Mark Dayton

Mr. DAYTON

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

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Reid of Nevada be added as an original cosponsor of the amendment.

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, this amendment would increase the funding for economic development assistance aid to Afghanistan by $500 million. The bill before us provides only $225 million in economic development assistance through the Economic Security Fund and then some portion of $172 million identified for development and health. Last year, in fiscal year 2004, the Congress appropriated $900 million in economic development aid and $172 million for development in health through the regular and the supplemental appropriations bills. Those combined categories in total appropriations under this bill will drop from $1.71 billion from the current fiscal year, to $397 million for 2005. That is a cut in funding of 63 percent from one year to the next. My amendment will increase next year's Afghanistan development aid to $897 million, which is still 15 percent less than it is in the current fiscal year. What kind of message does this bill send to Afghanistan President Karzai and to his Government--one of their leaders was almost assassinated last week--and to the people of Afghanistan just before they hold their elections? This is probably not the intent of the bill, but there was a 60- percent cut in economic development assistance that was too little before. Afghanistan is not a wealthy country like Iraq. It will be when its oil reserves can be developed. Afghanistan, right now, is poverty and poppies--opium. The more poverty they have, the more poppies they will grow. Just 3 months ago, President Karzai made a strong appeal to all of us in a joint session of Congress for more aid. That was following the necessary war which this Senate supported unanimously in September of 2001, for which I voted along with all of us who were present at that time. Our courageous Armed Forces succeeded in 10 weeks and accomplished what the former Soviet Union could not achieve in 10 years. Our Armed Forces routed the Taliban and al-Qaida but left political, social, and economic vacuums that have not been filled--at least not by the right elements. President Karzai stated eloquently and emphatically 3 months ago the need for more aid. He said, and I quote in part: We must build a partnership that will consolidate our achievements and enhance stability, prosperity and democracy in Afghanistan and in the region. This requires sustaining and accelerating the reconstruction of Afghanistan through long-term commitments. That is what President Karzai said to six of us in January of 2002 in Kabul in a bipartisan delegation that was led by our Democratic leader, Senator Daschle. Yet the Bush response to that plea has been tepid. The world response has been cold. This bill would ice the effort with a 60-percent economic development aid cut. In fact, the entire bill's total military and nonmilitary aid to Afghanistan combined is less than half of the fiscal 2004 appropriation--less than half. Mr. President, today's New York Times has an editorial entitled ``A Chance of Success Slips Away,'' by J Alexander Thier, a fellow at the Hoover Institution in California. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. DAYTON. I would like to read a few portions of Mr. Thier's analysis: President Bush describes Afghanistan, the first front on the war on terrorism, as a success. In comparison to Iraq, perhaps it is. But if you look at Afghanistan on its own merits, the lack of progress is disheartening. In 2002, President Bush promised a ``Marshall Plan'' for the country, with the goal of turning Afghanistan into a stable, democratic state. . . .Yet in nearly three years we have failed to create security, stability, prosperity or the rule of law in Afghanistan. . . . .Our efforts in Afghanistan are underfinanced and undermanned, and our attention is waning. The root of the problem is that we invaded Afghanistan to destroy something--the Taliban and Al Qaeda--but we didn't think much about what would grow in its place. . . . Afghanistan has become a collection of warlord-run fiefs fueled by a multibillion-dollar opium economy. Continuing with Mr. Thier's editorial remarks: Our Army continues to hunt insurgents in the mountains, but we have refused to take the steps necessary to secure the rest of the country, and it shows. More coalition and Afghan government soldiers and aid workers have died this year than in each of the previous two. This summer, Doctors Without Borders, which has worked in the most desperate and dangerous conditions around the world, pulled out of Afghanistan after 24 years. In other words, the group felt safer in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation and the civil war that followed than it did three years after the United States-led coalition toppled the Taliban. He concludes by stating: Our experience demonstrates that you can't fight wars, or do nation-building, on the cheap. Afghanistan should be a critical election issue this year, but Iraq looms much larger in the public mind. Unless the next administration steps up to the plate, it may well be an issue in four years, when we start asking, ``Who lost Afghanistan?'' I submit that tonight is our opportunity in this Senate to step to the plate, not to let this become a failed opportunity, not to allow the blood that has been shed by American soldiers to do what we originally said was the thrust of the war against terrorism--to go after al-Qaida, to drive them out of that country, to deny them safe havens and sanctuaries there, to rout the Taliban government, to install a democracy--and yet we have largely missed that opportunity along with the other wealthy nations of the world. The failure of an adequate response to assist that country economically and in its rehabilitation has been just astonishing to me. What a missed opportunity. What an opportunity it is to showcase to the world our way of life, our generosity, to transform a country in a short period of time and show the rest of the Islamic world what our way of life, what our economic system can do, and why it is so vastly superior to anything else, to take the horns of misperception off of the way those people incorrectly perceive this country. But many millions of them do. What an opportunity we have, and here we are cutting economic development aid to Afghanistan in this bill by over 60 percent. I thank the Senator from Nevada for his cosponsorship. He has been a champion of this concern before I started here tonight. He has brought it up on the floor numerous times. Even though there is not an offset in this amendment, I think it would be penny-wise and pound very, very unwise for us not to raise the level of funding in this bill for Afghanistan for economic development aid to help move that country forward and to save American lives this year and years to come, both here and around the world. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 [From the New York Times, Sept. 23, 2004] A Chance of Success Slips Away (By J. Alexander Thier) Stanford, Calif.--President Bush describes Afghanistan, the first front on the war on terrorism, as a success. In comparison to Iraq, perhaps it is. But if you look at Afghanistan on its own merits, the lack of progress is disheartening. In 2002, President Bush promised a ``Marshall Plan'' for the country, with the goal of turning Afghanistan into a stable, democratic state. On Tuesday, before the United Nations General Assembly, the president said that ``the Afghan people are on the path to democracy and freedom.'' Yet in nearly three years we have failed to create security, stability, prosperity or the rule of law in Afghanistan. These failings are not just a reflection of the great difficulties of nation-building in places like Afghanistan, they are also the direct result of the Bush administration's policy decisions. Our efforts in Afghanistan are underfinanced and undermanned, and our attention is waning. The root of the problem is that we invaded Afghanistan to destroy something--the Taliban and Al Qaeda--but we didn't think much about what would grow in its place. While we focused on fighting the terrorist (and even there our effectiveness has been questionable), Afghanistan has become a collection of warlord-run fiefs fueled by a multibillion- dollar opium economy. We armed and financed warlord armies with records of drug-running and human rights abuses stretching back two decades. Then we blocked the expansion of an international security force meant to rein in the militias. These decisions were made for short-term battlefield gain--with disregard for the long-term implications for the mission there. Our Army continues to hunt insurgents in the mountains, but we have refused to take the steps necessary to secure the rest of the country, and it shows. More coalition and Afghan government soldiers and aid workers have died this year than in each of the previous two. This summer, Doctors Without Borders, which has worked in the most desperate and dangerous conditions around the world, pulled out of Afghanistan after 24 years. In other words, the group felt safer in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation and the civil war that followed than it did three years after the United States-led coalition toppled the Taliban. Last month, after a United Nations-backed voter registration office was bombed, the vice president of the United Nations Staff Union urged Secretary General Kofi Annan to pull employees out of Afghanistan. The opium trade is also out of control, fueling lawlessness and financing terrorists. Last year, the trade brought in $2.3 billion; this year, opium production is expected to increase 50 to 100 percent. Amid terrorist attacks and fighting among regional warlords, the country is preparing for presidential elections on Oct. 9. A recent United Nations report warned that warlords were intimidating voters and candidates. This month, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which has monitored post-conflict elections in trouble spots like Bosnia and Kosovo, declared that Afghanistan was too dangerous for its election monitors (it is sending a small ``election support team'' instead). President Hamid Karzai narrowly escaped assassination last week on his first campaign trip outside Kabul, and eight other presidential candidates have called for elections to be delayed, saying it's been too dangerous for them to campaign. Many of these problems flow from early mistakes. Rather than moving quickly to establish security and then gradually turning over control to a legitimate domestic authority, we have done the opposite. As fighting among warlord militias in the countryside intensifies, we are slowly expanding our presence and being dragged into conflicts. The American ``advisers'' in Afghan Army units, the ubiquitous heavily armed ``private'' security forces and the fortress-like American Embassy are garnering comparisons to the day of the Soviets. In Kabul, the effort to build a stable, capable government has also lagged dangerously. President Karzai has begun to show great fortitude in challenging warlords. But his factious cabinet, born of political compromise, has collapsed under the pressure of the country's hurried presidential elections. Outside Kabul, his control remains tenuous in some places, nonexistent in others. Kabul's Supreme Court, the only other branch of government, is controlled by Islamic fundamentalists unconcerned with the dictates of Afghanistan's new Constitution. On Sept. 1, without any case before the court, the chief justice ordered that Latif Pedram, a presidential candidate, be barred from the elections and investigated for blasphemy. His crime? Mr. Pedram had suggested that polygamy was unfair to women. These clerics are trying to establish a system like that in Iran, using Islam as a bludgeon against democracy. It's true that there have been several important accomplishments in these three years: the Taliban and Al Qaeda no longer sit in Kabul's Presidential Palace; girls are back in school in many parts of the country; some roads and buildings have been rebuilt; and more than 10 million Afghans have registered to vote for the presidential elections. Thousands of international aid workers have been working with the Afghans, often at great risk, to make things better. Despite the slow progress, most Afghans are more hopeful about their future than they have been in years. But many people working there are left with the nagging feeling that much more could have been done both to help Afghanistan and fight terrorism over the last three years. Our experience demonstrates that you can't fight wars, or do nation-building, on the cheap. Afghanistan should be a critical election issue this year, but Iraq looms much larger in the public mind. Unless the next administration steps up to the plate, it may well be an issue in four years, when we start asking, ``Who lost Afghanistan?''

Mr. DAYTON. Reluctantly so, I say to the Senator, and with the request or plea to those who will take this bill to conference that they seek ways--the House has an increase in funding by $48 million over the administration's request. I plead that the conferees look for ways to increase this funding. It would be money very well spent. But, yes, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I commend my colleague from Michigan. I am a proud cosponsor of her legislation. She has been a true champion for seniors and affordable prescription drugs, and she continues that leadership today.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, yesterday Senator John Kerry told the American people the truth about Iraq, the truth about the past, the truth about the present, and the truth about the future. President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and other administration apologists complain he did not show enough optimism. Senator Kerry decided that honesty was more important than false optimism. President Bush and Vice President Cheney have not been honest about Iraq from the beginning. They have not been honest about Iraq with this Senate, not with the House, nor with the American people. John Kerry gave us yesterday what we need: honesty about Iraq. He was not alone in the last few days. I salute my Republican colleagues--five of them--for their honesty about the situation in Iraq. It cannot be easy to tell the American people the truth and to stand up to an administration of their own party which is not telling the truth. They are remarkable American patriots who recognize, as Senator Robert C. Byrd, the great senior Senator from West Virginia, has reminded us, that we serve with Presidents of the United States, not under them. We are elected separately to serve independently and to exercise our own best judgments about what is best for our respective States and for our United States. Listen to what five of our Republican Senators have said recently. One said that President Bush's rosy pronouncements about the situation in Iraq ``are not as straight as we would want them to be.'' Another stated: A crisp, sharp analysis of our policies is required. A third, upon noting that of the $18.5 billion Congress appropriated for Iraq's reconstruction a year ago, only $1 billion has been expended, called this ``the incompetence in the administration.'' A fourth Republican Senator stated the other day that he may not vote for President Bush in November, to which another Republican Senator replied: What I like about him is that he can be a Republican Senator and, at the same time, he is unsure about our Republican President. He is a breath of fresh air in politics. As he is. And we need also a breath of fresh air in the White House, along with fresh words of truth which we received yesterday from Senator Kerry. The response of the Bush White House to these honest assessments by Senator Kerry and by our Republican Senate colleagues has been to attack them and blame everyone else. President Truman said when he was President, ``The buck stops here.'' With this President, it is ``the blame starts here''--blame those who opposed this war from the beginning, as I did; blame those who question his bungling of the running of Iraq after our courageous Armed Forces won the country in 3 weeks and still die daily because Iraqis will not take responsibility for their own country. And now he blames his political opponent for telling the American people the truth about Iraq, the truth that he has consistently withheld. I am not clear exactly about what we are supposed to be optimistic. Certainly not the report of the President's own National Intelligence Council which, according to an Associated Press story last week, ``presented President Bush this summer with three pessimistic scenarios regarding the security situation in Iraq, including the possibility of a civil war there before the end of 2005. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, how are we to view the continuing violence in Iraq, the murders of American soldiers as they stand guard in a country that its own citizens are unwilling or unable to guard for themselves, or the American citizens hired to work there who are being kidnapped and beheaded? Tell the 138,000 American soldiers who are courageously serving their country, risking and some losing their lives, and wondering when are they coming home. I say to those who tell patriotic dissenters that they are not supporting our troops--the printable part is, if you want to support our troops, bring them home alive soon, not in 10 or 20 years, as Senator McCain has recently predicted. Make Iraqis protect and defend their own country. That is what people do in a democracy. That is what people do in any form of stable national government: They impose law and order in their own cities. They provide public safety on their own highways. They defend their own national borders. Over a year ago, in August of 2003, the Bush administration claimed that 95 percent of Iraq was peacefully occupied and operating normally. Now we see daily reports that violence is spreading and becoming more murderous. The Iraqi Prime Minister claims that ``foreign terrorists are still pouring in,'' a common cry to rally Americans behind the fallacy that their sons and daughters must die in Najev and Baghdad so we will not die in New York and Boston. He says more troops are needed to win. Following the party line, he says: We need more participation from other countries. We needed more participation from other countries 2 years ago when Congress was stampeded as part of the 2002 midterm election strategy to vote a blank check for warmaking based on completely false information from the Bush administration, including the President and the Vice President themselves. We needed more participation from other countries when the United States and Great Britain bilaterally invaded Iraq in 2003. Or when the operation of that country failed to begin 3 weeks later. We need it now. Now that President Bush has made a mess of the situation in Iraq, are there any international volunteers? How about participation from the people of Iraq against the supposedly ``5,000 to 10,000'' insurgents, 95 percent of whom we are told are Iraqis who do not like the presence of the United States there. On paper, we were told over almost a year ago by the Secretary of Defense that there were 206,000 Iraqi militia and army military personnel who were being trained or had been trained--206,000 we were told. Last week, the Secretary of Defense admits that only half of that number have actually been trained. We are told that less than $1 billion of the $5 billion that Congress appropriated 1 year ago for security training has been expended. And that is why the Republican chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said over the weekend that this is the incompetence of this administration. The buck stops there. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may have 2 minutes to complete my remarks.

Mr. DAYTON. I ask that I may have 2 minutes of that time to complete my remarks.

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, the buck stops in the White House. The blame starts there and it ends there. Senator John Kerry is not responsible for this war. Congress is culpable to some extent, but is not responsible for it. President Bush is responsible. Now that things are going badly and getting worse--and I say that not because it is pessimism, I say that because it is the truth. John Kerry told the American people the truth. President Bush should start doing the same. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 [From AOL News] Intelligence Report Offered Bleak View of Iraq (By Katherine Pfleger Shrader) Washington (Sept. 16).--The National Intelligence Council presented President Bush this summer with three pessimistic scenarios regarding the security situation in Iraq, including the possibility of a civil war there before the end of 2005. In a highly classified National Intelligence Estimate, the council looked at the political, economic and security situation in the wartorn country and determined that--at best--a tenuous stability was possible, a U.S. official said late Wednesday, speaking on the condition of anonymity. The document lays out a second scenario in which increased extremism and fragmentation in Iraqi society impede efforts to build a central government and adversely affect efforts to democratize the country. In a third, worst-case scenario, the intelligence council contemplated ``trend lines that would point to a civil war,'' the official said. The potential conflict could be among the country's three main populations--the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds. It ``would be fair'' to call the document ``pessimistic,'' the official added. But ``the contents shouldn't come as a particular surprise to anyone who is following developments in Iraq. It encapsulates trends that are clearly apparent.''

Mr. DAYTON. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. DAYTON. I yield back the remainder of our time.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, this amendment is necessary to protect the health care benefits of security guards who are protecting our security at Federal buildings in Minnesota and in other States. In this instance, private contractors have low-bid these security contracts, and they unilaterally have shifted the employees' health payments to 401(k) contributions. The company thereby increases its profits by not paying taxes at the expense of their own employees, with no consultation, no negotiation, just cold-blooded profiteering. No wonder a company like this can underbid its competitors. The bids can go lower and lower every time they cut wages or benefits. That is why there should be employee protections--protections that were eliminated, unfortunately, over the objections of many of us when this Department of Homeland Security was created just 2 years ago. This amendment simply requires that if a company takes over a contract, it must negotiate changes in health benefits with its employees. I think that is the least we can do on behalf of those who are risking their lives to protect our lives. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the previous order I be allowed up to 10 minutes to speak as in morning business.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, 3 days ago, a picture appeared in the Minneapolis-based Star Tribune newspaper, accompanying a Los Angeles Times article whose headline read: ``U.S. Makes Show of Strength in Fallujah.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. DAYTON. The picture, for the record, showed about 30 Iraqi civilians standing amidst the rubble of bombed buildings in the Iraqi town of Fallujah. In the forefront of the picture were five Iraqi children, and the caption beneath the picture read: An Iraqi boy weeps, as people survey the destruction in a neighborhood, following a U.S. airstrike overnight. Twelve Iraqis were killed, including several women and children. . . . President Bush makes a show of strength, and an Iraqi boy weeps. I say ``President Bush'' because this is not the U.S. military. They are carrying out the orders of their Commander in Chief. This is not the American people because the American people do not kill innocent women and children in another country. This is the result of and the responsibility of a failed policy in Iraq by the President and his administration. There were at least two other aerial bombings that day in two other Iraqi cities, according to that one story--more destruction, more civilian casualties, more children weeping; children who lost brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, grandparents, and friends; children who will have the United States of America, for the rest of their lives, seared into their memories; children who will, horribly, possibly cheer if terrorists can cause that kind of terrible destruction to Americans in American cities; children who might even be willing to do something like that themselves in revenge. President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and other apologists for this continuing war in Iraq claim that they are fighting terrorists there so we won't have to fight them here. By these actions, I maintain they are creating terrorists in Iraq whom we will have to fight here, whom we will have to defend against, fend off, and protect ourselves from for years, even decades to come. How would we feel if our children or our friends or our parents or wives or husbands were buried beneath the rubble that used to be our homes, our stores, and our neighborhoods? I do not fault the courageous Americans in our Armed Forces who have borne the brunt of this administration's failed policy. To the contrary, I salute them for their heroism and their patriotism. It has been over a year and a half since they won the initial military victory in Iraq. They went from the Iraqi border to Baghdad in 3 weeks. They routed Saddam Hussein's army. They toppled his evil regime. And since then, they have stood guard until someone began to run that country. They are still standing guard, 138,000 brave Americans. They are fighting, they are bleeding, and they are dying because this administration and their Iraqi allies have not figured out how to run that country. We need a policy, a plan, and a timetable to get out of Iraq--not to lose Iraq but to leave Iraq, not tomorrow or next week, unfortunately-- because the Bush administration has failed. They have failed to prepare for that. But not in 10 or 20 years, as my colleague, the senior Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, has predicted. He is not recommending that course of action; he is just telling us and the American people the truth. Thank goodness someone is telling us the truth, the truth about what the Bush administration has gotten us into and where their present policies will leave us. What he can't tell us, because no one can, is how many more Americans will die in Iraq during those 10 or 20 years; how many more Americans will die elsewhere around the world or, God forbid, right in this very country because of the failures of those policies today. Today I am asking the esteemed chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee to hold oversight hearings this week on the current policy in Iraq, on the military situation there, on the plans of this administration, on the timetable for our continuing involvement there, and on the costs in dollars and lives and international esteem to the United States of America, because the American people deserve the truth. This Congress deserves the facts. Our soldiers, our 138,000 courageous Americans serving in Iraq today, deserve to come home with their military victory secured. And I say to those who want to support our troops, if you want to support our troops, bring them home alive, bring them home alive now or as soon as possible hereafter, but not in 4 years or 10 years or 20 years. Make the administration in Iraq and the people of Iraq responsible for their own country. That is what democracy is about. It is about self-determination and self-responsibility. It is time the people of Iraq become responsible for Iraq. It is time the 206,000 militia and military that we claim to have trained in Iraq become responsible for Fallujah and Baghdad and everywhere else in Iraq. The article I referred to earlier states: U.S. and Iraqi authorities lost control of Fallujah last April after they turned the city over to a U.S.-sanctioned force, the Fallujah brigade, which has now all but disappeared. Where did they disappear to? I supported that action back then. I thought that was the right course of action, that we make Iraqis responsible for the defense of their own country, for the security of their own cities. Now I learn, not through this administration's disclosures but through an article appearing in an investigative story--thank goodness for the free and vigilant press because we wouldn't learn those things here in Congress if we were waiting to be told--that the Fallujah brigade has ``all but disappeared.'' That is a fundamental failure of this administration and the Iraqi administration to train, equip, and motivate the Iraqi forces in Iraq to stand up for and defend their own country from whomever it is over there--insurgents, terrorists, and citizens who want an end to the violence, understandably so, in their own homes and neighborhoods. It is time to put Iraq in charge of Iraq, make them stand up and fight for their own country, for their own cities, for their own security, and stop forcing Americans on the ground or in the air to cause this kind of destruction that that picture capsulizes which is going to wreak future destruction on our own cities and our own people. This is a failed policy. It is a disastrous policy. It is one for which this administration should take responsibility. Again, I call upon the Armed Services Committee of the Senate to hold oversight hearings and tell the American people the truth about what is going on there and what the future holds--in the near future, not the future future. Exhibit 1 [From the Los Angeles Times, Sept. 10, 2004] U.S. Makes Show of Strength in Fallujah (By Patrick J. McDonnell) Baghdad.--U.S. forces rolled into the rebel bastion of Samarra on Thursday and sought to reestablish Iraqi government control as aircraft pounded suspected guerrilla positions in two other insurgent strongholds: the flashpoint city of Fallujah in the west and the trouble spot of Tal Afar in the north. The show of strength--along with the stated U.S. resolve to crush a Shiite Muslim militia in Baghdad--underscored the military's determination to exert control over the country in the months leading up to elections scheduled for January. The U.S. move against the three insurgent centers came after a spike in attacks this week that pushed American military fatalities from all causes to more than 1,000. The actions appeared designed to dispel the perception that swaths of Iraq had become a ``no-go'' zone for U.S. troops. American warplanes struck Fallujah, the third attack in as many days against suspected insurgent positions in the city 30 miles west of Baghdad. U.S. and Iraqi authorities lost control of Fallujah after U.S. Marines ended a three-week siege last April and turned the city over to a U.S.- sanctioned force, the Fallujah Brigade, which has now all but disappeared. Nine people, including two children, were reported killed in a Fallujah house that the U.S. command suspected of being used by allies of the Jordanian-born terror mastermind Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. foreign fighters On Thursday evening, a U.S. spokesman, Maj. Jay Antonelli, revised the earlier description of events in Fallujah. ``In spite of the great care taken to spare the lives of noncombatants, an unknown number of Iraqi civilians were unfortunately among those killed and wounded in the strike,'' Antonelli said in an e-mail statement. ``The foreign fighters who hide among the people of Fallujah place them at significant risk,'' Antonelli said. He added: ``Foreign fighters will not enjoy safe haven anywhere in the city.'' In a separate statement, the U.S. command said military operations around Tal Afar were designed to rid the city of ``a large terrorist element that has displaced local Iraqi security forces throughout the recent weeks.'' The U.S. military said 57 insurgents were killed in the attack on Tal Afar, a northern city near the border with Syria that lies on smuggling routes for weapons and foreign fighters. The provincial health director, Dr. Rabie Yassin, said 27 civilians were killed and 70 wounded. It was unclear whether those reported by the Iraqis as civilians were counted as insurgents by the Americans. Meanwhile, relative calm held in much of the Shiite Muslim heartland after an agreement negotiated last month by Iraq's leading Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini al-Sistani. The agreement brought an end to weeks of fighting between U.S. troops and Shiite militiamen loyal to radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. Scattered clashes continued between Al-Sadr's loyalists and American forces in the radical cleric's Baghdad stronghold, Sadr City. Iraqi officials want to prevent Al-Sadr from rebuilding his forces in Najaf. Toward that end, dozens of Iraqi soldiers and police raided Al-Sadr's Najaf office to search for weapons. Al-Sadr was not there at the time, and no weapons were found, although Iraqi officials said ammunition and mortars were confiscated from nearby houses. U.S. and Iraqi government troops are not in full control of several cities and areas in Iraq, including Samarra in the north, Fallujah and Ramadi in the west, and the largely Shiite neighborhood known as Sadr City in eastern Baghdad, where a militia holds sway. Other cities and towns, such as Tal, have become guerrilla bastions where the U.S.-backed Iraqi government exerts only limited control. In Samarra, U.S. commanders said their forces, accompanied by members of the Iraqi police and by national guard soldiers, drove into the city Thursday morning after gaining assurances from local Iraqi leaders that they would not be fired on. The local leaders said they sensed divisions within the insurgents' ranks between those who favored some accommodation with the Americans and those who rejected it, and felt secure enough to issue the temporary guarantee. U.S. soldiers and the Iraqi police then convened a meeting of the U.S.-backed council, which chose a new mayor and police chief. After a few uneventful hours, the U.S. soldiers and the Iraqi police left. However, commanders acknowledge that as many as 500 insurgents remain in Samarra. The guerrillas' preference is to strike at smaller U.S. or Iraqi units. In classic guerrilla style, they tend to hide their arms and blend in among city residents when faced with larger forces. The U.S. troops pulled out at the end of the day for lack of a secure base to spend the night. Maj. Neal O'Brien of the 1st Infantry Division, which patrols four provinces north of Baghdad that includes Samarra, said, ``We will never give up our right to maneuver in any of our areas.'' The U.S. approach in Samarra since spring had been to allow local leaders to work out a way to disarm or otherwise neutralize a stubborn insurgent force that had disrupted government and police activities in the ancient city of 200,000. The largely Sunni Muslim population has long posed a major challenge for U.S. forces. The city was the site of a large- scale U.S. offensive last winter designed to flush out a guerrilla force thought to be composed of religious militants, anti-American nationalists and loyalists of Saddam Hussein's former Baath Party. During that offensive, a U.S. force of more than 3,000 soldiers also met little resistance as the guerrillas apparently melted into the populace. But in recent months, residents say, Samarra had fallen back under insurgent control.

Mr. DAYTON. I yield the floor.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. DAYTON. I thank the manager of this bill for the opportunity to present my amendment tonight. Unfortunately, this amendment is unfortunately necessary to protect the security of the men and women who protect our security day and night in States such as Minnesota. As my colleagues will recall, when the Department of Homeland Security was created in 2002, the Congress granted the Secretary of the new Department of Homeland Security the unprecedented power to override longstanding employee contracts. He or she was given the power to hire, fire, promote, demote, or do anything to the employees of that new agency. Some of us opposed that unprecedented, unwarranted, and unnecessary power. A couple of my colleagues were vilified, demonized, and defeated for opposing that unilateral power. The majority in this body, at the insistence of the Bush administration, voted for it. Well, they got it. So of the security guards in the Federal building where I have my office in Minnesota and elsewhere, I am told a private contractor took over their contract this July, and without consultation, without negotiation, or without consent altered their health benefit payments. It saves this big company taxes. Of course, they could underbid the existing contractor and take that out of the benefits of those security guards in Minnesota to the detriment of them and their families. The result has been that since July 1, 15 to 20 percent of that local guard force has had to quit, look for a new job, or take a second job. Others have not been able to meet their house and car payments. They are having a harder time concentrating on work, their work being to protect the people who work in my office, my constituents. One guard had a heart problem and had to be taken from work to the hospital in an ambulance because of the stress that was imposed. He received medical services that now, as a result of this contract change, he does not have the money to pay for. It takes 70 to 80 hours to train a new security guard. For a full- timer, that is about 10 full-time days. For part-timers, that can take up to a month depending on their part-time schedule. So this is not saving the taxpayers money. This is saving the private contractor money. It is providing greater profits for that company at the expense of the health and economic security of the people who are providing that security day and night in Minnesota and other States because their protections were stripped out and eliminated when this new Department of Homeland Security was created. I say, respectfully, to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, as well as to the chairman of the subcommittee and the distinguished ranking member, I know they have expressed in the past their reluctance to adopt policy changes in appropriations measures, but the health, security and protections of the people in Minnesota, unfortunately, cannot wait for some other measure to come forward. So I believe it is essential that I bring forward this amendment, and I ask my colleagues to consider it. It very simply says--and I would be quite happy to go back further in time, but for the sake of this particular situation and others like it--for contracts that have been taken over through low-ball bidding since May 30, 2004, alterations in health protection and health coverage have to be negotiated with the employees or with their bargaining unit. To me, this is the minimal measure of protection that should be granted to every employee in the Federal Government, in this agency, or any other. At 5:25 p.m., I received stated objections from someone at the Federal Protective Service purporting to represent the official response of the Department of Homeland Security. Once again, the existing Federal agency at the last minute has objections to the legislation that could have been presented to me today, last week, whenever. My staff has been in discussion with the majority and the minority staff on the committee for the last few days. Less than 2 hours ago, to receive from the agency involved their stated objections that they will use, I assume to try to defeat this amendment, I find to be offensive. They, once again, presume that because they have this authorizing legislation that grants the Secretary unilateral, complete, absolute power to make these changes in people's contracts that affect their lives, that affect their families, they do not even need to bother to respond to proposed legislation, which is exactly the reason this should not have been passed to begin with; exactly the reason employees should have due process; exactly the reason this ought to be in contract bargaining procedures so that those changes that are going to be made have to go through a negotiation or discussion with the elected representatives of those affected employees. We have gone too far in creating this department and giving that unilateral authority to any single individual. This is a step back in the proper direction that is not in any way going to affect the national security of this country. In fact, I take that back. It will only enhance the national security of this country, of the Federal employees in the Federal buildings such as in Minnesota and the citizens who go to those buildings to meet with their elected representatives because they will be better qualified, better trained, more capable people, including those who now hold those jobs, except for those who have been forced to leave those jobs. So there will be better national security at a lower cost to the taxpayer when the retraining and other ancillary costs are included. The only one that will be adversely affected by this will be the private employer who is underbid and is trying to extract additional profits out of the economic security of those employees and the public security of those they protect. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, may I ask the majority leader, what are the factors that decide whether a particular disaster merits this kind of expedited action and which ones do not? I certainly want to agree with what the Democratic leader just said because my State, which is adjacent to his, has suffered for the last 4 years now from various disasters. After the first 2 years, we were finally able to get the administration to relent and allow for one of those 2 years to be covered for farmers, many of whom lost their entire crop in our State. Last year, we had another round of natural disasters, and there was no disaster relief provided or authorized by the Congress or agreed to by the administration. Now, this year, my State has just experienced a frost that has cost $190 million in damages, and it is likely to mount. Again, when the majority leader--I respect his candor--says that further requests or supplementals may be forthcoming, that is not much consolation to my farmers and constituents; whereas, now in the State of Florida--and I share the Democratic leader's sympathies for that State because there are many Minnesota residents who are affected who have part-time residencies in the State of Florida--but on behalf of those who live all the time in Minnesota, they are not going to be as sympathetic when their needs continue to be ignored and right away Florida gets this kind of expedited assistance. I wonder, again, what are the criteria and are they going to apply to any State other than Florida?

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I do respect the majority leader.

Mr. DAYTON. Thank you, Mr. President. The farmers in my State are out of money. There are farmers in my State who were out of money last year who have been forced into bankruptcy. How do they make the necessary appeal to the President to get on his list? Is it required that the Governor of the State be the brother of the President? How is this going to be handled? Because based on the most recent hurricane, Frances--again, I am sympathetic to those affected, which includes Minnesotans, but we are going to have another request. Can we have an assurance there will be an opportunity at that time, as the Democratic leader is trying to obtain, so we can offer amendments to have the Senate consider other requests for disaster aid? Is that something on which we could get a concurrence?

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I reserve the right to object to say that I will not object in this case but with the understanding that the next time, as the majority leader said, there will be opportunities. If there is another supplemental request, I will insist on the opportunity to at least have these other requests considered. I will not object.