Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

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

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

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

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

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

Mr. BYRD. Yes, I yield back my time.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss the very critical issue of global warming and to summarize events of recent years that have led us to this point. We are discussing the paramount energy and environmental challenge of our time; namely, the inexorable increase in greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere that will lead to changes in the global climate. The primary contributor to global warming is the burning of fossil fuels that create carbon dioxide, and it remains in the atmosphere for over a century. These human-produced emissions are adding to a growing concentration in the global atmosphere that is expected to more than double by the end of this century. Therefore, we are bequeathing this problem and its consequences to our children, our grandchildren, and our great grandchildren. While I am very concerned about the challenge posed by global warming, let me state at the outset that I have long been a strong critic of climate change policies that are not in the national interest of the United States. I will yield to no one on that point. I have insisted on a rational and cost-effective approach to dealing with climate change. As the coauthor, along with Senator Hagel, of S. Res. 98, that passed 95 to zero in 1997, during the 105th Congress, I sought at that time to express the sense of the Senate regarding the provisions of any future binding, international agreement that would be acceptable to the Senate. The Kyoto protocol, in its current form, does not comply with the requirements of S. Res. 98. That resolution was supported by many industrial trade associations and opposed by many environmental organizations. While those on both sides of the issue have attributed many interpretations and misinterpretations to S. Res. 98, no one has misrepresented and misconstrued S. Res. 98 more so than this present administration. S. Res. 98 was intended to provide the sense of the Senate on what should be included in any future binding international treaty. The resolution laid out the conditions under which the Senate could agree to a new binding treaty that would subsequently be considered at the Kyoto conference. S. Res. 98 directed that any such treaty must include new scheduled commitments for the developing world in addition to any such requirements for industrialized nations but requirements that would be binding and mandatory and lead to real reductions in the emissions of greenhouse gases over time. This is clearly different than the minimal, vague, and voluntary commitments that we are currently pursuing. As I explained in 1997, a voluntary approach had already been tried and had already failed. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, also known as the Rio Convention, failed to reduce emissions largely because it was voluntary. That is why Kyoto concerned binding commitments, and S. Res. 98 was intended to guide that effort rather than kill that effort. The administration's climate team has merely returned to the voluntary approach of Rio, despite a complete lack of evidence that this so-called plan will ever succeed. Industrial nations have never initiated significant reductions in pollution of any type on a strictly voluntary basis. This administration must finally come to terms with taking action toward globally binding commitments. As well, developing nations, especially the largest emitters, need to be a part of any binding global climate change treaty. Another point that has been misunderstood is what S. Res. 98 would require of developing countries. An international treaty with binding commitments can and should provide for the continued growth of the world's developing nations. Unrealistically stringent emissions targets need not choke off their economic growth. The initial commitments could be relatively modest, pacing upwards depending on various factors, with a specific goal to be achieved. Today, however, the world is even further away from a credible, workable global strategy to deal on climate change than we were in 1997. The blame for this circumstance can be laid squarely at the feet of this administration which abandoned international negotiations in which it could have kept pressure on developing nations to agree to some level of mandatory emissions reductions. Moreover, developing nations should be a prime market for clean energy technology projects. But, with little pressure on those nations to reduce or contain the growth of emissions, a huge and fruitful market for those types of technologies--technologies that are being developed in the U.S.--is likely to dry up. In other words, while this nation has been making great strides in developing technologies to use our own energy resources more efficiently and more cleanly, significant efforts to help deploy these technologies overseas have been undercut by this administration's unilateral approach to climate change. Thus, S. Res. 98 was an effort to strengthen the hand of the administration as it undertook international negotiations. It enabled our negotiators to walk into talks and point to the ever-present Congress, looking over their shoulders, to ensure that the interests of the U.S. would be protected in any agreement that eventually came to fruition. The Bush administration has never understood the value of S. Res 98. Rather than employing that tool to positively influence international negotiations, it used the resolution as cover to simply walk away from the table. Having abandoned a constructive role in the global negotiations on climate change, this administration has left the U.S. in a much weaker position globally. The Bush administration must be challenged on its environmental, economic, and energy responsibilities, both domestically and internationally. The U.S. is in the best position of any nation to positively influence an international response to global climate change. Yet, we will all suffer from the consequences of global warming in the long run because we are all in the same global boat. This administration has attempted to hide behind S. Res. 98 to defend its current do-nothing and know-nothing policies on climate change, and I strongly object to that. The difference between my view and that of this administration is simple. I believe the problem is real and demands action. The administration does not. The President also claimed early in his administration that his goal was to oppose Kyoto. If the President's representatives had stayed at the table and negotiated in good faith on a treaty to comply with S. Res. 98, then the administration could have guided the world toward a new binding treaty with mandatory requirements to reduce emissions that would correct the deficiencies of Kyoto. The reality is quite different. Our nation has been represented at the international negotiations in name only. We would be better represented at the international negotiations by a row of empty chairs. That would at least accurately represent the vacuous nature of our current policies. For President Bush not only disavowed the Kyoto Protocol; he also turned his back on any negotiations because they concern a binding treaty that includes mandatory commitments. The rest of the world was outraged by this unilateral rejection of a decade of negotiations and of the new American isolationist approach to deal with climate change. And what will happen in one year or five years when a new administration enters office? What will happen if Russia does decide to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, and it enters into force? Will the administration be able to go back to the table and demand changes to binding international law that will have been in force for perhaps many years? The President's industry supporters may one day wake up and realize that they live in a partially Kyoto-controlled world where there is no turning back. One senses confusion and a lack of direction in the administration. It seems that the administration's right hand does not know what the far right hand is doing regarding its climate change policies. The White House does not know whether to believe the science or not, and they have certainly not articulated a plan of action. Finally, I am compelled to observe that it is the height of hypocrisy for this administration or its supporters in industry to claim that they are defending the goals and provisions of S. Res. 98. They cannot make such a claim in the debate today or in any international forum. Nothing could be further from the truth. This administration can no longer hide behind the mantle of that resolution. It is this administration that undermined the tenets of that resolution. They now support only vague, voluntary measures. That is true both domestically and internationally. The evidence suggests that the President's negotiators have even formed an alliance with the key emitters in the developing world, and together they oppose any additional discussion during the international negotiations of binding commitments for the developing world as called for under S. Res. 98. That is of course a logical result of the administration's policies, since it is impossible to apply binding commitments to China if we refuse to apply such standards to ourselves. We now have little hope of seeing an effort made to produce a treaty that will comply with S. Res. 98--at least not during the tenure of this President. If there is no prospect for a binding international treaty, then how can we deal with the enormous challenge posed by global warming? The critics of the amendment before us argue that we should stay the course and support the President's policies. If I may ask--what are those policies? What concrete programs have been put in place? In point of fact, the administration has asked the industry trade associations to develop their own voluntary reduction programs. The proposals are vague and actually allow emissions to continue to increase. Taken together, none of these programs is expected to result in any serious decrease in emissions. These events over the last three years have led me to conclude that we must look elsewhere for effective action on global warming. The Senate should not be put in the position in which it now stands. It should not be faced, as we are now, with the prospect of considering an energy bill devoid of provisions to address climate change. The Senate should be considering our nation's energy security from a broad view that includes a global response to climate change and the international politics of energy. Proponents of the amendment now before us argue that it sends the clear message to the White House: If President Bush rejects the advice of this body, then he is refusing to negotiate in good faith toward a binding international treaty and is only offering hollow domestic programs. The Senate has little choice but to consider further steps, including modest mandatory approaches, that would apply to our domestic economy. The amended version of S. 139 freezes emissions at their current levels rather than seeking a sharp reduction as has been the case in other approaches. The McCain-Lieberman bill also allows companies to offset their emissions, for example by planting trees that absorb and sequester carbon dioxide (CO2) or by constructing more efficient power plants in the developing world than what those nations would otherwise build--and claim the difference as an earned offset or credit. I would prefer not to be faced with a measure like this today. I note that this bill has not had committee consideration. That said, it is very much the case that several key chairmen with jurisdiction over energy or environmental policy have shown very little interest in seriously dealing with climate change. We have certainly witnessed this in the energy bill. I want to further commend Senators McCain and Lieberman for their diligence and hard work to find a middle ground. They have come a long way on this proposal. If the principles of their proposal were combined with those of other Members like mine, then the Senate could have a strong package to offer the American people. While I will not be able to vote for the amendment today, I want to make it very clear that I will work with the sponsors of this bill and other Republican and Democratic Senators who want to go beyond this administration's empty-headed approach. In closing, I want to express my own growing frustration for our seeming inability to deal with the problem at hand. I have been troubled by this for a long time. I do not believe I need any more scientific evidence to show that we have seen these changes. I have seen the changes in weather patterns, and those changes that I have personally seen during my nearly 86 years lead me to believe that there is something happening. We need to do something about it. What we do may be painful in some respects, but we owe it to our children and grandchildren to have the foresight to see that something is happening and to understand that we ought to do something about it soon. If not, we may be going beyond retrieval. So, I would say again that the two Senators are to be very much complimented. I will vote with Mr. Inhofe, for the reasons I have stated. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have long had an interest in helping to open international energy technology markets and in expanding the export of a range of U.S. clean energy technologies. In October 2002, the Bush administration, at my urging, released a nine-agency plan called the Clean Energy Technology Exports, CETE, Initiative which is intended to carry out such an effort. The participating agencies whose budgets are covered in this bill include U.S. Agency for International Development, USAID, the Export-Import Bank, ExIm, Overseas Private Investment Corporation, OPIC, and the Trade and Development Agency, TDA. To help coordinate and facilitate that work, funds have been included in the Fiscal Year 2004 Energy and Water bill to establish an interagency center to be located at the Department of Energy in order to increase U.S. efforts abroad and encourage greater public/private partnerships for such projects. It is also important that other agencies with responsibility for foreign assistance and export promotion participate in this initiative. I hope that the managers of this bill will work with me in conference to include language in the Statement of Managers to strongly urge USAID, ExIm, OPIC, and TDA to participate actively in the CETE Initiative. I want to be sure that these agencies contribute to the center's work, with funds in their existing budgets, to promote U.S. clean energy technologies in developing countries where the demand for energy is increasing dramatically.

Mr. BYRD

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. BYRD. Does that amendment need to be stated?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask that it be stated.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and I thank the clerk. I suggest my statement in support of this amendment be entitled ``Too Much Money, Too Little Accountability.'' That would be an appropriate title if I were to suggest it. This is an amendment about accountability. This is an amendment to ensure that those administration officials charged with spending taxpayer funds are held accountable to the American people and to their representatives in the Congress. To date, the Coalition Provisional Authority, CPA, has not been held accountable for the money it spends, and that is your money. That is your money, I say to the taxpayers of this great country. Those who spend it should be held accountable. That is what you believe, I am sure. Not until the President requested $20 billion in reconstruction aid for Iraq did the CPA make any effort to inform the Congress and the public about the administration's reconstruction plans. Let me say that again. This is an amendment about accountability. This is an amendment to ensure that those administration officials charged with spending taxpayer funds are held accountable to the American people and to their representatives in the Congress. To date, the Coalition Provisional Authority has not been held accountable for the money it spends--your money. Not until the President requested $20 billion in reconstruction aid for Iraq did the CPA make any effort to inform the Congress and the public about the administration's reconstruction plans. The CPA's access to nonappropriated funds--now get this--has allowed it to maintain a low profile, so low that one cannot see it, and to operate largely outside the scope of congressional oversight. Last fiscal year, the CPA, the Coalition Provisional Authority, in Iraq spent $1.7 billion in assets frozen under the Saddam Hussein regime. The CPA spent almost $1 billion in assets seized after the war. That is your money. The CPA spent $2.5 billion in oil revenues collected through the United Nations Food for Oil Program. Altogether, it spent $7.5 billion in the fiscal year 2003, including $2.5 billion appropriated in the supplemental that was passed and enacted by Congress in April of this year. This CPA did not appear before the Congress even once to explain how those funds would be spent. This year, assuming that the Congress appropriates the $20 billion in reconstruction aid requested by the President, the CPA's budget will grow to $23 billion, which includes $2 billion in unappropriated funds left over from last fiscal year and almost $1 billion included in the supplemental for the Coalition Provisional Authority's administrative expenses. At $23 billion, the Coalition Provisional Authority's budget will be more than three times what it spent in the last fiscal year. Now, that will be more than the Federal budget for seven Cabinets out of the 15 Cabinet Departments that run the Federal Government. That is a lot of money to flow through the hands of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq. The CPA's budget is four times the budget of the Commerce Department. Think of that. Do we demand accountability from the Commerce Department? The CPA's budget is twice the size of the entire Interior, Labor, and Treasury Departments and it is billions of dollars larger than the budgets of the Agriculture Department and the Justice Department. The Senate gives its advice and consent to Presidential appointments to the highest level positions in the Bush administration, or any administration. In the Clinton administration, Reagan administration, and Carter administration, the Senate gave its advice and consent to Presidential appointments to these high-level positions in the Departments. Even a lowly second lieutenant in the Army--now get this. Even a lowly second lieutenant in the Army, who is responsible for the two dozen to three dozen soldiers under his command, is subject to the confirmation by the Senate. And yet the official who is responsible for governing and rebuilding Iraq, a country made up of 23 million, 24 million people--the official with a budget larger than half the Federal departments and responsible for the livelihood of 23 million or 24 million Iraqis--is not subject to confirmation by the Senate. As it stands today, the people's representatives--that is you, Senator. That is you, Senator. And that is you, I say to every other Senator and I say it to myself as well. As it stands today, the people's representatives--that is us. I am talking about us--the people's representatives in the Senate have no say in who leads the CPA, even though the administration's endeavors in Iraq have drained $118 billion from our budget, have seized tens of thousands of National Guardsmen from our States, and have so far taken the lives of 351 U.S. soldiers in this war. The CPA claims to be vested with all the legislative, executive, and judicial authority necessary to achieve the administration's objectives in Iraq and yet the Congress has done nothing--nothing--to ensure that its administrator is held accountable to the American people. Beginning March 1, 2004, my amendment would prohibit the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq from spending any appropriated funds until its administrator has been appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. Is it asking too much, that we ask that the person, the one individual, the Coalition Provisional Authority's administrator--is it asking too much that he be appointed by the President of the United States by and with the consent of the Senate? That is not asking too much. That is in defense of the American taxpayer. That will make sure, yes, that person will be accountable to the American taxpayer, to the American people, to the representatives of the American people in Congress. The sums of money that are being spent in Iraq are enormous. This is not just chickenfeed we are talking about. We are talking about huge amounts of the taxpayers' money. That person should be accountable to the taxpayers of the country, accountable to the Congress of the United States, made up of the elected representatives of the people. The sums of money are enormous--$87 billion we spent, of which $20.3 billion would be in that amount. I said a moment ago we have appropriated already $118 billion. That includes the April supplemental and includes the supplemental we just passed. It was passed by the Senate. This is too much money to appropriate without ensuring that the decisionmakers in Iraq will be held accountable to the American people. We owe it to the taxpayers, don't we? Yes. We owe it to the taxpayers to do better than that. I urge the adoption of my amendment and I reserve the remainder of my time.

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

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, my amendment does not cut off funds for reconstruction, as I thought I understood the distinguished Senator from Kentucky to say. If I am incorrect and did not hear him say that or indicate that, I certainly would be glad to be corrected. My amendment would allow the President to allocate that money to other agencies but would not allow the CPA to spend that money until the Administrator is confirmed by the Senate. This won't shut down funding for the troops. The Senate has until March 1--4 months away--to confirm the Administrator of the CPA. After the Homeland Security Department was created, for example, the Senate confirmed Governor Tom Ridge in just a few short weeks--in just a matter of days. I think it would be the same with Ambassador Bremer. I certainly have no complaint with respect to Ambassador Bremer. My amendment is not about Ambassador Bremer, currently the head of the CPA, and all of his potential successors. They will have a great deal of authority. I say again that a lowly second lieutenant in the Army is subject to confirmation by the Senate. Surely the head of CPA should be as well. My colleague talks about the desire to bring the situation to a conclusion in Iraq as soon as possible. I agree with him that the job in Iraq should be finished as soon as possible. But it should be carried out with accountability to the elected representatives of the American people. I also add this postscript: Judging from the events as we have seen them transpire going back several months, I don't believe this situation in Iraq is going to end very quickly. It shows every indication of intensifying. We are in one big mess. I remember a time when I believed if the President and the administration were to hold out the olive branch and show an indication of willingness to share in economic and political responsibility in Iraq with major European countries and other countries in Asia and elsewhere, if that willingness had been demonstrated some months ago, there would be other major countries making large contributions in treasure and in manpower in Iraq today. But that olive branch was not extended. That willingness to share economic and political responsibility in Iraq was not voiced. It was not made manifest. Now, I hope that the train has not gone by the station without stopping. As we see the horrific events unfolding in Iraq, I am not so sure that those major European erstwhile contributors would be so willing even to contribute now. The back of the hand was extended to them before the war and it has not been otherwise since the war, to any extent. By virtue of these mistakes that the administration has made, it is not my belief that the situation in Iraq is going to end all that quickly. I hope it will. But we should not bet on that. Therefore, it would be appropriate to require the President appoint an Administrator and that the Senate be required to confirm or reject that person. That would assure the American people of accountability and of responsibility on the part of their elected representatives and on the part of the CPA Administrator. It is the right thing to do by the American people. It is the right thing to do under the Constitution because the power of the purse is vested here, in the Congress, in this body and the other body. That power of the purse carries with it the duty of oversight. Congress cannot properly oversee an administrator who is not accountable to the Congress, an administrator who has not been confirmed by the Senate. Therefore, Congress is not in a position to carry out its responsibility under the Constitution of being accountable to the American people and in accordance with the words of the Constitution. I say that it is time the Senate act. The Senate has been silent too long. The Senate was silent before the war. The Senate was silent before it voted on October 11 of last year to give the authority to the President of the United States to use the military forces of this country as he saw fit. The Congress gave the President of the United States a blank check, as it were, with respect to authority to take this Nation into war and to put these men and women, soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines, in harm's way. It was a most shameful moment when Congress washed its hands. One of the most shameful moments in the history of the Senate was when it passed the cusp and attempted to wash its hands of the responsibility of following the Constitution of the United States which says that Congress shall have the power to declare war. That moment has come and gone, but still, as the distinguished Senator from Kentucky says, our people are there. We are now there. So what do we do? I say to Senators, put yourselves into these desks, these chairs, into these shoes of ours 1 year from today and look back and see if you cast the right vote on this amendment. How will it be 1 year from today if we find we are in deeper and deeper and deeper and it has become another Vietnam--which I supported; I supported the war in Vietnam. I was practically the last person out of Vietnam because I supported the President. I supported Johnson. I supported Nixon. I supported them all the way. But one should learn by his mistakes. We were ill advised when it came to the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. We were ill advised by the administration. I voted for it. Two Senators voted against it. Wayne Morse said that the resolution would pass but that those who voted for it would be sorry. I voted for it. I was sorry. I am sorry. We should learn by our mistakes. We were not properly advised by that administration and we were not properly advised by this administration. That is why we are in Iraq. I will have more to say about that at another time. The distinguished Senator from Kentucky is right. We are there. What do we do? In this matter, we have a responsibility to hold Ambassador Bremer, or whoever is the Administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority, accountable to the Congress. It has been said that Mr. Bremer has already testified before the Congress in supporting the President's $87 billion request for Iraq. Of course he testified. Yes, he testified. He was before the Appropriations Committee a short time, a few hours. Ambassador Bremer wanted the Congress to give him $20 billion. But how often will he testify after he receives the money? How receptive will he be to further invitations to testify before congressional committees once he has received a blank check, as it were? Let's not delude ourselves to the extent which Ambassador Bremer was made available to the Congress. He testified only once before the Senate Appropriations Committee and he did not have to respond to a single outside witness called to challenge the administration's lying. Ambassador Bremer went so far as to refuse to return to the Appropriations Committee to answer additional questions because, ``I don't have time.'' He said that in response to me. I asked Ambassador Bremer if he could make himself available and would make himself available to the Senate Appropriations Committee in the event the chairman asked him to return and he said: I don't have time. I am sorry that the transcripts have not been printed--yet--but the transcripts are around, the transcripts of the hearings. He said: I don't have time. Can you imagine that? He wouldn't say that if he had to be confirmed by the Senate. He would have time. He would make himself available whether the Senate would be under the control of the Republicans or under the control of the Democrats, whatever. He would find time. He would be available. Yes, indeed. So he said: I don't have time. I am completely booked, and I have to get back to Baghdad to my duties. What are his duties? If he were required to be confirmed, his duty would be to come back before the Senate and to answer questions, and to answer questions under oath, if necessary. Senators who believe that sufficient action has been taken to ensure accountability by the CPA Administrator are kidding themselves. The CPA has not been sanctioned by the Congress. And Ambassador Bremer has not been confirmed by the U.S. Senate. Congress has no legislative ties to the CPA or its Administrator. Congress has no strings by which it can say to the Administrator: You come before this committee and, if necessary, you be prepared to take an oath that what you say is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God. That is a part of it. That is what we are talking about. The secret national security directive that created the CPA dictates that Ambassador Bremer shall report to the Secretary of Defense and the President. It does not mention the Congress. It does not mention the American people. When Tom Ridge was appointed Homeland Security Director after the September 11 attacks, the White House refused to allow him to testify before Congress. The President said: No, he is a member of my staff. Well, technically that was correct. The President opted to create a new Homeland Security Department and reorganize the Federal Government rather than allow an unconfirmed member of his administration to testify before the Congress. That kind of record should not comfort Members of Congress. We have a responsibility to the American people to ensure that the administration officials responsible for the lives of their loved ones who are fighting in Iraq and for their taxpayer dollars that are being spent in Iraq are held accountable for their actions. We must stop just passing the buck along to the President. With regard to the argument that holding these officials accountable will somehow endanger our troops, I urge Senators to reject that flimsy scare tactic. What endangers the troops is not having their decisionmakers held accountable to the people. When funds are being spent on postal ZIP Codes, garbage trucks, and escalator and garage beautification projects rather than the necessities of the troops, that is when the Congress must be the most vocal in questioning the judgment of those in the administration who wield power. I urge Senators to focus on the bigger picture. Senators should cast their votes not only with the thought of a Republican administration directing reconstruction efforts in Iraq, but with an image of a Democratic administration directing the reconstruction efforts in Iraq. I think I know what the answer would be then. We need to look beyond the party label of the current administration. I am not talking about Mr. Bremer. I spoke of his saying he didn't have time, and he didn't. Those were his words, made of his own free will. Milton wrote about man's free will, ``Paradise Lost.'' Those were Mr. Bremer's words. I have no reason to find fault with Mr. Bremer at all. He is not there without confirmation by virtue of his choice. But that is the way it is. As Walter Cronkite used to say, that is the way it was. We need to look beyond the party label. We need to take a longer term view of accountability. Let me say in closing, I thank my friend from Kentucky, who has always been a gentleman with me, has always been straightforward with me, and has conducted himself, on this occasion, as on all others, as a gentleman should. I thank him for his characteristic courtesy in this instance. I respect his argument. I respect his vote. But the record will be made and the record will stand. I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. BYRD. I have no objection to that.

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, in considering the President's $87 billion for Iraq, the House of Representatives adopted a provision that would require the U.S. official responsible for coordinating the reconstruction efforts in Iraq to be appointed by the President by and with the advice of the Senate. It is almost embarrassing that the House of Representatives had to act on behalf of the Senate to include such a requirement. The House was responding to the news that the President had appointed National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice to lead a task force that would assume responsibilities for rebuilding Iraq. Unlike Secretaries Rumsfeld and Powell, who testified before the Congress to explain the actions of Defense and State Department personnel in Iraq, the actions of the task force will likely be shielded from the public by what may be said to be executive privilege. The National Security Adviser, as a member of the President's staff, traditionally does not testify before the Congress, except under extreme circumstances. It is an unconfirmed position and its actions are hidden from the view of the Congress, the media, and the public. The House of Representatives has valid concerns that if the National Security Adviser is responsible for the administration's reconstruction efforts in Iraq, her actions could be shielded from the public. Senators will recall that the White House tried something similar to this last year. After the September 11 attacks, the White House unilaterally created the Office of Homeland Security inside the White House and used executive privilege to cloak the office and its director, Tom Ridge, from the Congress and the public. Senator Stevens and I at that time wrote to the White House, and we wrote repeatedly, seeking testimony from Mr. Ridge. But he was not allowed to testify before the Appropriations Committee or any other congressional committees. For 14 months, the actions of our chief homeland security officer, Mr. Tom Ridge, were hidden from the public. Not until the Congress forced the hand of the administration did the President acknowledge the dangers of such a situation. To end the stalemate, the President went so far as to reorganize the entire Federal Government--almost--by creating a new Department of Homeland Security, making its Secretary confirmable by the Senate. So I certainly hope the present situation won't have to be resolved by creating a new Department of Iraqi Reconstruction. The American people need to be sure that whoever the President chooses to lead the administration's reconstruction efforts in Iraq will be held accountable for their actions. The Iraqi war effort, including the recently passed supplemental, has cost the American taxpayers $118 billion; 351 U.S. soldiers have lost their lives. The administration has wagered the lives, the treasure, and international prestige of the American people on its Iraqi endeavors. With so much at stake, the Congress has a responsibility on behalf of the American people to ensure that whoever is running things in Iraq is answerable for their decisions to the Congress and to the American people. I am not just referring to the National Security Adviser; I am also referring to the Administrator of the coalition Provisional Authority that now governs Iraq. This is an entity which has not been sanctioned, which has not been approved by the Congress. Its head has not been confirmed by the Senate. It is operating without any mandate from the American public. Yet it claims to be vested by the President with all executive, legislative, and judicial authority necessary to achieve its objective. Mr. President, we are not even sure what its objectives are supposed to be. The President signed a national security directive earlier this year outlining the Iraqi civil administrator's authorities, but that directive is classified, hidden away from the American public. Yet the Congress is handing over another $20 billion to this entity without insisting that the administrator be held accountable to the representatives of the people of our country. It is an idea so absurd that even the Republican-controlled House of Representatives has tried to stop it, and with good reason. Let us look at the way the Marshall plan was crafted to rebuild Europe after World War II. In comparison, the Congress has allowed the administration to assume sweeping unchecked authorities for its efforts in Iraq. From the first, the Truman administration worked closely with the Congress in the development of a foreign aid plan to rebuild Europe. Congress did not just appropriate funds whenever the administration asked for them. Congress developed a 4-year financial aid plan. It drafted enabling legislation that was debated for months in the House and the Senate. The Congress ensured that U.S. foreign aid commitments did not put its domestic interests in peril. Unlike the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, the Federal entity responsible for overseeing the implementation of the Marshall plan was authorized by statute. The Congress defined the scope of its powers and its authorities and built a public record of 7 weeks of hearings outlining its objectives and responsibilities. President Truman not only appointed a member of the opposition party, Republican businessman Paul G. Hoffman, to head that organization, but his appointment was subject to confirmation by the Senate. The Senate Foreign Affairs Committee had the opportunity to hold hearings and to ask questions about potential conflicts of interest to determine his qualifications. On the other hand, the Coalition Provisional Authority and its Administrator can claim none of that. The Congress has not sanctioned it by law. The Senate has not given its consent to the Administrator chosen to lead it. There is no public record detailing the potential conflicts of interest that may be pertinent to the Administrator's responsibility in administering the reconstruction of Iraq. Once the Congress appropriates its budget, the Administrator of the CPA could very well just begin to decline invitations to testify before the Congress, at least until he needs more money. It could further shield its actions from the public. With so little in statute tying the Congress to the CPA, the Congress needs to assert its authority to ensure that the CPA's Administrator will be held accountable to the Congress and to the American people. While many Members of Congress may feel comfortable with the decisionmakers in the current administration, there will come a time when a new administration will take office, either Democrat or Republican, when Members of Congress may disagree with the administration officials wielding this power. We need to look beyond the party label of the current administration. We need to take a longer term view of accountability. The Republican-controlled House of Representatives has taken that longer term view. The Senate would be wise to follow the lead of the House of Representatives. So I have an amendment that would, effective March 1, 2004, prohibit the Coalition Provisional Authority from using funds appropriated until its Administrator is appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. In that way, the Congress will have a mechanism to make sure these funds are spent wisely and there be accountability of their expenditure to better protect our troops and ensure their quick return home. In proposing its $87 billion supplemental request for Iraq, the administration has urged the Congress not to walk away from our troops. The irony is that in handing this money over to administration officials who are not accountable to the American people or their representatives in the Congress, that is exactly what we would be doing. We would be throwing our hands in the air telling the administration to fix the problem themselves; the Congress will give you more money later when you need it. That is not the way the House of Representatives sees it. The Congress has more of a responsibility than that. We owe it to the troops to be more meticulous about how Iraqi reconstruction dollars are being spent. We owe it to the troops to ask questions and to ensure that the CPA is making decisions in their best interest. So I urge Senators not to turn away from the troops. The Senate should follow the lead of the House of Representatives and ensure accountability for how taxpayer dollars are spent. I urge the adoption of the amendment which I shall offer. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so that I may offer an amendment.

Mr. BYRD. I send to the desk an amendment.