To express the sense of Congress that the removal of the Government of Saddam Hussein has enhanced the security of Israel and other United States allies.

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

Amendment No. 1839

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, the pending business is the Ensign
amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. STEVENS. I now believe that has been cleared and I urge adoption
of that amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to amendment No. 1839.
The amendment (No. 1839) was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant Democratic leader.
Mr. REID. Senator Byrd has cleared the amendment to which we already
agreed. He is ready to offer other amendments, as others are. We
certainly want to cooperate and have the Republicans offer a number of
amendments. We have more to offer than they do, but they have an
opportunity to offer theirs. At this time, I suggest the Senator from
New Mexico be recognized. If, in fact, Senator Graham of South Carolina
shows up, the Senator from New Mexico will be happy to yield to him. He
is only going to speak for 10 minutes anyway.
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, if the Senator will yield.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. My understanding was it was time for us to start moving
some of the amendments on our side.
Mr. REID. We understand.
Mr. STEVENS. Senator Graham of South Carolina, Senator Warner, and
Senator Domenici are coming. So I hope to proceed then. I have no
objection to the Senator from New Mexico

[[Page S12580]]

proposing his amendment and making a statement. We will set that aside
when the other Senators appear.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.

Amendment No. 1842

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I do send an amendment to the desk and
ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are
set aside and the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman] proposes an
amendment numbered 1842.

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

(Purpose: To require reports on the utilization of the National Guard
and Reserves)

At the end of title I, insert the following:
Sec. 316. (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following
findings:
(1) The National Guard and Reserves have served the Nation
in times of national crises for more than 200 years. The
National Guard and Reserves are a critical component of
homeland security and national defense.
(2) The current deployments of many members of the National
Guard and Reserve have made them absent from their
communities for an abnormally long time. This has diminished
the ability of the National Guard to conduct its State
missions.
(3) Many members of the National Guard and Reserves have
been on active duty for more than a year, and many more have
had their tours of active duty involuntarily extended while
overseas.
(b) Report on Utilization of National Guard and Reserves.--
(1) Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of
Representatives a report on the utilization of the National
Guard and Reserves in support of contingency operations
during fiscal year 2004.
(2) The report under this subsection shall include the
following:
(A) Information on each National Guard and Reserve unit
currently deployed, including--
(i) the unit name or designation;
(ii) the number of personnel deployed;
(iii) the projected return date to home station; and
(iv) the schedule, if any, for the replacement of the unit
with a Regular unit.
(B) Information on current operations tempo, including--
(i) the length of deployment of each National Guard and
Reserve unit currently deployed, organized by unit and by
State;
(ii) in the case of each National Guard and Reserve unit on
active duty during the two-year period ending on the date of
the report, the aggregate amount of time on active duty
during such two-year period; and
(iii) the percentage of National Guard and Reserve forces
in the total deployed force in each current domestic and
overseas contingency operation.
(C) Information on current recruitment and retention of
National Guard and Reserve personnel, including--
(i) any shortfalls in recruitment and retention;
(ii) any plans to address such shortfalls or otherwise to
improve recruitment or retention; and
(iii) the effects on recruitment and retention over the
long term of extended periods of activation of National Guard
or Reserve personnel.
(3) The report under this subsection shall be organized in
a format that permits a ready assessment of the deployment of
the National Guard and Reserves by State, by various
geographic regions of the United States, and by Armed Force.
(c) Report on Effects of Utilization of National Guard and
Reserves on Law Enforcement and Homeland Security.--(1) Not
later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall, in
consultation with the chief executive officers of the States,
submit to Congress a report on the effects of the deployment
of the National Guard and Reserves on law enforcement and
homeland security in the United States.
(2) The report under this subsection shall include the
following:
(A) The number of civilian first responders on active duty
with the National Guard or Reserves who are currently
deployed overseas.
(B) The number of first responder personnel of the National
Guard or Reserves who are currently deployed overseas.
(C) An assessment by State of the ability of the States to
respond to emergencies without currently deployed National
Guard personnel.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, this amendment relates to the
utilization of the National Guard and Reserve as part of our military
activities and presence around the world. I think we have all been
struck by the fact that in the current conflicts in Iraq and
Afghanistan, and in many other instances, we are seeing a greater
utilization of reservists and National Guard personnel by the Pentagon.
I am not being critical of that, but I do think this is a new reality
we need to adjust to and understand better.
Since the founding of our Nation we have relied upon the services of
citizen soldiers. The National Guard and Reserves have a proud
tradition of setting aside their civilian lives to serve our country in
times of conflict. Recently, the need for this service has
significantly increased. Today, the National Guard and Reserves'
commitments overseas are critical to the resolution of several
conflicts around the world. The almost 400 soldiers deployed to keep
the peace between Israel and Egypt along the Sinai peninsula are
members of the Oregon National Guard's 1-186th Infantry Battalion. The
only Fighter Squadron operating from Iraq is an A-10 unit from
Missouri's 442 Fighter Wing stationed at Tallil Airbase in Southern
Iraq. This Reserve unit is the only A-10 Warthawg unit in the Air Force
with Precision Guided Munitions delivery capability. Much of the air
defense of Washington, D.C., is the responsibility of the D.C. Air
National Guard's 113th Fighter Wing and air defense forces of the New
Mexico National Guard.
The purpose of this amendment is to require the Departments of
Defense and Homeland Security to provide a report to the Senate Armed
Services Committee and House Armed Service Committee that contains the
following:
No. 1, an assessment of the levels utilization of the Guard and
Reserves component in the manning of contingency operations,
domestically and overseas.
No. 2, Recruitment and retention plans for the National Guard and
Reserves in light of increased commitments.
No. 3, and finally, a report from the Department of Homeland Security
on the effects of National Guard and Reserves deployments on Homeland
Security.
Last week I had the opportunity and honor to meet with families of
the 717th Medical Company of the New Mexico National Guard. I cannot
tell you how moved I was by the patriotism and commitment of these
families and guardsmen. Despite the increased operations tempo members
of the New Mexico National Guard remain as dedicated as ever to saving
lives in New Mexico and overseas.
For example, last year, CPT Paul Saiz deployed to Kosovo in support
of KFOR for 6 months flew dozens of aeromedical airlift missions
throughout Kosovo in support of U.S. military and the civilian
populace. Upon returning from his deployment he participated in several
civil search and rescues in the New Mexico mountains, and when
Albuquerque, NM was ravaged by wildfires, Captain Saiz and others flew
firefighting missions, dumping water with pinpoint accuracy. I have
been told that many firemen were convinced that had it not been for
Captain Saiz's efforts, firefighters would have perished. Currently,
Captain Saiz and 35 others are deployed to Afghanistan providing
Aeromedical Airlift for the entire country. The 717th Medical Company's
Commander, MAJ James Fishbourne writes:

The soldiers of the 717th Medical Company (AA) are doing
extremely well. We are very busy and have completed 43 combat
medevac missions to date. I am so proud of our soldiers and
how they are performing in this environment. We are non-stop
here with urgent and priority medevac missions. Last week one
of our crews was called to rescue an infantryman from a 180-
ft canyon near the Pakistan border. Our crews were able to
hoist the soldier to safety and bring him back to the level 1
hospital.
We have also been called to evacuate many mine blast
victims throughout Afghanistan. It is very sad to say, but
most of the mine victims are children. One patient we evaced
to Bagram was a 12-year-old girl with both legs amputated.
The night she was in surgery, the hospital was running low on
O- blood and one of our pilots (CW4 Atkinson) donated several
pints to save her life. Just last night I transported two
children involved in a rollover. What a sight it was seeing
two small Afghan children lying on a stretcher together being
cared for by SSG Esqueivel and CW2 Medina. These children are
very sick or hurt when we are called to rescue them.
I can't tell you about all the missions our fine soldiers
have accomplished but I will say that there is no medevac
mission that we

[[Page S12581]]

have had to turn down and no better soldiers than those of
the 717th. Our soldiers were involved with the bomb that went
off near Bagram, we did assist the hospital with recovery of
the local nationals and assisted the doctors and medical
personnel here at the hospital. Please do all you can to tell
the people back home that the soldiers of the 717th Medical
Company are doing great things for the soldiers, airmen, and
marines here in Afghanistan. They are making great sacrifices
being away from their families and jobs back in New Mexico.

Guardsmen and reservists all over the country are making great
sacrifices. We need to examine the long-term impact that prolonged
activation has on recruitment and retention of the National Guard
Reserves. We must ensure that the administration has a plan to not only
retain qualified guardsmen and reservists, but to also attract new
members. I find it very hard to believe that the increased operations
tempo the Guard and Reserves are experiencing will have no effect on
recruitment and retention. I fear that if we ask too much of these men
and women, many will decide to leave military service. Therefore, we
must ensure that the Department of Defense has prepared an effective
strategy to maintain the National Guard and Reserves. it is quite
possible that the Department of defense has such a plan, but I am not
aware of it.
We must also closely look at the impact that long deployments have on
security at home. Many of the young men and women serving overseas as
members of the National Guard and Reserves work as first responders at
home. How has the absence of Guardsmen and reservists who are civilian
policemen, emergency medical technicians and other first responders,
hampered the ability of states to respond in times of natural disaster
or homeland security emergencies? How will the absence of Guard and
Reserves personnel who may ordinarily serve in these capacities as part
of their service when they are not otherwise deployed affect these
operations? These are questions that must be answered.
There is no doubt that the utilization of National Guard and
Reserves, at least at current rates, will continue well into the
future. The information these reports will provide will be critical as
we move ahead with decisions about manning, procurement, and security.
I understand that portions of this report may have some sensitivity.
If there is a requirement for portions or all of this report to be in
classified format, then it should be submitted at the appropriate level
of classification.
Let there be no doubt that the men and women of the National Guard
and Reserves are doing their part to protect us at home and overseas.
We must ensure that analysis has been conducted, and plans are in place
to preserve the integrity, readiness and force levels necessary for
this period of long-term activation.
At the appropriate time I hope we can adopt this amendment--by voice
vote, if possible. I do not know a reason why it should be objected to
by any Member of the Senate, but obviously I await the opportunity for
all Members to review the amendment before I call for a vote.
Madam President, with that, I see nobody else seeking the floor so I
yield the floor and 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. I ask unanimous consent to set aside the Bingaman
amendment in order that the Senator from South Carolina can offer his
amendment at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator from South Carolina.

Amendment No. 1805

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Madam President, I ask unanimous
consent that my amendment No. 1905 be called.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Graham] proposes an
amendment numbered 1805.

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

(Purpose: To express the sense of Congress that arbitrary deadlines
should not be set for the dissolution of the Coalition Provisional
Authority or the transfer of its authority to an Iraqi governing
authority)

On page 38, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
Sec. 2313. (a) Congress finds that--
(1) in a speech delivered to the United Nations on
September 23, 2003, President George W. Bush appealed to the
international community to take action to make the world a
safer and better place;
(2) in that speech, President Bush emphasized the
responsibility of the international community to help the
people of Iraq rebuild their country into a free and
democratic state;
(3) French President Jacques Chirac has proposed a plan for
Iraqi self-rule within a period of months;
(4) for a plan for Iraq's future to be appropriate, the
provisions of that plan must be consistent with the best
interests of the Iraqi people;
(5) the plan proposed by President Chirac would impose
premature self-government in Iraq that could threaten peace
and stability in that country; and
(6) premature self-government could make the Iraqi state
inherently weak and could serve as an invitation for
terrorists to sabotage the accomplishments of the United
States and United States allies in the region.
(b) It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) arbitrary deadlines should not be set for the
dissolution of the Coalition Provisional Authority or the
transfer of its authority to an Iraqi governing authority;
and
(2) no such dissolution or transfer of authority should
occur until the ratification of an Iraqi constitution and the
establishment of an elected government in Iraq.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Madam President, this is a sense-of-
the-Senate amendment. I think it is very important, as we deal with the
Iraqi situation, for us to address as many issues as we can about the
nature of how this is going to unfold. The President has asked for $87
billion. I am glad to support the funding. Most of it, two-thirds of
it, I guess, goes to the men and women in uniform to make sure they
have the assets necessary to protect themselves and do their job.
This resolution speaks to the idea of when the mission is complete,
and this resolution addresses the French position. The French have
proposed as recently as September 16 that within a month--a matter of 1
month and no later than 2--all authority be turned over to the Iraqi
people and that the umbrella we have today cease to exist.
Not only is this irresponsible but the Coalition Provisional
Authority ruling the country is a necessary entity until we can get a
constitution written, voted on, and a government elected. But if we did
what the French are suggesting, we would take a country that has been
brutalized and raped--literally and figuratively--with Saddam Hussein
still on the loose, and basically say, Here.
I think that would not only be a disservice to the Iraqi people but
it would undermine the reason we went to war to begin with; that is, to
take tyranny and turn it into stability.
This sense-of-the-Senate resolution says in no uncertain terms that
it would be irresponsible to follow the French proposition--to turn
back over to the Iraqi people the country while it is still in
transition. In going from tyranny to stability, there will be a certain
amount of chaos.
We are training the Iraqi police. We are training the army. They are
having elections at the local level. There are a lot of good things
going on. Schools are now open. Schools used to house weapons. Now they
are housing kids. No young girl has to worry about being taken out of
school and taken to one of Saddam's sons because she strikes his eye.
Iraq is a better place. But the French position of just leaving and
turning it over within 30 days would undo the recent accomplishments.
It is irresponsible.
I think it would be in order for the Senate to speak on this matter.
The United Nations rejected an amendment that set a hard and fast
deadline in terms of when control will be given to the Iraqi people.
This makes good sense. Let us give them a chance to write a
constitution, give them a chance to ratify a constitution, give

[[Page S12582]]

them a chance to have a national election, get some infrastructure in
place, and allow the rule of law to be in place. Then, at the
appropriate time, we will be glad when it comes time to leave Iraq.
Most Americans who have family members in the military can't wait for
that day to come. We can't wait to be able to bring our troops back
home.
Having said that, most Americans understand that if you leave before
the job is done, the problems will come back to haunt you. After
September 11, the easy way out is no longer the right way--to shoot a
missile or two and say, Boy, did we deal with that group which led to
9/11.
There are people who are infiltrating Iraq who are trying to
destabilize the efforts of the Iraqi people to become a free democracy.
There are people in the region who hate the idea that Iraq may be a
free country with a democratic system. We need to stand shoulder to
shoulder with the Iraqi people and fight those forces, not only for the
good of the Iraqi people but for our own security.
This resolution I think is very appropriately timed. The United
Nations has rejected the hard and fast deadline. This resolution
basically says we are going to stay until the country is stable, we are
going to stay until the job is done.
Having said that--by making that statement--it means more Americans
are going to die. The forces in Iraq are small in terms of the
population as a whole, but they are committed to creating chaos.
It breaks my heart--and every Member of this body and all Americans--
to have a soldier, sailor, airman, or marine lost in this conflict. But
just as surely as I speak, losses will come and more money will be
spent. The day has not yet arrived when we can, in good faith and good
conscience, turn all matters over to the Iraqi people. They need help.
They need money. They need assistance. They need our support. But we
need to do it for ourselves. If we cut and run, and if we take the
French position to get out of there before the infrastructure is in
place, we will take one form of tyranny and replace it with another. It
is an irresponsible position.
I hope this body in a unanimous fashion will agree with the
proposition that we should not leave Iraq until the job is done--until
a constitution is written and ratified, until a government has been
elected and the people have a chance to have a secure environment for
their new nation that is emerging out of the ashes of Saddam Hussein's
regime.
I ask my colleagues to support this resolution saying we will not
leave until the job is done. Leaving in the next month is
irresponsible. Reject the French position because the French position
is irresponsible and undermines our national security.
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I have notified members of the minority
that we are prepared to accept the Bingaman amendment and also the
amendment of Senator Graham. While we await their response, 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. 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 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 ask unanimous consent that the
pending amendments be set aside temporarily so the Senator from
Arkansas can offer an amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Arkansas.

Amendment No. 1829

(Purpose: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to improve tax
equity for military personnel, and for other purposes)

Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam President, yesterday I submitted an amendment to
the supplemental spending bill which I do hope the Senate will consider
favorably. I know it is going to be difficult because of the issue I am
bringing up. The amendment primarily consists of the Military Tax
Fairness Act and the acceleration of the refundable child credit. Both
of these bills have passed the Senate overwhelmingly.
We have been talking and talking and talking about them over the past
many months, and I know there will be thousands of excuses we will be
hearing telling us why we should not include this tax relief bill on
the supplemental spending bill.
I know this is a tax bill on an appropriations bill. I know we have a
child credit in two different conferences. I know the Military Tax
Fairness Act has been going back and forth between the two Chambers. I
know all of these excuses I am going to hear. I know there will be
tremendous numbers of those who will come forward and opportunities to
try to stop what I am trying to do.
But, Madam President, I am truly exhausted. I am truly exhausted with
all of the excuses we have had. And I know the hard-working American
families are just as exhausted as I am with the inability of us to be
able to move forward these two very simple acts within the Congress
that would be such a tremendous help to the working families of
America.
The death gratuity paid to the survivors of a military member has
historically been exempt from taxation. In 1986, the amount of the
death gratuity benefit was $3,000. In 1991, the payment was raised from
$3,000 to $6,000 in connection with the Persian Gulf conflict. But the
Tax Code was not adjusted accordingly.
Currently, the military survivor must pay taxes on the $3,000
increase to the death gratuity payment. This is a very simple problem
to fix. And I do not want any more excuses of why we cannot do it. I
simply want to get it done.
In 1997, Congress passed legislation revising the taxation of capital
gains on the sale of an individual's principal residence, providing up
to a $250,000 exclusion, $500,000 per couple, on their home sale if the
individual owned and lived in the house for at least 2 of the 5 years
preceding the sale. Congress failed to provide a special rule for
members of the uniformed service and Foreign Service who are required
to periodically move either within the United States or abroad, making
it difficult to meet those exclusion requirements.
The proposal in this amendment would permit military and Foreign
Service men and women to suspend the 5-year period for a maximum of 10
years while away from home on assignment. In other words, those years
away would count toward neither the 2-year lived-in-home nor the 5-year
period.

Most American homeowners have the opportunity to build equity in
their homes and are afforded this great tax benefit to do so. Members
of the uniformed and Foreign Service who serve our country are
deserving of no less. This should be an easy fix. It is something we
can do; we should do; we have all agreed upon many times over. Why can
we not do it? I do not want to hear the excuses. And I certainly do not
want to present these excuses to my constituents.
Again, under the current law, military personnel located in a combat
zone are provided an extension for filing taxes until 180 days after
they return from the combat zone. This provision does not currently
apply to contingency operations where military personnel are confronted
with demanding circumstances similar to those faced by members in a
combat zone.
Contingency operations we have seen recently include Operation Just
Cause in Panama in 1989, Operation Restore Hope in Somalia in 1992, and
Operation Uphold Democracy in Haiti in 1994.
Right now, for example, an airman who is currently deployed overseas
in a contingency operation in support of our troops in Afghanistan or
Iraq combat zones happens to be left out.
This, again, is a simple fix, something we can do for the hard-
working military service men and women who are there serving our
Nation, putting their lives on hold here at home to protect our
freedoms, and to be a part of the overall war on terrorism. It is
something very simple that we could fix if we just took the time to do
it.
Some reservists must travel away from home to perform mandatory
weekend drill one weekend per month and may incur significant travel
and lodging expenses. Under current law,

[[Page S12583]]

these are deductible as itemized deductions, as unreimbursed business
expenses, to the extent they exceed 2 percent of the member's adjusted
gross income. Most lower income, junior reservists do not itemize
deductions, so they receive no tax benefit for their expenses. For
those who do, the 2 percent floor limits the amount of benefit of the
deduction. For young reservists, their expenses may cost them as much
as their entire take-home pay for that weekend.
This is a real-life issue for working men and women who are there
serving each and every one of us in the military of this great Nation.
Why can't we just get it done? These are issues on which we have all
agreed. It makes so much sense for us to come forward now, as we are
talking about the issues that affect our service men and women who are
stationed abroad. Let us give them the tools to be able to keep their
families together here at home, to provide for their children, to make
sure their families are going to stay together no matter how long they
may be deployed.
Under current law, a veterans organization is exempt from taxation if
it meets the requirements of section 501(c)(19) of the Internal Revenue
Code. However, this status is in jeopardy. Many of these veterans
organizations, such as the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign
Wars, could face losing their tax-exempt status if the Congress and the
administration do not act to change the technical requirements of the
Internal Revenue Code.
We have to get these things done. We are talking about wrapping up
our business here in the next month or so. We have ample opportunity to
move these issues. We have come to agreement on all of them. We have
moved them in years past. Why can't we make them happen?
I could go on and on, describing all of the varied Tax Code fixes for
veterans and military families that should have been enacted months
ago. They are all included in this amendment, and I urge my colleagues
to support it.
Now is the time to act. We talk about how valuable our service men
and women are to us, how much they mean to us, the sacrifices they are
making, and how much that means to us as a nation and as individuals.
Let's move on our Military Tax Fairness Act now. Let's make sure we see
this legislation through and that we enact it before we leave here.
The last provision of this amendment I would like to speak about is
something I have talked a great deal about because I feel very strongly
about it. I feel strongly about it because I am a mother. I am trying
to keep my family together, working hard with my husband as a dual-
parent household, recognizing the real challenges that American
families face in raising children today. That is the child tax credit,
its impact on military families and all of our working families.

The President promised America's families an advanced payment of the
$400 increase in the child tax credit. These checks were sent out to a
chosen few Americans earlier this summer. However, for millions of
working and military families, hard-working military families, this
promise was not fulfilled. The families of 12 million children did not
receive the full child credit check this summer. By now they all know
who they are.
We should extend the child tax credit to the other working families
who were left out. These are people who work hard every day to provide
for their children and their families, to keep their families together.
These are hard-working families who have a family member, a father or
mother, who may be stationed abroad or is in training now, someone who
is out there who they have been dependent on who we are not going to
give the same opportunity to in the refundability of a child tax credit
simply because they make less money. Please remember, you are not even
eligible for this child credit unless you are working and unless you
have children.
This is not a giveaway. These are working families who are paying
taxes every day, whether it is sales tax, payroll taxes, excise taxes,
to get themselves to and from work. Why wouldn't we want to give these
families the same ability, as they are working hard to preserve their
families, why wouldn't we want to give them the same advantage we give
other higher income working families to take care of their children and
families?
I believe we need to extend that child credit to working families,
all working families, and we need to do it now. A family with two
parents making minimum wage and two children would not receive any
increase in the child credit under the bill signed by the President.
They would not receive any check this summer. Did they not work hard
enough for this Congress? Did they not work hard enough for this
administration? Did they not work hard enough to be a part of trying to
revive this economy and strengthen the fabric of our Nation?
It isn't just minimum wage workers who were left out. These children
in the shadows are living on our military bases as well. Roughly
200,000 military personnel have incomes between $10,500 and $26,000,
and most of these families will not receive the increased child tax
credit. In addition, roughly 100,000 military personnel stationed in
combat zones will be ineligible to receive the full credit because they
were called to duty. They did not receive a check this summer. Did they
not work hard enough? Wherever they were stationed in uniform to
protect our freedoms, did they not work hard enough for this Congress
and this administration to get the same fair treatment as a working
individual in this country to take care of their children and their
families? The blue jeans, the milk, the loaf of bread, or anything else
they buy, was it any less expensive than what other working families
are dealing with?
I think they worked hard enough. I am ashamed that we have been
hiding from these families, hiding behind our rhetoric, hiding behind
our process. This great institution is full of processes that are here
to make the effort more reasonable, to make sure that what we are doing
is right, that it can be dealt with in an appropriate way. But these
processes are not here for us to hide behind. These are working
families in our military and in our communities that deserve the same
fair treatment.

I, for one, am tired of telling them that if they will just wait a
little bit longer, we will finally get around to them--maybe somewhere
down the road. We could have done this 6 months ago. We could have done
it 4 months ago. We could have done it 2 months ago before we left on
our break. But we didn't. We have not and we probably will not.
It is so important that we address this issue. It is important we
tell these people that they are a priority, not only because they are
the fighting military men and women of this country but because they
are the salt of the earth, the working families putting the fabric of
this Nation back together, one family at a time. We owe it to them to
give them the same opportunity to invest in their families, to reinvest
in the economy, and to help make us strong so we can be and will remain
the superpower of the world that is there to reach out to other nations
to help them through liberation and rebuilding and a multitude of other
issues. But we are only as strong as each of the individual families of
this Nation that make up our whole.
I am ready for the excuses that my colleagues may throw at me. I am
sure there are going to be many. I hope those families who got nothing
from the trillions of dollars in tax cuts that we have shoved out of
the door are listening, too. I hope they are listening, but I doubt
that they are. These are the men and women who are too busy, too busy
at work, too busy in the trenches and in the desert, too busy raising
those children and working hard at one or two jobs to make sure their
families will stay home, regardless of whether we find them as a
priority in this Nation. They are too busy for our excuses.
I hope for just once my colleagues will join me in doing what is
right on behalf of the working families in this great country and the
12 million children who are our future.
Madam President, I call up my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Arkansas [Mrs. Lincoln] proposes an
amendment numbered 1829.

[[Page S12584]]

Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The amendment is printed in the Record of October 14, 2003 under
``Text of Amendments.'')
Mrs. LINCOLN. 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. JOHNSON. 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. JOHNSON. Madam President, I rise to express my support for the
effort of my colleague from Arkansas relative to the $87 billion
supplemental appropriations request for Iraq that is currently pending
before the Senate. I am very supportive of the President's $65 billion
or roughly $67 billion level of funding for our troops. If we had an
up-or-down vote on just that component of the President's request, I
have no doubt it would pass 100-0. No question. Regardless of what you
think about whether we should be in Iraq, I think this body will
overwhelmingly be supportive of making sure our troops in Iraq have all
the resources they need to safely and efficiently and properly do the
courageous and extraordinary work they have done. We are proud of the
members of our United States military who are currently operating under
very difficult circumstances, but doing the very best they can and
doing a very good job under the circumstances.
The portion of the request from the President, however, for the $20
billion, roughly, for construction and various needs in Iraq is
entirely a different matter. That calls for $100,000-$200,000
consultants for tens of millions of dollars of study for the Iraqi
postal service; $10 million for a new ZIP Code; new cities; new high
schools, new hospitals--things that never existed in their history.
This is not for damage done in the war; this is establishing a whole
new infrastructure that never existed before.
It is hard to tell our military veterans that we cannot find $1.8
billion so everyone gets access to a VA hospital, and then turn around
and spend $20 billion on construction and other needs in Iraq; or tell
America's teachers and kids and parents that we cannot find $8 billion
for Leave No Child Behind, but we are going to build a new school
system abroad that never existed before, and $20 billion will go out
the door for that.
Now we found this last weekend references in the Washington Post
finding that one of the problems the Bush administration is having is
physically moving so much American cash to Iraq. They started out
putting the money into huge bags and putting it into aircraft at
Edwards Air Force Base, but it got to be so cumbersome to send out
these billions of dollars that now they are shrink-wrapping American
money into these huge cubes and pushing them into airplanes and sending
them to Iraq. But one of the problems we have is we are shrink-wrapping
these mountains of American taxpayers' money, and they shift in the
plane and sometimes fall apart, and we are having problems physically
moving all this American cash to Iraq.
I asked my constituents in South Dakota over the past week what we
should be doing about this. A number of suggestions came up from South
Dakota constituents. A gentleman from Sioux Falls suggested since the
combat phase of the Iraq war is over and we have all these
intercontinental ballistic missiles, we ought to load the cash into the
warheads of these missiles and fire them into Iraq. Since we are not
keeping track of how the money is used there anyway--there is no
auditing; we just hand it over to people and hope they spend it right--
the missiles could explode and the money would sort of fall all over
Iraq. That is one idea. The problem is sometimes these rockets explode
on a launch pad, and there is a great risk some of that money might
fall on an American school or daycare center. That is a risk the Bush
administration would not tolerate. That would probably not work.

Another suggestion was since we take all the oil from the Middle East
in the huge tankers to the U.S., perhaps once they come here and
unload, they can fill the tankers full of American cash and send that
to Iraq. Once again, the ports there are not capable of unloading that
massive amount of American cash, and we would probably have ships
backed up to Egypt if we did that.
One of the suggestions came from a gentleman from Aberdeen, SD. He
suggested we use our B-52 and B-1 fleets to bomb Iraq with American
cash--borrow it from the Social Security trust fund, as the President
recommended--and drop this money over Iraq; some would land in good
places and some in bad, but no doubt it would probably be used as
efficiently as what the administration's plan calls for.
There are interesting ideas out there. I hope people will contact the
White House with their ideas about how best to disburse these huge
mountains of cash--more than any one of us here or any citizen will
ever see in a lifetime--$20 billion. We have been spending $1 billion a
week up until now. That is before you get to this provision. So at a
time when we are having a hard time funding our own water projects, our
hospitals, and we have nursing homes on the cusp of closure because of
Medicare reimbursement problems, at a time when the White House is
cutting back on Pell grants, college grants for young people, and
nontraditional students who want to go to college, when we are $1.8
billion short for our veterans to get access to VA hospitals, and when
our troops come home, one of the things they will be presented with is
the bill for the borrowing that is going into this $20 billion package.
We are not going to cut and run. We do have a role to play in helping
Iraq. No doubt, some expenditure is required. But $20 billion, when
there is very little help coming from our allies at this point, is a
massive expenditure.
The newspapers reported we are shoving this money out the door so
fast they are unable to audit the disbursal of the money. It goes to a
handful of Iraqi leaders and they hope they will get it to the right
place. Yes, right. I can imagine where this money is winding up in many
instances.
At the same time, to the degree we hire American corporations to do
work there, I hope we will end this business of no-bid contracts going
to a few well-positioned corporate entities and make sure it is an
open, clear, transparent process so the American public at least has
the consolation of knowing these tons of dollars going into Iraq are
going for some constructive purpose rather than to line the pockets and
bolster the profitability of a few. We can at least do that.
Madam President, we have a role to play, that is for certain. But
this level of expenditure is almost mind-boggling, breathtaking--$20
billion. That is on top of the $79 billion just approved in the
supplemental appropriations bill last April, and, heavens knows, this
is not the last of it. This could be going on for a long time. We are
told the construction projects that have been suggested for Iraq would
run easily into the $50 billion or $60 billion range and that somehow
our allies are going to pay for that. Well, that doesn't appear to be
what is happening.

We may very well be seeing future requests as well for this kind of
money. We don't have $20 billion laying around. If we had $20 billion
laying around, that might be another matter. But we will have to borrow
it to give to Iraq. Iraq sits on the first or second biggest supply of
oil in the world. There is no question that they cannot pump it out
quickly enough now because their infrastructure is not what it was 10
years ago; but the oil is still there, there is no question about that.
Why couldn't we come up with a mechanism for helping Iraq borrow
against their own oil? Why should they not borrow against one of the
world's biggest mountains of gold in the world, as opposed to us
borrowing from our Social Security trust fund? This is not rocket
science. We have already paid a billion dollars a month for the
military operation, with virtually very little help from our allies. We
have had some help from the Brits and modest amounts from others. We
are paying a dear price for a doctrine of unilateral preemptive war
now, but we are in it and we have to find a way to get out.
It seems to me that, while we will support our troops--and there will
be

[[Page S12585]]

some effort, no doubt, toward reconstruction in Iraq; but $20 billion,
at a time when we are finding ourselves in record budget deficits in
the United States, is not a good use of our taxpayers' money. It is a
disservice to the American taxpayers, and it is a precedent we will rue
for years to come.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, will the Senator withhold his request
for a quorum call?
Mr. JOHNSON. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I listened with interest to the
statement of the Senator from South Dakota. It is a very interesting
proposition that we should support the military budget and not support
the budget that is designed to bring our troops home. The $20.3 billion
is a lot of money, there is no question about that.
I am informed there are about 22 million people in Iraq. They lived
under a despotic regime, and we have destroyed that regime. There are
still pockets of terrorists, pockets of resistance to the change to a
new form of government. But those who support only the military
expenditures are telling us: Let's just occupy Iraq. No one is saying:
Let's go home. No one is saying: Let's just bring our forces out and
cut and run. We are not going to do that.
If we put in the money, $66 billion for the year 2004, that is the
amount of money that was calculated that we need for the military,
provided we start bringing them home--we have already brought some
troops home, and I am one who hopes we will be bringing more troops
home this year and early next year. But they will be replaced by
security forces, those trained in the Iraqi Army, those trained to be
security forces. We do not want to train people to be forces of
occupation. That has not been our way of life. Even in Bosnia and
Kosovo we used forces who were trained combat soldiers, combat
personnel to carry out a lot of functions, but we did not train people
to just be forces of occupation.
Our people are trained combatants. They proved they are the best in
the world in this current Iraq campaign. There are still threats
against this country throughout the world. We do not want them left in
Iraq in the numbers that are there now. They must start coming back to
meet any contingency to defend this country and our interests at home
and abroad.
To say we can just get by with the $66 billion for military begs the
question: What do you want us to do? Send more forces over there?
Should we increase the cost militarily and send more combat forces over
there or should we provide forces, as has been suggested in one
amendment, to train constables for maintaining the peace, people in
uniform but not trained to be combat forces, not trained to fight wars,
but just trained to be policemen at the corner or to guard schools or
guard the churches or guard the shopping centers. We can do that. We
have been in Kosovo. We have been in Bosnia for over 4 years doing
that. We are trying to avoid that in this country.
I hope everyone in the Senate understands this is a unique, new
approach to the concept of changing an administration, a nation-
building concept, letting them build their own nation as quickly as
possible. The $20.3 billion is a great deal of money, there is no
question about that. It is an enormous amount of money. It represents a
cost to this country, however, that is far less than maintaining our
forces there for 3, 4, or 5 years at a rate of $66 billion plus a year
for military.
I want to see the scales compared. I want people to understand that
the $20.3 billion is going to mean we do not have to increase the
defense costs in the years ahead as we occupy Iraq until they finally
find some way to create their own government. We are trying to build up
their forces so we can bring our troops home, and I believe we will
succeed.
There are some people making a little bit of mirth over some of the
problems of dealing with a new country. It has its own currency now,
and we are trying to convert our money to their money so they can start
spending and generating their economy. It is going to cost a great deal
to do that; a lot less, however, than occupying that country for a
period of 4 more years. We have not been in any of these countries we
have been involved with in recent years less than 4 years. We hope to
be out of this situation in less than 4 years, and that is why I
support the $20.3 billion the President requested.
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. 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, the amendment offered by the Senator
from Arkansas is a revenue bill. It cannot originate under our
constitutional concepts in the Senate. It would create a blue-slip
situation in the House of Representatives. I do not want to put the
entire bill at risk by trying to include a tax bill in this
supplemental appropriations bill.
Therefore, I make the point of order it violates the pay-go
provisions of the Budget Act and ask that it be stricken.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I simply wish to say, prior to the Chair
ruling, that the Senator from Arkansas is a member of the Finance
Committee. She has studied this long and hard. I think it appropriate
she brought this before the Senate. I compliment and applaud her for
bringing this to the Senate's attention.
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, there are similar provisions in the
pending bill before the Senate. I renew my point of order.
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. 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. Making my request more specific, I make the point of
order that the amendment of the Senator from Arkansas is in violation
of section 302(f) of the Budget Act and I ask that it be stricken.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is sustained. The amendment
falls.
Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.

Amendment No. 1846

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf
of myself, Mr. Levin, Mr. Dorgan, Mrs. Clinton, and Ms. Landrieu.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are
set aside. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd], for himself, Mr.
Levin, Mr. Reed, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Dorgan, Mrs.
Clinton, and Ms. Landrieu, proposes an amendment numbered
1846.

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

(Purpose: To modify the report requirements with respect to the
Coalition Provisional Authority)

At the appropriate place insert the following:
Sec. 2309. (a) Reports of Coalition Provisional
Authority.--Not later than January 1, 2004, and every 90 days
thereafter, the Administrator of the Coalition Provisional
Authority (CPA) shall submit to the Committees on
Appropriations and Armed Services of the Senate and the House
of Representatives a report on all obligations, expenditures,
and revenues associated with reconstruction, rehabilitation,
and security activities in Iraq during the preceding 90 days,
including the following:
(1) Obligations and expenditures of appropriated funds.
(2) A project-by-project and program-by-program accounting
of the costs incurred to date for the reconstruction of Iraq,
together with the estimate of the Authority of the costs to
complete each project and each program.
(3) Revenues attributable to or consisting of funds
provided by foreign nations or international organizations,
and any obligations or expenditures of such revenues.
(4) Revenues attributable to or consisting of foreign
assets seized or frozen, and any obligations or expenditures
of such revenues.
(5) Operating expenses of the Authority and of any other
agencies or entities receiving funds appropriated by title.
(b) Comptroller General Audit, Investigations, and
Reports.--(1) The Comptroller General of the United States
shall

[[Page S12586]]

conduct an on-going audit of the Coalition Provisional
Authority, and may conduct such additional investigations as
the Comptroller General considers appropriate, to evaluate
the reconstruction, rehabilitation, and security activities
in Iraq.
(2) In conducting the audit and any investigations under
paragraph (1), the Comptroller General shall have access to
any information and records created or maintained by the
Authority, or by any other entity receiving appropriated
funds for reconstruction, rehabilitation, or security
activities in Iraq, that the Comptroller General considers
appropriate to conduct the audit or investigations.
(3) Not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment
of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit to the
Committees on Appropriations and Armed Services of the Senate
and the House of Representatives a report on the audit and
any investigations conducted under paragraph (1). The report
shall include information as follows:
(A) A detailed description of the organization and
authorities of the Authority.
(B) A detailed description of the relationship between the
Authority and other Federal agencies, including the
Department of Defense, the Department of State, the Executive
Office of the President, and the National Security Council.
(C) A detailed description of the extent of the use of
private contractors to assist in Authority operations and to
carry out reconstruction, rehabilitation, or security
activities in Iraq, including an assessment of--
(i) the nature of the contract vehicles used to perform the
work, including the extent of competition used in entering
into the contracts and the amount of profit provided in the
contracts;
(ii) the nature of the task orders or other work orders
used to perform the work, including the extent to which
performance-based, cost-based, and fixed-price task orders
were used;
(iii) the reasonableness of the rates charged by such
contractors, including an assessment of the impact on rates
of a greater reliance on Iraqi labor or other possible
sources of supply;
(iv) the extent to which such contractors performed work
themselves and, to the extent that subcontractors were
utilized, how such subcontractors were selected; and
(v) the extent to which the Authority or such contractors
relied upon consultants to assist in projects or programs,
the amount paid for such consulting services, and whether
such consulting services were obtained pursuant to full and
open competition.
(D) A detailed description of the measures adopted by the
Authority and other Federal agencies to monitor and prevent
waste, fraud, and abuse in the expenditure of appropriated
funds in the carrying out of reconstruction, rehabilitation,
and security activities in Iraq.
(E) A certification by the Comptroller General as to
whether or not the Comptroller General had adequate access to
relevant information to make informed judgments on the
matters covered by the report.
(4) The Comptroller General shall from time to time submit
to the Committees on Appropriations and Armed Services of the
Senate and the House of Representatives a supplemental report
on the audit, and any further investigations, conducted under
paragraph (1). Each such report shall include such updates of
the previous reports under this subsection as the Comptroller
General considers appropriate to keep Congress fully and
currently apprised on the reconstruction, rehabilitation, and
security activities in Iraq.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, 1 year ago this week, the President signed
the congressional resolution authorizing him to go to war against Iraq.
That signing was a historic moment for the United States. For the first
time in our history, the President asked Congress for authority to
launch an invasion against a sovereign nation that did not constitute a
clear and imminent threat to the safety of the American people. And for
the first time in our history, the President demanded that Congress
give him unconditional power to initiate war whenever he wanted,
limited by nothing but his own judgment. The President wanted war on
his own terms, and Congress granted him everything he asked for.
For the next 5 months, the President and his top advisors turned a
deaf ear to growing concerns about the administration's judgment. When
intelligence analysts warned that the White House was acting on
questionable conclusions, those analysts were ignored. When Members of
Congress dared to ask questions about the President's war plans, they
were branded as unpatriotic. When our oldest allies disagreed with the
argument that immediate war was the only answer, they were dismissed
and called irrelevant. Top administration officials who publicly
contradicted the President's rosy predictions were fired, and the
American public was kept in the dark about what Iraq would look like
after the war.
On several occasions, I stood on the floor and asked: After Iraq,
what? What shall we expect the morning after the war?
Confident that the reconstruction of Iraq was a job that could be
handled without involving Congress too much or the United Nations,
President Bush delegated the task to retired GEN Jay Garner, who
quietly went to work with support from the Pentagon. The American
people were not told much about General Garner or what he was doing in
Iraq. Most Members of Congress didn't know anything more about him than
what they read in the papers. So when General Garner was given his
walking papers and replaced with Ambassador Paul Bremer without
explanation or fanfare, Congress had no real information to judge what
the shake-up would mean for the United States occupation of Iraq.
In the days after President Bush made his flamboyant landing on the
aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln to announce to the world that the
United States had accomplished its mission in Iraq--that was the banner
headline over and above his head--most of the country was too
distracted celebrating the military triumph to think much about the
President's appointment of Paul Bremer to serve as a Presidential envoy
in Iraq. With the President declaring victory and the administration
continuing to assure the public that we would be welcomed as
liberators--a la Vice President Cheney--and that Iraq's oil revenues
would pay for reconstruction, the administration hoped that no one
would bother to notice the management changes it was making in Iraq.
The administration moved quickly to set up a reconstruction team on
the ground in Iraqi that would answer only to the President and the
Secretary of Defense. In May, the President issued a classified
National Security Directive creating the Coalition Provisional
Authority, CPA. That document remains classified, and the
administration has provided very little public information about the
powers and authorities of the CPA. All we really know from the White
House is that Ambassador Bremer, as administrator of the CPA, reports
to the President through the Secretary of Defense. But after the recent
announcement that National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice will be
coordinating reconstruction policy from within the White House, who
knows what the chain of command looks like today or will look like
tomorrow? Getting a clear picture of how the CPA operates has proved to
be difficult, but it is clear Ambassador Bremer wields an extraordinary
amount of power and independence in Iraq. And, if you don't believe it,
listen to this. On May 16, the CPA issued its first regulation in Iraq
in which it spelled out its authority in no uncertain terms. Section 1
of that regulation stated:

The CPA is vested with all executive, legislative, and
judicial authority necessary to achieve its objectives, to be
exercised under relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions,
including resolution 1483, and the laws and usages of war.
This authority shall be exercised by the CPA Administrator.

That is broad, broad, virtually without limitation, if the reading
means what it says. Let's read that again.

The CPA is vested with all executive, legislative, and
judicial authority.

Take a look at the Constitution of the United States. Let's see what
it says, in the very first article, the very first section of that
article, and then compare that authority with the authority I have just
read. Here is what article I, section 1, of the Constitution says about
the legislative authority.

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a
Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a
Senate and House of Representatives.

That is one sentence, and it vests all legislative powers in a
Congress of the United States.
Well, section 1 of the regulation, which I have just read, says it is
the CPA that is vested with all executive, legislative, and judicial
authority necessary to achieve its objectives. My, what authority that
is. It does not stop with just legislative authority. It talks about
executive, legislative, and judicial authority.
Read that again.

The CPA is vested with all executive, legislative, and
judicial authority necessary to achieve its objectives, to be
exercised under

[[Page S12587]]

relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions, including
resolution 1483, and the laws and usages of war. This
authority shall be exercised by the CPA Administrator.

There is a man mountain for you, with all that authority. That is a
powerful statement, especially for an agency that has never been
authorized by Congress and an administrator who was not confirmed by
the Senate for his position. How about that?
The CPA under Paul Bremer has the power to run the Iraqi Government
ministries, the power to appoint Iraqi officials, the power to award
lucrative private contracts for reconstruction. The CPA also oversees
local police and even sets public curfews in Baghdad.
Now the CPA is looking to further consolidate its powers with an
unprecedented request to spend over $20 billion of your money. I say to
you out there who are looking at this Chamber through those electronic
lenses there: It is your money, your money. But here we are going to
consolidate the powers of the CPA with an unprecedented request to
spend over $20 billion of the American taxpayers' money, your money,
with little oversight by the Congress.
Until now, the CPA has financed its various activities from a number
of different sources, including billions of dollars in seized Iraqi
assets. The CPA was not accountable to Congress for much of this
spending, and it made very little effort to keep Congress and the
public informed about the administration's reconstruction plans.

So, the White House let Paul Bremer maintain a low profile for months
in Iraq before the President finally spoke to the American people about
what was happening on the ground in Iraq.
But now the President has admitted that rebuilding Iraq will be a
much tougher job than he had promised, and it will come with a bigger
pricetag. I must say, however, the pricetag had never been mentioned.
We attempted to find out from the administration what the pricetag
would be, but the administration chose to stay mum about that. But now
we find this business of rebuilding Iraq is going to come with a big,
big pricetag. That means Paul Bremer needs more money, more of your
money. It is your money that Paul Bremer needs. So the administration
was forced to loosen its grip of secrecy, just long enough to send
Ambassador Bremer to testify before Congress about the need for
additional funding. And in one instance, when I asked Mr. Bremer when
he was before the Appropriations Committee, ``Will you find it possible
to appear before this committee again if the chairman so directs,''
what was Mr. Bremer's answer?

I'm too busy. I am too busy. I'm too busy.

I regret we don't have those hearings printed, but the transcripts
are around and those were his words:

I'm too busy.

Don't be fooled. The public relations campaign with Congress will
last only as long as it takes to get this massive bill pushed through
both Houses in one piece. In typical fashion, the administration has
been willing to say whatever Congress wanted to hear in order to get
its way. We heard a lot of talk about plans and accountability, but the
information given to Congress was long on rhetoric, short on substance.
After all of the detailed spending requests and so-called plans from
the CPA, what we are left with today is a bill before the Senate that
gives Paul Bremer a blank check. Did you hear it? Did you hear it? A
blank check, that is what it is. Give to Mr. Bremer a blank check, a
blank check to spend $20 billion as a start. However, once this bill
leaves Congress, the administration can throw its plans out the window
and restore tight controls over information to prevent any meaningful
oversight or scrutiny of its activities.
Is that the way you want your money managed? Congress cannot simply
trust the CPA to voluntarily cooperate with oversight of reconstruction
spending. This administration has a long track record. It would not
even take an elephant to remember how long that track record is. It has
a long track record of stonewalling Congress. And, so far, Iraq has
been no exception. The CPA took over the reins of Iraq's government 5
months ago, yet Congress still has very little useful information to
evaluate its progress in Iraq thus far, let alone the merits of future
spending needs. If Congress has any hope of holding the administration
accountable for the reconstruction plans it is proposing today,
Congress needs a mechanism to ensure accountability from the CPA.

Ambassador Bremer testified before Congress that the activities of
the CPA will be fully transparent and accountable, but some of his own
statements suggested that he was reluctant to cooperate with committee
oversight. In particular, I was troubled by comments he made about
congressional access to the CPA's financial records. When he testified
before the Appropriations Committee, Ambassador Bremer told the
committee that the CPA had detailed records of all of its receipts and
outlays that could be audited by Congress. However, when he appeared
before the Armed Services Committee only 3 days later, he said the
Office of Management and Budget was responsible for maintaining those
records, and Congress would have to go to the White House for access to
the CPA's records.
Throughout my long years in Congress, I have seen the White House
occupied by Presidents of both parties, and I know from experience that
one needs to be skeptical when referred to the White House for
oversight information. There is no reason why any arm of the executive
branch charged with making such significant spending decisions should
not be working directly with Congress. When we are talking about
handing over another $20 billion to the CPA, there is a real need for
Congress to confirm that the CPA has its finances in order and that the
CPA is managing the taxpayers' money--your money--responsibly.
The amendment that I and other Senators are offering will require the
Coalition Provisional Authority to report to Congress--how about that?
That is not asking too much--on its receipts and expenditures as the
reconstruction efforts move forward in Iraq.
Let me say that again.
This amendment will require the Coalition Provisional Authority, the
CPA, to report to Congress--yes; the people's branch of government--to
report to Congress on the CPA's receipts and expenditures as the
reconstruction efforts move forward in Iraq. These reports will be
submitted on a quarterly basis beginning on January 1, 2004. Building
on the reporting requirements already in the bill, this amendment calls
for an accounting of both appropriated funds and other sources, such as
oil revenues and foreign contributions. This is information that the
CPA is already tracking. So it shouldn't be too much of a burden to
share that information with Congress, especially given the CPA's
extraordinary flexibility in spending taxpayer dollars. Ambassador
Bremer assured the committee during the committee hearing that he would
comply with any reporting requirements Congress chose to include in
this legislation.
This amendment also directs the Comptroller General of the United
States to audit the spending records of the CPA. What is wrong with
that? How about that? The amendment also directs the Comptroller
General of the United States to audit the spending records of the CPA--
we should all be for that--so that the General Accounting Office can
provide Congress with a clear understanding of how reconstruction
activities are being managed in Iraq. In its report to Congress, the
General Accounting Office must outline the authorities and organization
of the CPA, the CPA's relationship to the White House and other
executive agencies, and the CPA's use of private contractors to perform
critical reconstruction services in Iraq.

I think most people would agree with the purpose here. Let me say it
again.
In its report to Congress, the GAO must outline the authorities and
organizations of the CPA, the CPA's relationship to the White House and
other executive agencies--and get this--and the CPA's use of private
contractors to perform critical reconstruction services in Iraq.
The most important power vested in Congress by the Constitution is
the power over the purse. Englishmen spent centuries and shed blood to
wrest that power from tyrannical monarchs and vest it in the people's
branch, the House of Commons. And our forbearers in our own country
brought with them that legacy, brought with them to these shores that
principle, that power over the purse vested in the people's

[[Page S12588]]

branch. So they wrote it in this Constitution which I hold in my hand.
Our Framers wrote it in there. Article I, section 9 of this
Constitution vests the power of the purse in this branch. That is where
it has been. That is where it is.
This power carries with it the duty to ensure that the people's
money--your money--is being spent wisely. Congress must be able to
follow that money wherever it goes, but right now our money may soon
disappear into a whirling storm of White House rhetoric and wartime
profiteering.
Without this amendment, following the money will only get harder as
the President continues to reorganize the chain of command in Iraq and
avoid straight answers to tough questions about the success of our
reconstruction efforts.
If the constitutional power of the purse means anything at all, it
must at least require that the people's elected representatives here in
Congress have a right to know how the Government is spending the
Nation's treasury. I urge the Senate to protect its own powers and live
up to its oversight responsibilities, and I urge Senators to support
this amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, there are a series of reporting
requirements in this bill already. I have conferred with the
leadership. We don't have any objection to this amendment by the
Senator from West Virginia. I am certain that in conference the House
is going to insist on consolidating some of these reports. We will be
glad to review that matter with the Senator when that occurs. But we
are happy to accept the amendment.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Senator. May we have a vote on
it?
Mr. STEVENS. Does the Senator want a rollcall vote?
Mr. BYRD. Yes. I would like a rollcall. It shows that it is a serious
amendment.
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 the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, if the Senator wants a vote on this
amendment, he is entitled to a vote. I shall not object to that. But I
want the Senate to know we have a Boxer amendment to require a report
on replacing troops with Iraqi forces or other non-U.S. forces to
secure areas in Iraq. We have an amendment by Mr. Feingold to provide
transparency and accountability with respect to the Coalition
Provisional Authority. He wishes to have an office of inspector general
in the Coalition Provisional Authority. As I understand it, he will
offer that amendment. We have an amendment offered by Senator McCain
and Senator Biden. They wish to have a GAO review on the effectiveness
of the Coalition Provisional Authority relief and reconstruction
activities, and a report quarterly to the congressional committees on a
similar matter to that suggested by Senator Byrd's amendment.
So if the Senator wishes a vote on his amendment, I am prepared to
agree to that; that will be the case. It would be my intention to
accept all of these amendments and take them to conference and see what
we can do to come out with a concept of a process of having adequate
information and transparency in the Coalition without burdening the
Coalition with a series of different types of reports and different
types of officers who will be looking over their shoulders and
demanding access to their offices and interviews of their personnel
when we are trying to get the business done over there.
I do not think a provisional authority, within an area with the kind
of suicide bombers we are seeing there on a daily basis, is something
we have to burden with a series of duplicating types of reports and
inspectors general and the comptroller general and his people there at
the same time.
So again I state to my friend I will not oppose the amendment. I will
vote for it. I assume it will get 100 votes. But in conference I intend
to see it to these reports are consolidated, and we have a concise--
concise--concept of the type of reports Congress needs to oversee the
activities of the Provisional Authority.
Does the Senator wish to renew his request for the yeas and nays?
Mr. BYRD. Yes. May I say, prior to doing that, this is not just one
more report. It is like the making of our laws, Mr. President. We have
the books full of laws, but we always see the need for enacting more
and more laws.
There are Ten Commandments. If we listen to the argument of the
distinguished Senator from Alaska--and he is a very distinguished
Senator--then one Commandment should have been enough; the others would
have been repetitive. That is not the case.
This is an important reporting requirement. I hope the Senate will
approve it. We are talking about $20 billion here. So I ask for the
yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I state again, I have serious question of
whether the Comptroller General of the United States is a replacement
for the Inspector General. That, in effect, is what the Senator's
amendment does. It creates the comptroller general as a constant
inspector general of everything that is going on under the Coalition
Provisional Authority.

I am going to reserve my opportunity to consolidate all of these
reports in conference. But I do agree we have the yeas and nays.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Comptroller General, General Accounting
Office is an arm of the Congress. Let the Congress carry out its proper
role of oversight under the Constitution. That is all I am asking for
here.
I thank the Senator.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I do not want to belabor the point. It is
an arm of the Congress, but this is an executive function concerning an
audit. We have created offices of the inspector general. Two Senators
have suggested inspectors general. I do not think this is the place for
a continuing presence of an arm of the Congress. But I will vote for
the Senator's amendment to take it to conference. As the Chair said,
there is a sufficient second.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a sufficient second.
Is there further debate on the amendment? If not, the question is on
agreeing to the amendment. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Edwards), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator
from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``aye.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 97, nays 0, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 383 Leg.]

YEAS--97

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

NOT VOTING--3

Edwards
Kerry
Lieberman
The amendment (No. 1846) was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, in view of the vote on the Byrd
amendment, I announce that we have a Durbin amendment, a Corzine
amendment, a Boxer amendment, and a Feingold amendment that pertain to
reporting. If those Senators are willing to offer

[[Page S12589]]

them now, I am prepared to accept them, and we will put them all
together when we get to conference. They have not been filed.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chambliss). The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the two
lists of amendments I now send to the desk be the only remaining first-
degree amendments in order to the bill other than those pending at the
present time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. And provided that second-degree amendments be in order
and they be relevant to the amendment to which they are offered.
Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, I thought we had on this
list--and I may have a different list--Senator Leahy has an amendment.
Mr. STEVENS. There are two Leahy amendments here.
Mr. REID. We have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. In just a moment we will ask for a rollcall vote on
Senator Graham's amendment, but I would like to yield to my friend,
Senator Feingold, to introduce an amendment, then to approve a series
of reporting amendments.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, through the Chair, to my friend from
Wisconsin, it is my understanding the Senator has two amendments.
Mr. FEINGOLD. That is right.
Mr. REID. One is a reporting amendment and one is on another subject.
I ask, since he has been waiting for such a long time, that he send his
reporting amendment to the desk. Then it is my understanding there are
a number of matters you wish to dispose of dealing with reporting
amendments. Then he would like to offer his amendment. If there is a
vote, we would vote on that and the Graham amendment at the same time.
Mr. STEVENS. I am not sure about voting on his amendment until we
know what it is. Is it on the list?
Mr. REID. Yes. At least he could offer it and we could vote later. He
has been waiting a long time.
Mr. STEVENS. I have a series of issues I wish to handle before we get
to any votes.
Mr. REID. That is fine.
Mr. STEVENS. Let me yield for the Senator to introduce his amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.

Amendment No. 1847

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I offer an amendment to the bill
concerning the inspector general for authority for Iraq. My
understanding is it is going to be accepted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are
set aside.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold] proposes an
amendment numbered 1847.

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

(Purpose: To provide transparency and accountability with respect to
the Coalition Provisional Authority)

On page 22, between lines 12 and 13, insert the following:
Sec. 316. (a) Of the amounts appropriated by chapter 1 of
this title under the heading ``Operation and Maintenance,
Army'' and available for the operating expenses of the
Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), $10,000,000 shall be
available for the establishment of the Office of the
Inspector General of the Coalition Provisional Authority and
for related operating expenses of the Office.
(b) The Office of the Inspector General of the Coalition
Provisional Authority shall be established not later than 30
days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(c)(1) The head of the Office of the Inspector General of
the Coalition Provisional Authority shall be the Inspector
General of the Coalition Provisional Authority.
(2) The Inspector General shall be appointed by the
President in accordance with, and shall otherwise be subject
to the provisions of, section 3 of the Inspector General Act
of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.), except that the person nominated for
appointment as Inspector General may assume the duties of the
office on an acting basis pending the advice and consent of
the Senate.
(3) The Inspector General shall have the duties,
responsibilities, and authorities of inspectors general under
the Inspector General Act of 1978. In carrying out such
duties, responsibilities, and authorities, the Inspector
General shall coordinate with, and receive the cooperation
of, the Inspector General of the Department of Defense.
(d)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), not later than
75 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and
every 10 days thereafter, the Inspector General of the
Coalition Provisional Authority shall submit to the
Committees on Appropriations and Foreign Relations of the
Senate and the Committees on Appropriations and International
Relations of the House of Representatives a report that sets
forth--
(A) an assessment of the financial controls of the
Coalition Provisional Authority;
(B) a description of any financial irregularities that may
have occurred in the activities of the Authority;
(C) a description of--
(i) any irregularities relating to the administration of
laws providing for full and open competition in contracting
(as defined in section 4(6) of the Office of Federal
Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 403(6))); and
(ii) any other irregularities related to procurement;
(D) a description of any actions taken by the Inspector
General to improve such financial controls or address such
financial irregularities;
(E) a description of the programmatic goals of the
Coalition Provisional Authority; and
(F) an assessment of the performance of the Coalition
Provisional Authority, including progress made by the
Coalition Provisional Authority in facilitating a transition
to levels of security, stability, and self-government in Iraq
sufficient to make the presence of the Coalition Provisional
Authority no longer necessary.
(2) The Inspector General of the Department of Defense
shall prepare and submit the reports otherwise required to be
submitted by the Inspector General of the Coalition
Provisional Authority under paragraph (1) until the earlier
of--
(A) the date that is 150 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act; or
(B) the date on which a determination is made by the
Inspector General of the Coalition Provisional Authority that
the Office of the Inspector General of the Coalition
Provisional Authority is capable of preparing timely,
accurate, and complete reports in compliance with the
requirements under paragraph (1).
(3) The reports under this subsection are in addition to
the semiannual reports required of the Inspector General by
section 5 of the Inspector General Act of 1978 and any other
reports required of the Inspector General by law.
(4) The Inspector General of the Coalition Provisional
Authority (or the Inspector General of the Department of
Defense, as applicable) shall publish each report under this
subsection on the Internet website of the Coalition
Provisional Authority.
(e) The Office of the Inspector General of the Coalition
Provisional Authority shall terminate on the first day that
both of the following conditions have been met:
(1) the Coalition Provisional Authority has transferred
responsibility for governing Iraq to an indigenous Iraqi
government; and
(2) a United States mission to Iraq, under the direction
and guidance of the Secretary of State, has undertaken to
perform the responsibility for administering United States
assistance efforts in Iraq.

Mr. FEINGOLD. My understanding is the chairman intends to accept this
amendment.
Mr. STEVENS. I yield to the Senator from Nevada to put in an
amendment for Senator Corzine to include in these amendments.

Amendment No. 1851

Mr. REID. I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator
Corzine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are
set aside.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for Mr. Corzine,
proposes an amendment numbered 1851.

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

(Purpose: To require the President to submit periodic reports to
Congress on the total projected costs of United States operations in
Iraq, including military operations and reconstruction efforts, through
fiscal year 2008)

On page 38, between lines 21 and 22, insert the following
new section:
Sec. 3001. Not later than 30 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, and every 90 days thereafter until
December 31, 2007, the President shall submit to each Member

[[Page S12590]]

of Congress a report on the projected total costs of United
States operations in Iraq, including military operations and
reconstruction efforts, through fiscal year 2008. The
President shall include in each report after the initial
report an explanation of any change in the total projected
costs since the previous report.

Amendments Nos. 1844, 1847, and 1851

Mr. STEVENS. I now call up amendments Nos. 1844, 1847, and 1851:
Senator Feingold's amendment, the Boxer amendment, and Senator
Corzine's amendment. They are all reporting amendments, requiring
reporting. I ask unanimous consent that they be considered en bloc and
agreed to en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments were agreed to en bloc.
Amendment No. 1844 is as follows:

(Purpose: To require a report on replacing U.S. troops with Iraqi
forces or other non-U.S. forces in secure areas of Iraq)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC  . REPORT ON REPLACEMENT OF U.S. TROOPS.

(a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
(1) The Coalition Provisional Authority states that 80
percent of Iraq is a permissive environment with people
returning to a normal pace of life, while 20 percent is less
permissive with entrenched Saddam loyalists, international
terrorists and general lawlessness hindering recovery
efforts.
(2) On September 9, Deputy Secretary of Defense John
Wolfowitz testified, ``. . . the predominantly Shia south [or
Iraq] has been stable and I would say far more stable than
most pre-war predications would have given you. And the mixed
Arab, Turkish, Kurdish north has also been remarkably stable,
again, contrary to fears than many of us had that we might
face large-scale ethnic conflict.''
(3) On September 14, Secretary of State Colin Powell
stated, ``We see attacks against our coalition on a daily
basis . . . but in many parts of the country things are quite
secure and stable.''
(4) The Coalition Provisional Authority states that a major
focus of its security efforts has been to increase Iraqi
participation in and responsibility for a safe and secure
Iraq.
(5) On September 14, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
stated, ``90 percent of the people in Iraq are now living in
an area that's governed by a city council, or a village
council.''
(6) The Coalition Provisional Authority reports that 60,000
Iraqis are now assisting in security, including 46,000 Iraqi
police nationwide.
(7) Of the 160,000 coalition military personnel serving in
Iraq, 20,000 are comprised of non-U.S. forces.
(b) Report.--Beginning 30 days after the enactment of this
Act, the President or his designee shall submit a monthly
report to Congress detailing--
(1) the areas of Iraq determined to be largely secure and
stable; and
(2) the extent to which U.S. troops have been replaced by
non-U.S. coalition forces, U.N. forces, or Iraqi forces in
the areas determined to be largely secure and stable under
this subsection.

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

Amendment No. 1805, As Modified

Mr. STEVENS. I call up an amendment numbered 1805 introduced by
Senator Graham and send a modification of that amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
amendment is so modified.
The amendment (No. 1805), as modified, is as follows:

On page 38, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
Sec. 2313. (a) Congress finds that--
(1) in a speech delivered to the United Nations on
September 23, 2003, President George W. Bush appealed to the
international community to take action to make the world a
safer and better place;
(2) in that speech, President Bush emphasized the
responsibility of the international community to help the
people of Iraq rebuild their country into a free and
democratic state;
(3) for a plan for Iraq's future to be appropriate, the
provisions of that plan must be consistent with the best
interests of the Iraqi people;
(4) premature self-government could make the Iraqi state
inherently weak and could serve as an invitation for
terrorists to sabotage the development of a democratic,
economically prosperous Iraq.
(b) It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) arbitrary deadlines should not be set for the
dissolution of the Coalition Provisional Authority or the
transfer of its authority to an Iraqi governing authority;
and
(2) no such dissolution or transfer of authority should
occur until the ratification of an Iraqi constitution and the
establishment of an elected government in Iraq.

Mr. STEVENS. I ask for adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1805), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1836

Mr. STEVENS. I ask that Senator Reid's amendment No. 1836 be laid
before the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now pending.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask for the adoption of that amendment.
It is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment
numbered 1836.
The amendment (No. 1836) was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1842, As Modified

Mr. STEVENS. I ask that the Senate consider amendment No. 1842 from
Senator Bingaman, as modified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
Mr. STEVENS. I send a modification to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
The amendment (No. 1842), as modified, is as follows:

At the end of title I, insert the following:
Sec. 316. (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following
findings:
(1) The National Guard and Reserves have served the Nation
in times of national crises for more than 200 years. The
National Guard and Reserves are a critical component of
homeland security and national defense.
(2) The current deployments of many members of the National
Guard and Reserve have made them absent from their
communities for an abnormally long time. This has diminished
the ability of the National Guard to conduct its State
missions.
(3) Many members of the National Guard and Reserves have
been on active duty for more than a year, and many more have
had their tours of active duty involuntarily extended while
overseas.
(b) Report on Utilization of National Guard and Reserves.--
(1) Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of
Representatives a report on the utilization of the National
Guard and Reserves in support of contingency operations
during fiscal year 2004.
(2) The report under this subsection shall include the
following:
(A) Information on each National Guard and Reserve unit
currently deployed, including--
(i) the unit name or designation;
(ii) the number of personnel deployed;
(iii) the projected return date to home station; and
(iv) the schedule, if any, for the replacement of the unit
with a Regular or multinational unit.
(B) Information on current operations tempo, including--
(i) the length of deployment of each National Guard and
Reserve unit currently deployed, organized by unit and by
State;
(ii) in the case of each National Guard and Reserve unit on
active duty during the two-year period ending on the date of
the report, the aggregate amount of time on active duty
during such two-year period; and
(iii) the percentage of National Guard and Reserve forces
in the total deployed force in each current domestic and
overseas contingency operation.
(C) Information on current recruitment and retention of
National Guard and Reserve personnel, including--
(i) any shortfalls in recruitment and retention;
(ii) any plans to address such shortfalls or otherwise to
improve recruitment or retention; and
(iii) the effects on recruitment and retention over the
long term of extended periods of activation of National Guard
or Reserve personnel.
(3) The report under this subsection shall be organized in
a format that permits a ready assessment of the deployment of
the National Guard and Reserves by State, by various
geographic regions of the United States, and by Armed Force.
(c) Report on Effects of Utilization of National Guard and
Reserves on Law Enforcement and Homeland Security.--(1) Not
later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall, in
consultation

[[Page S12591]]

with the chief executive officers of the States, submit to
Congress a report on the effects of the deployment of the
National Guard and Reserves on law enforcement and homeland
security in the United States.
(2) The report under this subsection shall include the
following:
(A) The number of civilian first responders on active duty
with the National Guard or Reserves who are currently
deployed overseas.
(B) The number of first responder personnel of the National
Guard or Reserves who are currently deployed overseas.
(C) An assessment by State of the ability of the States to
respond to emergencies without currently deployed National
Guard personnel.

Mr. STEVENS. I ask for consideration of the amendment.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Byrd be added as a
cosponsor of the Bingaman amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
If there is no further debate, the question is on agreeing to the
amendment, as modified.
The amendment (No. 1842), as modified, was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1838

Mr. STEVENS. I ask that the Senate consider Senator Reid's amendment
numbered 1838.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now pending.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this amendment offered by my friend from
Nevada increases spending by $3.4 billion that causes the underlying
bill to exceed the subcommittee allocation under section 302(b).
Therefore, I raise a point of order against the amendment pursuant to
section 302(f) of the Budget Act.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, before the Chair rules, I would simply say I
am willing to let this go without a recorded vote. The reason for that
is I have spoken to the chairman of the Armed Services Committee,
Senator Warner, and I have spoken to the ranking member, Senator Levin,
and Senator Warner has told me he has had a number of high-level
meetings with leadership in the House and people from the Pentagon, and
that there is every intention of being able to help American veterans.
There has been in existence now for more than 100 years a law that
someone who is disabled as a result of military service and also draws
retirement pay from the military cannot draw both. This is unfair.
I have worked on this issue now for several years, and we now have it
so people who are Purple Heart veterans are able to draw both their
disability and their retirement. What is contemplated by Senator
Warner, Senator Levin, and others is that that will be increased to up
to 50 percent--those who would be able to draw both their disability
and their retirement.
I hope that comes to be, as it is so important to the American
veterans. This is something that is bipartisan in nature. This
amendment before the Senate is sponsored by the Senator from Nevada,
the senior Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, and the senior Senator
from Arkansas, Mrs. Lincoln, and it is an issue that has bipartisan
support.
If we had a vote on it here, as we have had on a number of occasions,
regardless of the cost, as indicated on a number of other occasions, it
would pass. I think the incremental steps are something I do not
relish, but I am willing to accept that. And I do hope those who have
promised us action will be taken in the immediate future will do so.
Otherwise, I will be back with Senator McCain and Senator Lincoln at a
subsequent time and cause a vote to occur on this Senate floor.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Senator is correct. In the
authorization conference, this matter is being considered. That is one
reason I said it is with reluctance I make a point of order. But I ask
the Presiding Officer to rule on my point of order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order has been made, and the
point of order is sustained. The amendment falls.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I will consult with the distinguished
acting leader on the other side. Senator Graham does wish a rollcall
vote on his amendment No. 1806.
Mr. REID. I say to my friend, the distinguished Senator from Alaska,
I would ask that during the time we review that--it will take just a
few minutes--the Senator from Wisconsin be allowed to offer his
amendment. He has literally been here for hours.
If I could ask what the subject matter is of the amendment, through
the Chair to my friend from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Absolutely. Extending FMLA benefits to families of
National Guard members.
Mr. STEVENS. There are people leaving, and I do wish we would get an
agreement on when we could call for a rollcall vote on----
Mr. REID. The Senator from Wisconsin told me earlier today he would
take no more than 15 minutes to discuss his amendment.
Mr. STEVENS. Can we establish a vote on the Graham amendment at 6
o'clock?
Mr. REID. The only reason I am stalling a little bit here is I do not
know the subject matter of the Graham amendment.
Mr. STEVENS. The amendment was cleared, but because of a change he
wishes a rollcall vote.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, we would agree when the Senator from
Wisconsin completes his statement, which would be 15 minutes from the
time I give the floor to him, that there be a vote in relation to the
amendment of the Senator from Wisconsin, with no second-degree
amendments in order.
Mr. STEVENS. Senator Graham had a chance to explain the amendment to
us, but he has not explained it on the floor yet. He would like 5
minutes before the vote, and I would ask that the Senator be allowed 5
minutes after the Senator has completed his speech, and then following
that, we vote, as indicated by the Senator from Nevada, with no further
amendments in order.
Mr. REID. I would ask through the Chair to my friend, the
distinguished Senator from Alaska, are we going to vote only on Graham,
not on Feingold? Are we going to have two votes now?
Mr. STEVENS. We do not know anything about Senator Feingold's
amendment.
Mr. REID. So I would ask that my unanimous consent request apply only
to the amendment of the Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. STEVENS. Subject to the 5 minutes.
Mr. REID. We do not want time.
Mr. STEVENS. We join in that request, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator from Alaska state his
unanimous consent request?
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when Senator
Feingold has completed his remarks, the Senator from South Carolina be
recognized to speak for not more than 5 minutes on his amendment No.
1806, and following that time, there be no further amendments in order,
and we have a rollcall vote on amendment No. 1806.
Mr. REID. And I would ask for the modification, the amendment of the
Senator from South Carolina, as modified.

Amendment No. 1806, As Modified

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I send the modification to the desk so
there will be no misunderstanding about that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
Hearing none, it is so ordered. The amendment is modified.
The amendment (No. 1806), as modified, is as follows:

(Purpose: To express the sense of Congress that the removal of the
Government of Saddam Hussein has enhanced the security of Israel and
other United States allies)

On page 39, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
Sec. 3002. (a) Congress finds that--
(1) Israel is a strategic ally of the United States in the
Middle East;
(2) Israel recognizes the benefits of a democratic form of
government;
(3) the policies and activities of the Government of Iraq
under the Saddam Hussein regime contributed to security
concerns in the Middle East, especially for Israel;
(4) the Arab Liberation Front was established by Iraqi
Baathists, and supported by Saddam Hussein;
(5) the Government of Iraq under the Saddam Hussein regime
assisted the Arab Liberation Front in distributing grants to
the families of suicide bombers;
(6) the Government of Iraq under the Saddam Hussein regime
aided Abu Abass, leader of the Palestinian Liberation Front,
who was a mastermind of the hijacking of the Achille Lauro,
an Italian cruise ship, and is responsible for the death of
an American tourist aboard that ship; and
(7) Saddam Hussein attacked Israel during the 1990-1991
Persian Gulf War by launching

[[Page S12592]]

39 Scud missiles into that country and thereby causing
multiple casualties.
(b) It is the sense of Congress that the removal of the
Government of Iraq under Saddam Hussein enhanced the security
of Israel and other United States allies.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.

Amendment No. 1852

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on
behalf of myself, Senator Wyden, and Senator Dayton, and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are
set aside and the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold], for himself, Mr.
Wyden, and Mr. Dayton, proposes an amendment numbered 1852.

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

(Purpose: To enable military family members to take leave to attend to
deployment-related business and tasks)

On page 38, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following
new title:

TITLE III--LEAVE FOR MILITARY FAMILIES

SEC. 3001. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Military Families Leave
Act of 2003''.

SEC. 3002. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LEAVE.

(a) Entitlement to Leave.--Section 102(a) of the Family and
Medical Leave Act of 1993 (29 U.S.C. 2612(a)) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(3) Entitlement to leave due to family member's active
duty.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to section 103(f), an eligible
employee shall be entitled to a total of 12 workweeks of
leave during any 12-month period because a spouse, son,
daughter, or parent of the employee is a member of the Armed
Forces--
``(i) on active duty in support of a contingency operation;
or
``(ii) notified of an impending call or order to active
duty in support of a contingency operation.
``(B) Conditions and time for taking leave.--An eligible
employee shall be entitled to take leave under subparagraph
(A)--
``(i) while the employee's spouse, son, daughter, or parent
(referred to in the subparagraph as the `family member') is
on active duty in support of a contingency operation, and, if
the family member is a member of a reserve component of the
Armed Forces, beginning when such family member receives
notification of an impending call or order to active duty in
support of a contingency operation; and
``(ii) only for issues relating to or resulting from such
family member's--

``(I) service on active duty in support of a contingency
operation; and
``(II) if a member of a reserve component of the Armed
Forces--

``(aa) receipt of notification of an impending call or
order to active duty in support of a contingency operation;
and
``(bb) service on active duty in support of such operation.
``(4) Limitation.--No employee may take more than a total
of 12 workweeks of leave under paragraphs (1) and (3) during
any 12-month period.''.
(b) Schedule.--Section 102(b)(1) of such Act (29 U.S.C.
2612(b)(1)) is amended by inserting after the second sentence
the following: ``Leave under subsection (a)(3) may be taken
intermittently or on a reduced leave schedule.''.
(c) Substitution of Paid Leave.--Section 102(d)(2)(A) of
such Act (29 U.S.C. 2612(d)(2)(A)) is amended by inserting
``or subsection (a)(3)'' after ``subsection (a)(1)''.
(d) Notice.--Section 102(e) of such Act (29 U.S.C. 2612(e))
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Notice for leave due to family member's active
duty.--An employee who intends to take leave under subsection
(a)(3) shall provide such notice to the employer as is
practicable.''.
(e) Certification.--Section 103 of such Act (29 U.S.C.
2613) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(f) Certification for Leave Due to Family Member's Active
Duty.--An employer may require that a request for leave under
section 102(a)(3) be supported by a certification issued at
such time and in such manner as the Secretary may by
regulation prescribe.''.

SEC. 3003. LEAVE FOR CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES.

(a) Entitlement to Leave.--Section 6382(a) of title 5,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(3)(A) Subject to section 6383(f), an eligible employee
shall be entitled to a total of 12 workweeks of leave during
any 12-month period because a spouse, son, daughter, or
parent of the employee is a member of the Armed Forces--
``(i) on active duty in support of a contingency operation;
or
``(ii) notified of an impending call or order to active
duty in support of a contingency operation.
``(B) An eligible employee shall be entitled to take leave
under subparagraph (A)--
``(i) while the employee's spouse, son, daughter, or parent
(referred to in the subparagraph as the `family member') is
on active duty in support of a contingency operation, and, if
the family member is a member of a reserve component of the
Armed Forces, beginning when such family member receives
notification of an impending call or order to active duty in
support of a contingency operation; and
``(ii) only for issues relating to or resulting from such
family member's--
``(I) service on active duty in support of a contingency
operation; and
``(II) if a member of a reserve component of the Armed
Forces--

``(aa) receipt of notification of an impending call or
order to active duty in support of a contingency operation;
and
``(bb) service on active duty in support of such operation.

``(4) No employee may take more than a total of 12
workweeks of leave under paragraphs (1) and (3) during any
12-month period.''.
(b) Schedule.--Section 6382(b)(1) of such title is amended
by inserting after the second sentence the following: ``Leave
under subsection (a)(3) may be taken intermittently or on a
reduced leave schedule.''.
(c) Substitution of Paid Leave.--Section 6382(d) of such
title is amended by inserting ``or subsection (a)(3)'' after
``subsection (a)(1)''.
(d) Notice.--Section 6382(e) of such title is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(3) An employee who intends to take leave under
subsection (a)(3) shall provide such notice to the employing
agency as is practicable.''.
(e) Certification.--Section 6383 of such title is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(f) An employing agency may require that a request for
leave under section 6382(a)(3) be supported by a
certification issued at such time and in such manner as the
Office of Personnel Management may by regulation
prescribe.''.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, my amendment would bring a small measure
of relief to the families of our brave military personnel who are being
deployed for the ongoing fight against terrorism, the war in Iraq, and
other missions in this country and around the world.
The men and women of our Armed Forces undertake enormous sacrifices
in their service to our country. They spend time away from home and
from their families in different parts of the country and different
parts of the world and are placed into harm's way in order to protect
the American people and our way of life. And, of course, we owe them a
huge debt of gratitude for their dedicated service.
The ongoing deployments for the fight against terrorism and for the
campaign in Iraq are turning upside down the lives of thousands of
active duty, National Guard, and Reserve personnel and their families
as they seek to do their duty to their country and honor their
commitments to their families, and, in the case of the Reserve
components, to their employers as well. Today, there are more than
164,000 National Guard and Reserve personnel on active duty.
Some of my constituents are facing the latest in a series of
activations and deployments for family members who serve our country in
the military. Others are seeing their loved ones off on their first
deployment. All of these families share in the worry and concern about
what awaits their relatives and hope, as we do, for their swift and
safe return.
Recently, many of those deployed in Iraq have had their tours
extended beyond the time they had expected to stay. This extension has
sometimes played havoc with the lives of those deployed and their
families. Worried mothers, fathers, spouses, and children expecting
their loved ones home before Thanksgiving must now wait until months
after Christmas before their loved ones' much-anticipated homecoming.
The emotional toll is huge. So is the impact on a family's daily
functioning as bills still need to be paid, children need to get to
school events, and sick family members must still be cared for.
Our men and women in uniform face these challenges without complaint.
But we should do more to help them and their families with the many
things that preparing to be deployed requires.
Often, military personnel and their families are given only a couple
of days' notice that their units will be deployed. These dedicated men
and women then have only a very limited amount of time to get their
lives in order. For members of the National

[[Page S12593]]

Guard and Reserves, this includes telling their employers that they
will be deployed for, in many cases, up to a year and a half. I commend
the many employers around the country for their understanding and
support when an employee or a family member of an employee is called to
active duty.
In preparation for a deployment, military families often have to
scramble to arrange for child care, to pay bills, to contact their
landlords or mortgage companies, and take care of other things that
many of us, of course, deal with on a daily basis.
The amendment I offer today would allow eligible employees whose
spouses, parents, sons, or daughters are military personnel who are
serving on or called to active duty in support of a contingency
operation to use their Family and Medical Leave benefits for issues
relating to or resulting from that deployment.
These instances could include preparation for deployment or
additional responsibilities that family members take on as a result of
a loved one's deployment, such as child care.
Let me make sure there is no confusion about what this amendment does
and does not do. This amendment does not expand eligibility for FMLA to
employees not already covered by FMLA. It does not expand FMLA
eligibility to active duty military personnel. It simply allows those
already covered by FMLA to use those benefits in one additional set of
circumstances--to deal with issues directly related to or resulting
from the deployment of a family member.
I was proud to cosponsor and vote for the legislation that created
the landmark Family and Medical Leave Act during the early days of my
service to the people of Wisconsin as a Member of this body. This
important legislation allows eligible workers to take up to 12 weeks of
unpaid leave per year for the birth or adoption of child, the placement
of a foster child, to care for a newborn or newly adopted child or
newly placed foster child, or to care for their own serious health
condition or that of a spouse, a parent, or a child. Some employers
offer a portion of this time as paid leave in addition to other accrued
leave, while others allow workers to use accrued vacation or sick leave
for this purpose prior to going on unpaid leave.
Since its enactment in 1993, the FMLA has helped more than 35 million
American workers to balance responsibilities to their families and
their careers. According to the Congressional Research Service, between
2.2 million and 6.1 million people took advantage of these benefits in
the year 1999-2000.
Our military families sacrifice a great deal. Active duty families
often move every couple of years due to transfers and new assignments.
The 10 years since FMLA's enactment have also been a time where we as a
country have relied more heavily on National Guard and Reserve
personnel for more and more deployments of longer and longer duration.
The growing burden on these service members' families must be
addressed, and this amendment is one way to do so.
This amendment has the support of a number of organizations,
including the Wisconsin National Guard, the Military Officers
Association of America, the Enlisted Association of the National Guard
of the United States, and the National Partnership for Women and
Families.
We owe it to our military personnel and their families to do all we
can to support them in this difficult time. I hope that this amendment
will bring a small measure of relief to our military families.
I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
At the moment there is not a sufficient second.
Mr. STEVENS. I need time, I say to my friend, to review this with the
Armed Services Committee and the Government Affairs Committee before we
can consent to that. I am sure there will be a recorded vote at some
time, but I hope the Senator will accept a delay in that request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous unanimous consent
agreement, the Senator from South Carolina is recognized for 5 minutes.

Amendment No. 1806, As Modified

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, I hope this sense-of-
the-Senate resolution will pass unanimously.
The purpose of this resolution is to try to put in perspective what
has been achieved by Operation Iraqi Freedom. We have suffered greatly
in this country. The Iraqi people have suffered. We have lost soldiers,
sailors, airmen, and marines. We have spent a lot of money, but I argue
that we are much more secure as a nation; that there is one less
dictator in the world to help terrorists; and that dispensing with
Saddam Hussein's regime has been of particular benefit to our Nation,
the region, and the world.
But there is one nation where this has made a dramatic difference.
That is the State of Israel. This resolution says in very simple and
strong terms that disposing of the Saddam Hussein government has made
the State of Israel a more secure place. Why do we say that? During
Saddam Hussein's period of ruling, he paid suicide bombers, homicide
bombers, in Palestine money, and families of suicide and homicide
bombers, to go in and kill innocent Israeli citizens. So when he left,
there is one less person to fund people who are trying to destroy
peace.
Israel and the Palestinian people deserve to live side by side in
peace with two independent states. Saddam Hussein was providing money
to people, the Arab Liberation Front, whose goal was to put Israel in
the sea.
There is an element of people in that region who don't want to make
peace with Israel. They want to destroy the State of Israel. Saddam
Hussein made that possibility more likely by providing aid and comfort
and money. So when we took Saddam Hussein out, we made Israel more
secure. That is a good thing. I hope the Senate will join in unanimous
support of that concept.

The government under Saddam Hussein gave money to the master mind of
the hijacking of the Achille Lauro. The government of Saddam Hussein
launched 39 Scud missile attacks against the State of Israel. People
debate, should we have done it? Was it worth it? I argue strongly that
it was worth it, not only for us but for the State of Israel. The men
and women who have died to replace Saddam Hussein have died to make the
world more secure. It is heartbreaking to lose soldiers, sailors,
airmen, and marines, but one of the reasons we have a military is to
protect ourselves and our allies.
Every now and then in history people such as Saddam Hussein crop up.
If they are left alone, innocent people die unnecessarily. If they are
left alone, the forces of evil become stronger.
I admire our President who chose to stand up to Saddam Hussein. For
over 12 years he has violated every effort to rein him in. Force was
necessary. Force was costly. But the benefits of that force have made
the region safer, made the Iraqi people free for the first time in
decades, and made the State of Israel a more secure place to live.
Israel has been a good ally. I would ask all of my colleagues, if at
all possible, to legitimize Operation Iraqi Freedom in terms of making
Israel more secure because to say otherwise would be an untruth. Let it
be said that the men and women who sacrificed to make the Iraqi people
free have sacrificed in a way to make people in Israel and our own
country safer, more secure, and their hopes and dreams maybe will be
realized.
I ask for the yeas and nays. Senator McConnell would like to speak on
the measure, and I ask unanimous consent to make him a cosponsor of the
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Does the Senator seek the yeas and nays?
The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I was not informed about the request for
time. The agreement we have pending would say we have a vote following
the Senator's remarks. If there are Senators who wish to speak, I would
like to know who they are and how much time they want to speak so we
could change the agreement, at least have a vote. Members are coming
back, thinking they are going to vote in a few minutes.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. STEVENS. Yes.
Mr. REID. The unanimous consent agreement said that following the
statement of the Senator from Wisconsin, the Senator from South
Carolina would be recognized for 5 minutes,

[[Page S12594]]

and then we would vote. So we have people coming from all over the city
here to vote.
Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. If I may, Senator McConnell would like
to speak. He is here. You are right. I am sorry about the scheduling
problem. I ask the body to let Senator McConnell speak for whatever
time he needs on the amendment.
Mr. REID. Is that in the form of a unanimous consent request?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five minutes have been consumed. Does the
Senator from South Carolina seek consent for additional time?
Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Yes, I ask unanimous consent for an
additional 3 minutes for the Senator from Kentucky so he may speak on
this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have no objection to that request if
Senator McConnell can speak and then we can vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Kentucky is recognized for 3 minutes.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from South Carolina
for an excellent amendment. There is no ally of the U.S. and the world
that benefits more, as the Senator from South Carolina pointed out,
from the fall of Saddam Hussein than our good friends, the Israelis.
They have watched over the years during the Saddam Hussein regime when
he paid people to go into Israel and engage in suicide bombings. They
are extremely grateful that there is one less terrorist state in the
region to threaten Israel and the United States. In fact, you could
argue that Israel benefits every bit as much, if not more so, from the
change of regime in Iraq than we do in the United States.
I think this amendment is extremely important. Remember, Saddam
Hussein was launching Scud missiles into Israel during the Persian Gulf
war. So by changing the regime in Iraq, we have made the situation in
Israel dramatically safer than it would have been on top of all of the
other reasons why the change in regime in Iraq was in our own best
interests. So I thank the Senator from South Carolina for a very
important amendment that illustrates the significance of the fall of
Saddam Hussein and peace in the Middle East and a chance down the road
for there to be a final settlement between Israel and the Palestinians.
Mr. President, I am happy to yield the floor at this point.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not.
Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and
nays on the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Edwards), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator
from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). Are there any other Senators
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 95, nays 2, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 384 Leg.]

YEAS--95

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

NAYS--2

Bingaman
Chafee

NOT VOTING--3

Edwards
Kerry
Lieberman
The amendment (No. 1806), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I
move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, we are seeking to urge Members to raise
some of the amendments that they have indicated they want to have
considered so we might have some discussion of those amendments and
schedule them for a vote early tomorrow morning. I know Senator Byrd is
prepared to offer an amendment. But I yield to the leader.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. FRIST. At this juncture, we have a lot of amendments on both
sides of the aisle. We made progress today, although I think we are
going to be able to narrow down the number of amendments that people
have come forward with and given to the managers. Last night we made
real progress by taking amendments to the floor, debating the
amendments, and then voting this morning.
After talking to the Democratic leader and managers, it is very clear
that we should be able to do that tonight, if people will come forward
with those amendments and then stack those amendments tomorrow morning.
Right now, we cannot say with certainty what time that would be. The
goal would be to debate amendments tonight and stack those for an
appropriate time tomorrow morning.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I want to agree with the majority
leader. I think we did make progress last night. We had good
cooperation. A number of amendments were offered. We had votes on them
this morning. We want to replicate that tonight. I will be offering an
amendment shortly. I know a number of other Senators are planning to
offer amendments on our side.
Our expectation is we will have those votes, plus I think there are
five amendments pending that we would like to be able to dispose of,
either with a voice vote or a rollcall vote, tomorrow morning as well.
The majority leader noted we made a lot of progress today. We have a
finite list. I think it is important for Senators to come and limit the
amount of time that some of these votes may otherwise take. We can have
a good debate, but I think we have to get through a lot of work
tomorrow. The only way we can do it is if Senators will come to the
floor tonight.
As I say, I will offer an amendment now. Senator Feinstein is ready
to go with an amendment after I am finished. I don't know if there are
others on the Republican side, but we need to bring up four or five
amendments tonight. I think we can give the assurance to the majority
leader that we will be prepared to do that.
Mr. REID. Will the distinguished Democratic leader yield?
Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield.
Mr. REID. Did you ask consent that following the offering of your
amendment the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, be recognized to
offer her amendment?
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I referenced the fact that she was
prepared to offer it. I ask consent she be recognized after my
amendment has been offered.
Mr. STEVENS. Reserving the right to object, Madam President, we are
being asked to consent to an order. We have not even seen these
amendments. We don't even know the names on the amendments.
I remember, when the tables were turned, vehement objections to such

[[Page S12595]]

procedure. I object until I see the amendment to see whether we want to
stack them automatically for a vote tomorrow.
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, if I could just clarify, we are not
asking for consent that they be voted on tomorrow. I said it would be
helpful if they could be voted on tomorrow morning. I was just
indicating the sequence tonight and hoping to expedite the
consideration of these amendments--that after I lay my amendment down
and make comments relating thereto, that Senator Feinstein be
recognized so she could do the same. If the Senator from Alaska chooses
not to do that, we can accommodate him with whatever suggestions he may
have for how we do this.
Mr. STEVENS. Is this the loan amendment of the Senator from
California?
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. It is my only amendment.
Mr. STEVENS. Is it on the list?
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. It is the one I had with Senator Domenici and which
Senator Domenici is no longer on.
Mr. STEVENS. It would be nice to see it.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. It is at the desk.
Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I would be happy to bring one over.
Mr. STEVENS. I withdraw my objection.
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I renew the request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 1854

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, if there are no other Senators seeking
recognition, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the pending
amendment, and I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Daschle] proposes an
amendment numbered 1854.

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

(Purpose: To achieve the most effective means of reconstructing Iraq
and to reduce the future costs to the American taxpayer of such
reconstruction by ensuring broad-based international cooperation for
this effort)

At the end of title II, add the following:
Sec. 2313. (a) Limitation on Amount of Future Funds
Available for Iraq Reconstruction Programs.--Notwithstanding
any other provision of this Act or any other provision of
law, the amount of appropriated funds that may be obligated
and expended for Iraq reconstruction programs may not exceed
the current appropriated amount for Iraq reconstruction
programs unless--
(1) the President certifies to Congress that the amount of
appropriated funds to be so obligated and expended for Iraq
reconstruction programs is equal to or exceeded by an amount
of contributions from the international community for Iraq
reconstruction programs; or
(2) the President--
(A) determines that, notwithstanding the lack of
contributions by the international community for Iraq
reconstruction programs in an amount described in paragraph
(1), the obligation and expenditure of appropriated funds for
Iraq reconstruction programs in excess of the current
appropriated amount for Iraq reconstruction programs is in
the national security interests of the United States; and
(B) submits to Congress a written notification on that
determination, including a detailed justification for the
determination.
(b) Construction With Later Enacted Provisions of Law.--
This section may not be superseded, modified, or repealed
except pursuant to a provision of law that makes specific
reference to this section.
(c) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) The term ``current appropriated amount for Iraq
reconstruction programs'' means the aggregate amount
appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act, and by
any Act enacted before the date of the enactment of this Act,
for Iraq reconstruction programs.
(2)(A) the term ``Iraq reconstruction programs'' means
programs to address the infrastructure needs of Iraq,
including infrastructure relating to electricity, oil
production, public works, water resources, transportation and
telecommunications, housing and construction, health care,
and private sector development.
(B) The term does not include programs to fund military
activities, (including the establishment of national security
forces), public safety (including border enforcement, police,
fire, and customs), and justice and civil society
development.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, we have been debating this critical
piece of legislation now for over a week. Most of the debate has
properly centered on the immediate issues presented by the bill before
us: How much of the $20 billion the President is seeking for
reconstruction of Iraq should American taxpayers provide, and under
what terms and conditions should they provide it?
We will have an opportunity tomorrow to talk about a number of
specific amendments dealing with loan relationships with Iraq and the
probability that the debate centering on whether or not Iraq should be
required to take some of the assistance in the form of a loan will be
resolved before the end of the week.
There are widely divergent and strongly held views within this
Chamber about how we should answer the questions involving loans and
grants, and what responsibilities Iraq should have.
While Senate passage of $87 billion to secure and rebuild Iraq seems
certain, each of us knows the amount contained in this bill is not
sufficient to complete the task. The administration itself has argued
that we may need another $55 billion beyond the request made in this
appropriations bill today. We don't know how we will do in the donors'
conference. But I am told the best we can expect at this point is about
$3 billion from the international community. If it is still accurate
that $55 billion may be required, and that $3 billion of that may be
provided today at least--and that is over a period of time, and in some
cases we are told that it could be 4 or 5 years before some of that $3
billion is actually committed--then obviously rebuilding Iraq would
take many more years and many tens of billions of dollars in addition
to what is now being considered within this legislation.
The amendment I am offering tonight simply requires that the
President do what he said he will do--work with the international
community to ensure that the American taxpayer does not continue to act
alone or largely alone in picking up future reconstruction costs. The
amendment simply seeks to ensure that the international community is an
equal partner in any future reconstruction costs beyond those contained
in the bill before us.
Basically, what we are saying is we will make our decision about the
$87 billion, but we recognize this may not be the last request; that
there will be additional needs. This amendment simply says that as we
consider those additional needs, we ask the President to certify that
other nations are paying their fair share of any future costs beyond
the $87 billion for the occupation and rebuilding of Iraq before he
uses additional American taxpayer dollars to finance these efforts.
I want to emphasize that it doesn't touch one dime of the $87 billion
request. Other amendments will seek to address those concerns, and
obviously I intend to support them. This pending amendment simply says
to the President: You must provide some assurance that the
international community will support our efforts to expend additional
funds beyond the $87 billion for Iraq's reconstruction.
This amendment will not affect security-related expenditures. No
limitations are placed on the President's ability to expend funds for
our troops, Iraqi troops, or for Iraqi public safety programs such as
border enforcement, police, fire and customs. And no limitations are
placed on the President's ability to commit funds to develop Iraq's
justice system.

If the President is unable to get the international community to pay
its fair share of future Iraqi construction costs, the amendment
permits the President to expend still more taxpayer dollars on Iraq's
reconstruction with one provision. That provision is that he certify to
Congress that additional U.S. expenditures on Iraq's reconstruction are
in our national security interests. We don't tie the President's hands.
We permit him to get everything he is asking for today--enough to
stabilize and rebuild Iraq for a year according to the administration's
estimates. It gives him time to round up additional support for our
efforts in Iraq should he deem it necessary to ask America's taxpayers
to provide additional funds. And we give

[[Page S12596]]

him a waiver if he fails to secure the additional international
support.
More than 6 months after the end of the Hussein regime, the cost of
rebuilding and securing Iraq, both in the lives lost and in money now
expended, appear without end. Now more than ever, we need to engage the
support of the international community prior to the donors' conference,
and this amendment would allow us to do that. The entire world will
benefit from a democratic and prosperous Iraq. The entire world has an
obligation to help us build a better future for the Iraqi people.
As the President noted just last month in his address about his
administration's efforts in Iraq, ``we are committed to expanding
international cooperation in the reconstruction and security of Iraq.''
This amendment provides the President the leverage to make that promise
a reality.
I hope our colleagues will endorse this amendment on a bipartisan
basis. This is simply an opportunity for us to say from here on out,
regardless of what you may think of the $87 billion, the time has come
for the international community to participate, and it is critically
important that we send that message to the donors' conference when we
have that occasion to do so later on this month.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
California is recognized.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Madam President.

Amendment No. 1848

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

The Senator from California [Mrs. Feinstein], for herself
and Mrs. Boxer, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Johnson, and
Mrs. Murray, proposes an amendment numbered 1848.

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

(Purpose: To require reports on the United States strategy for relief
and reconstruction efforts in Iraq, and to limit the availability of
certain funds for those efforts pending determinations by the President
that the objectives and deadlines for those efforts will be
substantially achieved)

Strike section 2309 and insert the following:
Sec. 2309. (a) Limitation on Availability of Funds for
Relief and Reconstruction in Iraq Pending Determinations by
the President.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this
Act, of the amount appropriated by this title under the
heading ``Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund''--
(1) $6,770,000,000 shall be available 120 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, but only if the President
determines under subsection (b)(1) that the objectives and
associated deadlines referred to in that subsection have been
substantially met; and
(2) $6,770,000,000 shall be available 240 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, but only if the President
determines under subsection (b)(2) that the objectives and
associated deadlines referred to in that subsection have been
substantially met.
(b) Determinations.--(1) Not later than 120 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall
determine whether or not the objectives, and associated
deadlines, for relief and reconstruction efforts in Iraq, as
specified in the report under subsection (c), have been
substantially met.
(2) Not later than 240 days after the date of the enactment
of this Act, the President shall determine whether or not the
objectives, and associated deadlines, for relief and
reconstruction efforts in Iraq, as specified in the most
current report under subsection (d), have been substantially
met.
(c) Initial Report on Relief and Reconstruction.--Not later
than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the
President shall submit to Congress a report on the United
States strategy for activities related to post-conflict
security, humanitarian assistance, governance, and
reconstruction to be undertaken as a result of Operation
Iraqi Freedom. The report shall include information on the
following:
(1) The distribution of duties and responsibilities
regarding such activities among the agencies of the United
States Government, including the Department of State, the
United States Agency for International Development, and the
Department of Defense.
(2) A plan describing the roles and responsibilities of
foreign governments and international organizations,
including the United Nations, in carrying out such
activities.
(3) A strategy for coordinating such activities among the
United States Government, foreign governments, and
international organizations, including the United Nations.
(4) A strategy for distributing the responsibility for
paying costs associated with reconstruction activities in
Iraq among the United States Government, foreign governments,
and international organizations, including the United
Nations, and for actions to be taken by the President to
secure increased international participation in peacekeeping
and security efforts in Iraq.
(5) A comprehensive strategy for completing the
reconstruction of Iraq, estimated timelines for the
completion of significant reconstruction milestones, and
estimates for Iraqi oil production.
(d) Subsequent Reports on Relief and Reconstruction.--(1)
Not later than 60 days after the submittal of the report
required by subsection (c), and every 60 days thereafter
until all funds provided by this title are expended, the
President shall submit to Congress a report that includes
information as follows:
(A) A list of all activities undertaken related to
reconstruction in Iraq, and a corresponding list of the funds
obligated in connection with such activities, during the
preceding 60 days.
(B) A list of the significant activities related to
reconstruction in Iraq that the President anticipates
initiating during the ensuing 60-day period, including--
(i) the estimated cost of carrying out the proposed
activities; and
(ii) the source of the funds that will be used to pay such
costs.
(C) Updated strategies, objectives, and timelines if
significant changes are proposed regarding matters included
in the report required under subsection (c), or in any
previous report under this subsection.
(2) Each report under this subsection shall include
information on the following:
(A) The expenditures for, and progress made toward, the
restoration of basic services in Iraq such as water,
electricity, sewer, oil infrastructure, a national police
force, an Iraqi army, and judicial systems.
(B) The significant goals intended to be achieved by such
expenditures.
(C) The progress made toward securing increased
international participation in peacekeeping efforts and in
the economic and political reconstruction of Iraq.
(D) The progress made toward securing Iraqi borders.
(E) The progress made toward securing self-government for
the Iraqi people and the establishment of a democratically
elected government.
(F) The progress made in securing and eliminating munitions
caches, unexploded ordinance, and excess military equipment
in Iraq.
(G) The measures taken to protect United States troops
serving in Iraq, and an estimated schedule of United States
troop strengths in Iraq for each ensuing 120-day period.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I believe this amendment to this
supplemental would provide some additional transparency and oversight
as to how the $20.3 billion in reconstruction funding is spent. The
amendment essentially releases the appropriation of the $20.3 billion
in three tranches. These tranches are not fenced, but they are
conditioned on the President presenting a reconstruction plan to
Congress with specific goals and timetables, and reporting to Congress
on how that plan is being implemented.
The amendment began as a bipartisan amendment. Unfortunately, at this
stage it is not, but it is cosponsored by Senators Murray, Durbin,
Johnson, Clinton, and Boxer.
Specifically, the amendment would provide for the immediate release
of one-third of the $20.3 billion for reconstruction in Iraq--that is
$6.77 billion--with the President required to provide Congress with a
comprehensive plan for Iraqi reconstruction. The plan would include
goals and timetables for specific reconstruction activities.
Second, it would provide for the release of the remaining $13.54
billion requested in two equal disbursements of $6.77 billion, the
second tranche after 120 days--or 4 months--and the final after 240
days. Both disbursements would be subject to a Presidential
determination that the goals and timetables spelled out in these
detailed reports are being met.

Third, this would require that the President submit reports to
Congress every 60 days about how the money is spent.
What is the purpose of this? This is a lot of money. The American
public are divided on whether we should spend $20 billion
reconstructing Iraq or we should give it for deficit reduction or to
priorities in this country. There is no plan. We do not know exactly
how this money is going to be spent.
What this amendment aims to do is provide a mechanism for both a
certification process by the President that the goals and timetables
are being met and for regular reports to this Congress about how that
is taking place. That does not seem to me to be too much to ask.

[[Page S12597]]

In doing so, it also gives us the ability to review how the money is
being spent, what costs are being incurred, who else is contributing,
and what progress is being made in meeting important security,
political, and economic reconstruction milestones. These are
significant improvements.
It is hard for me to understand why the administration does not want
this to be done, why the administration expects to be given a blank
check, and this body that is charged with the purse strings is not able
to carry out diligent oversight.
There may be a significant disagreement among Members of the Senate
about the wisdom of a course of action which has led us to this point
in Iraq. But now that the United States is in Iraq, it is clear to me
we must stay the course. We must rebuild the infrastructure. We must
prevent civil war. We must see to it that Iraq does not become a base
for terror and instability throughout the region.
Indeed, from a national security perspective, I strongly believe the
United States cannot turn tail and run. Instead, we must see to it that
a stable governmental structure and a viable economy, apart from
Saddam's tyrannical dictatorship, can in fact be put in place. If the
United States were to pull out without completing the job--which
rejection of the supplemental would mean--I believe Iraq would
inevitably see civil war and a return to the Baathist regime, perhaps
headed by someone as bad as or worse than Saddam Hussein. If the United
States were to cut and run, as we did in Lebanon, or more recently in
Somalia, we would send precisely the wrong message to both our friends
and our foes around the world.
For many, the challenges we now face in Iraq illustrate the
shortcomings of a doctrine of unilateral preemption and preventive war
to deal with an asymmetrical threat. When we use force against a state
to seek regime change, we are left with the inescapable reality and
role that we have today, and that is nation building. There is no other
way to put it. But once there, we must complete the task.
As much as I may wish we could structure this package as loans, that
there be greater international contributions to the reconstruction
effort, that Iraqi oil could be quickly brought on line to underwrite
costs, that some of the funds earmarked to be spent in Iraq could be
spent on domestic priorities instead, or that we pay for this
supplemental by deferring a large tax cut for Americans earning more
than $340,000 a year, thus far, all those options have been debated and
voted down in this body. I voted for all these amendments, both in
committee and on the floor.
But today the United States has an inescapable responsibility in
Iraq. It is clear to me that now we are there, we must win the peace.
However, we, as a Senate, also have a responsibility, to know what the
plan is, to be able to buy into that plan, to understand the goals and
the timetables of this reconstruction effort, to know when a
constitution will be written, to know when a government can be turned
over, and to understand what specific projects are going to be
undertaken.
This amendment asks for nothing more than that. It is justified, I
believe, because it does just that. I had five Republican sponsors.
Apparently they were weaned off by the White House. But this resolution
was carefully crafted not to create a problem for the administration
but to say, as a Senate, we have an absolute right to know the details,
to know the timelines, to know the plans, and you, Mr. President, have
an obligation to report to us on what they are and to certify that what
you say is actually happening. That is all this amendment does. It does
not fence funds. It does not require another vote by this body. But it
does say, if we support you, you have an obligation to let us know what
you are doing, how you are doing it, and the timelines of completing
the mission. I don't think that is too much to ask.

Along with my prior cosponsors, before they dropped off, we worked
hard on this. This was negotiated not to present an encumbrance but to
present a justifiable reporting requirement with certification by the
President. The only thing was that the money would be released in three
equal tranches 4 months apart.
I have a very hard time, unless people do not want to say what they
are doing, as to why this amendment would not be acceptable to the
other side of this aisle as well as to this side of this aisle. It is
my sincere hope that by some miracle we could get that concurrence.
The work we have yet to do in Iraq is consequential. How do we
stabilize Iraq? It is a nation with a long and bloody history of tribal
rivalries. It has known only despotism and tyranny. How do we plant the
seeds of democracy? What is the timeline for that? This country has
never known democracy. How do we rebuild an economy shattered by years
of neglect, repression, and war? I believe we can accomplish this job.
Iraq could well become a beacon of stability in this volatile area. But
it is a tall order.
In conclusion, I believe the amendment is a well-thought-out approach
that gives Congress and the American people a more meaningful and
substantive oversight role in the reconstruction of Iraq and it says to
this administration, we will work with you, we will stay the course,
but the American people must know where that course will lead us and
how we are going to get there. This amendment asks for no more and no
less.
I yield the floor.
Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator respond to a question?
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I would be happy to.
Mr. STEVENS. Is it the Senator's intention that the money, one-third,
be available at the end of 120 days?
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. No; the first one-third right away; the second third
4 months later; the third third in another 4 months. At 120, 240 days.
Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I request the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. I state for the information of Senators, we will make
some agreements concerning time for the vote to take place tomorrow on
the Senator's amendment.
I will oppose the amendment. It is an amendment that would limit the
discretion and use of these funds. These funds are designed to as
quickly as possible bring about the reconstruction of Iraq and the
training of Iraqis to take over their own affairs, to defend
themselves, to provide their own security, provide their own water,
provide their own electricity, run their own schools--a whole series of
things to have this money available, as the Senator says, in the
tranches. We can do so much for 120 days. You have to wait for another
120 days before you can have the next money, and another 120 days for
the next money.

Now, when you look at that, what it really means is you are going to
have to decide we are going to be there for at least a year just doing
what is designed in this process to be an upfront program to move
quickly as possible to turn this government back to them.
I think that is a restriction on the use of these funds that would
hamper the ability of Ambassador Bremer and General Abizaid to carry
out their instructions they have already received from the Congress and
the instructions that are generally contained in this bill.
It is my intention to speak further on the amendment tomorrow, but
just so there would be no question about it, I will oppose the
Senator's amendment and urge that it be defeated. It remains to be seen
whether I will ask to table the amendment or to just have a vote on it.
We will determine that tomorrow.
But I do thank the Senator for her response to my question, and I
yield the floor on this matter.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coleman). The Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I believe the yeas and nays were
granted, so there will be a vote; is that not correct?
Mr. STEVENS. There will be a vote, but we will confer with the
Senator when that vote will occur sometime tomorrow. Last-vote notices
have gone out for tonight.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator.
Mr. President, I would like to make one further point, just to debate
this.

[[Page S12598]]

There are many of us who believe the very size of the supplemental
means we are going to be in Iraq for a substantial period of time, and,
most probably, the supplemental is meant to run through the election.
That is the inescapable real life that we live.
So we look at this effort as one that is a joint effort between the
White House and this Senate and this House in the sense that we are
prepared to stay the course provided you share with us what the plan
is, what the goals are, what the timetables for achieving the mission,
in effect, are.
It is hard for me to understand how more than $6 billion could be
used in a 4-month period. So nothing is held up. It is three equal
tranches. I have a hard time, with what I do know about it, envisioning
more than $6 billion being spent in a 4-month period.
So I do not believe this amendment is any kind of an encumbrance on
the administration at all. It is simply a request for oversight, which
I believe is our constitutional duty.
Mr. STEVENS. 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. NELSON of Florida. 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. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set
aside the pending amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 1858

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

The Senator from Florida [Mr. Nelson] proposes an amendment
numbered 1858.

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

(Purpose: To set aside from certain amounts available for the Iraq
Relief and Reconstruction Fund, $10,000,000 for the Family Readiness
Program of the National Guard)

At the end of title II, add the following:
Sec. 2313. Of the amounts appropriated by chapter 2 of this
title under the heading ``OTHER BILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE
FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO THE PRESIDENT'' under the heading
``Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund'', other than amounts
available under such heading for security (including public
safety requirements, national security, and justice),
$10,000,000 shall be available only for the Family Readiness
Program of the National Guard.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, as many of our colleagues are
aware, the National Guard has undergone a difficult year with their
rapid mobilization and deployment to Iraq and a redeployment date that
continues to slip. This has happened to the National Guard in State
after State. It has particularly happened with regard to Florida.
Florida was actually mobilized the day after Christmas. They went into
the armories and started packing their gear. Many, of course, thought
it was going to be a very short war, as it was. The military conflict
was successfully prosecuted by General Tommy Franks. But all of them
were clearly understanding there was the likely possibility they were
going to be gone for a year. What they did not expect, with the
occupation having been as difficult as it has, was that they were going
to be extended, in some cases, up to 16, 17, and perhaps even 18 months
from when they first came in to start packing up at the armory of their
National Guard unit.

In State after State, these National Guard units have been so
effectively trained and, given the adequate and up-to-date equipment in
the field, they have performed so admirably. That is clearly the case
with the 124th Infantry, which consists of three battalions from
Florida. They are so good, they want to continue to keep them. That is
like a double-edged sword. Our Guard is so good, and yet they have
families, they have employers, and they are making a financial
sacrifice. They are prepared to do that. Now that we are offering these
supplemental appropriations for Iraq, there is something we can do.
It is my hope we are going to get to the point that the managers will
accept this amendment. I have offered this amendment. I may not have to
call for a vote because I think it might be accepted.
This amendment provides $10 million for the Family Readiness Program.
Right now that program does not have any funding. This program for the
National Guard has 396 family assistance centers around the United
States. These assistance centers are the primary point of assistance to
the families on items such as unit information--this is the National
Guard; this is not the regular Army--on referral to medical, financial,
social services, and counseling for the families.
Why do families need this assistance? Because often those families
are suffering financial hardship. Their loved one as a civilian was
earning a certain salary, and when they go on active duty, they are
earning, in many cases, a much lower salary. Or, goodness gracious,
let's not hope they are self-employed and that business is not being
tended to while they are being extended. They all understood the
sacrifice they were going to make, and they were willing to make that
sacrifice because they are loyal citizens ready to fight for the
interests of their country.
The simple fact is, they need some assistance through these family
assistance centers, and there is no funding set aside for this critical
task.
Out of the $15 billion--not the $20 billion because $5 billion of
that is going to assist in building up an Iraqi security and police
force--but out of the remaining $15 billion of the $87 billion
supplemental appropriations, that is going to reconstruction, the
infrastructure needs in Iraq, I respectfully suggest to our colleagues
that we need to put some money into these family assistance centers
through the Family Readiness Program of the National Guard.
In August and just recently during the last recess when I was home, I
ended up having 25 town hall meetings. I met with innumerable families.
I am telling you, the support from these family assistance centers is
often their Rock of Gibraltar, where they get information, where they
share with each other, where, if they are in financial distress, they
can get counseling, and if the financial distress leads to medical
problems, they can get the right medical referrals. This is the least
we can do for our people whose loved ones back home are often taking
the brunt.
Today I seek support for those soldiers in the National Guard who
have supported our mission in Iraq so bravely and are serving far from
home and their loved ones.
I will stop my comments right there. I could go on. Does the manager
of the bill have any questions for me? I will be happy to respond. I
yield to the manager, the Senator from Montana.
Mr. BURNS. The Senator from Florida has explained his amendment very
well. I have no questions.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Then, Mr. President, I yield the floor and, at
the appropriate time, I will call for the vote, unless it is the
pleasure of the managers of the bill that they want to accept the
amendment as part of a package.
Mr. BURNS. 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. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask that the pending amendment be set
aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 1859

Mr. REID. I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator
Landrieu.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for Ms. Landrieu,
proposes an amendment numbered 1859.

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

[[Page S12599]]

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To promote the establishment of an Iraq Reconstruction
Finance Authority and the use of Iraqi oil revenues to pay for
reconstruction in Iraq)

On page 38, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following
new section:
Sec. 2313. (a) The President shall direct the head of the
Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, in coordination with
the Governing Council of Iraq or a successor governing
authority in Iraq, to establish an Iraq Reconstruction
Finance Authority. The purpose of the Iraq Reconstruction
Finance Authority shall be to obtain financing for the
reconstruction of the infrastructure in Iraq by
collateralizing the revenue from future sales of oil
extracted in Iraq. The Iraq Reconstruction Finance Authority
shall obtain financing for the reconstruction of the
infrastructure in Iraq through--
(1)(A) issuing securities or other financial instruments;
or
(B) obtaining loans on the open market from private banks
or international financial institutions; and
(2) to the maximum extent possible, securitizing or
collateralizing such securities, instruments, or loans with
the revenue from the future sales of oil extracted in Iraq.
(b) It is the policy of the United States that payment of
the cost of reconstruction in Iraq, other than payment made
with funds made available in this title under the subheading
``Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund'' under the heading
``OTHER BILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO
THE PRESIDENT'' or made available by a foreign country or an
appropriate international organization, should be the
responsibility of the Iraq Reconstruction Finance Authority.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, the amendment establishes the Iraq
Reconstruction Finance Authority. The amendment states the United
States will not commit further grants toward Iraq's reconstruction
beyond the $20.3 billion requested by the President. Any further
monetary commitments by the United States should be secured through the
Iraq Reconstruction Finance Authority using Iraq's revenues from oil
production. This amendment does not cut the $20.3 billion requested by
President Bush.
There can be no doubt that America must participate in Iraq's
reconstruction. However, direct grants are not the only means of
providing reconstruction dollars.
RAND reports that U.S. post-war reconstruction efforts in seven
conflicts since World War II have averaged 7 years in duration. We must
develop a sustainable means of financing Iraq's reconstruction. The
American people will not support giving money to Iraq for 7 years when
Iraq possesses well over 112 billion barrels of oil, valued at least
$2.5 trillion at $22 a barrel, that could be used to finance Iraq's
reconstruction. RAND and the World Bank report Iraq's reconstruction
will cost at least another $36 billion. The Institute of International
Finance says the price tag will hit $75 billion. Ambassador Bremer
testified before the Appropriations Committee that the administration
will ask for little or no money next year for Iraq's reconstruction,
yet non-partisan studies indicate more funding will be necessary.
Conservative estimates say Iraq has 112 billion barrels of oil in its
reserve, with possibly the same amount undiscovered. Conservative
estimates say Iraq will generate $28 billion in oil revenues in 2004,
3.5 million barrels at $22 a barrel. Oil closed at $32 a barrel last
night. Iraq is capable of generating billions in revenue each year so
that Iraq can be a partner with the United States and the international
community in its own reconstruction.
What worked in the Marshall plan should work in Iraq's
reconstruction. Germany's vast coal resources were pledged to secure
the matching requirements of the U.S. Government contained in the
Marshall plan.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.

____________________