Mark Dayton

Mr. DAYTON

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

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. I thank also the Presiding Officer for his forbearance in permitting my remarks this afternoon. I had the opportunity to serve on many of these occasions in the previous 2 years as Presiding Officer. I know how my heart sank when yet another Senator would arrive on the floor to make his or her remarks. I thank the Presiding Officer for this opportunity and his forbearance as well.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, yesterday and this morning I placed holds on the nominations of 15 men and women for appointments in the executive branch. They have one characteristic in common. They all come from States of Senators or Members of the House of Representatives who have signed the Federal Aviation Administration conference report. This report, which will come before the Senate and the House after the August recess, steals the rightful authority of the Minnesota Metropolitan Airports Commission, which is a public body, its members appointed by the Governor, to make decisions about the lives of Minnesotans who live near our major international airport. The Report would prohibit Federal funds from being used for noise insulation of homes or apartment buildings where the airplane noise ranges from 60 to 64 decibels. This clause was not in the Senate bill and it was not in the House bill. It was neither considered nor acted upon by either body, nor by any of the committees of jurisdiction in the Senate or the House. There was no public notification about this intent. There were no hearings, no testimony, nothing about this particular clause. It appears in the conference report reportedly because a lobbyist representing a client found a Senator from another State far removed from my State, where citizens will bear the burdens and the consequences of this action. To slip this contemptible language into the final conference report, which will become, if it is acted favorably upon by the Senate and House, the final bill, the law of the land if the President signs it, this action reminds me of the old contest called limbo, where the object was to ``see how low you could go.'' This action is very low. It is low because it is a perversion of our public process for making laws which govern the lives of the citizens of this country; in this case, the lives of people who live in over 8,000 homes and over 3,200 apartments which surround the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Airport. Some 300 years ago, even before the formation of this democracy, one of the first leaders of English settlers arriving here was William Penn. He wrote that people are free under a government where the laws rule and the people are a party to those laws. Those are the two conditions under which the people are free. The several thousand people who would be affected by this clause if it were to become law--and it will not become law--were not a party to that decision because the people they elected to represent them in Congress, their two Senators and their Congressman, were not a party to this clause. I am not myself a supporter of the idea of a unicameral legislative body, but if there were ever consideration given, this would be exhibit number 1 in support of one, because a unicameral legislative body would eliminate these conference committees, where a few Members of the House and Senate go into some back room or private office and write one final bill out of the two versions passed by the Senate and the House, and then the rest of us--all of the elected Senators and Representatives--have to vote that final report up or down, with no changes, no additions, no subtractions. Conference committees recently have taken a very dangerous turn. The Democratic conferees are being excluded from their deliberations and decisions. Republicans make up the majority of the conferees from both the House and Senate, as they should because they hold the majority in both bodies. So if those Republican conferees concur among themselves, they will prevail on every vote, and they will get the final bill they want to create. They have that right based on the rules of the Senate and the House. For some reason, however, that is not enough these days because, increasingly, the Democratic conferees are not allowed in meetings where those deliberations and decisions are being made. They are not even allowed to object or agree, or to try to persuade otherwise. I have to ask myself, as someone who has been here only 2\1/2\ years, why is it they are not even allowed to participate? Is it to make it easier to sneak in these kinds of terrible additions to bills that will become law and hope they won't be noticed by the rest of us before the final bill is acted upon? This exclusion from the process and the inclusion of another provision that was not previously passed by the Senate or the House, to privatize this Nation's air traffic control system, which ranks as one of the most unwarranted, unjustified, destructive, and dangerous ideas of this new century, were the major reasons that not a single Democratic conferee from either the Senate or the House signed the FAA conference report. There were 38 conferees--24 Republicans and 14 Democrats. All 24 Republicans signed the conference report. None of the Democrats, out of 14 Democratic conferees, signed that conference report. So much for ``changing the tone'' in Washington. So much for ``bipartisanship.'' So much for honest Government reflecting the will of the people, who elected all of us to represent them in the Senate and in the House. The majority caucus of the Senate is comprised of 51 Members, and the minority caucus has 49 members. If the then-incumbent senior Senator from Minnesota had not been killed in a plane crash last October, the Senate would be 50/50 evenly divided, as it was when I arrived here 2\1/2\ years ago. The people of America have recently voted for a closely divided Government, to which the 2000 Presidential election also bears witness to. It is fundamentally wrong for the barely majority party to usurp the responsibility for good government, and in conformance to the expressed political will of the American people. It is terribly wrong to do so for the purpose of writing bills behind closed doors and putting in garbage like this airport noise clause, which affects the people of Minnesota. They ought to be ashamed, they should be better than that, and they ought to stop doing it. Where does this legislative dropping come from? Reportedly, I have heard from several sources, it was added by a Senate conferee. Neither my Minnesota colleague nor I were aware of it, which obviously was the intent of both its author and originator. I am deeply offended that one of my colleagues would behave in such an underhanded fashion and harm the people in my State for no apparent reason. What would induce another Member of the Senate to do something like that? Now, he didn't make up the idea by himself. We have enough to do in these jobs that we don't have to hunt for issues affecting airports in other States to make our sneak attacks upon--at least I hope not. We have our disagreements here, as we should. We have our political arguments, as we must. But I certainly hope we are not here to do damage to people in other Members' States. If we are going to engage in such a practice, I certainly expect that we will all have the integrity to do so in the proper and public lawmaking processes of this Senate and this Congress. I certainly expect the decency to be informed by my colleague that he intends to do so. If that integrity and that decency do not prevail here, then the former Chaplain of the Senate, Dr. Edward Everett Hale, was right when asked if he prayed for the Senators. ``No,'' the Senate Chaplain replied, ``I look at the Senators and pray for the country.'' The Senate Chaplain spoke those words 100 years ago. I believe, and for the sake of our country I pray, that the Senate of 2003 is far better than the Senate of 1903, if that is what caused the Chaplain then to make such a remark. Let all of us be sure to make it better today by our own conduct here. There is someone else who is also responsible for this sneaky, slimy, and sordid shenanigan, and that, I regret to say, is Northwest Airlines, a major Minnesota company, founded in Minnesota, headquartered in Minnesota, employing over 18,000 people in Minnesota. It is one of Minnesota's most important companies. It is our link to the world. Northwest Airlines controls 85 percent of the gates at the Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport. It is comprised of 18,000 tremendous people in Minnesota--executives, pilots, flight attendants, mechanics, baggage handlers, reservation agents, skycaps. One by one they are great people: hard working, dedicated, loyal, courteous, and skilled in what they do. As a corporate entity, however, Northwest Airlines more often acts like Darth Vader than the Caped Crusader. The company is capable of wonderful acts of charity. Last year it helped to transport 10,000 boxes of Girl Scout cookies to soldiers stationed abroad. Every quarter it partners with a worthwhile charity, and on every flight it asks passengers to donate either their money or accumulated frequent flier miles, equivalent to money, to that worthwhile cause. However, during my entire public career, going back 25 years as Minnesota's commissioner of economic development to being a Senator today, no other Minnesota company has ever asked for as much from the public, received as much from the public, asked as much again and again from the public, received as much again and again from the public, and showed as little gratitude, graciousness, or respect for the public as Northwest Airlines. In 1989, Northwest Airlines was subject to a hostile takeover. A company that at the time had a cash balance of over $700 million became one saddled with over $2 billion in corporate debt. With the economic downturn that began in 1990 and went into 1991, Northwest fell into serious financial difficulty and was near bankruptcy, we were informed. That condition was caused by loss of revenues compounded by the debt load of their takeover. So Northwest Airlines came to the people of Minnesota for help, and the people of Minnesota responded. The Minnesota Legislature authorized $710 million in grants and in low-interest secured loans. The Metropolitan Airports Commission essentially remortgaged the airport to provide a loan of $350 million. That is the same Metropolitan Airports Commission which Northwest Airlines now criticizes for every spending decision, for its supposed lack of frugality, forgetting it would be even more frugal if it had saved the cost of carrying that loan for the last 12 years. At the same time as that corporate bailout by the people of Minnesota, our State also began a 7-year agreed-upon timetable, a dual- track process to decide where to locate the new airport for our State and for the entire region: whether it should be the expansion of the existing airport or building a new one at a more remote site. By the mid-1990s, in the middle of that timetable, based on the seeming experience of the costly new airport in Denver and its effects financially on the airline industry, particularly those who had their hubs there, Northwest Airlines took a legitimate position in its own corporate interest to oppose building a new airport elsewhere. But they were so insistent on getting their own way that they convinced the Governor and the Minnesota Legislature to abrogate after 6 years the final year of that intended 7-year process, cutting off the last year of public debate, cutting off the opportunity by those who are opposed to that decision, those who lived in the surrounding areas who were plagued by airport noise. They were denied their opportunities to make their last cases to the public decision makers. Their lives were being made worse also, I note, by the noise of Northwest Airlines' aging fleet of airplanes, the oldest of any of the major carriers at the time, which were not being replaced by the newer planes originally on order because of the financial difficulties that the corporate takeover put on the company. But at least in this instance, Northwest went through the public process, and they prevailed. As part of that agreement, they reportedly agreed to contribute $70 million to this next phase of noise insulation of homes and apartments in the surrounding areas. Northwest was hard hit on September 11, 2001, and its aftermath, as were other air carriers in this country, as were many other businesses throughout this country, many of which went out of business as a result of the disruption to our economy caused by those dastardly events. They sought financial assistance from this body and from the institution of Congress. On September 22, Congress provided $5 billion of grants to the airline carriers, of which Northwest Airlines received $428 million in public funds, grant money, not to be repaid. On April 3 of this year, as part of the supplemental appropriation, this body, and its counterpart, authorized another $2.3 billion in grant money of which Northwest Airlines will receive $205 million. In addition, we granted a 4-month ticket tax holiday. I supported every single one of those measures, and if Northwest Airlines' survival were at stake, I would support it again because it would be in the interests of both the company and the people of Minnesota. For a company to be the recipient of all of that public support, to receive all of that support from this institution of Congress, and then show so little respect for the public and so little regard for the Congress or for the integrity of our public process, I find to be deplorable, detestable, and deranged. The money this airline company seeks to prohibit being expended to improve the lives of their neighbors in Minnesota is not their money. It is the public's money. It is Federal money that comes from general funds, from ticket taxes or from passenger taxes. It is beyond irresponsible for any one person or any one corporation to try to destroy the public will expressed through the legitimate public process by this kind of back-door maneuver. No one has that right. No one deserves to have that right. And no one who shows such disrespect and disregard for our Democratic process, which exists to represent the interests of all of the people of this country, to protect the best interests of all the people of this country, no one who tries to abrogate that democratic authority should get away with it. They must not get away with it. It is too destructive to our democracy if they do. It is too damaging to our citizens' faith in their Government and to their trust in their Government, which is their Government. Northwest Airlines will not get away with this deviant, dastardly, and undemocratic action. Northwest Airlines will not get its way this way. This deed will not stand. It will not become law. The people of Minnesota have my word, it will not become law. Before I began these remarks, I withdrew my 15 holds on those executive branch nominations at the specific request of the White House, out of my respect. I am mindful that a year ago, when I put 60 holds on nominations for various executive positions, the White House staff responded in a most impressive way. They worked with my office and other Senators' offices to rescue over 200 Cambodian orphans from orphanages in Cambodia who were being prevented by the INS to be brought to this country by their adoptive parents. To the great credit of the President of the United States, the White House used his ultimate authority to override that decision by INS and to make it possible for those children to come to loving homes in Minnesota and other States; and for that reason, and for my respect generally, I yielded to that specific request by the White House and withdrew those 15 holds. I have equally the greatest regard for this institution of the Senate, for all of its procedures, its protocols, and its proud traditions. I listened earlier today to the words of the majority leader, a man whom I greatly respect. By his invitation, I was privileged to accompany him to China, Taiwan, Japan, and the Republic of Korea 2 months ago. I watched with the greatest of admiration how he led our delegation and sat down face to face with some of the most important leaders of other nations in this world. He brought nothing but great credit to this Senate. He and his predecessor in that position, now the Democratic leader, Senator Daschle are two men with dignity and with honor. I am in awe of their continual patience. When they have disagreements about policy or legislation, they are honest and they are honorable. We have debates. We have votes and the majority prevails. I also respect the desire of the majority leader to proceed with an orderly schedule which he outlined when we return in September. In fact, I share that desire. But I must give fair warning and advance notice that I will not permit the Senate to proceed with business as usual when we return on September 2, while this FAA conference report, with this poisonous paragraph a part of it, is before the Senate. I will put a hold on every nomination that comes before the Senate. I will object to every motion to proceed after the prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance, and I will not yield on those matters until this language is removed from that conference report. You have my word. We have over a month until we return. That is plenty of time for those who are party to this detestable act, to work it out and to get it out of that conference report. Do not doubt my resolve. That language must be removed or I will not allow the business of the Senate to proceed. You have my word. You have my word. I yield the floor.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, yesterday, I was absent from the Senate, attending the funeral of Kenneth N. Dayton, my uncle. If I had been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on the motion to waive the Budget Act for Senator Dodd's amendment No. 1363, rollcall vote No. 299. I also would have voted ``aye'' on the motion to waive the Budget Act for Senator Specter's amendment No. 1368, rollcall vote No. 301.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I send to the desk amendment No. 1336.

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for his acceptance of the amendment.

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. DAYTON. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, this amendment reaffirms that all money appropriated under this bill will be spent in conformity with the Buy American Act. It is an amendment which passed the House and will be included in that bill. As my colleagues know, the Buy American Act was established in 1933 and has been in force since then, with only two substantive amendments during that entire 70 years. It is an economic stimulus legislation. It is meant to encourage the purchase of goods made by Americans in America, using American materials and labor. I cannot think of a more suitable time for this to be honored than now, with over 3.1 million jobs lost in the private sector of the U.S. economy since this administration took office. I will repeat that staggering number. Over 3.1 million Americans have lost their jobs in the private sector of our economy since January 2001. So it is entirely appropriate that we use public dollars that are being appropriated for essential public purposes such as homeland security but that we also add a perfectly legitimate public purpose, which is to generate as many jobs as possible through the expenditure of those funds in the United States of America. There are exceptions in the existing Buy American Act to permit the purchase of goods or services if these conditions apply. The head of the procuring agency, in this case Secretary Ridge, could waive these requirements if he determines they are inconsistent with the public interest, which means he has broad latitude and discretion to determine that, for any legitimate reason, this act should not apply to a particular purchase. Second, if it is unreasonable in cost. If the domestic product is of an unreasonable cost, then a foreign product can be purchased. Articles that are purchased for use outside of the United States, or articles that are procured for military bases, leased from foreign governments, are not covered under the act, or if they are not produced or manufactured in the United States in sufficient and reasonably available commercial quantities or of satisfactory quality. There is latitude to assure that none of the intent of this appropriation, which the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, the Senator from Mississippi, and his colleagues have assured, that would require any compromise with the intent of providing the maximum possible protection to our fellow citizens. But it does say that, when possible, we will be consistent with that intent if we are also trying to provide American jobs. Why is this necessary if it is already in law? This administration has demonstrated that it is not particularly a fan of this particular act. The Secretary of Defense in the Defense authorization bill--the Armed Services Committee, of which I am a member--was successful in getting the application of that act significantly weakened as it applies to the Department of Defense and the military branches. I do not want to see that happen with the Department of Homeland Security. This is an opportunity for Congress to make it very clear that this act will be enforced; that we expect it to be followed; that we want it to be utilized wherever possible because we want to put Americans back to work. I know in my home State of Minnesota, the greatest imperative for the well-being of our citizens, as well as the recovery of the Minnesota economy and the budget crisis our State is going through, comes down to jobs--jobs, jobs, and jobs; American jobs; good paying, hopefully benefit-providing, pension-providing American jobs. That is what this amendment reinforces. I urge my colleagues to support it. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to one of Minnesota's leading citizens who passed away last Saturday, a man who also happens to be my uncle, Kenneth N. Dayton. Kenneth Dayton was one of five brothers who returned from their service in World War II, and when their father died in 1950, took ownership and operating control of a single department store in Minneapolis which was then known as the Dayton Company. Ken was instrumental, along with my father, Bruce Dayton, in building that small family-owned business into what is now Target Corporation, the second largest retail company in America. Last year, Target Corporation owned and operated some 1,500 stores in 48 States under the names Target, Marshall Fields, and Mervyn's. The week I took office in January 2001, the company announced that it was changing the name of its upper midwest Dayton's department stores to Marshall Fields. I have always suspected they did so because they were concerned I was going to generate so much bad publicity for the Dayton name that they better make that change while they could. Kenneth Dayton, however, added only stature and respect to our family name. He was a brilliant retailer who understood merchandise, marketing, and consumers. He served as president, chief executive officer, and chairman of the board during two decades of expansions and acquisitions in the 1960s and 1970s, which transformed the company into a publicly owned corporation and a national retailer. Early on, the five brothers established a practice of contributing 5 percent of pretax profits to charitable organizations. It was one of their ways to give back to and enhance the communities where the stores were located. Kenneth Dayton became a national spokesman for this 5 percent club, and he persuaded many other leaders of American corporations to adopt the practice of contributing, if not 5 percent, at least some designated amount of their profits to worthwhile social causes. Ken and his wife of over 50 years, Judy Dayton, practiced what he preached. They have been two of Minnesota's leading philanthropists during the last half century, contributing, by their own account, over $100 million to charitable organizations. The Minneapolis symphony orchestra, a world class symphony orchestra, which performs in a world class orchestral hall, has been a principal beneficiary and great love of Ken and Judy Dayton. But hundreds of other organizations, large and small, engaged in all kinds of important work, have been also recipients of their wonderful sense of social responsibility. That wide variety of causes reflected Ken Dayton's wide breadth of interests. He had enormous enthusiasm for life, and he brought that enthusiasm to everything he did, along with a keen intellect and a world of life experience. Because of his stature as a civic leader in Minnesota and the importance of his many contributions to the city of Minneapolis, to the State of Minnesota, and to our country, I would be making this tribute to Kenneth N. Dayton were he not my uncle, but I am proud he was. He inspired, supported, and guided our family and so many others whose lives he touched. I am fortunate to have been one of those blessed by his life and his love. John Kennedy, as President in 1961, said for those to whom much is given, much is required. And when at some future date the high court of history sits in judgment of each of us, our success or failure will be measured by the answers to four questions: First, were we truly men of courage? Second, were we truly men of judgment? Third, were we truly men of integrity? Finally, were we truly men of dedication? By those four measures, Kenneth Dayton was a success--a great success. He was a great man and, more importantly, he was a good man. Well done, good and faithful servant. May you rest in peace. I yield the floor.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. I thank the Senator.

Mr. DAYTON. I would like to speak on Senator Durbin's amendment. I would agree to 5 minutes.

Mr. DAYTON. Following the custom of alternating back and forth, I am prepared to defer to my colleague from Wyoming. I would like to inquire as to his intentions to speak.

Mr. DAYTON. I have asked unanimous consent that following the conclusion of the remarks of the Senator from Wyoming, I might speak on the amendment for 10 minutes.

Mr. DAYTON. I fully concur with my colleague that we need to conclude our work on this bill. This is the third day we have been on this matter. There are several hundred billion dollars involved; it is one of the most costly measures we consider every year. The majority leader said we will complete work on the bill tonight. I expect we will do so with that instruction. I am prepared to stay late, as others of my colleagues are, to talk about these issues. I cannot think of anything that is more profoundly important to this country today and to the future of this Nation and to the world today and to the future of the world than what we are addressing, which is the circumstances that caused the President of the United States to make, as my colleague from Illinois said, an onerous and fateful decision to start a war, doing something that was unprecedented in our Nation's history--to initiate a war against another country, invade another country. Now, there may be other reasons cited for doing so, but under international law, under the U.N. Charter, of all the reasons cited by the administration for this action, the one that has no credence is the threat of an immediate and urgent attack against the United States by weapons of mass destruction with the missile capability to deliver them. That is what was stated and implied on a frequent basis by members of the administration last fall. This is not about one 16-word inclusion in the President's State of the Union speech, as important as that is. This is about questions, as the Senator from Illinois said, that dictated the actions or influenced the actions of Congress last October in voting to give the President the authority to initiate military action, which the President followed through on 6 months later, for which we have 145,000 sweltering Americans in Iraq today. I was there 2 weeks ago in 115-degree temperatures. If anything, they are even hotter than that at this point in time. Some of those incredibly brave young men and women won't come home to their families and friends alive. They will give the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of their country. So these are profound matters. I commend my colleague from Illinois for his careful choice of words and his reasoned approach to these matters, in recognition of his position on the Senate Intelligence Committee, his restraint in sharing only unclassified information to support his amendment, which I am proud to support myself. We have tried on this side of the aisle in the last days to strike some bipartisan agreements about how to address matters of disclosure of financial expenditures for this military undertaking. We talked with the distinguished chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee about where the money is in this bill for the purposes of the ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The chairman informed us that 2 days ago, in the 2003 supplemental appropriations, those funds were provided that are being drawn down for the purpose of conducting these military operations in those two countries and we should expect another supplemental appropriations request to be forthcoming early in the next calendar year. That same day, however, the comptroller for the Department of Defense was quoted as saying there remains only $4 billion in that account. Given the statement of the Secretary of Defense to our Senate Armed Services Committee the week before that we are spending, on a monthly basis, $4.8 billion in Iraq and Afghanistan combined, it is quite obvious that that $4 billion is going to last them less than another month. So we have tried and we have not been as successful as we should be because it ought to be transparent to this body exactly what is being spent, where it is being spent, and we ought to be appropriating, as others have pointed out--Senator Byrd first and foremost among them-- that we ought to be doing this through proper channels. Yesterday, as the Senator from Illinois said, we tried to get an agreement for a bipartisan independent commission that would be established and that would bring, it is my conception, the distinguished senior Americans, those whose credibility and integrity and experience and wisdom are unquestioned and would bring forth for the benefit of this body, but most importantly for the benefit of all the American people, what are the facts in these questions that have been raised and how do they instruct us in terms of the veracity of our intelligence information and the veracity of our political leaders. Yesterday there was an editorial in the Washington Post which stated just that. It said: ``Wait for the facts.'' It cited the President's remarks in his State of the Union Address, the 16-word sentence that has received so much attention. It went on to say: If so, that would represent one of several instances in which administration statements on Iraq were stretched to reflect the most aggressive interpretation of the intelligence. That, I believe, is a carefully phrased way of saying what I said earlier in my remarks. There were several times last fall when the implication was made or the assertion was stated that these weapons of mass destruction were not only developed but were poised to be used against the United States and that they constituted an immediate and urgent threat to our national security which, as I said before, both under U.N. charter and international law, is the single legal basis for the United States to invade another country: The threat of imminent attack or the actual attack itself. As the most powerful nation in the world, the one that has led the way for over the last half century in not starting wars--finishing wars successfully, but not starting them--for us to engage in now the first of what the President has articulated as the doctrine of preemption, where we will initiate those wars, we will attack first, in the judgment of this Senator is a very unwise course which will dangerously destabilize the world if it becomes the normal practice of nations, other than the United States--and we have to expect it will--to launch those kinds of attacks. Last August, before the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Nashville, Vice President Cheney said: There's no doubt that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in September in Atlanta said that American intelligence had ``bulletproof'' evidence of links between al-Qaida and the government of President Saddam Hussein of Iraq. In each case, officials have offered no details to back up those assertions. Mr. Rumsfeld said today doing so would jeopardize the lives of spies and dry up sources of information. As was stated by a couple of my colleagues, we have to rely on this hidden information which can be alluded to, to prove just about any point anybody wants to make, but we cannot know the facts. In October, the President himself made his argument, quoting an article in the Chicago Tribune, for invasion, emphasizing the notion Hussein could strike the United States first and inflict ``massive and sudden horror.'' Finally, Secretary Rumsfeld, again testifying before the Armed Services Committee, said: The United States must act quickly to save tens of thousands of citizens. I could go on with illustrations. My point is, we should let the facts speak for themselves. We deserve to know the facts. We deserve and must know, for the sake of our national security, whether the information we received from intelligence agencies was accurate, and we need to know for the sake of our democracy whether the representation of those facts by our leaders was accurate. That is the intent of the Durbin amendment. It is the reason it should be approved by this body. It is the reason this body should do what is right, which is to seek together to know the facts. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. DAYTON. I thank the Senator. The Senator from Alaska has been in conversation with the administration, evidently, regarding funds already available. I was here 2 days ago when the same statement was made about the need for funds and when that would occur next year. Then I read yesterday morning in the paper that same day--the day before, on Tuesday--the comptroller for the Department of Defense said in a supplemental appropriation that was made earlier this fiscal year there is $4 billion remaining for the purpose of war activities which, as the Senator pointed out, at the rate of $3.9 billion a month in Iraq, plus in Afghanistan $.9 billion a month--that would be $4.8 billion a month--there would not even be enough remaining amongst the funds to be expended to cover that. So I ask the Senator from West Virginia, doesn't that underscore what the Senator said about the difficulty in getting the same numbers from the same principals?

Mr. DAYTON. I read the figures differently. If I am incorrect, I will stand corrected. If the Senator's staff is correct, then that would be enough money for about 2\1/2\ months of the next fiscal year--I shouldn't say the next fiscal year because my understanding is they are drawing down that money now.

Mr. DAYTON. Minnesota.

Mr. DAYTON. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I ask what the Senator's intention is regarding the schedule right now after the Senator concludes his remarks?

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I rise also in support of Senator Corzine's amendment. Yesterday was a very grim day in Minnesota. We had the funeral service of the first Minnesotan to be killed in Iraq this year in the line of duty, PVT Edward James Herrgott. It is a grim reminder that 63 days after the President declared the hostilities almost over in Iraq, this young man lost his life on July 3, standing out in front, guarding the Baghdad Museum, the site where some of my colleagues and I had swept by, well protected, just 2 days before. He was killed, murdered by a sniper's bullet. At the age of 20, his life and all of its promise was snuffed out. We learned last week from the Secretary of Defense that, in his judgment, the military presence, some major component of which will have to be from the United States--hopefully much less will be, when we do as we must, which is to internationalize the continued development and hopefully economic recovery in Iraq--but as long as there is going to be a presence there, United States troops are going to be a big part of that, and it is almost unavoidable under the circumstances, especially as they exist today, the number of men and women who have lost their lives since May 1--which stands now at 79--will only increase. So, as Americans are faced, again and again, with a member of the family, a friend, an acquaintance, or just through the media a fellow citizen of that State, again and again they are going to be confronted with this question of, what are we doing in Iraq? What is the game plan to extricate our troops after achieving the success the military had so dramatically, remarkably in the 3 weeks it took from entering the country to sweeping into Baghdad with an incredible display of technology, the training, and most of all the dedication of those men and women who have really redefined the words ``courage'' and ``patriotism'' for this Senator. They continue to labor there under the most extreme conditions, 115- degree temperatures, all the other difficulties that are manifest there, not to mention the life-threatening danger that so many of them are under day and night. Given all that, I think it is imperative for our national security that we understand that we--all of us collectively in the Congress and the President, this administration--made what is the most momentous decision that can be made by this body and the administration, the decision whether or not to go to war--in this case, to initiate a war against another sovereign nation. To know that decision was made on accurate information from our intelligence operations, to me, is essential to our national security in the days and years ahead. It is also essential to our democracy to know the information we are getting from our leaders is truthful, accurate, to the best of their knowledge. There are enough questions that have been raised that must be answered, and they must be answered with the truth and with the facts as that can be determined objectively and dispassionately to be. I regret that the Senate Armed Services Committee, of which I am a member, is not going to be undertaking the bipartisan investigation into these issues as its counterpart, the Senate Intelligence Committee, has agreed to do. I think there has to be that kind of willingness on both sides of the aisle to seek the truth. I cannot understand why anybody would not want to find the truth and present it to the Members of this body and, even more importantly, to the American people. But that is a decision that evidently has been reached. In the absence of that, I think this independent commission is essential. We owe it to ourselves. We owe it to the Private Herrgotts whose lives have been sacrificed in this endeavor. We owe it to the future men and women who will be over in Iraq, in future engagements, if necessary. We owe it, ultimately, to our country, our democracy, and to ourselves. I yield the floor. Amendment No. 1270

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee for his forbearance. I thank my colleague, Senator Reid, for making this arrangement for me to speak out today on the 2004 Defense appropriations bill as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. As I begin my remarks today, I am cognizant that a funeral service is about to begin in Minnesota. It is the funeral of the first Minnesota soldier to die in Iraq this year, PFC Edward J. Herrgott of Shakopee, MN. Private Herrgott was only 20 years old. He said he joined the Army so he could earn some money to go to school and become a police officer. He was patrolling in front of the Baghdad Museum on September 3 when a sniper's bullet ended his life. Private Herrgott is an American hero. He stood guard in 115-degree heat, in the most dangerous city in the world, because his commanding officer assigned him that duty. He went to Iraq because his Commander in Chief, the President of the United States, assigned him that duty. It took extraordinary courage and patriotism for him to perform that duty, to stand guard in that sweltering heat in the midst of that ever- present danger. Private Herrgott lost his life performing his duty. He lost his life 63 days after his Commander in Chief declared that major hostilities were over in Iraq. They did not end on May 1 for Private Herrgott, nor for the 77 other American soldiers who have died in Iraq since then, nor for the hundreds more who have been wounded, nor for the 145,000 other American soldiers who still risk their lives in Iraq every day and every night and wonder when will they come home. Congress also bears responsibility for sending Private Herrgott and those 145,000 other brave men and women to Iraq. Last October, Congress voted to give their constitutional responsibility to declare war over to President Bush. Congress gave the President what he wanted, what he insisted then he must have, a blank check, a blank check signed in advance, authorizing the President to use whatever means necessary, including the use of force in Iraq, whenever, and with whomever, for however long, at whatever cost, until the President decides to end that war. Congress gave the President all of that authority and all of that responsibility. I did not vote for it, but a majority did, and now we must pay for that war. Last week in the Senate Armed Services Committee, we were told by the Secretary of Defense that the war in Iraq is costing $3.9 billion per month and that the continuing military operations in Afghanistan are costing $900 million per month. That is a combined $4.8 billion a month, totaling $57.6 billion over 12 months. That is $57.6 billion which I thought was going to be in this 2004 Defense Appropriations bill, and the distinguished chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, who has been engaged in these matters for far more years than I have been around, has clarified the circumstances why that money is not in there now. But I point out that the estimate of over $1 billion a week is probably way too low. According to this week's Newsweek magazine: That billion a week is just the beginning. It doesn't include the cost of running Iraq's government and rebuilding it, which could be an additional billion a month--according to pre-war United Nations estimates. Nor does it include presumably, as this article details, the $1.2 billion which Ambassador Bremer's budget says must be spent up front in capital improvements if Iraq's oil production is to get under way again. Nor does it include the $680 million given to the Bechtel Corporation for infrastructure improvements; nor, I suspect, the $3 billion to $5 billion that it is estimated is necessary to make emergency repairs to Iraq's electrical power system. So why is it that we cannot get from the administration a clear, direct, and reliable accounting about the cost of this war? I am guessing it has something to do with today's report that the Federal budget for fiscal year 2003 is expected to run a $450 billion deficit, and the next year's deficit may be as high as $500 billion, without even including all of the costs of the war efforts. Those are staggering deficits. This year's deficit will be over 50 percent greater than the largest annual deficit in U.S. history, and it results from the most colossal financial mismanagement that has ever been witnessed in this country's history, the worst ever. Just 2 years and 2 months ago, President Bush submitted his administration's first budget for fiscal year 2002 and the years beyond. It was a proud document dated April 9, 2001. The President stated: This budget offers a new vision of governing for our Nation. His budget projected a $5.6 trillion surplus for the 10 fiscal years from 2002 through 2011. It promised to save the entire Social Security surplus of $2.6 trillion; to spend every penny, it said, of Medicare tax and premium collections on Medicare; to achieve historic levels of debt reduction, $2 trillion over 10 years; to provide $1.6 trillion in tax relief; and set aside a $1.4 trillion reserve for additional needs, debt service, and contingencies. As we all know, there have been big contingencies since then, but not enough to justify the total destruction of all of those promises, not enough to warrant the abandonment of a fiscally responsible Federal budget, which was bequeathed to this administration by the administration which preceded it. For fiscal year 2003, the fiscal year we are in presently, just 2 years and 2 months ago President Bush predicted a $262 billion surplus in the combined Federal budget for that year. The on-budget operating fund surplus was expected to be $49 billion; the off-budget Social Security surplus, $193 billion. The Social Security surplus now is expected to be slightly less than was predicted then, but still $160 billion. But combined, the Federal budget deficit of $450 billion means the operating fund, the main operating account of the Federal Government, this year will run a deficit of over $600 billion. A $49 billion surplus was expected 2 years and 2 months ago and a $610 billion deficit is expected today. The non-Social Security revenue for this year, in personal and corporate income taxes, capital gains tax, estate tax, and the excise tax was projected to exceed expenditures in fiscal year 2002, as they did in the year 2000 under President Bill Clinton--for the first time in 40 years. But now in actuality, those progressive taxes, which have constituted almost the entire tax base of the operating accounts of the Federal Government for all these years, those revenues generated will only amount to two-thirds of expenditures. The two tax bills of 2001 and 2003 have decimated the progressive tax base of the Federal Government. And 2004 is expected to be no better. If anything, it is projected to get even worse. The change from expectations to now the projection of a $500 billion deficit means a change of over $750 billion in projections. Saving the Social Security surplus--that is gone. Every year--this year, next year, every year in the foreseeable future--it is going to be wiped out to nothing. Reducing the national debt by $2 trillion? That is gone. In fact, according to the President's own Office of Management and Budget, if we adopt his budgets as he has proposed them, we will increase the national debt by $2 trillion over the next 10 years. Setting up a reserve fund? Forget that, too. Lowering the growth in discretionary spending to 4 percent a year? Not yet. The President's request for the last 3 years has increased that by 9 percent, 10 percent, and 11 percent, and that does not include these so-called supplemental appropriations, which is maybe one of the reasons that is the preferred approach--come back in, in the middle of the year, and ask for the increased money everybody knows is going to be needed to fund the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is very frustrating, I find, to not be able to get clear, reliable facts from this administration. They act as though this is their government, that we in Congress do not even exist, or that we are an unnecessary and unwanted intrusion into their affairs. So much for a new vision of government. So much for a new tone of bipartisanship. It has become worse, not better. Instead of facing up to these realities, the administration is trying to hide them. When I returned from Minnesota last night, I was given a book, by a colleague, Senator Bennett of Utah: ``Reagan, Man Of Principle,'' by John Harmer, a former State senator in California. I just glanced through the beginning pages of it. I was struck by this anecdote from the senator. He had been involved as the majority leader there, trying to work out the redistricting bill for 1971. California was going to set the lines for the legislative districts for the State for the next 10 years. They finally, after all this thrashing back and forth and cutting deals and making arrangements, got agreement. Governor Reagan--President-to-be--vetoed that bill. So in frustration, the State senator came to President Reagan. He said, reading now directly: ``What exactly do you want?'' I asked, in total frustration. His response was so purely honorable that I dared not repeat it to my senatorial colleagues, knowing that they would hoot me out of the room. Yet, though I did not fully appreciate it at the time, the response was just one of many examples of Reagan's strength as a political leader. Reagan, like Thomas Jefferson, had a fundamental faith in the American people and their ability to make the right decisions if only they had all the facts. Not just the Republicans among the people, but of all the people, once they had all of the facts. . . . I am skipping ahead here, but Governor Reagan said to State Senator Harmer: ``I am really disappointed . . . that individual Republicans are so willing to sell out the best interests of the people in order to save themselves. That is not what I regard as worthy of my signature.'' ``John,'' he said, ``I'm as dedicated to the Republican cause as you are. Our party's core philosophy represents the best assurance for the continued freedom and prosperity of the nation. But I am not the governor of just the Republicans. There are millions of people out there who, whether they voted for me or not, expect me to represent them with good judgement and integrity. The issue is not one of protecting what you call the Republican base. The issue is to do that which is right in principle.'' That could apply to the Democratic majorities in other States. There is no monopoly, I have learned here, in truth or wisdom or virtue. But that principle, ``to do what is right,'' and that principle, ``to present all the facts forthrightly to the American people,'' are principles that are certainly needed even more in Washington today, and that stands in marked contrast to what we experience in Washington today. We are not being trusted with the facts: Not about the budget, not about the timetables for troop deployments and bringing the troops back home, and not about the circumstances that led up to this war in Iraq. We have a right to those facts here in the Congress. More important, the American people have a right to those facts. We have a right to know how much this war is costing and how we are going to pay for it. We have a right to know how long our troops are going to be over there in Iraq. We have a right to know how we got into that war in Iraq and how what we were told over the last months squares with the truth as it was known at the time. What were the facts that led President Bush to say before the Nation, in a televised speech last October 7, that Saddam Hussein could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year when we now know there was no such program in evidence there? Or that Iraq is exploring using unmanned aerial vehicles for missions, targeting the United States, when in fact it was known back then and certainly is known today that those missiles, which were not even used against our invading forces, thank God, had a range of only a few hundred miles and were no threat to the United States? What facts led Vice President Cheney to say last August 26 that there is no doubt Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction, there is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, our allies, and against us? What caused National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice to say last September that Iraq had provided chemical weapons training to al-Qaida members? What prompted Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld to say last fall that the United States must act quickly to save potentially tens of thousands of citizens? What led the President to say that Saddam Hussein could strike the United States first and inflict massive and sudden horror? These are the questions I have. These are some of the facts that need to become known, as the distinguished ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee said just before me on the floor. We need a bipartisan investigation into all these circumstances, into what was known by the intelligence community, what was reported to members of the administration. What was reported in top secret briefings to members of the Armed Services Committee which I was invited to attend, 20 or more such briefings over the course of last fall and early into this year? What was being told to the administration that was at variance with that information? What caused the administration to speak so emphatically, with certainty, about acts which it seems were not so factual and which were not even presented as absolute facts in the briefings which I attended at the time? We have a right to those answers. Thus far it has been very difficult to get the agreement from colleagues on the other side to undertake these investigations or inquiries, whatever euphemism we use. The Senate Intelligence Committee evidently, and hopefully, has agreed to undertake such an inquiry. We have not been able to obtain that consent in the Senate Armed Services Committee. In fact, we are being told such a bipartisan investigation is not going to be forthcoming. What recourse does that leave? How do we get to the truth when those in possession of the facts and the information will not provide them? How can we get to the truth when we cannot conduct a bipartisan inquiry or intelligence into obtaining that truth? What does it say about those who would not provide that information or that opportunity to seek the truth? What do they have to hide? What are they afraid we might find out? Why is it we cannot know the circumstances that caused the Commander in Chief to send 150,000 U.S. troops to Iraq, including PFC Edward Herrott being buried in Minnesota this morning, to whom I pay my greatest respects. I yield the floor.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Let me read a couple of excerpts because this is really the crux of where I think we have fallen behind in our effort and where, until we do make up that effort and start showing some visible success, our troops are going to have an increasingly difficult time and increasingly become targets of hostility and reaction and where they are going to be bound to that country longer than they would need to be. It describes the city of Abu Ghraib which is just west of Baghdad. It says: The constituents' woes came down to the essentials. They had no power, and thus no clean water. Their local elected leader was besieged with all of these requests for basic necessities of life. Mr. Dari could do nothing for the man who, lacking electricity, stayed up all night fanning a sick child, nothing for the 5-year-old child who was left legless by unexploded ordnance that detonated, a sight that caused him to weep. He could do nothing for the multitudes complaining of cars, weapons or relatives taken by American forces, other than give their names to the Americans. He could do nothing for those lacking drinking water or waiting for food rations. ``What do you tell the people--have more patience?'' he asked rhetorically. ``Till when?'' This local Iraqi leader went on to say: ``Conditions have never been worse,'' he said bluntly. ``We've never been through such a long bad period.'' The city has had only 1 to 3 hours of power a day in recent weeks. Drinking water cannot be pumped without electricity so people have to take their water from dirty canals. As I said before, when we were there, the temperatures in the afternoon were 115 degrees. I was told a couple of days before we arrived it had reached 130 degrees. If there is no electricity for air conditioning and other cooling, there are serious problems. Crime, rare under the old government, is rampant. The leader said that when he first met with the Americans he told them that they did not have much time to meet the expectations of the citizenry, and that he believes time is almost up. Yet, as of the other day, neither he nor the American colonel in charge of the troops there had ever had contact with the American-led civilian administration ostensibly governing Iraq, even though this man, Mr. Dari, oversees an area that is home to 900,000 people. It is an impossible situation for our service men and women to be trying to uphold civil order in a foreign country with virtually no interpreters available to communicate with citizens, when they are in that state of frustration and agitation. We met yesterday with the Secretary of Defense in the Armed Services Committee, who pointed to progress that has been made in this respect. I am sure that there has been progress in certain areas, but there is not enough progress being made in these nonmilitary efforts. They are not occurring in enough places in the country to take hold among the citizenry. And where they are occurring, at least from what we saw on our trip, it is the U.S. and British troops who are performing these nonmilitary services. For example, in Kirkuk, which is north of Baghdad, U.S. forces conduct raids at night against what are believed to be enemy cells of resistance, and then by day they are hauling away thousands of tons of accumulated garbage, old garbage, and repairing rundown schools. The British troops with whom we met in Basra, in southern Iraq, are rebuilding a hospital. They are doing wonderful work, but that is not what they are there to do. To ask them to be engaged in military activities, policing the streets of these cities, doing repair work or hauling away old accumulated garbage in their spare time, which they have done, is just really senseless. It is overburdening them. It is unfair to them, and it means that not enough of these nonmilitary projects, economic rehabilitation, social rehabilitation programs, are underway or visible anywhere in Iraq for the citizens of that country to see that they have hope for a better future. They expect the United States of America, which they view as omnipotent because we came in and swept their military aside and occupied those cities and the country, to deliver services as basic as electricity or running water, and when we cannot do so and when the conditions are markedly worse than they were under Saddam Hussein, we have a very serious problem with the reception there. Our troops, our young men and women, are literally going to pay for these failures with their lives. I was recently told about a story of a company in Ohio that makes hospital surgical beds. They were willing to send as many of these surgical tables over to Iraq as could be used--such as for the 5-year- old legless boy who needed surgery--to save lives and be recognized as having come over from the United States of America to help dress the wounds, literally and figuratively, that exist there. The company is still waiting to hear back from the Deputy Secretary of Defense's office regarding that offer to donate and transport, at their expense, these hospital facilities. If the United States can bring in, as we have because we must, tent cities with electric generators, with sewage disposal systems, with portable toilets, why can't electric generators be brought in that will produce some of the electricity that these cities need so that they can again appreciate the benefits of what we have brought to them, not only the liberation of spirit and soul and body, but also the ability to function as they must and move forward as they must? I urge the administration that the same efforts be made, with the same intensity of effort, the same--not quite the same funding but considerable effort be made--to bring about this renovation. Ultimately, that reconstruction is going to take decades. It is the responsibility of the Iraqi people to undertake it and to pay for it, but in the short run, in the immediate sense, those projects are not going to occur unless the United States is the initiator, provides the leadership, and provides the initial financial resources. If we do not see a plethora of those kinds of improvements overall, if we do not see children who are outside playing with soccer balls donated by American children who sent them over there, we do not establish that basic connection, then we are going to be there far longer than we should be and longer than anybody over there now wants us to be. We are going to suffer casualties far greater than we should. So I implore the President and the administration to undertake this effort with the same magnitude of skill and American know-how that succeeded so wonderfully militarily so we can bring our folks home. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 [From the New York Times, July 9, 2003] For a Town Council in Iraq, Many Queries, Few Answers (By Amy Waldman) Abu Ghraib, Iraq, July 5.--On a recent morning, the Abu Ghraib town council was hearing the usual litany of complaints, offering its usual mix of help and, mostly, impotence in return. Overhead, a fan turned, but the air did not. The constituents' woes came down to the essentials. They had no power, and thus no clean water--could they get generators? They had no security--could they get weapons permits? If anyone could help them, it should have been the man at the center of the scene, Dari Hamas al-Dari. In April, he was selected by the local tribes to lead Iraq's first freely formed town council after the fall of Saddam Hussein. Since then, he has sat at a desk in a white robe and headdress, in a room lined with men in tribal robes and Western dress all looking to him for answers. He has not had many. Mr. Dari could do nothing for the man who, lacking electricity, stayed up all night fanning a sick child, nothing for the 5-year-old child who was left legless by unexploded ordnance that detonated, a sight that caused him to weep. He could do nothing for the multitudes complaining of cars, weapons or relatives taken by American forces, other than give their names to the Americans. He could do nothing for those lacking drinking water or waiting for food rations. ``What do you tell the people--have more patience?'' he asked rhetorically. ``Till when?'' If America has natural allies in Iraq, they are men like Mr. Dari. He attended the American Jesuit school in Baghdad, then university in Frankfurt. He has lived in Europe and speaks excellent English. He maintained his independence throughout Mr. Hussein's rule, shunning the material blandishments with which Mr. Hussein bought the loyalty of many tribal sheiks. A part-time farmer and businessman, he is a member of the sizable Zobaa tribe, which his brother leads. He welcomed the Americans and has worked closely with their military commanders in his area. So the impatience creeping into his voice and the frustration lining his handsome face bode poorly for the fate of the American-led occupation here--even if American officials succeed in drawing Iraqis into a new national leadership. There is no indication that Mr. Dari, who is 64, would turn on the Americans. He is simply losing faith in them. ``Conditions have never been worse,'' he said bluntly. ``We've never been through such a long bad period.'' Abu Ghraib--a largely agricultural area just west of Baghdad that is also home to Iraq's most notorious prison-- has had only one to three hours of power a day in recent weeks. Drinking water cannot be pumped without electricity, so people take water from dirty canals. The food ration system that functioned smoothly under Saddam Hussein is breaking down, out here at least. Trucks leave Baghdad laden with food, but it mysteriously gets offloaded at markets along the way. Crime, rare under the old government, is rampant. Mr. Dari's car was taken from him at gunpoint in Baghdad recently. Four of his council members have been the victims of carjacking attempts. And while the criminals are well- armed, the Americans are disarming the victims, taking weapons while the weapons licenses they insist on are in short supply. ``People here feel naked without their pistols,'' Mr. Dari said, putting his own in a holster. In a time of rising discontent, Mr. Dari is the buffer between occupier and occupied. It is a role that, historically, has earned little appreciation. Recent attacks on Iraqis cooperating with the Americans suggest that this chapter will be no different. ``We are stuck between the Americans and our people,'' Mr. Dari said of the council, which sits, for no salary, from 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. daily. ``And there were so many promises from one side.'' Some people are calling the council members ``America lovers'' and traitors, he said, because they are working with the Americans. ``He's caught in the middle,'' one of his American partners, Lt. Col. Jeff Ingram of the First Armored Division, acknowledged. ``He defends us a lot.'' These days, Mr. Dari is warning the American more than he is defending them. When he first met with them, he said, he told them that they did not have much time to meet people's expectations. That time is almost up, he believes. ``I'm not threatening your with another Vietnam--God forbid,'' he said. ``I'm just trying to get help for the people before something happens.'' Something is already happening, of course. Out here, as across much of Iraq, the attacks on Americans are stepping up. Colonel Ingram said his company is being attacked at least once a day, fortunately by men who are not very good shots. Colonel Ingram blames the Iraqis for most of the area's problems, saying it is they who have torn down the power lines he fixed, they who are robbing one another. ``The U.S. is not the problem, it's the solution,'' he said. But he too wonders about the slow pace of rebuilding. ``I would have expected the U.S., the biggest country in the world, to say here's the water purification system, here's the big generator,'' he said. As of the other day, neither Mr. Dari nor Colonel Ingram had ever had any contact with the American-led civilian administration ostensibly governing Iraq, although Mr. Dari oversees an area that is home to 900,000 people. So they soldier on alone, often seeking progress in vain. The council tried to distribute generators found at a Republican Guard camp to villages, but found that many of the village ``representatives'' were driving out of the camp and selling the generators. Others were being set upon by angry mobs wanting the generators for themselves. American soldiers were deployed to keep order, but in the heat and chaos their tempers frayed. They broke windshields and cursed at Iraqis, further shrinking the reservoir of good will. Mr. Dari said he received 10 to 12 complaints a day about weapons, cars or relatives taken by the Americas. One man came to report that American soldiers had taken away his deaf relative a month ago for having a picture of Saddam Hussein in his house, and that he had not been seen since. Officials from an Islamic charity said the Americans had confiscated their car and raided their office--the left both unsecured, giving looters free rein. Then there are the small problems. The woman who is illegally squatting in a government building (American soldier told Mr. Dari they could not evict her unless she threatened someone; property rights were not their ``purview.'') The two council members whom the council dismissed for corruption. The effort to find the American commander with the authority to sign a contract for garbage collection. Mr. Dari is just old enough to remember when the British had an air base just west of here. They told Iraqis they had come to liberate them from the Ottomans, he recalled, and they stayed 40 years. ``I hope history isn't repeating itself,'' he said, and pressed his temples as if hoping to make the impatient men at both elbows disappear.

Mr. DAYTON. Madam President, I thank the senior Senator from Alaska for making possible my opportunity to speak tonight on a trip to Iraq I took last week with several of our colleagues as members of the Senate Armed Services Committee and Senate Intelligence Committee, led by the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, John Warner, who is an extraordinary leader of the committee. I do not know if his age is classified or not, but at his age, the kind of energy, the kind of determination, the kind of enthusiasm and leadership he showed was just extraordinary. It was a privilege to be on this adventure with him and Carl Levin, our ranking member, who celebrated a birthday as we were traveling over there. The two of them set a sterling example for the rest of us to follow. Then we met with the real superstars who are in Iraq: the men and women of our Armed Forces. I cannot say enough about the respect and admiration I have for those mostly young men and women from all over this country. They have performed superbly well. They have redefined the words ``patriotism'' and ``courage'' for this Senator. I am truly in awe of their skill and their performance under the greatest of danger, and their resolve, which continues to this day. They are proud of what they have accomplished, as they should be. They achieved a tremendous military victory in 3 weeks' time, and now they are doing their utmost to preserve that victory while these other factors get resolved, and that is what I wish to address my remarks to this evening. Stalwart as they are, those men and women pretty much asked all of us one question: ``When are we coming home?'' I did not have the answer. The military command with whom we met in Iraq did not have the answer. The Secretary of Defense yesterday did not have that answer. And that uncertainty, as well as the demands that are placed upon them--the risks, the dangers, and the pressures in this god-awful environment with temperatures 115 degrees in the afternoon, sweltering heat, and soldiers dressed in flack jackets, heavy helmets, patrolling, doing what they must do, knowing they are now increasingly targets of Iraqi resistance. It is a gruesome situation they are enduring on behalf of our country and on behalf of the commitments they have undertaken. As I say, they are performing them incredibly well. When we met in Baghdad with U.S. Ambassador Bremer and with the commanding general of the U.S. forces, General Sanchez, we asked what they thought was the course that had to be followed, and they both said independently the same thing: The United States had to stay the course in Iraq and keep its presence there until success was achieved. We asked, What constitutes success? They each said three things. First, that Saddam Hussein and his sons must be found and removed permanently from Iraq. Second, that law and order must be restored to that country. And third, that a successor government, an Iraqi government, hopefully a democratically reelected Iraqi government, will be able to replace the U.S. civilian command and begin to run that country successfully. The first objective, the elimination of Saddam Hussein and his two sons, should have been accomplished already. It must be accomplished very soon, and I believe it will be accomplished very soon. It is impossible to overstate the terror he strikes in the souls of the people of Iraq. People literally quiver when his name is even mentioned. They refuse to say anything about him. They do not even want to mention his name or respond to questions about him. The new local leaders we met with in Kirkuk talked softly, and when his name came up, they talked so softly they were barely audible. It is as if they wanted to recede into the woodwork and become invisible, rather than be subjected to this man's cruelty and tyranny. We heard stories about unspeakable cruelty orchestrated by him or his two sons, such as the soccer games played in their Olympic stadium where the members of the losing team would be taken below and tortured and then executed for losing a soccer game. Or even if someone scored the winning goal and it cost one of the son's his bet, that player could be taken down below and tortured and executed. To think of living one's life under those kinds of horrific circumstances at the whim of this insane, cruel, and demonic man and his sons. We visited a mass grave site where a couple thousand bodies have been exhumed, the ones not identified and taken away by their Iraqi brothers and sisters. There are thousands of those grave sites, we are told, all over the country. There is reason to believe that when those three men are permanently gone, unmistakably gone, identified clearly by the Iraqi people as bodies that are never again to rule Iraq, that more and more of the citizenry will come forward and will be willing to take that crucial first step toward allegiance with the United States but, more importantly, allegiance with their own future, with their own autonomous Iraq that they can create and run themselves. After that first goal has been achieved, the other two, bringing law and order to this country and installing a successor government that is going to be viable over the months that will follow, is going to be even more challenging. Right now, U.S. forces are seeking out and training, putting into place some 60,000 to 70,000 police officers all over Iraq. This is a monumental undertaking of its own, to screen out the wrong elements, those who were involved before in the Baath Party or secret police, and put them now in charge of law and order all over that country, law and order that is desperately needed because right now it is the U.S. troops who are required to patrol to reconstruct the peace, guarding public property which, we are told, if something has any value at all and is not being guarded, it will be quickly stolen, looted. While our troops are standing guard or patrolling, they are exposed targets. Increasingly, they are the targets of murderers who are seeking vengeance and trying to drive out our forces. In fact, the day after we left Baghdad, a Minnesota soldier was killed, PFC Edward Herrgott from Shakopee, MN. He was 20 years old. He was killed, murdered really, by a sniper as he stood guarding the Baghdad Museum. Some of that hostility is being orchestrated by forces, some rumored to be by Saddam Hussein himself trying to retaliate against the United States military for the victories that were achieved, but some of it is also said to be caused by the lack of improvements that have failed to be made in the basic services upon which Iraqi citizens depend. There is an article in yesterday's New York Times and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record at the completion of my remarks.