Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. This amendment addresses the humanitarian crisis in Liberia. This is a bipartisan amendment, supported by Senators Chafee, Coleman, Biden, Lieberman, Feingold, Reed, Lautenberg, and Landrieu. Anyone who has read a newspaper or watched CNN over the past couple of months knows about the tremendous suffering in Liberia today. Three-quarters of Liberians do not have access to safe drinking water. Three-quarters are living in poverty. Three-quarters do not have access to acceptable sanitation. Eighty-five percent of Liberians are unemployed. These numbers, provided by the U.N. are absolutely appalling. To me, this is more than enough reason to act. We have deep historical ties to its people. Presidents James Monroe and Andrew Jackson, along with some of the most notable Senators ever to serve in this body, Henry Clay and Daniel Webster, helped create the nation of Liberia. Liberia's flag is nearly identical to our own. We have heard urgent pleas from the Liberian people for the U.S. to help. Archbishop Michael Francis of Monrovia, wrote a letter in support of this amendment. He wrote: [W]e are at a critical juncture where an intervention by the United States, renewing its leadership role, will greatly help to ensure the stabilization of Liberia. It is for this reason that your amendment to include $200 million in the FY 2004 Supplemental Appropriations bill to address relief and reconstruction needs in Liberia is timely and must be supported by the Senate body. I ask unanimous consent that his letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will be very brief. As I look around, there is only one person on this floor who has served longer than I have and that is the Senator from Alaska. I know the difficulties--both he and I have gone back and forth, sometimes one is chairman, sometimes the other is, on different committees--how difficult it is to keep a major bill going through. I understand his concern in doing it. The senior Senator from Nevada has done the job of being whip for our side better than anybody I have ever known who served here. There is a great deal of respect for his integrity on both sides of the aisle, as there is for the senior Senator from Alaska. I know both have been trying to work this out. I hope we would just continue that way. It is not an easy process. There are differences of opinion on a number of these amendments. But I know both the Senator from Alaska and the Senator from Nevada are two of the finest people I have served with, and I hope we would allow the two of them to work, as they do so very well, and Members on both sides of the aisle would work with them and allow them to work out the schedule. The Senator from Vermont is perfectly satisfied with that kind of arrangement.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, will the Senator from Alaska yield?

Mr. LEAHY. The Senator from Texas is entitled to be heard. If we could have order, Mr. President.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, may we have order.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the administration's justification materials for the $20 billion in reconstruction funds for Iraq, which we received just last week, contains broad categories of projects with no supporting details about how the administration arrived at the expected costs of those projects. For example, they want $400 million for two prisons, at a cost of $50,000 per bed. How is that possible? Are we going to ship the cement over there? They budget $150 million for a tertiary care, pediatric hospital, with no details about how they arrived at that number and no explanation of why this is the best use of these funds in Iraq, versus far less costly public health clinics and immunization programs. They want to spend $100 million for seven housing communities. Housing is short in Iraq, but should American taxpayers really pay $100 million? We simply do not have nearly enough information to justify these exorbitant expenditures. My amendment says that before funds are allocated for capital projects like prisons, hospitals, railroads, and government buildings, the Coalition Provisional Authority must submit a report to the Committees on Appropriations describing the estimated cost on which the request for funds for the project is based. The amendment also says, that in order to control costs, to the maximum extent practicable, Iraqis with the necessary qualifications should be consulted and utilized in the design and implementation of reconstruction projects. We want to employ Iraqis, not $500 and hour consultants. I don't doubt that Iraq needs new prisons, government buildings, and housing, although I am not yet convinced the American people should pay for these things. This amendment does not prevent any project from being built. But we hear about spending millions of dollars in Iraq for things-- from vehicles to cement factories--that with a minimum of frugality could be bought or built for a fraction of the price. Before we spend 5 or 10 times more than we need to, let's find out what we are paying for to be sure it is the best use of the money. That is what my amendment does. It requires the administration to give us the information that justifies these costs, before the funds are allocated. The American people deserve to know what their money is paying for, before it is spent. I thank the managers for agreeing to this amendment.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am an original cosponsor of this amendment, and I strongly support it. I will not take a great deal of time. But Senator Byrd and Senator Kennedy, two senior Members of the Senate--actually the two most senior Members of this Senate--have been such resolute voices of reason and caution concerning our actions in Iraq. Senator Kennedy and Senator Byrd have done a thorough job of explaining what this amendment does and why it is important. There is no secret that I did not support the resolution authorizing the use of military force against Iraq. I felt it gave the President authority that should be reserved to the Congress. It was used by the President to justify abandoning the United Nations prematurely, rejecting the recommendation of our allies, and launching a unilateral preemptive attack against Iraq with dubious justification. Since then, almost everything the White House and the Pentagon have said about Iraq has turned out to be wrong. The justification for the war, that Saddam Hussein was on the verge of having nuclear weapons, has evaporated. There was no link between Saddam Hussein and the September 11 attacks despite what the President said--until recently. While the Vice President continues to try to make the connection, at least the President has finally said there is no connection. Is Saddam Hussein a bad man? Of course, one of the most evil people I have ever read or heard about. Amazingly enough, it is the same Saddam Hussein we strongly supported in many ways in previous administrations. Is he a tyrant? Certainly. Did he carry out torture and genocide? Of course he did. He gassed the Kurds. The then Reagan-Bush administration continued to send military aid. Is he a bad man? Yes, we all agree on that. Did he have nuclear weapons? Of course not. Was he an imminent threat to the United States? Of course not. Was he worse than some of dictators we actively support around the world today? That is an open question. Now we have a different question, as the senior Senator from West Virginia and the senior Senator from Massachusetts and others have pointed out: The cost to the United States taxpayers in rebuilding Iraq. We were told that would be paid with Iraqi oil revenues. But suddenly that cost has skyrocketed. Our troops, we were told, would be greeted as liberators. They are under constant attack and threat of attack. I remember when the administration came before the Congress and said the costs of rebuilding would be under a couple billion dollars. They assured Members, assured the Appropriations Committee of that. They had to know they were not being truthful. Look at what has happened. Hundreds of our service personnel have been killed, many more have been wounded, something the administration prefers not to talk about. The wounded are brought back after midnight, making sure the press does not see the planes coming in with the wounded. They were not talking about wounded. These are not a broken wrist or scratched leg. These are terrible wounds--lost limbs, lost eyesight, lifetime disabilities. I think of the soldier who fought bravely for the United States who is back in Walter Reed now finally getting his citizenship. He raised his right hand to take the oath. That was the only limb he could raise. He lost his other arm and both legs, like our former colleague, Senator Cleland, in Vietnam. These are terrible wounds. We have lost more of our military since the President said the mission was accomplished, the war is over, than we did before. We have lost more of our soldiers since the President said: Bring it on. Unfortunately, they must have listened because they brought it on and more Americans have died since then than died before. Having said that, I am not one of those who say everything in Iraq is a failure. I do not say that at all. We are far from that. We are making progress in Iraq on many fronts. But the situation is dangerous. We are there virtually alone. Contributions of troops and money from other nations have been a pittance. But who can blame them? We ignored the words of caution from our allies. We dismissed our allies as irrelevant. We called them ``Old Europe,'' and we refused to give them any meaningful say in the political development or economic reconstruction of Iraq. Now, having insulted them, having ignored them, having not consulted them, having brushed them aside as irrelevant, we expect them to jump behind a policy they opposed when they find that so many of the things we said to justify our policy turned out not to be true? It is not surprising they are not hurrying to get in line behind us. This amendment of Senator Byrd, Senator Kennedy, myself and others, acknowledges what is obvious to everyone except perhaps those in the White House who are so convinced of their own version of reality that they only see what they want to see. We need help. We need the active involvement of the international community. In order to get that active involvement of the international community, we need to give these nations a bigger say in rebuilding Iraq and doing so to take the targets off the backs of our soldiers and defray the financial cost to the American taxpayers. We cannot take the attitude that uncle knows best and only uncle knows. We want others to help us if we want to be in a position to take our brave young men and women out of the line of fire. This is essential, not only for the success of our policy in Iraq but for our ability to work constructively with other nations in all the other fights we have in fighting terrorism, in combating poverty, in stopping disease, in protecting the environment, in dealing with so many other global problems. We are the wealthiest, most powerful nation history has ever known. It is almost inconceivable--even when I was born, 1940--that we would have any nation as powerful as we are. But we have responsibilities around the world that go with that. It is not just Iraq. There is an AIDS epidemic; there are contagious diseases, including ebola; there is ignorance, poverty, environmental damage. All of these things need U.S. leadership--not leadership arrogance but U.S. leadership. The American people are good people. The American people have the heart and the will to do what is best. The American people do not need to have leaders who show arrogance. That is not the American way. I think of the young people who go in the Peace Corps; I think of the young missionaries who go abroad; I think of the teachers, of the older retired people going to other parts of the world to help out. They do not go with arrogance, they do not go with simplistic answers; they go with humbleness, respect, and love. This amendment allows half the Iraq reconstruction funds, $10.1 billion, more than can be spent next year, to be made available immediately. In other words, this amendment would get that money out the door with no strings attached. Putting this in perspective, $10.1 billion is equal to more than half the amount of foreign aid we give to the rest of the world, and we will give that amount of money to one country immediately. The $10.1 billion includes $5.1 billion for security, public safety, border enforcement, and justice activities. The balance of the $10 billion will be released after April 1, 2004, if the President certifies that the United Nations adopted a new resolution authorizing a multinational military force of the United States command and a central role for the U.N. in the political and economic development of Iraq, but the Congress would have to vote to release the balance of the funds. Over a quarter of a century ago, I went on the Appropriations Committee because I believed very strongly--and I don't have to tell the senior Senator from West Virginia who has forgotten more about this than all the rest of us would know--I believe very strongly the Congress has the power of the purse. It is one of those wonderful, brilliant acts done by our Founders to have these checks and balances-- our judiciary, executive, our Congress. It has served us in good stead. Has the Congress always been right? Of course not. Has the executive or judiciary always been right? No. But generally it stays in balance and it works very well. The big mistake would be if we just gave it away, if we said that the American people do not have a voice so we would have to vote to release the balance of these funds. This is extremely generous. But the reason I mentioned the power of the purse is that we have a duty to protect the taxpayers' money. In this Senate, there are only 100 of us who have the privilege to serve--and it is a privilege--at any given time. We have 270 million Americans. We have a responsibility--a responsibility--not just to Americans from Vermont or West Virginia or anywhere else but to all Americans. It is their money. Now, none of us could predict what is going to happen in Iraq between now and April first. It makes no sense to bundle up this $21 billion and toss it out the door, without ever asking questions--whether the funds are being used wisely, whether other nations are contributing, and whether it makes sense to release another $10 billion. It is absurd. It is totally unnecessary. It is not only absurd, it is unnecessary. This is the thing I cannot understand: Why are we rushing pell-mell to give away $21 billion lock, stock, and barrel, all at once? Every one of the administration's own people say they cannot spend it. They want it, but they cannot spend it. It is like ``give me, give me, give me, and I will make up my mind when I want to spend it.'' I would hate to run my household finances that way. We should not run the Nation's finances that way. It is not the way it was done with the Marshall plan. Everyone comes up here from the administration and talks about the Marshall plan, the Marshall plan, the Marshall plan. I wish one of them would pick up a history book and read about the Marshall plan. The way they describe it, I don't think they could even spell it. There was far more detailed justification for the Marshall plan, far more opportunity for review, far more oversight. Let's learn from history, especially if we are going to claim to repeat it. I am tired of historical sloganeering by people who obviously have no idea what the heck they are talking about. For the Marshall plan, we had hundreds of witnesses. That was several years after the end of World War II. We had special bipartisan committees that really worked at overseeing that plan. When I first came to the Senate, I talked to some of the Members who had been here at that time. They were watching what was going on. They knew what was going on. And it was not a blank check. It was not a blank check. It was, however, one thing: We worked with other countries. We led the effort, of course. We worked with other countries. I think it is long past time that we should reach out to our friends and allies, not with this fig-leaf resolution being discussed at the U.N. this week--and that is all it is; it is a PR fig leaf--but in a way that builds a genuine coalition that is no longer a unilateral policy. I want to be fair. The U.N. resolution to be voted on today is welcome. It sets the stage. That is what it does. It is a stage-setting piece for what should have been months ago, by recognizing the key role that other nations can and should play in Iraq. It would authorize a multinational military force. It would encourage other nations to participate and make contributions to the force and to the costs of reconstruction in Iraq. It also makes clear that the Coalition Provisional Authority is temporary. That is something on which I believe all Members of the Senate, Republican and Democrat alike, would agree. It has to be temporary. So it is a step in the right direction, but it is basically a statement of good intentions. There is nothing wrong with good intentions, but I think some of us who have been here for a few years would like more than just good intentions. We have no idea how it is going to be interpreted by the White House, which has resisted meaningful input from other nations, nor how it is going to be implemented. Will the multinational force be anything more than a fig leaf for an indefinite U.S. military operation involving more than 100,000 troops, as it is today--100,000 American troops over there facing the danger of being killed every single day? Will other nations contribute or will U.S. taxpayers continue to shoulder 99 percent of the cost? Mr. President, save me the stories I hear from the administration about 30 countries, 40 countries joining us. I think there is one country that has sent over two people. Of course, we had to pay their way. Others were willing to send a few thousand dollars. But as ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, I know we are going to have to pay more than that in foreign aid they all want. I do not want fig leaves. I do not want rhetoric. I want reality. Right now, the reality is, we are paying 99 percent of the cost. Is the administration going to give us a detailed plan, including timetables and cost? How about an exit strategy for when our troops will come home? That is what I would like to know. We do not know. We do not know what is going to come out of that. It is good to have, at least, a resolution that says nice things. It does not do an awful lot, but it says a lot of nice things at the United Nations. But I am not a member of the United Nations. I am not a delegate to the United Nations. I am the senior Senator from the State of Vermont. I am here to speak on behalf of the people of the United States in the U.S. Senate. That is my role. I have one vote here out of 100. I take that very seriously. This amendment is extremely important. It builds on the U.N. resolution. It requires tangible results, not just good intentions. If the U.N. resolution accomplishes what it says, the President should have no difficulty making the certifications called for in this amendment. We need to know if the U.N. resolution represents the ``internationalization'' of policy long overdue or if it is nothing more than political cover to maintain the status quo, to continue along as we are today--alone, with our troops under fire and U.S. taxpayers paying through the nose. And then we need to vote on whether to release the remaining $10 billion. There is no reason--there is none--there is not one word in all the testimony before the other body or before ours that says they need this other $10 billion right now--not one word that says we should not have another chance to review this policy and vote again in 6 months. That is the responsible thing to do. Again, they cannot spend the money now. So our amendment steers a middle ground. It releases half of the aid up front, but it tells the administration we want a multilateral approach. We want other nations involved, and not just nations that can only contribute enough troops for a small town police force or provide a handful of secondhand jeeps. I admire the political will of some of these small countries in sending people over. From my own State of Vermont, we have sheriffs departments that are bigger than some of the forces they are sending. That does not detract from their political will in doing it. It is a nice symbol, but let's not fool anybody. I think the administration takes a strange view of Americans if they think we are going to be fooled by this. Virtually every American knows who is paying the bill. We Americans are. So this amendment is in Iraq's interest. It is certainly in the interest of the American taxpayers, something we should be concerned about. I am very proud of my friend, the senior Senator from West Virginia, for offering the amendment. I have had the privilege of serving with him for 29 years. I have learned as much from him as any one in the hundreds of people I have served with in this body, right from the very first day I met him as a young Senator elect, as a former prosecutor. I think of my good friend from New England, the senior Senator from Massachusetts, a man I first met back when he was a brand-new Senator and I was a seminew prosecutor in Vermont. I think what the two Senators have done is go back to history and back to reality and set a good course. Our country will actually be stronger and better and, ironically, the Iraq reconstruction will be done better, if we follow their course. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the achievements of an outstanding young woman. On October 8, 2003, Jennifer Jacques of Chelsea, VT, received an award from the Vision, Strength and Artistic Expression Arts Program's national contest for students with disabilities: Roadtrip: A Journey of Discovery. National recognition alone is deserving of applause and praise, but Jennifer's represents a very special and unique achievement that reaches far beyond her accomplishments in art. Born with severe cerebral palsy, Jennifer is confined to her wheelchair. Able to control only her head and neck, she controls her wheelchair and computer, as well as her communication device, through a switch placed under her chin. A bright young woman of 18, Jennifer attends public school in Chelsea, where she is enrolled in classes with her peers. Jennifer's art is not only a reflection of her talents, but also of her great ability to overcome the disabilities that have faced her. Working with her teachers and instructors, Jennifer directed the placement of paint on paper placed on the floor. By repeatedly driving her wheelchair over the paint, she was able to create textured paintings with striking color and design. Jennifer recently sold all of her abstract pieces that were displayed at an art show in Montpelier. These accomplishments are a tribute to this exceptional young woman, her family and friends, her educators and instructors. Jennifer Jacques embodies what Vermont has done, what it can do, and what the future holds.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I urge the Senate to pass S. 1642, a bill to extend for 5 years the EB-5 immigrant investor visa regional center pilot program, which lapsed at the end of the fiscal year on Tuesday. I am pleased that Senators Brownback and Daschle have joined me in sponsoring this bill. There are more than 25 regions in the Nation that have qualified as a ``regional center'' under this program, including in my State of Vermont. This designation allows them to attract foreign investment by adjusting the standard that investors must meet to obtain legal permanent resident status. The entrepreneurs must still meet a heavy burden, however, showing that their investment will create 10 or more jobs in these relatively depressed areas. The pilot program is narrowly tailored to avoid fraud. An area seeking regional center status must provide, among other things, detailed information regarding how the center will promote economic growth through improved regional productivity, job creation, and increased domestic capital investment. The applicant must also provide a detailed explanation of why the regional center will have a positive impact on the regional or national economy in general. The Judiciary Committee approved the language in this bill unanimously, as part of a substitute amendment to S. 1580, the Religious Workers Act of 2003. I am pleased to include an amendment from Senator Feingold that the Judiciary Committee also unanimously approved, calling for a GAO study on the EB-5 program as a whole. Such a study will give us a better idea of how the program is working and what improvements may be needed. This is an important program for my State and many other regions of the country, and I ask for the support of all Senators in extending it for an additional 5 years.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we voted today on the nomination of Prof. Jack Goldsmith to head the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice. I have serious reservations about Professor Goldsmith's nomination. In particular, I am concerned about his positions as they relate to the international protection of human rights, the engagement of the United States in holding accountable those who commit crimes against humanity, the administration's use of military tribunals and, more broadly, our Nation's place in the global community. Professor Goldsmith is a leading opponent of the use of the Alien Tort Claims Act, ATCA. For the past 23 years, judges have interpreted the ATCA to allow victims of torture and abuse to file claims in United States courts against foreign governments, torturers, and multinational corporations. Victims have used the act to bring claims against notorious violators of human rights, such as war criminal Radovan Karadzic, the former prime minister of the Philippines, Ferdinand Marcos, and the banks and companies that profited from Nazi war crimes. Professor Goldsmith's opposition to the use of ATCA reflects a disturbing shift away from international efforts to hold human rights abusers responsible for their inhumane treatment of innocent victims throughout the world. Professor Goldsmith is also a vocal opponent of the International Criminal Court, ICC. Over the past few months, the ICC has taken steps toward becoming an effective tool to hold accountable those accused of war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity. Yet Professor Goldsmith has dismissed the Court as ``futile'' and ``unrealistic.'' Many believe that the ICC is the best forum to bring the world's worst criminals to justice, but Professor Goldsmith has predicted that it is headed for the grave: I am hopeful that the United States can one day play a key role in ensuring that the ICC effectively carries out its historic mandate, and I worry that Professor Goldsmith has not demonstrated a commitment to leading the administration in this important direction. Professor Goldsmith also vigorously defended the President's authority to try suspected terrorists by military tribunal, despite the concerns raised by many Americans and our allies about the legality of these practices. Legitimate questions have been raised about the administration's inconsistency in bringing some cases in federal court while referring other similar cases to military tribunals, where the defendants' rights are fewer and the procedures less clear. I urge Professor Goldsmith to take a hard look at the administration's recent treatment of prisoners of war: I fear it may have negative implications for the treatment of our own citizens abroad. Professor Goldsmith's positions on ATCA, the ICC, and military tribunals reflect a broader, disturbing trend in his thinking, scholarship and writings. At a time when the United States should be increasing our engagement in the international community, I am concerned that Professor Goldsmith will advocate for less engagement. At a time when the United States should be increasing our global cooperation in areas such as the war on terrorism, the environment, and international peace and security, I am concerned that Professor Goldsmith will advocate for less cooperation. At a time when the United States should be reaffirming our commitment to protecting individual liberties, due process rights, and access to equal justice, I am concerned that Professor Goldsmith lacks a true commitment to these foundations of our democracy. I am also alarmed by the veil of secrecy that has been drawn by Attorney General Ashcroft over the operations of the Office of Legal Counsel. I encourage Professor Goldsmith to allow the sun to shine into the Office of Legal Counsel by disclosing memoranda and opinions to the American public, insofar as such disclosure would not raise legitimate national security concerns. I hope that, within the context of Professor Goldsmith's temporary appointment, he will look beyond his academic musings and offer the objective legal advice he promised this Senate he would provide. As he develops his legal opinions and advises the administration, I hope that he seriously considers the universally accepted international legal norms that have proven essential in protecting the rights of all members of our global community to freedom, security, and due process of law.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this House bill is identical to S. 1580, the Religious Workers Act of 2003, of which I am a proud cosponsor. The bill extends for 5 years provisions of our immigration law that provide for special immigrant visas for religious workers sponsored by religious organizations in the United States. These visas allow religious denominations or organizations in the United States to bring in foreign nationals to perform religious work here. This modest program--which provides for up to 5,000 religious immigrant visas a year--was created in the Immigration Act of 1990, and has been extended ever since. These religious workers contribute significantly not just to their religious communities, but to the community as a whole. They work in hospitals, nursing homes, and homeless shelters. They help immigrants and refugees adjust to the United States. In other words, they perform vital tasks that all too often go undone. I have worked on this issue over the years, and cosponsored bills in 1997 and 2000 that would have made this program permanent. I still believe that it should be permanent but fully support a 5-year extension as the next best thing. Time is now of the essence as we have entered Fiscal Year 2004 and allowed this program to lapse. The House passed this bill last month by voice vote. I urge the Senate to follow suit by approving this extension and sending it to the President without further delay.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Yes, but it does not shut down or require changes in the central command. It doesn't require any military to report to the Secretary of State.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I also see what the National Security Adviser said, and I quote: The President must remember that the military is a special instrument. It is lethal, and it is meant to be. It is not a civilian police force. It is not a political referee. And it is most certainly not designed to build a civilian society. Dr. Rice said that. The Washington Post reports that the diplomats on Ambassador Bremer's staff in Baghdad report directly to him, not to Washington, which is true. The Secretary of State, Colin Powell, has told the press he has to rely on newspapers and the diplomatic reports of other nations to keep abreast of developments in Iraq. Maybe they don't like the job, but that is what the State Department is designed to do. I have had times when somebody said I had to sit in this hearing for 4 hours because I was either chairman or ranking member of the committee, and I said, I don't want to, I would rather go to Vermont, or I would rather go hunting on my farm, or do other things. But you know what? It is my job, it is a job I was elected to do, and I have done it. I am sorry if the State Department feels they don't need to do their job. Maybe they have too many people. Maybe we are spending money we don't need to there. I mean, this is what they do in Afghanistan. This is the role they have played in every post-war situation since the Marshall plan. I ask, what is so different about Iraq? Suddenly, we are breaking 50 years of precedent and they don't want to do what they are supposed to do. I am worried, why don't they want to do their job? Are they concerned that they could not do it better than it is being done now? I would hope they could, or else we are spending an awful lot of money at the State Department that we don't need to spend.

Mr. LEAHY. If I may respond on that, as I have stated over and over again--and I will state it again for my good friend, who I refer to as ``my Senator'' when I am away from Vermont because I live part of the time in his beautiful Commonwealth. We are not asking the military to not do the job they do, and do well; we are not asking that they stop providing security or to not continue to hunt for Saddam Hussein or those connected with him. What I am saying is that they ought to be freed up to do that job. But they should not be doing the nation building the administration wants, which is our President's vision for Iraq. Let's give that job back to the people who are trained to do it. I know the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee does not want to see our military there forever as an occupying force. He and I totally agree on that. He and I totally agree that our military is the finest in the world, and they have done extraordinarily well there. I think we have them stretched pretty thin in a lot of areas. I am saying, let the military do the military work; let the State Department do the foreign aid work; and if the State Department is unwilling to do the kinds of things they are trained for, which they tell us year after year they need hundreds of millions of dollars more to do, then maybe we don't need them.

Mr. LEAHY. I have had time to say what I am going to say. I am also apparently having incipient laryngitis, which is probably as crippling an illness as any Member of the Senate could have.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am getting the impression that my distinguished friend, the senior Senator from Virginia, is not in agreement with my amendment and would like to keep the status quo, at least for now. I respond that the current structure has not worked well. Between the two of us, we have a half century of listening to people testify. The Pentagon has said over and over again--certainly in a lot of the hearings I have had and I am sure that the Senator from Virginia has had--that they are not a foreign aid agency. The Pentagon is not a foreign aid agency. I think the experience of the past 5 months in Iraq confirms that. They came in there without a plan, a postwar plan. I believe they miscalculated terribly and they put our soldiers in a vulnerable position. I yield to nobody in this body in my admiration of the men and women who are in Iraq, the members of our military, but the administration put them in an untenable position. They have to maintain order, fight terrorists, build schools and sewer systems, and do all that simultaneously. Let the military and the Secretary of Defense focus on fighting the war and leave foreign aid to the agencies with the expertise. Just this week, one of our national news magazines said: On the ground, the Coalition Provisional Authority, charged with actually running Iraq until the Iraqis can take over, is the source of increasing ridicule . . . So there they are, sitting in their palace: 800 people, 17 of whom speak Arabic, one is an expert on Iraq. Living in this cocoon. Writing papers. ``It's absurd,'' says one dissident Pentagon official. He exaggerates, but not by much. Most of the senior civilian staff are not technical experts. . . . Time magazine says Joe Fillmore, a contract translator with the 4th Infantry Division in Tikrit, agrees that resentment is deep. ``Things may look better on the surface,'' he says, ``but there is growing frustration with the occupation. The town is dividing into two parts: those who hate us, and those who don't mind us, but want us to go.'' Whether one was for or against war, we are now there. But when we are asked to buy enormously expensive items, to spend more money to build a hospital in Iraq than we would spend on a hospital in Vermont, when we are asked to spend more money on telecommunications in Iraq than we are willing to spend in many states in the United States, when we are asked to spend more money on the electrical infrastructure in Iraq than we are willing to spend here, when we are asked to spend more money to put people back to work in Iraq than we are willing to spend in the United States, when we are asked to spend more money for police and security and prisons in Iraq than we are willing to spend where it is needed in the United States, when we are asked to spend more money for vehicles in Iraq than we spend for vehicles in the United States, I think it is fair we ask is this right? Is this necessary? Maybe it is time to put the right people in charge.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the senior Senator from Virginia is not only one of the best friends I have in this place, and has been for the years that we have served together, but I also know he is one of the hardest working Members of the Senate. As I mentioned earlier in my opening statement, I am not suggesting for a minute that Ambassador Bremer, for whom I have high regard, be replaced. I am simply saying that it is not a question of whether the Secretary of State should take this now or later; the fact is, this is his job. He should have been doing it from the beginning. We are not changing horses in midstream. Incidentally, speaking of Mr. Kay and others, I also stated, prior to the Senator from Virginia coming to the floor, that, of course, the military would have to stay and provide the security so these people can continue to work. I am just saying, insofar as we are doing nation building, let it be done by the State Department, as we always have, and not think that somehow we can go solely as a military authority and then have this country suddenly, one day, become a democratic nation, and only then will we bring in the State Department to give aid. I have looked at the plan. The plan said it was to give the Iraqi people the opportunity to realize President Bush's vision. We may want to ask them if that is exactly the vision they want. But be that as it may, this is not changing horses in midstream. We are getting on the right horse, in fact, the horse that has taken us across the stream for the last 50 years. Every major postwar reconstruction effort since the Marshall plan has been under the auspices of the Secretary of State, not the Secretary of Defense: Afghanistan, Kosovo, East Timor, Bosnia, Cambodia. Even during the middle of the Vietnam war, economic aid was handled by AID. I am thinking of an article on July 24, referring to an assessment by outside experts, commissioned by the Pentagon, who warned that the window of opportunity for postwar success is closing. The Philadelphia Inquirer reported that: After initial deals for reconstruction stalled, it was time for plan B but there was no plan B. I would hope the plan B that was written on July 23 is not it. I have a plan B. It is called the Secretary of State. Put the Department of State in charge of the reconstruction. Not the military part, of course. The military is going to be there for some substantial period of time--we know this--but allow them to do the things they are good at. They are not trained, nor should they be, to become a governing power, to become nation builders.

Mr. LEAHY. No, the Senator is not correct. The implication is that somehow my amendment would put everything under the State Department. We are being asked to provide over $80 billion. Roughly three-quarters of that goes to the Department of Defense. Nobody is asking anybody but the Department of Defense to handle it. We are saying the $20 million of foreign aid--one of the largest foreign aid packages I have ever seen--the $20 billion of foreign aid that is brand new would be overseen by the State Department. We want to make sure that the Iraqis do not feel this is a long-term military operation. People should know, my amendment doesn't stop the President from allocating and reallocating reconstruction funds to any agency, including Defense, but State would have oversight of that. It doesn't shut down the Coalition Provisional Authority. It doesn't require big changes there.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. LEAHY. As I have said before, I am glad Ambassador Bremer is there. It doesn't micromanage the reconstruction effort. It doesn't create a disruption of any of the programs that are there. But it does say when we want to ask how these aid programs and reconstruction programs are going, we ask the questions of our State Department, the Department that has had this responsibility and expertise, and the Department that has always done this from the days of the Marshall plan on. My friends keep saying, this is just like the Marshall plan. Well, there are some big differences. One, the Marshall plan didn't ask us to pick up the whole tab as this does. That was a dollar-for-dollar match. Some of it was in loans. It wasn't done immediately after the war. It took many hearings, hundreds of witnesses. And then working with the President, there was a congressional oversight committee that actually had input from both parties, both Republicans and Democrats, unlike the situation here with the 8 page plan that we were given two months late.

Mr. LEAHY. I thank my friend, the distinguished Presiding Officer. Amendment No. 1803

Mr. LEAHY. I yield our time.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?

Mr. LEAHY. I move to reconsider the vote.