Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I also thank Judy Lichtman, who is president of the Coalition for Genetic Fairness. I wanted to mention her name on the floor. She did a great deal of work, as well as the coalition. We are prepared to vote.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 10 seconds.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself the remaining time. I ask unanimous consent that a statement of the administration's policy be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is important to know that President Bush, in 1997, while the governor of Texas, signed a law prohibiting genetic discrimination. He also went to the Nation in a radio address on June 23, 2001 and supported the elements included in this law. We have a very strong Statement of Administration Policy in support of this program. We thank the President for his strong support and we will work with our Republicans friends to try to make sure this message goes to the House of Representatives and that they respond in a similar way. I hope we will have an overwhelming vote in the Senate today. It is one of the most important bills we will consider this Congress. I yield back my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I see one of the primary sponsors, the Senator from Maine. I will withhold and make comments when she finishes.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes. First, I thank my colleague and friend, the chairman of the committee, Senator Gregg, for prioritizing this issue. It is a matter of enormous importance. I thank him and I thank Senator Snowe, who has been a leader on this issue for a number of years. This has truly been a bipartisan effort. I also thank our majority leader, Senator Frist, also a doctor, who understands this issue and has been very cooperative; Senator Enzi, who chairs a subcommittee in this area of policy, has helped to advance this program. We are grateful for the strong bipartisanship. I wish to recognize Congresswoman Slaughter, who initiated the original legislation, and today we pay tribute to her. Also, I thank our Democratic leader, Tom Daschle, who, in 1997, was the first person to introduce the comprehensive genetic discrimination program. Our friend, Senator Jeffords, has been an advocate for the elimination of genetic discrimination; Tom Harkin and Chris Dodd have been tireless advocates to make sure we got to this particular day. I am going to yield time to Senator Harkin in a minute. In 1964, this Nation passed the important civil rights legislation to ban discrimination in our society in employment and public accommodations, among other things. Then in 1965 we banned discrimination in voting. Then, in 1968, we passed legislation to ban discrimination in housing. Then, under the leadership of my friend from Iowa, in 1990, the Americans with Disabilities Act passed to ban discrimination on the basis of disability. We have also done much to eliminate discrimination on ethnicity, on national origin, and we have made enormous progress in discrimination on gender. We still have not made enough progress on discrimination regarding gay and lesbian issues. Today, we are continuing the march toward equality in the United States, understanding the importance of eliminating discrimination based upon an individual's genetic makeup, in terms of insurance and in terms of employment. We are doing it in a way that is going to guarantee real remedies. This is not just legislation that will be out there and say we are against this form of discrimination; we are providing real remedies. From now on, individuals will know that no matter what their genetic makeup or susceptibility to genetic disease, they may not be discriminated against in the job place or in the provision of health insurance. This is a major continuing step toward greater equality and the elimination of bigotry and discrimination in our society. It is an important day in the Senate. I commend all of those and the staff for all they have done so well to make it possible. I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the Senator from Iowa.

Mr. KENNEDY. How much time do I have?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly support the amendment of Senators Daschle and Graham of South Carolina to close an unfortunate and unacceptable gap in health insurance coverage for families of Reserve and Guard members called up for active duty. The amendment is especially important now, when so many Reserve and Guard members are being called up for duty in Iraq. We all know that our Armed Forces are stretched thin. They are paying a heavy price for the Bush administration's gross miscalculation about Iraq. The burden is now falling heavily on the Reserve and National Guard as well. Over 215,000 Guard and Reserve men and women have not been mobilized to ease the burden on our regular forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, and in homeland security as well. One challenge they should not have to face is maintaining health insurance for their families. The immediate problem is that, too few private employers are willing to continue coverage for Guard and Reserve employees and family members when the employees are activated. According to the General Accounting Office, nearly 80 percent of all reservists have health coverage through their jobs in the private sector. They far prefer to continue that coverage when they are activated. The military's TRICARE coverage works well for the reservists themselves when they are activated. But it is often not practical for their family members, since their homes are often too far from the military bases where the TRICARE doctors have their medical practices and doctors in the area near their homes often do not accept TRICARE coverage. Even when TRICARE coverage makes sense, it is often difficult to transfer to TRICARE for a year and then transfer back to their employer-sponsored plan after their deactivation, especially if they have a so-called preexisting condition that could make them uninsurable. I recently met with an Air Force family in Boston who had lost their health care as a result of the mobilization for Iraq. The family joined TRICARE, but few physicians and even fewer specialists were willing to take their insurance. Clearly, we need to do more to guarantee that good health insurance coverage is available. All our military families, including members of the Reserve and Guard deserve good coverage. We need to do everything we can to avoid unnecessary upheaval in the lives of these families who are sacrificing so much for our country. I thank my colleagues for their support of this proposal to make TRICARE available to Reserve and Guard personnel and their families. It is a problem we should have corrected long before now and we could have avoided this sudden crisis for so many of these families.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Nora Carroll and Elizabeth Prescott, fellows in my HELP Committee, be granted floor privileges.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, each year, a prominent member of the Nation's cultural community is invited to deliver a lecture on the role of the arts in the public policy. These annual lectures are tribute to the memory of Nancy Hanks, who served as chairperson of the National Endowment for the Arts from 1969 to 1977, and who had the wide respect of all of us on both sides of the aisle. Robert Redford was honored as this year's Nancy Hanks Lecturer, and he delivered an impressive address at the Kennedy Center last month. His remarks emphasized the fundamental importance of the arts in our public policy, as an essential expression of our freedom and as an indispensable part of our national imagination at its best. The unfortunate reality today is that when the economy suffers, support for the arts and for arts education is reduced. In communities across the Nation, funding for the arts and for cultural programming are facing serious reductions. Robert Redford's address reminds us of the unacceptable price we pay for neglecting the arts. Today, Robert Redford is an American cultural icon, and his accomplishments as an actor and director are renowned throughout the world. His advocacy for the arts is less well known, but he deserves great credit for his impressive leadership and dedication in elevating the national debate on this vital issue. Many of us feel it is his finest role of all. At the beginning of his lecture, speaking of his own early years, he says: I grew up in a time when democracy was taken for granted since it was drummed into our minds as a fundamental definition of America and why it was great. I was shaped by WWII and a time when we were all united in its purpose-- unlike conflicts of today. Because times were tough, and my family resources slim, we didn't have fancy toys or luxuries and had to be creative in inventing worlds of our own. My imagination was my most valuable commodity and thankfully it became a life force for me at a very young age. I saw the world around me not only as it was. I saw the world around me as it could be. Art and the imagination that give it life became my closest companions. Before anyone was much interested in what I had to say, they were interested in what I created. As a kid, I remember sketching everything in sight. My parents and their friends played cards and I began drawing them as a group, individual faces and the like. Then I moved under the table and began sketching their feet at which point I think everyone started to worry. Even though they thought I was a bit weird, I got attention and encouragement for my ``art'' at a young age. His lecture will be of interest to all of us in Congress and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it's a privilege to join my colleagues in introducing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2003. Civil rights is the unfinished business of our nation. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 gives all Americans--without regard to race, ethnic background, gender, or religion--the opportunity to obtain and keep a job. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act is an essential additional step in preventing job discrimination. The act is straightforward and limited. It prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation in making decisions about hiring, firing, promotion, and compensation. It makes clear that there is no right to preferential treatment, and that quotas are prohibited. It does not apply to employers with less than 15 employees. It does not apply to the armed forces, religious organizations, or such volunteer positions as troop leaders in the Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts. In fact, this fundamental additional protection for America's workforce is long overdue. Too many hardworking Americans are being judged on their sexual orientation, rather than their ability and qualifications. Consider the example of Kendall Hamilton in Oklahoma City. After working at Red Lobster for several years and receiving excellent reviews, he applied for promotion at the urging of the general manager, who knew he was gay. His application was rejected after a co-worker revealed his sexual orientation to the upper management team, and the promotion was given instead to another employee who had been on the job for only 9 months--and whom Mr. Hamilton had trained. He was told that his sexual orientation ``was not compatible with Red Lobster's belief in family values,'' and that being gay had destroyed any chance of becoming a manager. As a result, Hamilton left the company. Consider the example of Steve Morrison, a firefighter in Oregon. His co-workers saw him on the local news protesting an anti-gay initiative, and incorrectly assumed he was gay himself. He began to lose workplace responsibilities and was the victim of harassment, including hate mail. After a long administrative proceeding, the trumped-up charges were removed from his record, and he was transferred to another fire station. The overwhelming majority of Americans believe that this kind of discrimination is wrong. According to a 2003 Gallup study, 88 percent of Americans believe that gays and lesbians should have equal job opportunities. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act is strongly supported by labor unions and a broad religious coalition. They know that America will not reach its full potential or realize its promise of equal justice and equal opportunity for all until we end all forms of discrimination. Over 60 percent of Fortune 500 companies have implemented non- discrimination policies that include sexual orientation. Our legislation has been endorsed by leading corporations such as AT&T, BP, Cisco Systems, Eastman Kodak, FleetBoston, General Mills, Hewlett- Packard, IBM, JP Morgan Chase & Co., Microsoft, Nike, Oracle, Shell Oil, and Verizon. Small businesses support our legislation as well. At a hearing in 2001, Lucy Billingsly, a Republican small business owner in Dallas, said, ``A uniform Federal law banning sexual orientation discrimination will give businesses the right focus. By paying attention to the quality of work being done and not to factors that have nothing to do with job performance, all of America's businesses will perform better.'' Despite broad-based support in the business community and Congress's history of enacting anti-discrimination legislation, some argue that the solution to the problem of job discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation should be left to the States. I disagree. Only 14 States and the District of Columbia have laws similar to the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. Too many American workers are left without redress. A Federal law is clearly needed to ensure that all Americans receive equal treatment in the workplace. Hard-working citizens in every State deserve the opportunity to feel secure in their jobs when they perform well, and they deserve the opportunity to compete in the workplace when they are qualified for a job. Job discrimination based on sexual orientation is unacceptable, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. A year ago, the entire capital region was terrorized by unknown killers striking randomly, without warning, without any discernible pattern, and without mercy. Sadly, we know now that those savage murders could have been prevented. On 9/11/2001, we had learned that the oceans could no longer protect us from the terrorism that has plagued other nations. We learned that our law enforcement agencies and our intelligence agencies were not adequately organized, trained, or prepared to identify the terrorists and prevent them from striking. We learned, especially from the report of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees, that there were serious problems with information analysis and information sharing between agencies at the Federal, State and local levels, and even between Federal agencies. As the FBI Director told the committees, no one can say whether the tragedy of 9/11 could have been prevented if all of the problems of our foreign and domestic intelligence and law enforcement agencies had been corrected before 9/11. But 9/11 was certainly a wakeup call to these agencies. They were on notice that, whatever the reasons for their failure to connect the many ``dots'' which their separate activities had uncovered before the terrorist attacks, they needed to change their ways. The tragic DC area killings of a year ago, in which 13 people were shot and 10 lost their lives, provided a dramatic test of how well we had learned the lessons of 9/11. At the time, we had no way of knowing whether the shootings were the work of demented citizens, homegrown terrorists, or foreign terrorists bent on spreading mortal fear among the people. In many ways, the law enforcement response was a model of the lessons already learned. Over 1,300 Federal agents of all types joined hundreds of State and local law enforcement personnel in a joint intensive effort to identify and apprehend the killers. The cooperation among law enforcement agencies in the area was close and seemingly effective. But in some vital respects, the events of last October revealed shockingly that a year after 9/11, we had not yet filled obvious gaps in our day-to-day law enforcement and intelligence activities. We had not made sure that all of the Nation's police agencies at all levels were communicating with each other with the fastest possible technology, and acting in real time to share the useful information they had gathered. Unfortunately, too much of the national effort had been invested in arguing over broad and controversial new investigative and enforcement powers that threatened draconian violations of basic rights and liberties, with little benefit to homeland security. These debates deflected attention from the urgent need to assure that every jurisdiction in the Nation has--and uses--full access to the vast array of already available Federal resources specifically designed to assist them in their local responsibilities. The DC sniper case showed us a year ago that we need even more focus on this very practical and achievable goal, and less focus on the distracting shortcuts urged on the Nation by those who believe we must sacrifice our rights to gain security. A year ago, we learned again that the national law enforcement system is only as strong as its weakest link. If all jurisdictions everywhere are not full partners in the legitimate, practical, day-to-day operations of the existing national system for information sharing and Federal-State cooperation, each of us anywhere is at risk. The information now available demonstrates that the enormous tragedies of a year ago might well have been entirely prevented if authorities in a State far from the Washington area had used the existing Federal resources available to them. The fact is, on the night of September 21, 2002, 11 days before the sniper shootings began in the Washington area, the local police in Montgomery, AL, obtained a clear fingerprint of a suspect in a brutal robbery and murder. As we now know, that fingerprint matched a print on file in the FBI electronic matching system. That information could have quickly led the authorities to Malvo and Muhammad, the two people later charged with the Washington area killings that began on October 2 that year. A State crime laboratory with a few thousand dollars worth of proper hardware and free software from the FBI could have transmitted the Alabama fingerprint to the FBI system on Sunday morning, September 22. That system would have automatically compared the print with the 45 million prints in the system. The matching print could have been found and identified by the FBI by noon on that Sunday. In fact, the FBI's average response time on such print matches was 3 hours and 16 minutes last year. The FBI's State assistance program makes it easy and inexpensive for a State to transmit unidentified prints directly to the automated fingerprint system. The Justice Department even provides grants to help with the costs. But 15 States, including the State of Alabama, are not yet fully connected to the FBI system. They cannot transmit the fingerprints found at crime scenes directly to the FBI's automated 24-hour-a-day fingerprint searching system. In the Alabama case, had the full facilities available from the Federal Government been utilized, look-out alerts or arrest warrants for the Alabama murder suspects could have been circulated throughout the Nation some time between September 22 and September 24, followed quickly by the description and license plate number of the car they were using. In other words, at least 7 full days before the first shooting in the Washington area, Federal, State and local law enforcement agencies could have identified Muhammad and Malvo and could have been searching urgently for them, because they were wanted for the robbery/murder in Alabama. Tragically, we now know that local police officers in two other States made traffic stops of the suspects' car and checked the driver's license and plates with the national databases during those 7 days. But because the readily available national system had not been used, those checks produced no response. Malvo and Muhammad were not apprehended, and the DC area sniper shootings took place. It is not my purpose to single out Alabama for special blame. This is a national problem. Fifteen States are not fully connected to the FBI's electronic matching system. Many other States may not take full advantage of this and other Federal resources. The FBI spent $640 million building its fingerprint system, because it persuaded Congress that ``if we build it they will come.'' The system works well beyond the planners' dreams. It usually responds on a ten-fingerprint check of an arrested suspect within 20 minutes. It usually reports on an unknown single fingerprint within about 3 hours. Thirty-five States are fully using this valuable resource. They use the system routinely and automatically, because as one police official put it, ``You catch bad guys'' this way. In fact, some police departments sent the FBI all the old unidentified prints they had as soon as they connected to the system. Time after time, even very old prints from unsolved cases were matched with prints in the system, and old crimes were finally solved. On this sad anniversary of the DC sniper shootings, I hesitate to discuss these painful facts, when the victims' families are still grieving. But I, too, have been where they are now, and so I feel I can speak the painful truth, the truth that will teach us how to make the future better than the past. The truth is that we now know this tragedy could have been prevented--not by tougher laws or more intrusive investigative powers, not by ethnic or racial profiling, but by strengthening and fully using the effective systems we already have in place. Attorney General Ashcroft wants even more law enforcement powers that will threaten still more basic rights. But I say, let's fix the nuts and bolts of the system we already have. It is a scandal that 15 of our States are still not fully linked to the FBI system. The financial cost is small, and Federal grants are available to defray it and pay the cost of any training that is needed. Hopefully, no such avoidable tragedy will ever happen again, and the victims we mourn and honor today will not have died in vain.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it's a privilege to join my colleagues in introducing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2003. Civil rights is the unfinished business of our nation. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 gives all Americans--without regard to race, ethnic background, gender, or religion--the opportunity to obtain and keep a job. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act is an essential additional step in preventing job discrimination. The act is straightforward and limited. It prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation in making decisions about hiring, firing, promotion, and compensation. It makes clear that there is no right to preferential treatment, and that quotas are prohibited. It does not apply to employers with less than 15 employees. It does not apply to the armed forces, religious organizations, or such volunteer positions as troop leaders in the Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts. In fact, this fundamental additional protection for America's workforce is long overdue. Too many hardworking Americans are being judged on their sexual orientation, rather than their ability and qualifications. Consider the example of Kendall Hamilton in Oklahoma City. After working at Red Lobster for several years and receiving excellent reviews, he applied for promotion at the urging of the general manager, who knew he was gay. His application was rejected after a co-worker revealed his sexual orientation to the upper management team, and the promotion was given instead to another employee who had been on the job for only 9 months--and whom Mr. Hamilton had trained. He was told that his sexual orientation ``was not compatible with Red Lobster's belief in family values,'' and that being gay had destroyed any chance of becoming a manager. As a result, Hamilton left the company. Consider the example of Steve Morrison, a firefighter in Oregon. His co-workers saw him on the local news protesting an anti-gay initiative, and incorrectly assumed he was gay himself. He began to lose workplace responsibilities and was the victim of harassment, including hate mail. After a long administrative proceeding, the trumped-up charges were removed from his record, and he was transferred to another fire station. The overwhelming majority of Americans believe that this kind of discrimination is wrong. According to a 2003 Gallup study, 88 percent of Americans believe that gays and lesbians should have equal job opportunities. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act is strongly supported by labor unions and a broad religious coalition. They know that America will not reach its full potential or realize its promise of equal justice and equal opportunity for all until we end all forms of discrimination. Over 60 percent of Fortune 500 companies have implemented non- discrimination policies that include sexual orientation. Our legislation has been endorsed by leading corporations such as AT&T, BP, Cisco Systems, Eastman Kodak, FleetBoston, General Mills, Hewlett- Packard, IBM, JP Morgan Chase & Co., Microsoft, Nike, Oracle, Shell Oil, and Verizon. Small businesses support our legislation as well. At a hearing in 2001, Lucy Billingsly, a Republican small business owner in Dallas, said, ``A uniform Federal law banning sexual orientation discrimination will give businesses the right focus. By paying attention to the quality of work being done and not to factors that have nothing to do with job performance, all of America's businesses will perform better.'' Despite broad-based support in the business community and Congress's history of enacting anti-discrimination legislation, some argue that the solution to the problem of job discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation should be left to the States. I disagree. Only 14 States and the District of Columbia have laws similar to the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. Too many American workers are left without redress. A Federal law is clearly needed to ensure that all Americans receive equal treatment in the workplace. Hard-working citizens in every State deserve the opportunity to feel secure in their jobs when they perform well, and they deserve the opportunity to compete in the workplace when they are qualified for a job. Job discrimination based on sexual orientation is unacceptable, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I share the reservations of many of my colleagues about the McConnell amendment. Each and every Senator supports our troops in Iraq, but many of us do not support the decision by the Bush administration to go to war. This amendment states the pride and admiration we all feel for our troops, their families, and all of those who aided in the effort. But it also contains several provisions many of us disagree with. The President has stated, there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the attacks on the World Trade Center, yet this amendment leaves the impression that he was. This amendment also states that our military action brought an end to Iraq's illegal programs to acquire weapons of mass destruction, but no evidence whatever has been found that Saddam had even begun to reactivate these programs of the past. In addition, the amendment commends the President and Secretary Rumsfeld for planning and carrying out Operation Iraqi Freedom. No one doubted we would win the war. but we had no plan to win the peace, and Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz misled the President and the country about the need to go to war. As the evidence now makes clear, Iraq was not an imminent threat to our national security. Iraq did not have longstanding ties to terrorist groups. Iraq was not developing nuclear weapons. No weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq. It is wrong to put American lives on the line for a dubious cause. Many of us continue to believe that this was the wrong war at the wrong time. There were alternatives short of a premature rush to a unilateral war that could have accomplished our goals in Iraq with fare fewer casualties and far less damage to our goals in the war against terrorism. This resolution commemorates Operation Iraqi Freedom as if the war were over and our men and women are coming home. We know this is not the case, despite the President's declaration of ``mission accomplished'' aboard the aircraft carrier 5 long months ago. Our service men and women still face constant danger in Iraq. American lives are lost almost daily in Iraq. They were told they would be welcomed as liberators. Instead, they are increasingly resented as occupiers and are under siege every day. They face surprise attacks and deadly ambushes from unknown enemies. It is increasingly difficult to tell friend from foe. The average number of attacks against American soldiers recently increased from 13 to 22 each day. Three hundred and sixteen Americans have been killed in Iraq since the war began. In the 5 months since President Bush declared ``mission accomplished,'' 178 American soldiers have died. Ten soldiers from Massachusetts have made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq. Each day another eight soldiers or Marines are wounded in Iraq. These are not just statistics. Each fallen soldier has someone who mourns their loss. That loss--whether it's a husband or wife, a son or daughter, a brother or sister, or a father or mother--weighs heavily on us as well, and we must do our best to see that their sacrifice is not in vain. The administration still has no credible plan to end this war. Our troops deserve a plan that will bring in adequate foreign forces to share the burden, restore stability and build democracy in Iraq, and bring us closer to the day when our troops will come home with honor. Our soldiers' lives are at stake. Patriotism is not the issue. Support for our troops is not the issue. The safety of the 140,000 American servicemen and women serving in Iraq today is the issue, and, it is our solemn responsibility to question--and question vigorously-- the administration's current request for funds. So far, the administration has failed--and failed utterly--to provide a plausible plan for the future of Iraq and to ensure the safety of our troops.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I wish to take a few moments to speak in favor of the Biden amendment that is before the Senate, which offsets the extraordinary expenses--$87 billion--we are being asked to consider in this supplemental appropriations act. Before I get into that discussion, however, it is probably useful for all of us to, once again, realize what $87 billion really is. It is very difficult to get our hands around such a sizable number. It is only when we look at it in comparison to other important federal programs, to other key economic indicators, that we can really develop a better understanding of how much money this really is. Mr. President, $87 billion is more than the combined budget deficits of all the 50 States in 2004. Even in the greatest fiscal crisis since the Great Depression, the deficits of all 50 states were less than this sum. Eighty-seven billion is 87 times what the Federal Government usually spends annually on afterschool programs. That is right, what we usually spend, because this year the Administration proposes cutting that by nearly $400 billion. We have fought to try and get it back to just $1 billion for the afterschool programs that are so essential to assisting children develop the academic tools, personal confidence, and social skills necessary for personal success and accomplishment in this country. Yet still this Administration wants to slash this funding. Again, this $87 billion is 87 times what we spend nationwide on afterschool programs. It is 2 years' worth of unemployment benefits for the millions of people who have lost their jobs on this Administration's watch. Every couple of months, we have to fight tooth and nail to extend these temporary benefits for Americans who cannot find work. And its always a fight. These are not unmotivated citizens looking for a check they are hardworking Americans who can't find a job in this slack economy. If we help get them through this extraordinarily difficult time, they'll be back contributing to the unemployment insurance system in a very short time period. This $87 billion is enough to pay each of the 3.3 million people who have lost their jobs in the past 3 years more than $26,000. It is seven times what the President proposed to spend on education for low-income schools. Make no mistake about it: This $87 billion is seven times the amount that this institution, the House of Representatives, and the President are allocating for the low-income schools in this country. It is seven times the amount we are spending for the education of low-income children in this country. It is nine times what this Federal Government spends each year on special education for those several million children, close to about 4 million, who used to be kept in closets or kept away from the public school system. We don't do that anymore, we don't relegate Americans to lives of depravation, neglect, and isolation. For more than 25 years, we have made steady progress, with section 504 of the Education Act and then eventually the special education programs, the IDEA, some 25 years ago. We have made remarkable progress. What we are now looking now is that so many of these children graduate from high school, go on to college, and enter the workforce. They have a sense of value of their own self worth, a sense of dignity, and they now contribute to the productivity of this nation. And what a difference it makes to their parents, and their communities, and their country. Yet in one stroke of the pen, we are about to send nine as much money to Iraq as we invest in special education each year. This $87 billion is also eight times what the Government spends each year on the Pell grants to provide middle- and low-income students the opportunity to go to college. The average income of families needing this assistance is $15,200. And there are more than 4,800,000 young people nationwide relying on this badly needed grant help. We began the Pell Grant program at a time when we as a nation to our young people that if they have ability and they can gain entrance into the colleges where they are applying, we will help devise a package of grants, loans, and work study programs in conjunction with their own summer employment and contributions from their family, so that they can achieve their highest aspirations. That was an incredibly important choice for the economic and social well-being of this country. It is important in terms of ensuring that we are going to have well-qualified people in the military. It is important in terms of our institutions and democracy. Yet this $87 billion is eight times what we are allocating for middle-income and low-income families to send their children to school. Do my colleagues understand that? It is eight times that amount, and we had to battle this year, a fight which we lost, to bring the Pell grants up to respond to the increase in tuitions that are taking place across this country. We wanted $2.2 billion, but we lost that $2.2 billion in the Senate. This Senate didn't have the money to help more families send their kids to college this year, and now we know why. This $87 billion is eight times the total Pell grants. That is what we are talking about. It is larger than the total economy of 166 nations. So this is a major allocation of resources that is going to bind our hands for years to come. What does the Biden amendment do? The Biden amendment says we are going to pay for this. We are not just going to allocate these resources and add it to the debt of this country, which means our children and our grandchildren are going to have to pay this some time in the future. We passed a very generous tax reduction program for the top 1 percent of the taxpayers in this country. Now listen to this: Between 2003 and 2010, the top 1 percent of the taxpayers, which have an average income in excess of $1 million, are going to get $690 billion in tax relief. Do we understand that? With the tax reductions that this Congress has passed over the period of the last 2 years, the top 1 percent is going to get $690 billion. Those are individuals who are making $1 million or more. That is going to be their savings over the next 7 years, $690 billion. All the Biden amendment says is rather than $690, let's make it $600 billion, in order to make a down payment on paying for the war. Shared sacrifice, now that is a pretty good American idea. Abraham Lincoln believed in it when he call for an increase in the tax for the wealthiest individuals at the time of the Civil War. We did exactly the same thing at the time of the Spanish-American War. Shared sacrifices across the board, by those who had the highest income. We did it in World War I. We did it in World War II. Why are we not doing it with this? That is all this amendment is really about, shared sacrifice. To the wealthiest 1 percent of individuals, we are saying when we have American servicemen who are risking their lives every day families being disrupted in terms of the National Guard and the Reserves--you can give up some portion of your $690 billion tax cut. I met with many from Massachusetts' servicemen who have come back from Iraq and Afghanistan to find their jobs in jeopardy gone because of the state of the economy. Families are separated for a much longer time than they ever expected. In our State, there are 11 families who have lost a loved one and scores of families with grievously wounded relatives and friends. Why can we not say that we are going to have some shared sacrifice? Instead of the $690 billion, we will make it just under $600 billion. That is what this amendment is about. Finally, it seems to me a powerful enough argument, but listen, when we enacted this tax cut, the administration officials, like Secretary Rumsfeld, were saying, ``I do not believe the United States has the responsibility for reconstruction.'' That was at the time we were passing the tax cut. We enacted this tax cut when the USAID Administrator Natsios was telling the American people the total U.S. portion of construction costs would be $1.7 billion and there are no plans for further on funding after this. This is $87 billion on top of the $78 billion that we have already put up to fund this effort in Iraq. What happened to $1.7 billion? We enacted this tax cut when Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz was informing the Congress, that we are ``dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon.'' Do not worry about it the cost was what we heard. As a result of the administration's failure to plan for the true costs of the Iraq operation and its failure to obtain substantial international support, we are now faced with a staggering reconstruction of $20 billion for Iraq which may be the only first installment. This is only the first installment. Before the Armed Services Committee, Ambassador Bremer said he expects to be back again. When is it going to end? Ambassador Bremer is now suggesting the total reconstruction costs may ultimately reach $60 billion. Those are the World Bank estimates. Because of the administration's go-it-alone on Iraq, the costs of that mistake have climbed to over $120 billion. Clearly, the circumstances have changed. The administration has grossly underestimated the costs now coming due. President Bush, Secretary Rumsfeld, and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz wanted to go to war in the worst way, and they did. Now the bill is coming due. The Biden amendment is the right way for Congress and the country to pay the bill, and I urge my colleagues to approve this amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator has answered his own question. I think it is a pretty clear indication that the administration listens to K Street, which is another way of saying the principal powerful special interests, rather than Main Street, Main Street, where it is happening--whether it is in the rural or urban areas of Iowa, or my own State of Massachusetts. These are hard-working people at the minimum wage. This issue, the minimum wage, is a women's issue because the majority of people who receive the minimum wage are women. It is a children's issue because more than one-third of the women who receive the minimum wage have children, so it is a family issue. It is a civil rights issue because so many of these men and women are men and women of color. And it is a fairness issue. America and Americans understand fairness. If you work 40 hours a week you should not have to live in poverty. Yet this administration is strongly opposed to this and is using every different parliamentary trick to deny us a vote. The majority Members of this body favor an increase in the minimum wage, but the administration is strongly against it and we are basically unable to get it. I think the majority favors also extending a hand to those millions of Americans who are unemployed, who have worked hard all their lives and, because of the economic policies, have been put into the lists of the unemployed. They have been out there looking. Increasing numbers of those have been leaving the job market. We have historically recognized that we would offer a helping hand to those who want to work, who can work and who will work to provide for their families during the slump in the economy, and the administration says no. Beyond all of that, it says we are going to exclude 8 million hard working Americans from possible coverage for overtime. I speak for all of our people in Massachusettes when I thank the Senator from Iowa for his leadership in the Senate and for the strong vote we got in the Senate. We had a bipartisan vote on that. It is enormously instructive and important for the administration to hear. I certainly know the administration is working very hard against the position of the Senator from Iowa and in the House of Representatives. But I hope the kind of expression we saw here in the Senate will be followed by the House. I thank the Senator for all of his good work.

Mr. KENNEDY. I am glad to yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY. We have been joined by the Senator from Iowa, who has been a leader in the Senate on this issue. Let me just mention one other item in response to the question of the Senator. Not only is it the opposition of the administration to the increase of the minimum wage, which now at the end of this year will have lost all of the gains since the last increase--so the administration is against that--the administration is against the long-term unemployment compensation. These are workers who have been trying to gain work. They have been out looking for jobs. Historically, as we have reviewed this issue with the Senator from Iowa and the Senator from Nevada, when we get the unemployment compensation, we have been responsive to this, for years, in a bipartisan way--except for this administration. So we are shortchanging the minimum wage worker. We are shortchanging the unemployed. And now the administration comes on top of that, at a time when we have a disastrous economic policy, we have lost more than 3 million jobs, and it says we are going to take it out on the overtime workers, which in this instance affects the front-line workers, the home guard, so to speak, the ones we are relying on to defend this country--the nurses, the firefighters, and the police. What in the world is it about hard-working Americans who are working hard to provide for their families that this administration just can't stand? I see our friend and leader here from Iowa, who has been so involved in this issue. I know he has some important observations as well.

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield on that point?

Mr. KENNEDY. I noticed an editorial in the Washington Post yesterday which pointed out: Despite a veto threat from President Bush, the House should vote to block the rules. While the overtime regulations need updating, the administration proposal tilts too far in the direction of employers. It ought to be redrawn in a more balanced way. . . . The new rules would give employers far more freedom to disqualify employees. I think that is what the Senator from Nevada is saying, as I understand it, that those rules that have been drafted by the administration are one-sided. They are going to work to the disadvantage of employees just at a time when we know American workers are working longer and harder than any other industrial nation in the world, as this chart shows, particularly with regard to women who are out there, who have joined the workforce. This is in 1979. Middle-income mothers worked 55 percent more than they did 20 years ago, 895 hours compared to 1,388 hours. American workers are working longer hours. They are working harder. The mothers of small children are working longer and harder to make ends meet in a difficult economy. Then the administration promotes these regulations, which any fairminded person would believe are skewed to the disadvantage and unfairness to employees--particularly to nurses, particularly to firefighters, particularly to police, who are the front-line defense in homeland security. I am wondering how the Senator from Nevada views this proposal by the administration, in terms of fairness to workers in his own State.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. After the Senator from Rhode Island, I would like to speak on the Byrd amendment for 15 minutes. I am happy to accommodate the floor managers if we want to rotate back and forth.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, today, as has been stated by my colleagues, starts one of the most important debates that we will have in this Congress or any Congress, I believe. And the decision that is going to be made over the next 2 weeks will, in all consequence, be as important as the decision that was made in October a year ago when this body voted to grant the authority to the President to bring us to war, a resolution which I voted against. At the outset, I want to speak briefly to the amendment before the Senate; that is, the amendment of the Senator from West Virginia separating those items that could be considered reconstruction and rehabilitation, and those items which are directly related to the support of our troops and say why I believe this is so important. That is because we do not have a good idea about what the administration's policy is on the issues of rehabilitation and the reconstruction in Iraq. We don't have the plan of the administration. I don't say that lightly. I am a member of the Armed Services Committee. Just a week ago we had Ambassador Bremer before us. The members of our committee were sent this document which is called the ``Coalition Provisional Authority, Achieving the Vision to Restore Full Sovereignty to the Iraqi People.'' It is 28 pages long. The cover page says: A working document of July 23. We are now on the 1st of October. We had hearings a week ago. We were given the working document of July 23, these 28 pages. If you review this document about our strategy in Iraq, you will find out on the various pages--take page 9--we will, on the issues of security and giving the goals, August to October, they say in item 4 on that page, locate, secure, and eliminate weapons of mass destruction, from August to October. From November to January, continue to locate and eliminate the weapons of mass destruction. Then, February on, it says continue to locate and secure and eliminate the weapons of mass destruction. That is the plan. This program is full of those kinds of platitudinous, empty statements and is basically an insult to our troops and to our Congress. During the course of that hearing, the Senator from Michigan asked Mr. Bremer when we would have a more comprehensive document as to what the plan is on the reconstruction and rehabilitation of Iraq. This is his quote on September 25: I will keep you informed, but I want to keep my hands free as to how I do that. That was an answer to Senator Levin, the ranking minority member of the Armed Services Committee, when he asked Ambassador Bremer: You have submitted this document to us, which is a working document, July 23. When is this going to be updated? When are we going to get the plan? He said: I will keep you informed, but I want to keep my hands free as to how I do that. And we have not had anything since that time. We had one document and that is the 58 or 59 pages that lists the items requested. It is not a plan; it is a budget. It is a budget on various items that are going to be necessary, but no plan. The administration and the military knew how to win the war. That was never going to be the challenge or the question. But they have had no plan on how to win the peace. They still don't have a plan to win the peace. The Byrd amendment is trying to separate what is called for in terms of the support for our troops to this rehabilitation and reconstruction, to try to get the administration prior to the time we are going to have a final vote to say what is the plan on rehabilitation, what is the plan in terms of reconstruction. But we have not had that. We have not had it in the Armed Services Committee. We have the long list of items, some of which I will refer to in my comments, but we still don't have the plan. The fact is, it is being made up every single day over in Iraq. As we consider those reports we all see every evening or morning on the Americans who lose their lives over there, we also haven't got a real understanding of what security is like in the major populated areas of that community. As we are reminded in the excellent study that has been done by Mr. Dobbins and RAND, it talks about how historically those individuals who are subject to occupation view those who occupy their country. Perhaps some start off and support them as liberators, but others will never forgive them for occupying their country. But there is one powerful factor and force, and that is the issue of security. It is security not just out in the streets and the highways between various communities, but it is what is happening in downtown Baghdad every single day and night. The number of people who are getting killed, the numbers who are coming into the morgues, the break- ins taking place in people's houses, and the rapes taking place in those communities have given a sense of insecurity to the people in Baghdad and many other communities. We don't have a plan about how we are going to deal with this. We are told we are training the police-- 40-some-odd-thousand police--who were there under Saddam Hussein, the great majority of whom were torturers and exterminators. But we have a new view and we are retraining them in some particular way. I talked with some extraordinarily impressive young Americans who just came from Faluja. I talked with them in Massachusetts, and they pointed out that the Iraqi police trained in their area won't leave the barracks. They are frightened that if they are seen leaving the barracks, something will happen to them or their families. As we know, as the very important Dobbins document points out, whether you are talking about Algeria, Northern Ireland, or Malaysia in 1958, or the West Bank, or Kosovo--any of these areas--what you need to do is start to train a disciplined police force, and it takes 12 to 15 months--a new force adequately trained and highly motivated and that can move toward the security issues. That is not the case. We are asked to pour billions of dollars in taxpayers' funds into Iraq. I think any fair reading of these requests would have to say the overall strategy--whatever it is--is a top-down strategy, not a bottom- up one. What we are seeing in the initial reports coming from Iraq is the areas where they are having the greatest progress is where the stakeholders are buying into the efforts in these local communities. Most of the positive reports are coming as a result of the leadership of the military, many of whom have gone through the campaigns in Kosovo and other parts of the world, where they have seen what can work and what is necessary. So it is appropriate that we have some opportunity to talk about and ask about this amount of resources that are being requested to go to Iraq. There are a number of questions, obviously, that are going to be raised, such as the whole issue of contracting and who is getting the contracting. What are the circumstances of those contracts? What kind of transparency is there over there? Are we taking these contracts with single-bid contracts, with those who have a questionable record in terms of the performance, and overcharging the Defense Department? Are we giving opportunities for contracts to other countries around the world who have had a relationship and know how to be able to reconstruct and rebuild? Are we excluding them? What are the circumstances of this? These issues are going to be raised, as they should be. It is not clear from what is coming out from the Appropriations Committee that many of these issues have been addressed. I know they will be by my colleagues. It is not just about the administration's policy and its conduct in Iraq. It is about the way we pursue American interests in a dangerous world, about the way our Government makes one of the most important decisions, whether to send young men and women to war. It is wrong to put American lives on the line for a dubious cause. Many of us continue to believe the war in Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time. There were alternatives short of a premature rush to a unilateral war, alternatives that could have accomplished our goals in Iraq with far fewer casualties and far less damage to our goals in the war against terrorism. I commend my friend and colleague, the Senator from Rhode Island, for once again reminding us what Mr. Tenet, who was head of the CIA, reminded the Armed Services Committee time in and time out--all of last year, up until the period of August--that the greatest threat to the United States was terrorism and, obviously, the increasing concern that all of us have about North Korea, Iran, and the deterioration and spiraling violence in the Middle East. Our troops deserve a plan that will bring in adequate foreign forces immediately to share the burden of restoring the security and involve the international community in building a new democracy for the future of Iraq. There is no question the Senate owes it to our men and women in uniform to provide the support they need, to bring the day closer when our troops can come home with dignity and honor, and Iraq will truly be free. The $87 billion cannot be a blank check. That is why I support the Byrd amendment. Congress must hold the administration accountable. The American people deserve to know how the money will be spent. Things are out of control in Iraq. We need to stop the downward spiral, protect our interests, and protect the lives of American soldiers. The administration must tell the country in much greater detail what it intends to do with the $87 billion and its plans for sharing the burden with our allies and the United Nations to achieve our goals. The American people are entitled to know whether, with all the current difficulties, the administration has a plausible plan for the future instead of digging the current hole even deeper. Our soldiers' lives are constantly at stake. Patriotism is not the issue. The safety of our 140,000 American service men and women serving in Iraq today is the immediate issue. It is our solemn responsibility to question, and question vigorously, the administration's current request for funds. So far, the administration has failed utterly to provide a plausible plan for the future of Iraq and ensure the safety of our troops. In its rush to war, the administration failed to recognize the danger and the complexity of the occupation. They repeatedly underestimated the likely cost of this enormous undertaking. Opposing voices in the administration were ignored. Last September, the chief Presidential economic adviser, Lawrence Lindsey, said that the total cost of the Iraqi involvement might be as much as $200 billion. His estimate was quickly rejected by White House Budget Director Mitch Daniels who said Mr. Lindsey's estimate was ``very, very high'' and suggested the cost to be a more manageable $50 billion or $60 billion. I raise this history because in many instances the people who are making the recommendations on the rehabilitation of Iraq are the same ones who miscalculated and misdirected the policy for months in the past. If we are going to take a look at this policy today, it is only appropriate to see what they had suggested over the past months. As I mentioned, when Mr. Lindsey was corrected by Mitch Daniels who said Mr. Lindsey's estimate was ``very, very high'' and suggested the cost would be a more manageable $50 billion or $60 billion, the independent analysis indicated the cost might approach $300 billion, and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld called that ``baloney.'' I say that against the background of what Ambassador Bremer, when he was asked, when he was before the Armed Services Committee, about this $21 billion or $23 billion, whether we could expect they would be back before the appropriators and asking for more billions of dollars, and said: Don't count us out; don't count us out. The American people ought to understand this is a downpayment for the administration. This isn't the beginning and the end. This is just the downpayment. We have to ask ourselves, What is the policy? Last spring, as part of a broader coalition in an effort to win the support of the American people for the military, the administration began to argue that Iraq can pay for its own reconstruction. The war might be costly, we were told, but it would be quick and decisive. The financial obligation of the United States would be limited because the liberated Iraqi people would use their extraordinary wealth from the world's second largest reserves of oil to finance the reconstruction. What the Nation heard from the Bush administration was clear: Don't worry about the cost. Iraq can pay for their own reconstruction. Here they are a few weeks later with the $23 billion request. People ought to ask: Is this the beginning, the middle, or the end? What is the plan? As the Congress debates the administration's request, we should be looking for better answers from the administration, insisting on at least minimal accountability. Before the war, the administration said, ``Trust us,'' and Congress did. We should have followed President Reagan's wise counsel from years ago: ``Trust but verify.'' Hopefully, it is not too late to verify. Until this month, no one in the administration, other than Larry Lindsey, who is no longer in the administration, said the war with Iraq and its aftermath would be expensive. The administration's numbers were worse than fuzzy math, and the American people have a right to be furious about the gross disparity with the true costs. And they will be even more furious as they learn more and more about what we are being asked to fund. The administration, obviously, did at least have one clearly thought- out plan--they didn't have a plan for peace. They want $400 million for maximum security prisons. That is $50,000 a bed. They want $800 million for international police training for 1,500 officers. That is $530,000 per officer. Ask any mayor what it costs them to train a police officer in their community. They want a fund for consultants at $200,000 a year. That is double normal pay. They want $1.4 billion to reimburse cooperating nations for support provided to U.S. military operations. I would love to find out how that money is going to be spent. For what is that $1.4 billion intended? The Bush administration went to the United Nations for help last week, hat in hand and wallet open. But so far the response from other nations has been: Why should we help clean up America's mess in Iraq? Presumably, the negotiating is still continuing over how much authority the U.N. will have, how many contracts other nations will receive, and how many troops they will send. Could this be the most embarrassing week the United States has ever had at the United Nations? Trust but verify. That is why Congress has to stop writing a blank check for Iraq. That is why Congress needs better answers. That is why we need accountability. Credibility on the war is in tatters both at home and in the United Nations, and our troops are paying for it with their lives. Our action on this legislation may well be a defining moment for the war on Iraq, for the war on terrorism, for America's role in the world. Cut and run is not an option. Hopefully, a concerned Congress and a chastened administration can work together to set things right on Iraq and right with other nations. If there is any silver lining to this crisis, let us hope it is that the administration's go-it-alone policy toward the rest of the world is history and we are back on a better and less dangerous course for the future. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Finally, the public schools are required to accept and serve all students. Private schools are not required. As we understand, many of the private schools can't do this because they don't have either the facilities for special needs children, or the trained personnel. We understand that. But, nonetheless, the Senator would agree with me that public school systems have served our Nation well. They are taking all children. And they would serve much better if we had an administration that would fulfill its commitment, in terms of supporting them and No Child Left Behind.

Mr. KENNEDY. I ask the good Senator, it is my understanding that, if we did not have the issue of the imposition of vouchers on the District of Columbia, we could move right to third reading?

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, as Congress continues to debate President Bush's request for the massive sum of $87 billion as the next installment to pay for its flawed and failed policy in Iraq, the administration frequently compares it to the Marshall plan,which was so successful in rebuilding Europe after World War II and transforming them into new democracies. Sadly, the most obvious area in which the administration's proposal on Iraq corresponds to the Marshall plan is its cost to the American taxpayer. And the comparison here is hardly to the administration's advantage. Under the Marshall plan, $88 million--in today's dollars-- was spent over 4 years. The Bush administration is now asking for $87 billion for Iraq for next year alone. There are many differences between the Marshall plan and the President's unprecedented $87 billion request on Iraq. The most important is that the Marshall plan deserved to be called a plan. The Marshall plan was formally proposed in 1947 at Harvard in a commencement address by George C. Marshall, the famous World War II General who had become Secretary of State earlier that year in the Truman administration. His proposal was discussed at an international conference in Paris that include 16 nations. More than a full month of congressional hearings were held in which over 90 witnesses testified. At the conclusion of the extensive congressional debate, Senate Arthur C. Vandenberg, who had been a leading critic of the Truman administration's foreign policy, described the plan as ``the final product of eight months of more intensive study by more devoted minds than I have ever known to concentrate upon any one objective in all my twenty years in Congress.'' Compare that to what is happening today. Instead of a well- deliberated and well thought-out plan, the Bush administration has given the Congress a 2-month-old, 28-page ``working document'' and asked us to write a blank check for $87 billion for Iraq. That request came to Congress just 6 months after we had earlier provided $78 billion for the war. I doubt that at the end of this debate, any Senator would be willing to describe a 2 month old ``working document'' as glowingly as Senator Vandenberg characterized the Marshall plan. In the 13 days since the administration presented this proposal to Congress, we still have not been able to obtain answers to critically important questions. How will the administration involve the international community in a genuine way in the rebuilding of Iraq? Can we count on additional foreign troops to share the burden or not? How long will American troops and foreign troops remain in Iraq? It has become increasingly clear that the President and the Pentagon never had any idea about the cost of what they wanted to do in Iraq. In this arrogant go-it-alone attitude toward other nations, they thought they could plan Lone Ranger in the world, and instead they have become a very lonesome cowboy. Now our troops are paying for it with their lives. In its rush to war, the administration failed to recognize the danger and complexity of the occupation. They repeatedly underestimated the likely cost of their enormous undertaking. Opposing voices in the administration were ignored. Last September, chief presidential economic advisor Lawrence Lindsey said that the total cost of the Iraqi war might be as much as $200 billion. His estimate was quickly refuted by White House Budget Director Mitch Daniels, who said Lindsey's estimate was ``very, very high'' and suggested the cost would be a more manageable $50 to $60 billion. Independent analyses at that time indicated that the cost might approach $300 billion. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld called them ``baloney.'' Last spring, as part of a broader effort to win the support of the American people for the military operation, the administration began to argue that ``Iraq can pay for its own reconstruction.'' The war might be costly, we were told, but it would be quick and decisive. The financial obligation of the United States would be limited, because the liberated Iraqi people would use their extraordinary wealth from the world's second largest reserves of oil to finance the reconstruction. In a February 2003 White House briefing, Ari Fleischer argued that ``Iraq, unlike Afghanistan, is a rather wealthy country. Iraq has tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi people. And so there are a variety of means that Iraq has to be able to shoulder much of the burden for their own reconstruction. In March, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld told the House Appropriations Committee, ``I don't believe the United States has a responsibility for reconstruction, in a sense . . . [Reconstruction] funds can come from those various sources I mentioned: frozen assets, oil revenues, and a variety of other things, including the Oil for Food program, which has a very substantial number of billions of dollars in it.'' At the same hearing, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz said, ``The oil revenues could bring in between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next 2 years . . . We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.'' Also, at that same hearing, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage said, ``This is not Afghanistan . . . When we approach the question of Iraq, we realize there is a country which has a resource. And it's oil. And it can bring in and does bring in a certain amount of revenue each year . . . $10, $15, even $18 billion . . . this is not a broke country.'' What the Nation heard was clear: Don't worry about the cost. Iraq can finance its own reconstruction. In fact last March, the administration was so confident of this that it put a $1.7 billion price tag on the reconstruction effort in Iraq. Shortly after the war began that month, Administrator Andrew Natsios of the Agency for International Development confidently proclaimed: The rest of the rebuilding in Iraq will be done by other countries who have already made pledges--Britain, Germany, Norway, Japan, Canada, and Iraqi oil revenues . . . The American part of this will be $1.7 billion. We have no plans for any further-on funding of this. The administration embraced the Iraqi self-sufficiency argument as recently as the end of July, when OMB Director Josh Bolten testified that the administration did not ``anticipate requesting anything additional for the balance of this year'' with regard to Iraq operations or reconstruction. Just 5 weeks later, President Bush stunned the Nation by saying that $87 billion in additional funding--including $20 billion for reconstruction--was needed. Why the change? Ambassador Bremer says Iraq has an unsustainable level of foreign debt--nearly $200 billion--left over from Saddam which would prevent use of Iraq's oil wealth to pay for the reconstruction. Iraq's enormous debt was already well-known. But the administration chose to ignore it in order to convince the public that the costs of reconstruction would be low. The architect of much of the Iraqi war plan, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, is now saying that we knew all along the war would be expensive. Despite earlier claims that Iraq could pay for its reconstruction and relatively soon, Secretary Wolfowitz told the Senate Armed Services Committee on September 10: ``No one said we would know anything other than this would be very bloody, it could be very long, and by implication, it could be very expensive.'' Secretary Wolfowitz never told the American people it could be very expensive. Until this month, no one in the administration--other then Larry Lindsey--said it would be expensive. This is worse than fuzzy math, and the American people have a right to be furious about it. And they will be even more furious about it as they learn what we are being asked to fund: $400 million for maximum-security prisons. That's $50,000 a bed; $800 million for international police training for 1,500 officers, that's $530,000 an officer; Consultants at $200,000 a year. That's double normal pay. It is double their profit margin too? And $164 million to develop a curriculum for training Iraqi soldiers. Why does it cost that much to develop a curriculum? And $1.4 billion to reimburse cooperating nations for logistical, military and other support provided to U.S. military operations; $100 million for the ``United States Emergency Fund for Complex Foreign Crisis''; $15.5 million to the European Command for countries directly supporting the war on terror. Before Congress rubber-stamps the administration's $87 billion request, we need answers. We need accountability. We need the truth. The amount of money is huge. It is more than the combined budget deficits of all 50 States for 2004. It is 87 times what the Federal Government spends annually on afterschool programs. It is 2 years worth of unemployment benefits. It is enough to pay each of the 3.3 million people who have lost their jobs in the past 3 years more than $25,000. It it seven times what President Bush proposed to spend on education for low-income schools in 2004--seven times the amount. It is nine times what the Federal Government spends on special education each year. It it eight times what the Government spends on Pell Grants to help middle and low-income students go to College. And it is larger than the total economy of 166 nations. Clearly, we need to require competitive bidding for Iraqi contracts. Left to its own devices, the administration will continue to make sweetheart deals with American contractors at the taxpayer's expense. A third of the $3.9 billion monthly cost of the operations in Iraq is quietly flowing to private contractors. Halliburton alone has already received more than $2 billion in contract awards--an amount that exceeds Administrator Natsios' original $1.7 billion estimate for the total U.S. cost of the reconstruction of Iraq. More than $1.2 billion was awarded in noncompetitive bidding. The Iraqi people deserve the benefits of peace, but instead, the administration's friends in corporate America are divvying up the spoils of war. Is Halliburton the company best able to get the job done efficiently for the U.S. in Iraq? In 1997, the General Accounting Office found that Halliburton's construction subsidiary in the Balkans had billed the Army $85 a sheet for plywood that actually cost $14 a sheet; In 2000, the agency found that the company was charging the Pentagon four times what it should have been charging for office cleaning; In 2002, the company paid the U.S. ``$2 million to settle fraud claims at Fort Ord.'' At a minimum, all contracts should be provided on a competitive basis--no exceptions. Why not scale back the lavish resources being provided to contractors and consultants and provide larger sums directly to the Iraqi people? It is their country. They have the greatest stake in the success of their reconstruction, and involving them will enhance the prospects for success. In some areas of Iraq, military officials have already been able to achieve impressive results with small amounts of money. One former military official told me that the U.S. military funded the building of a cement factory for just $100,000. The bid by an American contractor for the same project was in the millions. Iraq has many of the best trained oil engineers in the world. Why not give them--rather than large American companies--a larger role in rebuilding the industry? As the Congress debates this funding, we will be looking for answers from the administration to these questions. We will be insisting on accountability. The administration cannot continue to low ball the cost and make up its plan day by day. It can no longer cook the books. The administration's failure to have a plan is costing too many lives and too many dollars. It would be irresponsible for the Congress to write an $87 billion blank check for the administration, without demanding an honest plan to achieve stability in Iraq, involving the international community in the rebuilding, and preventing the disaster in the making we have caused. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.