Floor Statements

How much time do I have remaining.

Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I will not use all of the remaining time.

Department of Defense Authorization Bill

Mr. President, on May 22 of this year, 2003, I cast my vote in opposition to the fiscal year 2004 Defense authorization bill. I cast that vote to protest the errant course of the defense establishment in seeking larger and larger regular defense budgets. The budget for the Department of Defense is exploding, even if we do not count the vast sums being used to maintain our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The regular defense budget, not including the costs of the war on terrorism in Afghanistan or the other war, the war in Iraq which we started, has gone up by 31 percent since 2000. I will say that again. The regular defense budget, not including the costs of the war on terrorism in Afghanistan or the other war which we started in Iraq, has gone up by 31 percent since 2000.

In 2000, Congress authorized $304.1 billion to fund the routine day- to-day operations of our military. The conference report before the Senate today authorizes $401.3 billion to pay the routine bills for our defense establishment. As I say, I am not even speaking of the costs of Iraq on the one hand or the costs of Afghanistan. So if we were to just ignore Afghanistan and Iraq in looking at the costs of the military, we are authorizing today in the conference report $401 billion to pay the routine bills for our defense establishment as against the $304.1 billion that Congress authorized in the year 2000--in other words, roughly $100 billion more today than we authorized in 2000, just ignoring Iraq, on the one hand, and Afghanistan on the other.

The growth of the so-called peacetime budget of the Department of Defense is expected to continue into the foreseeable future. The Pentagon estimates that it will request $502.7 billion for routine defense operations in the year 2009. Think of that. That is more than a half trillion dollars. The Pentagon estimates it will request $502 billion for routine defense operations in 2009. But a request for half a trillion dollars--as we will be undertaking in 2009--should be anything but routine, especially if not one red cent of those funds would be for any contingency military operation.

Instead, these growing defense budgets are proof that there is no longer any real effort to provide a smarter defense plan that will modernize our forces for the 21st century while eliminating the vestiges of a cold war era military force. Nearly 3 years ago, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announced he would conduct a series of top- to-bottom reviews of the Pentagon. I lauded him for doing that. I applauded him publicly and in private conversations. I applauded the Secretary of Defense. Those reviews were supposed to get rid of old weapons systems, field new ones, and refocus the defense establishment to get more bang for the taxpayers' buck.

I, along with many others, supported those efforts as announced by the Secretary of Defense. But any hope of modernizing our Armed Forces while maintaining fiscal discipline has gone--gone out the window. The defense transformation effort which began as a frontal assault on irresponsible spending at the Pentagon has been replaced by the quest for flexibility--``flexibility,'' the latest buzzword to describe efforts to consolidate greater and greater and greater power into the hands of a select few at the top of the executive branch.

I voted against the Defense authorization bill on May 22 of this year. Why did I do that? I was the only one, the only Senator who voted against it. Why did I do that? I voted against that bill in order to voice my protest to spiraling defense budgets when the American people are expecting smarter spending by their Government, and I will vote against the conference report today to this bill for the very same reason, as well as because it gives rubberstamp approval to consolidating new, broad powers in the Secretary of Defense.

This conference report creates the ``National Security Personnel System,'' so-called, which gives the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, unchecked powers--unchecked powers to rewrite civil service rules for civilian employees of the Pentagon. The conference report includes sweeping authorities--sweeping authorities to allow the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, to waive landmark environmental protection laws with a stroke of the pen.

The conference report establishes new ``flexibilities''-- flexibilities for the Pentagon to use to develop and deploy an unproven national missile defense system. That is a sinkhole, a sinkhole for your money, the taxpayers' money.

The conference report grants new multiyear authority to transfer appropriations--now, get this. Hear me! The conference report grants new multiyear authority to transfer appropriations of unlimited sums. This is not chickenfeed we are talking about. We are talking about unlimited sums of ``your money,'' the taxpayers' money, from numerous accounts in order to increase spending on Navy cruiser conversions and overhauls.

These are but a few examples of the new powers granted to the executive branch, downtown, at the other end of the avenue, in this bill--this bill. I am not reading from ``Alice in Wonderland.'' I am reading from this conference report.

Our country continues to be threatened by Osama bin Laden. Our troops are under fire in Iraq in the aftermath of a preemptive war, a preemptive war that we started, a preemptive war that our President, as Commander in Chief, started.

Fie on us, the Congress! For shifting that power to the President last October, last October 11. Twenty-three Senators in this body voted against shifting that power to the President. I was one of those 23. I was against shifting that power to this President or to any President. It doesn't make any difference to me what his politics--what his political party is, or would be, so help me, God. I would stand against that with any President. Fie on us! Only 23 Members in this body stood firm for the Constitution of the United States under which, power to declare war is vested in the legislative branch. Soldiers are fighting and dying half a world away and the wealth of this great country is being diverted from the United States Treasury in order to carry out an experiment in nation building in Iraq.

If there were ever a time to demand more accountability and efficiency in how taxpayer dollars are spent on our military, this is it. But instead of holding the feet of the Secretary of Defense to the fire, Congress gives the Secretary vast new powers to hire and fire workers as he sees fit.

Instead of turning the screws--the screws, instead of turning the screws--on this Defense Secretary to straighten out this mess, the accounting nightmare at the Pentagon, Congress grants the Pentagon more flexibility over how it can use funds appropriated to it. We cut the strings by which Congress limits the use of taxpayers' money. Instead of demanding greater accountability over how our military is preparing to meet the military threats of the coming decades, Congress creates new loopholes. The inescapable conclusion, is that Congress has been distracted from the most important issues facing our military posture. Instead, Congress is asked to take action on peripheral matters, and even then we simply pass the buck by closing our eyes and hoping that the Defense Department can straighten itself out if it is invested with enough new powers and ``flexibilities.''

If the leadership of the Pentagon thinks that ``defense transformation'' means getting Congress to stick its head in the sand, count me out. My idea of transformation means spending smarter to build a stronger military, not turning a blind eye to Executive Branch power grabs.

It is our fault. I can understand how the executive branch seeks to grab power. The executive branch is operating 24 hours a day every day, 365 days a year. Everywhere its imprint is seen throughout the globe, Congress sleeps.

The flexibilities in this bill are the antitheses of accountability. For each new ``flexible authority'' that Congress hands over to the Secretary of Defense--any Secretary of Defense--Congress signs away one more lever that should be used to compel the Secretary to build a smarter defense plan.

The Commander in Chief beats his chest and throws down the gauntlet, saying, ``Bring them on,'' in front of the TV cameras, but pictures of the fallen dead coming home to Dover are not allowed.

Oh, we don't want to display the pictures of bringing back the caskets at Dover, DE. No. The American people must not see that side of the war. This is a stubborn course that we have chosen that could tie down our forces in Iraq for months and months and months, and years even to come, and it is a course that I oppose today. It is a course I have opposed from the beginning. This ill-advised invasion and occupation of a Middle Eastern country stands to sap--sap--our military power through the attrition of our brave men and women in uniform. The effects of such a toll could affect our national security for decades to come.

The United States cannot afford to shelve--to place on the shelf-- efforts to leap forward a generation in military power by investing in a smarter defense plan. If our country does not prioritize efforts to change our military to respond to the asymmetric warfare of the 21st century--whether those threats emanate from North Korea, or a belligerent China, or Iran--the long-term toll of the adventure in Iraq could weaken our military for years to come, just as our Armed Forces were found to be hollow in the years after Vietnam.

I will vote against the conference report to the Defense authorization bill. It transfers vast unchecked powers to the Defense Department while avoiding any break with the business-as-usual approach to increasing defense spending. It dodges the most important issues facing our national defense posture, and I cannot support such a bill.

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

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

Madam President, may I be recognized? May I be recognized for debate?

I thank the Chair.

Madam President, I have sought the floor at this moment to urge the leadership to extend the time on this bill for 2 hours. I have heard the distinguished Democratic whip say it, I believe I have heard the Senator from Maryland, the manager of the bill, and the ranking member on this side, Senator Mikulski, say it, and I believe I have heard the manager indicate we might be able to finish this bill with an additional 2 hours.

We have completed 10 appropriations bills for floor action. There are only 13. That means there are three more. If we could finish this bill in 2 hours, that would leave only two appropriations bills that have not had floor action: CJS and District of Columbia.

So I urge, Madam President, that the leadership extend the time on this measure that is before the Senate just 2 hours.

Let us finish this bill before going to other matters.

Yes, I yield.

Yes, I do.

Yes, I yield for a question without losing my right to the floor.

It certainly would be in order.

It certainly would.

Well, I will not only consider it, I will make the request. I would like for the leadership to be here and let the leadership consider making the request. I am talking about the majority leader. I do not want to try to impose myself in his stead in a matter of this nature, but I do think the Senate ought to go for a couple more hours, if that would do it, and let us finish this bill.

We have finished 10 appropriations bills. I am the ranking member on the Appropriations Committee. It certainly is in order for me to attempt to try to get this bill acted on. We are so close. This is a veterans bill, the VA-HUD bill, that is so important. We have soldiers, men and women, dying in Iraq. Why not pass this bill within 2 hours? We are within 2 hours, and if we work hard we might complete it before that 2 hours. Maybe some of the amendments could be peeled off so we could cut the time.

I ask, Is there anyone who would get the majority leader to come to the floor and let us consider this?

I have the floor.

Yes. Let me protect myself, though. I ask unanimous consent that I may yield to the distinguished Senator from Missouri so that he can propound a question to the Chair and that I retain my right to the floor.

Madam President, I am going to propound a request. That request will include--did the Senator from Missouri say there were four amendments that were cleared?

Madam President, before I make a request, let me congratulate the Senator from Missouri. He is a good member of the Appropriations Committee. He works hard. He is a productive member. I have a great deal of admiration for him and for the work he does. I say the same about my friend, the Senator from Maryland. She has done tremendous work on this bill. It is the VA-HUD bill. She always applies her total energies and talents to working on this measure. With her good work and cooperation, the manager of the bill, Mr. Bond, has been able to bring the bill to the floor. He has done great work. I do not want to take away from his work. I want to add to it, and so I compliment him.

As I understand it, there are seven amendments at the desk that have been cleared on both sides?

I yield only if I may retain my right to the floor.

I yield to the Senator that he may make that statement, and ask that I may retain my right to the floor.

May I say again, we have finished 10 of the 13 appropriations bills on this floor. We lack three: CJS, District of Columbia, and VA-HUD. VA-HUD is before the Senate. We are within reach of completing floor action on that bill. We ought to do that. If we fail, having come this close, what is the Senate going to look like? We have to complete action on appropriations bills one way or another before we can adjourn sine die. I hope we could finish floor action on this bill.

Think of all the time that has gone into the consideration of this bill in the committee. The chairman and ranking member have held hearings. They have had a markup of this bill. They have worked hard over a period of many months. They have heard witnesses. All of this ought not to be for naught.

I hope Senators will agree. I had hoped the distinguished majority leader would be on the Senate floor so that I could urge him to propound this request. We are only 11 minutes away from 6. Now, a unanimous consent request entered into at this point will prevail over any previous unanimous consent request dealing with that same matter. So I have the floor. I know what my rights are, and I know what my duties are, also, as the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.

May I ask the Chair, am I wrong in anything I have said? Am I correct?

Yes. And am I correct that a unanimous consent request agreed to at this moment to extend the hour of 6, which was in a previous request, would be the prevailing motion?

I thank the Chair.

Madam President, I yield for a question without giving up the floor.

That would be part.

Yes, indeed.

So, Madam President, I really hesitate to make this request. I had hoped the majority leader would be in the Chamber because he is the person to be

recognized at 6 o'clock, under the previous order. I don't want to appear to be discourteous. That is not my intention.

Why do you think I am doing this? I am the ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Committee. In the 7 years, I believe it was, that I was chairman of the Appropriations Committee, we never had--I don't think we ever had--I think we finished all 13 appropriations bills every year. We could finish another one. I know Senator Stevens has worked hard. I asked Senator Stevens during the last rollcall if he was agreeable to extending this time, since we are so close. He indicated he would work to do that.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that----

I didn't understand the Chair.

I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer.

I am trying to avoid appearing to intrude on the majority leader's previous request and his time. I don't want to appear to be discourteous. I want to make the request when the majority leader is here.

I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to make a unanimous consent request and that, if it is agreed to--or whether or not it is agreed to, that I be recognized for another unanimous consent request, with the understanding that in any event I will be recognized 1 minute before 6 p.m. today to make such request.

Mr. President, I don't lose the floor by virtue of having made a unanimous consent request, even though it is objected to. I don't lose the floor.

I yield to the distinguished Senator from Maryland with the understanding I do not lose my right to the floor, and I yield for a question only.

Mr. President, I don't yield the floor for that purpose.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the seven amendments at the desk, to which the distinguished Senator from Missouri alluded, be considered agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, and that the Senate immediately proceed to the further consideration of the VA-HUD appropriations bill with the understanding that time on that bill would end no later than 8 o'clock--or would end at 8 o'clock this evening, and that there would be a vote on the VA-HUD bill.

Senators will understand I used to propound these requests without their being in writing. I am carefully trying to approach this, so I will start over.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the seven amendments that have been referred to by the distinguished Senator from Missouri, Mr. Bond, and are at the desk, that have been cleared, be considered agreed to and adopted to the bill. I further ask that the time originally set for recognition of the majority leader, at 1 minute until 6, be delayed 2 hours, that in the meantime the Senate consider action and complete action on the VA-HUD appropriations bill, and that the motions to reconsider be laid on the table.

Mr. President, I am very interested in the need to provide funding through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the National Research Council to study whether the use of coal combustion wastes, otherwise known as coal fly ash, poses health and/or safety threats to the public or to the environment when used for reclamation purposes in both active and abandoned coal mines.

For more than twenty years, the EPA has been grappling with the issue of whether and how the use of these power plant combustion wastes should be regulated and the manner in which they should be regulated, if at all, under the Resources Conservation and Recovery Act or the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act. With this amendment, the National Research Council will be able to provide much-needed research assistance to the EPA as the agency continues to consider the development of national regulations in this area.

This study serves an important purpose and will help answer important questions about the impact of disposing coal combustion wastes in coal mines. Further, this study would offer timely information to EPA policy makers as these experts continue to assess the need for regulations governing this practice.

In summary, there is a great need for this study. It could be funded within existing resources and under existing authorizations. I hope that my colleagues will be able to consider this important request during the VA/HUD conference. I thank them for their consideration of this issue.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

I shall not object, but I ask for this recognition for the purpose of asking the distinguished majority leader a question.

Before I do that, may I say to the distinguished majority leader that I have no intention to become involved in this game back and forth. And I do not say it is a game just indulged in by one side. I have nothing to do with it. I have had nothing to say in it thus far. And at the moment, I do not anticipate having anything to say.

My interest is this: I am the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee of the Senate. I have been on that Appropriations Committee longer than any Senator in history. I have been on it 45 years. I would like to see us get one more appropriations bill passed.

When I was chairman of the Appropriations Committee for 7 years, I do not believe there was a year in which we did not get all 13 regular appropriations bills passed. We have passed 10 appropriations bills already this year.

The distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Stevens, who is the President pro tempore of the Senate, and who now presides, has worked hard and has worked with me, but he has done most of the work in getting those 10 appropriations bills passed. I discussed this matter with him during the vote just preceding the hour of 6 o'clock, and I indicated to him I would like to see us try to finish this appropriations bill, the VA-HUD appropriations bill. And he indicated to me--he is in the chair--he indicated to me he would be glad to work toward that.

So here we are. We have finished floor action on 10 of the 13 regular appropriations bills. Only three are left. Those three are VA-HUD; DC appropriations; and CJS, Commerce-Justice-State--three appropriations bills. We are almost finished on VA-HUD.

When I came to the floor, my interest was in trying to get that bill finished, making it 11 appropriations bills. So I came to the floor, and I asked the manager on this side, Senator Mikulski, if we could finish it, and how long it would take, in her judgment. She thought it would take perhaps 2 more hours. And I believe, in discussions with Senator Bond, it was also indicated that we might finish that bill in 2 hours.

Now, I hoped the majority leader would be in the Chamber prior to the hour of 6 o'clock. I was made aware of his request that he be recognized 2 minutes before 6--5:58 or some such. I was hoping that-- and it was with considerable trepidation, certainly reluctance, that I sought to impose a unanimous consent request that would, for 2 hours, have delayed action on the then-pending unanimous consent--Senate request--the unanimous consent request. I get my tongue a little twisted at age 86. That is my problem.

But I waited, hoping the majority leader would come to the floor. I know the demands on him, and I understand that. But I hoped he would be here so that I could make this request prior to this, what I call a game that is going on.

Please forgive me if--I am interested in getting the appropriations bills passed. I am not interested in participating in this other matter at all--right now. I have some ideas. I do not thoroughly agree--I do not completely agree with the distinguished majority leader on his interpretation of the Constitution with respect to nominees, but that is for another time.

But I have taken the floor now in the hope that we might, on this one day after Veterans Day--and my mother died on Armistice Day, 1918. I was 1 year old back then, lacking a week or something.

We have men and women dying in Iraq now. We have veterans by the scores coming back to this country who are injured and who will carry for life the signs of their service in Iraq.

I wanted to ask the distinguished majority leader--and I did not want to interrupt his speech, but I want to ask him, with great respect, if he would be willing to let the Senate go, let's say, until 8 o'clock, and then renew the previous order, with the understanding that we finish action on the VA-HUD bill by 8 o'clock, that the time intervening be equally divided between Mr. Bond and Senator Mikulski, and that we enter the order to complete that bill at 8 o'clock.

That is all I am asking, that we go another hour and a half, complete that bill, which would make us have 11 bills finished as far as floor action is concerned, with only 2 remaining. Let's get that bill passed. That is important.

I was a participant in the filibuster against Abe Fortas. I know something about filibusters. And I just am not willing to enter into one personally right now. But I would like to get this appropriations bill finished.

Mr. President, further reserving the right to object.

And I do not intend to object, Mr. President.

May I say to the distinguished majority leader, 4 million veterans receive health care through the veterans health care system funded by the VA-HUD bill. How should we explain to these veterans that the bill is being set aside?

Will the Senator yield for me to respond?

Mr. President, I have long admired the distinguished Senator from Tennessee.

[Disturbance in the Galleries.]

I do not say that facetiously.

Some people are serious when they say things. But I have admired the Senator as a great physician. He speaks of his long service to veterans. I speak of a long service to veterans--more than 51 years in this Congress. I was here when the Veterans Administration was created. About Friday--Friday----

I am the recipient of the Franklin Delano and Eleanor Roosevelt Award for Freedom from Fear. I will receive that award on Saturday. I am not in a position to drive up on Saturday morning and receive that award. My wife is invited also with me. She cannot go. So I have to go on Friday, and the train leaves at 1 o'clock. As far as I am personally concerned, I would be happy to come in and finish those 2 hours and get the--I believe there are four votes that are going to be scheduled on clotures that morning.

Well, I have cast more rollcall votes than any living Senator, any deceased Senator, any Senator in the history of this Republic, any other Senator. I have 16,627 or 8 or 9--somewhere along there.

I say all that to say this: I do not want to miss any rollcall votes on Saturday. I take great pride in my rollcall record extending over 45 years in the Senate. It is 98.7 percent. So I missed less than 2 percent of the votes.

Could we agree then--I do not want to put myself in the position of my own leaders, as I did not want to put myself in the position of the distinguished majority leader on the other side. I would like to be able to make the four votes on Friday, catch my train at 1 o'clock, and go up and receive this very prestigious award.

Could we work something out to that effect?

No. I reserved the right to object. May I have another minute? I am not participating in this whatever you call it--marathon, talkathon, blame-athon, or whatever it is. That is not of my interest right now. I am interested in the appropriations bill. It can be passed in 2 hours or less. As far as I am concerned, we could pass it now, just have a rollcall vote on it, the VA-HUD, but that would depend upon the two managers.

I am not going to impose on the time of the Senate and the majority leader, but I ask the majority leader, would he please put the request in some form to finish this bill within the next hour, have a vote up or down within the next hour?

Thank you, Mr. President. I remove my reservation and thank the majority leader.

Mr. President, November 11, Veterans Day, is the day of reverence for American veterans. It is the day of the year set aside to honor the people who have defended our country, our way of life, and our freedom. It is the day that allows us to pause to recognize their patriotism, their love of country, their willingness to serve, and their willingness to sacrifice.

Just last year, President Bush called Veterans Day the day that we ``show our gratitude to the veterans of the United States Armed Forces''--a day when ``we honor veterans and we honor their families, and we offer the thanks of a grateful Nation.''

The very origins of this day are both historic and symbolic. It began at the 11th hour on the 11th day of the 11th month--that is, 11/11/11-- of 1918 when the allied powers signed a cease-fire agreement with the central powers, thus bringing to an end the 4-year bloody nightmare known as World War I.

The next year, the United States set aside November 11 as Armistice Day to remember and honor the sacrifices that men and women made during World War I.

In 1926, a congressional resolution officially named November 11 Armistice Day. Twelve years later, in 1938, Congress made Armistice Day a national holiday.

In 1954, following World War II and the Korean war, Congress made November 11 a day to honor veterans of all wars, and therefore changed the name of this most important day to Veterans Day. President Dwight D. Eisenhower, the President of the United States at the time, asked Americans to use this day to ``remember the sacrifices of all those who fought so valiantly on the seas, in the air, and on foreign shores, to preserve our heritage of freedom.'' In the first Presidential ``Veterans Day Proclamation,'' President Eisenhower proclaimed:

It is my earnest hope that all veterans, their

organizations, and the entire citizenry will join hands to

insure proper and widespread observance of this day.

Just how important and symbolic this day had become to the American people and, especially, our veterans, was demonstrated in the reaction to the Uniform Holiday bill of 1968. This legislation was part of an overall plan to make holidays part of a 3-day weekend, which would, in turn, encourage travel, recreational and cultural activities, and stimulate greater industrial and commercial activity. In so doing, this legislation changed the observance of Veterans Day from November 11 to the fourth Monday in October.

Seldom in all of my 51 years in Congress has Congress so misjudged the feelings of the American people. American veterans in particular, and Americans in general, demanded that the observance of Veterans Day be restored as November 11. It was all right to monkey around with Columbus Day, we learned, and even the birthday of the father of our country. But we should have never touched November 11.

According to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, November 11 has a special meaning to veterans of all wars and is a part of American history. Of all the days in the year, the one day which has the most significance to those citizens who made an extra sacrifice in the national interest by their service in the Armed Forces is November 11.

Many States simply continued to celebrate November 11 as Veterans Day.

Immediately, Members of Congress introduced legislation to redesignate November 11 as Veterans Day. My former colleague in this Chamber, Senator Robert Dole, who himself was a World War II veteran and was destined to become a majority leader of the Senate and a nominee of the Republican Party for Vice President and President, proposed such legislation. He called November 11 a ``legal holiday that provides a unique and fitting day of recognition for our American veterans.'' It is the day, Senator Dole declared, when the Nation pays ``tribute and homage to the men and women who have given so much in their quest for world peace and freedom.''

By 1975, 42 States, including my own State of West Virginia, had returned to the practice of celebrating Veterans Day on November 11. In that year, Congress approved legislation to return the annual observance of Veterans Day to November 11. President Gerald R. Ford signed the bill, stating:

It has become apparent that the commemoration of this day

on November 11 is a matter of historic and patriotic

significance to a great many of our citizens. It is a

practice deeply and firmly rooted in our customs and

traditions.

More recently, when legislative ideas were circulating through Congress to bolster voter participation in Federal elections, at least one proposal centered on designating Veterans Day as the national election day. In response to that proposal, my office was flooded with phone calls from veterans, saying: ``Please don't take away our special day.''

Mr. President, November 11 is their special day. It is for this reason that during the years in which it was my privilege to serve as the majority leader of the U.S. Senate, I was always determined that this legislative body would not be in session on this most important and symbolic date. I always wanted to make sure that my colleagues and I had the opportunity to take part in the many ceremonies that take place on this day in honor of the courage and the sacrifice of America's veterans. I always wanted to make sure that this Chamber paid proper homage to the men and women to whom we owe so much.

Writing about the thousands of soldiers who lost their lives during the bloody battle at Antietam, Civil War historian, Bruce Catton, pointed out that these men did not die for a few feet of a cornfield or a rocky hill; they died that this country might be permitted to go on, and that it might be permitted to fulfill the great hope of our Founding Fathers.

So may it be said of most every person who has worn our Nation's uniform. These people served and they sacrificed to permit this country to go on to fulfill the great hope of our Founding Fathers. And it is proper and it is right that we take one day a year to pay our most profound respect to the men and the women who have worn our Nation's uniform, and to thank them.

I thank them and we here in the Senate thank them on this day for what they have given, for what they have sacrificed, and for their love of country.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, Syria has long been considered by the United States to be a rogue state. Syria continues to associate with terrorist groups, including those that have carried out ruthless attacks that set back the cause of peace in the Middle East, leading it to be placed on the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism. Syria has occupied Lebanon continuously since 1976, in violation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 520.

The United States is justified in seeking to apply political and economic pressure on Syria to change its foreign policy. However, I will vote against the Syria Accountability Act.

Of the 22 pages of this bill, only six pages relate to sanctions that the United States may apply to Syria. The other pages contain 51 clauses of findings, senses of Congress, and statements of policy. These nonbinding provisions build a case against Syria, and I fear that those provisions could later be used to build a case for a military intervention against Syria.

In many cases, the non-binding clauses in the bill appear to gloss over the complex situation with respect to

Syria. For example, on page 11, the bill speaks of ``hostile actions'' by Syria against U.S.-led forces in Iraq. Yet, the evidence is inconclusive as to the role of the Government of Syria in the attacks that have been carried out against our troops in Iraq. Such insinuations could be used to build the case for a preemptive military intervention against Syria, which, unfortunately, is a very real possibility because of the dangerous doctrine of preemption hatched by the administration.

Other language in the nonbinding clauses may simply be ill- considered. For example, on page 7, the bill quotes an unclassified CIA report that says that it is ``highly probable'' that Syria is working on biological weapons. In the very next clause, however, the bill quotes an Under Secretary of State as saying that Syria ``is pursuing'' the development of biological weapons. It is exactly this kind of shading of intelligence probabilities becoming certainties for which Congress has criticized the administration and its intelligence agencies for creating the hysteria that led to war in Iraq. Could Congress be so willing to make the same mistake with respect to Syria?

The United States should use economic and diplomatic leverage to pressure Syria to change its support for terrorism and alter its foreign policy. The sponsors of this legislation have made improvements to several nonbinding provisions in this bill, and they have worked to address some of my more serious concerns. While I appreciate their cooperation, I still cannot support this legislation. The findings, statements of policy, and sense of Congress provisions in the Syria Accountability Act could be used to build a case against Syria that could too easily be hyped to imply congressional support for preemptive military action against that rogue state. I will vote against this bill because of that dangerous course that it may portend.

Yes, I am glad to yield.

Mr. President, I begin by thanking the distinguished Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner, and the equally distinguished Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin, for their courtesies and accommodations to me on this occasion and on innumerable, innumerable previous occasions as well.

We are now in the sixth week of fiscal year 2004 and the Congress has only presented the President with 4 of the 13 appropriations bills. The third continuing resolution under which most of the Government is operating expires on November 21. Regrettably, the Senate has yet to approve 3 of the 13 bills. The House and Senate Republican leaders have expressed their intent to move to what has become known as an omnibus appropriations bill.

I hope that the Senate does not once again fall prey to this monster known as an omnibus. An omnibus is a legislative creation without a mother or a father. It is more like a Frankenstein creature--a being patched together from old legislative body parts that don't quite fit.

And just as Dr. Frankenstein was quite surprised by the results of his creation, so may we be startled by the results of ours. Hastily drafted legislation, as Senators in this body well know, often has strange and unintended consequences. This omnibus would include at least three and as many as seven bills. It would be at least a $130 billion ``Frankenstein'' of a bill, and no one knows what other appendages would be attached to it as the Republican leaders rush to close out this session of Congress.

Under the cloak of a continuing resolution, the House has already passed just such a $190 billion omnibus bill that would fund 9 of the 15 Departments.

In accordance with the Constitution, revenue bills must originate in the House of Representatives and, by custom, most appropriations bills likewise originate in the House, but under the guarantees of the Constitution, as those guarantees flowed from the Great Compromise of July 16, 1787, the Senate has the right to amend those revenue and appropriations bills, as in all other bills.

The House can open the door to legislation on an appropriations bill, but if the Senate is denied the opportunity to consider amendments, or is severely limited in the number of amendments which it may consider, Senators are thereby denied the opportunity to offer amendments of their own and the potential for the achievement of truly good legislation in the final result, is, accordingly, lessened. The people's right to representation in the Senate would be denied and the likelihood of legislative errors in the final product is increased.

I believe creating an omnibus bill would be a grave mistake. The Framers saw the Senate as a powerful check against an overreaching executive. If free and unlimited debate is bridled and the right of Senators to offer amendments is hindered or denied, is not the Senate's power to check the executive accordingly diminished?

Sadly, the House and Senate have resorted to omnibus bills many times in recent years. In January of this year, Congress produced a monstrous 11-bill omnibus. For fiscal years 1996, 2000, and 2001, we produced omnibus bills that contained five bills each year. In fiscal year 1997, we had a six-bill omnibus, and in fiscal year 1999, we had an eight- bill omnibus. Every one of these massive bills, written in the compressed environment of a threatened Government shutdown, resulted in the White House being at the table, writing our appropriations bills with us.

Which party commands the White House at a given time should really make no difference as to how we conduct our duties in the writing of appropriations bills. We are here to work with, but also to act as a check on the occupant of the White House, and to reflect the people's will. We are not performing that watchdog function when we invite the White House behind closed doors.

I stood in this Senate and decried the omnibus bills during the last administration. I do so again today. I deplore this process. Through this process we, in effect, circumvent the supreme law of the land. We circumvent the Constitution. Just as I expressed to the Senate during the Clinton administration, by producing omnibus appropriations bills, we blur and we blend the very clear lines of the separation of powers set out in our national charter. Instead we cook up an unsavory soup which will be force-fed to the American people in order to avoid a completely avoidable Government shutdown.

Between fiscal year 1986 and fiscal year 2003, 25 appropriations bills were incorporated into omnibus appropriations legislation without having first been considered by the Senate. For example, the Labor-HHS- Education and Foreign Operations bills were included in omnibus legislation four times each without having ever been considered by the Senate. The people are certainly entitled to a full debate when it comes to deciding how to spend their tax dollars. After all, it is their money, isn't it. We heard that cry over and over again during the tax cut debate. May I observe that it is the people's money in an appropriations bill as well.

Some may believe that we have had so many omnibus bills in the last decade that defaulting to an omnibus bill has become an inevitable part of the legislative process. I stand here today to tell the Senate that this is not the case. In the 7\1/2\ years that I chaired the Appropriations Committee, from 1989 to 1994 and in 2001 and 2002, I never resorted to an omnibus bill to complete the 13 bills. What it takes to avoid the omnibus is the will and the drive to stand up for the rights of all Senators to debate important legislation and to complete all 13 appropriations bills.

I commend Senator Ted Stevens for his valiant efforts to move the appropriations bills forward this year. I know that he would prefer that the Senate debate the remaining bills as freestanding bills. The situation that Chairman Stevens finds himself in is not of his making.

I must ask our leaders, why are we not considering appropriations bills the rest of this week? Why was the Senate in recess the week of October 6? Why was the Senate in recess for the entire month of August? Why is the Senate taking 3 days this week to debate judicial nominations?

I am pleased that the Senate leaders have allowed the Senate to debate the Transportation-Treasury bill, Foreign Operations and Agriculture bills. However, I remain concerned that there

will be an effort to fold all of the remaining conference reports into an omnibus bill along with a polyglot of unknown authorization bills and the White House will dictate the contents of the bill.

I am concerned that once again the leadership will dictate to the Appropriations Committee that we include legislative matter in the omnibus bill that were not considered in the appropriations bills when the bills were before the House or Senate. There are already rumors swirling that the FAA conference report, the Water Resources Development bill, the Internet Tax Moratorium bill, and the healthy forests bill will be dropped into the omnibus. In 1999, the Senate reinstituted rule XVI, concerning legislating on an appropriations bill. In 2000, the Senate reinstituted rule XXVIII in order to avoid the insertion of new matter in conference reports. I hope our leaders will not allow these critical rules, which protect Members' rights to debate, to be abused.

In the past, before rule XVI and rule XXVIII were reinstituted, omnibus bills were used to enact scores of such measures, such as Medicare givebacks legislation, a tax extenders law, Community Renewal Tax Relief, Immigration Reform legislation, and debt collection legislation. We should not travel this dark and pot-hole-riven road again.

I am also concerned that the Senate has been passing bills with promises of spending on critical programs that will prove to be pure fantasy. The Senate approved $1.3 billion for veterans medical care on the Iraq supplemental and in conference, what happened? It disappeared, just like that. Houdini was there. The Senate, by a vote of 63-31, approved $1 billion to implement election reform legislation that the President signed last October 2002 but he underfunded in his budget. However, the Transportation-Treasury conferees have not been given any additional allocation to fund this increase. The Senate approved a $289 million increase for global AIDS, but the conference has been given an allocation that will force them to reduce the Senate Foreign Operations bill by $1.2 billion. The Labor-HHS-Education conferees are being told that they have to cut the Senate bill by $765 million. I hope the Senate will not fall back on an across-the-board cut on all programs to pay for these requirements. The bills are already lean. Across-the-board cuts will hurt veterans programs, homeland security programs, transportation programs and education programs.

Last Spring, this Senate approved a budget resolution that put tax cuts first. We knew at that time that the budget resolution would explode our deficits by placing tax cuts for the wealthy at the front of the line and funding for critical veterans programs, education programs and homeland security programs were at the bottom of the pile. Now that decision is coming home to roost. I fear that the Senate will soon be asked to sweep the bad news into a single, omnibus bill and ship it down to the White House.

I call on our leaders to reject the easy allure of the Frankenstein omnibus. We should debate each of the remaining bills and send the President all 13 bills for his consideration, for his signature or for his veto. The Senate is the upper house of a separate branch of government, with institutional safeguards that protect the people's liberties. We should not fall prey to the omnibus. We should not allow enactment of massive, monstrous, omnibus appropriations bills to turn Senators into legislative automatons.

The Senate should rise up and reclaim its full constitutional powers by insisting that we will work whatever amount of time it takes, for whatever number of days of the week it takes, to take up and pass all appropriations bills. We should never again revert to using an omnibus appropriations bill, which will likely come before this Senate in the form of an unamendable conference report. We should insist on a full debate on all of the remaining appropriations bills and send the President 13 regular appropriations bills.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, has the Pastore rule run its course for the day?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for such time as I may require.

Mr. President, through its shortsighted actions, this administration perpetuates an infinite mirage and a boundless facade. This administration hopes to fool the American people into swallowing its wrongheaded policies with no questions asked. These

policies have a superficial appearance of reality, but they are beyond comprehension--beyond grasp. They hover like a mirage on the horizon. We are lulled into believing that if we just stay the course, we will eventually reach some sweet, glorious watering hole. However, the truth is that there is nothing tangible, nothing solid, nothing with form or substance on the horizon.

Regardless of whether it is Iraq or an energy bill, one need only connect the dots to see that the same questionable tactics are readily apparent. When the President announced to the world, ``Either you are with us or against us,'' he alienated many potential allies abroad. The administration uses the same posturing in terms of an energy bill. It is either the administration's way or no way, as it opposes any alternative approaches that do not fit into its little black box.

There was a horrible rush to pass the Iraqi resolution in this body last year. This administration is using the same tactics to dictate the terms of a very bad energy bill this year. This facade is all too obvious as the White House's only goal is to pass a bill seemingly regardless of its substance or lack thereof.

The administration's national energy policy plan will do about as much to improve the Nation's energy security as the administration's invasion of Iraq has done to stem the tide of global terrorism. In the past, the administration attempted to make a case that linked September 11 and Saddam Hussein. These links have failed to materialize, but the administration is still trying to make that link. Not one Iraqi was among the hijackers of airplanes on September 11--not one. So it must be a matter of great chagrin to the administration that it has been unable to bring forth the evidence of that linkage.

Predictably, the administration is now attempting to make the same connections between its national energy policy and a comprehensive energy strategy. This link will also be proven groundless in the not too distant future.

For many years, the Middle East has been a hotbed for a number of reasons, especially because of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the continuing U.S. military presence in the region, but an underlying reason for our continued presence in the region is for the protection of our oil lifeline. We likely would not have such close ties to the Middle East if it were not so important to our economic base. Because of this tethering, we are being pressured into passing an energy bill. Unfortunately, even if this Congress passes the administration's prescribed energy bill, that will do little, if anything, to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Instead of striving to disentangle ourselves from this foreign oil dependency, the Bush administration seems intent on sinking our military and energy fortunes deeper and deeper into the hot sands of the Middle East.

I have spoken on this floor before regarding my concern for this Nation's energy future. I have also addressed the Bush administration's lipservice and corporate coddling, which is the sum total virtually of its energy policy. As a recent report from the General Accounting Office concludes, the Vice President's national energy policy development group did not solicit a broad range of views. That group never sought to project future energy demand or engage future sources of supply. There was no plan with specific goals and objectives designed to ensure energy diversity. But the Bush administration insists it has an energy policy.

A lot of energy went into producing it, and it has expended much energy to get its bill passed. In fact, just before the lights went out in Manhattan, Cleveland, and Detroit, Vice President Cheney was quietly working with the Republican leadership to void key electricity provisions that this body was about to pass.

I say to my colleagues, all is not lost. Help is on the way. While this Nation's citizens were stranded and sweltering in darkened subway tunnels in New York and without drinking water in Cleveland and Detroit, more rewards were being handed out. Yes, while the citizens of those cities suffered, the administration was very busy. While our electricity system was in a shambles, the Bush administration was eagerly handing out hundreds of millions of dollars in sole-source contracts to Halliburton--have my colleagues heard of that name before?--and Bechtel to rebuild Iraq's water and electricity infrastructure. Oh, the irony.

Even more telling, in its statement of administration policy, the White House told energy conferees to trim the estimated $50 billion- plus cost of the energy bill because the pricetag was excessive.

Let the American people hear this: We can cut taxes for the rich, we can spend $21 billion just this year to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure, but the energy pricetag in the next decade at home is too expensive. The truth is, regardless of its costs, the Bush administration will never fully fund the programs in an energy bill as the White House is too distracted by other so-called priorities.

The Center for Responsive Politics reports that the energy industry gave more than $2.65 million to the Bush-Cheney campaign in 2000. The oil and gas industry gave 68 percent of that total. Not surprisingly, media accounts are ripe--ripe, I say--with stories of the administration's contributors who have been tripping over themselves to curry favors for their particular energy interests.

What about other groups? Were the interests of the State and tribal interests, labor unions, consumer groups, and environmental organizations at the table?

A lack of consensus on energy legislation has rightfully raised concerns that the final product will be but a patchwork of compromises that do not truly solve our urgent problems.

The Republican majority and the White House have put together what amounts to a ``pig in a poke'' energy bill that includes a number of items that remain enormously controversial and that have little to do with building the bipartisan consensus essential for the development of a national energy strategy. The legislation passed by this Senate last year and this year has been largely ignored.

Now the majority is preparing to ram this hodgepodge through the conference, and we are being forced to swallow it, hook, line, and sinker. This is no way to legislate and it certainly is no way to develop such an important national policy.

We cannot continue to conduct the Nation's business in this way. The stakes are too high. Partisanship alone is threatening enough to our ability to develop comprehensive solutions to our energy problems, but it is not just partisanship that is reason for worry. It is the utter contempt with which this Bush administration apparently views the role of the legislative branch.

As the General Accounting Office has learned, this administration simply will not tolerate legislative inquiry. This administration will not tolerate fact-finding. Requests for information are often simply denied. There is no room for debate, just dictums. We are not expected to stand on this floor and offer amendments. We are urged to sit quietly, we are expected to sit quietly, and wield the rubberstamp. The people of West Virginia did not send me here to be a rubberstamp. I am certainly not a rubberstamp.

Energy policy, in my estimation, drives so much of our economy and defines so much of our national prosperity and security that backroom bargaining can threaten our Nation's future.

The administration used numerous promises and assumptions to sell the Iraqi war to the American people. We were assured that the postwar construction would largely be paid for with Iraq oil revenues and the cooperation of other nations--nations that got the back of our hand. But the President now tells us we cannot count on that money in the short term and the American taxpayers will have to foot the bill.

We are hearing the same type of rhetoric now. We heard claims that the administration's energy bill would fix all of our energy problems. I hope the American people are smarter than that because this energy bill is no panacea, and it could very well turn out to be a Pandora's box.

We need a comprehensive approach to our energy policy. What do I mean by comprehensive? A comprehensive approach fully integrates four fundamental principles: energy security to encourage fuel diversity; fiscal soundness to increase economic growth and

the efficiency of production; consumer protections to guard against fraud, market manipulation, and abuse; and environmental sensitivity to minimize the impacts from wastes and emissions.

These are essential elements for any comprehensive energy policy. These elements must be fully integrated through a policy that is designed to maximize fuel diversity and efficiency of production while minimizing consumer abuse and environmental degradation. These elements could provide a complementary path forward, but this Energy bill is a significant detour.

With these guiding principles in mind, we must then begin to make the hard choices. We must develop a truly strategic plan. Planning requires that we decide how much, to what extent, and when actions must be taken. It requires the development of criteria so the progress can be measured.

For the past three decades, the United States has struggled to find and secure its energy future. Administrations since Richard Nixon have been trying to craft a sensible energy policy, with some small successes, but mostly with little significant progress to show. All too often, America's energy agenda has shifted--lurching first in one direction, then in another. The net effect has been that the Nation has grown more and more dependent on foreign oil, making America's energy security increasingly vulnerable to manipulation and terrorist attack.

This Nation has not had a serious, thoughtful energy strategy or a comprehensive set of energy policies for a long while. Too often, the Government has, instead, reacted to shortages, dislocations, and various energy crises. For example, the Government has tried to control oil and natural gas prices, which only served to exacerbate supply shortages. For a period of time, one administration tried to prohibit the use of natural gas and forced the use of coal for power generation. Two decades later, another administration discouraged the use of coal and Federal priorities shifted to the increased use of natural gas. Today, the Nation finds itself caught in what Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan calls ``the gas trap.''

The energy bill soon to be before this Congress is primarily another reactionary effort. While there may be some strong trees planted, it is by no means a healthy forest. From past energy efforts, only a few actions, such as creating the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and the Clean Coal Technology Program, have proven to be truly farsighted. I fear that most of this energy bill will continue a business-as-usual approach.

Furthermore, we must, once and for all, realize that our energy and climate change policies are two sides of the same coin. Yet we are doing little, if anything, to address seriously these critical links. This energy bill includes nothing substantial to address either global climate change or advanced clean energy technology exports. If these and other key provisions are not included, why should I support such a flawed, misguided energy conference bill?

Furthermore, the administration has been seeking my support for its so-called FutureGen project, claiming this purported $1 billion, 10- year proposal would build one large powerplant as an experiment to address climate change. My support for this project is largely contingent on identifying the long-term resources for FutureGen and knowing that it will not erode other critical energy programs. So I have to say that, if the administration is expecting my support for FutureGen, then, in coming years I expect that the administration will support my climate change and international technology transfer provisions as well. If the administration is still around.

Global warming is an Achilles' heel for this White House--one among other Achilles' heels. The President has shown no desire to address this problem in an energy bill or anywhere else.

In the end, the President would dearly love a showy Rose Garden ceremony in which to sign an energy bill and thus have a 2004 campaign press release to tout its so-called success. But, given this administration's track record, an energy bill would simply be another empty soapbox for the President to stand on to announce a bankrupt deal.

I say, where have we seen that before? While the Congress has passed bills and supported the Bush administration's rhetoric, the necessary resources to carry all this out never materialize.

The American people deserve much better than this. As the blackout of August 14 vividly demonstrated, this Nation's energy system--which is the lifeline of our economy and national security--is on life support. As we struggle to define and implement a national energy policy needed to address these issues, we again find ourselves on a collision course.

We need a new framework based on a consistent and cohesive set of policies. But we must recognize that we must get to that critical juncture. This new framework must be designed to strengthen the law, not gut it. Most importantly, as we approach this crossroads, we must seek to fully integrate our energy and environmental policy goals and objectives in a complementary way.

We were told we had to rush into Iraq to contain Saddam's WMD programs. Now we are being told this energy bill will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, counteract increasing fuel prices, and do so many other things.

Americans should not be fooled. They will not. There are few, if any, benchmarks or yardsticks from which we can truly chart our progress. Sadly, such milestones are anathema to this administration. At the same time, we have squandered a huge opportunity. The bipartisan cooperation in the development of this energy bill was purely superficial. Soon this Senate could be asked to vote on this legislation. There is pressure to cajole Members to swallow hard and pass it. Despite some solid provisions, why should I be a party to this boondoggle?

A cherry-picked energy plan based on soliciting big industry campaign contributions is a bankrupt policy. It takes this Nation nowhere, and it puts our Nation's future at risk. It is time that the dots were connected. The same pattern by this White House continues to repeat itself. That pattern is statements of policy that build on infinite mirages and boundless facades.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, may we have order in the Senate so we can understand what the Senator is saying.

Mr. President, the Senate is now considering the fiscal year 2004 Agriculture, rural development, and related agencies appropriations bill, and I would like to speak on the issue of increased funding provisions related to the treatment of animals.

Two agencies in the Department of Agriculture are charged with the responsibility of carrying out regulatory programs to protect animals from mistreatment, called for under the Animal Welfare Act and the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act. The Animal Welfare Act is enforced by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, and the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act enforced by the Food Safety and Inspection Service.

The need for this increase in funding and commitment is due, in part, to media reports above livestock being raised in unspeakable conditions where they did not even have room to lie down, and about animal slaughter operations where animals are not properly stunned before beginning the process of dismemberment. While the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and certain state authorities, did initiate investigations regarding some of the more egregious reports, I understand that those charges were dismissed due to evidentiary problems, leaving unanswered the actual degree of severity to which humane slaughter regulations were violated in the reported cases, or the degree to which similar violations occur throughout the Nation.

During consideration of the fiscal year 2003 omnibus appropriations bill, the Senate included, at my request, $5 million for the hiring of at least 50 additional humane slaughter inspectors. Report language accompanying that bill instructed these new inspectors to work solely on the enforcement of the Humane Slaughter Act.

Prior to the $1.25 million allocation in the fiscal year 2001 supplemental appropriations bill for the hiring of 17 district veterinary medical specialists at the Food Safety Inspection Service to work solely on the enforcement of the Humane Slaughter Act, there were no inspectors employed exclusively for this purpose.

On May 7, 2003, the Secretary of Agriculture testified before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture regarding the administration's fiscal year 2004 budget request. At that hearing, I asked the Secretary about the hiring of additional Food Safety Inspection Service inspectors for which funding had been appropriated in the previously enacted appropriations bill; however, it became apparent that the Department had yet to hire any new inspectors.

As a result of continued interest in this matter, the Senate Appropriations Committee included additional report language clarifying the funding provided in fiscal year 2003 regarding the Department's goal for hiring 38 new inspectors by the end of fiscal year 2003. As of October 28, 2003, this goal was met, and I understand that the remaining 12 inspectors will be hired by the end of this calender year.

The fiscal year 2004 Senate Agriculture appropriations bill provides statutory language to continue funding for the 50 humane slaughter inspectors and the 17 district veterinary medical specialists, and outlines the Committee's expectation that this funding will be included in the Department's fiscal year 2005 budget request.

I strongly believe that much work remains to be done. I believe that continued attention should be placed on enforcement on both the Animal Welfare Act and the Humane Methods of

Slaughter Act to put a stop to the mistreatment of animals.

Mr. President, I thank the chairman and ranking member of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee for their support in this every important effort.

Mr. President, as Members are aware, all 13 appropriations bills have cleared the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Four bills have been sent to the President for signature, of which three have been signed into law. The Defense, Homeland Security, and Legislative Branch appropriations bills have been signed, and the Interior appropriations bill is awaiting signature.

Five appropriations bills are in conference. These are the Military Construction, Energy and Water Development, Labor-HHS-Education, Foreign Operations, and Transportation and Treasury appropriations bills. The Military Construction appropriations bill completed conference yesterday, and the Energy and Water Development conference met today.

Four appropriations bills are awaiting completion of Senate action-- Agriculture, VA-HUD, Commerce-Justice-State, and the District of Columbia. The Agriculture appropriations bill is being considered on the floor today.

Mr. President, the Senate should proceed to process these four final bills on the floor and to send them to conference with the House. This will protect our rights as Senators to offer amendments. The Senate should process 13 individual appropriations bills, and avoid an omnibus appropriations bill. Omnibus appropriations bills have the effect of shoehorning large segments of the Federal Government into one monstrous bill. Members' rights to amend legislation are severely limited, and they will not be able to know what they are voting for or against. Omnibus appropriations legislation also has the result of bringing the White House to the table, which has the effect of blurring the distinction between the responsibilities of the executive branch and the constitutional responsibilities of the legislative branch to develop legislation under the separation of powers. This is no way to legislate.

I thank and commend the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Stevens, for his steadfast pursuit of the goal of processing 13 individual appropriations bills. The Senate would not be at this stage of processing the appropriations bills, if my friend, the Senator from Alaska, had not pursued this matter with such vigor on his side.

Again, I thank my distinguished and able colleague, Mr. Stevens, for his efforts.

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

Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. President, I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I yield to the distinguished Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer, who has been yielded time by the distinguished minority leader. I yield the floor to her, if the Chair so recognizes her.

Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes of my time to the Senator from California.

Mr. President, I thank the very distinguished Senator from California, Senator Boxer, for her kind references to me, and for her courage, for her foresight and vision, and for the strength she has shown, not only on this matter but also on many others, over the years I have served with her. I thank her for her friendship. I express only the highest of regard for her in the difficult situation she finds her State in at this time, and also, Mr. President, for the position she has so valiantly held on this particular bill that is before us, and the subject matter of this bill, throughout the time it has come before the Senate.

How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. President, the Iraq supplemental conference report before the Senate today has been widely described as a victory for President Bush. If hardball politics and lockstep partisanship are the stuff of which victory is made, then I suppose the assessments are accurate. But if reasoned discourse, integrity, and accountability are the measures of true victory, then this package falls far short of the mark.

In the end, the President wrung virtually every important concession he sought from the House-Senate conference committee. Key provisions the Senate had debated extensively, voted on, and included in its version of the bill--such as providing half of the Iraq reconstruction funding in the form of loans instead of grants--were thrown overboard in the conference agreement. Senators who had made compelling arguments on the Senate floor only days earlier to limit American taxpayers' liability by providing some of the Iraq reconstruction aid in the form of loans suddenly reversed their position in conference and bowed to the power of the Presidency.

Before us today is a massive $87 billion supplemental appropriations package that commits this Nation to a long and costly occupation and reconstruction of Iraq. Yet the collective wisdom of the House and Senate appropriations conference that produced it was little more than a shadow play, choreographed to stifle dissent and rubberstamp the President's request.

Perhaps this ``take no prisoners'' approach is how the President and his advisers define victory. But I fear they are fixated on the muscle of the politics instead of on the wisdom of the policy. The fact of the matter is, when it comes to policy, the Iraq supplemental is a monument to failure.

Consider, for example, that before the war the President's policy advisers assured the American people Iraq would largely be able to finance its own reconstruction through oil revenues, seized assets, and increased economic productivity. The $18 billion in this supplemental earmarked for the reconstruction of Iraq is testament to the fallacy of that prediction. It is the American taxpayer, not the Iraqi oil industry, that is being called upon to shoulder the financial burden of rebuilding Iraq.

The international community on which the administration pinned such hope for helping in the reconstruction of Iraq has collectively ponied up only $13 billion, and the bulk of those pledges--$9 billion--is in the form of loans or credits, not grants. But still the White House claims victory for arm-twisting Congress into reversing itself on the question of loans and providing the entire $18 billion in U.S. tax dollars in the form of outright grants to Iraq. I readily admit that how this convoluted logic can be construed as a victory for the President is beyond me.

But reconstruction is only part of the story. On May 1, the President stood on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln--strategically postured beneath a banner that declared ``Mission Accomplished''--and pronounced the end of major combat operations in Iraq.

Since that day, however, more American military personnel have been killed in Iraq than were killed during the major combat phase of the war. According to the Defense Department, 376 American troops have been killed to date in Iraq and nearly two-thirds of those deaths, 238, have occurred since May 1, when the President declared that the major combat had ended.

When President Bush uttered the unwise challenge, ``Bring 'em on,'' on July 2, the enemy did, indeed, ``bring them on,'' and with a vengeance. Since the President made that comment, more than 165 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq. As the death toll mounts, it has become clear that the enemy intends to keep on ``bringing 'em on.''

The $66 billion in this supplemental required to continue the United States military occupation of Iraq over the next year and the steadily rising death toll are testament to the utter hollowness of the President's declaration aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln and the careless bravado of his challenge to ``bring 'em on.''

It has been said many times on the floor of this Senate that a vote for this supplemental is a vote for our troops in Iraq. The implication of that statement is that a vote against the supplemental is a vote against our troops. I find that twisted logic to be both irrational and offensive. To my mind, backing a flawed policy with a flawed appropriations bill hurts our troops in Iraq more than it helps them.

Endorsing and funding a policy that does nothing to relieve American troops in Iraq is not, in my opinion, a support-the-troops measure. Our troops in Iraq and elsewhere in the world have no stronger advocate than Robert C. Byrd, senior Senator from the great State of West Virginia, where mountaineers are always free. I support our troops. I have been supporting our troops for more than 50 years as a Member of the Congress of the United States. I pray for the safety of our troops. I will continue to fight for a coherent policy that brings real help-- not just longer deployments and empty sloganeering--to American forces in Iraq.

The supplemental package before the Senate does nothing to internationalize the occupation of Iraq, and therefore it is not a vote for our troops in Iraq. We had a chance in the beginning to win international consensus on dealing with Iraq, but the administration was in too big a hurry, the White House was in too big a hurry. The administration squandered that opportunity when the President gave the back of his hand to the United Nations and preemptively invaded Iraq.

Under this administration's Iraq policy, endorsed in the President's so-called victory on this supplemental, it is American troops who are walking the mean streets of Baghdad; it is American troops who are succumbing in growing numbers to a common and all too deadly cocktail of anti-American bombs and bullets in Iraq.

The terrible violence in Iraq on Sunday--the deaths of 16 soldiers and the downing of an American helicopter, the killing of another soldier, and a bomb attack and the deaths of 2 American civilian contractors in a mine explosion--is only the latest evidence that the administration's lack of postwar planning for Iraq is producing an erratic, chaotic situation on the ground with little hope for a quick turnaround. We appear to be lurching from one assault on our troops to the next while making little, if any, headway in stabilizing our improving security in that unfortunate country.

The failure to secure the vast stockpiles of deadly conventional weapons in Iraq, including shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles such as the one that may have brought down the United States helicopter on Sunday, is one of many mistakes the administration made that is coming back to haunt us today.

Perhaps the biggest mistake, the costliest mistake, following the colossal mistake of launching a preemptive attack on Iraq, is the administration's failure to have a clearly defined mission and exit strategy for Iraq.

The President continues to insist that the United States will persevere in its mission in Iraq and that our resolve is unshakable. But it is time, past time, for the President to tell the American people exactly what that mission is, how he intends to accomplish it, and what his exit strategy is for the American troops in Iraq. It is the American people out there--it is the American people--who will ultimately decide how long we will stay in Iraq.

It is not enough for the President to maintain that the United States will not be driven out of Iraq by the increasing violence against American soldiers. He must also demonstrate leadership by presenting the American people with a plan to stem the freewheeling violence in Iraq, return the government of that country to the Iraqi people, and pave the way for the orderly withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. We do not now have such a plan, and the supplemental conference report before the Senate does not provide such a plan. The $87 billion in this appropriations bill provides the wherewithal for the United States to stay in Iraq when what we badly need is a course correction. The President owes the American people an exit strategy for Iraq. It is time for the President to deliver.

I have great respect and affection for my fellow Senators and my colleagues on the Senate Appropriations Committee. No one could ask for a finer committee chairman than Senator Ted Stevens. I have even greater respect and greater affection and greater dedication to the institution of the Senate and the Constitution of the United States by which this Senate was established.

Every Senator upon taking office swears an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. It is the Constitution of the United States--not the President of the United States, not a political party, but the Constitution--to which all Senators swear an oath of loyalty before God and man. I am here to tell you that neither the Constitution nor the American people are well served by a process and a product that are based on blind adherence to the will of the White House and to the will of the President at the expense of congressional checks and balances. It is as if, in a rush to support the President's policy, this White House is prepared to put blinders on the Congress.

This supplemental spending bill is a case in point. One of the earliest amendments that was defeated on the Senate floor was the one I offered to hold back a portion of the reconstruction money and give the Senate a second chance--give the Senate a second vote--on whether to release that money. Apparently, the President and his supporters did not want to give the Senate an opportunity to review the progress--or lack of progress--in Iraq and have a second chance to debate the wisdom of spending billions of taxpayers' dollars on the reconstruction effort.

Time after time the House-Senate conference committee was given the opportunity to restore or impose accountability on the administration for the money being appropriated in the Iraq supplemental, and time after time the House-Senate conference committee majority beat back those measures. The conferees, for example, defeated on a party-line vote an amendment I offered which would have required that the head of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq be confirmed by the Senate. Senate confirmation of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq would have ensured that the person who is managing tens of billions of dollars in Iraq for the American taxpayers would be accountable to the public--to the people out

there who are watching through those electronic lenses. The current appointee, L. Paul Bremer III, is not. He answers to the Secretary of Defense and the President--not to Congress and not to the American people.

The conferees approved a provision creating an inspector general for the Coalition Provisional Authority, but I am dismayed to say that this individual is not subject to Senate confirmation. I am dismayed that the conferees defeated my amendment that would have required the inspector general to testify before Congress when invited. I am dismayed that the President can refuse to send Congress the results of the inspector general's work. Could it be that the President's supporters are afraid to hear what the inspector general might tell them? Could it be that the President's supporters in Congress would rather blindly follow the President instead of risking reality by opening their eyes to what could be uncomfortable facts?

The conference also stripped out my amendment to the Senate bill that would have required the General Accounting Office to conduct ongoing audits of the expenditure of taxpayer dollars for the reconstruction of Iraq. On the Senate floor my amendment required such audits, and it was adopted by a vote of 97 to zero--97 to nothing. But in the House-Senate conference, it was blown away. It was defeated in the House-Senate conference by the Senate conferees on a 15-to-14 straight-line party vote.

Sprinkled throughout the Iraq supplemental conference report, provisions euphemistically described as ``flexibilities'' give the President broad authority to take the money--your money--appropriated by Congress in this bill and spend it however he wishes. I tried to eliminate or limit these flexibilities--and in a few cases succeeded-- but there remain billions of dollars in this measure that can be spent at the discretion of the President or the Secretary of Defense.

Although the money is appropriated by Congress, as it is required to be appropriated by Congress in section 9 of article I of the Constitution of the United States, these so-called ``flexibilities'' effectively transfer the power of the purse from the legislative branch to the executive branch.

The dictionary definition of ``victory'' is simple and straightforward: success, conquest, triumph. Within the constraints of that simplistic definition, I suppose one could construe this package to be a victory for the President.

But I believe there is a moral undercurrent to the notion of victory that is not reflected in the dictionary definition. I believe most Americans equate victory more closely with what is right than with simply winning. It is one thing to win, and the tactics be damned; it is quite another to be victorious. Victory implies doing what is right; doing what is right implies morality; morality implies standards of conduct. I do not include arm twisting and intimidation in my definition of exemplary standards of conduct.

Moreover, we should not forget that not all victories are created equal. In 280 B.C., Pyrrhus, the ruler of Epirus in northern Greece, took his formidable armies to Italy and defeated the Romans at Heraclea, and again at Asculum in 279 B.C., but suffered unbearably heavy losses. ``One more such victory and I am lost,'' he said.

It is to Pyrrhus that we owe the term ``pyrrhic victory,'' to describe a victory so costly as to be ruinous. This supplemental and the policy which it supports, unfortunately, may prove to be a pyrrhic victory for the Bush administration.

The conference report before the Senate today is a flawed agreement that was produced by political imperative, not by reasoned policy considerations. This is not a good bill for our troops in Iraq. This is not a good bill for American taxpayers. This is not a good bill for the mothers and fathers and sisters and brothers and husbands and wives of the troops in Iraq. This is not good policy for the United States of America.

Victory is not always about winning. Sometimes victory is simply about being right. This conference report does not reflect the right policy for Iraq or the right policy for America.

I oppose it, and I will vote ``no'' on final passage.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Before doing so, may I ask how much time I have remaining.

I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

I have made my remarks. I do not need to make any additional ones. I would be glad to yield back my time.

I have no desire to use any of my remaining time. Senator Stevens has used his time. As far as I am concerned, we can vote.

Mr. President, if the distinguished Senator will yield, let me thank the distinguished Senator for his courtesy and thoughtfulness in reserving time for the two of us. I have the utmost respect and affection for the Senator from Alaska. It is characteristic of him to provide that time, but I only wish to say at this time, having made my remarks already, having said enough on the point, I am willing to yield back the balance of the time the Senator from Alaska set aside for me and, as soon as the Senator from Alaska completes his remarks, whatever he wishes to say, then we are ready to vote.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

I do not intend to use my time. I have already made my speech. If I have some time, I yield whatever time he needs to the Senator from Nevada.

Yes, I yield back my time.

I do not think it should be adopted by unanimous consent. That was not meant to happen. I understood there would be a voice vote. I hope the Chair will propound the question for the voices to vote.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss the very critical issue of global warming and to summarize events of recent years that have led us to this point. We are discussing the paramount energy and environmental challenge of our time; namely, the inexorable increase in greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere that will lead to changes in the global climate.

The primary contributor to global warming is the burning of fossil fuels that create carbon dioxide, and it remains in the atmosphere for over a century. These human-produced emissions are adding to a growing concentration in the global atmosphere that is expected to more than double by the end of this century. Therefore, we are bequeathing this problem and its consequences to our children, our grandchildren, and our great grandchildren.

While I am very concerned about the challenge posed by global warming, let me state at the outset that I have long been a strong critic of climate change policies that are not in the national interest of the United States. I will yield to no one on that point. I have insisted on a rational and cost-effective approach to dealing with climate change.

As the coauthor, along with Senator Hagel, of S. Res. 98, that passed 95 to zero in 1997, during the 105th Congress, I sought at that time to express the sense of the Senate regarding the provisions of any future binding, international agreement that would be acceptable to the Senate. The Kyoto protocol, in its current form, does not comply with the requirements of S. Res. 98. That resolution was supported by many industrial trade associations and opposed by many environmental organizations.

While those on both sides of the issue have attributed many interpretations and misinterpretations to S. Res. 98, no one has misrepresented and misconstrued S. Res. 98 more so than this present administration.

S. Res. 98 was intended to provide the sense of the Senate on what should be included in any future binding international treaty. The resolution laid out the conditions under which the Senate could agree to a new binding treaty that would subsequently be considered at the Kyoto conference. S. Res. 98 directed that any such treaty must include new scheduled commitments for the developing world in addition to any such requirements for industrialized nations but requirements that would be binding and mandatory and lead to real reductions in the emissions of greenhouse gases over time. This is clearly different than the minimal, vague, and voluntary commitments that we are currently pursuing.

As I explained in 1997, a voluntary approach had already been tried and had already failed. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, also known as the Rio Convention, failed to reduce emissions largely because it was voluntary. That is why Kyoto concerned binding commitments, and S. Res. 98 was intended to guide that effort rather than kill that effort.

The administration's climate team has merely returned to the voluntary approach of Rio, despite a complete lack of evidence that this so-called plan will ever succeed. Industrial nations have never initiated significant reductions in pollution of any type on a strictly voluntary basis. This administration must finally come to terms with taking action toward globally binding commitments.

As well, developing nations, especially the largest emitters, need to be a part of any binding global climate change treaty. Another point that has been misunderstood is what S. Res. 98 would require of developing countries. An international treaty with binding commitments can and should provide for the continued growth of the world's developing nations. Unrealistically stringent emissions targets need not choke off their economic growth. The initial commitments could be relatively modest, pacing upwards depending on various factors, with a specific goal to be achieved. Today, however, the world is even further away from a credible, workable global strategy to deal on climate change than we were in 1997.

The blame for this circumstance can be laid squarely at the feet of this administration which abandoned international negotiations in which it could have kept pressure on developing nations to agree to some level of mandatory emissions reductions. Moreover, developing nations should be a prime market for clean energy technology projects. But, with little pressure on those nations to reduce or contain the growth of emissions, a huge and fruitful market for those types of technologies--technologies that are being developed in the U.S.--is likely to dry up. In other words, while this nation has been making great strides in developing technologies to use our own energy resources more efficiently and more cleanly, significant efforts to help deploy these technologies overseas have been undercut by this administration's unilateral approach to climate change.

Thus, S. Res. 98 was an effort to strengthen the hand of the administration as it undertook international negotiations. It enabled our negotiators to walk into talks and point to the ever-present Congress, looking over their shoulders, to ensure that the interests of the U.S. would be protected in any agreement that eventually came to fruition.

The Bush administration has never understood the value of S. Res 98. Rather than employing that tool to positively influence international negotiations, it used the resolution as cover to simply walk away from the table. Having abandoned a constructive role in the global negotiations on climate change, this administration has left the U.S. in a much weaker position globally.

The Bush administration must be challenged on its environmental, economic, and energy responsibilities, both domestically and internationally. The U.S. is in the best position of any nation to positively influence an international response to global climate change. Yet, we will all suffer from the consequences of global warming in the long run because we are all in the same global boat.

This administration has attempted to hide behind S. Res. 98 to defend its current do-nothing and know-nothing policies on climate change, and I strongly object to that. The difference between my view and that of this administration is simple. I believe the problem is real and demands action. The administration does not. The President also claimed early in his administration that his goal was to oppose Kyoto. If the President's representatives had stayed at the table and negotiated in good faith on a treaty to comply with S. Res. 98, then the administration could have guided the world toward a new binding treaty with mandatory requirements to reduce emissions that would correct the deficiencies of Kyoto.

The reality is quite different. Our nation has been represented at the international negotiations in name only. We would be better represented at the international negotiations by a row of empty chairs. That would at least accurately represent the vacuous nature of our current policies. For President Bush not only disavowed the Kyoto Protocol; he also turned his back on any negotiations because they concern a binding treaty that includes mandatory commitments. The rest of the world was outraged by this unilateral rejection of a decade of negotiations and of the new American isolationist approach to deal with climate change.

And what will happen in one year or five years when a new administration enters office? What will happen if Russia does decide to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, and it enters into force? Will the administration be able to go back to the table and demand changes to binding international law that will have been in force for perhaps many years? The President's industry supporters may one day wake up and realize that they live in a partially Kyoto-controlled world where there is no turning back.

One senses confusion and a lack of direction in the administration. It seems that the administration's right hand does not know what the far right hand is doing regarding its climate change policies. The White House does not know whether to believe the science or not, and they have certainly not articulated a plan of action.

Finally, I am compelled to observe that it is the height of hypocrisy for this administration or its supporters in industry to claim that they are defending the goals and provisions of S. Res.

98. They cannot make such a claim in the debate today or in any international forum. Nothing could be further from the truth. This administration can no longer hide behind the mantle of that resolution.

It is this administration that undermined the tenets of that resolution. They now support only vague, voluntary measures. That is true both domestically and internationally. The evidence suggests that the President's negotiators have even formed an alliance with the key emitters in the developing world, and together they oppose any additional discussion during the international negotiations of binding commitments for the developing world as called for under S. Res. 98. That is of course a logical result of the administration's policies, since it is impossible to apply binding commitments to China if we refuse to apply such standards to ourselves. We now have little hope of seeing an effort made to produce a treaty that will comply with S. Res. 98--at least not during the tenure of this President.

If there is no prospect for a binding international treaty, then how can we deal with the enormous challenge posed by global warming? The critics of the amendment before us argue that we should stay the course and support the President's policies. If I may ask--what are those policies? What concrete programs have been put in place? In point of fact, the administration has asked the industry trade associations to develop their own voluntary reduction programs. The proposals are vague and actually allow emissions to continue to increase. Taken together, none of these programs is expected to result in any serious decrease in emissions.

These events over the last three years have led me to conclude that we must look elsewhere for effective action on global warming. The Senate should not be put in the position in which it now stands. It should not be faced, as we are now, with the prospect of considering an energy bill devoid of provisions to address climate change. The Senate should be considering our nation's energy security from a broad view that includes a global response to climate change and the international politics of energy.

Proponents of the amendment now before us argue that it sends the clear message to the White House: If President Bush rejects the advice of this body, then he is refusing to negotiate in good faith toward a binding international treaty and is only offering hollow domestic programs. The Senate has little choice but to consider further steps, including modest mandatory approaches, that would apply to our domestic economy.

The amended version of S. 139 freezes emissions at their current levels rather than seeking a sharp reduction as has been the case in other approaches. The McCain-Lieberman bill also allows companies to offset their emissions, for example by planting trees that absorb and sequester carbon dioxide (CO2) or by constructing more efficient power plants in the developing world than what those nations would otherwise build--and claim the difference as an earned offset or credit.

I would prefer not to be faced with a measure like this today. I note that this bill has not had committee consideration. That said, it is very much the case that several key chairmen with jurisdiction over energy or environmental policy have shown very little interest in seriously dealing with climate change. We have certainly witnessed this in the energy bill. I want to further commend Senators McCain and Lieberman for their diligence and hard work to find a middle ground. They have come a long way on this proposal. If the principles of their proposal were combined with those of other Members like mine, then the Senate could have a strong package to offer the American people. While I will not be able to vote for the amendment today, I want to make it very clear that I will work with the sponsors of this bill and other Republican and Democratic Senators who want to go beyond this administration's empty-headed approach.

In closing, I want to express my own growing frustration for our seeming inability to deal with the problem at hand. I have been troubled by this for a long time. I do not believe I need any more scientific evidence to show that we have seen these changes. I have seen the changes in weather patterns, and those changes that I have personally seen during my nearly 86 years lead me to believe that there is something happening. We need to do something about it. What we do may be painful in some respects, but we owe it to our children and grandchildren to have the foresight to see that something is happening and to understand that we ought to do something about it soon. If not, we may be going beyond retrieval.

So, I would say again that the two Senators are to be very much complimented. I will vote with Mr. Inhofe, for the reasons I have stated. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator. I thank our colleagues for the work they have done. I, again, thank Senator Inhofe.

Mr. President, I have long had an interest in helping to open international energy technology markets and in expanding the export of a range of U.S. clean energy technologies. In October 2002, the Bush administration, at my urging, released a nine-agency plan called the Clean Energy Technology Exports, CETE, Initiative which is intended to carry out such an effort. The participating agencies whose budgets are covered in this bill include U.S. Agency for International Development, USAID, the Export-Import Bank, ExIm, Overseas Private Investment Corporation, OPIC, and the Trade and Development Agency,

I have no objection to that.

What does this mean with respect to the amendment I have pending, which is being set aside by unanimous consent?

Reserving the right to object--and I shall not--when would the vote on the Byrd amendment occur?

The vote on the Byrd amendment would occur, and after how many minutes can we vote on the amendment by the Senator from Louisiana?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Jeffords and Senator Corzine be added as cosponsors to Byrd amendment No. 1969.

Mr. President, is my amendment pending before the Senate?

Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I call for the regular order.

Does that amendment need to be stated?

Mr. President, I ask that it be stated.

Mr. President, I thank the Chair and I thank the clerk.

I suggest my statement in support of this amendment be entitled ``Too Much Money, Too Little Accountability.'' That would be an appropriate title if I were to suggest it.

This is an amendment about accountability. This is an amendment to ensure that those administration officials charged with spending taxpayer funds are held accountable to the American people and to their representatives in the Congress.

To date, the Coalition Provisional Authority, CPA, has not been held accountable for the money it spends, and that is your money. That is your money, I say to the taxpayers of this great country. Those who spend it should be held accountable. That is what you believe, I am sure.

Not until the President requested $20 billion in reconstruction aid for Iraq did the CPA make any effort to inform the Congress and the public about the administration's reconstruction plans. Let me say that again. This is an amendment about accountability. This is an amendment to ensure that those administration officials charged with spending taxpayer funds are held accountable to the American people and to their representatives in the Congress.

To date, the Coalition Provisional Authority has not been held accountable for the money it spends--your money. Not until the President requested $20 billion in reconstruction aid for Iraq did the CPA make any effort to inform the Congress and the public about the administration's reconstruction plans.

The CPA's access to nonappropriated funds--now get this--has allowed it to maintain a low profile, so low that one cannot see it, and to operate largely outside the scope of congressional oversight.

Last fiscal year, the CPA, the Coalition Provisional Authority, in Iraq spent $1.7 billion in assets frozen under the Saddam Hussein regime. The CPA spent almost $1 billion in assets seized after the war. That is your money. The CPA spent $2.5 billion in oil revenues collected through the United Nations Food for Oil Program. Altogether, it spent $7.5 billion in the fiscal year 2003, including $2.5 billion appropriated in the supplemental that was passed and enacted by Congress in April of this year.

This CPA did not appear before the Congress even once to explain how those funds would be spent. This year, assuming that the Congress appropriates the $20 billion in reconstruction aid requested by the President, the CPA's budget will grow to $23 billion, which includes $2 billion in unappropriated funds left over from last fiscal year and almost $1 billion included in the supplemental for the Coalition Provisional Authority's administrative expenses.

At $23 billion, the Coalition Provisional Authority's budget will be more than three times what it spent in the last fiscal year. Now, that will be more than the Federal budget for seven Cabinets out of the 15 Cabinet Departments that run the Federal Government. That is a lot of money to flow through the hands of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq.

The CPA's budget is four times the budget of the Commerce Department. Think of that. Do we demand accountability from the Commerce Department? The CPA's budget is twice the size of the entire Interior, Labor, and Treasury Departments and it is billions of dollars larger than the budgets of the Agriculture Department and the Justice Department.

The Senate gives its advice and consent to Presidential appointments to the highest level positions in the Bush administration, or any administration. In the Clinton administration, Reagan administration, and Carter administration, the Senate gave its advice and consent to Presidential appointments to these high-level positions in the Departments. Even a lowly second lieutenant in the Army--now get this. Even a lowly second lieutenant in the Army, who is responsible for the two dozen to three dozen soldiers under his command, is subject to the confirmation by the Senate. And yet the official who is responsible for governing and rebuilding Iraq, a country made up of 23 million, 24 million people--the official with a budget larger than half the Federal departments and responsible for the livelihood of 23 million or 24 million Iraqis--is not subject to confirmation by the Senate.

As it stands today, the people's representatives--that is you, Senator. That is you, Senator. And that is you, I say to every other Senator and I say it to myself as well. As it stands today, the people's representatives--that is us. I am talking about us--the people's representatives in the Senate have no say in who leads the CPA, even though the administration's endeavors in Iraq have drained $118 billion from our budget, have seized tens of thousands of National Guardsmen from our States, and have so far taken the lives of 351 U.S. soldiers in this war. The CPA claims to be vested with all the legislative, executive, and judicial authority necessary to achieve the administration's objectives in Iraq and yet the Congress has done nothing--nothing--to ensure that its administrator is held accountable to the American people.

Beginning March 1, 2004, my amendment would prohibit the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq from spending any appropriated funds until its administrator has been appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. Is it asking too much, that we ask that the person, the one individual, the Coalition Provisional Authority's administrator--is it asking too much that he be appointed by the President of the United States by and with the consent of the Senate? That is not asking too much. That is in defense of the American taxpayer. That will make sure, yes, that person will be accountable to the American taxpayer, to the American people, to the representatives of the American people in Congress.

The sums of money that are being spent in Iraq are enormous. This is not just chickenfeed we are talking about. We are talking about huge amounts of the taxpayers' money. That person should be accountable to the taxpayers

of the country, accountable to the Congress of the United States, made up of the elected representatives of the people. The sums of money are enormous--$87 billion we spent, of which $20.3 billion would be in that amount. I said a moment ago we have appropriated already $118 billion. That includes the April supplemental and includes the supplemental we just passed. It was passed by the Senate. This is too much money to appropriate without ensuring that the decisionmakers in Iraq will be held accountable to the American people. We owe it to the taxpayers, don't we? Yes. We owe it to the taxpayers to do better than that.

I urge the adoption of my amendment and I reserve the remainder of my time.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, I would like to have a few minutes myself with an equal amount of time allotted to the distinguished Senator from Kentucky. I have a few words I would like to say in attempting to rebut what my friend said.

Madam President, my amendment does not cut off funds for reconstruction, as I thought I understood the distinguished Senator from Kentucky to say. If I am incorrect and did not hear him say that or indicate that, I certainly would be glad to be corrected.

My amendment would allow the President to allocate that money to other agencies but would not allow the CPA to spend that money until the Administrator is confirmed by the Senate. This won't shut down funding for the troops. The Senate has until March 1--4 months away--to confirm the Administrator of the CPA. After the Homeland Security Department was created, for example, the Senate confirmed Governor Tom Ridge in just a few short weeks--in just a matter of days. I think it would be the same with Ambassador Bremer.

I certainly have no complaint with respect to Ambassador Bremer. My amendment is not about Ambassador Bremer, currently the head of the CPA, and all of his potential successors. They will have a great deal of authority.

I say again that a lowly second lieutenant in the Army is subject to confirmation by the Senate. Surely the head of CPA should be as well.

My colleague talks about the desire to bring the situation to a conclusion in Iraq as soon as possible.

I agree with him that the job in Iraq should be finished as soon as possible. But it should be carried out with accountability to the elected representatives of the American people.

I also add this postscript: Judging from the events as we have seen them transpire going back several months, I don't believe this situation in Iraq is going to end very quickly. It shows every indication of intensifying. We are in one big mess.

I remember a time when I believed if the President and the administration were to hold out the olive branch and show an indication of willingness to share in economic and political responsibility in Iraq with major European countries and other countries in Asia and elsewhere, if that willingness had been demonstrated some months ago, there would be other major countries making large contributions in treasure and in manpower in Iraq today. But that olive branch was not extended. That willingness to share economic and political responsibility in Iraq was not voiced. It was not made manifest.

Now, I hope that the train has not gone by the station without stopping. As we see the horrific events unfolding in Iraq, I am not so sure that those major European erstwhile contributors would be so willing even to contribute now. The back of the hand was extended to them before the war and it has not been otherwise since the war, to any extent.

By virtue of these mistakes that the administration has made, it is not my belief that the situation in Iraq is going to end all that quickly. I hope it will. But we should not bet on that. Therefore, it would be appropriate to require the President appoint an Administrator and that the Senate be required to confirm or reject that person. That would assure the American people of accountability and of responsibility on the part of their elected representatives and on the part of the CPA Administrator. It is the right thing to do by the American people. It is the right thing to do under the Constitution because the power of the purse is vested here, in the Congress, in this body and the other body.

That power of the purse carries with it the duty of oversight. Congress cannot properly oversee an administrator who is not accountable to the Congress, an administrator who has not been confirmed by the Senate. Therefore, Congress is not in a position to carry out its responsibility under the Constitution of being accountable to the American people and in accordance with the words of the Constitution.

I say that it is time the Senate act. The Senate has been silent too long. The Senate was silent before the war. The Senate was silent before it voted on October 11 of last year to give the authority to the President of the United States to use the military forces of this country as he saw fit. The Congress gave the President of the United States a blank check, as it were, with respect to authority to take this Nation into war and to put these men and women, soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines, in harm's way. It was a most shameful moment when Congress washed its hands. One of the most shameful moments in the history of the Senate was when it passed the cusp and attempted to wash its hands of the responsibility of following the Constitution of the United States which says that Congress shall have the power to declare war.

That moment has come and gone, but still, as the distinguished Senator from Kentucky says, our people are there. We are now there. So what do we do?

I say to Senators, put yourselves into these desks, these chairs, into these shoes of ours 1 year from today and look back and see if you cast the right vote on this amendment. How will it be 1 year from today if we find we are in deeper and deeper and deeper and it has become another Vietnam--which I supported; I supported the war in Vietnam. I was practically the last person out of Vietnam because I supported the President. I supported Johnson. I supported Nixon. I supported them all the way. But one should learn by his mistakes.

We were ill advised when it came to the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. We were ill advised by the administration. I voted for it. Two Senators voted against it. Wayne Morse said that the resolution would pass but that those who voted for it would be sorry. I voted for it. I was sorry. I am sorry. We should learn by our mistakes.

We were not properly advised by that administration and we were not properly advised by this administration. That is why we are in Iraq. I will have more to say about that at another time.

The distinguished Senator from Kentucky is right. We are there. What do we do? In this matter, we have a responsibility to hold Ambassador Bremer, or whoever is the Administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority, accountable to the Congress.

It has been said that Mr. Bremer has already testified before the Congress in

supporting the President's $87 billion request for Iraq. Of course he testified. Yes, he testified. He was before the Appropriations Committee a short time, a few hours. Ambassador Bremer wanted the Congress to give him $20 billion. But how often will he testify after he receives the money? How receptive will he be to further invitations to testify before congressional committees once he has received a blank check, as it were?

Let's not delude ourselves to the extent which Ambassador Bremer was made available to the Congress. He testified only once before the Senate Appropriations Committee and he did not have to respond to a single outside witness called to challenge the administration's lying. Ambassador Bremer went so far as to refuse to return to the Appropriations Committee to answer additional questions because, ``I don't have time.'' He said that in response to me. I asked Ambassador Bremer if he could make himself available and would make himself available to the Senate Appropriations Committee in the event the chairman asked him to return and he said: I don't have time. I am sorry that the transcripts have not been printed--yet--but the transcripts are around, the transcripts of the hearings.

He said: I don't have time. Can you imagine that? He wouldn't say that if he had to be confirmed by the Senate. He would have time. He would make himself available whether the Senate would be under the control of the Republicans or under the control of the Democrats, whatever. He would find time. He would be available. Yes, indeed.

So he said: I don't have time. I am completely booked, and I have to get back to Baghdad to my duties.

What are his duties? If he were required to be confirmed, his duty would be to come back before the Senate and to answer questions, and to answer questions under oath, if necessary.

Senators who believe that sufficient action has been taken to ensure accountability by the CPA Administrator are kidding themselves. The CPA has not been sanctioned by the Congress. And Ambassador Bremer has not been confirmed by the U.S. Senate. Congress has no legislative ties to the CPA or its Administrator. Congress has no strings by which it can say to the Administrator: You come before this committee and, if necessary, you be prepared to take an oath that what you say is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God.

That is a part of it. That is what we are talking about.

The secret national security directive that created the CPA dictates that Ambassador Bremer shall report to the Secretary of Defense and the President. It does not mention the Congress. It does not mention the American people.

When Tom Ridge was appointed Homeland Security Director after the September 11 attacks, the White House refused to allow him to testify before Congress. The President said: No, he is a member of my staff.

Well, technically that was correct. The President opted to create a new Homeland Security Department and reorganize the Federal Government rather than allow an unconfirmed member of his administration to testify before the Congress.

That kind of record should not comfort Members of Congress. We have a responsibility to the American people to ensure that the administration officials responsible for the lives of their loved ones who are fighting in Iraq and for their taxpayer dollars that are being spent in Iraq are held accountable for their actions. We must stop just passing the buck along to the President.

With regard to the argument that holding these officials accountable will somehow endanger our troops, I urge Senators to reject that flimsy scare tactic. What endangers the troops is not having their decisionmakers held accountable to the people. When funds are being spent on postal ZIP Codes, garbage trucks, and escalator and garage beautification projects rather than the necessities of the troops, that is when the Congress must be the most vocal in questioning the judgment of those in the administration who wield power.

I urge Senators to focus on the bigger picture. Senators should cast their votes not only with the thought of a Republican administration directing reconstruction efforts in Iraq, but with an image of a Democratic administration directing the reconstruction efforts in Iraq. I think I know what the answer would be then.

We need to look beyond the party label of the current administration. I am not talking about Mr. Bremer. I spoke of his saying he didn't have time, and he didn't. Those were his words, made of his own free will. Milton wrote about man's free will, ``Paradise Lost.'' Those were Mr. Bremer's words. I have no reason to find fault with Mr. Bremer at all. He is not there without confirmation by virtue of his choice. But that is the way it is. As Walter Cronkite used to say, that is the way it was.

We need to look beyond the party label. We need to take a longer term view of accountability.

Let me say in closing, I thank my friend from Kentucky, who has always been a gentleman with me, has always been straightforward with me, and has conducted himself, on this occasion, as on all others, as a gentleman should.

I thank him for his characteristic courtesy in this instance. I respect his argument. I respect his vote. But the record will be made and the record will stand.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.