Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan Security and Reconstruction Act, 2004

Madam President, I listened with great interest to my friend from Missouri. There is much that he had to say with which I agree. Except I wish we would, as they say in my home State--he was using Missouri phrases--I wish he would get real and others would get real about the connection between the likelihood of America's being struck by another terrorist attack and our fighting in Baghdad.

I don't know one security expert who will tell you, including, as quoted by Senator Reid earlier today, General Abizaid, that the folks we are fighting in the streets of Baghdad and in Iraq are the ones most likely to strike the United States of America. That is not what our officials tell us.

General Abizaid said, and I am paraphrasing him, that any attack would be organized internationally. It will come from other places. As a matter of fact, the argument can be made, because of a requirement of being so preoccupied and having to devote so many resources to Iraq, we are unable to spend the money we need to spend on homeland security.

For example, we have 106 nuclear powerplants, none of which are secure, in the United States of America.

We have train tunnels in New York where 350,000 people today will ride through them sitting in a car. Those tunnels are not secured; there is no escape, no ventilation, and no lighting.

We are cutting the police program, so we are not going to supply money for local law enforcement. It is not going to be a special forces guy with night vision goggles who is going to come across a terrorist who is about to poison the reservoir in a city or about to plant a bomb in a movie theater or about to do anything else--it is going to be a local cop.

That is not the reason I rose to speak today, but I wish we would get it straight about terror. In the larger sense, we have to deal with the war on terror by dealing with the situation in the Middle East. I don't disagree with that.

As was said in an article written not too long ago by Timothy Ash and how the west could be won, I quote him:

To emerge ultimately the victorious against the war on

terrorism it is the peace we have to win first in Iraq and

then in the wider Middle East.

In the broad sense of the word, it is affected by what happens in Iraq. But the idea that because we are fighting in Baghdad, we are not likely to be attacked again in the subway, or an aircraft, or whatever, because they are preoccupied is as our British friends say, poppycock.

Many Members in this Chamber and millions of Americans did not support the war in Iraq. The same goes for the millions of people around the world. But I did. I voted to give President Bush the authority to use force in Iraq. For me, the question was not whether we had to deal with Saddam Hussein but when and how, and what we were going to do after we brought him down.

I believed then and I believe now it was the responsibility of the United States and the international community to enforce the solemn obligation Saddam Hussein made when he sued for peace in the gulf war in 1991. Those of us who understand the value of international institutions and rules must also understand that when rules and institutions are flouted, they must be defended, and by force if necessary. That was, in my view, the underlying rationale to go to war in Iraq, a rationale enhanced by the fact that the one flouting the rule was a homicidal tyrant who murdered hundreds of thousands of people and who, if left alone, would have eventually acquired weapons of

mass destruction, although he had none and there was no evidence he had any. But he would have gotten those weapons. That was the reason--not some idea of preemption. We didn't need a new doctrine of preemption to go after Saddam Hussein. He violated essentially a peace agreement he signed in 1991. Had it been 1919 when he was defeated in Kuwait, he would have been in Versailles, in France, signing a peace agreement. Instead, he was representing the United Nations and he signed on to United Nations resolutions, none of which he kept and I believe needed to be enforced.

But I also believed then, as I believe now, that this administration got the when and the how and the what we do the day after dangerously wrong in Iraq. This administration wrongly painted Iraq as an imminent threat to our society, something many of us at the time--not just now-- said was not the case. It hyped the intelligence most likely to raise alarm bells of the American people. In speech after speech, television appearance after television appearance, the most senior administration officials told us Iraq was on the verge of possessing a nuclear weapon.

Indeed, at the same time I was on a show, the Vice President on a similar show on a Sunday told us Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear weapons program. I didn't believe then, I don't believe now, and there is no evidence that that is true.

We are told that Iraq had UAVs--unmanned aerial vehicles--that could drop lethal payloads on our shores--payloads of chemical and biological weapons; that Iraq could weaponize its chemical and biological arsenal in just 45 minutes; that the regime had a clear and present tie to al- Qaida, and they implied that they were complicit in the events of 9/ 11--none of which I believe to be true. Yet I still voted to go into Iraq because it wasn't about if but when we dealt with this guy.

The administration stated each of these allegations as accepted facts when in fact there was deep debate on each and every one of them within our own intelligence community. I believe the administration did this to create a false sense of urgency about the need to act immediately and that as a result we went to war too soon.

There is no reason we could not have waited a month or even 6 months or whatever time it took to build a true international coalition without in any way jeopardizing American security. And we went to war without the rest of the world.

As many of us said at the time--and the record will reflect--we didn't believe we needed a single soldier from another country to win the war. I stood on this floor and said I thought we would win this war in terms of defeating Saddam's government in much less than a month and maybe as little as 2 weeks. I said it at the time. My fight was never with the need for other troops to help us fight the war. But it was absolutely clear from every expert we spoke to in my committee and folks on the Council on Foreign Relations, folks from Rand, folks from all over this country who are experts on foreign policy, that we were going to need other countries to win the peace--to win the peace--which was going to be considerably harder.

Just to put in perspective what we all know, we have had 313 men and women killed, 1,600 wounded--138 to win the war and 175 dead just starting to win the peace.

On this floor I said if we did not have the support of the international community, somewhere between 2 and 10 body bags a week would be coming home. But this unilateralism, this idea that we didn't need anybody else, was not only misplaced but, for some in the administration, arrogance.

So we went to war with the Brits and a coalition--a coalition which was the most anemic coalition with whom we have ever gone to war, after the Brits; the one without the rest of the world. And as many of us said at the time--and I wasn't the only one. Senator Lugar said it; Senator Hagel said it; a number of other Republicans said it--we didn't need a single soldier to win the war, but we needed tens of thousands of soldiers to secure the peace--tens of thousands.

The chief of the Army got sacked because he dared to suggest we were going to need a couple hundred thousand troops to secure the peace when Mr. Rumsfeld--or at least the administration--was implying we wouldn't need more than 30,000 folks and we would be out of there in 6 months.

Just as bad, we went without a plan for the day after.

Don't just take my word for this. Keep in mind that I have been supporting the President, and I will support this appropriation. But there was no serious planning. General Garner said he didn't begin planning and wasn't asked until January 6. I was chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and we held hearings in July of 2002. And witness after witness after witness--former Commanders of NATO, former Commanders of CENTCOM--said the plan for peace should be running parallel with the plan for war. During those hearings, we wanted to know what was going to happen not just the day after but the decade after.

The President, I am told, has told people and I have told people. He asked me in front of a half dozen of my colleagues in the Cabinet Room back in September why I wasn't with him enthusiastically about going in and why I was insisting on him going to the United Nations. I went in the Oval Office with him and said, Mr. President, I want to remind you there is a reason your father did not go to Baghdad. And he looked at me like I was going to insult his father, for whom I have great respect. I said, Mr. President, the reason your father didn't go to Baghdad, he didn't want to stay for 5 years. Are you ready to stay? Obviously, I did not say it in that tone to the President but I asked, Are you ready to stay, Mr. President?

What was the impression given to the American people? The impression was Johnny and Jane were going to come marching home by Christmas. Why are you National Guard folks so angry? Is it because you are not patriotic? Why are the reservists so angry? Is it because they are not patriotic? Heck, no, they are angry because they were led to believe it was not going to cost much, it was not going to take long, and we would be out of there.

I am happy to yield.

Reserving the right to object, I was told it would be 4:45. I've been waiting for 4 hours to speak and I have at least another 30 minutes to speak. If it is 3:45, I would object.

This is fine.

I don't think I will take this long, but so I don't get called on it, I will say half an hour.

Madam President, my committee, the Foreign Relations Committee, pleaded with the administration, month after month, beginning well over a year ago, to share with us plans for reconstruction. We got obfuscation upon obfuscation, a rosy scenario about oil revenues and being greeted as liberators, with most of our troops coming home by Christmas.

When we really pressed--a certain word has worked its way into the lexicon of this administration--we were told the answer was ``unknowable.'' I have never heard that word used as many times anywhere, let alone by the administration.

In fact, the problems and prescriptions of postwar Iraq were absolutely knowable. From the many hearings Senator Lugar and I convened over this year as well as the Armed Services Committee, and the work of our leading think tanks and policy experts from within the administration itself, thanks to the State Department Future of Iraq Project, whose detailed postwar plans were apparently ignored by the Department of Defense, much of this was knowable.

We are paying a very high price for those mistakes now. I share the widespread dismay at the miscalculations of this administration. I share the shock of many that the reason the administration says it took us to war, weapons of mass destruction, no longer is of any apparent interest to the most senior administration officials. I share the frustration of Members of Congress that because of the administration's many miscalculations leading up to war, the good options are gone and we are now left to find the least bad of the remaining options.

I understand the sticker shock many of my colleagues feel about the $87 billion. I suspect my friend from Oregon, who was on this committee, I know for my friend Senator Lugar, I know for my friend Senator Hagel, I know for my friend Senator McCain, it came as no shock, none whatever.

To be blunt, the reason there is such consternation in the Congress and the country at the moment is not about the $87 billion, notwithstanding that is an enormous amount. It is that we have lost faith in the President. It is that we lost our confidence in his ability to prosecute the peace. It is that we have great doubts since there were so many fundamental miscalculations made about what would happen after the regime fell. There is reason people are upset in the Senate. They doubt this administration has its act together.

My Republican friends will deny what the whole world knows publicly and privately acknowledge there is a giant rift in this administration as broad and as deep as the San Andreas Fault. On one side of the administration there is Mr. Cheney, a fine man, Mr. Rumsfeld, Mr. Wolfowitz, Mr. Feif; on the other side there is the State Department and the uniformed military.

Think about this one little piece, talking about the plan. What was the plan announced in great detail by Mr. Rumsfeld as to what would happen immediately after Saddam fell? There was guy named Jake Garner, a retired general, who was going to be dropped into Iraq along with a guy named Ahmed Chalabi, whom I know well, spent an hour with him alone in my office last night, the head of the Iraqi National Congress, that Garner announced when he hit the ground there would be elections within a couple of months and that he was going to run the show.

How long did it take the President to figure out that was a gigantic mistake? About 2 weeks. And he should be complimented for it.

All this malarkey about the planning, where is Garner? Where did he go? What happened to the election that was going to take place in a couple months?

The administration got on the ground and realized they did not have a plan. So they got a guy named Bremer, first-rate guy, diplomat. Guess what. That diplomat does not report to the Secretary of State; he reports to the Secretary of Defense. Isn't that kind of interesting?

Assume we have gone in and the planning post-Saddam was as successful as the planning to take down Saddam. Assume we had gone in and the international community was doing what they do in every other circumstance where we are building the peace: We usually supply 25 percent of the money, they supply 75 percent of the money--Bosnia, Kosovo, even Afghanistan, NATO is now in. Assume we were not losing Americans at the rate we are losing now. Assume this guy named Bremer, a former official at the State Department, former comptroller, sent to Iraq by the Secretary of Defense, did not come back and say the window of opportunity to win the peace is closing rapidly in Iraq. Assume he came back and said, the window is wide open. We have time and things are moving. Would people in the Senate be flyspecking the $87 billion? No.

My friend from Missouri has been in politics as long as I have. Presidents get pretty broad support when what they propose is working. What is happening here--and again, keep in mind, I'm for this money. But I am angry about what happened. I am angry about the refusal to listen. I am angry that we are there alone when we did not have to be.

The administrations's assumptions were dead wrong, and the President told the American people our mission was accomplished when he landed on that aircraft carrier. And it had not even begun. It has not even begun. And you wonder why the American people are mad. You wonder why, when you go home--and those of us who supported it going in are getting our brains kicked in at home--Democrat and Republican, we are wondering why the polls show--what?--57, 58, 60 percent of the American people say: Don't vote for this money.

The reason is, they were not leveled with. It seems to me that explains why there is so much concern on both sides of the aisle about this supplemental. That explains why it is so important that we do more than simply vote yea or nay on this $87 billion, why we need to have clear assurances from this administration that it understands--not acknowledges--just understands its mistakes to date and has a sensible plan to rectify them.

So for all the errors of the past, we must confront the reality of the present and the imperative of the future. The reality of the present is that the window of opportunity is closing on our ability to bring peace to Iraq.

As I said, that is not just my conclusion. It is the conclusion of the former Deputy Defense Secretary, John Hamre, who was sent there by the Defense Department. The imperative of the future is that we cannot afford to lose the peace in Iraq.

Losing the peace in Iraq is not about terror alone. It is so much bigger than that. Losing the peace in Iraq would condemn the United States to deal with the consequences of Iraq: chaos, not just in more terrorism but what will happen.

If we lose Iraq, Iran becomes an incredibly empowered nation; Syria becomes more emboldened; Turkey, an Islamic government, seeing a failed state on their border, becomes more radicalized; Iran, surrounded by the failed states of Iraq and Afghanistan, puts in jeopardy the very existence of Pakistan.

Doesn't it occur to you a little bit why all of a sudden the accusations are the ISI is cooperating with the Pastun warlords in southern Afghanistan? These guys have figured it out. They are hedging their bets. They are hedging their bets. And if the Musharraf falls in Pakistan, we are not talking about an Iraq, we are not talking about an Afghanistan, we are talking about a nuclear power that my friend on the Intelligence Committee knows, as well as I do, is seething--seething-- with terror. There is a whole province in northwestern Pakistan that is totally uncontrollable, where most people think bin Laden is and Omar is, that they will not go in and we cannot go in.

So I wish to heck we would stop this stuff about: We are fighting terror in Baghdad. We are, but it is so much bigger than that, and the American people have not been told it.

So we cannot afford to lose the peace.

I will make another outrageous prediction. If we lose the peace in Iraq, you will see at least two of the following countries fall-- Jordan, Egypt, or Saudi Arabia. How will King Hussein stand with Iraq in shambles? How will that happen? How will any voice of moderation be willing to speak up anywhere in the Middle East if Iraq falls? And you know why Iraq may fall, beyond our mistakes? Because we have not leveled with the American people, and they may very well say: Bring the boys home.

I know my colleagues think I am a broken record on the Senate floor saying this so many times, but the one thing we all learned from the Vietnam generation--no matter whether we were for or against it, went or did not--is that no foreign policy can be sustained without the informed consent of the American people, their informed consent before we act.

In short, losing the peace would reinforce the view held by the extremists in the Arab and Islamic world that while the United States can project

power, we have no staying power, and that all they have to do is wait us out.

It would confirm the concerns of many moderate Arab regimes expressed before we went to war with Iraq that we would not finish the job.

I think it is fair to say I met with every Arab head of state as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. I traveled to the region; I traveled to Afghanistan; I traveled to northern Iraq--all before the war. I did not meet one Arab leader who defended Saddam Hussein. Yet I did not meet a single one who said anything other than what I am about to paraphrase: If you go, make sure you finish the job because if you do not, I am dead.

Our credibility in Iraq and the region and across the globe will be at rock bottom if we do not successfully secure the peace. America and Americans will be far less secure to boot.

We have to show the wisdom and the commitment to help Iraq write a different future so we can have a different future. And this supplemental request is critical to that effort. We have to succeed in transforming Iraq into a stable, unified country, with a representative government. And success in that effort would begin the process of redrawing the strategic map of the region. It could boost the reformers in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and elsewhere who have put Syria and its allies and Hezbollah on the defensive, and improve the climate of Israeli-Palestinian peace. It would deal a significant setback to those who argue that the only future for Arabs and Muslims is one of religious extremism, perpetual conflict, economic stagnation, and autocratic governments.

So we are faced with a real choice. I say to my colleagues who opposed the use of force in the first place, who believe there is nothing this administration can do to win the peace, and who have concluded that the dire consequences I have just predicted if we cut and run are outweighed by the consequences of being dragged down into a long, protracted war, I respect their vote to say no. I disagree with them, but I respect it.

I have concluded that the peace is winnable but not without a change of attitude and direction on the part of this administration.

I am convinced that winning the peace is possible if the President keeps to the new course he seemed to set two weeks ago when he finally addressed the American people.

He vowed to make Iraq the world's problem, not just our own, by going back to the U.N. and seeking support of its members for troops, police and money.

And the President began to level with American people about the hard road ahead to win the peace in terms of time, troops and treasure.

If he sticks to that course, tells us how we are going to pay for the $87 billion, and shows us a clear and coherent game plan, I believe we should give him, and all of us, one last chance to get it right in Iraq.

Since the President addressed the Nation, I have to admit I have been given many new reasons to be skeptical that the administration has genuinely changed course.

The President's speech to the U.N. missed a crucial opportunity to rally the world to our side, just as he missed opportunities to get the world with us before the war and in its immediate aftermath.

He should have made clear our willingness to bridge the differences with our allies on a new U.N. resolution and to grant the U.N. real authority. He should have laid our some specifics, and asked--asked-- for help.

So I am left questioning the sincerity of the President's midcourse correction.

If we want the world to share the burden, we have to share authority in Iraq in meaningful way.

The payers want to be players.

And I can't believe we can't find a compromise that meets our rightful concerns about the premature transfer of power. But that also empowers the U.N. and starts to put more power in the hands of the Iraqi people.

I am also skeptical that the President will continue to level with the American people about what it is going to take to win the peace. Being open and honest about the commitment we must make to Iraq is the only way to sustain public support. But the administration's approach to the supplemental concerns me on this account too.

The administration itself estimates the total cost of reconstruction in Iraq to be about $60 to $70 billion over the next 4 to 5 years. And I and others predict the final tab will be higher still.

The supplemental request covers $20 billion of that total. That begs a critical question: Where is the remaining $40 to $50 billion coming from? Will it come from the international community? Normally, that would be a reasonable expectation. The United States typically covers about 25 percent of postconflcit reconstruction costs. By that ratio, we could expect about $60 billion from the international community for Iraq.

But we so poisoned the well in the lead up to this war and in its aftermath that no one expects the international community to provide more than $2 to $3 billion at the donors conference next month. That is a terrible indictment of our foreign policy and a harsh example of the price of unilateralism.

Will the missing money be generated by Iraq's oil revenues? That is what the administration led the American people to believe, and unfortunately even some Members of Congress now believe that is true.

In fact, if we are lucky, oil exports will generate about $14 billion next year--just enough money to pay for the government's operating costs and salaries for public sector workers, the police and the army. Forget about oil paying for reconstruction.

Will the missing money be generated by others parts of the Iraqi economy? Secretary Rumsfeld recently promoted the potential of Iraq's tourism industry. The banks of the Tigris may replace the Outer Banks as a destination of choice someday, but not any day soon.

Or maybe the missing money will come from taxpayers when the administration comes back to Congress next year or the year after to ask for more. If that is the plan, tell us now.

For today, this Congress must deal with the money that is being requested.

Let me be clear, we must invest more in the effort to secure the peace in Iraq. I support the supplemental request. It is necessary and it is in our national security interest.

But that does not mean we should accept it on its face. The large number of proposed amendments to the supplemental are evidence that Republicans and Democrats alike don't have the confidence to take the administration at its word.

We need to build in strict reporting requirements--the kind Senator Lugar and I tried to add to the original congressional authorization to use force.

We need to know how the administration will pay for this supplemental. We need to know how the money will be spent. And we need to see a coherent, detailed plan for success.

The first critical question that must be answered is: How are we going to pay for this $87 billion? It seems to me there are three options: We can turn the money for reconstruction from a grant to a loan, to be recouped from Iraq when its economy gets going again. That sounds attractive. Why shouldn't the Iraqis pay for their own future.

But here's the problem. Iraq already owes the international community a crippling amount--some $200 billion in debt and compensation claims. Adding to that debt will add to the dead weight holding back Iraq's recovery.

The creditors are mostly European and Arab countries--the very countries we are encouraging to contribute more to Iraq's reconstruction. And we are lobbying them to forgive or reschedule the debt Iraq owes them.

How can we add to Iraq's debt, put ourselves first in line to be paid back, kick the other creditors out of line--and ask them to contribute more and assume our debt? It won't work.

Second, we can do what the President is proposing: add to the deficit, which is already close to $600 billion and pass along the bill to our children and grandchildren. That, to me, is unacceptable.

Or third, we can call on the patriotism of the American people, and ask them to help finance the $87 billion the President has asked for. The President was right in saying that success in Iraq requires all of us to sacrifice. But he

squandered the opportunity to rally the most fortunate among us to the cause to help provide for our troops and meet the goal of achieving security and stability in Iraq.

The bottom line is: The President doesn't seem to have a plan to pay for troop support and reconstruction in both Afghanistan and Iraq. After squandering an annual Federal budget surplus in excess of $200 billion upon taking office, and running up annual deficits estimated at nearly $500 billion in less than 3 years, it would be fiscally irresponsible for this administration to pass on the cost of our security to our children and grandchildren. That gets it exactly backwards.

We must step up to pay for our own security and that of future generations. In fact, as the President said in his State of the Union Address:

This country has many challenges.

We will not deny, we will not ignore, we will not pass

along our problems to other Congresses, to other presidents,

and other generations.

We will confront them with focus and clarity and courage.

In keeping with that view, the most obvious, fiscally responsible approach is to reconsider a small portion of the $690 billion tax cuts targeted for Americans with incomes in the top 2 percent--people with incomes exceeding $360,000 and averaging $980,000 per year.

Cutting taxes responsibly in the middle of a jobless recovery, especially for the middle class, makes good sense. But never has any administration summoned Americans to war and, at the same time, pushed through the biggest tax cuts in history, all in the face of already historically high deficits.

The result is a mixed message to the American people, who are left to wonder: How can we wage the fight against terrorism without paying any price? In fact, the administration's thinking reflects a woeful misunderstanding of the character of the American people.

I this post 9/11 period, Americans have been waiting to be asked to do great things for this Nation.

Two years after that dark day, we have yet to tap into the surge of patriotism deeply felt by every American. Imagine if the President's address to the Nation had included the following request:

To all of you in the top one percent--those fortunate

Americans whose average income is more than $1 million a year

. . .

I am asking you to forgo a small part of your tax cut.

Instead of getting $690 billion of cuts, you will have to

make do with only $600 billion in cuts so we can pay for

peace in Iraq, security in Afghanistan, and the war against

terrorism.

Would a single American watching on television have said: ``No way. That's not fair.'' Of course not.

Reducing a small part of the tax cuts for those in the top 1 percent of income will have no bearing on an economic recovery. But it would restore a sense of national purpose and unity that is our country's greatest strength.

I hope the President will support an amendment to do just that--a bipartisan amendment to the supplemental that Senator Kerry and I will offer, along with Senators Chafee, Corzine, and Feinstein.

I think Americans would support the idea of paying for this mission from the $1.8 trillion in tax cuts enacted in the last 3 years.

Let's look at the numbers. Americans in this bracket make, on average, $1 million a year. They are being asked to give up a single year's worth of their $690 billion 10-year tax cut, and do it gradually.

For example, in a single year, 2008, the tax cuts going to the top 1 percent will total $87.7 billion--virtually the same amount of money the President is requesting.

In my view, the most fortunate Americans surely would respond favorably to such an idea. What we are saying is: They are no less patriotic than anyone else. But also they have the best ability to contribute because their tax cut is so much greater than everyone else's.

The top 1 percent will get a cumulative 10-year tax cut of nearly $690 billion. What I am proposing leaves them with a $600 billion tax cut. That is clearly not punitive. If someone proposed today that the richest 1 percent get a tax cut of $600 billion, it would sound outrageous given the circumstances we now face, with growing deficits, and growing security needs.

In making this proposal, I am not arguing about the fairness of that distribution. I have already stated my position on that when I voted against the tax cuts. But, whatever one thinks of the fairness of the tax cuts themselves, it is clear which Americans are in the best position to give up a small part of what they are getting to pay for our mission in Iraq. And that, unfortunately, is the price we have to pay for the unilateral foreign policy and the missed opportunities of this administration.

If we give the administration the money it is seeking for Iraq's reconstruction, it must give us a clear and coherent plan for succeeding where it has failed so far.

The No. 1 priority must be to inject a sense of urgency to our efforts. I don't want to minimize how hard this is, nor do I want to minimize the successes we have already achieved: Standing up the Iraqi Governing Council, opening schools and hospitals, establishing local councils across the country. But all of this progress is jeopardized by our failure thus far to get it right in two fundamental areas: security and basic services.

If the Iraqi people do not soon see their living conditions improve, they will begin to turn against us. Once that happens, the insecurity we are seeing today will look mild by comparison.

In my judgment, there are five urgent priorities in Iraq.

We need a detailed gameplan to address them. And that plan should be developed in close consultation with the Iraqi Governing Council.

First, we must improve the security situation on the ground for our soldiers and for the Iraqi people. Over time, an Iraqi army can and should take the place of our troops. But it will take time to train such a force 1, 2, 3 years.

In the meantime, the best way to take some of the heat off of our forces is to bring other countries in on the deal.

That is one reason a new U.N. resolution is important. If we had done this right from the start, we would have been able to secure 60,000 or 70,000 foreign troops. I doubt we will get more than another 10,000. But every single foreign soldier helps.

For Iraqis, law and order has broken down in large parts of the country, especially in Baghdad and central Iraq. Murder, carjackings, theft, and rape are taking place at an alarming rate. Criminal gangs are organizing at a rate far faster than we are fielding trained Iraqi police.

We have heard a lot of talk about whether the number of foreign military forces on the ground is adequate. What does not receive nearly enough attention is the urgent need to recruit international police forces to train and work alongside the Iraqi police. Our own officials tell us that we urgently need over 5,000 international police to train and patrol with Iraqis. We should have deployed them over 5 months ago when Baghdad fell. We should have started recruiting them 12 months ago, just as President Clinton personally got on the phone to world leaders to recruit police months before we went into Haiti. Yet, to my knowledge, less than 10 percent of the international police forces we need are on the ground.

Only Iraqis can effectively police Iraq. They know their country better than any foreigner. But we also know that the police under Saddam were corrupt and sadistic. They maintained order through fear and coercion. We have to start from scratch in recruiting and training an Iraqi police force. But that effort can't occur on a large scale until we get trainers in from abroad. And we can if the President builds an effective coalition, if he reaches out to our allies, and recruits those forces.

The second priority is to restore basic services--particularly electricity, water, and telephone service.

Ambassador Bremer set the end of September as a deadline for restoring electricity to its prewar level of 4,400 megawatts. This is enough to meet about two-thirds of countrywide demand.

While falling temperatures will ease demand in coming weeks, toward the end of October, the month of fasting or Ramadan will begin. Iraqis will expect to have electricity available during the evening meal when they break their fast. If they don't, we should expect their discontent to grow. It will take huge investments to bring the electricity grid up to the level where it can

meet full demand countrywide. Ambassador Bremer estimates $13 billion. Another official in Baghdad puts the price tag at a total of $21 billion.

The third urgent priority is a strategic communications plan. The United States has the most advanced media industry in the world, yet we are being beaten on Iraqi airwaves by the likes of al-Jazeera and Iranian TV and radio. The messages these outlets are broadcasting do not cast the United States in a positive light.

The quality of our broadcasts in Iraq makes public access TV look good. It is hard to imagine succeeding in Iraq if we cannot succeed at getting our message out.

Few Iraqis have a sense of the priorities, plans, and progress of the United States. We need to communicate effectively and directly with them. They need to hear us acknowledge their problems. They need to hear us describe our plans for fixing them. They need to hear timetables. It is not that complicated.

Our fourth urgent priority is helping to rebuild Iraq's economy. The Iraqi economy is broken. It was destroyed by 35 years of mismanagement, wars, sanctions, and extensive looting that followed Iraq's liberation. It will take several years to recover.

Unemployment is over 60 percent. By contrast, at the height of the Great Depression, our unemployment was just over 25 percent. A hot, poor, unemployed, and well-armed population is not a good combination. We need to get people off the streets and involved in their country's reconstruction.

The final priority is to establish a clear timeline for handing power back to the Iraqis. There is a legitimate debate going on with the French over the pace of ``Iraqi-ization'' and the timing of elections. All of us want to see sovereignty restored to Iraq as quickly as possible. But none of us want a process that is so rushed that it ends in failure.

Today, the best organized forces in Iraq are extremist religious groups and ex-Baathists. They have the most to gain from early elections.

Building a strong, democratic center and the institutions of civil society will take time. We should seek a compromise at the U.N. that creates a representative--perhaps partially elected--body that would draft the new Iraqi constitution by early next year. That constitution should be put before the people of Iraq in a referendum, and elections should follow by next summer.

The administration should submit a detailed plan with specific benchmarks and timelines in each of these areas I have mentioned.

The administration also must show us that, in working toward these goals, it will spend the tax payers' money wisely. I have looked closely at the budget request, as have most of my colleagues. And we have a lot of questions. To cite just three examples:

Why does the administration propose to spend $33,000 apiece for pickup trucks when you can get a new pickup here in the U.S. for $14,000? Our Iraqi friends deserve AC--but not leather seats and a CD changer.

Why does the administration propose to spend $10,000 per student for a month-long business course--more than double the monthly cost of Harvard Business School?

Why does it propose to spend $50,000 per prison bed--double the average cost in the U.S.?

The bottom line is that we have an obligation to closely scrutinize the President's request, to ensure we spend taxpayer dollars wisely and effectively. But we must face up to our foreign policy and national security obligations as well. We cannot meet our national security needs on the cheap, or by playing off domestic constituencies against our need to get it right in Iraq.

The stakes are too high, and an entire region's future--one that is critical to America's security--is in the balance. Let's not take our eye off the ball. Let's do the difficult thing, but the right thing.

Madam President, I just sum up by telling you what is in my heart. We have three stark, basic choices. It is real simple. Given the facts-- the fact is, it is going to take years to build, not a democracy, just a representative republic in Iraq. Never in history--never in history-- even in countries with a tradition of western values and democracy, has a representative democratic government been built in a short amount of time--never. I challenge you to challenge your staffs to give me an example where that has occurred.

So, No. 1, it is going to take a long time. It is going to take tens of billions of dollars beyond this. Mr. Bremer has begun to level, and level first with us. He says after this $20 billion downpayment for reconstruction, it is a minimum of $50 to $75 billion more--more--over the next 4 years or so to do the essentials, to rebuild Iraq. Other think tanks have said it is $100 billion. The World Bank says $75 billion or so. That is another essential fact.

The third fact is this country has never been a country--never. It was the outgrowth of a deal made after World War I. So we are putting together not a Germany, which was heterogenous, not a France, not a defeated or victor in the last war, or big war; we are putting together a country that has never been a country, other than held together by a dictator or an autocrat or a colonial power. It is going to take a lot of time.

Here is where we are. It is very simple. It is going to cost-- everybody knows--billions of more dollars beyond this supplemental. It is going to take thousands of somebody's troops beyond those that are there. And it is going to take a long time.

The choices are clear. We continue in our unilateral ways to take 95 percent of the casualties, pay 99 percent of the bill. One of the things my colleagues know is that the Poles are being paid for by us. God love them, they are there; we are happy they are there. Those other 20 nations are being paid for by us, but for Great Britain. So we get 95 percent of the deaths. We pay 90 percent of the bill, and we take 99 percent of the responsibility. That is one option.

The second option is--and which I predict this administration will do if this does not go right--declare victory and leave and see chaos ensue. Some Democrats will suggest that. Some in the administration will suggest that.

Or there is a third option. We get someone else to pay the bill with us. We get someone else to pay.

There is a fourth option that is not a real option. The Iraqis could pay. Let's get this straight about Iraqi oil. No one before the war or after the war is predicting in the next 5 or 6 years there will be more than an excess of $5 to $10 billion a year to be able to pay for reconstruction after the cost of paying for the government. Read Bremer's report. So this is poppycock about Iraqi oil will pay our way out.

We are left with the last option: We get the rest of the world to jump in the tank with us. At the beginning of this process, the President tried to importune the Indian foreign minister to send a division. The Secretary of State and others said we are likely to get that. The Turks were talking about a division. We were looking for 50 to 60,000 troops. Guess what. They ain't coming, folks.

Here is the deal, and it is real simple. The President can genuinely internationalize this by sharing not only the responsibility but sharing the authority. We continue to act like Iraq is a prize we won. We continue to challenge the world to help us.

I went to the head of the European Union not long ago and I said: Javier, what do we have to do to get your help?

He looked at me, held my shoulders, and said: Joe, ask. Not demand, not challenge, ask. Ask. Ask.

There is not a major newspaper in America that didn't think the President of the United States blew that opportunity when he recently spoke to the United Nations. I am beginning to doubt--and I hope I am wrong--that the United States is genuinely sincere about the U-turn he has made and wanting to engage the international community. I pray he means that.

Surely.

I think you are quoting one of the most articulate men who has ever served in the Senate. I wonder who you are talking about?

I thought that is who you were talking about.

The Senator is absolutely right. If he wants to read the rest of the statement, he will point out we in fact should have continued to try to get the rest of the world to come along after the fact. Can you imagine if the President of the United States had said, the day after the statue of Saddam fell, if he went on national television and made the following speech: My fellow Americans, I tell you that our fighting men and women have bravely defeated the present government, but we have much to do. It will cost billions of dollars and take tens of thousands of troops for the foreseeable future. Toward that end, I am going to ask our valued allies who disagreed with us, whose democratic processes I respect but they disagreed with us, to now step in and help us, ask them to participate in rebuilding Iraq and share the responsibility of forming a new government and dealing with the aftermath of Saddam. Toward that end, I have convened a meeting with Mr. Chirac, Mr. Schroeder, the European Union, et cetera. What do you think would have happened?

But what did we say? We said the same thing we said in Afghanistan. When the French offered to send 5,000 of their marines, when Schroeder risked a vote of confidence by one vote, he succeeded in voting for sending 1,000 German marines to Afghanistan, Mr. Rumsfeld and company said: We don't need them. And they stiff-armed them.

Senator Lugar and I contacted the President and said: Please, please accept their forces.

We don't need them. We don't need them.

Technically we may not need them. But I would argue that is the nadir of diplomacy that I have witnessed in this body, and I am now the seventh most senior Member. The diplomacy has been so incredibly ham- handed that we have to continue this foolish response. We have hamstrung ourselves in a way that makes it almost impossible to do what everybody on this floor knows we need to do.

It is real simple. If you think we can secure the peace in Iraq all by ourselves without anybody else's help, then have at it. Go to it. I don't know any reason why Bremer should not be dual-hatted like we are in Bosnia. I don't know any reason why we should not be saying to the French, the Germans, the European Union, and the U.N., you help us form this government. I don't know any reason why we didn't have them in there in the first place, beginning the electoral process, why we stiff-armed them. I don't get it.

I do know the result. Whether you agree with me or not, somebody has to pay the bill. All my friends who don't like international institutions, all my unilateralist buddies who like to eat freedom fries and engage in their little pettiness, have fun, but go home and explain to your people why only Americans are dying. Go home and explain to your people why only American taxpayers are paying the bill. Go home and explain to your people why we have close to 200,000 troops in the region and 140,000 troops there. Bravo. Bravo. Aren't we tough.

It is about time we wake up. By the way, I will be seeking the floor later today with an amendment. This President has come along and said: We need $87 billion and, by the way, just add it to the deficit. Add it to our tab. Put it on the tab. Our kids will pay for our security.

So the budget deficit is going to approach $600 billion. Can anybody name a time for me in American history when a President took us to war and, after taking us to war, a war that I supported his going to, said: It is going to be a long sacrifice, and, by the way, here is the largest tax cut in the history of the United States of America, as we go?

Can anybody name any time in American history when that has ever happened? Isn't it kind of strange?

So, Madam President, I will not take the time to talk about how we should pay for this now. But I will suggest--is there any time left?

Madam President, to me, this is real basic. If we want people to share the burden, we have to be willing to have people share the responsibility. Why does the administration propose--by the way, we have every right to look at the details of this $87 billion.

Why does this administration propose to spend $33,000 apiece for pickup trucks when you can get a brand new pickup in the U.S. for $14,000? Our Iraqi friends deserve AC--but not leather seats and a CD changer.

Why does the administration propose to spend $10,000 per student for a month-long business course--more than double the monthly cost of the Harvard Business School?

Why does it propose to spend $50,000 per prison bed, which is double the average cost of a U.S. prison bed?

The bottom line is we have an obligation to closely scrutinize the President's request, to ensure that taxpayers' dollars are spent wisely and, most importantly, that this administration has changed its course because literally the future of our children is at stake if they don't get it right.

I thank my colleagues and I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be temporarily laid aside so I may offer an amendment.

Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, I promise I am not going to keep you long. I plan on speaking in more detail to this tomorrow, but I wanted to lay this amendment down tonight.

With the help of Senator Kerry, Senator Chafee, Senator Corzine, and Senator Feinstein, we have a simple and we believe a very commonsense amendment to pay for the President's request for funding the supplemental for the war in Iraq.

For my bona fides here, I want to make it clear at the outset, No. 1, I voted to give the President the authority to go to Iraq, and I believe it was the correct vote. I am not at all happy with the way the administration failed to plan for the fall of Saddam, notwithstanding the importuning on the part of myself and many others--Republicans and Democrats in the Congress--but nonetheless, I do not come at this as someone who is opposed to the idea the American public is going to be asked to spend more money to win the peace in Iraq. We are going to be asked to spend more money. It is inevitable.

I might add, even if we had every other nation in the world with us, our share would still be in the tens of billions of dollars to win the peace in Iraq. We would still have tens of thousands of American troops there.

I am, as I stated earlier today, very--I should not have said it probably--angry with the failure of this administration to abandon the assumptions they had which were dead wrong. It is understandable; we all make mistakes, but they were dead wrong what we would find in Iraq after Saddam fell.

My colleague from Maine knows a great deal about American foreign policy, both in her incarnation as a senior staff person and now as a serious United States Senator. She knows from her experience on the Armed Services Committee and she knows from her experience on intelligence matters of what I speak. I am not suggesting she agrees with me; I am just suggesting she knows how much is at stake in winning the peace in Iraq.

What I am about to say some will use an ad hominem argument and say the reason Biden is doing this is because he is against funding the peace in Iraq. Wrong. I want to amend what the President sent us. I want to refine it.

For example, I voted against the Byrd amendment. The Byrd amendment really was designed to say we should deal with getting the money to the troops right away and then let's talk about the remainder for rebuilding. I was likely to support that when it looked like we were not going to be allowed to offer any amendments. I will have amendments to this legislation.

For example, we are spending something like $50,000 or $55,000 for every prison bed we are going to build in Iraq. They need to build prisons. It is in our interest they do that. We spend half that in the United States. Why in the devil should we be spending twice as much in Iraq? One of three things: We either have not calculated correctly or we are padding contractors who are going to go in and do the job, or Bremer and others are looking for some cushion to have money to do other things. In any of the three cases, it is the wrong way to go about it.

I will be offering an amendment that says we are going to cut part of the money for rebuilding Iraq; that we are only going to pay $30,000 per prison bed like we do here. We are talking about spending on education programs twice what we pay a student to go to Harvard Business School. There are a lot of things in the supplemental that require accountability. I am going to try to hold the administration accountable--not accountable for their sins, accountable so the American public and we know what they are doing.

My friend from Maine--I do not want to get her in trouble, but I think she and her colleagues were empathetic at least to the initial proposal, the so-called Biden-Lugar amendment before the war as to what the conditions of going to war were. On the amendment, which we never got to, because Mr. Gephardt reached a deal with the President and the House of Representatives and rendered our efforts moot, we had, I am told, over 20 Republicans prepared to vote for it and 40 Democrats to vote for it.

What did that amendment have in it that the authorization we finally passed did not have? It had reporting requirements. The President was required to report on a regular basis what he was doing, how the war was going, whether or not we were doing the following things. So I think there should be reporting requirements tied to this $87 billion, and more. I will not bore you with what else.

The point I am trying to make is this is not a veiled attempt to somehow undercut or defeat the President's request for significant economic and military aid in Iraq. We have to do it, in my view.

The second point I want to make at the outset is I voted against the President's tax cuts. I think they were excessive. I think they were dangerous. I think they did not take into account the exigencies which we are facing. I said so at the time. And I think they massively contribute to the deficit. A lot of us disagree. Half a dozen of my Democratic friends voted for it and most of my Republican friends voted for it. I am not in any way impugning their vote with what I am about to try to do.

Further, the fact I was against the amendment--this is not a back- door way to try to rescind the tax cut. My colleagues at this point will have to take that on faith, and hopefully, as I debate my amendment, you will understand what I am trying to do. Some will say the Biden, Kerry, Chafee, et cetera, amendment is designed to rescind the President's tax cut. That is not what this is about.

I was listening to the President and, I might add, the President, I think, were he to be asked--and there is no reason why he would be--and the administration, including Dr. Rice and the Secretary of State, will tell you the last 6 months I have been saying to the President: Tell the American people what it is going to cost. Tell them it is going to be billions of dollars. Tell them it is going to take tens of thousands of troops for an extended period of time because, Mr. President, if you don't, you are going to lose their support. They are going to be angry when they find out Johnny and Jane are not going to be marching home by Christmastime. They are going to be angry when they find out we are going to have to devote billions of dollars--tens of billions of dollars--to prosecute the peace, as we have already spent tens of billions of dollars, over $70 billion, to prosecute ``the war.'' And the President was reluctant to do that. I think his failure to level with the American people early on is a serious mistake.

By the way, conservative senior Republicans, such as my friend Senator Domenici, have used words such as ``level with the American people,'' or ``the administration should level.'' Senator Lugar has been saying that for 6, 8, 10 months. So this is not a partisan attack on the President. This is just pointing out the President has to, to keep these folks in the deal so we don't leave our troops over there stranded, in effect, so we don't divide this Nation--the only similarity between this and Vietnam, in my view, is this has the potential to divide the Nation. Not in the sense it is a quagmire. It is in a sense that it will divide the Nation, and we cannot afford a divided Nation because if we lose the peace in Iraq--in a sense it is silly me saying this to you, Madam President, because you know this better than most--if we lose the peace in Iraq, we will significantly strengthen Iran.

We will significantly undermine the moderates in Iran. We will put incredible pressure on Musharraf in Pakistan, a nuclear power. We will put incredible pressure on the new Islamic party in Turkey that wants to become part of the European Union. We will probably cause every moderate and modernizing voice in the Middle East to shut down. That is a big problem well beyond terror.

If tonight the Lord Almighty came down and sat in this chair and said: I guarantee all of you Senators there will not be a single additional terrorist attack anywhere against American or American interests in the world for the next 10 years, does anybody think we still do not have a multibillion dollar problem in Iraq? Does anybody think we still do not have a multithousand troop problem in Iraq?

This is a country that has never been governed as a participatory republic, ever. This is a country that is not a country. This is not the old Babylon. This is not the Babylonian Empire. This is a polyglot of elements of the Middle East that were put together by the colonial powers, Mr. Churchill, after World War I. It has never been a country.

Look how long it took to rebuild Germany, a unified, ethnically coherent country--as a matter of fact, too ethnically coherent in a sense.

So this is going to take a long time. My effort is like that of Senator Reed of Rhode Island. We have to do more, not less. So this is not designed to undercut the effort to rebuild Iraq. Nor is it designed as a back-door way of eliminating the President's tax cut. Let me tell my colleagues what it is designed to do. It is designed to pay for what we need to do. There is the $87 billion we are about to--I believe, I predict--at least the bulk of that we will vote for. The President will sign it into law. The question is: What happens? How is that $87 billion, in effect, recorded on the books?

Well, the President's proposal is very simple and straightforward. It increases the deficit to almost $600 billion. Just add the $87 billion on top of the roughly $500 billion deficit for next year, and that is it.

Put another way, my granddaughters Naomi, Finnegan, and Roberta Mabel will pay for my security. They will pay for reconstructing Iraq. Now where I come from, I thought it was the other way around. I thought we were supposed to pay for our children's and our grandchildren's security.

It is really simple. This is not hyperbole. This is not some great insight. If it is added to the deficit, our children and grandchildren pay for it. The pages will pay for my security, if we succeed in Iraq.

So that is one thing we can do. We can do the President's proposal. The other way we can do it is some Members of both parties--I believe, although I am not certain, but I think the Senator from Texas still has the view and some colleagues on my side, Senator Dorgan and others, believe there is so much oil in Iraq we can have them pay us back for this $87 billion. So we can make it in the form of a loan.

There will be a vote on that. Someone will offer an amendment saying this is a loan, not a grant. That is going to be very appealing to everybody listening to this little talk of mine. All my folks back home are saying: Joe, why would you not be for that? That is just fair. They have all this money, all this oil. They should pay for the reconstruction. They should pay for us liberating them.

Well, if they could, they should, but the fact of the matter is Iraq already owes in hard debt and reparations well over $100 billion to the international community, debts accumulated under Saddam Hussein. People lent them money. There were claims against their assets by those who were hurt by the invasion into Kuwait. There are indemnification claims against them, almost $200 billion, we are told.

Everybody is big these days on using historical analogies, historical examples, and as hopefully a relatively informed student of history, I will use a comparison. We can either choose the World War I model of reconstruction or the World War II model. In World War I, the world defeated Germany and concluded at Versailles that the whole war

was Germany's fault and Germany should pay for its own reconstruction and Germany should pay reparations to France, England, and others for the damage they did.

So the new government came along and we said, have at it, establish a democracy, rebuild your economy but, by the way, pay this overwhelming debt first.

What happened? We ended up with Germany collapsing, the economy collapsing, people using wheelbarrows full of deutsche marks to buy bread, and Hitler, the demagog, racist, no good son of a gun, playing on the angers, fears, and frustrations of the Germans, and we had World War II.

We can use the World War II model. The World War II model, to vastly oversimplify it--thank God your mother and father and my mother and father were a lot smarter than their mothers and fathers--they came along and said, the leadership of Republicans like Vandenberg and Democrats like Truman, the World War I model did not work. If we try to set up a new government in Germany, and in other parts of Europe, and we say to them, first of all, you Germans caused 400,000 Americans to die and over a million to be wounded and the debt, all of which is accurate, and you have to pay us off for the war first, does anybody believe we would have a democratic republic in Germany now?

What did we do? We did the exact opposite. After over a year of debate, we did the exact opposite. A guy named Marshall made a speech at the university--he was a Secretary of State and former general--and we had the Marshall Plan. Some little bit of that was loans, but the vast majority was grants, to give this fledgling new democracy, with the Adenauers of the world, the opportunity to grow, because there has never been a place where democracy has been able to take root without economic growth. It has never happened.

So we did the opposite. We rebuilt Germany. Guess who benefited the most. The United States. It started the greatest economic expansion in the history of the United States of America.

There is a third model--a fourth model we can use. That is instead of indemnifying them, how do we go out and say to the rest of the world, look, here is the deal? The deal is we want you, the rest of the world, to come up with $50 or $60 billion over the next couple years. We want you to send 50,000 or 60,000 of your troops, which will cost other billions of dollars, to be in Iraq. We want you to forgive the debt the old Iraqi Government owes you, and, by the way, our $20 billion we are putting in, we are going to indemnify against Iraqi oil, but not you.

That is what they call in some parts of my State being a penny wise and a pound foolish. We may indemnify our $20 billion but we are sure not going to get anyone else to put in any money.

So this a very appealing bad idea. This is the ``painted, tainted rose'' of the song. This is not a good idea. This is the siren song. It sounds great.

I am going to have trouble explaining at home why I would not vote to have Iraq pay their way. The reason I won't is it will cost the American taxpayers more, because no one else will get in the game if we do it and we will have to do it all.

The last way we can do this is we can pay for it. The President himself used these words in the State of the Union. He said:

This country has many challenges. We will not deny, we will

not ignore, we will not pass along our problems to other

Congresses, other Presidents, or other generations.

This is a sentiment that is a principle we can all support with regard to Iraq. I would like to hold the President to his commitment. Mr. President, do not pass on to my children and grandchildren the cost of this war. Let us pay for it.

How do you pay for it? The amendment I have sent to the desk would take a small share, less than 5 percent of the $1.8 trillion tax cut we enacted in the last 3 years, to cover the $87 billion emergency supplemental for Iraq. That would put the burden of paying for our mission in Iraq on Americans today, not our grandchildren, which, despite the fine words I just quoted, is exactly what the President is doing.

This $87 billion request will be added to the mountains of debt we have already piled up. From a projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion when the President came to office, this administration has, by a kind of reverse alchemy, turned gold into lead. We face a $480 billion deficit this year alone, and that is not counting the $164 billion we will borrow from Social Security. There is no one in this Chamber who is a better expert on Social Security than the Presiding Officer, so she knows the real deficit is actually $644 billion.

So what do I do? I believe the fair, equitable way to deal with paying for this is to say to the wealthiest Americans, the top .7 percent, instead of you getting a total tax cut of $690 billion over the term of this tax cut, you are only going to get $600 billion.

I tried this out on wealthy Americans, and wealthy Delawareans. Can you imagine if the President of the United States, when he announced this $87 billion supplemental, said: And because of this, I am going to ask the wealthiest 1 percent of you--which means you have to be making at least $360,000 to get into that category of income. The average person in that category makes $1 million per year--I am asking you to forgo 1 year of your tax cut; not the whole tax cut, just 1 year of the 10 years of the tax cut you are getting.

The reason this will have no impact on economic recovery, for those who say the tax cut is causing economic recovery, the way it works is, this will be paid from the year 2005 to 2010. It instructs the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to find this $87 billion from that category over a 5-year period. There is not a serious economist in the world who would say to you it would have any impact on recovery--none.

Do you know the interesting part about it? Wealthy people are prepared to do this. They know it is the right thing to do. They know it is the right thing to do. What frustrates me about some in your party and my party is, some in your party think only the wealthiest in the Nation have any brains, and some in my party think everything is class warfare.

The truth is, wealthy Americans are as patriotic as the poorest American, as patriotic as middle class Americans. They have not been asked to do anything yet. And to ask them to pay, give up 1 year of the 10 years of their tax cut, about which I will go into details tomorrow--for someone making $360,000 a year would be something like, what is it, $1,400 per year for 5 years. That is a sacrifice?

Some have said to me on the shows I have been on--the television shows--Why don't you do it for all Americans? The truth is, middle- class Americans need a tax break. Second, I am not taking away the tax break. Instead of getting 100 times what the middle-class American gets, you are only going to get 60 times.

Do you know what. I have not found a single wealthy American--I challenge anyone who is making in that .7 percent, making over $360,000, to write me a letter--this is on C-SPAN--telling me you don't think it is fair for you to give up 1 year of your tax cut out of 10, spread over 5 years.

I think the President vastly miscalculates the character of the American people and the character of the wealthiest people among us.

So tomorrow, when we actually bring this up for debate, I will have much more detail to say. I promised you I would not keep you long. But I believe--and I sincerely believe this--this is the right thing to do. The wealthiest people I am talking about I believe think it is the right thing to do. I hope we have the courage to do it.

I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I spoke yesterday on the floor and also in the Appropriations Committee in support of having the $20 billion which the administration has asked for the reconstruction of Iraq to be in the form of loans or loan guarantees instead of grants. I have made that suggestion in an effort to be helpful to the administration.

I analogize the situation in Iraq to a company, an enterprise, an entity in bankruptcy. Iraq is supposed to have some $200 billion in obligations. By analogy to a bankruptcy proceeding, those obligations are to be discharged. General creditors come last in line and, in the absence of any assets, they receive nothing.

The situation for the United States in advancing funds for the reconstruction of Iraq, it seems to me, ought to be in loans or loan guarantees because Iraq has substantial potential for its oil revenues, sitting on the second largest pool of oil in the world. I reject the contention that this would discourage other donor nations from helping Iraq. It seems to me if the United States is to come in and make a gift, a grant, that just encourages other nations to say: Well, let's let the United States do it.

If we at least refrain from taking a position until the donors conference on October 23 in Madrid, then we might use our situation to leverage funds from other countries.

The argument has also been advanced that if we make a loan or a loan guarantee, it will confirm to the Arab nations the contention that we are just there for Iraq oil. But that is a specious contention because we are not taking the money for ourselves or our military operations but using it only for the rebuilding of Iraq which is for the benefit of the people of Iraq.

Since I made the statements yesterday, a very able staff member, my general counsel David Brog, has researched the subject and has found a Security Council resolution which is very relevant to this proposition, a resolution which was enacted on May 21 of this year. The resolution is No. 1483, and it provides that there is to be a fund created. And the fund, under the control of the United States and the United Kingdom, may be used to pay for the rebuilding of Iraq. So that when we are searching for multilateralism and when we are searching for United Nations approval, not just what the United States might want to do or the United States and Great Britain might want to do, this U.N. Resolution 1483 provides that authority.

It also is of substantial assistance in answering a legal question which I had raised yesterday, which posed some difficulty, and that is: To whom would the United States loan the money? Who would be the contract party when there is no government in Iraq at the present time?

The U.N. resolution which establishes this fund has a reference to U.N. participation, International Monetary Fund participation, World Bank participation, and auditing which is to be done by many countries, including Arab countries, so that the fund, in and of itself, it seems to me, as a legal proposition, has sufficient status as an entity to be a contracting party. So that when the revenues are realized from Iraqi oil, or they go into the fund, the United States may deal with the fund, with the other parties present--as I say, the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, the U.N., and auditing countries--having some status with the fund to give extra assurances of fairness that the contract is really in the interest of the Iraqi people.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of U.N. Resolution 1483 be printed in the Congressional Record following my statement.

Mr. President, I have further extracted an analysis of this U.N. resolution, which is hard to follow if you just pick up the resolution and read it. The analysis establishes the approach I have just summarized. One clause, which is denominated Roman numeral I-- first, I ask unanimous consent that this addendum be printed in the Record following my statement.

Roman numeral I is the clause which recognizes the United States and the United Kingdom as the authority.

Roman numeral II establishes the Development Fund for Iraq, including establishing the International Advisory and Monitoring Board to audit in the Development Fund.

Roman numeral III from the U.N. resolution gives the authority and power to disburse the funds in the Development Fund for Iraq.

Roman numeral IV establishes that the Development Fund for Iraq must be used, among other things, for the economic reconstruction and repair of Iraq's infrastructure.

Roman numeral V mandates that 95 percent of the proceeds received from export sales of petroleum, petroleum products, and natural gas must be deposited into the Development Fund for Iraq until an Iraqi government is properly constituted. The other 5 percent is to be deposited into the Compensation Fund, which was set up, per U.N. Resolution 687 in 1991, to compensate those who suffered losses or damages as a result of Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait.

In effect, this Security Council resolution anticipates the precise issue which the Congress is now facing. It is necessary to have these funds for the rebuilding of Iraq, but there is no good reason it ought to be a grant or a gift. When Iraq has the resources--the oil--to pay for the reconstruction of Iraq and to take care of the rebuilding of

Iraq; and with the authority of the U.N. it eliminates any concern about the United States acting unilaterally or in conjunction with the United Kingdom--acting with the two countries unilaterally--because this has been sanctioned by the United Nations. Creating this fund, there is an entity to look to, to provide the repayment, as the U.N. resolution calls for 95 percent of the fund to be used for the rebuilding of Iraq.

There is significant concern in the Congress--I have heard it among my colleagues--as to how these funds are to be advanced. The administration has taken the position that they want grants or gifts. From my soundings in Pennsylvania and from what I hear from my colleagues in other States, the American people are very concerned about what is going on in Iraq generally, they are very concerned about the casualties and fatalities.

We honor and respect and praise the Armed Forces for the military victory which has been achieved. We are concerned about our military personnel there not really being police officials, hopeful that there will be U.N. assistance on other forces being there, looking for an Iraqi police force to be trained. But when it comes to the issue of the advancement of funds, this Security Council resolution sets parameters, sets the procedures, which authorizes and authenticates the propriety of having the loans made or loan guarantees so that the United States can be repaid.

I hear considerable concern among my constituents, and I hear it from my colleagues in the Senate, about the tightness of our budget, the difficulties of providing important discretionary funding. In September, I managed the bill on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education. Notwithstanding that $136.6 billion is really insufficient funds to take care of all of our educational, health, and worker safety needs, I think it is appropriate and reassuring to the American people that where we can avoid adding to the deficit and to the national debt, we take steps to do just that.

Exhibit 1

Analysis of the UN Resolution 1484 as it pertains to the Development

Fund for Iraq

(adopted by the United Nations on May 21, 2003 by a vote of 14-0, with

Syria not participating)

i. the following clause recognizes the united states and the united

kingdom as the ``authority'' (un resolution 1484, pg. 2 para. 3)

Noting the letter of 8 May 2003 from the Permanent

Representatives of the United States of America and the

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the

President of the Security Council (S/2003/538) and

recognizing the specific authorities, responsibilities, and

obligations under applicable international law of these

states as occupying powers under unified command (the

``Authority''),

ii. the following clause establishes the development fund for iraq, including establishing the international advisory and monitoring board

to audit the development fund. (un resolution 1484, pg. 4, para. 12)

12. Notes the establishment of a Development Fund for Iraq

to be held by the Central Bank of Iraq and to be audited by

independent public accountants approved by the International

Advisory and Monitoring Board of the Development Fund for

Iraq and looks forward to the early meeting of that

International Advisory and Monitoring Board, whose members

shall include duly qualified representatives of the

Secretary-General, of the Managing Director of the

International Monetary Fund, of the Director-General of the

Arab Fund for Social and Economic Development, and of the

President of the World Bank;

iii. the following clause gives the ``authority'' the power to disburse the funds in the development fund for iraq. (un resolution 1484, pg. 4,

para. 13)

13. Notes further that the funds in the Development Fund

for Iraq shall be disbursed at the direction of the

Authority, in consultation with the Iraqi interim

administration, for the purposes set out in paragraph 14

below;

iv. the following clause establishes that the Development Fund for Iraq must be used, among other things, for the economic reconstruction and repair of the Iraq's infrastructure. (un resolution 1484, pg. 4, para.

14)

14. Underlines that the Development Fund for Iraq shall be

used in a transparent manner to meet the humanitarian needs

of the Iraqi people, for the economic reconstruction and

repair of Iraq's infrastructure, for the continued

disarmament of Iraq, and for the costs of Iraqi civilian

administration, and for other purposes benefiting the people

of Iraq;

v. the following clause mandates that 95% of the proceeds received from export sales of petroleum, petroleum products, and natural gas must be deposited into the development fund for iraq until an iraqi government

is properly constituted. (the other 5% will be deposited into the compensation fund, which was set up, per un resolution 687 (1991), to compensate those who suffered losses or damages as a result of iraq's invasion and occupation of kuwait). (un resolution 1484, pg. 6, para.

20)

20. Decides that all export sales of petroleum, petroleum

products, and natural gas from Iraq following the date of the

adoption of this resolution shall be made consistent with

prevailing international market best practices, to be audited

by independent public accountants reporting to the

International Advisory and Monitoring Board referred to in

paragraph 12 above in order to ensure transparency, and

decides further that, except as provided in paragraph 21

below, all proceeds from such sales shall be deposited into

the Development Fund for Iraq until such time as an

internationally recognized, representative government of Iraq

is properly constituted;

Exhibit 2

(From the United Nations Security Council, 21 May 2003.)

spain, united kingdom of great britain and northern ireland and united

states of america: draft resolution

The Security Council,

Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions,

Reaffirming the sovereignty and territorial integrity of

Iraq,

Reaffirming also the importance of the disarmament of Iraqi

weapons of mass destruction and of eventual confirmation of

the disarmament of Iraq,

Stressing the right of the Iraqi people freely to determine

their own political future and control their own natural

resources, welcoming the commitment of all parties concerned

to support the creation of an environment in which they may

do so as soon as possible, and expressing resolve that the

day when Iraqis govern themselves must come quickly,

Encouraging efforts by the people of Iraq to form a

representative government based on the rule of law that

affords equal rights and justice to all Iraqi citizens

without regard to ethnicity, religion, or gender, and, in

this connection, recalls resolution 1325 (2000) of 31 October

2000,

Welcoming the first steps of the Iraqi people in this

regard, and noting in this connection the 15 April 2003

Nasiriyah statement and the 28 April 2003 Baghdad statement,

Resolved that the United Nations should play a vital role

in humanitarian relief, the reconstruction of Iraq, and the

restoration and establishment of national and local

institutions for representative governance,

Noting the statement of 12 April 2003 by the Ministers of

Finance and Central Bank Governors of the Group of Seven

Industrialized Nations in which the members recognized the

need for a multilateral effort to help rebuild and develop

Iraq and for the need for assistance from the International

Monetary Fund and the World Bank in these efforts,

Welcoming also the resumption of humanitarian assistance

and the continuing efforts of the Secretary-General and the

specialized agencies to provide food and medicine to the

people of Iraq,

Welcoming the appointment by the Secretary-General of his

Special Adviser on Iraq,

Affirming the need for accountability for crimes and

atrocities committed by the previous Iraqi regime,

Stressing the need for respect for the archaelogical,

historical, cultural, and religious heritage of Iraq, and for

the continued protection of archaeological, historical,

cultural, and religious sites, museums, libraries, and

monuments.

Noting the letter of 8 May 2003 from the Permanent

Representatives of the United States of America and the

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the

President of the Security Council (S/2003/538) and

recognizing the specific authorities, responsibilities, and

obligations under applicable international law of these

states as occupying powers under unified command (the

``Authority''),

Noting further that other States are not occupying powers

are working now or in the future may work under the

Authority,

Welcoming further the willingness of Member States to

contribute to stability and security in Iraq by contributing

personnel, equipment, and other resources under the

Authority,

Concerned that many Kuwaitis and Third-State Nationals

still are not accounted for since 2 August 1990,

Determining that the situation in Iraq, although improved,

continues to constitute a threat to international peace and

security,

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United

Nations,

1. Appeals to Member States and concerned organizations to

assist the people of Iraq in their efforts to reform their

institutions and rebuild their country, and to contribute to

conditions of stability and security in Iraq in accordance

with this resolution;

2. Calls upon all Member States in a position to do so to

respond immediately to the

humanitarian appeals of the United Nations and other

international organizations for Iraq and to help meet the

humanitarian and other needs of the Iraqi people by providing

food, medical supplies, and resources necessary for

reconstruction and rehabilitation of Iraq's economic

infrastructure;

3. Appeals to Member States to deny safe haven to those

members of the previous Iraqi regime who are alleged to be

responsible for crimes and atrocities and to support actions

to bring them to justice;

4. Calls upon the Authority, consistent with the Charter of

the United Nations and other relevant international law, to

promote the welfare of the Iraqi people through the effective

administration of the territory, including in particular

working towards the restoration of conditions of security and

stability and the creation of conditions in which the Iraqi

people can freely determine their own political future;

5. Calls upon all concerned to comply fully with their

obligations under international law including in particular

the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Hague Regulations of

1907;

6. Calls upon the Authority and relevant organizations and

individuals to continue efforts to locate, identify, and

repatriate all Kuwaiti and Third-State Nationals or the

remains of those present in Iraq on or after 2 August 1990,

as well as the Kuwaiti archives, that the previous Iraqi

regime failed to undertake, and, in this regard, directs

the High-Level Coordinator, in consultation with the

International Committee of the Red Cross and the

Tripartite Commission and with the appropriate support of

the people of Iraq and in coordination with the Authority,

to take steps to fulfil his mandate with respect to the

fate of Kuwaiti and Third-State National missing persons

and property;

7. Decides that all Member States shall take appropriate

steps to facilitate the safe return to Iraqi institutions of

Iraqi cultural property and other items of archaeological,

historical, cultural, rare scientific, and religious

importance illegally removed from the Iraq National Museum,

the National Library, and other locations in Iraq since the

adoption of resolution 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, including

by establishing a prohibition on trade in or transfer of such

items and items with respect to which reasonable suspicion

exists that they have been illegally removed, and calls upon

the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural

Organization, Interpol, and other international

organizations, as appropriate, to assist in the

implementation of this paragraph;

8. Requests the Secretary-General to appoint a Special

Representative for Iraq whose independent responsibilities

shall involve reporting regularly to the Council on his

activities under this resolution, coordinating activities of

the United Nations in post-conflict processes in Iraq,

coordinating among United Nations and international agencies

engaged in humanitarian assistance and reconstruction

activities in Iraq, and, in coordination with the Authority,

assisting the people of Iraq through:

(a) coordinating humanitarian and reconstruction assistance

by United Nations agencies and between United Nations

agencies and non-governmental organizations;

(b) promoting the safe, orderly, and voluntary return of

refugees and displaced persons;

(c) working intensively with the Authority, the people of

Iraq, and others concerned to advance efforts to restore and

establish national and local institutions for representative

governance, including by working together to facilitate a

process leading to an internationally recognized,

representative government of Iraq;

(d) facilitating the reconstruction of key infrastructure,

in cooperation with other international organizations;

(e) promoting economic reconstruction and the conditions

for sustainable development, including through coordination

with national and regional organizations, as appropriate,

civil society, donors, and the international financial

institutions;

(f) encouraging international efforts to contribute to

basic civilian administration functions;

(g) promoting the protection of human rights;

(h) encouraging international efforts to rebuild the

capacity of the Iraqi civilian police force; and

(i) encouraging international efforts to promote legal and

judicial reform;

9. Supports the formation, by the people of Iraq with the

help of the Authority and working with the Special

Representative, of an Iraqi interim administration as a

transitional administration run by Iraqis, until an

internationally recognized, representative government is

established by the people of Iraq and assumes the

responsibilities of the Authority;

10. Decides that, with the exception of prohibitions

related to the sale or supply to Iraq of arms and related

materiel other than those arms and related materiel required

by the Authority to serve the purposes of this and other

related resolutions, all prohibitions related to trade with

Iraq and the provision of financial or economic resources to

Iraq established by resolution 661 (1990) and subsequent

relevant resolutions, including resolution 778 (1992) of 2

October 1992, shall no longer apply;

11. Reaffirms that Iraq must meet its disarmament

obligations, encourages the United Kingdom of Great Britain

and Northern Ireland and the United States of America to keep

the Council informed of their activities in this regard, and

underlines the intention of the Council to revisit the

mandates of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification, and

Inspection Commission and the International Atomic Energy

Agency as set forth in resolutions 687 (1991) of 3 April

1991, 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and 1441 (2002) of 8

November 2002;

12. Notes the establishment of a Development Fund for Iraq

to be held by the Central Bank of Iraq and to be audited by

independent public accountants approved by the International

Advisory and Monitoring Board of the Development Fund for

Iraq and looks forward to the early meeting of that

International Advisory and Monitoring Board, whose members

shall include duly qualified representatives of the

Secretary-General, of the Managing Director of the

International Monetary Fund, of the Director-General of the

Arab Fund for Social and Economic Development, and of the

President of the World Bank;

13. Notes further that the funds in the Development Fund

for Iraq shall be disbursed at the direction of the

Authority, in consultation with the Iraqi interim

administration, for the purposes set out in paragraph 14

below;

14. Underlines that the Development Fund for Iraq shall be

used in a transparent manner to meet the humanitarian needs

of the Iraqi people, for the economic reconstruction and

repair of Iraq's infrastructure, for the continued

disarmament of Iraq, and for the costs of Iraqi civilian

administration, and for other purposes benefiting the people

of Iraq;

15. Calls upon the international financial institutions to

assist the people of Iraq in the reconstruction and

development of their economy and to facilitate assistance by

the broader donor community, and welcomes the readiness of

creditors, including those of the Paris Club, to seek a

solution to Iraq's sovereign debt problems;

16. Requests also that the Secretary-General, in

coordination with the Authority, continue the exercise of his

responsibilities under Security Council resolution 1472

(2003) of 28 March 2003 and 1476 (2003) of 24 April 2003, for

a period of six months following the adoption of this

resolution, and terminate within this time period, in the

most cost effective manner, the ongoing operations of the

``Oil-for-Food'' Programme (the ``Programme''), both at

headquarters level and in the field, transferring

responsibility for the administration of any remaining

activity under the Programme to the Authority, including by

taking the following necessary measures:

(a) to facilitate as soon as possible the shipment and

authenticated delivery of priority civilian goods as

identified by the Secretary-General and representatives

designated by him, in coordination with the Authority and the

Iraqi interim administration, under approved and funded

contracts previously concluded by the previous Government of

Iraq, for the humanitarian relief of the people of Iraq,

including, as necessary, negotiating adjustments in the terms

or conditions of these contracts and respective letters of

credit as set forth in paragraph 4(d) of resolution 1472

(2003);

(b) to review, in light of changed circumstances, in

coordination with the Authority and the Iraqi interim

administration, the relative utility of each approved and

funded contract with a view to determining whether such

contracts contain items required to meet the needs of the

people of Iraq both now and during reconstruction, and to

postpone action on those contracts determined to be of

questionable utility and the respective letters of credit

until an internationally recognized, representative

government of Iraq is in a position to make its own

determination as to whether such contracts shall be

fulfilled;

(c) to provide the Security Council within 21 days

following the adoption of this resolution, for the Security

Council's review and consideration, an estimated operating

budget based on funds already set aside in the account

established pursuant to paragraph 8(d) of resolution 986

(1995) of 14 April 1995, identifying:

(i) all known and projected costs to the United Nations

required to ensure the continued functioning of the

activities associated with implementation of the present

resolution, including operating and administrative expenses

associated with the relevant United Nations agencies and

programmes responsible for the implementation of the

Programme both at Headquarters and in the field;

(ii) all known and projected costs associated with

termination of the Programme;

(iii) all known and projected costs associated with

restoring Government of Iraq funds that were provided by

Member States to the Secretary-General as requested in

paragraph 1 of resolution 778 (1992); and

(iv) all known and projected costs associated with the

Special Representative and the qualified representative of

the Secretary-General identified to serve on the

International Advisory and Monitoring Board, for the six

month time period defined above, following which these costs

shall be borne by the United Nations;

(d) to consolidate into a single fund the accounts

established pursuant to paragraphs 8(a) and 8(b) of

resolution 986 (1995);

(e) to fulfill all remaining obligations related to the

termination of the Programme, including negotiating, in the

most cost effective manner, any necessary settlement

payments, which shall be made from the escrow

accounts established pursuant to paragraphs 8(a) and 8(b) of

resolution 986 (1995), with those parties that previously

have entered into contractual obligations with the Secretary-

General under the Programme, and to determine, in

coordination with the Authority and the Iraqi interim

administration, the future status of contracts undertaken

by the United Nations and related United Nations agencies

under the accounts established pursuant to paragraphs 8

(b) and 8 (d) of resolution 986 (1995);

(f) to provide the Security Council, 30 days prior to the

termination of the Programme, with a comprehensive strategy

developed in close coordination with the Authority and the

Iraqi interim administration that would lead to the delivery

of all relevant documentation and the transfer of all

operational responsibility of the Programme to the Authority;

17. Requests further that the Secretary-General transfer as

soon as possible to the Development Fund for Iraq 1 billion

United States dollars from unencumbered funds in the accounts

established pursuant to paragraphs 8 (a) and 8 (b) of

resolution 986 (1995), restore Government of Iraq funds that

were provided by Member States to the Secretary-General as

requested in paragraph 1 of resolution 778 (1992), and

decides that, after deducting all relevant United Nations

expenses associated with the shipment of authorized contracts

and costs to the Programme outlined in paragraph 16 (c)

above, including residual obligations, all surplus funds in

the escrow accounts established pursuant to paragraphs 8 (a),

8 (b), 8 (d), and 8 (f) of resolution 986 (1995) shall be

transferred at the earliest possible time to the Development

Fund for Iraq;

18. Decides to terminate effective on the adoption of this

resolution the functions related to the observation and

monitoring activities undertaken by the Secretary-General

under the Programme, including the monitoring of the export

of petroleum and petroleum products from Iraq;

19. Decides to terminate the Committee established pursuant

to paragraph 6 of resolution 661 (1990) at the conclusion of

the six month period called for in paragraph 16 above and

further decides that the Committee shall identify individuals

and entities referred to in paragraph 23 below;

20. Decides that all export sales of petroleum, petroleum

products, and natural gas from Iraq following the date of the

adoption of this resolution shall be made consistent with

prevailing international market best practices, to be audited

by independent public accountants reporting to the

International Advisory and Monitoring Board referred to in

paragraph 12 above in order to ensure transparency, and

decides further that, except as provided in paragraph 21

below, all proceeds from such sales shall be deposited into

the Development Fund for Iraq until such time as an

internationally recognized, representative government of Iraq

is properly constituted;

21. Decides further that 5 percent of the proceeds referred

to in paragraph 20 above shall be deposited into the

Compensation Fund established in accordance with resolution

687 (1991) and subsequent relevant resolutions and that,

unless an internationally recognized, representative

government of Iraq and the Governing Council of the United

Nations Compensation Commission, in the exercise of its

authority over methods of ensuring that payments are made

into the Compensation Fund, decide otherwise, this

requirement shall be binding on a properly constituted,

internationally recognized, representative government of Iraq

and any successor thereto;

22. Noting the relevance of the establishment of an

internationally recognized, representative government of Iraq

and the desirability of prompt completion of the

restructuring of Iraq's debt as referred to in paragraph 15

above, further decides that, until December 31, 2007, unless

the Council decides otherwise, petroleum products, and

natural gas originating in Iraq shall be immune, until title

passes to the initial purchaser from legal proceedings

against them and not be subject to any form of attachment,

garnishment, or execution, and that all States shall take any

steps that may be necessary under their respective domestic

legal systems to assure this protection, and that proceeds

and obligations arising from sales thereof, as well as the

Development Fund for Iraq, shall enjoy privileges and

immunities equivalent to those enjoyed by the United Nations

except that the above-mentioned privileges and immunities

will not apply with respect to any legal proceeding in which

recourse to such proceeds or obligations is necessary to

satisfy liability for damages assessed in connection with an

ecological accident, including an oil spill, that occurs

after the date of adoption of this resolution;

23. Decides that all Member States in which there are:

(a) funds or other financial assets or economic resources

of the previous Government of Iraq or its state bodies,

corporations, or agencies, located outside Iraq as of the

date of this resolution, or

(b) funds or other financial assets or economic resources

that have been removed from Iraq, or acquired, by Saddam

Hussein or other senior officials of the former Iraqi regime

and their immediate family members, including entities owned

or controlled, directly or indirectly, by them or by persons

acting on behalf or at their direction,

shall freeze without delay these funds or other financial

assets or economic resources and, unless these funds or other

financial assets or economic resources are themselves the

subject of a prior judicial, administrative, or arbitral lien

or judgment, immediately shall cause their transfer to the

Development Fund for Iraq, it being understood that, unless

otherwise addressed, claims made by private individuals or

non-government entities on those transferred funds or other

financial assets may be presented to the internationally

recognized, representative government of Iraq; and decides

further that all such funds or other financial assets or

economic resources shall enjoy the same privileges,

immunities, and protections as provided under paragraph 22;

24. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Council

at regular intervals on the work of the Special

Representative with respect to the implementation of this

resolution and on the work of the International Advisory and

Monitoring Board and encourages, the United Kingdom of Great

Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America

to inform the Council at regular intervals of their efforts

under this resolution;

25. Decides to review the implementation of this resolution

within twelve months of adoption and to consider further

steps that might be necessary.

26. Calls upon Member States and international and regional

organizations to contribute to the implementation of this

resolution;

27. Decides to remain seized of this matter.

Allegations of White House Leaks

Mr. President, a considerable controversy has arisen as to the allegations of leaks from the White House with respect to the identification of a CIA operative, or a CIA agent, and there have been calls for special counsel to be appointed by the Attorney General.

The Attorney General has taken the position that the investigation can be appropriately carried out by the professionals in the Department of Justice and the professionals in the FBI.

I think it is curious that the call for a special counsel has come only after the issue has become a cause celebre with the publication by the Washington Post of the front page story on Sunday. This investigation had been pending for a protracted period of time. It came to light in a newspaper column back in July. But until it had attained notoriety and attracted public attention, nobody came forward to make a suggestion that there ought to be special counsel.

The Congress of the United States decided to allow the independent counsel statute to lapse. We considered it in 1999 in the Governmental Affairs Committee. Legislation was introduced by Senator Collins and myself on the Republican side, and Senators Levin and Lieberman on behalf of the Democrats. But there was no interest in having the independent counsel statute continued.

I favored the independent counsel because it established a specific procedure as to when there ought to be independent counsel in the event of a prospective conflict of interest, or appearance of conflict; it provided for judicial appointment of independent counsel. But that was rejected by the Congress. And it is interesting to know that of all those on the other side of the aisle among the Democratic Senators, none of them had cosponsored the legislation or, to my knowledge, had spoken in favor of the legislation--except, as I have noted, Senator Levin and Senator Lieberman.

In rejecting a call to renew independent counsel, what we had was the judgment of the Congress that the existing institutions were sufficient. That is having it in the Department of Justice and having the procedures established by the Attorney General who was in office during the Clinton administration.

I suggest having decided that, we ought to give the existing institutions an opportunity to function. I think it is important to note that it wasn't the Attorney General who started the investigation, it was one of his subordinates. The matter is being handled by Mr. John Dion, who is a career professional. I had considerable contact with Mr. Dion during the course of the Judiciary Committee oversight when Independent Counsel Starr was in operation.

The matter is being investigated by the FBI and is being kept at the headquarters level to assure greater involvement and control by Director Robert Mueller. It ought to be noted Director Mueller has a 10-year term. His term will not expire for 2\1/2\ years after a prospective second term of President Bush. FBI Directors have

been known to be independent and professional. Former FBI Director Louis Freeh had considerable disagreements with President Clinton and refused to give information to the White House at a time when Director Freeh concluded there was a criminal investigation which might involve President Clinton. So we have a standard for professionalism by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and we have a standard of professionalism by the career people in the Department of Justice.

There is also the oversight by the Judiciary Committee. This is a matter where we took considerable interest in what Independent Counsel Ken Starr did. It is worth noting that there are many members of the Judiciary Committee who have experience as prosecuting attorneys with the attendant responsibilities for investigation.

I was district attorney of Philadelphia for some 8 years. We have on the committee staff other former DAs, attorneys general, U.S. attorneys, so that the Judiciary Committee is in a position to have oversight, our constitutional responsibility, to see to it that the investigation is appropriately carried out.

There may come a time when special counsel would be warranted, but it seems to me that at this stage, there ought not to be politicization of the matter, although I understand the ways of Washington, but it is anomalous that those who are now calling for special counsel had no interest in institutionalizing the independent counsel except, as I say, for Senator Lieberman and Senator Levin.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. President, I agree with the Senator from Nevada that this is a serious matter. When he quotes the poll, I would say it would go beyond losing jobs. If someone has violated the law, there is a very substantial jail sentence which is proposed. But my comments I do not think constituted legal jargon at all. I think they were taking a look at the fact that the Congress has decided we would not have an independent counsel procedure when we did not renew the law. I fought hard to have that done as a principal position, regardless of which party is involved.

Now there is an immediate call for special counsel only after this matter becomes highly publicized, only after it becomes an opportunity for political gain--only then. This matter was pending since July when the CIA and part of the administration asked the Department of Justice for an investigation, and the investigation was going forward. Now it has been the subject of a demand for a special prosecutor by people who were indifferent to the institution of Government when independent counsel was considered for renewal.

We have a Department of Justice with professionals. We have an FBI with a Director who has a 10-year term. To repeat, his term will not expire until 2\1/2\ years after the end of the prospective second term for President Bush. So far, we have allegations, and they are serious allegations, and they ought to be investigated in due course without an immediate attempt for politicization, once it becomes a matter of high visibility as it has been since last Sunday. It only took until Monday to have a call for the independent counsel, and here we are on Wednesday.

Mr. President, I have been asked to handle the wrapup material on behalf of the majority leader as the sole remaining standing Republican present on the Senate floor.

Amendment No. 1795, As Modified

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 1795 be modified with the language at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate resumes consideration of the Iraq supplemental, the Senate then resume consideration of the McConnell amendment, as modified, with the technical changes at the desk; provided further, that there then be 40 minutes equally divided in the usual form; further, that following the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to a vote on or in relation to the amendment, with no amendments in order to the amendment prior to the vote.

Agreed.

Madam President, if I might respond, the bill will be subject to amendment at any time. We are hopeful there will be amendments. Neither Senator Byrd nor I have spoken on the bill yet.

Once Senator Byrd has finished his comments, we will be back on the bill. Of course the Senator could speak at any time.

Madam President, I think at this time I should point out what we are doing because we have brought to the floor the President's emergency supplemental request for Iraq. Last evening, the President signed the 2004 Defense Appropriations Committee bill. At the request of the Congress, specifically the Senate, the President did not include in that bill any funding for the war in Iraq or Afghanistan, and the funding for that and the global war on terrorism is in the supplemental that is before us now.

Many have asked for a great many things in connection with this supplemental that is before us. I think it is good to review history because we have had the history studied by the Congressional Research Service, and I am informed that no President before has asked, in advance, for money to conduct a war. This President did that. He had a supplemental before that carried us through fiscal year 2003. And this bill is theoretically to pick up on October 4 and carry forward the activities in Iraq and Afghanistan and the war on global terrorism following that time.

The bill does contain a substantial amount of money for the intelligence community, which is classified. This afternoon we will hold a hearing in our classified hearing room in the Capitol to explore some of the ramifications of that. We have closed out the hearings we held on this bill. I might say, in and of themselves, they are unique because I know of no hearing on a supplemental request of this type during my time in the Senate. The request was made for hearings by my good friend from West Virginia, and we have accommodated that. I know he wishes we would have more hearings, but I believe we have explored the proposals that have been presented to us as a Special Emergency Supplemental by the President, under these circumstances, as much as is possible because we have some time frames involved. The moneys for defense activities in Iraq are in this bill. We have an enormous number of people involved in this activity now, and this bill asks for about $66 billion to continue those activities through the fiscal year of 2004; that is, until September 30, 2004.

We have had presented to us, in addition to that Defense supplemental, the request for $20.3 billion to carry out the activities of our Government in connection with the reconstruction and rehabilitation of Iraq during this period ahead of us. Many will ask-- demand that the money in this second category be strictly loans.

There is no government of Iraq yet. There is no one we can really have obligated to repay it. We are exploring mechanisms that might be possible to set up ways in which a portion of the money would be required to be repaid. But the testimony before our committee was that these two sums are inextricably entwined. They represent the best effort of the military department, our Department of Defense, and of our State Department and other Departments of the executive branch to present to Congress an approach to try to move through the process of having an army of occupation in Iraq and move to establishing a new form of

government in Iraq, supported by their people, and provide the security for that government, provide the security for the people who will be running the oilfields, as have been mentioned here, with the power stations, and the schools and other activities that are still subject to some opposition by terrorists in Iraq.

I believe Ambassador Bremer and his people have presented a coherent outline of what we are going to do. But the demand is to know in advance what is going to happen, almost on a daily basis: What are you going to do? Really, the contingencies in advance of us, now, of our Government, are unique.

If you look at Germany or look at Japan, we had a military government of occupation. We provided the complete security. We provided the complete government in the past when we ended the war. We did that to a great extent in other places, too, where we helped in Kosovo, Bosnia, and other areas. We were, for several years, involved in both of those areas.

We have been involved in this area less than a year. The proposal now is to carry into the next year a plan, which was presented to us in the Senate, in our security room, in July. Some people didn't get a copy of that. That is unfortunate. But it was being presented to us during our hearings. That plan clearly sets forth the plan that was developed by Ambassador Bremer and by the State Department and our Department of Defense, to proceed now and not have an army in occupation, that we do not want to be an occupier.

We want to continue our work to secure the area for the purpose of building this new government, but we have actually had some of our military people withdrawn from the areas of Iraq which have been completely pacified now and are normally operating. The local police are maintaining security. A portion of their new army is behind them, securing those areas. Still, it is a very volatile area and that is primarily the area of concern.

It is that area that depends so much on the money that is in the second part of this bill. Ambassador Bremer personally told me a number of times the oil pipelines have been bombed, sabotaged. While they are repairing those oil lines, the power stations have been brought back into operation. As oil lines were completely restored, the power stations were blown up. As they are trying to bring both of them back, then there are sniper activities in the Baghdad area, destabilizing the situation as far as restoring tranquility in this country.

This is a time and a place that the forces of the United States, both military and civilian, need guidance on a daily basis by the Commander in Chief and his representatives. This bill contains a sizable amount of money and the discretion to use that money to accomplish the objectives they have set out. I, for one, endorse those objectives wholly because I believe they will bring our people home sooner and have us have a friendly Iraq, rebuilding itself out of its oil income, once we are able to stop this terrorist activity that is impeding the flow of oil.

The Senator from North Dakota mentioned the amount of oil we were told will be there next July. That is true. It will be there unless the pipelines are blown up again. It will be there unless the power stations are blown up again. It takes power to run these pipelines. The power stations are there. They have been blown up also.

The problem with stability in this area is a very acute one. We have been warned of that. I think the plan they have presented, in the judgment of majority of the Senate Appropriations Committee, is such that we should give the President's people this discretion. It is a lot of money. No one questions it is a lot of money. In the first place, we separate the $66 billion for defense. I don't argue about that amount in terms of carrying forth our commitment to our men and women in uniform to see to it they have the supplies, the materials, the backup, the rest and recreation, all of the things that are in this bill, to assure them we are with them and that we support them in every way possible to get this job done. But the main thing we want to do for them is to get them home. The way to get them home is to assure that Iraq once more can run its own affairs, defend itself, and can have reasonable success in dealing with terrorism. We can't eliminate terrorism completely from Iraq any more than we can completely eliminate terrorism right now. We face terrorism at home. But the real problem is how soon can they know they have the capability of meeting terrorism and trying to deal with it as they try to impede the reconstruction and rehabilitation of that country. We are going to have some differences of opinion. There are differences really in philosophy, as far as I am concerned.

I think we ought to listen more to the generals who are over there in uniform, as I have yet to hear complaints from any of the people who have gone over there and who have been part of this tremendous success militarily. They report they are proud of what they have done, and they believe we are right, that we should as soon as possible have the Iraqis run this country. That is the goal.

We have had this monstrous success militarily. Normally, any country before in history has sent in an occupation force, set up a government, tried to find out who should be the new leaders of the government, worked with them for a number of years, and then eventually withdrawn their forces. Of course, as I think the world knows, we have yet to withdraw all of our forces from Europe from World War II. They started and became part of a permanent force over there almost, although I do think we ought to reexamine that, and we will in the near future. The future for this area is not to have an occupation force. We still have forces in Kosovo and we still have forces in Bosnia. That is not the goal of this activity. The goal of this activity is to liberate Iraq and give it the ability to restore its government under a concept of free men and women determining their own future.

That means to me that we respond to the request of the President of the United States and give his people the discretion to use this money to the extent it is necessary.

I believe it is now time that we call up the bill. Is it pending?

Madam President, I would like to address my friend. I don't believe we need control of time now, if the Senator agrees. I will finish my remarks and then yield to Senator Byrd, if that is agreeable. Is there any pending motion which I should make?

Madam President, I will close.

It is my hope the Senate will also realize the request we have made-- I have made it to the leadership on both sides--to take the defense portion of this bill first. The House has not acted upon this bill yet. We will go on recess on Friday. While we are gone, the House will act on it. It is my opinion that the House should know how we feel about the defense side, the $66 billion. We should await their action on the $20.3 billion.

That is to me sort of a division of labor, you might say. We have worked very hard on the defense side of the bill. I believe we have a general agreement of where we are going to come out with it. We presented what we call the chairman's mark in the bill that is before the Senate today. It will be subject to some amendments. I hope Members will cooperate by looking at that portion of the bill first. We will deal with the $20.3 billion when we believe we have completed that review.

I would like to be able to tell the House that we have finished the defense portion and we await your consideration of what you think we should do with the $20.3 billion. They have had some substantial hearings on that side, too. The House held hearings on both portions of this request from the President.

I believe this is a new approach to funding this kind of an operation. It is a new operation. We would be wise to proceed, and when we come back from our recess to have before us then the House bill, to look at what the House bill has done and present our portion of the bill pertaining to the $20.3 billion. Some people may disagree, and some people think we should separate the bill--I know there is that feeling--and delete from the consideration anything that is not strictly defense. I disagree with that.

General Abizaid, who is our commander in chief there in the region,

stated very clearly that he needs both portions of this bill. If we don't have the money for the people of Iraq to proceed to establish their own security, their own military, and deal with their own reconstruction problems immediately, we will need more money to send more troops in there to protect ourselves and to protect the Iraqis. This is a transitional phase which we have in the $20.3 billion. As I have said publicly, it is risky. The President has taken a great risk. There are terrorists loose there. We have to remember Saddam Hussein let loose all of the prisoners from the jails--all of them. He opened the borders of Iraq to terrorists. Those are the people now who are raising havoc in that country. Many of them have been apprehended, but many are still at large. The $20.3 billion is aimed at providing a security base for the Iraqi government to come into being, to deal with security, to deal with antiterrorism, and to deal with restoring the productive capacity of their major resource; that is, the oil.

If it is successful, as has been indicated, by July, we will probably see that Iraq could produce oil somewhere near 3 million barrels a day.

I say parenthetically, Madam President, that in our State, we have produced about 2.1 million barrels a day in the past. We don't produce that now because of the obstruction against us in terms of going into areas where we know we could obtain oil to restore the daily output of our production facilities. We could be back up to 2.1 million barrels a day very quickly, too. The Iraqis are predicted to have even more reserves. I am not sure this is the case. They might get up as high as 6 million barrels a day. I hope for the sake of the world they do. But I am reminded of the fact that when we first started producing oil from Prudhoe Bay in Alaska, the estimate was we had approximately 1 billion barrels of oil. This last year, as the occupant of the Chair knows, we produced our 14th billion barrel of oil. Estimates are estimates. Sometimes they are high and sometimes they are low. But the estimates are that Iraq will be a major producer in the future. I hope that is so because they will have a stable government. They will have a free government. They will have the ability to determine their own future.

We have a chance to explain to them how we treat some of our oil income and how we have created our permanent fund that produces income for every person in Alaska once a year--the shareholders of public development of resources. Prudhoe Bay oil is produced from State lands. The oil in Iraq is produced from the Iraqi-owned government and Iraqi government land. They have a rosy future if they wisely manage their money as they reconstruct their country, and if they have some concept of trying to save part of it and use the earnings to benefit all of their people. That is what we have done in Alaska. It has been very successful. I hope they will be able to do that.

The problem right now is how we get from where we are with substantial force. They are still subject to severe security requirements because of the terrorism. Should we put in more antiterrorist people of the United States in uniform, or from our intelligence services, or should we help the Iraqis get to the point where they can feel they can start to protect themselves, particularly in the areas of the remaining intensity of terrorists?

This bill should pass. We should give the President's people the greatest flexibility possible, much more than we have in the past, because it is for a short period of time. It is for the remainder of fiscal year 2004, for the period of time after the bill becomes law, sometime in October, until the following September. We will know during that period whether their approach will succeed.

One thing is very clear: this Congress will not walk away from Iraq. This President will not walk away from Iraq. We will not withdraw our people from Iraq and leave chaos in Iraq. Clearly, we have the obligation to finish what we started. This is the plan to finish what we started.

Some people want a roadmap, a daily report, with every single aspect of what is going on, producing another request for another report. Do you know what happens to the reports? They get filed in some filing cabinet somewhere, some computer, and no one pays any attention to them.

I will oppose a great many of these reports because we have provided in the bill for quarterly reports, we provided in the bill for continuation of the reports requested in the supplemental for 2003. That is sufficient. To my knowledge, no one raised an objection to what we received so far. I don't know why we should add to that number of reports we require from the people who represent us in both military and civilian agencies in Iraq.

I look forward to debate. It has been strenuous so far. I expect it to get a little more strenuous. Clearly, it is a turning point in the history of the United States. We have followed the pattern of the Caesars. We have gone in and been a liberator and then occupied area and stayed there. Look at Germany, how long we stayed there, and Japan, how long we stayed there: 4 years after the war was over in Japan. Do we want to do that in Iraq? We believe we can reduce that time our military people are there if we follow the proposals before the Senate from Ambassador Bremer who funnels both the recommendations of the State Department and the Department of Defense to the Congress through the President's request in the supplemental.

I remind Members of the Senate Appropriations Committee there will be a hearing in S. 407 at 5 p.m. and we do expect amendments to be offered. I hope there will be an opportunity to have a vote on some of them today although that may not be possible. The President of the United States is signing the Homeland Security bill within an hour to hour and a half. Many of the Members of Congress have been invited to be present. It is my intention to ask the Senate to withhold voting while they are gone. They are at the new Department of Homeland Security. We expect to have a vote sometime around 3:30, between that and the time of our hearing in S. 407. We would not object to a vote during that hearing. We are just right upstairs. From 5 p.m. we will be in the hearing. I will not request we have no votes during that time.

We will not have votes too late because we have an understanding with our colleagues from the Democratic Party who have an event tonight that we have agreed we will not have votes during the time they are at that dinner.

Again, I am asking people to come forward and offer amendments. I urge Members to present amendments to the defense side first, if at all possible. We are prepared, however, for any amendments offered.

I yield to my friend from West Virginia.

Mr. President, we have a Senator who is on the way now to offer an amendment. I will be happy to receive that.

In response to my good friend, our senior Member of the Senate, I understand his position fully and I appreciate that he understands mine.

Having been involved in my lifetime in service overseas, I have, since I have been in the Senate, traveled many places in the world to talk to our men and women in uniform. I find that today's group of young men and women who represent us in our military service are the finest I have ever known. I think the job they did in Iraq was outstanding.

I have been privileged to read a whole series of letters that have been written to families by those young men and women. As I have said before today, I have not seen one that indicated any doubt about the work they have done or lack of any sense of real commitment to that job. They have just been really tremendous letters.

It is a different experience to go overseas now and visit these people. They have the Internet. They have tents or buildings where they can literally attend college during part of their days. They have telephone service. They have mail service quite frequently--I am sure not as frequently as they would like.

Going back to my day, I didn't have a telephone call from the time I left home until the time I got back to Hawaii, having spent the better part of 2 years roaming the world. We didn't have the Internet, obviously. We didn't have much mail. Yet we came back with the belief that what we had done was the right thing.

I think these people, when they come home, will tell us that. I think the world will see a new generation of Americans, a different group, educated in a new age, in terms of war, knowing what they are capable of and knowing the horrors of war.

The impact of those people in the future is going to have a great deal to do with our foreign policy. I do believe they know now what it takes to follow on after a war. I can tell you, since I was coming home, I am sure most people from my generation would say the same thing: We didn't think about who was going to rule Germany, or we didn't think about terrorists in Germany or who was going to run Japan; we knew the military was going to do it. They were sending military replacements at the time.

This is not that world. This is a different world now. Those kids of ours are going to come home when we have replaced them with Iraqis who are capable of defending themselves. We are going to move into that age, a rapid reconstruction of that country. This is the way to do it.

It is a lot of money, no question about it. But the supplemental we put up before was primarily for defense. Two-thirds of this money is for defense. I don't know any argument about really the total amount of this. We didn't have arguments in terms of providing for our men and women who were dispatched to win the war. The problem is too often people talking about the whole amount as being the whole amount for reconstruction of Iraq.

That is not true. The major portion of our spending has been because we rely upon a volunteer Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard. We have promised them we will go to every degree to support them, to provide them their needs, to see their families are cared for, and particularly to give them the kind of weaponry which will permit them to survive.

As I said in the committee and before the press, in World War I, manpower was expendable. In World War II, manpower was expendable. Even in Korea, manpower was expendable. We do not do that now. We do not have that philosophy as a Government, as a people. We put people in the field to win wars and come home at tremendous cost. We pay that cost, and this bill is for that cost--$66 billion for defense expenditures.

I don't expect to hear too many questions about those defense expenditures because they are necessary to maintain this force. History will show it is probably the most superb military operation in history, keeping in mind how it had to be changed when we no longer could use Turkey for access to the northern part of Iraq, the way it shifted, the command worked--I think the commanders have been sheer military geniuses, and they have done a good job under Secretary Rumsfeld. I believe we should support them, we should take them further, and we should do our best to make certain everything we do is designed to do one thing: to bring those people home; to give them a chance to come home and tell us what they did and, above all, not going into a period of military occupation of this country.

That was not our mission, and I do believe the American people, once they realize what we are doing, will understand why it costs money to fight wars the way we fought this one and to fight for the peace with this supplemental money when it is provided to the administration.

I am informed the Senator who was going to come to the Chamber will not come for another 25 minutes.

I yield the floor. I see the Senator from Illinois wishes to speak.

Will the Senator yield?

This Senator is a little confused. I understand the Senator from Illinois to say he is fully in support of the defense money. Yet when he talks about the money he is unwilling to support, he includes it in the total $87 billion.

Are we talking about the $20.3 billion or are we talking about the $87 billion? Certainly the $87 billion, if the Senator from Illinois is consistent, includes the $66 billion which he will support. It would come from borrowed moneys from Social Security trust funds and other funds, that is true.

I think the American public out there is going to be confused about this business, the $66 billion. Is the Senator from Illinois talking about $66 billion? I thought he said he was going to support that.

Why does the Senator mention $87 billion?

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I wish to state the Senator from West Virginia did offer this amendment. It would have the impact of splitting these two portions of our programs that deal with Iraq and leaving just a portion of the money. As I understand, it would leave $5-plus billion in the fund from the $20.3 billion.

So I really am compelled to tell the Senator that I don't think we can be for the troops, be for helping the troops, and be against the $20.3 billion. So I am compelled to object, and I do object.

I do withhold the objection. I am happy to have a dialog on this matter.

Mr. President, again reserving the right to object, I think the Senator's explanation and the presentation of the Senator from Illinois demonstrates the problem. The poll the Senator has mentioned by the Washington Post polled $87 billion. Yet there is no relevant objection to $66 billion of that money. Why didn't they poll the $20.3 billion? I don't think the American public has been told that $20.3 billion is part of the process that will eventually reduce the military expense and bring our people back.

We have taken the position of a single package--a fund for the military operation, and a fund for reconstruction and restoration of Iraq going on concomitantly so we don't have to go into a period of military occupation.

I think the Senator's amendment is sort of a dangerous thing because it says go ahead with the military operation but we won't give you any money to help to stand up the Iraqi army, or to stand up the Iraqi security force, or to take action to assure the powerplants are working and the oil pipelines are working because we think we ought to wait until there is a government. You cannot get a new government without some reconstruction and without some security and without some mechanism to assist our forces so our forces can draw back and not take over the whole job.

I object to the Senator's request.

Mr. President, there are Senators who are at the signing ceremony. Can we get an agreement on a time to vote on the Senator's amendment? I would like to see us vote on the Senator's amendment sometime around 4 o'clock. Is that possible?

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia for his courtesy in

bringing this amendment forward. It is one of the key issues of this bill. The Senator has offered an amendment. As I understand, it would leave the defense money before the Senate and would strike all but $5.136 billion for the public safety and national security requirements of the proposal presented by the President in the emergency supplemental bill.

In my judgment, this tries to separate just a portion of the problem. The problem that has been brought before our committee is the problem of thousands of Iraqi people who do not have jobs because the economy is not functioning in this triangle where terrorists are. They do not have security. This maintains the money for the security and public safety, but it does not maintain the money for restoring the jails. All the jails were destroyed and all the prisoners were let go. It does not restore the money necessary to proceed with the development of the systems that will lead to restoration of the economy and it does not cover the balance of the money in the plan for this fiscal year. We believe it carries beyond the July period when, hopefully by that time, Iraqi oil money will be flowing at a rate where they can pick up and do the reconstruction and rehabilitation of Iraq.

I am compelled to say I oppose this amendment. It is my hope we can get an early vote on it. It is a significant portion of the problem. Many people came to me as chairman and asked, why don't you take the defense portions separately and take the rest in a separate bill? That is what Senator Byrd tried to do in his previous unanimous consent request. We conferred at length with Ambassador Bremer, with Secretary Rumsfeld, with General Abizaid. They were all before our committee. They all said this process is one of tying together the reconstruction and rehabilitation with our continued military operations with the hope that as the reconstruction moves forward, our people can move out and we can start the process of withdrawing as soon as it starts. That has already occurred. General Pace testified some of our people have already been withdrawn from the areas where we think there has been peace and stability restored. Although those areas do not have a national government, they have local governments that are now functioning. We are providing some security in the background there, that is true. They need that for a little while more.

I firmly believe that if we can get this plan going and have the reconstruction funds go forward with the military operations, there is support for our soldiers there now and assurance that we will go into a period where there comes a time we can withdraw more and more of our forces. The plan the President has presented is a plan that could work. I am not here to say I know it will work; it could work. If it worked, it would be the first time in history this has been done. But there is a substantial chance it will work.

There is another greater question ahead, a question of whether a portion of the moneys should be repaid. We will have to address that question in the near future. I thank the Senator for raising this issue. It is the key issue he attached to a unanimous consent agreement and I opposed.

For those who support the concept, you cannot be for the troops and against the money. We need to assure the troops have the support they should have coming out of the Iraqi people and out of the restoration of their ability to defend themselves and to police for themselves and set up their own new government.

This is the intertwining of these two proposals. I tell my friend I must oppose this. I will ask for the vote to occur sometime soon, I hope, because we ought to get this subject behind us as quickly as possible.

I don't know if the Senator is willing to talk of a time certain. Because of the problem of the signing ceremony for the Homeland Security bill, it will not be possible to have the vote before 4, but I am happy to have the vote at any time after 4 if the Senator is willing to call for a vote.

How long would the Senator from Rhode Island like to speak?

He is not speaking on the Senator's amendment, but has his own statement?

That can be accommodated with a time limit we are thinking about. Senator McConnell has a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. I hope we establish a procedure where we have an amendment from one side, the other side, and work on a basis of comity when that time comes.

I am happy to yield the floor. I hope we have the dialog as to when the vote will take place in the near future.

Reserving the right to object, that is on the Byrd pending amendment?

To occur now?

Mr. President, I assume this will be an up-or-down vote. I am pleased to make my statement first and let the Senator close. That would put people on notice that we should be voting in 15 minutes.

I have said repeatedly that the President's supplemental must be considered as a complete package. This is one of the key votes on this bill. If we try to separate even a portion of the package of the $20.3 billion, we will delay the return of our troops.

We are in a situation where the quicker the Iraqi people can get control of their own affairs--or even greater control of their own affairs, I should say--the better off we will be and the sooner we will start bringing our forces home.

Support for our forces is directly linked to the funds for security, infrastructure repair, and freedom in Iraq. All of the witnesses who appeared before us from the military, the State Department, and Ambassador Bremer,

representing both in Iraq, have indicated to us there is no question that the safety of our people is linked to these funds for reconstruction and restoration of Iraq.

Our colleagues have said they support the military money, but the military money must be increased greatly if the forces are not forthcoming from the Iraqi people to provide security and police. They can provide their own people at much less cost than we can. To provide security in a military concept will mean bringing a great many more military people to Iraq to provide the security that is necessary to deal with the situation, particularly in the triangle around Baghdad.

Our troops on the ground become greater targets the more the dissidents increase their control over the Iraqi people. The dissidents really are those who are unhappy about their own lack of necessities, their own security, their own lack of fuel and electric power.

These costs for reconstruction are high, there is no question about it. If we compare it to other engagements we have had in the world, they are not high on a per capita basis. We are dealing with many more people in Iraq than we were in Bosnia, and many more than we were in Kosovo. In both of those countries, we ended up with a period of long occupation that would have been unnecessary if we had moved into the concept of aiding the people there to provide their own government and their own security and their own basic future.

I do hope the Senate will vote against the Byrd amendment. It is the first test really of the intention of this Senate to approve the request of the President of the United States, which has been supported by every person who is in authority in our Government today.

I wish I had with me some of the letters I have received, that have been read to me, from our military people in Iraq. Those who are serving there have done a magnificent job, and they know it. They are writing their parents and telling them how proud they are of what they have done and how proud they are to be helping these people have permanent freedom in their own country.

I urge that this amendment be defeated.

I do want to point out that what we are dealing with is the question of splitting this supplemental. The supplemental is in two parts. One is military, and one is for reconstruction and restoration of the Iraqi people. To split off any part of it is to defeat the purpose of the administration and to defeat the goals we sought to achieve by committing our forces to the cause of liberating Iraq.

I yield the remainder of my time.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Madam President, the Senate today takes up the President's $87 billion Iraq war supplemental. This is a massive spending bill that holds vast implications for America's long-term foreign policy objective. It will have an enormous impact on American taxpayers for years to come.

It is a measure that deserves our full attention, our thoughtful consideration, our thorough scrutiny. This is not an issue to be measured by the standard of party loyalty. This is a matter that cries out for solemn deliberation, personal integrity, and intellectual honesty.

I remain concerned that the Senate is acting with unnecessary haste in calling up this bill today, less than 24 hours since it was reported out of the committee, but I compliment the leaders and especially the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens, for responding to concerns that I and other Senators have raised. In fact, there is no need for the Senate to act too quickly. The House has not yet even taken up its version of the supplemental. While it is not a constitutional requirement the House act first, it has been customary for many years that the House of Representatives act first. It is smoother and more thorough. It is more reasonable to go about legislating if the Senate lets the House act first so the House bill can be before Senators for their debate and amendment.

The House has not taken up its version of the supplemental. Senators are being asked to legislate on this massive spending bill without the benefit of a committee report, without the benefit of printed committee hearing, without the benefit of the input by other committees such as the Armed

Services Committee, the Intelligence Committee, and the Foreign Relations Committee. The Senate ought to have the printed hearings of the Senate Appropriations Committee. We ought to have the printed hearings containing the testimony of Ambassador Bremer, containing the testimony of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, containing the testimony of other witnesses. Why do we spend all of our time in Senate hearings if we do not intend to make those printed hearings available to our colleagues and to ourselves as we go forward with Senate debate? That is one of the tremendous benefits in having hearings so that they will be printed. Why have them? Because they will be printed then, for our colleagues to scrutinize and to help bring back memories of those Members on the Senate Appropriations Committee as to what the testimony was, what the answers were to the questions that were asked.

But here we have been rushed. We have had hearings--some hearings. I asked for more hearings, more than once, more than twice. Several times I asked for more hearings. But even with the hearings that we had, we do not have printed copies of hearings before us.

No, there has been a rush, a mad rush to move forward on this bill. There was some talk about even having the final action on the bill by the end of this week. Fortunately, with the aid of the distinguished chairman, and others, that press for action by the end of this week is no longer upon us. That was an unreasonable expectation. It did not measure up to common sense. And it certainly was not the best thing. Fortunately, that is no longer the goal of the party in control here.

There are many aspects of this bill that trouble me, but what concerns me as much as anything else, or perhaps most, is the fundamental reason that this measure is before the Senate today. American taxpayers have been presented with an $87 billion bill for the military occupation and reconstruction of Iraq. That is a big, big bill--$87 billion. That is $87 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born, $87 for every minute since the water was changed into wine, $87 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born.

That is a lot of money. That is more than $3,000 for every Iraqi man, woman, boy, and girl. Now, think about that. The taxpayers are being asked--the taxpayers of this country are being asked--to shell out more than $3,000 for every Iraqi man, woman, boy, and girl. That is what this bill does.

There are roughly 25 million, we will say, Iraqis. One thousand dollars per each Iraqi is $25 billion. Pretty easy to compute. So $75 billion would be $3,000 per every Iraqi. And $87 billion is roughly, let's say, $3,500 for every Iraqi--every man, woman, boy, and girl.

Now, this is $87 billion on top of the $79 billion which was appropriated in the fiscal year 2003 supplemental passed by the Senate in April of this year.

We are putting upon the American taxpayers a load. This administration, in this bill that we are being asked to pass, is asking the American taxpayers to shell out--in this bill--over $3,000 per Iraqi man, woman, boy, and girl, on top of the $79 billion in the fiscal year 2003 supplemental.

So when you add both of these together, this year we will have--if we pass this bill hook, line, and sinker--we will, in the Senate, have passed legislation requiring the American taxpayers to shell out $6,600 per Iraqi--$6,600 per Iraqi.

Well, the American taxpayers have been presented with an $87 billion bill for the military occupation and reconstruction of Iraq. Why? Because the President decided 6 months ago to launch a preemptive strike on Iraq in the face of very shaky evidence and worldwide opposition--strong worldwide opposition.

We have seen the lengths to which some in this administration will go. Now we learn of retribution efforts aimed at those who tried to correct the zealous propaganda which drove this Nation into war. Now the taxpayer is asked to pay the piper--pay the piper. It is a steep price, indeed, in treasure and in blood.

Much has been made of the fact that we must pass this bill quickly and without question to show our support for the troops. I do not agree. ``Support the Troops'' is a bumper sticker. ``Support the Troops'' is a bumper sticker, a bumper sticker. That is what it is: ``Support the Troops''--a bumper sticker. It is not a foreign policy.

Rubberstamping this bill is not--N-O-T--an expression of support for our troops except in the most simplistic of ways. Rubberstamping this bill merely means that thousands of American soldiers will be sentenced to another year in Iraq, without the Senate even demanding to know why so many United States soldiers need to remain there, how long they are going to be there, or why this President has failed to persuade more nations to send troops to help.

Are we to ask our troops to shoulder this burden alone for another year? Are we to ask our troops to shoulder this burden alone for years to come? When is this administration going to face the fact that we need international help? We want to help our troops. Let's get other nations to send their troops there and, thus, help our troops and help us to bring our troops home. We are certainly not serving the long-term interests of the military by rushing to embrace this bill.

The headline in yesterday's USA Today newspaper sums up the situation succinctly: ``Army Reserve Fears Troop Exodus.'' That was the headline: ``Army Reserve Fears Troop Exodus.'' According to the article in yesterday's USA Today, the chief of the Army Reserves is concerned that the excessive demands on the Guard and Reserves as a result of the war in Iraq could wreak havoc on military retention rates. That is a serious matter.

Last week, another report documented a sharp drop in National Guard recruiting rates. The military decisions this administration is making in Iraq today will have serious long-term consequences on the viability of America's All-Volunteer Armed Forces in the future, not to mention our ability to counter future threats to our own national security.

It is time to face these facts. We are stretched thin. We are stretched thin, and a long United States occupation in Iraq is not wise. Moreover, how are we to exercise proper oversight of $87 billion?

The Wall Street Journal of September 26 states:

Without a United Nations imprimatur, the Administration has

constructed its so-called coalition of the willing in

piecemeal fashion, cutting open-ended, individual deals with

each country that is willing to send troops--save Britain,

which is picking up its own tab. Officials who have seen

these agreements acknowledge the deals are notably short on

specifics. In most cases, the U.S. will foot the bill for

transporting, equipping and feeding troops during their

service in Iraq, with no dollar figures mentioned and no cap

on costs.

It is not in our Nation's interest to rush this bill through the Senate. By rushing to war based on inadequate, incorrect, or unsubstantiated intelligence, without developing an international consensus, President Bush has undermined the credibility of our Nation. We need to make sure we do not compound that error by hustling this bill through the Senate without adequate scrutiny and consideration.

The $20.3 billion contained in the spending bill for Iraq reconstruction is equally troubling. For months, top administration officials assured the American people that Iraq, sitting atop the second--and possibly the largest--supply of oil in the world, could finance its own reconstruction. Only now do we learn how woefully off the mark the administration was on this count. Only now do we learn that $20.3 billion is just a downpayment--hear me out there--just a downpayment, and that the reconstruction of Iraq will cost as much as $60 or $70 billion or more.

Last week, Ambassador Paul Bremer, the head of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, told the Senate Appropriations Committee that Iraq could not finance its own reconstruction because it was overburdened with Saddam Hussein's debts to France, Germany, Russia, Japan, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait. Ambassador Bremer conveniently ignored the debt the United States is incurring in this spending package. The debt the United States is incurring, the additional burden that will be brought to bear upon the American taxpayer by this legislation, Ambassador Bremer ignored that.

The President is insisting we pay for the war in Iraq and the reconstruction

of that nation by plunging our own country deeper into debt. Every dollar we spend in Iraq to avoid increasing Iraq's debt is an IOU we are passing on to our children. Think of it. We are writing a $20.3 billion IOU for this year alone for building a massive new infrastructure in Iraq.

The money the President wants to borrow for Iraq will come directly out of American taxpayers' wallets in the form of Medicare and Social Security surplus receipts. That is your money. We have collected that money from the pockets of American workers, the American workers who gave their sweat in the factories, in the mines, in the fields, on the oceans--the American workers. No one told them they were paying to rebuild Iraq. We don't even know how much of the $20 billion in reconstruction funds will flow to government contractors in Iraq. Estimates range from one-third of the reconstruction funds to almost all of them. Whatever the amount is, we know that the size and the scope of the profits being made will be enormous.

Former Bush administration officials are even setting up consulting firms. Listen to that. Former Bush administration officials are even setting up consulting firms to act as middlemen for contractors hoping to take part in the Iraq bonanza. Are we turning the U.S. Treasury into a grab bag for favorite campaign contributors to be financed at taxpayer expense? Is that why the administration is so reluctant to make concessions that would bring other countries on board?

Instead of redoubling our efforts to spread the burden of rebuilding Iraq among the international community, the President appears content to simply present the bill to the American taxpayers, and to their children.

The stability of Iraq is of concern to nations other than the United States. Could they be resisting helping out because they resent the President's highhanded decision to spurn the United Nations and attack Iraq on his own terms with only meager international support?

There is a donors conference in Madrid later this month. Could we be overbilling the American taxpayers by rushing this package through the Senate now and signing up for $20.3 billion in debt before we even try to make the real accommodations which would encourage other nations to reach into their own pockets?

The package before the Senate goes far beyond asking the Senate to write a check on the taxpayers' account for $87 billion. The package before us asks the Senate to underwrite the long-term democratization of Iraq as some sort of catalyst for triggering the democratization of the entire Middle East. One cannot help but wonder how the United States can single-handedly precipitate the democratization of the entire Middle East when, with all our will and all our might, we cannot even budge the stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace process. How are we going to do it? Where is the muscle?

I expect there will be a number of amendments offered to this supplemental package. I have several I intend to offer. If they are adopted, they will, in my opinion, improve this bill. Whether they will improve it enough to win my endorsement remains to be seen.

I was opposed to the President's war in Iraq before it began. I am strongly opposed to the doctrine of preemption on which the war in Iraq was predicated--the doctrine of preemption, unilateralism, preemption, strike-first, invade first.

I support unconditionally the men and the women in uniform and their families--they are bearing the most direct burden of the war in Iraq-- but I remain unconvinced that this bill is the best way to offer those troops our support. I, frankly, think our most meaningful support would be to take the diplomatic steps needed to get help from other nations which will result in getting our troops out of the quicksands of Iraq. That is the way to support the troops. Get other nations in. This bill does not do that.

This bill, in my opinion, sets the United States up for what could well be a prolonged military and financial investment in Iraq. It ignores the hard realities of democratization of totally different cultures. It ignores the religious divisions which inflame the Middle East.

Again, I thank Senator Stevens for his willingness to accommodate me and others who have expressed concerns with this bill. I appreciate the difficult conditions under which he is working. I look forward to a full and robust debate. I encourage all Senators to focus closely on this bill, listen carefully to the debate, and draw their own conclusions in the fullness of time based on a dispassionate evaluation of the merits of individual amendments.

I will have more to say at a later time. For now, I ask my colleagues to consider carefully the implications of the policies implied in the funding of the bill before us and to give this measure the full time and attention it deserves.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

In response to the Senator, if I may say, the first action by the Senate was in April of this year when the Congress passed the 2003 supplemental appropriations bill. That appropriated $79 billion. The Senate is now being asked to enact an $87 billion 2004 supplemental appropriation. That is before the Senate today.

It is indeed.

Mr. President, I sought, in the Appropriations Committee on yesterday, to sever the title that involves the reconstruction money for Iraq and send to the Senate two bills, one dealing with the military funding and one dealing with the reconstruction. I failed on a party line vote.

I am trying, at this time, to do virtually the same thing. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be divided into two freestanding bills, the first including funds for our military in Iraq and Afghanistan and the funds for rebuilding the Iraqi security forces and the emergency designation included in title III, the second bill including the funds for Iraq's reconstruction and the emergency designation included in title III, and that the second bill be laid aside to be considered immediately upon the disposition of the first bill dealing with the funds for our military.

Would the Senator withhold his objection temporarily?

I thank the manager of the bill and chairman of the committee.

Mr. President, the President has asked Congress to appropriate a great deal of money for the occupation and reconstruction of Iraq. But the American people have not yet been convinced that spending this money is the right thing to do. One poll conducted by the Washington Post found that 61 percent opposed spending $87 billion for Iraq and that 85 percent were concerned about our country becoming bogged down in a long and costly peacekeeping mission.

One of the most contentious parts of the President's request is $20.3 billion in reconstruction aid for Iraq. The more details that come out about this aid, the more the American people are uncomfortable with this spending. They are seeking important answers to fair questions. Why can't our allies bear some of the cost? How much money will the administration seek for Iraq after this aid package? What about our needs for reconstruction here at home?

In the 14 days we have had in which to examine the President's supplemental appropriations package, I do not think anyone has come up with the answers to those questions. What we do know is that this reconstruction money will not cover all that is needed to be done in Iraq. Ambassador Bremer, in his testimony to the Appropriations Committee, stated there are $60 billion to $70 billion in reconstruction needs in Iraq over the next 4 to 5 years. Spending $20.3 billion now could leave us on the hook to spend billions more later.

Before we commit our country to this path, we would be wise to seek a consensus and common understanding of the appropriate roles for the United States, our allies, and the Iraqi people in rebuilding that country.

I am offering a unanimous consent request to divide the bill that is before the Senate so we may give close scrutiny to the two distinct issues that are addressed in this bill, the $65.6 billion in defense funding that is contained in title I, plus the $5.1 billion for Iraq's security forces; and the remaining $15.2 billion in foreign aid spending in title

II for Iraqi reconstruction. Each of these elements is deserving of debate on its own right.

The administration is sure to oppose dividing the content of this bill so that the Senate may consider independently the issues of military funding and reconstruction funds. But, why? Perhaps the White House is afraid that its $15.2 billion for Iraqi reconstruction cannot withstand the scrutiny of the full Senate unless it is wrapped up in the guise of support for our troops.

But that has not been administration's argument. We have heard again and again from Ambassador Bremer and Secretary Rumsfeld that the administration views this reconstruction money as every bit as important as the military portion of the bill.

If they are confident in their case, let the Senate divide the bill. Perhaps the administration's arguments will carry the day. But the American people know this is really two bills wrapped into one.

In just a few days, the Senate will go into a week-long recess and our constituents will ask Senators what they are doing to scrutinize the huge amount of reconstruction spending in the bill. The American people want us to deal with reconstruction spending differently than with military spending. We owe it to them to consider the two components of this bill in the most reasonable manner possible by dividing the bill and giving each part the scrutiny it is due.

The task of rebuilding Iraq will be enormous. The American people are beginning to understand this. The United States can hardly afford to bear the costs of reconstruction by ourselves. For this reason alone, we should debate the issue of reconstruction separately from the request the President has made for our armed services. My unanimous consent request is a commonsense approach to proceeding with this debate in the Senate.

Let me again repeat my request.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be divided into two freestanding bills, the first including the funds for our military in Iraq and Afghanistan and the funds for rebuilding the Iraqi security forces and the emergency designation included in title III; the second including the funds for Iraq reconstruction and the emergency designation included in title III, and that the second bill be laid aside to be considered immediately upon the disposition of the first bill dealing with the funds for our military.

Mr. President, I respect my colleague greatly, and I respect his reasons for objecting to my unanimous consent request.

I have already offered the unanimous consent request to divide the President's supplemental request into portions, one on the $71.5 billion for our military and for Iraq's own security force, and one for $15.2 billion in reconstruction aid. Although there was objection to my request, the American people understand why the issue of security is not the same as the issue of reconstruction. The amendment that I will now offer would strike $15.2 billion in reconstruction aid from the supplemental appropriations bill. This would allow the Senate to proceed with its consideration of $70.7 billion in security-related funding for Iraq, $5.6 billion for the Department of Defense, $5.1 billion for building the new Iraqi army and a national police force, and $1 billion for aid to Afghanistan, and State Department operations. Adopting my amendment would allow the Senate to return to the issue of reconstruction after completing action on the President's request for security-related funding.

In the meantime, the Senate should give more careful consideration to the administration's plan for rebuilding Iraq. We should take a closer look at the plan for postwar Iraq. The plan distributed by Ambassador Bremer to the Appropriations Committee on September 22 adds but 28 pages. The plan provides few details, and it only looks out on the next 5 months of our occupation. However, in the same hearing, Ambassador Bremer said he had a plan that ran to 98 pages and containing 300 or 400 individual action items. That does not sound like the plan he gave to the Appropriations Committee. It sounds as if the Senate does not even have the full version of the administration's plan for the reconstruction for Iraq.

Surely if we are to commit the United States to spending $15.2 billion over the next 12 months, Congress should be able to see the full plan for the rebuilding of Iraq. If it is indeed just the 28 pages that were given to the Appropriations Committee, I think we are in trouble.

If Congress is going to pay for the activities that are called for in the plan to reconstruct Iraq, we should also have a say on formulating that plan. By waiting to approve the $15.2 billion in reconstruction funding, Congress could take advantage of that time to debate the proper role of the United States, our allies, and the Iraqi people in sharing the cost of reconstruction.

The cost of acting without a solid plan for rebuilding Iraq could be very high--well beyond the $15.2 billion in reconstruction funds the President has requested for the next year. We could end up wasting billions of dollars more and losing even greater numbers of American troops. In the words of Publius Cyrus, nothing can be done at once hastily and prudently.

I urge my colleagues to vote to give Congress more time to consider this $15.2 billion in rebuilding aid, and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Amendment No. 1794

Mr. President, I send my amendment to the desk.

I am not in a position at the moment to respond to that request, I say most respectfully.

How much time do I have?

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, first I thank my colleague, Senator Stevens, for his courtesy. I want to tell him again that my association with him is not so fragile as to be injured by any differences we may have between us on this amendment or any other question.

The American people have only recently been exposed to some of the details of the $15.2 billion in funds that the President has requested for the reconstruction of Iraq. The more the public learns about this request, the more the people will want Congress to take a closer look at this request.

My amendment would strike $15.2 billion in reconstruction funding for Iraq. But it does not touch 1 cent of the security-related funding in this $87 billion appropriations bill. My amendment would allow the Senate to go back to the drawing board and consider an entirely new bill that would only contain funds for rebuilding Iraq.

A vote for the Byrd amendment is a vote for taking a fresh look at $15.2 billion in Iraqi reconstruction spending. A vote for the Byrd amendment is a vote for more hearings, more hearings about why these funds are needed, more hearings about your money. I have heard that expression so much when it has been used by our friends on the other side, talking about the tax cuts, saying: It is your money. It is your money. It is the people's money that we are talking about here. A vote for the Byrd amendment is a vote for more hearings about why these funds are needed.

Are there reasons to vote against my amendment? There sure are. There sure are reasons to vote against my amendment. If Senators want to spend $10 million to hire 48 bureaucrats for Iraq at the cost of $208,333 per pencil pusher, that is a good reason to vote against my amendment.

If Senators want to support $9 million for creating new ZIP Codes in Iraq, vote against my amendment. That is a good reason. That is a dandy reason to vote against it.

Let me say that again. If Senators want to support $9 million for creating new ZIP Codes in Iraq, vote against my amendment. Go to it.

If Senators want to buy 80 pickup trucks at $33,000 when pickup trucks at a car dealership in any town in the USA start at just $14,000, vote against my amendment. Go to it. Vote against my amendment.

A vote against the Byrd amendment to strike $15.2 billion in aid to Iraq is a vote for a padded bill. Go to it. A padded bill. The questionable items funded by this bill go on and on and on.

The President's request contains $3.6 million for 600 radios and telephones at $6,000 each. How about that? According to the Business Week of May 12, Iraqi merchants sold satellite phones during the war for $900 each.

This bill has $20 million to send Iraqis to a 4-week business school course at a cost of $10,000 per month. How about that? That must be a great education. That must be a great education because tuition at Harvard Business School is less than $4,000 per month.

As long as we are talking about education, the administration also wants to spend $30 million for English classes, at a cost of $1,500 per student. How about that? Thirty million dollars for English classes at a cost of $1,500 per student. Similar English programs in the United States reportedly cost just $500 to $1,000 per student. And there is more. There is more.

There are more reasons to vote against my amendment. For example, there is also $2 million for museums and memorials. Is this money really an emergency? Is it? Some Iraqis don't think so. On September 29, USA Today quoted a car dealer in Iraq as saying about this money:

OK, garbage collection I can understand, but statues? After

Saddam, we are fed up with statues.

If Senators support this kind of excessive spending, then vote against the Byrd amendment. But I think the Senate must take a new look at the $15.2 billion in reconstruction spending proposed by the administration. Interestingly, just yesterday, members Of the Iraqi Governing Council told the leadership of the Senate that they had not been consulted in putting together this budget request for the reconstruction of Iraq. We need to make sure there is a coherent plan for how this money is to be spent.

I do not yet have any confidence that the administration has a solid plan for how it plans to spend this money, and the lack of a plan could leave working Americans on the hook for billions of dollars more for many years.

I also do not yet have confidence that the administration has a plan for bringing in the international community to the occupation and reconstruction effort in Iraq. Some have argued that, if this reconstruction spending is delayed, it will result in increased danger to the troops. I simply don't understand how creating new ZIP Codes in Iraq, how hiring more bureaucrats for Iraq, how purchasing more pickup trucks for Iraq will make American troops any safer. What they need is a plan and an exit strategy, which includes getting troops and money from the international community.

Vote for the Byrd amendment to strike this $15.2 billion and let the Senate take a new look at how we can share the cost of this reconstruction spending with the international community.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I send a modification of my amendment, No. 1796, to the desk.

I am happy to yield.

Mr. President, I am prepared to enter into a time agreement. In the meantime, rather than waste time, let me begin to discuss my amendment.

We had a debate yesterday, an opening debate about whether we should be moving forward with this legislation for $87 billion to fund the war. Again, for those who may be listening, I want to state where I, as they say in the vernacular, come from on this score.

I have been one among many, from Senator Reed, former West Point graduate, an Army officer, a U.S. Senator, to John McCain, to Chuck Hagel, on both sides of the aisle, among those who have said that our biggest problem is we have not, quite frankly, devoted sufficient resources in a timely way to winning the peace in Iraq. So I began from the premise that there is no doubt we have to spend billions of more dollars. There is no doubt we have to keep in Iraq tens of thousands of American troops for some time. As a matter of fact, I said that as long ago as July of 2002.

I approach this thing from the perspective of one who thinks we must do more. I have several basic problems with the approach we are taking. I know the Presiding Officer and I had a very brief conversation about this. He made reference yesterday to me, that I was somewhat exercised in my presentation yesterday. I was. I am, because I think there is such a gigantic opportunity here to enhance the security interests of the United States.

So, again, the reason I bother to say this is, I think there are two serious problems with the approach the President is taking now relative to this $87 billion. One is, I think that after examination--and I will have several more amendments before this debate is over--I think there is some padding in this reconstruction money.

I am one who believes you cannot bring security to Iraq without bringing basic services to Iraq. I think there is a direct and immediate correlation. Those who say you can separate support for the military and reconstruction money either have not been to Iraq or don't think we should be in Iraq or, with all due respect, don't understand the dynamics.

The degree to which clean water doesn't flow, the degree to which young women are being raped in the streets, the degree to which police officers are afraid to go to their stations and do their job, the degree to which the electric lights do not go on, the degree to which the oil pipelines are blown up, there is a direct correlation between that and the danger posed to our troops, the danger posed to our being able to preserve the peace or bring about or win the peace. So I don't make that dichotomy between reconstruction moneys and moneys relating to ``supporting our troops.''

Reconstruction money will support our troops. It supports our troops. My disagreement with the President is that--I am not talking about past disagreements and mistakes made or not

made, in my view, just from this moment on--I think if you look at the reconstruction funds, some of it is--maybe not intentionally--inflated.

For example, there is a provision in there for x number of pickup trucks. We were not talking about Humvees or military vehicles. They need pickup trucks. The government needs them for basic, mundane purposes. Well, in the authorization here, we are going to pay $32,000 for a pickup truck. I can take them to a nice Chrysler plant in my State and get them for $18,000.

We are also talking about building prison cells. I spent some time, along with my friend, Senator Lugar, and my friend, Senator Hagel, out at the police training academy in Baghdad, and we talked to--I might add, we have a first-class team there. These are serious guys. These guys know their way around. They have been in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan, and they understand this. There is money in here that comes to $50,000 per prison cell. We need to build prisons. There are no functioning prisons in Iraq. We have to build them.

By the way, the guy running our prison operation there, when asked how long it would take if he had all the resources he needed, he said it would take a couple years to get a prison system up and running.

But that is not the point. We are going to pay $55,000 per bed in an Iraqi prison. We pay half that here in the United States of America. We are in a country, I might add, where the building specs and requirements are less than they are here. So I think we have to be responsible and take a look at the details of this.

So my first concern is about whether or not the money is being efficaciously allocated. That is a responsibility of oversight that we have. That is our job. We can do it in a timely way and we will get this finished within a week or so and get it done. That is the first concern I have, in a practical sense, on what we are going to do on the floor.

The second concern is my monumental concern. My friend from Utah--and we say that lightly, but he really is my friend--a conservative Republican--and for those of you who think none of us get along around here, we have very different views, but we are close friends. I can say to him that my biggest problem is how we pay for this. That is what I want to talk about right now because that is the second significant element of my concern on the immediate question before us: Do we appropriate or authorize to be appropriated $87 billion or do we appropriate $87 billion for this effort? I want to speak to that. That is what my amendment is about. That is what is before the Senate now.

At the outset, the first fellow with whom I spoke about this, the guy whose brainchild it was, along with me, is my friend from Massachusetts, John Kerry. As a matter of fact, immediately after my floating this idea on one of the national shows--``Meet The Press,'' or whatever it was--I immediately got a call from Senator Kerry saying he had been thinking along the same lines and could we work together to do this. This is a joint effort, and we are joined by Senator Feinstein, who feels strongly about it, and a number of others.

I wish to acknowledge at the front end here how we got to this point. I wish to explain the modification I sent to the desk and go into the details of why I think this is an important and necessary and responsible amendment. Again, remember, this is not coming from a guy who didn't support the war, who won't support the funding; it is coming from a guy who thinks we are going to have to come up with this $87 billion, but we are going to have to come up with billions more. I wish the President would be as straightforward. This is a downpayment; this isn't the end of the road.

Now, initially, I had an amendment because I didn't have the detailed numbers from the Joint Tax Committee, the Finance Committee, and from outside experts, such as Brookings and Citizens For Fair Taxation and the like, because it takes a while to run these numbers. So, initially, we had put in an amendment that said we would authorize--which is constitutional--or direct the head of the IRS to find this $87 billion from a specific category of taxpayers. We now have hard numbers. The hard numbers are very straightforward.

In order to pay now for the $87 billion we are about to appropriate, we are proposing that the tax rate for the wealthiest Americans, which has dropped this year from above 39 percent down to 35 percent--and I am not arguing about that--and in order to find $87 billion to pay for this, we would have to go back under our formula to that roughly 1 percent of the taxpayers--actually, the top bracket is less than 1 percent of the taxpayers--and say to them your tax rate is going to go back up in the years 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 to 38.2 percent. So that is what I sent up to the desk. It was a detail that wasn't in my original amendment because we didn't have it from Joint Tax. We didn't have it laid out. So that is a brief explanation of the modification.

Now, let's go back and review the bidding here if we can. First, we can pay for this supplemental several ways. One, we can pay for it, as the President has suggested, by increasing the deficit. If this is added to the projected deficit for 2004, the deficit for 2004 will rise to $567 billion for that one year--next year. If we do not add it to the deficit, the projected deficit at this moment would be down, obviously, around $480 billion--still a gigantic amount but $87 billion less. The reason I am so opposed to doing that is on equitable grounds and grounds of economic recovery. On equitable grounds--and I know this sounds a little political the way I am going to say this, but it is factually accurate--on equitable grounds, we, the grownups in this Chamber--and the average age here is probably roughly 50, I would say-- we are going to be asking these young pages walking down the aisle to pay this bill. Literally, we are going to ask them to pay. We are not going to pay. If we can't do it my way, they pay. The President--I quoted him yesterday--in his last State of the Union Address said we are not going to pass on these debts and problems--at the end, I will actually give an exact quote--basically he said we are not going to pass these responsibilities to fight terror and to pay for it on to other generations. That is exactly what we are doing here.

For those of you who think that may not be a very compelling argument and those of you who voted for the tax cut because you wanted to spur economic recovery--a legitimate argument; I disagree with the way it is formulated and voted against it but a legitimate argument--look at what is happening now: As the deficit has been projected to be 480, or thereabouts--and the Presiding Officer and my friend from Utah and my two colleagues from California and Massachusetts know more about this than I do--what has happened? Long-term rates have already begun to rise. What does the market say? Why are long-term interest rates rising? Because of the projected deficits. That is a fact. They are already rising.

I respectfully suggest that taking $87 billion out of a 10-year tax cut of $1.8 trillion has no impact--none--on economic recovery, particularly since it is taken out over a 6-year period in small increments beginning in 2005. But if you are worried about the impact on the economy and the ability to sustain a recovery, you better be looking at the debt.

I would argue that from a principle of equity, as well as sound economic principles related to the recovery, adding this $87 billion to the already gargantuan projected deficit--and it will be higher, by the way, because that does not even count prescription drugs, that does not count the other initiatives the President says we are going to do and Democrats say they want to do, it does not even count those programs yet, so we know it is going to be a heck of a lot higher--but to add $87 billion on top of that can do nothing but jeopardize a long-term recovery.

The second way we can pay for this, which is very popular--and I am sort of the skunk at the family picnic on this on my side of the aisle--is to let the Iraqis pay for it. Some are saying the Iraqis have the second largest oil reserves in the world. Some of my Republican friends are proposing this as well.

For example, we have a flooded home. We have a very competent county executive dealing with this, and he says if we can pay for Iraq, the Federal Government can pay for this. That is really compelling. I tell you what, I am

kind of glad I am not running this year because I am going to oppose it. To the average person and the above average person, this just seems fair.

We hear people saying on the floor: If they had gold reserves of X amount, we would indemnify ourselves; they have gold in the ground, black gold. That is a very compelling case, except, as my mother would say--God love her, and she is probably listening, so, mom, forgive me if I get it wrong--she always used to say when I was young: Joey, don't bite your nose off to spite your face. If we do that, we will be, figuratively speaking, biting our nose off to spite our face.

Why? There are other countries around the world--in the Arab world, the European world, Russia, other countries--that are owed almost $200 billion by Iraq, some say as high as $300 billion. Some of that is direct loan payments; some is indemnification for the damage done by Saddam when he invaded Kuwait, and so on.

What are we doing? We can either choose the World War I model or the World War II model for a defeated nation. After World War I, we said: Germany, this is all your fault. We want you to have a democracy, but, by the way, in the meantime, pay off all these reparations, making it virtually impossible--how many of us in grade school and college saw that one cartoon that was in every single history book: A German lady in a babushka carrying a wheelbarrow of deutsche marks to the butcher shop.

I bet every one of you can remember that. It was in every textbook in America. Why? It produced a little guy named Hitler to prey upon all of the anger, all of the prejudice, all the furor of the German people.

Who thinks we can possibly establish a democracy in a country which, I might add, has no history of any democratic institutions and was never a country until 1919--who thinks we can establish a democracy there saying, by the way, start off, folks, but before you do anything, before you spend that $35 billion to redo your oil fields, before you spend the money to do this or that, pay off the $200 billion, $300 billion in debt?

The President has been dead right. The President has been saying and the Secretary of State has been saying we have to convince these other nations to forgive that debt and write it off, as we did. Write it off.

On top of that, what did the President say at the United Nations? Not well enough, in my view, with all due respect, but what did he say? He said: United Nations, this is the world's problem. This is your problem. Send money and send troops. Every one of us here are hoping that Powell is very successful with a thing called the donors conference that is coming up this month. We are going to be sitting down with other nations of the world and saying: By the way, can you guys ante in? We have roughly in the whole region close to 200,000 troops, and we have already spent $78 billion, and we are going to spend another $87 billion. Can you kick in some money to rebuild this country? Oh, and by the way, we want you to forgive the debt you are owed. We want you to kick in money. We are not going to indemnify any of your money, but, by the way, the $20 billion we put in for reconstruction, we have a claim against Iraqi oil.

We are all intelligent people in this Chamber. We may be able to indemnify this money, but we will have no Iraq to collect it from. There will be nobody to collect it from because if this debt is not forgiven and if more people do not get in the game, there is not going to be peace in Iraq. It is not going to happen, and that is what I meant when I said, as unpopular as it is, my dear old mom--mom, if you are listening, you are right--we are about to bite our nose off to spite our face. That is the second way we can do it, and I think it is a disaster to do it that way.

There is a third way we can pay for this $87 billion. We can say a very uncharacteristic thing around here: We are going to pay for it, and we are going to pay for it now. We are not going to use our credit card; we are going to do it now.

As Don Rumsfeld said, yes, this is a lot of money, but, yes, we have the ability to pay for it, and he is dead right. Old Don, I want to take a little bit of your money to pay for it. You are a 1 percenter, and God bless you, let's pay for it.

OK, how do we pay for it? We can cut more programs.

As some have suggested, we can make college loans more expensive. That saves the Government money. We can do as some have suggested and cut across the board the income tax break we gave everybody. But guess what. Poor folks and middle-class folks are already paying for Iraq. It is their kids who are in Iraq. It is their kids in the National Guard. It is their kids in the Regular Army. It is their kids who are already there.

Guess who is getting hurt most by this unemployed recovery. Middle- class and poor folks. I think the middle-class folks need a tax break, and so I think it would be unequitable and unfair to go back now and say, by the way, you middle-class folks, you pay; you poor folks, you pay. We have already decided the poor folks cannot get an earned income tax credit for their kids, a child tax credit, which is a travesty. But now we are going to raise their taxes slightly or reduce the tax cut?

So it seems to me there is a group of people who are as patriotic as the poorest among us, the wealthy people. The thing I do not like about politics is we all have a tendency to slip into--and I can honestly say I have never done this in 33 years of holding office--class warfare. The idea that because someone is a multimillionaire they are not as patriotic as somebody who is making 25,000 bucks a year is a lie. The wealthiest among us are as patriotic as any other group of people in America.

I come from Delaware, a relatively wealthy State. I tried in two fora in my State, and this is literally true, among some of the wealthiest people in my State--in my State we can get them all together pretty quickly. I am not being facetious about that. I mean that sincerely. I asked the question at one gathering--both were social gatherings. The first was a group of about 35 or 40 people, and I do not know this for a fact, but I think all of them were clearly in the top 1 percent tax bracket. The way the conversation started was they said to me: You know, Joe, what is going on in Iraq? What about this? What about that? It was a cocktail party at the home of a partner in a major law firm. It was on a Sunday evening.

I said: Let me ask you all a question. My friend from California knows when two people ask a question and you start to answer it, it ends up with four people there and then 10 people there, and all of a sudden you have a mini-press conference and there are 20 people. That is what happened at this cocktail party on someone's patio.

I said: Let me ask you this question: would anybody here object if the President, when he addressed the Nation about the $87 billion, had said--and I want to ask the wealthiest among you, the top 1 percent of the taxpayers in America--give up 1 year of the 10 years of your tax cut in order to help prosecute this war against terror and sustain the peace in Iraq, would any one of you object to that?

Obviously, that is a little peer pressure I put on them, but not a single person said they would object. Beyond that, it started a discussion. I just sat there and listened. They said, of course, that is the right thing to do. Of course, we should do this. Of course, of course, of course.

Then I tried it again at one of the most upscale country clubs in my State. I was playing in a charitable golf tournament, and there was the same thing.

I think the President and many of my colleagues underestimate the American character. I truly believe they underestimate Americans. I do not know of any wealthy American who, given the realistic options we have to pay for this, would say, hey, look, if I am going to give up 1 year of the $690 billion the 1 percent is going to get, I want that guy making 25 percent of what I make, I want that guy making 10 percent of what I make to give up one year, too.

Do any of my colleagues believe that is what they would say? I do not believe it. And this is not politics. This is not my playing a game. I do not believe it. This is something that not only is the right thing to do, the people whom you are asking to do it believe it is the right thing to do.

I stated on the floor before and I said at home, I would ask any wealthy Delawarean in my State, which we will get

to the numbers, who makes $400,000 in gross income, to call me at my office and tell me they are not willing to give up $2,100 a year for 6 years of their tax cut, because that is what it comes to. I am inviting them to call me. I promise I will report to my colleagues all those who call me.

The point is, these are patriotic Americans. They know we have our hands full. They know the deal. So that is the third way we can do this.

How does it practically work, and then I am going to yield to my friend from Massachusetts.

I will be delighted to.

Sure, but first let me make one last point so we have the facts out.

I would be happy to.

Let me be straight about exactly what this amendment would do. People whose tax bracket up until this year was 39.6 percent, having had it drop down to 35 percent--so there is no false advertising here, the Biden-Kerry-Feinstein-Chafee, et cetera, amendment would raise, beginning in 2005, their tax bracket back up to 38.2 percent, still a percentage point and a half less than it was a year ago but 2 point something percent higher than it is today. That is what it would do.

By the way, I will tell my colleagues who these folks are. People who pay at the top rate have an average income--well, it is unfair to average. As Samuel Clemens, or rather Mark Twain, said, all generalizations are false, including this one. So I want to be completely straight about this. The average income in that top 1 percent is $1 million a year. At a minimum, people who would be affected by this have to have an income, before standard deductions and exemptions, of over $400,000 in gross income. Others will fall into this category if their taxable income after deductions is over $312,000. But that is after; that is net. That is taxable income. OK.

So we have the picture where people--the way I am told by the Joint Tax Committee, by Brookings and others, we may find an exception to this, but there is nobody making $400,000 a year gross who does not have standard deductions and exemptions. By the way, this does not impact on their capital gains, which is taxed at a different rate. This does not impact on the dividend exemptions or change the rate at all. That is still theirs. We do not touch that at all. This is just a straight tax of those who now fall within the 35 percent bracket.

So I am told by all the experts--and this is not my expertise. To the extent I have one, I think it is more on the Constitution and foreign policy, and I am not suggesting I have one, but it is surely not here. I have tried to get the best information from as many sources. So we are talking about the incomes of people in the top bracket who are--by the way, if one is in the top bracket now they are in the less than 1 percent bracket, they are about .7 of 1 percent of the income earners in America. One percent is slightly bigger than those who fall within the 35-percent tax bracket right now. But if you overlap, as Dr. Green tells it, if you overlap the two circles, they are almost exactly the same. There is some variation, but I can only go by the numbers provided by the IRS, and the models provided by them, and by our Joint Tax Committee.

So the bottom line is this: The people in the top 1 percent--slightly more, by the way, than the people in the 35-percent tax bracket now-- those people, over the period of this entire tax cut, will receive $688.9 billion in tax reduction from what they were paying before the tax cut. What this does is it takes $87 billion of that amount, leaving them with a present and future tax cut of $600 billion, as opposed to $688.9 billion.

This is to put it in perspective. Fully 80 percent of their fellow Americans, in the first four quintiles--you know how they divide this up. They divide it up into the first, second, third, fourth, and the fifth is the 1 percent. In other words, all other Americans, the 99 percent of the other Americans who pay taxes get a cumulative tax cut, in the first--they will get cumulative tax cuts of $599 billion. All right? So you have the top 1 percent who will still get $600 billion, which will be $1 billion more than every other American combined will get in a tax cut.

Let me be precise. I may have misspoken. That is not true. The first four--than 80 percent of the American people will get.

Now, again, this is not an attack on the tax cut. I didn't like the tax cut, and I won't talk about that. But what Senator Kerry and I are trying to do takes away less than 5 percent of the $1.8 trillion in tax cuts that this tax cut bill provides. Again, it is not an attack on those at the highest income. It still leaves them $600 billion in tax cuts.

There is a lot more for me to say, but I will yield now to my friend from Utah for that colloquy.

If the Senator will yield, I want to make it clear I did not reference the Marshall plan. I referenced the philosophy. I think we have overworked the Marshall plan analogy.

If the Senator will yield, I agree with that premise. I am not making the case they are a defeated nation.

Will the Senator yield on that point? The Senator will agree, though, that whatever it is will be $87 billion higher if we don't pay for it.

If the Senator will yield on that point, if the Senator thinks there is any possibility of the entire deficit disappearing through economic growth in the next several years, then I think he and I should have a talk now because the Senate physician is down the hall here and we ought to go have

a little visit with him. I know he doesn't seriously mean that.

I believe in miracles, too. I am a Catholic. I believe in miracles.

May I ask, there is no time agreement right now; is that correct?

So the Senator is entitled to have it on his time.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

We are trying to get this agreement. As a practical matter, this will come out of my time. I think the Senator has made his point.

Let me make a macroeconomic point and let some of my other colleagues respond as well. With regard to the small businesses, small business owners can still happen to be among the top 1 percent income earners. Only 2 percent of the small business owners fall into that bracket, a number which includes a lot of people who have passive participation with investment income in small business. These are not hands-on, mom- and-pop businesses. If you look at the sole proprietorships, those of hands-on owners, less than 2 percent are paying the 35 percent bracket. Therefore, 98 percent of the small business owners will not be affected by this proposal, as I understand from staff.

I will get back to this in our discussion. But I want to yield to my friend from Massachusetts because we are about to enter into a time agreement. I didn't realize we were running the time before the agreement is made. At any rate, I will reserve the remainder of the time while we are trying to work this out.

To respond to my friend, I understand his point. The bottom line is no matter how you cut it, this is affecting an incredibly small number of people for an incredibly important undertaking and the alternatives are worse

by a long shot, in my view, that any negative impact in any sector in any way would come from this amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes.

I meant to state earlier--and I know my colleague from California is about to speak--that the Senator from California was way ahead of me and way ahead of my friend from Massachusetts in one very important respect. She and Senator Chafee, long before I made this proposal, suggested that, quite frankly, the entire top 1 percent of the tax break be rolled back, not just $87 billion, to pay for this and for other things to reduce the deficit. It was my intention to speak to that. Then I entered into what was an exchange with my friend from Utah, and I did not. I want to make clear what a central role she and Senator Chafee have played in making the fundamental point that all Americans should participate in making sure we win the peace and not saddle the next generation. That is unconscionable.

I yield the floor and thank my colleague.