Floor Statements

Mr. President, I begin by thanking the Chaplain for his prayers for our brave fighting men and women in Iraq, as well as in Afghanistan, as well as for the first responders and law enforcement personnel who are putting their lives on the line every day for us. In California, we pray for those who are fighting the fires. Certainly our hearts and sympathies go out to them.

I also note, Mr. President, as you well know, that we are working hard to complete the Iraqi supplemental, which will provide the support that our troops need to be safe in Iraq, as well as the reconstruction money, which I hope we can pass quickly so we can bring the troops home.

Having said that, let me share with you an experience I had this weekend. It came as a great surprise to hear on the news this weekend that newspapers were reporting that the Intelligence Committee was preparing a report saying that the distinguished chairman of the Intelligence Committee was trying to do something with a report that was uncalled for and that would whitewash the administration, and purporting to outline material in that report.

That caught me by surprise, No. 1, because I am on the Intelligence Committee. As reported by Chairman Roberts, we have not completed a report. We have not started a report. We have worked very diligently with our staff to interview a hundred witnesses from the intelligence agencies. They have reviewed tens and perhaps thousands of documents, and they are continuing to do so. As Chairman Roberts said, there will be information sought from the Director of the CIA, Director George Tenet. So whatever was leaked was not based on fact.

The second thing that bothered me is that what was supposedly a work in the classified confines of the Intelligence Committee had been somehow shared with the press. Now, that is a problem. The President has come down very strongly in saying that he absolutely abhors leakage of classified, sensitive material, as he should. We all should. He said he will not tolerate it in the administration, in the White House, or even in Congress. But it appears to me that somehow in the Intelligence Committee it is leaking like a sieve, and people are saying things that are not true.

So I would caution those who are listening, when you hear about something that is going on in the Intelligence Committee, perhaps you ought to take it with a great big grain of salt.

Chairman Roberts and Vice Chairman Rockefeller are conducting these hearings, and all Members of this body can come to Hart 219 and have access to the material if they want to find out what we are working on. But what you hear being discussed is not necessarily relevant to anything that is going on.

What is relevant, and what many people have cited--and I am afraid they have not read--is the work of Dr. David Kay, the Interim Progress Report of the Iraqi Survey Group, the ISG. This is a declassified report from this distinguished person who is heading the intelligence gathering in Iraq. He has been cited as saying: Well, we have found no weapons of mass destruction; therefore, there must not be any.

Well, I would say, by that same reasoning, we have not found Saddam Hussein; so by that reasoning, maybe Saddam Hussein did not exist. But we have seen in the tragedies that have occurred in recent days and weeks in the Sunni Triangle and in Iraq and elsewhere that the proteges, the adherents to Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, continue to carry on their war of terrorism. They are attacking our troops. They are attacking Iraqi civilians. They have attacked the U.N. They have attacked the Red Cross. They are very dangerous, and we know that the battle on terrorism goes on. That is why we have to complete work on the Iraqi supplemental appropriations.

But what has David Kay found? Why hasn't he found any weapons of mass destruction? I might note that it was only this summer, after we had been there several months, that we found a squadron of Russian-made MIG airplanes hidden in the desert. They were buried in the sand.

Well, weapons of mass destruction, chemical or biological weapons, which we know Saddam Hussein has had in the past and has used in the past, could be hidden in a two-car garage, and they could be hidden in much smaller samples.

There is speculation in the media that they could have been taken out of the country, which should really worry us. There is speculation elsewhere as to what may have happened.

But Dr. Kay said, talking about the extensive program of denial and deception engaged in by Saddam Hussein's regime:

From birth all of Iraq's WMD activities were highly

compartmentalized within a regime that ruled and kept its

secrets through fear and terror and with deception and denial

built into each program;

Deliberate dispersal and destruction of material and

documentation related to weapons programs began pre-conflict

and ran trans-to-post conflict;

In other words, they were concealing, they were denying they had it before the war, during the war, and even after the war.

Post-OIF--

In other words, after Iraqi Freedom--

looting destroyed or dispersed important and easily

collectible material and forensic evidence concerning Iraq's

WMD program. As the report covers in detail, significant

elements of this looting were carried out in a systematic and

deliberate manner, with the clear aim of concealing pre-OIF

activities of Saddam's regime;

Some WMD personnel crossed borders in the pre/trans-

conflict period and may have taken evidence and even weapons-

related materials with them. . . .

In other words, what Dr. Kay is saying is, the people involved with Saddam Hussein, his loyal thugs, could have taken the material out of the country. But he says what we have found and what we have discovered are:

dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant

amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United

Nations during the inspections that began in late 2000. The

discovery of these deliberate concealment efforts have come

about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and

officials concerning information they deliberately withheld

and through physical evidence of equipment and activities

that ISG has discovered that should have been declared to the

Mr. President, I thank the manager of the bill. I commend the managers and the bipartisan group who worked on this bill. It is vitally needed, and I rise in strong support of it.

Mr. President, this long overdue piece of legislation will finally bring some common sense to forest management in our Nation.

Currently, conditions in our Nation's forests are terrible. The poor state of our forests is due in large part to a lack of active forest management efforts to reduce undergrowth and remove dead and dying trees to restore forest health. According to the Society of American Foresters, ``As a result of 80 years of fuels accumulation and several years of drought, the potential for catastrophic wildfire is at an all time high in many regions of the United States.''

An estimated 190 million acres of Federal forests and rangelands in the United States, an area twice the size of California, face a high risk of catastrophic wildfire. Decades of an accumulation of dense undergrowth and brush, along with drought, insect infestation and disease, and the presence of invasive exotic species have made our forests vulnerable to these environmentally destructive wildfires.

According to Secretary of Agriculture, Ann Venman, last year was the second worst fire season in modern history with over 7.2 million acres burned--an area larger than Maryland and Rhode Island combined. The States of Arizona, Colorado, and Oregon registered their largest and most destructive wildfires ever. It was also the most expensive fire season ever costing Federal taxpayers $1.6 billion. When the season ended, 23 firefighters were dead, tens of thousands of people fled their homes and more than 2,000 buildings were destroyed. This devastation was only eclipsed by the 2000 fire season where more than 8 million acres of forests burned at a Federal cost of $1.4 billion.

This year, as of the first week in October, we have had a total of 67,500 fires

that have burned over 3.2 million acres at a cost of over $550 million. Worse than that, over 20 wildland firefighters have lost their lives this year.

The time for addressing the problem of our unhealthy forests is long overdue. Current efforts to reduce excessive fuel loads, underbrush, and dead and dying trees are taking for too long due to senseless bureaucratic delay. According to the U.S. Forest Service, it can take up to 8 years to plan and execute relatively routine fuels reduction projects--8 years. Does anyone here believe that this is responsible forest management?

In May of this year, the Government Accounting Office (GAO) released the results of a survey that confirms that the large numbers of appeals filed by environmental interest groups are delaying efforts to restore the health of our Nation's forests through the thinning of overgrown and diseased areas. These delays increase the threat of severe forest fires which threaten human life, old growth trees, habitat for endangered species and private property. These endless and meritless appeals result in nothing but inaction and increased bureaucratic costs.

If we do not address this problem now, we risk losing many of America's most pristine forests to wildfire devastation. Congress needs to pass legislation to streamline and expedite these forest thinning and fuels reduction efforts.

I believe the H.R. 1904 will accomplish this goal. The Senate compromise to H.R. 1904 is designed to cut through unnecessary red tape and speed up the review and approval process for forest health restoration projects, while at the same time preserving the appropriate environmental review process.

Specifically this bill establishes procedures to expedite forest and rangeland restoration projects focusing on lands near communities in the wildland urban interface; that are in condition class 3 (high fire risk) areas located in proximity to a municipal watershed or water supply system; that provide important habitat for endangered species where the risk of catastrophic wildfire threatens these species; and where insect infestation, disease and old age are destroying forests and increasing the chance of wildfire.

The Senate compromise also contains language for the protection of old growth or large trees in the implementation of hazardous fuels reduction projects. This legislation requires authorized hazardous fuels reduction projects to be consistent with the applicable forest and resource management plans, along with other administrative policies or decisions applicable to Federal land. The amount of acreage eligible for authorized fuels reduction projects under this legislation is limited to 20 million acres.

In addition to allowing for an environmental assessment and expedited administrative appeals, this legislation does allow for judicial review. As a part of this review, this bill requires lawsuits to be filed in the district court where the project is located. It limits temporary injunctions to 60-days, subject to renewal. Finally, this legislation directs the courts to balance the short- and long-term environmental effects of undertaking a project versus those of not undertaking a project.

The problem of excessive forest fuels build is not just a Western problem. It is a National problem. The expedited reduction of forest fuels and the thinning of underbrush would greatly improve the health of Missouri's forests. There has been a significant increase in the buildup of these fuels in National and State Forest land in the State of Missouri as a result of recent tornadoes, several years of drought, oak decline and oak mortality.

Oak mortality is the most pressing problem in Missouri's forests. As of January 2003, oak mortality due to drought, insects, and fungi have affected 41 percent of the Mark Twain National Forest's 1.5 million acres, and caused an estimated loss of more than 30 million dollars' worth of red oak timber. Dead limbs and debris in this area also reduce food for wildlife, and contribute to fuels buildups, which increases the dangers of wildfires. In turn, these wildfires endanger wildlife habitat areas, healthy watersheds and neighboring private lands.

Missouri also has huge volume of dying forest land throughout southern Missouri as a result of infestation by an insect known as the red oak stem bore.

According to Dr. Gene Garrett of the University of Missouri School of Natural Resources, who has studied and taught forestry for over 33 years, ``Roughly 33 percent of the 23 million acres of the interior highlands in the scenic Missouri Ozarks are infested by this red oak stem bore. Dr. Garrett goes on to say that ``this insect and associative disease complex is by far the greatest threat to the oak component of the interior highlands.'' This has resulted in over $1.1 billion worth of timber at risk and an increased threat of wildfire in this area.

H.R. 1904 will address most of the forest health issues in Missouri and prioritize them for expedited cleanup. Section 102(a)(4) of this health forest legislation will specifically address this problem of red oak stem bore and oak decline.

The first of Missouri's two fire seasons is now underway. The most recent high wildfire season in Missouri occurred in 2000 when over 8,700 acres of wooded lands burned--more than 3,000 acres over the 10- year average. By expediting the cleanup or thinning of our forests, Missouri and the rest of the Nation can expect to see the risk of these catastrophic wildfires reduced.

In closing, I believe that H.R. 1904 represents a commonsense approach to forest management based on sound science. I have talked with forest scientists all over the country, including several from my own State, and they believe that this legislation takes the right approach to restoring the health of our Nation's forests. These are actual forest scientists who know what they are talking about--not big city newspaper editorial writers.

If we do not act on this problem right now, vast acres of old growth trees and wildlife habitat will remain at a high risk of catastrophic wildfire. Once these areas are destroyed by fire, there will be very little, if anything, that we can do to restore them to health. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 1904, the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003. It is time to put some common sense back into forest management.

It is long past time that we get this done. I really thank the bipartisan group that came together for this extremely important and most needed forest health measure. Again, I urge my colleagues to support it and move it expeditiously.

Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, the committee I believe properly has jurisdiction over this issue, a committee on which I serve and which has debated these issues many times. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for his leadership, his guidance, and his wisdom on these matters.

Interestingly enough, today I was reading a couple of news articles and it seems the Soviet Union is backing out on the Kyoto Treaty. Russia is now finding that they cannot live up to the commitments that were made in Kyoto, so Russia is bailing out on them. I just read another article that the European Union finds they really can't come up with all of these carbon dioxide reductions that they had promised. Why? Even in a Communist country they begin to realize that government actions have consequences. There are some impacts. These impacts are pretty stark.

Let me address for just a few minutes, for the benefit of my colleagues and those who may happen to listen, some of the practical impacts the passage of the McCain-Lieberman bill would have on our communities and on our families.

I strongly believe this bill will cripple our economy, cripple our communities, and financially cripple many of our struggling families. We can debate the science of climate change here on the floor until we are all blue in the face--and I think we may be headed in that direction. We have heartfelt experts, scientists, and data on both sides of the issue. I happen to believe the causal effect of CO2 emissions and recent changes to our climate is not yet fully proven.

But the real impact, the real point of the McCain-Lieberman bill is, What will it do? That is kind of a practical test. I am from Missouri, the ``show me'' State. What would this bill do? Show me what this bill would do. How much will the McCain-Lieberman bill hurt our economy?

How much will the McCain-Lieberman bill drive up electricity bills for my constituents to pay? How much will the McCain-Lieberman bill raise the price of natural gas which is already going through the ceiling thanks to unwise governmental increases in demand and restrictions on production? How much more will the McCain-Lieberman bill force our families to pay for gasoline? It would be nice if we stopped once before we rushed into a major thing such as this and found out whether the medicine we prescribe was going to make the patient sicker or make the patient well.

I think we all recognize that our economy is just now starting to recover from the doldrums. We are just now starting to turn the corner on job growth. We are heading into a winter when we expect the cost to heat our homes will increase significantly because of previous overreaching congressional actions in the past. Now is not the time to place more burdens on our families and our communities.

As I said, I sit on the Environment and Public Works Committee where we

considered legislation to cut carbon dioxide as part of a multipollutant strategy to cut emissions from electric powerplants. Before that committee, supporters urged caps on carbon dioxide from electric powerplants as a way to fight global climate change. What they didn't want to talk about was the negative impact this measure would have on the everyday lives of our constituents--those who use electric power.

Experts conclude that the legislation under consideration to cut carbon dioxide in electric powerplants would cost the economy over $100 billion. That is one-zero-zero billion dollars.

Experts also estimated that the electricity bills would go up by about 40 percent.

If you are sitting at home and you happen to have an electric bill handy, take it and multiply it by 1.4, see what that number is, and see what impact that would have on your family budget.

I have read heartbreaking stories from families in Kansas City who have to decide between buying food and paying their utility bills. Other families could not buy school clothes because they had to pay higher heating bills. Seniors on fixed incomes often have no way to meet higher utility bills.

I voted against that bill. And Democratic leaders when they controlled the Senate refused to even bring that measure to the floor because they knew what an impact it would have on senior citizens, what an impact it would have on the poor, and why union members who realize it can cost them their jobs object to it. We now have many of the same issues involved in this climate change bill.

The McCain-Lieberman bill would establish mandatory caps for carbon dioxide emissions. Economists and energy experts at the Department of Energy's Energy Information Agency--or EIA--recently concluded that the enactment of the McCain-Lieberman bill would result in a 46-percent increase in electricity prices, a 27-percent increase in the cost of gasoline, and a 54-percent increase in the cost of home heating oil.

Again, if you are at home and happen to have any of your last winter's bills handy, apply those percentages--a 50-percent increase in electricity and heating oil, a 27-percent increase in the cost of gasoline.

The EIA--the Government agency with the experts and the expertise-- concluded that McCain-Lieberman would cost millions of Americans jobs. Excuse me. Did I say that right? Yes, I said that right--millions of American jobs. We are having slow job growth in our economy. We are working hard to get jobs back. This bill would cost millions of American jobs. Even if the sponsors dropped the second phase of this bill, it would still cost hundreds of thousands of jobs.

Do we really want to be raising costs on senior citizens, on poor people, and be throwing people out of work?

The EIA further concluded that McCain-Lieberman would cause a cumulative decrease in the gross domestic product of $1.4 trillion. Talk about sucking the wind out of the economic recovery; that baby would be flatter than a flounder.

The effect of this bill would be, first, to send our economy back into recession, then strip the Nation of hundreds of thousands of jobs, and then increase the cost of heating our homes. I, frankly, cannot think of a better combination of ills. That is a trifecta that we obviously cannot afford to undertake.

The most troubling part is that all of this pain would come without any real dent in the worldwide amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere.

McCain-Lieberman suffers from the same inherent flaw of the failed Kyoto Treaty. It imposes absolutely no restrictions on two of the world's worst largest and fastest growing polluters in the world. In case you can't guess who those are, those would be China and India.

Not only do we unfairly punish U.S. communities but we let other countries off the hook and, therefore, have practically no real worldwide impact on carbon dioxide levels.

The Kyoto Treaty was rightfully rejected in advance by a unanimous vote in this body of 95 to zero for a very good reason. On top of all the unfairness of the Kyoto Treaty, we now know the crippling effects McCain-Lieberman would have on the economy, on our communities, on our families, and on job creation in our country.

For me, I cannot see voting to strip American families of hundreds of thousands or millions of jobs. I cannot see why we would be voting to increase electricity prices by 46 percent. I cannot see why we would be voting to increase the cost of home heating oil by 54 percent. That is why I cannot vote for this bill.

I urge my colleagues to think about the practical impact before we vote on this bill. This is a disaster waiting to happen. This would be another congressionally inflicted disaster.

For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to defeat McCain-Lieberman.

Madam President, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on behalf of Governor Leavitt. I think the President has made an excellent choice in nominating this Governor, who has a great record. I think the environment and the Environmental Protection Agency will be well served by his nomination. At a time when there are many pressing issues facing us in the environmental area, it is important that we have a good leader.

Governor Leavitt is a good leader. He is a Governor, as I was formerly, and I know that he has brought leadership and management skills and a State perspective. He was very successful in Utah, and he will bring success, as the Nation's longest serving Governor, to the EPA. I believe he stands for environmental principles that we desperately need: collaboration, not polarization; national standards and neighborhood solutions; rewarding results, not programs; science for facts, process for priorities; markets before mandates. All of these things are necessary to move forward in improving our environment.

Governor Leavitt has a record of environmental achievement to match his environmental vision. As my colleagues from Utah will describe shortly, because of him the air in Utah and the West is cleaner and clearer. Visibility over the Grand Canyon has improved because of the Governor's role with the Western Regional Air Partnership. I know our friends from Utah are proud that Utah has among the Nation's cleanest watersheds. That has improved dramatically during the Leavitt administration. Utah's most environmentally sensitive land is better protected because of Governor Leavitt's service.

Unfortunately, Governor Leavitt is entering a job in a city where political opponents try to use the environment to make political gains. We heard charges a few minutes ago that he had not answered all the questions. The interesting part is that we went back and looked at similar questions asked of previous nominees, particularly Administrator Brown in the last administration. She was not able to answer those questions dealing with the internal operations of the EPA either. At the time, we understood, and the Republicans confirmed her.

I am delighted that we are moving forward to confirm Governor Leavitt because he cannot be expected to know everything going on inside the EPA. As far as the record of this administration under President Bush, environmental and health benefits from drastically reduced levels of NOX and SOX and mercury pollution in the President's Clear Skies proposal are being held hostage by those who want to use global warming as a political issue against the President.

Environmental benefits, improved energy security, and more efficient and reliable electricity protection in New Source Review improvements are being attacked and blocked by the President's political opponents.

Even my own modest incremental suggestions for improved environmental collaboration in the transportation bill were leaked to the press, mischaracterized by the very environmental stakeholders, some of whom we worked with to formulate those improvements.

Fortunately, President Bush is maintaining a strong commitment to the environment and the Environmental Protection Agency. In the face of funding a war on terrorism, growing deficits, and, yes, even tax cuts, President Bush has requested more money for EPA. President Bush's $7.6 billion request for the EPA is $300 million more than President Clinton requested for the EPA in his last budget. President Bush's $431 million request for EPA enforcement is the largest request for Federal environmental enforcement funds in our Nation's history. I just hope that my colleague, Senator Mikulski, and I have enough money in the budget of VA-HUD to meet those goals. It is questionable at this point. But we certainly want to achieve the President's funding.

Just last week in the Environment and Public Works Committee, we were able to pick up the broken transportation pieces and fashion a bipartisan agreement on environmental provisions relating to NEPA and the Clean Air Act. I think this spirit of cooperation can serve this body and our Nation's highway needs well, and maybe we can even flow that cooperation into the Leavitt nomination.

I urge my colleagues to follow this new bipartisanship and move forward and support the nomination of Governor Leavitt without delay.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the Senator from Connecticut has introduced a very important amendment that deserves the support of this body.

Events of the 2000 election in my home State and elsewhere pointed out that there are serious flaws in our election system that invite mischief and confusion. But last year, in a near unanimous vote, this body passed important legislation that will make it easier for Americans to vote and harder for those who would do such a thing, to cheat. The legislation offers a tremendous opportunity to modernize our election system, improve election technology and help State and local officials manage elections better. Once this legislation is in full effect, we will see a dramatic improvement in the reliability and integrity of elections. But funding is essential to move forward on the key aspects of this bill. With the funding, we can take large steps forward before the upcoming election.

So far, we have funded a significant downpayment on implementation of this law. The chairman has included a generous sum in this bill, and I thank him for his attention to the issue. We are here today to ensure that we are on target with the funding level and funds are flowing in advance of the 2004 election; we can have an impact on this election, move rapidly towards complete implementation and put the problems we experienced behind us for future elections.

I will take a minute to remind my colleagues of some of the more important components of this bill. First, this funding will go toward ensuring that every State has a modern, computerized statewide voter registration system. This is perhaps one of the most important aspects of this bill and one provision that cannot be implemented without funding.

Surprisingly, much of voter registration has missed out on the rapid advances in technology. In many States and jurisdictions they are still paper records. Compounded by Motor Voter's overly broad restrictions on removing names from lists, too many voting lists around the country have become clogged with fake names or names that should simply no longer be there. The result is inaccurate, unreliable, and unmanageable voter registration lists. As my colleagues and I learned while working on this bill, voter registration lists are the most basic element of any well-run election, and their accuracy is essential if elections are to be honest and voters are to have confidence in the outcome.

How bad are these lists? When we looked into this issue while working on this bill, West Virginia's Mingo and Lincoln Counties both had more registered voters than living people. Allegheny County, PA, had 18 municipalities with more registered voters than voting-age adults. The State of Alaska had 502,968 on the voter rolls, though census figures show only 437,000 Alaskans of voting age.

In Missouri we have found individuals who are registered at three, four, and even five different locations across the State--not to mention those that are registered twice in the same jurisdiction. At one point in the city of St.

Louis, we had 240,000 registered voters but only 200,000 people of voting age.

These are the problems that are a serious threat to the confidence people have that their vote will be counted and that the outcome of the election will be honest.

This bill also includes a requirement that voters using the ``by mail'' registration offered in Motor Voter will now have to identify themselves before casting a vote. How did all those names get on the lists? As some may remember from our discussions last fall, we even discovered the odd circumstances of voter rolls including the names of canines. How did this happen--because mail registration was available and could be used to anonymously put names on voter lists. Those same States that were required to accept registrations through the mail were also prohibited from authenticating those registrations. The election reform bill corrects that problem by requiring those who exercise their right to register by mail to provide some identification prior to voting. As previously stated, this contributed greatly to the troubled shape of voter rolls and the administration of elections. This bill fixes this, and we need to step up and ensure it is fully implemented.

This bill addresses a number of important issues, including dealing with judicial orders affecting polling place hours, providing provisional voting for those who have their names removed from voting rolls because of administrative error and ensuring that voting equipment have advanced audit trails to prevent manipulation of votes at the polling places. States will also be issuing identification numbers to registered voters to track voters and will be collecting information to ensure that voters are citizens and of proper eligibility status.

To summarize, the bill contains significant advances that will greatly enhance integrity and administration. It is important that these and all the provisions in this bill are fully implemented--the sooner the better. So thanks again to Senators Dodd and McConnell for their work and help pushing this bill and its funding forward. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

As has been stated by the Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from Kentucky, we had a very long and difficult process over better than 18 months to try to pull together a truly significant piece of legislation that would, in fact, make it easier to vote and tougher to cheat. A lot of people had lots of questions about the 2000 election. I happened to think that from my own personal experience, the fraudulent parts of that election were of extreme concern. And it is my view and understanding that in order for us to ensure, No. 1, that we have the voting equipment available for the 2004 Presidential election, and that we have the antifraud provisions in effect for the 2004 election, we need to appropriate this money.

We made the commitment. It is a question of ``pay me now or pay me later.'' Frankly, I urge my colleagues on this side of the aisle to say: Let's pay now rather than pay later. You can ask questions about how quickly the money is spent but, frankly, in order to trigger the antifraud provisions, we have to get the money now.

In many States around the country, Motor Voter has led to an amazing electoral turnout. People send in a postcard and say ``register me,'' or register whatever name is signed. There is no authentication required. States were even prevented from authenticating it. When you look at the list, West Virginia's Mingo and Lincoln Counties had more registered voters than living people, adults and children. Allegheny County, PA, had 18 municipalities with more registered voters than voting age adults. The State of Alaska had 503,000 on the voter rolls, though the census figures only show 437,000 Alaskans. In Missouri, we found some truly amazing things--three, four, even five different voter registrations by the same individual, some two or more times in the same jurisdiction; at one point the city of St. Louis, 240,000 registered voters but only 200,000 people of voting age. That is a heck of a trick. We found out when, fortunately, a very aggressive media went out and checked on it. We found vacant lots with people registered. We found 10, 15, 20 people registered from one location. In a subsequent election, a very popular alderman from the city of St. Louis re-registered to vote on the 10th anniversary of his death. That is a wonderful statement of theological implications, but it does not do much for political science.

Of course, many on this Senate floor were tired of seeing the picture of my favorite St. Louis voter, Ritzy Mekler, the 13-year-old cocker spaniel who was registered.

We have to stop that. The way we do it is to make all of the provisions of this bill effective for the very important 2004 elections.

I thank Senators Dodd and McConnell. I urge my colleagues to support the Dodd amendment.

If the Senator will yield, I offer my sincere apologies. Would he accept it if I said ``of voting age'' and correct that statement?

Madam President, I rise today in support of the conference report to the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this legislation, and I look forward to the day when partial-birth abortion is banned once and for all.

Medical experts agree, partial-birth abortion is not good medicine. The Physicians Ad Hoc Coalition for Truth, PHACT, a group of over 500 doctors, mostly specialists in OB/GYN, maternal and fetal medicine, and pediatrics, have stated that partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary to protect a woman's health or her fertility. In fact, the exact opposite is true; the procedure can pose a significant threat to both the pregnant woman's health and her fertility.

Today we move one step closer to putting an end to this brutal procedure. One of life's greatest gifts is our children, and we cannot allow them to be victims of this heinous and cruel procedure.

I have cosponsored this legislation in the past three Congresses, and I am a cosponsor of the bill before us today. I am pleased to rise once again in support of protecting human life. I hope that Congress will deliver this bill to the President, who is eager to sign this bill into law.

Mr. President, comments were made by the distinguished Senator from New Jersey saying that the intelligence was faith based. He insinuated that intelligence had been changed somehow perhaps by the administration.

Let me first point out that this intelligence has been acted upon by previous administrations. I quote from President Clinton, 1998:

If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our

purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat

posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program.

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

Iraq is a long way from here, but what happens there

matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of

a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological

weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security

threat we face.

Sandy Berger, National Security Adviser, same day:

He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he

has 10 times since 1983.

Having said that, I think we all agree we need better intelligence. That is why I made the same commitment that my colleagues, Democrat and Republican, have made to serve on the Intelligence Committee and spend the time, without our personal staff but in intelligence hearings, going through the testimony and looking at the documents, as is required of the Intelligence Committee.

It is frustrating for some of us on the Intelligence Committee to listen to speeches by people who have not taken the time to read the classified information, and be briefed, as all Senators are entitled to, after we have done the work. We listened to speeches that, unfortunately, reflected a lack of information about what is going on in Intelligence that is available. The insinuation has been made of improper influence. The Intelligence Committee will and has examined that.

Reserving the right to object.

Mr. President, I was off the floor, and I am not sure whether the chairman asked for a vote on the Bond-Mikulski amendment.

We would like to have a vote on that amendment. This is an extremely important amendment providing veterans health care. It will be vitally important. I would like to have a recorded vote.

Mr. President, we have addressed this matter before. I think all of us are concerned about the time that has been taken up with the National Guard and Reserve being deployed overseas. This, however, is what they signed up for. We are in a war on terrorism. The war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq are very important and critical elements in that war. We believe the Defense Department has to be more concerned about the time the Guard and Reserve are deployed. There is no question it causes strain on the families and causes strain on employment opportunities.

I have talked to members of the Reserves who have been stationed from my State. They are concerned about the effect on employment. All of these things, however, are what we need to deal with without taking a hatchet to the effectiveness and the utility of the Guard and the Reserves. It is not hard to assume that if one looks at the provision that no one who has been deployed in the past 6 years could be deployed in Operation Iraqi Freedom, that would probably have wiped out all of the most experienced and most needed people in the Guard and Reserves.

Whatever we do, we do not want to take away from the important missions the Guard and the Reserves play with this blanket prohibition across the board that all of the Guard and Reserve who have gained experience, perhaps serving in Afghanistan, perhaps serving earlier in Iraq, perhaps serving in Bosnia or Kosovo, cannot be sent to Iraq. We hope that if this supplemental is passed, we will be bringing troops home sooner rather than later, particularly if we give the full $87 billion to the President. That will be undercut if this blanket prohibition goes through. I have heard previously from the leaders, the Guard caucus, the members of the Guard in August, and others, who do not believe such a prohibition is worthwhile.

I yield to the Senator from Alaska.

Madam President, I rise to speak in support of this amendment on behalf of my colleague, Senator Mikulski, and a number of other colleagues. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Specter be added as a cosponsor.

This amendment provides $1.3 billion in emergency funding for VA medical care to address the medical care needs of returning service members from Iraq and Afghanistan. I believe the $1.3 billion in emergency funding meets the criteria under section 502 of the budget resolution. This is consistent with the final figures approved in the budget adopted. This meets the figures included in the original budget. Unfortunately, the Office of Management and Budget sent us a budget that achieved these goals by increasing fees on veterans, and neither body has shown any enthusiasm for that.

Under section 502, an expenditure may be designated an emergency if it meets five criteria: One, necessary, essential, or vital; two, sudden, quickly coming into being, and not building up over time; three, an urgent, pressing, and compelling need requiring immediate action; four, unforeseen, unpredictable, and unanticipated; and five, not permanent, temporary in nature. It is clear that this amendment meets the five criteria due to the compelling, vital, and essential needs of veterans who seek medical care services from the VA.

As I trust all of our colleagues know, the VA cannot currently keep up with the demand of the current veteran population. Tens of thousands of veterans have been told to wait at least 6 months. Even more distressing is the fact that many of them have to wait up to 2 years to see a doctor. That is unacceptable. If the VA cannot help those who are in the system, how will they help the veterans returning from Afghanistan and Iraq?

In the legislation before us today, we provided the funds that I think are vitally needed to the Department of Defense to fight these wars and reconstruction funds to ensure that the peace is secure and we bring our troops home. I strongly support these funds, but I believe we must ensure that when our troops do return home, the Government will be there to treat their medical care needs. If we are willing to provide emergency funding to fight wars, we must be willing to provide emergency funding to meet the medical care needs to treat injuries and wounds suffered from the war.

In other words, we would have to ensure there is a continuum of care for our service members from basic training to deployment to discharge.

Let me illustrate the urgent and pressing needs for these emergency funds. According to a recent VA analysis, 15,813 service members who served in Operation Iraqi Freedom have separated from military duty as of September 22, 2003. Among these service members, almost 2,000, or 12.4 percent, had sought VA health care during 2003. I point out that these numbers do not include those military men and women who are returning from Afghanistan and other parts of the world fighting the war on terrorism.

Every day in the news we hear the unfortunate and sad news of American soldiers killed in Iraq, but as illustrated by the VA's analysis and scores of news reports, there are thousands of service members who were fortunate to live but who were wounded in combat.

As reported in the October 1, 2003, edition of the USA Today: ``At least seven times as many men and women have been wounded in battle'' as those killed in battle. As these wounded service members are discharged from the military and confront new and challenging hardships in piecing together a new life, most of them will depend on the VA to meet their needs.

According to the VA, some of our returning servicemen and women are currently being served through VA/DoD sharing agreements and others, such as Pvt Jessica Lynch, are being discharged and turning to VA for specialized services, services that only the VA can provide not found in the private sector. This level of demand for VA services has not been foreseen or anticipated.

Further, we know that the overall demand for VA medical care is not going to lessen. We have already seen the VA medical care system being overwhelmed by the staggering increase in demand for its medical services. Since 1996, the VA has seen a 54 percent in growth or 2 million patients in total users of the medical care system. Further, the VA projects that its enrollments to grow by another 2 million patients from a current level of 7 million to 9 million in 2009.

Again, I urge my colleagues to support these emergency funds. In a time of war with thousands of injured troops returning from battle, it is clearly an emergency to include these funds. It is our moral responsibility to ensure that we provide adequate resources to the VA to meet the vital medical needs of our veterans. If these emergency funds are not included in this bill, the VA will have enormous difficulties in treating veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan due to the current backlog of veterans waiting for medical care. Without these funds, those waiting veterans will wait longer for medical care and the VA will be forced to deny medical care to another 585,000 veterans. I cannot accept these outcomes. This is medical care they have earned through risk of life and all too often at the cost of their limbs and their long-term health.

I ask my colleagues to think about our service members who have already returned from service, about our service members who are currently serving, and about those who want to serve. If we do not provide these funds, what kind of message does this send to those currently fighting overseas and those who will be sent overseas? I hope my colleagues agree with me that we want to tell these men and women that we will not turn our backs on them and that we will keep our promises to them. I urge your support on the Bond-Mikulski amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from North Dakota who has an amendment and a longer statement. I ask unanimous consent that he be recognized after me to offer his amendment.

Mr. President, is there an amendment pending?

I ask unanimous consent that amendment be temporarily set aside so that I may offer an amendment.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself and Senator Mikulski and ask that it be immediately considered.

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

Mr. President, this is an amendment that Senator Mikulski and I believe is very important to provide adequate funding for medical care for the Veterans Affairs Department. This amendment provides $1.3 billion in emergency funding for the Department of VA medical care account which truly is an emergency.

This amendment addresses the medical care needs of returning servicemembers from Iraq and Afghanistan who will require medical care service from the VA.

As many of my colleagues know, the VA cannot currently keep up with the demand of the current veteran population, as illustrated by the tens of thousands of veterans who have been told to wait at least 6 months to get an appointment. Even more distressing is the fact that many of them may have to wait up to 2 full years, and that is unacceptable. If the VA cannot currently help those who are in the system, how will they be able to help those veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan?

In the legislation before us today, we have provided emergency funds for the Department of Defense to fight these wars and reconstruction funds to ensure that we win the peace, we secure the peace and bring our troops home. I support these funds. They are vitally needed. I hope we can get them approved when we return. However, I believe we also need to ensure that when

our troops do return home, the Government will be there to treat their medical care needs. If we are willing to provide emergency funding to fight the wars, we must be willing to provide emergency funding to meet the medical care needs to treat the injuries and the wounds suffered by our valiant heroes in the wars. In other words, we must ensure that there is a continuum of care for our service members from basic training to deployment to discharge.

Let me illustrate the current pressing and urgent needs for these emergency funds. According to a September 2, 2003, Washington Post article, the number of service members wounded in action in Iraq totals 1,124 since the war began in March. This Post article states:

The rising number and quickening pace of soldiers being

wounded on the battlefield have been overshadowed by the

number of troops killed since President Bush declared an end

to major combat operations May 1.

USA Today, in this past Wednesday's edition, has reported that at least seven times as many men and women have been wounded in battle as those killed in battle. This is a copy of that article, and it is entitled ``Trip Home is Just Start of Road Back.''

I am not going to offer these articles for the Record but I would refer those publications to my colleagues who are interested. We know the wounded are arriving in Washington every week. I point out these numbers do not include military men and women who are returning from Afghanistan and other parts of the world after fighting the war on terrorism.

According to the VA, some of our returning service men and women are currently being served through VA-DOD sharing agreements. Others, such as PVT Jessica Lynch, of whom we all know a great deal, are being discharged and turning to the VA for specialized services. This level of demand for VA services has not been foreseen or anticipated.

Further, we know that overall demand for VA medical care is not going to lessen. We have already seen the VA medical care system being overwhelmed by the staggering increase in demand for its medical services. Since 1996, the VA has seen a 50-percent increase in growth, or 2 million patients in total users of the medical care system. Moreover, enrollments have increased by some 3.1 million since 1999 alone, and the VA projects that its enrollments will grow by another 2 million patients from a current level of 7 million to 9 million in 2009. This is a historic and unprecedented increase in the level of service.

Again, I urge my colleagues to support these emergency funds. At a time of war with thousands of injured troops returning from battle, it is clearly an emergency to include these funds. It is our moral responsibility to ensure that we provide adequate resources to the VA to meet the vital medical needs of our veterans. If these emergency funds are not included in the bill, the VA will have enormous difficulties in treating veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, due to the current backlog of veterans waiting for care. Without those funds, those waiting veterans will wait longer for medical care and the VA will be forced to deny medical care to another 585,000 veterans. I cannot accept these outcomes. I do not believe my colleagues will accept these outcomes. This is medical care they have earned through the risk of life and limb, and all too often their long-term health.

I ask my colleagues to think about our service members who have already returned from service, our service members who are continuing to serve and those who want to serve. If we do not provide these funds, what kind of message does this send to those currently fighting overseas and those who will be sent overseas?

I hope my colleagues agree with me that we want to tell these men and women that we will not turn our backs on them and that we will keep our promises to them.

I thank the Chair and I thank my colleague.

Yes.

I would be happy to do so. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Dorgan be added as a cosponsor.

I believe there will be others who wish to do so. I thank the Chair and I thank my colleague from North Dakota.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Bond-Mikulski amendment. This amendment is simple and straightforward. It would add $1.3 billion to the Iraq and Afghanistan supplemental for veterans' medical care.

Our men and women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan have my steadfast support, and so do those men and women who fought before them. Our veterans need to know that America is with them, and that we owe them a debt of gratitude. Congress should show that gratitude with deeds, not just words. That means making our troops and our veterans a priority in the Federal checkbook.

As the ranking member on the VA-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee, my guiding principle for the VA budget is that promises made to our veterans must be promises kept. I believe this means no membership fees or toll charges on veterans to get health care or prescription drugs, and no waiting lines for veterans to get medical care or to get their claims processed.

Under a law passed after the Persian Gulf war, VA must give priority to returning troops for immediate medical care. The Veterans Programs Enhancement Act of 1998 requires VA to provide 2 years of medical care benefits for returning servicemembers. This law was originally passed to meet the medical care needs of veterans who served in the first Persian Gulf war. The law applies to servicemembers who are in Iraq now.

But the VA medical care system is under tremendous stress. During August, I traveled to VA clinics across Maryland. I saw dedicated staff providing quality medical care. But they are stretched to the limit.

Nationally, there are over 100,000 veterans waiting longer than 6 months to see a VA doctor. Some veterans are waiting as long as 2 years. The wait for specialty care like spinal cord injury care, blind rehab, and prosthetics can be even worse. The Blinded Veterans Association tells us that there are 2,600 veterans waiting up to 1 year for admission into a blind rehab center.

Our veterans didn't stand in waiting lines when they were called up to serve our country. They shouldn't have to stand in line or pay toll charges to get the medical care they deserve. The Bond-Mikulski amendment is necessary to keep our promises to our Nation's veterans by ensuring that soldiers returning from war, and the veterans who fought before them, will get the medical care they deserve.

The President's budget proposed a new $250 annual membership fee for veterans, and increased copayments for veterans' prescription drugs and visits to the doctor. Senator Bond and I have worked together on a bipartisan basis this year to reject these proposals. This funding will ensure VA has the resources necessary to meet the needs of our veterans and returning troops.

I thank Senator Bond and urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I rise to make some remarks about the supplemental appropriations measure before us.

I was struck by the concerns of my colleague from Massachusetts about how bad things are in Iraq. In case some of my colleagues missed it, there was a very telling op-ed piece in this morning's Washington Post by Representative Jim Marshall, a freshman Democrat from the Third District of Georgia. He went to Princeton and left to go to Vietnam. He was awarded the Bronze Star and the Purple Heart as a Ranger. He attended Boston University Law School and in 1995 was mayor of Macon, GA. He is in the House. He had a very urgent plea.

He said: ``Don't play politics on Iraq,'' directed at his Democratic colleagues. He said he had heard all of these political charges, using the words and phrases such as ``quagmire,'' ``our failure in Iraq,'' ``just another Vietnam,'' or ``the Bush administration has no plan.''

He said:

I went to Iraq a couple weeks ago to resolve for myself the

recent contrast between gloomy news coverage and optimistic

Pentagon reports of our progress. My trip left no doubt that

the Pentagon's version is far closer to reality. Our news

coverage disproportionately dwells on the deaths, mistakes

and setbacks suffered by coalition forces.

I think this op-ed is worth reading. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that this op-ed be printed in the Record after my remarks for the edification and elucidation of my colleagues.

Madam President, I just came from a very interesting luncheon meeting where we listened to Dr. Chalabi, a member of the Iraqi Governing Council. He had almost the same thing to say. He said: What President Bush has done is magnificent. Our people are victorious; they are not vanquished. Our failure is that the media is not carrying the stories. The antiwar folks who opposed the war from the beginning are talking about the problems of liberation rather than the success of a free people.

He would like to have a chance to tell his story more widely, and I hope he is listened to. He said there are large areas of Iraq where marines are withdrawing, turning the area over to coalition forces from other countries, Macedonia and Spain. He said the Iraqis are in the process of being trained and equipped to go out as police and as military. With the backup of U.S. troops, they will be able to take on more of the responsibilities of defending against armed paramilitary groups and maintaining peace and order.

He said this is a tremendous development. They are setting up a free market in Iraq. They are cutting customs rates and tax rates. I would like some of my colleagues to hear what he says about the need for lower taxes. I think that is important as well.

It is clear we are in a debate. I gather my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, while we all recognize that $87 billion is a lot of money, they are willing to support the $66 billion to support our troops in Iraq. It costs us more than $4 billion a month to maintain our troops in Iraq, and we cannot, as was just said by my colleague from Massachusetts, cut and run.

So what are we going to do to make sure we do not continue to have areas where terrorists are harbored in hostile, tyrannical, authoritarian governments in the Middle East? Well, we are on the path to helping the Iraqis establish a free country. Their ideas of freedom may be different than ours, but basically Iraqis governing Iraqis, providing security for Iraq, and helping us weed out the criminals, the thugs, the paramilitary groups and the terrorists who live over there.

Now, $21 billion of the President's request is proposed as a grant to help the Iraqis get on their feet. This is a very

important investment. It is a lot of money, but when we look at the costs of 9/11, the cost was horrifying in human terms. Over 3,000 people killed, some of them horrible deaths. It is a day and a picture that none of us will ever forget and we never should forget. These terrorists operated out of safe havens, in countries which were ruled by authoritarian tyrants. We are wiping out those governments. Under President Bush's leadership, we wiped the Taliban out of Afghanistan. Afghanistan is no longer a safe haven for terrorists. By a vote of 77 to 23, we said clean out the terrorists in Iraq, get rid of the Saddam Hussein government. That is the most important step.

Some people want to go back and fight the war. If we want to get back into it and say, why did we go, we can go back into that, but I think it is time we started looking ahead to see what we do. The $21 billion is absolutely essential to give the Iraqis the startup funds, the seed money to build that free and safe country.

What do we gain from it? Some of my colleagues say it ought to be in the form of loans or we should not spend that much. Well, what we get for it is the opportunity to bring our troops home sooner, to make sure our troops have the ability to work with Iraqi military and police, so we can use the Iraqi people who understand the country and know the language and know what is going on there as our allies.

As I understand it, the pending amendment leaves money in for the troops, but it does not leave money in to restore the electricity, to provide clean water, or to clean up the sewage.

There is a lot that has been done in the country already. I hear carping voices saying we did not have any plans for the peace. Well, we had a lot of plans. We had plans to take out Saddam Hussein's Republican Guard and his elite forces before they used gas or biological weapons. We did it. They had plans to protect the oil wells so they could not turn Iraq into a blazing inferno, and we did that. We had plans to help the Iraqis get on their feet. In less than 5 months, virtually all major Iraqi hospitals and universities have been reopened.

We cleaned out the weapons caches that were there. There are now 70,000 Iraqis being armed and trained. The first ones are graduating the end of this week. It took 14 months to establish a police force in post-war Germany, 10 years to begin training a new German army. We are way ahead.

Commerce is opening up. Five thousand Iraqi small businesses have been opened since liberation. The independent central bank has a new currency announced in just 2 months. Here is a 5 dinar note from the Central Bank of Iraq. The reason I can read it, it is in English. The other side, I will just have to take their word for it. This is the currency they have put out. It took them 3 years in Germany to do it.

The Iraqi Governing Council is making decisions. We listened to Dr. Chalabi tell us what they plan to do, how they want to move forward, and how the participation by the United States in this next step is vitally important.

To date, our coalition has provided some 8,000 civil affairs projects with their assistance, and we are making progress towards showing the Iraqis and the people in the neighboring countries that there is a better way to do it than to have a Saddam Hussein regime.

The issue before us in this pending amendment is whether we cut reconstruction funds by two-thirds. This was similar to an amendment we debated yesterday in the Appropriations Committee. That amendment just cut out two-thirds of the reconstruction funds, left one-third of the reconstruction funds. We defeated that. This one cuts out all of the reconstruction funds.

The arguments made there, and I guess I will let the people who want to cut out the reconstruction funds make their arguments here, but they say we ought to go to the donors conference and let the donors decide.

What kind of leadership is it for us, on the Senate floor, to take the President's proposal for a $21 billion reconstruction fund and cut it to $5 billion? That is leadership? Is that going to cause other countries to step forward and say we are going to make grants?

We want to see a strong, independent, free Iraq. We have to turn on the power. We have to turn on the lights. As of yesterday, I believe we were back up to the power generation of the pre-war era, 4,400 megawatts. That still only supplies about 60 percent of Iraq. We are trying to get the power restored. We are trying to get the water clean so people do not get sick. We are trying to get the sewage cleaned up so they can go about the business of building a civilized government.

Some are saying we can use the oil revenues to collateralize. Well, that does not really work because there is no government in Iraq that can sign a loan. They cannot take out a loan at the World Bank. They have not established a constitution, which is a necessary precedent for making an international loan. If we called it a loan, Ambassador Bremer, our representative on the provisional governing authority, would have to sign it. It would be our loan. We would be making that loan.

They have over $200 billion of debts outstanding that I hope they will never pay. The interest on those loans would be more than swallowed up by the projected oil revenues. So they are in a position where there is no practical way that they can repay that.

Once we get them up and started and they get a government, then they can go to the World Bank and get loans pledged against future oil revenue, and they can get the capital, but we have to get them over that first hump. Unless and until we do that, there is no government, there is no security. The Iraqis are not controlling their destiny. We cannot expect them to carry new burdens of debt. They are going to have enough trouble as it is. And we hope to get the oil production up--6 million barrels a day. That is what Dr. Chalabi said. But it is going to require $38 billion of new investment to do it. That is where the collateral will be pledged to get the Iraqi oil production up.

Do we want to go in and say the reason we came to Iraq was for your oil? That is not why we went. That is not why we went. We went to stop the production of weapons of mass destruction.

The previous administration, President Clinton's administration, and our colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle, said that, time after time. We went in to stop weapons of mass destruction, to bring some order out of a country that had been terrorized by a ruthless tyrant over the years. Do we want to go in now and tell the people of the Middle East that it really was about oil? We want a claim on your oil?

That would be extremely shortsighted. That is not a sound investment in peace.

When you take a look at the cost of our maintaining troops over there, the cost of another terrorist attack, the cost we are going to have to face if we do not bring peace and stability to a couple of major countries in the Middle East--Afghanistan and Iraq--we are going to spend a lot more time and shed a lot more American blood before we can see an end to this terrorist war.

President Bush said the war against terrorism will be a long one. Unfortunately, he was correct. We are going to have to ``bear any burden, pay any price.'' I believe a well-known Democratic President once said that; I think he was from Massachusetts.

We have to carry on the battle to show the people of the Middle East that there is a better way to protect our people from terrorist attacks.

There is no question that the battle against terrorism is being fought in Baghdad. There are a lot of questions about what went on before. There will be a report coming out of our Intelligence Committee on that. I can't go into it, will not go into that until a report is issued. But I can tell you right now, when you apply the ``show me'' test that we take in Missouri, the battle against terrorism is going on in Baghdad.

It is like a roach motel. All the terrorists are coming into Baghdad. We have our best trained, we have our best equipped, we have our best prepared troops. We are working to get the best intelligence possible so we can destroy the terrorist cells, kill the terrorists, capture them as many as we can.

We are fighting the battle in Baghdad rather than Boston or Boise or Baldwin, MO, or Burlington, NC.

This is unfortunate, where we have to continue the battle on terrorism. But we are doing it on their territory and our terms. They started this war

on our territory on their terms. This is a mark of genius. This is tremendous leadership that this administration has shown. I am proud that three-quarters of this body supported the President when he said we needed to go in and clean out this nest of vipers, this fountainhead of weapons of mass destruction with the potential of nuclear weapons.

We have won the war against Hussein's government. Now we need to win the peace. I am convinced we can win the peace. But I believe, as Ambassador Bremer said to us in the Appropriations Committee, as Secretary Rumsfeld said, this $21 billion is the best hope we have of assuring we win the peace in Iraq. Winning the peace in Iraq is vitally important.

We can't walk away now and leave Iraq to fester and let the Baath Party back in again, the remnants of the Republican Guard, the terrorist organizations who threatened their neighbors, oppressed their own people, and threatened our well-being and safety over the years. We cannot let them back in. This $21 billion is the best investment we can make to bring our troops home, to win the peace.

I hope we will have a strong vote not to try to cut the peace element out of the appropriations bill, moneys that are necessary to make sure we can have our troops there, protect our troops, and maintain order against the terrorists who are in Iraq.

I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

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

Don't Play Politics On Iraq

(By Jim Marshall)

My first trip to a combat zone occurred in 1969. I was a

21-year-old staff sergeant, naive as hell, a freshly trained

Army Ranger who had left Princeton University to volunteer

for ground combat in Vietnam. I vividly recall feeling way

out of step with my Ivy League colleagues.

Well, that same out-of-step feeling is back. But this time

it's about Iraq and involves some of my professional

colleagues, political leaders and activists who are

carelessly using words and phrases such as ``quagmire,''

``our failure in Iraq,'' ``this is just another Vietnam,'' or

``the Bush administration has no plan.''

I went to Iraq a couple of weeks ago to resolve for myself

the recent contrast between gloomy news coverage and

optimistic Pentagon reports of our progress. My trip left no

doubt that the Pentagon's version is far closer to reality.

Our news coverage disproportionately dwells on the deaths,

mistakes and setbacks suffered by coalition forces. Some will

attribute this to a grand left-wing conspiracy, but a more

plausible explanation is simply the tendency of our news

media to focus on bad news. It sells. Few Americans think

local news coverage fairly captures the essence of daily life

and progress in their hometowns. Coverage from Iraq is no

different.

Falsely bleak Iraq news circulating in the United States is

a serious problem for coalition forces because it discourages

Iraqi cooperation, the key to our ultimate success or

failure, a daily determinant of life or death for American

soldiers. As one example, coalition forces are now

discovering nearly 50 percent of the improvised explosive

devices through tips. Guess how they discover the rest.

We not only need Iraqi tips and intelligence, we need

fighting by our side and eventually assuming full

responsibility for their internal security. But Iraqis have

not forgotten the 1991 Gulf War. America encouraged the

Shiites to rebel, then abandoned them to be slaughtered. I

visited one of the mass graves, mute testimony to the wisdom

of being cautious about relying on American politicians to

live up to their commitments.

For Iraqis, news of America's resolve is critical to any

decision to cooperate with coalition forces, a decision that

can lead to death. Newspaper start-up ventures and sales of

satellite dishes absolutely exploded following the collapse

of Saddam Hussein's regime. With this on top of the Internet,

Iraqis do get the picture from America--literally.

Many in Washington view the contest for the presidency and

control of Congress as a zero-sum game without external costs

or benefits. Politicians and activists in each party

reflexively celebrate, spread and embellish news that is bad

for the opposition. But to do that now with regard to Iraq

harms our troops and our effort. Concerning Iraq, this normal

political tripe can impose a heavy external cost.

It is too soon to determine whether Iraqis will step

forward to secure their own freedom. For now, responsible

Democrats should carefully avoid using the language of

failure. It is false. It endangers our troops and our effort.

It can be unforgivably self-fulfilling.

Democratic candidates for the presidency should repeatedly

hammer home their support, if elected, for helping the Iraqi

people secure their own freedom. It is fine for each to

contend that he or she is a better choice for securing

victory in Iraq. But in making this argument, care should be

taken not to dwell on perceived failures of the current team

or plan. Americans, with help from commentators and others,

will decide this for themselves.

Instead of being negative about Iraq, Democratic

presidential candidates should emphasize the positive aspects

of their own plans for Iraq. Save the negative attacks for

the issues of jobs and the economy. Iraqis are far less

likely to support the coalition effort if they think America

might withdraw following the 2004 election.

Finally, no better signal of our commitment to this effort

could currently be provided than for Congress to quickly

approve, with little dissent or dithering, the president's

request for an additional $87 billion for Iraq and

Afghanistan. Of course no one wants to spend such a sum. But

it is well worth it if it leads to a stable, secular

representative government in Iraq, something that could

immeasurably improve our future national security.

May I ask if the distinguished Senator from Delaware will yield for a unanimous consent request?

I ask unanimous consent the vote in relation to the Byrd amendment No. 1794 occur at 3:45 today; provided that no amendments be in order to the amendment prior to the vote; provided further that following the vote, Senator McConnell be recognized to offer an amendment. I further ask consent that following the disposition of the McConnell amendment, the next amendment in order to the bill be offered by Senator Biden.

Madam President, I so amend the request.

Will the Senator from Delaware yield for a question.

I am taken with the world view and the view of the peace by the Senator from Delaware, but when he talks about the United Nations, as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, I wonder if he recalls this discussion with the Secretary of State: Last week you engaged in tireless diplomatic efforts to seek such unity against Iraq. Oddly, other members of the Security Council continue to indulge the fantasy that Saddam would suddenly begin listening to reason.

Members of Congress do not share that delusion. We look forward to receiving the President's recommendations with regard to the need to use force to contain, if not destroy, Iraq's capability to produce weapons of mass destruction.

Is my colleague familiar with that?

I am referring to the distinguished Senator from Delaware--

Who I understood made this statement to the Foreign Relations Committee.

Mr. President, I rise today to cosponsor the Retirement Security Advice Act of 2003, introduced by my good friend from Wyoming, Senator Mike Enzi. I do so because this bill holds important implications for small businesses in this county and for the millions of Americans they employ.

In 1996, we created the Savings Incentive Match Plans for Employees (SIMPLE) as a pension-plan option for small firms in this country. The goal was a simple one: provide a pension plan with low administrative costs for employers so they can offer pension benefits to encourage employees to save for their retirement. I am pleased that these plans have become quite popular, and together with the other pension simplifications and improvements enacted since then, they have contributed to better access to pension benefits by small businesses and their employees.

Greater retirement savings, however, have raised new and complex issues for many employees who have seen their pension accounts grow substantially. As a member of both the Senate Small Business Committee and the Health, Education, Labor, and Pension Committee, I have heard many constitents raise difficult questions in this area: What are appropriate investments for my personal circumstances and risk tolerance? Should I buy stocks, bonds, annuities, or something else? How should I diversify my investments? When should I modify my investment mix? And so on.

The importance of these questions has increased substantially in light of recent high-profile business failures and economic downtown. Gone are the days of the momentum market where any dollar invested seemed to grow with little effort or no risk.

The return to more cautious investing has left employees who participate in employer-sponsored pension plans in a real dilemma--hire an outside investment advisor or go it alone in most cases. Why? Current pension rules effectively preclude most employers from offering investment advice to their employees. In fact, recent estimates are that only about 16 percent of participants have access to investment advice through their pension plan. In today's complex investment environment that is simply too little help for employees who are trying to manage their retirement security.

Senator Enzi's bill addresses this situation in a responsible way. For most businesses, and particularly small firms, the logical place to look for an investment advisor would be the company that manage's the plan's investment options or an affiliated firm. Under Senator Enzi's bill that option would now be available, opening the door for countless businesses to offer this important benefit at a low cost to their employees who participate in the company's pension plan. In addition, by allowing more businesses to offer investment-advice benefits, the bill creates an opportunity for increased competition among investment advisors, which can lead to better advice products and lower costs overall.

Senator Enzi's bill, however, does not simply change the rules to help the business community. It also includes critical protections for the plan participants. Investment advisors must satisfy strict requirements concerning their qualifications, and they must disclose on a regular basis all their business relationships, fees, and potential conflicts of interest directly to the participants. In addition, and arguably most importantly, the investment advisor must assume fiduciary liability for the investment advice it renders to the employee participants in the plan. In short, if the investment advisor does not act solely in the interest of the participant, it will be liable for damages resulting from the breach of its fidicuary duty. Together, the bill's provisions provide substantive safeguards to protect the interests of the plan participants who take advantage of the new investment-advice benefit.

Some have contended that a better alternative is to force small businesses to engage an independent third party to provide investment advice. I disagree. The result would simply be the same as under current law. Cost is a real issue for small businesses seeking to offer benefits like pension plans and related investment advice--hence, the genesis of the SIMPLE pension plan. As under the current rules, if the only option is a costly outside advisor, the small firm will not offer the investment-advise benefit. As a result, we would not move the ball even a yard further--employers would still be left to their own devices to figure out the complex world of investing or they would have to seek out and hire their own advisor, which few have the wherewithal to do.

More to the point, nothing under the Enzi bill prevents a business from engaging an independent advisor if the employer deems that the best alternative. The standard under the Enzi bill for selecting the investment advisor is prudence; the same criteria that the employer must exercise under current law when selecting the company

that manages the pension plan and its investment options. If a prudent person would not hire or retain the investment advisor, then under the Enzi bill, the employer should not do so either or face liability for breach of fiduciary duty. Again, additional protection for the plan participants.

In my assessment, investment advice is an increasingly important benefit that employers want and need. Morover, small businesses in particular need the flexibility to offer benefits that keep them competitive with big companies as they seek to hire and retain the very best employees possible. And when we talk about small businesses, we are not dealing with an insignificant employer in this country. In fact, according to Small Business Administration data, small businesses represent 99 percent of all employers and provide 60 to 80 percent of the net new jobs annually in this country.

The Retirement Security Advice Act provides a carefully balanced and responsible solution to this situation. Most importantly, it provides a solution that employers will actually use to offer the investment advice sought by their employers who struggle to put money aside in the hopes of having a nest egg that someday will provide them with a comfortable retirement. I am pleased to co-sponsor this bill and look forward to working with my colleague from Wyoming to see it enacted into law.

Mr. President, I rise today to cosponsor the Retirement Security Advice Act of 2003, introduced by my good friend from Wyoming, Senator Mike Enzi. I do so because this bill holds important implications for small businesses in this county and for the millions of Americans they employ.

In 1996, we created the Savings Incentive Match Plans for Employees (SIMPLE) as a pension-plan option for small firms in this country. The goal was a simple one: provide a pension plan with low administrative costs for employers so they can offer pension benefits to encourage employees to save for their retirement. I am pleased that these plans have become quite popular, and together with the other pension simplifications and improvements enacted since then, they have contributed to better access to pension benefits by small businesses and their employees.

Greater retirement savings, however, have raised new and complex issues for many employees who have seen their pension accounts grow substantially. As a member of both the Senate Small Business Committee and the Health, Education, Labor, and Pension Committee, I have heard many constitents raise difficult questions in this area: What are appropriate investments for my personal circumstances and risk tolerance? Should I buy stocks, bonds, annuities, or something else? How should I diversify my investments? When should I modify my investment mix? And so on.

The importance of these questions has increased substantially in light of recent high-profile business failures and economic downtown. Gone are the days of the momentum market where any dollar invested seemed to grow with little effort or no risk.

The return to more cautious investing has left employees who participate in employer-sponsored pension plans in a real dilemma--hire an outside investment advisor or go it alone in most cases. Why? Current pension rules effectively preclude most employers from offering investment advice to their employees. In fact, recent estimates are that only about 16 percent of participants have access to investment advice through their pension plan. In today's complex investment environment that is simply too little help for employees who are trying to manage their retirement security.

Senator Enzi's bill addresses this situation in a responsible way. For most businesses, and particularly small firms, the logical place to look for an investment advisor would be the company that manage's the plan's investment options or an affiliated firm. Under Senator Enzi's bill that option would now be available, opening the door for countless businesses to offer this important benefit at a low cost to their employees who participate in the company's pension plan. In addition, by allowing more businesses to offer investment-advice benefits, the bill creates an opportunity for increased competition among investment advisors, which can lead to better advice products and lower costs overall.

Senator Enzi's bill, however, does not simply change the rules to help the business community. It also includes critical protections for the plan participants. Investment advisors must satisfy strict requirements concerning their qualifications, and they must disclose on a regular basis all their business relationships, fees, and potential conflicts of interest directly to the participants. In addition, and arguably most importantly, the investment advisor must assume fiduciary liability for the investment advice it renders to the employee participants in the plan. In short, if the investment advisor does not act solely in the interest of the participant, it will be liable for damages resulting from the breach of its fidicuary duty. Together, the bill's provisions provide substantive safeguards to protect the interests of the plan participants who take advantage of the new investment-advice benefit.

Some have contended that a better alternative is to force small businesses to engage an independent third party to provide investment advice. I disagree. The result would simply be the same as under current law. Cost is a real issue for small businesses seeking to offer benefits like pension plans and related investment advice--hence, the genesis of the SIMPLE pension plan. As under the current rules, if the only option is a costly outside advisor, the small firm will not offer the investment-advise benefit. As a result, we would not move the ball even a yard further--employers would still be left to their own devices to figure out the complex world of investing or they would have to seek out and hire their own advisor, which few have the wherewithal to do.

More to the point, nothing under the Enzi bill prevents a business from engaging an independent advisor if the employer deems that the best alternative. The standard under the Enzi bill for selecting the investment advisor is prudence; the same criteria that the employer must exercise under current law when selecting the company

that manages the pension plan and its investment options. If a prudent person would not hire or retain the investment advisor, then under the Enzi bill, the employer should not do so either or face liability for breach of fiduciary duty. Again, additional protection for the plan participants.

In my assessment, investment advice is an increasingly important benefit that employers want and need. Morover, small businesses in particular need the flexibility to offer benefits that keep them competitive with big companies as they seek to hire and retain the very best employees possible. And when we talk about small businesses, we are not dealing with an insignificant employer in this country. In fact, according to Small Business Administration data, small businesses represent 99 percent of all employers and provide 60 to 80 percent of the net new jobs annually in this country.

The Retirement Security Advice Act provides a carefully balanced and responsible solution to this situation. Most importantly, it provides a solution that employers will actually use to offer the investment advice sought by their employers who struggle to put money aside in the hopes of having a nest egg that someday will provide them with a comfortable retirement. I am pleased to co-sponsor this bill and look forward to working with my colleague from Wyoming to see it enacted into law.

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

Mr. President, one of the most important issues we may face all year is an issue we are going to be working on this week, and that is the urgent supplemental appropriations to continue and, we hope, wind up our efforts in Iraq. I know there are many different views. I think a little historical perspective may be in order. Some people are even questioning why we are in Iraq. I run into people in my home State who think, as some of the German media apparently does--I saw a report today--that September 11 was just a conspiracy of the United States, and that we really were not under a terrorist attack.

Well, we have known for some time the dangers that terrorism present to the world and to those of us here in America. It was very clear back in 1998:

One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the

capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the

missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.

President Clinton, February 4. Then again on February 17:

If Saddam rejects peace, we have to use force. Our purpose

is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by

Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program.

President Clinton, February 17.

And even better, here is a quote from a day later:

Iraq is a long way from here but what happens there means a

great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue

State will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons

against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we

face.

So stated by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, February 18.

Well, after the tragedy of September 11, 2001, President Bush very forcefully outlined a program to deal with terrorists. He said: We are going to bring terrorists to justice or we will bring justice to the terrorists. He pointed out that we would no longer permit States to harbor terrorist groups, to provide safe havens for terrorists who need the opportunity and the time and the money and the financing to build their terrorist operations through which they could strike the United States.

Well, during the 1990s we did not respond--Khobar Towers, our embassy bombings, USS Cole. We treated them as isolated instances when, in fact, they were part of a terrorist scheme. You cannot retaliate against a suicide bomber. You have to deal forcefully. That is why President Bush said we will go after the terrorists, wiping out terrorists where we find them and undoing the governmental structure which protects them.

Well, we have been successful. Magnificent military efforts in Afghanistan disbanded the Taliban. A magnificent, unbelievable effort in Iraq totally shredded the Saddam Hussein government of tyranny and authoritarianism, a government of rape and poisoning of their own citizens. But now we face what President Bush said is going to be an ongoing battle, a continuing battle, the battle against terrorism itself--not just this particular Government or location.

We have before us a request from the President of the United States for $87 billion. Most of it, about $67 billion, is to protect our troops and to keep them there and to keep them safe. Another $21 billion will help the Iraqi people build a country free after 30 years of terrorism, torture, and repression and to develop their own military, their own police force, their own security, their own justice system so they can be safe and start to rebuild the economic structure of their country.

Now, $87 billion is a lot of money. Make no mistake about that. That is really a huge sum. But last week we had extensive hearings with Secretary Rumsfeld, General Myers, and representatives of the State Department and the Department of Defense. I asked them, What was the cost of 9/11? How much did it cost?

We know it cost 3,000 lives or more in the Twin Towers, in the field in Pennsylvania, and here at the Pentagon, and that is a huge tragedy. But when you take a look at the monetary side, the best estimates are a couple hundred billion dollars because we did not deal with terrorists before they dealt with us. They struck us on our territory, on their terms.

The President of the United States came to the Senate and, by a vote of 77 to 23, the Senate authorized him to wage war in Iraq. We did that. We won. But the terrorists are there. The terrorists come back into Baghdad like a roach motel. All the low life, the hideous assassins, the suicide bombers are coming back. And we are fighting with them, we are dealing with them there. We need $66 billion. It costs well over $4 billion a month to keep our troops there.

The people of Iraq, in response to opinion polls, have clearly said, by an overwhelming majority, that they want us there because they see the difference that has happened in their country. They know with the Baath Party still functioning, remnants of the Republican Guard, al- Qaida, and other terrorist groups coming in there, they are not safe unless they have a security shield. Right now, we are that security shield. And we are doing some good things as well.

One of the things Secretary Rumsfeld pointed out was the tremendous progress we are making to help Iraq get back on its feet so it is safe. In less than 5 months, virtually all major Iraqi hospitals and universities have been reopened. They are taking down huge caches of weapons that have been stored away by the Saddam government and by terrorists.

Mr. President, 70,000 Iraqis have been armed and trained and will be graduating into the military, and 40,000 Iraqi police are conducting joint patrols with coalition forces. A new Iraqi council has appointed government cabinet members. Iraqi municipal councils are functioning in almost all towns and villages, and some 8,000 civil affairs projects have been undertaken by our troops.

Now we need to do something more. We need to win the peace, and this $21 billion is the best investment we can make in winning the peace. Because only when we have won the peace and put in place an Iraqi military and police force and government that is able to protect itself can we safely bring our troops home and not worry about having to go back 5 or 10 years later, after they have rejuvenated their chemical and biological weapons programs and perhaps achieved the goal of nuclear explosives. We will not have to go back again and do what we just did.

The terrorists are firing at our troops over there. The war on terrorism is going on in Baghdad. But make no mistake about it, they are not just shooting at our soldiers and innocent Iraqis and Iraqi police; they are shooting at American public opinion because their greatest hope is they can sow discord in the United States and force a pullback of our forces before the peace is won, to allow all those horrible terrorists to regroup and come together and launch another attack against their neighbors, against those who have been friendly with us, and, yes, against the United States.

I hope we will have a good, vigorous debate. I hope we can move quickly to pass the emergency supplemental appropriations bill. Let's vote on it up or down. Let's get it moving and support our troops, but let's also get it moving so we can win the peace. Right now, with our forces over there, the battle in the war on terrorism is focused on Baghdad. It is tragic it has to be anywhere, but we have carried the battle to them. Because of the strong leadership of this administration, we are fighting the battle of terrorism in Baghdad--not in Boston or Boise or Ballwin, MO or Belton, MO.

I believe that reports from our troops in the field, who say, ``Yes, this is dangerous, this is deadly, but we would rather be fighting them here than on our homeland,'' are right on. The people who are over there know what their mission is. They know how important their contributions are to safety and security, not just in Iraq, and in their neighborhood in the Middle East, but to our own safety, our own well being.

Mr. President, 62 percent of the Iraqis in Baghdad, according to a Zogby poll, believe the hardships they have faced since the war have been worth it to rid the country of Saddam Hussein, his evil sons, and the brutal regime. That is an incredible vote of confidence for what the United States has done.

In a different poll, when asked how long U.S. troops should remain in the country, two-thirds of the Iraqis said the U.S. troops should stay at least another year. I am afraid those numbers are higher than we would get in the Senate right now, but it tells you what

we are doing is important for them as well as for us.

We want them to have a secure and peaceful country, but we want them to be able to enforce the law, to confront paramilitary troops with their own forces. That is what the $21 billion goes for. It is a lot of money, but if it gets our troops out just 5 months sooner, it will save us that much in supporting our own military. And we all know it will save us much more in exposure of our fighting men and women to the terrorist attacks that are now going on in Baghdad.

I hope we can move effectively and quickly. Let's have some up-and- down votes. Let's get on with it. We are at war. The President said all along that the war on terrorism is going to be a long war. But we have a chance to gain a major foothold. I hope we can move this emergency supplemental for Iraq and Afghanistan as quickly as possible.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.