[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 132 (Wednesday, September 24, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11881-S11885]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            REBUILDING IRAQ

  Mr. DASCHLE. Thank you, Mr. President. I will use my leader time this 
morning so as not to take away from the allocated time in morning 
business for the Democratic caucus.
  I wanted to come to the floor this morning to respond perhaps in part 
to the comments made by our distinguished colleagues.
  I will start by emphasizing that there are many areas for which there 
is absolutely no disagreement. I don't think you will find any 
disagreement in the Senate today that it was a good thing that Saddam 
Hussein was removed from power. We acknowledge that it was a good 
thing. Saddam Hussein posed serious threat to the region, to his 
country, and to the United States. His absence is a positive 
development.
  There is also broad recognition that we owe a deep debt of gratitude 
to our troops and to the military overall for the extraordinary 
challenge they face and the success with which they face it.
  Let us also recognize that there is little disagreement that it is 
important to Iraq and this country that we allow for the reconstruction 
of Iraq. I think many of us are very concerned. This is where some of 
the disagreement and differences may begin to arise about the 
extraordinary lack of planning that went into the reconstruction 
effort. Some have suggested that we planned for months--maybe years--
for the military effort, and it shows. It was a great success.
  I have been told--and I will not say that this is confirmed, but I 
have been told--that we planned for less than a month on efforts to 
reconstruct Iraq. That also shows, if that is true. I think it is a 
fact that reconstruction has certainly not met with the same success 
and with the same degree of support within our own country that the 
military effort itself has.

  That is where we come to our point of disagreement. I regret that the 
President lost the opportunity that he had yesterday in making his 
presentation to the United Nations. He lost an opportunity to make the 
case for broader involvement in the world community. He didn't ask for 
more troops. For whatever reason, he didn't ask for more resources. He 
failed to build the broad coalition that will be required if ever we 
are successful in the future reconstruction of Iraq. There is no 
disagreement whatsoever that it is in our interest to find ways to 
engage the world community more effectively and to make a better effort 
at public relations required to do it successfully in Iraq.
  There is a front-page story in the Sioux Falls Argus Leader this 
morning about an Iraqi businessman from Sioux Falls who, months ago, 
left Sioux Falls to work in his hometown in Iraq as they began to 
rebuild. He became very involved in the creation of a new government. 
He was an ardent opponent to Saddam Hussein. He commented this morning 
that he comes back with grave regret about what he has seen. He said 
that, unfortunately, more and more Iraqis are losing their confidence 
and trust in the reconstruction effort; that more and more we are 
losing the public relations battle.
  While we all want to find a way to ensure that we are successful, it 
would be wrong for us to bury our heads in the sand, to plow forward, 
to salute the flag, and say: Look, everything is just great. All we 
need is more money.
  We can't do that. We have to make an honest assessment of our 
circumstances, acknowledge that there is work to be done, and be honest 
with ourselves and the world community on how we accomplish all that we 
have set out to do. To do it successfully requires candor first and 
honesty second. Unfortunately, we have not seen enough of that today.
  We are being told that we are going to rush through this request for 
resources, $87 billion--a couple of days of hearings, a quick markup, a 
couple of days of floor debate and, bang, it is done. I have to say 
that isn't going to happen. We have to be deliberative.
  As the Senator from Kentucky suggested, we have to consider 
alternatives, offer amendments, have a good debate, and make sure this 
$87 billion was committed appropriately.
  I say that the President missed his chance to speak candidly 
yesterday. I would have hoped that he could have laid out a plan, and 
that he could have been very specific with regard to how we more 
effectively put this coalition together. We hear so much discussion 
about the involvement of other communities. We are told that we would 
expect the world community to produce about $55 billion in resources to 
match the $87 billion requested by the President by the United States. 
Yet, again, yesterday Ambassador Bremer had to acknowledge that out of 
that $55 billion expectation, the world community has only provided 
$1.5 billion.
  I would have hoped the President could have been more specific with 
regard to our plan for troops. What will they be doing? How long will 
they be there? To what extent will we have to keep them there, and for 
how long?
  Over the course of the next couple of weeks, it would be my hope that 
the President could come to the Congress with very specific requests 
with regard to that $87 billion and with regard to the resources he 
says he needs. I hope he could lay out with some specificity what his 
plan is for the reconstruction of Iraq. We were told by Ambassador 
Bremer yesterday that the $20 billion

[[Page S11882]]

over and above the $65 billion request for our troops is the last, 
final installment. There will be no more additional requests for Iraq 
from here on out.
  I wish I could believe that. I wish I knew they had that level of 
confidence that not one dollar more would be requested.
  I wish I could better understand their opposition to a proposal made 
by the distinguished Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan, and others 
who have suggested we collateralize the oil revenues in Iraq for the 
next 20 years. We are told that could be upwards of $160 billion. 
Collateralized through an IMF loan may not necessitate the need for $20 
billion or $30 billion on the part of the United States. They may have 
the second most formidable oil supply in the world. Why we would not 
collateralize and find ways with which to utilize the resources 
available to them is something the administration needs to more 
thoroughly explain.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. REID. Is it true that the request of the President, if granted, 
will cause the United States sometime next summer to increase the debt 
ceiling of this country?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Unfortunately, I have to acknowledge to the Senator from 
Nevada, that is what we are now being told. I was going to address that 
in a moment, but the Senator is absolutely right. We have been forced 
to address the debt ceiling this year for the second time. We will be 
called upon within this Congress now to address it the third time. We 
are told by CBO that we could see in excess of $6,000 billion of debt 
by the end of this decade. Some have suggested that if all of the tax 
cuts that are now scheduled to be implemented go into effect, that 
number would reach $10,000 billion by the end of this decade.
  The CBO, in a very rare moment, in my view--we do not often hear them 
editorializing on things of this matter; they usually give us the fact 
and leave it at that--used the word ``unsustainable.'' That $10,000 
billion, even $6,000 billion, of debt is unsustainable.
  The American people have said, if we are going to be mired in 
unsustainable debt, somebody better start asking questions about 
whether this $87 billion or the $22 billion for reconstruction, or 
whatever other additional expenditures, will not so seriously undermine 
the investments in our own country--education, health, and social 
security--it could be one of the most damaging things to our own 
security, ironically, that we could be considering.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator again yield?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. I ask, through the Presiding Officer to the distinguished 
Democratic leader, this question. It is true, is it not, in the first 
gulf war there were 200,000 troops supplied by other countries? It is 
also true, is it not, that 90 percent of the cost of the war was borne 
by other countries? It is also true in this war that 90 percent of the 
costs or more are being borne by the United States, 90 percent of the 
casualties, 90 percent of the troops on the ground is the United 
States.
  There is a tremendous difference between the first gulf war and the 
second gulf war; is that true?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Unfortunately, the Senator in his question makes a very 
important point. We talked about international involvement. I call it 
more cosmetic than real. As he has noted, there has been minimal 
involvement in a broad coalition of countries that oftentimes are 
considered Third World, countries that economically, militarily, do not 
have the weight and the breadth and depth of power and potential that 
countries that are traditional allies of the United States have always 
had.

  For whatever reason, we cannot involve Europe, we have not involved 
Russia, we have not involved China, we have not involved India, we have 
not involved countries in a meaningful, substantive, and consequential 
way. As a result, as the Senator has noted, the lion's share--over 90 
percent of the responsibility financially, militarily, 
organizationally--has fallen upon the United States.
  I talked to a young woman in Brookings, SD, on Saturday. She told me 
she is leaving for Iraq within the month, that she was going to be gone 
anywhere from 8 to 13 months. She has a family, a job, and she is 
prepared to do that as a member of the National Guard. She has the 
right to be very proud of the extraordinary contribution our members of 
the Guard have made, but they and we have a right to ask, Where is the 
help from others? Where are the Europeans? Where are the Chinese? Where 
are the Russians? Where are the Japanese? Why is it that we are asking 
that young woman to provide 90 percent of the sacrifice?
  Where is the sacrifice even in this country among some? Those at the 
top, the top 1 percent, who will be getting an average of $283,000 in a 
tax break this year, where is the sacrifice? Should they not be 
required to help share the burden of paying for the war, if nothing 
else?
  Every single dollar we will be considering next week, every single 
dollar, will be borrowed. We were told yesterday in the New York Times 
that every dollar we borrow costs $3.60 to pay back--not over 10 years 
but over 6 years. So one could say that this is not an $87 billion cost 
to the Treasury; it is more like $300 billion because that is what it 
will take to pay back over a 6-year period of time alone.
  That is why I say it is very important we ask these questions; that 
the President come forth with greater clarity and far more substance 
with regard to his specific plans on how this money is going to be used 
and with far more transparency.
  Some generals recently noted that we have no appreciation, no real 
understanding of where this money is going now. We spend $1 billion a 
week and no one can tell us on what with any clarity. We know some goes 
to troops; we know some goes for reconstruction. We do not know how 
fast it is being spent down or where the money is going with regard to 
payment for other countries for their involvement, nor do we know what 
kind of profiteering is going on.
  There was a report in the New York Daily News yesterday that 
Halliburton could generate more than $7 billion in one contract right 
now--that is billion, with a B, $7 billion. Should there be more 
competitive bidding and transparency with regard to the contracts? Of 
course there should.
  We will continue to persist with our questions. We will offer 
amendments. We look forward to the debate.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask to be recognized in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank the Democratic leader for his 
statement. It raises some critical issues.
  I listened as my colleagues on the Republican side came to the floor 
this morning when they had the opportunity to talk about the situation 
in Iraq. The premise of many of their statements is undeniable, and 
that is the fact we cannot walk away from Iraq. As expensive as it may 
be, as dangerous as it may be, as many lives as it may claim, the fact 
is, once the decision was made to invade Iraq and topple the 
government, we have a responsibility there. For us to leave now and let 
Iraq descend into chaos to become a training ground for more terrorism 
in the region and against the United States is totally unacceptable.
  The fact is, for good or for ill, we are in a situation where we are 
faced with this responsibility. It is a substantial responsibility. As 
we look to the reasoning that led us into Iraq, there have been a lot 
of revelations over the last 3 or 4 weeks. You may recall initially the 
administration said: We believe that Iraq is in a position where it can 
build nuclear weapons that could threaten the world; these nuclear 
weapons could be used for terrorist purposes. In fact, the President of 
the United States in the State of the Union Address spoke of this 
fissile material coming into Iraq from Niger, an African nation.
  Further investigation leads us to conclude that perhaps we were 
wrong. The President has conceded his statement in the State of the 
Union Address was wrong. There was no evidence of fissile material 
coming from Africa into Iraq.
  Frankly, today, 5 months after the end of military operations, there 
has been no evidence uncovered to suggest there were nuclear weapons in 
Iraq when the administration told us. That was one of the reasons we 
had to go to war.

[[Page S11883]]

  Of course, the other reason that was raised--with some frequency--was 
weapons of mass destruction, chemical and biological weapons that could 
threaten the region and the world. In fact, at one point in time 
someone in the administration said--I believe it was the President--
that within 45 minutes the Iraqis could launch an attack on the United 
States with chemical and biological weapons.
  Well, we know where we are today. Five months after the military 
hostilities have ended, those overt hostilities, we have found no 
evidence of weapons of mass destruction. None. Our troops went in, in 
full gear, prepared to confront chemical and biological warfare, and it 
never happened. The administration has said that is really irrelevant; 
the important consideration is the fact that many years ago Iraq had 
chemical and biological capability.
  I have to remind them, that is not what they told us before we 
invaded Iraq: It was a real threat, an imminent danger, and one that 
had to be preempted, that we had to move on, even before the Iraqis 
showed any hostilities directly toward the United States.
  Today we are emptyhanded. Today we can find no evidence of weapons of 
mass destruction. Perhaps something will be found.
  I always qualify my remarks thinking, How could we have missed it? 
How could we have said that we identified 550 sites of weapons of mass 
destruction before the invasion of Iraq and today, after thousands of 
inspectors on behalf of the United States have combed through Iraq, 
after the end of the military operations, we find nothing. I still 
think we are going to find something, but as the days go on and weeks 
go on and months go on and nothing turns up, it becomes more and more 
apparent that the weapons of mass destruction threat in Iraq was 
grossly exaggerated--exaggerated far beyond reality. And it was one of 
the real bases for our invasion of Iraq.
  The third one was a miscalculation by some people in the 
administration to associate Saddam Hussein with 9/11 and to suggest 
that Saddam Hussein and Iraq had something to do with it.
  Well, there is no evidence of that. Despite the fact that loose 
rhetoric by members of the administration led some to conclude there 
was a linkage, that somehow Saddam Hussein was supporting the al-Qaida 
terrorists who attacked the United States, despite that loose rhetoric, 
there is no evidence of it.
  Last week or the week before, the President came out and publicly 
said that. He said his Vice President was wrong on ``Meet the Press.'' 
They could find no linkage between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein.
  So those three elements that led us to invade Iraq have all virtually 
disappeared.
  The one that remains, the one that the Democratic leader alluded to, 
I do not quarrel with. Saddam Hussein was a terrible man, a terrible 
leader, and a terrible threat to the people in his region. The fact 
that he is gone is good for Iraq and good for the world. That is a 
positive thing.
  But all of the other justification that led to such a substantial 
vote for use of force in Iraq, all of that justification has evaporated 
right before us. That is the reality. It appears that the facts have 
changed pretty dramatically from what the administration told us we 
would find in Iraq.
  But when I listen to my Republican colleagues on the floor, their 
arguments about the invasion of Iraq have not changed.

  This much we do know. Our military did an outstanding job. Let me 
add, parenthetically, that during the course of the Presidential 
campaign, then-Governor Bush, now President Bush, alluded to the fact 
that our military was so weak and so hollow and so unprepared because 
of deficiencies of the Clinton administration that they did not do a 
good job in the Department of Defense, they did not prepare our 
military.
  Well, look what happened when that Clinton-prepared, Clinton-
equipped, Clinton-financed military went to war in Iraq. They did a 
spectacular job. The bravest, most skilled men and women in uniform in 
the world, with the best technology, rolled over Iraq in 3 weeks--an 
amazing military victory, a tribute to their skill and their planning.
  Let me underline that word ``planning'' because you have to say that 
at the end of these open hostilities, May 1--the conquest of Baghdad 
and the military victory in Iraq--we have to say, from that point 
forward we have not seen the same skill and we have not seen the same 
planning. Exactly the opposite has been the case.
  It is apparent to us, as we listen every single day to reports, 
tragic reports about the loss of American life and more American 
casualties, that little planning took place to anticipate what we would 
find in Iraq.
  Do you remember the scenarios painted by the Bush administration 
about what would happen after Saddam Hussein was gone--how the Iraqis 
would cheer us in the street with open arms, putting flowers into our 
rifle barrels, and all the rest?
  Unfortunately, that celebration was short-lived. In a very brief 
period of time, the Iraqis, who were glad to see Hussein gone--and I am 
sure that is the overwhelming majority--also asked that we leave. When 
we did not, more tension was created, and that tension has led to a 
loss of American lives. More lives have been lost in Iraq since the 
President declared the end of military operations than occurred during 
the course of the invasion and war in Iraq. That is a sad reality.
  It is clear the Bush administration did not have a plan to deal with 
Iraq after the war was over. That is so obvious and so evident. 
Frankly, I think the President's speech of 9 days ago told that whole 
story. The President came to the American people--and Presidents rarely 
do this--on a Sunday evening and announced we needed $87 billion in an 
emergency supplemental appropriations for Iraq.
  The American people were stunned, stunned by the size of that number. 
Now, when you break out that number, you see that some $67 billion is 
going to go for our troops. I think I can say without fear of 
contradiction that there will not be a single Senator--Democrat or 
Republican--voting against that. We are going to give our troops in the 
field every dollar they need to be successful, to be safe, and to come 
home. That money will be appropriated by this Senate with very little 
debate. There will be some questions about how it will be spent, but I 
believe, when it is all said and done, the $67 billion will come racing 
through the Senate, as it should. We should never shortchange our sons 
and daughters and relatives and friends and family who are serving in 
the military of the United States.
  But it is the rest of the appropriation that has raised so many 
questions and so much concern--$20 billion for the construction and 
reconstruction of Iraq. Five billion dollars goes for a police force. I 
am for that. The sooner we can get American soldiers out of the jobs of 
directing traffic, keeping order and law in place in marketplaces, 
guarding banks and guarding universities, the sooner we can get 
American combat soldiers out of that role the better. Iraqi policemen 
should do that job. But that is $5 billion.

  The remainder is $15 billion for the construction and reconstruction 
of Iraq for a variety of things--the draining of the wetlands in Iraq, 
the refurbishing and construction of 1,000 new schools in Iraq, the 
building of new hospitals, railroads, telecommunications, electric 
supply, water and sewer--a massive infrastructure investment.
  Yesterday, the man who is responsible for that, Ambassador Paul 
Bremer, came to speak to us just a few yards away from this Chamber. He 
addressed our senatorial luncheon on the Democratic side. I asked him a 
few direct questions.
  First, I asked him: We gave you some $79 billion for the troops and 
reconstruction just a few months back. How long will that money be 
there for you to use? When will you run out of the $79 billion we have 
already appropriated?
  Ambassador Bremer said: December the 1st.
  Now, that is an important date to remember because you are going to 
hear from the Republican side of the aisle that we need to pass this 
supplemental emergency appropriations bill by the end of next week, at 
the latest by the end of next week. Well, that would be by October 3.
  By my calculation, that is 2 months away from when the money is 
actually

[[Page S11884]]

needed. So if we take another week to ask some questions about how this 
money is being spent, it certainly is not going to be at the expense of 
either our troops or our efforts in the reconstruction of Iraq today. I 
think we owe that to the American people.
  I then asked Ambassador Bremer: What is the total cost for 
construction and reconstruction in Iraq?
  He said: The World Bank estimate is $60 billion.
  We are pledging, with the new $87 billion appropriation, $20 billion 
of the $60 billion, so that leaves some $40 billion that needs to be 
found.
  I said to him: Where will we find the additional $40 billion?
  He said: From donors around the world.
  I am very skeptical of that. I think the American people should be. 
The President found yesterday that his visit to the United Nations did 
not result in countries around the world standing in line queuing up to 
send their troops and their treasure to help us in Iraq.
  They have their own concerns and their own problems and their own 
financial priorities. In fact, we asked Ambassador Bremer, the total 
amount pledged by the world to help us in Iraq for reconstruction to 
this point does not even reach $2 billion, so we have a shortfall of 
some $38 billion in the planned reconstruction of Iraq. I said to the 
Ambassador: I assume then that the $20 billion you are asking for now 
from the American people is just a downpayment. You are going to be 
back for more?
  Oh, no, he said. This is it. This is all we are going to ask for, $20 
billion.
  I doubt it. I am skeptical of that. What are we going to do if the 
other countries around the world don't put their money into the 
reconstruction of Iraq? Are we going to give up on that and walk away? 
I started this statement by saying that is unacceptable. We can't do 
that. It is our responsibility. Once the President and this country 
made a decision to invade, we had a special responsibility, as painful 
and expensive as it may be, to Iraq. That was the administration's 
decision. That is where we find ourselves today.
  This, incidentally, is the plan of the administration, ``The 
Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad, Achieving the Vision to 
Restore Full Sovereignty to the Iraqi People, an Overview.'' I first 
saw it yesterday. It is dated July 21--2 months ago. We asked 
Ambassador Bremer: Why is this plan for the future of Iraq just 
surfacing now?
  He said: I thought we had sent that out to every Senator and 
Congressman.
  Well, none of my colleagues with whom I have talked saw it until just 
within the last day or two.
  When you look through this plan, you start asking a lot of questions. 
Let me go to an early part of the plan, on page 7: ``Resources to 
Rebuild Iraq.'' Let me quote from the plan:

       It is difficult at this point to quantify the external 
     assistance needed to support Iraq's transition to 
     representative government in a market economy. Eastern 
     European experience suggests that a substantial international 
     commitment will be needed.

  It goes on to say:

       Only a coordinated international effort can bring 
     prosperity and stability to the Iraqi people and contribute 
     to a lasting peace in the Middle East.

  I don't quarrel with that conclusion, but the facts today say this 
so-called plan by the Bush administration isn't going to work. If we 
could only raise some $2 billion from around the world to deal with the 
reconstruction of Iraq out of a total cost of $60 billion, where is the 
significant commitment that is needed from countries around the world? 
It isn't there. Once again, it is going to fall on the shoulders of 
America's taxpayers. It is going to fall on the shoulders of American 
families to deal with.
  It couldn't come at a worse time, when we are dealing with America's 
economy today. We have lost more jobs under this President than any 
President in the last 70 years. More jobs have been lost under 
President George W. Bush, 3 million more jobs lost, than under any 
President since Herbert Hoover in the Great Depression.
  I feel it in my State, where we have lost about 20 percent, and one 
out of every five are manufacturing jobs that have gone overseas, to 
China and other places. Other States around the Nation are experiencing 
the same.

  We are also dealing with a failed effort by the Bush administration 
to revive the economy and get it moving. They initiated all of these 
tax cuts which are pushing America beyond the brink of bankruptcy, tax 
cuts that are driving us into a deficit hole the likes of which we have 
never seen in the history of the United States, tax cuts that go 
primarily to the highest income individuals. What have they achieved? 
They have created record deficits.
  Think of this: When this President took office, he was dealing with a 
record surplus left over from the Clinton administration. Now, in just 
3 short years, he has taken that surplus and turned it into a record 
deficit, aggravated by the cost of sustaining what is inevitable in 
Iraq.
  What does it mean when that deficit comes down to our own budget here 
at home? It means cutbacks in education and health care. If you 
followed the Senate debate 2 weeks ago about the appropriation for 
education, you would have found us day after day, hour after hour, 
voting down amendments--supported by Democrats, opposed by 
Republicans--to put more money into education. We offered one amendment 
that said we want to take the President's promise for No Child Left 
Behind and make it a reality. Senator Robert Byrd offered an amendment 
that we would take the $6 billion shortfall in the President's promise 
to school districts around America and we were going to appropriate it. 
It was voted down by the Republican side of the aisle. Why? They said 
we couldn't afford $6 billion for American schools.
  Think about that for a second: $20 billion for Iraq reconstruction. 
Yes, the Bush administration says we must. But $6 billion as promised 
for American schools? The answer was: No, we can't do it.
  As a matter of fact, the $87 billion requested by the President for 
Iraq is more than the total we will spend next year on education and 
homeland security in the United States. Think about that for a second.
  There is another element, too. We are financing the war in Iraq with 
deficits. We are borrowing money to pay for that war. We are not 
cutting spending. We are not raising taxes. We are borrowing the money 
from the Social Security trust fund. We are endangering Social 
Security. We are limiting the reserves and resources of Social Security 
at a time when millions of baby boomers are just years away from 
showing up for their Social Security checks. It is the height of 
irresponsibility.
  The President's tax cuts have pushed us to this point of bankruptcy 
and deficits, the deepest deficits in the history of the United States, 
at the expense of health care, education, and the solvency of the 
Social Security trust fund. All of those things are part of the Bush 
package over the last 3 years. Yet this President came to us 9 days ago 
and said: We need to dig deeper; we need $87 billion more to pay for 
the war in Iraq.
  When you ask the American people what is a good way to pay for the 
war in Iraq, they say: Why don't you eliminate or at least postpone 
some of the tax cuts for the wealthiest people in America that the Bush 
administration has pushed for?
  That certainly seems reasonable to me. If someone happens to be 
making $1 million a year and are receiving $38,000 or more in tax cuts, 
is it too much to ask that person making $1 million a year to give up 
that tax cut to deal with our deficit, to pay for our war in Iraq? I 
don't think it is unreasonable. But, frankly, the administration says 
that is totally unacceptable. They want even bigger tax cuts, more 
permanent tax cuts for people in higher income categories. It is the 
height of irresponsibility.

  The American people understand this. Our economy is weak. We have 
lost a record number of jobs. Our deficit is growing at a pace 
unrivaled in American history. We find health care and education being 
cut back, Social Security endangered, and the President wants $87 
billion for Iraq, a pricetag without a plan.
  This is no plan. What we have been handed by the administration is, 
frankly, a wish list of ideas that isn't backed up in reality. There is 
no explanation here of what we will do in Iraq if other countries 
around the world don't join

[[Page S11885]]

us, don't come to our side and our alliance in terms of the future of 
Iraq. There is no plan whatsoever. Without that plan, there are a lot 
of questions that need to be asked here in the Senate.
  I sincerely hope my Republican colleagues who fashion themselves as 
fiscal conservatives will come to understand what we are faced with. 
They have voted for tax cuts which have bankrupted America. We now find 
ourselves in a position where the bankruptcy hole is getting deeper and 
deeper. We need to ask the hard questions. Some of them are painful.
  We will never scrimp when it comes to paying for the support of our 
troops, nor should we; we will give them all the money they need. But 
when it comes to rebuilding Iraq, we need to ask some hard questions.
  One question that needs to be asked, front and center, is the 
question of profiteering in Iraq. It is unconscionable, it is 
unexplainable, it is indefensible that Halliburton, Vice President 
Cheney's former corporation, stands to gain up to $7 billion in no-bid 
contracts for Iraq where they, in fact, are the single bidder on 
contracts. When we asked the Department of Defense, Why in the world 
are you giving Halliburton so much work to the exclusion of all the 
other companies in America, they said: We would like to tell you, but 
it is top-secret classified information.
  Excuse me. I don't believe that. I think, frankly, having competitive 
bidding for work to be done in Iraq is only reasonable. It should be a 
supreme embarrassment to this administration that the company that 
continues to pay the Vice President, a company which had a close, 
personal, financial tie to him for so many years, is the company that 
continues to profiteer in Iraq.
  There have to be other companies in America capable of doing this 
work that should at least be allowed to bid on the contract. But that 
has not taken place. Unless and until it does, I am afraid a lot of 
people will be skeptical about this plan to rebuild Iraq.
  There is one last point I wish to make. The President basically 
announced on May 1 that military operations in Iraq were over. 
Recently, the American people were asked if they believe the war is 
over. By a margin of 89 to 10, the American people said, no, the war in 
Iraq is not over. When you wake up every morning, turn on your radio or 
television, and the lead story is another American soldier being 
killed, you realize the war is not over. When you reflect on the 
pricetag of $1 billion a week to sustain the military operation in 
Iraq, you know the war is not over. When the President asks for $87 
billion in a deficit-ridden economy for a plan that doesn't exist to 
rebuild Iraq, you know, sadly, that the war is not over.
  We can do better as a nation. We need to come together as a nation. 
We need to plan to find a way to bring security to Iraq in a 
responsible fashion.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield back the remainder of 
his time in morning business?
  Mr. DURBIN. Yes, Mr. President.

                          ____________________