Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, in considering the President's $87 billion for Iraq, the House of Representatives adopted a provision that would require the U.S. official responsible for coordinating the reconstruction efforts in Iraq to be appointed by the President by and with the advice of the Senate.

It is almost embarrassing that the House of Representatives had to act on behalf of the Senate to include such a requirement.

The House was responding to the news that the President had appointed National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice to lead a task force that would assume responsibilities for rebuilding Iraq. Unlike Secretaries Rumsfeld and Powell, who testified before the Congress to explain the actions of Defense and State Department personnel in Iraq, the actions of the task force will likely be shielded from the public by what may be said to be executive privilege.

The National Security Adviser, as a member of the President's staff, traditionally does not testify before the Congress, except under extreme circumstances. It is an unconfirmed position and its actions are hidden from the view of the Congress, the media, and the public.

The House of Representatives has valid concerns that if the National Security Adviser is responsible for the administration's reconstruction efforts in Iraq, her actions could be shielded from the public.

Senators will recall that the White House tried something similar to this last year.

After the September 11 attacks, the White House unilaterally created the Office of Homeland Security inside the White House and used executive privilege to cloak the office and its director, Tom Ridge, from the Congress and the public. Senator Stevens and I at that time wrote to the White House, and we wrote repeatedly, seeking testimony from Mr. Ridge. But he was not allowed to testify before the Appropriations Committee or any other congressional committees.

For 14 months, the actions of our chief homeland security officer, Mr. Tom Ridge, were hidden from the public. Not until the Congress forced the hand of the administration did the President acknowledge the dangers of such a situation. To end the stalemate, the President went so far as to reorganize the entire Federal Government--almost--by creating a new Department of Homeland Security, making its Secretary confirmable by the Senate.

So I certainly hope the present situation won't have to be resolved by creating a new Department of Iraqi Reconstruction.

The American people need to be sure that whoever the President chooses to lead the administration's reconstruction efforts in Iraq will be held accountable for their actions.

The Iraqi war effort, including the recently passed supplemental, has cost the American taxpayers $118 billion; 351 U.S. soldiers have lost their lives. The administration has wagered the lives, the treasure, and international prestige of the American people on its Iraqi endeavors. With so much at stake, the Congress has a responsibility on behalf of the American people to ensure that whoever is running things in Iraq is answerable for their decisions to the Congress and to the American people.

I am not just referring to the National Security Adviser; I am also referring to the Administrator of the coalition Provisional Authority that now governs Iraq. This is an entity which has not been sanctioned, which has not been approved by the Congress. Its head has not been confirmed by the Senate. It is operating without any mandate from the American public. Yet it claims to be vested by the President with all executive, legislative, and judicial authority necessary to achieve its objective.

Mr. President, we are not even sure what its objectives are supposed to be. The President signed a national security directive earlier this year outlining the Iraqi civil administrator's authorities, but that directive is classified, hidden away from the American public. Yet the Congress is handing over another $20 billion to this entity without insisting that the administrator be held accountable to the representatives of the people of our country. It is an idea so absurd that even the Republican-controlled House of Representatives has tried to stop it, and with good reason.

Let us look at the way the Marshall plan was crafted to rebuild Europe after World War II. In comparison, the Congress has allowed the administration to assume sweeping unchecked authorities for its efforts in Iraq. From

the first, the Truman administration worked closely with the Congress in the development of a foreign aid plan to rebuild Europe. Congress did not just appropriate funds whenever the administration asked for them. Congress developed a 4-year financial aid plan. It drafted enabling legislation that was debated for months in the House and the Senate. The Congress ensured that U.S. foreign aid commitments did not put its domestic interests in peril.

Unlike the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, the Federal entity responsible for overseeing the implementation of the Marshall plan was authorized by statute. The Congress defined the scope of its powers and its authorities and built a public record of 7 weeks of hearings outlining its objectives and responsibilities. President Truman not only appointed a member of the opposition party, Republican businessman Paul G. Hoffman, to head that organization, but his appointment was subject to confirmation by the Senate. The Senate Foreign Affairs Committee had the opportunity to hold hearings and to ask questions about potential conflicts of interest to determine his qualifications.

On the other hand, the Coalition Provisional Authority and its Administrator can claim none of that.

The Congress has not sanctioned it by law. The Senate has not given its consent to the Administrator chosen to lead it. There is no public record detailing the potential conflicts of interest that may be pertinent to the Administrator's responsibility in administering the reconstruction of Iraq. Once the Congress appropriates its budget, the Administrator of the CPA could very well just begin to decline invitations to testify before the Congress, at least until he needs more money. It could further shield its actions from the public. With so little in statute tying the Congress to the CPA, the Congress needs to assert its authority to ensure that the CPA's Administrator will be held accountable to the Congress and to the American people.

While many Members of Congress may feel comfortable with the decisionmakers in the current administration, there will come a time when a new administration will take office, either Democrat or Republican, when Members of Congress may disagree with the administration officials wielding this power. We need to look beyond the party label of the current administration. We need to take a longer term view of accountability.

The Republican-controlled House of Representatives has taken that longer term view. The Senate would be wise to follow the lead of the House of Representatives. So I have an amendment that would, effective March 1, 2004, prohibit the Coalition Provisional Authority from using funds appropriated until its Administrator is appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. In that way, the Congress will have a mechanism to make sure these funds are spent wisely and there be accountability of their expenditure to better protect our troops and ensure their quick return home.

In proposing its $87 billion supplemental request for Iraq, the administration has urged the Congress not to walk away from our troops. The irony is that in handing this money over to administration officials who are not accountable to the American people or their representatives in the Congress, that is exactly what we would be doing. We would be throwing our hands in the air telling the administration to fix the problem themselves; the Congress will give you more money later when you need it. That is not the way the House of Representatives sees it.

The Congress has more of a responsibility than that. We owe it to the troops to be more meticulous about how Iraqi reconstruction dollars are being spent. We owe it to the troops to ask questions and to ensure that the CPA is making decisions in their best interest. So I urge Senators not to turn away from the troops. The Senate should follow the lead of the House of Representatives and ensure accountability for how taxpayer dollars are spent. I urge the adoption of the amendment which I shall offer.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so that I may offer an amendment.

I send to the desk an amendment.

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

Reserving the right to object--I withdraw my reservation.

Mr. President, a mass liquidation of the Government is underway. U.S. corporations and industry entrepreneurs are salivating at this administration's effort to open at least 850,000 Federal jobs to private contractors.

If this administration has its way, the most basic services of the Federal Government--from national security to tax collection to air traffic control to the maintenance of our national parks--will be handed over to private contractors like birthday party favors.

And to expedite the process the administration has rewritten the Federal Government's A-76 contracting rules for the entire Federal Government, opening each agency and department to a host of potential abuses. The President's proposal has political disaster written all over it.

I voted in favor of the Mikulski amendment to block this egregious scheme from going into effect.

Also, the record should reflect the fact that the Thomas amendment would allow executive agencies to use funds appropriated for other purposes to monitor the performance of an activity or function that has been subjected to public-private competition. Such a provision is a preemption of the appropriations powers of Congress. The Congress should not be handing over such broad spending authority to executive agencies.

I voted to protect congressional prerogatives and against the Thomas amendment.

Amendment No. 1928

I call regular order with respect to amendment 1819, and I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. President, by now it has become evident to even the most die-hard supporter of the President's goals for the reconstruction of Iraq that the $20.3 billion request presented to Congress contains scores of questionable projects and programs: $95 million for basic cosmetics at Iraq's airport; $19 million to build a wireless Internet system for the Iraq post office; $9 million to outfit Iraq with ZIP Codes; $54 million for a computer study for the Iraq Postal Service. The list goes on and on and on.

In fact, the budget request for the reconstruction of Iraq is riddled with frivolous, preposterous items. This is not just my conclusion. The Republican-controlled House Appropriations Committee last week found a total of $1.655 billion in questionable and unnecessary expenditures buried deep within the President's $20.3 billion request for Iraq's reconstruction. As a result, the Republican-controlled House Appropriations Committee reallocated that money to other priorities. I applaud the actions of the House Appropriations Committee.

The amendment I am proposing, and which is cosponsored by Senators Durbin, Biden, Leahy, Dorgan, Mikulski, Landrieu, and Feinstein, would mirror the cuts made by the House Appropriations Committee and reallocate those funds to four areas of far more urgent priority: $600 million to secure and destroy conventional weapons in Iraq; $386 million to accelerate reconstruction activities in Afghanistan; $200 million for disaster relief for Liberia, of which $50 million is allocated from funds in the bill; and $519 million to repair critical military and Coast Guard facilities in the United States damaged by Hurricane Isabel.

The projects for which the President is seeking $1.655 billion in funding have nothing to do with protecting American troops in Iraq, and they have nothing to do with enhanced security in Iraq.

Why does the administration need to spend $2 million on 40 garbage trucks, at $50,000 each? Why does the administration need $20 million for a 4-week business course at $10,000 per student? Why does a country rich in oil reserves--the second largest in the world--need $900 million to import petroleum products?

According to the Congressional Research Service, if we purchased those petroleum products at market prices, it would cost $704 million. I wonder who is profiting from this sweetheart deal at the U.S. taxpayers' expense. And that is to say nothing about the billions of dollars being requested to upgrade the transportation, water, and energy sectors of the Iraq economy to levels not seen in decades.

These are not funds to buy body armor for our troops or secure munitions that may be used against them. We are talking about building dams in the middle of the desert. There is no need more urgent than the need to protect U.S. troops in Iraq from the vicious guerrilla warfare that has been overshadowing their operations and causing intolerable deaths and injuries.

Almost 200 U.S. troops have been killed in Iraq since the President declared an end to major combat operations last May, more than half as a result of guerrilla warfare. American soldiers have been the victims of assassinations, mortar attacks, rocket-propelled grenades, snipers, and road mines. These are all conventional weapons attacks.

Earlier, senior American officials estimated that as much as 650,000 tons of ammunition remained unguarded at thousands of sites used by the Iraqi security forces. This week, the New York Times reported that military officials now believe there may be as much as 1 million tons of leftover weapons and ammunition scattered throughout Iraq.

Even more troubling, the Times asserted that two recent suicide bombings in Baghdad and virtually every other attack on American soldiers and Iraqis were carried out with weapons looted from Saddam Hussein's arsenal.

GEN John Abizaid, commander of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, told the Senate Appropriations Committee last month:

[T]here is more ammunition in Iraq than any place I've ever

been in my life, and it is all not securable . . . I wish I

could tell you that we had it all under control, but we

don't.

Mr. President, we know that scores of conventional weapons sites are not secure. We know these sites are being looted. We know these weapons could be and are being used against our troops. Yet the administration is asking us to believe that garbage trucks and parking garages are a higher priority than securing these weapons sites.

The President's budget request includes only $300 million in a catchall account that lumps munitions security in with critically needed bulletproof vests and the rapid fielding of technological advances. This is the same budget request that includes $697 million for sewage improvements in Iraq, $150 million for the aforementioned garbage trucks and landfill sites, $200 million for an America-Iraqi Enterprise Fund, and $110 million for something called Market Oriented Specialized Training.

Where on Earth is the administration getting its priorities? The Defense Department needs significantly more than an unspecified web of an already underfunded account to accelerate the

effort to shut down Iraq's weapons dumps.

This amendment is an attempt to restore a measure of sensibility to this bill. This amendment would delete $600 million from some of the most egregious provisions included in the President's request, and would reallocate those funds for the search and destruction of conventional weapons.

The amount of money that is being redirected to this crucial mission is not a random figure. It is equal to the amount of money the media has reported was requested in this bill for the--so far--futile search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and it is the sum U.S. authorities say they could use to expedite the efforts to secure and destroy loose conventional weapons in Iraq.

Without additional funding, and a stepped-up program, U.S. officials estimate it could take 18 years to disarm Iraq.

Mr. President, America's soldiers in Iraq cannot wait that long. We have already spent substantial sums of money in Iraq in an effort to find some scrap of evidence that Saddam Hussein possessed and was poised to use weapons of mass destruction.

In the first Iraq war supplemental last spring, Congress approved $300 million for that purpose. For some reason, the administration has classified the current funding request for the Iraq survey team. It is unclear to me why this should be a classified figure. The creation of a group to locate weapons of mass destruction is not classified. Their mission to find weapons of mass destruction is not classified. The funding request included in the first supplemental for Iraq was not classified. It seems the only reason to classify that information now is to protect this administration from further embarrassment about how much it is spending to justify its largely discredited claims.

This administration made a momentous effort out of preparing our troops for attack from weapons of mass destruction, and here we are losing a life almost every day to common, generic, conventional weapons being dug out of piles without even a simple fence. So accelerating the effort to secure and destroy conventional weapons in Iraq is a matter of the highest priority.

Another priority in the war against terror is to speed the stabilization and reconstruction of Afghanistan. Contrary to assertions by Vice President Cheney that Iraq is the central front on the war on terror, Afghanistan, the Taliban, and most especially al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden represent the true heart of the war on terror. And these demons are not to be found in Iraq. Their power base is in Afghanistan. We cannot afford to forget Afghanistan.

The President's budget request includes just $799 million for relief and reconstruction in Afghanistan. This is not enough. The situation in Afghanistan appears to be deteriorating as the Taliban shows signs of reconstituting itself. The House Appropriations Committee allocated an additional $375 million to speed up the reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan. The Senate should do no less. So this amendment adds $386 million for Afghanistan.

We need to deal with the damage that Hurricane Isabel inflicted on U.S. military installations and Coast Guard facilities in the United States. As sympathetic as I am to the need for garbage trucks and vocational training institutes and employment offices in Iraq, I am even more concerned about the devastation Hurricane Isabel brought to a number of our east coast military and Coast Guard facilities. The operational facilities and family housing units alike suffered severe damage.

Unfortunately, the military cannot tap into homeowners insurance when a storm sweeps through. The cost of repairing the damage caused by Hurricane Isabel comes out of operating expenses or it comes at the expense of other needed facility improvements.

We have many glaring needs in Iraq and elsewhere that the President's budget request fails to meet. I believe we can be far more effective than the President by redirecting a small portion of the funds requested for dubious programs in Iraq to programs of obvious and immediate priority.

I urge my colleagues to endorse the reduction made by the House Appropriations Committee and to redirect the $1.655 billion in funding to secure and destroy conventional weapons in Iraq, to accelerate the relief and reconstruction activities in Afghanistan, to provide emergency relief to Liberia and Sudan, and to help the United States military and Coast Guard recover from the devastation of Hurricane Isabel.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in response, I think everything has been said as far as I, personally, am concerned. I would say that a good bit has been said about the funding for a prison. There are funds in the bill for 26 detention facilities. It will take years to build the new prison that is proposed by the President. I don't know how a prison that will not be finished for years protects our troops today or tomorrow or a year from now. I find it hard to imagine that our troops would be protected by projects such as this.

As far as I am concerned, I am ready to yield back time.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

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

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

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, the National Guard has been stretched to the breaking point. Not since the Korean war has the United States deployed so many members of the National Guard and the

Reserves. Right now, more than 160,000 members of the National Guard and the Reserves are on active duty around the world, and more reservists are getting ready to ship out to Iraq.

Last month, the President activated 10,000 more guardsmen for service in Iraq and put an additional 5,000 troops on alert. More callups are doubtlessly in the works. I have heard from many families anxious to know when their deployed loved ones might return home. I expect that all Senators have received similar letters and telephone calls.

All of these families expressed a deep frustration with the open- ended, unfocused deployment of Guard and Reserve units. While the Nation's citizen soldiers are proud to serve their country overseas, they also have obligations at home. These part-time soldiers are full- time doctors, firemen, policemen, and a host of other roles which are critical to the security of American communities. We must do better to balance their commitments at home with their deployments overseas.

The amendment before the Senate will help to relieve the strain that is being placed on our citizen soldier. It would prohibit the involuntary deployment of a member of the National Guard or the Reserves to support Operation Iraqi Freedom if that member has been deployed for a period of more than 6 months in the previous 6 years.

This amendment would put an end to the back-to-back deployments that are causing the most strain on our reservists and their families.

The amendment is based in part upon the direction that Secretary Rumsfeld issued on July 9, 2003, that members of the National Guard and Reserves should not be subject to more than one long deployment every 6 years. We are engaged in a long-term occupation mission under hostile circumstances. There are better ways to get the troops we need for this mission than calling tens of thousands of Guard and Reserve troops away from their homes, away from their jobs, away from their communities for 1 year at a time.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. President, we need to restore predictability in the lives of those who serve in the National Guard and the Reserves. This amendment would stop the back-to-back deployments that are straining the Guard and the Reserves to the breaking point. It adopts the approach suggested by none other than Secretary Rumsfeld. Our men and women in the National Guard and the Reserves need relief from their long missions in Iraq. We should not look to other units of the Guard and Reserve for relief. We need more help, and it all boils down to this point that we should have thought of long ago, that we need more help from the international community. It is the administration's fault that that help has not been sought more diligently, more timely, and more intensely.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

Yes.

Mr. President, may I say to the distinguished manager of the bill, Mr. Stevens, I wish to go forward with the amendment protecting the powers of the Congress, striking broad new executive authorities.

No. 1888.

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

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

Mr. President, I offered this amendment on behalf of myself, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Jeffords, and Mr. Dayton.

On page 27 of the supplemental bill it reads:

Provided further, That the President may reallocate funds

provided under this heading.

Those 12 little words, disguised as legalese, mean the President can spend $20.3 billion for the reconstruction of Iraq in any manner in which he pleases. The fine print in the bill allows the President to spend $20.3 billion in Iraq as he pleases.

On page 27 I believe we find this language, beginning on line 9. This is page 27, line 9, of the bill:

Provided further, That the President may reallocate funds

provided under this heading.

The President may reallocate those funds regardless of what the rest of this bill may say under this heading. The President may reallocate this.

Now, if we want to make the President a king, this is the place to start. All those who believe in a monarchy in this country, support this against my amendment. That is what it says. Read the fine print:

Provided further, That the President may reallocate funds

provided under this heading.

What is the heading? The heading is as follows: ``Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund.'' So that is the heading. And in the very first line, it reads as follows:

For necessary expenses for security, rehabilitation and

reconstruction in Iraq, $20,304,000,000, to remain available

until expended, to be allocated as follows.

And then it goes right down the line, item after item after item after item, and the dollar amounts. And then come over here to the fine print. Now hear me. Look at the fine print:

Provided further, That the President may reallocate funds

provided under this heading.

Here is what it does. Here is what it does to the bill. It tears it up. The President can just reallocate it. The heck with the bill.

Yes.

Yes.

It does. The Senator has stated the situation very well.

Our forefathers disdained even a gentle master. Now here we are, we come along, and we pass this bill with these provisions, fulfilling the control of the power of the purse by the Congress, and then we turn around and say: The President may reallocate these funds as he pleases.

Do we want to be like that? I am not ready to make a King George. It is President George Bush now. I am not ready to make him King George Bush. If that is what you want to do, this is the place to start.

So I hope Members will vote for my amendment. Congress should retain its power of the purse. But always read the fine print. That is what the fine print says.

Then the supplemental bill also gives the Secretary of Defense the authority to transfer among accounts up to $5 billion of the $65.6 billion in funds for the military.

Very well.

I hope the Senate will support my amendment.

Madam President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens, and I also thank the distinguished Democratic whip for their courtesies.

Madam President, in 1837, Danish author Hans Christian Andersen wrote a wonderful fairytale which he titled ``The Emperor's New Clothes.'' It may be the very first example of the power of political correctness. It is the story of a ruler of a distant land who was so enamored of his appearance and his clothing that he had a different suit for every hour of the day.

One day two rogues arrived in town, claiming to be gifted weavers. They convinced the emperor that they could weave the most wonderful cloth, which had a magical property. The clothes were only visible to those who were completely pure in heart and spirit.

The emperor was impressed and ordered the weavers to begin work immediately. The rogues, who had a deep understanding of human nature, began to feign work on empty looms.

Minister after minister went to view the new clothes and all came back exhorting the beauty of the cloth on the looms even though none of them could see a thing.

Finally a grand procession was planned for the emperor to display his new finery. The emperor went to view his clothes and was shocked to see absolutely nothing, but he pretended to admire the fabulous cloth, inspect the clothes with awe, and, after disrobing, go through the motions of carefully putting on a suit of the new garments.

Under a royal canopy the emperor appeared to the admiring throng of his people--all of whom cheered and clapped because they all knew the rogue weavers' tale and did not want to be seen as less than pure of heart.

But, the bubble burst when an innocent child loudly exclaimed, for the whole kingdom to hear, that the emperor had nothing on at all. He had no clothes.

That tale seems to me very like the way this Nation was led to war.

We were told that we were threatened by weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but they have not been seen.

We were told that throngs of Iraqis would welcome our troops as liberators. They have not been seen as liberators but as occupiers.

We were told that the throngs of Iraqis would welcome our troops with flowers, but no throngs or flowers appeared.

We were led to believe that Saddam Hussein was connected to the attack on the twin towers and the Pentagon, but no evidence to that effect has ever been produced.

We were told in 16 words that Saddam Hussein tried to buy ``yellow cake'' from Africa for production of nuclear weapons, but the story has turned into empty air.

We were frightened with visions of mushroom clouds, but they turned out to be only vapors of the mind.

We were told that major combat was over but 101--as of October 17-- Americans have died in combat since that proclamation from the deck of an aircraft carrier by our very own emperor in his new clothes.

Our emperor says that we are not occupiers, yet we show no inclination to relinquish the country of Iraq to its people.

Those who have dared to expose the nakedness of the administration's policies in Iraq have been subjected to

scorn. Those who have noticed the elephant in the room--that is, the fact that this war was based on falsehoods--have had our patriotism questioned. Those who have spoken aloud the thought shared by hundreds of thousands of military families across this country, that our troops should return quickly and safely from the dangers half a world away, have been accused of cowardice. We have then seen the untruths, the dissembling, the fabrication, the misleading inferences surrounding this rush to war in Iraq wrapped quickly in the flag.

The right to ask questions, debate, and dissent is under attack. The drums of war are beaten ever louder in an attempt to drown out those who speak of our predicament in stark terms.

Even in the Senate, our history and tradition of being the world's greatest deliberative body is being snubbed. This huge spending bill-- $87 billion--has been rushed through this Chamber in just 1 month. There were just three open hearings by the Senate Appropriations Committee on $87 billion--$87 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born--$87 billion without a single outside witness called to challenge the administration's line.

Ambassador Bremer went so far as to refuse to return to the Appropriations Committee to answer additional questions because, and I quote: ``I don't have time. I'm completely booked, and I have to get back to Baghdad to my duties.''

Despite this callous stiff-arm of the Senate and its duties to ask questions in order to represent the American people, few dared to voice their opposition to rushing this bill through these halls of Congress. Perhaps they were intimidated by the false claims that our troops are in immediate need of more funds.

But the time has come for the sheep-like political corrections which has cowed Members of this Senate to come to an end.

The emperor has no clothes. This entire adventure in Iraq has been based on propaganda and manipulation. Eighty-seven billion dollars is too much to pay for the continuation of a war based on falsehoods.

Taking the nation to war based on misleading rhetoric and hyped intelligence is a travesty and a tragedy. It is the most cynical of all cynical acts. It is dangerous to manipulate the truth. It is dangerous because once having lied, it is difficult to ever be believed again. Having misled the American people and stampeded them to war, this administration must now attempt to sustain a policy predicated on falsehoods. The President asks for billions from those same citizens who knew that they were misled about the need to go to war. We misinformed and insulted our friends and allies and now this administration is having more than a little trouble getting help from the international community. It is perilous to mislead.

The single-minded obsession of this administration to now make sense of the chaos in Iraq, and the continuing propaganda which emanates from the White House painting Iraq as the geographical center of terrorism is distracting our attention from Afghanistan and the 60 other countries in the world where terrorists hide. It is sapping resources which could be used to make us safer from terrorists on our own shores. The body armor for our own citizens still has many, many chinks. Have we forgotten that the most horrific terror attacks in history occurred right here at home? Yet, this administration turns back money for homeland security, while the President pours billions into security for Iraq. I am powerless to understand or explain such a policy.

I have tried mightily to improve this bill. I twice tried to separate the reconstruction money in this bill, so that those dollars could be considered separately from the military spending. I offered an amendment to force the administration to craft a plan to get other nations to assist the troops and formulate a plan to get the U.N. in, and the U.S. out, of Iraq. Twice I tried to rid the bill of expansive, flexible authorities that turn this $87 billion into a blank check. The American people should understand we provide more foreign aid for Iraq in this bill, $20.3 billion, than we provide for the rest of the world.

I attempted to remove from this bill billions of dollars in wasteful programs and divert those funds to better use, but at every turn my efforts were thwarted by the vapid argument that we must all support the requests of the Commander in Chief.

I cannot stand by and continue to watch our grandchildren and their children become increasingly burdened by the billions of dollars that fly out of the Treasury for a war and a policy based largely on propaganda, hype, and prevarication. We are borrowing $87 billion to finance this adventure in Iraq. The President is asking this Senator to pay for this war with increased debt, a debt that will have to be paid by our children and by those same troops who are currently fighting this war.

I cannot support outlandish tax cuts that plunge our country into potentially disastrous debt while our troops are fighting and dying-- four more died within the last 24 hours--in a war that the White House chose to begin.

I cannot support the continuation of a policy that unwisely ties down 150,000 American troops for the foreseeable future with no end in sight.

I cannot support a President who refuses to authorize the reasonable change in course that would bring traditional allies to our side in Iraq.

I cannot support the politics of zeal and ``might makes right'' that created the new American arrogance and unilateralism that passes for foreign policy in this administration.

I cannot support this foolish manifestation of the dangerous and destabilizing doctrine of preemption that changes the image of America into that of a reckless bully.

The emperor has no clothes and our former allies around the world were the first to loudly observe it. I shall vote against this bill because I cannot support a policy based on prevarication. I cannot support doling out 87 billion additional of our hard-earned tax dollars when I have so many doubts about the wisdom of its use.

I began my remarks with a fairytale. I shall close my remarks with a horror story in the form of a quote from the book ``Nuremberg Diaries,'' written by G.M. Gilbert, in which the author interviews Herman Gehrig:

We got around to the subject of war again and I said that,

contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common

people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and

destruction.

. . . But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who

determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag

the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist

dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.

There is one difference. . . . In a democracy the people

have some say in the matter through their elected

representatives, and in the United States only Congress can

declare wars.

Oh, that is all well and good, but voice or no voice, the

people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.

That is easy. All you have to do is tell them that they are

being attacked and denounce the pacifists for a lack of

patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the

same way in any country.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, do I have any time remaining?

I thank the Chair.

May I say to the distinguished Senator from Alaska that he holds no monopoly on the support for the troops. I was supporting American troops before the Senator from Alaska ever came to Washington. I have been supporting the American troops for over 50 years.

And let the Record not stand with the Senator's words, if I interpreted them correctly, that those who vote against this bill are voting against the troops. I defy that statement. I defy that statement, and I hurl it back into the teeth of the Senator from Alaska.

I support the troops. I would say that every Senator here, regardless of how he or she votes, supports the troops. So do not throw that old canard over here, over this way.

I am sorry that the Senator from Alaska takes that view. I thought each of us could have our own viewpoint here without being charged with not supporting the troops. I regret the Senator from Alaska takes this view.

I am sure that there are a lot of the American people out there-- millions of them--for whom I speak and for whom those who vote against this bill today speak who do not believe that this war was justified, who do not believe in the doctrine of preemption, who do not believe that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. They have not been found yet.

So, Mr. President, I close by congratulating those Senators who have the courage to speak their will, to stand up for their own consciences, and who speak for those soldiers, men and women, who are in Iraq today who did not ask to go there but who feel that those of us who speak our will speak for them and who do not support the doctrine of preemption.

Fie on that doctrine of preemption! Fie on it! Here we have an America that has invaded another country that did not invade our country, that did not attack us. That is a dangerous doctrine. Those who vote against this bill are voting against that doctrine. So do not be ashamed of it.

I close with the words written on a statue to Benjamin Hill that stands in Atlanta, GA:

Who saves his country, saves himself, saves all things, and

all things saved do bless him! Who lets his country die, lets

all things die, dies himself ignobly, and all things dying

curse him!

Vote to save your country, I say to my colleagues. Vote to save your country. I was not brought here by any Commander in Chief. No Commander in Chief brought me here, and no Commander in Chief is going to send me home.

My first and last stand by which I live and by which I hope to die is this Constitution of the United States. It says I have a right, and the men and women of this Chamber have a duty, to speak the people's will.

There are millions of people out there, millions of men and women, there are many men and women in Iraq who believe that we who vote against this bill today speak for them. I am not ashamed to do it. I am proud to do it.

Yes, I voted against sending American troops into Iraq. Yes, I am one of the 23. And if I had it to do over again, I would vote the same way again--10 times, 10 times 100 against this doctrine, this doctrine of preemptive strikes.

Fie on that doctrine! Fie on it!

Now, if the Senator from Alaska wishes to talk further, I will be glad to hear him.

Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Does the Senator wish for me to yield him 2 minutes?

I would like to echo Chairman Stevens' remarks and thank the Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray, for bringing this issue before the Senate.

I am fully in agreement with the Senator from Maryland on this issue. I look forward to working in conference so that the needs of the U.S. Naval Academy to recover from Hurricane Isabel are fully funded.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1818.

Very well. I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I congratulate the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee. He is always on the job. And he is effective. He is characteristically courteous. I commend him on the progress he has made already on the bill.

There are several cosponsors of this amendment. I hope they will come to the floor and join in the debate concerning the amendment. I need their voices to blend with my own, mine being the weakest of all. But I need the cosponsors to join and make this supreme effort here to have the Senate adopt this extremely worthwhile amendment.

In all the discussion surrounding the President's request for $20.3 billion for reconstruction activities in Iraq and Afghanistan--in the question of whether the funding should be in the form of a grant or a loan, in the revelation of a series of frivolous proposed expenditures, in the dispute over whether reconstruction funding is a gold-plated add-on or an integral part of the occupation strategy--there is an overriding issue that we must not allow to be lost in the noise of the debate.

That issue involves the fact that American taxpayers--American taxpayers--are being presented virtually the entire bill for the stabilization and reconstruction of Iraq because of decisions that were made by the President before the war began, decisions to embrace an unprecedented doctrine of preemption and to invade Iraq without the support of the United Nations or the international community.

Those decisions are coming home to haunt us today. The chickens are coming home to roost. Because of the President's obstinance and go-it- alone mentality, it is American soldiers who are patrolling the most dangerous streets and cities of Iraq, and it is American taxpayers who are being asked to foot the bill for the stabilization and reconstruction of Iraq--American soldiers and American taxpayers.

It appears there is little relief in sight. After seesawing back and forth, the United Nations Security Council is now expected to accept a revised U.S. resolution on Iraq, but the resolution on the table is little more than a fancy fig leaf designed to camouflage an empty gesture. The resolution proposed by the United States cedes no meaningful authority to the United Nations and is likely to have little impact on the number of foreign troops or the amount of international financial assistance the United Nations will provide for the stabilization and the reconstruction of Iraq.

American troops in Iraq and American taxpayers at home need real help from the international community. The President needs to reach out to the United Nations, not merely attempt to paper over the glaring lack of support from the international community with a resolution that, as some Texans are wont to say, is all hat and no cattle.

The administration's reckless misadventure in Iraq is exacting a high price in lost lives, lost respect for our Nation in the world, and lost ground in the war on terrorism. And yet, in the past week, the only visible response from the President to the continuing chaos in Iraq has been to reshuffle the chain of command in Washington by creating a new entity to consolidate Iraq's reconstruction in the White House instead of the Pentagon.

The President misses the point. Instead of rearranging the chairs on the deck, the President should be changing direction. Creating a new Iraq policy shop in the White House will not bring relief to American soldiers on the ground, and it will not save American taxpayers from having to shoulder, virtually alone, the staggering financial burden of rebuilding Iraq.

Now, the American people, in the first place, did not buy on to this idea that we were going to rebuild Iraq. They were not told that. They were not told we were going to rebuild a nation there. They were not told about the staggering costs of rebuilding Iraq.

If there is any shift in the balance of power over the reconstruction of Iraq--and there should be--it must be across oceans, not just across the Potomac. It is long past time to bring in the United Nations as a full partner with shared responsibility and shared decisionmaking for the future of Iraq. The President does not need another in-house committee to advise him on the future of Iraq. He needs to internationalize the stabilization and the reconstruction effort.

Instead of instituting meaningful change in his Iraq policy, the President presented a bait-and-switch proposition to the American people: Don't look too closely at the policy, just keep your attention on the policy shop.

We cannot undo what has been done in Iraq. But we can chart a better course for the future.

First and foremost, the Bush administration should drop its stubborn insistence that the world community not have any authority in the political reconstruction of Iraq. The resolution that will be considered at the United Nations Security Council this morning makes some progress in promoting cooperation between the United Nations and the Iraqi Governing Council but keeps the United Nations at an arm's length from the Coalition Provisional Authority. It is this authority, headed by Paul Bremer, that exercises total authority in postwar Iraq.

If you don't believe what I have said about total authority, just listen. Ambassador Bremer's first regulation as head of the Coalition Provisional Authority reads in part as follows:

The CPA is vested with all executive, legislative, and

judicial authority--

How about that? ``The CPA is vested with all,'' not just an itty- bitty part--

executive, legislative, and judicial authority necessary to

achieve its objectives. . . .

Take a look at the first sentence in article I of the Constitution of the United States which I hold in my hands. The first sentence in this Constitution, article I, section 1:

All legislative Powers granted shall be vested in a

Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a

Senate and House of Representatives.

What a sweeping investiture of power that first sentence makes--``all legislative power.'' It doesn't say anything about executive or judicial power, ``all legislative power.'' But listen to this, Ambassador Bremer's first regulation as head of the Coalition Provisional Authority:

The CPA is vested with all executive, legislative, and

judicial authority necessary to achieve its objectives, to be

exercised under relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions,

including Resolution 1483 (2003), and the laws and usages of

war. This authority shall be exercised by the CPA

administrator.

What an enormous grant of power that is. The new resolution that will be voted on today at the United Nations will not change the supreme authority claimed by Paul Bremer who was installed in his post by the President without offering his nomination to the U.S. Senate for its advice and consent.

There is power--power. Remember the old song: There is power, power, wonder working power.

Well, if the international community is going to continue to be squeezed out of the political decisionmaking in the Coalition Provisional Authority, there is little incentive for the world to mobilize to come to the aid of postwar Iraq. The President's ``my way or the highway'' approach to the governance of Iraq undermines the mission in Iraq and ignores the will of the American people. The United Nations is willing to help, but only if the administration drops its false pride and its bravado.

``Bring them on,'' the President said. That is bravado.

Before coming into office, then-candidate Bush talked of a humble approach to foreign policy. ``Let us reject the blinders of isolationism, just as we refuse the crown of empire,'' he said. ``Let us not dominate others with our power or betray them with our indifference,'' he said. ``And let us have an American foreign policy that reflects American character,'' he said. ``The modesty of true strength, the humility of real greatness,'' the President said.

Those were the words of candidate George W. Bush, but they have been far from the practice of President George W. Bush.

Similarly, the administration ought to rethink its extreme good- versus-evil mantra that seems to be running this Nation's foreign policy into a morass of confusion and danger. The administration's obstinance continues to strain America's relationship with other countries and undermines our credibility with other foreign powers.

President Bush committed the United States to war without broad international support. He said: If you don't do it, we will. He said: If the United Nations doesn't do it, we will.

He refused to go back to the United Nations prior to launching military attacks and continues to stiff-arm the international community even today, when that help is so vital to the long-term interests of Iraq.

Instead, the Bush administration has adopted a go-it-alone mentality that threatens the stability of the Middle East and could spill over into other global areas.

The United States needs help in Iraq. The United States needs a plan that will bring relief to our overburdened soldiers by attracting significantly more foreign troops to Iraq and bring relief to our overburdened taxpayers by attracting financial assistance from the international community for reconstruction.

The President's proposal does neither. His $87 billion spending request places the entire burden of securing and rebuilding Iraq squarely on the shoulders of the American forces and American taxpayers. That burden ought not be carried by the United States alone. That is why Senator Kennedy, Senator Leahy, other Senators and I have proposed an alternative.

What Senator Kennedy, Senator Leahy, and other Senators and I have offered is more than an invitation to the international community to assume a large and vital role in the reconstruction of Iraq; it is a demand, on behalf of the American people, that the President go to the nations of the world and work in partnership with those other nations of the world. It is a mandate for a new policy in Iraq, a policy that will bring peace more quickly and stability more assuredly.

The amendment, in effect, says: Mr. President, your plan for Iraq has not worked. It is costing lives every day and it is jeopardizing the long-term security of the Middle East. We need to share political power in Iraq with the United Nations, and we must be willing to listen to the rest of the world, share the responsibility, attract new partners for peace, and protect our men and women in Iraq.

That is what this amendment would require. It is a commonsense approach to what is quickly becoming an American quagmire in Iraq. These are dangerous times, Mr. President. These are dangerous times-- times that demand determined, disciplined leadership.

The path ahead is not a certain one, but what is certain is that the United States cannot afford to blaze this path alone. America relied on strong alliances, diplomacy, and, only when necessary, armed force to lead the world in the 20th century. But the Bush administration's 21st century America seems all too ready to focus solely on armed force rather than on strong alliances and diplomacy.

Simply put, we need a plan that would bring relief to the American soldiers, to help U.S. troops by attracting significantly more foreign military troops to Iraq; and we need a plan that will bring relief to the overburdened American taxpayers by attracting meaningful financial assistance from the international community for the reconstruction of Iraq. We need a framework to begin to bring American troops home, supplemented by international forces on the ground--not just on paper-- in Iraq.

Currently, the United States has approximately 120,000 troops in Iraq. They are augmented by about 20,000 foreign forces, primarily from Great Britain. Another 10,000 troops from Turkey would help, but it would still leave more than 100,000 American troops in Iraq for the foreseeable future.

In an interview published in the Chicago Tribune on October 5, LTG Ricardo Sanchez, the head of the coalition forces in Iraq, predicted that it would be years--years--not months, before the United States can draw down its forces from Iraq.

The American people were not told that, were they, when we went into this war? No, they were not told that. The men and women in the National Guard and Reserves were not told that, were they--that it would be years, not months, before the United States could draw down its forces from Iraq?

Until a new Iraqi Army is trained and ready to assume command, the only relief for American soldiers is to build up foreign troop presence in Iraq.

International financial assistance is equally important. The American taxpayers cannot afford to bear the full cost of the reconstruction of Iraq. We all know that the $20.3 billion requested by the President in this supplemental is just the beginning, just a downpayment. It is not the alpha and the omega of American taxpayers' dollars that will be asked by the administration in this enterprise.

The Wall Street Journal recently reported that rebuilding Iraq is expected to cost $56 billion over the next 4 years, according to an estimate reached by the World Bank, the United Nations, and the Coalition Provisional Authority. So far, other countries have pledged less than $2 billion to the effort.

The amendment that Senators Kennedy, Leahy, and I are offering would require the President to reach out to other nations for both military and financial support--reach out, reach out to other nations.

Our amendment provides that, after April 1, 2004, Iraq relief and reconstruction funds can only be obligated if, one, the President certifies to Congress that the U.N. has adopted a new resolution authorizing a multinational security force under U.S. leadership in Iraq and providing a central role for the U.N. in the political and economic development of Iraq; two, the President certifies that he has a detailed plan in place for the reconstruction of Iraq, including a significant commitment of financial assistance from other nations; three, Congress approves the release of the rest of the funds for the reconstruction of Iraq in another appropriations bill.

As part of his certification to Congress, the President must establish a plan; he must establish a timetable for withdrawing American troops from Iraq. This is the way to get the U.N. in and the U.S. out. It is a real alternative to the administration's bull-rush approach, and it is a significant gesture to the Iraqi people that America is not an occupier but a real liberator.

The Byrd-Kennedy-Leahy amendment limits the funds for the reconstruction of Iraq that may be obligated prior to April 1, 2004, to the $5.1 billion fund for Iraqi security and $5 billion for economic reconstruction.

Our amendment compels the President to work with the United Nations. Our amendment requires Congress to evaluate the progress of the reconstruction effort at the halfway mark next year. Most important, our amendment changes the course of the Iraq relief and reconstruction effort from a unilateral burden to an international obligation.

It is important to note that the full $5.1 billion that the administration has requested for the Iraq Defense Corps and for improving the Iraqi national security force is exempted from this amendment. Only the nonsecurity portion of the reconstruction program is subject to a second vote.

It seems to me that this is the least we can do to provide relief to American soldiers in Iraq--to have a timetable to bring those American soldiers home to once again reunite with their families--and to safeguard the interests of the American taxpayers in the administration's program to finance the rebuilding of Iraq.

We have a far clearer vision today of the cost of rebuilding Iraq than we did 6 months ago. I think we have a right to assume that we will have an even better assessment--or we certainly should have--6 months from now.

This amendment gives the President 6 months to round up international military and financial support for Iraq and gives his administration 6 months to demonstrate that the reconstruction program is working. Most importantly, the amendment gives the American people--the American people who are bearing the burden in the heat of the day--it gives the American people some assurance that Congress is not walking away from its responsibility to provide oversight of the hard-earned tax dollars that are going to Iraq.

If all goes as planned, Congress can quickly and in good conscience release the remainder of the money, but if unforeseen problems or serious shortfalls in expectations emerge, Congress has an opportunity to make a midcourse correction in America's involvement in postwar Iraq. It is the American taxpayers money, you who are out there in the plains, the mountains, and the valleys of America looking through these electronic lenses. It is your money, your money--deserve no less.

This is not an anti-reconstruction amendment. It does not affect any of the money being appropriated for American military operations in Iraq. It requires, rather, a progress report and a certification from the President of the United States at the halfway mark, and it provides for a vote--another vote--a vote from the people's representatives in Congress on whether the remaining funds for Iraq reconstruction are needed and are justified.

This is a simple amendment to interject congressional oversight into the expenditure of United States taxpayer dollars for the reconstruction of Iraq. I urge my colleagues to accept the amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

I hope my chairman will not press this request at this time. As far as I know, there is no intention on this side of the aisle to lengthen the process by which the Senator would consider this amendment. This is a very important amendment. I hope the distinguished Senator would not press for any time limitation on the amendment at this point.

No, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I have reserved the right to object and expressed the hope that the distinguished chairman would not press this request at this time.

Will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, we have already taken 15 or 20 minutes.

The Senator has not been alone taking time. I am hoping his sweet nature will prevail and allow Senators to speak.

I hope the Senator will not press for an agreement this early in the morning. We can move right along. Senators are here. Senator Leahy is here; Senator Kennedy is here; Senator Boxer is here. We are prepared to move along. We are not attempting to drag out the time.

I hope the Senator will allow Senators to go forward with this debate. We will save time in the long run by so doing.

Not yet, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I wish to express appreciation to the other Senators who have spoken in support of this amendment: Senator Kennedy, Senator Leahy, Senator Boxer. There are some other cosponsors of the

amendment who may or may not wish to speak on it: Senators Harkin, Durbin, Jeffords, and Kerry.

The amendment provides that not more than $5 billion may be obligated or expended before April 1, 2004, from the total of $20.3 billion.

It provides that the excess of the total amount so appropriated over $5 billion may not be obligated or expended after April 1, 2004. We are talking about $10 billion of the $20 billion--$10 billion may not be obligated or expended after April 1, unless, 1, the President submits to Congress in writing certain certifications and unless Congress enacts an appropriations law, other than this act, that authorizes the expenditure of such funds.

Keep in mind, I say to Senators, the $5.1 billion provided under the heading ``Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund for Security,'' including public safety requirements, national security, and justice, which includes funds for Iraqi border enforcement, and so on--keep in mind that these moneys are not affected. They will go forward to Iraq--the $5.1 billion for the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund for Security. They will go forward immediately, and $5 billion of the remaining $15 billion may be spent before April 1, 2004. The passage of this bill would provide for such expenditures. But the remaining $10 billion would not, could not be obligated before April 1, 2004, and may not be obligated or expended after April 1, 2004, unless the President submits to Congress in writing certain certifications described in the amendment and Congress enacts an appropriations law, other than this act, that authorizes the obligation and expenditure of the remainder of the fund.

Now, the certifications that have to be provided by the President of the United States before the remaining $10 billion may be expended are as follows, in brief: a certification that the U.N. Security Council has adopted a resolution that authorizes a multinational security force under United States leadership for post-Saddam Hussein Iraq and provides for a central role for the U.N. in the political and economic development and reconstruction of Iraq; and the President must also certify that there must result a substantially increased contribution of military forces and amounts of money by other countries to assist in the restoration of security in Iraq and the reconstruction of Iraq. There must be a certification by the President that the United States reconstruction activities in Iraq are being successfully implemented in accordance with a detailed plan, which includes fixed timetables and costs and with a significant commitment of financial assistance from other countries, so that the American taxpayer does not have to continue to bear all the burden; a detailed plan that provides for the establishment of economic and political stability in Iraq, including prompt restoration of basic services, such as water and electrical services; the adoption of a democratic constitution in Iraq, the holding of local and national elections in Iraq, the establishment of a democratically elected government in Iraq that has broad public support, and the establishment of Iraqi security and armed forces that are fully trained and appropriately equipped and are able to defend Iraq and carry out other security duties without the involvement of the United States Armed Forces--so that American men and women who are bearing the military burden there today can come home.

Additionally, not later than March 1, 2004, the President shall submit to Congress a report on United States and foreign country involvement in Iraq that includes the following information:

1, the number of military personnel from other countries that are supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom, together with an estimate of the number of such personnel to be in place in Iraq for that purpose on May 1, 2004;

2, the total amounts of financial donations pledged and paid by other countries for the reconstruction of Iraq;

3, a description of the economic, political, and military situation in Iraq, including the number, the type, and location of attacks on coalition, U.N., and Iraqi military public safety and civilian personnel in the 60 days preceding the date of the report;

4, a description of the measures taken to protect United States military personnel serving in Iraq;

5, a detailed plan containing fixed timetables and costs for establishing civil, economic, and political security in Iraq, including restoration of basic services, such as water and electricity services;

6, an estimate of the total number of United States and foreign military personnel that are necessary in the short term and in the long term to bring to Iraq stability and security for its reconstruction, including the prevention of sabotage that impedes the reconstruction efforts;

7, an estimate of the duration of the United States military presence in Iraq and the levels of United States military personnel strength that will be necessary for that presence for each of the future 6-month periods, together with a rotation plan for combat divisions, combat support units, and combat service support units;

8, an estimate of the total cost to the United States of the military presence in Iraq that includes, A, the estimated incremental cost of the United States Active-Duty Forces deployed in Iraq and neighboring countries; B, the estimated cost of United States Reserve component forces mobilized for service in Iraq and in neighboring countries; C, the estimated cost of replacing United States military equipment being used in Iraq; D, the estimated cost of support to be provided by the United States to foreign troops in Iraq;

Furthermore, an estimate of the total financial cost of the reconstruction of Iraq together with, A, an estimate of the percentage of such costs that would be paid by the United States and a detailed accounting specified for major categories of cost and, B, the amounts of contributions pledged and paid by other countries, specified in major categories;

10, a strategy for securing significant additional international financial support for the construction of Iraq, including a discussion of the plan for implementing the strategy;

11, a schedule including fixed timetables and costs for the establishment of Iraqi security and armed forces that are fully trained and appropriately equiped and are able to defend Iraq and carry out other security duties without the involvement of the United States Armed Forces;

12, an estimated schedule for the withdrawal of United States and foreign armed forces from Iraq; so here we have a requirement in the report that is to be submitted by the President, an estimated schedule for the withdrawal of United States and foreign armed forces from Iraq;

13, an estimated schedule for the adoption of a democratic constitution in Iraq, the holding of democratic local and national elections in Iraq, the establishment of a democratically elected government in Iraq that has broad public support;

And, finally, the timely withdrawal of United States and foreign armed forces from Iraq.

Every 90 days, after the submission of this report, under subsection C, the President shall submit to Congress an update of that report. The requirement for updates under the preceding sentence shall terminate upon the withdrawal of the United States Armed Forces other than diplomatic security detachment personnel from Iraq. The report and updates shall be submitted in unclassified form.

Here at last is a requirement that the President provide a report to the Congress and to the American people, information the Congress has needed and requested but which has been denied thus far.

This amendment would require that the President make these certifications I have mentioned and that he submit a report which outlines the various provisions I have read and, in the final analysis, he has to submit a timetable for the withdrawal of American men and women from Iraq.

It is time for the U.N. to get in and the U.S. to get out. That is what this amendment would require, in essence. The amendment would help save American lives. It would ease the Iraqi fears that America is following a policy of compassionate colonialism. This amendment moves reconstruction forward. This amendment moves Iraq forward. This amendment brings the world together in the overall peace effort on those distant sands.

This amendment would put in motion a plan--a real plan--that would bring

peace more quickly and stability more assuredly, and it would say to the people of Iraq that the United States is your friend, not your sovereign.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this amendment is cosponsored by Senators Byrd, Kennedy, Leahy, Boxer, Harkin, Jeffords, and Kerry.

The administration needs to change its course in Iraq. If the United States is ever to work successfully with the international community to obtain the contributions of troops and money that are needed to share the heavy burden of postwar Iraq, the White House must take real steps to share power with the United Nations.

The Byrd-Kennedy-Leahy amendment would push the administration to do more to share power in Iraq. It would also require the President to submit reports to Congress about the participation of other countries in Iraq, as well as a plan for supporting American troops by bringing them home.

The amendment gives the President $10.1 billion in reconstruction funds immediately but requires another vote by Congress before the other $10.2 billion in reconstruction funds can be spent.

It is imperative that Congress review the situation in 6 months to determine whether the President's efforts at the U.N. have paid off in more foreign contributions to the future of Iraq. Congress should also evaluate the President's plan for how to get the U.N. in, and the U.S. out of, Iraq. A vote in 6 months' time on whether to release the additional $10.2 billion in reconstruction funding would give Congress the opportunity to make a midcourse correction if our occupation of Iraq is still going poorly.

The Byrd-Kennedy-Leahy amendment is a simple amendment to help Congress watch the people's money and to support our troops by getting the international help they need.

Mr. President, I urge the Senators to support the amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I had an amendment with Senator Durbin. Are we ready for that amendment?

Sure.

Madam President, it is my information that this side has not yet adequately followed this amendment and has not seen it until recently to the extent that we are prepared to accept it. It appears to be a good amendment, but we may or may not want to accept it. Will the Senator allow us a little time for further study?

I thank the Senator.

Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself, Mr. Levin, Mr. Dorgan, Mrs. Clinton, and Ms. Landrieu.

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

Madam President, 1 year ago this week, the President signed the congressional resolution authorizing him to go to war against Iraq. That signing was a historic moment for the United States. For the first time in our history, the President asked Congress for authority to launch an invasion against a sovereign nation that did not constitute a clear and imminent threat to the safety of the American people. And for the first time in our history, the President demanded that Congress give him unconditional power to initiate war whenever he wanted, limited by nothing but his own judgment. The President wanted war on his own terms, and Congress granted him everything he asked for.

For the next 5 months, the President and his top advisors turned a deaf ear to growing concerns about the administration's judgment. When intelligence analysts warned that the White House was acting on questionable conclusions, those analysts were ignored. When Members of Congress dared to ask questions about the President's war plans, they were branded as unpatriotic. When our oldest allies disagreed with the argument that immediate war was the only answer, they were dismissed and called irrelevant. Top administration officials who publicly contradicted the President's rosy predictions were fired, and the American public was kept in the dark about what Iraq would look like after the war.

On several occasions, I stood on the floor and asked: After Iraq, what? What shall we expect the morning after the war?

Confident that the reconstruction of Iraq was a job that could be handled without involving Congress too much or the United Nations, President Bush delegated the task to retired GEN Jay Garner, who quietly went to work with support from the Pentagon. The American people were not told much about General Garner or what he was doing in Iraq. Most Members of Congress didn't know anything more about him than what they read in the papers. So when General Garner was given his walking papers and replaced with Ambassador Paul Bremer without explanation or fanfare, Congress had no real information to judge what the shake-up would mean for the United States occupation of Iraq.

In the days after President Bush made his flamboyant landing on the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln to announce to the world that the United States had accomplished its mission in Iraq--that was the banner headline over and above his head--most of the country was too distracted celebrating the military triumph to think much about the President's appointment of Paul Bremer to serve as a Presidential envoy in Iraq. With the President declaring victory and the administration continuing to assure the public that we would be welcomed as liberators--a la Vice President Cheney--and that Iraq's oil revenues would pay for reconstruction, the administration hoped that no one would bother to notice the management changes it was making in Iraq.

The administration moved quickly to set up a reconstruction team on the ground in Iraqi that would answer only to the President and the Secretary of Defense. In May, the President issued a classified National Security Directive creating the Coalition Provisional Authority, CPA. That document remains classified, and the administration has provided very little public information about the powers and authorities of the CPA. All we really know from the White House is that Ambassador Bremer, as administrator of the CPA, reports to the President through the Secretary of Defense. But after the recent announcement that National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice will be coordinating reconstruction policy from within the White House, who knows what the chain of command looks like today or will look like tomorrow? Getting a clear picture of how the CPA operates has proved to be difficult, but it is clear Ambassador Bremer wields an extraordinary amount of power and independence in Iraq. And, if you don't believe it, listen to this. On May 16, the CPA issued its first regulation in Iraq in which it spelled out its authority in no uncertain terms. Section 1 of that regulation stated:

The CPA is vested with all executive, legislative, and

judicial authority necessary to achieve its objectives, to be

exercised under relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions,

including resolution 1483, and the laws and usages of war.

This authority shall be exercised by the CPA Administrator.

That is broad, broad, virtually without limitation, if the reading means what it says. Let's read that again.

The CPA is vested with all executive, legislative, and

judicial authority.

Take a look at the Constitution of the United States. Let's see what it says, in the very first article, the very first section of that article, and then compare that authority with the authority I have just read. Here is what article I, section 1, of the Constitution says about the legislative authority.

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a

Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a

Senate and House of Representatives.

That is one sentence, and it vests all legislative powers in a Congress of the United States.

Well, section 1 of the regulation, which I have just read, says it is the CPA that is vested with all executive, legislative, and judicial authority necessary to achieve its objectives. My, what authority that is. It does not stop with just legislative authority. It talks about executive, legislative, and judicial authority.

Read that again.

The CPA is vested with all executive, legislative, and

judicial authority necessary to achieve its objectives, to be

exercised under

relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions, including

resolution 1483, and the laws and usages of war. This

authority shall be exercised by the CPA Administrator.

There is a man mountain for you, with all that authority. That is a powerful statement, especially for an agency that has never been authorized by Congress and an administrator who was not confirmed by the Senate for his position. How about that?

The CPA under Paul Bremer has the power to run the Iraqi Government ministries, the power to appoint Iraqi officials, the power to award lucrative private contracts for reconstruction. The CPA also oversees local police and even sets public curfews in Baghdad.

Now the CPA is looking to further consolidate its powers with an unprecedented request to spend over $20 billion of your money. I say to you out there who are looking at this Chamber through those electronic lenses there: It is your money, your money. But here we are going to consolidate the powers of the CPA with an unprecedented request to spend over $20 billion of the American taxpayers' money, your money, with little oversight by the Congress.

Until now, the CPA has financed its various activities from a number of different sources, including billions of dollars in seized Iraqi assets. The CPA was not accountable to Congress for much of this spending, and it made very little effort to keep Congress and the public informed about the administration's reconstruction plans.

So, the White House let Paul Bremer maintain a low profile for months in Iraq before the President finally spoke to the American people about what was happening on the ground in Iraq.

But now the President has admitted that rebuilding Iraq will be a much tougher job than he had promised, and it will come with a bigger pricetag. I must say, however, the pricetag had never been mentioned. We attempted to find out from the administration what the pricetag would be, but the administration chose to stay mum about that. But now we find this business of rebuilding Iraq is going to come with a big, big pricetag. That means Paul Bremer needs more money, more of your money. It is your money that Paul Bremer needs. So the administration was forced to loosen its grip of secrecy, just long enough to send Ambassador Bremer to testify before Congress about the need for additional funding. And in one instance, when I asked Mr. Bremer when he was before the Appropriations Committee, ``Will you find it possible to appear before this committee again if the chairman so directs,'' what was Mr. Bremer's answer?

I'm too busy. I am too busy. I'm too busy.

I regret we don't have those hearings printed, but the transcripts are around and those were his words:

I'm too busy.

Don't be fooled. The public relations campaign with Congress will last only as long as it takes to get this massive bill pushed through both Houses in one piece. In typical fashion, the administration has been willing to say whatever Congress wanted to hear in order to get its way. We heard a lot of talk about plans and accountability, but the information given to Congress was long on rhetoric, short on substance.

After all of the detailed spending requests and so-called plans from the CPA, what we are left with today is a bill before the Senate that gives Paul Bremer a blank check. Did you hear it? Did you hear it? A blank check, that is what it is. Give to Mr. Bremer a blank check, a blank check to spend $20 billion as a start. However, once this bill leaves Congress, the administration can throw its plans out the window and restore tight controls over information to prevent any meaningful oversight or scrutiny of its activities.

Is that the way you want your money managed? Congress cannot simply trust the CPA to voluntarily cooperate with oversight of reconstruction spending. This administration has a long track record. It would not even take an elephant to remember how long that track record is. It has a long track record of stonewalling Congress. And, so far, Iraq has been no exception. The CPA took over the reins of Iraq's government 5 months ago, yet Congress still has very little useful information to evaluate its progress in Iraq thus far, let alone the merits of future spending needs. If Congress has any hope of holding the administration accountable for the reconstruction plans it is proposing today, Congress needs a mechanism to ensure accountability from the CPA.

Ambassador Bremer testified before Congress that the activities of the CPA will be fully transparent and accountable, but some of his own statements suggested that he was reluctant to cooperate with committee oversight. In particular, I was troubled by comments he made about congressional access to the CPA's financial records. When he testified before the Appropriations Committee, Ambassador Bremer told the committee that the CPA had detailed records of all of its receipts and outlays that could be audited by Congress. However, when he appeared before the Armed Services Committee only 3 days later, he said the Office of Management and Budget was responsible for maintaining those records, and Congress would have to go to the White House for access to the CPA's records.

Throughout my long years in Congress, I have seen the White House occupied by Presidents of both parties, and I know from experience that one needs to be skeptical when referred to the White House for oversight information. There is no reason why any arm of the executive branch charged with making such significant spending decisions should not be working directly with Congress. When we are talking about handing over another $20 billion to the CPA, there is a real need for Congress to confirm that the CPA has its finances in order and that the CPA is managing the taxpayers' money--your money--responsibly.

The amendment that I and other Senators are offering will require the Coalition Provisional Authority to report to Congress--how about that? That is not asking too much--on its receipts and expenditures as the reconstruction efforts move forward in Iraq.

Let me say that again.

This amendment will require the Coalition Provisional Authority, the CPA, to report to Congress--yes; the people's branch of government--to report to Congress on the CPA's receipts and expenditures as the reconstruction efforts move forward in Iraq. These reports will be submitted on a quarterly basis beginning on January 1, 2004. Building on the reporting requirements already in the bill, this amendment calls for an accounting of both appropriated funds and other sources, such as oil revenues and foreign contributions. This is information that the CPA is already tracking. So it shouldn't be too much of a burden to share that information with Congress, especially given the CPA's extraordinary flexibility in spending taxpayer dollars. Ambassador Bremer assured the committee during the committee hearing that he would comply with any reporting requirements Congress chose to include in this legislation.

This amendment also directs the Comptroller General of the United States to audit the spending records of the CPA. What is wrong with that? How about that? The amendment also directs the Comptroller General of the United States to audit the spending records of the CPA-- we should all be for that--so that the General Accounting Office can provide Congress with a clear understanding of how reconstruction activities are being managed in Iraq. In its report to Congress, the General Accounting Office must outline the authorities and organization of the CPA, the CPA's relationship to the White House and other executive agencies, and the CPA's use of private contractors to perform critical reconstruction services in Iraq.

I think most people would agree with the purpose here. Let me say it again.

In its report to Congress, the GAO must outline the authorities and organizations of the CPA, the CPA's relationship to the White House and other executive agencies--and get this--and the CPA's use of private contractors to perform critical reconstruction services in Iraq.

The most important power vested in Congress by the Constitution is the power over the purse. Englishmen spent centuries and shed blood to wrest that power from tyrannical monarchs and vest it in the people's branch, the House of Commons. And our forbearers in our own country brought with them that legacy, brought with them to these shores that principle, that power over the purse vested in the people's

branch. So they wrote it in this Constitution which I hold in my hand. Our Framers wrote it in there. Article I, section 9 of this Constitution vests the power of the purse in this branch. That is where it has been. That is where it is.

This power carries with it the duty to ensure that the people's money--your money--is being spent wisely. Congress must be able to follow that money wherever it goes, but right now our money may soon disappear into a whirling storm of White House rhetoric and wartime profiteering.

Without this amendment, following the money will only get harder as the President continues to reorganize the chain of command in Iraq and avoid straight answers to tough questions about the success of our reconstruction efforts.

If the constitutional power of the purse means anything at all, it must at least require that the people's elected representatives here in Congress have a right to know how the Government is spending the Nation's treasury. I urge the Senate to protect its own powers and live up to its oversight responsibilities, and I urge Senators to support this amendment.

I yield the floor.

I thank the distinguished Senator. May we have a vote on it?

Yes. I would like a rollcall. It shows that it is a serious amendment.

Yes. May I say, prior to doing that, this is not just one more report. It is like the making of our laws, Mr. President. We have the books full of laws, but we always see the need for enacting more and more laws.

There are Ten Commandments. If we listen to the argument of the distinguished Senator from Alaska--and he is a very distinguished Senator--then one Commandment should have been enough; the others would have been repetitive. That is not the case.

This is an important reporting requirement. I hope the Senate will approve it. We are talking about $20 billion here. So I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, the Comptroller General, General Accounting Office is an arm of the Congress. Let the Congress carry out its proper role of oversight under the Constitution. That is all I am asking for here.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, as the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, it is my sad duty to inform the Senate family of the passing this morning of Kurt Dodd. Kurt served as the Democratic clerk on the Interior and Related Agencies Subcommittee from 1998 to 2000.

Those of us who knew Kurt, and particularly those of us who were lucky enough to have worked closely with Kurt, will truly miss his gracious manner, his soft-spoken style, and his profound dedication to duty. I have said on many occasions that the individuals who hold staff positions here in the Senate are, in my opinion, some of the smartest, most dedicated individuals in government service. Kurt Dodd stood at the head of that line. No one knew more about his areas of responsibility than Kurt. No one was more responsive to the needs of the Members of our committee than Kurt. And no one was more widely respected for his integrity and honor, than was Kurt.

Mr. President, on behalf of the Committee on Appropriations, and I am sure on behalf of the entire U.S. Senate, I send deepest condolences to Kurt's family.

Mr. President, West Virginians know sacrifice. Families from the Mountain State have lost loved ones in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Members of the West Virginia National Guard and the members of the Reserves have been deployed around the world, their lives on the line each day in the most dangerous of circumstances. Our troops deserve to be commended, as do all Americans who have supported them: their husbands and wives; their sons and daughters; and all the members of their communities.

I have grave concerns for the situations that our troops now find themselves in. In Iraq, constant attacks have caused the toll in American lives to more than double after May 1. In Afghanistan, which is in danger of becoming the forgotten war, Taliban and al-Qaida terrorists are hiding in the mountains, regaining their strength, and plotting against us.

I will vote for the resolution that is before the Senate, but only because we must not offend those who have sacrificed in the wars in which the United States is now engaged. It should be a moral obligation to support those who have lost loved ones in battle, and those who wear our Nation's uniform.

But I do not agree with many of the where-as clauses to the resolution that are before the Senate. It is wrong to commingle the images of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. I do not agree that our attack on Iraq is part of the ``Global War on Terrorism.'' It is misleading to imply that the United States had run out of diplomatic options before attacking Iraq. It is dangerous to think that we have eliminated Afghanistan's terrorist infrastructure. The first three pages of this resolution lay out a distorted history of how we came to be involved in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. We need to stop the spin and distortions. They do a disservice to the public.

I ask unanimous consent that two amendments which I have discussed with Mr. Stevens be introduced, that they be considered as having been read, and that they be temporarily set aside for the calling up of other amendments.

I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 1818 be introduced by me for myself, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Leahy and that amendment No. 1819 be shown as having been proposed by me on behalf of myself and Mr. Durbin.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Wall Street Journal of September 26 states:

Without a United Nations imprimatur, the Administration has

constructed its so-called coalition of the willing in

piecemeal fashion, cutting open-ended, individual deals with

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

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

these agreements acknowledge the deals are notably short on

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

transporting, equipping and feeding troops during their

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

on costs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

It is indeed.

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

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

Would the Senator withhold his objection temporarily?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me again repeat my request.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amendment No. 1794

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

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

How much time do I have?

I thank the Chair.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Saddam, we are fed up with statues.

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

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

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

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

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, my remarks will not be lengthy, but I entitle them as follows: ``Putting $87 Billion Into Context.''

The Senate will soon consider the President's request for an additional $87 billion to fund the U.S. occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan and to aid in their reconstruction.

The $87 billion supplemental brings to a total of $194 billion the amount the United States is spending in Iraq and Afghanistan. Let me repeat that. The $87 billion supplemental brings to $194 billion the amount the United States is spending in Iraq and Afghanistan, more than twice what the administration had led the public to believe just a few months ago.

The 1991 Persian Gulf war, by contrast, cost $61 billion, of which the United States paid only $7 billion. That is $7 billion spent in 1991 compared to $194 billion today, almost 28 times higher.

The Bush administration's $87 billion supplemental request is the largest emergency spending request since 1977. The $87 billion request, just for Iraq and Afghanistan, just for next year, roughly equals, in current dollars, the total amount of money spent to rebuild the entire continent of Europe after World War II. The request is larger than the $74 billion the Defense Department plans to spend on all new weapons purchases next year. The request is more than twice the administration's entire $35 billion homeland security budget for next year. That means that for every $2 spent on the President's supplemental request for Iraq, the administration will spend less than $1 on homeland security here at home.

The $20 billion the President is seeking for Iraq's reconstruction is $2 billion more than we are spending for foreign assistance for every other nation on the planet. The $87 billion request is 50 percent more than we spend on education for the entire United States. Let me say that again. The $87 billion request is 50 percent more than we spend on education for the entire Nation.

With $194 billion spent or requested, the President's war spending in 2003 and 2004 already exceeds the inflation-adjusted cost of the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, and the Persian Gulf war combined. The cost of the war and postwar occupation of Iraq will soon surpass the $196 billion inflation-adjusted cost of World War I. The monthly bill for the United States military missions in Iraq and Afghanistan now rivals spending during the Vietnam war.

At $87 billion, the President's request is larger than the economies of 166 countries. It is larger than the individual economies of almost half the States of the Union. That is a lot of money.

If approved, the President's request would increase the Federal budget deficit for fiscal year 2004 to $535 billion; in other words, more than half a trillion dollars. I will say that once more. If approved, the President's request would increase the Federal budget deficit for fiscal year 2004 to $535 billion. The White House is now in danger of violating its own self-imposed limit for budget deficits, 6 percent of gross domestic product or $600 billion.

The administration hopes it will receive an additional $30 billion to $55 billion from other countries and Iraqi oil revenue over the next 2 years, but that money may never materialize. Iraqi oil production is 1 million barrels per day less than before the war. The oil infrastructure has been hobbled by severe looting and sabotage. Certain pipelines have been struck by a series of attacks since the United Nations lifted sanctions this summer. Iraq's oil revenues are likely to fall short of even the most modest expectations of this administration.

As for the tens of billions of dollars the Bush administration is hoping to receive from other countries and international financial institutions, President Bush's request has fallen on deaf ears. The Bush administration has alienated most of the international community. After the Presidential swallowing of pride and having asked the United Nations for help, the Washington Post summed up the President's fundraising efforts with the headline, ``Bush Fails To Gain Pledges On Troops Or Funds For Iraq.''

Increasingly, it appears as if we are on our own in financing the occupation and the reconstruction of Iraq. I urge my colleagues to exercise patience before approving this request. This is not just an ordinary supplemental bill. This is not just a token amount of money. It is the beginning of a major commitment of resources in behalf of the American taxpayer. Before we act, we should make sure that taxpayers understand the size and consequences of this request and what will be asked of them in paying for it.

I yield the floor.

Will the distinguished majority leader yield?

I would rather my leader propounded this question but inasmuch as I am the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, the reason I hoped all Members would sit--although there is no requirement they have to in the rules, unless the Chair insists on it-- we have a problem. I think the full Senate ought to know about it. That is why I have urged Senators sit if they will; then they will be more comfortable. I don't know how long it will last. I hope it will not last long.

We have a problem in that we have the Iraq appropriations measure before the Senate Appropriations Committee. We have had hearings Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday in that committee. There have been other committees that have been having hearings, too; I believe the Foreign Relations Committee, and I know the Armed Services Committee has had hearings.

Here is my problem as ranking member of the Appropriations Committee. We had hearings this past Monday on the Iraq bill. Our members were not fully informed that there would be hearings on Monday but we proceeded with hearings, in any event. Several of the members could not get there until very late. I have protested pretty consistently in that committee, saying we need more hearings, that we do not need to rush that bill through. It would be well to have the House act, let us see that bill so we would better know what amendments we should try to offer.

I have urged that outside witnesses be called. Why should we just hear one side of the question, that being, of course, the administration's position? But we could be wiser, I think, if we had outside witnesses. That has been rejected. That proposal has been rejected. So we have pressed on, against my wishes. I believe we ought to have more hearings.

Now we come down to this point. We have completed what hearings we are going to have, as I understand it, in the Appropriations Committee.

Now the pressure is on to have the bill marked up. When? Monday. We all know that Senators, in recent years especially, are more likely to be late getting in on Monday. They have faraway points of the compass to come from, and some of them have made appointments that will cause them not to get in until Tuesday morning perhaps. And yet we are being forced to have a markup on this coming Monday. This greatly creates a disadvantage to many of our Appropriations members.

So I have expressed the hope we would not have that markup on Monday. There is no great reason to begin to have this markup. But we have been pressed hard to get through these hearings, and now we are being pressed to mark up the bill on Monday.

Many of our Members cannot be here Monday. So I have acquainted my leader and my side of the aisle with this problem. And I have said we could have a markup on Tuesday. But my wife--and I hesitate to continue to inject my own personal problems into this matter--I said my wife has to have an operation on Tuesday morning. Not a major operation, but any operation at our age--if I were 40 or 50 or 60 again, I would say: You go on and have your operation and I'll see you at suppertime; see you tonight. That is not the way she wants it. That is not the way I want it.

I have said this afternoon, speaking to Mr. Reid, and to Mr. Stevens: If you want to have this on Tuesday, go ahead. If I am 2 hours there or 3 hours or 5, I will come when I can. But go ahead and have the markup Tuesday. The word comes back that the Republicans say: OK, but there is a little catch to that: We will wait till Tuesday, but you have to give consent to take up the bill on the next day. That consent could be objected to, of course, causing a little longer wait.

So now we are faced with: OK, you can take it up Tuesday--I hope I am not misrepresenting anyone here; at least this is the way I understand it--so you can have it on Tuesday, but you have to give consent to go to it Wednesday on the floor.

I don't want to enter into that deal. In the first place, I don't think there is a necessity for our having that markup on Monday or on Tuesday. I think we ought to have more hearings. I think we are entitled to more hearings. I see this bill as being ramrodded through the Senate, when there is no necessity for that.

I will not go into that further except to say, I am willing to proceed on Tuesday, but I am not willing for it to be in accordance with a deal. Call it a deal. Call it whatever you want--an agreement, whatever--``yes, we'll do that if.'' There are times when we do that around here, but on this occasion I don't think we ought to take it up on the floor that fast. We need more time on the floor. So I am unwilling to say: OK on Tuesday, but we will agree to taking it up on the floor on Wednesday.

So here we are, Thursday afternoon, with no votes tomorrow, I guess, and many Members going home, and a Jewish holiday tomorrow. Here we are

under this kind of pressure: You can have it on Tuesday, but you have to give us consent to take it up on Wednesday.

I understand now the--this is just my understanding--the other side is not willing to go on Tuesday without such an agreement. As I further understand it, they are saying--I may be wrong about this, but that is what I understand--that the majority is saying: OK, you don't want any deal; we will do it on Monday. So there is where it creates a great hardship on the part of a lot of our Senators and, I suppose, on Senators on the other side.

I think we are in a quandary, and we just ought to open it up here and have a full discussion of it rather than have the onus on me as the old plebeian soldier around here. OK. I don't want to cause my comrades on either side to have to come here on Monday and mark this up.

There is some reason it has to be Monday or else. This bill is being pushed through, rammed through, and I think we ought to take more time on it. I think the American people are entitled to more time on it.

Why don't we have more hearings? Is it that the majority is afraid to have questions asked? Do the questions hurt? What is the problem? Why do we have to have this--we are just not up against it. We passed the Defense appropriations conference report today.

I would like to know, I say to the leader, why we have to mark up this bill in the Appropriations Committee Monday or Tuesday, and why, if we push it--if the majority is willing to go over to Tuesday--why they are going to exact that pound of flesh: OK, we will go over, but let us take it up on the following day.

I am not willing to do that. If it were absolutely necessary to do that, I would be willing to do it. But that is not necessary. And in all my years here, I have never--I have never--seen the Appropriations Committee of the Senate, and especially the minority--this place is for the protection of the minority, a minority of Senators. I have said that many times.

But to jam us up here against a Sunday and a Jewish holiday just preceding it, and then to come in here and say, you have to have this markup on Monday or you have to let us take it up on the floor on Wednesday, I have to say, I think that is very unfair. I have argued this out in the committee under the public eye, and I have talked with my colleague, Senator Stevens. I know he is under great pressure.

I would hope to have a response to that. More than that, I would hope we would not have to mark it up Monday or Tuesday.

Mr. President, will the distinguished leader yield further?

Let me emphasize I am not asking that it be put off until

Tuesday because of my wife's little problem. I said, go ahead, if I am 2 hours or 3 hours or 5 hours, I will get there when I can. I would rather you didn't, but in any event, if you do, I am going to be with her. That is an easy choice for me. But I didn't intend to get into the debate about the so-called war on terrorism as being the war in Iraq. I won't do that now. But the distinguished majority leader has opened an avenue for a great deal of debate in which I will partake, if the good Lord lets me live. I am not going to lie down and roll over for that argument that, oh, we are in a war and we have to press ahead here; we have people dying and so on, and we have to do this on Monday or Tuesday. I am as concerned about the people dying as is the distinguished majority leader. I was not for sending our people over there to die. But we won't get into that here. The distinguished Republican leader brought that up.

I am only saying I would hope that we would stage the markup at a time when we could have full attendance on both sides.

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

Mr. President, it seems to be the ill fortune--the ill fortune--of the present occupant of the chair to have to find himself in the chair when I make speeches. It seems that every time I make a speech, the Senator from Texas is in the chair.

Well, I am glad to see him there. He is a good Presiding Officer. He is alert to what is going on on the floor. He listens, and he is always very pleasant, congenial, and I congratulate him, because sitting in the chair while I speak makes it very difficult for any Senator to carry on his other necessary activities--the work in his office and meeting with constituents and so on. So I not only congratulate him, I also thank him.

Mr. President, this afternoon, the Senate finds itself with the first Homeland Security appropriations conference report before it. I thank Senate Chairman Thad Cochran, House Chairman Harold Rogers, and the ranking member on the House Homeland Security Subcommittee, Representative Martin Sabo, and all of the House and Senate conferees for their hard work on this important legislation. We all share the goal of ensuring that the new Homeland Security Department has the resources it needs to secure the homeland.

The conference report that is before the Senate provides $29.4 billion for discretionary programs for fiscal year 2004 for the new Department. With the limited resources that were made available under the budget resolution, the conference agreement is fair and balanced. And so much of that is due to the fair and balanced approach that the distinguished chairman here, Senator Thad Cochran, always displays. It comes as a habit to him. It is just second nature.

This bill provides a $1 billion increase over the President's request, and it makes a number of significant improvements in the organization of the Department.

In particular, I am pleased that the conference agreement includes language that will ensure that the new airline passenger screening system, known as CAPS II, will not be deployed before February 15, 2004, until the General Accounting Office has had the ability to review and report on the personal privacy protections, including an appeal process for individuals who are prevented from flying because the system has identified them as a security risk.

Funds are included, consistent with the Senate bill, to enhance border security--none of which were requested by the President-- including funds for an additional 570 Border Patrol agents and funds to establish a northern border air wing.

Mr. President, $60 million is included to begin the development of an antimissile device for commercial aircraft.

The conference agreement restates both House and Senate language regarding full funding of antidumping enforcement provisions as well as calling on the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection to rigorously enforce trade laws pertaining to steel imports.

The conference agreement is good for disaster-prone States. The bill contains $200 million for flood map modernization, which is the largest amount ever appropriated for this account. Further, the bill strikes a balance between premitigation and postmitigation grants. The bill contains $150 million for predisaster mitigation grants, so that States have access to funds that help them to plan for and prevent damage from disasters.

The bill also continues to fund postdisaster mitigation, which is made available to States as a percentage of disaster relief money received from FEMA. The President had proposed to eliminate funding for postdisaster mitigation.

The conference agreement provides $180 million for emergency management performance grants. These grants allow States and localities to develop basic emergency preparedness and response capabilities. This program is the only Department of Homeland Security grant program that is focused on all hazards, such as terrorist attacks, floods, and building collapses. The administration had recommended rolling this program into the ODP State grants program.

As Hurricane Isabel confirmed, we must make sure that this new Department of Homeland Security maintains its ability to respond to natural disasters, while preventing and responding to terrorist attacks. These are all significant improvements over the program proposed by the President.

Regrettably, even with these improvements, the conference agreement leaves significant gaps in the security of our homeland. After 9/11, Congress passed the PATRIOT Act, the Maritime Transportation Security Act, the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, and the Enhanced Border Security Act. The President signed these measures with great fanfare, but the President has done little to fulfill the promise of those laws.

The inadequate allocation given to the subcommittee has forced the conferees to underfund a number of these critical new authorities.

Last Wednesday, I offered an amendment in conference to add $1.25 billion of emergency funding to the bill to secure the homeland by funding some of the authorities that the President had signed into law after 9/11 but failed to fund. The amendment included funding for port security, aviation security, chemical security, first responder grants, and for the Coast Guard Deepwater Program. The White House opposed and the Republicans rejected the amendment.

On the same day, last Wednesday, the President sent to Congress a supplemental request for his war in Iraq that totals $87 billion. No funding was requested to help secure our homeland. Yet included in his request was $20.3 billion for the reconstruction of Iraq, of which $5.1 billion is for homeland security in Iraq.

If my amendment had been approved, the conference report that is before the Senate would have included $125 million more to hire 1,300 more Customs inspectors on our U.S. borders, $200 million more for first responder grants to equip and train police and firefighters here at home, and $100 million for the U.S. Coast Guard to secure our ports.

Instead, next week, the Senate will be considering the President's request for reconstructing Iraq, including $290 million for Iraqi fire departments; $150 million for Iraqi border enforcement, including 2,500 customs inspectors; $150 million for an Iraqi ``911'' emergency system; $499 million for Iraqi prisons; and $82 million for an Iraqi coast guard.

I continue to maintain that the Senate should take some time to review the President's supplemental request for the cost of the war in Iraq. We should hold further hearings in the Senate Appropriations Committee. We should hear from outside witnesses, not just administration witnesses. The Senate should not act as a rubberstamp for any President. I find it more than ironic that the Bush administration would oppose homeland security protections for American citizens but ask Congress to express dollars to Iraq for security efforts there.

With regard to the Homeland Security conference report that is before us, I again thank Chairman Cochran and his staff for their hard work in producing the first Homeland Security appropriations conference report. I also thank my own staff in this regard, and I thank all of the subcommittee members on both sides of the aisle and their staffs as well. While this conference report does not include sufficient resources to fund many of the new homeland security programs that this Congress authorized in response to the attacks of 9/11, it is a significant improvement over the President's request. I support its adoption.

The chairman would have done more if he had had more funds with which to do it. I again thank him for his many courtesies. I thank the floor staff and the Chair.

I yield the floor.