To amend title 10, United States Code, to reduce the age for receipt of military retired pay for nonregular service from 60 to 55.

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

Amendment No. 1830

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 4 minutes equally divided on the
Bingaman amendment.
Mr. STEVENS. This is a very serious amendment.
Parliamentary inquiry. There are 2 minutes on each side on the
Bingaman amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. STEVENS. Does the Senator wish to speak first?
Mr. BINGAMAN. I will defer to the Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. I will yield our time to Senator Warner, chairman of the
Armed Services Committee.
Mr. WARNER. Go right ahead.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, in previous military campaigns such as
the first gulf war and Kosovo, and many before that, the Pentagon has
issued campaign medals to service men and women who served in those
conflicts. We need to do the very same in the case of our service men
and women who are serving in Iraq.
The amendment I am proposing says the Secretaries of the respective
services may issue an appropriate medal or campaign designation to any
person who serves in any capacity in the armed services in connection
with Operation Iraqi Freedom. In my view, this is much preferable to
the Pentagon's current policy, which is that everyone should get a
Global War on Terrorism Medal instead of a medal that relates to their
service in Iraq.
The service men and women who are risking their lives in Iraq deserve
to be recognized for their service in that country. This is a major
military engagement we have gotten into here and there will be a lot of
service men and women involved. We definitely should make this a
separate medal.
That is the thrust of the amendment. Senator Lugar is a cosponsor,
along with many others. I ask unanimous consent to add Senators Byrd,
Leahy, and Jeffords to those who are already listed as cosponsors.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I say to my colleagues, I would like to
think of myself as the last person to ever take the floor of the Senate
and say a man or a woman proudly wearing the uniform of the United
States should not receive everything that is offered. But in this
instance--I do not oppose this--I simply ask you to examine it in the
sense of fairness. What do you say to the widow of someone who lost his
life in Afghanistan? What do you say to those who have injured soldiers
in the Horn of Africa, Liberia, Philippines, Colombia, and other
places, all engaged in the war on terrorism?
I do not understand this. I have read it. I have reread it. It says,
for example, to those serving in Iraq, prohibition of concurrent award
of Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal. They cannot receive it.
For what reason, I do not know.
I say to my dear friend, a former member of the Armed Services
Committee, this is a matter that requires

[[Page S12509]]

close examination. This issue of awarding men and women of the Armed
Forces is properly reposed in the chairman and the members of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff. They acted in March of this year to create the Medal
for the Global War on Terrorism. Our distinguished Senator from South
Carolina, while serving in the Army, got a star for the European
theater for engagements; those who crossed the Anzio Beach, those in
Africa, a star. There was one theater medal with stars given for the
various engagements. That is not this situation. That says the one who
served in Iraq should get something special the others do not receive.
That is not fair, I say to my good friend.
Accordingly, at the appropriate time, I will move to table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is advised a motion to table is
not in order.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this is not intended to prevent the
Pentagon from issuing any other awards they wish with regard to
Afghanistan or other locations, but it is clear to me that issuing a
Global War on Terrorism Medal is not adequate for the service we are
calling on our men and women to perform in Iraq. We should give them a
medal for that campaign. That is all the amendment does.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have already been ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, there is substantial interest in this
amendment. I don't know if the Senator wishes to have any more time.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I have had plenty of time. I suggest we
vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is expired.
Mr. NICKLES. I ask unanimous consent the Senator from Arizona be
allowed to speak for 3 minutes and the opposing side be allowed to
speak for 3 minutes.
Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, we are working very hard
before the White House meeting to get in another vote. Could we limit
this? I know everyone wants to hear these speeches, but could we try a
minute or so on each side. Otherwise, we will waste the entire
afternoon with White House meetings.
Mr. NICKLES. I renew my request to 2 minutes on each side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, none of us understands a prohibition on a
concurrent award of any other medal. This is unprecedented. Never in
the history of our military has the Senate or Congress mandated the
awarding of one medal or the prohibiting of an awarding of another
medal.
We all want to honor the men and women who have served in the
military and have sacrificed. Where is it that the Senator from New
Mexico gets the expertise or the knowledge to deny any medal that is
judged by the leaders of the military and the President of the United
States? It is very laudable to award a medal to people who served and
sacrificed. Instead, the Senator from New Mexico has to complicate it
to the point where the Senator from Virginia and I have to stand and
say: What is this all about?

Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator from Arizona yield?
Mr. McCAIN. So the point is, the Senator from New Mexico complicated
an otherwise straightforward issue by deciding who is in what theater
of war and what the war on terrorism is about. And the Senator from New
Mexico should have left it alone.
Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator from Arizona yield?
Mr. McCAIN. I am glad this is a bicameral legislature we have because
I do not think the House of Representatives would ever agree to such a
thing, nor would the leaders of our military.
I yield to the Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. The Senator from Arizona--
Mr. WARNER. What do you say to the widow of someone who has lost
their life in Afghanistan?
Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
Mr. NICKLES. Correct me if I am wrong. It is my understanding the
Department of Defense opposes this amendment.
Mr. WARNER. Correct.
Mr. NICKLES. For the reasons stated by the Senator from Virginia and
the Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. That is correct.
Mr. WARNER. That is correct.
Mr. McCAIN. I say to the Senator from New Mexico, we should be able
to work this out to everyone's satisfaction, but if you insist on
micromanaging to the degree of where people serve and what they are
eligible for, then we will never be able to honor those men and women
who serve.
Why didn't the Senator from New Mexico leave this alone?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
The Senator from New Mexico has 2 minutes.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the Senator from Arizona raises a valid
point about the prohibition section, which is subsection (d). And I ask
unanimous consent that be deleted from the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. STEVENS. Reserving the right to object, I will object because--I
do object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the only argument I have heard against
the amendment that, to me, made good sense was a concern about the
prohibition provision, subsection (d) of the amendment. I have asked
permission to delete that and it has been denied.
So I would just simply suggest to my colleagues that it is more
appropriate and more consistent with the policy of this country to give
awards for major military conflicts such as what we have been engaged
in in Iraq than it is to give a Global War on Terrorism award to
everything that happens from 9/11 forward. The reality is, the people
who are serving in Iraq deserve to be recognized for that. That is all
we are trying to do with this amendment.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. WARNER. How can you elevate a death or a loss in Iraq over one in
Afghanistan?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
The Senator from New Mexico has the floor.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me say in response to my colleague
from Virginia, if he would like to offer an amendment to give an award
to those who served in Afghanistan, I will cosponsor and support that.
I have proposed something for the men and women who have served in
the conflict in Iraq. And I think it is an appropriate thing for the
Congress to do.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, are we going to have more debate on this
amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time on the majority side has expired.
Mr. STEVENS. Time has expired.
Mr. President, I call for a vote.
I opposed this before. The Department opposes it. I call for a vote.
Mr. GREGG. Parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may state his inquiry.
Mr. GREGG. Is this motion divisible?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is divisible.
Mr. GREGG. I move the item be divided. I ask for a division. I ask
that the division be on subsection (d).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has to give specifics on the
division.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I would ask that--
Mr. STEVENS. Parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. GREGG. All items after subsection (d)--page 3, line 8--be
deleted, the question be divided on that point.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator restate the specifics of the
division?
Mr. GREGG. Yes. My point is, on page 3, line 8, section (d), I ask
that the motion be divided and that the motion be a separate motion on
that section and everything that follows it within section (d).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is divided.

Vote On Amendment No. 1830, Division I

The question is on the first division. The yeas and nays have already
been ordered.

[[Page S12510]]

Mr. STEVENS. Parliamentary inquiry: What are we voting on now, Mr.
President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The vote now occurs on agreeing to division I,
which is pages 1 and 2 and 3 through line 7 of the original amendment.
The yeas and nays have previously been ordered. The clerk will call the
roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Dayton),
the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr.
Lieberman), and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller) are necessarily
absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 48, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 378 Leg.]

YEAS--47

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

NAYS--48

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

NOT VOTING--5

Dayton
Edwards
Kerry
Lieberman
Miller
The amendment (No. 1830--Division I) was rejected.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: What is the
procedure now?

Vote on Amendment No. 1830, Division II

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on division II of
amendment No. 1830.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and
nays be vitiated on this vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to division II of
amendment No. 1830.
The amendment (No. 1830--Division II) was rejected.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I simply say that I am sorry about this
recent dispute. In the period of time before lunch, I made a statement,
based upon a memo we got from the Department of Defense, that pointed
out that the medals in question were authorized by the President at the
request of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
They had two reasons to oppose this Iraqi freedom medal. First, it is
redundant to the general war on terrorism medal; second, it is devisive
in that it inherently values participation in the Iraqi operation as
opposed to Afghanistan and all others. In particular, the Department
pointed out that, under the Global War on Terrorism Medals, there is an
Expeditionary Medal that goes to those who serve in Iraq, Afghanistan,
or in those places where there has been combat in the war against
terrorism. The other medal is a Service Medal to recognize those people
who are supporting personnel. It is not restricted by geographical
boundaries. It is not only for the support of Operation Iraqi Freedom;
it also applies to Operation Noble Eagle and airport security
operations from September 27, 2001, to May 1, 2002.
The Senate has defeated a proposal to go on record to issue an Iraqi
medal only to those who served in Iraq, and the Department has taken
the position--that is what really caused consternation because they
want medals to recognize specific and general sacrifices and
contributions made by all Armed Forces in the efforts to combat
terrorism in all forms throughout the world, both in current and future
operations.
The Expeditionary Medal will continue to be issued to those who
participate in the global war against terrorism and are involved in
combat operations. I think what the Department has done at the request
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is inherently fair and proper. I want to
reassure those who supported the position I enunciated and are opposed
to this amendment, I believe you have done the right thing by those
people who are in uniform and are sacrificing themselves and really
exposing themselves in harm's way throughout the world.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we have been discussing how we might
proceed between now and 6:30. As I understand it, we have a unanimous
consent request ready to propound. There is no objection to the request
on this side. I see that the distinguished manager has the unanimous
consent request, and I yield the floor so he can offer that.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished leader.
I ask unanimous consent that there now be 30 minutes for debate in
relation to the Stabenow amendment, with 20 minutes under the control
of Senator Stabenow and 10 minutes under my control; provided that
following the debate time, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to
the amendment, with no amendments in order to the amendment prior to
the vote; that following that vote, the time until 6:30 this evening be
equally divided in the usual form in relation to the Dorgan amendment
No. 1846; and that the vote occur in relation to the Dorgan amendment
at 6:30 p.m., with no amendments in order to the amendment prior to the
vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 1823

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendments be set aside and I call up amendment No. 1823.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That amendment is already pending.
Ms. STABENOW. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I rise today to speak about an amendment I am calling
``A Month for America.'' This amendment will delay approximately $5
billion in Iraq reconstruction funds and put them into funding our high
priorities at home, such as job creation, veterans health, health care
for the uninsured, and education.
I thank the cosponsors of this amendment--Senators Durbin, Boxer,
Johnson, and Schumer--for their leadership and support.
Two weeks ago, I was meeting with a group of constituents in
Michigan, and we started to talk about the President's request for $87
billion for Iraq and Afghanistan. I shared with my constituents that we
were spending about $5 billion a month now, in addition to the slightly
over $20 billion in reconstruction funds contained in the bill in front
of us.
My constituents in Michigan were startled at the enormity of this
figure, as I believe our constituents are across the country, so much
so that one gentleman who is on a local school board, sitting in the
back, exclaimed: How about a month for America? This rang very true to
me, and when I returned here, I decided to take this idea and draft an
amendment focused on our needs at home called ``A Month for America.''
Before I fully explain the details of my amendment, I wish to go
through

[[Page S12511]]

what this amendment does not do. This is very important.

First, it does not cut 1 penny of funding for our troops.
Second, it does not cut any funds for security in Iraq. It
specifically exempts the approximately $5 billion in police and
security funds for Iraq. I believe this is very important. The sooner
they are able to have their own police force, their own security force,
the sooner we will be able to bring our troops home, and I support that
effort.
Third, it does not cut any funds for reconstruction. It only delays
them. Therefore, this money is fully offset.
We are asking for $5.03 billion for America in this amendment and ask
that we simply take a portion--the equivalent of 1 month's spending,
$5.03 billion--and delay it until next year.
Even the administration admits that it does not need much of the $20
billion in reconstruction until next year. So it is not an emergency.
We do not need the full $20 billion right now, and yet we have real
emergencies at home.
There will be plenty of opportunities to provide this $5 billion for
Iraq in the next appropriations cycle. In fact, last Thursday's New
York Times reported that a team of World Bank economists has concluded
that, as a practical matter, Iraq can absorb only about $6 billion in
aid next year for its infrastructure needs. We are being asked to
allocate more than $20 billion on reconstruction, and yet we are told,
as a practical matter, they will not be able to use or spend over $6
billion in the next year. One administration official was even quoted
as saying:

Where the Iraq aid numbers are not so reasonable is the
timeframe for how much can be spent. This money cannot be
spent overnight.

They are admitting the fact this timeframe is not reasonable, and yet
we know in ongoing debates in this Chamber with colleagues on every
appropriations bill coming before us that we have critical needs for
jobs and education, veterans health care, and those who are losing
their insurance because of losing their job. We have many needs that
are critical at home.
Specifically, the ``A Month for America'' amendment would take this
$5.03 billion and allocate it in the following ways: First, $1 billion
for school construction; $1.8 billion for veterans health care; $103
million for full funding of community health centers; and finally, $2.1
billion for transportation projects and job creation, saving 90,000
jobs.
The United States is spending a little over $1 billion a week right
now in Iraq, not counting the $87 billion. However, when an amendment
was recently offered to the 2004 Labor-HHS appropriations bill to
increase funding for school construction at home by $1 billion, it was
defeated on a party-line vote with only one of our Republican
colleagues supporting the increased funding. This is very unfortunate
because investing in our schools and in education should not be a
partisan issue.
The ``A Month for America'' amendment will increase funding for
school construction for the next year by $1 billion so that we can
place more dollars into investing in our children walking into a
quality school building with the technology and the infrastructure they
need. Shame on us if we have even one classroom in America where there
is a bucket in the corner to catch the water coming in. We have too
many of those right now.
This amendment will help eliminate those buckets of water and create
the modern school buildings our children need now in America.
Our schools are definitely in a state of emergency. According to a
GAO report entitled ``School Facilities: America's School Report,
Differing Conditions,'' at least one-third of schools are in need of
extensive repair or replacement. This is not in Afghanistan or Iraq.
This is in the United States of America. One-third of the schools are
in need of extensive repair or replacement and at least two-thirds have
unhealthy environmental conditions. So two out of three schools in the
United States of America have unsafe environmental conditions. I argue
this is an emergency equal to anything that is in front of us that
relates to Iraq.
An estimated 14 million American children attend deteriorating
schools. According to the National Education Association's 2000 survey,
Michigan schools need at least $9.9 billion in building improvements.
That is just in my State, given all of the needs we have from one end
of Michigan to the other. Many Michigan educators believe that estimate
in fact is too low, considering the Detroit public schools alone need
an estimated $5 billion to fix leaky roofs, replace boilers, wire
computers, and other repairs. This is truly an emergency.
How do we tell our children to stay in school, do not go on drugs, do
not drop out of school and move to a life of crime, stay with it
because education is so important, and then they walk into a building
that is falling down, they walk into a building that does not have the
computers they need in this day and age to be successful? What message
are we sending to our children? This is an emergency.
These poor conditions also affect how well our children learn. A
recent study showed students learning in substandard classrooms have
test scores that are anywhere from 5 to 17 percent lower than their
peers who are in good buildings. So when we are talking about leave no
child behind and raising test scores and standards, the quality of the
building, the science labs, the math labs, the technology that is
available, makes a difference in a child's ability to learn. In
addition, without this additional $1 billion in funding and with the
significant State cuts in education funding, Americans will have to pay
more in property taxes just to maintain the current level of services.
Schools will not have the resources to make the necessary repairs. I
argue this is an emergency for America.
Now on to veterans health care, which is of deep concern to me as
well. The administration's budget for veterans health care falls far
short of needs. We all know this. Despite the current crisis in
veterans health care, some 130,000 are waiting 6 months or more for
appointments at VA hospitals or clinics. President Bush submitted a
budget for next year that is $1.8 billion below what is needed,
according to the independent budget produced by AMVETS, Disabled
Americans, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the Veterans of Foreign
Wars of the United States.
In this legislation, we are funding efforts to support the men and
women who are fighting overseas on our behalf, who are on active duty.
They come home, they become veterans, and they have to wait 6 months to
see a doctor. What sense does this make? If we cannot keep basic
promises to our veterans to make sure they have the health care they
need, deserve, and we said they would receive, how in the world are we
going to be credible in meeting other commitments?
Unfortunately, the House bill included the same shortfall, which is
$1.8 billion lower than the budget resolution promise of a $3.4 billion
increase over last year's level. The VA health care system is strained.
Its budget has consistently been underfunded and does not address the
health needs of our service men and women.

I am pleased to support Senator Johnson's bill to make health care
spending for our veterans mandatory. This needs to happen, instead of
being slighted by the administration and the Congress year after year.
Right now, over 130,000 veterans wait 6 months or more for their
primary care appointments. The system is so underfunded that category 8
veterans, nonservice-connected veterans who make above a certain income
threshold, are prohibited from enrolling for benefits.
In my State, veterans officials are talking about losing another
hospital, Saginaw VA facility, which means that some veterans in
northern Michigan and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan will have to
drive over 200 miles to Ann Arbor or Detroit for inpatient care. I am
extremely hopeful they will not proceed with this proposal.
This amendment commits Congress to keeping our promises to our
veterans who have earned the right to access to health care that was
created to serve their needs. Our veterans deserve better than a
chronically underfunded system, long waits for care, and a Nation that
has asked them to pay the price for our freedom, only to be
shortchanged at home.
Item 3 in Month for America, according to the recently released U.S.
Census Report, the number of Americans

[[Page S12512]]

without health care has jumped 5.7 percent to 43.6 million Americans.
This is the largest single increase in the number of the uninsured in
the last decade. According to Families USA, a health care consumer
organization, there were 2.3 million people in my own State of Michigan
under the age of 65 who went without health insurance some time in the
past year. That means one in four people in Michigan under the age of
65 was uninsured. Think about that. In the greatest country in the
world, those without insurance often delay or avoid needed services,
which results in a direct increase in more costly emergency room care.
Who are these people? Seventy-five percent of them are working. They
are working in small businesses that would provide health insurance but
for the explosion in prices. These are people who work in every part of
our economy. In recent studies, the sagging economy suggests these
numbers are only going to increase if relief is not in sight. I tell
folks we are going to be funding a Government-funded universal system
in Iraq for every Iraqi to have health care and yet in my home State,
and I would venture it is comparable across the country, one out of
four people does not have health care. Last year, community health
centers across the country served nearly 5 million uninsured Americans.
Community health centers have a 30-year track record of success, and
that is where these dollars would go. Study after study has shown that
health centers effectively and efficiently improve our Nation's health.
In the last 3 years, they have served nearly 800,000 American
citizens. We need to fully fund community health centers at the level
necessary for them to do their work and serve working families who are
not lucky enough to have health insurance from their employers.
The Month for America amendment would provide $103 million for full
funding of federally qualified community health centers to help deal
with the number of Americans who lack health insurance. This is such a
small investment that obviously yields great rewards. For every $100
the Federal Government has been able to allocate to community health
centers, these centers have been able to serve one additional new
patient. Think about that. For $100, another child can be served,
another mom, or another dad who has lost his job or lost his insurance.
The Month for America amendment would allow an additional 1.03
million Americans to receive access to primary care services; 1.03
million people could have access to a doctor and the health care they
need.
We know this is not a complete solution to the issue of health care.
I certainly have been very involved in a number of ways to bring down
costs and to address the concerns of small and large businesses and
those who do not have insurance, but it surely would help to be able to
fully fund our health centers.
As my colleagues know, in the final item in the Month for America,
the TEA-21 transportation bill expired at the end of September, but
Congress has not passed a new 6-year bill which is critical to the
needs of communities, to jobs, and to the economy. A new 6-year bill
would provide hundreds of thousands of jobs to help the economy and
improve the safety of our Nation's roads and bridges. Instead, Congress
passed a short-term, 5-month extension of TEA-21. According to the
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, a
short-term extension rather than passage of the 6-year bill will
compound State budget problems and result in delayed projects, added
project costs, and lost jobs. They indicate that a delay in passing a
new 6-year bill would mean the loss of more than 90,000 jobs and $2.1
billion in project delays.
This is about jobs. We need those jobs for American citizens. A 6-
year bill would create hundreds of thousands of jobs. We know that
passing a 6-year $311 billion highway bill would create more than
650,000 jobs in America and almost 23,000 jobs in Michigan alone.
Our Nation's transportation infrastructure needs our help now. This
really is an emergency.
According to the Texas Transportation Institute's 2003 Urban Mobility
Study, the cost of congestion continues to skyrocket, and in 2001
traffic congestion cost the Nation $69.5 billion--$4.1 billion more
than in the year 2000--5.7 billion gallons of wasted fuel, and 3.5
billion hours of lost productivity sitting in our cars on those roads.
We each understand that. Traffic congestion cost southeastern Michigan
over $2.1 billion in 2001 and cost the average Detroiter $523 per
person.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Dole). The Senator's time has expired.
Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for 5
additional minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I yield the Senator 5 minutes of my
time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Ms. STABENOW. I thank the chairman very much for his graciousness.
The Month for America amendment will provide $2.1 billion in highway
and transit funds to high-priority projects that can begin within 90
days. This will create immediate jobs. Not only will this prevent the
project delays resulting from the lack of a 6-year transportation bill,
but it will, again, create over 90,000 jobs. We all know we need more
jobs in America, and we need them now. This is an emergency for every
single individual and every family who finds themselves in a situation
now where there has been a job loss in the family.
Some people will say that modernizing our schools, providing health
care to veterans and those without insurance, and creating jobs is not
an emergency. I completely disagree. These are crises in America that
need immediate attention.
At the same time, when I looked through Ambassador Bremer's report
entitled ``The Coalition Provisional Authority Request to Rehabilitate
and Reconstruct Iraq,'' I found billions of dollars for projects which
neither I nor the American people believe are emergencies. They may be
worthy, but they are not as much of an emergency as these needs here at
home. I want to point out just a few to my colleagues.

The first item I found was $161 million for wireless networks,
computer training, and equipment. We would love to have this in
Michigan. I have many businesses that would love to have wireless
networks. There is no question that this is a laudable goal. But is it
an emergency? I don't think so. Couldn't this wait until next year
while we try to establish security and basic services in Iraq?
The second item is $20 million for business training for Iraqis. This
money will provide 4 weeks of business courses to Iraqis for a whopping
$10,000 a person. If I might plug my alma mater, this is more than it
would cost for a full year at the Michigan State University Business
School. We welcome people coming to Michigan State.
The third item is $43 million for job training and 22 new Iraqi job
employment centers. Iraq may have a problem with unemployment, but we
also have a problem with unemployment here at home. Since 2001, we have
lost 2.5 million manufacturing jobs in this country, many of them in my
home State--162,300 of them, in fact, in Michigan. This is a loss of 18
percent of Michigan's manufacturing employment--one out of six of our
manufacturing jobs.
Other items include $9 million to establish ZIP Codes in Iraq--a nice
thing to do, but I think it could wait--and $50 million for marshes. I
am anxious to go see them since I thought this was a desert.
These do not seem to be emergencies. We are saying, can these please
wait until next year so that health care for our families and jobs for
our families will not have to wait and veterans will not have to wait a
month to see a doctor.
School construction and jobs are certainly a high priority. Why
should these Iraqi projects get special treatment in an emergency
supplemental bill while funds for our infrastructure and our needs have
to wait and compete with other priorities next year? It seems to me the
money for our roads and schools should get special budgetary treatment
and Iraq projects can wait.
We are not asking for all of them to wait. The administration has
indicated they can use about $6 billion in the coming year. I am
suggesting they get the $15 billion. We are just asking for $5
billion--1 month for America. I

[[Page S12513]]

think these so-called emergency items for Iraq can wait and we can
involve ourselves in the normal budget process to determine whether
they are needed.
We need to act now here at home. We need jobs now. We need health
care now. We need to rebuild our schools now and we need to support our
troops when they come home and put on their veterans hats when they
will need health care.
Some people say we can't do both. I believe we can. Let us send a
message today that while we support our troops unanimously, we want to
have 1 month of funding for America here at home. If we agree to this
amendment, we can do both. I ask my colleagues before they vote on this
amendment to think about those who would be impacted by this.
I urge support for this amendment.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I am proud to support the amendment
offered by the Senator from Michigan to provide funding for important
domestic priorities. This amendment is called ``A Month for America.''
Each month, the U.S. is spending roughly $5 billion for operations in
Iraq and Afghanistan at a time when important priorities here at home
go unmet. This amendment would take $5 billion of the reconstruction
money earmarked for Iraq and allocates it in the following way: $1
billion for school construction, $1.8 billion for health programs for
our veterans, $103 million for community health centers, and $2.1
billion for highways and public transit.
These domestic priorities are an emergency now. Surely we can delay
$5 billion in Iraqi reconstruction funds until the fiscal year 2005
when even the World Bank says that only $5.8 billion can be absorbed by
Iraq next year to rebuild its infrastructure.
I want to talk about the need for new Federal spending to help
rebuild and rehabilitate schools in California. These are the current
conditions: 87 percent of schools report a need to upgrade or repair
building to good overall condition; 71 percent of schools report at
least one inadequate building feature, such as the roof, plumbing,
electrical systems, windows, or heating and air conditioning; and 87
percent of schools report at least one unsatisfactory environmental
factor, such as air quality, ventilation, heating, or lighting.
This is an emergency. Yet when an amendment was offered by Senators
Clinton and Harkin to the fiscal year 2004 Labor-HHS bill to increase
funding for school reconstruction by $1 billion for the entire year, it
was defeated on a party-line vote with only one Republican supporting
the increased funding.
It is a shame that this supplemental bill will spend in excess of
$100 million for education in Iraq but not one penny for education in
California.
The Bush administration wants to spend $10,000 per month for business
school in Iraq--more than double the monthly cost of Harvard Business
School--but there is no funding for the children in California.
This amendment also provides $1.8 billion for health care to our
veterans so that we can fulfill the commitment made to them for their
sacrifices.
President Bush submitted a fiscal year 2004 budget request for VA
health that is $1.8 billion below the Independent Budget produced by
AMVETS, Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and
the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States. It would be a great
comfort for those fighting now to know that the U.S. Congress is
serious about meeting the needs of those who fought before them.
On healthcare, the supplemental provides $850 million for Iraq to
construct a new hospital and replace medical equipment. And while we
should help those in need throughout the world, we should also provide
for those at home. That is why the Stabenow amendment provides $103
million for federally qualified community health centers that have been
shown to reduce inpatient admission rates for their patients by
anywhere from 22 percent to 67 percent, and have reduced the number of
patients admitted per year and the length of stay among those who were
admitted.
Finally, this amendment would provide $2.1 billion for highway and
public transit programs. Transit is so important for my State. We have
so much congestion that we must improve our highways and roads and
build public transportation.
According to the Texas Transportation Institute, Los Angeles and the
San Francisco-Oakland region are ranking No. 1 and 2 for the worst
roadway congestion in this country. California has two more cities in
the top 5 with San Jose ranked 4 and San Diego ranked 5.
The Inland Empire of San Bernardino and Riverside Counties is ranked
12 and Sacramento is ranked 13.
What does this congestion translate to? Delays. In the Los Angeles
area: 136 hours per year, on average per driver, in peak hours. San
Francisco-Oakland drivers put up with 92 hours of delays, and San Jose
drivers endure 74 hours of delays. Inland Empire drivers are delayed by
64 hours, and San Diego drivers are delayed by 51 hours a year.
Californians are trying to reduce congestion. More Californians are
using alternative forms of transportation. Public transit carries over
1.2 billion passengers a year in California.
Transit ridership is up in California. The number of miles traveled
annually by transit passengers grew by 20 percent between 1997 and
2001. The number of annual passenger trips was up 14 percent. In the
San Francisco Bay Bridge corridor, 38 percent of all trips are on
transit. And, 30 percent of all trips into central Los Angeles are on
transit.
Like the other domestic priorities outlined in the Stabenow
amendment, we need to fund transit so we can improve our infrastructure
in this country. I thank the Senator from Michigan for her amendment
and urge its adoption.
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, do I have 10 minutes remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 minutes.
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, the Senator from Michigan has been
talking about veterans health care and school construction. We are
talking about Iraq and how to get our people home. We get them back by
assisting the Iraqis in taking over the management of their own
country. We do that by providing an infusion of capital to help restore
that government to operation so it can take over and provide the
security services, provide for the economic management services, and
provide the army. It takes money to do that.
As I pointed out before we went on recess, the President has chosen a
unique approach. We could have gone in with the military and occupied
that country for 4 to 5 years, as we did in Germany and as we just did
in Kosovo. We are still bringing people out of Bosnia and Kosovo
because we did not do that. This time we are going in to try to help
them get in the position to take care of themselves and bring our
people back.
This is at the request of the other side of the aisle. The President
has sent us a unique supplemental. The Democratic Party commanded that
the President give us a budget for 2004 for Iraq. This is it.
No President has done this in history. President Clinton did not do
it. In fact, President Roosevelt did not do it. President Eisenhower
did not do it. President Johnson did not do it.
This President budgeted ahead of time for war, for a concept of
finishing what we started. Part of what we started was to put in place
a government in Iraq that would not be the despotic regime of Saddam
Hussein.
Argue all you want about the need for money. I agree, there is
certainly a need for more money for veterans health care. I disagree
about the statement concerning the need for new public school
facilities. I am informed that in 2002 alone, school districts
completed $11.7 billion of new construction.
The recent study of the General Accounting Office and the National
Center for Education Statistics indicates that schools are in better
condition than they have been in the past; 81 percent of the schools
reported their buildings were in adequate or better condition, 84
percent reported them to be in adequate or better condition. It is a
minority of schools that are not in adequate shape.
One place where there are no schools without our assistance is Iraq.
How will our men and women come home unless the schools are
functioning, unless the police are functioning, unless the army is
functioning, unless the economy is functioning? That is the way to get
them home.
If we do not provide this $20.3 billion, we can increase the money
for the occupation and occupy that enormous

[[Page S12514]]

country for 4 to 5 years. We know what it is costing. Look at the
budget we have: $66 billion for defense, $20.3 billion for assisting
Iraq to become a nation. The $66 billion will go on and on and on, a
demand for more and more money for the military in Iraq unless we take
the action the President has requested and provide the $20.3 billion
necessary. The amendment of the Senator will take over $5 billion out
of that. It will cripple that program.
We will have to send more and more people in uniform to do for Iraqis
what they could do for themselves if they had the money to start their
economy, start their security systems, start their military systems,
start their whole governmental systems and make them work. That is what
we should do. Some people call it nation building; I call it nation
reconstructing. But in any event, it is an absolute necessity at this
time to put the Iraqis back in control of their own affairs. It will
not happen if the Stabenow amendment is adopted.
I yield back the remainder of my time. I move to table the amendment
of the Senator, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the
roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Dayton),
the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Kohl), the
Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman), and the Senator from Georgia
(Mr. Miller) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), would vote ``nay.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 59, nays 35, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 379 Leg.]

YEAS--59

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

NAYS--35

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Boxer
Breaux
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham (FL)
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lincoln
Mikulski
Nelson (FL)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Stabenow
Wyden

NOT VOTING--6

Dayton
Edwards
Kerry
Kohl
Lieberman
Miller
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. COCHRAN. 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.
Mr. REID. What is the matter now before the Senate?

Amendment No. 1826

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time between now and 6:30 is equally
divided with respect to amendment No. 1826.
Mr. REID. Madam President, we understand that is the order that has
been entered. Senator Dorgan squeezed his time previously from 3 hours
to 2 hours, and now it is 45 minutes. That is because this vote took so
long. I hope the majority will push the votes more quickly. That vote
took 30 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, is my amendment now pending?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
Mr. DORGAN. I yield myself such time as I may consume. We also have
other speakers on this amendment.
Mr. President, I have spoken about this amendment on previous
occasions. The amendment directs the Coalition Provisional Authority,
in cooperation with the Governing Council of Iraq, to create an Iraq
Reconstruction Finance Authority. The purpose of the Iraq
Reconstruction Finance Authority shall be to securitize future
production of Iraqi oil, in order to finance the reconstruction of
Iraq.
In short, this amendment says that the reconstruction of Iraq should
involve the Iraqi people, using Iraqi oil to reconstruct their country
and that it should not be the American taxpayers reconstructing Iraq.
This morning's Washington Post says that the Secretary of State is at
the United Nations, attempting to get a resolution passed that would
confer on the Iraqi Governing Council and its Ministers the sovereignty
over the state of Iraq. Surely, if this administration is ready to
recognize the Iraqi Governing Council as the sovereign of the state of
Iraq, that body should have the ability to use future revenues from the
sale of Iraqi oil, to reconstruct their own country.
The fact is that, for months, this administration told us that Iraq's
oil would allow the Iraqi people to finance their own reconstruction.
Mr. Fleischer, the White House press secretary, said this in
February:

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

Mr. Fleischer was followed by Mr. Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of
State. He said that the oil revenues of that country could bring
between $50 billion and $100 billion over the course of the next 2 or 3
years and that we are dealing with a country that can really finance
its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.

The Defense Secretary himself, Donald Rumsfeld, in March, said:

I don't believe the U.S. has the responsibility for
reconstruction, in a sense . . . and the funds can come from
those various sources I mentioned: frozen assets, oil
revenues, and a variety of other things.

Well, that is at odds with the current request by the President to
the Congress, saying we need to have $20-plus-billion for the
reconstruction. The Deputy Secretary of State said oil revenue could do
that. The Secretary of Defense said that oil revenue would be available
for that.
And then Vice President Cheney, on March 16, said:

In Iraq, you've got a nation that has the second largest
reserves of oil in the world--second only to Saudi Arabia. It
will generate billions of dollars a year in cash flow in the
relatively near future. And that flow resources, which
obviously belongs to the Iraqi people, needs to be put to use
by the Iraqi people for the Iraqi people, and that will be
one of the major objectives.

Then, the person at the State Department who is responsible for
reconstruction, Mr. Natsios, had the following exchange on
``Nightline'' with Ted Koppel.
Koppel said:

I understand that more money is expected to be spent on
that than was spent on the entire Marshall plan for the
rebuilding of Europe after the World War II.

Natsios said:

No, no, that doesn't even compare remotely with the size of
the Marshall plan.

Koppel:

The Marshall plan was $97 billion.

Natsios:

This is $1.7 billion.

Talking about the reconstruction plan for Iraq.
The program continued.
Koppel said:

When you talk about 1.7, you are not suggesting that the
rebuilding of Iraq is going to be done for $1.7 billion.

Natsios:

Well, in terms of the American taxpayers' contribution, I
do. This is it for the U.S. The rest of the rebuilding will
be done by other countries who have already made the pledges,
and by Iraqi oil revenues.

Will you excuse a few of us for believing the Vice President, the
Secretary of Defense, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, and others, who
repeatedly said this year that the American taxpayers won't be on the
hook for the reconstruction of Iraq? Will you excuse us

[[Page S12515]]

for believing we could use Iraq oil for this purpose? That is what they
said would happen. Now the administration says that is not the case at
all and they want to use the American taxpayers' dollars to shoulder
the burden for reconstruction of Iraq.
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DORGAN. Let me make this one point. I asked Ambassador Bremer to
explain whether it would be possible to securitize Iraq's future oil
revenues to pay for Iraq's reconstruction. Ambassador Bremer's answer:
You can't use Iraq oil because Iraq owes foreign debt.
I said: Who to?
He said: Russia, France, and Germany.
Following that hearing, I checked. In fact, Russia, France, and
Germany are indeed owed money by Saddam Hussein's regime. But the
biggest creditors of Saddam Hussein's regime are Saudi Arabia and
Kuwait.
Wouldn't it be a perversity if, in fact, the American taxpayers are
told that they have to pay taxes to ship $20 billion to Iraq to
reconstruct Iraq--so Iraq can pump oil and send cash to Saudi Arabia
and Kuwait in satisfaction of Saddam Hussein's debts?
You talk about a perversity of public policy. That is it.
My amendment is painfully simple. It says that the Iraqi Governing
Council shall have a mechanism that would allow it to use Iraqi oil to
reconstruct Iraq.
One final point. During the recent military campaign in Iraq, we did
not target Iraq's infrastructure. We didn't bomb its roads, bridges,
dams, or electric grid. Now, Iraq does need reconstruction, no question
about that, but the reconstruction is necessary because of decades of
neglect. It is not because of any action by our military. And the fact
is that the Iraqi people have a tremendous resource to finance that
reconstruction, which they could and should use.
So the President ought not be so quick to ask for $20 billion from
the American taxpayers for reconstruction, when his Vice President, the
Secretary of Defense, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, and all the rest
of them said this year that the reconstruction of Iraq would be
financed with Iraqi oil. Now we are told it cannot be done and won't be
done. I say with this amendment that it can be done and should be done.
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. DORGAN. I am happy to yield to my colleague.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I want to make sure the point the
Senator has just made is driven home for those following this debate.
This administration told us we needed to invade Iraq because there
were nuclear weapons there, which we cannot find.
They told us we needed to invade Iraq because there was uranium,
fissile material coming in from Africa to Iraq, which now they say did
not exist.
They told us we needed to invade Iraq because of weapons of mass
destruction, which we cannot find.
They told us we needed to invade Iraq because of their linkage with
9/11 terrorists, which now the President has said is not a fact.
They told us we didn't have to worry about rebuilding Iraq because of
all the oil revenues.
Is the Senator from North Dakota finding the same difficulty I am in
following their logic? All the reasons to invade Iraq have disappeared.
As I understand it, the oil is still there. The oil was supposed to be
the source to rebuild Iraq. Is the administration suggesting there is
no oil in Iraq?
Mr. DORGAN. No. In fact, quite the contrary. Ambassador Bremer
testified that by July of next year, they will be pulling 3 million
barrels a day out of the sands of Iraq. There is liquid gold under
those sands. Three million barrels a day by next July will net them $16
billion a year in net export revenue from oil--$16 billion a year. That
is $160 billion in 10 years. They can easily securitize a small
fraction of that to fund all of the reconstruction that is necessary in
Iraq. It can easily be done if there is a will to do it. But they will
not do it if the President says: Let's have the American taxpayers do
it.
Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator will yield for another question, if I
understand this, the President and the Bush administration are asking
us to borrow money from the Social Security trust fund to increase the
deficit of the United States, to cut back on spending on education and
health care so that we can provide reconstruction funds for Iraq which
can then pump the oil and sell it and with the revenues pay off their
debt to Saudi Arabia; is that the logic behind the administration's
position?
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, the two largest creditors of Iraq are
Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. The Senator from Illinois is absolutely
correct.
Mr. DURBIN. Through the Chair, I would like to ask the Senator, so
the administration is prepared to disappoint Social Security recipients
in America rather than disappoint the Saudis who loaned money to Saddam
Hussein and now want to be repaid?
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, Saddam Hussein has vanished. His
government doesn't exist. The Iraqi people ought not be saddled with
massive debts to countries like Saudi Arabia, some of the wealthiest
countries in the world. The American taxpayer should not be told to pay
for the reconstruction of Iraq, while Iraqi oil revenues are hauled off
to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
I yield 8 minutes to my colleague from Florida, Senator Graham.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Chair.
Madam President, it is a pleasure to return to this great institution
at a time when we are debating a truly significant issue for the future
of our Nation.
The fundamental question to me is what should be our standard in
resolving the myriad of questions which surround the President's
request for $87 billion in occupation and reconstruction expense in
Iraq.
My answer to that question is that we should test each of these
proposals against the standards of: Will this give us an honorable and
an expeditious exit from Iraq? Will this contribute to our ability to
leave Iraq, to take American troops out of the quagmire and the killing
field which Iraq has become, but to do so with honor?
We basically have two options that are presently available to us as
to how to reach that objective. One is the go-it-alone approach; that
we will conduct the occupation and the reconstruction essentially
alone, without significant allies. Second is that we should
internationalize the occupation and reconstruction of Iraq. We should
do this by increasing the control of Iraqis who have the confidence of
their country men and women by involving other countries in the shared
burden and responsibility of the occupation and reconstruction of Iraq,
and we should be sensitive to the international presence that we are
setting by our action.
Why do I believe providing these reconstruction dollars through a
loan rather than through a direct grant would more likely achieve the
goal of internationalization and, therefore, the goal of an honorable
and expeditious exit from Iraq?
First, it will maintain American domestic support, or at least it
will serve as a brake on what I sense is the increasing loss of
American domestic support for the occupation and reconstruction of
Iraq. We all can read the polls and see what the American people feel
about this $87 billion request. They dislike it in overwhelming
numbers, but there is even more than what you can state statistically.
There is what you can feel intuitively.
I sense all across the country an increasing question of what are we
doing in Iraq? Why are we in a situation where one American is killed
and 10 Americans are maimed every day, where we are spending $1 billion
every week? What is our exit strategy?
I believe this approach of providing that at least a part of these
expenditures will be repaid to the American taxpayers will help to
build some foundation under what now appears to be a straight tunnel
toward the loss of public support.
Second, this would not further add to the national debt. We have
basically three choices as to who is going to pay for this war. The
first choice is our generation. We are in the war for what we consider
to be important national security reasons. If that is the case, we
ought to be prepared to pay for it, not ask future generations to pay
for it. But last week the Senate rejected the Biden amendment which
would have

[[Page S12516]]

caused our generation to pay for our occupation and reconstruction of
Iraq. So that is off the table.
The second is, we are going to ask our grandchildren to pay for this
occupation and reconstruction. If we do this, we are engaged in a sharp
break with tradition and precedent.
Let me just state these numbers. The Marshall plan started in 1948.
The public debt of the U.S. Government in 1948 was $216 billion. Four
years later, as the Marshall plan was coming to a close, but the United
States was at war in Korea, in 1952, the public debt of the United
States was $214 billion. So we actually reduced the public debt of the
United States during the period of the Marshall plan and the early
phases of the Korean war. We are not following that precedent today. We
are saying we are going to put all of these additional expenses into
the most enormous annual deficits the United States has ever seen.
Finally, we should do this because it will require Iraqis pay for the
reconstruction and have a substantial amount of control over the
reconstruction. One of the characteristics that made the Marshall plan
so successful was that while we provided funds--and incidentally, on a
$1-to-$1 matching basis, not a 100-percent to 0-percent basis, as is
being proposed here--we provided funds on that basis and then let the
leadership of the individual countries, whether it was our allies, such
as France, or enemies, such as Germany, make the judgments as to what
they believed the priorities should be for the use of those funds. Here
we are unilaterally deciding by action of our administration and our
Congress what the priorities should be.
Finally, in another domain, I think this sets a dangerous precedent
for our relations with other countries. In this same legislation, we
are providing a relatively small grant to Afghanistan, both for
security and for reconstruction. I think that is defensible.
Afghanistan is one of the poorest countries in the world. Afghanistan
is a country which is key to a victory on terrorism. But now we apply
exactly the same standards to the country which sits on the second
largest oil reserve on this planet and a country which, in my judgment,
was not a legitimate part of the war on terror until we made it a part
of the war on terror by the war itself.
We also have Mexico. In the 1990s, Mexico was in very difficult
financial status. There were some who speculated it might even go into
bankruptcy. We came to Mexico's financial support. How did we do it? We
did it by collateralizing the future oil revenue of Mexico to pay what
we had advanced to give them greater fiscal solidity during a time of
great instability. How do we tell the Mexicans that when we were
lending money to them, a country which in natural resources is
considerably less endowed than Iraq, we are going to give it to Iraq as
a straight grant but for Mexico it was a loan with their oil revenue as
the collateral for repayment?
The question that is asked all over this country is, Why can we
rebuild the roads, the bridges, the schools, the electric grid of Iraq,
but we cannot do it in the United States? Why can we do it as a grant
to one of the richest countries in terms of petroleum in the world,
which will never be repaid to help us rebuild our own bridges, roads,
and schools? This represents a key turning point, in my judgment, for
the beginning of the 21st century. Will Iraq be the Germany of the
1950s or will it be the Vietnam of the 1970s in terms of the United
States?
I believe voting for reasonable burden sharing between Iraq and the
United States, and other proposals that will share the burden on a more
international basis, will be a key to answering that question.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota for
yielding and I rise in support of the amendment he has offered.
Also, I say welcome back to Senator Bob Graham of Florida. We are
glad to have him off the trail and back in the Senate where we need
him.
This is an interesting issue to bring to the American people because
it is an issue where we ask this administration to stand by its own
promises, to stand by its own words, and they cannot. They cannot
because as recently as 6 months ago, the leaders of this administration
said we would not be on the Senate floor today debating an $87 billion
bill. They told not only the Senate and the House and the American
people, they told the world that Iraq had the resources to take care of
itself. It was part of the buildup to the war, a war which was built on
false premises of nuclear weapons that did not exist, fissile material
from Africa that did not exist, biological and chemical weapons which
have not been discovered, and a link with al-Qaida which cannot be
substantiated.
All of these were part of the rationale for invading Iraq with the
coalition of the willing, which contained Great Britain and precious
few other countries with major resources or troops. So we invaded Iraq
and then said to the American people: Do not worry about after the war.
The Iraqis are really rife with all sorts of oil resources and
revenues. They can take care of themselves.
I am not making this up because if we followed the statements made by
Paul Wolfowitz, the architect of the Iraq strategy, this is what Mr.
Wolfowitz said in March:

. . . the oil revenues of that country--

Iraq--

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

Hello. Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz, how can you rationalize coming to
Congress 6 months later and asking for $20 billion after you told us
that Iraq could finance its own reconstruction?
He was not alone in these pronouncements. This is Secretary of
Defense Don Rumsfeld saying at about the same time:

I don't believe the United States has the responsibility
for reconstruction in a sense . . . And the funds can come
from those various sources I mentioned: frozen assets, oil
revenues and a variety of other things.

What they were trying to do was paint a picture to the American
people that there was no pain, all gain: We will remove Saddam Hussein
and, frankly, the world will greet us as heroes, as will the Iraqi
people, and then they will use their revenues to rebuild the country
and prove you can have a much better government in Iraq.
I certainly hope for the Iraqi people they do have a better
government, but should it not be at their expense rather than our
expense?

The point that was made by the Senator from North Dakota is a telling
point. We are borrowing money in the United States from Social
Security, from American taxpayers, and from our children; we are
increasing the deficit of this country to come up with $87 billion, $20
billion of which is going to rebuild Iraq.
We are going to have that debt when it is over, according to
President Bush and his supporters on the Senate floor. Yet the reason
we cannot ask Iraq to shoulder this burden itself, despite all of these
pronouncements from Secretary Rumsfeld and Assistant Secretary
Wolfowitz, is that Iraq has its own obligations to countries such as
Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
Look at the debt of Iraq that we are protecting by borrowing money
from Social Security. Their biggest creditors include Saudi Arabia, the
gulf states, Kuwait, Russia, Japan, France, and Germany. Frankly, I
care less about the royal family in Saudi Arabia than I do about
American families counting on Social Security.
Why doesn't the President? Why doesn't the President of the United
States believe that Saudi Arabia, which trusted Saddam Hussein to lend
him millions of dollars, should frankly be the ones to lose in any
bargain about Iraq's future? No. From the Bush administration
viewpoint, the losers should be the American taxpayers, our children,
and people counting on Social Security.
So the Senator from North Dakota asked an obvious question: If they
have all of this oil revenue, why can't they pledge that revenue to
raise the money to rebuild their own country? It is just that simple.
Someone has to borrow the money to rebuild Iraq. It will either be the
American taxpayers or the

[[Page S12517]]

people of Iraq. I think the answer to that particular challenge is very
obvious, and the Senator from North Dakota has hit the nail on the head
with his amendment.
Let me add something else. This administration has really been
floundering when it comes to the plans after the invasion of Iraq. I
give credit to the military. In 3 weeks they did an extraordinary job.
Since then, things have been just fumbled around. We went from General
Garner to Ambassador Bremer, and while we were out last week and the
Senate was back home, Condoleezza Rice was given the authority for
rebuilding Iraq. This is getting hard to follow. It frankly betrays the
fact that this administration does not know which way to head.
Here is the fundamental problem: We want Iraq to be a stable and
secure nation. We would like to see them move toward self-government
and toward a market economy, but all of this will take an enormous
amount of money and time, and an enormous departure from a country
which has no history of any of the things I just mentioned.
Iraq was created by the British colonial empire. They drew a line on
a map and said: We will call this Iraq. Up until that point in time,
there was little to trace the history of anything called Iraq. Now we
are trying to make this into a nation state. First we have to establish
not only a national identity that is not from the command and control
of a dictator, but also we have to establish an economy that can build
a middle class that can participate in democracy as we know it. This is
a long, expensive process.
Who should pay for it? American taxpayers or the people of Iraq? I
think the answer to that question is very obvious. I hope my
colleagues, who feel duty bound to stand by the Bush administration no
matter what, will only stand by the statements made by the Bush
administration to the American people 6 months ago. If the people in
this Chamber will stand by the promises of Secretary Wolfowitz, Vice
President Cheney, and Secretary Rumsfeld, then Senator Dorgan is going
to be successful. However, if this turns out to be a partisan rollcall,
take it or leave it, you are with the President or not, then the losers
are going to be families across America. Families are going to see
Social Security trust funds used to build Iraq while oil revenues in
Iraq are used to pay off the Saudis who loaned money to Saddam
Hussein. That I think is an outrageous outcome.

I think the Senator from North Dakota has it right. We have done a
great deal for Iraq to date. We are spending $1 billion a week. We have
lost over 300 brave American soldiers. Walter Reed Hospital, not far
from Capitol Hill, has rooms filled with soldiers, men and women, who
went to Iraq who came back wounded with grievous injuries. We have
given a lot. We should not ask the American taxpayers to give up more.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Let me inquire of the Senator from Mississippi. We have
used--might I ask how much time we on this side have used? We have had
several speakers. Might I inquire?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty-seven minutes.
Mr. DORGAN. I don't know whether the Senator from Mississippi intends
to speak or has speakers at this point. If he does not intend to speak,
I will make some additional comments. If he does, I certainly will
yield the floor to him.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi?
Mr. DORGAN. I was inquiring; I will yield the floor to the Senator
from Mississippi if he is intending to speak.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we have a certain amount of time under
the agreement. We will use that time when we choose. I do not intend to
use any at this time. If you want to continue to debate your amendment,
it is your amendment. I am for the committee bill. I think the
committee made the right decision. I am going to say that and cite the
provisions of the report underlining the rationale for the bill and the
support we are trying to provide the President. So you have the
laboring oar, in my view.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Mississippi. I am
well aware it is my amendment, of course. Normally in the debate on
amendments, we try to go back and forth to be fair. I was simply
inquiring whether he intended to speak. He apparently will speak at
another time.
I will make a couple of additional comments. We have some other
Senators who are coming to the floor to comment as well.
Let me describe in more detail the comments by the Vice President
because my colleague indicates the administration is very much opposed
to this.
The administration has not been opposed to it in the past. In fact,
they represented to the American people that Iraq oil shall be used to
reconstruct Iraq, so apparently it is a changed position. Let me
describe in more detail the comments of the Vice President on ``Meet
The Press.'' This occurred in March of this year. Quoting Tim Russert,
he says:

Every analysis said this war itself would cost about $80
billion, recovery of Baghdad, perhaps of Iraq, about $10
billion per year. We should expect as American citizens that
this would cost at least $100 billion for a two-year
involvement.
Vice President Cheney: I can't say that, Tim. There are
estimates out there. It's important, though, to recognize
that we've got a different set of circumstances than we've
had in Afghanistan. In Afghanistan you've got a nation
without significant resources. In Iraq you've got a nation
that's got the second-largest oil reserves in the world,
second only to Saudi Arabia. It will generate billions of
dollars a year in cash flow if they get back to their
production of roughly three million barrels of oil a day, in
the relatively near future. And that flow of resources,
obviously, belongs to the Iraqi people, needs to be put to
use by the Iraqi people for the Iraqi people and that will be
one of our major objectives.

That is the Vice President.
Ambassador Bremer said in the last 2 weeks they will be producing 3
billion barrels a day in July. That is what he testified before the
Appropriations Committee. If that in fact is the case, apparently there
has been a change of mind here in the administration about whether Iraq
oil should be used for Iraq reconstruction. It was alleged by Secretary
Wolfowitz it should be, it was alleged by Secretary Rumsfeld it should
be, by the Vice President it should be and would be. Now, apparently,
they have changed their mind.

Second Rumsfeld also said to me in testimony:

What that country is suffering from [speaking of Iraq] is
30 years of a Stalinist-type economy and starvation of the
infrastructure of the needed investments. That is not the
obligation of the United States of America to repair.

So the 20-plus-billion-dollars request we have for reconstruction of
Iraq includes the replacement and the rehabilitation of power
distribution networks that were in a highly deteriorated condition
before the war, $50 million to restore marshland water projects, $125
million to restore railroad tracks that suffered from severe neglect.
Locomotives and railcars were in a deplorable state; backup generators
were inoperative due to lack of maintenance and spare parts.
But more Members of the House of Representatives of the majority
party saw fit to eliminate some of them--$9 million to study a ZIP Code
for the Iraq Government or for the country of Iraq; $50,000 apiece for
garbage trucks, $150 million for a children's hospital, and the list
goes on and on.
Clearly, some of it is not urgent. Some of it is not an emergency. In
my judgment, it ought to be paid for with Iraqi oil. That was what was
promised and alleged by the Vice President, by the Secretary of
Defense, and the Assistant Secretary of Defense.
We are told by the President and others as well--the Secretary of
State and Secretary of Defense--the question is, What will strengthen
the Iraq economy? That is an important question. I believe
reconstruction will strengthen the Iraq economy. I believe that ought
to be done and paid for with Iraq oil.
But a more important question is, What will strengthen the U.S.
economy? We are borrowing $20 billion. Will borrowing $20 billion and
sending it to Iraq so Iraq can pump oil and send cash to the Saudis and
Kuwaitis strengthen the United States economy? Absolutely not. That is
why I offer this amendment. This amendment failed in the Appropriations
Committee by a vote of 15 to 14.
I don't diminish the arguments of those who oppose it, but, frankly,
I think they are wrong. I believe this was represented by the
administration

[[Page S12518]]

to be the right course. I now offer it as an amendment and will hope
when we have a vote at 6:30 it will prevail.
I yield the floor and I make a point of order a quorum is not
present.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DORGAN. 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. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am waiting for a couple of speakers
whose offices have told me they are on the way. It is my understanding
from the Senator from Mississippi that he or others will be speaking as
well. I will put us in quorum call. I ask unanimous consent that the
quorum call be charged equally against both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Is the Senator from North Dakota suggesting a quorum call?
Mr. DORGAN. Yes. 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.
Mrs. CLINTON. 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. DORGAN. I yield 8 minutes to the Senator from New York.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I come to the Senate in support of the
Dorgan amendment to this supplemental appropriations. I come also
having been the beneficiary of the week-long recess, traveling
throughout my State talking to many people, hearing what is on their
minds, trying to answer their questions and drawing some conclusions
about where we stand in our country on the important issue concerning
the mission in Iraq and the President's request for $87 billion. I
talked with New Yorkers from Syracuse to Staten Island. At every stop,
I had questions and concerns expressed about this request for $87
billion.
New Yorkers are concerned that this money is being asked for and will
be spent with no real plan for how we move toward the goal in Iraq to
create an independent, functioning government that is able to stabilize
the situation there with adequate security, begin providing services to
the Iraqi people, and move toward self-sufficiency.
I also was faced with many questions about how we intend to pay for
our commitment to Iraq and to our military forces since we are faced
with record deficits and increasing debt. Time and time again, I heard
my constituents echo the concerns of the senior Senator from Florida,
Mr. Graham, who pointed out eloquently in the Senate a short while ago
how in effect we are asking our children and their generation to pay
for the decisions we make today because we refuse to take
responsibility for them.
This is a difficult situation to describe and explain to my
constituents. I am asked how we can ask our taxpayers to contribute
over $20 billion for the reconstruction of Iraq when that was never
presented to the American public or even to the Congress. Time and time
again the Congress was told by administration officials that it would
not cost very much money, it would not take very long, and besides, we
could expect Iraqi oil revenues to pay for Iraqi reconstruction, and
other nations would join us in shouldering the burden.
Now, of course, we are told by the administration not to expect very
much from anyone else, and we cannot even look to the Iraqi oil
revenues at some point in the future. We should not be asking anything
of the Iraqi people and their soon-to-be new government with respect to
the American taxpayers and to the sacrifice that our American men and
women in uniform have made for Iraq's freedom.
The administration argues that this $20 billion must be given in
grants and not loans. The logic escapes me. Part of this money will go
to rebuild the oil industry of Iraq. There are estimates ranging from
hundreds of billions of barrels of recoverable oil to a trillion. There
is no doubt that if we get this oil industry up and going, Iraq stands
to be one of the richest nations in the world. The per capita income
can be expected to shoot past most of the rest of the inhabitants of
this globe. And I am all for it. That is wonderful. But not at the
expense of the American taxpayer and not at the expense of an
increasing deficit and debt burden on our children.
I am wondering how we can justify putting money in a grant to rebuild
an oil industry that will start producing revenues that will then be
used in part to pay back nations in the gulf and in Europe and
elsewhere who have lent tens of billions of dollars to the former
regime to do things like build palaces. Those who worked with,
collaborated with, and supported the Saddam Hussein regime could
conceivably be paid back from the fruits of the labor of American
taxpayers who have gotten the oil flowing again. I, for one, cannot
explain that in any audience I find myself.
Some in the administration have argued our aid to Iraq is analogous
to the Marshall plan. But, of course, we know it is not.

That is a good rhetorical point to make, but it is not historically
accurate. The U.S. did provide funds to both allies and enemies after
World War II based on a matching program of contributions from those
nations. We did not offer reconstruction funds without qualification.
We required a commitment for some contribution from the receiving
nation.
I saw a list of talking points distributed by the administration,
apparently out of the Pentagon, that listed all the reasons why loans
were a bad idea: We would not want any other entity, such as the new
Iraqi Government or the Coalition Provisional Authority, to be deciding
where any of the money went; we would not want any, other than
American, contractors to get any of the contracts; we would not want
anybody to think we were in it just for the oil, which they might
somehow believe if we had some responsible, mature relationship that
expected some repayment.
I read those talking points. I looked at those arguments, and,
frankly, they are not very convincing. I am still having trouble trying
to figure out how we went from a position in the spring where
administration official after administration official would not tell us
how much it was going to cost, would not tell us how long it was going
to take, would not tell us how long we were going to be there, and
always reassured us that it was going to be paid for with the revenues
from Iraqi oil once it began flowing, to where we cannot even ask for
any kind of repayment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has consumed the 8 minutes yielded
to her.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional
minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. CLINTON. I strongly support the Dorgan amendment. I think it is
the right thing for Iraq. I think it is the right thing for our
country. It sets the right tone about how we are going to be dealing
with this situation going forward. It lays down a marker that we are
willing to shoulder this burden, but we expect at some point in the
future for the American taxpayers of this or the next generation to be
given some repayment opportunity from a new nation that we helped to
create that, hopefully, will have the kind of future we are counting on
and that many of us support.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota no longer has
adequate time to suggest the absence of a quorum.
The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. 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. COCHRAN. 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. COCHRAN. I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from
Arizona, Mr. McCain.

[[Page S12519]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Dorgan
amendment. It is unwise and uncharacteristic of the greatness and
strength of America and in many ways could increase the risk that we
may cause to young Americans who are fighting in defense of freedom in
Iraq and trying to help that country begin the process of democracy and
a free society. It is an extremely difficult task and one which will
require a long period of time.
I don't share the view of some that the situation in Iraq is bright
and wonderful. I don't agree with the opinion of some others who think
that things are in a very bad state. I think progress is being made. In
the northern part of Iraq there is real stability. In the southern part
of Iraq there is significant progress.
All you have to do is pick up a newspaper or turn on the television
or radio and hear that things are not so good in some parts of the
country, particularly in the area we refer to as the Sunni Triangle.
Every day there is some kind of attack mounted against American troops,
against installations, car bombs. Our military leaders have stated that
the attacks, primarily aimed at American soldiers and installations,
are becoming more and more sophisticated.
In my view--and my view is shared by many others who are more expert
and more knowledgeable than I--the battle for the hearts and minds--
dare I use that phrase--in Iraq is still going on. We are winning that
battle in some parts of Iraq. In other parts, it is still up for grabs.
Those who are the former Baathists, the terrorists, the extremists,
this rather unusual combination of opponents of the United States and
opponents of the democratization of Iraq, are echoing a similar theme:
The United States is not in Iraq to free the Iraqi people. The United
States is in Iraq for the oil.
That theme is being echoed and re-echoed throughout the Middle East,
not just in Iraq but in every extremist Muslim madras in the Middle
East, every dictatorship, in every oppressive regime that recognizes if
democracy and freedom comes to Iraq, then their days are numbered, they
are through, they are finished because we can prove in Iraq that
democracy and a free and open society can grow and prosper anywhere in
the world, including the Middle East.
Here is what they are saying. They are saying: Here is the history of
the United States involvement with Iraq. All during the 1980s, the
United States Government propped up Saddam Hussein and did a lot of
business with him. He had a war with Iran. We took his side in the war
with Iran. In 1991, in the gulf war, we defeated Saddam Hussein soundly
and we told the Iraqi people that he would be gone. He wasn't gone. In
fact, he went into these very same areas and slaughtered thousands of
people as he reasserted his grip on power. I have seen one of the mass
graves. No, Saddam Hussein, they are saying, was left in power by the
United States of America and allowed to freely oppress the people of
Iraq and brutally repress and murder and commit unspeakable atrocities
on the Iraqi people, when the United States told the Iraqi people that
he would be gone.
They are also saying: Do you know why the economic conditions in Iraq
were so terrible all during the 1990s? Do you know why you have an
airport out here at Basra that is in mint condition but has never been
used? Because of American economic sanctions imposed through the United
Nations on Iraq.
Now the United States finally overthrew Saddam Hussein and they are
going to demand our oil. In return for money, they are going to take
our oil, the oil which we need, we, the Iraqi people, in order to
rebuild the infrastructure of our country.
Mr. President, that argument is going to gain traction in some parts
of Iraq--that the United States came for the oil and now we are asking
for them to pay up. If we are concerned--and I know we all are--about
the lives and safety of the young men and women serving in Iraq in the
military, I can tell you this will put them in greater danger. If the
opponents--this unusual combination of extremists and Baathists and
terrorists, and this unusual but lethal cocktail of opponents of Iraqi
freedom--are given additional propaganda, then I think it is going to
be obviously very harmful to our effort to democratize and free Iraq.
I ask my colleagues to consider the fact there is no possibility that
the Iraqi people and government--when it comes into being--could pay
back any debt in the short term. It is not possible. If we want to
condition future aid at a future time on a loan, or some kind of
repayment, then I think it should be discussed and debated given the
climate of the times at that time. But to at this moment in time, when
we still have not gained the support of the Iraqi people that we need
not only to ensure further democratization and freedom of Iraq--to
protect the lives of the young men and women who are serving so nobly
in Iraq, let's not do it at this time. Let's reject this amendment.
I don't impugn the motives or the patriotism of the sponsors of this
amendment. I think it is hard to answer to our constituents why we are
spending so much money there and not getting it back. I understand that
and sympathize with that argument. One of my colleagues recently talked
with great emotion about the loss of jobs in his State. These are all
compelling problems. But I don't see how anyone could argue coherently
that, at this moment, to send the wrong signal would be the right thing
to do to achieve any of those goals.
I repeat that the battle is still on for the hearts and minds of the
Iraqi people. We are a great and generous nation. We have proven that
time after time after time. I think it is time for this body to express
that generosity, that commitment--which only the United States has ever
really displayed--to freedom and democracy in Iraq and tell these
people we are going to do everything we can to help rebuild their
country, we will help them on the road to freedom and democracy, and at
the end of the day, years from now, that gratitude on the part of the
Iraqi people will be displayed to us in many ways, that will far exceed
any benefits that might be accrued from this being some kind of a loan
that would be paid back.
I hope my colleagues will understand the seriousness of this issue.
It won't stop us from going about the work of securing the peace in
Iraq, but it will set it back and it will send the wrong signal at the
wrong time about the United States, true commitment in this country.
Mr. President, too many young Americans have already made the supreme
sacrifice for us to go back on that commitment now.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cochran). The Senator from Mississippi is
recognized.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
To refresh the memory of the Senate, it is good to look at the exact
wording of this amendment that was offered by the Senator from North
Dakota and others. The amendment provides that:

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 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 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.

My personal impression from the reading of this amendment is that the
$21 billion that is struck from the bill by this provision--because the
amendment begins by striking that $21 billion and substituting this
provision that I just read. My impression is that this is smoke and
mirrors, pure and simple. What the amendment would really do would be
to prevent making available to the Coalition Provisional Authority,
trying to guarantee the reconstruction of Iraq and the possibility for
the Iraqi people to live in peace and security and in an environment
where democracy would be possible, self-government probable--that you
could do it for nothing. That is what the assumption

[[Page S12520]]

is that underlies this amendment. The assumption is that you can do it
for nothing. No private bank is going to make a loan in the environment
that exists today in Iraq, with the threats to the security of the
people who are cooperating in the reconstruction of Iraq, the threats
to the Iraqi people who are cooperating with the coalition to
reconstruct Iraq--as they are. People are being shot at in the streets.
There is an atmosphere where there is a great deal of fear and
suspicion.
We have to, if we are to succeed in helping create this new Iraq--
which I applaud the President for trying to do; it will be a
contribution to the peace and stability of not only that region but the
world, in my opinion. If we want to support the President's efforts, we
will vote against this amendment and permit the funds that were
approved by the Appropriations Committee when it rejected this
amendment in the committee after hearing testimony from an array of
witnesses who are familiar with the situation in Iraq. The committee
recommended the approval of these funds--the total appropriation asked
for by the President--for the military operations, the increase in the
equipment, ammunition, other resources that our troops need to protect
themselves and to carry out their mission and to bring it to a
successful conclusion. Those funds are included in this bill, but also
additional funds that are the target of this amendment, which will help
in the reconstruction and make it possible to reconstruct the country
so that the people of Iraq can take care of themselves in a military
sense, with officers involved in police activity, patrolling the
streets to help guarantee that those who are engaged in positive,
constructive work there in Iraq can do so with security and without
fear of their lives.
That is what the bill is for. That is the goal of the mission of our
troops, working with the other nations. Some 30 other nations are
actively involved with people there, risking their lives trying to help
this country rebuild itself from the ravages of the Saddam Hussein
regime.
So if we vote for this amendment and if we reject the decision the
Appropriations Committee made, we are putting in jeopardy all of the
effort and all of the investment that has gone on, all of the risks
taken by so many to make this a successful operation to help establish
an atmosphere for freedom, democracy, self-government, for an economy
that can be successful in Iraq so that we can see our direct support of
this new Coalition Provisional Authority and the government that will
be formed as a result of its efforts.
I am hopeful we will recognize the fact that we had solid convincing
testimony before our committee at the hearings. Ambassador Bremer
testified, the Secretaries of State and Defense testified, and the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Abizaid, in charge of
the military operation there, all in support not just of the military
aspect, the $80 billion plus for military activity in direct support of
our military forces, but the additional funds which are the target of
this amendment.
Schools have started throughout Iraq. Hospitals have been reopened
throughout Iraq. That will all come to an end. The continuation of the
recovery effort and the progress being made will be put in jeopardy if
these funds are not approved.
Not only are banks unwilling to make direct loans to this new
government under the security situation that now exists, but nobody
will securitize or collateralize future revenues from any source, oil
or anything else. To assume this oil has a great monetary value right
now to anybody is just a false assumption. It is in the ground, right,
but it is not being produced. It is not being transported or marketed
in sufficient quantities that anyone would be willing to take the risk
of making a loan to a provisional authority created at this time in
Iraq. It is just not possible to expect that.
Nobody testified before our committee that I can remember saying that
would be a good idea. I don't recall a single financial expert coming
in to dispute this administration's recommendation that funds be made
available to help reconstruct the capacity to produce oil and to get
Iraq's economy moving. Nobody suggested an alternative, certainly not
this one. I don't recall hearing a witness. Maybe in the time remaining
to the Senator from North Dakota he can cite that effort, he can cite
that testimony.
We heard political arguments preying on the suspicions of others,
preying on the political aspirations of others who may challenge the
administration's policies, and we can have that debate, but this is not
a good substitute for the provisions that we have in the bill today
before the Senate.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. COCHRAN. We have looked through the administration's request very
carefully, and there were some disagreements about specific items. The
other body has completed action in its committee on this appropriations
request, and there are some differences. We will have an opportunity in
conference to look at some of the specific suggestions the House has
made, and I think they have made some good ones. We will work together
with our House colleagues and counterparts to prepare a conference
report that we hope will meet the approval of the Senate, as well as
the House, and that the President can sign, and we can move forward.
This is a smoke-and-mirrors amendment, Mr. President, purely and
simply. You cannot have it both ways. As I remember, one of my good
friends on the other side, after looking at a proposal that we had
before us one time, said: This is like smoke and mirrors. In fact,
there is so much smoke; you can't even find the mirrors; you can't see
the mirrors.
I am not trying to be too cute. I don't want to try to create that
impression, but I am very serious in my suggestion that it would be a
big mistake if we adopted this amendment. I hope the Senate will reject
the amendment. The committee looked very carefully at the amendment
when it was offered in our markup session and rejected the amendment.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. COCHRAN. I am hopeful, as we proceed to a final discussion, that
the Senate will look at the testimony we had before our committee,
consider carefully the implications of denying these funds to the
administration and the fact that it would contribute to a greater
degree of instability in that country with a greater degree of risk for
our troops who are now there, the civilians who are there from some 30-
odd countries trying to be helpful in the reconstruction of this
country. It would create a much more dangerous situation, and I don't
think we want to be a party to that. That would be a result, unintended
of course, that would flow from the adoption of this amendment.
I reserve the remainder of the time on our side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Ms. Landrieu addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields to the Senator from Louisiana?
Ms. LANDRIEU. I believe we have 1\1/2\ minutes. I wanted to ask the
Senator----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Ms. LANDRIEU. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 minutes.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. Who yields to the Senator?
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, how much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota has 1 minute 37
seconds.
Mr. DORGAN. My hope had been the normal courtesy of the Senate to
have the offeror of the amendment close debate. That may not be
possible because of the strategy of the quorum call here, so I don't
know what the intention of the Senator from Mississippi is. In most
cases, those who offer the amendment are allowed to close debate. I
hoped to do that for 5 minutes. If I am prevented from doing that, we
will deal with that at a later time.
But in the remaining time, I wish to make one point. The Senator from
Mississippi says he didn't hear any witnesses describe this approach to
reconstruction. You know why they didn't hear any witnesses? Because
Senator Byrd asked again and again to bring

[[Page S12521]]

witnesses before the committee and my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle decided they would not allow it to happen. They would not
allow other witnesses to come before the committee. So it is curious
now to hear people complain about not hearing other witnesses when
they, in fact, prevented them from testifying before the committee.
I yield the floor, and reserve the remainder of my time.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, as we continue to debate this
supplemental, we continue to find ourselves dancing around a very
important question that we've been asked--the one that Senator Dorgan
raises today: how is reconstruction in Iraq to be paid for?
First, let me say that it is clear that we unequivocally support our
troops and nearly all of us support their mission. I voted to support
the President in this effort a year ago this month and continue to
support our efforts to liberate Iraq from the terror that continues to
grip its citizens.
But, the answer to the question of cost is much less clear.
Last week I came to the Floor in support of Senator Biden's amendment
to rollback a small portion of the President's May 2003 tax cut.
Senator Biden's amendment would have paid for this supplemental while
protecting every American from undue hardship.
That amendment failed to gain the necessary support that would have
made it part of this supplemental. And, those who voted against that
amendment have yet to tell the rest of us how it is that we can afford
to spend $20 billion on Iraqi reconstruction and pass that cost onto
our children.
So, as of today, we still have not figured out how to pay for our
efforts in Iraq.
For a moment, let us set aside the portion of the supplemental that I
believe has nearly universal support here in the Senate--that being the
portion to pay for ongoing military operations.
Let us focus instead on that portion of the supplemental that deals
exclusively with reconstruction in Iraq.
The administration would like us to approve more than $20 billion for
projects we all consider necessary for any fledgling nation, but should
the American public or the Iraqi people pay for these types of
improvements? Should the American people be paying for pickup trucks,
radios and computer training? Remember, these are improvements that
were, in large part, needed prior to our arrival in Iraq.
Let me be clear, I am not questioning the need for these
improvements, but rather who ultimately pays for them.
In February 2003, and on at least three other occasions, we were told
by the White House that ``Iraq, unlike Afghanistan, is a rather wealthy
country. Iraq has tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi people.
And so there are a variety of means that Iraq has to be able to
shoulder much of the burden for their own reconstruction.''
The White House knows, as we do, that Iraq is in control of the
second largest proven oil reserve on the planet and modern financing
techniques will allow Iraq to leverage these natural resources to
rebuild its nation.
Senator Dorgan's amendment encapsulates an idea that is proven and at
work all over the globe. The worldwide securitization market is in
excess of $2 trillion.
We have heard from several experts, including the Export-Import Bank,
that securitization is workable and, in this case, desirable.
Securitization is the most legitimate way to provide reconstruction
dollars and to foster a sense of Iraqi ownership in the outcome of this
process of liberation, and I urge my colleagues to support this
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? Time will run equally against
both sides if no side yields time.
The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, can you tell me how much time is
remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. All remaining
time is controlled by the Senator from Mississippi.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The hour of 6:30 having arrived, the Senate
will move to a vote in relation to the amendment of the Senator from
North Dakota.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and ask for
the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion to table amendment No.
1826. 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), the Senator from
Wisconsin (Mr. Kohl), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman)
are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``nay.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Talent.) Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 57, nays 39, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 380 Leg.]

YEAS--57

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

NAYS--39

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

NOT VOTING--4

Edwards
Kerry
Kohl
Lieberman
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote and move to lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly support the amendment of
Senators Daschle and Graham of South Carolina to close an unfortunate
and unacceptable gap in health insurance coverage for families of
Reserve and Guard members called up for active duty. The amendment is
especially important now, when so many Reserve and Guard members are
being called up for duty in Iraq.
We all know that our Armed Forces are stretched thin. They are paying
a heavy price for the Bush administration's gross miscalculation about
Iraq. The burden is now falling heavily on the Reserve and National
Guard as well. Over 215,000 Guard and Reserve men and women have not
been mobilized to ease the burden on our regular forces in Iraq and
Afghanistan, and in homeland security as well.
One challenge they should not have to face is maintaining health
insurance for their families. The immediate problem is that, too few
private employers are willing to continue coverage for Guard and
Reserve employees and family members when the employees are activated.
According to the General Accounting Office, nearly 80 percent of all
reservists have health coverage through their jobs in the private
sector. They far prefer to continue that coverage when they are
activated. The military's TRICARE coverage works well for the
reservists themselves when they are activated. But it is often not
practical for their family members, since their homes are often too far
from the military bases where the TRICARE doctors have their medical
practices and doctors in the area near their homes often do not accept
TRICARE coverage.

Even when TRICARE coverage makes sense, it is often difficult to
transfer to TRICARE for a year and then transfer back to their
employer-sponsored plan after their deactivation, especially if they
have a so-called preexisting condition that could make them
uninsurable.

[[Page S12522]]

I recently met with an Air Force family in Boston who had lost their
health care as a result of the mobilization for Iraq. The family joined
TRICARE, but few physicians and even fewer specialists were willing to
take their insurance.
Clearly, we need to do more to guarantee that good health insurance
coverage is available. All our military families, including members of
the Reserve and Guard deserve good coverage. We need to do everything
we can to avoid unnecessary upheaval in the lives of these families who
are sacrificing so much for our country.
I thank my colleagues for their support of this proposal to make
TRICARE available to Reserve and Guard personnel and their families. It
is a problem we should have corrected long before now and we could have
avoided this sudden crisis for so many of these families.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I would like to yield to the Senator from
Nevada for purposes of offering some amendments, and then I would like
to get a time agreement, if we can, on the amendments that we are going
to lay down and debate tonight.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I could respond to my friend, the manager
of the bill, I am going to send a couple amendments to the desk.
Thereafter, Senator Corzine is going to offer an amendment, and he
wishes 12 minutes tonight. The Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Reed, is
going to offer an amendment. He is going to speak for up to 20 minutes.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we are preparing a unanimous consent
request. May we----
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am advised Senator Durbin wants to lay
down an amendment following Senator Reed and wants to speak for 10
minutes.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I would like to start the process of
having amendments offered from this side, too. So we are going to have
two from that side. Can we reserve a time for people to offer
amendments over here and decide about--I do not have any problem with
Senator Durbin offering an amendment, but the order of presenting them
we will decide tomorrow.
Mr. DURBIN. Absolutely.
Mr. STEVENS. Let me yield to the Senator to offer amendments.
And may I ask Senator Corzine to hold off until we get an agreement
concerning these two amendments we are going to consider?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.

Amendment No. 1835

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

The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for himself and Mrs.
Lincoln, proposes an amendment numbered 1835.

Mr. REID. 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 permit retired members of the Armed Forces who have a
service-connected disability to receive both military retired pay by
reason of their years of military service and disability compensation
from the Department of Veterans Affairs for their disability)

At the end of title I, add the following:
Sec. 316. (a) Restoration of Full Retired Pay Benefits.--
Section 1414 of title 10, United States Code, is amended to
read as follows:

``Sec. 1414. Members eligible for retired pay who have
service-connected disabilities: payment of retired pay and
veterans' disability compensation

``(a) Payment of Both Retired Pay and Compensation.--Except
as provided in subsection (b), a member or former member of
the uniformed services who is entitled to retired pay (other
than as specified in subsection (c)) and who is also entitled
to veterans' disability compensation is entitled to be paid
both without regard to sections 5304 and 5305 of title 38.
``(b) Special Rule for Chapter 61 Career Retirees.--The
retired pay of a member retired under chapter 61 of this
title with 20 years or more of service otherwise creditable
under section 1405 of this title at the time of the member's
retirement is subject to reduction under sections 5304 and
5305 of title 38, but only to the extent that the amount of
the member's retired pay under chapter 61 of this title
exceeds the amount of retired pay to which the member would
have been entitled under any other provision of law based
upon the member's service in the uniformed services if the
member had not been retired under chapter 61 of this title.
``(c) Exception.--Subsection (a) does not apply to a member
retired under chapter 61 of this title with less than 20
years of service otherwise creditable under section 1405 of
this title at the time of the member's retirement.
``(d) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) The term `retired pay' includes retainer pay,
emergency officers' retirement pay, and naval pension.
``(2) The term `veterans' disability compensation' has the
meaning given the term `compensation' in section 101(13) of
title 38.''.
(b) Repeal of Special Compensation Programs.--Sections 1413
and 1413a of such title are repealed.
(c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by striking the items
relating to sections 1413, 1413a, and 1414 and inserting the
following:

``1414. Members eligible for retired pay who have service-connected
disabilities: payment of retired pay and veterans'
disability compensation.''.
(d) Effective Date; Prohibition on Retroactive Benefits.--
(1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall
take effect on the first day of the first month that begins
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(2) Retroactive benefits.--No benefits may be paid to any
person by reason of section 1414 of title 10, United States
Code, as amended by subsection (a), for any period before the
effective date under paragraph (1).

Amendment No. 1836

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside, and I send another amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report the
amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment
numbered 1836.

Mr. REID. 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 express the sense of Congress on damages caused by the
regime of Saddam Hussein during the First Gulf War)

On page 22, between lines 12 and 13, insert the following
new section:
Sec. 316. (a) Congress makes the following findings:
(1) During Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert
Storm (in this section, collectively referred to as the
``First Gulf War''), the regime of Saddam Hussein committed
grave human rights abuses and acts of terrorism against the
people of Iraq and citizens of the United States.
(2) United States citizens who were taken prisoner by the
regime of Saddam Hussein during the First Gulf War were
brutally tortured and forced to endure severe physical trauma
and emotional abuse.
(3) The regime of Saddam Hussein used civilian citizens of
the United States who were working in the Persian Gulf region
before and during the First Gulf War as so-called human
shields, threatening the personal safety and emotional well-
being of such civilians.
(4) Congress has recognized and authorized the right of
United States citizens, including prisoners of war, to hold
terrorist states, such as Iraq during the regime of Saddam
Hussein, liable for injuries caused by such states.
(5) The United States district courts are authorized to
adjudicate cases brought by individuals injured by terrorist
states.
(b) It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) notwithstanding section 1503 of the Emergency Wartime
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2003 (Public Law 108-11; 117
Stat. 579) and any other provision of law, a citizen of the
United States who was a prisoner of war or who was used by
the regime of Saddam Hussein and by Iraq as a so-called human
shield during the First Gulf War should have the opportunity
to have any claim for damages caused by the regime of Saddam
Hussein and by Iraq incurred by such citizen fully
adjudicated in the appropriate United States district court;
(2) any judgment for such damages awarded to such citizen,
or the family of such citizen, should be fully enforced; and
(3) the Attorney General should enter into negotiations
with each such citizen, or the family of each such citizen,
to develop a fair and reasonable method of providing
compensation for the damages each such citizen incurred,
including using assets of the regime of Saddam Hussein held
by the Government of the United States or any other
appropriate sources to provide such compensation.

[[Page S12523]]

Mr. REID. Mr. President, there is a unanimous consent request being
typed now, but for the information of Senators, what we would like to
do tonight on the first two amendments we have spoken about, the
Corzine and Reed amendments--the majority has had an opportunity to
review those amendments. They know what is in those. I do not think we
are in a position at this time to make an agreement on the amendment by
the Senator from Illinois because they have not seen his amendment.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have no problem with Senator Corzine,
Senator Reed, and Senator Durbin offering their amendments, but in the
line here of being pending, of amendments being set aside temporarily,
I would like the right tomorrow to suggest the order in which these
will be presented following the votes on Senator Corzine's and Senator
Reed's amendments.
Mr. REID. I think that is appropriate.
Mr. STEVENS. It is just an understanding. I do not ask unanimous
consent.
Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that when the Senate
resumes consideration of the Iraq supplemental on Wednesday, there be 4
minutes equally divided prior to the vote in relation to the Corzine
amendment No. 1811; provided further that following that vote there be
7 minutes for debate in relation to the Reed amendment No. 1834, with 5
minutes under the control of Senator Reed and 2 minutes under the
control of the chairman; further, that following that debate the Senate
proceed to a vote in relation to the Reed amendment, with no amendments
in order to either amendment prior to the votes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, as I understand it, we have announced
there will be no more votes tonight. Senator Corzine will offer his
amendment first, and then Senator Reed will offer his amendment. We
will vote on those amendments tomorrow. I am informed there probably
will be a morning hour after our convening at about 9:30. We will
announce that schedule later. That means the first vote will take place
sometime around 10:40.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
The Senator from New Jersey.

Amendment No. 1811

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the
pending amendment, and I call up amendment No. 1811.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Corzine] proposes an
amendment numbered 1811.

Mr. CORZINE. 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 amend title 10, United States Code, to reduce the age for
receipt of military retired pay for nonregular service from 60 to 55)

On page 22, between lines 12 and 13, insert the following:
Sec. 316. (a) Section 12731(a)(1) of title 10, United
States Code, is amended by striking ``at least 60 years of
age'' and inserting ``at least 55 years of age''.
(b) With respect to any provision of law, or of any policy,
regulation, or directive of the executive branch, that refers
to a member or former member of the uniformed services as
being eligible for, or entitled to, retired pay under chapter
1223 of title 10, United States Code, but for the fact that
the member or former member is under 60 years of age, such
provision shall be carried out with respect to that member or
former member by substituting for the reference to being 60
years of age a reference to the age in effect for
qualification for such retired pay under section 12731(a) of
title 10, United States Code, as amended by subsection (a).
(c) The amendment made by subsection (a) shall take effect
on the first day of the first month beginning on or after the
date of the enactment of this Act and shall apply to retired
pay payable for that month and subsequent months.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senator Durbin,
and hopefully others, this amendment is designed to reduce the
retirement age for members of the National Guard and Reserves from 60
to 55. This change would allow for an estimated 92,000 reservists,
currently age 55 to 59, to retire with full benefits and would restore
parity between the retirement systems for Federal civilian employees
and reservists.
Just to refresh my colleagues' memory, regular military personnel can
retire after 20 years of service regardless of their age--38, 48, 55,
or 60--and receive their retirement benefits at the time of retirement.
As we reflect on the demands placed on our soldiers in Iraq,
particularly our Reserve and Guard forces--of which there are roughly
20,000 in theater--there is no more appropriate time to consider this
important proposal to support these brave men and women.
As a matter of basic fairness, it is only right to restore parity
between the retirement age for civilian employees and their Reserve
counterparts.
When the Reserve retirement system was created in 1947, the
retirement age for reservists was identical to the age for civilian
employees. At age 60, reservists and Government employees could hang up
their uniforms and retire with full benefits. However, since 1947, the
retirement age for civilian retirees has been lowered by 5 years while
the retirement age has not changed for reservists and guards.
The disparate treatment of Federal employees and reservists would
have been serious enough had the nature of the work performed by the
reservists been steady over the past five decades, but today this
country places an increasingly heavy demand on its Ready Reserve, more
of a demand than has ever been the case in our Nation's history. Today
more than 200,000 reservists have been called up to serve their country
in the war on terrorism, and 170,000 of these reservists and Guard
troops are now on active duty, here at home and abroad. America's
dependence on our Ready Reserve has never been more transparent to the
American people. Reservists are now providing security at our Nation's
airports, and they patrol the air over our major cities. They provide
caps, protection.
With call-ups that last several months and take reservists far from
home in serving our Nation, it is increasingly clear that reservists
are performing the same role as those on active duty and any other
service. Before the war on terrorism, reservists were performing 13
million man-days each year--get the idea of how big that is--more than
a tenfold increase over the 1 million man-days the Reserves averaged
just 10 years ago. It has moved dramatically, even before the war on
terrorism began.
In fiscal year 2002, reservists contributed 41 million man-days. And
this year, in fiscal year 2003, that number will be up again. So we are
using our Reserve Forces dramatically more than was ever the case in
the history of the Reserve and Guard units. These people are on active
duty for an increasing amount of time, particularly as we justify and
move forward with the war on terrorism. These are staggering increases.
Those defenders of the American people should have that recognized by
shortening their time before they are eligible for retirement. In my
view, with additional responsibility should come additional benefits.
I know this proposal is not without cost. But not improving the
reservists' benefits also will have a cost, potentially a severe cost.
After all, in recent years we have seen our military struggling to meet
recruitment and retention goals. It has been even more severe sometimes
with our Guard and Reserve. That has improved somewhat after 9/11. But
unless the overall package of incentives is enhanced, there is little
reason to believe we will be able to attract and retain highly trained
Reserve personnel over the long run, particularly as their deployments
and the number of man-hours has increased.

Active-duty military personnel have often looked to the Reserves as a
way to continue to serve their country while being closer to their
families. We have been drawing people out of the active military into
the Reserve. With thousands of dollars invested in training active-duty
officers and enlisted soldiers, the United States benefits tremendously
when personnel decide to continue with the Reserves. But with Reserve
deployments increasing in frequency and duration, pulling reservists
away from their families and civilian life, imposing real hardships on
those families, the advantage in joining the

[[Page S12524]]

Reserves has been dramatically reduced. There is no question about
that.
The more we depend on the Reserves, the greater chance we have of
losing highly trained former active-duty service men and women and a
number of people who have just joined the Active Reserve because they
thought it was a way they could supplement income and be involved in
supporting our Nation.
In my view, the added incentive of full retirement at 55 might
provide just the inducement some of them need to stay on despite the
surge in deployments. By the way, to illustrate, in the period 1953 to
1990, there were 11 deployments of reservists and guards. Between 1991
and 2001, there have been 50 deployments of reservists and guards. Now
those numbers are accelerating as we take on this war on terrorism.
It is an enormous change in how we are utilizing our Reserve Forces.
I hear from the guards and reservists in New Jersey to whom I spoke
directly that one of those things they are most interested in is seeing
a shortening of the period before they have access to retirement
benefits. It will make a big difference in their lives. They consider
it important.
Enacting this legislation will send a clear message that our Nation
values the increased sacrifice of our reservists during this trying
time. This proposal has been endorsed by key members of a broad
military coalition, including the Reserve Officers Association,
Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Air Force Sergeants Association, the Air
Force Association, and Retired Enlisted Association, the Fleet Reserve
Association, the Naval Reserve Association, and the National Guard
Association. All of the groups that represent these individuals in our
system are strongly supporting this initiative. It would restore parity
between the Reserves retirement system of our Guard and Reserve and the
civilian retirement system, acknowledge the increased workload of
reservists, and provide essential personnel with the inducement to join
and stay in the Reserves until retirement.
I do hope my colleagues will support this amendment. This is the
appropriate time given what kind of challenge we are laying down for
our National Guard and Reserve across this country. We have increased
their responsibilities. We have put severe challenges in front of them
and their families, and it is our responsibility, in my view, to
recognize that and to address it. I think one of the best ways to do
that is to reduce the retirement age for the Reserve and the Guard.
I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this amendment.
With that, I yield the floor.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be allowed to
speak for 5 minutes and lay down an amendment out of line before giving
the floor to Senator Reed, who will do the same with his amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 1837

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

The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], for himself, Ms.
Mikulski, and Mr. Corzine, proposes an amendment numbered
1837.

Mr. DURBIN. 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 ensure that a Federal employee who takes leave without pay
in order to perform certain service as a member of the uniformed
services or member of the National Guard shall continue to receive pay
in an amount which, when taken together with the pay and allowances
such individual is receiving for such service, will be no less than the
basic pay such individual would then be receiving if no interruption in
employment had occurred)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. __. (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the
``Reservists Pay Security Act of 2003''.
(b) Nonreduction in pay While Federal Employee Is
Performing Active Service In the Uniformed Services or
National Guard.--
(1) In general.--Subchapter IV of chapter 55 of title 5,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:

``Sec. 5538. Nonreduction in pay while serving in the
uniformed services or National Guard

``(a) An employee who is absent from a position of
employment with the Federal Government in order to perform
active duty in the uniformed services pursuant to a call or
order to active duty under a provision of law referred to in
section 101(a)(13)(B) of title 10 shall be entitled, while
serving on active duty, to receive, for each pay period
described in subsection (b), an amount equal to the amount by
which--
``(1) the amount of basic pay which would otherwise have
been payable to such employee for such pay period if such
employee's civilian employment with the Government had not
been interrupted by that service, exceeds (if at all)
``(2) the amount of pay and allowances which (as determined
under subsection (d))--
``(A) is payable to such employee for that service; and
``(B) is allocable to such pay period.
``(b)(1) Amounts under this section shall be payable with
respect to each pay period (which would otherwise apply if
the employee's civilian employment had not been
interrupted)--
``(A) during which such employee is entitled to
reemployment rights under chapter 43 of title 38 with respect
to the position from which such employee is absent (as
referred to in subsection (a)); and
``(B) for which such employee does not otherwise receive
basic pay (including by taking any annual, military, or other
paid leave) to which such employee is entitled by virtue of
such employee's civilian employment with the Government.
``(2) For purposes of this section, the period during which
an employee is entitled to reemployment rights under chapter
43 of title 38--
``(A) shall be determined disregarding the provisions of
section 4312(d) of title 38; and
``(B) shall include any period of time specified in section
4312(e) of title 38 within which an employee may report or
apply for employment or reemployment following completion of
the service on active duty to which called or ordered as
described in subsection (a).
``(c) Any amount payable under this section to an employee
shall be paid--
``(1) by such employee's employing agency;
``(2) from the appropriation or fund which would be used to
pay the employee if such employee were in a pay status; and
``(3) to the extent practicable, at the same time and in
the same manner as would basic pay if such employee's
civilian employment had not been interrupted.
``(d) The Office of Personnel Management shall, in
consultation with Secretary of Defense, prescribe any
regulations necessary to carry out the preceding provisions
of this section.
``(e)(1) The head of each agency referred to in section
2302(a)(2)(C)(ii) shall, in consultation with the Office,
prescribe procedures to ensure that the rights under this
section apply to the employees of such agency.
``(2) The Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration shall, in consultation with the Office,
prescribe procedures to ensure that the rights under this
section apply to the employees of that agency.
``(f) In this section--
``(1) the terms `employee', `Federal Government', and
`uniformed services' have the same respective meanings as
given them in section 4303 of title 38;
``(2) the term `employing agency', as used with respect to
an employee entitled to any payments under this section,
means the agency or other entity of the Government (including
an agency referred to in section 2302(a)(2)(C)(ii)) with
respect to which such employee has reemployment rights under
chapter 43 of title 38; and
``(3) the term `basic pay' includes any amount payable
under section 5304.''.
(2) Technical and conforming amendment.--The table of
sections for chapter 55 of title 5, United States Code, is
amended by inserting after the item relating to section 5537
the following:

``5538. Nonreduction in pay while serving in the uniformed services or
National Guard.''.

(3) Effective period.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply with respect to pay periods (as described in
section 5538(b) of title 5, United States Code, as amended by
this section) beginning on or after the date of enactment of
this section and ending September 30, 2004.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, who is a Boston Red
Sox fan, for allowing me an opportunity to present this amendment so I
can watch the Cubs in a few minutes. I owe him big for this one.
This amendment takes into consideration that we have 1.2 million
members of the National Guard and Reserve. Of that number, some 120,000
are also Federal employees--10 percent of the National Guard and
Reserve--and 14,000 of the Federal employees are currently mobilized
and serve on active duty.
All across the United States, States, local governments, and private
corporations have said to the men and women in the Reserve and Guard:
If you are activated and mobilized, we will hold you harmless in terms
of your salary. We will make up the difference between your military
pay and what you would have made at home so that your family won't
suffer a hardship and have to make a sacrifice.

[[Page S12525]]

Sadly, we do not make the same concession for Federal employees. My
Reservist Pay Security Act of 2003 is legislation that will help
alleviate the problems faced by many Federal employees who serve in the
Reserves and must take time off from their jobs when our Nation calls.
It allows these citizen-soldiers to maintain their normal salary when
called to active service by requiring Federal agencies to make up the
difference.
This amendment is affordable. A recent Department of Defense survey
of 35,000 reservists found that 41 percent lost income during
mobilization and deployment, while 59 percent either broke even or
increased their income on active duty. Of those who reported losing
income, most--70 percent--said their income was reduced by $3,750 or
less while serving on active duty.
Based on CBO estimates, this measure to protect the income of Federal
employees who are activated and mobilized in Guard and Reserve units
would cost us approximately $75 million for the next fiscal year. That
seems like a very small amount in an $87 billion supplemental.
I think we need to provide these Reserve employees financial support
so they can leave their civilian lives and serve our country without
the added burden on their families.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.

Amendment No. 1834

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the
pending amendment, and I call up amendment No. 1834.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed], for himself and
Mr. Hagel, proposes an amendment numbered 1834.

Mr. REED. 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 increase the end strength of the Army and to structure the
additional forces for constabulary duty)

On page 22, between lines 12 and 13, insert the following:
Sec. 316. (a) In addition to the strengths authorized by
law for personnel of the Army as of September 30, 2004,
pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 115(a) of title
10, United States Code, the Army is hereby authorized an
additional strength of 10,000 personnel as of such date,
which the Secretary of the Army may allocate as the Secretary
determines appropriate among the personnel strengths required
by such section to be authorized annually under subparagraphs
(A) and (B) of paragraph (1) of such section and paragraph
(2) of such section.
(b) The additional personnel authorized under subsection
(a) shall be trained, incorporated into an appropriate force
structure, and used to perform constabulary duty in such
specialties as military police, light infantry, civil
affairs, and special forces, and in any other military
occupational specialty that is appropriate for constabulary
duty.
(c) Of the amount appropriated under chapter 1 of this
title for the Iraq Freedom Fund, $409,000,000 shall be
available for necessary expenses for the additional personnel
authorized under subsection (a).

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I offer this amendment with Senator Hagel of
Nebraska. It would increase the end strength of our Army so we can deal
with the increasing turbulence throughout the world that we have been
confronting since 9/11--indeed before then.
Our military forces are without equal. They combine superb technology
with bravery and devotion to the Nation. They are well led,
particularly by extraordinary noncommissioned officers and junior
officers. These qualities extend to both Active and Reserve components.
History has never seen such a formidable force. However, history is
replete with examples of superb military forces worn down because they
were overextended.
Today, that danger is approaching our Army as it copes with worldwide
commitments and the difficult challenge of a violent insurgency in Iraq
and a resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan.
This chart depicts the deployment of soldiers. There are 325,000
soldiers in 120 countries. In Iraq, there are about 120,000; in Kuwait,
about 22,000; in Afghanistan, approximately 11,000. They are all across
the globe performing missions that are important to us and our national
security and our safety. This situation of an extended Army has been
developing over many years. Since 1989, the Army's military end
strength has been cut by more than 34 percent and civilian strength by
45 percent, while undergoing a 300-percent increase in mission rate.
Fewer people, more demand. That has been the record since 1989 and
before that even.
This operational tempo certainly became acute after September 11 and
the commencement of the global war on terrorism. A respected voice who
devoted his life to serving the nation, GEN Frederick Kroesen, wrote in
November 2002, before the initiation of operations in Iraq:

It appears to this interested observer that we are
expending the force and doing little to ensure its viability
in the years to come, years we have been assured it will take
to win the war on terrorism. The quality of our effort, high
and commendable during the first year and showing no signs of
deterioration, can in the long run only be sustained by
preparing now for the force we will need then. Barring the
unlikely scenario of an all-out war and full mobilization,
soldiers now fighting the war on terrorism, with few
exceptions, will not be available for fighting two years from
now. Units and organizations of the reserve components,
mobilized for the first year of war, will not be available
for more of the same service off into the indefinite future.
It might be prudent now to ask the managers who decreed the
current second-year Reservists' extensions what they plan for
the third year.
The answer, of course, is to increase the size of the Army.
On September 10, 2001, the Army was too small for the
missions with which it was charged--a fact reported by both
the Secretary and Chief of Staff of the Army in congressional
testimony of that year.
On September 11, Army mission requirements grew
significantly; the Army did not. It instead begins the
expending of it and establishes the need to begin planning
for the replacement of that which is being used up.

General Kroesen, a distinguished soldier, commanded the 82nd Airborne
Division when I served as a young lieutenant. His insights are both
profound and to me compelling.
Again, these words from General Kroesen were written before Operation
Iraqi Freedom and before we found ourselves in a prolonged and costly
effort to defeat an insurgency and rebuild a nation. The added stress
of Iraq has made the acute absolutely critical.
James Kitfield of the National Journal wrote an insightful analysis
of the stresses affecting the Army. He points out how this breakneck
operational tempo is imposing great burdens throughout the Army. In his
words:

To understand why, shift the focus from individual soldiers
to major units such as the 82nd Airborne Division.
Traditionally America's quick reaction division, the 82nd
currently has a brigade in Iraq and another in Afghanistan.
The 3rd Brigade of the 82nd Airborne, however, is the one
that most concerns Army planners. After leaving Afghanistan
earlier this year, the 3rd Brigade was home only about 6
months before being sent to help relieve the 3rd Infantry
Division.

Then there is the 3rd Brigade of the 1st Infantry Division. Having
returned recently from Germany from an extended peacekeeping deployment
in the Balkans, the soldiers of the 3rd Brigade are becoming
reacquainted with their families and relearning the kinds of high-
intensity combat skills the Army put to such impressive use during the
Iraq war. That training cycle itself requires weeks away from home. The
1st Infantry soldiers will not have much time before turning their
focus to deployment preparations, however, because the 3rd Brigade is
heading to Iraq next March to relieve elements of the 4th Infantry
Division.
What we are seeing every day is an increasing cycle of deployment and
redeployment of brigades and divisions being shuffled about to cover
all of these tremendous worldwide domains. This tempo and this stress
is beginning to show in terms of our soldiers and in terms of the Army.
Unless we provide additional soldiers for the Army, these stresses will
be manifested in growing problems, such as difficulties in recruitment
and retention and difficulties in adequately and thoroughly training
the force.
The Army has begun to cancel or postpone many exercises and training
rotations. The Los Angeles Times recently reported that since October
1, 2002, the Pentagon has canceled or postponed 49 of the 182 training
exercises scheduled for this fiscal year.
The superb force that entered Iraq was forged through intensive
training. Without such training, we will lose the

[[Page S12526]]

edge in a world where there are other potential adversaries, such as
North Korea whose army is more tenacious than the Iraqis under Saddam.
The effects on recruitment and retention are likely to be seen first
in the National Guard and Reserves. Indeed, unless we add more active
component soldiers, we will continue to rely on the National Guard and
Reserves to fill the gaps. Such a policy is unsustainable over an
extended period.
National Guard men and women and Reserve forces are dedicated
patriots and skilled professionals, but they have lives outside the
Army. If we continually force them to choose between service to the
Nation and supporting their families, they will ultimately and
invariably choose their families.
Moreover, the stresses on the Guard and Reserves are not localized in
a few communities. These stresses are transmitted to every corner of
the country, and we will have great difficulty maintaining public
support for an extended operation in Iraq if the public sees that
operation through the prism of neighbors repeatedly called to service
and sacrifice without relief.
There has been much discussion about the adequacy of our force
structure in Iraq, and I have become increasingly skeptical of the
adequacy of the force structure in Iraq. You just have to pick up
today's New York Times where there is an article that describes the
fact that there is approximately 1 million tons of ammunition in Iraq,
much of it unsecured because, frankly, we don't have enough troops
there. We don't have enough American troops. We have not received our
international reinforcements, and we have not yet effectively trained
and deployed Iraqi troops.
What is also frightening is the fact that apparently the Saddam
Hussein regime stockpiled at least 5,000 shoulder-fired missiles, air
defense missiles, capable of bringing down aircraft. Only about a third
of these missiles are accounted for. There is the alarming possibility,
because we are unable to secure these ammo dumps, that literally
thousands of shoulder-fired air defense missiles are in Iraq or, even
more alarming, have filtered outside the country to terrorist groups.
So there is increasing evidence that the forces we have on the ground
are not doing an essential job, which is to protect themselves from
munitions going into the hands of terrorists and being used against our
troops.
Regardless of how one feels about the number of troops in Iraq, we
simply will not be able to maintain even that level unless we increase
the end strength of our Army. Increased reliance on Guard and Reserves
is not a sensible long-term strategy, and the arrival of international
reinforcements is problematic. The Army is trying to squeeze more boots
on the ground from its current forces, but this improvisation is a
quick fix, not a long-term solution.
This amendment would authorize and would pay for an increase in the
active duty Army end strength by 10,000 personnel and would focus on
forces needed for constabulary duty, such as military police, civil
affairs, light infantry, and special operations.
The objective of end strength, meaning the number of personnel
permitted to serve in the military, was succinctly summed up by retired
GEN Gordon R. Sullivan:

The objective is to have enough soldiers to execute Army
missions at the right time and the right place, have enough
in the total to have both tactical and operations flexibility
and to have adequate depth in numbers to support leader
development, required force structure manning and the
requisite balance needed across the ranks.

Indeed, the current numbers are not giving the flexibility and the
redundancy we should have built in to our military.
Each year in the Defense authorization bill, Congress authorizes the
end strength of each branch of the military service. There is a
separate end strength number for the Active and Reserve component,
which includes the National Guard.

Presently, the authorized active duty end strength for the Army is
480,000. The authorized end strength for the Army National Guard is
350,000, and the authorized end strength for the Army Reserve is
205,000.
In addition, there is a variance, which means the Secretary of
Defense is authorized to exceed the active duty end strength by 3
percent when necessary, and the Guard and Reserve end strength by 2
percent.
I would argue that the present authorized end strength today, even
with the allowed variance, does not provide enough Army personnel to
provide the depth, the flexibility, and the balance it needs to carry
out the missions of today and the future. This Army is stretched across
the globe. The demands increase and the number of soldiers who are
available is not able to give that needed flexibility, that
adaptability, and that balance.
Five years ago in the Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1999,
Congress lowered the authorized active duty end strength from 495,000
to its present 480,000. So there were at least 15,000 more soldiers
several years ago before the war on terror, before the war in Iraq,
before contingencies that have yet to present themselves to us.
Soon after that, however, the discussions began when we lowered this
end strength, focusing on the inadequacies of the number of people we
had. During a hearing before the House Armed Services Committee in July
2001--again, before September 11--General Shinseki stated:

Given today's mission profile, the Army is too small for
the mission load it is carrying.

At that time, both General Shinseki and Secretary White requested
that end strength be increased to 520,000. Again, that was before 9/11
and before Iraq.
Since 2001, the Association of the United States Army has been
advocating for increasing end strength by 30,000 to 40,000 additional
soldiers. Again, my amendment would only call for a 10,000 increase in
the number of soldiers.
However, despite the views of these professionals, end strength has
not been increased. Yet none of the Army's missions from 2000 have
ended, and with the advent of September 11, the war on terror, the war
in Afghanistan, and the war in Iraq, the burden has increased
exponentially.
Today, as this chart shows, the Army has 325,200 soldiers deployed
and forward stationed in 120 countries. While some of these deployment
numbers may vary in the future, there will not be any significant
changes. No one, I think, reasonably expects that we will be
withdrawing within a year or two a major force from Iraq or forces from
Afghanistan or forces from even Kosovo, Bosnia, and Hungary. These
commitments are there, and they must be met.
Retired LTG Jay Garner, the first director of Iraqi reconstruction,
told the National Journal that the active duty Army ``has already been
burned out'' by trying to do too much with too few, and the ``reserves
are going to be burned out'' by repeated activations.
General Garner argues that the Army needs to expand by two light
infantry divisions, about 20,000.
The U.S. Army's Center of Military History has looked at the numbers
and experiences of forces needed to remain in country after the
conventional battle has ended--occupation forces, in other words. The
center notes that you can look at historical examples, but you must
also consider contemporary analyses and current capabilities.
With this three-pronged analysis, the Army's Center of Military
History posited that if ``we and our allies were to directly and
effectively steer the course of events,'' 300,000 troops would be
required in Afghanistan for a generation and 100,000 troops would be
needed in Iraq for a number of years,'' assuming a modernized society
and robust infrastructure. Without these numbers of military personnel,
we may have influence but not control.
I think we are seeing today in Iraq that we have influence and not
control, certainly not in Baghdad. We have influence in Afghanistan,
but not control. It is important to note that providing insufficient
troops to both Afghanistan and Iraq not only has consequences now but
well into the future.
Today, the Army presently has 501,000 soldiers serving on active
duty. Not only is this above the authorized end strength of 480,000,
but it is also above the 3 percent variance rate. Indeed, the Army is
so stretched at the moment, they are actually breaking the law on end
strength. Isn't that enough evidence to suggest we need to raise the
level?
I also note that even when the Army is well over the authorized end

[[Page S12527]]

strength, they are having an extraordinarily difficult time
implementing a rotation policy for Iraq and other areas around the
globe. This means that tours are being extended. More Guard and Reserve
forces are being called up and our soldiers are getting tired by the
daily stress they are enduring and frustrated by the lack of certainty
of when they may return home.

Currently more than 130,000 Guard and Reserve soldiers are deployed.
Approximately 29,000 National Guard soldiers, infantry, signal
transportation, military police are serving in Iraq and Kuwait. Among
those are the 115th and 119th military police companies from Rhode
Island, and the 118th military police battalion from Rhode Island. They
are doing a magnificent job, but they are feeling the stress of this
deployment.
More than 10,000 Reserve soldiers are in Kuwait, Afghanistan, and
Iraq. At this time, there are still requirements for National Guard
soldiers in Bosnia, Kosovo, and the Sinai. In fact, the National Guard
has taken command relationships in these countries--Bosnia, Kosovo, and
the Sinai. This is a development that I think many National Guard
soldiers did not anticipate when they joined the Guard several years
ago, certainly if they joined the Guard 10 or 15 years ago.
Since September 11, the Guard has mobilized 210,000 of its 350,000
soldiers at one time or another. The Reserve has mobilized 85,000 of
its 205,000 in that same time period.
In addition, the activation of the Reserve component has a different
effect than the deployment of an active-duty soldier. For active-duty
personnel, the military is their primary employer and their families
are prepared for the sacrifices required when their loved one is absent
from home for a long period of time performing dangerous duty. With
reservists, it is a different story. While slightly more than 50
percent of the active-component Army is married, 74 percent of
reservists have at least 1 dependent. About one-half of these soldiers
work for employers with 1,000 or fewer employees and 15 percent work
for companies with less than 50 employees, where their absence is
sorely felt.
While these soldiers are fighting for our country for at least a
year, employers are understaffed and spouses are struggling as single
parents, often under financial duress, since some soldiers take a pay
cut when they give up their civilian salary for an Army wage.
Goldman Sachs recently conducted a survey of Reserve component
soldiers and their employers and found these disturbing results:
Virtually all the reservists felt that the activation was having a less
than favorable impact on their civilian careers. Nearly one-third of
the reservists were not sure their jobs would be waiting for them when
they came off active duty, and half believed there would be a negative
effect on pay and promotion.
Indeed, there is a dire need to expand the number of active-duty
military personnel to avoid a future crisis in recruitment and
retention in the military, specifically in the Reserve and National
Guard units. With numbers like this reported by the Goldman Sachs
survey, with the stress of a year deployment, with the additional
burdens on spouses and children, I believe when these National Guards
men and women and reservists return home the likelihood they would
eagerly extend their careers in the Guard and Reserve is diminished
significantly. Our soldiers need a break. They deserve better. We can
help them and we should.
Now some may oppose this amendment by stating that senior officials
from the administration and the Army have repeatedly stated that if
they needed more troops they would ask for them, and they do not need
more troops. I argue the administration is ignoring the facts I have
just cited, and the simple and the obvious point that our Army is
overworked and the work continues.
I think they are ignoring these facts for several reasons. First,
increasing end strength admits that we need more troops to create a
reasonable rotation policy, which means we are going to be in Iraq for
a long time. The only other country where we have a one-year rotation
policy for troops is Korea, where we have been ensconced now for almost
50 years. This administration simply must admit that a U.S. military
presence in Iraq will be necessary for a very long time. Last
Saturday's edition of the Washington Post quotes GEN Jim Jones, the
U.S. European commander and NATO supreme allied commander, as saying
U.S. soldiers may pull out of Bosnia in 2004--may. That is 8 years
after they went in and were also going to stay for just 1 year. I argue
that Iraq is likely a more difficult undertaking than Bosnia. Also, the
only reason the U.S. is able to leave Bosnia is because troops from
other nations are remaining, a luxury we unfortunately do not have in
Iraq today.

Once again, the United States Army Center of Military History has
noted: Occupations have required not only manpower but also time to
achieve success. In the Philippines, for example, the officers and NCOs
of the Philippine constabulary were virtually all continental Americans
in 1902. Yet, by 1935, 30 years later, everyone was a Filipino. The
Philippines was a challenging proposition with respect to both manpower
and time, and it took a generation to achieve a satisfactory outcome.
Germany and Japan transitioned from being occupied to being allies in
about a decade.
So looking at history, challenging countries take at least a
generation to stabilize, less demanding countries perhaps a decade. We
are in Iraq for at least 10 years, and we have to have a force
structure that will support that deployment. The Army must grow so they
can rotate troops and avoid sending the units again and again to Iraq
and Afghanistan.
The second reason the administration is reluctant to increase end
strength is that as the New York Times noted in July,

. . . the concept on increasing troop numbers and its costs
contradicts a basic tenet of Secretary Rumsfeld's goal for
military transformation, which is to rely on new technology
and rewrite doctrine to allow smaller forces to attack with
greater speed and deadliness.

I argue that Secretary Rumsfeld was able to test his theories of
transformation during the period of conventional war in Iraq, and they
were a success. But he risks losing that victory by refusing to see a
war of this sort also requires nation building, and nation building
requires many more boots on the ground to ensure security and
stability.
Retired LTG Walter Ulmer--and General Ulmer was one of the key
leaders in the Army who analyzed and predicted the hollow Army of the
1970s--stated recently:

One of the lessons we learned in the past, and we're
relearning in dramatic fashion in Iraq and Afghanistan, is
that the U.S. military may be able to fight a war with slim
forces, but it takes a lot more troops to secure an unruly
nation with many diverse interest groups and antagonists.

Ulmer argues the Army is short 40,000 to 50,000 troops. He said:

The Army is a very elastic institution with a can-do
culture, and that's a wonderful attribute, but it is not
infinitely elastic and its can-do ethos makes it possible for
the Army to practically respond itself to death.

Another senior Army official stated:

Essentially, we fought a just-in-time war. A unit would
arrive, get a bullet, the enemy would pop his head up and
we'd fire the bullet. That puts a lot of stress on a
commander who is simultaneously trying to execute the forward
battle, carefully balance his resources, pull a company from
here to plug a gap over there, all the while looking back
over his shoulder at very exposed logistical lines.

He asked:

Why fight a war like that when we could have deployed
overwhelming combat forces in a way that would reduce risks
and possibly protect lives? We've also seen in Iraq that
while lean forces can be successful in combat by focusing on
an enemy's finite centers of gravity, in [postwar] stability
operations, there are no decisive centers of gravity. You
have to spread your forces throughout each city, and that
takes more of them.

If we accept the need to increase the size of the Active Duty Army,
we need to then focus on what types of forces would be most beneficial.
The U.S. Army is the best in the world when it comes to skills and
equipment needed to win on the battlefield, but the conventional battle
in Iraq is over. Now I argue we need an occupation force, those who
must remain to accomplish the U.S. objective once the conventional
battle is finished. These forces must have different skills because
they have different missions: defending against an insurgency,
enforcing law

[[Page S12528]]

and order, providing humanitarian relief, and reconstruction of
infrastructure. They need the skills required for nation building.
So my amendment directs that the Army should seek 10,000 soldiers who
have the skills that are the highest demand in Iraq: military police,
special forces, civil affairs officers, and light infantry. These
forces travel lighter, so they are less expensive to transport and
maintain. These forces will provide maximum effectiveness at minimal
cost.

In January, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, or
CSIS, released a report called ``A Wiser Peace: An Action Strategy For
Post-Conflict Iraq.'' The first recommendation in the report is to:

. . . create a transitional security force that is
effectively prepared, mandated and able to handle post-
conflict security needs.

The report states that:

The United States must immediately identify and train a
core force of U.S. military troops to perform constabulary
duties in Iraq. Working with its coalition partners, the U.S.
must also identify and ready other constabulary forces--such
as the Italian Carabinieri and French Gendarmerie--to assure
their timely arrival in theater.

We have yet to see the arrival of the French Gendarmerie and the
Italian Carabinieri. There are Italian forces that are assisting there,
but the French have not yet arrived.
But the need the CSIS identified before the war ever began is clearly
there, and the U.S. Army is struggling to meet it. Presently, the
Active-Duty Army has 19,432 authorized positions for military policemen
and there are currently 22,476 MPs serving, well over authorized
capacity. There are 22,608 Reserve slots for military police and they
are presently at 95 percent capacity. Clearly, there is a need for more
military police. This amendment assures we start meeting this need.
In addition, my amendment gives the Army the flexibility to either
move Reserve slots to active duty or recruit new soldiers. I should
make it clear that the positions move, not necessarily the people. No
reservist can be forced to become an active-duty soldier.
Most of the Army's military police are in Reserve units--12,800 are
in the Active Force while 22,800 are in the Reserves. Most Civil
Affairs Units, those soldiers who provide a link between the military
and civilian population in an area of operations, are also in Reserves.
Clearly, there needs to be a redistribution, given the demands on
today's Army. In addition, if the Army has the flexibility to move
reservists and guardsmen into the Active Force, these soldiers will be
ready for deployment much more quickly than new recruits.
The informal CBO cost of 10,000 additional soldiers is $409 million.
That number includes military personnel and operational and maintenance
costs of 10,000 additional troops for fiscal year 2004. I believe this
is the most worthwhile expenditure.
This amendment offsets this cost with funding from the Iraqi Freedom
Fund. As we all know, the Iraq Freedom Fund was established in the
fiscal year 2003 supplemental we passed in March. At that time, $15
billion was set aside for Secretary Rumsfeld to use on emergency
expenses for military personnel, operation and maintenance,
procurement, or humanitarian assistance. Most of that funding has been
expended. Therefore, an additional $1.9 billion for the Iraqi Freedom
Fund is included in this supplemental for exigencies. I believe the
exigency is here and we should pay for these troops now.
Many would argue that while the costs are $409 million the first
year, these troops will have to continue to be maintained in future
years, and the actual cradle-to-grave costs are much higher. I would
counter that this cost is minimal compared to what it will take if, in
just a short time--2 or 3 years--the U.S. Army does not have the
fighting force it needs to perform its mission because we squandered
its strength.
Let me show another chart, which again contrasts the Army in August
of 2000, when some were criticizing it as being unprepared, and the
Army in August of 2003.
There were 144,000 soldiers deployed in 2000; in 2003, about
370,000--over 370,000; 7 brigades in 2000, 30 brigades in 2003. No
National Guard divisions deployed; 3 years later, 2 National Guard
divisions deployed. In 2000, fewer than 25,000 National Guard and
Reserve troops on active duty; today, 126,498 troops. This has an
impact.

These are the scenarios that are used as a template to plan our
military forces, the ``two major theater wars'' scenario: MTW east,
Iraq; MTW west, hypothetically Korea. This is the required order of
battle that has been devised after careful study: six divisions here
and four divisions for MTW west. The units available in August of 2000,
again at a time when our Army was being criticized as not being up to
the task of defending the Nation--six divisions and one armored cavalry
regiment ready, four divisions at MTW west and one armored cavalry
division. Today, only four divisions here for the east scenario and
only three divisions here.
There is an impact in terms of our capability to do what we planned
for decades to do. We have to ensure that our Army is ready for any
mission, and we have to ensure it today.
In his farewell speech, when he was retiring as Army Chief of Staff,
GEN Eric Shinseki said:

We must ensure the Army has the capabilities to match the
strategic environment in which we operate, a force sized
correctly to meet the strategy set forth in the documents
that guide us. . . . beware the 12-division strategy for a
10-division Army.

We are rapidly approaching a 12-division strategy with a 10-division
Army.
Our Army is fighting on many fronts for us right now. They are doing
a magnificent job, as well as the Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast
Guard--all of our Defense Department personnel and related personnel.
We are extraordinarily proud of them. But they are overtaxed,
particularly so in the Army because of the nature of the Army. It is
not only the combat arm of decision but also is the combat arm of
duration. It is the Army that typically is charged with the aftermath
of the battle as well as the battle.
We have to help them. My amendment will provide a modicum of relief.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
As a final point, ultimately we all respond, not just to our
colleagues, not just to institutional pressures, but to our
constituents. I would find it very difficult, this month or 6 months
from now, to go back and to meet my neighbors, who are in the National
Guard and the Reserve, and explain to them that we could not increase
the size of our Army, that they are being deployed once again, after
repeated deployments, because we couldn't find the way or the will to
increase the size of our Army. I think we should. I think we must. And
I hope we do.
I ask unanimous consent that Senator Levin be added as a cosponsor of
this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of
a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________