Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Is the Senator's amendment already offered?

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Senator Graham of South Carolina, Senator Warner, and Senator Domenici are coming. So I hope to proceed then. I have no objection to the Senator from New Mexico proposing his amendment and making a statement. We will set that aside when the other Senators appear. I yield the floor.

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent to set aside the Bingaman amendment in order that the Senator from South Carolina can offer his amendment at this time.

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, will the Senator withhold his request for a quorum call?

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I listened with interest to the statement of the Senator from South Dakota. It is a very interesting proposition that we should support the military budget and not support the budget that is designed to bring our troops home. The $20.3 billion is a lot of money, there is no question about that. I am informed there are about 22 million people in Iraq. They lived under a despotic regime, and we have destroyed that regime. There are still pockets of terrorists, pockets of resistance to the change to a new form of government. But those who support only the military expenditures are telling us: Let's just occupy Iraq. No one is saying: Let's go home. No one is saying: Let's just bring our forces out and cut and run. We are not going to do that. If we put in the money, $66 billion for the year 2004, that is the amount of money that was calculated that we need for the military, provided we start bringing them home--we have already brought some troops home, and I am one who hopes we will be bringing more troops home this year and early next year. But they will be replaced by security forces, those trained in the Iraqi Army, those trained to be security forces. We do not want to train people to be forces of occupation. That has not been our way of life. Even in Bosnia and Kosovo we used forces who were trained combat soldiers, combat personnel to carry out a lot of functions, but we did not train people to just be forces of occupation. Our people are trained combatants. They proved they are the best in the world in this current Iraq campaign. There are still threats against this country throughout the world. We do not want them left in Iraq in the numbers that are there now. They must start coming back to meet any contingency to defend this country and our interests at home and abroad. To say we can just get by with the $66 billion for military begs the question: What do you want us to do? Send more forces over there? Should we increase the cost militarily and send more combat forces over there or should we provide forces, as has been suggested in one amendment, to train constables for maintaining the peace, people in uniform but not trained to be combat forces, not trained to fight wars, but just trained to be policemen at the corner or to guard schools or guard the churches or guard the shopping centers. We can do that. We have been in Kosovo. We have been in Bosnia for over 4 years doing that. We are trying to avoid that in this country. I hope everyone in the Senate understands this is a unique, new approach to the concept of changing an administration, a nation- building concept, letting them build their own nation as quickly as possible. The $20.3 billion is a great deal of money, there is no question about that. It is an enormous amount of money. It represents a cost to this country, however, that is far less than maintaining our forces there for 3, 4, or 5 years at a rate of $66 billion plus a year for military. I want to see the scales compared. I want people to understand that the $20.3 billion is going to mean we do not have to increase the defense costs in the years ahead as we occupy Iraq until they finally find some way to create their own government. We are trying to build up their forces so we can bring our troops home, and I believe we will succeed. There are some people making a little bit of mirth over some of the problems of dealing with a new country. It has its own currency now, and we are trying to convert our money to their money so they can start spending and generating their economy. It is going to cost a great deal to do that; a lot less, however, than occupying that country for a period of 4 more years. We have not been in any of these countries we have been involved with in recent years less than 4 years. We hope to be out of this situation in less than 4 years, and that is why I support the $20.3 billion the President requested. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, the amendment offered by the Senator from Arkansas is a revenue bill. It cannot originate under our constitutional concepts in the Senate. It would create a blue-slip situation in the House of Representatives. I do not want to put the entire bill at risk by trying to include a tax bill in this supplemental appropriations bill. Therefore, I make the point of order it violates the pay-go provisions of the Budget Act and ask that it be stricken.

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, there are similar provisions in the pending bill before the Senate. I renew my point of order. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. STEVENS. Making my request more specific, I make the point of order that the amendment of the Senator from Arkansas is in violation of section 302(f) of the Budget Act and I ask that it be stricken.

Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, there are a series of reporting requirements in this bill already. I have conferred with the leadership. We don't have any objection to this amendment by the Senator from West Virginia. I am certain that in conference the House is going to insist on consolidating some of these reports. We will be glad to review that matter with the Senator when that occurs. But we are happy to accept the amendment.

Mr. STEVENS. Does the Senator want a rollcall vote?

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I do not want to belabor the point. It is an arm of the Congress, but this is an executive function concerning an audit. We have created offices of the inspector general. Two Senators have suggested inspectors general. I do not think this is the place for a continuing presence of an arm of the Congress. But I will vote for the Senator's amendment to take it to conference. As the Chair said, there is a sufficient second.

Mr. STEVENS. There are two Leahy amendments here.

Mr. STEVENS. In just a moment we will ask for a rollcall vote on Senator Graham's amendment, but I would like to yield to my friend, Senator Feingold, to introduce an amendment, then to approve a series of reporting amendments.

Mr. STEVENS. I am not sure about voting on his amendment until we know what it is. Is it on the list?

Mr. STEVENS. I have a series of issues I wish to handle before we get to any votes.

Mr. STEVENS. Let me yield for the Senator to introduce his amendment.

Mr. STEVENS. I yield to the Senator from Nevada to put in an amendment for Senator Corzine to include in these amendments. Amendment No. 1851

Mr. STEVENS. I call up an amendment numbered 1805 introduced by Senator Graham and send a modification of that amendment to the desk.

Mr. STEVENS. I send a modification to the desk.