Floor Statements

Mr. President, the fiscal year 2004 Department of Defense Authorization Conference Report provides important benefits as our military personnel continue to do battle in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Balkans, South America, and elsewhere. It is not, however, a perfect bill. I voted for it because I believe that in a time of war we need to take care of our military personnel and our veterans. But, I am concerned that this bill unnecessarily undercuts important environmental protection measures and civil service protections. I am also troubled by some of the nuclear weapons provisions of the bill. First let me describe some of the key provisions that I do support in this bill.

This bill provides a 3.7 percent across-the-board pay increase and, because of some of the targeted pay raises for mid-career personnel, an average pay raise of 4.1 percent. It also authorizes increases in the critical pay bonus areas of family separation, hostile fire, and imminent danger pay from October of this year until next December. These increases are much needed and well-deserved.

I am also pleased that the bill would allow the Army to add 2,400 additional personnel. I supported adding 10,000 and would still like to see the number grow, but this is, at least, a start.

Perhaps most important as we create new veterans daily, this bill starts to live up to our promises to our veterans. I have long believed that the commitment we make to the retirement benefits of a veteran and the commitment we make to care for those veterans injured while serving should not be mutually exclusive. This bill takes a very real step toward allowing veterans full concurrent receipt. Military retirees with 20 years of service, active duty or Reserve Component, and a Purple Heart or a combat related disability will be eligible for full concurrent receipt as of January 1, 2004. The remaining retirees who are disabled at 50 percent and above will get full concurrent receipt phased in over the next 10 years.

In addition to the important personnel benefits of this bill, I am also pleased that the bill makes a common sense commitment on strategic airlift. The bill prohibits any decision to retire C-5 As until an A- model is completely modernized under the Avionics Modernization Program and Reliability and Re-Engining Program and then tested for its operational capability. This will allow decisionmakers to have the facts about what capability can be gained from the modernization programs. In addition, the Senate has required a March report updating the military's strategic airlift requirement. We know that the old requirement, defined pre-9-11, pre-Afghanistan, and pre-Iraq, is too low. Until we have a more accurate sense of what is really needed, it will be hard for Congress and the military to determine the best way to meet the need.

Let me now detail my concerns with the environmental and civil service provisions of this legislation. I believe it is important to balance our national security needs with the rights of our children and grandchildren to live in a country that has clean air and water. America is the home to tremendous natural bounty and diversity. Those natural treasures are something we hold in trust, not something we should allow destroyed for expediency. As the Nation has advanced, we have striven to find ways to balance environmental protection with our economic and military needs. We have done this in our environmental protection laws, most of which carry national security waiver provisions. It is still not clear to me why the conferees felt it was appropriate to make changes to two key environmental protection laws without taking into account the advice and wisdom of those who oversee that legislation daily.

Let me start by saying that I believe realistic military training is absolutely critical to the survival of our military personnel. Until now, we have managed to balance that need with our desire to safeguard our environment. This bill allows the Department of Defense to get around the Endangered Species Act, ESA, and to make enforcement of Marine Mammal Protection Act, MMPA, extremely difficult. With respect to ESA it is particularly troubling since, again, there is a national security waiver provision in that law. In the Senate, we were able to craft a compromise that allowed the Defense Department to avoid making any new critical habitat designations on installations that had Integrated Natural Resources Management Plans that the Secretary of the Interior had determined would in fact conserve the species on the installation and would be adequately resourced. This bill does not provide that safeguard.

In the case of MMPA, this bill provides a weaker definition of ``harassment.'' More extraordinary than that, the new weaker definition applies not just to military activities, but rather to any scientific research conducted by or on behalf of the Federal Government. We have been given no rationale

or justification for making it easier for federally funded scientists to harm marine mammals. The bill makes it easier for the Navy to get permits if their activities will have no more than a ``negligible impact'' on marine mammals. I also do not see why legitimate Naval activities should not receive the same full scrutiny they have always received. Again, we were not given good justifications for making such a change. At the end of the day, I am very disappointed that the conferees agreed to basically allow the Department of Defense to begin making their own environmental rules. While they have done a very good job managing many environmental issues, their track record is not one that suggests complete self-regulation is warranted or desirable. Their job is to fight and win our nation's wars. As a democracy, it is our job to provide them the legal framework that allows them to do their job while not sacrificing the nation's natural treasures. This bill is a step backwards.

In the area of civilian personnel reform at the Department of Defense, I am again troubled that this bill opens the door to cronyism and discrimination, things from which we have long sought to insulate our civil service. While I am open to the notion that civil service reform may be in order, I am again concerned that it is being done in an ad hoc fashion and without the proper input from the committees that oversee the entire civil service. I believe that we must be wary of the potential politicization of our workforce. The employees of the Defense Department are highly dedicated professional, and they must be free from political pressure. I will be taking a close look at how the administration goes forward with its new authorities. I will be watchful that the employees are free from political retaliation and secure in their jobs so that they can perform their vital tasks to the highest of professional standards.

Finally, let me say a few words about some of the nuclear weapons provisions in this bill. This conference report does a good job, on balance, of providing for our cooperative threat reduction and non- proliferation assistance programs in the former Soviet Union. It provides roughly the funding requested by the President and, in particular, a needed Presidential waiver provision so that we can continue to help build a chemical weapons destruction facility in Shchuch'ye, Russia. It requires the Secretary of Energy to study and report on the possibility of purchasing and safeguarding excess weapons-grade uranium and plutonium from the independent states of the former Soviet Union, so as to ensure that such dangerous material cannot be diverted to rogue states or terrorists. And it allows the President to use some Nunn-Lugar and non-proliferation funds for projects outside the former Soviet Union, if he determines that this will assist in the resolution of a critical emerging proliferation threat or permit the United States to achieve long-standing nonproliferation goals.

I regret that the Congress agreed to repeal the Spratt-Furse prohibition of work on low-yield nuclear weapons. I am pleased, however, that the conference report states that such work may not commence the engineering development phase, or any subsequent phase, of a low-yield nuclear weapon unless specifically authorized by Congress. I am also pleased that the Secretary of Energy is barred from commencing the engineering development phase, phase 6.3, of the nuclear weapons development process, or any subsequent phase, of a Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator weapon unless specifically authorized by Congress.

Again, I voted for this bill because it contains many important provisions, particularly in this time of war. But I am very concerned that some of the provisions agreed to by the conferees are ill-advised and premature. I hope that we will be able to reconsider them next year.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to reauthorize the so-called ``Drug Czar's'' office with Senator Hatch, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee and Senator Grassley, the Chairman of the Caucus on International Narcotics Control.

This bipartisan legislation will, I hope, result in speedy action to reauthorize the drug director's office for 5 years. No matter what perspective any of us have on a specific drug policy, this legislation is about whether we will have a drug director and a drug office to be responsible for developing, coordinating and enacting a national drug policy.

Some twenty years ago I began fighting to create the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) because I believed then, as I believe now, that we needed a Cabinet-level official who would coordinate Federal drug policy. I argued that Cabinet-level status was necessary because this individual needed to have the clout to stop interagency feuding, fight for necessary budgetary resources and decertify inadequate agency drug budgets. But just as important, I believed that the public needed to have one high profile person to hold accountable for developing and implementing an effective national strategy.

In 1982 my bill creating a national drug director passed as part of a larger crime bill, but the President vetoed it. He, like all Presidents--both Democrats and Republicans did not like the idea of being held accountable for what was seen as an intractable problem. But I kept at it and six years later the bill became law.

Before we had a drug czar's office there was no official in charge of the Administration's drug effort. And because there was no one Cabinet official in charge, other members of the President's Cabinet could duck responsibility to talk about tough drug policy issues. And that meant no Administration talked enough or did enough about the drug problem and no Administration was held accountable on drug policy. I'm glad that those days are behind us.

As the person responsible for coordinating Federal drug policy, the drug czar deals with almost every federal agency, from the Department of Justice on drug courts to the Department of Homeland Security on interdiction issues to the State Department and the Department of Defense on Plan Colombia to the Department of Health and Human Services on groundbreaking research on how drug use changes brain chemistry. It is the drug director's job to make sure that all of these wide ranging issues are addressed in the annual drug strategy so that our national policy is a balanced one, giving proper attention to drug enforcement, drug treatment, drug prevention and research.

That is why the bill that Senator Hatch, Senator Grassley and I are introducing today retains the provision in current law requiring the Drug Director to submit to Congress an annual drug strategy, detailing how he proposes to address all aspects of our national drug problem. We also ask him to reach out to state and local officials not only to get their input but also to get their support to advance the national goals on the local level.

And just as with my original drug czar legislation, the reauthorization bill retains as its central goal holding every Administration and every President accountable on the drug issue by requiring ONDCP to evaluate the effectiveness of drug policy and programs and develop specific performance measurements and goals.

The bill also includes a number of changes to strengthen current drug control policies and programs. In the area of law enforcement, the bill reauthorizes and increases the funding for the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) program which helps to coordinate federal, state and local efforts to reduce drug trafficking and production in designated areas. The bill also requires an evaluation of each individual HIDTA to monitor the program's effectiveness and requires ONDCP to report to Congress on intelligence sharing among HIDTAs and other law enforcement entities.

In terms of prevention and treatment efforts, the legislation includes a number of important provisions. First, it reauthorizes the National Youth Anti Drug Media Campaign and modifies the program so that it will be more accountable. Second, it includes a number of provisions that the Senate passed unanimously last Congress as part of the Drug Abuse Education, Prevention and Treatment Act to expand drug treatment for rural states, economically depressed communities, juveniles and women with children as well as to create a demonstration project to fund drug treatment alternatives to prison programs administered by state and local prosecutors. And finally, the bill amends the Higher Education Act to clarify that those convicted of drug offenses are not prohibited from receiving federal student aid unless they commit a drug felony while they are receiving the grant, loan or work assistance.

I want to thank Senator Hatch and Senator Grassley for their cooperation in crafting a bipartisan bill to reauthorize the Office of National Drug Control Policy. Both Senators have been leaders on drug policy issues and I am glad to work with them on this important matter. I hope that the rest of my colleagues will support this legislation and that we can pass it without delay.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to reauthorize the so-called ``Drug Czar's'' office with Senator Hatch, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee and Senator Grassley, the Chairman of the Caucus on International Narcotics Control.

This bipartisan legislation will, I hope, result in speedy action to reauthorize the drug director's office for 5 years. No matter what perspective any of us have on a specific drug policy, this legislation is about whether we will have a drug director and a drug office to be responsible for developing, coordinating and enacting a national drug policy.

Some twenty years ago I began fighting to create the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) because I believed then, as I believe now, that we needed a Cabinet-level official who would coordinate Federal drug policy. I argued that Cabinet-level status was necessary because this individual needed to have the clout to stop interagency feuding, fight for necessary budgetary resources and decertify inadequate agency drug budgets. But just as important, I believed that the public needed to have one high profile person to hold accountable for developing and implementing an effective national strategy.

In 1982 my bill creating a national drug director passed as part of a larger crime bill, but the President vetoed it. He, like all Presidents--both Democrats and Republicans did not like the idea of being held accountable for what was seen as an intractable problem. But I kept at it and six years later the bill became law.

Before we had a drug czar's office there was no official in charge of the Administration's drug effort. And because there was no one Cabinet official in charge, other members of the President's Cabinet could duck responsibility to talk about tough drug policy issues. And that meant no Administration talked enough or did enough about the drug problem and no Administration was held accountable on drug policy. I'm glad that those days are behind us.

As the person responsible for coordinating Federal drug policy, the drug czar deals with almost every federal agency, from the Department of Justice on drug courts to the Department of Homeland Security on interdiction issues to the State Department and the Department of Defense on Plan Colombia to the Department of Health and Human Services on groundbreaking research on how drug use changes brain chemistry. It is the drug director's job to make sure that all of these wide ranging issues are addressed in the annual drug strategy so that our national policy is a balanced one, giving proper attention to drug enforcement, drug treatment, drug prevention and research.

That is why the bill that Senator Hatch, Senator Grassley and I are introducing today retains the provision in current law requiring the Drug Director to submit to Congress an annual drug strategy, detailing how he proposes to address all aspects of our national drug problem. We also ask him to reach out to state and local officials not only to get their input but also to get their support to advance the national goals on the local level.

And just as with my original drug czar legislation, the reauthorization bill retains as its central goal holding every Administration and every President accountable on the drug issue by requiring ONDCP to evaluate the effectiveness of drug policy and programs and develop specific performance measurements and goals.

The bill also includes a number of changes to strengthen current drug control policies and programs. In the area of law enforcement, the bill reauthorizes and increases the funding for the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) program which helps to coordinate federal, state and local efforts to reduce drug trafficking and production in designated areas. The bill also requires an evaluation of each individual HIDTA to monitor the program's effectiveness and requires ONDCP to report to Congress on intelligence sharing among HIDTAs and other law enforcement entities.

In terms of prevention and treatment efforts, the legislation includes a number of important provisions. First, it reauthorizes the National Youth Anti Drug Media Campaign and modifies the program so that it will be more accountable. Second, it includes a number of provisions that the Senate passed unanimously last Congress as part of the Drug Abuse Education, Prevention and Treatment Act to expand drug treatment for rural states, economically depressed communities, juveniles and women with children as well as to create a demonstration project to fund drug treatment alternatives to prison programs administered by state and local prosecutors. And finally, the bill amends the Higher Education Act to clarify that those convicted of drug offenses are not prohibited from receiving federal student aid unless they commit a drug felony while they are receiving the grant, loan or work assistance.

I want to thank Senator Hatch and Senator Grassley for their cooperation in crafting a bipartisan bill to reauthorize the Office of National Drug Control Policy. Both Senators have been leaders on drug policy issues and I am glad to work with them on this important matter. I hope that the rest of my colleagues will support this legislation and that we can pass it without delay.

Mr. President, the chairman is correct. I don't plan on speaking on mad cow disease. I will speak for approximately 20 minutes. If anybody comes in with a relevant amendment, I will yield the floor. I am going to talk on the subject of Iraq.

Two days ago, the Congress completed action on the President's request for $87 billion. In fact, I think later today there is going to be a signing down at the White House for military operations reconstruction money for Iraq, as well as Afghanistan, that relates to that $87 billion request.

The debate we had in the Congress over that issue reflected more than our concern about the amount of money. I think it reflected more than the sticker shock that the American people felt when they heard the $87 billion number. I think it reflected the fact that there is a crisis in confidence in the President's leadership in Iraq. To put it more straightforward, there is a grave doubt about the policy we are engaging in now and its prospects for success.

The American people not only have those doubts, but I know, and we all know on the floor, that a number of Members on both sides of this aisle have doubts about the policy. I voted for the $87 billion, and I believe we needed to do that. But we cannot afford to fail in Iraq, and there was no option but the one before us.

It seems to me that we are going to have great difficulty succeeding in Iraq unless we act more wisely, and I want to discuss that very briefly today. I will be coming to the floor next week with a much more expanded speech on this subject. In order for us to succeed, I think we have to simply change our policy. We have to change the policy we are pursuing now in several very important ways.

First, in order to determine whether or not we think this policy is working, it seems we have to understand the situation on the ground in Iraq. There are two realities in Iraq right now. One is that there is some real progress being made: Schools are being opened; hospitals are open; there is a number of reconstruction projects underway; the setting up of local councils is occurring

and other things that are good. But all of that progress is being undermined by the other reality on the ground: our failure so far to get security, especially in the Sunni Triangle in Baghdad.

The failure to secure that area has undermined not only the progress we are making but, in my view, has created a circumstance where it becomes incredibly more difficult each day to get the kind of help we need to ultimately succeed. That is to the degree to which other nations, and to the degree to which Iraq is, and the degree to which the American people believe we are not making significant progress is the degree to which they withdraw their support or fail to offer support.

We need international support, we need the continued support of the Iraqi people, and we need the American people prepared to stay the course by spending billions of more dollars in order to get this done and, even more importantly, risking and losing American lives.

I am worried we are going to soon lose the support of the Iraqi people and the vast majority of the American people. The Iraqi people, to make it clear, are happy Saddam Hussein is no longer around. They very much want to build a better future. But the fact is, there has never been a government in Iraq that has been a democracy. In fact, as we all know, Iraq was a nation built and carved out of a colonial circumstance back at the end of the World War I, and it is very difficult, at best, to figure out how to put it together in any form of representative government. It is going to take some time.

So the job, No. 1, here for us, it seems to me, is getting the security right, controlling the streets, securing the weapons depots, getting much better intelligence. But that has always been the No. 1 job we have had, and all other success depends upon that occurring-- better security. It has always been the administration's responsibility, not the Congress's responsibility, to figure out how to get the security on the ground correct.

For some time, I have refrained from any prescriptive outline as to what I think should be done because we cannot dictate that kind of policy in the Senate. That is a matter for Presidents to determine, administrations to lead. But I am very concerned that we are on a downward spiral in terms of the prospects of getting it right in Iraq.

Now, it seems to me, right now, we are not getting the job done. It is not because of the lack of bravery and commitment and steadfastness of American troops or American personnel. These are serious people. These are brave young women and men. It seems to me they have been put in a circumstance that makes it very difficult for them to succeed.

Let me lay out very briefly now, and in greater detail next week, what I believe we need to do to succeed.

The bottom line is pretty simple. Three groups can provide security in Iraq: First, the Iraqis themselves; second, our U.S. troops and the few coalition partners we have with us there; and third, there is the possibility of a real international coalition of military forces.

Over the long term, obviously, the single best way to get security right in Iraq is for the Iraqis to provide that security through indigenous police forces and an indigenous army. That is our goal. Everyone agrees upon that goal. And it is their responsibility, ultimately. They can tell the good guys from the bad guys better than we can. But here is the rub: It takes time to build an effective--an effective--indigenous police force or military force.

When I was in Iraq in June, I was told by our experts there on the ground that it would take 5 years to recruit and train the 75,000 Iraqi police force that was needed. I was told it would take 3 years to recruit and train just 40,000 persons for the Army of Iraq--5 years for the police force and 3 years just to train 40,000 Iraqi soldiers.

We can and we are putting that effort into overdrive. Let's understand the risks that go into putting it into overdrive. The faster we go on our training, the poorer the training and less legitimate the police and army will be. Putting them in charge prematurely is a recipe for failure. They will lose the confidence of the Iraqi people, and we will lose the ability to recruit them to participate in the police force and/or in the military force.

Although it makes sense for us to try to speed up as rapidly as we can the training and the deployment of Iraqis, it is going to take time for it to work. Even on steroids, we are going to need a year at least before we can hand over the keys of security to the Iraqi people, the Iraqi military, and the Iraqi police.

The real question is, What do we do in the meantime? The reason I am so concerned about the meantime is that within a year, before we are even able, under this extended and intensive effort, to speed up the training and turn over the responsibility to the Iraqis, if we continue to have the attitude that pervades in Iraq today, or is beginning to pervade and is beginning to pervade in the United States that this is a difficult, if not hopeless, task, we are unlikely to accomplish the circumstance of being able to put the Iraqis in a position even a year from now. We have to do something now to make things better on the ground.

That brings us to option No. 2, and that is flood the zone with more U.S. troops. Putting in more troops now will allow us to get them out a lot faster. We especially need MPs, special forces, and civil affairs experts.

I listened to my friend John McCain--he and I have been on the same page on this issue for the last 5 months--I listened to him yesterday make a very compelling speech about the need to immediately increase, not decrease, the number of American forces. We understand--John McCain and I and others--that is not a very popular thing to say.

Guys like me who thought the administration went about this war wrongly in the first place are in the dubious position of being in the Chamber suggesting to the Americans who don't like the war that we should put more forces in Iraq immediately in order to take them out totally sooner while the administration announces that in the rotation of American forces through next spring, we are going to rotate troops, but we are also going to draw down the total number of American troops. It is somewhat perverse. Here are Biden and McCain talking about putting in more troops, and the administration is talking about taking out more troops.

The irony here is, we do not have control of the security on the ground. To the extent we don't, for every Chinook that is shot down, for every American who is killed, every Iraqi who is blown up, every Iraqi policeman who goes to a barracks now and is blown up, every Red Cross depot that is exploded--every one of those events undermines the willingness of the United States, the Iraqis, and the world to stay the course and do the job in Iraq.

I might note parenthetically, my real problem is the President has yet to tell the American people why this is so important. He keeps talking about and using the phrase, which is very catchy and very compelling--I am paraphrasing--if we don't fight the terrorists in Baghdad, we will fight them in New York, Washington, Seattle, or wherever. There is some truth to that.

The American people are a lot smarter. If you ask the American people if they think if we succeed in Baghdad or if we succeed in Iraq that is going to end terrorism in the United States, or conversely, whether or not that is the source of terrorism and the threat to the United States, about 60 percent of the American people will say no, they don't think that is it. They understand it. They understand the next terrorist attack, God forbid, in the United States is more likely to come from Somalia, Philippines, Iran, or any number of other countries, than it is going to be from something that has been planned in Baghdad.

That is not to suggest there is not terror in Baghdad; there is. But there are the beginnings of a classic counterinsurgency in Baghdad, aided and abetted by international terrorist operations that are beginning to mobilize in that area.

The real reason we have to succeed in Iraq and the real reason we had better get it straight pretty quickly before we lose the support of the American people is that if we fail to secure the peace in Baghdad and in Iraq, we are going to see a significantly emboldened and radicalized Iran with over 70 million people. We are going to see the prospect of-- that fancy word we use in foreign policy circles--modernity in the Middle East evaporate. The idea that

there are going to be more modern democratic states is going to diminish, not increase. We are going to see, I predict, a reconsideration of the attitude about whether to look East or West in Turkey from Ankara from an Islamic government. We are going to see the circumstances in Pakistan deteriorate because, sure as the devil, if things deteriorate in Iraq and we lose the peace there, we are going to lose it in Afghanistan as well. We will have two failed states.

It is absolutely essential that we succeed, even though most of us--I shouldn't say most; I speak for myself--even though I did not agree with the way the President went about the conduct of this war. The facts are, we are there and we must succeed.

What do we do? We need more civil affairs officers, we need more special forces, and we need more MPs. But this is hard stuff. Our forces are stretched way thin in Iraq already and in Afghanistan. We would have to bring folks back to Iraq for second or third tours, and that is a decision no one wants to make. We have to at least consider it if it would make our troops safer now, increase the chances of success and security in the triangle now being more likely than not because otherwise we just dribble this away.

Short of bringing in more U.S. troops, there are things we can do with our forces to get a better grip on security in the region. We have to deal with those ammo depots. There are more than 600,000 tons of ordnance in Iraq. That is one-third of all the munitions the United States of America possesses. Of that, less than 100,000 tons have been destroyed. There are also thousands of shoulder-fired missiles on the loose in Iraq, one of which probably brought down the helicopter last week. We are offering to buy those missiles back at 500 bucks a pop.

A recent Newsweek or Time Magazine article this week pointed out a young Iraqi came up to an American military person and said: Do you want to buy one of these missiles?

He said: Can you get more of them?

He said: Yes, I can get more of them.

He got a whole truckload of them and brought them back. I think he got paid $40,000 for them. He said he would have brought back more except the truck was not big enough.

We have tens, hundreds, if not thousands, of these shoulder-held missiles on the loose in Iraq. We are paying $500 for the retrieval of each one, and more than 350 have been turned in. The black market price for purchasing those shoulder-held missile launchers is $5,000 a missile. That is kind of hard to compete with.

If we had more forces in place, we could do a better job of guarding those depots, but even without those forces we should be getting Iraqis to fence off the depots, put sensors on the gates, put more UAVs in the air to patrol them.

We have to destroy the weapons faster. Let me acknowledge this is not a simple task. There are hundreds of depots, many of them used, and we have to be very careful in destroying them. We need to protect civilian populations, and we lack enough demolition experts who know how to destroy this stuff without starting a California-size blaze. The administration has to make securing these weapons a top priority. We need to have better intelligence on the ground. It is really hard for our folks to tell the good guys from the bad guys and that is where intelligence comes in.

The Army itself is finding that our intelligence specialists and the reserves trained in civilian affairs and psychological operations do not get the training they need before they are sent to Iraq, so they are not producing very good intelligence.

We do not have enough competent interpreters. We have to get help to rebuild Iraq from their own intelligence network. Here, too, we need a much greater sense of urgency.

The second way to do this is for the United States to do it itself, but it is going to take more personnel and a different kind of personnel to do that. The President has made clear he is not going to do that.

There is another way to buy time until the Iraqis can fend for themselves, and that is to make Iraq the world's responsibility, not just our own. We had that opportunity before the war, and we blew it. We had that opportunity after the war, and we blew it. At the end of the summer, when it became clear the security situation was not getting better, the administration decided it had to reach out, but it did not do it very well. The President's speech to the United Nations was not very well received, so for a third time the administration squandered the opportunity to get international support in significant ways.

This is not totally our problem, but for the most part only Americans are being killed. I am convinced we have one last shot to bring the world in to Iraq, and we must do everything in our power to seize that opportunity. This is the meat of what I have to say. I would like to see President Bush not figuratively but literally go to Europe, call a summit and ask for help. We will have to give up more authority in order to get that help, but as I keep saying, and I have been saying for the last 6 months, we should stop treating Iraq as if it is some sort of prize we won. It is not authority I am looking to possess. We would be giving up nothing as it relates to our security interests.

There are three things we can and should do to get more countries invested in Iraq with troops, police, and resources. The first is we should make Iraq a NATO mission. The model we should be using is not Afghanistan but Bosnia, Kosovo. There is a NATO general in charge of all the troops there. It happens to be an American most of the time because America runs NATO; America commands NATO. So it should be a NATO operation.

We are not getting other NATO forces in because they do not want to work alongside of and/or under the command of a totally US-led operation that is not a NATO operation. So we should make Iraq a NATO mission.

General Abizaid would be put in charge of the new NATO command because the way it always works with NATO, as it does with the U.N., whoever is putting up most of the responsibility, putting up most of the money, most of the troops, gets to be the one in charge. So this should be a NATO operation.

Secondly, we should create a high commissioner for Iraq who reports not just to President Bush or the Secretary of Defense, but who reports to an international board of directors, reports to the NATO countries, reports to those countries that are participating. That is what we did in Kosovo. We never lost control of Kosovo, but there was a high commissioner. The high commissioner was not an American. The first one happened to be a Frenchman. The second one was a Dutchman. They reported to all of the capitals that were participating in the reconstruction of Kosovo.

We have a long way to go in Kosovo and a long way to go in Bosnia, but thank God, knock on wood, there are no American casualties. There have not been American casualties as a consequence of hostile fire. People are not killing one another in those two countries. A lot more has to be done. There is no pure democracy there, but there are not a million people in the mountains about to freeze, there are not 250,000 dead, and Americans are not being shot. The place is secure, and we are only paying 15 percent of the price in terms of money and troops. If we want to get the rest of the world into this deal, because--and people say, well, Joe, why would they even contemplate coming in? They are kind of happy to see us bog down.

The reason they would be happy to come in if they had the right environment is because they have as much at stake in a failed state of Iraq as we do. For the Europeans, Iraq is their front yard. It is our backyard. We have to create the environment in which they are willing to participate. So instead of having Mr. Bremer running the operation-- and maybe Mr. Bremer should be the high commissioner. The phrase for that is ``double hatted.'' There has to be a much larger investment by other countries. In return, they have to have much greater participation.

As much as people will not like hearing me say this, the second thing we have to do is change Bremer's function into that of a high commissioner reporting to Washington, London, Berlin, Paris, et cetera. Otherwise, we will not get the kind of participation we need.

Thirdly, we should transform the Iraqi Governing Council into a provisional government with greater sovereign powers. Putting NATO in charge

of security in Iraq offers the possibility of building a truly multilateral force, with far more participation from Europeans, Asians, and neighboring countries. More countries will take part because they would be reporting to the North Atlantic Council, not to the Pentagon.

We are the North Atlantic Council as well. It is a model, as I said, that worked in the Balkans and now is beginning to work in Afghanistan. In the Balkans, for example, many non-NATO countries, including Russia and some Arab states, joined the effort because they were not joining the U.S. effort; they were joining a NATO effort.

The United States, in all of these models I am suggesting--and they are relatively drastic changes--would retain operational control on the ground with General Abizaid as head of this new NATO command. And we retain effective control in NATO, where the United States is the lead player.

Creating an International High Commissioner for Iraq and putting him or her in charge of reconstruction would also attract far more international participation. The recent donors conference in Madrid was a painful example of the price we pay for doing everything ourselves.

When you go into a country unilaterally, you get to handle the peace unilaterally. One we didn't need, the other we do.

Typically, as in the Balkans, the United States covers reconstruction efforts--pays for about 25 percent of the reconstruction costs after a major conflict. By that ratio, the $20 billion, or $18-point-something billion Congress just approved for Iraq reconstruction should have generated, in Madrid, about $60 billion from the rest of the world. Instead, we got $13 billion, of which $9 billion was loans.

As long as the CPA is the sole deciding authority on how Iraq will be rebuilt, other countries will be reluctant to fork over real money. They want a real say in how the money is spent.

Again, look at the model in the Balkans. Look at the model in gulf war No. 1, George the first, the first gulf war. We paid only about 20 percent of the total cost. The rest of the world came in and made up the remainder of that $60 billion.

What are we doing now? Again, in my view, the model we are operating under is broken. We should fix it. Otherwise, we own it all. This is not something we want to own alone.

If we go the route I am suggesting of a special representative who reports to the U.N. Security Council, of which we are a member--either way, that could be Bremer. Bremer could be double-hatted.

In Bosnia, the High Commissioner reports to a special steering committee led by the United States and the EEU. In Kosovo, the Secretary General of the United Nations designated a Special Representative who reports to the U.N. Security Council.

I ask a rhetorical question to any Americans who may be listening. Would it offend you that a high commissioner reporting to the U.N. Security Council was the model we were using? Would you be angry that we didn't own it all, that we weren't the one having to put up all the money, making all the decisions, and taking all the casualties? What is our reluctance?

I said, either way, in a de facto sense, we remain in charge.

Finally, it seems to me we should turn the Iraqi Governing Council into a true provisional government with more sovereign powers. This transfer of sovereignty should not be held hostage to the very important but very complicated and time-consuming process of writing a new constitution.

I happened to hear General Clark this morning on one of the morning news shows. He pointed this out. I thought it was a great example. He said: It took us 7 years to write our Constitution. Actually, it took a little longer. How would we have felt had the French said: We helped liberate you from the British; we are going to stay here as the regional power while you write your Constitution? I am not so sure we would have greeted that with a warm embrace.

So in order for this Iraqi Governing Council, which has not been all that responsible up to now in my view, to be able to function, it seems to me there has to be a transfer of authority that, in fact, should not be held hostage to the constitution having to be written first. It may require some changes in this provisional government to make it more representative, but that is what we should get on with now. Nothing would send a clearer message to the Iraqi people that the future is theirs to build and to inherit, and nothing would make it clearer to them that the enemies of that future are Saddam loyalists and international terrorists who are killing our troops, other than having sovereignty transferred to the Governing Council.

In conclusion, I am suggesting that the model we are operating under be changed.

No. 1, sovereignty, even requiring, if need be, more representation on the Governing Council, but more sovereignty transferred to the Governing Council.

No. 2, a high commissioner, in place of the system we have now, on the Bosnian model, reporting to more than one world capital--that may be Bremer being double-hatted, but it would be a high commissioner--and that to bring in the rest of the world to participate.

No. 3, that the military operation should be under NATO command and NATO responsibility.

I think by doing those things, we communicate several very important, practical, and substantive messages:

No. 1, we, the United States, have no designs on Iraq. We know we don't, but I am not sure the Iraqi people know we don't.

No. 2, it communicates the notion that we are not the sole determining power in that country, that it is not solely our problem, it is the world's problem.

No. 3, that the military operation is not a U.S. operation, it is a NATO operation.

All of those things, I believe, would significantly improve the prospects of success and significantly diminish the prospect that we will carry the entire load for as long as it takes.

I will elaborate on those points in more detail next week. But it seems to me we have to change the model now and begin the process. I thank the chairman for allowing me to speak and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today, joined by my good friend and colleague from Delaware, Senator Carper, to bring to the attention of the esteemed ranking member of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee an important provision in his bill relating to the Delmarva Conservation Corridor Demonstration Program.

I just want to take a few minutes to emphasize the importance of this provision for the State of Delaware and for the entire Delmarva peninsula. As you know, the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture was authorized to develop a Delmarva Conservation Corridor Demonstration Program in the 2002 farm bill. Unfortunately, the USDA has not implemented the program.

The Delmarva Conservation Corridor Demonstration Program does, however, complement the existing conservation provisions in the bill and allows the USDA to target the benefits of watershed-based conservation programs to farmlands that local stakeholders have determined to be the most ecologically and economically important.

We must prevent the shrinking and fragmentation of undeveloped open space that results from increasing growth pressures. By fortifying and restoring green infrastructure, we can maximize the ecological and working lands' potential of our landscape. Creating extensive corridors of both natural and agricultural lands will safeguard wildlife habitat, contiguous headwaters, wetlands and open space. Left unprotected, our remaining green infrastructure is vulnerable and will be further reduced or fragmented.

The Delmarva Peninsula is blessed with an abundance of important natural resources and productive working lands that support agriculture, forestry and the seafood industry. We believe that this is the right time to make this commitment to conservation that reaches across state lines and is important to a much larger region.

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

Mr. President, I send a resolution to the desk and ask it be appropriately referred.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, this resolution is cosponsored by my distinguished colleague, the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, Senator Lugar, as well as Senators Kerry, Brownback, Dodd, and Hagel. It recognizes the 50th anniversary of the United States- Republic of Korea Mutual Defense Treaty and is thanking the Republic of Korea for its contributions to the global war on terrorism.

The United States has no better friend in Asia than the Republic of Korea. South Koreans have been there for us time and again, just as we have been for them.

Our alliance has paid dividends on and off the Korean Peninsula. Most recently, South Korea has aided the U.S. effort in Afghanistan and Iraq. South Korea has already sent 700 military engineers and medical personal to Iraq, and President Roh pledged on October 18 to dispatch additional troops to work alongside U.S. forces there. South Korea has also pledged $260 million in grants to help reconstruct Iraq.

The resolution I offer today observes the 50th anniversary of our alliance, thanks South Korea for its contributions to the global war on terrorism, and reaffirms the deep cooperation and friendship that exists between our two countries.

That cooperation and friendship are sorely needed now, given the challenges posed by North Korea. North Korea today is on the verge of becoming a nuclear bomb factory. The United States needs to redouble its diplomatic efforts to persuade North Korea to change its course.

President Bush, I note, has repeatedly called for a ``peaceful, diplomatic'' solution to this crisis, and has worked with our friends and allies in that region toward that goal. I believe President Bush's instincts are correct on this issue.

Last week President Bush told the leaders of Asia that the United States is prepared to provide security assurances to North Korea if North Korea takes tangible steps to dismantle its nuclear program. I find that very encouraging. But in my view we need to do more. That is essentially where we left off at the end of the last administration, when we were working within the Agreed Framework.

What we need to do is have more contact with North Korea. There were only 40 minutes of one-on-one dialog with North Korea last August in Beijing. That, with the translation requirements in such an exchange, is barely enough time to clear one's throat.

Second, we should use the combination of carrots and sticks to convince North Korea to change its course. The sticks are in play, including the proliferation security initiative and a coordinated crackdown on the North's elicit activities, including narcotics trafficking and counterfeiting, among others.

We need to identify as well some incentives for the good behavior that would come if, in fact, there is a verifiable North Korean effort along the path toward nuclear disarmament. This is not giving in to blackmail. It is a positive reinforcement, and there is a huge difference between the two.

Third, we need to sustain and consider increasing humanitarian food and medical aid to North Korea. Nothing about this crisis will be improved by having more hungry or sick North Korean children. This year, the United States provided only 40,000 tons of food aid to the North a generous donation, to be sure, but a pittance against the world program appeal of more than 600,000 tons is needed, and far below the food aid levels the United States has provided in previous years.

I note there is some dispute about the access of this food aid to the people of North Korea, people we need to help. The fact is the World Food Program and the director have reported significant progress towards monitoring delivery of food and ensuring that the aid reaches those most in need. Further, the food aid we have provided we seem fairly well assured is in fact getting where it is intended.

Finally, we need to speak with one voice. The administration has yet to fully resolve the deep internal divisions over the direction of the President's policy. Some senior officials in the administration continue to argue against this policy of engagement. As a matter of fact, they seem to occasionally look forward to tweaking the North Koreans. I might add there is very little social redeeming value in the policies of Kim Jong Il in North Korea. I am not arguing he is a particularly reasonable man, but it seems to me there should be one voice and one policy coming out of the administration. Prospects for diplomatic solutions are in direct proportion to one voice.

To state the obvious, as I know the Presiding Officer knows, time is not our ally in this crisis. The United States needs to communicate both the risks of North Korea's current path and the benefits North Korea could enjoy if it chooses to verifiably abandon its

pursuit of nuclear weapons and its export of ballistic missiles. Since the United States first confronted North Korea with allegations about its illegal program to produce highly enriched uranium last October, the North has ended its safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency, withdrawn from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, taken its plutonium reprocessing plant out of mothballs, begun to reprocess at least some of its 8,000 spent-fuel rods, and has activated its Yongbyon nuclear reactor to produce still more spent fuel.

I am not suggesting we should not have pointed out their violation. I am not suggesting their response is remotely approaching anything rational. What I am suggesting is a sense of urgency and a requirement for us to be on the same page with our South Korean and Japanese friends as well as continuing to engage the Chinese and the Russians in attempting to come to a resolution here.

The North's pursuit of nuclear weapons poses a great threat to the interests not only of the United States but to the entire region. As the North's stockpile of fissile material grows, the likelihood the North will test a nuclear weapon and prove the viability of its design increases, as does the difficulty of securing the North's fissile material in any crisis. Moreover, we have no guarantee North Korea will not export fissile material. All we know for certain is if the North puts a nuke on the auction block, the bidders are not likely to be our friends.

Finally, the North's nuclear ambitions could prompt other countries in the region--notably Japan and South Korea--to rethink their own opposition to nuclear arms. I don't only think that is probable but I think that is likely. As we all know, once Japan made that decision, it would be a matter of months before Japan would be a nuclear armed power. We think that would be a very bad idea. That, in my view, is why the Chinese have become so engaged now in helping us put some pressure on these multilateral talks with South Korea to get them to change their behavior. I believe China understands that if North Korea continues down this path, there is almost a certainty Japan will. Japan becoming a nuclear power would change the dynamic and the equation for the Chinese, and the race will be on.

The President has the right goal--to complete verifiable and irreversible dismantlement of the North's nuclear weapons program. The only debate is how do we get there. I think the way we get there is the President should either endow Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly with more authority to drive North Korean policy or, alternatively, appoint a special envoy with access to the President to represent the United States in future negotiations. Second, we should strive for a noncoercive negotiating environment.

This means that North Korea should freeze its reactor, cease all reprocessing and uranium enrichment activities, and place under safeguards any fissile material that it has acquired since the Agreed Framework of 1994 was signed. For our part, the United States should reiterate that it has no hostile intent toward North Korea and pledge not to launch any military strikes or seek new sanctions so long as the freeze remains in place and talks to resolve the crisis continue.

Finally, we should pursue a phased, reciprocal, verifiable agreement to eliminate North Korea's nuclear weapons program, terminate its export of ballistic missiles, and more closely integrate the North into the community of nations.

Some say North Korea cannot be trusted. They are right. Modifying President Reagan's maxim, we should mistrust, and verify.

But the alternatives to negotiating are grim. Our current approach leads to one of two undesirable outcomes: Either the United States will essentially acquiesce to the North's serial production of nuclear weapons or we may find ourselves in a military confrontation with a desperate, nuclear-armed regime. Any preemptive military strike option would place millions of South Koreans and tens of thousands of Americans at risk.

How do we go to war with the North if the South does not support it, if that were the second option?

Negotiations with North Korea are not easy, but they offer us the best chance--I believe the only chance--to avoid a nuclear nightmare on the Korean peninsula.

I would like to submit a bipartisan staff report by the members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who traveled to North Korea immediately following the six-party talks in Beijing in August. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record following my marks.

Mr. President, let me conclude by saying today's paper carries the news that the quixotic and unreliable and often inscrutable actions of the North Koreans have brought the Supreme Leader of North Korea to the position where he is now saying he will engage in multilateral talks again and resume those talks, and that he is ready to consider what has been rejected before.

That is the sense of the article.

I have no inherent faith that we can rely upon the President of North Korea. But it seems to me we have everything to gain and nothing to lose by continuing to pursue these talks. We give nothing, and at a minimum what we do is put ourselves in the position where the most isolated remaining country in the world at least is exposed to the notions of other major nations in the world, including China, Russia, South Korea, Japan, and the United States as to what we consider to be appropriate behavior. Hopefully, that will have a salutary impact on the willingness to negotiate an end to these programs.

The alternative of not pursuing that is bleak. Therefore, I encourage the President of the United States to continue down this path and to continue down the path more quickly than we have thus far.

Exhibit 1

Six Party Talks and the North Korean Nuclear Issue

October 14, 2003.

Hon. Richard Lugar,

Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations.

Hon. Joseph R. Biden,

Ranking Member, Committee on Foreign Relations.

Dear Senators Lugar and Biden: In late August, Keith Luse

and Frank Jannuzi traveled to China and North Korea, and Mr.

Jannuzi traveled to South Korea, to examine the prospects for

a peaceful negotiated solution to the North Korean nuclear

issue and to follow-up on an earlier set of visits to North

Korea in an effort to gain greater transparency on food aid

issues. Throughout the course of the visit, the staff

delegation received commendable support from U.S. Diplomatic

personnel. The delegation enjoyed high level access to

Chinese, North Korean, and South Korean government officials,

and also met with numerous academics, think tank specialists,

and employees of non-governmental organizations concerned

with developments on the Korean Peninsula. Our key findings,

including some recommendations for next steps on the Korean

Peninsula, are reported below.

Sincerely,

Keith Luse,

Professional Staff Member, Majority Staff, East Asian and

Pacific Affairs, Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Frank Jannuzi,

Professional Staff Member, Minority Staff, East Asian and

Pacific Affairs, Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

summary

Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC) staff members

Keith Luse and Frank Jannuzi traveled to Northeast Asia

August 21-September 2 to examine the prospects for a peaceful

negotiated solution to the North Korean nuclear issue and to

follow-up on their earlier set of visits to North Korea

designed to push for greater North Korean transparency and

accountability on food aid and humanitarian relief. The

delegation expresses its appreciation to U.S. diplomatic

personnel at Embassies Beijing and Seoul who helped set up

productive meetings and coped with the vagaries of arranging

travel to and from the Democratic People's Republic of Korea

(DPRK).

Over the course of three days in Pyongyang, the delegation

held a variety of meetings with officials representing the

DPRK, the United Nations, and non-governmental organizations

(see list of interlocutors, attached). The delegation told

senior DPRK officials that the United States views North

Korea's nuclear ambitions as a grave threat to international

peace and stability and urged the DPRK to seek a peaceful,

negotiated solution to the crisis through multilateral

dialogue. The delegation visited select humanitarian relief

operations, making

the point that such efforts are tangible proof that the

United States has no hostile intent toward North Korea. SFRC

staff strongly advised DPRK officials that they should permit

greater transparency for food aid deliveries under the

auspices of the World Food Program and various non-

governmental organizations. The delegation pressed DPRK

officials to adhere to international standards of human

rights, including respect for religious freedom, and

emphasized that the United States' concern for the human

rights situation in North Korea reflects the deeply held

convictions of the American people.

key findings

Six party talks in Beijing helped improve coordination

among the five nations trying to reign in North Korea's

nuclear ambitions, but DPRK officials left the talks

unconvinced that the United States genuinely seeks a

peaceful, negotiated solution to the crisis. DPRK officials

told the staff delegation that they believe the true aim of

the United States is ``regime change,'' and that de-

nuclearization is just the first step toward that objective.

Under pressure from China, the DPRK probably will come to

another round of multilateral talks. However, China's

encouragement for DPRK's participation will be contingent on

the United States outlining specific steps it will take once

the DPRK pledges to dismantle/eliminate its nuclear program.

Talks could easily be derailed should North Korea decide to

launch a ballistic missile or even test a nuclear weapon.

Moreover, North Korea might scuttle the talks in response to

the appropriate and necessary U.S. efforts to enforce the

Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) and the

Illicit Activities Initiative, both of which the North

interprets as attempts to ``strangle'' the regime.

Some North Korean officials believe that the United States

continues to station nuclear weapons in South Korea.

Decision-making in the DPRK is centralized and ultimate

authority rests with Kim Jong-il.

Top officials in North Korea are carefully monitoring

polling data reflecting opinion on domestic politics in the

United States, Japan and South Korea.

The World Food Program has taken some small, but

significant steps in recent months to enhance its operations

in the DPRK and reduce the likelihood of diversion of food

aid. The significant reduction in U.S. food aid to North

Korea (from a high of more than 300,000 tons/year to this

year's 40,000 tons) may have undercut United States leverage

in pressing for greater transparency on food aid. North

Korean officials are convinced the United States is using

food as a weapon.

Humanitarian operations run by non-governmental

organizations--such as the Nautilus Institute's Village Wind

Power Pilot Project and the Eugene Bell Foundation's

tuberculosis treatment programs--are making important

contributions to the welfare of the North Korean people and

help allay DPRK suspicions about the intentions of the United

States, thereby contributing to an overall political

environment conducive to resolution of sensitive security

issues.

After extensive discussion with the delegation, Vice

Minister Kim Gye Gwan advised the DPRK would allow NGO access

to some prison camps on a ``case by case'' basis.

There were two key differences to our earlier trips. While

we were not allowed to make purchases, street vendors were

present throughout Pyongyang and in Nampo, selling food and

other small items. Additionally, the DPRK military appeared

to be at a higher state of alert. More soldiers were armed

than during our previous visits.

discussion

North Korea isolated . . .

Over the course of three days in North Korea, the staff

delegation found DPRK officials to be disappointed by the six

party Beijing talks, which they described as ``five against

one.'' In both formal meetings and informal settings, DPRK

officials described the Beijing talks as ``pointless'' and

cast doubt upon whether the North would be willing to engage

in future rounds of multiparty dialogue. DPRK officials were

critical of the fact that they had only 40 minutes of

``direct'' dialogue with U.S. Assistant Secretary of State

James Kelly over the course of three days of talks in

Beijing, and said they had been misled into believing the

multilateral talks would provide a venue for substantive

one-one-one discussions with the U.S. envoy.

In one particularly blunt exchange, DPRK Vice Foreign

Minister Kim Gye Gwan told the staff delegation that the

Beijing talks had ``confirmed'' the North's assessment that

the United States has no intention of changing its ``hostile

policy.'' Kim said the DPRK, ``had no choice but to maintain

and reinforce its nuclear deterrent.''

The SFRC delegation conveyed their personal views that a

North Korean decision to enhance its nuclear weapons

capabilities would be viewed by the United States as a grave

threat to international peace and security and would be

interpreted by Americans as a hostile act. The delegation

urged the DPRK to proceed with multiparty dialogue and to

refrain from any provocative actions.

DPRK officials were non-committal with respect to any

future dialogue, but after the staff delegation's departure,

the DPRK Foreign Ministry issued a statement claiming that

the North remains ``equally prepared for dialogue and for a

war.'' This statement represented a slight softening of the

stance articulated immediately after the Beijing talks, and

certainly leaves the door open to another round of multi-

party talks in Beijing or some other venue.

With strong encouragement from China (a senior delegation

from China visited the DPRK in late September), the DPRK may

agree to another round of six-party talks, if only to avoid

being held directly responsible for a breakdown of the

diplomatic process. It remains unclear what stance the DPRK

will take at any future talks, and at what level they will be

represented. Decision-making in the DPRK is highly

centralized, with Kim Jong-il wielding the ultimate

authority. Junior level DPRK officials such as Kim Yong-il,

who represented the DPRK in Beijing in August, often are

unable to engage in substantive dialogue, a fact which argues

for the United States to try to elevate the talks to engage

officials with real authority and the ear of Kin Jong-il.

. . . and wary of U.S. intentions

The difficult of communicating with the North Koreans was

evident throughout the staff delegation's visit to Pyongyang,

highlighting the risk that conflict could arise from

miscalculation or mis-communication. North Korean officials

with whom we met had an imperfect understanding of United

States security policy, especially the recently issued

National Security Strategy and Nuclear Force Posture Review.

They repeatedly expressed their belief that both documents

called for pre-emptive nuclear strikes against North Korea,

and said the North's own nuclear program was necessary to

counter this United States ``nuclear threat.''

Sometimes, confusion arose out of the imprecision of

different English terms. DPRK officials asked the staff

delegation to clarify the different meanings

``simultaneous,'' ``synchronous,'' ``phased,'' and

``reciprocal.'' Attention to such detail suggests the DPRK is

actively studying how the nuclear issue might be resolved

given what they characterized as the ``zero trust'' which

exists between the two parties.

DPRK officials took note of recent U.S. efforts to curtail

North Korean involvement in narcotics trafficking,

counterfeiting, and other illicit activities. DPRK officials

flatly denied North Korean involvement in such illicit

activities, and alleged that the United States had trumped up

the charges as part of a more general campaign to ``stifle''

the DPRK.

Food aid: slow progress on transparency and accountability

The staff delegation met with the Flood Damage

Rehabilitation Committee (FDRC) director Jong Yun-hyong, who

oversees agricultural reconstruction as well as foreign food

aid programs. The delegation explained to Yum that it as

essential for the DPRK to enhance transparency for food aid,

to open up counties currently off-limits, and to provide

random access to WFP monitors seeking to verify food aid

deliveries. The delegation told Yum that the level of

monitoring requested by WFP was consistent with international

norms, and that the DPRK could not expect donors and

potential donors to contribute food aid if they did not have

high confidence that the aid was reaching its intended

recipients.

Yun said that security issues are paramount for the DPRK,

and that the military would not permit international access

to certain sensitive regions of the country. He also said

that monitoring had greatly improved since food aid began to

flow during the North Korean famine of the mid-1990's. Yun

specifically cited the recent U.N. nutritional survey, and

reported that ``security officials'' had initially objected

to the survey, but that FDRC officials had prevailed in an

inter-agency battle in order to permit the survey to be

conducted. Yun argued that recent significant reductions in

WFP food aid--just 300,000 metric tons in 2002, down from

811,000 tons in 2001--had made it more difficult for him to

push for greater numbers of monitors and greater access for

international observers. Nonetheless, Yun promised progress

on monitoring in the future, and invited the international

community to shift its humanitarian aid strategy away from

food donations and toward ``sustainable development,''

including agricultural reforms, new seek varieties and

planting techniques, and ``food for work.''

The delegation met with World Food Program country director

Rick Corsino, who reported slow, but significant progress

toward enhanced monitoring of food aid and ensuring that aid

reaches those most in need. These are the highlights:

First, WFP has terminated food aid to 17 of 21 districts of

the capital city of Pyonghang after concluding that residents

of the capital are on average better fed than those of

outlying areas. This is an important step, both symbolically,

and substantively.

Second, with the full knowledge and support of DPRK

authorities, WFP is conducting Korean language training for

food aid personnel stationed inside the DPRK. The DPRK

continues to object to WFP bringing in Korean-speaking

experts from overseas, but the growing language facility of

WFP's foreign staff allows for smoother interaction with DPRK

officials and higher quality monitoring in the field.

Third, WFP has increased the number of monthly inspection

visits and now has approximately 50 international staff in

residence in Pyongyang and at five sub-offices located in

Sinuiju, Wonson, Hamhung, Chongjin, and Hyesan. WFP is the

only

international agency working in the country with

international staff permanently placed outside the capital.

Fourth, WFP has sustained its access to 162 of 206 total

counties in North Korea. WFP does not deliver food aid to

those counties that remain off limits, most of which are

concentrated along the sparsely populated mountainous

``spine'' of the country and along the DMZ (see attached

map).

Finally, through its inspection visits, WFP is gradually

building a detailed database of schools, hospitals,

orphanages, and other institutions receiving WFP assistance.

Although the DPRK still has not provided a comprehensive list

of aid recipients--a list long requested by WFP officials--

the WFP is essentially building its own list with each

inspection visit.

NGO's making contribution to welfare of average North Koreans

Although WFP is the largest humanitarian organization

working in North Korea, they are not the only international

organization operating in North Korea. The staff delegation

made a point of visiting two humanitarian operations

supported by U.S. non-governmental organizations; the Village

Wind Power Pilot Project run by the Nautilus Institute (with

significant financial support provided by the W. Alton Jones

Foundation) and a tuberculosis treatment hospital and mobile

van sponsored by the Eugene Bell Foundation. These

initiatives have fostered good will on a ``people-to-people''

basis, and have measurably improved the quality of life for

the North Korean beneficiaries.

Wind power

The US-DPRK Village Wind Power Pilot Project was the first

attempt by a United States NGO to work side-by-side with

North Koreans in cooperative development. Previously, non-

governmental organizations had been limited by both

Washington and Pyongyang to delivering food aid to North

Korea. The project installed seven technologically advanced

wind turbine towers in a rural village on the west coast of

North Korea near the port of Nampo. This region is known as a

bread basket for North Korea, rich in arable land and other

natural resources, including steady breezes off of the Korea

Bay. The turbines provide clean, renewable energy to the

village's medical clinic, kindergarten, and 67 households.

In addition, a wind-powered water pump irrigates the

village's fields, and has significantly boosted yields,

according to villagers. The combined generating capacity

of the turbines is 11.5kW.

Since the wind power project was completed in 1999, it has

had its share of ups and downs. At present, the delegation

found that the facility was not operating at full capacity

due to maintenance problems with two inverters and damaged

batteries. North Korea lacks adequately trained technicians

to service the equipment, and the nuclear stand-off has

disrupted visits by foreign experts needed to assess the

maintenance requirements and make needed repairs.

Despite these difficulties, the DPRK participants in the

project remain enthusiastic about it as a model for rural

electrification, and hope to press ahead with a major

windpower survey project along the west coast in coming

months. DPRK authorities told the visiting Senate staff

delegation that deciding to proceed with the wind power

survey requires approval from military officials worried

about the collection of militarily sensitive meteorological

information. Notwithstanding the sensitive nature of the data

to be collected, DPRK officials believe the project will move

ahead. Wind power projects could alleviate severe shortages

of power in rural areas, and have the advantage of not

requiring major upgrades in North Korea's electric power

grid--a grid that experts have found to be in need of major

overhaul before it could accommodate the introduction of

large new power plants such as the light water nuclear

reactors contemplated under the Agreed Framework.

Tuberculosis treatment

Since 1995, the Eugene Bell Foundation has been working

inside North Korea to fight deadly diseases like tuberculosis

(TP). Eugene Bell foundation currently coordinates the

delivery of TB medication, diagnostic equipment, and supplies

to 1/3 of the North Korean population and approximately 50

North Korean treatment facilities (hospitals and care

centers). The staff delegation visited one such hospital in

Pyongyang, and also inspected one of the 17 mobile x-ray

vehicles designed to navigate the North's antiquated road

network.

The delegation found the Eugene Bell project to be

characterized by high standards of transparency and

efficiency. The foundation conducts regular site visits (more

than 60 since 1995) and is able to donate goods directly to

recipients rather than through third parties or government

intermediaries. Staff at the hospital we visited appeared

well trained and highly motivated. They were deeply

appreciative of the support they receive from the United

States and recognized that this humanitarian outreach occurs

even at a time when the two nations do not maintain normal

diplomatic relations. The Eugene Bell foundation supports 16

TB hospitals and 64 TB care centers in the DPRK. More than

200,000 patients have been treated. Moreover, serving as a

conduit, the Eugene Bell foundation is currently responsible

for sending tuberculosis medicine, medical aid, and equipment

for approximately 1/3 of the North Korean population.

Joint recovery operations

The staff delegation met with Sr. Col. Kwak Chol-hui of the

Korean People's Army, the director of the Joint Recovery

Operation searching for the remains of U.S. servicemen left

behind after the Korean War. The United States estimates that

as many as 8,000 remains of U.S. servicemen are on DPRK soil.

So far, only 378 of these remains have been recovered. More

than 200 remains were found as the result of unilateral DPRK

searches and returned to the United States. Just over 170

sets of remains have been recovered through the joint

recovery operation.

The recovery operations are laborious. Historical records

can indicate likely search areas, but only eye witnesses can

pinpoint the possible locations for remains. As the

population ages and the terrain of North Korea is shaped by

construction, erosion, flooding, and other forces, it is

becoming increasingly difficult to locate remains. Even after

likely sites are identified, time-consuming excavations and

careful forensic work are necessary to find and identify

remains. U.S. and North Korean military personnel work side

by side in the field during the recovery operations.

According to U.S. participants in the operation, this

interaction in the field has been constructive, deepening our

understanding of the Korean People's Army.

Colonel Kwak told the delegation that the DPRK would like

to expand the joint recovery operation, employing as many as

2,700 investigators to scour the country to conduct

interviews with those elderly North Korean who might have

knowledge of the location of U.S. remains. He indicated that

the DPRK's commitment to the recovery operations is

independent of the nuclear issue, and, in his opinion, should

remain so. It is unclear, however, what role the DPRK

envisions for U.S. forces in such an expanded operation. The

staff delegation believes that any expansion should be made

contingent on greater U.S. access to those North Korean

citizens claiming to have first-hand knowledge of the

whereabouts of remains.

staff conclusions

So as to reduce what we believe is a significant risk of

conflict arising out of miscalculation or mis-communication,

the United States should greatly expand dialogue with North

Korea, both within the framework of multi-party talks, as

well as through informal or ``Track II'' bilateral

negotiations.

The United States should appoint a senior official to

represent the United States solely on issues related to the

Korean Peninsula. Alternatively, the Administration should

endow the current negotiator, Assistant Secretary of State

James Kelly, with greater authority to direct and coordinate

the President's North Korea policy and gain access to more

senior North Korean officials.

The United States should acknowledge recent improvements in

WFP operations and continue food aid to the DPRK under UN

auspices. The United States should also consider funneling a

portion of future U.S. food aid through non-governmental

organizations, some of which have been able to achieve

strong monitoring capability for their humanitarian

relief.

The U.S. should search for ways to expand outreach efforts

by NGOs in the fields of rural energy development,

agriculture, and public health.

The Joint Recovery Operation to identify the remains of

U.S. servicemen from the Korean War affords the United States

valuable contact inside North Korea. Any expansion of the

operation, however, should be made contingent upon greater

U.S. access to those North Korean citizens claiming to have

first-hand knowledge of the whereabouts of remains.

list of interlocutors

In Beijing, China

Michael Green, Director Asian Affairs, National Security

Council

David Straub, Korea Desk, U.S. Department of State

Wang Yi, Vice Foreign Minister, Chinese Ministry of Foreign

Affairs

Fu Ying, Director General, Asian Department, Chinese Ministry

of Foreign Affairs

He Yafei, Director General, North American Department,

Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Liu Jinsong, First Secretary, Asian Department, Chinese

Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Piao Jianyi, Executive Director, Center for Korean Peninsula

Issues, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences

Gu Guoliang, Director, Center for Arms Control and

Nonproliferation Studies, Deputy Director, Institute of

American Studies, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences

Wang Jisi, Director, Institute of International Strategic

Studies, Central Party School

Wu Baiyi, Deputy Director, Research Division, China Institute

of Contemporary International Relations

Yang Mingjie, Director, Division of Arms Control and Security

Studies, China Institute of Contemporary International

Relations

Wei Zonglei, Deputy Director, Center of U.S.-European

Studies, China Institute of Contemporary International

Relations

Shi Yinhong, Director, Center for American Studies, People's

University

Ruan Zongze, Vice President, China Institute of International

Studies

Liu Xuecheng, Director of American Studies, China Institute

of International Studies

Shen Dingli, Deputy Director, Center for American Studies,

Fudan University

Zhu Feng, Director of International Security Program, Beijing

University

In North Korea

Kim Gye Gwan, Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs

Jong Dong-hok, First Secretary, United States Department,

Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Lee Yong Chol and Kim Yong Nam, United States Department,

Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Jong Yun-hyong, Director Flood Damage, Reconstruction

Committee

Sr. Col. Kwak Chol-hui, Director, Joint Recovery Operation,

Korean People's Army

Lt. Col. Li Jong Sop, Deputy Director, Joint Recovery

Operation, Korean People's Army

Lt. Col. Byon Sol-hok, Joint Recovery Operation

Kim Song, Secretary General, Korean National Peace Committee

Richard Corsino, Country Director, World Food Program

In South Korea

Wi Sung-lac, Director General, North American Affairs,

Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Park Joeong-nam, Deputy Director, North American Affairs,

Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Yang Chang-suk, Director of International Cooperation,

Ministry of Unification

Park Ro-Byug, Chief, Policy Coordination Bureau, National

Security Council, Blue House

Kim Taewoo, Nuclear Policy Specialist, Korean Institute for

Defense Analyses

Pak Yeong-tae, Korea Institute for Defense Analyses

Mr. President, yesterday in my opening statement at a hearing of the Committee on Foreign Relations on anti-Semitism in Europe, I criticized the European Union for not having included in its Brussels summit's so-called ``Presidency Conclusions'' a denunciation of the Malaysian Prime Minister's vile anti-Semitic remarks.

I also recognized that French President Chirac wrote a personal letter to the Malaysian Prime Minister, but I said that I doubted that many Muslims would have access to his criticisms.

This morning, however, I was informed by my friend the French Ambassador that President Chirac's letter had, in fact, been made public.

I am happy to learn this, and I applaud President Chirac for his personal condemnation of the Malaysian Prime Minister's disgusting speech.

This does not, however, change my opinion that the European Union should have included a condemnation in the catalog of external issues delineated in its ``Presidency Conclusions.''

Most importantly, as yesterday's hearing pointed out, it is imperative that both the European Union and the United States resolutely and publicly oppose the cancer of anti-Semitism wherever in the world it raises its ugly head.

Mr. President, I rise tonight to introduce, along with my good friend from Utah, Senator Hatch, the distinguished Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the ``Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2003.'' Over the last several weeks, we have read front-page articles on the dangerous mix of sports and steroids, including a new ``designer'' steroid tetrahydrogestrinone, known as ``THG.'' Several premier athletes have allegedly tested positive for THG, and there is a Federal grand jury investigation into the alleged manufacture and distribution of this new substance. Our bill would make THG, and several other similar substances, subject to the Controlled Substances Act. Thus, these products would no longer be available over the counter. Absent a prescription from your doctor, you will not be able to buy them legally.

First, a bit of background on how we got here. Thirteen years ago I held a number of hearings on the dangers associated with steroid use and introduced legislation to make steroids Schedule III substances. After my bill became law, a number of steroid users continued to buy and use steroids only now they were buying them through a developing illicit market. Others relied on new products being developed or rediscovered by scientists, products which may not violate the letter of the law, but certainly violate the spirit of the law.

These substances, called steroid precursors or pro-steroids, are one step removed from the substances scheduled in the law: when ingested, they metabolize into testosterone or other illicit steroids. These are products which the United States Anti-Doping Agency, the group in charge of testing Olympic athletes for performance enhancing drugs, has called ``the functional equivalent of steroids.''

In writing about the lack of testing for steroid precursor use in professional baseball, Barry Rozner of the Chicago Daily Herald described the close relationship between steroids and steroid precursors. He wrote:

There's still no testing for andro (androstenedione)

because technically it's not a steroid. It's a steroid

precursor. Technically a cake mix isn't a cake but as soon as

you pour it in a bowl and stick it in the oven, it's a cake.

You put andro in the body, mix it with the body's chemicals

and let it bake, and it turns into a powerful steroid. If it

walks like a duck and talks like a duck, baseball calls it a

sparrow.

The most well known of the steroid precursors is androstenedione often called ``andro.'' Most recently Hiram Cruz, a 2001 national judo champion, was suspended from competition for two years after testing positive for andro. And it is widely thought that some East German Olympic athletes used it in the 1970s and 1980s to improve their performance. But perhaps the substance gained the most notoriety when professional baseball player Mark McGuire admitted that he used it when he broke Roger Maris's single season record for home runs. After McGuire revealed that he had taken andro, sales of the product quadrupled.

Andro increases both testosterone and estrogen levels in the body. According to a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association ``orally administered adrostenedione increases serum testosterone and estrogen levels in healthy men, particularly at higher doses.'' The study further notes that ``long-term administration could be hazardous, particularly in women or children.'' Another study showed that even a single 100 milligram dose of andro can yield unhealthy levels of testosterone in women and can increase estrogen levels by 80 percent. Andro has also been associated with a decrease in HDL the ``good'' cholesterol and elevated levels of estradiol which may increase women's risk of breast cancer.

As I will discuss in greater detail later, in addition to the grave health effects associated with using andro and other steroid precursors, the physical effects can also be quite serious: women can develop masculine sex characteristics including changing of the sexual organs; men can develop feminine sex characteristics including breast development; and adolescent users can stunt their growth.

The International Olympic Committee, the National Football League and the National Collegiate Athletics Association have banned andro and other steroid supplements. Other sports, particularly baseball, have been criticized for refusing to agree to test players for steroid precursors. I should note that Major League Baseball has endorsed the legislation I am introducing today. And at a hearing in the Senate Commerce Committee last year, Donald Fehr, the Executive Director of the Major League Baseball Players Association, said that ``it may well be time for the Federal Government to revisit whether steroid precursors should also be covered by Schedule III.'' I agree with him. Interestingly enough, so do the 79 percent of major league baseball players and nearly 86 percent of baseball fans who, according to surveys conducted by USA Today last year, support testing for steroids and performance-enhancing drugs.

The USA Today survey also revealed that 80 percent of fans believe that steroid use is behind some of the major league records that have been broken recently. It is understandable, therefore, that some players may support testing to preserve the integrity of their records. As Yankees' shortstop Derek Jeter has been quoted as saying:

I don't have a problem with getting tested because I have

nothing to hide. Steroids are a big issue. If anything like a

home run or any injury happens, people say it's steroids.

That's not fair.

In my view, it is time for Congress to act so that we can put an end to the charade that androstenedione and similar products are any different from the anabolic steroids that are controlled under current law.

To be honest I would be less concerned about what professional athletes are doing to their bodies if their actions did not have such a profound effect on kids. A study by the Kaiser Family Foundation revealed that nearly three-quarters of kids say that they look up to and want to emulate professional athletes. Sadly, more than half of those kids believe that their sports heroes use steroids and other performance enhancing drugs to win. That may be why adolescent anabolic steroid use is at its highest level in the past decade, with 1 million teens having used them.

As Dr. Bernard Greisemer, a pediatrician and sports medicine specialist, testified before the Senate last year, many of these products are marketed to kids who want to be like their favorite sports hero. Dr. Greisemer said:

[P]rofessional athletes are major role models for our young

athletes; in the clothes they wear, the cars they drive, the

food they eat, and the drugs and dietary supplements they

take. The millions of dollars that are spent by major

corporations in linking their products to a particular

athlete, team, or sporting event, counter any argument that

professional athletes are not affecting the lifestyles of our

young athletes. Use of and media exposure of the use of,

anabolic steroids in professional athletes also directly

affects the interest in, the perception of benefits of, and

the use of these substances.

There are plenty of children and adults who believe that supplements will make them faster and stronger. That they'll have bigger muscles and be more like their favorite athlete. That they'll have a competitive advantage or have what it takes to win. In reality, they are jeopardizing their health. The ignorance of the consequences of using these substances is astounding. A study by Blue Cross/Blue Shield found that 70 percent of kids and half of parents surveyed were unable to identify even one negative side effect associated with performance- enhancing drugs. And 80 percent of kids reported that their parents have never talked to them about the dangers of steroid use. Clearly there is quite a bit of education to be done about these very dangerous substances.

Let me go through just a few of the side effects of steroid use. In both males and females it can lead to increased blood pressure, increased risk of heart attack and stroke, liver and cardiac dysfunction, increased libido, aggressiveness and appetite, and acne. For males, steroid use can lead to breast development, premature balding, testicular atrophy, decreased sperm count and prostate enlargement. Females can develop masculine sex characteristics including increased body hair, facial hair, deepening of the voice, male pattern baldness and changes to the sex organs. And among adolescent users, steroid precursor use can lead to stunted growth due to hardening of cartilage. Many of these side-effects are irreversible.

Quite troubling to me is that some people are taking these substances unwittingly. It is not unusual for manufacturers of creatine or other performance enhancing substances to put andro or another precursor into their product to give them a competitive edge over a competitor's products.

Clearly these substances are dangerous and they should not be widely available over the counter. That is why I am joining with Senator Hatch and Senator Grassley today to introduce the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2003.

My bill does four things. First, it amends the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 1990 by adding THG, androstenedione and their chemical cousins to the list of anabolic steroids controlled under the Controlled Substances Act and makes it easier for the DEA to add similar substances to that list in the future. This would prohibit people from obtaining these substances over the counter without a prescription in either their pure form or as an additive to another product.

Second, it directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to review the Federal sentencing guidelines for crimes involving anabolic steroids and consider increasing them. Currently, the maximum sentence for offenses involving anabolic steroids is only 33-41 months for first time offenders. And to receive the maximum sentence an offender would have to have between 40,000 and 60,000 units, which is defined as a 10 cc vial or 50 tablets. That means that someone trafficking 300,000 doses faces a maximum of three and a half year behind bars. That does not seem to be enough of a deterrent and I hope the Sentencing Commission will consider raising the guidelines for steroid trafficking.

Third, the bill authorizes $15 million for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to award grants to public and non-profit entities to carry out science-based education programs in elementary and secondary schools to highlight the harmful effects of anabolic steroids. Preference will be given to programs based on the Athletes Training and Learning to Avoid Steroids program (ATLAS), the Athletes Targeting Healthy Exercise and Nutrition Alternatives (ATHENA) program, and other programs which the National Institute on Drug Abuse has determined to be effective. ATLAS, which is aimed at male student athletes, has been named as one of the Department of Education's Exemplary Programs and is one of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's Model Programs. ATHENA is ATLAS's companion program designed for female athletes.

Finally, the bill directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to include questions about steroid use in the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, an annual survey to measure the extent of alcohol, drug and tobacco use in the United States. The bill authorizes $1 million for this purpose.

I'm proud to say that the bill has been endorsed by a wide range of medical, athletic and drug policy organizations including: American Academy of Family Physicians; American Academy of Pediatrics; American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; American College for Sports Medicine; American Council on Exercise; American Medical Association; Association of Tennis Professionals; Blue Cross Blue Shield Association; Boys and Girls Clubs; Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America; Consumer Healthcare Products Association; Council for Responsible Nutrition; The Endocrine Society; The Hormone Foundation; Little League; Major League Baseball; National Athletic Trainers Association; The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University; National Collegiate Athletic Association; National Federation of State High Schools Association;

National Football League; National High School Athletic Coaches Association; National Junior College Athletic Association; National Nutritional Foods Association; Pharmacists Planning Services, Inc.; United States Anti-Doping Agency; U.S. Olympic Committee; U.S. Biathlon Association; U.S. Soccer Federation; USA Cycling; USA Luge; USA Swimming; USA Track and Field and Utah Natural Products Alliance.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and I hope that it will be enacted into law soon.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise tonight to introduce, along with my good friend from Utah, Senator Hatch, the distinguished Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the ``Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2003.'' Over the last several weeks, we have read front-page articles on the dangerous mix of sports and steroids, including a new ``designer'' steroid tetrahydrogestrinone, known as ``THG.'' Several premier athletes have allegedly tested positive for THG, and there is a Federal grand jury investigation into the alleged manufacture and distribution of this new substance. Our bill would make THG, and several other similar substances, subject to the Controlled Substances Act. Thus, these products would no longer be available over the counter. Absent a prescription from your doctor, you will not be able to buy them legally.

First, a bit of background on how we got here. Thirteen years ago I held a number of hearings on the dangers associated with steroid use and introduced legislation to make steroids Schedule III substances. After my bill became law, a number of steroid users continued to buy and use steroids only now they were buying them through a developing illicit market. Others relied on new products being developed or rediscovered by scientists, products which may not violate the letter of the law, but certainly violate the spirit of the law.

These substances, called steroid precursors or pro-steroids, are one step removed from the substances scheduled in the law: when ingested, they metabolize into testosterone or other illicit steroids. These are products which the United States Anti-Doping Agency, the group in charge of testing Olympic athletes for performance enhancing drugs, has called ``the functional equivalent of steroids.''

In writing about the lack of testing for steroid precursor use in professional baseball, Barry Rozner of the Chicago Daily Herald described the close relationship between steroids and steroid precursors. He wrote:

There's still no testing for andro (androstenedione)

because technically it's not a steroid. It's a steroid

precursor. Technically a cake mix isn't a cake but as soon as

you pour it in a bowl and stick it in the oven, it's a cake.

You put andro in the body, mix it with the body's chemicals

and let it bake, and it turns into a powerful steroid. If it

walks like a duck and talks like a duck, baseball calls it a

sparrow.

The most well known of the steroid precursors is androstenedione often called ``andro.'' Most recently Hiram Cruz, a 2001 national judo champion, was suspended from competition for two years after testing positive for andro. And it is widely thought that some East German Olympic athletes used it in the 1970s and 1980s to improve their performance. But perhaps the substance gained the most notoriety when professional baseball player Mark McGuire admitted that he used it when he broke Roger Maris's single season record for home runs. After McGuire revealed that he had taken andro, sales of the product quadrupled.

Andro increases both testosterone and estrogen levels in the body. According to a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association ``orally administered adrostenedione increases serum testosterone and estrogen levels in healthy men, particularly at higher doses.'' The study further notes that ``long-term administration could be hazardous, particularly in women or children.'' Another study showed that even a single 100 milligram dose of andro can yield unhealthy levels of testosterone in women and can increase estrogen levels by 80 percent. Andro has also been associated with a decrease in HDL the ``good'' cholesterol and elevated levels of estradiol which may increase women's risk of breast cancer.

As I will discuss in greater detail later, in addition to the grave health effects associated with using andro and other steroid precursors, the physical effects can also be quite serious: women can develop masculine sex characteristics including changing of the sexual organs; men can develop feminine sex characteristics including breast development; and adolescent users can stunt their growth.

The International Olympic Committee, the National Football League and the National Collegiate Athletics Association have banned andro and other steroid supplements. Other sports, particularly baseball, have been criticized for refusing to agree to test players for steroid precursors. I should note that Major League Baseball has endorsed the legislation I am introducing today. And at a hearing in the Senate Commerce Committee last year, Donald Fehr, the Executive Director of the Major League Baseball Players Association, said that ``it may well be time for the Federal Government to revisit whether steroid precursors should also be covered by Schedule III.'' I agree with him. Interestingly enough, so do the 79 percent of major league baseball players and nearly 86 percent of baseball fans who, according to surveys conducted by USA Today last year, support testing for steroids and performance-enhancing drugs.

The USA Today survey also revealed that 80 percent of fans believe that steroid use is behind some of the major league records that have been broken recently. It is understandable, therefore, that some players may support testing to preserve the integrity of their records. As Yankees' shortstop Derek Jeter has been quoted as saying:

I don't have a problem with getting tested because I have

nothing to hide. Steroids are a big issue. If anything like a

home run or any injury happens, people say it's steroids.

That's not fair.

In my view, it is time for Congress to act so that we can put an end to the charade that androstenedione and similar products are any different from the anabolic steroids that are controlled under current law.

To be honest I would be less concerned about what professional athletes are doing to their bodies if their actions did not have such a profound effect on kids. A study by the Kaiser Family Foundation revealed that nearly three-quarters of kids say that they look up to and want to emulate professional athletes. Sadly, more than half of those kids believe that their sports heroes use steroids and other performance enhancing drugs to win. That may be why adolescent anabolic steroid use is at its highest level in the past decade, with 1 million teens having used them.

As Dr. Bernard Greisemer, a pediatrician and sports medicine specialist, testified before the Senate last year, many of these products are marketed to kids who want to be like their favorite sports hero. Dr. Greisemer said:

[P]rofessional athletes are major role models for our young

athletes; in the clothes they wear, the cars they drive, the

food they eat, and the drugs and dietary supplements they

take. The millions of dollars that are spent by major

corporations in linking their products to a particular

athlete, team, or sporting event, counter any argument that

professional athletes are not affecting the lifestyles of our

young athletes. Use of and media exposure of the use of,

anabolic steroids in professional athletes also directly

affects the interest in, the perception of benefits of, and

the use of these substances.

There are plenty of children and adults who believe that supplements will make them faster and stronger. That they'll have bigger muscles and be more like their favorite athlete. That they'll have a competitive advantage or have what it takes to win. In reality, they are jeopardizing their health. The ignorance of the consequences of using these substances is astounding. A study by Blue Cross/Blue Shield found that 70 percent of kids and half of parents surveyed were unable to identify even one negative side effect associated with performance- enhancing drugs. And 80 percent of kids reported that their parents have never talked to them about the dangers of steroid use. Clearly there is quite a bit of education to be done about these very dangerous substances.

Let me go through just a few of the side effects of steroid use. In both males and females it can lead to increased blood pressure, increased risk of heart attack and stroke, liver and cardiac dysfunction, increased libido, aggressiveness and appetite, and acne. For males, steroid use can lead to breast development, premature balding, testicular atrophy, decreased sperm count and prostate enlargement. Females can develop masculine sex characteristics including increased body hair, facial hair, deepening of the voice, male pattern baldness and changes to the sex organs. And among adolescent users, steroid precursor use can lead to stunted growth due to hardening of cartilage. Many of these side-effects are irreversible.

Quite troubling to me is that some people are taking these substances unwittingly. It is not unusual for manufacturers of creatine or other performance enhancing substances to put andro or another precursor into their product to give them a competitive edge over a competitor's products.

Clearly these substances are dangerous and they should not be widely available over the counter. That is why I am joining with Senator Hatch and Senator Grassley today to introduce the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2003.

My bill does four things. First, it amends the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 1990 by adding THG, androstenedione and their chemical cousins to the list of anabolic steroids controlled under the Controlled Substances Act and makes it easier for the DEA to add similar substances to that list in the future. This would prohibit people from obtaining these substances over the counter without a prescription in either their pure form or as an additive to another product.

Second, it directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to review the Federal sentencing guidelines for crimes involving anabolic steroids and consider increasing them. Currently, the maximum sentence for offenses involving anabolic steroids is only 33-41 months for first time offenders. And to receive the maximum sentence an offender would have to have between 40,000 and 60,000 units, which is defined as a 10 cc vial or 50 tablets. That means that someone trafficking 300,000 doses faces a maximum of three and a half year behind bars. That does not seem to be enough of a deterrent and I hope the Sentencing Commission will consider raising the guidelines for steroid trafficking.

Third, the bill authorizes $15 million for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to award grants to public and non-profit entities to carry out science-based education programs in elementary and secondary schools to highlight the harmful effects of anabolic steroids. Preference will be given to programs based on the Athletes Training and Learning to Avoid Steroids program (ATLAS), the Athletes Targeting Healthy Exercise and Nutrition Alternatives (ATHENA) program, and other programs which the National Institute on Drug Abuse has determined to be effective. ATLAS, which is aimed at male student athletes, has been named as one of the Department of Education's Exemplary Programs and is one of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's Model Programs. ATHENA is ATLAS's companion program designed for female athletes.

Finally, the bill directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to include questions about steroid use in the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, an annual survey to measure the extent of alcohol, drug and tobacco use in the United States. The bill authorizes $1 million for this purpose.

I'm proud to say that the bill has been endorsed by a wide range of medical, athletic and drug policy organizations including: American Academy of Family Physicians; American Academy of Pediatrics; American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; American College for Sports Medicine; American Council on Exercise; American Medical Association; Association of Tennis Professionals; Blue Cross Blue Shield Association; Boys and Girls Clubs; Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America; Consumer Healthcare Products Association; Council for Responsible Nutrition; The Endocrine Society; The Hormone Foundation; Little League; Major League Baseball; National Athletic Trainers Association; The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University; National Collegiate Athletic Association; National Federation of State High Schools Association;

National Football League; National High School Athletic Coaches Association; National Junior College Athletic Association; National Nutritional Foods Association; Pharmacists Planning Services, Inc.; United States Anti-Doping Agency; U.S. Olympic Committee; U.S. Biathlon Association; U.S. Soccer Federation; USA Cycling; USA Luge; USA Swimming; USA Track and Field and Utah Natural Products Alliance.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and I hope that it will be enacted into law soon.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Landrieu amendment. The amendment would require the President to direct the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq to establish, in consultation with the Iraqi Governing Council or a successor entity in Iraq, an Iraq Reconstruction Finance Authority. The authority would be required to obtain financing for the reconstruction of Iraq's infrastructure from three sources: First, issuing securities or other financial instruments; second, international loans; and third, collateralizing this debt with revenue from future sales of Iraqi oil.

This amendment does not require a single dollar of Iraqi oil revenue to be paid to the United States to reimburse us for the substantial costs we have already paid and will continue to pay to stabilize and rebuild Iraq. Instead, it establishes a body in Iraq that would be designed to use future oil receipts as collateral to fund Iraq's reconstruction after the $20 billion in this bill is expended. That is a critical distinction and it is why I am supporting this amendment.

Because of the huge investments that will be required to increase Iraqi oil output beyond pre-war levels of 2.5 to 3 million barrels per day, we should not expect that collateralizing future oil receipts will significantly impact the huge investments that we will continue to have to make even after we pass this bill. Iraqi oil is not the bonanza that it was advertised to be by some in the administration prior to the war.

I would have preferred to give the President the option to set up the Iraq Reconstruction Authority rather than requiring him to as the amendment does, and I would have preferred giving the authority the option to collateralize oil rather than requiring it to do so. However, I believe that the Senator from Louisiana has written her amendment in such a way that it meets my fundamental concern that we not be perceived as attempting to ``steal'' Iraqi oil.

I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object, did you say the Byrd amendment?

Byrd-Durbin, I am sorry. I would like some time on that amendment.

Mr. President, let me say at the outset that I am an original cosponsor of the Byrd amendment. I seldom have disagreements with my friend from Arizona on these issues. But I argue that this is a place where reasonable men and women can differ.

At the outset, I wish to be clear that I am going to support final passage of this bill. I announced that when the President announced his initiative. I am sorely disappointed that the President failed to tell us how we were going to pay for this, other than adding to the debt of my grandchildren, and we are approaching a debt of $600 billion. I think that is a terrible abdication of responsibility. I do believe that, notwithstanding the fact that I am not going to get what I want out of this legislation, we have no choice. To paraphrase President Clinton: We went in; we broke it; we paid for it; we own it; we have to fix it.

Let's get to the reality. I voted to go in. It was the right vote, the correct vote. I did not count on the incompetence of the administration in handling the aftermath--their failure to anticipate what many of us on both sides of the aisle, most think tanks, and the State Department warned we would have to face. Nonetheless, that doesn't absolve me of the responsibility for trying to make sure it works.

What Senator Byrd and I and others are doing here is what is the Congress's responsibility: we are overseeing whether the money asked for by a President is being spent in the most appropriate way. That is our job. I say to my friend from the State of Virginia, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee who asked my friend from Arizona the question about whether or not this amendment would enhance or diminish in the minds of the average soldier over there their security.

I can tell you, having been the first Senator to go over there, that it will enhance them. If you give them a choice of whether they agree with Senator Byrd and me, that we should redirect the money from garbage trucks to securing those stockpiles of weapons, I guarantee what they will say.

Sure.

I will be happy to respond to all of that in my statement.

I am happy to respond.

If the Senator will allow me to continue my statement, I will be delighted to. I was responding to the comment of the Senator from Virginia, at the outset of my statement, as to what he thought the average soldier on the ground in Iraq would think of this amendment. My answer to that is, I believe because of how the money is redirected to be spent, that portion is redirected to be spent in Iraq, most soldiers--if you walked up to them and told them Senator Byrd and Senator Biden had this idea that, instead of paying $35,000 per pickup truck, we should pay $19,000; instead of building the following $499 million worth of prisons, build $199 million worth of prisons now; instead of going out and spending thirty-some thousand dollars per unit of housing--we don't know who is going to live in it and how it is going to be paid for--would you rather have us do those things or go and secure those arms depots that are now not being secured because our administration tells us they don't have the manpower or the money to do it?

The New York Times article that I have lays out in detail what we all know. It says:

The compound--part factory, part warehouse, with several

reinforced bunkers sprinkled about the grounds--is rubble

now, demolished by American bombs. But missiles are

everywhere. There is a 30-foot missile with Russian markings,

still on its trolley, on a sidewalk. The propellant appears

to have been removed, but the nose cone is intact.

Two Exocet missiles--clearly labeled as such and stamped

``Aerospatiale''--lie on the

ground several hundred yards away. They seem to have been rendered largely useless by the bombing, but parts may be of some value.

The best-preserved missile, the 15-footer, appeared to be another Exocet--

Et cetera, et cetera.

All I am saying is I believe it is totally legitimate for us to sit here and do what we do on every appropriations bill--just as the distinguished chairman of the committee does when the Pentagon says we want to build a certain aircraft. You may come along and say we studied it, we know as much as you do about it, and we don't think you should build it.

The chairman and I have been here a long time. I have been here 31 years, and he has been here longer than that. I know as much or more about this than Bremer. I have more experience than he does. So I am not going to sit here and, because Bremer--and he is a great guy--says, this is what I think, say, yes, sir, Mr. Bremer, lord high counsel, you are right. I am not going to do that. I know as much as he knows.

I may be wrong. I used to tell the old joke about the Texan. I don't say ``Texan'' now because people think I am talking about the President. The old joke used to be: I don't know much about art, but I know what I like. Well, I may be wrong, but I know what I think.

I think in terms of priorities--and I am voting for this $87 billion, and I voted against raiding Iraqi oil, and I voted against many of the amendments my Democratic colleagues have put forward. But the idea that our reallocating $1.7 billion out of a total of $21 billion is somehow going to ruin this--hey, if you want to go back and look at the record at who is more likely right in predicting what will happen in Iraq-- Bremer, the Defense Department, Cheney, or me--I will take that bet.

These guys have an incredibly lousy track record on judging what was going to take place after Saddam fell.

The only point I want to make is, we are not doing anything radical. We are saying: Hey, look, don't pay 30-some thousand bucks a pickup truck. Pay 19 like you do at home. Some of us think, and I am one of them--clearly, no one speaks for the Senator from West Virginia ever, so I am not pretending to speak for him. He may not wish to associate himself with the remark I am about to make. But the fact is, I think there is some padding in this request. I think they padded this request because they don't want to come back to us again.

Remember, I said this on the Senate floor, and I hope I am proved to be wrong--this is a dangerous thing to do, to make a prediction before all the world on the floor of the Senate--but the prediction I made and many others made, not just me, 9 months ago was this was going to cost us billions of more dollars. Guess what. It is costing billions of more dollars.

I was not, nor was, I suspect, my friend from Arizona, surprised the President came along with an $87 billion request. Guess what, folks. He is going to have to come back again, even with international support. I think part of this was padded. Pad a little bit more of another several billion dollars so we get through the next election and don't have to come back. They are going to have to come back, whether it is a Democratic President or a Republican President.

We should level with the American people. This is not done. This is nowhere near done, and the $87 billion will not do it. Even if we don't put an extra penny in reconstruction from this moment on, it is still going to cost us 4 billion bucks a month to keep our troops there. So they are going to come back for that. I don't hear anybody, I say to the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, suggesting we are not going to have 100,000-plus troops there a year after this.

Look, all I am saying is, this is our responsibility. Senator Byrd and I and others have looked at this very closely. I had a bill that was slightly different than Senator Byrd's. We have a slight disagreement on what we would cut and wouldn't cut. It is called compromise. I wouldn't have cut as much out of the prisons. I didn't do it that way, and I would have put more money in other places.

The bottom line is this: There are very serious problems that warrant our attention. Yesterday, the World Bank and the United Nations released their assessment of Iraqi needs. They anticipate the total cost of reconstruction through 2007 will be on the order of $56 billion. That is $35 billion above what we are about to vote on.

From where is it going to come? Based on what we were told by Ambassador Bremer, if all goes well, Iraqi oil will generate--and I appreciate his candor--$5 billion to $6 billion a year above and beyond the operating expenses through the year 2005. That still leaves you $20 billion short.

I remember talking with the chairman of the Armed Services Committee when I came back from my trip. He is an incredible gentleman, I must say, and straight as an arrow. He said: Joe, what did you think? Is there enough oil there? I think he will remember this.

I said: Our folks over there said, Mr. Chairman, no; oil can't pay for this, can't get it done.

Guess what. We all acknowledge oil can't get it done.

I have joined Senator Byrd, Senator Durbin and others, not because I oppose the underlying request, but because I think it needs to be improved--it seems that this request was not adequately vetted by the Office of Management and Budget.

In addition to that, as my friend from Virginia remembers, we sat in a leadership meeting with the three leading Iraqi members of the council from Iraq. We asked them: Did anybody vet this with you? He will remember, they said no.

We said: You want the $21 billion for reconstruction, but would you do it this way?

They said no.

Then they said: If you let us do it, we could do it more cheaply. And they said: You are wasting money.

That is what they said.

I will not yield at this moment. I want to finish.

I will be happy to yield to my friend.

Yes, if my colleague will let me speak, I will be happy to show you. I have not spoken once on this entire legislation since it has been on the floor. The answer is yes, not padding in the sense they think this is some nefarious scheme, but I can't fathom how you can justify spending $34,000 for a pickup truck. We are not talking Humvees. We are not talking armored personnel carriers. We are talking plain old Ford pickup trucks. Where the heck do you get that? That may not be padding in the sense--and I am not suggesting there is some nefarious activity going on here. I am saying it is better for them to err on the side of having this a higher number than a lower number now, and the reason is because they know they are going to have to come back. They know this is not going to get the job done.

As the predecessor to my friend John McCain--and I do consider him a great friend--his predecessor, Barry Goldwater, with whom I served, used to say: In your heart, you know I'm right, John. In your heart, you know I'm right. This is not going to be enough. They are going to have to come back again.

I can't understand some of the earmarks in this request. I don't deny the good intentions, but as I said, and I know my colleagues are not saying this, but for me not to have the right to question their judgment on what is right for Iraq would be a little like my saying the Armed Services Committee has no right to question the judgment of the Joint Chiefs of Staff when they make a recommendation as to what they need.

The point I am making here is, we are talking about essentially redistributing, reallocating, as we do on every

single bill, $1.655 billion of this money to other purposes. We are not even cutting it. We are not eliminating it. We are not building housing in Dubuque, which we should, or Wilmington--wherever. We are just saying we don't think a portion of what you are asking for is appropriately allocated.

Let me tell you what we want to do. Among the items in our amendment, we cut $100 million that is going to be used to build 3,258 housing units. Do they need housing units in Iraq? Yes, they do. Should the international community go along with that and help rebuild the Government? Yes, they should. But this seems to be a disproportionately large sum relative to the small number of units that will be built.

It is also unclear for whom these units are being built and whether the residents are going to be paying for housing when it is built. We just need some facts. It doesn't mean we are never going to come back and help people with housing. While we cut $100 million from, I think, this dubious purpose--dubious in the sense that in terms of priorities--we have left intact $130 million for government buildings and other construction projects, as well as $240 million for roads and bridges.

We also cut $200 million from the American Iraqi Enterprise Fund. Enterprise funds can be very effective in places where there is no prior expertise or entrepreneurship. As we heard repeatedly in the Foreign Relations Committee from witnesses of this administration for the last year and a half, the Iraqis are very sophisticated folks. They need capital; they don't need enterprise funds. They are good businessmen.

This is not like going into Liberia and trying to get a business class educated. That is what we do with enterprise funds. This is an established, educated business class. Businessmen are not in short supply in Iraq. The country has a strong business community, even if it was squeezed under Saddam's rule. In fact, we might be able to learn a thing or two about Middle Eastern commerce by working with Iraqi businessmen, not to mention getting more value out of our assistance fund.

That was one of the things said by the Iraqis who came to see us from the Iraqi Governing Council. They said: Let us get in on these contracts. Let Iraqi businessmen build some of this stuff. We will employ more Iraqis. We will do it more cheaply. We know the business.

Again, keep in mind what we are talking about here. Out of $21 billion, we are talking about reallocating $1.655 billion of it. The savings we think should be obtained by these and other cuts we apply to critical programs in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Liberia.

Now I hope I can answer some of the questions my friend from Arizona raised. First, we have redirected $600 million in savings to the Army to accelerate securing and destruction of Iraqi's vast stockpiles of conventional weapons.

I ask unanimous consent that an article entitled ``At Iraqi Depot, Missiles Galore And No Guards'' by Mr. Bonner and Mr. Fisher of the New York Times October 17, 2003, be printed in the Record.

I would ordinarily read it, but I know a lot of my friends want to head home, and I do not want to hold them up very much longer in terms of keeping us late today.

No one doubts this is a critical issue, dealing with and securing this stockpile of conventional weapons, which our military tells us on the ground is

now being used in more sophisticated ways by the old Fedayeen, by the thugs, by the old Iraqi Army, by the people attacking us. The need in this area is enormous.

Consider these facts: The head of the central command, General Abizaid, testified before the Senate Appropriations Committee on September 24:

There is more ammunition in Iraq than anyplace I've ever

been in my life.

Continuing:

And it is all not securable.

He goes on to say:

I wish I could tell you that we had it all under control

but we don't.

General Abizaid estimates Saddam Hussein amassed 650,000 tons of ammunition. That is about a third of the entire United States military stockpile. Take all of the amassed ammunition the United States of America has stockpiled, with our close to $400 billion military budget, and Saddam has amassed about a third that much, and 650,000 tons is sitting in Iraq right now.

Now, of that 650,000, only 70,000 to 80,000 tons have been secured by the American military. Why? They do not have the manpower. CENTCOM has estimated it will take 5 years to destroy those weapons already confiscated.

I say to my friends, as important as housing is, that is more important. General Abizaid, and these are his words, not mine. According to a front-page story in USA Today of September 30:

Coalition forces had uncovered 102 large caches of small

arms throughout Iraq and hundreds of more smaller caches. A

large cache is defined as requiring at least 10 tractor-

trailer loads to remove. Of the several hundred arms caches,

50 remain unguarded, monitored only by cameras. Easy access

to arms and explosives poses the most immediate threat to

coalition troops.

That is what I meant when I said to my friend from Virginia I believe he asked the coalition troops what they are most worried about, if they are worried about whether Senator Byrd and I are cutting housing money and garbage trucks and adding it to getting these arms caches, or whether they would rather have us build the housing and the garbage trucks.

Experts estimate there are enough guns in these stockpiles to arm each and every one of Iraq's 25 million people. The same USA article says: An AK-47 with ammo can be bought on the street, as we both know, having been there, for 10 bucks.

People are walking around after going to these caches and saying, I have a little AK-47 with all the ammo, 10 bucks will get it for you.

A story last Wednesday in the New York Times:

U.S. can't locate missiles once held in arsenal of Iraq.

They related that coalition soldiers--that is basically American soldiers, although there are brave Poles and brave Brits, but we are the bulk of it--have been unable to locate possibly hundreds of shoulder-fired missiles, which as all of us who pay a lot of attention to what is going on in Iraq know is why the Baghdad Airport is not open.

We are going to get all this commerce going in Iraq. We have the Secretary of Commerce over there saying invest in Iraq; it is a good deal. The airport cannot even be open. Why? Because we cannot account for--and this is not a criticism; it is an observation--shoulder-fired missiles that have gone missing from these stockpiles.

In case someone thinks I am exaggerating, the coalition put the word out on the street, we will pay 500 bucks to anybody--it is like a gun retrieval program in Richmond or Wilmington--who brings in that shoulder-held missile and gives it back to us. Three hundred Iraqis have walked up to coalition soldiers with a shoulder-held missile and said, here is a missile. Where is my 500 bucks?

These weapons can fetch as much as $5,000 on the black market. Do I need to explain to anybody on this floor--I clearly do not--how porous the Iraqi border is? Every day the administration is talking about Iranians crossing the border, about al-Qaida, about terrorists. Here we are unable to account for hundreds of shoulder-held missiles that are selling for $5,000 on the black market.

Again, to make the point, do my colleagues think our soldiers would rather have us be able to confiscate those missiles and not let any more get out or spend $30,000 for a pickup truck? Given Iraq's porous borders, this is a disaster.

Second, our amendment redirects $386 million of the $1.655 billion from what we believe to be nonemergency spending to Afghanistan in areas where every dollar counts. That is less money than I would like to see devoted to Afghanistan, but it is nearly a 50 percent increase in the funds the President requested.

We held a hearing yesterday with the administration in our Foreign Relations Committee. They are pointing out to us they do not have the money, I say to my friend from Arizona, to train up the ANA, the Afghan National Army, because, as we both know, the President announced after he came back from Tokyo the new Marshall plan for Afghanistan--not Biden's words, not McCain's words, not Warner's words, but Bush's words. He announced the Marshall plan for Afghanistan, God love him. Well, guess what. The Marshall plan is the Marshall without the general, because the money is not there.

So what is Karzai saying? We have this new plan to train up immediately the ANA, the Afghan National Army. There is not enough money. So we say we are going to take $386 million of this and give it to spend in Afghanistan.

Now, why Afghanistan? Look, there are bookends around a little country called Iran, with 40 million people, which is seeking a nuclear weapon. It is now run by an oligarchy made up of ayatollahs who control the military and all the security apparatus. You have a failed state on your east and a failed state on your west. You have an incredibly emboldened Iran. Kiss goodbye modernity--the fancy word we like to use for modernizing the Arab world. Kiss goodbye democracy.

We cannot afford to let Afghanistan fail.

So, just as in Iraq--and my friend from Arizona and I agree we need more forces in Iraq, not fewer. I am getting my brains kicked in for that and he is, too, but we are right. We have General Abizaid saying we don't need more forces. Guess what. We can't secure these depots. Come on. If you can't secure the depots, why can't you secure them? Because you don't have the forces.

Oh, I get it. Then you don't need the forces because you don't think these 650,000 tons of ammunition matter. Is that what you are saying to me?

I will not yield. I will not yield. I am almost finished, and you can have the floor, and I will be happy to discuss it in any way.

To keep the continuity of the point I am trying to make here, the same thing exists in Afghanistan. They don't have the money to do what this administration says it wants to do. So guess what. We are trying to help them. We are trying to help them. So we are reallocating $386 million of the $1.655 billion, out of $21 billion. We are reallocating it where we think--we may be wrong, but we have a right to think it--to allocate it where we think it is needed.

Where will it go in Afghanistan? Mr. President, $75 million of that $366 million will go to the Afghan National Army, which currently pays, I might add--do you know how much they pay? Let's everybody remember this. I know we know it, but sometimes there are so many facts it is easy to forget.

We are trying to get an army in Afghanistan that is made up of Tajiks, made up of Pashtun, made up of all the ethnic groups. That is what we are trying to do. You know, that is our objective. But right now the war lords, who historically control them all and have armies bigger than the national army, are paying their armies that they have made up--they are paying them a fair amount of money. They are also the biggest opium traders, now, in the world.

Do you know what we are paying the Afghan Army, what Karzai gets to pay them? It is $50 a month--$50 a month. We went back and looked, Senator Lugar and I. That is less money than we are paying the guy to clean the latrines in the army barracks where we are training them.

Look, I am not a businessman, as is often pointed out to me by my Republican friends. But let me tell you, if I am trying to attract from the warlord in Herat, Ismael Kahn, some of his

folks to come and join the Afghan National Army, then it seems to me I have to be able to compete in the marketplace for them. Fifty dollars?

So what do we do? We follow through. We follow through with what the administration says it needs. We give them the money. We give them, of this money, 75 million more dollars to train up an Afghan National Army.

Again, why is that important? The reason that is important is, as long as we do not have an Afghan National Army, we have to have American forces there. I don't want American forces to stay there, which is the administration's rationale. I agree with the rationale, just as we are saying in Iraq, train up an indigenous force as quickly as you can.

What are we trying to do here? What we are trying to do here is meet the objective stated. The objective stated is train up, as fast as you can, an army. So we give them $75 million more. We take $50 million, I say to my friend from Arizona--and there is accountability under the existing legislation--for more police.

The one thing everybody says in Afghanistan, which I have also visited, is that we don't have enough police, especially outside of Kabul. The local Governors and mayors cannot control Kandahar, cannot control all the various cities. We already have a program for police. We say: We are going to give you $50 million more for that program.

We also increase schools.

You say: OK, Biden, now you get the fuzzy stuff, $55 million for schools. You just got done saying you don't want housing in Iraq, but you take Iraqi housing money and use it for schools? Simple reason: The Saudis and the Wahabi extremists have built 7,000 madrasahs, 7,000 hate-spewing institutions in the country of Afghanistan.

President Karzai says: Help me.

My friend, the Presiding Officer, is a very well educated guy. He remembers why so many people in the Middle Ages sent their kids to monasteries. It wasn't because they wanted them all to be priests. It was because they had a roof over their heads, three square meals, and clothes on their back. They were ready to trade for that, in their view, to have them indoctrinated or otherwise. That is why the people are in madrasahs.

Karzai said--listen, I spent hours with him, as many of you have--I need more schools. How can I get you to take your kid out of that madrasah unless I have someplace to put him? Guess what; $20,000 will hire you a schoolteacher for a year and build you a rudimentary school in Afghanistan.

Then we take $38 million for public health and $15 million for road construction.

I will not go into any more detail. I apologize for taking this long, but it is the first time I have spoken on this entire matter.

We heard testimony in the Foreign Relations Committee about one of the major projects. I ask staff to correct me if I am wrong here, but I believe a road project from Herat to Kabul, being built by the international community with U.S. funds, is considered essential but they don't have enough money to finish it. So guess what. We are helping out. We think it is a higher priority to build that road than it is to reestablish the swamps now in Iraq.

This is all about, as my dad, who just died, used to say:

Joey, if everything is equally important to you, nothing is

important to you.

You have to prioritize. We are prioritizing based on what Senator Byrd, who views Iraq very differently than do I, and I know is the best bang for the buck in United States interests.

It provides $41 million for more support for human rights, free elections, and the day-to-day functioning of the Karzai government.

Moreover, this amendment provides funds for priorities that are completely omitted from the Administration's request.

It provides $45 million for projects targeted to women and girls.

It gives $50 million for drought relief and other urgently-needed water projects. It directs $25 million to help internally-displaced people, most of whom had returned from squalid refugee camps abroad only to find that their homes were scarcely less horrific.

Finally, our amendment also adds $200 million for Liberia.

The Administration made a glaring oversight by not including a request for Liberia funding in its request. Our amendment corrects that deficiency.

There is a glimmer of hope for a lasting peace in Liberia after nearly 14 years of civil war. President Charles Taylor has been forced out of the country, and the UN has begun to deploy a 15,000 person peacekeeping force.

We're not part of that force, but we should be a part of the effort to help Liberia recover from over a decade of violence and misrule.

Over the course of the war, Liberia's development has taken a quantum leap backwards. There is no running water or electricity in the capital.

The current generation of school-aged children in Liberia is less literate than the preceding one.

Nearly one hundred thousand people have been forced out of their homes and are living in make-shift camps.

Sickness and hunger have affected much of the population.

The State Department has estimated that $200 million in assistance will be needed from the U.S. to assist Liberia over the next year. Our amendment provides the State Department with the full amount that it says will be needed.

I am about to conclude, believe it or not, folks. The fact is, we are not eliminating this fund. We are not in any way fundamentally altering what this administration is asking.

We are saying that the Congress, based on priorities, sends the wrong message with $1.5 billion of the $20 billion. That is an oversight responsibility of the Congress, whether it is Iraq, whether it is a missile system, or whether it is a leave-no-child-behind proposal for education.

I want to emphasize again that I intend to vote for this supplemental bill, notwithstanding the fact--because I have nothing left but a Hobson's choice here--we are not paying for it the way we should. We are just sending it to the deficit column.

I believe we have a responsibility to scrutinize the bill before us, decide on priorities, and to cut spending that is not the highest priority and direct those funds to efforts which we think have been shortchanged. That is precisely what our amendment does. It is precisely what our Republican colleagues on the House Appropriations Committee have done.

I will conclude by saying the reason I amended my legislation to conform with that of my friend from West Virginia precisely is because he is a smarter parliamentarian and legislator than anybody here. He knows the chances of this becoming law are increased in direct proportion to the degree to which it matches with the House. What we have done is take the House language, which I would like to modify in the margins--and I expect maybe Senator Byrd would even like to modify in the margins. But as an old bad joke goes, it is close enough for government work. What will happen is it gets us on the same page and will not slow up, if this passes a conference, reporting out this entire bill and the money getting to where it needs to be.

I know no one, particularly the four leading Senators on this floor, including myself--the Senator from Alaska, the Senator from Virginia, the Senator from West Virginia, the Senator in Arizona--I know them. I have watched them for years and years. None of them believes we should be a rubberstamp. I am not about to be a rubberstamp, nor are any of them. This is our honest assessment of what we should do to make this $21 billion go further with greater priority, more rapidly, and enhance our chances at success in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Remember: The President's proposal covers both Iraq and Afghanistan.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

I will be very brief.

Senator McCain raises an important point about the Sudan. Why are we all of a sudden sending money to the Sudan? The answer is that this amendment does not send funds to Sudan. I know of no one other than Senator Howard Metzenbaum who scrutinizes legislation more precisely than my friend from Arizona. The legislation which the committee reported out and which we are about to vote on--$21 billion--and which we are debating right now contains an additional $150 million for new complex emergency funds in addition to the $100 million already in the bill. That is what is in the legislation. If this amendment passes there will be an additional $150 million available for complex foreign emergencies and these funds shall be available for the Sudan. Notice I didn't say these funds are for the Sudan--they are available to the Sudan. The reference in the Byrd amendment will allow these funds to go to the Sudan.

That is what the administration said they are working on: to spend part of this complex emergency funding. They have already said as it came out of the committee that they want to spend some of this $100 million--$250 million if our amendment passes--in the Sudan. We didn't make this up out of whole cloth. We are giving them more money than they are likely to want to spend on the Sudan. It is not like all a sudden we picked out Northern Ireland, and, by the way, why don't we help them, too. That is a generic point.

Mr. President, on that one point, there is a compromise. It is a good one. We essentially reprioritize and stand by those priorities.

Just his judgement; I mean that sincerely.

Absolutely.

Agreed. Agreed.

Mr. President, I have. I have looked in great detail. That is not just for ammunition dumps. That is across the board.

I also point out the military said there is no explanation for why Saddam would have these caches all over the country. I suggest we look to history. It is for the same reason Tito had the same kind of caches all over the former Yugoslavia. He trusted no one anywhere, and he wanted to be certain that if he was ever deposed or moved, he would have access to a cache sufficient to keep him in the game. That is why it is done. Read history.

Lastly, we have looked at that. We do know there is money for battlefield cleanup. This goes well beyond the depots. Assume that the Senator is right, that it is sufficient; it is not sufficient to do the whole job.

Lastly, in response to my questioning, Paul Bremer is a fine man. I have come back praising him. However, you are entitled to question a person's judgment--I am not questioning his motive--just as the Secretary of Defense was entitled to question the judgment of General Shinseki. He did not say he was not an honorable man. The day a U.S. Senator, particularly one with 30 years of experience, can not question the judgment of an ambassador is the day we should close up this shop. He may be right; I think he is wrong. I am just questioning his judgment.

I do not think these are the priorities. To state it another way, $19.5 billion of this we are not even talking about.

I yield the floor.

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

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

I am happy to yield.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will be delighted to.

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

I would be happy to.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

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

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

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

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

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

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes.

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

I yield the floor and thank my colleague.

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: How much time is available to the Senator from Delaware?

Mr. President, I yield 1 minute, if I may--I know it is out of order. Our friend from Maryland has asked for 1 minute. I would be delighted to yield that to him, and then I would ask, after that, to yield 1 minute to my friend from Florida. And then I think, in the order, Senator Reed is in the queue for 5 minutes, and then the Senator from Illinois, and then the Senator from North Dakota. I ask unanimous consent that be the order.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I think I have some time. If the majority wants more time, that is fine by me. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to take a minute or so to respond to my friend, the chairman of the Finance Committee, while he is in the Chamber.

Sure, without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. President, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Senator Grassley is leaving. I wanted to grab him.

I do enjoy the sarcasm of my friend from Oklahoma, who speaks on this floor about 40 times as much as I do, if he goes and checks the Record. Always elucidating, if I might add, always elucidating.

I say to my friend, the chairman of the Finance Committee, I understand

the points he is making. But he is aware, in terms of small businesses, that a small business owner would still have to be in the top 1-percent income bracket, the 35-percent bracket, to be affected? And, of all the small businesses in America, only 2 percent fall in that bracket? Only 2 percent of the 100 percent of the small businesses in America fall in the bracket.

To further make a point, I understand his point that this is the engine of our economy, small businesses. There is no question about that. There is no question, though, as well--let's say a small business owner is making $400,000 in gross income. The effect of the additional tax he would pay from the tax reduction he has gotten down to now would be $2,140 a year. Is my friend suggesting we are going to constrain and strangle business in America when 2 percent of the small businesses, roughly 5,000, who make $400,000 gross income and above, are going to have to pay $2,100 a year more, that that is going to constrain the growth of small business? Is that what he is saying? Is that going to prevent them from being able to invest or to be able to grow?

I couldn't agree more.

I thank my colleague for his response. He is always courteous. I just respectfully suggest that taking 2 percent of the small businesses in America, having them have to pay slightly more than they would have paid with this tax cut that is in place now--which, again, if they are making $400,000 in gross income, that means about $2,100 more they will pay--is a heck of a lot more preferable than asking middle-class taxpayers and asking small businessmen who make $50,000 a year, and mechanics who make $35,000 a year, and schoolteachers who make $40,000 a year, to have to pay more.

I find it fascinating that for those who do not like my proposal to deal with the top 1 percent, I have not heard any alternative offered. Are they suggesting we should repeal part of the tax cut or delay part of the tax cut for everybody? No, they make no alternative offer. The alternative offer they make is we are going to add it to the deficit, so the pages can pay. I am going to start calling this the page-pay bill. The pages will pay.

I see my friend from Oklahoma, whom I always enjoy hearing, and he was seeking the floor earlier, so I reserve the remainder of my time and await the eloquent words of my friend from Oklahoma as to why this is not a good idea. I am sure he has very many ideas as to why this is not a good idea.

I yield the floor. I reserve the remainder of my time.

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

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President: How much time remains under the control of the Senator from Delaware?

I thank the Chair. Second inquiry: And how much time does the majority have?

And last inquiry: And the vote is set for?

I thank the Chair very much.

Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I expect to consume the remainder of my time now.

Mr. President, I expected to--and I did hear--a vigorous defense of the tax cuts today. And I expected to hear that anyone who supports my proposal to pay for this $87 billion supplemental is someone who is hostile to wealth and success. I did not hear much of that. I heard a little bit of that. And I expected to hear that I am really putting regular folks into the category with Park Avenue wealthy people. I expected to hear that.

Well, think of it this way: If someone today came to the floor and proposed a $600 billion tax cut for the top 1 percent of the American taxpayers--assume the tax cut had not passed. Just picture this: Someone walked on the floor today, as we are about to vote on an $87 billion supplemental, and said: I propose a $600 billion tax cut between now and the year 2010 for the top 1 percent of the American taxpayers--and did it, again, at this moment, when we will have a $500- plus billion deficit for next year, and expanding national security demands, not decreasing national security demands, well beyond Iraq, and expanding homeland security needs, not diminishing homeland security needs, and while the House of Representatives and the Senate are in conference about to report back, I assume, a multibillion-dollar relief bill as we need for prescription drugs.

If someone came forward today and said, I have an idea; let's diminish the tax burden of the top 1 percent of the U.S. taxpayers-- that is, people making an average of $1 million a year--let's reduce their taxes by $600 billion, what do you think would happen? Would anyone seriously on this floor say, that is a good idea now, that is a great idea, let's go ahead and do that?

How about if they came to the floor and said, Let's not make it $600 billion, let's cut their taxes $689.1 billion, roughly. Would anybody here vote for that today? Would anybody honestly vote for that today?

Today we hear that $600 billion in tax cuts for the wealthy is not enough. Why do I say that? My proposal only says, instead of giving the wealthiest Americans, that is people making a gross income of about $400,000 a year, a net income after all the deductions and everything of about $312,000 a year, you don't even get into this game unless you fall in that category, and people who are making $1 million a year on average, all I am saying is, give them $600 billion, not $690 billion, and don't even touch them until 2005. Have them pay this out in additional taxes, instead of getting 690 get 6 over a 6-year period, beginning in 2005 basically. That is all I am saying.

Today we are told by those who oppose this that, no, we can't afford to do anything except give them a $688.9 billion limit or the sky will fall, small business will shutter their windows, and the recovery of capitalism, as we know it, will grind to a halt.

Give me a break. I have yet to hear a single economist--this has been floating around now out there, this idea of mine, for the past couple weeks--say this is going to have any impact on the recovery. In fact, the opposite is going to happen. If we add another $87 billion to the deficit, interest rates will go higher. That is going to short circuit a recovery, not paying out over a 6-year period an additional $87 billion that is not going into their pockets.

Again, I keep coming back to this point. Even wealthy Americans don't oppose this. A Wall Street Journal poll asked the question, If Congress approves President Bush's request for $87 billion in Iraq and Afghanistan, how would you prefer that Congress pay for it? Scrap the Medicare drug benefits bill?

Seven percent of Americans, obviously those with Medicare benefits and drug coverage, said, yes, that is a good idea; pay for it by not passing the prescription drug proposal. Twelve percent said to borrow the money. Add to the deficit; go out and borrow it. Make the pages pay. Borrow for it. Twelve percent said that. Twenty-five percent said some other way or they were not sure. A full 56 percent said, cancel, not 13 percent of the tax cut for the wealthiest--I think that is the number--but cancel all of the tax cut for

the wealthiest Americans. They want to take it all away.

I am not doing that. I am saying, keep $600 billion. Just don't take $688.9 billion.

Look, I have been here a long while. It is fascinating to me. I keep getting the same lesson taught to me. The American people are always way ahead of us. The $87 billion in additional revenue we are seeking with this amendment is less than eight-tenths of 1 percent of our $11 trillion economy.

I challenge any of my colleagues to tell me they honestly believe this is going to slow up this jobless recovery. It won't even have any affect until the recovery is a year and a half underway. Fewer than 1 percent of the wealthiest Americans will even be affected by this change. Keep in mind, this is like my saying to my grandchildren--I have three granddaughters--we are going to go to the ice cream store and, look, pop only has 12 bucks with him. I can only afford three double-dip ice cream cones. I can't afford three triple-dip ice cream cones. So you are only going to get two dips instead of three. It is not like saying: Look, kids, I was going to feed you tonight but you are not going to get to eat. We were going to have hamburgers and french fries and a salad, but all I am going to give you is a salad. Or you can't eat at all. We are not taking away anything. We are just not giving as much.

Again, small business, fewer than 2 percent of small businesses, that is, sole proprietors, the real mom-and-pop small businesses, will even be affected by this. Ninety-eight percent will not be affected.

This is a small, tiny nick in a huge tax cut. It asks for a contribution from those who have the clearest ability to contribute-- not because we want to punish them. This isn't about being punitive. It is because they have the clearest capability.

Again, take my granddaughters out. Assume my son was not doing better than I am--he is but assume he isn't--and the kids want an ice cream cone. Why shouldn't pop pay? I have the money to pay for it. It is not going to affect me at all. But if all he had in his whole pocket was 10 bucks for the week, why should he pay when I have 300 bucks in my pocket? This just isn't fair.

Again, I repeat, I don't know any wealthy Americans making $1 million a year who say, look, I don't want to do this. It is going to hurt me. I am not going to be able to make it. This is going to put a crimp in my style.

Again, let me give you a number. If you have an income of $400,000 a year--remember, the average income of the people in this bracket is almost a million dollars, 980-some-thousand dollars a year. Let's just put that in perspective. If, in fact, you are making $400,000 a year and your tax rate is going to go, from 2005 to 2010, back up from 35 to 38.2, what is the effect on your pocket? You pay the difference between 312, which gets you into the category, and 400, at a higher rate. That is $68,000, roughly. You have to get to 380-something. How much more taxes does it mean that you pay? Roughly, $2,100 more a year.

Are you telling me the people making $400,000 a year are not willing to kick in $2,100 a year for 5 years beginning in the year 2005--or for 6 years beginning in 2005 to win the peace in Iraq? Boy, do we underestimate these folks. These are loyal, patriotic Americans. They would be ready to do a lot more if we needed them to do it. But $2,100, if you make a million dollars? I asked my staff to do a back-of-the- envelope calculation. Let's say the poor guy who has no deductions-- ``poor'' guy--the rookie who signs a contract for $1.150 million. Guess what. After standard deductions because of the loopholes and the other things the wealthiest among us in this country have, he has a real taxable income of a million dollars. How much more is he going to have to pay? Roughly $22,000. That is going to kill him, right? Does that mean you don't have a gold-plated toilet seat? What does it mean?

Again, I am not hearing any of these wealthy folks complain. I am hearing everybody complain in their name, but I don't hear any of them complain. Let me tell you, I have been doing this a long time. Few times have I ever stood on the floor, with CNN watching, saying if there is anybody who is making over $400,000 a year who is not willing to pay $2,100 more to win the war, call me. No one is calling me. I don't get this.

I don't think these folks who will be affected by this tax change will begrudge one nickel of this $87 billion. So I say to my colleagues, if we don't do this now, pay for this installment in the war now, taking a small part of the tax cut, when we have a national security emergency supplemental request from the President, when the deficit is skyrocketing to over half a trillion dollars a year, are there no circumstances ever when it will be right to reconsider less than 5 percent of the biggest tax cut in history?

My time is almost up. It seems to me we are at a place where responsibility dictates that we be rational and not ideological, we pay now instead of just putting this on the tab for the pages on the Senate floor, that we don't ask our children to pay for our security, and we pay for our security and our children's security.

This, to me, is the most inexplicable opposition to anything I have ever been involved with on the floor of the Senate.

I believe my time has expired. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Biden-Kerry amendment. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To emerge ultimately the victorious against the war on

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

then in the wider Middle East.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am happy to yield.

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

This is fine.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So we cannot afford to lose the peace.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The payers want to be players.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This country has many challenges.

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

along our problems to other Congresses, to other presidents,

and other generations.

We will confront them with focus and clarity and courage.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

. . .

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

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

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

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

terrorism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Surely.

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

I thought that is who you were talking about.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I thank my colleagues and I yield the floor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Congresses, other Presidents, or other generations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. President, I rise along with the distinguished senior Senator from Utah, Senator Hatch and several others of my colleagues, Senators Spector, Leahy, DeWine, and Feinstein, to introduce the Advancing Justice Through DNA Act, a bill that harnesses the power of DNA to give prompt justice to victims of sexual assault crimes and to free the wrongly convicted. This bill takes every component of DNA technology and makes it accessible and more useful to Federal, State and local law enforcement, to prosecutors and defense attorneys, to medical personnel and to victims of crime.

Promoting and supporting DNA technology as a crime-fighting tool is not a new endeavor for me. A provision of my 1994 crime bill created the Combined DNA Index System, called ``CODIS'', which is an electronic database of DNA profiles, much like the FBI's fingerprint database. CODIS includes two kinds of DNA information--convicted offender DNA samples and DNA from crime scenes. CODIS uses the two indexes to generate investigative leads in crimes where biological evidence is recovered from the scene. In essence, CODIS facilitates the DNA match. And once that match is made, a crime is solved because of the incredible accuracy and durability of DNA evidence.

Ninety-nine.nine percent--that is how accurate DNA evidence is. One in 30 billion--those are the odds someone else committed a crime if a suspect's DNA matches evidence at the crime scene. Twenty or 30 years-- that is how long DNA evidence from a crime scene lasts.

Just 10 years ago DNA analysis of evidence could have cost thousands of dollars and taken months, now testing one sample costs $40 and can take days. Ten years ago forensic scientists needed blood the size of a bottle cap, now DNA testing can be done on a sample the size of a pinhead. The changes in DNA technology are remarkable, and mark a sea change in how we can fight crime, particularly sexual assault crimes.

The FBI reports that since 1998 the national DNA database has helped put away violent criminals in over 9,000 investigations in 50 States. How? By matching the DNA crime evidence to the DNA profiles of offenders. Individual success stories of DNA cold hits in sexual assault cases make these numbers all too real.

Just last year, Alabama authorities charged a man in the rape of an 85-year-old woman almost 10 years ago after he was linked to the case by a DNA sample he was compelled to submit while in prison on unrelated charges.

In Colorado, prosecutors brought to trial a case against a man accused of at least 14 rapes and sexual assaults. Due to the national DNA database, prosecutors were able to trace the defendant to rapes and assaults that occurred in Colorado, California, Arizona, Nevada and Oklahoma between 1999 and 2002.

Or take for example a 1996 case in St. Louis were two young girls were abducted from bus stops and raped at opposite ends of the city. The police were unable to identify a suspect. In 1999, the police decided to re-run the DNA testing to develop new leads. In January 2000, the DNA database matched the case to a 1999 rape case, and police were able to identify the perpetrator.

Last spring, the New York Police Department arrested a man linked to the rape of a woman years ago. In 1997, a woman was horribly beaten, robbed and raped--there were no suspects. Five years later, the perpetrator submitted

a DNA sample as a condition of probation after serving time for burglary. The DNA sample matched the DNA from the 1997 rape. Crime solved, streets safer.

Undoubtedly, DNA matching by comparing evidence gathered at the crime scene with offender samples entered on the national DNA database has proven to be the deciding factor in solving stranger sexual assault cases--it has revolutionized the criminal justice system, and brought closure and justice for victims. A laboratory expert testified that Virginia has a 48 percent hit rate because the State collects samples from all convicted felons and aggressively analyzes crime scene evidence with no backlog. This means that almost 1 out of every 2 violent crimes could be solved by the national DNA database.

In light of the past successes and the future potential of DNA evidence, the reported number of untested rape kits and other crime scene evidence waiting in police warehouses is simply shocking--300,000 to 500,000. It is a national problem, plaguing both urban and rural areas, that deserves national attention and solutions. Last year, a Michigan newspaper reported that its State police forensic unit is expected to have a 10-year backlog of items in need of DNA testing. The Florida crime lab system is facing a backlog of more than 2,400 rape, murder and assault and burglary cases waiting for DNA testing. South Carolina has 10,000 untested samples from convicted offenders. In June 2003, the New Jersey police department reported that over 1,200 criminal cases--most of them sexual assault cases--were waiting for DNA analysis. Behind every single one of those rape kits is a victim who deserves recognition and justice.

One woman in particular has reminded State and Federal lawmakers that we cannot ignore even one rape kit sitting on a shelf gathering dust. That woman is Debbie Smith. In 1989, Mrs. Smith was taken from her home and brutally raped. There were no known suspects, and Mrs. Smith lived in fear of her attacker's return. Six years later, the Virginia crime laboratory discovered a DNA match between the rape scene evidence and a State prisoner's DNA sample. That cold hit gave Mrs. Smith her first moment of real security and closure, and since then she has traveled the country to advocate on behalf of assault victims and champion the use of DNA to fight sexual assault.

Today's bill provides over $755 five years to eliminate the backlog in rape kits and other crime scene evidence, eliminate the backlog of convicted offender samples awaiting DNA testing, and improve State laboratory capacity to conduct DNA testing. I am pleased that the backlog elimination grant program in the Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act is entitled, ``The Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grants.'' It is a fitting tribute. I also want to take a moment to thank my colleagues Senators Kohl and DeWine who began this effort with the DNA Backlog Elimination Act of 2000, and acknowledge their ongoing commitment.

But the DNA testing is only useful if the crime scene evidence is carefully collected and preserved. Towards that end, the Advancing Justice through DNA Technology Act creates two important grant programs: 1. a $62.5 million DNA training and education grant program for law enforcement, correctional personnel and court officers; and 2. a $50 million grant program to provide training, education and assistance to sexual assault forensic examiner programs, often known as SANE or SART programs.

The Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act is a natural extension to the Violence Against Women Act, which requires the Attorney General to evaluate and recommend standards for training and practice for licensed health care professionals performing sexual assault forensic exams. So I knew that any DNA bill aimed at ending sexual assault must include resources for sexual forensic examiners. This bill ensures that sexual forensic nurses, doctors, and response teams are all eligible for assistance. These program should be in each and every emergency room to bridge the gap between the law and the medicine.

Today's bill also makes two small, but important, amendments to the Violence Against Women Act. First, it amends the law to include legal assistance for victims of dating violence, and it amends the eligibility criteria for discretionary programs so that tribal domestic violence and sexual assault coalitions can directly receiving grants funds, including those funds unreleased from past fiscal years.

I started looking at the issue of improved prosecution of sexual assault crimes almost two decades ago when I began drafting the Violence Against Women Act. The DNA Sexual Justice Act of 2003 is the next step, a way to connect the dots between the extraordinary strides in DNA technology and my commitment to ending violence against women. We must ensure that justice delayed is not justice denied.

I am also gratified that this legislation includes the Innocence Protection Act, which I cosponsored last year, and which passed the Judiciary Committee. I have long advocated in this Committee for the changes that it will implement.

The Innocence Protection Act will immeasurably improve the administration of justice in our legal system, particularly where justice is most important, and where we can least afford to make mistakes--imposition of the death penalty.

I advocate for this bill not as an opponent of the death penalty looking to curtail it, but as a supporter of the death penalty who authored the first constitutional federal death penalty law after the Supreme Court declared the death penalty unconstitutional.

But we who support the death penalty also have a duty to ensure that it is fairly administered. The advent of DNA testing has provided us with a wealth of opportunities to make certain that we are prosecuting the right people. Just as we use DNA to help prosecutions, we must make testing available to those who can use it to prove their innocence. This legislation makes post-conviction testing to federal inmates who assert that they did not commit the crime for which they have been imprisoned. It also incentivizes States to take similar measures to ensure that individuals have a proper opportunity to prove their innocence. It also mandates proper preservation of DNA evidence so that the DNA can be tested if appropriate.

As for competent counsel in death penalty cases, nobody can look me in the eye and tell me that our system for representation in capital cases works as it should. This bill will take a big step toward fixing that by providing money for grants to States to improve their systems of representation, on both the prosecution and defense side, in capital cases.

Our goal must be an error-free system of criminal justice. To err is human, but it should never be acceptable. Our job is to do all we can to eliminate errors in the criminal justice system and to see to it that a lack of resources does not delay bringing rapists and murderers to justice. This bill means we are doing our job.

I would be remiss if I did not pause to thank some of the many people who have helped bring about the introduction of this bill. In particular, I wish to thank Senators Hatch and Leahy, the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, for devoting so much of their time and effort to developing this legislation. Similarly, Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member Conyers have worked with us every step of the way to get this bill done. In addition, Senators Specter, DeWine and Feinstein, and Congressmen Delahunt and Coble, among others, have spent countless hours contributing their ideas to this bill. I wish to thank all of these members for their leadership on this matter.

Of course.

Yes, I thank the Senator from Utah for his question, and wholeheartedly agree with his understanding of this provision. I believe all of the drafters of this legislation are in agreement that most of the States that already have passed statutes, except for the few that limit post-conviction DNA testing to capital crimes, would pass muster. For example, even if a State's statute differs from the Federal law by imposing a meaningful time limit for filing of applications for testing, or excluding guilty pleas from eligibility, it would qualify. Specifically, Utah, Delaware, Ohio and Pennsylvania, among others, under their statutes, or the re-enactment of those statutes where they have expired, would be eligible for such grants. However, States that have not yet enacted a statute would be required to enact a statute, or follow a rule, regulation or practice, that met a higher standard--the statute, rule, regulation or practice would need to be ``comparable'' to the Federal law in order for the State to qualify for the grants. I see the Senator from Pennsylvania on the Floor. I would be happy to yield to the distinguished Senator to hear his thoughts on this matter.

It would be my pleasure.

Of course.

Yes, that has been, and remains, my understanding.

Mr. President, I rise along with the distinguished senior Senator from Utah, Senator Hatch and several others of my colleagues, Senators Spector, Leahy, DeWine, and Feinstein, to introduce the Advancing Justice Through DNA Act, a bill that harnesses the power of DNA to give prompt justice to victims of sexual assault crimes and to free the wrongly convicted. This bill takes every component of DNA technology and makes it accessible and more useful to Federal, State and local law enforcement, to prosecutors and defense attorneys, to medical personnel and to victims of crime.

Promoting and supporting DNA technology as a crime-fighting tool is not a new endeavor for me. A provision of my 1994 crime bill created the Combined DNA Index System, called ``CODIS'', which is an electronic database of DNA profiles, much like the FBI's fingerprint database. CODIS includes two kinds of DNA information--convicted offender DNA samples and DNA from crime scenes. CODIS uses the two indexes to generate investigative leads in crimes where biological evidence is recovered from the scene. In essence, CODIS facilitates the DNA match. And once that match is made, a crime is solved because of the incredible accuracy and durability of DNA evidence.

Ninety-nine.nine percent--that is how accurate DNA evidence is. One in 30 billion--those are the odds someone else committed a crime if a suspect's DNA matches evidence at the crime scene. Twenty or 30 years-- that is how long DNA evidence from a crime scene lasts.

Just 10 years ago DNA analysis of evidence could have cost thousands of dollars and taken months, now testing one sample costs $40 and can take days. Ten years ago forensic scientists needed blood the size of a bottle cap, now DNA testing can be done on a sample the size of a pinhead. The changes in DNA technology are remarkable, and mark a sea change in how we can fight crime, particularly sexual assault crimes.

The FBI reports that since 1998 the national DNA database has helped put away violent criminals in over 9,000 investigations in 50 States. How? By matching the DNA crime evidence to the DNA profiles of offenders. Individual success stories of DNA cold hits in sexual assault cases make these numbers all too real.

Just last year, Alabama authorities charged a man in the rape of an 85-year-old woman almost 10 years ago after he was linked to the case by a DNA sample he was compelled to submit while in prison on unrelated charges.

In Colorado, prosecutors brought to trial a case against a man accused of at least 14 rapes and sexual assaults. Due to the national DNA database, prosecutors were able to trace the defendant to rapes and assaults that occurred in Colorado, California, Arizona, Nevada and Oklahoma between 1999 and 2002.

Or take for example a 1996 case in St. Louis were two young girls were abducted from bus stops and raped at opposite ends of the city. The police were unable to identify a suspect. In 1999, the police decided to re-run the DNA testing to develop new leads. In January 2000, the DNA database matched the case to a 1999 rape case, and police were able to identify the perpetrator.

Last spring, the New York Police Department arrested a man linked to the rape of a woman years ago. In 1997, a woman was horribly beaten, robbed and raped--there were no suspects. Five years later, the perpetrator submitted

a DNA sample as a condition of probation after serving time for burglary. The DNA sample matched the DNA from the 1997 rape. Crime solved, streets safer.

Undoubtedly, DNA matching by comparing evidence gathered at the crime scene with offender samples entered on the national DNA database has proven to be the deciding factor in solving stranger sexual assault cases--it has revolutionized the criminal justice system, and brought closure and justice for victims. A laboratory expert testified that Virginia has a 48 percent hit rate because the State collects samples from all convicted felons and aggressively analyzes crime scene evidence with no backlog. This means that almost 1 out of every 2 violent crimes could be solved by the national DNA database.

In light of the past successes and the future potential of DNA evidence, the reported number of untested rape kits and other crime scene evidence waiting in police warehouses is simply shocking--300,000 to 500,000. It is a national problem, plaguing both urban and rural areas, that deserves national attention and solutions. Last year, a Michigan newspaper reported that its State police forensic unit is expected to have a 10-year backlog of items in need of DNA testing. The Florida crime lab system is facing a backlog of more than 2,400 rape, murder and assault and burglary cases waiting for DNA testing. South Carolina has 10,000 untested samples from convicted offenders. In June 2003, the New Jersey police department reported that over 1,200 criminal cases--most of them sexual assault cases--were waiting for DNA analysis. Behind every single one of those rape kits is a victim who deserves recognition and justice.

One woman in particular has reminded State and Federal lawmakers that we cannot ignore even one rape kit sitting on a shelf gathering dust. That woman is Debbie Smith. In 1989, Mrs. Smith was taken from her home and brutally raped. There were no known suspects, and Mrs. Smith lived in fear of her attacker's return. Six years later, the Virginia crime laboratory discovered a DNA match between the rape scene evidence and a State prisoner's DNA sample. That cold hit gave Mrs. Smith her first moment of real security and closure, and since then she has traveled the country to advocate on behalf of assault victims and champion the use of DNA to fight sexual assault.

Today's bill provides over $755 five years to eliminate the backlog in rape kits and other crime scene evidence, eliminate the backlog of convicted offender samples awaiting DNA testing, and improve State laboratory capacity to conduct DNA testing. I am pleased that the backlog elimination grant program in the Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act is entitled, ``The Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grants.'' It is a fitting tribute. I also want to take a moment to thank my colleagues Senators Kohl and DeWine who began this effort with the DNA Backlog Elimination Act of 2000, and acknowledge their ongoing commitment.

But the DNA testing is only useful if the crime scene evidence is carefully collected and preserved. Towards that end, the Advancing Justice through DNA Technology Act creates two important grant programs: 1. a $62.5 million DNA training and education grant program for law enforcement, correctional personnel and court officers; and 2. a $50 million grant program to provide training, education and assistance to sexual assault forensic examiner programs, often known as SANE or SART programs.

The Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act is a natural extension to the Violence Against Women Act, which requires the Attorney General to evaluate and recommend standards for training and practice for licensed health care professionals performing sexual assault forensic exams. So I knew that any DNA bill aimed at ending sexual assault must include resources for sexual forensic examiners. This bill ensures that sexual forensic nurses, doctors, and response teams are all eligible for assistance. These program should be in each and every emergency room to bridge the gap between the law and the medicine.

Today's bill also makes two small, but important, amendments to the Violence Against Women Act. First, it amends the law to include legal assistance for victims of dating violence, and it amends the eligibility criteria for discretionary programs so that tribal domestic violence and sexual assault coalitions can directly receiving grants funds, including those funds unreleased from past fiscal years.

I started looking at the issue of improved prosecution of sexual assault crimes almost two decades ago when I began drafting the Violence Against Women Act. The DNA Sexual Justice Act of 2003 is the next step, a way to connect the dots between the extraordinary strides in DNA technology and my commitment to ending violence against women. We must ensure that justice delayed is not justice denied.

I am also gratified that this legislation includes the Innocence Protection Act, which I cosponsored last year, and which passed the Judiciary Committee. I have long advocated in this Committee for the changes that it will implement.

The Innocence Protection Act will immeasurably improve the administration of justice in our legal system, particularly where justice is most important, and where we can least afford to make mistakes--imposition of the death penalty.

I advocate for this bill not as an opponent of the death penalty looking to curtail it, but as a supporter of the death penalty who authored the first constitutional federal death penalty law after the Supreme Court declared the death penalty unconstitutional.

But we who support the death penalty also have a duty to ensure that it is fairly administered. The advent of DNA testing has provided us with a wealth of opportunities to make certain that we are prosecuting the right people. Just as we use DNA to help prosecutions, we must make testing available to those who can use it to prove their innocence. This legislation makes post-conviction testing to federal inmates who assert that they did not commit the crime for which they have been imprisoned. It also incentivizes States to take similar measures to ensure that individuals have a proper opportunity to prove their innocence. It also mandates proper preservation of DNA evidence so that the DNA can be tested if appropriate.

As for competent counsel in death penalty cases, nobody can look me in the eye and tell me that our system for representation in capital cases works as it should. This bill will take a big step toward fixing that by providing money for grants to States to improve their systems of representation, on both the prosecution and defense side, in capital cases.

Our goal must be an error-free system of criminal justice. To err is human, but it should never be acceptable. Our job is to do all we can to eliminate errors in the criminal justice system and to see to it that a lack of resources does not delay bringing rapists and murderers to justice. This bill means we are doing our job.

I would be remiss if I did not pause to thank some of the many people who have helped bring about the introduction of this bill. In particular, I wish to thank Senators Hatch and Leahy, the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, for devoting so much of their time and effort to developing this legislation. Similarly, Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member Conyers have worked with us every step of the way to get this bill done. In addition, Senators Specter, DeWine and Feinstein, and Congressmen Delahunt and Coble, among others, have spent countless hours contributing their ideas to this bill. I wish to thank all of these members for their leadership on this matter.

Of course.

Yes, I thank the Senator from Utah for his question, and wholeheartedly agree with his understanding of this provision. I believe all of the drafters of this legislation are in agreement that most of the States that already have passed statutes, except for the few that limit post-conviction DNA testing to capital crimes, would pass muster. For example, even if a State's statute differs from the Federal law by imposing a meaningful time limit for filing of applications for testing, or excluding guilty pleas from eligibility, it would qualify. Specifically, Utah, Delaware, Ohio and Pennsylvania, among others, under their statutes, or the re-enactment of those statutes where they have expired, would be eligible for such grants. However, States that have not yet enacted a statute would be required to enact a statute, or follow a rule, regulation or practice, that met a higher standard--the statute, rule, regulation or practice would need to be ``comparable'' to the Federal law in order for the State to qualify for the grants. I see the Senator from Pennsylvania on the Floor. I would be happy to yield to the distinguished Senator to hear his thoughts on this matter.

It would be my pleasure.

Of course.

Yes, that has been, and remains, my understanding.