Floor Statements

Madam President, if I might respond, the bill will be subject to amendment at any time. We are hopeful there will be amendments. Neither Senator Byrd nor I have spoken on the bill yet.

Once Senator Byrd has finished his comments, we will be back on the bill. Of course the Senator could speak at any time.

Madam President, I think at this time I should point out what we are doing because we have brought to the floor the President's emergency supplemental request for Iraq. Last evening, the President signed the 2004 Defense Appropriations Committee bill. At the request of the Congress, specifically the Senate, the President did not include in that bill any funding for the war in Iraq or Afghanistan, and the funding for that and the global war on terrorism is in the supplemental that is before us now.

Many have asked for a great many things in connection with this supplemental that is before us. I think it is good to review history because we have had the history studied by the Congressional Research Service, and I am informed that no President before has asked, in advance, for money to conduct a war. This President did that. He had a supplemental before that carried us through fiscal year 2003. And this bill is theoretically to pick up on October 4 and carry forward the activities in Iraq and Afghanistan and the war on global terrorism following that time.

The bill does contain a substantial amount of money for the intelligence community, which is classified. This afternoon we will hold a hearing in our classified hearing room in the Capitol to explore some of the ramifications of that. We have closed out the hearings we held on this bill. I might say, in and of themselves, they are unique because I know of no hearing on a supplemental request of this type during my time in the Senate. The request was made for hearings by my good friend from West Virginia, and we have accommodated that. I know he wishes we would have more hearings, but I believe we have explored the proposals that have been presented to us as a Special Emergency Supplemental by the President, under these circumstances, as much as is possible because we have some time frames involved. The moneys for defense activities in Iraq are in this bill. We have an enormous number of people involved in this activity now, and this bill asks for about $66 billion to continue those activities through the fiscal year of 2004; that is, until September 30, 2004.

We have had presented to us, in addition to that Defense supplemental, the request for $20.3 billion to carry out the activities of our Government in connection with the reconstruction and rehabilitation of Iraq during this period ahead of us. Many will ask-- demand that the money in this second category be strictly loans.

There is no government of Iraq yet. There is no one we can really have obligated to repay it. We are exploring mechanisms that might be possible to set up ways in which a portion of the money would be required to be repaid. But the testimony before our committee was that these two sums are inextricably entwined. They represent the best effort of the military department, our Department of Defense, and of our State Department and other Departments of the executive branch to present to Congress an approach to try to move through the process of having an army of occupation in Iraq and move to establishing a new form of

government in Iraq, supported by their people, and provide the security for that government, provide the security for the people who will be running the oilfields, as have been mentioned here, with the power stations, and the schools and other activities that are still subject to some opposition by terrorists in Iraq.

I believe Ambassador Bremer and his people have presented a coherent outline of what we are going to do. But the demand is to know in advance what is going to happen, almost on a daily basis: What are you going to do? Really, the contingencies in advance of us, now, of our Government, are unique.

If you look at Germany or look at Japan, we had a military government of occupation. We provided the complete security. We provided the complete government in the past when we ended the war. We did that to a great extent in other places, too, where we helped in Kosovo, Bosnia, and other areas. We were, for several years, involved in both of those areas.

We have been involved in this area less than a year. The proposal now is to carry into the next year a plan, which was presented to us in the Senate, in our security room, in July. Some people didn't get a copy of that. That is unfortunate. But it was being presented to us during our hearings. That plan clearly sets forth the plan that was developed by Ambassador Bremer and by the State Department and our Department of Defense, to proceed now and not have an army in occupation, that we do not want to be an occupier.

We want to continue our work to secure the area for the purpose of building this new government, but we have actually had some of our military people withdrawn from the areas of Iraq which have been completely pacified now and are normally operating. The local police are maintaining security. A portion of their new army is behind them, securing those areas. Still, it is a very volatile area and that is primarily the area of concern.

It is that area that depends so much on the money that is in the second part of this bill. Ambassador Bremer personally told me a number of times the oil pipelines have been bombed, sabotaged. While they are repairing those oil lines, the power stations have been brought back into operation. As oil lines were completely restored, the power stations were blown up. As they are trying to bring both of them back, then there are sniper activities in the Baghdad area, destabilizing the situation as far as restoring tranquility in this country.

This is a time and a place that the forces of the United States, both military and civilian, need guidance on a daily basis by the Commander in Chief and his representatives. This bill contains a sizable amount of money and the discretion to use that money to accomplish the objectives they have set out. I, for one, endorse those objectives wholly because I believe they will bring our people home sooner and have us have a friendly Iraq, rebuilding itself out of its oil income, once we are able to stop this terrorist activity that is impeding the flow of oil.

The Senator from North Dakota mentioned the amount of oil we were told will be there next July. That is true. It will be there unless the pipelines are blown up again. It will be there unless the power stations are blown up again. It takes power to run these pipelines. The power stations are there. They have been blown up also.

The problem with stability in this area is a very acute one. We have been warned of that. I think the plan they have presented, in the judgment of majority of the Senate Appropriations Committee, is such that we should give the President's people this discretion. It is a lot of money. No one questions it is a lot of money. In the first place, we separate the $66 billion for defense. I don't argue about that amount in terms of carrying forth our commitment to our men and women in uniform to see to it they have the supplies, the materials, the backup, the rest and recreation, all of the things that are in this bill, to assure them we are with them and that we support them in every way possible to get this job done. But the main thing we want to do for them is to get them home. The way to get them home is to assure that Iraq once more can run its own affairs, defend itself, and can have reasonable success in dealing with terrorism. We can't eliminate terrorism completely from Iraq any more than we can completely eliminate terrorism right now. We face terrorism at home. But the real problem is how soon can they know they have the capability of meeting terrorism and trying to deal with it as they try to impede the reconstruction and rehabilitation of that country. We are going to have some differences of opinion. There are differences really in philosophy, as far as I am concerned.

I think we ought to listen more to the generals who are over there in uniform, as I have yet to hear complaints from any of the people who have gone over there and who have been part of this tremendous success militarily. They report they are proud of what they have done, and they believe we are right, that we should as soon as possible have the Iraqis run this country. That is the goal.

We have had this monstrous success militarily. Normally, any country before in history has sent in an occupation force, set up a government, tried to find out who should be the new leaders of the government, worked with them for a number of years, and then eventually withdrawn their forces. Of course, as I think the world knows, we have yet to withdraw all of our forces from Europe from World War II. They started and became part of a permanent force over there almost, although I do think we ought to reexamine that, and we will in the near future. The future for this area is not to have an occupation force. We still have forces in Kosovo and we still have forces in Bosnia. That is not the goal of this activity. The goal of this activity is to liberate Iraq and give it the ability to restore its government under a concept of free men and women determining their own future.

That means to me that we respond to the request of the President of the United States and give his people the discretion to use this money to the extent it is necessary.

I believe it is now time that we call up the bill. Is it pending?

Madam President, I would like to address my friend. I don't believe we need control of time now, if the Senator agrees. I will finish my remarks and then yield to Senator Byrd, if that is agreeable. Is there any pending motion which I should make?

Madam President, I will close.

It is my hope the Senate will also realize the request we have made-- I have made it to the leadership on both sides--to take the defense portion of this bill first. The House has not acted upon this bill yet. We will go on recess on Friday. While we are gone, the House will act on it. It is my opinion that the House should know how we feel about the defense side, the $66 billion. We should await their action on the $20.3 billion.

That is to me sort of a division of labor, you might say. We have worked very hard on the defense side of the bill. I believe we have a general agreement of where we are going to come out with it. We presented what we call the chairman's mark in the bill that is before the Senate today. It will be subject to some amendments. I hope Members will cooperate by looking at that portion of the bill first. We will deal with the $20.3 billion when we believe we have completed that review.

I would like to be able to tell the House that we have finished the defense portion and we await your consideration of what you think we should do with the $20.3 billion. They have had some substantial hearings on that side, too. The House held hearings on both portions of this request from the President.

I believe this is a new approach to funding this kind of an operation. It is a new operation. We would be wise to proceed, and when we come back from our recess to have before us then the House bill, to look at what the House bill has done and present our portion of the bill pertaining to the $20.3 billion. Some people may disagree, and some people think we should separate the bill--I know there is that feeling--and delete from the consideration anything that is not strictly defense. I disagree with that.

General Abizaid, who is our commander in chief there in the region,

stated very clearly that he needs both portions of this bill. If we don't have the money for the people of Iraq to proceed to establish their own security, their own military, and deal with their own reconstruction problems immediately, we will need more money to send more troops in there to protect ourselves and to protect the Iraqis. This is a transitional phase which we have in the $20.3 billion. As I have said publicly, it is risky. The President has taken a great risk. There are terrorists loose there. We have to remember Saddam Hussein let loose all of the prisoners from the jails--all of them. He opened the borders of Iraq to terrorists. Those are the people now who are raising havoc in that country. Many of them have been apprehended, but many are still at large. The $20.3 billion is aimed at providing a security base for the Iraqi government to come into being, to deal with security, to deal with antiterrorism, and to deal with restoring the productive capacity of their major resource; that is, the oil.

If it is successful, as has been indicated, by July, we will probably see that Iraq could produce oil somewhere near 3 million barrels a day.

I say parenthetically, Madam President, that in our State, we have produced about 2.1 million barrels a day in the past. We don't produce that now because of the obstruction against us in terms of going into areas where we know we could obtain oil to restore the daily output of our production facilities. We could be back up to 2.1 million barrels a day very quickly, too. The Iraqis are predicted to have even more reserves. I am not sure this is the case. They might get up as high as 6 million barrels a day. I hope for the sake of the world they do. But I am reminded of the fact that when we first started producing oil from Prudhoe Bay in Alaska, the estimate was we had approximately 1 billion barrels of oil. This last year, as the occupant of the Chair knows, we produced our 14th billion barrel of oil. Estimates are estimates. Sometimes they are high and sometimes they are low. But the estimates are that Iraq will be a major producer in the future. I hope that is so because they will have a stable government. They will have a free government. They will have the ability to determine their own future.

We have a chance to explain to them how we treat some of our oil income and how we have created our permanent fund that produces income for every person in Alaska once a year--the shareholders of public development of resources. Prudhoe Bay oil is produced from State lands. The oil in Iraq is produced from the Iraqi-owned government and Iraqi government land. They have a rosy future if they wisely manage their money as they reconstruct their country, and if they have some concept of trying to save part of it and use the earnings to benefit all of their people. That is what we have done in Alaska. It has been very successful. I hope they will be able to do that.

The problem right now is how we get from where we are with substantial force. They are still subject to severe security requirements because of the terrorism. Should we put in more antiterrorist people of the United States in uniform, or from our intelligence services, or should we help the Iraqis get to the point where they can feel they can start to protect themselves, particularly in the areas of the remaining intensity of terrorists?

This bill should pass. We should give the President's people the greatest flexibility possible, much more than we have in the past, because it is for a short period of time. It is for the remainder of fiscal year 2004, for the period of time after the bill becomes law, sometime in October, until the following September. We will know during that period whether their approach will succeed.

One thing is very clear: this Congress will not walk away from Iraq. This President will not walk away from Iraq. We will not withdraw our people from Iraq and leave chaos in Iraq. Clearly, we have the obligation to finish what we started. This is the plan to finish what we started.

Some people want a roadmap, a daily report, with every single aspect of what is going on, producing another request for another report. Do you know what happens to the reports? They get filed in some filing cabinet somewhere, some computer, and no one pays any attention to them.

I will oppose a great many of these reports because we have provided in the bill for quarterly reports, we provided in the bill for continuation of the reports requested in the supplemental for 2003. That is sufficient. To my knowledge, no one raised an objection to what we received so far. I don't know why we should add to that number of reports we require from the people who represent us in both military and civilian agencies in Iraq.

I look forward to debate. It has been strenuous so far. I expect it to get a little more strenuous. Clearly, it is a turning point in the history of the United States. We have followed the pattern of the Caesars. We have gone in and been a liberator and then occupied area and stayed there. Look at Germany, how long we stayed there, and Japan, how long we stayed there: 4 years after the war was over in Japan. Do we want to do that in Iraq? We believe we can reduce that time our military people are there if we follow the proposals before the Senate from Ambassador Bremer who funnels both the recommendations of the State Department and the Department of Defense to the Congress through the President's request in the supplemental.

I remind Members of the Senate Appropriations Committee there will be a hearing in S. 407 at 5 p.m. and we do expect amendments to be offered. I hope there will be an opportunity to have a vote on some of them today although that may not be possible. The President of the United States is signing the Homeland Security bill within an hour to hour and a half. Many of the Members of Congress have been invited to be present. It is my intention to ask the Senate to withhold voting while they are gone. They are at the new Department of Homeland Security. We expect to have a vote sometime around 3:30, between that and the time of our hearing in S. 407. We would not object to a vote during that hearing. We are just right upstairs. From 5 p.m. we will be in the hearing. I will not request we have no votes during that time.

We will not have votes too late because we have an understanding with our colleagues from the Democratic Party who have an event tonight that we have agreed we will not have votes during the time they are at that dinner.

Again, I am asking people to come forward and offer amendments. I urge Members to present amendments to the defense side first, if at all possible. We are prepared, however, for any amendments offered.

I yield to my friend from West Virginia.

Mr. President, we have a Senator who is on the way now to offer an amendment. I will be happy to receive that.

In response to my good friend, our senior Member of the Senate, I understand his position fully and I appreciate that he understands mine.

Having been involved in my lifetime in service overseas, I have, since I have been in the Senate, traveled many places in the world to talk to our men and women in uniform. I find that today's group of young men and women who represent us in our military service are the finest I have ever known. I think the job they did in Iraq was outstanding.

I have been privileged to read a whole series of letters that have been written to families by those young men and women. As I have said before today, I have not seen one that indicated any doubt about the work they have done or lack of any sense of real commitment to that job. They have just been really tremendous letters.

It is a different experience to go overseas now and visit these people. They have the Internet. They have tents or buildings where they can literally attend college during part of their days. They have telephone service. They have mail service quite frequently--I am sure not as frequently as they would like.

Going back to my day, I didn't have a telephone call from the time I left home until the time I got back to Hawaii, having spent the better part of 2 years roaming the world. We didn't have the Internet, obviously. We didn't have much mail. Yet we came back with the belief that what we had done was the right thing.

I think these people, when they come home, will tell us that. I think the world will see a new generation of Americans, a different group, educated in a new age, in terms of war, knowing what they are capable of and knowing the horrors of war.

The impact of those people in the future is going to have a great deal to do with our foreign policy. I do believe they know now what it takes to follow on after a war. I can tell you, since I was coming home, I am sure most people from my generation would say the same thing: We didn't think about who was going to rule Germany, or we didn't think about terrorists in Germany or who was going to run Japan; we knew the military was going to do it. They were sending military replacements at the time.

This is not that world. This is a different world now. Those kids of ours are going to come home when we have replaced them with Iraqis who are capable of defending themselves. We are going to move into that age, a rapid reconstruction of that country. This is the way to do it.

It is a lot of money, no question about it. But the supplemental we put up before was primarily for defense. Two-thirds of this money is for defense. I don't know any argument about really the total amount of this. We didn't have arguments in terms of providing for our men and women who were dispatched to win the war. The problem is too often people talking about the whole amount as being the whole amount for reconstruction of Iraq.

That is not true. The major portion of our spending has been because we rely upon a volunteer Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard. We have promised them we will go to every degree to support them, to provide them their needs, to see their families are cared for, and particularly to give them the kind of weaponry which will permit them to survive.

As I said in the committee and before the press, in World War I, manpower was expendable. In World War II, manpower was expendable. Even in Korea, manpower was expendable. We do not do that now. We do not have that philosophy as a Government, as a people. We put people in the field to win wars and come home at tremendous cost. We pay that cost, and this bill is for that cost--$66 billion for defense expenditures.

I don't expect to hear too many questions about those defense expenditures because they are necessary to maintain this force. History will show it is probably the most superb military operation in history, keeping in mind how it had to be changed when we no longer could use Turkey for access to the northern part of Iraq, the way it shifted, the command worked--I think the commanders have been sheer military geniuses, and they have done a good job under Secretary Rumsfeld. I believe we should support them, we should take them further, and we should do our best to make certain everything we do is designed to do one thing: to bring those people home; to give them a chance to come home and tell us what they did and, above all, not going into a period of military occupation of this country.

That was not our mission, and I do believe the American people, once they realize what we are doing, will understand why it costs money to fight wars the way we fought this one and to fight for the peace with this supplemental money when it is provided to the administration.

I am informed the Senator who was going to come to the Chamber will not come for another 25 minutes.

I yield the floor. I see the Senator from Illinois wishes to speak.

Will the Senator yield?

This Senator is a little confused. I understand the Senator from Illinois to say he is fully in support of the defense money. Yet when he talks about the money he is unwilling to support, he includes it in the total $87 billion.

Are we talking about the $20.3 billion or are we talking about the $87 billion? Certainly the $87 billion, if the Senator from Illinois is consistent, includes the $66 billion which he will support. It would come from borrowed moneys from Social Security trust funds and other funds, that is true.

I think the American public out there is going to be confused about this business, the $66 billion. Is the Senator from Illinois talking about $66 billion? I thought he said he was going to support that.

Why does the Senator mention $87 billion?

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I wish to state the Senator from West Virginia did offer this amendment. It would have the impact of splitting these two portions of our programs that deal with Iraq and leaving just a portion of the money. As I understand, it would leave $5-plus billion in the fund from the $20.3 billion.

So I really am compelled to tell the Senator that I don't think we can be for the troops, be for helping the troops, and be against the $20.3 billion. So I am compelled to object, and I do object.

I do withhold the objection. I am happy to have a dialog on this matter.

Mr. President, again reserving the right to object, I think the Senator's explanation and the presentation of the Senator from Illinois demonstrates the problem. The poll the Senator has mentioned by the Washington Post polled $87 billion. Yet there is no relevant objection to $66 billion of that money. Why didn't they poll the $20.3 billion? I don't think the American public has been told that $20.3 billion is part of the process that will eventually reduce the military expense and bring our people back.

We have taken the position of a single package--a fund for the military operation, and a fund for reconstruction and restoration of Iraq going on concomitantly so we don't have to go into a period of military occupation.

I think the Senator's amendment is sort of a dangerous thing because it says go ahead with the military operation but we won't give you any money to help to stand up the Iraqi army, or to stand up the Iraqi security force, or to take action to assure the powerplants are working and the oil pipelines are working because we think we ought to wait until there is a government. You cannot get a new government without some reconstruction and without some security and without some mechanism to assist our forces so our forces can draw back and not take over the whole job.

I object to the Senator's request.

Mr. President, there are Senators who are at the signing ceremony. Can we get an agreement on a time to vote on the Senator's amendment? I would like to see us vote on the Senator's amendment sometime around 4 o'clock. Is that possible?

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia for his courtesy in

bringing this amendment forward. It is one of the key issues of this bill. The Senator has offered an amendment. As I understand, it would leave the defense money before the Senate and would strike all but $5.136 billion for the public safety and national security requirements of the proposal presented by the President in the emergency supplemental bill.

In my judgment, this tries to separate just a portion of the problem. The problem that has been brought before our committee is the problem of thousands of Iraqi people who do not have jobs because the economy is not functioning in this triangle where terrorists are. They do not have security. This maintains the money for the security and public safety, but it does not maintain the money for restoring the jails. All the jails were destroyed and all the prisoners were let go. It does not restore the money necessary to proceed with the development of the systems that will lead to restoration of the economy and it does not cover the balance of the money in the plan for this fiscal year. We believe it carries beyond the July period when, hopefully by that time, Iraqi oil money will be flowing at a rate where they can pick up and do the reconstruction and rehabilitation of Iraq.

I am compelled to say I oppose this amendment. It is my hope we can get an early vote on it. It is a significant portion of the problem. Many people came to me as chairman and asked, why don't you take the defense portions separately and take the rest in a separate bill? That is what Senator Byrd tried to do in his previous unanimous consent request. We conferred at length with Ambassador Bremer, with Secretary Rumsfeld, with General Abizaid. They were all before our committee. They all said this process is one of tying together the reconstruction and rehabilitation with our continued military operations with the hope that as the reconstruction moves forward, our people can move out and we can start the process of withdrawing as soon as it starts. That has already occurred. General Pace testified some of our people have already been withdrawn from the areas where we think there has been peace and stability restored. Although those areas do not have a national government, they have local governments that are now functioning. We are providing some security in the background there, that is true. They need that for a little while more.

I firmly believe that if we can get this plan going and have the reconstruction funds go forward with the military operations, there is support for our soldiers there now and assurance that we will go into a period where there comes a time we can withdraw more and more of our forces. The plan the President has presented is a plan that could work. I am not here to say I know it will work; it could work. If it worked, it would be the first time in history this has been done. But there is a substantial chance it will work.

There is another greater question ahead, a question of whether a portion of the moneys should be repaid. We will have to address that question in the near future. I thank the Senator for raising this issue. It is the key issue he attached to a unanimous consent agreement and I opposed.

For those who support the concept, you cannot be for the troops and against the money. We need to assure the troops have the support they should have coming out of the Iraqi people and out of the restoration of their ability to defend themselves and to police for themselves and set up their own new government.

This is the intertwining of these two proposals. I tell my friend I must oppose this. I will ask for the vote to occur sometime soon, I hope, because we ought to get this subject behind us as quickly as possible.

I don't know if the Senator is willing to talk of a time certain. Because of the problem of the signing ceremony for the Homeland Security bill, it will not be possible to have the vote before 4, but I am happy to have the vote at any time after 4 if the Senator is willing to call for a vote.

How long would the Senator from Rhode Island like to speak?

He is not speaking on the Senator's amendment, but has his own statement?

That can be accommodated with a time limit we are thinking about. Senator McConnell has a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. I hope we establish a procedure where we have an amendment from one side, the other side, and work on a basis of comity when that time comes.

I am happy to yield the floor. I hope we have the dialog as to when the vote will take place in the near future.

Reserving the right to object, that is on the Byrd pending amendment?

To occur now?

Mr. President, I assume this will be an up-or-down vote. I am pleased to make my statement first and let the Senator close. That would put people on notice that we should be voting in 15 minutes.

I have said repeatedly that the President's supplemental must be considered as a complete package. This is one of the key votes on this bill. If we try to separate even a portion of the package of the $20.3 billion, we will delay the return of our troops.

We are in a situation where the quicker the Iraqi people can get control of their own affairs--or even greater control of their own affairs, I should say--the better off we will be and the sooner we will start bringing our forces home.

Support for our forces is directly linked to the funds for security, infrastructure repair, and freedom in Iraq. All of the witnesses who appeared before us from the military, the State Department, and Ambassador Bremer,

representing both in Iraq, have indicated to us there is no question that the safety of our people is linked to these funds for reconstruction and restoration of Iraq.

Our colleagues have said they support the military money, but the military money must be increased greatly if the forces are not forthcoming from the Iraqi people to provide security and police. They can provide their own people at much less cost than we can. To provide security in a military concept will mean bringing a great many more military people to Iraq to provide the security that is necessary to deal with the situation, particularly in the triangle around Baghdad.

Our troops on the ground become greater targets the more the dissidents increase their control over the Iraqi people. The dissidents really are those who are unhappy about their own lack of necessities, their own security, their own lack of fuel and electric power.

These costs for reconstruction are high, there is no question about it. If we compare it to other engagements we have had in the world, they are not high on a per capita basis. We are dealing with many more people in Iraq than we were in Bosnia, and many more than we were in Kosovo. In both of those countries, we ended up with a period of long occupation that would have been unnecessary if we had moved into the concept of aiding the people there to provide their own government and their own security and their own basic future.

I do hope the Senate will vote against the Byrd amendment. It is the first test really of the intention of this Senate to approve the request of the President of the United States, which has been supported by every person who is in authority in our Government today.

I wish I had with me some of the letters I have received, that have been read to me, from our military people in Iraq. Those who are serving there have done a magnificent job, and they know it. They are writing their parents and telling them how proud they are of what they have done and how proud they are to be helping these people have permanent freedom in their own country.

I urge that this amendment be defeated.

I do want to point out that what we are dealing with is the question of splitting this supplemental. The supplemental is in two parts. One is military, and one is for reconstruction and restoration of the Iraqi people. To split off any part of it is to defeat the purpose of the administration and to defeat the goals we sought to achieve by committing our forces to the cause of liberating Iraq.

I yield the remainder of my time.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Kathleen Pierce, a legislative fellow assigned to Senator Inouye's office, be afforded floor privileges during the consideration of S. 1689, the emergency supplemental bill.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now begin a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I understand S. 1657 is at the desk and is due for a second reading.

I ask we proceed.

Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I object to further proceeding on this measure so it can go to the calendar.

Mr. President, I am here this morning to announce that we will have a markup of the supplemental request presented by the President, the emergency supplemental request for Iraq, on Tuesday morning at 10 a.m. I wish to state some of the reasons that I have scheduled this hearing.

Secretary Rumsfeld appeared before our committee and made several statements. I want to repeat a few quotes from his statement to our committee. He said:

Standing between our people and the gathering dangers is

the courage of our men and women in uniform.

The vast majority of the funds the President has requested

are going to troops who are risking their lives in this

struggle. Of the $87 billion the President requests, $66

billion is to support ongoing military operations, money for

military pay, fuel, transportation, maintenance, weapons,

equipment, lifesaving body armor, ammunition, and other

critical military needs.

Further on he says:

So $66 billion or 75 percent of this request is for troops.

They need it and they need it soon.

Again, continuing on through his statement, he pointed out that:

In less than 5 months virtually all major Iraqi hospitals

and universities have been reopened and hundreds of secondary

schools, a few months ago most often used as weapons caches,

these have been rebuilt and are ready to start the fall

semester; 70,000 Iraqis have been armed and trained in just a

few months and have been contributing to the security and

defense of their country. A new Army is being trained. More

than 40,000 Iraqi troops are conducting joint patrols with

coalition forces. By contrast, it took 14 months to establish

a police force in post-Germany, and 10 years to begin

training a new German Army.

He went on to say:

As security improves, so does commerce. Some 5,000 Iraqi

small businesses opened since the liberation on May 1 and the

Iraqi Central Bank was established and a new currency

announced just two months ago--accomplishments that would

have taken 3 years in postwar Germany.

He mentioned other items. He said that all of this and more has taken place in less than 5 months. The speed and breadth of what Ambassador Bremer, GEN Tom Franks, GEN Rick Sanchez, and GEN Abizaid and the civilian military and civilian teams have accomplished is impressive and it may be without historical parallel, whether compared to postwar Japan, Germany, Bosnia, or Kosovo.

I listened with great interest to the Secretary of Defense, and I am convinced he has made the case for the early consideration of this supplemental.

Before the Armed Services Committee, my distinguished colleague from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, asked Ambassador Bremer:

I believe you said you didn't need the money until January.

I believe you said in the Appropriations Committee or in the

Democratic caucus--whichever request it was. Is that a fact?

Ambassador Bremer said:

No, Senator. We need this money right away. I think there

is some confusion. I was asked a specific question which was,

When does the Iraqi government run out of money? And I said

sometime in January. That's not the same as this. We have got

to get these reconstruction programs going right away as

quickly as possible. There is nothing more urgent.

Later, in response to a question by Senator Warner, Ambassador Bremer said:

Yes, Senator. This is the most important thing that is

accelerated by the supplemental. There are the security parts

where we can speed up the training of the Iraqi army; instead

of taking two years, take one. We can't do that without more

money speeding up particularly the training of the Iraqi

police force which requires almost $2 billion. Each month

that goes by where we don't start those projects is a month

longer where those guys potentially leave our troops with

some of the duties that I have outlined in my statement. The

same is true for the infrastructure. We need to get started

letting contracts that we have to open--that we have to open

bids. It is going to take time. If we can get started to get

those bids started now quickly, we can get the repairs

started quickly.

Chairman Warner asked General Abizaid:

Is there a correlation, in your professional judgement,

General?

The general said:

Sir, there certainly is. The more the Iraqis are policing

and patrolling the security work to defend their own country

the sooner we will be able to draw down our forces and the

sooner we will be able to turn over the country to the

rightful owners, which are the Iraqis.

Chairman Warner asked:

It has a correlation to the tragic death, loss of life and

limb by our forces and our coalition. Am I correct?

General Abizaid said:

Sir, there is a correlation. We should all make sure we

understand as long as American troops are in Iraq there will

be casualties.

I take the position that winning the war on terrorism requires us to finish our job in Iraq. Very clearly, we are in a different situation now than we were in World War II. In World War II, after the defeat of the Nazis, we went to the point of having an occupation force there for over 4 years. That occupation force had a military government. We have determined not to establish a military government in Iraq. We want to move toward having the Iraqis themselves start a new form of government for themselves. In doing so, we are in a position where the lives of our soldiers and our military there in Iraq depend upon the speed with which these people can establish their own government and their own military.

I came across an article this past week in the RAND Review for the summer of 2003. It is a most interesting article about ``The Inescapable Responsibility of the World's Only Superpower.'' It points out that, from Germany to Afghanistan, we had a period of training. In terms of the training for the operations we are facing now in Iraq, each succeeding effort--what this person calls ``nation building''--was somewhat better managed than the previous one. This article compares Germany, Japan, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan to Iraq in terms of the problems we face.

I find it very interesting to note, quoting the article:

Among the recent operations, the United States and its

allies have put 25 times more money and 50 times more troops

on a per capita basis in post-conflict Kosovo than into post-

conflict Afghanistan.

We are already learning how to move forward and establish the new governments in the countries we are involved with. Afghanistan is a good example.

If you follow through on what this person is stating, he is taking the position of the RAND organization:

We at RAND believe that Iraq will require substantial

external funds for humanitarian assistance and budgetary

support. It is highly unlikely that taxes on the Iraqi oil

sector will be adequate to fund the reconstruction of the

Iraqi economy in the near future. Judging by the experience

of Bosnia and Kosovo, territories that have higher per capita

incomes than Iraq, budgetary support will be necessary for

quite some time. To manage immediate operating expenditures,

we suggest that post-conflict authorities in Iraq first

establish a reasonable level of expenditures, then create a

transparent tax system and ask foreign donors to pick up the

difference.

We have a donors' conference scheduled later next month.

The article goes on to say:

Post-conflict stabilization and reconstruction with the

objective of promoting a transition to democracy appear to be

the inescapable responsibility of the world's only

superpower. Therefore, in addition to securing the major

resources that will be needed to carry through the current

operation in Iraq success, the United States ought to make

the smaller long-term investments in its own institutional

capacity to conduct such operations.

I find this article very interesting in terms of the problems we face. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record at the end of my remarks.

Mr. President, going back to the statements made before our committee, as Ambassador Bremer said to us on September 22:

There are some things I would like to point out about this

$87 billion request. No one part of the supplemental is

indispensable and no part is more important than the others.

This is a carefully considered request. This is urgent. The

urgency of military operations is self-evident. The funds for

nonmilitary action in Iraq are equally urgent. Most Iraqis

welcome us as liberators and we glow with the pleasure of

that welcome. Now the reality of foreign troops on the

streets is starting to chafe. Some Iraqis are beginning to

regard us as occupiers and not as liberators. Some of this is

inevitable, but faster progress in reconstruction will help.

Unless this supplemental passes quickly, the Iraqis will face

darkness eight hours daily. The safety of our troops is

indirect but real. The people who ambush our troops are small

in number and do not do so because they have undependable

electricity. However, the population of a few is directly

related to their cooperation in hunting down those who attack

us. Earlier progress gives an edge against terrorists.

As chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I take the position that we should act as quickly as possible on this bill. If we can get it to third reading before we leave here the next week, the House will act on the bill while we are gone. We can marry our version of the bill to the House version of the bill here in the Senate and take it up the first week we are back after the recess.

If we do that, we should be able to get this bill to the President and to the Department of Defense and to Ambassador Bremer's operation by mid-October at the latest. It is urgent we do that.

We have the option to demonstrate to the world we are not going there to occupy Iraq. We did not intend to occupy Iraq. As a matter of fact, under the Iraq Liberation Act enacted in 1998, Congress stated the policy:

It should be the policy of the United States to support

efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from

power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic

government to replace that regime.

Further, it stated:

It is the sense of the Congress once the Saddam Hussein

regime is removed from power in Iraq, the United States

should support Iraq's transition to democracy by providing

immediate and substantial humanitarian assistance to the

Iraqi people, by providing democracy transition to Iraqi

parties and movements with democratic goals, and by convening

Iraq's foreign creditors to develop a multilateral response

to Iraq's foreign debt incurred by Saddam Hussein's regime.

That is what we are trying to do. We are trying to escape the long delay of military occupation and carry out our goal of liberation of the Iraqi people as we decided in 1998.

It is essential we proceed with this markup and get the bill to the Senate as quickly as possible. It is my hope it would be on the floor by Tuesday night. I hope the leader will give us the time during the next week to take this bill, that provides the funds, to third reading so we can act as an Appropriations Committee in conjunction with our colleagues from the House on the bill they will produce when we are on recess.

Nothing is more important than demonstrating to those people in uniform in Iraq that we mean business. We need this money. There is no question they need this money.

Because of the requests made during the debate on the last supplemental, we convinced the administration to submit a 2004 Defense bill. The 2004 Defense bill did not contain any money for Iraq. That was in the separate supplemental submitted to us in response to the request from the Congress to do just that.

For the first time in history the President has requested money in advance to conduct a war. All Presidents in the past have taken money from existing Government funds, spent them, and then came to Congress to replace the funds from which those moneys were taken.

This President submitted a concise request. As a matter of fact, one Member of the other side of the aisle in the budget markup asked for $100 billion for the Iraqi defense activities. This President asked for a total of $66 billion plus $20.3 billion for the activities conducted under Ambassador Bremer's aegis to hasten the ability of the Iraqi people to take over their own government, their own security, and their own future.

If we can act quickly, we can escape a long period of occupation. Compare the two sections of this bill: $66 billion for defense, $20 billion for the humanitarian and governmental activities. The longer we keep our troops in Iraq, the more expensive it will become from a military point of view. The sooner we can help these people establish their own government, provide their own security, their own army, the sooner we can bring our people out of Iraq and release these extraordinary expenses. The President has enabled us to view those expenses.

The bill we just passed, and the President will soon sign for 2004 for Department of Defense, does not contain money for Iraq. The money for Iraq is in a separate bill and demonstrates to everyone how expensive it is to keep an army in Iraq.

Our goal is to get that $20.3 billion as quickly as possible. It is needed as much as the Defense money. I hope the Senate will work with us next week as we try to bring this bill to the floor and get it to third reading before we recess on the 3rd.

Exhibit 1

[From the Rand Review, Summer, 2003]

Nation-Building

(By James Dobbins)

We at the RAND Corporation have compiled what we have found

to be the most important lessons learned by the United States

in its nation-building efforts since World War II. Not all

these hard-won lessons have yet been fully applied to

America's most recent nation-building efforts in Afghanistan

and Iraq.

We define nation-building as ``the use of armed force in

the aftermath of a conflict to underpin an enduring

transition to democracy.'' We have compared the levels of

progress toward this goal among seven historical cases:

Germany, Japan, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, and

Afghanistan. These are the most important instances in which

American military power has been used in the aftermath of a

conflict to underpin democratization elsewhere around the

world since World War II.

From our review of the historical cases, we at RAND have

derived a number of overarching conclusions:

Many factors--such as prior democratic experience, level of

economic development, and social homogeneity--can influence

the ease or difficulty of nation-building, but the single

most important controllable determinant seems to be the level

of effort, as measured in troops, money, and time.

Multilateral nation-building is more complex and time-

consuming than a unilateral approach. But the multilateral

approach is considerably less expensive for individual

participants.

Multilateral nation-building can produce more thorough

transformations and greater regional reconciliation than can

unilateral efforts.

United of command is as essential in peace operations as it

is in war. This unity of command can be achieved even in

operations with broad multilateral participation when the

major participants share a common vision and tailor the

response of international institutions accordingly.

There appears to be an inverse correlation between the size

of the military stabilization force and the level of

casualties. The higher the proportion of troops relative to

the resident population, the lower the number of casualties

suffered and inflicted. Indeed, most of the post-conflict

operations that were generously manned suffered no casualties

at all.

Neighboring states can exert significance influence, for

good or bad. It is nearly impossible to put together a

fragmented nation if its neighbors try to tear it apart.

Every effort should be made to secure their support.

Accountability for past injustices can be a powerful

component of democratization. Such accountability can be

among the most difficult and controversial aspects of any

nation-building endeavor, however, and therefore should be

attempted only if there is a deep and long-term commitment to

the overall operation.

There is no quick fix for nation-building. None of our

cases was successfully completed in less than seven years.

These lesions are drawn from the ``best practices'' of

nation-building over the past 60 years. We explain the

lessons in greater detail below and then suggest how they

might be applied to future operations and, in particular,

to Iraq. Although the combat phase of the war against Iraq

went very well and the regime collapsed much faster than

many had expected, the United States has been left with

the unenviable task of seeking to build a democratic,

economically vibrant Iraqi nation.

From Germany to Afghanistan

The cases of Germany and Japan set a standard for post-

conflict nation-building that has not been matched since.

Both were comprehensive efforts at social, political, and

economic reconstruction. These successes demonstrated that

democracy was transferable, that societies could be

encouraged to transform themselves, and that major

transformations could endure.

For the next 40 years, there were few attempts to replicate

these early successes. During the cold war with the Soviet

Union, America employed its military power to preserve the

status quo, not to alter it; to manage crises, not to resolve

the underlying problems; to overthrow unfriendly regimes and

reinstall friendly ones, not to bring about fundamental

societal change.

After 1989, a policy of global containment of the Soviet

Union no longer impelled the United States to preserve the

status quo. Washington was now free to overlook regional

instability in places like Yugoslavia and Afghanistan as long

as the instability did not directly threaten American

interests. At the same time, though, the United States had

the unprecedented opportunity of using its unrivaled power to

resolve, not just to manage or to contain, international

problems of strategic importance. In addition, the United

States could secure broader international support for such

efforts than ever before.

Throughout the 1990s, each successive post-cold war effort

became wider in scope and more ambitious in intent than its

predecessor had been. In Somalia, the original objective was

purely humanitarian but was subsequently expanded to

democratization. In Haiti, the objective was to reinstall a

president and to conduct elections according to an existing

constitution. In Bosnia, the objective was to create a

multiethnic state out of a former Yugoslav republic. In

Kosovo, the objective was to establish a democratic polity

and market economy virtually from scratch.

From Somalia in 1992 to Kosovo in 1999, each nation-

building effort was somewhat better managed than the previous

one (see table). Somalia was the nadir. Everything

that could go wrong did. The operation culminated in the

withdrawal of U.S. troops in 1994 after a sharp tactical

setback that had resulted in 18 American deaths in October

1993. This reverse, which became memorialized in the book and

film ``Black Hawk Down,'' was largely the result of an

unnecessarily complicated U.S. and United Nations command

structure that had three distinct forces operating with three

distinct chains of command. Despite its failure, the Somalia

mission taught America crucial lessons for the future. One

was the importance of unity of command in peace operations as

well as in war. Second was the need to scale mission

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, 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 am pleased to present to the Senate, on behalf of myself and the Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Inouye, who is currently chairing the Indian Affairs Committee, the Defense appropriations conference report for fiscal year 2004.

This conference report was approved by the House of Representatives by a vote of 407 to 15. It has overwhelming bipartisan support. The agreement provides for a total of $368.7 billion for the Department for fiscal year 2004. Throughout our conversations with the House over the past months, Senator Inouye and I have sought to strike a balanced agreement that we believe addresses key requirements for readiness, quality of life, and reconstitution of our defense force.

As we take up this conference report on the floor today, there are hundreds of thousands of men and women in uniform deployed and serving our country at home and abroad. They are performing superbly, and we are extremely proud of what they are accomplishing. This agreement is a demonstration of our support, the Congress's support, for our men and women in uniform.

It provides a 4.1 percent average pay raise for all military personnel. It funds an increase in basic allowance for housing to reduce average out-of-pocket expenses from 7.5 percent to 3.5 percent for our military people. It provides an additional $128 million for the continuation of increased rates for imminent-danger pay and family- separation allowances.

This agreement honors the commitment we have made to our Armed Forces--one we will maintain. It helps ensure they will continue to have good leadership, first-rate training, modernized equipment, and quality infrastructure. The agreement provides $115.9 billion for operation and maintenance, $74.7 billion for procurement, and $65.2 billion for research and development.

Defense is a very expensive concept for our country. That is so not only because we have a volunteer service but because we are modernizing our force for the future. This agreement is the result of a bicameral, bipartisan approach. I urge the Senate to adopt this conference report.

Let me once again thank my co-chairman, Senator Inouye, for his support and invaluable counsel on this bill. I would also like to note the dedicated work of his chief of staff Charlie Houy, Betsy Schmid, and Nicole DiResta.

I thank my hard-working staff led by Sid Ashworth and including Tom Hawkins, Kraig Siracuse, Bob Henke, Lesley Kalan, Jennifer Chartrand, Menda Fife, Brian Wilson, Mazie Mattson, Nicole Royal, and Alycia Farrell. They have helped put together this conference report and worked with us through the year to bring us where we are today with the largest defense budget in history and the best bill we have ever presented to the Senate.

I yield to my good friend from Hawaii.

Mr. President, we only have notification of one person who wishes to speak. If that is the case, I believe we will have a vote on this conference report sometime around noon. It is my hope that we will have it before lunch if possible. So I put the Senate on notice that we will be voting around noon.

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

Mr. President, I do thank the Senator from Arizona for his comments about the supplemental. This bill before us now is what we call the peace budget for defense. It does not contain any of the monies for Iraq or for Afghanistan. That money is in the separate supplemental emergency appropriations bill on which we are working. That was handled in that manner because of the request that we have a clear delineation of the monies to be spent for Iraq and Afghanistan.

I will comment on two things, but first I ask unanimous consent that the vote on the pending conference report occur at 12:10 today, and that Senators be so notified.

I did not hear the Senator. If there is an objection to the time agreement, I will continue with my comments.

The Senator from Arizona did mention the money in this bill for the Alaska railroad. The Alaska railroad goes through two military reservations, and this money is to straighten out that railroad as it goes through those two military reservations. We have done this for a period of years now. We are straightening it out so it does not provide a hazard to the people who live on base. It moves the sound as far as we can from the military operations. It is much more safe as it is straightened out and does not have a circuitous route through those two military bases.

In addition, for the Senator's information, a utilidor is a facility that we put into the ground in Alaska to carry our utilities. In effect, it is an underground tunnel so that the utilities can all be maintained underground during the wintertime. It contains water, sewer, electric, all cables, and they are capable of maintenance through the winter.

As a matter of fact, I would welcome the District of Columbia to follow our path and put the utilities underground because every time there is a storm, all the electric lines, power lines, and cable lines come down because they are not buried. We do not just bury them under the ground. We bury a long, continuous container that is capable of being walked through so we can maintain all of the utilities on our military bases. They, at times, need modernization. The money in this bill is for modernization.

I know my friend wants to comment. I have been asked--we do expect a vote. We will try to get a vote on the pending bill. We are having a communications problem. I yield to my friend.

If the Senator will yield, I am informed if I make a request for a vote on this conference report at 1:15, that will be acceptable. Is that not correct?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on the conference report occur at 1:20, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

That is my understanding. We will stay on this bill until 1:15.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m., Thursday, September 25. I further ask unanimous consent that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then begin a period for morning business for 60 minutes, with the first 30 minutes under the control of the minority leader or his designee, and the remaining 30 minutes under the control of Senator Hutchison or her designee; provided that following morning business the Senate then proceed to the consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 2658, the Defense appropriations bill.

For the information of all Senators, tomorrow, following morning business the Senate will begin debate on the Defense appropriations conference report for 2004. We do not anticipate a great deal of debate on that important conference report prior to a vote on its adoption. In addition, the Senate will resume consideration of the DC appropriations bill. Senators therefore should expect rollcall votes throughout the day, and Members will be notified when the first vote is scheduled.

If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order, following the remarks to be offered by Senator Pryor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I wish to address the pending Boxer amendment. Is that still the pending business?

Mr. President, this provision which Senator Boxer seeks to strike--which I call the expedited judicial review provision--has been misconstrued by the Senator from California. Let me give you first a little history of the Tongass Forest.

In 1917 this forest was established, 17 million acres. It is the largest national forest in the United States. It encompasses over 80 percent of all of southeastern Alaska, which is roughly the size of New England.

In 1947, the Tongass Act set aside an allowable sale quantity level of 1.38 billion board feet per year. Let me repeat that--1.38 billion board feet per year.

In 1959, as part of the Statehood Act, there was an allowable sale quantity level established at 1.3 billion board feet per year.

Congress continued to review the Tongass. In 1971, the Alaska Native Land Claims Settlement Act set what we called the ASQ--the allowable sale quantity--level at 950 million board feet.

In 1980, that was reduced to 250 million board feet. Under the law, we call it ANICA--the Alaska National Interest Conservation Act--from 1980 to 1987, the average volume of timber sold and harvested per year in the Tongass was 280 million board feet per year.

In 1990, the Tongass Timber Reform Act set the ASQ at 440 million board feet. That act also directed the Forest Service to provide a supply of timber to meet the market demand.

But in 1997, Congress further reduced the level to 260 million board feet. That was through the Tongass land management plan. We call it the TLMP process.

So today only 676,000 acres of the 17 million acres in the Tongass National Forest is currently available for timber or timber harvesting for the timber industry. That is from the largest national forest in the United States.

Due to litigation, only 34 million board feet in total was cut in 2002.

This forest once supported 4,000 timber jobs. Now the lumber jobs have been reduced by 50 percent. Some of them work for independent operators or outside of the national forest on Native land. But 99 percent of the jobs associated with the processing of timber, particularly the pulp industry, have been eliminated.

In 2001, the timber industry had about 2,000 workers--again, a lot of them not on Federal land--with an annual payroll of $108 million.

The Senator from California represents a State that also has national forests. In California, there is a healthy and robust timber industry. Over 259 million board feet of timber was harvested in 2002 on 10 million acres of California land. In 2001, the timber industry supported 110,000 jobs with $3.4 billion in annual payroll.

Despite the rhetoric of the Senator from California, my amendment does not cripple the public's due process at all. It seeks to deal with the lawsuits pertaining to timber sales in the Alaska region and the way they have been handled by those who oppose cutting timber in Alaska but support cutting timber in a national forest half the size of one of Alaska's forests, the Tongass Forest. Lawsuits pertaining to timber sales are filed in a way that delays the process through the administrative courts, then through the Federal courts. By the time they are through, they are not harvesting.

My amendment provides that suits be filed in Alaska District Court within 30 days after the administrative appeals have been exhausted, or 30 days after enactment of this act. It directs the District Court of Alaska to render a decision within 180 days of the date the lawsuit was filed. We are dealing with judicial process, not environmental process, not the rights of individuals, but abuse, primarily from lawyers from California who file these lawsuits in Alaska. If the court has not rendered its decision, the provision in this bill authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to petition the court to proceed with the action.

The timber sales at issue are subject to an intense public review process. For each timber sale, a notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement is published. The environmental impact statement is prepared, which generally takes 2 to 3 years. Each one of them costs $1 to $3 million. The draft EIS is issued, at which time there is a public comment period. The final EIS is then issued which addresses the public comments and makes any necessary changes.

Again, the public is invited to comment on the final EIS. Once that extensive review process is completed, a record of decision is released which stipulates the conditions under which the timber sale may proceed. My amendment does not cover that part of this process at all. There is no limitation put upon the administrative side at all.

If the public has additional concerns, they have an opportunity to appeal the record of decision administratively to the Forest Service. Invariably that happens. An appeal is made to the Forest Service. After that appeal, there is what we call the record of decision. Of the last 36 records of decision, 32 were administratively appealed.

Despite the extensive environmental review, public participation, and administrative use, lawsuits are still filed. Of the 32 claims administratively appealed, 9 have been litigated. It takes an average of 2 years from the time the complaint is filed in district court until a final judgment is reached, and then it is usually by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in California.

These lawsuits add enormously to the expense of the taxpayers. They have a devastating effect on the men and women involved in the timber industry in my State. This process can take between 4 and 7 years before a single tree is harvested under a contract that authorizes harvesting of the timber. My provision does not limit access to the judicial system, nor does it impair the rights of those seeking judicial review of records of decisions. It does not affect the environmental process. It does not affect the public's right to comment. There is no time line for filing appeals to the district court's decision. That would be the Ninth Circuit.

This provision merely ensures there will be timely consideration of this equal process that is fair to environmental groups, the Forest Service, and men and women of my State who rely upon the timber industry for their livelihood. We merely set a time line for the judicial review of records of decision that have been made after the administrative process has been completed. That normally takes 1 to 2 years. Each of these is then appealed to the courts, the district courts, but there is no requirement now that those appeals be filed on a timely basis. This requires that within 30 days after the decision, there has to be a decision whether they will appeal. If they appeal, the district court must render the decision within 180 days. After that, they have the right to consider the process and appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals if they wish. As a practical matter, we have eliminated the basic area where delay has taken place.

Again, let me point out, what we are seeking to do is to require that this judicial review process be expedited. That is a fair way to handle this process which has been so abused by these lawyers. I am a California lawyer, incidentally. California lawyers in my day did not act the way these guys are acting; I can state that right now. This says if you take an appeal from the Forest Service--mind you, they are after public hearings on the EIS, they are after public hearings and comments, and after administrative appeals to the Forest Service; and then the time for the basic delay. After they fail to file appeals, delay, delay, and delay, and they get to the court and the court delays. This is relieving the delay in the courts and relieving the delay in filing the appeal from the administrative court.

I urge that the motion to strike of the Senator from California be eliminated. Today these lawyers have 6 years within which to file that complaint after it has gone through the process of two public hearings, administrative appeal. For the record of decision, they can wait up to 6 years to file for review of the record of decision. This is, as far as I am concerned, a defect in the administrative process for judicial review. That is all we are dealing with.

We do not affect environmental rights. We do not affect the right to appeal. All we say is, you have to do it within a timely period. The district court must act within a timely period so we can tell whether the contracts that have been issued and approved by the Forest Service can be carried out by those who seek to make a living off harvesting the small amount of timber still available from forests in my State.

I point out the inconsistency of the Senator from California in complaining about relieving this process, the delay in this judicial process, when in the State of California they harvest an enormous amount of timber from an area that is less than half the size of our national forests. Surely the people of the State of California would understand that if a decision is made, the

small amount of Alaska's timber area, 676,000 acres in the Tongass Forest, is available for harvesting, there has to be certainty in the review process so the economics of the timber industry will be sound.

I urge defeat of the motion to strike of the Senator from California and I move to table that amendment.

I did inquire whether the Senator from Washington was seeking to speak on the Boxer amendment. I made a motion to table the Boxer amendment and ask unanimous consent that the time for the vote on my motion be determined by the leadership.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, this amendment has nothing to do with environmental concerns. This is a judicial process amendment. These contracts for timber go through a review process involving an EIS, then public hearings, then an opportunity to appeal to the Forest Service, and then an opportunity to file, administratively, appeals within the Forest Service.

After a final record of decision, they have 6 years to take it to the district court. All we are asking is that be shortened to the normal process of 30 days and the process for appeal from the administrative court be 30 days and the court take no longer than 180 days to review that appeal. It does not limit the time for the appeal to the circuit court but is strictly a judicial process shortening the time.

It now takes 3 to 4 years for every contract before we can possibly try to use those contracts to harvest the trees, within 676,000 acres out of 17 million acres. We need this amendment.

Mr. President, I thank Senators McCain and Campbell for their work on this important issue. My work on the Olympic Sports Act began in the 1970s. I believe the reforms in our bill today are necessary adjustments that will return the focus of the United States Olympic Committee to our original intent--our American athletes!

The USOC Internal Taskforce and the Senate appointed Independent Commission did excellent jobs in reviewing the problems and offering solutions to the recent problems that have plagued the USOC. I thank the USOC Taskforce and the Independent Commission on the United States Olympic Committee for their hard work. S. 1404 includes many of the suggested changes from both groups.

This is a good bill and I support all but one aspect of it. I cannot support and will work to remove the section that gives special consideration to the Senior Olympics. The only fundraising tool that Congress gave the USOC was the exclusive rights to the name, seals, emblems and badges of the USOC. The language that allows the Senior Olympics to use the Olympic symbols without the USOC permission will lead to the destruction of the fundraising ability of the USOC. Above all, the use of these symbols should not be subject to being ``licensed out'' by any entity but the USOC. I would have opposed this language in committee but unfortunately I was chairing a Defense Appropriations hearing when the language was offered. I will not hold up the passage of this important legislation but will work to remove the language creating a death knell to the USOC's ability to raise the funds necessary to meet the objectives of our Nation ion international competitions.

This is an important agreement on the location of the USOC headquarters. Now this bill can go to conference, after which, with the President's approval, it will become law and our American athletes can focus all of their efforts on the 2004 Olympic Games.

I thank Senator McCain's Commerce staff for their hard work on this issue. Especially Ken Nahigian and also Brian Feintech of Senator Campbell's staff. Their hard work along with that of George Lowe on my staff have insured that this important legislation is ready to move forward.