Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. It does. The Senator has stated the situation very well. Our forefathers disdained even a gentle master. Now here we are, we come along, and we pass this bill with these provisions, fulfilling the control of the power of the purse by the Congress, and then we turn around and say: The President may reallocate these funds as he pleases. Do we want to be like that? I am not ready to make a King George. It is President George Bush now. I am not ready to make him King George Bush. If that is what you want to do, this is the place to start. So I hope Members will vote for my amendment. Congress should retain its power of the purse. But always read the fine print. That is what the fine print says. Then the supplemental bill also gives the Secretary of Defense the authority to transfer among accounts up to $5 billion of the $65.6 billion in funds for the military.

Mr. BYRD. Very well. I hope the Senate will support my amendment.

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

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

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

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

Mr. BYRD. No, Mr. President.

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

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I wish to express appreciation to the other Senators who have spoken in support of this amendment: Senator Kennedy, Senator Leahy, Senator Boxer. There are some other cosponsors of the amendment who may or may not wish to speak on it: Senators Harkin, Durbin, Jeffords, and Kerry. The amendment provides that not more than $5 billion may be obligated or expended before April 1, 2004, from the total of $20.3 billion. It provides that the excess of the total amount so appropriated over $5 billion may not be obligated or expended after April 1, 2004. We are talking about $10 billion of the $20 billion--$10 billion may not be obligated or expended after April 1, unless, 1, the President submits to Congress in writing certain certifications and unless Congress enacts an appropriations law, other than this act, that authorizes the expenditure of such funds. Keep in mind, I say to Senators, the $5.1 billion provided under the heading ``Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund for Security,'' including public safety requirements, national security, and justice, which includes funds for Iraqi border enforcement, and so on--keep in mind that these moneys are not affected. They will go forward to Iraq--the $5.1 billion for the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund for Security. They will go forward immediately, and $5 billion of the remaining $15 billion may be spent before April 1, 2004. The passage of this bill would provide for such expenditures. But the remaining $10 billion would not, could not be obligated before April 1, 2004, and may not be obligated or expended after April 1, 2004, unless the President submits to Congress in writing certain certifications described in the amendment and Congress enacts an appropriations law, other than this act, that authorizes the obligation and expenditure of the remainder of the fund. Now, the certifications that have to be provided by the President of the United States before the remaining $10 billion may be expended are as follows, in brief: a certification that the U.N. Security Council has adopted a resolution that authorizes a multinational security force under United States leadership for post-Saddam Hussein Iraq and provides for a central role for the U.N. in the political and economic development and reconstruction of Iraq; and the President must also certify that there must result a substantially increased contribution of military forces and amounts of money by other countries to assist in the restoration of security in Iraq and the reconstruction of Iraq. There must be a certification by the President that the United States reconstruction activities in Iraq are being successfully implemented in accordance with a detailed plan, which includes fixed timetables and costs and with a significant commitment of financial assistance from other countries, so that the American taxpayer does not have to continue to bear all the burden; a detailed plan that provides for the establishment of economic and political stability in Iraq, including prompt restoration of basic services, such as water and electrical services; the adoption of a democratic constitution in Iraq, the holding of local and national elections in Iraq, the establishment of a democratically elected government in Iraq that has broad public support, and the establishment of Iraqi security and armed forces that are fully trained and appropriately equipped and are able to defend Iraq and carry out other security duties without the involvement of the United States Armed Forces--so that American men and women who are bearing the military burden there today can come home. Additionally, not later than March 1, 2004, the President shall submit to Congress a report on United States and foreign country involvement in Iraq that includes the following information: 1, the number of military personnel from other countries that are supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom, together with an estimate of the number of such personnel to be in place in Iraq for that purpose on May 1, 2004; 2, the total amounts of financial donations pledged and paid by other countries for the reconstruction of Iraq; 3, a description of the economic, political, and military situation in Iraq, including the number, the type, and location of attacks on coalition, U.N., and Iraqi military public safety and civilian personnel in the 60 days preceding the date of the report; 4, a description of the measures taken to protect United States military personnel serving in Iraq; 5, a detailed plan containing fixed timetables and costs for establishing civil, economic, and political security in Iraq, including restoration of basic services, such as water and electricity services; 6, an estimate of the total number of United States and foreign military personnel that are necessary in the short term and in the long term to bring to Iraq stability and security for its reconstruction, including the prevention of sabotage that impedes the reconstruction efforts; 7, an estimate of the duration of the United States military presence in Iraq and the levels of United States military personnel strength that will be necessary for that presence for each of the future 6-month periods, together with a rotation plan for combat divisions, combat support units, and combat service support units; 8, an estimate of the total cost to the United States of the military presence in Iraq that includes, A, the estimated incremental cost of the United States Active-Duty Forces deployed in Iraq and neighboring countries; B, the estimated cost of United States Reserve component forces mobilized for service in Iraq and in neighboring countries; C, the estimated cost of replacing United States military equipment being used in Iraq; D, the estimated cost of support to be provided by the United States to foreign troops in Iraq; Furthermore, an estimate of the total financial cost of the reconstruction of Iraq together with, A, an estimate of the percentage of such costs that would be paid by the United States and a detailed accounting specified for major categories of cost and, B, the amounts of contributions pledged and paid by other countries, specified in major categories; 10, a strategy for securing significant additional international financial support for the construction of Iraq, including a discussion of the plan for implementing the strategy; 11, a schedule including fixed timetables and costs for the establishment of Iraqi security and armed forces that are fully trained and appropriately equiped and are able to defend Iraq and carry out other security duties without the involvement of the United States Armed Forces; 12, an estimated schedule for the withdrawal of United States and foreign armed forces from Iraq; so here we have a requirement in the report that is to be submitted by the President, an estimated schedule for the withdrawal of United States and foreign armed forces from Iraq; 13, an estimated schedule for the adoption of a democratic constitution in Iraq, the holding of democratic local and national elections in Iraq, the establishment of a democratically elected government in Iraq that has broad public support; And, finally, the timely withdrawal of United States and foreign armed forces from Iraq. Every 90 days, after the submission of this report, under subsection C, the President shall submit to Congress an update of that report. The requirement for updates under the preceding sentence shall terminate upon the withdrawal of the United States Armed Forces other than diplomatic security detachment personnel from Iraq. The report and updates shall be submitted in unclassified form. Here at last is a requirement that the President provide a report to the Congress and to the American people, information the Congress has needed and requested but which has been denied thus far. This amendment would require that the President make these certifications I have mentioned and that he submit a report which outlines the various provisions I have read and, in the final analysis, he has to submit a timetable for the withdrawal of American men and women from Iraq. It is time for the U.N. to get in and the U.S. to get out. That is what this amendment would require, in essence. The amendment would help save American lives. It would ease the Iraqi fears that America is following a policy of compassionate colonialism. This amendment moves reconstruction forward. This amendment moves Iraq forward. This amendment brings the world together in the overall peace effort on those distant sands. This amendment would put in motion a plan--a real plan--that would bring peace more quickly and stability more assuredly, and it would say to the people of Iraq that the United States is your friend, not your sovereign. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. BYRD. Very well. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I congratulate the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee. He is always on the job. And he is effective. He is characteristically courteous. I commend him on the progress he has made already on the bill. There are several cosponsors of this amendment. I hope they will come to the floor and join in the debate concerning the amendment. I need their voices to blend with my own, mine being the weakest of all. But I need the cosponsors to join and make this supreme effort here to have the Senate adopt this extremely worthwhile amendment. In all the discussion surrounding the President's request for $20.3 billion for reconstruction activities in Iraq and Afghanistan--in the question of whether the funding should be in the form of a grant or a loan, in the revelation of a series of frivolous proposed expenditures, in the dispute over whether reconstruction funding is a gold-plated add-on or an integral part of the occupation strategy--there is an overriding issue that we must not allow to be lost in the noise of the debate. That issue involves the fact that American taxpayers--American taxpayers--are being presented virtually the entire bill for the stabilization and reconstruction of Iraq because of decisions that were made by the President before the war began, decisions to embrace an unprecedented doctrine of preemption and to invade Iraq without the support of the United Nations or the international community. Those decisions are coming home to haunt us today. The chickens are coming home to roost. Because of the President's obstinance and go-it- alone mentality, it is American soldiers who are patrolling the most dangerous streets and cities of Iraq, and it is American taxpayers who are being asked to foot the bill for the stabilization and reconstruction of Iraq--American soldiers and American taxpayers. It appears there is little relief in sight. After seesawing back and forth, the United Nations Security Council is now expected to accept a revised U.S. resolution on Iraq, but the resolution on the table is little more than a fancy fig leaf designed to camouflage an empty gesture. The resolution proposed by the United States cedes no meaningful authority to the United Nations and is likely to have little impact on the number of foreign troops or the amount of international financial assistance the United Nations will provide for the stabilization and the reconstruction of Iraq. American troops in Iraq and American taxpayers at home need real help from the international community. The President needs to reach out to the United Nations, not merely attempt to paper over the glaring lack of support from the international community with a resolution that, as some Texans are wont to say, is all hat and no cattle. The administration's reckless misadventure in Iraq is exacting a high price in lost lives, lost respect for our Nation in the world, and lost ground in the war on terrorism. And yet, in the past week, the only visible response from the President to the continuing chaos in Iraq has been to reshuffle the chain of command in Washington by creating a new entity to consolidate Iraq's reconstruction in the White House instead of the Pentagon. The President misses the point. Instead of rearranging the chairs on the deck, the President should be changing direction. Creating a new Iraq policy shop in the White House will not bring relief to American soldiers on the ground, and it will not save American taxpayers from having to shoulder, virtually alone, the staggering financial burden of rebuilding Iraq. Now, the American people, in the first place, did not buy on to this idea that we were going to rebuild Iraq. They were not told that. They were not told we were going to rebuild a nation there. They were not told about the staggering costs of rebuilding Iraq. If there is any shift in the balance of power over the reconstruction of Iraq--and there should be--it must be across oceans, not just across the Potomac. It is long past time to bring in the United Nations as a full partner with shared responsibility and shared decisionmaking for the future of Iraq. The President does not need another in-house committee to advise him on the future of Iraq. He needs to internationalize the stabilization and the reconstruction effort. Instead of instituting meaningful change in his Iraq policy, the President presented a bait-and-switch proposition to the American people: Don't look too closely at the policy, just keep your attention on the policy shop. We cannot undo what has been done in Iraq. But we can chart a better course for the future. First and foremost, the Bush administration should drop its stubborn insistence that the world community not have any authority in the political reconstruction of Iraq. The resolution that will be considered at the United Nations Security Council this morning makes some progress in promoting cooperation between the United Nations and the Iraqi Governing Council but keeps the United Nations at an arm's length from the Coalition Provisional Authority. It is this authority, headed by Paul Bremer, that exercises total authority in postwar Iraq. If you don't believe what I have said about total authority, just listen. Ambassador Bremer's first regulation as head of the Coalition Provisional Authority reads in part as follows: The CPA is vested with all executive, legislative, and judicial authority-- How about that? ``The CPA is vested with all,'' not just an itty- bitty part-- executive, legislative, and judicial authority necessary to achieve its objectives. . . . Take a look at the first sentence in article I of the Constitution of the United States which I hold in my hands. The first sentence in this Constitution, article I, section 1: All legislative Powers granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. What a sweeping investiture of power that first sentence makes--``all legislative power.'' It doesn't say anything about executive or judicial power, ``all legislative power.'' But listen to this, Ambassador Bremer's first regulation as head of the Coalition Provisional Authority: The CPA is vested with all executive, legislative, and judicial authority necessary to achieve its objectives, to be exercised under relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions, including Resolution 1483 (2003), and the laws and usages of war. This authority shall be exercised by the CPA administrator. What an enormous grant of power that is. The new resolution that will be voted on today at the United Nations will not change the supreme authority claimed by Paul Bremer who was installed in his post by the President without offering his nomination to the U.S. Senate for its advice and consent. There is power--power. Remember the old song: There is power, power, wonder working power. Well, if the international community is going to continue to be squeezed out of the political decisionmaking in the Coalition Provisional Authority, there is little incentive for the world to mobilize to come to the aid of postwar Iraq. The President's ``my way or the highway'' approach to the governance of Iraq undermines the mission in Iraq and ignores the will of the American people. The United Nations is willing to help, but only if the administration drops its false pride and its bravado. ``Bring them on,'' the President said. That is bravado. Before coming into office, then-candidate Bush talked of a humble approach to foreign policy. ``Let us reject the blinders of isolationism, just as we refuse the crown of empire,'' he said. ``Let us not dominate others with our power or betray them with our indifference,'' he said. ``And let us have an American foreign policy that reflects American character,'' he said. ``The modesty of true strength, the humility of real greatness,'' the President said. Those were the words of candidate George W. Bush, but they have been far from the practice of President George W. Bush. Similarly, the administration ought to rethink its extreme good- versus-evil mantra that seems to be running this Nation's foreign policy into a morass of confusion and danger. The administration's obstinance continues to strain America's relationship with other countries and undermines our credibility with other foreign powers. President Bush committed the United States to war without broad international support. He said: If you don't do it, we will. He said: If the United Nations doesn't do it, we will. He refused to go back to the United Nations prior to launching military attacks and continues to stiff-arm the international community even today, when that help is so vital to the long-term interests of Iraq. Instead, the Bush administration has adopted a go-it-alone mentality that threatens the stability of the Middle East and could spill over into other global areas. The United States needs help in Iraq. The United States needs a plan that will bring relief to our overburdened soldiers by attracting significantly more foreign troops to Iraq and bring relief to our overburdened taxpayers by attracting financial assistance from the international community for reconstruction. The President's proposal does neither. His $87 billion spending request places the entire burden of securing and rebuilding Iraq squarely on the shoulders of the American forces and American taxpayers. That burden ought not be carried by the United States alone. That is why Senator Kennedy, Senator Leahy, other Senators and I have proposed an alternative. What Senator Kennedy, Senator Leahy, and other Senators and I have offered is more than an invitation to the international community to assume a large and vital role in the reconstruction of Iraq; it is a demand, on behalf of the American people, that the President go to the nations of the world and work in partnership with those other nations of the world. It is a mandate for a new policy in Iraq, a policy that will bring peace more quickly and stability more assuredly. The amendment, in effect, says: Mr. President, your plan for Iraq has not worked. It is costing lives every day and it is jeopardizing the long-term security of the Middle East. We need to share political power in Iraq with the United Nations, and we must be willing to listen to the rest of the world, share the responsibility, attract new partners for peace, and protect our men and women in Iraq. That is what this amendment would require. It is a commonsense approach to what is quickly becoming an American quagmire in Iraq. These are dangerous times, Mr. President. These are dangerous times-- times that demand determined, disciplined leadership. The path ahead is not a certain one, but what is certain is that the United States cannot afford to blaze this path alone. America relied on strong alliances, diplomacy, and, only when necessary, armed force to lead the world in the 20th century. But the Bush administration's 21st century America seems all too ready to focus solely on armed force rather than on strong alliances and diplomacy. Simply put, we need a plan that would bring relief to the American soldiers, to help U.S. troops by attracting significantly more foreign military troops to Iraq; and we need a plan that will bring relief to the overburdened American taxpayers by attracting meaningful financial assistance from the international community for the reconstruction of Iraq. We need a framework to begin to bring American troops home, supplemented by international forces on the ground--not just on paper-- in Iraq. Currently, the United States has approximately 120,000 troops in Iraq. They are augmented by about 20,000 foreign forces, primarily from Great Britain. Another 10,000 troops from Turkey would help, but it would still leave more than 100,000 American troops in Iraq for the foreseeable future. In an interview published in the Chicago Tribune on October 5, LTG Ricardo Sanchez, the head of the coalition forces in Iraq, predicted that it would be years--years--not months, before the United States can draw down its forces from Iraq. The American people were not told that, were they, when we went into this war? No, they were not told that. The men and women in the National Guard and Reserves were not told that, were they--that it would be years, not months, before the United States could draw down its forces from Iraq? Until a new Iraqi Army is trained and ready to assume command, the only relief for American soldiers is to build up foreign troop presence in Iraq. International financial assistance is equally important. The American taxpayers cannot afford to bear the full cost of the reconstruction of Iraq. We all know that the $20.3 billion requested by the President in this supplemental is just the beginning, just a downpayment. It is not the alpha and the omega of American taxpayers' dollars that will be asked by the administration in this enterprise. The Wall Street Journal recently reported that rebuilding Iraq is expected to cost $56 billion over the next 4 years, according to an estimate reached by the World Bank, the United Nations, and the Coalition Provisional Authority. So far, other countries have pledged less than $2 billion to the effort. The amendment that Senators Kennedy, Leahy, and I are offering would require the President to reach out to other nations for both military and financial support--reach out, reach out to other nations. Our amendment provides that, after April 1, 2004, Iraq relief and reconstruction funds can only be obligated if, one, the President certifies to Congress that the U.N. has adopted a new resolution authorizing a multinational security force under U.S. leadership in Iraq and providing a central role for the U.N. in the political and economic development of Iraq; two, the President certifies that he has a detailed plan in place for the reconstruction of Iraq, including a significant commitment of financial assistance from other nations; three, Congress approves the release of the rest of the funds for the reconstruction of Iraq in another appropriations bill. As part of his certification to Congress, the President must establish a plan; he must establish a timetable for withdrawing American troops from Iraq. This is the way to get the U.N. in and the U.S. out. It is a real alternative to the administration's bull-rush approach, and it is a significant gesture to the Iraqi people that America is not an occupier but a real liberator. The Byrd-Kennedy-Leahy amendment limits the funds for the reconstruction of Iraq that may be obligated prior to April 1, 2004, to the $5.1 billion fund for Iraqi security and $5 billion for economic reconstruction. Our amendment compels the President to work with the United Nations. Our amendment requires Congress to evaluate the progress of the reconstruction effort at the halfway mark next year. Most important, our amendment changes the course of the Iraq relief and reconstruction effort from a unilateral burden to an international obligation. It is important to note that the full $5.1 billion that the administration has requested for the Iraq Defense Corps and for improving the Iraqi national security force is exempted from this amendment. Only the nonsecurity portion of the reconstruction program is subject to a second vote. It seems to me that this is the least we can do to provide relief to American soldiers in Iraq--to have a timetable to bring those American soldiers home to once again reunite with their families--and to safeguard the interests of the American taxpayers in the administration's program to finance the rebuilding of Iraq. We have a far clearer vision today of the cost of rebuilding Iraq than we did 6 months ago. I think we have a right to assume that we will have an even better assessment--or we certainly should have--6 months from now. This amendment gives the President 6 months to round up international military and financial support for Iraq and gives his administration 6 months to demonstrate that the reconstruction program is working. Most importantly, the amendment gives the American people--the American people who are bearing the burden in the heat of the day--it gives the American people some assurance that Congress is not walking away from its responsibility to provide oversight of the hard-earned tax dollars that are going to Iraq. If all goes as planned, Congress can quickly and in good conscience release the remainder of the money, but if unforeseen problems or serious shortfalls in expectations emerge, Congress has an opportunity to make a midcourse correction in America's involvement in postwar Iraq. It is the American taxpayers money, you who are out there in the plains, the mountains, and the valleys of America looking through these electronic lenses. It is your money, your money--deserve no less. This is not an anti-reconstruction amendment. It does not affect any of the money being appropriated for American military operations in Iraq. It requires, rather, a progress report and a certification from the President of the United States at the halfway mark, and it provides for a vote--another vote--a vote from the people's representatives in Congress on whether the remaining funds for Iraq reconstruction are needed and are justified. This is a simple amendment to interject congressional oversight into the expenditure of United States taxpayer dollars for the reconstruction of Iraq. I urge my colleagues to accept the amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?

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

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

Mr. BYRD. I hope the Senator will not press for an agreement this early in the morning. We can move right along. Senators are here. Senator Leahy is here; Senator Kennedy is here; Senator Boxer is here. We are prepared to move along. We are not attempting to drag out the time. I hope the Senator will allow Senators to go forward with this debate. We will save time in the long run by so doing.

Mr. BYRD. Not yet, Mr. President.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this amendment is cosponsored by Senators Byrd, Kennedy, Leahy, Boxer, Harkin, Jeffords, and Kerry. The administration needs to change its course in Iraq. If the United States is ever to work successfully with the international community to obtain the contributions of troops and money that are needed to share the heavy burden of postwar Iraq, the White House must take real steps to share power with the United Nations. The Byrd-Kennedy-Leahy amendment would push the administration to do more to share power in Iraq. It would also require the President to submit reports to Congress about the participation of other countries in Iraq, as well as a plan for supporting American troops by bringing them home. The amendment gives the President $10.1 billion in reconstruction funds immediately but requires another vote by Congress before the other $10.2 billion in reconstruction funds can be spent. It is imperative that Congress review the situation in 6 months to determine whether the President's efforts at the U.N. have paid off in more foreign contributions to the future of Iraq. Congress should also evaluate the President's plan for how to get the U.N. in, and the U.S. out of, Iraq. A vote in 6 months' time on whether to release the additional $10.2 billion in reconstruction funding would give Congress the opportunity to make a midcourse correction if our occupation of Iraq is still going poorly. The Byrd-Kennedy-Leahy amendment is a simple amendment to help Congress watch the people's money and to support our troops by getting the international help they need. Mr. President, I urge the Senators to support the amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Sure.

Mr. BYRD

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

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

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, 1 year ago this week, the President signed the congressional resolution authorizing him to go to war against Iraq. That signing was a historic moment for the United States. For the first time in our history, the President asked Congress for authority to launch an invasion against a sovereign nation that did not constitute a clear and imminent threat to the safety of the American people. And for the first time in our history, the President demanded that Congress give him unconditional power to initiate war whenever he wanted, limited by nothing but his own judgment. The President wanted war on his own terms, and Congress granted him everything he asked for. For the next 5 months, the President and his top advisors turned a deaf ear to growing concerns about the administration's judgment. When intelligence analysts warned that the White House was acting on questionable conclusions, those analysts were ignored. When Members of Congress dared to ask questions about the President's war plans, they were branded as unpatriotic. When our oldest allies disagreed with the argument that immediate war was the only answer, they were dismissed and called irrelevant. Top administration officials who publicly contradicted the President's rosy predictions were fired, and the American public was kept in the dark about what Iraq would look like after the war. On several occasions, I stood on the floor and asked: After Iraq, what? What shall we expect the morning after the war? Confident that the reconstruction of Iraq was a job that could be handled without involving Congress too much or the United Nations, President Bush delegated the task to retired GEN Jay Garner, who quietly went to work with support from the Pentagon. The American people were not told much about General Garner or what he was doing in Iraq. Most Members of Congress didn't know anything more about him than what they read in the papers. So when General Garner was given his walking papers and replaced with Ambassador Paul Bremer without explanation or fanfare, Congress had no real information to judge what the shake-up would mean for the United States occupation of Iraq. In the days after President Bush made his flamboyant landing on the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln to announce to the world that the United States had accomplished its mission in Iraq--that was the banner headline over and above his head--most of the country was too distracted celebrating the military triumph to think much about the President's appointment of Paul Bremer to serve as a Presidential envoy in Iraq. With the President declaring victory and the administration continuing to assure the public that we would be welcomed as liberators--a la Vice President Cheney--and that Iraq's oil revenues would pay for reconstruction, the administration hoped that no one would bother to notice the management changes it was making in Iraq. The administration moved quickly to set up a reconstruction team on the ground in Iraqi that would answer only to the President and the Secretary of Defense. In May, the President issued a classified National Security Directive creating the Coalition Provisional Authority, CPA. That document remains classified, and the administration has provided very little public information about the powers and authorities of the CPA. All we really know from the White House is that Ambassador Bremer, as administrator of the CPA, reports to the President through the Secretary of Defense. But after the recent announcement that National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice will be coordinating reconstruction policy from within the White House, who knows what the chain of command looks like today or will look like tomorrow? Getting a clear picture of how the CPA operates has proved to be difficult, but it is clear Ambassador Bremer wields an extraordinary amount of power and independence in Iraq. And, if you don't believe it, listen to this. On May 16, the CPA issued its first regulation in Iraq in which it spelled out its authority in no uncertain terms. Section 1 of that regulation stated: The CPA is vested with all executive, legislative, and judicial authority necessary to achieve its objectives, to be exercised under relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions, including resolution 1483, and the laws and usages of war. This authority shall be exercised by the CPA Administrator. That is broad, broad, virtually without limitation, if the reading means what it says. Let's read that again. The CPA is vested with all executive, legislative, and judicial authority. Take a look at the Constitution of the United States. Let's see what it says, in the very first article, the very first section of that article, and then compare that authority with the authority I have just read. Here is what article I, section 1, of the Constitution says about the legislative authority. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. That is one sentence, and it vests all legislative powers in a Congress of the United States. Well, section 1 of the regulation, which I have just read, says it is the CPA that is vested with all executive, legislative, and judicial authority necessary to achieve its objectives. My, what authority that is. It does not stop with just legislative authority. It talks about executive, legislative, and judicial authority. Read that again. The CPA is vested with all executive, legislative, and judicial authority necessary to achieve its objectives, to be exercised under relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions, including resolution 1483, and the laws and usages of war. This authority shall be exercised by the CPA Administrator. There is a man mountain for you, with all that authority. That is a powerful statement, especially for an agency that has never been authorized by Congress and an administrator who was not confirmed by the Senate for his position. How about that? The CPA under Paul Bremer has the power to run the Iraqi Government ministries, the power to appoint Iraqi officials, the power to award lucrative private contracts for reconstruction. The CPA also oversees local police and even sets public curfews in Baghdad. Now the CPA is looking to further consolidate its powers with an unprecedented request to spend over $20 billion of your money. I say to you out there who are looking at this Chamber through those electronic lenses there: It is your money, your money. But here we are going to consolidate the powers of the CPA with an unprecedented request to spend over $20 billion of the American taxpayers' money, your money, with little oversight by the Congress. Until now, the CPA has financed its various activities from a number of different sources, including billions of dollars in seized Iraqi assets. The CPA was not accountable to Congress for much of this spending, and it made very little effort to keep Congress and the public informed about the administration's reconstruction plans. So, the White House let Paul Bremer maintain a low profile for months in Iraq before the President finally spoke to the American people about what was happening on the ground in Iraq. But now the President has admitted that rebuilding Iraq will be a much tougher job than he had promised, and it will come with a bigger pricetag. I must say, however, the pricetag had never been mentioned. We attempted to find out from the administration what the pricetag would be, but the administration chose to stay mum about that. But now we find this business of rebuilding Iraq is going to come with a big, big pricetag. That means Paul Bremer needs more money, more of your money. It is your money that Paul Bremer needs. So the administration was forced to loosen its grip of secrecy, just long enough to send Ambassador Bremer to testify before Congress about the need for additional funding. And in one instance, when I asked Mr. Bremer when he was before the Appropriations Committee, ``Will you find it possible to appear before this committee again if the chairman so directs,'' what was Mr. Bremer's answer? I'm too busy. I am too busy. I'm too busy. I regret we don't have those hearings printed, but the transcripts are around and those were his words: I'm too busy. Don't be fooled. The public relations campaign with Congress will last only as long as it takes to get this massive bill pushed through both Houses in one piece. In typical fashion, the administration has been willing to say whatever Congress wanted to hear in order to get its way. We heard a lot of talk about plans and accountability, but the information given to Congress was long on rhetoric, short on substance. After all of the detailed spending requests and so-called plans from the CPA, what we are left with today is a bill before the Senate that gives Paul Bremer a blank check. Did you hear it? Did you hear it? A blank check, that is what it is. Give to Mr. Bremer a blank check, a blank check to spend $20 billion as a start. However, once this bill leaves Congress, the administration can throw its plans out the window and restore tight controls over information to prevent any meaningful oversight or scrutiny of its activities. Is that the way you want your money managed? Congress cannot simply trust the CPA to voluntarily cooperate with oversight of reconstruction spending. This administration has a long track record. It would not even take an elephant to remember how long that track record is. It has a long track record of stonewalling Congress. And, so far, Iraq has been no exception. The CPA took over the reins of Iraq's government 5 months ago, yet Congress still has very little useful information to evaluate its progress in Iraq thus far, let alone the merits of future spending needs. If Congress has any hope of holding the administration accountable for the reconstruction plans it is proposing today, Congress needs a mechanism to ensure accountability from the CPA. Ambassador Bremer testified before Congress that the activities of the CPA will be fully transparent and accountable, but some of his own statements suggested that he was reluctant to cooperate with committee oversight. In particular, I was troubled by comments he made about congressional access to the CPA's financial records. When he testified before the Appropriations Committee, Ambassador Bremer told the committee that the CPA had detailed records of all of its receipts and outlays that could be audited by Congress. However, when he appeared before the Armed Services Committee only 3 days later, he said the Office of Management and Budget was responsible for maintaining those records, and Congress would have to go to the White House for access to the CPA's records. Throughout my long years in Congress, I have seen the White House occupied by Presidents of both parties, and I know from experience that one needs to be skeptical when referred to the White House for oversight information. There is no reason why any arm of the executive branch charged with making such significant spending decisions should not be working directly with Congress. When we are talking about handing over another $20 billion to the CPA, there is a real need for Congress to confirm that the CPA has its finances in order and that the CPA is managing the taxpayers' money--your money--responsibly. The amendment that I and other Senators are offering will require the Coalition Provisional Authority to report to Congress--how about that? That is not asking too much--on its receipts and expenditures as the reconstruction efforts move forward in Iraq. Let me say that again. This amendment will require the Coalition Provisional Authority, the CPA, to report to Congress--yes; the people's branch of government--to report to Congress on the CPA's receipts and expenditures as the reconstruction efforts move forward in Iraq. These reports will be submitted on a quarterly basis beginning on January 1, 2004. Building on the reporting requirements already in the bill, this amendment calls for an accounting of both appropriated funds and other sources, such as oil revenues and foreign contributions. This is information that the CPA is already tracking. So it shouldn't be too much of a burden to share that information with Congress, especially given the CPA's extraordinary flexibility in spending taxpayer dollars. Ambassador Bremer assured the committee during the committee hearing that he would comply with any reporting requirements Congress chose to include in this legislation. This amendment also directs the Comptroller General of the United States to audit the spending records of the CPA. What is wrong with that? How about that? The amendment also directs the Comptroller General of the United States to audit the spending records of the CPA-- we should all be for that--so that the General Accounting Office can provide Congress with a clear understanding of how reconstruction activities are being managed in Iraq. In its report to Congress, the General Accounting Office must outline the authorities and organization of the CPA, the CPA's relationship to the White House and other executive agencies, and the CPA's use of private contractors to perform critical reconstruction services in Iraq. I think most people would agree with the purpose here. Let me say it again. In its report to Congress, the GAO must outline the authorities and organizations of the CPA, the CPA's relationship to the White House and other executive agencies--and get this--and the CPA's use of private contractors to perform critical reconstruction services in Iraq. The most important power vested in Congress by the Constitution is the power over the purse. Englishmen spent centuries and shed blood to wrest that power from tyrannical monarchs and vest it in the people's branch, the House of Commons. And our forbearers in our own country brought with them that legacy, brought with them to these shores that principle, that power over the purse vested in the people's branch. So they wrote it in this Constitution which I hold in my hand. Our Framers wrote it in there. Article I, section 9 of this Constitution vests the power of the purse in this branch. That is where it has been. That is where it is. This power carries with it the duty to ensure that the people's money--your money--is being spent wisely. Congress must be able to follow that money wherever it goes, but right now our money may soon disappear into a whirling storm of White House rhetoric and wartime profiteering. Without this amendment, following the money will only get harder as the President continues to reorganize the chain of command in Iraq and avoid straight answers to tough questions about the success of our reconstruction efforts. If the constitutional power of the purse means anything at all, it must at least require that the people's elected representatives here in Congress have a right to know how the Government is spending the Nation's treasury. I urge the Senate to protect its own powers and live up to its oversight responsibilities, and I urge Senators to support this amendment. I yield the floor.

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

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