middle East 
and Gulf region, lead to civil war in Iraq, and allow Iraq to become a 
base for terror. I believe that it is important that Congress supports 
this conference report and that we stay the course in Iraq.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the assistance in this supplemental 
appropriations bill for victims of Hurricane Isabel and the California 
wildfires is certainly much needed and justified. Both of these 
disasters were vividly portrayed in images on television, newspapers, 
and the Internet. Those images drove home the need for help.
  We have a strong history of providing assistance from the Federal 
Government to help our citizens survive and recover from natural 
disasters. As nearly all previous disaster aid, the assistance in this 
supplemental appropriations bill for both Hurricane Isabel and the 
California wildfires does not require a budget offset.
  We did not tell the victims of the hurricane or the wildfires that in 
their time of need they had to go find money elsewhere in the Federal 
budget. We did not tell these victims of disaster they had to give up 
something that they had coming to them in order to get the help they 
critically need.
  Last year, many States across the middle of the United States were 
suffering from a terrible drought, and there were additional 
agricultural disasters in other parts of our country.
  Now, drought is not as spectacular as a hurricane or a fire; that is 
true. The damage occurs over several months, even years, not days or 
weeks. But the financial and human losses are still acutely real--lost 
farms and ranches as they are driven out of business. Farmers and 
ranchers have to sell off cattle and other livestock. They have 
dramatically reduced crop yields or no crops at all, just as if a fire 
had gone through. There are huge financial losses to farmers and 
ranchers all over our country. There are the loss of homes, loss of 
businesses, impacts on local communities that may never come back. 
There is heavy damage to the economy in the drought areas.

[[Page 26812]]

Without help, many lives would be dramatically changed for the worse in 
these drought-stricken areas.
  Last year, we were told by the White House the only way we could get 
this disaster aid for agriculture was to cut back on the farm bill we 
had passed just several months before. For years, agricultural disaster 
aid has been treated as emergency spending--because it is--and not 
needing an offset in the budget. That is what we did for the wildfires 
in California and Hurricane Isabel that hit our Nation's Capital and 
communities on the east coast. We treated it as emergency spending.
  In other words, in effect the White House said the victims of drought 
over the last couple years on farms and ranches, the victims of other 
natural kinds of disasters in agriculture, had to finance their own 
help by cutting the agricultural programs so important to their 
livelihood.
  So in the omnibus appropriations bill last February, agricultural 
disaster assistance was financed by cutting the farm bill. Disaster 
assistance last year was estimated at $3.1 billion. To generate an 
offset of that amount, the conservation title of the farm bill was cut 
back. The Conservation Security Program was capped and its funding 
sharply reduced to pay for that $3.1 billion.
  It is ironic and shortsighted that the funds for agricultural natural 
disasters would be taken from the conservation title of the farm bill. 
Drought is, of course, devastating to soil, plants, and animals. But it 
is conservation practices that help farmers and ranchers conserve and 
enhance natural resources and, in fact, lessen the potential impacts of 
future drought and natural disasters.
  This support for conservation is much like the mitigation money the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency provides. When FEMA responds to a 
natural disaster, the Agency also provides additional dollars for 
measures to avoid losses in future similar disasters in that State. The 
farm bill's conservation programs likewise guard against future 
disaster losses.
  Taking money from the farm bill's conservation title to pay for 
disaster assistance in the omnibus bill set a very bad precedent, one 
that will haunt us in the future when we seek to respond to natural 
disasters affecting agriculture. That action in the omnibus bill 
ignored the way previous agricultural disaster aid had been funded as 
emergency spending. It is also exactly the opposite of the policy we 
follow for nonagricultural disasters.
  Fortunately, this precedent was not followed in funding relief for 
Hurricane Isabel and the California wildfire victims, and it should not 
have been. Those disasters were emergencies, and we should pay for the 
assistance by treating it as emergency spending, which we are doing in 
this supplemental appropriations bill.
  By the same token, farmers and ranchers should not have been forced 
to pay for their own disaster assistance earlier this year. That was an 
emergency, and it should have been funded just as disaster aid in this 
bill was funded as an emergency.
  So, Mr. President, I did not seek in any way to hold up this 
supplemental appropriations bill. There are many parts of it I was 
opposed to in terms of the way we are writing a blank check for some of 
the Iraq rebuilding. And I do not mean to impede emergency funding for 
California or Maryland or Virginia or any other States that were hit by 
these natural disasters. These are emergencies. We should respond as a 
nation to these emergencies.
  The terrible precedent of taking money from the farm bill earlier 
this year should be reversed, and the conservation funds that were 
taken away from farmers and ranchers should be replaced. The damage to 
the Conservation Security Program should be repaired so the program is 
made whole, as it was enacted in the farm bill, passed by the Senate, 
passed by the House, and signed by the President. The President had 
loudly proclaimed as one of the reasons he was signing it the strong 
conservation measures in that farm bill.
  Because of the way the money was taken out in the omnibus 
appropriations bill, as it came back to us as a conference report, 
there was no ability for any of us to amend it or to have an up-or-down 
vote on whether or not we wanted to have emergency funding taken out of 
the farm bill for disaster aid. But that is how it was done.
  So, I take this time to point out the difference between how we are 
paying for the assistance for the wildfires in California and Hurricane 
Isabel here on the east coast and how farmers and ranchers were treated 
earlier this year when they critically needed disaster assistance. 
Their disasters were perhaps not as visually dramatic as the wildfires 
or the hurricane but they nonetheless had devastating losses from 
disaster that had taken place over months, sometimes over years.
  Our nation's farmers and ranchers should have been treated the same 
way as the victims of the wildfires in California or the victims here 
on the east coast of Hurricane Isabel. It is up to us to restore the 
funding that was taken away, to make farmers and ranchers whole, to 
make our conservation programs whole, and to recognize that when we 
have emergencies, when we have disasters, regardless of whether it is 
in California or New York or Iowa or Florida, or wherever it might be, 
regardless of whether it is homeowners or businesses or communities, 
yacht basins or beach homes or whatever, farmers and ranchers ought to 
be treated the same way with emergency funding.
  So again, I will not do anything to hold up the bill or anything like 
that, but I just wanted to make my point that we have to treat everyone 
the same in this country when it comes to disasters.
  (At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered 
to be printed in the Record.)
 Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, today we cast our votes with heavy 
hearts. The memory of what happened almost 48 hours ago, thousands of 
miles away in Iraq, is still seared on our minds. What happened to our 
sixteen brave soldiers wears on us all, as do the memories of all of 
the lives that have been lost in this conflict. Our thoughts and 
prayers go out to those family members and friends who lost a loved one 
in Iraq, and we pray for a complete recovery for all who struggle at 
this hour.
  Since ``Operation Iraqi Freedom'' began, we have proven yet again 
that the men and women in our military are the best trained, equipped, 
and motivated in the world. Their service and accomplishments make 
every American proud, and we pray for their safety and their safe 
return home.
  Today, Members of Congress must uphold one of the highest 
responsibilities we have: to support our men and women in the military 
who risk their lives to serve their country. In this case, supporting 
our military means rejecting a policy that is clearly failing. We must 
demand that this President change course.
  That is why today, I vote against the President's request for $87 
billion for Iraq.
  For more than a year I have argued that the United States has a 
special responsibility to help build a stable and prosperous Iraq that 
is at peace with itself and its neighbors. Fulfilling this 
responsibility is not only the right thing to do for the people of 
Iraq, who suffered under Saddam Hussein and now struggle with the 
consequences of war; rebuilding Iraq will also make the Middle East 
more stable and the American people more secure.
  We must give our troops all the resources and help they need. I 
believe that we should have given the money designated for our troops 
right away--not make the support they deserve contingent on a failed 
reconstruction plan.
  Given these failures, we cannot allow this President simply to call 
on Congress to give him funding without demanding fundamental changes. 
Our troops will not be safe--and their mission will not be successful--
as long as this administration stubbornly clings to a policy based on 
poor planning, faulty assumptions, botched diplomacy and failed 
leadership.
  We need a new policy to win the peace in Iraq--a policy that meets 
three core goals: to bring other countries and international 
organizations

[[Page 26813]]

into the effort; to hand over more authority to the Iraqi people with 
specific benchmarks; and to end the insider deals for Iraq's 
reconstruction and the appearance that this war was about oil or paying 
off the President's friends.
  We must immediately take three concrete steps:
  First, we must take the American face off this occupation. The United 
States should immediately transfer the oversight of Iraq civilian 
reconstruction to the United Nations. President Bush waited too long to 
go to the United Nations to ask for help after the war. Even now, he 
remains unwilling to offer our allies a role in the oversight of Iraq 
that they are reasonably demanding before putting more of their money 
and troops in Iraq. We have a UN Security Council resolution that 
allows others a seat at the table--but this President still refuses to 
ask. The senior civilian in Iraq should answer to the United States and 
its allies on the United Nations Security Council--not Secretary 
Rumsfeld.
  We must launch a serious diplomatic effort to get more international 
troops and resources to Iraq--an effort that will not only reduce the 
burden on our troops and American taxpayers but also transform the 
reconstruction into a genuine international mission. America's military 
presence in Iraq cannot be indefinite. As I have long argued, we should 
begin discussions immediately to get organizations like NATO more 
involved, as they are today in Afghanistan. We also need to accelerate 
the creation of Iraq's own security forces. Clearly, this 
administration failed our troops by impulsively disbanding the Iraqi 
Army, a move that not only left many Iraqis angry and unemployed, but 
took away a pool of Iraqis ready to help take control of their own 
security.
  Second, with the help of the United Nations, we must outline a clear 
roadmap for the transfer of authority to the Iraqi people so that they 
can take control over their own destiny. This includes establishing 
specific timetables to transfer authority to the Iraqis to give them 
more control over their economy, civilian authority, and security. To 
get this process moving, we should ask the United Nations to convene an 
international conference to work with the Iraqis to set priorities and 
establish clear benchmarks for when such goals will be achieved.
  Finally, we must put an end to the special interest feeding frenzy 
this administration has created over Iraq's reconstruction. The 
enormous influence of corporate lobbyists in this administration, on 
everything from energy policy to health care, may dull our capacity to 
be shocked. But it should not. Halliburton, the Vice President's former 
company, has already received billions of dollars in non-competitive, 
no-bid contracts.
  The President's supporters compare the rebuilding of Iraq to the 
Marshall Plan. But after World War II, Congress established a special 
committee to ensure that the allocation of reconstruction grants was 
free from war profiteering. Before billions more flow into Iraq, we 
should set up an independent commission for the same purpose.
  I believe that we were right to act against the threat of Saddam 
Hussein. But this President's failures in Iraq are undermining many of 
the goals we meant to accomplish by eliminating his brutal regime.
  When democracy is threatened by tyranny, America is there to defeat 
it. It is part of our history. But when the time came for us to rebuild 
those countries, we did so with integrity, honesty, and patience. The 
world was by our side. Our soldiers stood with others to build roads, 
bridges, hospitals, and schools. That is how we helped Japan and 
Germany recover from World War II. That is how Bosnia and Kosovo 
recover today. And that is what we must do for Iraq with the world at 
our side, a new plan in place, so that America is respected and 
strong.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the final 
passage of the conference report to accompany H.R. 3289, the fiscal 
year 2004 Iraq supplemental. I support this bill because it provides 
the resources necessary to support our gallant troops who are working 
in Iraq and Afghanistan to rid the world of the scourge of 
international terrorism and to recover from Hussein's corruption.
  This bill provides our forces with $65.7 billion to continue their 
campaign to restore peaceful and prosperous societies in both Iraq and 
Afghanistan. As our troops continue to root out the remnants of 
Hussein's horrific regime and work to ensure stability in Iraq, we must 
do no less than provide them with the most advanced technology, the 
most reliable force protection equipment, and the best personal care 
available. I believe that we all fundamentally agree that the funds 
requested to support our military forces in the field must be made 
available immediately.
  However, as we are all aware, there was considerable debate when it 
came to the $18.6 billion this bill provides for reconstruction efforts 
in Iraq--specifically regarding whether the funds should be provided as 
loans rather than a grant. I maintained throughout the debate that some 
portion, if not all, of these reconstruction funds should be in the 
form of loans.
  Many argued that providing loans was not feasible--that it unduly 
burdened the Iraqi people. But after considering the totality of what 
we were talking about--that American men and women are putting 
themselves in harm's way day in and day out in securing the liberation 
of the people of Iraq and that we are also in the process of spending 
$100 billion and more for that very same purpose, I concluded that 
asking the Iraqi people to be responsible for a portion of their 
reconstruction was only fair.
  It remains my belief that the American people are not making a 
distinction between the money we are spending to support our troops and 
the additional funds being proposed to rebuild Iraq when it comes to 
the total measure of our nation's sacrifice toward this cause. So 
asking Iraq to repay one-tenth of that $100 billion in the form of 
loans seemed eminently reasonable to me.
  Some also argued that there was not a legitimate government in Iraq 
that could obligate the nation to the repayment of loans. But the 
international community, through U.N. Security Council Resolution 1511, 
specifically acknowledged that the Iraqi Governing Council and its 
ministers are the principal bodies of the Iraqi interim administration 
which ``embodies the sovereignty of the State of Iraq during the 
transitional period until an internationally recognized, representative 
government is established.''
  Finally, still others maintained that providing loans to Iraq would 
run counter to the U.S. policy of shifting away from loans for 
development because of the ineffectiveness of such programs in the 
past. But that policy is predicated on the fact that many heavily-
indebted, poor countries do not have the resources to both service debt 
and institute economic and social reform. Iraq, in contrast, is 
tremendously rich in resources to an extent sufficient to service this 
debt and continue to make future investments in their own 
infrastructure.
  Therefore, after careful consideration and many discussions with my 
colleagues and constituents, I worked to author, with Senators Bayh, 
Ben Nelson, Chambliss, Ensign, Dorgan, Lindsey Graham, and Collins, an 
amendment that designated $10 billion of the Iraqi reconstruction funds 
as a loan. However, we also included a ``trigger with a purpose''--
designed to both encourage existing creditor countries to forgive at 
least 90 percent of the debt owed on loans that were made to the former 
regime of Saddam Hussein, and to foster within Iraq itself a greater 
sense of responsibility toward, and a stake in, their own long-term 
rebuilding success.
  I was heartened when, by a vote of 51-47, the Senate passed our 
amendment and included it in the bill sent to conference. However, 
during the conference, conferees decided to provide the entirety of 
reconstruction funds to Iraq as a grant rather than a loan and removed 
our amendment from the final report. I am extremely disappointed that 
conferees voted to remove the Senate provision in spite of the 
subsequent House of Representatives vote instructing their conferees to 
accept our amendment.

[[Page 26814]]

  Mr. President, I still do not believe that the provision of $10 
billion in loans to the Iraqi people for the reconstruction of their 
nation would have placed an undue burden on them or their economy. 
Instead, by investing these loans in Iraq, we would have acted to 
restore their national pride and enhance their sense of responsibility 
as we worked toward the common goal of a free and stable Iraq.
  With this bill, we are financing the restoration of a peaceful and 
prosperous society in Iraq and while I would have preferred this bill 
include provisions to ensure the U.S. taxpayer did not shoulder the 
burden alone, this bill includes the funds necessary to support our 
troops in the field. We must commit the resources necessary for our 
brave young men and women to carry out the task of making the world a 
safer place a task they are ready for and a task they are performing 
magnificently.
  For that reason, I support this conference report and urge my 
colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, when the Senate voted on this 
supplemental bill in October, I expressed my serious reservations about 
the overall direction of U.S. policy in Iraq and the astounding 
financial burden being imposed on the American people as a result of 
our misguided policies. Yet ultimately I voted in favor of the bill 
because I wanted to provide important resources for our troops on the 
ground and because I recognize that bringing stability to Iraq is in 
our national interest.
  At that time, I made it clear that I would not be able to support 
future funding for the Iraq mission if the administration failed to 
take concrete steps to put that mission on a sounder footing.
  Today, as we consider this conference report, my reservations have 
only multiplied.
  Under intense pressure from the White House, the conferees have 
stripped a reasonable and appropriate Senate provision that would have 
converted a portion of the reconstruction grants to loans. This 
provision, which was designed to encourage international debt 
forgiveness, did not involve any U.S. decisions about Iraq's future oil 
revenues, rightly leaving those decisions to the Iraqi people. The 
administration's refusal to accept this sound provision, combined with 
the disappointing showing at the recent donors conference in Madrid, 
suggests to me that the White House continues to set this country on an 
unsustainable course. The administration's failure to get more support 
in Madrid and continued insistence that the American people can and 
should shoulder the lion's share of the burden reveal a failure to 
grasp the reality of the current situation and the urgent need to 
rethink their approach.
  I am also disappointed that the conferees chose to strip out my 
amendment, which was adopted here in the Senate, to help ease some of 
the strain that has been placed on the families of our military 
personnel. My amendment allowed 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. This Congress 
should be working to help them, and I will continue to pursue this 
issue.
  I am pleased that my amendment to establish an Inspector General for 
the Coalition Provisional Authority was retained in this conference 
report. Though some changes were made to my proposal, the heart of the 
effort survived and in some cases was strengthened, and American 
taxpayers will now have someone watching how their dollars are spent in 
Iraq. We have sorely needed vigorous accountability and transparency 
mechanisms to oversee our policy in Iraq for some time. It is my hope 
that regular reports from the Inspector General can help the 
administration and the Congress to clean up waste and abuse and to 
improve our overall performance when it comes to reconstruction 
efforts.
  Transparency is also important in our representations to the Iraqi 
people. I am pleased that another of my amendments, which requires the 
Coalition Provisional Authority to provide regular updates on the 
status and use of Iraqi oil revenues in Arabic on the Internet, was 
retained. Honest and regular information is our best weapon to combat 
those who would play to Iraqis' worst suspicions in order to harm 
Americans.
  I am also pleased that this conference report recognizes the 
importance of bolstering U.S. efforts to help bring stability to 
Afghanistan, and to assist the war-torn states of Liberia and Sudan. 
While the administration has focused tremendous attention on Iraq, the 
global fight against terrorism is still our first foreign policy 
priority. Helping weak and failing states to recover is an important 
part of that effort.
  But despite these positive elements, it is extremely difficult to 
have confidence in this conference report. Rather than listening to 
congressional reservations, rather than hearing what Members of this 
body had to say when we spoke about our constituents' profound sense of 
unease about our policy, those responsible for directing U.S. action in 
Iraq appear to have heard nothing at all--not the voices of the 
American people, not the voices of the Congress, not the voices coming 
from Iraq itself, where horrible violence continues to take American 
and Iraqi lives. In the days since the Senate voted on this bill, the 
administration has failed to grasp the need for a fundamental change in 
direction necessary to ensure that all of the resources that this bill 
provides at taxpayer expense will be used wisely.
   Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to report on the 
budgetary effect of the conference report to accompany H.R. 3289, 
making emergency supplemental appropriations for defense and for the 
reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2004, and for other purposes.
   The President's supplemental appropriations request totaled $87.0 
billion in budget authority and $36.8 billion in outlays for FY 2004 
for ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and the reconstruction 
of Iraq. The conference report provides $87.5 billion in budget 
authority and $37.1 billion in outlays.
  Most of the funds in the conference report, $83.8 billion in budget 
authority, are designated emergencies under section 502(c) of the 2004 
Budget Resolution. None of these emergency funds count for purposes of 
sections 302, 303, 311, and 401 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 
and sections 504 and 505 of the 2004 budget resolution.
   The conference report also contains non-emergency spending totaling 
$3.8 billion in budget authority. Non-emergency appropriations are 
those appropriations that were not requested by the President and not 
declared a contingent emergency. Non-emergency appropriations are 
scored against the appropriate subcommittee's 302(b) allocation. I will 
remind the Senate at the appropriate time about any points of order 
that apply to subsequent bills.
   Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the 
Budget Committee scoring of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the materials was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       H.R. 3289, EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL FOR IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN
                     [Fiscal Year 2004, $ millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Discretionary
                                                            spending
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total H.R. 3289, Conference Report:
    Budget authority.................................             87,547
    Outlays..........................................             37,103
Emergencies in H.R. 3289, Conference Report:a
    Budget authority.................................             83,782
    Outlaysb.........................................               N.A.
Non-Emergencies in H.R. 3289, Conference Report:a
    Budget authority.................................              3,765
    Outlaysb.........................................               N.A.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
aSection 502(c) of H. Con. Res. 95, the Concurrent Resolution on the
  Budget for FY 2004, states that any provision designated as an
  emergency requirement by both Congress and the President shall not
  count for purposes of sections 302, 303, 311, and 401 of the
  Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and section 504 (relating to
  discretionary spending limits in the Senate) and section 505 (paygo
  point of order) of H. Con. Res. 95. Amounts classified as non-
  emergency were added by Congress and do not carry the contingent
  emergency designation.
bCBO has not yet provided an estimate of outlays split by emergency and
  non-emergency.
N.A. Not Available.


[[Page 26815]]

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, a bloody tyrant rules no longer in Iraq. A 
man who without qualm or regret murdered hundreds of thousands of his 
own citizens has been removed from power.
  The perpetrator of one of the past century's most gruesome crimes 
against humanity, the use of chemical weapons on innocent Kurdish 
civilians, no longer is free to pursue such weapons.
  The aggressor in the Gulf War, who a decade ago invaded his neighbor, 
only to be driven out by a mighty coalition, no longer threatens the 
volatile region of the Middle East.
  The record is replete with the case against Saddam Hussein. The mass 
graves are laid open, and only now are the thousands of widows, mothers 
and orphans--victims all--able to openly grieve.
  Who here will ever forget the image of the desperate citizens of 
Baghdad, clawing at the ground in the hopeless search for hidden 
prisons that might hold their loves ones.
  Mass graves have been found throughout the country, the unmistakable 
mark of history's tyrants.
  As the regime of Saddam Hussein has come to an end, the difficult 
work has only just begun to ensure that we never again witness such 
horrors.
  As this legislation proves, in both Iraq and Afghanistan this will be 
a costly effort in treasure and in time. But most costly of all are the 
lost lives of our men and women serving on the front line of the war 
against terror, whose devotion to our country may be matched in the 
history of the nation, but never surpassed.
  These men and women, many just at the beginning of their adult lives, 
serve an ideal as old as the Republic. In the fight against terror, 
they risk their lives so that we may live safe.
  Each and every one of them are citizens, parents, spouses, and 
somebody's child. Their sacrifice is our loss. We mourn the death of 
each of them.
  The resources this legislation provides will move both Afghanistan 
and Iraq decisively toward stability and freedom; toward modernity and 
democracy.
  We have worked long hours on this legislation, and we had some 
difficult votes over the course of the past 4 weeks. Although I am 
certain it is not the last debate we will have on Iraq, I am grateful 
for the efforts of the managers on both sides, and for the cooperation 
of the Democratic leader, in getting this emergency package through.
  In particular, I commend Senator Stevens, Senator Warner, Senator 
McCain, and Senator McConnell for their tireless efforts to pass this 
emergency funding request.
  Replacing the defeated regime of Saddam Hussein with a stable 
democratic Iraq is an essential turning point in bringing modernity and 
freedom to a part of the world that has produced extremism and 
terrorism for decades.
  Mr. President, yesterday's losses were the latest tragic reminder 
that we are at war in Afghanistan and Iraq. The funds in this 
legislation provide both direct support for our soldiers as well as an 
investment in creating a safer environment in those countries where 
they serve. This legislation will make them safer and get them home 
sooner.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support 
for our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines who are deployed around 
the world in defense of the principles of democracy and our great 
Nation. Today the Senate will pass the conference report to H.R. 3289, 
the FY04 Supplemental Appropriations Act for Iraq, Afghanistan and the 
global war on terrorism.
  The conference report does not include a key provision adopted by the 
Senate which would have required $10 billion in Iraq reconstruction 
funds to be used as a loan rather than as a grant unless 90 percent of 
foreign creditors cancel Iraqi debt. I voted for this provision because 
I believed that it would have helped to provide Iraqis with meaningful 
participation in the reconstruction of their country by making them 
responsible for the funding. I am disappointed that the provision has 
been eliminated, but I look forward to continuing to work with my 
colleagues to address the issue of how to appropriately respond to 
continued requests for Federal dollars to reconstruct Iraq.
  Last year, as the Senate debated authorization of the use of force in 
Iraq, one of my concerns was our planning of, and responsibility for, 
the reconstruction of Iraq. Before we even engaged in this conflict, I 
asked administration officials about post-war Iraq plans. I was 
repeatedly told that the appropriate officials were working hard to 
develop such plans and that details were not necessary because there 
were too many unpredictable factors to consider. Well, here we are, 4 
months after President George W. Bush declared major combat in Iraq to 
be over. We are being told that our troops will be in Iraq for an 
extended period of time. American soldiers continue to be wounded and 
killed almost every day. We are faced with open-ended requests for 
billions of dollars to reconstruct Iraq.
  There seems to be reluctance on the part of our international 
colleagues to contribute and participate in the rebuilding of Iraq due 
to U.S. control and authority over the reconstruction funds and plans. 
It is imperative that we recruit other countries to assist us in 
peacekeeping activities to relieve our military members so that they 
can return home. It is just as imperative that we allow other countries 
to contribute to the reconstruction effort to relieve the American 
taxpayer of what has been and will continue to be a monumental 
expenditure of Federal funds in Iraq. The United States must be willing 
to take the necessary actions to make such international cooperation a 
reality.
  During the Senate's consideration of President Bush's FY04 
supplemental request, I voted in support of S. 1689 because I believed 
the Senate was successful in adding provisions to the legislation to 
support our deployed troops; increase accountability and transparency 
in post-war Iraq contracts; improve planning for post-war Iraq; and 
reduce the burden on the American Taxpayer of the costs stemming from 
Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Noble 
Eagle and the global war on terrorism on the American taxpayer. While I 
am pleased to learn that the conference report retains provisions to 
support our troops such as the one-year demonstration program for 
enhanced TRICARE eligibility for certain National Guardsmen and 
Reservists, the retroactive reimbursement for soldiers who paid for 
their food while being medically treated, and the continued 
authorization for Imminent Danger Pay and Family Separation Pay at 
increased rates for FY04, I am concerned that the provisions adopted by 
the Senate which were eliminated will make it more difficult for us to 
ensure appropriate oversight, accountability, and success in Iraq, 
Afghanistan, and the global war on terror.
  I am particularly disappointed by the conference committee's decision 
to eliminate the provision proposed by Senator Jack Reed to increase 
Army end-strength by 10,000. I remain increasingly concerned about the 
strain of the increased OPTEMPO on the Army. I firmly believe we need 
to increase end-strength and look forward to working with my colleagues 
and the Army to address this matter. I understand that General 
Schoomaker has directed a study of this issue and I look forward to the 
results of this study.
  Again, I fully support our men and women in the military. For that 
reason, I fully support the $51.4 billion for ongoing military 
operations in Iraq, $10.5 billion for U.S. forces in Afghanistan, and 
$3.6 billion for homeland defense. I will work diligently with my 
colleagues to ensure that our Armed Forces are provided with the 
training and equipment necessary for them to accomplish their mission 
so that they can return home safely to their families in a timely 
manner.
  I support the $5 billion for security training for Iraqi security 
forces. I remain concerned, however, with the amount of funding that 
has been designated for reconstruction of Iraq, particularly since we 
have been assured that this supplemental only represents the most 
pressing reconstruction needs

[[Page 26816]]

for the next 12 months and does not cover all reconstruction needs. At 
the same time, we have pressing domestic needs including the need to 
fund an additional $1.3 billion for medical care for veterans. We have 
a number of educational and social programs that are in definite need 
of increased funding. We must be responsible stewards of taxpayers' 
money.
  I voted in opposition to authorizing the use of military force 
against Iraq in October 2002. I voted this way because I believed we 
had not yet utilized all of our options at the international level. 
However, once the decision to utilize military force was made, I fully 
supported the men and women who were deployed in this effort. We are 
now responsible to ensure that they have the equipment and resources to 
undertake their mission in the safest manner possible. Our leadership 
of the coalition forces in Operation Iraqi Freedom also makes the 
United States accountable for the restoration and reconstruction of 
Iraq. Again, I believe we must work closely with our allies and 
neighbors in the international community for us to successfully bring 
out troops back home. I look forward to working with my colleagues to 
find a way to accomplish such a difficult challenge.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I oppose the Senate-House conference 
agreement on the $87 Supplemental Appropriations bill for Iraq.
  When the Senate voted on this legislation on October 17, I opposed it 
because it provided no effective conditions for genuine international 
participation in the reconstruction of Iraq or other important steps 
needed to win the peace. Our troops in Iraq are doing a remarkable job 
under enormously difficult circumstances, and I wholeheartedly support 
them. But it is an abdication of our responsibility in Congress to 
provide an $87 billion blank check for a failed policy.
  The administration needs to go back to the drawing board and adopt a 
new Iraq policy that is worthy of the sacrifices our soldiers are 
making--a policy that restores America as a respected member of the 
family of nations and make it easier, not far more difficult, to win 
the war against terrorism.
  The Bush administration still does not have a realistic plan for 
achieving security and democracy in Iraq and our soldiers are paying 
for it with their lives.
  Since the Senate originally passed this legislation 2 weeks ago, the 
situation in Iraq has further deteriorated. Forty-four more American 
soldiers have been killed, and more than 300 American soldiers have 
been wounded. The United Nations did approve a new resolution on Iraq 
that could have become the basis for genuine international support for 
our effort, but America still stands largely alone in Iraq. We have not 
modified our unilateral position, and other nations are unwilling to 
assist us. The United Nations has pulled all of its staff out of 
Baghdad, and international NGOs are leaving as well.
  America comprises 85 percent of the international forces on the 
ground, and we are providing the lion's share--nearly $20 billion--for 
Iraq's reconstruction. On October 23, at the international donors 
conference in Madrid, the administration came up short on international 
contributions. Of the $55 billion needed for Iraq over the next 4 
years, the international community pledged only $13 billion, two-thirds 
of it in loans, not grants, over 5 years.
  Over the same period of time, the security situation has gone from 
bad to worse. On October 25, a rocket propelled grenade in Tikrit 
struck a Black Hawk helicopter, shortly after Deputy Secretary of 
Defense Wolfowitz left the area.
  On October 26, rockets seriously damaged the Al Rashid Hotel in 
Baghdad, where Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz was staying, killing one 
soldier and missing Mr. Wolfowitz by only one floor. That same day, the 
Deputy Mayor of Baghdad was assassinated.
  On October 27, coordinated attacks rocked Baghdad, targeting the 
headquarters of the International Committee for the Red Cross and 
killing 15 people. Three police stations were also attacked. On this 
one bloody day, 34 people were killed, including one American soldier, 
and another 200 were wounded.
  Just yesterday, a Chinook helicopter was shot down over Faluja, 
killing 16 American soldiers, and wounding 20 more.
  Meanwhile, the administration continues to claim that things are 
going well. Last week, President Bush claimed the attacks were a result 
of our successes on the ground in Iraq. In an October 29 interview, 
Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz said, ``Our side is winning.'' 
After the downing of the helicopter, Ambassador Bremer said, ``the 
overall security situation'' in Iraq ``is a lot better'' than when he 
arrived in May.
  Mr. President, it is clear that things are not going well in Iraq. 
The administration must face reality. It cannot continue to cover up 
its failures and try to sell its rosy version of events by repeating it 
with maximum frequency and volume, and minimum regard for realities on 
the ground.
  I support our men and women and uniform, but I oppose the 
administration's policy, and I urge the administration to devise a 
realistic plan for Iraq.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we have heard a lot of comment today 
about what the President said and what he has not said. It should be 
remembered that the President celebrated the military victory, as he 
should have, when he declared the end of the war. It was the end of the 
war against Iraq's military.
  Since that time, we have been at war against terrorists--organized 
terrorists, international terrorists--in Iraq. The greatest cunning and 
deceit and trickery the world has seen are being shown in Iraq. Very 
clearly, it is not a military force that is opposing us today. We are 
trying to protect our soldiers and the Iraqi people from terrorists.
  That is why this bill is so important. It combines money for our 
military to continue their activities with money for the Coalition 
Provisional Authority to move forward and help Iraq to build their own 
military, to build a new form of government, and to train policemen, to 
train people to keep the peace.
  I must say, it is strange to me when I hear people talk about this 
administration lying. I have been sort of restrained concerning the 
past administration and lies. But I do believe it is entirely 
inappropriate to call the Commander in Chief a liar in terms of what 
has happened in Iraq.
  I am one of the eight Members, as I have told the Senate before, who 
gets the same briefings that are available to the President of the 
United States. I guess he might have a few more than we get, but we get 
the general intelligence briefings. I firmly believed there were 
weapons of mass destruction there in Iraq. I still believe they had the 
ability to conduct chemical warfare. After all, they did it twice. They 
did it once in Iran, and they did it once to the Kurds in their own 
country.
  We continue to hear how terrible it is, what is going on as far as 
this administration is concerned in terms of the conduct of our forces 
and our people in Iraq after the war was over. The military collapsed. 
We have been fighting terrorists constantly now.
  When I woke up, as I did this morning, and read the paper about the 
terrible incident of shooting down a helicopter, that was not a 
military action; that was a terrorist action. We have to adjust 
ourselves to the fact that this is going on all over the world. It went 
on in New York. It went on here in Washington. It went on in Indonesia. 
It went on in the Philippines. It has certainly happened in Israel for 
years now. But it is coming home now. We are being exposed to it. Our 
forces are exposed to it. Our people, our civilians are exposed to it. 
The U.N. forces in Iraq have been exposed to it. Hundreds and hundreds 
of Iraqis have been killed since the end of the war by their own 
terrorists.
  It is time for us to sit back and think about what we are doing 
today. Today, thankfully, this bill will pass. It will

[[Page 26817]]

pass by unanimous consent--not one vote against it. Yet we have had 6 
hours attacking the President because he asked for the money. Where are 
the voices coming from? What am I hearing? People are willing to let 
the bill pass without a vote and yet they want to criticize the 
President for asking for this money?
  The Senate ought to reflect and think what we are doing. We still 
have forces there, and we are going to have forces there. I haven't 
heard one Senator say we should leave--not one. There are those here 
who voted against going to war. There are people here who voted for it. 
But I don't know anyone here in this Chamber who voted against the war 
on terrorism. That is what we are conducting now.
  I am sad to say it looks as if it is going to go on for some time. 
Out by the elevators, I was just asked by the press, do I expect 
another supplemental for Iraq and Afghanistan. Well, this is a 
supplemental for 2004. We are here because the Members of the Senate on 
that side of the aisle asked me to ask the President to submit a 
separate bill for funds for Iraq and Afghanistan. He could have 
submitted that money request in the regular 2004 bill. But he 
accommodated the request that I carried to the White House, and he sent 
us a separate supplemental for Iraq and for Afghanistan and the war on 
terrorism.
  We have been on it for a long time, much longer than I ever thought 
it would take to get this passed. Very clearly, we do not expect 
another supplemental. We probably expect a request for fiscal year 2005 
that will start on October 1 of next year. But clearly, we ought to get 
things into perspective.
  Let me quote the President:

       Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed 
     against the price of inaction. . . .

  Which President was that? It was President Clinton, 5 years ago. He 
stated these words as he informed the American people that he was 
ordering a strike of military and security targets in Iraq. He ordered 
them in Iraq 5 years ago--in 1998. Their mission was to take out 
nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons sites, and he so stated. The 
former President sent forces into Iraq to attack nuclear, biological, 
and chemical weapons sites. That decision was based on a continuing 
lack of cooperation by Saddam Hussein with the international community.
  In the last 6 months, President Bush is enforcing measures that were 
begun in the Clinton administration. Yet to hear people talk here about 
the lies and deception of this administration--what were those forces 
sent into Iraq for in 1998? It was based on the same kind of reports 
that President Bush received before he ordered this action.
  As many in the Senate know, some more powerfully than others, wars 
and their aftermath are not easy. They are disturbing. Watching our 
soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines die or be wounded touches a 
sadness deep inside each of us. It touches even more those of us who 
have been in war. There is nothing like going to bed at night and 
seeing an empty bed beside you.
  As of today, a total of 376 Americans have been killed in Iraq. 
Events such as yesterday, where 16 young soldiers were killed when 
their Chinook helicopter was hit by a missile, greatly trouble all of 
us. But each of these soldiers was doing his or her duty. We extend our 
deepest sympathy to each of their families and friends and offer our 
thoughts and prayers through this difficult time for them.
  Some of us have lived through this time again and again: World War 
II, Korea, Vietnam, you name it. My generation has seen a lot of wars. 
It is not an easy thing to hear any report of Americans being killed. 
But those people were doing their duty.
  When a person puts on the uniform of the United States and raises his 
hand, it is even more somber than the one we give here because they 
know they are laying their life on the line. These are all volunteers. 
Not one draftee is there. Every person there volunteered to serve in 
uniform.
  We--this Congress, this President, and this country--went to war 
against Iraq to remove the regime of Saddam Hussein and give the Iraqi 
people a chance at a better, freer life and the region an opportunity 
for a more peaceful coexistence.
  That is what President Clinton started in 1998. He made the strike 
against those areas because he firmly believed there were nuclear, 
chemical, and biological weapons of mass destruction there. Now, these 
events don't happen overnight. I certainly was not expecting a war that 
would be just sort of bedsheet clean, where you go to war and come back 
with fresh bedsheets the next night. That is not the case. These things 
do not occur overnight. The rebuilding of that nation and the recovery 
of the Iraqi people will take time. We have to provide the Iraqi people 
time to heal and the resources and tools to create a new nation and a 
secure and stable environment.
  After World War II, we occupied Germany for 4 years before we even 
had the Marshall plan. Before the Senate today is the plan for recovery 
of Iraq in the same year, without an army of occupation per se. We are 
trying to help them rebuild their country and take it over and provide 
their own transition to a new form of government. I do believe the way 
we are doing this--by strengthening a civil society, repairing schools 
and hospitals, treating waterways, restoring electricity, and 
eventually assisting them with rebuilding their oil industry--will 
allow them to become self-sufficient.
  I remember so well when Ambassador Bremer told me the problem was 
that one day there is a pipeline blown up and they cannot ship the oil. 
So they go about repairing the pipeline. The next day they blow up an 
electric power station so the pumps won't work. This is terrorism. We 
must realize we are not facing a military enemy; we are facing 
terrorists.
  Some of my colleagues don't believe in portions of this supplemental. 
Maybe some don't believe in it at all. But not one of them will vote 
against it--not one of them. That is their right. Some of them voted 
against giving the President the authority to go to war to topple the 
evil tyrant who we all realized was there. Regardless, our men and 
women are there now--military, civilian, and the U.N.--and those people 
must have our support. They need the funds in this bill for body armor, 
for what they call uparmored Humvees, and for explosive detection 
equipment, for all sorts of detection equipment.
  The bill provides the funds to make the lives of our troops--both 
here and in Iraq--safer and easier. We are providing better mess halls, 
quarters, TRICARE for members of the Guard and Reserve, and it 
maintains increases in pay for family separation allowance and imminent 
danger pay for our troops and their families, which was voted earlier 
this year and would have expired had we not taken action.
  I said this earlier today and I will repeat it. It is a simple and a 
straightforward premise, as far as I am concerned. Security brings 
stability and stability fosters democracy. An Iraq that is well on its 
way to economic well-being and self-governance is the fastest way to 
get our military men and women home.
  We as a nation have always had one goal--I said this also earlier 
today--and that is to finish what we start. We will not fail to do so 
now. This supplemental will accomplish that task. I urge my colleagues 
to vote for this bill. In effect, we have all done that by agreeing to 
the unanimous consent request that there be no form of vote.
  The Senator from Virginia is here----
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have been waiting. I notice we are going 
back and forth. I ask for 5 minutes.
  Mr. STEVENS. We have had a substantial number of speakers on that 
side. The Senator from Virginia called and asked me to yield time. How 
much time is left, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 17 minutes 40 seconds, 10 of which 
is reserved for closing.
  Mr. STEVENS. Are there 20 minutes reserved for closing and 17 left 
besides that? Who controls that time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska controls 17\1/2\ 
minutes, of which 10 is reserved for closing.
  Mr. STEVENS. How much time does Senator Byrd have?

[[Page 26818]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia controls 18 
minutes, of which 10 are reserved for closing.
  Mr. STEVENS. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will not object to the senior Senator 
from Virginia speaking. I just ask that I be recognized after him.
  Mr. STEVENS. We are glad to do that. The Senator has 18 minutes.
  I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. I 
wish to commend him, Senator Byrd, Senator Inouye, and others, and our 
distinguished colleague from Vermont, for working on this.
  As we debate passage of this important emergency supplemental 
spending bill, I want to pause for a moment to acknowledge the tragic 
losses our forces in Iraq suffered this weekend. I extend my heartfelt 
sympathies to the families and loved ones of those who died and those 
who were injured. Indeed, we must pause to remember all who have 
perished, American, coalition partners, and Iraqis military and 
civilian, who are fighting for freedom in Iraq and around the world in 
the Global War on Terrorism. We are fortunate as a Nation to have these 
dedicated citizens who willingly make such great sacrifices to defend 
liberty and extend the cause of freedom.
  I rise today in support of the conference report on emergency 
supplemental funding for Iraq and Afghanistan for Fiscal Year 2004, and 
urge my colleagues to do the same. Seldom do we have choices before us 
as fundamental as this one. Our choices are to go forward, stand still, 
or quit. Two of these choices would represent failure. There is no 
choice--failure is not an option. We must go forward; we must stay the 
course and win the peace for the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, as 
well as for our own enduring interests in the Global War on Terrorism.
  The timeliness and importance of this support for Iraq and 
Afghanistan cannot be overstated. The stakes in Iraq and Afghanistan 
are enormous. The military victories achieved by our Armed Forces, 
together with their coalition partners, must be secured.
  We have achieved extraordinary success, in a relatively short period 
in Iraq. Saddam Hussein and the threat he posed are gone; the future is 
hopeful for the Iraqi people. We must send a strong message of resolve 
to our fellow countrymen, to our troops, to our coalition partners, and 
to the rest of the world, that we will see this through to completion--
to win the peace.
  We have had an unprecedented amount of debate on this funding 
request. General John Abizaid captured the essence and urgency of this 
supplemental request when he stated, ``We can fight the terrorists her 
[in Iraq and Afghanistan], or we can fight them at home.'' I think we 
all prefer to fight them there and get the job done.
  In recent weeks, I have had the opportunity to meet with several 
Iraqi leaders, including members of the Iraqi Governing Council and 
recently appointed ministers. They are clearly committed to achieving 
democracy, security and opportunity for the Iraqi people and deserve 
our support. The ministers are technically very well qualified and 
committed to building a new Iraq as soon as possible. These are not 
people who have assumed positions of responsibility through tribal 
affiliations, nepotism and greed, as has been past practice in Iraq. 
These are highly qualified public servants--17 of 25 ministers have 
PhDs in technical fields--who have subordinated their own personal 
aspirations and accepted considerable personal risk to assume positions 
of high visibility, to build a new Iraq. Many have left lucrative 
careers, comfort and families in other countries to return to their 
homeland and lend their skills to this endeavor. I salute their 
courage, their patriotism and their selflessness. They are an 
inspiration to all Iraqis and they deserve our full support.
  Some of our colleagues have passionately argued that some of this 
funding should be in the form of loans, to be forgiven if other debtor 
nations reduce or forgive old loans to Iraq. I understand why some have 
arrived at this conclusion, but additional debt now would be 
economically disastrous, and send the wrong message to Iraqis and, 
indeed, the world. At some point in the not too distant future, loans 
will be appropriate, but we must help establish those conditions now.
  The United States will seek to convince the principal holders of 
Iraqi loans--Russia, France, Germany and Saudi Arabia--to forgive some 
or all of these loans.
  We have an opportunity before us to send a message of full commitment 
to Iraq and of a balanced, fair U.S. foreign policy in the larger 
Middle Eastern region, by providing this reconstruction assistance to 
Iraq. Less than overwhelming support will be viewed as just the 
opposite, and would be counterproductive to our larger goals and 
interests in this important region.
  There is a perception, I fear, that this supplemental will fully fund 
Iraq's reconstruction. Nothing could be further from the truth. The 
reconstruction needs of Iraq are enormous--not because of war damage, 
but because of three-plus decades of neglect, mismanagement and greed 
by Saddam Hussein's regime. The funds included in this supplemental 
will only begin to address these daunting needs, but adoption of this 
package will put the Iraqis in a much better position to help 
themselves in the future. The Iraqi leaders I spoke with want nothing 
more than to do just that, but they need our help for now, not with 
crippling conditions attached.
  When U.S. troops entered Baghdad in early April, they were, indeed, 
greeted as liberators. The image of Iraqis celebrating in the streets--
helping U.S. soldiers topple a statue of Saddam Hussein--will long be 
with us.
  Despite the pockets of resistance in Iraq today, that feeling of 
gratitude and good will toward the United States remains. Recent 
polling found that most Iraqis believe that ousting Saddam Hussein was 
worth the hardships they have endured since the invasion, and two-
thirds think Iraq will be in better condition 5 years from now than 
before the invasion.
  We must build on this good will and seize this historic opportunity 
to show our overwhelming support and commitment to help build a 
thriving democracy and ally against terror in Iraq.
  American forces and coalition partners have already done a remarkable 
job of restoring basic services, rebuilding schools and hospitals, 
preventing ethnic violence and creating an environment where 
reconstruction can succeed. Many Members of this Chamber have seen this 
with their own eyes, and the response of most who have been to Iraq is 
concern that the good things that are taking place in Iraq are not 
being fully reported to the American people.
  This reconstruction work is being done in a difficult environment of 
harsh conditions and significant personal risk, as those who have been 
removed from power in Iraq seek to delay their inevitable defeat, and 
as terrorists lash out at the loss of another haven. We are ever 
mindful of the risks our troops face, every day, and the sacrifices 
made by the families and communities that support them.
  It is imperative that we give our President and our troops the 
resources they need to complete their missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. 
The faster the money gets to these countries, the faster conditions 
will improve, and the faster our troops will come home. As Ambassador 
Bremer stated before the Armed Services Committee last week:

       Every day that goes by where we are not speeding up the 
     Iraqi Army, speeding up the civil defense corps, speeding up 
     the training of police, is a day when our soldiers, men and 
     women, are not being substituted by Iraqis. Every day that 
     Iraqis do not get electricity, do not get water, do not have 
     proper sewage, is a day when their quality of life is such 
     that they are less likely to view us as liberators, more 
     inclined to view us as occupiers, and that also increases the 
     danger to our men and women.

  Lasting peace and security in Iraq will be achieved when we establish 
the environment for a democratic, economically viable Iraq. The first 
steps

[[Page 26819]]

to democracy have been taken and a fledgling government is preparing 
itself to assume the responsibilities of sovereignty.
  Let us join together in a clear message of resolve to provide the 
resources that will meet the immediate needs of the Iraqi people and 
best serve our interest in Iraq and the larger Middle East region. I 
urge my colleagues to support the conference report and send a message 
of overwhelming support to our troops, to their families, and to the 
newly liberated people of Iraq and Afghanistan. We must do what is 
necessary to secure this important victory in the war on terrorism.
  Mr. President, again, I express my tremendous commendation for the 
managers of this bill and, particularly, for their wisdom and insight 
into the needs of the men and women in the Armed Forces, and the 
ability to step up and get TRICARE for the Reserve and the Guard.
  The Reserve and the Guard have performed magnificently, and not just 
in this most recent conflict in Iraq but beginning back in the days of 
Bosnia, Kosovo, and all the way through. Those of us who went into 
Sarajevo years ago remember that it was the National Guard planes that 
would take us in during that period of combat and strife in the 
Balkans. Of course, they performed magnificently in connection with the 
Afghanistan campaign, and then again during the course of the campaign 
in Iraq, the freedom of the Iraqi people being their goal.
  So I commend the leadership of the Appropriations Committee for doing 
the TRICARE and addressing those pay provisions, which were due to 
expire. We have been addressing that in the Armed Services Committee, 
where we have original jurisdiction over these matters. But the plain 
fact is that we have not reached a resolution of our conference report 
as of this time. Therefore, often the Appropriations Committee needs to 
step forward and do these things which must be done, and done promptly. 
So I commend our distinguished members of the Appropriations Committee.
  Over the weekend we suffered this tremendous tragedy, the loss of the 
helicopter with so many brave individuals on board. I and others have 
expressed our compassion to their families, their loved ones, and to 
their fellow colleagues and comrades all throughout the region. Each 
one of them feels the loss of one of their own when it happens--whether 
it is on the streets or in an aircraft that unfortunately comes down.
  Those of us--many in this Chamber--who have had the opportunity to 
visit in Iraq, and particularly Baghdad and other areas, got a clear 
perception and feeling of the extraordinary risks being undertaken 
night and day by these young men and women not only of the Armed Forces 
of the United States but the coalition forces.
  I am proud of the way our President stood up today before the world. 
He stated these words, which time and time again should be considered 
by the American people as spoken from the heart of the President. 
Imagine the sadness in his heart and that of the First Lady and others, 
because the buck stops on the President's desk.
  When the news broke of that helicopter going down, I fully appreciate 
what he went through, and indeed the Secretary of Defense, this 
weekend. He addressed the Nation on three public television shows about 
this tragedy of the loss of the helicopter. But both the President and 
the Secretary of Defense are absolutely steadfast in their resolve to 
continue their role as leaders. The President said:

       The enemy in Iraq believes America will run.

  The President said:

       That is why they are willing to kill innocent civilians, 
     relief workers, and our coalition troops.

  He finished by saying: America will never run.
  I commend both the President and Secretary of Defense. At one time, I 
was in the Pentagon during Vietnam for some 5 years as Navy Secretary. 
I remember awakening in the night and the morning to receive those 
reports about exceptional losses, such as this one, and then often go, 
as we had planned, before the media the next day trying to interpret it 
and explain it for the American people and for the people throughout 
the world. It is not an easy task, but our President and others in 
authority are stepping up to it and being absolutely unflinching in 
their resolve, as this Senator is, to see this through.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 3 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, tomorrow I hope to attend the funeral 
service for a brave Army captain, a VMI graduate. I happened to go to 
the neighboring school of Washington and Lee. His family called me and 
talked with me and I talked with them. They asked if at all possible 
could I attend. I said I would do that irrespective of what is going on 
in the Senate. The mother said to me: We feel deeply the loss of our 
son, but, Senator, I want you to come and say to me that you and others 
will stay the course so that his life is not given in vain. I have made 
that commitment to his family, as I will to many other families.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
at the conclusion of my remarks a letter to the editor published in the 
Saturday Washington Post by Dr. David Kay who is responsible for the 
search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, this letter to the editor is very worthy 
of our colleagues who, like me, are concerned about how thus far we are 
still trying to find the weapons, if they exist, but he covers very 
well one aspect of this, and it is deserving of the estimate. I commend 
Dr. Kay for his work and his continuing effort. Part of this bill has 
the funds necessary for him to continue this effort to resolve this 
very puzzling mystery about the weapons of mass destruction.
  I thank the Chair, and I thank my distinguished colleague and commend 
him once again.

                [From the Washington Post, Nov. 1, 2003]

                      The Hunt for Iraq's Weapons

       The Oct. 26 front-page article ``Search in Iraq Fails to 
     Find Nuclear Threat'' is wildly off the mark. Your reporter, 
     Barton Gellman, bases much of his analysis on what he says 
     was told to him by an Australian brigadier, Stephen D. 
     Meekin. Gellman describes Meekin as someone ``who commands 
     the Joint Captured Materiel Exploitation Center, the largest 
     of a half-dozen units that report to [David] Kay.''
       Meekin does not report, nor has he ever reported, to me in 
     any individual capacity or as commander of the exploitation 
     center. The work of the center did not form a part of my 
     first interim report, which was delivered last month, nor do 
     I direct what Meekin's organization does. The center's 
     mission has never involved weapons of mass destruction, nor 
     does it have any WMD expertise.
       Gellman's description of information provided by Mahdi 
     Obeidi, chief of Iraq's pre-1991 centrifuge program, relies 
     on an unnamed ``U.S. official'' who, by the reporter's own 
     admission, read only one reporting cable. How Gellman's 
     source was able to describe reporting that covered four 
     months is a mystery to me. Furthermore, the source 
     mischaracterized our views on the reliability of Obeidi's 
     information.
       With regard to Obeidi's move to the United States, Gellman 
     writes, ``By summer's end, under unknown circumstances, 
     Obeidi received permission to bring his family to an East 
     Coast suburb in the United States.'' The reader is left with 
     the impression that this move involved something manipulative 
     or sinister. The ``unknown circumstances'' are called Public 
     Law 110. This mechanism was created during the Cold War to 
     give the director of central intelligence the authority to 
     resettle those who help provide valuable intelligence 
     information. Nothing unusual or mysterious here.
       When the article moves to describe the actual work of the 
     nuclear team, Gellman states that ``frustrated members of the 
     nuclear search team by late spring began calling themselves 
     the `book of the month club.''' But he fails to note that 
     this was before the establishment of the Iraq Survey Group. 
     In fact, the team's frustration with the pace of the work is 
     what led President Bush to shift the responsibility for the 
     WMD search to the director of central intelligence and to 
     send me to Baghdad.
       One would believe from what Gellman writes that I have sent 
     home the two leaders

[[Page 26820]]

     of my nuclear team, William Domke and Jeffrey Bedell, and 
     abandoned all attempts to determine the state of Iraq's 
     nuclear activities. Wrong again. Domke's assignment had been 
     twice extended well beyond what the Department of Energy had 
     agree to. He and Bedell were replaced with a much larger 
     contingent of experts from DOE's National Labs.
       Finally, with regard to the aluminum tubes, the tubes were 
     certainly being imported and were being used for rockets. The 
     question that continues to occupy us is whether similar 
     tubes, with higher specifications, had other uses, 
     specifically in nuclear centrifuges. Why anyone would think 
     that we should want to confiscate the thousands of aluminum 
     tubes of the lower specification is unclear. Our 
     investigation is focused on whether a nuclear centrifuge 
     program was either underway or in the planning stages, what 
     design and components were being contemplated or used in such 
     a program if it existed and the reason for the constant 
     raising of the specifications of the tubes the Iraqis were 
     importing clandestinely.
       We have much work left to do before any conclusions can be 
     reached on the state of possible Iraqi nuclear weapons 
     program efforts. Your story gives the false impression that 
     conclusions can already be drawn.
                                                        David Kay.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to take 7 minutes 
of the time available to the distinguished senior Senator from West 
Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today the Senate will adopt by voice vote 
the conference report containing $87 billion in supplemental funds for 
Iraq and Afghanistan.
  Before I speak about this legislation, I want to express my deepest 
condolences to the families and friends of those who were killed and 
wounded in the attack on a U.S. military helicopter yesterday. This 
tragedy illustrates, once again, the tremendous sacrifices of our 
soldiers in Iraq. They are there serving their country, and while their 
accomplishments rarely make the headlines, they are also enduring daily 
hardship and tragic losses.
  This supplemental legislation has been controversial. We all want 
Iraq to become a democratic, prosperous, peaceful nation. But, we 
differ on the President's decision to go to war and on the way forward 
from here.
  I did not support the supplemental when it was considered by the 
Senate, and was one of twelve Senators to vote against it. I discussed 
my reasons for this decision at length in this Chamber on October 17, 
2003. My views have not changed since that date.
  That said, I want to recognize the chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee, Senator Stevens, for the effort he made to get this 
supplemental passed. During the past several days he has demonstrated 
strength on par with one of his favorite superheroes: The Incredible 
Hulk. Senator Stevens worked extremely hard, under difficult 
conditions, to accommodate a number of my priorities: Tricare for Guard 
and Reservists, humanitarian aid for Liberia, and additional assistance 
for Afghanistan.
  He also supported my provision to impose new criminal penalties for 
war profiteering. Although the House Republican conferees ultimately 
rejected the new criminal penalties for war profiteering--a major 
mistake in my view--Chairman Stevens defended the Senate position on 
this issue during conference. I am grateful to him for doing so.
  I will have more to say on the war profiteering provision in a 
moment, but I want to take a few moments to explain why I oppose this 
conference report.
  I have no doubt that the world is far better off without Saddam 
Hussein. But, I also feel that the administration rushed into this war 
prematurely, alienated some of our closest friends and allies, 
exaggerated the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and downplayed the 
extraordinary difficult and costly task of rebuilding Iraq. We all know 
the confident statements made by senior administration officials, 
including the Vice President, Secretary of Defense, National Security 
Adviser, Director of OMB, and Administrator of USAID, that have since 
been disavowed, debunked, or disputed.
  Some say that we should simply move on--that the differences we have 
over the war and the administration's abysmal post war planning is 
water under the bridge. I disagree. there is no question that we have 
to work hard to succeed in Iraq. But, I cite the words of Ted Koppel, a 
well-respected journalist with long experience, who said:

       Before the Iraq war, senior officials confidently predicted 
     that US troops would be welcomed as liberators, that vast 
     quantities of weapons of mass destruction would be found, 
     that Iraqi oil income would pay for post-war reconstruction, 
     and that a successful military victory in Iraq would quickly 
     lead to implementation of the ``road map to peace'' between 
     Israelis and Palestinians. Not only were all those 
     predictions wrong but there is growing evidence that 
     officials should have know better at the time. But that was 
     then, this is now. And everyone likes to pretend that what 
     was said before the war is no longer relevant.

  The decision to go to war in Iraq strikes at the very heart of our 
credibility as a nation. It is not a partisan issue. It is an American 
issue, and I am outraged by administration officials who attacked the 
patriotism of those who have asked legitimate questions about the 
decision to launch a unilateral, preemptive attack. I think we all wish 
that more questions had been asked and answered before we decided to 
send hundreds of thousands of troops to Vietnam.
  I agree with those who say that we cannot simply walk away from Iraq. 
However, I am deeply troubled by the administration's partisan, take-it 
or leave-it attitude towards this supplemental. There are better 
alternatives, and the Administration should have been open to 
considering other approaches. I believe they could have saved the 
taxpayers money and hastened the time when our soldiers can come home.
  Amendments offered by Democrats on the Senate floor would have gone a 
long way towards accomplishing these goals. They would have: put the 
Secretary of State in charge of reconstruction efforts, which has been 
the case for every major post-conflict operation since the Marshall 
Plan; required the administration to internationalize the effort, 
formulate a viable plan to rebuild Iraq, and come up with a workable 
exit strategy; and fully paid for the reconstruction by repealing the 
tax cut on the wealthiest Americans for just one year rather than 
raiding the Social Security Trust Fund and saddling future generations 
with even more debt.
  Each of these amendments was defeated by the Republican leadership, 
acting in concert with the administration, on the Senate floor.
  Instead of acknowledging problems with the current policy and making 
bold proposals to turn around the situation in Iraq, the President's 
approach does little more than throw more money at the status quo. This 
goes to the heart of my opposition to this conference report, and 
again, I refer any who may want further details about my views to 
review my October 17 statement.
  I want to turn to an issue that I mentioned earlier, which is the 
refusal of House Republicans on the Appropriations Committee to include 
a provision which I, along with Senators Feinstein and Durbin, included 
in the Senate version of the Supplemental conference report. This 
provision would have created criminal penalties for war profiteers and 
cheats who try to defraud American taxpayers and cash in on the relief 
and reconstruction efforts in Iraq.
  Our men and women in uniform are risking their lies in Iraq. Our aid 
workers and diplomats are laboring under difficult and dangerous 
conditions. This provision would have sent a message: If you cheat 
American taxpayers while our men and women are dying in Iraq, you will 
go to jail.
  In rejecting this provision, House Republicans offered no substitute 
or willingness to compromise. They also offered, in my opinion, no real 
substantive arguments against this provision. More importantly, 
Representative Sensenbrenner, chairman of the House Judiciary 
Committee, did not oppose this provision.
  The partisan approach by the House Appropriators was in stark 
contrast to

[[Page 26821]]

the Senate position. Both Republican and Democratic Senate conferees 
consistently supported the provision, which was unanimously accepted 
during the Senate Appropriations Committee markup of the bill. Not a 
single objection was raised to this provision during Senate 
consideration of the Supplemental.
  Why is this provision so important? Congress is about to send about 
$70 billion dollars to a Iraq, where there is no functioning 
government, too little accountability and too few financial controls. 
This is a formula for mischief.
  Because we are sending so much of the taxpayers' money to a place 
without the usual oversight and controls, I strongly believe that we 
need an extra layer of protection to guard against waste, fraud, and 
abuse. This is what my provision would have done.
  By creating strong criminal penalties and clarifying current 
uncertainties about jurisdiction, it would create a strong deterrent 
against this type of behavior.
  As I said during the conference discussion of this provision, if one 
warehouse is locked while another warehouse is unlocked, everyone knows 
which one will get robbed.
  There are, of course, fraud statutes to protect against waste of tax 
dollars at home. But there are serious impediments, especially 
jurisdictional issues, to using these statutes to prosecute these types 
of crimes in Iraq. Moreover, there are no statutes that expressly 
prohibit war profiteering.
  The provision in the Senate bill would have addressed these issues 
and made it easier to prosecute those accused of defrauding U.S. 
taxpayers in Iraq.
  In addition, some of the penalties under existing fraud statutes are 
weak--perpetrators could walk away with little or no jail time. This 
provision would have increased the penalties to up to 20 years in 
prison and fines of up to $1 million or twice the illegal gross profits 
of the crime.
  We have a duty to do our best to protect every penny of the 
taxpayers' money from waste, fraud and abuse. I believe the House 
Appropriators, by refusing to accept this provision, abdicated this 
responsibility.
  This is not a new idea. The United States has enacted similar laws 
after World War I, World War II, and the Korean War. These laws were 
successful, and there is a long history of case law on this issue. 
Advocating exactly such an approach, President Roosevelt once declared 
it our duty to ensure that ``a few do not gain from the sacrifices of 
the many.'' The provision in the Senate bill borrowed heavily from this 
successful approach, especially the portions relating to war 
profiteering.
  Some have asked me, you are the ranking member of the Senate 
Judiciary Committee, why not go through the regular process and report 
a bill out of this committee?
  We all know that criminal penalties cannot be applied retroactively. 
I wanted to have this strong deterrent against defrauding the U.S. 
taxpayers in place on the same day that the President signed this bill 
into law and the money goes out the door. Clearly, this is an unusual 
situation that called for quick action to ensure that these controls 
were in place.
  We have missed this opportunity. But, I am hoping that in the 
bipartisan spirit of the Senate, we can come together to pass a law 
that will minimize the damage of the House's refusal to act.
  In the coming week, I will be introducing a free-standing bill that 
mirrors the provision in the Senate bill. I hope that the Senate will 
continue to do the right thing on this issue. I believe that we should 
press ahead and support its prompt passage through Congress.
  In closing, I want to say that there has been bipartisan concern with 
the administration's approach in Iraq. I hope the administration 
listens to the Congress and asks the tough questions of itself. It 
should reach out to Members of Congress and consult with experts who do 
not necessarily agree with what the administration is doing in Iraq.
  While we may disagree on how to get there, we all want the same 
thing: a peaceful and democratic Iraq and our troops home safely.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS. How much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska has 10 minutes 32 
seconds. The Senator from West Virginia has 11 minutes 22 seconds.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, could you go over that time again, please?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska has 10 minutes 32 
seconds. The Senator from West Virginia 11 minutes 22 seconds.
  Mr. REID. That is fine. I was told we were going to be finished at 5.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. REID. Yes.
  Mr. BYRD. I have made my remarks. I do not need to make any 
additional ones. I would be glad to yield back my time.
  Mr. REID. I ask the Chair how the 10 minutes got lost in the last 2 
or 3 minutes, just out of curiosity.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island obtained consent 
to use Leader Daschle's time.
  Mr. BYRD. I have no desire to use any of my remaining time. Senator 
Stevens has used his time. As far as I am concerned, we can vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we reserved the last 10 minutes for the 
Senator from West Virginia and then the last 10 minutes for me, the 
Senator from Alaska. Does the Senator wish to use his time?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if the distinguished Senator will yield, let 
me thank the distinguished Senator for his courtesy and thoughtfulness 
in reserving time for the two of us. I have the utmost respect and 
affection for the Senator from Alaska. It is characteristic of him to 
provide that time, but I only wish to say at this time, having made my 
remarks already, having said enough on the point, I am willing to yield 
back the balance of the time the Senator from Alaska set aside for me 
and, as soon as the Senator from Alaska completes his remarks, whatever 
he wishes to say, then we are ready to vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator very much.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I previously read a portion of President 
Clinton's remarks on December 16, 1998. I want to read a few more of 
them just to close this debate. The President said at that time on 
December 16, 1998:

       This situation presents a clear and present danger to the 
     stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people 
     everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last 
     chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. 
     Saddam has failed to seize the chance. And so we had to act 
     and act now. Let me explain why. First, without a strong 
     inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to 
     rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs 
     in months, not years. Second, if Saddam can cripple the 
     weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would 
     conclude that the international community--led by the United 
     States--has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has 
     a free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and some 
     day--make no mistake--he will use it again as he has in the 
     past.

  I am skipping a few paragraphs. He said:

     . . . That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my 
     national security team--including the vice president, the 
     Secretary of Defense, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
     Staff, the Secretary of State and the national security 
     adviser--I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air 
     strikes against Iraq.
  He said:

       So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and 
     its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when 
     Iraq has a government worthy of its people. First, we must be 
     prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening 
     actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass 
     destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his 
     neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving 
     against his own Kurdish citizens. The credible threat to use 
     force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the 
     surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction 
     program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.

  And I go on. He said:

       Heavy as they are, the cost of action must be weighed 
     against the price of inaction. If

[[Page 26822]]

     Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face 
     a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again 
     at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. And 
     mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. 
     He will deploy them, and he will use them.

  The people who criticize the current conclusion--and listening to the 
conclusion that President Clinton made--did not complain then. We used 
airstrikes against Iraq. In fact, one of the conditions President 
Clinton mentioned was continued, almost daily attacks against our 
aircraft that were flying what we call continuous air patrol, the CAP, 
over Iraq. They did that for 11 years. Daily, there were threats 
against them.
  I think we have acted reasonably under the circumstances, 
particularly in view of the conclusion that was made by the President 
of the United States in 1998 that Saddam was such a threat against the 
United States and the international community he should be subjected to 
attack and, if he persisted, to actually use force as soon as possible. 
That is what the President said.
  I ask unanimous consent that the transcript of President Clinton's 
remarks explaining the Iraq strike be printed in the Record after my 
remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I said before and I say again, the war is 
over. The President was right when he said the war is over. The 
military force is not there. We are fighting terrorism, not just in 
Iraq and Afghanistan. We are also fighting it around the world, even at 
home. How many of us have had to stand in longer lines this morning 
because there is a greater threat right here at home?
  This bill is being passed because we are fighting a war against 
terrorists and terrorism everywhere. It is absolutely necessary that 
this money get to the people who are right now at the greatest risk of 
harm, those who are trying to help Iraq recover, form a new government 
and be able to defend themselves and be able to go on to a new life, 
really to be a new credible force in the Middle East, of people who 
form their own government and people who plan their own future.
  I am pleased to associate myself with all those who supported what 
the President has done. I believe it was right and I think history will 
show it was right.
  I yield back the remainder of my time and ask for the vote.

                               Exhibit 1

           Transcript: President Clinton Explains Iraq Strike

       Clinton: Good evening.
       Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike 
     military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by 
     British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, 
     chemical and biological weapons programs and its military 
     capacity to threaten its neighbors.
       Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the 
     United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout 
     the Middle East and around the world.
       Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his 
     neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or 
     biological weapons.
       I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous 
     recommendation of my national security team, to use force in 
     Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.
       Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no 
     longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors 
     called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from 
     dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination 
     of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of 
     mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to 
     rebuild that capability.
       The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago 
     at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and 
     destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.
       The international community had good reason to set this 
     requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass 
     destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one 
     big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. 
     Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a 
     decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against 
     civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, 
     Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a 
     foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing 
     Kurdish citizens in Northern Iraq.
       The international community had little doubt then, and I 
     have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will 
     use these terrible weapons again.
       The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM 
     as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with 
     the inspectors. On occasion, we've had to threaten military 
     force, and Saddam has backed down.
       Faced with Saddam's latest act of defiance in late October, 
     we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by 
     overwhelming military force in the region. The UN Security 
     Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to 
     demand that he immediately come into compliance.
       Eight Arab nations--Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, 
     Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman--warned that 
     Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of 
     defying the UN.
       When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act 
     militarily. It was only then at the last possible moment that 
     Iraq backed down. It pledged to the UN that it had made, and 
     I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume 
     cooperation with the weapons inspectors.
       I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes 
     already in the air because Saddam had given in to our 
     demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to 
     use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his 
     willingness to cooperate.
       I made it very clear at that time what unconditional 
     cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and 
     Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair 
     of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam 
     failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act 
     without delay, diplomacy or warning.
       Now over the past three weeks, the UN weapons inspectors 
     have carried out their plan for testing Iraq's cooperation. 
     The testing period ended this weekend, and last night, 
     UNSCOM's chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results to UN 
     Secretary-General Annan.
       The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly 
     disturbing.
       In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has 
     failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new 
     restrictions on the inspectors. Here are some of the 
     particulars.
       Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect 
     sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of 
     its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's 
     other offices, even though UN resolutions make no exception 
     for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past.
       Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain 
     necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's 
     effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons 
     program.
       It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from 
     videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented 
     Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.
       Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually 
     emptied out the building, removing not just documents but 
     even the furniture and the equipment.
       Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents 
     requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq 
     ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in 
     anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.
       So Iraq has abused its final chance.
       As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, 
     ``Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made 
     in the fields of disarmament.
       ``In light of this experience, and in the absence of full 
     cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again 
     that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated 
     to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq's 
     prohibited weapons program.''
       In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could 
     stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham.
       Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. 
     Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has 
     disarmed the inspectors.
       This situation presents a clear and present danger to the 
     stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people 
     everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last 
     chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. 
     Saddam has failed to seize the chance.
       And so we had to act and act now.
       Let me explain why.
       First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be 
     free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological 
     and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.
       Second, if Saddam can cripple the weapons inspection system 
     and get away with it, he would conclude that the 
     international community--led by the United States--has simply 
     lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to 
     rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday--make no 
     mistake--he will use it again as he has in the past.
       Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave 
     Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his 
     defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against 
     Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed 
     Saddam to shatter the inspection

[[Page 26823]]

     system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; 
     we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that 
     stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.
       That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national 
     security team--including the vice president, the secretary of 
     defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the 
     secretary of state and the national security adviser--I have 
     ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against 
     Iraq.
       They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop 
     and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his 
     ability to threaten his neighbors.
       At the same time, we are delivering a powerful message to 
     Saddam. If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price. We 
     acted today because, in the judgment of my military advisers, 
     a swift response would provide the most surprise and the 
     least opportunity for Saddam to prepare.
       If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman 
     Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to 
     disperse his forces and protect his weapons.
       Also, the Muslim holy month of Ramadan begins this weekend. 
     For us to initiate military action during Ramadan would be 
     profoundly offensive to the Muslim world and, therefore, 
     would damage our relations with Arab countries and the 
     progress we have made in the Middle East.
       That is something we wanted very much to avoid without 
     giving Iraq a month's head start to prepare for potential 
     action against it.
       Finally, our allies, including Prime Minister Tony Blair of 
     Great Britain, concurred that now is the time to strike. I 
     hope Saddam will come into cooperation with the inspection 
     system now and comply with the relevant UN Security Council 
     resolutions. But we have to be prepared that he will not, and 
     we must deal with the very real danger he poses.
       So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and 
     its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when 
     Iraq has a government worthy of its people.
       First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam 
     takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his 
     weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, 
     threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over 
     Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens.
       The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the 
     actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's 
     weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression 
     and prevent another Gulf War.
       Second, so long as Iraq remains out of compliance, we will 
     work with the international community to maintain and enforce 
     economic sanctions. Sanctions have cost Saddam more than $120 
     billion--resources that would have been used to rebuild his 
     military. The sanctions system allows Iraq to sell oil for 
     food, for medicine, for other humanitarian supplies for the 
     Iraqi people.
       We have no quarrel with them. But without the sanctions, we 
     would see the oil-for-food program become oil-for-tanks, 
     resulting in a greater threat to Iraq's neighbors and less 
     food for its people.
       The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, 
     he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his 
     region, the security of the world.
       The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a 
     new Iraqi government--a government ready to live in peace 
     with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of 
     its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and 
     effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range 
     of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and 
     prudently.
       The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever 
     American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of 
     life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military 
     capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.
       Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi 
     civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway 
     international opinion.
       We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, 
     Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at 
     his neighbors, we will respond forcefully.
       Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed 
     against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and 
     we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the 
     future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will 
     make war on his own people.
       And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass 
     destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.
       Because we're acting today, if is less likely that we will 
     face these dangers in the future.
       Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein 
     and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the 
     serious debate currently before the House of Representatives 
     would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him 
     down.
       But once more, the United States has proven that although 
     we are never eager to use force, when we must act in 
     America's vital interests, we will do so.
       In the century we're leaving, America has often made the 
     difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, 
     in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to 
     shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we 
     stand strong against the enemies of peace.
       Tonight, the United States is doing just that. May God 
     bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying 
     out this vital mission and their families. And may God bless 
     America.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. Byrd has not yielded back his time as yet, has he?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. He has not formally done so.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I briefly say this. I voted----
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. REID. Yes.
  Mr. BYRD. I do not intend to use my time. I have already made my 
speech. If I have some time, I yield whatever time he needs to the 
Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. I thank the Senator from West Virginia for yielding me the 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I voted for the first gulf war. In fact, I 
was the first Democrat to announce publicly that I would do that. I 
voted for the second gulf war. I have no problems with having done 
that.
  I have the greatest respect for the senior Senator from Alaska. I 
know what a fine chairman he is on the Appropriations Committee. But I 
do say this: That for anyone now to say the war is over, it is not 
over. The war is going on as we speak. One need only go to the families 
of the 16 people who were killed when the helicopter was shot down just 
a few hours ago.
  Having said that, we still have a long hard row ahead of us in this 
war in which we are engaged.
  I yield back the remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from West Virginia yield back 
all of his time?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes, I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the conference report is 
adopted.
  The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. I do not think it should be adopted by unanimous consent. 
That was not meant to happen. I understood there would be a voice vote. 
I hope the Chair will propound the question for the voices to vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the conference 
report.
  The conference report 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.
  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. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________