Floor Statements

Mr. President, nearly 4,000 Minnesotans honored their favorite teacher at my Minnesota State fair booth this summer. I honor these teachers further by submitting their names to the Congressional Record as follows:

Concordia College-Moorhead--Duane Mickelson; Congdon Park

Elementary--Cathy Armstrong, Mary John, Dan Kopp, Kathy

Sharrow; Convent of the Visitation School--Richard Barbeau,

Judy Benson, Darlene Dailey, Theresa Jasper, Ann Matson,

Zinny Mooney, Robert Shandorf, Brian Waltz; Cook County High

School--Al Heine; Coon Rapids--Ms. Beachler, Mrs. Hussian,

Jan Krunze, Lorraine Newkirk, Ms. Sonstegaard; Coon Rapids

High School--Linda Carlson, Anne Collins, Paula Karjahlati,

Gail Parr-Van Zee, Francis Prokash, Miles Wagner; Coon Rapids

Middle School--Lori Landry, Dawn Ressler; Coon Rapids Senior

High--Dave Rykken; Cooper Elementary, Minneapolis--Bill

Bauer, Cathy Sullivan, Faye Wooten; Cooper High School, New

Hope--Kari Christensen, Lisa Emison, Samuel Tanner; Cornelia

Elementary--Pala Thomasgard; Cornell Elementary--Nancy

Helgerson; Cottage Grove--Joe Adams, Mr. Herbert, Audrey

Osofsky; Cottage Grove Elementary--Shannon Hagness, Jennifer

Skarphol, Heather DeCramer; Cottage Grove Junior High--Mike

Amidon, Ms. Hanson; Countryside Elementary--Mr. Bjerken,

Margie Galvin, Ms. McCullough, Jeanne Sumnicht, Mr.

Thorkelson, Deb Vork; Crawford Elementary--Gordan Leverett;

Creative Arts School-ALC, St. Paul--Rich Anderson; Creek

Valley Elementary--Sarah Dolphin; Crest View Elementary,

Brooklyn Park--Angela Bailey-Aldrich; Crestview Elementary,

Cottage Grove--Chuck Broman, Mrs. Phelps, Leah Pollman;

Cretin-Derham Hall--Judith Kavanaush, Mike Main, Andrew Mons,

Rob Peick, Mr. Pike, Laurel Zummerman, Jim O'Neil, Staff of

the Spanish Department; Cromwell-Wright Elementary--Lea

Anderson-Tiili, Bill Frienmuth,

Mr. Koenig; Crooked Lake Elementary--Ms. Clair, Mrs. Coe,

Mrs. Gibson, Pam Manko, Maureen Ledin, Mrs. Stowell;

Crookston--Nancy Melby; Crossroads Elementary--Ruby

Buchmayer, Axel Caberea, Gina Costello, Melissa Green,

Virginia Herriges, Karen Lee, Mrs. Watterrud, Brenda Petta;

Crosswinds Arts and Sciences Middle School--Mark Russo;

Crystal Lake Elementary--Sharon Dewald; Custer High School,

Milwaukee, WI--Daniel Przybylowski; Cuyuna Range Elementary--

Wendy Gindorff; Cypress Elementary, New Port Richey, FL--

Susan Phillippi; Dakota Hills Middle School--Greg Montbraind,

Michael Schlink, Heather Thaller; Dakota Meadows Middle

School--Joe Broze, John Lawton; Dakota Prairie Unity High

School--Cliff Peterson; Dallas Center Grimes Community High

School, Grimes, IA--Steven Saleas; Dassel-Cokato High

School--Susan Marco; Dassel-Cokato Middle School--Kip Kip

Link, Julie Lund, Nathan Youngs; Dassel-Cokato Senior High

Joe Harmala, Linda Bain, Lanett Daniel, Dianne Eveland,

Kristin Gruber, Kate Michaels, Terry Protivinsky; Deephaven

Elementary--Karl Boberg, Diane Jost; Deer Path Middle School,

Lake Forest, IL--Thomas Cardamone; Deerwood Elementary--

Debbie Iverson, Julia Kirschbaum; Delano High School--Mr.

Johnson; Delano Middle School--Mr. Bergren, Gary Brophy, Tory

Spainer; Denfelt Senior High--Ruth Schulzt; Desert Ridge

Elementary, Phoenix, AZ--Mr. Cook; Desert Sands Unified

School District, La Quinta, CA--Mrs. Kcop; Dexter High

School, Dexter, MI--Richard Grannis; Diamond Path

Elementary--Nancy Cooley; Discovery Elementary--Marsha

Watkins; Douglas Elementary--Bette Jacobs; Dowling

Elementary--Laurel Engman, Joseph Rossow, Bob Tscida;

Downtown Open School--Kate Bowler, Abby Lindesmith, Kristin

Sonquist; Duluth Kathy Fahrion, Deanne Ferguson; Duluth

Central High School--Sherman Moe; Duluth East High School--

LaDonna Bergum, Robert Mix, Bill Tormendson; Duluth Public

Schools--Judy Kopperman; Duluth Secondary Tech School--Lou

Zywicki; Eagan High School--Peter Otterson, Mrs. Zimmen,

Amanda Adams, Adam Copeland, Barb Geier, Roland Hoke, Joe

Joran, Jane Lee, Jesse Madsen, Paulette Reikowski, Sue Retka,

Kim Waltman; Eagle Lake Elementary--Mrs. Barsness; Eagle

Point Elementary, Oakdale--Lucille Bryant, Cheryl Chacka,

Marge Proulx; Eagle Ridge Junior High--Tia Clausen, Mandi

Johnson, Mrs. O'Connell, Barb Johnson; Earl School, Fort

Peck, MT--Betty Hirsch; Earle Brown Elementary--Mr. Axen, Amy

Berge, Mary Mandel; Early Childhood Family Education,

Balaton--Diane Peterson; Early Childhood Family Education,

Buffalo--Patty Lammers; Early Childhood Family Education,

Ruthton--Tracey Kuhlman; Early Childhood Family Education,

Slayton--Diane Ellens; Early Childhood Family Education,

St. Michael--Mona Voelker; Early Childhood Special

Education, Glencoe--Cindy May; East Bethel Community

School--Kate Arnold; East Grand Forks School District--

Marcie DeGroot; East High School--Mr. Bender; East Saint

Paul Lutheran School--Rick Block, Karen Reem; East Side

Elementary--Cheryl Hoff; East Union Elementary--Jenny

Killian; Eastern Heights Elementary--Sharon Graves;

Eastside Workplace Kindergarten--Michelle Brunswick;

Eastview High School--Ms. Henrickson, Mary Kuettner, Frank

Pasquerella, Ann Strey; Echo Park Elementary--Kim Coleman;

Eden Lake Elementary--Brian Gunderson, Pat Kinch, Janet

Krmpotich, Kate Plamer, Joan Tetrick, Kim Thrasher; Eden

Prairie High School--Steve Cwodzinski, Michael Holm, Marty

Teigen, Jo King, Margaret Bicke, Mark Bray, Karen

Breittingen, Annie Cull, Mike Holm, Ms. Kanthak, Bruce

Kivimaki, Kari McSherry, Dean Raths, Rob Saint Clair,

Vince Thomas, Brent Turner, Linda Wallenberg, Mrs. Welter,

Mrs. Werning, Mike Whipkey; Edgerton Elementary--Ann

Benson, Mrs. Rasusson, Terry Tremain, Mrs. Wobbema;

Edgewood Middle School--Bill Sucha, Debbie Wall, Shelly

Wright; Edina High School--Daniel Baron, Mr. Benson, Kim

Budde, Gail Casey, Tom Connell, Martha Cosgrove, Besty

Cussler, Alegjandro Diaz-Andrade, Barney Hall, Lisa

Hanson, Angela Kieffer, Colleen Raasch, Chris Reono,

Michael Roddy, Brian Simpson; Edina Highlands Elementary--

Mark Wallace; Edinbrook Elementary--Mrs. Gerber, LuAnn

Gunderson; Edison High School--Mike Doyle, Norman Glock,

Frank Goodrich, Matt Maki, Robert Sivanich, Pamela Wolfe;

Education Service Center, Bloomington--Anna Smith; Edward

Neill Elementary School--Judie Prayfrock; Eisenhower

Elementary--Cathy Berger; El Colegio Charter School--Cathy

Diaz; Elk River High School--Kathy Ellefson; Elk River

School District--Mrs. Talley; Ellis Middle School--Sylvia

Stier; Elton Hill Elementary--Kelly Wright-Glynn; Elysian

Elementary--Mark Meyer, Sandy Mielke; Emerson Spanish

Immersion--Flory Sommers, Theresa Wilson; Emmet D.

Williams Elementary--Susan Bates, Diane Biederman, Ms.

Hagen, Jessic Reinhart-Lind, Joni Springer; Epiphany

School--Betty Flanigan, Matt Foslyn, Wendy Snyder;

Ericsson Elementary--Sharon Bahe, Kathleen Hewitt, Terry

Vick; Eveleth-Gilbert Senior High--Betty Daniels;

Evergreen Park Elementary--Beth Neil; Excell Academy--

Aaron Hjermstad, Megan Hjermstad; Excelsior Elementary--

Mark Broten, Mark Garrison, Tim Ketel, Sara Macke, Sandy

Miller, Mrs. Nickle, Annette Smith; EXPO for Excellence

Magnet--Mrs. Desembre, Mrs. Michel, Mary Ross, Ulla Tervo-

Desnick, Maura Tschida; Face to Face Academy--John

Vasecka; Fairmont High School--Daniel Chicos, Mr. Gorath,

Cliff Janke, Dan Schuh; Fairview Elementary--Darren

Lukenbill; Faithful Shepherd Catholic School--Kim

Michalak, Julee Titze; Falcon Heights Elementary--Paul

Charest, Delores Cox, Kelly Klein, Meggan Lovick, Holly

Maddox, Ms. Plathe, Mrs. Slashmacher, Mrs. Wingingland;

Falcon Ridge Middle School--Dave Fournier, Gregg Kotsonas,

Sharon Lund; Falls High School--Mr. Bjorquist; Falls

Secondary--Darrell Schmidt; Faribault High School--Mrs.

Bottke, Bernie Engrav; Farmington Middle School West--Sue

Bieraugel, Patti Haberman; Farnsworth Elementary--Jane

Vega; Fergus Falls High School--Sue Empting, Judith

Halverson; Fergus Falls Middle School--Dave Ellis, Mr.

Mitberg; Fertile-Beltrami--Kordula Holmrick, Joan

Kronschnabel, Scoot Larson; Field Elementary--Mary Hill,

Ms. Slocum, Sandy Barry, Allison Constant, Ms. Stevenson;

Willow River Elementary--Brian Bassa, Jeannie Mach;

Wilshire Park Elementary--Gail Beall, Ms. Burba, Kathie

Frank, Jason Hartman, Sarah Taylor, Mrs. Wyatt; Windom

Open Elementary--Kim Landreville; Winona Area Catholic

School--Linda Schauer; Winona High School--Daryl Miller,

James Miller, Meryl, Nichols; Winterquist Elementary--

Brooke Pfister, Wendy Smith; Woden-Crystal Lake School

District--Howard Dorman; Woodbury High School--Theresa

VonRuden; Woodbury Elementary--Linda Brommer, John Flavin,

Julie McGee, Kay Peliter, Dave Ross; Woodbury High

School--Dave Carlson, Meredith Deullman, Bruce Monroe,

Duane Tannahill, Theresa VonRuden; Woodbury Junior High--

William Barr, Tania Dantas, Sarah Prunty, Shannon Smith,

Frau Tol, Jim Carlson, Mrs. Rafferty, Robert Schumacher;

Woodland Elementary--Joni Hodsdon, Terry Langager, Scott

Lund, Diana Rotty, Stuart Samsky; Woodland Hills Academy--

Wendy Robinson; Worthington High School--Mr. Sphingen;

Wrenshall High School--Kris Nelson; Wylie Elementary

School--Mr. Durhlam; Wyoming Elementary--Tom Erickson,

Cheryl Runquist, Julie Sorenson, Terry Buerkle, Mary Ellen

Dellwo; Zachary Lane Elementary--Yvonne Peterson, Angela

Steiner, Mike Westby; Zanewood Elementary--Jon Fritz;

Zemmer Junior High--Mike Suschler; Zimmerman Elementary--

Mrs. Gerlach, Barb Roos, Ben Kvidt; Zion Lutheran

Christian Day School--Sheila Sandell; Zumbrota-Mazeppa

Elementary--Mary Ann Urban.

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

Mr. President, what is the pending business?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may be permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.

Over the weekend, there was a very alarming report in the New York Times that stated that senior administration officials repeatedly failed to disclose the contrary views of America's leading nuclear scientists about tubes that could be used for either a nuclear weapons program in Iraq or for alternative purposes, such as short- range rockets.

I understand the article is printed in today's Record in Senator Byrd's remarks.

The investigative article found:

Senior administration officials . . . sometimes overstated

even the most dire intelligence assessments of the tubes, yet

minimized or rejected the strong doubts of nuclear experts.

That they had alternative uses.

They worried privately that the nuclear case was weak, but

expressed sober certitude in public.

The article goes on to say:

The absence of unconventional weapons in Iraq is now widely

seen as evidence of a profound intelligence failure, of an

intelligence community blinded by ``group think,'' false

assumptions and unreliable human sources.

Yet the tale of the tubes, pieced together through records

and interviews with senior intelligence officers, nuclear

experts, administration officials and Congressional

investigators, reveals a different failure.

Far from ``group think,'' American nuclear and intelligence

experts argued bitterly over the tubes. . . .

Precisely how knowledge of the intelligence dispute

traveled through the upper reaches of the administration is

unclear. Ms. Rice--

The National Security Adviser--

knew about the debate before her Sept. 2002 CNN appearance. .

. . President Bush learned of the debate at roughly the same

time, a senior administration official said.

The report goes on to document how, even though the 15 different agencies of the Federal Government with responsibility for intelligence gathering and assessment differed on this analysis, according to congressional and intelligence officials, none of them informed senior policymakers in the Congress about the Energy Department's dissent, and the Energy Department contained the nuclear experts most knowledgeable about the probable use of these tubes for another purpose.

Despite this disagreement, despite the uncertainty, Vice President Cheney in the fall of 2002, in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars on August 26 of that year, stated:

We now know Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire

nuclear weapons. . . .Many of us are convinced that Saddam

will acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon. Just how soon we

cannot really gauge. Intelligence is an uncertain business,

even in the best of circumstances.

The Vice President went on to say:

Armed with an arsenal of these weapons of terror, and

seated atop 10 percent of the world's oil reserves, Saddam

Hussein could then be expected to seek domination of the

entire Middle East, take control of a great portion of the

world's energy supplies, directly threaten America's friends

throughout the region, and subject the United States or any

other nation to nuclear blackmail.

Yet the article goes on to say that neither the Vice President nor Ms. Rice mentioned that the Nation's top nuclear design experts believed overwhelmingly that the tubes were poorly suited for the centrifuges that would be used for nuclear warheads.

The article goes on:

Mr. Cheney, who has a history of criticizing officials who

disclose sensitive information, typically refuses to comment

when asked about secret intelligence. Yet on this day,

with a Gallup poll showing that 58 percent of Americans

did not believe President Bush had done enough to explain

why the United States should act against Iraq, Mr. Cheney

spoke openly about one of the closest held secrets

regarding Iraq. Not only did Mr. Cheney draw attention to

the tubes; he did so with a certitude that could not be

found in even the CIA's assessments. On ``Meet the

Press,'' Mr. Cheney said he knew ``for sure'' and ``in

fact'' and ``with absolute certainty'' that Mr. Hussein

was buying equipment to build a nuclear weapon. ``He has

reconstituted his nuclear program,'' Mr. Cheney said

flatly.

Ms. Rice said in a New York Times article today, referencing yesterday's investigative report, that she was aware of the dispute in September 2002 among the different intelligence agencies when she stated in a television interview that the tubes ``are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs.''

I have my own experience of being shown one of those tubes in a briefing conducted by Ms. Rice and CIA Director George Tenet in the White House situation room on December 23, 2002. We were told unequivocally that the tube was intended for Iraq's reconstituted nuclear weapons program. We were given no indication that there was another possible purpose for that tube. We were given no indication that there was serious disagreement among the nuclear experts in the Federal Government about the use of those tubes. We were not given all the facts. We were given one set of facts, the one that supported the position of the President and the Vice President and the one they wanted us to take when we voted on the administration's war resolution just a few days later.

It turns out the information we were given was wrong. One and a half years of subsequent inspections by over 1,400 U.S. weapons inspectors has uncovered no evidence of a reconstituted Iraqi nuclear weapons program under Saddam Hussein. Some 1,300 of those tubes were found to be part of a short-range rocket program which did not represent a threat to our own national security.

The nuclear threat of Iraq was President Bush and Vice President Cheney's trump card, and they played it to the hilt. They betrayed the trust of the Members of Congress to persuade us to vote for their war resolution. They withheld information we should have had rightfully as Members of this body before making that fateful decision.

We have 138,000 American troops committing their lives, risking their lives, bleeding, fighting, some of them dying, on a daily basis, and we are now told that the administration has any other number of plausible explanations for why they conducted this operation. But the truth is that for many of us, the overwhelming argument being made back in the fall of 2002 when that war resolution was being debated was the supposed nuclear threat of Iraq. And for us to not have been told the truth and all the truth about the facts the administration had before it at the time to me is shameful, disgraceful, and a fundamental violation of the public trust.

I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, Recently I invited Minnesotans to honor their favorite teachers. The response was overwhelming.

Over 4,000 Minnesotans nominated their favorite teachers. Many teachers were nominated more than once. Current students nominated present teachers. Older Minnesotans nominated teachers from years, even decades, ago.

Many of the honored teachers are still actively teaching; others are now retired; some have passed away. I wish there was time here and space in the Congressional Record to read all of the words of admiration and gratitude, which accompanied those 4,000 nominations.

They were truly heartwarming. Very successful adults credited special teachers with turning their lives around; helping them to recognize their undiscovered talents, or sparking interests which led to their successful careers.

The specific details varied but the conclusions were the same. Those teachers made huge differences in the lives of their students. They saved lives. They made lives. They taught more than their subjects. They taught ways of thinking, ways of being. They taught study skills and the value of hard work. They helped boys and girls; young women and young men to find themselves, to believe in themselves, and to better themselves. They helped young dreamers learn how to live out those dreams and how to make them life-enhancing realities.

We do too little to credit and honor the many teachers--dedicated men and women--who perform these human miracles for our children. They are modestly paid at best, underpaid at worst, although most of them do not teach for monetary rewards. They teach for their love of teaching, for the joys of performing their magical awakening of young minds to new possibilities. They take personal satisfaction in their own knowledge of their successes, even when they are seldom recognized and appreciated by the rest of us. It may be only years later that someone thinks to note their incredible contributions. Now is one those moments.

Sadly, in Minnesota, there is mostly bashing and trashing of public school teachers and public schools. They are paid $2,500 less than the national averages for public school K-12 teachers. Their class sizes are larger than the national average. State support for public school students is declining, both in real dollars and relative to other states. They are asked to do more and more, with less and less.

The least we can do is to say thank you, when they do their jobs well. I encourage my fellow Minnesotans to thank a teacher this week or this month, and next week or next month. Either a present or former teacher. For a special job, well done. They deserve it. They have earned it.

I ask unanimous consent that names of teachers nominated by Minnesotans as their favorite teachers be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am delighted to rise in support of the tax bill which I believe will pass on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis. I commend the chairman of the Finance Committee and the ranking member for a bill that I will be proud to vote for and one that I, frankly, wish had passed in 2001, 2002, and 2003--the kind of bill that I voted for back then as a substitute amendment that didn't pass. This bill is truly targeted toward middle-income taxpayers, largely and predominantly so.

As my colleague from Arkansas pointed out, there are some provisions that I wish were included, and I am sure others as well.

But overall, this is a very good, targeted middle-income tax cut bill that will put money into the pockets of working families, working single individuals. It ought to be our policy in the future to keep our tax measures targeted toward those who pay the bills and those who are in greatest need of earned-income tax relief.

I point out if we had kept the focus on this kind of tax relief in the past, we wouldn't have the kind of deficits we face today. We wouldn't be passing on the new bills to our children and grandchildren who are going to have to face up to it eventually.

But I support those who have said tonight that regardless of that situation, this is much needed and it will be well used and, hopefully, we will continue the recovery from the serious recession that we suffered over the last few years.

I am a little leery of those who say these tax measures are the cure- all for what has occurred because they continually refer back to points in time that are rather selective. If we go back to the beginning of the Bush administration, we are looking at a serious jobs deficit. We are still suffering a loss of over 3 million manufacturing jobs since that time.

I wish these tax measures and those that preceded them were the cures for the economic ills. I fear they are not in isolation.

I commend the architects of this measure, and I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting and passing it tonight.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Reid of Nevada be added as an original cosponsor of the amendment.

Mr. President, this amendment would increase the funding for economic development assistance aid to Afghanistan by $500 million. The bill before us provides only $225 million in economic development assistance through the Economic Security Fund and then some portion of $172 million identified for development and health.

Last year, in fiscal year 2004, the Congress appropriated $900 million in economic development aid and $172 million for development in health through the regular and the supplemental appropriations bills. Those combined categories in total appropriations under this bill will drop from $1.71 billion from the current fiscal year, to $397 million for 2005. That is a cut in funding of 63 percent from one year to the next.

My amendment will increase next year's Afghanistan development aid to $897 million, which is still 15 percent less than it is in the current fiscal year.

What kind of message does this bill send to Afghanistan President Karzai and to his Government--one of their leaders was almost assassinated last week--and to the people of Afghanistan just before they hold their elections?

This is probably not the intent of the bill, but there was a 60- percent cut in economic development assistance that was too little before.

Afghanistan is not a wealthy country like Iraq. It will be when its oil reserves can be developed. Afghanistan, right now, is poverty and poppies--opium. The more poverty they have, the more poppies they will grow.

Just 3 months ago, President Karzai made a strong appeal to all of us in a joint session of Congress for more aid. That was following the necessary war which this Senate supported unanimously in September of 2001, for which I voted along with all of us who were present at that time. Our courageous Armed Forces succeeded in 10 weeks and accomplished what the former Soviet Union could not achieve in 10 years. Our Armed Forces routed the Taliban and al-Qaida but left political, social, and economic vacuums that have not been filled--at least not by the right elements.

President Karzai stated eloquently and emphatically 3 months ago the need for more aid. He said, and I quote in part:

We must build a partnership that will consolidate our

achievements and enhance stability, prosperity and democracy

in Afghanistan and in the region. This requires sustaining

and accelerating the reconstruction of Afghanistan through

long-term commitments.

That is what President Karzai said to six of us in January of 2002 in Kabul in a bipartisan delegation that was led by our Democratic leader, Senator Daschle.

Yet the Bush response to that plea has been tepid.

The world response has been cold. This bill would ice the effort with a 60-percent economic development aid cut. In fact, the entire bill's total military and nonmilitary aid to Afghanistan combined is less than half of the fiscal 2004 appropriation--less than half.

Mr. President, today's New York Times has an editorial entitled ``A Chance of Success Slips Away,'' by J Alexander Thier, a fellow at the Hoover Institution in California. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

I would like to read a few portions of Mr. Thier's analysis:

President Bush describes Afghanistan, the first front on

the war on terrorism, as a success. In comparison to Iraq,

perhaps it is. But if you look at Afghanistan on its own

merits, the lack of progress is disheartening. In 2002,

President Bush promised a ``Marshall Plan'' for the country,

with the goal of turning Afghanistan into a stable,

democratic state. . . .Yet in nearly three years we have

failed to create security, stability, prosperity or the rule

of law in Afghanistan.

. . . .Our efforts in Afghanistan are underfinanced and

undermanned, and our attention is waning.

The root of the problem is that we invaded Afghanistan to

destroy something--the Taliban and Al Qaeda--but we didn't

think much about what would grow in its place. . . .

Afghanistan has become a collection of warlord-run fiefs

fueled by a multibillion-dollar opium economy.

Continuing with Mr. Thier's editorial remarks:

Our Army continues to hunt insurgents in the mountains, but

we have refused to take the steps necessary to secure the

rest of the country, and it shows. More coalition and Afghan

government soldiers and aid workers have died this year than

in each of the previous two. This summer, Doctors Without

Borders, which has worked in the most desperate and dangerous

conditions around the world, pulled out of Afghanistan after

24 years. In other words, the group felt safer in Afghanistan

during the Soviet occupation and the civil war that followed

than it did three years after the United States-led coalition

toppled the Taliban.

He concludes by stating:

Our experience demonstrates that you can't fight wars, or

do nation-building, on the cheap. Afghanistan should be a

critical election issue this year, but Iraq looms much larger

in the public mind. Unless the next administration steps up

to the plate, it may well be an issue in four years, when we

start asking, ``Who lost Afghanistan?''

I submit that tonight is our opportunity in this Senate to step to the plate, not to let this become a failed opportunity, not to allow the blood that has been shed by American soldiers to do what we originally said was the thrust of the war against terrorism--to go after al-Qaida, to drive them out of that country, to deny them safe havens and sanctuaries there, to rout the Taliban government, to install a democracy--and yet we have largely missed that opportunity along with the other wealthy nations of the world.

The failure of an adequate response to assist that country economically and in its rehabilitation has been just astonishing to me. What a missed opportunity. What an opportunity it is to showcase to the world our way of life, our generosity, to transform a country in a short period of time and show the rest of the Islamic world what our way of life, what our economic system can

do, and why it is so vastly superior to anything else, to take the horns of misperception off of the way those people incorrectly perceive this country. But many millions of them do. What an opportunity we have, and here we are cutting economic development aid to Afghanistan in this bill by over 60 percent.

I thank the Senator from Nevada for his cosponsorship. He has been a champion of this concern before I started here tonight. He has brought it up on the floor numerous times. Even though there is not an offset in this amendment, I think it would be penny-wise and pound very, very unwise for us not to raise the level of funding in this bill for Afghanistan for economic development aid to help move that country forward and to save American lives this year and years to come, both here and around the world.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

[From the New York Times, Sept. 23, 2004]

A Chance of Success Slips Away

(By J. Alexander Thier)

Stanford, Calif.--President Bush describes Afghanistan, the

first front on the war on terrorism, as a success. In

comparison to Iraq, perhaps it is. But if you look at

Afghanistan on its own merits, the lack of progress is

disheartening. In 2002, President Bush promised a ``Marshall

Plan'' for the country, with the goal of turning Afghanistan

into a stable, democratic state. On Tuesday, before the

United Nations General Assembly, the president said that

``the Afghan people are on the path to democracy and

freedom.'' Yet in nearly three years we have failed to create

security, stability, prosperity or the rule of law in

Afghanistan.

These failings are not just a reflection of the great

difficulties of nation-building in places like Afghanistan,

they are also the direct result of the Bush administration's

policy decisions. Our efforts in Afghanistan are

underfinanced and undermanned, and our attention is waning.

The root of the problem is that we invaded Afghanistan to

destroy something--the Taliban and Al Qaeda--but we didn't

think much about what would grow in its place. While we

focused on fighting the terrorist (and even there our

effectiveness has been questionable), Afghanistan has become

a collection of warlord-run fiefs fueled by a multibillion-

dollar opium economy. We armed and financed warlord armies

with records of drug-running and human rights abuses

stretching back two decades. Then we blocked the expansion of

an international security force meant to rein in the

militias. These decisions were made for short-term

battlefield gain--with disregard for the long-term

implications for the mission there.

Our Army continues to hunt insurgents in the mountains, but

we have refused to take the steps necessary to secure the

rest of the country, and it shows. More coalition and Afghan

government soldiers and aid workers have died this year than

in each of the previous two. This summer, Doctors Without

Borders, which has worked in the most desperate and dangerous

conditions around the world, pulled out of Afghanistan after

24 years. In other words, the group felt safer in Afghanistan

during the Soviet occupation and the civil war that followed

than it did three years after the United States-led coalition

toppled the Taliban.

Last month, after a United Nations-backed voter

registration office was bombed, the vice president of the

United Nations Staff Union urged Secretary General Kofi Annan

to pull employees out of Afghanistan. The opium trade is also

out of control, fueling lawlessness and financing terrorists.

Last year, the trade brought in $2.3 billion; this year,

opium production is expected to increase 50 to 100 percent.

Amid terrorist attacks and fighting among regional

warlords, the country is preparing for presidential elections

on Oct. 9. A recent United Nations report warned that

warlords were intimidating voters and candidates. This month,

the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe,

which has monitored post-conflict elections in trouble spots

like Bosnia and Kosovo, declared that Afghanistan was too

dangerous for its election monitors (it is sending a small

``election support team'' instead). President Hamid Karzai

narrowly escaped assassination last week on his first

campaign trip outside Kabul, and eight other presidential

candidates have called for elections to be delayed, saying

it's been too dangerous for them to campaign.

Many of these problems flow from early mistakes. Rather

than moving quickly to establish security and then gradually

turning over control to a legitimate domestic authority, we

have done the opposite. As fighting among warlord militias in

the countryside intensifies, we are slowly expanding our

presence and being dragged into conflicts. The American

``advisers'' in Afghan Army units, the ubiquitous heavily

armed ``private'' security forces and the fortress-like

American Embassy are garnering comparisons to the day of the

Soviets.

In Kabul, the effort to build a stable, capable government

has also lagged dangerously. President Karzai has begun to

show great fortitude in challenging warlords. But his

factious cabinet, born of political compromise, has collapsed

under the pressure of the country's hurried presidential

elections. Outside Kabul, his control remains tenuous in some

places, nonexistent in others. Kabul's Supreme Court, the

only other branch of government, is controlled by Islamic

fundamentalists unconcerned with the dictates of

Afghanistan's new Constitution. On Sept. 1, without any case

before the court, the chief justice ordered that Latif

Pedram, a presidential candidate, be barred from the

elections and investigated for blasphemy. His crime? Mr.

Pedram had suggested that polygamy was unfair to women. These

clerics are trying to establish a system like that in Iran,

using Islam as a bludgeon against democracy.

It's true that there have been several important

accomplishments in these three years: the Taliban and Al

Qaeda no longer sit in Kabul's Presidential Palace; girls are

back in school in many parts of the country; some roads and

buildings have been rebuilt; and more than 10 million Afghans

have registered to vote for the presidential elections.

Thousands of international aid workers have been working with

the Afghans, often at great risk, to make things better.

Despite the slow progress, most Afghans are more hopeful

about their future than they have been in years.

But many people working there are left with the nagging

feeling that much more could have been done both to help

Afghanistan and fight terrorism over the last three years.

Our experience demonstrates that you can't fight wars, or do

nation-building, on the cheap. Afghanistan should be a

critical election issue this year, but Iraq looms much larger

in the public mind. Unless the next administration steps up

to the plate, it may well be an issue in four years, when we

start asking, ``Who lost Afghanistan?''

Reluctantly so, I say to the Senator, and with the request or plea to those who will take this bill to conference that they seek ways--the House has an increase in funding by $48 million over the administration's request. I plead that the conferees look for ways to increase this funding. It would be money very well spent. But, yes, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. President, I commend my colleague from Michigan. I am a proud cosponsor of her legislation. She has been a true champion for seniors and affordable prescription drugs, and she continues that leadership today.

Mr. President, yesterday Senator John Kerry told the American people the truth about Iraq, the truth about the past, the truth about the present, and the truth about the future. President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and other administration apologists complain he did not show enough optimism. Senator Kerry decided that honesty was more important than false optimism.

President Bush and Vice President Cheney have not been honest about Iraq from the beginning. They have not been honest about Iraq with this Senate, not with the House, nor with the American people. John Kerry gave us yesterday what we need: honesty about Iraq.

He was not alone in the last few days. I salute my Republican colleagues--five of them--for their honesty about the situation in Iraq. It cannot be easy to tell the American people the truth and to stand up to an administration of their own party which is not telling the truth. They are remarkable American patriots who recognize, as Senator Robert C. Byrd, the great senior Senator from West Virginia, has reminded us, that we serve with Presidents of the United States, not under them.

We are elected separately to serve independently and to exercise our own best judgments about what is best for our respective States and for our United States.

Listen to what five of our Republican Senators have said recently. One said that President Bush's rosy pronouncements about the situation in Iraq ``are not as straight as we would want them to be.''

Another stated:

A crisp, sharp analysis of our policies is required.

A third, upon noting that of the $18.5 billion Congress appropriated for Iraq's reconstruction a year ago, only $1 billion has been expended, called this ``the incompetence in the administration.''

A fourth Republican Senator stated the other day that he may not vote for President Bush in November, to which another Republican Senator replied:

What I like about him is that he can be a Republican

Senator and, at the same time, he is unsure about our

Republican President. He is a breath of fresh air in

politics.

As he is. And we need also a breath of fresh air in the White House, along with fresh words of truth which we received yesterday from Senator Kerry.

The response of the Bush White House to these honest assessments by Senator Kerry and by our Republican Senate colleagues has been to attack them and blame everyone else. President Truman said when he was President, ``The buck stops here.'' With this President, it is ``the blame starts here''--blame those who opposed this war from the beginning, as I did; blame those who question his bungling of the running of Iraq after our courageous Armed Forces won the country in 3 weeks and still die daily because Iraqis will not take responsibility for their own country. And now he blames his political opponent for telling the American people the truth about Iraq, the truth that he has consistently withheld.

I am not clear exactly about what we are supposed to be optimistic. Certainly not the report of the President's own National Intelligence Council which, according to an Associated Press story last week, ``presented President Bush this summer with three pessimistic scenarios regarding the security situation in Iraq, including the possibility of a civil war there before the end of 2005.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. President, how are we to view the continuing violence in Iraq, the murders of American soldiers as they stand guard in a country that its own citizens are unwilling or unable to guard for themselves, or the American citizens hired to work there who are being kidnapped and beheaded? Tell the 138,000 American soldiers who are courageously serving their country, risking and some losing their lives, and wondering when are they coming home. I say to those who tell patriotic dissenters that they are not supporting our troops--the printable part is, if you want to support our troops, bring them home alive soon, not in 10 or 20 years, as Senator McCain has recently predicted.

Make Iraqis protect and defend their own country. That is what people do in a democracy. That is what people do in any form of stable national government: They impose law and order in their own cities. They provide public safety on their own highways. They defend their own national borders.

Over a year ago, in August of 2003, the Bush administration claimed that 95 percent of Iraq was peacefully occupied and operating normally. Now we see daily reports that violence is spreading and becoming more murderous. The Iraqi Prime Minister claims that ``foreign terrorists are still pouring in,'' a common cry to rally Americans behind the fallacy that their sons and daughters must die in Najev and Baghdad so we will not die in New York and Boston. He says more troops are needed to win. Following the party line, he says: We need more participation from other countries.

We needed more participation from other countries 2 years ago when Congress was stampeded as part of the 2002 midterm election strategy to vote a blank check for warmaking based on completely false information from the Bush administration, including the President and the Vice President themselves.

We needed more participation from other countries when the United States and Great Britain bilaterally invaded Iraq in 2003. Or when the operation of that country failed to begin 3 weeks later. We need it now. Now that President Bush has made a mess of the situation in Iraq, are there any international volunteers?

How about participation from the people of Iraq against the supposedly ``5,000 to 10,000'' insurgents, 95 percent of whom we are told are Iraqis who do not like the presence of the United States there. On paper, we were told over almost a year ago by the Secretary of Defense that there were 206,000 Iraqi militia and army military personnel who were being trained or had been trained--206,000 we were told. Last week, the Secretary of Defense admits that only half of that number have actually been trained.

We are told that less than $1 billion of the $5 billion that Congress appropriated 1 year ago for security training has been expended. And that is why the Republican chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said over the weekend that this is the incompetence of this administration. The buck stops there.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may have 2 minutes to complete my remarks.

I ask that I may have 2 minutes of that time to complete my remarks.

Mr. President, the buck stops in the White House. The blame starts there and it ends there. Senator John Kerry is not responsible

for this war. Congress is culpable to some extent, but is not responsible for it. President Bush is responsible. Now that things are going badly and getting worse--and I say that not because it is pessimism, I say that because it is the truth. John Kerry told the American people the truth. President Bush should start doing the same.

I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

[From AOL News]

Intelligence Report Offered Bleak View of Iraq

(By Katherine Pfleger Shrader)

Washington (Sept. 16).--The National Intelligence Council

presented President Bush this summer with three pessimistic

scenarios regarding the security situation in Iraq, including

the possibility of a civil war there before the end of 2005.

In a highly classified National Intelligence Estimate, the

council looked at the political, economic and security

situation in the wartorn country and determined that--at

best--a tenuous stability was possible, a U.S. official said

late Wednesday, speaking on the condition of anonymity. The

document lays out a second scenario in which increased

extremism and fragmentation in Iraqi society impede efforts

to build a central government and adversely affect efforts to

democratize the country.

In a third, worst-case scenario, the intelligence council

contemplated ``trend lines that would point to a civil war,''

the official said. The potential conflict could be among the

country's three main populations--the Sunnis, Shiites and

Kurds.

It ``would be fair'' to call the document ``pessimistic,''

the official added. But ``the contents shouldn't come as a

particular surprise to anyone who is following developments

in Iraq. It encapsulates trends that are clearly apparent.''

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

I yield back the remainder of our time.

Mr. President, this amendment is necessary to protect the health care benefits of security guards who are protecting our security at Federal buildings in Minnesota and in other States.

In this instance, private contractors have low-bid these security contracts, and they unilaterally have shifted the employees' health payments to 401(k) contributions. The company thereby increases its profits by not paying taxes at the expense of their own employees, with no consultation, no negotiation, just cold-blooded profiteering. No wonder a company like this can underbid its competitors. The bids can go lower and lower every time they cut wages or benefits. That is why there should be employee protections--protections that were eliminated, unfortunately, over the objections of many of us when this Department of Homeland Security was created just 2 years ago.

This amendment simply requires that if a company takes over a contract, it must negotiate changes in health benefits with its employees. I think that is the least we can do on behalf of those who are risking their lives to protect our lives.

I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the previous order I be allowed up to 10 minutes to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, 3 days ago, a picture appeared in the Minneapolis-based Star Tribune newspaper, accompanying a Los Angeles Times article whose headline read: ``U.S. Makes Show of Strength in Fallujah.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record following my remarks.

The picture, for the record, showed about 30 Iraqi civilians standing amidst the rubble of bombed buildings in the Iraqi town of Fallujah. In the forefront of the picture were five Iraqi children, and the caption beneath the picture read:

An Iraqi boy weeps, as people survey the destruction in a

neighborhood, following a U.S. airstrike overnight. Twelve Iraqis were killed, including several women and children. . . .

President Bush makes a show of strength, and an Iraqi boy weeps. I say ``President Bush'' because this is not the U.S. military. They are carrying out the orders of their Commander in Chief. This is not the American people because the American people do not kill innocent women and children in another country. This is the result of and the responsibility of a failed policy in Iraq by the President and his administration.

There were at least two other aerial bombings that day in two other Iraqi cities, according to that one story--more destruction, more civilian casualties, more children weeping; children who lost brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, grandparents, and friends; children who will have the United States of America, for the rest of their lives, seared into their memories; children who will, horribly, possibly cheer if terrorists can cause that kind of terrible destruction to Americans in American cities; children who might even be willing to do something like that themselves in revenge.

President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and other apologists for this continuing war in Iraq claim that they are fighting terrorists there so we won't have to fight them here. By these actions, I maintain they are creating terrorists in Iraq whom we will have to fight here, whom we will have to defend against, fend off, and protect ourselves from for years, even decades to come. How would we feel if our children or our friends or our parents or wives or husbands were buried beneath the rubble that used to be our homes, our stores, and our neighborhoods?

I do not fault the courageous Americans in our Armed Forces who have borne the brunt of this administration's failed policy. To the contrary, I salute them for their heroism and their patriotism. It has been over a year and a half since they won the initial military victory in Iraq. They went from the Iraqi border to Baghdad in 3 weeks. They routed Saddam Hussein's army. They toppled his evil regime. And since then, they have stood guard until someone began to run that country.

They are still standing guard, 138,000 brave Americans. They are fighting, they are bleeding, and they are dying because this administration and their Iraqi allies have not figured out how to run that country.

We need a policy, a plan, and a timetable to get out of Iraq--not to lose Iraq but to leave Iraq, not tomorrow or next week, unfortunately-- because the Bush administration has failed. They have failed to prepare for that. But not in 10 or 20 years, as my colleague, the senior Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, has predicted. He is not recommending that course of action; he is just telling us and the American people the truth. Thank goodness someone is telling us the truth, the truth about what the Bush administration has gotten us into and where their present policies will leave us.

What he can't tell us, because no one can, is how many more Americans will die in Iraq during those 10 or 20 years; how many more Americans will die elsewhere around the world or, God forbid, right in this very country because of the failures of those policies today.

Today I am asking the esteemed chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee to hold oversight hearings this week on the current policy in Iraq, on the military situation there, on the plans of this administration, on the timetable for our continuing involvement there, and on the costs in dollars and lives and international esteem to the United States of America, because the American people deserve the truth. This Congress deserves the facts. Our soldiers, our 138,000 courageous Americans serving in Iraq today, deserve to come home with their military victory secured.

And I say to those who want to support our troops, if you want to support our troops, bring them home alive, bring them home alive now or as soon as possible hereafter, but not in 4 years or 10 years or 20 years. Make the administration in Iraq and the people of Iraq responsible for their own country. That is what democracy is about. It is about self-determination and self-responsibility. It is time the people of Iraq become responsible for Iraq. It is time the 206,000 militia and military that we claim to have trained in Iraq become responsible for Fallujah and Baghdad and everywhere else in Iraq.

The article I referred to earlier states: U.S. and Iraqi authorities lost control of Fallujah last April after they turned the city over to a U.S.-sanctioned force, the Fallujah brigade, which has now all but disappeared.

Where did they disappear to? I supported that action back then. I thought that was the right course of action, that we make Iraqis responsible for the defense of their own country, for the security of their own cities. Now I learn, not through this administration's disclosures but through an article appearing in an investigative story--thank goodness for the free and vigilant press because we wouldn't learn those things here in Congress if we were waiting to be told--that the Fallujah brigade has ``all but disappeared.''

That is a fundamental failure of this administration and the Iraqi administration to train, equip, and motivate the Iraqi forces in Iraq to stand up for and defend their own country from whomever it is over there--insurgents, terrorists, and citizens who want an end to the violence, understandably so, in their own homes and neighborhoods.

It is time to put Iraq in charge of Iraq, make them stand up and fight for their own country, for their own cities, for their own security, and stop forcing Americans on the ground or in the air to cause this kind of destruction that that picture capsulizes which is going to wreak future destruction on our own cities and our own people.

This is a failed policy. It is a disastrous policy. It is one for which this administration should take responsibility.

Again, I call upon the Armed Services Committee of the Senate to hold oversight hearings and tell the American people the truth about what is going on there and what the future holds--in the near future, not the future future.

Exhibit 1

[From the Los Angeles Times, Sept. 10, 2004]

U.S. Makes Show of Strength in Fallujah

(By Patrick J. McDonnell)

Baghdad.--U.S. forces rolled into the rebel bastion of

Samarra on Thursday and sought to reestablish Iraqi

government control as aircraft pounded suspected guerrilla

positions in two other insurgent strongholds: the flashpoint

city of Fallujah in the west and the trouble spot of Tal Afar

in the north.

The show of strength--along with the stated U.S. resolve to

crush a Shiite Muslim militia in Baghdad--underscored the

military's determination to exert control over the country in

the months leading up to elections scheduled for January.

The U.S. move against the three insurgent centers came

after a spike in attacks this week that pushed American

military fatalities from all causes to more than 1,000. The

actions appeared designed to dispel the perception that

swaths of Iraq had become a ``no-go'' zone for U.S. troops.

American warplanes struck Fallujah, the third attack in as

many days against suspected insurgent positions in the city

30 miles west of Baghdad. U.S. and Iraqi authorities lost

control of Fallujah after U.S. Marines ended a three-week

siege last April and turned the city over to a U.S.-

sanctioned force, the Fallujah Brigade, which has now all but

disappeared.

Nine people, including two children, were reported killed

in a Fallujah house that the U.S. command suspected of being

used by allies of the Jordanian-born terror mastermind Abu

Musab al-Zarqawi.

foreign fighters

On Thursday evening, a U.S. spokesman, Maj. Jay Antonelli,

revised the earlier description of events in Fallujah. ``In

spite of the great care taken to spare the lives of

noncombatants, an unknown number of Iraqi civilians were

unfortunately among those killed and wounded in the strike,''

Antonelli said in an e-mail statement.

``The foreign fighters who hide among the people of

Fallujah place them at significant risk,'' Antonelli said.

He added: ``Foreign fighters will not enjoy safe haven

anywhere in the city.''

In a separate statement, the U.S. command said military

operations around Tal Afar were designed to rid the city of

``a large terrorist element that has displaced local Iraqi

security forces throughout the recent weeks.''

The U.S. military said 57 insurgents were killed in the

attack on Tal Afar, a northern city near the border with

Syria that lies on smuggling routes for weapons and foreign

fighters. The provincial health director, Dr. Rabie Yassin,

said 27 civilians were killed and 70 wounded. It was unclear

whether those reported by the Iraqis as civilians were

counted as insurgents by the Americans.

Meanwhile, relative calm held in much of the Shiite Muslim

heartland after an agreement negotiated last month by Iraq's

leading

Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini al-Sistani.

The agreement brought an end to weeks of fighting between

U.S. troops and Shiite militiamen loyal to radical cleric

Muqtada al-Sadr.

Scattered clashes continued between Al-Sadr's loyalists and

American forces in the radical cleric's Baghdad stronghold,

Sadr City.

Iraqi officials want to prevent Al-Sadr from rebuilding his

forces in Najaf. Toward that end, dozens of Iraqi soldiers

and police raided Al-Sadr's Najaf office to search for

weapons. Al-Sadr was not there at the time, and no weapons

were found, although Iraqi officials said ammunition and

mortars were confiscated from nearby houses.

U.S. and Iraqi government troops are not in full control of

several cities and areas in Iraq, including Samarra in the

north, Fallujah and Ramadi in the west, and the largely

Shiite neighborhood known as Sadr City in eastern Baghdad,

where a militia holds sway. Other cities and towns, such as

Tal, have become guerrilla bastions where the U.S.-backed

Iraqi government exerts only limited control.

In Samarra, U.S. commanders said their forces, accompanied

by members of the Iraqi police and by national guard

soldiers, drove into the city Thursday morning after gaining

assurances from local Iraqi leaders that they would not be

fired on. The local leaders said they sensed divisions within

the insurgents' ranks between those who favored some

accommodation with the Americans and those who rejected it,

and felt secure enough to issue the temporary guarantee.

U.S. soldiers and the Iraqi police then convened a meeting

of the U.S.-backed council, which chose a new mayor and

police chief. After a few uneventful hours, the U.S. soldiers

and the Iraqi police left.

However, commanders acknowledge that as many as 500

insurgents remain in Samarra. The guerrillas' preference is

to strike at smaller U.S. or Iraqi units. In classic

guerrilla style, they tend to hide their arms and blend in

among city residents when faced with larger forces.

The U.S. troops pulled out at the end of the day for lack

of a secure base to spend the night.

Maj. Neal O'Brien of the 1st Infantry Division, which

patrols four provinces north of Baghdad that includes

Samarra, said, ``We will never give up our right to maneuver

in any of our areas.''

The U.S. approach in Samarra since spring had been to allow

local leaders to work out a way to disarm or otherwise

neutralize a stubborn insurgent force that had disrupted

government and police activities in the ancient city of

200,000.

The largely Sunni Muslim population has long posed a major

challenge for U.S. forces. The city was the site of a large-

scale U.S. offensive last winter designed to flush out a

guerrilla force thought to be composed of religious

militants, anti-American nationalists and loyalists of Saddam

Hussein's former Baath Party. During that offensive, a U.S.

force of more than 3,000 soldiers also met little resistance

as the guerrillas apparently melted into the populace.

But in recent months, residents say, Samarra had fallen

back under insurgent control.

I yield the floor.

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

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

I thank the manager of this bill for the opportunity to present my amendment tonight.

Unfortunately, this amendment is unfortunately necessary to protect the security of the men and women who protect our security day and night in States such as Minnesota. As my colleagues will recall, when the Department of Homeland Security was created in 2002, the Congress granted the Secretary of the new Department of Homeland Security the unprecedented power to override longstanding employee contracts. He or she was given the power to hire, fire, promote, demote, or do anything to the employees of that new agency.

Some of us opposed that unprecedented, unwarranted, and unnecessary power. A couple of my colleagues were vilified, demonized, and defeated for opposing that unilateral power. The majority in this body, at the insistence of the Bush administration, voted for it. Well, they got it.

So of the security guards in the Federal building where I have my office in Minnesota and elsewhere, I am told a private contractor took over their contract this July, and without consultation, without negotiation, or without consent altered their health benefit payments. It saves this big company taxes.

Of course, they could underbid the existing contractor and take that out of the benefits of those security guards in Minnesota to the detriment of them and their families.

The result has been that since July 1, 15 to 20 percent of that local guard force has had to quit, look for a new job, or take a second job. Others have not been able to meet their house and car payments. They are having a harder time concentrating on work, their work being to protect the people who work in my office, my constituents.

One guard had a heart problem and had to be taken from work to the hospital in an ambulance because of the stress that was imposed. He received medical services that now, as a result of this contract change, he does not have the money to pay for.

It takes 70 to 80 hours to train a new security guard. For a full- timer, that is about 10 full-time days. For part-timers, that can take up to a month depending on their part-time schedule. So this is not saving the taxpayers money. This is saving the private contractor money. It is providing greater profits for that company at the expense of the health and economic security of the people who are providing that security day and night in Minnesota and other States because their protections were stripped out and eliminated when this new Department of Homeland Security was created.

I say, respectfully, to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, as well as to the chairman of the subcommittee and the distinguished ranking member, I know they have expressed in the past their reluctance to adopt policy changes in appropriations measures, but the health, security and protections of the people in Minnesota, unfortunately, cannot wait for some other measure to come forward. So I believe it is essential that I bring forward this amendment, and I ask my colleagues to consider it.

It very simply says--and I would be quite happy to go back further in time, but for the sake of this particular situation and others like it--for contracts that have been taken over through low-ball bidding since May 30, 2004, alterations in health protection and health coverage have to be negotiated with the employees or with their bargaining unit. To me, this is the minimal measure of protection that should be granted to every employee in the Federal Government, in this agency, or any other.

At 5:25 p.m., I received stated objections from someone at the Federal Protective Service purporting to represent the official response of the Department of Homeland Security. Once again, the existing Federal agency at the last minute has objections to the legislation that could have been presented to me today, last week, whenever. My staff has been in discussion with the majority and the minority staff on the committee for the last few days. Less than 2 hours ago, to receive from the agency involved their stated objections that they will use, I assume to try to defeat this amendment, I find to be offensive.

They, once again, presume that because they have this authorizing legislation that grants the Secretary unilateral, complete, absolute power to make these changes in people's contracts that affect their lives, that affect their families, they do not even need to bother to respond to proposed legislation, which is exactly the reason this should not have been passed to begin with; exactly the reason employees should have due process; exactly the reason this ought to be in contract bargaining procedures so that those changes that are going to be made have to go through a negotiation or discussion with the elected representatives of those affected employees.

We have gone too far in creating this department and giving that unilateral authority to any single individual. This is a step back in the proper direction that is not in any way going to affect the national security of this country. In fact, I take that back. It will only enhance the national security of this country, of the Federal employees in the Federal buildings such as in Minnesota and the citizens who go to those buildings to meet with their elected representatives because they will be better qualified, better trained, more capable people, including those who now hold those jobs, except for those who have been forced to leave those jobs. So there will be better national security at a lower cost to the taxpayer when the retraining and other ancillary costs are included.

The only one that will be adversely affected by this will be the private employer who is underbid and is trying to extract additional profits out of the economic security of those employees and the public security of those they protect.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, may I ask the majority leader, what are the factors that decide whether a particular disaster merits this kind of expedited action and which ones do not? I certainly want to agree with what the Democratic leader just said because my State, which is adjacent to his, has suffered for the last 4 years now from various disasters. After the first 2 years, we were finally able to get the administration to relent and allow for one of those 2 years to be covered for farmers, many of whom lost their entire crop in our State.

Last year, we had another round of natural disasters, and there was no disaster relief provided or authorized by the Congress or agreed to by the administration. Now, this year, my State has just experienced a frost that has cost $190 million in damages, and it is likely to mount.

Again, when the majority leader--I respect his candor--says that further requests or supplementals may be forthcoming, that is not much consolation to my farmers and constituents; whereas, now in the State of Florida--and I share the Democratic leader's sympathies for that State because there are many Minnesota residents who are affected who have part-time residencies in the State of Florida--but on behalf of those who live all the time in Minnesota, they are not going to be as sympathetic when their needs continue to be ignored and right away Florida gets this kind of expedited assistance.

I wonder, again, what are the criteria and are they going to apply to any State other than Florida?

Mr. President, I do respect the majority leader.

Thank you, Mr. President.

The farmers in my State are out of money. There are farmers in my State who were out of money last year who have been forced into bankruptcy. How do they make the necessary appeal to the President to get on his list? Is it required that the Governor of the State be the brother of the President? How is this going to be handled? Because based on the most recent hurricane, Frances--again, I am sympathetic to those affected, which includes Minnesotans, but we are going to have another request. Can we have an assurance there will be an opportunity at that time, as the Democratic leader is trying to obtain, so we can offer amendments to have the Senate consider other requests for disaster aid? Is that something on which we could get a concurrence?

Mr. President, I reserve the right to object to say that I will not object in this case but with the understanding that the next time, as the majority leader said, there will be opportunities. If there is another supplemental request, I will insist on the opportunity to at least have these other requests considered. I will not object.

Mr. President, after the vote on the Defense appropriations, will there be opportunities for Senators to speak on other subjects?

I thank the majority leader.

Mr. President, I have the greatest respect for the majority leader, and I agree with him on many subjects, but earlier tonight he had some pretty harsh words for some of the economic statements that I and others of my colleagues have been making in recent weeks. He called them ``canards'' which is a nice sounding word but means they are false statements.

I feel compelled to rise and present what I think is a better version of the facts which, as we can see, are very different. The majority leader, as I understood his argument, was saying the new jobs that are now being created in the economy are better paying on average than the average of other jobs that were in existence in the year 2003. But that misses the essential point, which is that most of those newly created jobs pay less and offer lower benefits than the over 2.5 million jobs lost during the first 2\1/2\ years of the Bush administration. Most of those jobs were good-paying manufacturing jobs, and most of them have not come back. Many of them have been transferred to other countries with lower wages and no standards. They are not coming back at all.

Those are the jobs that the unemployed workers of America are now finding and that are paying on average thousands of dollars less than the jobs those workers held before the recession began in March of 2001. They are among the millions of Americans whose incomes have fallen, who used to have jobs with health insurance but now don't.

I quote from an editorial in today's New York Times in part which states:

From three different vantage points . . . the same basic

picture emerges: While there has been an increase in job

creation over the past four months--an unusually belated and

anemic spurt by historical standards--the bulk of the

activity has been at the low end of the quality spectrum. The

Great American Job Machine is not even close to generating

the surge of the high-powered jobs that is typically the

driving force behind greater incomes and consumer demand.

This puts households under enormous pressure. Desperate to

maintain lifestyles, they have turned to far riskier sources

of support. Reliance on tax cuts has led to record budget

deficits, and borrowing against homes has led to record

household debt. These trends are dangerous and unsustainable,

and they pose a serious risk to economic recovery.

We hear repeatedly that the employment disconnect is all

about productivity--that America needs to hire fewer workers

because the ones already working are more efficient. This may

well be true, but there is a more compelling explanation:

global labor arbitrage. Under unrelenting pressure to cut

costs, American companies are now replacing high-wage workers

here with like-quality, low-wage workers abroad.

It was only a matter of time before the globalization of

work affected the United States labor market. The character

and quality of American job creation is changing before our

very eyes. Which poses the most important question of all:

what are we going to do about it?

That is a subject which both of our major party candidates for President this year need to address--what are we going to do about it?

The response of President Bush and his economic apologists thus far is to deny even the reality. Fortunately, we have their own earlier predictions by which to measure today's economic facts.

In May of 2003, the President's own Council of Economic Advisers stated that his what was then called jobs and growth plan of more deficit-driving tax cuts for the rich and the super-rich would result in the creation, they said, of 5.5 million new jobs by the end of this year. Congress passed the President's plan, and it took effect in July of 2003. The actual number of jobs created in the past 12 months is over 2.2 million fewer jobs than the President's Council of Economic Advisers forecast. In fact, the job creation in this country has failed to meet the President's forecasts in 10 of the last 12 months.

Once again, the administration trots out their favorite apologist, Chairman Greenspan, whose salary now should be paid by the President's reelect committee rather than the American taxpayers, who preached fiscal responsibility for 8 years to President Clinton's administration and to the Congress at that time and was instrumental in creating a balanced Federal budget in the year 2000, after taking out the Social Security trust fund--the first time in 40 years that the budget of the Federal Government, the operating accounts were balanced. He then turned around and has acquiesced with every tax cut that has been passed and which has led to the deficits that now exceed over $500 billion a year and which the nonpartisan Concord Coalition, chaired by former Republican Senator Rudman, has called the most reckless fiscal policy in this Nation's history.

Mr. Greenspan, who acquiesced in those, now comes forward and says the tax cuts prevented a deeper recession. In part, he is probably correct that the child tax credit, which certainly passed here with overwhelming bipartisan support, and the 10-percent bracket had those benefits, but certainly nobody could say eliminating the estate tax in 2010 was a force in either dampening the recession or speeding our recovery, nor did making the top tax brackets for the rich and the super-rich even lower, according to most economists, result in that kind of economic stimulus. In fact, the Federal Reserve's own econometric forecast states that public spending is a better multiplier for jobs and economic growth than the tax cuts.

He has gone farther in the last day to say the reason we have lower paying jobs in America is now because American workers are not well enough educated. It is pretty hard to understand how the educational quality of the American workforce could change from what it was prior to the recession when employment had expanded at a robust pace for almost 8 years to where it is less than 3 years later. In fact, the reality is that many American workers are overeducated for the jobs that are available, as the New York Times editorial and other economic analyses have attested. We are not providing the jobs in this economy that people need with the talents they have. We are not providing the jobs people need to maintain the standards of living they enjoyed before. And we are not providing enough jobs for the unemployed and underemployed people of this country. That is the reality, not a canard.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize an outstanding Minnesota radio station, KTCZ-FM, which recently won a National Association of Broadcasters Crystal Radio Award. The Award honors KTCZ-FM for its continuous commitments and exceptional dedication to community service throughout its listening region.

KTCZ-FM, which is known locally as ``Cities 97,'' deserves this honor for its many charitable contributions. Last

year, the station donated over $2.7 million in airtime, which enabled nonprofit service organizations to raise almost $5 million for their important work. The station also aired over $1 million worth of public service announcements and provided almost 80 hours of public affairs broadcasts.

Their tremendous community support previously earned KTCZ-FM the Camp Heartland Heart of Hope Award, the Make-A-Wish Recognition Award, the University Pediatrics Foundation Corporate Friend Award, and a Proclamation by the Governor of Minnesota.

KTCZ-FM's employees share the station's dedication to helping others. Last year, they donated over 2,500 hours of their own time to help worthy causes.

On behalf of the thousands of Minnesotans who have been helped by Cities 97's generosity, I thank the station, its management, and its employees for their extraordinary contributions. I congratulate them for winning a 2004 Crystal Radio Award. I trust that their giving back to their community will continue to lead the way for many more years.