Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. STEVENS. Reserving the right to object, as the Senator knows, we had an amendment as lined up to be considered on this side. Senator Nickles also is not able to be here, but he has given me the information and I am prepared to offer that amendment for him. This is the first of the three amendments we are going to call up. I would be compelled to object to that setting of the Bayh amendment before we have some consideration of amendments on this side.

Mr. STEVENS. I will not object to that. I ask unanimous consent to amend this request so that I may be recognized to present the Nickles amendment following the vote on the McConnell amendment, and following that Senator Bayh be recognized to present his amendment.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we have sent out a hot line for people who want to speak on this amendment. There are 10 Members who want to speak for 5 to 15 minutes. We have really basically 80 minutes left between now and 9 o'clock. I would suggest we ought to at least make the first vote start at 9:30.

Mr. STEVENS. Let me ask this: I ask unanimous consent that the pending Nickles amendment be temporarily set aside and Senator Bayh be recognized to offer his amendment; provided further that the time until 9:30 be equally divided for debate in the usual form. I further ask unanimous consent that at 9:30 p.m. the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Nickles amendment to be followed by a vote in relationship to the Bayh amendment with no second-degree amendments in order to either amendment, and prior to the votes there be 2 minutes equally divided before each vote.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to Senator Roberts.

Mr. STEVENS. I yield 5 minutes to Senator Sessions.

Mr. STEVENS. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. STEVENS. I yield to the Senator from Georgia 8 minutes.

Mr. STEVENS. I have had the Senator from Washington waiting for a substantial amount of time, too.

Mr. STEVENS. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Washington.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, after that, I yield to Senator Burns 5 minutes from our side.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday, October 16, 2003, at 10 a.m. in Dirksen Room 226. I. Nominations Henry W. Saad to be United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit; George W. Miller to be Judge for the United States Court of the Federal Claims; Deborah Ann Spagnoli to be United States Parole Commissioner; Dora L. Irizarry to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York. II. Bills S. 1545, Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act of 2003 (the DREAM Act) [Hatch, Durbin, Craig, DeWine, Feingold, Feinstein, Grassley, Kennedy, Leahy, Schumer] S. 1691, the Wartime Treatment Study Act [Feingold, Grassley, Kennedy]

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet for a hearing on Promoting Access to Postsecondary Education: Issues for the Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act during the session of the Senate on Thursday, October 16, 2003 at 10:00 a.m. in SD-430.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Thursday, October 16, 2003 at 10:00 a.m. in Room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct an oversight hearing on the Missouri River Master manual.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I have no objection. Just, when Senator McConnell yields the floor, that Senator Inouye get the floor. I did commit we would set aside some time for him to make a statement. He has not made a statement on the bill yet.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, we urge Senators to contact the managers of this bill to try to work out a time when their amendments might be considered, and to see if we have any possibility of dealing with the several amendments at one time. We tried to do that last night with regard to reporting requirements, and I stated to the Senate it is our hope we can blend all of the reporting requirements along with those that are already in the House bill and work out a logical sequence for the reporting and the activities of an inspector general, if that is required as far as the Iraq operation is concerned. We will be hopeful that today we can look at--there are additional amendments being suggested on the list that was approved last night for reporting requirements, and I would be pleased to consider taking any of those and adding them to the package that is already in the bill for reporting requirements and for details regarding the inspector general. But my purpose for seeking the floor right now is to urge Senators to contact the managers of the bill, and let us work out some logical sequence in terms of the amendments that are pending or will be offered. This is going to be a long day. We still have the commitment that we will do our utmost to finish by tomorrow. I congratulate my good friend from Nevada, the Democratic assistant leader, for all his efforts in getting us to where we are now in terms of knowing the amendments that are possible to be considered. But within the timeframe we have, we cannot consider them all without really a great deal of consideration on both sides in terms of the amount of time a Senator takes to explain the amendment and particularly in terms of Senators being willing to cooperate with us to blend amendments so we can deal with one subject maybe in one or two amendments. That is possible. I look forward to working with Senator Reid, who is actively involved in trying to reduce the number of these amendments, as well as I am, with our joint staffs. I yield the floor.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I think we have been here before. This is another amendment--it reminds me of Yogi Berra: It is deja vu all over again. We are looking at the same problem. The problem is the disagreement of the Senator from West Virginia with the President's action with regard to Iraq. I read the Constitution, too. The President is Commander in Chief. He selected an ambassador who, in fact, has been confirmed by the Senate and gave him the powers to execute the actions necessary to move toward establishing a new government in Iraq. I was interested in the editorial in the Washington Post yesterday: ``Stay Resolute on Rebuilding.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full editorial be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. STEVENS. The editorial starts off by saying: This is a critical week for the U.S. mission in Iraq. The test won't be overseas but in the House and the Senate, where lawmakers are to vote on the administration's request for $87 billion in emergency funding. It's imperative that this spending be approved--not only the money required for military operations but the smaller, more controversial, amount for reconstruction aid. We omit an exact dollar figure from the previous sentence because that's a legitimate subject for debate. The Bush administration is asking for $20.3 billion in reconstruction spending; the House Appropriations Committee trimmed $1.7 billion from that amount. What's important is not the precise number but the underlying premise: that reconstruction is in the best interests of both the United States and Iraq. The editorial goes on: One of the biggest temptations for lawmakers will be to lend the money rather than spend it outright. This approach has particular traction in the Senate, where a number of Republicans are endorsing it. They argue that oil-rich Iraq can pay for its own reconstruction; giving it the money outright will just allow it to pay off existing debt more quickly to countries that shirked the reconstruction task, at U.S. taxpayer expense. This may play well back home, but it's the wrong way to go. This amendment will cap reconstruction funds for Iraq at $5 billion and require Congress to enact yet another appropriations bill to spend the remainder of the funds. It attempts to sweeten the amendment with $5 billion for security-rated activities that is excluded from the cap, but it is still a very bitter pill for those in charge of our troops in Iraq to swallow. As this editorial I just mentioned stated: Paying to improve life for Iraqis will help create a safer environment for U.S. troops and will hasten the day when they can leave. Rebuilding the electricity grid, fixing the water supply, getting the oil flowing, maintaining public safety-- all this is central to hopes for stability and representative government. In addition to untenable funding restraints, this amendment requires a Presidential certification that the U.N. Security Council has adopted a resolution authorizing a multinational force under United States leadership for Iraq and that reconstruction efforts are being successfully implemented according to a detailed plan before additional funds can be appropriated. I know of nothing in the Constitution that says the Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces has to give Congress a plan. He did give us a plan. There is a plan, and it is being executed. But to put it in law that the Commander in Chief cannot spend money for our troops or for reconstruction efforts without a detailed plan is going too far. Ambassador Bremer has a plan, and we are funding it. The President has a plan, and we are following it, and he is the Commander in Chief. I think it is high time we recognize that the Commander in Chief has powers abroad, particularly when we have men and women in the field still under security restraints. There are people over there still being killed daily, and that bothers me greatly. What I fear most is the loss of momentum in the program being pursued by the amendments being offered that will derail the plan, derail the operations, and put in restrictions so we cannot go forward. I believe the President has a plan and the Bremer plan will work. If it does not, they will be back, I am sure. But if it does, it will be the first time in history where we went from the concept of a victory in the field militarily to establishing a new government in a country that has really been totally destroyed by its former government, the Saddam Hussein regime. It will be the first time we went from a military victory to a new government without a long period of occupation. The result of the Byrd amendment is that it will assure we will have increased forces over there occupying Iraq for years and years. I don't know where the Senator got that quote from, but no one told me we are going to be there years and years. As a matter of fact, our goal is not that. We have already withdrawn some troops. The general the Senator quoted has already withdrawn some troops. We are not predicting they are going to be there for years and years. There may well be a United States presence there for some time, whether or not the Iraqi people ask for it. I hope they reach a point where they think they can provide for their own security. We have this ongoing problem in Afghanistan very clearly that is going to take some time to establish a government there. We do have some international cooperation but not much really in the long run. The Senator from West Virginia mentions the U.N. Just yesterday, the Secretary of State told us about the improved circumstance in the U.N. today. We are pursuing a resolution in the U.N. but to make expenditure of our funds conditioned upon the resolution passing in the U.N. is absolutely wrong. This amendment holds reconstruction efforts hostage to the passage of other appropriations bills and hostage to action by the U.N. Now, I would hope that Senators will read what I consider to be a very appropriate editorial from the Washington Post that I have just placed in the Record. It says: The debate over reconstruction aid has become a means for expressing frustration, much of it legitimate, about the administration's Iraq policy. Why wasn't the administration more honest from the outset about the costs? Why can't it do a better job of getting other countries to help pay? What's the plan for future years? How will it be paid for? Lawmakers are right to use the leverage of debate to seek clearer answers . . . But debate is one thing; restrictions in the law is an entirely different thing. I do not believe Congress has the power and should not try to exercise the power to put restraints on the Commander in Chief when we have forces in the field. Our job is to provide the money to keep those men and women safe, and that is what this bill does. Sixty- six-plus billion dollars is to maintain our troops. The balance is one of the most distinct things the President has done as a leader, to say let's move forward now. Let's give them a chance to create a new government. Let's help them set up their security. Let's help them restore their means of living. Let's help them restore their energy. Let's help them restore their oilfields. Let's help them restore safety in the streets. Let's work with them so they can take over their own government. I received a letter this morning from the Coalition Provisional Authority, and I ask unanimous consent that this letter from Ambassador Bremer be printed in the Record. I will make copies available for every Senator.

Mr. STEVENS. It says: The supplemental the President has submitted provides a clear strategy for achieving our goal of an early restoration of full sovereignty to the Iraqi people and for making additional progress on the war on terrorism. I want you and your colleagues to know that we are making every endeavor to operate in a transparent and accountable manner. But any major cuts of specific portions of the President's request will impact the scope and pace of reconstruction efforts, which in turn will delay the return home of the U.S. troops. There is no doubt that these funds will help contribute to the peace and stability of not only Iraq but eventually the entire region. That is the dream the Secretary of State explained to us yesterday, that we are moving forward in a region that has had instability for a century, and what has been needed is a key country such as Iraq turning toward a democracy, turning toward involving people. Just listening to the people who have seen and talked to the young people in school, we now know that young women in Iraq are going to school for the first time because of this country. A whole new generation will not just have men educated but will have men and women, who are going to participate in their own government. They want to do that. There has been an overwhelming reaction in Iraq toward freedom. We want to hold it back? We want to put up some gates and say you can go just this far, but you have to come back to Congress for more money? When? In February, and then more money later. The whole idea is to put the money up and let the Iraqi people know we are assisting them to move forward. We are going to assist them. Debate is one thing, but gates, obstruction, is another. This amendment is obstructionism. It is intended to require a return to this floor before the money the President has requested in the supplemental can be spent. I think that is absolutely wrong, and when the appropriate time comes I will move to table this amendment. Exhibit 1--Stay Resolute on Rebuilding This is a critical week for the U.S. mission in Iraq. The test won't be overseas but in the House and Senate, where lawmakers are to vote on the administration's request for $87 billion in emergency funding. It's imperative that this spending be approved--not only the money required for military operations but the smaller, more controversial, amount for reconstruction aid. We omit an exact dollar figure from the previous sentence because that's a legitimate subject for debate. The Bush administration is asking for $20.3 billion in reconstruction spending; the House Appropriations Committee trimmed $1.7 billion from that amount. What's important is not the precise number but the underlying premise: that reconstruction is in the interests of both the United States and Iraq. It would be intellectually consistent, though wrong, to argue against both military and reconstruction funding. But to present oneself as a supporter of money ``for our troops'' and an opponent of reconstruction is contradictory and counterproductive. Paying to improve life for Iraqis will help create a safer environment for U.S. troops and will hasten the day when they can leave. Rebuilding the electricity grid, fixing the water supply, getting the oil flowing, maintaining public safety--all this is central to hopes for stability and representative government. One of the biggest temptations for lawmakers will be to lend the money rather than spend it outright. This approach has particular traction in the Senate, where a number of Republicans are endorsing it. They argue that oil-rich Iraq can pay for its own reconstruction; giving it the money outright will just allow it to pay off existing debt more quickly to countries that shirked the reconstruction task, at U.S. taxpayer expense. This may play well back home, but it's the wrong way to go. Iraq is already burdened with about $200 billion in debt. Either much of that will be forgiven, in which case a U.S. reconstruction loan will prove most symbolic, or Iraq will struggle for years under a crushing debt burden, in which case another loan only adds to the misery. To make a loan in these circumstances is like swimming out to a drowning man and handing him a ten-pound weight. As a practical matter, no Iraqi entity has the legal authority to enter into a binding agreement. Lending the money will harm the U.S. effort to persuade other countries to donate. And forcing Iraq to encumber itself with debt to the United States, with U.S. companies reaping the reconstruction profits, plays into the hands of those who suspect U.S. motives. The debate over reconstruction aid has become a means for expressing frustration, much of it legitimate, about the administration's Iraq policy. Why wasn't the administration more honest from the outset about costs? Why can't it do a better job of getting other countries to help pay? What's the plan for future years? How will it be paid for? Lawmakers are right to use the leverage of debate to seek clearer answers and improved performance from the administration. But a failure to obtain satisfaction on these points doesn't justify a vote against needed funding. One of the Democratic presidential candidates who will be called on to vote on the request, Sen. John Edwards (N.C.), said yesterday that he will vote against the aid for this reason, and Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.) seems inclined to follow this irresponsible course. Former Vermont governor Howard Dean's position--yes, but only if the president comes up with a way to pay for it-- is similarly faulty. As much as we would like to see some tax cuts rolled back, that's not going to happen, at least as part of the current debate. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.) had it right the other day, saying that, despite misgivings and his desire to undo some of the tax cuts to pay for it: ``We have no choice but to finance this program.'' Helping rebuild Iraq is right as a matter of morality and self-interest. Refusing to pay what's needed because the administration's performance has been lacking simply piles error on top of error. Whatever the Bush Administration's failings, it makes no sense to punish the people of Iraq-- and, ultimately, of the United States--as a result.

Mr. STEVENS. I want to be courteous to the people on the other side, and I will try to see if we cannot find some time limit. It would be within my right to move to table right now, but I want to be cooperative. The Senator from West Virginia has asked for other Senators to be allowed to speak, so I will seek to find some way to delineate some time limits. I have spoken for about 8 minutes. I know Senator Durbin, Senator Harkin, Senator Kennedy, and I believe Senator Boxer want to speak. I ask unanimous consent that each be recognized for 10 minutes and that I then be allowed the floor.

Mr. STEVENS. The Senator has the right to object, and I have the right to move to table. I still have the floor.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I will be glad to debate a little bit what is important and what is not important. I have before me 58 amendments, and I do not know of any Senator who says his or her amendment is not important. This amendment is important. I think the amendment of any Senator is important. With 58 amendments pending, we have to find some way to limit debate. The only way I know to limit it is by making a motion to table. I again seek the guidance of the Members on the other side. I think we really have eight amendments, other than a reservation of amendments to be able to be offered in the second degree. Of the basic amendments that are now here, there are, what, 31?

Mr. STEVENS. Without losing the right to the floor, I yield to the distinguished Senator from Nevada for a comment.

Mr. STEVENS. Senator Leahy now; that's a sixth one. If each one takes 20 minutes, we are going to be at 2 o'clock before we vote on this.