Floor Statements

I agree with the Senator from Oregon. It is our intention to include research into the biotechnology-nanotechnology interface. We did not mention specific areas or research because we did not intend to be overly restrictive.

These examples are exactly the type of research that we have intended to cover in this legislation. Beyond industrial applications there are many health care applications of nano- biotechnology.

I am particularly excited about the potential for nanotechnology in the area of systems biology and molecular imaging. Systems biology analyzes all of the elements in a system, rather than an individual cell, gene or protein. By applying nanotechnology to systems biology and using molecular imaging, it will be possible to achieve ultra-rapid diagnostic results by analyzing on a molecular level the signatures of thousands of genes and proteins. Moreover, the systems approach in combination with nanotechnology will speed up and greatly reduce the cost of discovering new drugs. This will lead to the advancement of predictive medicine generating revolutions in the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of disease.

Given nanotechnology's tremendous potential in health care, I want to encourage the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to be proactive participants in the nanotechnology revolution. Although a specific authorization of appropriations for NIH is not included in this bill at the request of our House colleagues, it is expected that NIH will be an active participant in the National Nanotechnology Program.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate return to legislative session.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent we proceed to a period for morning business with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. President, it has been over 50 years since my good friends, Senator Inouye, Senator Hollings, Senator Warner, Senator Lautenberg, Senator Akaka, and I returned home from World War II. When I joined the Senate in 1968, approximately half of the Members of the Senate were World War II veterans. While there are several Senators here who have served in Korea, Vietnam, and in later engagements, there are a few of us still around who lived through World War II. We are proud of a tradition of over 48 million Americans who have served in our Armed Forces since 1776.

Whenever our Nation has needed warriors to defend our Nation, young men and women in uniform have stepped forward, willing to bear that burden. This day, Veterans Day, is a reminder to us of their courage, bravery, and sacrifice.

These days, our thoughts are never far from a battlefield. New generations have answered the call to service, and as we meet today, they are defending us in some of the most dangerous places in the world, where they face determined enemies and terrorists. I join all here today in thanking each of them for their service and thank their families for their sacrifice.

I had the honor to serve in the Army Air Corps with a squadron in China in World War II. Our squadron motto was: We do the impossible immediately, miracles take slightly longer.

The history of our Nation's Armed Forces is one of impossible challenges and formidable enemies. But our men and women in uniform have met and overcome them on battlefields, and in the air, and on the sea and, as our Chaplain reminded us, under the sea, across the globe.

Secretary of State Colin Powell recently spoke of the tradition of service and said:

We have gone forth from our shores repeatedly over the last

hundred years . . . and put wonderful young men and women at

risk, many of whom have lost their lives, and we have asked

for nothing except enough ground to bury them in.

It is right and proper for the Senate to remember the young men and women who have served our great Nation in uniform and those who did not return because they made the ultimate sacrifice.

Veterans share a common bond. We are truly comrades in the deepest sense of the word, and I salute each one of them.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following morning business on Wednesday, the Senate proceed to the consideration of H.R. 2673, the Agriculture appropriations bill.

Mr. President, I echo what the assistant minority leader said in making that request. We know of some amendments that are out there. We believe we can finish the bill tomorrow if we apply ourselves to the task.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I am pleased to bring to the Senate this conference report to provide supplemental funding for military and reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Congress, specifically the Senate, asked the President not to request any funds for our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan in the fiscal year 2004 appropriations bill. The President honored our request, and that bill has already been signed into law. The funding for our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan is in the conference report now before us.

Our men and women in uniform face life-threatening obstacles every day and are counting on us to provide them with the resources they need to get the job done. This supplemental will provide the equipment, fuel, ammunition and pay our forces need and deserve as they continue their tasks in Iraq, Afghanistan, and in the other locations where they continue to stand in harm's way fighting the global war on terrorism. They are the reason we need to approve this emergency funding.

One thing is very clear: As the President has said time and again: We will not walk away from Iraq. We will not withdraw our forces from Iraq; we will not leave the Iraqi people in chaos; and we will not create a vacuum for terrorist groups to fill.

Our Nation has always had one goal--we finish what we start, and we will not fail to do so now. This appropriations bill will enable us to fulfill our responsibilities to our men and women in uniform and to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan.

This conference report before us provides $64.7 billion for military operations. Included in this amount is $17.8 billion for the salaries and benefits of active, Guard and Reserve military personnel activated for duty in Iraq, Afghanistan and other areas around the world. Together they continue to fight our war against terrorists and terrorism; $39.2 billion for operations and maintenance in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Noble Eagle, of which $1 billion is to support coalition partners; $5.5 billion for procurement, including an additional $62.1 million for improved armor for humvees; $333.8 million for military research, development, and evaluation; and $658 million for the defense health program.

In addition, this conference report provides benefits to our reservists who are ordered to active duty by authorizing coverage of their medical and dental screening. The conferees also expanded pre- mobilization and post-mobilization eligibility for Tricare and made Tricare available to reservists who are unemployed or who are not offered health care benefits by their civilian employer.

Our forces are stationed in some of the most dangerous parts of the world. They face formidable enemies and serious threats. They face these obstacles because they have made a commitment to our freedom; they have decided that, if necessary, they will give what Lincoln called ``the last full measure of devotion'' to defend freedom. This Congress must meet their level of commitment by funding their mission.

In addition to meeting our obligations, we also support additional funds to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan. It's a simple and straight- forward premise--security brings stability and stability fosters democracy. An Iraq and Afghanistan well on the way to economic well- being and self-governance offers the fastest way to get our military men and women home. To that end, this conference report provides $21.2 billion to carry out the activities of our Government in connection with the reconstruction and rehabilitation of Iraq and Afghanistan. The majority of these funds, $18.4 billion, is for Iraq for security, rehabilitation and reconstruction, including $100 million for democracy building activities in Iraq to support the development of a constitution and national elections.

Other items funded include: $983 million for operating expenses for the coalition provisional authority; $16.6 million for safe and secure facilities for the United States Agency for International Development in Iraq and Afghanistan; at least $38 million for operating expenses of the United States Agency for International Development for costs associated with Iraq and Afghanistan; $872 million to continue political and economic development programs in Afghanistan; $170 million for Department of State narcotics control, law enforcement, nonproliferation, anti-terrorism and demining programs in Afghanistan; $287 million to continue programs and activities to build the new Afghan army; $50 million for peacekeeping expenses in Iraq relating to additional foreign armed forces; $35 million for anti-terrorism training and equipment needs in Afghanistan. The conferees also agreed to provide $200 million for assistance to Liberia, $200 million for assistance to Jordan, and $20 million for assistance to Sudan.

This conference agreement does not stop at funding our obligations; it also provides specific mechanisms to account for how our appropriated money is spent. This bill creates a new position: The Inspector General for the Coalition Provisional Authority. The IG will work with Ambassador Bremer, and together they will keep track of the funding allocated for Iraq's reconstruction. The IG will issue quarterly reports on the CPA's activities. This position ensures that we will always have a clear record of who is responsible for the funds appropriated to CPA and how they are spent. This position gives us a new tracking and record-keeping system, a comprehensive review process, and transparency in the allocation of funds. Most importantly, it ensures that funds will be used efficiently to build a new and free Iraq. We have an obligation to our total force and an obligation to the Iraqi and Afghanistan people to finish what we started.

This legislation meets those obligations, and I urge the Senate to promptly approve it.

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

Mr. President, I wish to make special note of thanks to staff of the subcommittees who worked so hard on this important legislation. This bill before the Senate required the work of seven of the appropriations subcommittees--Defense, Foreign Operations, Military Construction, Homeland Security, Commerce-Justice-State, HUD-VA, and Labor-HHS. The members of our committee staff have put in long hours working not only on this bill but on our other regular fiscal year 2004 appropriations bills. It meant working nights and most weekends of the last 5 weeks.

I especially thank our staff director, Jim Morhard, who has shepherded this bill through and coordinated these subcommittees, and got us to the place where we are now.

I especially thank Sid Ashworth, clerk of the Defense Subcommittee, and her counterpart on the Democratic side, Charlie Houy; and Paul Grove, clerk of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, and his counterpart, Tim Reiser. These four hammered out the compromises on the major provisions of the legislation before the Senate today. Paul Grove deserves special recognition. He is a true professional who has worked tirelessly to help us complete action on both the supplemental and the fiscal year 2004 Foreign Operations appropriations bill at the same time.

He worked literally around the clock yesterday and into today. I am not sure he has seen his family or has gotten more than 2 or 3 hours sleep every night for the last 2 weeks. I am serious. He has been a totally dedicated man. His efforts represent the dedication of the staff of the Senate Appropriations Committee. I am very proud of these people. I hope everyone in the Senate realizes how hard they have worked to get this bill before the Senate today.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the last 20 minutes of the time under the control of the previous order be divided so that Senator Byrd has 10 minutes next to last and that I have the last 10 minutes.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, we have heard a lot of comment today

about what the President said and what he has not said. It should be remembered that the President celebrated the military victory, as he should have, when he declared the end of the war. It was the end of the war against Iraq's military.

Since that time, we have been at war against terrorists--organized terrorists, international terrorists--in Iraq. The greatest cunning and deceit and trickery the world has seen are being shown in Iraq. Very clearly, it is not a military force that is opposing us today. We are trying to protect our soldiers and the Iraqi people from terrorists.

That is why this bill is so important. It combines money for our military to continue their activities with money for the Coalition Provisional Authority to move forward and help Iraq to build their own military, to build a new form of government, and to train policemen, to train people to keep the peace.

I must say, it is strange to me when I hear people talk about this administration lying. I have been sort of restrained concerning the past administration and lies. But I do believe it is entirely inappropriate to call the Commander in Chief a liar in terms of what has happened in Iraq.

I am one of the eight Members, as I have told the Senate before, who gets the same briefings that are available to the President of the United States. I guess he might have a few more than we get, but we get the general intelligence briefings. I firmly believed there were weapons of mass destruction there in Iraq. I still believe they had the ability to conduct chemical warfare. After all, they did it twice. They did it once in Iran, and they did it once to the Kurds in their own country.

We continue to hear how terrible it is, what is going on as far as this administration is concerned in terms of the conduct of our forces and our people in Iraq after the war was over. The military collapsed. We have been fighting terrorists constantly now.

When I woke up, as I did this morning, and read the paper about the terrible incident of shooting down a helicopter, that was not a military action; that was a terrorist action. We have to adjust ourselves to the fact that this is going on all over the world. It went on in New York. It went on here in Washington. It went on in Indonesia. It went on in the Philippines. It has certainly happened in Israel for years now. But it is coming home now. We are being exposed to it. Our forces are exposed to it. Our people, our civilians are exposed to it. The U.N. forces in Iraq have been exposed to it. Hundreds and hundreds of Iraqis have been killed since the end of the war by their own terrorists.

It is time for us to sit back and think about what we are doing today. Today, thankfully, this bill will pass. It will pass by unanimous consent--not one vote against it. Yet we have had 6 hours attacking the President because he asked for the money. Where are the voices coming from? What am I hearing? People are willing to let the bill pass without a vote and yet they want to criticize the President for asking for this money?

The Senate ought to reflect and think what we are doing. We still have forces there, and we are going to have forces there. I haven't heard one Senator say we should leave--not one. There are those here who voted against going to war. There are people here who voted for it. But I don't know anyone here in this Chamber who voted against the war on terrorism. That is what we are conducting now.

I am sad to say it looks as if it is going to go on for some time. Out by the elevators, I was just asked by the press, do I expect another supplemental for Iraq and Afghanistan. Well, this is a supplemental for 2004. We are here because the Members of the Senate on that side of the aisle asked me to ask the President to submit a separate bill for funds for Iraq and Afghanistan. He could have submitted that money request in the regular 2004 bill. But he accommodated the request that I carried to the White House, and he sent us a separate supplemental for Iraq and for Afghanistan and the war on terrorism.

We have been on it for a long time, much longer than I ever thought it would take to get this passed. Very clearly, we do not expect another supplemental. We probably expect a request for fiscal year 2005 that will start on October 1 of next year. But clearly, we ought to get things into perspective.

Let me quote the President:

Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed

against the price of inaction. . . .

Which President was that? It was President Clinton, 5 years ago. He stated these words as he informed the American people that he was ordering a strike of military and security targets in Iraq. He ordered them in Iraq 5 years ago--in 1998. Their mission was to take out nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons sites, and he so stated. The former President sent forces into Iraq to attack nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons sites. That decision was based on a continuing lack of cooperation by Saddam Hussein with the international community.

In the last 6 months, President Bush is enforcing measures that were begun in the Clinton administration. Yet to hear people talk here about the lies and deception of this administration--what were those forces sent into Iraq for in 1998? It was based on the same kind of reports that President Bush received before he ordered this action.

As many in the Senate know, some more powerfully than others, wars and their aftermath are not easy. They are disturbing. Watching our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines die or be wounded touches a sadness deep inside each of us. It touches even more those of us who have been in war. There is nothing like going to bed at night and seeing an empty bed beside you.

As of today, a total of 376 Americans have been killed in Iraq. Events such as yesterday, where 16 young soldiers were killed when their Chinook helicopter was hit by a missile, greatly trouble all of us. But each of these soldiers was doing his or her duty. We extend our deepest sympathy to each of their families and friends and offer our thoughts and prayers through this difficult time for them.

Some of us have lived through this time again and again: World War II, Korea, Vietnam, you name it. My generation has seen a lot of wars. It is not an easy thing to hear any report of Americans being killed. But those people were doing their duty.

When a person puts on the uniform of the United States and raises his hand, it is even more somber than the one we give here because they know they are laying their life on the line. These are all volunteers. Not one draftee is there. Every person there volunteered to serve in uniform.

We--this Congress, this President, and this country--went to war against Iraq to remove the regime of Saddam Hussein and give the Iraqi people a chance at a better, freer life and the region an opportunity for a more peaceful coexistence.

That is what President Clinton started in 1998. He made the strike against those areas because he firmly believed there were nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons of mass destruction there. Now, these events don't happen overnight. I certainly was not expecting a war that would be just sort of bedsheet clean, where you go to war and come back with fresh bedsheets the next night. That is not the case. These things do not occur overnight. The rebuilding of that nation and the recovery of the Iraqi people will take time. We have to provide the Iraqi people time to heal and the resources and tools to create a new nation and a secure and stable environment.

After World War II, we occupied Germany for 4 years before we even had the Marshall plan. Before the Senate today is the plan for recovery of Iraq in the same year, without an army of occupation per se. We are trying to help them rebuild their country and take it over and provide their own transition to a new form of government. I do believe the way we are doing this--by strengthening a civil society, repairing schools and hospitals, treating waterways, restoring electricity, and eventually assisting them with rebuilding their oil industry--will allow them to become self-sufficient.

I remember so well when Ambassador Bremer told me the problem was that one day there is a pipeline blown up and they cannot ship the oil. So they go about repairing the pipeline. The next day they blow up an electric power station so the pumps won't work. This is terrorism. We must realize we are not facing a military enemy; we are facing terrorists.

Some of my colleagues don't believe in portions of this supplemental. Maybe some don't believe in it at all. But not one of them will vote against it--not one of them. That is their right. Some of them voted against giving the President the authority to go to war to topple the evil tyrant who we all realized was there. Regardless, our men and women are there now--military, civilian, and the U.N.--and those people must have our support. They need the funds in this bill for body armor, for what they call uparmored Humvees, and for explosive detection equipment, for all sorts of detection equipment.

The bill provides the funds to make the lives of our troops--both here and in Iraq--safer and easier. We are providing better mess halls, quarters, TRICARE for members of the Guard and Reserve, and it maintains increases in pay for family separation allowance and imminent danger pay for our troops and their families, which was voted earlier this year and would have expired had we not taken action.

I said this earlier today and I will repeat it. It is a simple and a straightforward premise, as far as I am concerned. Security brings stability and stability fosters democracy. An Iraq that is well on its way to economic well-being and self-governance is the fastest way to get our military men and women home.

We as a nation have always had one goal--I said this also earlier today--and that is to finish what we start. We will not fail to do so now. This supplemental will accomplish that task. I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill. In effect, we have all done that by agreeing to the unanimous consent request that there be no form of vote.

The Senator from Virginia is here----

We have had a substantial number of speakers on that side. The Senator from Virginia called and asked me to yield time. How much time is left, Mr. President?

Are there 20 minutes reserved for closing and 17 left besides that? Who controls that time?

How much time does Senator Byrd have?

I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Virginia.

We are glad to do that. The Senator has 18 minutes.

I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Virginia.

How much time is remaining?

Mr. President, we reserved the last 10 minutes for the Senator from West Virginia and then the last 10 minutes for me, the Senator from Alaska. Does the Senator wish to use his time?

I thank the Senator very much.

Mr. President, I previously read a portion of President Clinton's remarks on December 16, 1998. I want to read a few more of them just to close this debate. The President said at that time on December 16, 1998:

This situation presents a clear and present danger to the

stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people

everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last

chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors.

Saddam has failed to seize the chance. And so we had to act

and act now. Let me explain why. First, without a strong

inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to

rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs

in months, not years. Second, if Saddam can cripple the

weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would

conclude that the international community--led by the United

States--has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has

a free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and some

day--make no mistake--he will use it again as he has in the

past.

I am skipping a few paragraphs. He said:

. . . That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my

national security team--including the vice president, the

Secretary of Defense, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of State and the national security adviser--I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq.

He said:

So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and

its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when

Iraq has a government worthy of its people. First, we must be

prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening

actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass

destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his

neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving

against his own Kurdish citizens. The credible threat to use

force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the

surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction

program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.

And I go on. He said:

Heavy as they are, the cost of action must be weighed

against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and

we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the

future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will

make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will

develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and

he will use them.

The people who criticize the current conclusion--and listening to the conclusion that President Clinton made--did not complain then. We used airstrikes against Iraq. In fact, one of the conditions President Clinton mentioned was continued, almost daily attacks against our aircraft that were flying what we call continuous air patrol, the CAP, over Iraq. They did that for 11 years. Daily, there were threats against them.

I think we have acted reasonably under the circumstances, particularly in view of the conclusion that was made by the President of the United States in 1998 that Saddam was such a threat against the United States and the international community he should be subjected to attack and, if he persisted, to actually use force as soon as possible. That is what the President said.

I ask unanimous consent that the transcript of President Clinton's remarks explaining the Iraq strike be printed in the Record after my remarks.

Mr. President, I said before and I say again, the war is over. The President was right when he said the war is over. The military force is not there. We are fighting terrorism, not just in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are also fighting it around the world, even at home. How many of us have had to stand in longer lines this morning because there is a greater threat right here at home?

This bill is being passed because we are fighting a war against terrorists and terrorism everywhere. It is absolutely necessary that this money get to the people who are right now at the greatest risk of harm, those who are trying to help Iraq recover, form a new government and be able to defend themselves and be able to go on to a new life, really to be a new credible force in the Middle East, of people who form their own government and people who plan their own future.

I am pleased to associate myself with all those who supported what the President has done. I believe it was right and I think history will show it was right.

I yield back the remainder of my time and ask for the vote.

Exhibit 1

Transcript: President Clinton Explains Iraq Strike

Clinton: Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike

military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by

British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear,

chemical and biological weapons programs and its military

capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the

United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout

the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his

neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or

biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous

recommendation of my national security team, to use force in

Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no

longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors

called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from

dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination

of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of

mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to

rebuild that capability.

The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago

at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and

destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.

The international community had good reason to set this

requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass

destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one

big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly.

Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a

decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against

civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel,

Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a

foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing

Kurdish citizens in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I

have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will

use these terrible weapons again.

The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM

as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with

the inspectors. On occasion, we've had to threaten military

force, and Saddam has backed down.

Faced with Saddam's latest act of defiance in late October,

we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by

overwhelming military force in the region. The UN Security

Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to

demand that he immediately come into compliance.

Eight Arab nations--Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait,

Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman--warned that

Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of

defying the UN.

When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act

militarily. It was only then at the last possible moment that

Iraq backed down. It pledged to the UN that it had made, and

I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume

cooperation with the weapons inspectors.

I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes

already in the air because Saddam had given in to our

demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to

use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his

willingness to cooperate.

I made it very clear at that time what unconditional

cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and

Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair

of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam

failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act

without delay, diplomacy or warning.

Now over the past three weeks, the UN weapons inspectors

have carried out their plan for testing Iraq's cooperation.

The testing period ended this weekend, and last night,

UNSCOM's chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results to UN

Secretary-General Annan.

The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly

disturbing.

In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has

failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new

restrictions on the inspectors. Here are some of the

particulars.

Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect

sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of

its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's

other offices, even though UN resolutions make no exception

for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past.

Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain

necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's

effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons

program.

It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from

videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented

Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.

Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually

emptied out the building, removing not just documents but

even the furniture and the equipment.

Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents

requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq

ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in

anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.

So Iraq has abused its final chance.

As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote,

``Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made

in the fields of disarmament.

``In light of this experience, and in the absence of full

cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again

that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated

to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq's

prohibited weapons program.''

In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could

stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham.

Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness.

Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has

disarmed the inspectors.

This situation presents a clear and present danger to the

stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people

everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last

chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors.

Saddam has failed to seize the chance.

And so we had to act and act now.

Let me explain why.

First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be

free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological

and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.

Second, if Saddam can cripple the weapons inspection system

and get away with it, he would conclude that the

international community--led by the United States--has simply

lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to

rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday--make no

mistake--he will use it again as he has in the past.

Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave

Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his

defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against

Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed

Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his

weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have

fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from

acting to gain domination in the region.

That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national

security team--including the vice president, the secretary of

defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the

secretary of state and the national security adviser--I have

ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against

Iraq.

They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop

and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his

ability to threaten his neighbors.

At the same time, we are delivering a powerful message to

Saddam. If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price. We

acted today because, in the judgment of my military advisers,

a swift response would provide the most surprise and the

least opportunity for Saddam to prepare.

If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman

Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to

disperse his forces and protect his weapons.

Also, the Muslim holy month of Ramadan begins this weekend.

For us to initiate military action during Ramadan would be

profoundly offensive to the Muslim world and, therefore,

would damage our relations with Arab countries and the

progress we have made in the Middle East.

That is something we wanted very much to avoid without

giving Iraq a month's head start to prepare for potential

action against it.

Finally, our allies, including Prime Minister Tony Blair of

Great Britain, concurred that now is the time to strike. I

hope Saddam will come into cooperation with the inspection

system now and comply with the relevant UN Security Council

resolutions. But we have to be prepared that he will not, and

we must deal with the very real danger he poses.

So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and

its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when

Iraq has a government worthy of its people.

First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam

takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his

weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems,

threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over

Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens.

The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the

actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's

weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression

and prevent another Gulf War.

Second, so long as Iraq remains out of compliance, we will

work with the international community to maintain and enforce

economic sanctions. Sanctions have cost Saddam more than $120

billion--resources that would have been used to rebuild his

military. The sanctions system allows Iraq to sell oil for

food, for medicine, for other humanitarian supplies for the

Iraqi people.

We have no quarrel with them. But without the sanctions, we

would see the oil-for-food program become oil-for-tanks,

resulting in a greater threat to Iraq's neighbors and less

food for its people.

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power,

he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his

region, the security of the world.

The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a

new Iraqi government--a government ready to live in peace

with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of

its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and

effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range

of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and

prudently.

The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever

American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of

life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military

capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.

Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi

civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway

international opinion.

We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time,

Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at

his neighbors, we will respond forcefully.

Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed

against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and

we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the

future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will

make war on his own people.

And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass

destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.

Because we're acting today, if is less likely that we will

face these dangers in the future.

Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein

and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the

serious debate currently before the House of Representatives

would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him

down.

But once more, the United States has proven that although

we are never eager to use force, when we must act in

America's vital interests, we will do so.

In the century we're leaving, America has often made the

difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now,

in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to

shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we

stand strong against the enemies of peace.

Tonight, the United States is doing just that. May God

bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying

out this vital mission and their families. And may God bless

America.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I move to lay that motion of the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2030

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of H.J. Res. 75, the continuing resolution. I further ask consent that the resolution be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

Mr. President, this amendment would limit the funding of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control.

There are about 135,000 Americans who go to Cuba every year. Some Members of the Congress have been there. But why should we now open up travel to Cuba and give additional cashflow to the Castro regime?

There is no rule of law there. Tourists have been frequently detained, as in the case of American citizen Ron Shelton. I wish we had a poster to show that.

It is unconscionable that after the recent crackdown and arrest by Castro of nearly 80 dissident human rights activists and opposition leaders that this comes up now at this time to sort of reward him for that activity.

It is a cash-starved dictatorship, and no matter what anyone says, opening the doors for American tourism will feed that dictatorship and give him the ability to select his successor without any participation of the Cubans in a democratic way.

We have always said we would restore relations with Cuba when they had a change in their system and restored democracy to Cuba.

The Cuban regime is listed by the State Department as one of the seven nations responsible for sponsoring terrorism. The other six nations are Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria. The Cuban regime was added to the list in 1982, and remains there because of Castro's personal support of revolutionary and terrorist groups.

Now, Canadians and Europeans have been traveling to Cuba for the last 10 years, but those tourist dollars have not assisted the Cuban people, as my colleagues have reported. There still

are great signs of problems for the average Cuban. But the Cuban regime continues to host numerous terrorist organizations as well as many fugitives from U.S. justice.

Castro provides safe haven and support to terrorists all over the world. State Department officials have asserted Castro's government ``has at least a limited developmental offensive biological warfare research and development effort.'' I do not see that this is the time to authorize sending tourism dollars to support a proterrorism regime.

In May of 2001, Castro visited Iran and met with Mohammad Khatami. At Tehran University, Castro publicly praised Iran for its struggles against American imperialism and said his visit would strengthen the bonds between the two nations. Both of those countries are covered by the current U.S. sanctions.

Castro publicly stated:

My visit to Iran for me and my nation is a great privilege.

I truly believe that the relations of the two countries will

be stronger after this trip.

He took Cuban tourism to Iran and thinks that is going to improve relations between the two proterrorist nations. I do not believe we should overlook the fact that he said:

Iran and Cuba, in cooperation with each other, can bring

America to its knees.

Let me repeat that. He said, in 2001:

Iran and Cuba, in cooperation with each other, can bring

America to its knees. The U.S. regime is very weak, and we

are witnessing this weakness from close up.

That is speaking as a Cuban close off our shores.

The administration has indicated to us on the Appropriations Committee that it understood that ``amendments may be offered that would weaken current sanctions against Cuba. The administration believes it is essential to maintain sanctions and travel restrictions to deny economic resources to the brutal Castro regime'' particularly when he has already stated his goal is to weaken the United States and to bring this Nation to its knees.

I am told that if the final version of this bill contains such a provision, the President's senior advisers would recommend he veto the bill.

As the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I bring to the floor the message of the President of the United States, and I move to table this amendment and ask for the yeas.

Yes.

Yes. I was going to say that. I emphasize, after we vote on this motion to table, we believe there will be another motion to table soon after 12:30.

Mr. President, I do move to table this amendment, the underlying amendment, and that will take the second-degree amendment along with it, I understand. I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Roberts be named as a cosponsor.

I ask for the adoption of the second-degree amendment.

Mr. President, I ask for the adoption of the basic underlying amendment.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

For the information of all Senators, I intend to make a motion on the soon-to-be-offered amendment of Senator Feingold rather soon.

I am in opposition to this amendment.

I will ask for the yeas and nays in a minute on my motion. I think we should be clear about the issue before the Senate. The issue really is whether the cost-of-living provision in this bill should apply to Members as it does to others who work for the Federal Government. We have provided COLAs to military personnel, civil servants, Social Security beneficiaries, a whole list of other categories of Federal service, Civil Service and Federal service. This is not a pay raise. It is an increase that is required by law.

(At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

I move to table the amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I am tempted to remark about my friend from Missouri saying there are only 477,000 Alaskans, but I will let that go.

It comes closer. I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, up my way there is a saying: The promise made is the debt unpaid.

This year, when I went to the President to increase the moneys allowed for education and a series of other items in this total budget, after a serious discussion, he agreed. I told him if he would make those changes, I would promise him I would see to it that there would be no funds appropriated in the regular process in excess of the amounts he requested. He has not requested this additional amount.

Therefore, the pending amendment No. 1928 offered by the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd, increases the spending by $1 billion. This additional spending would cause the underlying bill to exceed the subcommittee section 302(b) allocation. Therefore, I raise a point of order against the amendment pursuant to section 302(f) of the Budget Act.

Parenthetically, I also say that, before we recess this year, we will have to provide this money and the Appropriations Committee will find some way to find it within the budget.

I object. We have to get back to the appropriations sometime.

Mr. President, since I have been mentioned personally, let me just say I will be happy to see the day when the Armed Services Committee brings the bill to the floor, goes through the normal process, and passes a bill and provides the budget authority and the outlays to do it. That has been the problem. This is air we are talking about now--air.

Does the Senator from Hawaii want time to speak on his amendment to this bill? How much time does the Senator want?

Two minutes? I yield the Senator up to 5 minutes. We are waiting for the balance of the papers.

I say to the Senator, we have tried to clear his amendment. We have not been able to clear his amendment because of a problem with jurisdiction on the House side. But I believe he would like to explain his amendment. We were willing to take it to conference, but we are told that it would not survive conference because of the jurisdictional problem on the House side.

I ask Senator Akaka, does he wish to speak at this time?

I thank the Senator.

Does the Senator from New Mexico wish time?

This amendment would require Federal agencies to pay any difference between military pay and civilian compensation for employees of the Federal Government who are called to active duty. We have concerns about requiring all Federal agencies to absorb the cost of implementing this program. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the initial cost is $80 million this year.

We have not opposed this amendment. I offered to take it to conference. The authors have demanded a vote. I will not oppose the vote. I intend to work with the two authorization committees that have jurisdiction over this matter, the Senate Armed Services and Governmental Affairs Committees, to ensure this is the appropriate policy to address the Guard and Reserve retention. I believe it will be modified in conference.

Have the yeas and nays been requested?

I call to the attention of the Senate there will be a normal time limit on this amendment. All amendments thereafter will be limited to 10 minutes, with 2 minutes equally divided, 1 minute each before each amendment. I urge Senators to stay in the Chamber so we can move on this bill as rapidly as possible.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, this amendment will cap future funds for reconstruction unless the President certifies that additional funds are ``equal to or exceeded by'' an amount contributed by members of the international community. The President may waive the requirement if he deems it in the interest of national security. But part of this money is money for reconstruction and development of Iraq. The amendment will potentially impact on the momentum for reconstruction which, as we have said, is critical to bringing our troops home as soon as possible. I don't think you can have it both ways. I don't think you can support the troops for military operations and oppose reconstruction efforts.

At the appropriate time I intend to move to table the amendment.

Mr. President, I move to table the amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, we have a 10-minute limit and that vote went over again.

The next amendment is the Landrieu amendment.

Amendment No. 1859

Mr. President, on October 14, an amendment offered by the Senator from North Dakota was tabled by a vote of 57-39. This is a similar amendment.

This amendment states that no further funds will be committed for reconstruction beyond those in the underlying bill; all future reconstruction funds must come from revenues from Iraqi oil production.

They could not spend any State Department money. They could not spend any Defense Department money--no funds except from moneys secured through oil production.

This is another one of those amendments that will slow down the momentum of reconstruction in Iraq and really is another amendment that possibly will delay the return of our troops.

I intend at the proper time to make a motion to table this amendment.

Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays, and I ask that the Chair instruct the clerks to deliver to the Chair this vote at the end of 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1843

This amendment, which we offered to accept, deals with reimbursement for the costs of services and food to military personnel while in the hospital. We offered to accept the amendment, but the Senator demands a vote. I have already accepted the amendment so I would renew my request that we pass it by a voice vote.

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

Mr. President, I ask the Chair to lay before the Senate the Corzine amendment No. 1882.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on this matter there be 20 minutes under the control of Senator Roberts, 5 minutes under the control of Senator Rockefeller, and 5--whatever time Senator Corzine requests.

And 10 minutes for Senator Corzine, and there be a vote in relation to that amendment upon the expiration of that time, with no amendments in order to this amendment.

Let's have the Chair state the understanding of the time limitation. Can the Chair state the time limitation?

No. That is 20 minutes, Mr. President.

With no amendments in order. That is my unanimous consent request.

It is 20 minutes for Senator Roberts, 5 minutes for Senator Rockefeller--

Senator Rockefeller, 5 minutes. Twenty minutes for the Senator from Kansas. Ten minutes for the Senator from New Jersey. There are five Members sharing the 20 minutes.

We have no objection. We can change the Corzine limitation to 15 minutes.

The limitation applies only to Senator Byrd; is that correct?

Mr. President, the time used by the Senator from New Jersey in answering the question of the Senator from Kansas was taken out of the time of the Senator from Kansas?

I want some time. I ask unanimous consent that 4 minutes be added to this time.

I withdraw the request.

Mr. President, I am appalled by the statement of the Senator from New York. There is no distress in this country of the intelligence system. The distress is all political. We have had a problem. There has been a leak. There have been leaks before. This President relied on the same intelligence that President Clinton did when he made the speech in 1998 saying: We are going to invade Iraq.

I don't know what is going on here that suddenly this becomes another subject to send more people into harm's way to find out what went on in Iraq.

Under amendments already adopted, we have two different inspectors general, and we have the GAO going in on

two different amendments, and now we want to send another independent commission into Iraq. What is going to happen when they get there? They are going to use all the people in uniform to protect them. Last night, four more people were killed in Iraq.

What is going on here? I don't see any reason to bring the campaign of 2004 to this Chamber on this bill, but that is what is going on with what has just been said by the Senator from New York. I take great offense at that. We are investigating this matter. There is no question we are investigating it. It is being investigated by the commission, it is being investigated by the Department of Justice, and it is being investigated by the CIA. To get into the political harangue I just heard is just absolutely nonsense.

Mr. President, I move to table the amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1884 To Amendment No. 1819

Mr. President, there is some concern about the individual items pledged. We are going to take care of the problem of some of the allocations that have been listed in the report from Mr. Bremer's office about how this money should be spent.

I ask unanimous consent Senator Bond be added as an original cosponsor to Cantwell amendment No. 1857.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent when I yield the floor that I be permitted to yield to Senator Byrd to finish his remarks. He has time remaining on his allocation; following his remarks, I be recognized for the purpose of making a motion to table the Byrd amendment. I would like to have 2 minutes for my time before making that motion to table. I ask the two cloakrooms as a courtesy to Senators at lunch to send out word there will be a vote on a motion to table within 15 minutes.

I further ask that the time on that vote not be 10 minutes because people are out of the building and they have to return. I ask this amendment not be a 10-minute vote, that it be a regular vote.

I have no problem with that. I just ask his time occur after or before Senator Byrd's time but at his discretion.

I leave that up to Senator Byrd, whether he wants to speak before or after.

As I understand, there is an allocation of 15 minutes for Senator Kennedy; is that correct?

Senator Byrd still has time.

I merely point out, as the Washington Post editorial did on Wednesday, rebuilding the electricity grid, fixing the water supply system, getting oil flowing, maintaining public safety is all central to the hopes for stability and a representative government that is the means of getting our troops back.

I have had conversations--as a matter of fact, I just could not answer a call from Ambassador Bremer. I have great admiration for him. He has said there is no doubt the funds will help contribute to the peace and stability of not only Iraq but the entire region being stabilized. To deny them will delay the return home of our U.S. troops.

I understand there is pending an underlying amendment and second- degree amendment. I make a motion to table the underlying amendment which will take both amendments, if I am successful, and I ask for the yeas and nays on that amendment.

I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request to make that will terminate the consideration of this bill if the Senate will listen.

I ask unanimous consent that the only remaining amendments in order be the following: Senator Byrd, regarding flexibility of money, 10 minutes equally divided; Senator Byrd, National Guard deployment, 10 minutes equally divided; Senator Byrd, amendment No. 1819 as a substitute, 10 minutes equally divided; Senator Brownback, an amendment on rescission of money, 20 minutes--15 minutes for him and 5 minutes for the manager of the bill. Those will be the last votes.

We also have the Leahy amendment; the Dorgan amendment on oil; the Boxer-Schumer amendment on shoulder-fired missiles, as modified by the two managers; Senator Domenici wishes to speak for 5 minutes; and we have a Bond amendment which we believe will be adopted and will not require a vote. We have at this time four votes.

I further ask unanimous consent that upon the disposition of the above-listed amendments and any final debate, the bill be read a third time and the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill, with no intervening action or debate. I further ask unanimous consent that when the Senate receives from the House H.R. 3289, the House companion, that all after the enacting clause be stricken and the text of S. 1689, as amended, be inserted in lieu thereof; that the bill then be read for a third time and passed, with no intervening action or debate.

I further ask unanimous consent that following passage of the bill, the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House, and the Chair be authorized to appoint the full Committee on Appropriations as conferees on the part of the Senate.

The Leahy amendment, the Dorgan amendment, the Boxer amendment, Domenici, and the Bond amendment will be worked out with the managers and accepted without a vote.

I thought this unanimous consent request says there are only four votes left?

I have not.

I have an objection to that. I have to withdraw the request.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I renew my request, but I ask that all references to votes be deleted. We have no agreement on how many votes there will be. We believe there will be four, maybe five, maybe six.

Senator Byrd is first in line.

Amendment No. 1886

There is 10 minutes equally divided. I yield our 5 minutes to Senator Bond, chairman of the National Guard caucus.

Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. President, I point out that Senator Byrd's amendment would prohibit the obligation of funds to deploy to Operation Iraqi Freedom a member of the National Guard or Reserves if that member has been involuntarily deployed for any period of 6 months or more during the 6-year period ending on the date the involuntary deployment overseas would otherwise commence.

As I understand it, that would mean these people could be deployed to Pakistan, Afghanistan, or anyplace except to Iraq, where they are needed most.

When the Senator has completed his time, I ask that I might be recognized to make a motion to table the amendment.

How much time remains?

I yield the remainder of our time to Senator Warner, but I ask at the end to be recognized to make a motion to table the amendment.

Mr. President, I move that the Senator's amendment be tabled. I ask for the yeas and nays.

I ask that this be the first vote in the stacked order when we agree to a time later and ask that we temporarily set aside this amendment so we might take up the next amendment on the list.

I asked that the amendment be set aside temporarily after the yeas and nays have been ordered so we may have a series of

stacked votes later on. There is another Byrd amendment, a third Byrd amendment, and a Brownback amendment. We wish to consider all of those and have stacked votes after they are completed.

Yes.

Well, I did make a motion to table. I apologize to the Senator from West Virginia. I thought we had an understanding we would go through these and have one series of votes that would be 10 minutes apiece.

All right. The Senator is entitled to his vote, if there is an objection to putting it off.

No; we will just go to the vote. The other request was objected to.

I move to reconsider the vote.

I ask unanimous consent there be 10 minutes on the Dorgan-Wyden amendment, 4 minutes apiece for Senators Dorgan and Wyden, and 2 minutes for myself.

Mr. President, is all time yielded back on the other side?

Mr. President, we have agreed to take this to conference. The House has deleted approximately the same amount of money. I do not think it is precisely the same items covered but very close. The allocations are close to what the House made. We want to do our best to work in conference. We accept the fact the Congress is going to reduce this bill, but I do want to make certain the urgent needs particularly of oil production are met.

I know the Senator from Oregon and I may have a little disagreement on that. I do not think he disagrees that all production means should be really modernized sufficiently so we can be assured of that oil production. That oil production is essential to Iraq taking on their own future.

We will work in conference. Senator Dorgan will be in the conference, so we will keep them informed of what is going on. But we are going to take this amendment and adopt it. As I said, it is quite similar to what the House has done, and we are going to work it out to the best of our ability, to use this money and prioritize it in a way that meets the needs of those people who have the job to do in Iraq.

I yield back the remainder of my time and ask for the adoption of the amendment.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Now, Mr. President, Senator Byrd has an amendment No. 1819, 10 minutes equally divided.

I ask the Senator, are you prepared to go forward now?

I thank the Senator.

Which amendment is that?

Very well.

Mr. President, we had extended in the previous supplemental similar discretion to the President. During the period of great change, such as the global war on terrorism, we have done that since from September 11, 2001. This provision in our bill does not eliminate or reduce congressional oversight. Every transfer of these funds above the threshold must be--notice must be given in advance to the Appropriations Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee.

We have done this in the past, and it is necessary for the future. We put up the money. They come to us and tell us how they are going to spend it. We approve it or modify it, but we have oversight, and we continue to have oversight.

The commander of the special operations command seeks and needs authority to prevent new terrorist cells from forming. We have enormous needs from the combatant commander who really has the key job in Iraq in fighting the war on terrorism that is now developing even more intensely in Iraq after the magnificent victory of our forces. We believe the authority is no different than what the Congress has approved in the past.

Madam President, has all time been yielded back?

Madam President, I yield back the remainder of my time. I move to table the amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, if I can have the attention of Senators, I have three amendments we have worked out. We have one more to work out. I ask unanimous consent that there be 1 minute for Senator Boxer and 1 minute for Senator Schumer to explain the modification of their amendment, which we will accept. I have a statement to make with Senator Domenici on his amendment. Senator Brownback has his amendment. He has agreed to limit his remarks to 8 minutes, and we have 5 minutes if we want to use them after that.

I remind the Senate, after these amendments are handled, there will just be one more vote. We then have to proceed to a vote on final passage. I understand there are some Senators who wish to make a statement before final passage.

Before passage?

After those speeches, there still will be a vote on final passage.

Amendments Nos. 1807, As Further Modified, 1850, As Modified, and 1860,

As Modified, En Bloc

Madam President, I send to the desk three amendments

that have been cleared by both sides: Senator Leahy's amendment No. 1807, which is on the list; Senator Clinton's amendment which is amendment No. 1850, which is on the list; and Senator Harkin's amendment which is amendment No. 1860. Two of them are modified. I ask that they be modified and presented to the Senate so we may call them up en bloc.

Very well.

Does Senator Boxer wish her time?

I yield to Senator Boxer.

Madam President, I send to the desk amendment No. 1845, as modified, the one Senator Boxer just described, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

It is the one the Senator sent to us.

That is what we seek to do.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Feinstein and Crapo be added as original cosponsors to amendment No. 1864.

Amendment No. 1864, As Modified

Madam President, I send amendment No. 1864, offered by Senator Domenici and others, to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

I ask for consideration of the amendment.

I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1825

Madam President, I yield 3 minutes each to Senator Bond and Senator Mikulski concerning amendment No. 1825.

No objection.

Madam President, is amendment No. 1825 before the Senate now?

We have held this until last because of the budget problem involved. This takes $1.3 billion from the amount that has already been allocated to the VA/HUD Subcommittee that causes considerable consternation as to what we are going to do with it in the future. We all admit that is the problem. We all know there is a severe problem for veterans to deal with medical care, and we look forward to working with the Senators from Missouri and Maryland to work out this problem.

To the best of my knowledge, we now have one remaining amendment to be debated, and that is the amendment of Senator Brownback.

I ask that amendment 1825 be adopted.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Could we make the inquiry as to who intends to speak after the Brownback amendment so Members might know how long it will be before the vote on final passage?

We have no objection to that, but I do not want to indicate--we have not had any requests yet from this side. We will have to determine that. But it will mean a vote on final passage will start sometime after 4 o'clock.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, $600 million from Iraqi reconstruction funds? The Senate has just acted along with the House to cut approximately $1.6 billion. This amendment also prohibits funds appropriated in this act from being used for solid waste management, housing, and other items.

Some of the solid waste management involves contaminated materials, materials with unexpended ordnance, all sorts of hazards. We have already reduced this amount, as I said, by $1.6 billion. Any further reduction, as far as I am concerned, would further weaken the assistance we are trying to give the Iraqi people in order to bring our people home.

I move to table this amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Do I have any time left?

Madam President, I merely point out we voted now on this subject, further reductions, reconciliation moneys, six times today. We have finally agreed to reduce by $1.6 billion, as much as the House has. I think this would be a further redundant reduction and I urge the motion to table.

I yield the remainder of my time.

Has the Senator yielded the remainder of his time?

Madam President, has the vote started?

I was willing to agree to go ahead with the Senator's speech, if he wishes to do that.

So there is no misunderstanding, I make the motion to table this amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

I ask that be set aside so the Senator may speak.

Mr. President, the Senator's speech demonstrates the greatness of our country in terms of freedom of speech. I could not be more proud to stand where I am standing today to support our President and to support our people in uniform and those who are part of this authority trying to restore freedom and democracy in Iraq.

Sometimes I wonder how I ended up here. I have no real background that ever gave me thought I would ever be here. But when I hear speeches like that, I know why I am here. I believe in this President. I believe in this military.

I voted for this intervention. The Senator from West Virginia did not. I am urging the Senate to support this bill, $66 billion for our men and women in uniform and $20.3 billion--they have taken $1.6 billion out--but nearly $20 billion for the operation to try to assure there is a new government in Iraq, Iraq committed to freedom and committed to work with the United States in trying to bring peace to that region.

If there is a volatile part of the world, it is the Middle East. We have been involved in strife there longer than I can remember. I remember when President Eisenhower sent troops into

Lebanon. This has been a thorn in our side as long as I have been involved in government. That is over 50 years.

Again, the Senator is entitled to his point of view. I saw those intelligence reports. I believe there were weapons of mass destruction being thought of and being prepared in Iraq. I believe they had chemical weapons. I believe they were trying to buy uranium and sought a new weapons program as they did before the Iraqis destroyed that first program with their famous raid on Iran which was 15 years ago. I don't understand people who say this was a falsehood. Think of the young men and women in Iraq. They are watching this program. They get it on C-PAN. They get it on the Internet. Think of what they are thinking when a Senator says they are over there because of a falsehood, because the President of the United States lied. I don't believe he lied. I believe he told the truth.

I believe he is now on an important mission around the world. I have never heard a President criticized so much when he was overseas as this President has been criticized. He is on a mission to China. He is on a mission to many places in the Pacific. I believe the Senate should vote today in support of this bill.

Those who vote against this bill will be voting against supporting our men and women in the field. They are still in harm's way. That is one point on which I agree. There are too many people still being killed in Iraq, but they are being killed because there is too much confusion over there. There is not the ability to bring about the control we should have. We need a civilian force from the Iraqis. We need to stand up a new army for the Iraqis as we are trying to do in Afghanistan. This is an important move of the United States, a move to establish freedom in the Middle East.

We are dependent upon oil now. I wonder how many know that within 10 years we will be dependent upon Qatar for liquefied natural gas. They have 1,000 times the amount of natural gas we have in our State of Alaska, and we have half the natural gas in the United States. That region of the world will be important to the United States for 50 to 100 years from now. Our future depends upon having people there who understand freedom, who seek freedom, who seek stability through governmental control and are willing to make agreements and keep them and not willing to build up armaments such as Saddam Hussein did. He was a threat not only to that part of the world, he was a threat to the whole world. I said I believed he was a new Hitler, and he would have been a new Hitler.

I urge the Senate to vote for this bill, to vote for it and vote to support the men and women in uniform who have fought the war we asked them to fight.

Mr. President, there is still my minute and a half left of time.

Mr. President, I thought I had a minute and a half left on Brownback.

No objection.

I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

The Senator from Florida has 2 minutes. After that 2 minutes, there will be a vote on final passage. After the vote, there will be some speeches concerning the bill. This next vote will be the final vote on this bill.

I am aware of the House amendment. I appreciate your interests in this area and will work with my colleagues in conference to support funding for women's programs in Afghanistan.

Mr. President, I take the opportunity to express my appreciation to the Appropriations Committee staff for the many hours and days they worked on this bill. Their commitment and professionalism is critical to the bill. I have the list of the names of the majority and minority staff who worked so hard on this bill and I ask it be printed in the Record in recognition of their efforts.

Mr. President, the Democratic leader is correct. The conference will meet and the minority will be full participants in the conference.

Madam President, we urge Senators to contact the managers of this bill to try to work out a time when their amendments might be considered, and to see if we have any possibility of dealing with the several amendments at one time. We tried to do that last night with regard to reporting requirements, and I stated to the Senate it is our hope we can blend all of the reporting requirements along with those that are already in the House bill and work out a logical sequence for the reporting and the activities of an inspector general, if that is required as far as the Iraq operation is concerned.

We will be hopeful that today we can look at--there are additional amendments being suggested on the list that was approved last night for reporting requirements, and I would be pleased to consider taking any of those and adding them to the package that is already in the bill for reporting requirements and for details regarding the inspector general. But my purpose for seeking the floor right now is to urge Senators to contact the managers of the bill, and let us work out some logical sequence in terms of the amendments that are pending or will be offered.

This is going to be a long day. We still have the commitment that we will do our utmost to finish by tomorrow. I congratulate my good friend from Nevada, the Democratic assistant leader, for all his efforts in getting us to where we are now in terms of knowing the amendments that are possible to be considered.

But within the timeframe we have, we cannot consider them all without really a great deal of consideration on both sides in terms of the amount of time a Senator takes to explain the amendment and particularly in terms of Senators being willing to cooperate with us to blend amendments so we can deal with one subject maybe in one or two amendments. That is possible. I look forward to working with Senator Reid, who is actively involved in trying to reduce the number of these amendments, as well as I am, with our joint staffs.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I think we have been here before. This is another amendment--it reminds me of Yogi Berra: It is deja vu all over again. We are looking at the same problem. The problem is the disagreement of the Senator from West Virginia with the President's action with regard to Iraq.

I read the Constitution, too. The President is Commander in Chief. He selected an ambassador who, in fact, has been confirmed by the Senate and gave him the powers to execute the actions necessary to move toward establishing a new government in Iraq.

I was interested in the editorial in the Washington Post yesterday: ``Stay Resolute on Rebuilding.''

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

The editorial starts off by saying:

This is a critical week for the U.S. mission in Iraq. The

test won't be overseas but in the House and the Senate, where

lawmakers are to vote on the administration's request for $87

billion in emergency funding. It's imperative that this

spending be approved--not only the money required for

military operations but the smaller, more controversial,

amount for reconstruction aid. We omit an exact dollar figure

from the previous sentence because that's a legitimate

subject for debate. The Bush administration is asking for

$20.3 billion in reconstruction spending; the House

Appropriations Committee trimmed $1.7 billion from that

amount. What's important is not the precise number but the

underlying premise: that reconstruction is in the best

interests of both the United States and Iraq.

The editorial goes on:

One of the biggest temptations for lawmakers will be to

lend the money rather than spend it outright. This approach

has particular traction in the Senate, where a number of

Republicans are endorsing it. They argue that oil-rich Iraq

can pay for its own reconstruction; giving it the money

outright will just allow it to pay off existing debt more

quickly to countries that shirked the reconstruction task, at

U.S. taxpayer expense. This may play well back home, but it's

the wrong way to go.

This amendment will cap reconstruction funds for Iraq at $5 billion and require Congress to enact yet another appropriations bill to spend the remainder of the funds. It attempts to sweeten the amendment with $5 billion for security-rated activities that is excluded from the cap, but it is still a very bitter pill for those in charge of our troops in Iraq to swallow.

As this editorial I just mentioned stated:

Paying to improve life for Iraqis will help create a safer

environment for U.S. troops and will hasten the day when they

can leave. Rebuilding the electricity grid, fixing the water

supply, getting the oil flowing, maintaining public safety--

all this is central to hopes for stability and representative

government.

In addition to untenable funding restraints, this amendment requires a Presidential certification that the U.N. Security Council has adopted a resolution authorizing a multinational force under United States leadership for Iraq and that reconstruction efforts are being successfully implemented according to a detailed plan before additional funds can be appropriated.

I know of nothing in the Constitution that says the Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces has to give Congress a plan. He did give us a plan. There is a plan, and it is being executed. But to put it in law that the Commander in Chief cannot spend money for our troops or for reconstruction efforts without a detailed plan is going too far.

Ambassador Bremer has a plan, and we are funding it. The President has a plan, and we are following it, and he is the Commander in Chief. I think it is high time we recognize that the Commander in Chief has powers abroad, particularly when we have men and women in the field still under security restraints. There are people over there still being killed daily, and that bothers me greatly.

What I fear most is the loss of momentum in the program being pursued by the amendments being offered that will derail the plan, derail the operations, and put in restrictions so we cannot go forward. I believe the President has a plan and the Bremer plan will work. If it does not, they will be back, I am sure. But if it does, it will be the first time in history where we went from the concept of a victory in the field militarily to establishing a new government in a country that has really been totally destroyed by its former government, the Saddam Hussein regime. It will be the first time we went from a military victory to a new government without a long period of occupation.

The result of the Byrd amendment is that it will assure we will have increased forces over there occupying Iraq for years and years. I don't know where the Senator got that quote from, but no one told me we are going to be there years and years. As a matter of fact, our goal is not that. We have already withdrawn some troops. The general the Senator quoted has already withdrawn some troops. We are not predicting they are going to be there for years and years. There may well be a United States presence there for some time, whether or not the Iraqi people ask for it. I hope they reach a point where they think they can provide for their own security.

We have this ongoing problem in Afghanistan very clearly that is going to take some time to establish a government there. We do have some international cooperation but not much really in the long run.

The Senator from West Virginia mentions the U.N. Just yesterday, the Secretary of State told us about the improved circumstance in the U.N. today.

We are pursuing a resolution in the U.N. but to make expenditure of our funds conditioned upon the resolution passing in the U.N. is absolutely wrong. This amendment holds reconstruction efforts hostage to the passage of other appropriations bills and hostage to action by the U.N.

Now, I would hope that Senators will read what I consider to be a very appropriate editorial from the Washington Post that I have just placed in the Record. It says:

The debate over reconstruction aid has become a means for

expressing frustration, much of it legitimate, about the

administration's Iraq policy. Why wasn't the administration

more honest from the outset about the costs? Why can't it do

a better job of getting other countries to help pay? What's

the plan for future years? How will it be paid for? Lawmakers

are right to use the leverage of debate to seek clearer

answers . . .

But debate is one thing; restrictions in the law is an entirely different thing. I do not believe Congress has the power and should not try to exercise the power to put restraints on the Commander in Chief when we have forces in the field. Our job is to provide the money to keep those men and women safe, and that is what this bill does. Sixty- six-plus billion dollars is to maintain our troops. The balance is one of the most distinct things the President has done as a leader, to say let's move forward now. Let's give them a chance to create a new government. Let's help them set up their security. Let's help them restore their means of living. Let's help them restore their energy. Let's help them restore their oilfields. Let's help them restore safety in the streets. Let's work with them so they can take over their own government.

I received a letter this morning from the Coalition Provisional Authority, and I ask unanimous consent that this letter from Ambassador Bremer be printed in the Record. I will make copies available for every Senator.

It says:

The supplemental the President has submitted provides a

clear strategy for achieving our goal of an early restoration

of full sovereignty to the Iraqi people and for making

additional progress on the war on terrorism. I want you and

your colleagues to know that we are making every endeavor to

operate in a transparent and accountable manner. But any

major cuts of specific portions of the President's request

will impact the scope and pace of reconstruction efforts,

which in turn will delay the return home of the U.S. troops.

There is no doubt that these funds will help contribute to

the peace and stability of not only Iraq but eventually the

entire region.

That is the dream the Secretary of State explained to us yesterday, that we are moving forward in a region that has had instability for a century, and what has been needed is a key country such as Iraq turning toward a democracy, turning toward involving people. Just listening to the people who have seen and talked to the young people in school, we now know that young women in Iraq are going to school for the first time because of this country. A whole new generation will not just have men educated but will have men and women, who are going to participate in their own government. They want to do that. There has been an overwhelming reaction in Iraq toward freedom.

We want to hold it back? We want to put up some gates and say you can go just this far, but you have to come back to Congress for more money? When? In February, and then more money later.

The whole idea is to put the money up and let the Iraqi people know we are assisting them to move forward. We are going to assist them.

Debate is one thing, but gates, obstruction, is another. This amendment is obstructionism. It is intended to require a return to this floor before the money the President has requested in the supplemental can be spent. I think that is absolutely wrong, and when the appropriate time comes I will move to table this amendment.

Exhibit 1--Stay Resolute on Rebuilding

This is a critical week for the U.S. mission in Iraq. The

test won't be overseas but in the House and Senate, where

lawmakers are to vote on the administration's request for $87

billion in emergency funding. It's imperative that this

spending be approved--not only the money required for

military operations but the smaller, more controversial,

amount for reconstruction aid. We omit an exact dollar figure

from the previous sentence because that's a legitimate

subject for debate. The Bush administration is asking for

$20.3 billion in reconstruction spending; the House

Appropriations Committee trimmed $1.7 billion from that

amount. What's important is not the precise number but the

underlying premise: that reconstruction is in the interests

of both the United States and Iraq.

It would be intellectually consistent, though wrong, to

argue against both military and reconstruction funding. But

to present oneself as a supporter of money ``for our troops''

and an opponent of reconstruction is contradictory and

counterproductive. Paying to improve life for Iraqis will

help create a safer environment for U.S. troops and will

hasten the day when they can leave. Rebuilding the

electricity grid, fixing the water supply, getting the oil

flowing, maintaining public safety--all this is central to

hopes for stability and representative government.

One of the biggest temptations for lawmakers will be to

lend the money rather than spend it outright. This approach

has particular traction in the Senate, where a number of

Republicans are endorsing it. They argue that oil-rich Iraq

can pay for its own reconstruction; giving it the money

outright will just allow it to pay off existing debt more

quickly to countries that shirked the reconstruction task, at

U.S. taxpayer expense. This may play well back home, but it's

the wrong way to go.

Iraq is already burdened with about $200 billion in debt.

Either much of that will be forgiven, in which case a U.S.

reconstruction loan will prove most symbolic, or Iraq will

struggle for years under a crushing debt burden, in which

case another loan only adds to the misery. To make a loan in

these circumstances is like swimming out to a drowning man

and handing him a ten-pound weight. As a practical matter, no

Iraqi entity has the legal authority to enter into a binding

agreement. Lending the money will harm the U.S. effort to

persuade other countries to donate. And forcing Iraq to

encumber itself with debt to the United States, with U.S.

companies reaping the reconstruction profits, plays into the

hands of those who suspect U.S. motives.

The debate over reconstruction aid has become a means for

expressing frustration, much of it legitimate, about the

administration's Iraq policy. Why wasn't the administration

more honest from the outset about costs? Why can't it do a

better job of getting other countries to help pay? What's the

plan for future years? How will it be paid for? Lawmakers are

right to use the leverage of debate to seek clearer answers

and improved performance from the administration. But a

failure to obtain satisfaction on these points doesn't

justify a vote against needed funding. One of the Democratic

presidential candidates who will be called on to vote on the

request, Sen. John Edwards (N.C.), said yesterday that he

will vote against the aid for this reason, and Sen. John F.

Kerry (Mass.) seems inclined to follow this irresponsible

course. Former Vermont governor Howard Dean's position--yes,

but only if the president comes up with a way to pay for it--

is similarly faulty. As much as we would like to see some tax

cuts rolled back, that's not going to happen, at least as

part of the current debate. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.)

had it right the other day, saying that, despite misgivings

and his desire to undo some of the tax cuts to pay for it:

``We have no choice but to finance this program.''

Helping rebuild Iraq is right as a matter of morality and

self-interest. Refusing to pay what's needed because the

administration's performance has been lacking simply piles

error on top of error. Whatever the Bush Administration's

failings, it makes no sense to punish the people of Iraq--

and, ultimately, of the United States--as a result.

I want to be courteous to the people on the other side, and I will try to see if we cannot find some time limit. It would be within my right to move to table right now, but I want to be cooperative. The Senator from West Virginia has asked for other Senators to be allowed to speak, so I will seek to find some way to delineate some time limits. I have spoken for about 8 minutes. I know Senator Durbin, Senator Harkin, Senator Kennedy, and I believe Senator Boxer want to speak. I ask unanimous consent that each be recognized for 10 minutes and that I then be allowed the floor.

The Senator has the right to object, and I have the right to move to table. I still have the floor.

Mr. President, we are going to work out some time limit on this amendment or I am going to move to table. As a matter of fact, right now I believe we have 45 or more amendments remaining. We have an agreement of the Senate, a handshake agreement for a change. It was not a unanimous consent agreement. It was just a handshake between everyone on the floor that we will finish this bill by tomorrow. We are not going to finish this if we have people speaking at length on every amendment.

Now, I have been informed we have 58 amendments remaining. This is the first one. I ask the Senator, what is a reasonable limitation on the Senator's comments?

Twenty minutes for the Senator from California, 20 minutes for the Senator from Illinois, 20 minutes for the Senator from Iowa, and 20 minutes for the Senator from Massachusetts, and I assume the Senator from West Virginia wants recognition again. That is more than an hour on 1 out of 58 amendments. I think that is excessive.

I am willing to change it to 15 minutes for each Senator. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Durbin, Senator Harkin, Senator Kennedy, Senator Boxer, and Senator Byrd be recognized not to exceed 15 minutes before I retain the floor to make a motion to table.

I still have the floor.

Mr. President, I will be glad to debate a little bit what is important and what is not important. I have before me 58 amendments, and I do not know of any Senator who says his or her amendment is not important. This amendment is important. I think the amendment of any Senator is important. With 58 amendments pending, we have to find some way to limit debate. The only way I know to limit it is by making a motion to table.

I again seek the guidance of the Members on the other side. I think we really have eight amendments, other than a reservation of amendments to be able to be offered in the second degree. Of the basic amendments that are now here, there are, what, 31?

Without losing the right to the floor, I yield to the distinguished Senator from Nevada for a comment.

Senator Leahy now; that's a sixth one. If each one takes 20 minutes, we are going to be at 2 o'clock before we vote on this.

I yield to the Senator without losing my right to the floor.

I have taken 7 minutes.

Mr. President, may I inquire of the minority, are they willing to set a firm time for the vote on this amendment?

Let me try this. I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to yield the floor to Senator Boxer to make such remarks as she wishes to make, and when she is finished her remarks, I regain the floor.

Mr. President, I have a management problem. I ask unanimous consent that the vote on this amendment not occur before 3 o'clock.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, both sides have cleared for approval four amendments that I ask be considered en bloc. The first is amendment No. 1832 by Senator Feingold. The second is amendment No. 1853. The other two have not been filed. I send the amendments to the desk on behalf of Senator Hollings and Senator Durbin, and I ask unanimous consent that these four amendments be considered en bloc. They are primarily technical in nature.

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

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, we are trying to go back and forth here. Senator Warner has an amendment he would like to offer. After that, I understand Senator Lautenberg has an amendment to offer.

At the moment, there is another Senator on the floor. I see that the current occupant of the chair might be interested in a comment he wishes to make about some Cubs. I asked him if they were little bears, but he said no.

I yield 5 minutes of our time to the Senator from Illinois, if he would agree to that amount of time, to talk about the Cubs.

The current occupant of the chair may not consent to that.

That is right. I do not know if he is going to call up his amendment or just file it, but in any event, yes, we are prepared to do that.

Reserving the right to object, the Senator from New York also wants to do something.

We would have no objection to a statement about that very serious accident that happened in the Senator's State.

It is my understanding it would be 5 minutes for Senator Durbin, 5 minutes for Senator Schumer, and then we return to Senator Warner. Following Senator Warner, we would go to Senator Lautenberg.

I would say to the Senator from Nevada, I have heard the current occupant of the chair talk about some of his experiences in baseball and one of these days we ought to convene the Senate and listen to him for a while.

There is some marvelous history we could learn from the Senator about baseball, but I am out of order.

Has the unanimous consent request been agreed to?

Followed by the Senator from New Jersey?

Mr. President, this amendment has more than a whiff of politics in it. If I had the power to do so, I would close the room and turn on some fans. This is the most outrageous amendment I have heard in my time in the Senate in 35 years. As a practical matter, it is also wrong.

Contracts were bid. Brown and Root contracts were bid. The December contracts were entered into for Bosnia, Kosovo, by the last administration.

The Vice President stated what the Senator from New Jersey said in part. He did not say fully what the Vice President said. Let me say what the Vice President said on September 14:

I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and

haven't had now for over three years. And as Vice President,

I have absolutely no influence of, involvement of, knowledge

of in any way, shape or form, of contracts let by the Corps

of Engineers or anybody else in the federal government . . .

The Vice President has a deferred compensation obligation from his

former employer. He has no financial interest in Halliburton. The Senator's amendment cleverly works through a connection to the Vice President because he does have a deferred compensation concept. He has a right to receive money that was owed to him by Halliburton before he left that company for work he did before he left that company. The deferred compensation is money the Vice President earned as part of his monthly salary while he was at Halliburton but elected not to receive until he left the firm. This is done in many cases. It is a fixed amount that is being paid out over a period of time. The amount is not tied to the success or failure of Halliburton in any way. It is money owed by Halliburton to the Vice President for the time he was employed by the company before he left the company.

While employed by Halliburton, the Vice President routinely deferred a portion of his salary. That was his right to do. And each year he had the option of electing to receive a deferred salary in a lump sum payment when he left the firm or in a stream of payments over a period of time. In December of 1998, long before he contemplated returning to public life, Vice President Cheney elected to defer a portion of his 1999 compensation and receive it over a period of years following his departure from the company. Once he made that election in 1998, it was irrevocable.

When the Vice President left Halliburton some 2 years later, he was not able to change this election, and Halliburton was required to distribute the 1999 compensation in five annual payments. To avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest, the Vice President voluntary complied with the practice then required by the Office of Government Ethics and purchased an insurance policy to ensure that he had no financial interest in the future of Halliburton. The Vice President purchased this policy out of his own pocket. He paid the premium himself. The insurance policy guarantees the Vice President will receive the deferred compensation owed to him, whether Halliburton is successful or goes bankrupt. The insurance policy ensures the Vice President has no financial interest in the success or failure of this company.

The Vice President eliminated any potential conflict of interest related to his deferred compensation arrangement and he resolved any financial interest he had in Halliburton. The Vice President reported the deferred compensation arrangement in his 2001 and 2002 public financial disclosure forms.

On January 18, 2001, the Vice President signed an irrevocable agreement donating to charity the after-tax proceeds from the exercise of his Halliburton stock options. Again, this is something the Senator from New Jersey could have found very easily.

Under the agreement, the Vice President divested himself of all economic benefits of the options and gave them to charity. The three charities named in the agreement are the Capital Partners for Education, the George Washington University Medical Faculty Associates, and the University of Wyoming. The Vice President has no control over the remaining stock options. This agreement gave the administrative agent the power to exercise the stock options and pay the proceeds to the charities. The administrative agent has total discretion to decide when to exercise the options without consultation with Mr. Cheney.

Under the agreement, the Vice President will owe not a penny more or a penny less in taxes. The Vice President reported his gift arrangement on his 2001 and 2002 public financial disclosure forms.

If you read this amendment, it covers every official of the executive branch on a senior level. Beyond that, it covers assistants to the President, the director of national drug policy. I wonder why the Senator didn't include every Senator in the United States. I have never had the honor to own 1,000 shares of stock in anything. Some Senators do. I just wonder what is going on here in terms of this concept. We already accepted an amendment that requires any contract entered into using the funds in this bill to be full and open competition. But this contract was full and open. It is competed approximately every 5 years. It is a Brown and Root company to which Halliburton is related.

This is a slur against the Vice President of the United States. I have known him now since he was over in the House of Representatives as assistant to former President Ford. I have known this man for years and years and years. I know no more honorable man who has served in government than Dick Cheney. That is why I am here. I heard about this amendment.

I am sad to say that I am here to respond to it. I never expected this from the Senator from New Jersey. It would unfairly and unwisely punish those who have been successful in the private sector and then voluntarily enter into the service of the United States in the executive branch. It doesn't touch the legislative branch or the judicial branch, only executive, and it does so very unfairly.

I move to table the amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on or in relation to the Byrd amendment occur at 3 p.m., without any amendments being in order to the Byrd amendment. I further ask unanimous consent that following the Byrd amendment there be a vote on my motion to table the Lautenberg amendment.

That is all right with me. I thought we had a standing order that there are 2 minutes on either side.

I ask unanimous consent that there be 2 minutes on either side.

I ask unanimous consent that when we order a vote on this bill, there be 2 minutes of debate on either side on amendments prior to a vote.

Two minutes.

Mr. President, we have the Warner amendment also. I would like to have scheduled for a vote following the Lautenberg amendment, the vote on the motion to table.

I will withdraw that. I thought there would be a necessity for a vote.

I have no objection to that. I ask unanimous consent that the second vote be a 10-minute vote.

The Warner amendment is still pending, is it not?

I ask it be scheduled for a vote. It may not require a vote or the yeas and nays, but I want to dispose of it now before the Lautenberg amendment.

Mr. President, I have amendments Nos. 1863, 1814, and 1855. The first amendment is by Senator McConnell, which I will send to the desk. The second is an amendment by Senator Leahy, No. 1814, as modified. The third is No. 1855 by Senator Harkin. I send them to the desk and ask that they be considered en bloc.

We rely on our staffs and they have been cleared.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I have been very patient. It is not a question. It is a request to make a statement.

If the Senator will yield to answer my question?

The Senator's amendment, if offered, is subject to a point of order. Haven't we been working on something now for 45 minutes which is not germane to this bill?

Will the Senator yield?

I wonder if the Senator realizes he has just yielded the floor.

The Senator asked me a question. But I will not argue.

A gentlemen's agreement was entered into that we would not raise a point of order under rule XVI for germane amendments. But for those that are not germane, we made no such agreement. This is not germane to this bill. Therefore, I hope the Senator will not offer it. As a matter of fact, I hope he will take into account another answer which I will give to him about the question of germaneness. This matter is now in the counterintelligence section of the Department of Justice. That section has decades of experience and has really enormous experience in working on matters of this type.

It is my judgment, and I ask the Senator this question: Does he realize that this sense-of-the-Senate resolution has a connotation of lack of confidence--no confidence--in the work of the counterintelligence section, a group that has very distinguished career people, and that the legislative liaison for the CIA has indicated to me through my staff that they are following the standard procedures of a series of administrations in handling this matter, and both the CIA and the counterintelligence section believe there is no need for a special counsel at this time? Does the Senator realize that this is not something which is sought by those professionals experienced in the area?

Mr. President, from my experience with this section--and I do not get involved with this section too often--it is a counterintelligence section of the Department of Justice. They have their own system of investigation. It has a very broad agenda in terms of portfolio. They have the scope of the whole intelligence network to work with.

I share the Senator's umbrage about the leak. The question is, how to handle that leak. It is in the hands of the people who are trained and who have in the past discovered such leaks. Who will it be reported to? I am sure the criminal division of the Department of Justice, if and when they find who is responsible for the leak, because it is a violation of the criminal statute.

On what basis does the Senator say this is a unique case? In my experience, I have known several leaks and several individuals who were apprehended for leaks, some prosecuted, some not. Is it the Senator's impression this is a case of first impression?

I thank the Senator for yielding the floor. Now, I am sorry to say, I make a point of order under rule XVI that this legislation on an appropriations bill is not germane.

I don't know if that is debatable or not. I do not want to lose the floor.

If I still have the floor, I say to the Senator from New York, I have background being a U.S. attorney and being deeply involved in intelligence matters now for 35 years. I share his umbrage at the whole process. I will do everything I can to get to the bottom of this matter, but I do not think this is the time for a special counsel. There may come a time it will be required.

Yes.

No.

Amendment No. 1873

Parliamentary inquiry.

My parliamentary inquiry is, may I raise rule XVI at this point?

HIV/AIDS is not germane to this bill, either.

I do not object to receiving the request.

Mr. President it is my understanding this is an amendment pertaining to HIV/AIDS, and I support all activities concerning that, but it is not germane to this bill.

A point of order is not debatable.

That would be earmarking this money for a matter that is not germane for this bill. It is true that money could be used for that purpose, but I do not believe amendments are in order to start earmarking this money for items that are not germane to the bill.

I am raising that it is legislation on the appropriations bill.

Mr. President, the amendment is an amendment that will require Congress to enact another appropriations for the balance of the reconstruction money. It will cap the reconstruction funds at $5 billion. It puts another road block in the way of the reconstruction efforts.

I referred earlier to yesterday's editorial in the Washington Post, which said:

Paying to improve life for Iraqis will help create a safer

environment for U.S. troops and will hasten the day they can

leave. Rebuilding the electricity grid, fixing the water

supply, getting the oil flowing, maintaining public safety--

all this is central to hopes for stability and representative

government.

I think the loss of momentum that will come from requiring another bill to be enacted before we get more money for reconstruction will destroy the whole concept of the plan that Ambassador Bremer is working on.

I call to the attention of the Senate, I also put in a letter I received by fax from Ambassador Bremer just today reaffirming his plea to us to pass this bill as soon as possible.

I do not think it is in the best interests of our troops. I do not think it is in the best interests of the Iraqi people. It certainly is not in the best interests of the person in charge of the whole effort, Ambassador Bremer, for the Byrd amendment to be approved.

For that reason, I move to table the Byrd amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield without losing his right to the floor? For the information of Senators, Senator Inouye is here. He is waiting. He has to make a statement. And Senator McConnell has the floor now for his amendment.

I ask unanimous consent that following the disposition of the McConnell amendment, the Senator from Hawaii have 20 minutes.

I have no objection. Just, when Senator McConnell yields the floor, that Senator Inouye get the floor. I did commit we would set aside some time for him to make a statement. He has not made a statement on the bill yet.