Congressional Record, Volume 149 Issue 137 (Wednesday, October 1, 2003)

[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 137 (Wednesday, October 1, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12220-S12270]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN SECURITY
AND RECONSTRUCTION ACT, 2004

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 10:30
a.m. having arrived, the Senate will proceed to the consideration of S.
1689, which the clerk will report.

[[Page S12221]]

The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 1689) making emergency supplemental
appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan security and
reconstruction for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004,
and for other purposes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 12:30
p.m. shall be equally divided for debate only.
The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, in behalf of the Committee on
Appropriations, I present to the Senate a bill making emergency
supplemental appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan security and
reconstruction for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004.
The bill was reported favorably by the committee by a vote of 29 to
0. During 6 hours of deliberation, the committee considered many
amendments and rejected most of them, but I am sure we will have the
opportunity to reconsider some of these suggested changes on the floor
of the Senate.
This bill is requested by the President and is a matter of some
urgency. It is an emergency supplemental appropriations bill which
should be acted upon without delay, but, of course, with the thoughtful
and careful consideration which the subject matter clearly requires.
The President's request has been considered in hearings held by the
Appropriations Committee, the Armed Services Committee, the Foreign
Relations Committee, and the Banking Committee. During these hearings
and through 16 witnesses, the case has been well made that these
emergency funds are needed and should be approved.
The funds appropriated by this bill will provide the equipment, fuel,
ammunition, and subsistence our troops need as they complete their
missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill includes military pay,
including imminent danger pay and family separation allowance, at the
levels authorized in the fiscal year 2003 emergency supplemental for
the duration of fiscal year 2004.
We have also provided funding for equipment needed by our troops.
Some of the items for which emergency funds are provided are fuel for
military vehicles and aircraft, improved humvees, and body armor to
better protect our troops.
We have increased the level of funding requested by the President for
operation and maintenance funding for the Army and for replenishment of
prepositioned war stocks.
This bill includes appropriations to purchase more electrical
generators, moneys for mail service, and improvements in troop housing
and facilities.
The bill includes $412 million in military construction funding that
will provide support facilities for our soldiers in base camps
throughout Iraq, as well as urgently needed runways and taxiways to
support Air Force operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Armed Forces and the coalition of nations that are involved are
making remarkable progress in Iraq. It has been less than 1 year since
we gave the President the authority to use force against the Saddam
Hussein regime.
During our hearings on this bill, Ambassador Bremer pointed out that
the coalition has already opened all of Iraq's 240 hospitals and nearly
every health clinic. Almost every university and secondary school in
that nation has been reopened, and the Iraqi people have begun to share
in providing the security for their own country. Tens of thousands have
been trained as police officers or members of the new Iraqi Army.
We are also providing funding to help rebuild Iraq's infrastructure.
This funding will improve electrical, transportation and
telecommunications systems, as well as the infrastructure that will
enable Iraq to sustain itself without our assistance in the years
ahead. But it is essential that we act now to approve these funds. We
should act expeditiously on this bill. Our military needs the funding
to carry out their missions. The coalition provisional authority needs
the support provided by this bill now.
I invite the attention of the Senate to the provisions of the bill.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
the following statement in explanation of the recommendations of the
Committee on Appropriations on the bill, S. 1689, making emergency
supplemental appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan security and
recovery for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other
purposes.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Explanatory Statement of the Recommendations of the Senate Committee on
Appropriations on Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and
Afghanistan Security and Reconstruction, 2004

The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 1689)
making emergency supplemental appropriations for Iraq and
Afghanistan security and reconstruction for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes, reports
favorably thereon and recommends that the bill do pass.

BACKGROUND

This bill makes appropriations for the military functions
of the Department of Defense as it prosecutes the war in Iraq
and Afghanistan, as well as for relief and reconstruction
efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to continue anti-
terrorism efforts around the world.

Hearings

The Committee held hearings on September 22, 24, and 25,
2003 and heard testimony from Ambassador Paul Bremer; Hon.
Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense; General Richard
Meyers, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff; General John
Abizaid, Commanding General United States Central Command;
Dr. Dov Zakheim, Under Secrteary of Defense (Comptroller);
Peter Rodman, Assistant Secretary of Defense Secretary for
International Security Affairs; and General Peter Pace, Vice
Chairman, Joint Chief of Staff from the Department of
Defense.

Summary of the Bill

On September 17, 2003, the President submitted requests for
$87,039,804,000 in new budget authority for programs under
the Department of Defense, Department of State, United States
Agency for International Development, and the Iraq Relief and
Reconstruction Fund. The Committee recommends $87,004,004,000
in new budget authority.
The President's supplemental requests are contained in
budget estimate No. 17, transmitted on September 17, 2003 (H.
Doc. 108-126).

Committee Priorities

The primary goals of this bill are to fund the ongoing
military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as relief
and reconstruction activities in those countries. To
accomplish the first goal, the Committee is providing
$66,560,004,000 to prosecute the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
These funds are for increased operational tempo, military
personnel costs, military construction, procurement of
equipment, increased maintenance and military health care
support. To achieve the second goal, the Committee is
providing $21,444,000,000 to help secure the transition to
democracy in both Iraq and Afghanistan. These funds are for
enhanced security and reconstruction activities including
border enforcement, building a national police service in
Iraq, standing up a new Iraqi army and continued building of
the Afghan National Army, reconstituted judicial systems,
rehabilitation of Iraq's oil infrastructure, and provision of
basic electricity, water and sewer services and other
critical reconstruction needs in Iraq and Afghanistan.

TITLE I--NATIONAL SECURITY

CHAPTER 1

Subcommittee on Defense

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

2004 supplemental estimate..............................$65,147,554,000
Committee recommendation.................................65,147,554,000

MILITARY PERSONNEL

Special Pays and Allowances

The Supplemental request includes $1,248,200,000 for
enhanced Special Pays included Family Separation Allowance
[FSA], Imminent Danger Pay [IDP], and Hostile Duty Pay [HDP].
The Department's request would fund FSA and IDP at the
enhanced levels authorized in the fiscal year 2003 Emergency
Wartime Supplemental Appropriation Act (Public Law 108-11)
for the first 3 months of the fiscal year. Beginning January
1, 2004, the Department requests that FSA and IDP return to
the levels authorized prior to enactment of Public Law 108-
11, and that the Committee authorize an increase in Hardship
Duty Pay to offset the reductions to FSA and IDP. However,
the requested increase in HDP would only cover those
individuals serving in the combat zone in support of
Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. The
Department's proposal would not provide a benefit to those
servicemembers who have been mobilized and deployed
throughout the United States in support of Operation Noble
Eagle, nor would it provide a benefit to those servicemembers
deployed overseas in support of other contingency operations
such as Bosnia and Kosovo. The Committee does not approve the
Department's request, and instead supports the continuation
of FSA and IDP at the levels authorized in Public Law 108-11
for all of fiscal year 2004. The Committee directs the
Department to use the funds requested for increased Hardship
Duty Pay to fund the full year increase to FSA and IDP for
all eligible recipients.

[[Page S12222]]

Military Personnel, Army

2004 supplemental estimate..............................$12,858,870,000
Committee recommendation.................................12,858,870,000

The Committee recommends $12,858,870,000 for Military
Personnel, Army. The recommendation is equal to the estimate.

Military Personnel, Navy

2004 supplemental estimate.................................$816,100,000
Committee recommendation....................................816,100,000

The Committee recommends $816,100,000 for Military
Personnel, Navy. The recommendation is equal to the estimate.

Military Personnel, Marine Corps

2004 supplemental estimate.................................$753,190,000
Committee recommendation....................................753,190,000

The Committee recommends $753,190,000 for Military
Personnel, Marine Corps. The recommendation is equal to the
estimate.

Military Personnel, Air Force

2004 supplemental estimate...............................$3,384,700,000
Committee recommendation..................................3,384,700,000

The Committee recommends $3,384,700,000 for Military
Personnel, Air Force. The recommendation is equal to the
estimate.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

Operation and Maintenance, Army

2004 supplemental estimate..............................$24,190,464,000
Committee recommendation.................................24,946,464,000

The Committee recommends $24,946,464,000 for Operation and
Maintenance, Army. The recommendation is $756,000,000 above
the estimate.
The Committee is concerned that the estimate does not fully
reflect the Army's contingency costs to sustain ongoing
operations, or the costs necessary to reset the force. This
places the Army at considerable financial risk during fiscal
year 2004. Accordingly, the Committee recommends an increase
of $756,000,000 to the estimate as follows:

? ?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SAPI body armor/Rapid Fielding Initiative/battlefield +$300,000,000
EOD cleanup..........................................
Increased organizational level maintenance +200,000,000
requirements.........................................
Second destination transportation for depot +174,000,000
maintenance..........................................
Theater stabilization communications.................. +72,000,000
Army and Air Force Exchange Service support for +10,000,000
deployed forces......................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Committee has included $858,200,000 for the
Administrative and Operating Costs for the Coalition
Provisional Authority [CPA]. The Committee directs the
Department to use funds from the Iraq Freedom Fund if the
requirements for CPA exceed the $858,200,000 appropriated
under this heading.

Operation and Maintenance, Navy

2004 supplemental estimate...............................$2,106,258,000
Committee recommendation..................................1,976,258,000

The Committee recommends $1,976,258,000 for Operation and
Maintenance, Navy. The recommendation is $130,000,000 below
the estimate.
The Committee recommends a reduction of $130,000,000 to the
estimate as follows:

? ?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excess increased operational tempo.................... -$130,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps

2004 supplemental estimate...............................$1,198,981,000
Committee recommendation..................................1,198,981,000

The Committee recommends $1,198,981,000 for Operation and
Maintenance, Marine Corps. The recommendation is equal to the
estimate.

Operation and Maintenance, Air Force

2004 supplemental estimate...............................$5,948,368,000
Committee recommendation..................................5,516,368,000

The Committee recommends $5,516,368,000 for Operation and
Maintenance, Air Force. The recommendation is $432,000,000
below the estimate.
The Committee recommends a reduction of $432,000,000 to the
estimate as follows:

? ?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unjustified ``incremental contingency costs''......... -$200,000,000
Excess inter/intra-theater airlift.................... -132,000,000
Excess DPEM........................................... -100,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide

2004 supplemental estimate...............................$4,618,452,000
Committee recommendation..................................4,218,452,000

The Committee recommends $4,218,452,000 for Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-Wide. The recommendation is $400,000,000
below the estimate.
The Committee recommends a reduction of $400,000,000 to the
estimate as follows:

? ?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excess support to key cooperating nations............. -$400,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve

2004 supplemental estimate..................................$16,000,000
Committee recommendation.....................................16,000,000

The Committee recommends $16,000,000 for Operation and
Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve. The recommendation is
equal to the estimate.

Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve

2004 supplemental estimate..................................$53,000,000
Committee recommendation.....................................53,000,000

The Committee recommends $53,000,000 for Operation and
Maintenance, Air Force Reserve. The recommendation is equal
to the estimate.

Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard

2004 supplemental estimate.................................$214,000,000
Committee recommendation....................................214,000,000

The Committee recommends $214,000,000 for Operation and
Maintenance, Air National Guard. The recommendation is equal
to the estimate.

Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid

2004 supplemental estimate..................................$35,500,000
Committee recommendation.....................................35,500,000

The Committee recommends $35,500,000 for Overseas
Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid. The recommendation is
equal to the estimate.

Iraq Freedom Fund

2004 supplemental estimate...............................$1,988,600,000
Committee recommendation..................................1,988,600,000

The Committee recommends $1,988,600,000 for the Iraq
Freedom Fund. The recommendation is equal to the estimate.

PROCUREMENT

Missile Procurement, Army

2004 supplemental estimate...................................$6,200,000
Committee recommendation......................................6,200,000

The Committee recommends $6,200,000 for Missile
Procurement, Army. The recommendation is equal to the
estimate.

Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army

2004 supplemental estimate..................................$46,000,000
Committee recommendation....................................104,000,000

The Committee recommends $104,000,000 for Procurement of
Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army. The recommendation
is $58,000,000 above the estimate.
The Committee recommends an increase of $58,000,000 to the
estimate as follows:

? ?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replenishment of Army Prepositioned Stock items +$58,000,000
destroyed during combat operations...................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other Procurement, Army

2004 supplemental estimate.................................$930,687,000
Committee recommendation..................................1,078,687,000

The Committee recommends $1,078,687,000 for Other
Procurement, Army. The recommendation is $148,000,000 above
the estimate.
The Committee recommends an increase of $148,000,000 to the
estimate as follows:

? ?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Theater stabilization communications.................. +$64,000,000
Replenishment of Army Prepositioned Stock items +84,000,000
destroyed during combat operations...................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aircraft Procurement, Navy

2004 supplemental estimate.................................$128,600,000
Committee recommendation....................................128,600,000

The Committee recommends $128,600,000 for Aircraft
Procurement, Navy. The recommendation is equal to the
estimate.

Other Procurement, Navy

2004 supplemental estimate..................................$76,357,000
Committee recommendation.....................................76,357,000

The Committee recommends $76,357,000 for Other Procurement,
Navy. The recommendation is equal to the estimate.

Procurement, Marine Corps

2004 supplemental estimate.................................$123,397,000
Committee recommendation....................................123,397,000

The Committee recommends $123,397,000 for Procurement,
Marine Corps. The recommendation is equal to the estimate.

Aircraft Procurement, Air Force

2004 supplemental estimate..................................$40,972,000
Committee recommendation.....................................40,972,000

The Committee recommends $40,972,000 for Aircraft
Procurement, Air Force. The recommendation is equal to the
estimate.

Missile Procurement, Air Force

2004 supplemental estimate..................................$20,450,000
Committee recommendation.....................................20,450,000

The Committee recommends $20,450,000 for Missile
Procurement, Air Force. The recommendation is equal to the
estimate.

Other Procurement, Air Force

2004 supplemental estimate...............................$3,441,006,000
Committee recommendation..................................3,441,006,000

The Committee recommends $3,441,006,000 for Other
Procurement, Air Force. The recommendation is equal to the
estimate.

Procurement, Defense-Wide

2004 supplemental estimate.................................$435,635,000
Committee recommendation....................................435,635,000

The Committee recommends $435,635,000 for Procurement,
Defense-Wide. The recommendation is equal to the estimate.

[[Page S12223]]

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy

2004 supplemental estimate..................................$34,000,000
Committee recommendation.....................................34,000,000

The Committee recommends $34,000,000 for Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy. The recommendation is
equal to the estimate.

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force

2004 supplemental estimate..................................$39,070,000
Committee recommendation.....................................39,070,000

The Committee recommends $39,070,000 for Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force. The
recommendation is equal to the estimate.

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide

2004 supplemental estimate.................................$265,817,000
Committee recommendation....................................265,817,000

The Committee recommends $265,817,000 for Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide. The
recommendation is equal to the estimate.

REVOLVING AND MANAGEMENT FUNDS

Working Capital Funds, Defense-Wide

2004 supplemental estimate.................................$600,000,000
Committee recommendation...................................600,000,000-

The Committee recommends $600,000,000 for Defense Working
Capital Funds. The recommendation is equal to the estimate.

National Defense Sealift Fund

2004 supplemental estimate..................................$24,000,000
Committee recommendation.....................................24,000,000

The Committee recommends $24,000,000 for the National
Defense Sealift Fund. The recommendation is equal to the
estimate.

OTHER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAMS

Defense Health Program

2004 supplemental estimate.................................$658,380,000
Committee recommendation....................................658,380,000

The Committee recommends $658,380,000 for the Defense
Health Program. The recommendation is equal to the estimate.

Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense

2004 supplemental estimate..................................$73,000,000
Committee recommendation.....................................73,000,000

The Committee recommends $73,000,000 for Drug Interdiction
and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense. The recommendation is
equal to the estimate.

RELATED AGENCIES

Intelligence Community Management Account

2004 supplemental estimate..................................$21,500,000
Committee recommendation.....................................21,500,000

The Committee recommends $21,500,000 for the Intelligence
Community Management Account. The recommendation is equal to
the estimate.

CHAPTER 2

Subcommittee on Military Construction

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

Military Construction, Army

2004 supplemental estimate.................................$119,900,000
Committee recommendation....................................119,900,000

The Committee recommends an additional $119,900,000 for
Military Construction, Army, to be used as follows:

? ?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base Camp Support Facilities, Iraq...................... $115,900,000
Planning and Design..................................... 4,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Committee fully supports the administration's request
to provide adequate support facilities for United States
soldiers serving in base camps in Iraq, but is concerned that
project details and justifications contained in the
administration's request for these facilities were not
sufficiently defined. The Committee therefore directs that
the Army brief the congressional defense committees on its
final plans for these facilities before obligating any of the
military construction funds appropriated in this Act.

Military Construction, Air Force

2004 supplemental estimate.................................$292,550,000
Committee recommendation....................................292,550,000

The Committee recommends an additional $292,550,000 for
Military Construction, Air Force, to be used as follows:

? ?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Airfield Runway Repair, Bagram, Afghanistan............. $48,000,000
Airfreight Terminal, Dover Air Force Base, Delaware..... 56,000,000
AEF FOL Communications Remote Switch Facility, Diego 3,450,000
Garcia.................................................
Munitions Maintenance, Storage, and Wash Pad, Camp 5,000,000
Darby, Italy...........................................
Ramp and Fuel Hydrant System, Al Dhafra, United Arab 47,000,000
Emirates...............................................
Airlift Ramp, Balad Air Base, Iraq...................... 18,000,000
Airlift Aprons (Confidential Location).................. 17,500,000
Tactical/Strategic Ramp Expansion, Al Udeid Air Base, 20,000,000
Qatar..................................................
Refueler Ramp, Al Udeid Air Base, Qatar................. 40,000,000
Temporary Cantonment Area, Al Dhafra Air Base, United 15,300,000
Arab Emirates..........................................
Planning and Design..................................... 22,300,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Committee supports the administration's request for
additional military construction funds for Air Force
facilities in Southwest Asia. However, while the Air Force
has provided detail about specific projects, it has provided
little information about its overall plan for facilities in
the theater of operations and how projects contained in the
supplemental request fit into that plan. The Committee
therefore directs the Air Force to report to the
congressional defense committees, in both classified and
unclassified form, on its master plan for facilities in the
Central Command area of responsibility, including the planned
disposition of aircraft and personnel, no later than December
1, 2003.

CHAPTER 3

GENERAL PROVISIONS, THIS TITLE

Sec. 301. The Committee recommendation amends a provision
proposed by the Administration which allows the Department of
Defense to reimburse the Services for a drawdown authority
under the Afghanistan Freedom Support Act of 2002.
Sec. 302. The Committee recommendation modifies a provision
proposed by the Administration which provides the Secretary
of Defense with additional transfer authority.
Sec. 303. The Committee recommendation includes a provision
proposed by the Administration which provides specific
authorization for the funds appropriated in this title for
intelligence activities.
Sec. 304. The Committee recommendation includes a new
provision regarding the alteration of command responsibility
or permanent assignment of forces.
Sec. 305. The Committee recommendation includes a provision
proposed by the Administration which sustains existing
authority to cover travel and transportation benefits for
family members of military personnel injured during Operation
Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom, or Operation Noble
Eagle.
Sec. 306. The Committee recommendation includes a provision
that sustains the increase in the statutory maximum payable
for Imminent Danger Pay and Family Separation Allowance.
Sec. 307. The Committee recommendation includes a provision
recommended by the Administration which allows the Department
to make necessary accounting adjustments to the Defense
Emergency Response Fund.
Sec. 308. The Committee recommendation includes a new
provision that requires the Secretary of Defense to provide a
report to the Committees on Appropriations.
Sec. 309. The Committee recommendation includes a new
provision that requires the Department of Defense to describe
alternatives for replacing the capabilities of the KC?135
fleet of aircraft.
Sec. 310. The Committee recommendation includes a new
provision which limits the use of procurement and research,
development, test and evaluation funds.
Sec. 311. The Committee recommendation includes a provision
proposed by the Administration which allows the Department to
use funds for supplies, services, transportation, and other
logistical support of troops supporting military and
stability operations in Iraq.
Sec. 312. The Committee recommends a provision proposed by
the Administration which allows training and equipping the
Afghanistan National Army and the New Iraqi Army.
Sec. 313. The Committee recommendation includes a provision
requiring a report on military readiness.
Sec. 314. The Committee recommendation includes a provision
regarding the exemption of certain members of the Armed
Forces from the requirement to pay subsistence charges while
hospitalized.
Sec. 315. The Committee recommends a general provision
which provides the Secretary of Defense with additional
authority for contingency military construction expenses
necessary to protect against or respond to acts of terrorism,
or to support Department of Defense operations in Iraq.

TITLE II--INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

CHAPTER 1

Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and
Related Agencies

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Administration of Foreign Affairs

Diplomatic and Consular Programs

(including rescission)

2004 supplemental estimate..................................$76,300,000
Committee recommendation.....................................35,800,000

The Committee recommends a rescission and re-appropriation
of $35,800,000 for the costs of security and operations
related to the establishment of United States diplomatic
presences in Iraq and Afghanistan. The recommendation is
$40,500,000 below the request. The problem of Machine
Readable Visa [MRV] fee shortfalls is addressed under the
Emergencies in the Diplomatic and Consular Service account.
Funds previously appropriated under this heading in the
Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2003 are
subject to the standard reprogramming procedures set forth in
section 605, Division B of Public Law 108-7.

EMBASSY SECURITY, CONSTRUCTION, AND MAINTENANCE

2004 supplemental estimate..................................$60,500,000
Committee recommendation...............................................

[[Page S12224]]

The Committee does not recommend any funding for Embassy
security, construction and maintenance. The recommendation is
$60,500,000 below the supplemental budget request. The
request included $60,500,000 to construct an interim United
States diplomatic facility in Iraq. The Committee reminds the
Department that $61,500,000 was provided for this purpose in
Public Law 108-11, the Emergency Wartime Supplemental
Appropriations Act of 2003. The Committee is aware of the
Department's reprogramming request to utilize $43,900,000 of
these funds to construct an interim facility for United
States Agency for International Development and other United
States Government employees engaged in reconstruction efforts
in Afghanistan and $16,600,000 of these funds to cover the
personnel, transportation, and equipment costs of United
States Government officials tasked with advising the Afghan
transitional government on reconstruction. This request is
contained under the ``Capital investment fund'' of chapter 2
of this title. Also, the Committee approves the Department's
reprogramming request to utilize $14,500,000 under Worldwide
Security Upgrades for security requirements in Afghanistan,
and directs that these funds only be used for the security of
the main United States Embassy compound and security
assistance to United Nations offices and personnel and non-
governmental organization offices and personnel.

EMERGENCIES IN THE DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR SERVICE

2004 supplemental estimate..................................$50,000,000
Committee recommendation.....................................90,500,000

The Committee recommends $90,500,000 for Emergencies in the
Diplomatic and Consular Service. The recommendation is
$40,500,000 above the supplemental budget request. Funds
provided under this heading will ensure that rewards of up to
$25,000,000 may be paid for Osama bin Laden and Saddam
Hussein. The recommendation also includes language directing
that $2,000,000 of previously appropriated funds be made
available for a reward for the person deemed most responsible
by the Special Court for Sierra Leone for the war crimes,
crimes against humanity, and serious violations of
international humanitarian law that took place during Sierra
Leone's civil war. The recommendation also includes language
directing that $8,451,000 in carryover balances be
transferred to and merged with the Diplomatic and Consular
Programs account for the Department's consular, or ``border
security'' operations.

CHAPTER 2

Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related
Programs

BILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE

FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO THE PRESIDENT

United States Agency for International Development

OPERATING EXPENSES OF THE UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL
DEVELOPMENT

2004 supplemental estimate..................................$40,000,000
Committee recommendation.....................................40,000,000

The Committee provides $40,000,000 for an additional amount
for Operating Expenses of the United States Agency for
International Development for costs associated with
reconstruction and other activities in Iraq and Afghanistan.

CAPITAL INVESTMENT FUND

2004 supplemental estimate.............................................
Committee recommendation....................................$60,500,000

The Committee provides $60,500,000 for an additional amount
for the Capital Investment Fund for safe and secure
facilities in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere.

OTHER BILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE

FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO THE PRESIDENT

Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

2004 supplemental estimate..............................$20,304,000,000
Committee recommendation.................................20,304,000,000

The Committee provides $20,304,000,000 for the Iraq Relief
and Reconstruction Fund for security, rehabilitation and
reconstruction in Iraq.
The Committee notes that funds appropriated under this
heading are subject to the regular notification procedures of
the Committees on Appropriations, except that notification
shall be transmitted at least 5 days in advance of the
obligation of funds. The Committee also provides that funds
allocated under this heading for programs and sectors may be
reallocated by the President for those programs and sectors.
The Committee strongly supports programs and activities to
promote freedom, democratic institutions, and the rule of law
in Iraq and provides that not less than $100,000,000 shall be
made available for democracy building activities in that
country in support of the development and ratification of a
constitution, national elections and women's development
programs. The Committee directs that not less than $5,000,000
be made available to Iraqi nongovernmental organizations in
Iraq in a timely manner, in grants of up to $100,000. The
Committee also expects sufficient funding to be provided to
the National Endowment for Democracy, the International
Republican Institute and the National Democratic Institute
for political party and other democracy building activities.
The Committee recommends not less than $20,000,000 for
media outreach activities in Iraq that utilizes low cost,
advanced technology tools.
The Committee recommends $5,000,000 for a program, such as
that administered by the International Commission on Missing
Persons, to locate, recover, and identify Iraqis missing as a
result of authoritarian rule or conflict.
The Committee again provides that funds shall be made
available for Iraqi civilians who suffer losses as a result
of military operations in Iraq. The Committee supports the
provision of medical, rehabilitation, shelter, microcredit
and other appropriate assistance to these individuals. The
Committee expects all relevant agencies and organizations to
coordinate efforts in providing this assistance.
The Committee recognizes that conflict and decades of
neglect devastated Iraq's health infrastructure, resulting in
a lack of medical equipment and supplies, and health
professionals with expertise in pediatric medical
specialties. The Committee is concerned that children with
critical health problems cannot obtain life-saving treatments
in Iraq. The Committee strongly supports activities that can
have an immediate impact in addressing the needs of these
children, such as the Emergency Health Services for the
Children of Iraq program sponsored jointly by Kurdish Human
Rights Watch and Vanderbilt University Children's Hospital.
The Committee notes the important contributions that
nongovernmental organizations have made to relief and
reconstruction efforts in Iraq, and urges that they be
utilized to the maximum extent practicable. The Committee
also recommends that organizations with experience in post-
conflict governance matters--such as the United States
Institute of Peace--be utilized in reconstruction efforts in
Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Committee recommends that not less than $2,000,000 be
made available to support organizations working in Iraq,
Afghanistan and other complex humanitarian emergency and war
settings, to apply public health strategies and epidemiology
to mitigate the impact of the conflict on civilian
populations. Programs supported should include those which
collect, analyze, and use multi-sector data for programmatic
decision-making and evaluation of assistance programs during
and after conflict.

Economic Support Fund

2004 supplemental estimate.................................$422,000,000
Committee recommendation....................................422,000,000

The Committee provides $422,000,000 for an additional
amount for Economic Support Fund (ESF) for accelerated
assistance for Afghanistan.
The Committee also provides authority to use up to
$200,000,000 in Economic Support Funds contained in the
Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs
Appropriations Act, 2004 for debt reduction for Pakistan.
The Committee recognizes the progress of Internews in the
establishment of independent news media in Afghanistan.
However, absent additional long-term support opportunities
for advancement may be lost. The Committee recommends that
additional funds be made available for the expansion of local
stations to regional stations, the establishment of national
independent broadcasting, and support for daily news
programs.
The Committee directs that not less than $15,000,000 be
made available for media outreach activities in Afghanistan
that utilizes low cost, advanced technology tools.
In addition to other purposes for which ESF assistance is
used in Afghanistan, not less than $5,000,000 should be made
available through appropriate humanitarian organizations for
additional food, clothing, heating and cooking fuel,
emergency shelter materials, and other basic necessities for
displaced Afghans in Kabul.

United States Emergency Fund for Complex Foreign Crises

2004 supplemental estimate.................................$100,000,000
Committee recommendation....................................100,000,000

The Committee provides $100,000,000 for the United States
Emergency Fund for Complex Foreign Crises. While the
Committee understands the need for flexibility in meeting
unforeseen complex foreign crises, it includes congressional
notification for these funds, which may be waived if human
health or welfare is at substantial risk.
Among other activities, the Committee expects these funds
to support operations and programs to prevent or respond to
foreign territorial disputes, armed ethnic and civil
conflicts that pose threats to regional and international
peace, and acts of ethnic cleansing, mass killing or
genocide. In addition, the Committee supports the use of
these funds for peace and humanitarian efforts, such as
required in Liberia.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement

2004 supplemental estimate.................................$120,000,000
Committee recommendation....................................120,000,000

[[Page S12225]]

The Committee provides $120,000,000 for an additional
amount in International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement
assistance for Afghanistan. The Committee expects
$110,000,000 to be used to train, equip, and deploy
additional police in Afghanistan, and $10,000,000 to be used
to support the training of prosecutors, public defenders and
judges in Afghanistan and to meet infrastructure needs of the
Afghan legal sector.

Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining and Related Programs

2004 supplemental estimate..................................$35,000,000
Committee recommendation.....................................35,000,000

The Committee provides $35,000,000 for an additional amount
for Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining and Related
Programs to support anti-terrorism training and equipment
needs in Afghanistan.

MILITARY ASSISTANCE

FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO THE PRESIDENT

Foreign Military Financing Program

2004 supplemental estimate.................................$222,000,000
Committee recommendation....................................222,000,000

The Committee provides $222,000,000 for the Foreign
Military Financing Program. The Committee strongly supports
the use of these funds to accelerate assistance to build the
new Afghanistan army.

Peacekeeping Operations

2004 supplemental estimate..................................$50,000,000
Committee recommendation.....................................50,000,000

The Committee provides $50,000,000 for an additional amount
for Peacekeeping Operations to support multinational
peacekeeping needs in Iraq and other unanticipated
peacekeeping crises.

CHAPTER 3

GENERAL PROVISIONS, THIS TITLE

Sec. 2301. The Committee includes transfer authority
between accounts in chapter 2 of this title, with the total
amount authorized to be transferred not to exceed
$200,000,000. The Committee directs that it be consulted
before this authority is exercised. The Committee includes
the same notification requirement as contained in section 501
of Public Law 108-11.
Sec. 2302. The Committee includes authority permitting
assistance or other financing contained in chapter 2 of this
title for Iraq notwithstanding any other provision of law.
Sec. 2303. The Committee includes authority to allow
appropriations provided in chapter 2 of this title to be made
available without specific authorization of such
appropriation.
Sec. 2304. The Committee extends section 1503 of Public Law
108-11 through September 30, 2005. The Committee notes that
extending the inapplicability of section 307 of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 is particularly important as the
United States pursues long-range efforts to assist Iraq and
marshal resources from the international community.
Sec. 2305. The Committee amends the first proviso of
section 1504 of Public Law 108-11 to include Iraqi military,
private security force, other official security forces,
police force, or forces from other countries in Iraq
supporting United States efforts in Iraq. The Committee notes
that other official security forces include Ministry of
Interior forces, border guards, and civil defense forces. The
Committee also notes that a private security force include
those providing security services to contractors,
nongovernmental organizations or other organizations
affiliated with United States efforts in Iraq.
Sec. 2306. The Committee extends key provisions of Public
Law 107-57 regarding restrictions that would otherwise limit
assistance to Pakistan.
Sec. 2307. The Committee includes authority to allow the
Overseas Private Investment Corporation to provide political
risk insurance, direct loans, and guarantees in Iraq.
Sec. 2308. The Committee includes a notification
requirement for certain accounts under chapter 2 of this
title.
Sec. 2309. The Committee provides that the Secretary of
State shall submit a report on a monthly basis detailing Iraq
oil production and oil revenues.
Sec. 2310. The Committee directs that none of the funds in
this Act may be used to pay debts incurred by the former
government.

TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISION, THIS ACT

Sec. 3001. The Committee recommends that all the funds in
the bill be designated by the Congress as emergency
requirements pursuant to section 502 of House Concurrent
Resolution 95 (108th Congress), the fiscal year 2004
concurrent resolution on the budget, as proposed by the
President.

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7, RULE XVI OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE
SENATE

Paragraph 7 of rule XVI requires that Committee reports on
general appropriations bills identify, with particularity,
each Committee amendment to the House bill ``which proposes
an item of appropriation which is not made to carry out the
provisions of an existing law, a treaty stipulation, or an
act or resolution previously passed by the Senate during that
session.''
The accompanying bill contains the following items which
lack authorization:
The Committee is filing an original bill.

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7(C), RULE XXVI OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE
SENATE

Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, on September 30,
2003, the Committee ordered reported S. 1689, an original
bill making emergency appropriations Iraq and Afghanistan
security and reconstruction for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2004, subject to amendment and subject to the
budget allocation, by a recorded vote of 29-0, a quorum being
present. The vote was as follows:

YEAS

Chairman Stevens
Mr. Cochran
Mr. Specter
Mr. Domenici
Mr. Bond
Mr. McConnell
Mr. Burns
Mr. Shelby
Mr. Gregg
Mr. Bennett
Mr. Campbell
Mr. Craig
Mrs. Hutchison
Mr. DeWine
Mr. Brownback
Mr. Byrd
Mr. Inouye
Mr. Hollings
Mr. Leahy
Mr. Harkin
Ms. Mikulski
Mr. Reid
Mr. Kohl
Mrs. Murray
Mr. Dorgan
Mrs. Feinstein
Mr. Durbin
Mr. Johnson
Ms. Landrieu

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 12, RULE XXVI OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE
SENATE

Paragraph 12 of rule XXVI requires that Committee reports
on a bill or joint resolution repealing or amending any
statute or part of any statute include ``(a) the text of the
statute or part thereof which is proposed to be repealed; and
(b) a comparative print of that part of the bill or joint
resolution making the amendment and of the statute or part
thereof proposed to be amended, showing by stricken-through
type and italics, parallel columns, or other appropriate
typographical devices the omissions and insertions which
would be made by the bill or joint resolution if enacted in
the form recommended by the committee.''
In compliance with this rule, the following changes in
existing law proposed to be made by the bill are shown as
follows: existing law to be omitted is enclosed in black
brackets; new matter is printed in Italics; and existing law
in which no change is proposed is shown in Roman.
With respect to this bill, it is the opinion of the
Committee that it is necessary to dispense with these
requirements in order to expedite the business of the Senate.

BUDGETARY IMPACT

Section 308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget and
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), as
amended, requires that the report accompanying a bill
providing new budget authority contain a statement detailing
how that authority compares with the reports submitted under
section 302 of the act for the most recently agreed to
concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal year. All
the funds provided in this bill are designated by Congress as
emergency requirements.

Five-Year Projection of Outlays

In compliance with section 308(a)(1)(C) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), as
amended, the following table contains 5-year projections
associated with the budget authority provided in the
accompanying bill:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Millions of
dollars
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget authority: Fiscal year 2004...................... 87,004
Outlays:
Fiscal year 2004.................................... 36,695
Fiscal year 2005.................................... 33,098
Fiscal year 2006.................................... 11,721
Fiscal year 2007.................................... 3,037
Fiscal year 2008 and future years................... 1,872
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The above table includes both mandatory and discretionary
appropriations.

Assistance to State and Local Governments

In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(D) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), as
amended, the financial assistance to State and local
governments is as follows:

[[Page S12226]]

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
recommendation
Doc. No. Supplemental Committee compared with
estimate recommendation supplemental
estimate (+ or -)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE I

NATIONAL SECURITY
CHAPTER 1
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Military Personnel
108-126 Military Personnel, Army (emergency) 12,858,870 12,858,870 ...................
108-126 Military Personnel, Navy (emergency) 816,100 816,100 ...................
108-126 Military Personnel, Marine Corps (emergency) 753,190 753,190 ...................
108-126 Military Personnel, Air Force (emergency) 3,384,700 3,384,700 ...................
----------------------
Total, Military Personnel 17,812,860 17,812,860 ...................
Operation and Maintenance
108-126 Operation and Maintenance, Army (emergency) 24,190,464 ................... -24,190,464
-- (Contingent emergency appropriations) ................... 24,946,464 +24,946,464
108-126 Operation and Maintenance, Navy (emergency) 2,106,258 1,976,258 -130,000
108-126 Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps (emergency) 1,198,981 1,198,981 ...................
108-126 Operation and Maintenance, Air Force (emergency) 5,948,368 5,516,368 -432,000
108-126 Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide (emergency) 4,618,452 4,218,452 -400,000
108-126 Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve (emergency) 16,000 16,000 ...................
108-126 Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve (emergency) 53,000 53,000 ...................
108-126 Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard (emergency) 214,000 214,000 ...................
108-126 Operation and Maintenance, Overseas Humitarian, Disaster, Civic Aid 35,500 35,500 ...................
(emergency)
108-126 Operation and Maintenance, Iraq Freedom Fund (emergency) 1,988,600 1,988,600 ...................
----------------------
Total, Operation and Maintenance 40,369,623 40,163,623 -206,000
Procurement
108-126 Missile Procurement, Army (emergency) 6,200 6,200 ...................
108-126 Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army (emergency) 46,000 ................... -46,000
-- (Contingent emergency appropriations) ................... 104,000 +104,000
108-126 Other Procurement, Army (emergency) 930,687 ................... -930,687
-- (Contingent emergency appropriations) ................... 1,078,687 +1,078,687
108-126 Aircraft Procurement, Navy (emergency) 128,600 128,600 ...................
108-126 Other Procurement, Navy (emergency) 76,357 76,357 ...................
108-126 Procurement, Marine Corps (emergency) 123,397 123,397 ...................
108-126 Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (emergency) 40,972 40,972 ...................
108-126 Missile Procurement, Air Force (emergency) 20,450 20,450 ...................
108-126 Other Procurement, Air Force (emergency) 3,441,006 3,441,006 ...................
108-126 Procurement, Defense-Wide (emergency) 435,635 435,635 ...................
----------------------
Total, Procurement 5,249,304 5,455,304 +206,000
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation
108-126 Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy (emergency) 34,000 34,000 ...................
108-126 Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force (emergency) 39,070 39,070 ...................
108-126 Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide (emergency) 265,817 265,817 ...................
----------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Research, Development, Test and Evaluation 338,887 338,887 ...................
Revolving and Management Funds
108-126 Defense Working Capital fund (emergency) 600,000 600,000 ...................
108-126 National Defense Sealift fund (emergency) 24,000 24,000 ...................
----------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Revolving and Management Funds 624,000 624,000 ...................
Other Department of Defense Programs
108-126 Defense Health Program (emergency) 658,380 658,380 ...................
108-126 Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense (emergency) 73,000 73,000 ...................
----------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Other Department of Defense Programs 731,380 731,380 ...................
Related Agencies
108-126 Intelligence Community Management Account (emergency) 21,500 21,500 ...................
----------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Chapter 1 65,147,554 65,147,554 ...................
Emergency appropriations (65,147,554) (39,018,403) (-26,129,151)
Contingent emergency appropriations ................... (26,129,151) (+26,129,151)
================================================================
CHAPTER 2
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
108-126 Military construction, Army (emergency) 119,900 119,900 ...................
108-126 Military construction, Air Force (emergency) 292,550 292,550 ...................
----------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Chapter 2 412,450 412,450 ...................
================================================================
Total, TITLE I 65,560,004 65,560,004 ...................
Emergency appropriations (65,560,004) (39,430,853) (-26,129,151)
Contingent emergency appropriations ................... (26,129,151) (+26,129,151)
================================================================
TITLE II
INTERNATIONAL SECURITY
CHAPTER 1
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Administration of Foreign Affairs
108-126 Diplomatic and Consular programs (emergency) 40,500 35,800 -4,700
108-126 Reappropriation 35,800 ................... -35,800
-- Rescission ................... -35,800 -35,800
108-126 Embassy Security, Construction and Maintenance (emergency) 60,500 ................... -60,500
108-126 Emergencies in the diplomatic and consular service (emergency) 50,000 ................... -50,000
-- (Contingent emergency appropriations) ................... 90,500 +90,500
----------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Administration of Foreign Affairs 186,800 90,500 -96,300
----------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Chapter 1 186,800 90,500 -96,300
Emergency appropriations (186,800) (35,800) (-151,000)
Contingent emergency appropriations ................... (90,500) (+90,500)
Rescissions ................... (-35,800) (-35,800)
================================================================
CHAPTER 2
BILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE
FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO THE PRESIDENT
United States Agency for International Development
108-126 Operating expenses of the United States Agency for International Development 40,000 40,000 ...................
(emergency)
Capital Investment Fund
-- Capital Investment Fund (contingent emergency appropriations) ................... 60,500 +60,500
OTHER BILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE
FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO THE PRESIDENT
108-126 Iraq relief and reconstruction fund (emergency) 20,304,000 20,304,000 ...................
108-126 Economic support fund (emergency) 422,000 422,000 ...................
108-126 United States Emergency Fund for Complex Foreign Crises (emergency) 100,000 100,000 ...................

[[Page S12227]]

DEPARTMENT OF STATE
108-126 International narcotics control and law enforcement (emergency) 120,000 120,000 ...................
108-126 Nonproliferation, antiterrorism, demining and related programs (emergency) 35,000 35,000 ...................
MILITARY ASSISTANCE
FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO THE PRESIDENT
108-126 Foreign Military Financing Program (emergency) 222,000 222,000 ...................
108-126 Peacekeeping operations (emergency) 50,000 50,000 ...................
----------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Chapter 2 21,293,000 21,353,500 +60,500
Emergency appropriations (21,293,000) (21,293,000) ...................
Contingent emergency appropriations ................... (60,500) (+60,500)
================================================================
Total, TITLE II 21,479,800 21,444,000 -35,800
Emergency appropriations (21,479,800) (21,328,800) (-151,000)
Contingent emergency appropriations ................... (151,000) (+151,000)
Rescissions ................... (-35,800) (-35,800)
================================================================
GRAND TOTAL (net) 87,039,804 87,004,004 -35,800
Emergency appropriations (87,039,804) (60,759,653) (-26,280,151)
Contingent emergency appropriations ................... (26,280,151) (+26,280,151)
Rescissions ................... (-35,800) (-35,800)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I wish to take this time to talk about
some of the successes that our wonderful military uniformed personnel
are having in Iraq. We see a lot on the television that looks like
things are in chaos, and in some places they are.
I want to talk about some of the good things because I think as we
take up this supplemental appropriation, we are going to be talking
about what this money is going for and why we need to put $20 billion
into rebuilding Iraq.
This picture illustrates so well what we are going to be doing with
this money and why we need that $20 billion to help us rebuild Iraq.
The schools are starting today in Iraq. Millions of schoolchildren
are beginning to go to school today. According to TSgt Mark Getsy from
the 506th Air Expeditionary Group, these children have been climbing
the gates for weeks, climbing the gates because they are so excited
that they are going to get to go to school. Why are they excited? Why
are they able to go to school?
I will give some instances of how successful we are. Air Force and
Army volunteers have extended a helping hand to these children for
weeks so that their education can be in the best possible facilities.
Members of the Air Force's 506th Expeditionary Civil Engineer Squadron
at Kirkuk Air Base and the Army's Battle Companies 2nd Battalion, 503rd
Airborne, have teamed up to renovate two schools in the local area. The
first school is a model for the rest of the Kirkuk schools, and it is
opening today.
Said 1SG Richard Weik, the Army project officer:

We adopted the schools because they were close to our safe
houses. The first thing we did was go around and assess the
electrical and plumbing situation. It was a mess.

The Army called in Air Force electricians to help get the school
ready for business. TSgt Jack Vollriede, an electrician from the 506th
ECES, said Air Force electricians were already working in the area on
Army safe houses when they heard about the project.

The Army asked us if we would check out the electrical work
being done at the school. I saw the work needing (to be) done
was very similar to what I do in my civilian job back home so
I asked others in my shop to volunteer and help out with the
project.

Since mid-September, more than 10 electricians have been working
daily to get the schools up and running. Vollriede said it was hard at
first to find the right parts, but the team managed to accomplish a
great deal in a short period of time.

We have completed five electrical service panel
replacements, installed emergency lighting, fixed all the
interior lighting, and even fixed the school bell. We are now
working on installing grounded outlets for computers in all
the classrooms and offices.

I know the Senator from Montana is in the Chamber and is scheduled to
speak. I will yield to him as soon as he is ready, but I first will say
how important this is. It is happening all over Iraq. These Army and
Air Force volunteers are coming in and fixing the schools so that these
children can start learning, not just the limited knowledge that they
had during Saddam Hussein's time but knowledge of the world, knowledge
of freedom, knowledge of other horizons that they will be able to share
when they get their education. They know it and they are excited about
it. It is something that America is providing.
The $20 billion that we are going to be voting on in the $87 billion
package is going to encompass projects like this that will start the
process for the Iraqi people to have a better quality of life, educated
children--what every person in the world would like to have: quality of
life and education for their children--and that is what the money will
go for. So we are going to be debating why we need $20 billion to
rebuild Iraq. It is for the national security of the United States that
these children start school, that our great volunteers help them do it,
because if we can get these children educated and a quality of life,
and an economy for the people of Iraq, those terrorists will not have a
safe haven. Those terrorists will be driven away by the Iraqi people
because they will see the difference in their lives when they have
freedom versus when they live under a tyrant or when they have
terrorists in their midst.

I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BURNS. Before the Senator from Texas leaves the floor, I do not
know where she got hold of that poster, but I have said ever since the
invasion started, and the assault towards Baghdad, our greatest
ambassadors, who are on the ground and are still there today, are our
warriors. The effects of our action in Iraq will not really be felt for
another 10 years or so. When the young folks seen in that poster become
adult age, they will remember that warrior who walked up to them,
dusty, sandy, dirty, greasy, ladened with armor, weapons and goggles on
his helmet; yet they reached out the hand of friendship in the form of
a bottle of water or a candy bar.
One must remember these young folks were hunkered down in their homes
and told how evil this Army was that was approaching their area. When
the Army arrived, they found out those things they had been deprived
of, the bare essentials to survive the last few days, were available
and had come from the hand of an American soldier or marine. That is
why we hear so many of our military on the ground today telling us to
rebuild the infrastructure, bring back the central services so these
people can live, improve their quality of life, and rebuild their own
country.
To a man, all the military people I have visited with who have come
home have said that.

[[Page S12228]]

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, responding to the comments of the
Senator from Montana, he could not be on target any more. I hear the
same thing from the men and women who return, the men and women I
talked to when I was in Iraq and Afghanistan. I agree with the Senator
that it is those wonderful, clean-cut, all-American soldiers who give
the best possible image of our country.
This picture is of a soldier from A Company, the 101st Airborne
Division. He is handing out school supplies. The A Company took up a
collection in the town of Mosul. They went to the local economy and
they bought school supplies for these children to be able to have
pencils, erasers, and paper when they go to school. One could not ask
for better ambassadors. They did it from their own pockets because they
know what we are doing in this country is important for the security of
the American people.
Mr. BURNS. That is the genius of our country, when we look at it. We
have always lived for the next generation. Our mothers and fathers
wanted us to be educated better than they were.
I was raised on a small farm in the Midwest before I went to Montana
when I was 18. The generation before us wanted us to be educated better
than they were. They wanted us to start up the economic ladder a little
bit better than they started. I was a product of the Great Depression
in the 1930s. In doing that in the family unit, of living for the next
generation, this system has afforded the highest quality of life and
standard of living for more of its citizens than any other society that
has been developed on the face of this planet. That is what makes this
particular mission in Iraq, in the Middle East, very important. Those
young people who met and have a very positive view of Americans, who
are the young ages of 8, 9, 10, 11, 12--the most impressionable years
of a young person's life--will never forget that. That will be burned
in their brains. There might be a lot of propaganda flying around, but
they know. They shook the hand of and met our best ambassadors.

We didn't start this fight. We didn't start this fight. Because if 9/
11 of the year '01 doesn't mean anything else, it should carry the same
significance as Pearl Harbor or any other devastating attack that has
been carried out against this country. We didn't start this fight, but
they brought the fight to the wrong people and the wrong country
because of our values and because what we really believe in is that
freedom equals opportunity, opportunity means choices, and choices have
consequences.
It is this warrior who cleared the way. The polls now say the
majority of the people in Iraq believe they are now better off than
they were under the tyrant Saddam Hussein.
Why is $21 billion important? Saddam Hussein had a knack of
controlling his people. He did it through the rationing of central
services, the very basics of our community. He only had about 60
percent or 70 percent capacity to produce as much electricity for his
country as he needed. So if he didn't like you, or you made him mad, or
you came from the wrong side of the creek, you didn't get electricity.
If anybody wanted centrally controlled health care? He had it. He
rationed it. He used it to control. Water, whatever the central
services, his infrastructure was in complete disarray. But he liked it
like that. So he had to go, that tyrant--mass graves, history of
gassing people, killing people, raiding his neighbors.
So we didn't start this fight. We are sure going to conclude it. We
are sure going to develop a country of people who desire to be free and
to live, to educate and to raise their kids in a free society.
Representative government has already taken over in Iraq.
The overwhelming majority of these funds, of course, go to our
military in this particular piece of supplemental funds for Iraq and
Afghanistan.
But those who would deny them freedoms and opportunities, and control
them through fear, understand what this is about. It is about people
who are in charge of their own destiny and are not afraid to stand for
freedom or die for the next generation. That is what it is all about.
That is what this President envisioned when we were hit on 9/11. He
didn't ask for those planes to fly into the World Trade Center or hit
the Pentagon or the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania. He didn't ask
for the first attack on the World Trade Center. He didn't ask for the
attacks on the USS Cole, Khobar Towers, our embassies around the world.
There is no negotiating with folks who use fear to control. For, if
we fail here, the battle line is probably our own country. Since the
Civil War, not a shot has been fired here. We have always carried the
fight to the enemy's ground. That is what it is all about.
Representative government in small towns and political bounds and
political units in Iraq have already taken hold. We are already
establishing an interim government in Baghdad and it will not be long
before they have a constitution, they will have elections.
Our interest there is in the generation of school kids because it is
an investment. Is it an investment? Yes, but it is an investment in
human lives, in human endeavors. Sure, it is a lot of money, but money
is a tool. Money is a tool that can bring good or it can be evil, and
we have chosen to use ours in the name of good.
Yesterday in committee we had some very good ideas on how we should
help these people get on their own feet and prosper, how we can help.
Yes, the $20 or $21 billion in this will do that. But how to administer
that, what should it go for? What should it do? Because it is America's
hand. It is not our hand of Congress, it is the people of America
reaching out because the people of the United States know what is at
stake. There were some very good ideas. Some were premature. Some will
be considered here on the floor of the Senate and they will be argued
on their own merits.
But when we take a look at the overall package, it is a pretty solid
package that we extend toward these people who now stand in harm's way,
who now risk some disdain from their neighbors for joining a police
force or a militia that will stand for good. It takes some bravery to
do that, in a land where terrorism and death and destruction have been
commonplace for the last 2 decades.
We will be that steel in their backbone. But we also have to give
them the funds with which to build. They have made the decision. There
are polls which indicate that. They have made the decision to stand for
good and right and freedom. That is what this bill is all about. It may
be characterized in many ways, but I think it is America's best hour.
To establish another democracy in the Middle East where basically there
is only one, to expand those freedoms now to the other side of the
river, it is a noble and just thing to do.
I thank the Chair for the time to express my views about the
importance of this legislation. Their values are not much different
than ours: Their families, their kids, their country. Our ability to
fix irrigation systems and communication systems so they can talk, and
a system within which they can feed themselves, and have something to
say about their own destiny, that is a noble cause. That is an American
cause. That is what we are all about.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today we begin the most consequential
national security debate in a generation.
At stake is more than just the fate of $87 billion in spending.
This debate will speak to the lives of hundreds of thousands of our
men and women in uniform, who are being asked to risk everything for
their country.
It will speak to America's taxpayers who are being asked to shoulder
the burden of the administration's Iraq policy with little or no help
from our friends and allies around the globe. And it will speak to our
Nation's responsibilities and its role in the world today and for years
to come.
Let me begin, though, by talking specifically about what this debate
is not about.
Democrats and Republicans are united in our support for all our brave
service men and women.
They continue to bring honor to their country. Inspired by their
performance of duty to us, we pledge to live up to our duty to them.
Democrats will do everything in our power to ensure that our troops
have every tool and resource necessary to do the job we are asking of
them. Democrats and Republicans are also united in our commitment to a
free, stable,

[[Page S12229]]

and secure Iraq. Terror must not be the successor to tyranny.
Therefore, Democrats are committed to doing everything possible to
keep Saddam Hussein from returning to power and to keep terrorists from
exploiting Iraq as a base of operations.
Our mission in Iraq will remain unfinished until Iraqis are governed
by a constitutional government, defended by their own security forces,
protected by their own police and judicial system, and provided for by
a functioning infrastructure financed with Iraqi resources.
The United States must not and will not prematurely abrogate its
responsibility to a fully liberated and self-sufficient Iraq.
In short, this debate is not about whether or not we should run from
our obligations to our troops and to rebuild Iraq. We will not.
Simply, this debate is about how to ensure our objectives for Iraq
are met successfully and our troops brought home to their loved ones as
safely and quickly as possible.
Day after day, we receive more evidence of the inadequacy of the
administration's plan for the stabilization and reconstruction of Iraq.
Yesterday, the New York Times reported that 650,000 tons of Iraqi
munitions lie unprotected. There is evidence the 500 pound bomb that
terrorists used to destroy the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad may in fact
have been stolen from one of Saddam's old munitions depots. This news
comes to us 3 weeks after the Pentagon assured us that all known
weapons sites had already been secured.
In spite of these concerns, the administration continues to say that
its pre-war planning was adequate to the task, and that it has the
right prescriptions for Iraq's future.
But an objective look at the record indicates that the White House's
plan for post-Saddam Iraq was either inadequate or altogether non-
existent.
In its post-combat report, the Joint Chiefs of Staff concluded that
the post-war plan was not sufficient to some of the most critical
challenges we face in post-Saddam Iraq.
I quote from that report:

Late formation of [post-conflict] organizations limited
time available for the development of detailed plans and pre-
deployment coordination. . . . Weapons of mass destruction
(WMD) elimination and exploitation planning efforts did not
occur early enough in the process to allow CentCom to
effectively execute the mission.'' It concludes, ``The extent
of the planning required was underestimated.''

Just yesterday I learned from Iraq's Governing Council that the
administration had failed to consult them when putting together its
proposal to rebuild Iraq.
Think about that. At the same time the administration professes its
desire to put Iraqis in charge of Iraq, it failed to seek their counsel
about Iraq's most urgent needs. Instead, the administration chose to
have Ambassador Bremer and its experts here in Washington determine
what was best for the citizens of Baghdad and Basra.
The administration's inadequate post-Saddam planning continues to
have gravest consequences.
On a daily basis, our soldiers follow orders that place them in
mortal danger because they understand their work serves a greater
purpose and a larger strategy. But when we place them in situations
where there is no effective strategy or plan, this danger is greatly
increased.
Sadly, this is a lesson our Nation has had several opportunities to
learn. Retired General Anthony Zinni put it best. He said in a recent
speech:

[Our troops] should never be put on a battlefield without a
strategic plan, not only for the fighting--our generals will
take care of that--but for the aftermath and winning that
war.
Where are we, the American people, if we accept this, if we
accept this level of sacrifice without that level of
planning? Almost everyone in this room, of my
contemporaries--our feelings and our sensitivities were
forged on the battlefields of Vietnam; where we heard the
garbage and the lies, and we saw the sacrifice.
We swore never again would we do that. We swore never again
would we allow it to happen. And I ask you, is it happening
again? And you're going to have to answer that question, just
like the American people are.
And remember, everyone of those young men and women that do
not come back is not only a personal tragedy, it's a national
tragedy.

By asking the right questions and making the right changes to the
administration's supplemental request, the Senate can act to correct
these mistakes and ensure success in Iraq. But time is running short--
in Iraq and here at home.
As Iraqis become accustomed to terrorism as a daily fact of life,
they are looking to U.S. leadership for reasons to be hopeful.
They want to work with us to build a better future for themselves,
but they need to know that we are committed to that future. At the same
time, Americans are growing impatient. The costs of success, both in
lives and in money, appear without end.
For both Iraqis and Americans, the window to demonstrate a clear plan
for Iraq's future is closing.
The next 3 months are crucial to turning around the security
situation, which is volatile in key parts of the country.
Iraqis, Americans, and the entire world are watching closely to see
how resolutely the coalition will handle this challenge. The Iraqi
population has high expectations, and the window for cooperation may
close rapidly if they do not see progress on delivering security, basic
services, opportunities for broad political involvement, and economic
opportunity.
The ``hearts and minds'' of key segments of the Sunni and Shi'a
communities are in play and can be won, but only if the Coalition
Provisional Authority--CPA--and new Iraqi authorities deliver in short
order.
To do so, the CPA will have to dramatically and expeditiously augment
its operational capacity throughout the country, so that civilian- led
rebuilding can proceed while there are still significant numbers of
coalition forces in Iraq to provide maximum leverage over those who
seek to thwart the process.
We believe the greatest opportunity for success lies in
internationalizing the effort to stabilize and rebuild Iraq.
It reduces the risk to U.S. service men and women and the cost to
U.S. taxpayers. It increases the international legitimacy of the post-
Saddam effort. It makes Iraq the world's challenge and the world's
responsibility.
This can be accomplished through two simple steps. First, the
President needs to make obtaining greater cooperation among our allies
his top national security priority and be willing to do what is
reasonable to obtain their support.
It is not enough for the President to make speeches or insist on
resolutions at the United Nations that essentially restate policy
positions that to date have left us working largely alone.
Second, the administration needs to produce a clear plan that
demonstrates both to our Armed Forces and to our taxpayers precisely
what sacrifices will be expected of them, both now and in the future,
in order to accomplish our objectives.
This supplemental budget request does not take either of those steps.
Before the Senate is one bill, but in truth, there are two separate
and distinct requests. First, is the $67 billion requested to equip our
troops to do their job. Democrats have no objection to this request and
we would be willing to approve this funding this very day.
Alongside funding to support our troops stands an additional $20
billion to aid in the rebuilding of Iraq. As I said earlier, Democrats
remain committed to doing whatever it takes to provide Iraq with the
tools and resources necessary to join the community of nations as a
safe, responsible, self-sufficient member.
But a supplemental request is not a plan. And we have serious
misgivings about providing the funds requested until we have confidence
they will be used in service to a plan that will successfully achieve
our objectives in Iraq.
That confidence is undermined when Americans read reports that firms
with close personal and financial ties to the White House are winning
no-bid contracts, raising the appearance of impropriety and cronyism.
That confidence is further eroded when Americans learn that many of
the items within this supplemental request seem grossly inflated or
dubious. The American taxpayer is being asked to pick up the cost of
600 radios and telephones at the cost of $6,000 apiece, pickup trucks
at $33,000 a piece. Iraqi prisoners will be incarcerated at $50,000 per
year, more than twice the cost in

[[Page S12230]]

American prisons. And Iraqi entrepreneurs will receive business
training costing $10,000 per month, more than two-and-a-half times the
cost of an education at the Harvard Business School.
To be sure, many investments within this bill are worthwhile. But we
should bring the same vigilance to control unnecessary spending that we
bring to spending here at home. That is the root of the questions we
will ask and the amendments we will offer.
We have sought to raise important questions such as these since the
very beginning of the Iraqi conflict. Unfortunately, upon each
occasion, Republicans opted to question our motives and in some cases,
even our patriotism.
Senate Armed Forces Committee Chairman John Warner said last week of
our soldiers, ``Their fathers, their uncles, their grandfathers have
served in previous military conflicts, and they look upon the Congress
as that bastion that safeguards those that are put in harm's way. I
ask, do these comments constitute embracing, as we should, those
families, those children? Is that safeguarding those put in harm's way?
I say no.''
Senate Intelligence Chairman Roberts even suggested that the posing
of questions put the lives of our soldiers at risk. ``I'm very
concerned that if the criticism is so harsh as to create the impression
of lack of resolve, I wonder what goes through the minds of . . . not
only our men and women serving in uniform, but the very terrorists who
are killing our troops and their fellow Iraqis.''
These comments represent a low-point in the Senate's proud tradition
of deliberation and debate. The right to question our leaders is the
foundation of our democracy.
Demanding answers in a time of war strengthens our democracy, rather
than weakening it. President Teddy Roosevelt once said, ``To announce
that there must be no criticism of the President or that we are to
stand by the President right or wrong is not only unpatriotic and
servile but it is also morally treasonable to the American public.''
As American citizens, we are obligated to ask these questions. And as
Senators, we are not only obligated but empowered by our Constitution
to demand answers. That is precisely what we will do during this
debate.
As this debate proceeds, Democrats will offer a series of proposals
that are designed to win back the trust of the Nation and the support
of the world for our Iraq policy.
First, the White House must develop and inform Congress and American
people about plans for success before gaining access to reconstruction
funds. Second, the President should increase efforts to gain
international involvement, both in terms of financial support and
commitment of troops.
Third, those who have benefitted most from our Nation's prosperity
should help pay their fair share for its defense. By rolling back the
President's tax cut for the wealthiest one percent of Americans for
just 1 year, we can pay for the full cost of this request without
increasing the national debt.
Fourth, we need to ensure fair, open competition for contracts.
Finally, the White House should to transfer control of the
reconstruction of Iraq from the Defense Department to the State
Department, which has expertise and experience in nation building.
History will remember what we say in this debate, because it will
shape not just the fate of this spending request but the fate of Iraq,
the Middle East, and America's foreign policy for years to come.
I am confident that the Senate will live up to its responsibility to
our troops and provide them with the support they need and have earned.
I am hopeful that Republicans will join Democrats in insisting that
the White House offer a clear plan to go along with the unprecedented
level of funding we have been asked to provide.
When our armed forces toppled Saddam Hussein's regime, Americans
became bound to the Iraqi people and responsible for their fate.
We are committed to fulfilling that responsibility by providing the
resources and support they need to become fully independent members in
the community of nations.
But our vision cannot be clouded by false optimism or blinded by
stubborn pride.
It is not too late to change course and bring a real plan and real
cooperation, to the American rebuilding of Iraq. This opportunity will
not last much longer.
We can't afford to let it, and the future of a secure Middle East,
slip through our fingers.
The cost of success is great; the cost of failure is even greater.
Mr. McCAIN. I ask my friend from Wisconsin how long he will be.
Mr. FEINGOLD. About 10 minutes.
Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent the Senator from Wisconsin be
recognized for 10 minutes, and I be recognized for 15 minutes following
that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. I thank my friend from Wisconsin who was here before me.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Senator for his courtesy.
(The remarks of Mr. Feingold are printed in today's Record under
``Morning Business.'')
Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Presiding Officer, and I again especially
thank the Senator from Arizona for his courtesy.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, we have begun a debate that may ultimately
be more consequential than the war debate we had in this Chamber last
October, which culminated in the votes of 77 Senators authorizing the
President of the United States to go to war against Saddam Hussein's
Iraq. A negative Senate vote last fall, before our country was
committed to liberating and reconstructing Iraq, would have weakened
the President's leadership and made America less secure. But a vote
against reconstructing Iraq now, with 130,000 American forces on the
ground, American credibility before our friends and enemies at stake,
and the enormous responsibility of helping the Iraqi people rebuild
their country now on our shoulders, would doom Iraq's transformation to
failure, with grave consequences for the entire Middle East, and
devastate American leadership in a dangerous world.
An extraordinary allied military campaign in Iraq overthrew, in 3
weeks, a Baathist regime that had ruled for three decades. Americans
were rightly proud not only of our military's exemplary performance,
but of the cause for which they fought: ending the threat posed by
Saddam Hussein's regime and liberating the Iraqi people from his
tyrannical rule. With their liberation came an obligation: to help them
restore their devastated and demoralized country until it is stable,
and secure, and free, and therefore, no longer poses a threat to its
people or its neighbors. That job is not close to being done. We have
not yet won the peace. And we do not have time to spare.
If we do not meaningfully improve services and security in Iraq over
the next few months, it may be too late. The danger is that our failure
to improve daily life, security, and Iraqis' participation in their own
governance will erode their patience and fuel a minority's appeal for
insurrection. We will risk an irreversible loss of Iraqi confidence and
reinforce the efforts of extremists who seek our defeat and threaten
Iraq's democratic future. That is why we have to pass this supplemental
spending bill, urgently.
There are two fundamental errors we could make in postwar Iraq. We
could stay too long, denying Iraqi sovereignty to a proud and talented
people who have the human and material resources to build a progressive
and modern Arab state. We cannot repeat in Iraq the example of the
Balkans, where Bosnia and Kosovo remain U.N. protectorates years after
our just military intervention. Few things would inflame Iraqi and Arab
opinion more than a long-term United States occupation of Iraq. But
America is not an imperial nation. We will leave Iraq when our job is
done, and we will leave behind an Iraq that is whole, free, and at
peace.
The other danger, and the greater risk, is that we leave too soon--
before basic Iraqi services are up and running, before law and order
are restored, and before there is a competent, representative Iraqi
government in place to answer to the Iraqi people. They key to a

[[Page S12231]]

timely United States withdrawal from Iraq, and for the quickest
restoration of Iraqi sovereignty, is to maximize our commitment now to
providing the security and services that will allow the fragile
institutions of democracy to take root. A serious United States
investment in Iraq's future is the only way we can leave the Iraqi
people and their leaders with a functioning, progressive state that
will be an example for the region and a future partner and ally of the
United States.

Some of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle accept that Iraq
requires substantial and immediate reconstruction funding, but would
provide that funding in the form of loans to be repaid to the United
States or international financial institutions when the Iraqi economy
is up and running again. This would gravely damage America's reputation
and our support within Iraq. Asseting our claim to Iraq's oil revenues
over the next 10 or 20 years would confirm the propaganda of our
enemies and the suspicions of skeptics across the Arab world and closer
to home: that this was a war for oil. It would also make it impossible
for us to encourage countries like Russia, France, and Germany, which
hold enormous levels of Iraqi debt from Saddam Hussein's era, to write
off some of that debt in order to life its burden from the Iraqi
people.
Seeking control, whether directly or indirectly, over Iraq's future
oil revenues would condemn Iraq to be another ward of the international
community by denying the Iraqi people the key to their future
prosperity. By making a claim that would prevent future oil revenues
from being spent by a representative Iraqi government to meet the needs
of the Iraqi people, we would impede the economic development that will
be key to a moderate, progressive Iraqi politics. We would make our
immediate task of reconstructing and securing Iraq much more difficult,
because collateralizing Iraqi oil revenues would encourage more Iraqis
to believe the message of the Baathists and terrorists who oppose us:
that we are in Iraq not to help the Iraqi people build a better future
but to serve our own narrow ends, at their expense. Ironically, we
would also make it more difficult for American forces to leave Iraq by
handicapping Iraqis' ability to reconstruct their country and govern
themselves. Providing reconstruction monies in the form of a loan would
seriously undermine American national interests in the Middle East.
We will also debate the question of whether to divide this spending
bill into military and reconstruction components. Proponents of this
approach would substantially trim or vote down reconstruction funding,
as if we should pay only for our troop presence in Iraq but spend
little to nothing on what our troops are actually there to do: create
basic security and enable restoration of services so the Iraqis can
govern themselves. The reconstruction and military components of this
spending request are inextricably linked. Part of the answer to the
security challenges we face in Iraq is restoring basic services and
empowering Iraqis to play a greater role in their own security. Voting
against reconstruction funds will seriously degrade the security
environment as greater numbers of frustrated Iraqis fall prey to the
extremists' appeals to oppose our presence, putting our troops in
greater danger and imperiling their core mission of stabilizing Iraq.
At a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing last week, I asked
Ambassador Paul Bremer what would happen if Congress did not pass the
reconstruction portion of the President's supplemental spending
request. Here is his response: ``Well, it would be directly contrary to
American's interest--obviously, it would be contrary to the Iraqi
people's interest, but it would be contrary to our interest, because it
would create a situation of much greater insecurity. I think we would
find more of the population turning against us. I think we would find
more attacks on coalition forces. Eventually, Iraq would . . . recede
into a situation of chaos, not dissimilar from what was experienced in
Lebanon in the 1970s and 1980s, and we would find another breeding
ground for terrorists. So I think it's a rather grim outlook.''

I would encourage my colleagues who may be considering efforts to
split this bill into military and reconstruction components in order to
decrease or vote down reconstruction funding to contemplate the
prospect of the kind of state collapse and civil war that destroyed
Lebanon happening in Iraq as a result of our own shortsightedness.
The Senate will also consider proposals to reduce tax cuts for the
wealthy in order to pay for Iraqi reconstruction. I voted against the
President's tax cut package in 2003, in part because the costs of this
war and its aftermath were unknown at the time. But given what is at
stake for the Iraqi people and for America's national interest, I
cannot support proposals to raise taxes to fund our mission in Iraq.
Such proposals, if not linked to the Iraq supplemental, would have
merit, but were they to pass as part of this package they would
endanger its passage, transforming a domestic political dispute into
what would quickly become a foreign policy defeat. Our success in Iraq
is too important to take that chance.
This bill is not perfect. I intend to offer an amendment to provide
for regular auditing of the Coalition Provisional authority's budget,
and I suspect the Senate will add additional reporting requirements to
better inform us about how reconstruction money is being spent. But
given the urgency of our mission in Iraq, I intend to strongly support
the President's budget request, oppose all amendments that could
endanger its passage, and do everything I can to see that the United
States honors the commitment we have entered into to help the Iraqi
people stand up a legitimate, representative government that does not
threaten them or their neighbors, and that is a force for good in a
dangerous region.
Every so often in this Chamber, we deal with an issue of such gravity
that it transcends partisan divisions. Providing for Iraq's democratic
future should be such an issue. I encourage my colleagues to gauge
carefully the broader national interest, as we conduct what I hope is a
civilized and high-minded debate. To a large extent, or choices will
determine the success or failure of what I believe to be the most
important foreign policy challenge in a generation.
Failure to make the necessary political and financial commitment to
build the new Iraq could endanger American leadership in the world,
empower our enemies, and condemn Iraqis to renewed tyranny. We must act
urgently to transform our military success into political victory.
Passage of these supplemental funds will move us meaningfully towards
that goal. Stripping reconstruction aid or providing it in the form of
a loan that will incite Iraqi and Arab hostility against us will only
make the job of our service men and women in Iraq harder and could doom
them to failure. After all their sacrifice, and in light of the
potential a free and stable Iraq holds for the future of the Middle
east and America's position in the world, it would be disgraceful to
turn our backs now.
Iraq's transformation into a progressive Arab state could set the
region that produced Saddam Hussein, the Taliban, and al-Qaida on a new
course in which democratic expression and economic prosperity, rather
than a radicalizing mix of humiliation, poverty, and repression, define
a new modernity in the Muslim world that does not express itself in
ways that threaten its people or other nations. Conversely, a forced
United States retreat from Iraq would be the most serious American
defeat on the global stage since Vietnam. I don't make that statement
lightly. I repeat: A forced United States retreat from Iraq would be
the most serious American defeat on the global stage since Vietnam.
Our mission in Iraq is too important to fail. But it is winnable,
because an Iraqi majority shares our vision of a free and progressive
Iraq. Our national interest demands that we help them realize this
goal.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

[[Page S12232]]

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, we are debating the emergency
supplemental bill that deals with the request for funds for our
military, as well as for reconstruction in the country of Iraq.
I believe it is necessary to provide the funding that is requested
for our military, and I believe the President will find wide support
for that on the Senate floor. I believe it is also necessary for
reconstruction to occur in Iraq. I don't disagree with that issue at
all. However, I disagree as to where the funding should come for this
reconstruction.
I agree with my colleague who talked about this being an important
time and that there are very important questions for the Senate to
confront. These are serious questions and need to be dealt with in a
serious way. I expect this debate will be respectful, even though we
have some disagreements.
I think there is more agreement than disagreement on most of these
questions. I mentioned that when the President requests funding for our
Defense Department and our soldiers who are on a mission this country
has asked them to undertake, we have an obligation to provide the
necessary funding for them to complete their mission. America cannot
ask its sons and daughters to go to war and then withhold anything that
is necessary for them to complete their mission. That which is needed
in the Defense Department, that which those who are commanding our
soldiers say they need to finish this job, we must provide and, in my
judgment, will provide.
This appropriations request, however, includes not only resources for
our military, but also resources for the reconstruction of Iraq. I want
to talk about that for a bit because we had a long debate in the Senate
Appropriations Committee yesterday and had several votes. The votes
turned out to be one-vote margins. I want to talk about that.
First, let me say I believe that, while I have not visited Iraq,
there are many important and positive things happening in the country
of Iraq. Yesterday one of my colleagues asked the question: Why are
those positive developments not being reported? I expect, based on
talking to folks who have visited there, and from Ambassador Bremer's
testimony, and others, including colleagues who have visited there,
that there are things happening in that country which are very
positive. I agree with that. Those who ask the question ``why are they
not being reported'' might watch the television news in Washington, DC,
tonight and see what is reported. What is reported is negative. It is
not just with what is happening in Iraq, it is what is happening
everywhere. That is the way the business works. Turn on the television
tonight in Washington, DC, and see what the lead story will be. It will
be a murder, or a kidnapping, or a robbery, or an accident. That is
just the way it works.

That is what is happening in Iraq. The media is reporting the bad
news. That is what they will report tonight here in Washington, DC.
There is an old saying, ``bad news travels halfway around the world
before good news gets its shoes on.'' Never is that manifested more
relentlessly than in our media. I understand that. It is not just
happening with Iraq.
But from eyewitnesses and those who have been on the ground in Iraq,
we know that there are positive things happening there.
Having said that, we cannot dismiss the fact there are some
significant problems and challenges in Iraq as well. It is not ordinary
and normal, and it is not something we should ever become accustomed
to, to wake up in the morning and turn on the news and hear of another
American soldier who was killed, or more American soldiers wounded.
That is not something we can become accustomed to in this country.
I also believe, as I indicated, that as we consider a piece of
legislation with a price tag of $87 billion to support the troops and
provide the resources necessary for the troops and also to provide for
the reconstruction of Iraq, it is an appropriate and important time to
ask some questions about especially the portion dealing with
reconstruction. That is what I focused on yesterday in the
Appropriations Committee.
Let me talk about this reconstruction. This is a new subject that is
offered us by the President--reconstruction. We understood what the
President planned to do with respect to the campaign called shock and
awe, which was a military campaign, would be devastating in its
consequences to the Iraqi troops, but not devastating to the country of
Iraq in terms of infrastructure, because we deliberately did not target
the infrastructure there. We did not target their electric grid, their
powerplants, their dams, their roads, or their bridges. We deliberately
did not do that and we were successful in avoiding that. So then what
is the requirement for reconstruction?
The requirement for reconstruction, by and large, stems from a long-
term deterioration of the assets of Iraq under Saddam Hussein, No. 1;
and No. 2, from a type of guerrilla activity by insurgents inside the
country of Iraq--Iraqis themselves, among others--to destroy property
and infrastructure in Iraq. That is what caused this administration to
ask us for nearly $21 billion to reconstruct the country of Iraq.
Let me say that the request for the reconstruction of Iraq is a
request for grants, where we will take the money from our Treasury--or
borrow the money, as will be the case, because we are very deeply in
debt in this country at this point and our annual budget deficit is
roughly in the $475 billion range. We will borrow money to provide it
to the Iraqis for reconstruction. Let me go back to some things and
indicate why some of us are surprised by a request for nearly $21
billion to reconstruct Iraq.
Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz said this on March 27 of
this year:

And on a rough recollection, oil revenues of that country
could bring in between $50 and $100 billion over the course
of the next two or three years. We're dealing with a country
that can really finance its own reconstruction, and
relatively soon.

Again, Mr. Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense, said just 5 months
ago:

We're dealing with a country that can really finance its
own reconstruction, and relatively soon.

Richard Armitage, Assistant Secretary of State, said:

When we approach the question of Iraq, we realize here is a
country which has a resource. And it's obvious, it's oil. And
it can bring in and does bring in a certain amount of revenue
each year, it could--$10, $15, even $18 billion.

So this is not a broke country, first of all. He is describing the
resources the country of Iraq has.
Vice President Cheney in March of this year said:

There are estimates out there.

Talking about Iraq.

It's important, though, to recognize that we've got a
different set of circumstances than we've had in Afghanistan.
In Afghanistan you've got a nation without significant
resources. In Iraq you've got a nation that's got the second-
largest oil reserves in the world, second only to Saudi
Arabia. It will generate billions of dollars a year in cash
flow if they get back to their production of roughly three
million barrels of oil a day, in the relatively near
future. And that flow of resources obviously belongs to
the Iraqi people and needs to be put to use by the Iraqi
people for the Iraqi people, and that will be one of our
major objectives.

That was Vice President Cheney.
So we have Richard Armitage, Assistant Secretary of State, saying
Iraq can be reconstructed with Iraq oil; Paul Wolfowitz, Assistant
Secretary of Defense, saying Iraq can finance its own reconstruction;
Secretary Rumsfeld, on March 27 of this year, said: I don't believe the
United States has the responsibility for reconstruction, in a sense.
Those funds can come from those various funds I mentioned--frozen
assets, oil revenues, and a variety of other things, including Oil for
Food which has a substantial number of billions of dollars in it.
We have the Secretary of Defense, the Assistant Secretary of Defense,
the Assistant Secretary of State, and the Vice President.
Let me read quotes from Mr. Natsios who runs USAID, which is the
agency in the State Department involved in reconstruction.
On April 23 on Ted Koppel's ``Nightline'' program, Ted Koppel says:

I mean, when you talk about 1.7, you're not suggesting that
the rebuilding of Iraq is going to be done for $1.7 billion?

Mr. Natsios, who runs this program for the administration, says:

Well, in terms of the American taxpayers' contribution, I
do, this is it for the U.S. The rest of the rebuilding of
Iraq will be done by

[[Page S12233]]

other countries who already made pledges, Britain, Germany,
Norway, Japan, Canada, and Iraqi oil revenues . . .

Will be used eventually in several years when it is up and running
and when a new government, democratically elected, will finish the job
with new revenues.

They are going to get $20 billion a year in oil revenues.
But the American part of this will be $1.7 billion. We have
no plans for any further on funding for this.

This is 5 months ago from the point person in this administration
with respect to Iraq's reconstruction, saying $1.7 billion.
Ted Koppel comes back to him again on the same program and says:

You're saying the, the top cost for the U.S. taxpayer will
be $1.7 billion. No more than that?
Mr. Natsios: For the reconstruction. . . .
Ted Koppel: But as far as the reconstruction goes, the
American taxpayer will not be hit by more than $1.7 billion
no matter how long the process takes?
Mr. Natsios: That is our plan and that is our intention.
And these figures . . . I have to say, there's a little bit
of hoopla involved in this.

I guess he was referring to something else. There sure isn't a lot of
hoopla involved in his figures.
Later in the program, Mr. Natsios says, responding to Ted Koppel:

That's correct, $1.7 billion is the limit on reconstruction
for Iraq.

That was 5 months ago from the point person on reconstruction in this
administration. Five months later, we are asked for $21 billion--$21
billion. How did things change so quickly? Why did they change so
quickly? Why was it decided that the obligation for the reconstruction
of this country--not an impoverished country, I might say, a country
with the second largest reserves of oil in the entire world--why was it
decided the American taxpayers should bear this burden exclusively?
Ambassador Bremer testified before our Appropriations Committee. I
asked him about this issue.
I said: Mr. Ambassador, Iraq has very substantial oil reserves. They
have liquid gold under that sand. They have the capability of pumping a
lot of oil.
He said: Yes.
In fact, when I asked about how much they would pump, he said: By
July of next year, we expect Iraq will be pumping 3 million barrels of
oil a day and, using their figures, we expect, when you take out of
that the amount necessary to be used in Iraq by Iraqis, the amount of
money that they will sell on the export market will produce $16 billion
a year of revenue--$16 billion a year.
Yesterday, members of the Iraqi Governing Council were in town, and
they said they are going to be producing 6 million barrels of oil--
double that. Let's use the more conservative figure of 3 million
barrels of oil produced a day by next July. This then is a country that
has the capability of producing $160 billion in 10 years from oil
revenue exports only or $320 billion in 20 years. Securitizing that oil
production would be relatively easy for Iraq in order to raise the
funds to reconstruct what is needed to be reconstructed in Iraq.
I asked Ambassador Bremer, why then would you not propose that Iraqi
oil be used to reconstruct Iraq? He said: Because Iraq has substantial
foreign indebtedness, they will not be able to encumber their oil
revenue; they will have to repay foreign indebtedness first.
I asked Ambassador Bremer to whom Iraq owed money. He said, France--I
believe he said Russia first--Russia, France, Germany.
Following that hearing, I began to do some research on Iraq's
indebtedness. It turns out that the largest of Iraq's creditors are
Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. The best estimates are that Iraq owes
somewhere close to $25 billion to Saudi Arabia. And they owe somewhere
close to $25 billion to Kuwait. They owe somewhere between $20 billion
and $30 billion to the other gulf states. They owe between $4 billion
and $8 billion to France, $4 billion to Germany, and somewhere between
$9 billion and $12 billion to Russia. But as one can see, the largest
creditors of the country of Iraq are Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.
Now, I find it strange that anyone would suggest that the debts of
Saddam's regime must be honored, but that the current Iraqi Governing
Council is not able to incur debts.
Some make the point that the Iraqi Governing Council has not been
democratically elected. Well, does anyone think that Saddam Hussein was
duly elected? Let's just remember the last couple of elections. In
1995, Saddam Hussein ran for President of Iraq. He ran unopposed and
won 99.96 percent of the vote.
Out of 8 million ballots, supposedly only 3,000 people voted against
Saddam Hussein.
Then in August of 2000, they had another election in Iraq and Saddam
Hussein ran again for President. He again ran unopposed. This time, the
official election count was better, actually. With a 100 percent voter
turnout, Saddam Hussein received 100 percent of the vote. That was
actually the official count.
They provided no real polling booths. Voters were required to parade
down a gallery containing 28 portraits of Saddam Hussein. They were
required to hold their ballots over their head as they walked down this
gallery so that everyone could see how they voted. Before the election,
the Iraq phone company rigged their telephones so when a person picked
up the phone to make a phone call, they heard the message that they had
a requirement to go out and vote for Saddam Hussein.
The fact is, there is very little tradition of democracy in Iraq, as
we know. The Saddam Hussein regime, which obligated the people of Iraq,
apparently, to $150 billion to $200 billion in foreign debt, was
certainly no more duly constituted a government than the current Iraqi
coalition authority or provisional authority.
I believe Iraq does need reconstruction funding, but I believe very
strongly that that ought not be the burden of the American people. I
believe the result would be perverse if the American taxpayer was
required to bear the burden of that $21 billion in expenditures, while
Iraq pumped its oil, sold it on the open market, and used the revenues
to ship suitcases full of cash to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and, yes,
Russia and France and Germany. I do not understand how anyone thinks
that is in our interest.
I will briefly describe what we are told is urgently necessary for
reconstruction in Iraq. I think some items are urgent, some are not, in
order to advance the Iraq economy and in order to provide the Iraq
people with an expanded set of opportunities and hope for the future.
The $21 billion includes, for example, reengineering business
practices of the Iraq postal service, including instituting ZIP Codes.
Well, that is not part of an urgent supplemental, in my judgment.
Then there is $54 million for a comprehensive consulting technical
study for the Iraqi postal system. That is not urgent, in my judgment.
Restoring marshlands; two 4,000-bed prisons at $50,000 a bed; garbage
trucks at $50,000 apiece; creating best business practice and training
courses and opening job centers, and so on. I think some of this is
likely urgent, some of it not, but all of it can and should be paid for
with Iraqi oil.
I will describe how that could work and how it should work.
I offered an amendment in committee yesterday that would create an
Iraq Reconstruction Finance Agency. I lost that amendment by one vote.
Following that, I offered a second amendment, which is a choice I do
not particularly favor but one that is better than a series of grants.
That amendment would provide that instead of grants, we extend loans.
Both amendments were defeated in the committee, and I will offer both
on the Senate floor as we proceed to have a debate about the
reconstruction portion of this package.
The Iraqi Governing Council, I believe, has ample authority to create
an Iraq Reconstruction Finance Authority and do so in a way that
obligates future oil revenues of Iraq through some securitization, by
which they would sell securities against future oil revenues and raise
the money for reconstruction of Iraq. As one of my colleagues earlier
today suggested, that is not in some way having the United States get
their hands on Iraq oil. It is nothing of the sort. This is the people
in Iraq making use of their resources, by securitizing their future oil
reserves. Understand, they have the second largest reserves in the
world. This is not an impoverished country. They

[[Page S12234]]

have dramatic and valuable resources. This is about Iraq citizens using
Iraqi oil to reconstruct the country of Iraq.
Why would someone choose the alternative of saying, let's have the
American taxpayer pay for the reconstruction of Iraq so that Iraq can
pump oil to pay for the past debts it owes to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait?

Ambassador Bremer told me they were not recommending the use of Iraq
oil for reconstruction because of the foreign debt that Iraq had and
that it had to resolve. I think it ought to be resolved this way: I
believe Ambassador Bremer and the Iraq authority ought to go to the
donor conference and ought to be involved in bilateral and multilateral
talks in which they seek debt forgiveness. After all, Saddam Hussein
should not have been able to obligate the Iraq people and to mortgage
their future. Saddam Hussein is gone. His government does not exist.
Why do we believe that loans from the Saudis to Iraq back in the 1980s
ought to be repaid now when those loans were made to Saddam Hussein?
Let Saddam Hussein repay those loans, not the Iraqi people.
This was not a duly constituted government in the first instance. I
just described the mechanism by which he was in power.
This is not a case, as my colleague earlier suggested, of just
treating this in a nonserious way, believing that somehow the money is
not needed for Iraq. I believe the military appropriations that the
President has requested for our troops are related to reconstruction,
but I believe very strongly that much of what is requested for
reconstruction is, A, not urgent and, B, certainly not reconstruction
that ought to be paid for by the American people.
Let me come again to this point: we were told time and time again
that the U.S. taxpayer would have, at most, a minimal financial burden
in terms of reconstruction.
The representations to us all along, all year, have been that Iraq
oil would bear the burden for reconstruction. Vice President Cheney
said on March 16 of this year--I am quoting directly:

In Iraq, you've got a nation that's got the second largest
oil reserves in the world, second only to Saudi Arabia. It
will generate billions of dollars a year in cash flow.

Ari Fleischer at the White House said:

Iraq, unlike Afghanistan, is a rather wealthy country. It
has tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi people.

He is talking about Iraq has to be able to shoulder much of the
burden for their own reconstruction.
Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense, said:

On a rough recollection, the oil revenues of that country
could bring between $50 billion to $100 billion over the
course of the next few years. We're dealing with a country
that can really finance its own reconstruction, and
relatively soon.

Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, on March 27, said:

I don't believe that the United States has the
responsibility for reconstruction, in a sense . . . And the
funds can come from those various sources I mentioned: frozen
assets, oil revenues, and a variety of other things.

The fact is, just months ago we were told by Secretary Rumsfeld, by
Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz, by Vice President Cheney, and many others
that the U.S. taxpayer would not have to foot the bill.
We have not had anyone come to us to explain to us the reason for the
change.
We had Ambassador Bremer explain to us why he believes the proceeds
from Iraqi oil are going to have to be committed to repay Iraq's
foreign debt. Translated to the language from my hometown, it would be:
Iraqi oil should produce some revenue so the Iraqi people can pay off
Saddam's debts to some of the richest countries in the world, Saudi
Arabia and Kuwait.
But nobody came forward to say, we did tell you all these things 4 or
5 months ago, and did tell the American people and tell you in Congress
you are not going to have to pay for reconstruction of Iraq because
Iraqi oil is going to pay for it--no one has come forward to say, I was
wrong then, or I have changed my mind.
The question is, Has the Vice President changed his mind? I am
guessing so. Has Secretary Rumsfeld changed his mind? Has Mr. Wolfowitz
changed his mind? Has Mr. Armitage changed his mind?
I think it is important to ask the question.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, are we under a time limit at this point?
Could I have explained to me the time on the floor?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time until 12:30 has been divided. All
time remains for the majority at this point.
Mr. DORGAN. This time for debate was apparently evenly divided until
12:30; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. DORGAN. What will be the circumstances of the floor this
afternoon, could I ask the manager?
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, if I might respond, the bill will be
subject to amendment at any time. We are hopeful there will be
amendments. Neither Senator Byrd nor I have spoken on the bill yet.
Once Senator Byrd has finished his comments, we will be back on the
bill. Of course the Senator could speak at any time.
Mr. DORGAN. I thank the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I think at this time I should point out
what we are doing because we have brought to the floor the President's
emergency supplemental request for Iraq. Last evening, the President
signed the 2004 Defense Appropriations Committee bill. At the request
of the Congress, specifically the Senate, the President did not include
in that bill any funding for the war in Iraq or Afghanistan, and the
funding for that and the global war on terrorism is in the supplemental
that is before us now.
Many have asked for a great many things in connection with this
supplemental that is before us. I think it is good to review history
because we have had the history studied by the Congressional Research
Service, and I am informed that no President before has asked, in
advance, for money to conduct a war. This President did that. He had a
supplemental before that carried us through fiscal year 2003. And this
bill is theoretically to pick up on October 4 and carry forward the
activities in Iraq and Afghanistan and the war on global terrorism
following that time.
The bill does contain a substantial amount of money for the
intelligence community, which is classified. This afternoon we will
hold a hearing in our classified hearing room in the Capitol to explore
some of the ramifications of that. We have closed out the hearings we
held on this bill. I might say, in and of themselves, they are unique
because I know of no hearing on a supplemental request of this type
during my time in the Senate. The request was made for hearings by my
good friend from West Virginia, and we have accommodated that. I know
he wishes we would have more hearings, but I believe we have explored
the proposals that have been presented to us as a Special Emergency
Supplemental by the President, under these circumstances, as much as is
possible because we have some time frames involved. The moneys for
defense activities in Iraq are in this bill. We have an enormous number
of people involved in this activity now, and this bill asks for about
$66 billion to continue those activities through the fiscal year of
2004; that is, until September 30, 2004.
We have had presented to us, in addition to that Defense
supplemental, the request for $20.3 billion to carry out the activities
of our Government in connection with the reconstruction and
rehabilitation of Iraq during this period ahead of us. Many will ask--
demand that the money in this second category be strictly loans.
There is no government of Iraq yet. There is no one we can really
have obligated to repay it. We are exploring mechanisms that might be
possible to set up ways in which a portion of the money would be
required to be repaid. But the testimony before our committee was that
these two sums are inextricably entwined. They represent the best
effort of the military department, our Department of Defense, and of
our State Department and other Departments of the executive branch to
present to Congress an approach to try to move through the process of
having an army of occupation in Iraq and move to establishing a new
form of

[[Page S12235]]

government in Iraq, supported by their people, and provide the security
for that government, provide the security for the people who will be
running the oilfields, as have been mentioned here, with the power
stations, and the schools and other activities that are still subject
to some opposition by terrorists in Iraq.
I believe Ambassador Bremer and his people have presented a coherent
outline of what we are going to do. But the demand is to know in
advance what is going to happen, almost on a daily basis: What are you
going to do? Really, the contingencies in advance of us, now, of our
Government, are unique.

If you look at Germany or look at Japan, we had a military government
of occupation. We provided the complete security. We provided the
complete government in the past when we ended the war. We did that to a
great extent in other places, too, where we helped in Kosovo, Bosnia,
and other areas. We were, for several years, involved in both of those
areas.
We have been involved in this area less than a year. The proposal now
is to carry into the next year a plan, which was presented to us in the
Senate, in our security room, in July. Some people didn't get a copy of
that. That is unfortunate. But it was being presented to us during our
hearings. That plan clearly sets forth the plan that was developed by
Ambassador Bremer and by the State Department and our Department of
Defense, to proceed now and not have an army in occupation, that we do
not want to be an occupier.
We want to continue our work to secure the area for the purpose of
building this new government, but we have actually had some of our
military people withdrawn from the areas of Iraq which have been
completely pacified now and are normally operating. The local police
are maintaining security. A portion of their new army is behind them,
securing those areas. Still, it is a very volatile area and that is
primarily the area of concern.
It is that area that depends so much on the money that is in the
second part of this bill. Ambassador Bremer personally told me a number
of times the oil pipelines have been bombed, sabotaged. While they are
repairing those oil lines, the power stations have been brought back
into operation. As oil lines were completely restored, the power
stations were blown up. As they are trying to bring both of them back,
then there are sniper activities in the Baghdad area, destabilizing the
situation as far as restoring tranquility in this country.
This is a time and a place that the forces of the United States, both
military and civilian, need guidance on a daily basis by the Commander
in Chief and his representatives. This bill contains a sizable amount
of money and the discretion to use that money to accomplish the
objectives they have set out. I, for one, endorse those objectives
wholly because I believe they will bring our people home sooner and
have us have a friendly Iraq, rebuilding itself out of its oil income,
once we are able to stop this terrorist activity that is impeding the
flow of oil.
The Senator from North Dakota mentioned the amount of oil we were
told will be there next July. That is true. It will be there unless the
pipelines are blown up again. It will be there unless the power
stations are blown up again. It takes power to run these pipelines. The
power stations are there. They have been blown up also.
The problem with stability in this area is a very acute one. We have
been warned of that. I think the plan they have presented, in the
judgment of majority of the Senate Appropriations Committee, is such
that we should give the President's people this discretion. It is a lot
of money. No one questions it is a lot of money. In the first place, we
separate the $66 billion for defense. I don't argue about that amount
in terms of carrying forth our commitment to our men and women in
uniform to see to it they have the supplies, the materials, the backup,
the rest and recreation, all of the things that are in this bill, to
assure them we are with them and that we support them in every way
possible to get this job done. But the main thing we want to do for
them is to get them home. The way to get them home is to assure that
Iraq once more can run its own affairs, defend itself, and can have
reasonable success in dealing with terrorism. We can't eliminate
terrorism completely from Iraq any more than we can completely
eliminate terrorism right now. We face terrorism at home. But the real
problem is how soon can they know they have the capability of meeting
terrorism and trying to deal with it as they try to impede the
reconstruction and rehabilitation of that country. We are going to have
some differences of opinion. There are differences really in
philosophy, as far as I am concerned.
I think we ought to listen more to the generals who are over there in
uniform, as I have yet to hear complaints from any of the people who
have gone over there and who have been part of this tremendous success
militarily. They report they are proud of what they have done, and they
believe we are right, that we should as soon as possible have the
Iraqis run this country. That is the goal.
We have had this monstrous success militarily. Normally, any country
before in history has sent in an occupation force, set up a government,
tried to find out who should be the new leaders of the government,
worked with them for a number of years, and then eventually withdrawn
their forces. Of course, as I think the world knows, we have yet to
withdraw all of our forces from Europe from World War II. They started
and became part of a permanent force over there almost, although I do
think we ought to reexamine that, and we will in the near future. The
future for this area is not to have an occupation force. We still have
forces in Kosovo and we still have forces in Bosnia. That is not the
goal of this activity. The goal of this activity is to liberate Iraq
and give it the ability to restore its government under a concept of
free men and women determining their own future.
That means to me that we respond to the request of the President of
the United States and give his people the discretion to use this money
to the extent it is necessary.
I believe it is now time that we call up the bill. Is it pending?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill is pending.
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I would like to address my friend. I
don't believe we need control of time now, if the Senator agrees. I
will finish my remarks and then yield to Senator Byrd, if that is
agreeable. Is there any pending motion which I should make?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is none.
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I will close.
It is my hope the Senate will also realize the request we have made--
I have made it to the leadership on both sides--to take the defense
portion of this bill first. The House has not acted upon this bill yet.
We will go on recess on Friday. While we are gone, the House will act
on it. It is my opinion that the House should know how we feel about
the defense side, the $66 billion. We should await their action on the
$20.3 billion.
That is to me sort of a division of labor, you might say. We have
worked very hard on the defense side of the bill. I believe we have a
general agreement of where we are going to come out with it. We
presented what we call the chairman's mark in the bill that is before
the Senate today. It will be subject to some amendments. I hope Members
will cooperate by looking at that portion of the bill first. We will
deal with the $20.3 billion when we believe we have completed that
review.
I would like to be able to tell the House that we have finished the
defense portion and we await your consideration of what you think we
should do with the $20.3 billion. They have had some substantial
hearings on that side, too. The House held hearings on both portions of
this request from the President.
I believe this is a new approach to funding this kind of an
operation. It is a new operation. We would be wise to proceed, and when
we come back from our recess to have before us then the House bill, to
look at what the House bill has done and present our portion of the
bill pertaining to the $20.3 billion. Some people may disagree, and
some people think we should separate the bill--I know there is that
feeling--and delete from the consideration anything that is not
strictly defense. I disagree with that.
General Abizaid, who is our commander in chief there in the region,

[[Page S12236]]

stated very clearly that he needs both portions of this bill. If we
don't have the money for the people of Iraq to proceed to establish
their own security, their own military, and deal with their own
reconstruction problems immediately, we will need more money to send
more troops in there to protect ourselves and to protect the Iraqis.
This is a transitional phase which we have in the $20.3 billion. As I
have said publicly, it is risky. The President has taken a great risk.
There are terrorists loose there. We have to remember Saddam Hussein
let loose all of the prisoners from the jails--all of them. He opened
the borders of Iraq to terrorists. Those are the people now who are
raising havoc in that country. Many of them have been apprehended, but
many are still at large. The $20.3 billion is aimed at providing a
security base for the Iraqi government to come into being, to deal with
security, to deal with antiterrorism, and to deal with restoring the
productive capacity of their major resource; that is, the oil.
If it is successful, as has been indicated, by July, we will probably
see that Iraq could produce oil somewhere near 3 million barrels a day.
I say parenthetically, Madam President, that in our State, we have
produced about 2.1 million barrels a day in the past. We don't produce
that now because of the obstruction against us in terms of going into
areas where we know we could obtain oil to restore the daily output of
our production facilities. We could be back up to 2.1 million barrels a
day very quickly, too. The Iraqis are predicted to have even more
reserves. I am not sure this is the case. They might get up as high as
6 million barrels a day. I hope for the sake of the world they do. But
I am reminded of the fact that when we first started producing oil from
Prudhoe Bay in Alaska, the estimate was we had approximately 1 billion
barrels of oil. This last year, as the occupant of the Chair knows, we
produced our 14th billion barrel of oil. Estimates are estimates.
Sometimes they are high and sometimes they are low. But the estimates
are that Iraq will be a major producer in the future. I hope that is so
because they will have a stable government. They will have a free
government. They will have the ability to determine their own future.

We have a chance to explain to them how we treat some of our oil
income and how we have created our permanent fund that produces income
for every person in Alaska once a year--the shareholders of public
development of resources. Prudhoe Bay oil is produced from State lands.
The oil in Iraq is produced from the Iraqi-owned government and Iraqi
government land. They have a rosy future if they wisely manage their
money as they reconstruct their country, and if they have some concept
of trying to save part of it and use the earnings to benefit all of
their people. That is what we have done in Alaska. It has been very
successful. I hope they will be able to do that.
The problem right now is how we get from where we are with
substantial force. They are still subject to severe security
requirements because of the terrorism. Should we put in more
antiterrorist people of the United States in uniform, or from our
intelligence services, or should we help the Iraqis get to the point
where they can feel they can start to protect themselves, particularly
in the areas of the remaining intensity of terrorists?
This bill should pass. We should give the President's people the
greatest flexibility possible, much more than we have in the past,
because it is for a short period of time. It is for the remainder of
fiscal year 2004, for the period of time after the bill becomes law,
sometime in October, until the following September. We will know during
that period whether their approach will succeed.
One thing is very clear: this Congress will not walk away from Iraq.
This President will not walk away from Iraq. We will not withdraw our
people from Iraq and leave chaos in Iraq. Clearly, we have the
obligation to finish what we started. This is the plan to finish what
we started.
Some people want a roadmap, a daily report, with every single aspect
of what is going on, producing another request for another report. Do
you know what happens to the reports? They get filed in some filing
cabinet somewhere, some computer, and no one pays any attention to
them.
I will oppose a great many of these reports because we have provided
in the bill for quarterly reports, we provided in the bill for
continuation of the reports requested in the supplemental for 2003.
That is sufficient. To my knowledge, no one raised an objection to what
we received so far. I don't know why we should add to that number of
reports we require from the people who represent us in both military
and civilian agencies in Iraq.
I look forward to debate. It has been strenuous so far. I expect it
to get a little more strenuous. Clearly, it is a turning point in the
history of the United States. We have followed the pattern of the
Caesars. We have gone in and been a liberator and then occupied area
and stayed there. Look at Germany, how long we stayed there, and Japan,
how long we stayed there: 4 years after the war was over in Japan. Do
we want to do that in Iraq? We believe we can reduce that time our
military people are there if we follow the proposals before the Senate
from Ambassador Bremer who funnels both the recommendations of the
State Department and the Department of Defense to the Congress through
the President's request in the supplemental.
I remind Members of the Senate Appropriations Committee there will be
a hearing in S. 407 at 5 p.m. and we do expect amendments to be
offered. I hope there will be an opportunity to have a vote on some of
them today although that may not be possible. The President of the
United States is signing the Homeland Security bill within an hour to
hour and a half. Many of the Members of Congress have been invited to
be present. It is my intention to ask the Senate to withhold voting
while they are gone. They are at the new Department of Homeland
Security. We expect to have a vote sometime around 3:30, between that
and the time of our hearing in S. 407. We would not object to a vote
during that hearing. We are just right upstairs. From 5 p.m. we will be
in the hearing. I will not request we have no votes during that time.
We will not have votes too late because we have an understanding with
our colleagues from the Democratic Party who have an event tonight that
we have agreed we will not have votes during the time they are at that
dinner.
Again, I am asking people to come forward and offer amendments. I
urge Members to present amendments to the defense side first, if at all
possible. We are prepared, however, for any amendments offered.
I yield to my friend from West Virginia.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Madam President, the Senate today takes up the President's
$87 billion Iraq war supplemental. This is a massive spending bill that
holds vast implications for America's long-term foreign policy
objective. It will have an enormous impact on American taxpayers for
years to come.
It is a measure that deserves our full attention, our thoughtful
consideration, our thorough scrutiny. This is not an issue to be
measured by the standard of party loyalty. This is a matter that cries
out for solemn deliberation, personal integrity, and intellectual
honesty.
I remain concerned that the Senate is acting with unnecessary haste
in calling up this bill today, less than 24 hours since it was reported
out of the committee, but I compliment the leaders and especially the
chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens, for
responding to concerns that I and other Senators have raised. In fact,
there is no need for the Senate to act too quickly. The House has not
yet even taken up its version of the supplemental. While it is not a
constitutional requirement the House act first, it has been customary
for many years that the House of Representatives act first. It is
smoother and more thorough. It is more reasonable to go about
legislating if the Senate lets the House act first so the House bill
can be before Senators for their debate and amendment.
The House has not taken up its version of the supplemental. Senators
are being asked to legislate on this massive spending bill without the
benefit of a committee report, without the benefit of printed committee
hearing, without the benefit of the input by other committees such as
the Armed

[[Page S12237]]

Services Committee, the Intelligence Committee, and the Foreign
Relations Committee. The Senate ought to have the printed hearings of
the Senate Appropriations Committee. We ought to have the printed
hearings containing the testimony of Ambassador Bremer, containing the
testimony of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, containing the testimony of
other witnesses. Why do we spend all of our time in Senate hearings if
we do not intend to make those printed hearings available to our
colleagues and to ourselves as we go forward with Senate debate? That
is one of the tremendous benefits in having hearings so that they will
be printed. Why have them? Because they will be printed then, for our
colleagues to scrutinize and to help bring back memories of those
Members on the Senate Appropriations Committee as to what the testimony
was, what the answers were to the questions that were asked.

But here we have been rushed. We have had hearings--some hearings. I
asked for more hearings, more than once, more than twice. Several times
I asked for more hearings. But even with the hearings that we had, we
do not have printed copies of hearings before us.
No, there has been a rush, a mad rush to move forward on this bill.
There was some talk about even having the final action on the bill by
the end of this week. Fortunately, with the aid of the distinguished
chairman, and others, that press for action by the end of this week is
no longer upon us. That was an unreasonable expectation. It did not
measure up to common sense. And it certainly was not the best thing.
Fortunately, that is no longer the goal of the party in control here.
There are many aspects of this bill that trouble me, but what
concerns me as much as anything else, or perhaps most, is the
fundamental reason that this measure is before the Senate today.
American taxpayers have been presented with an $87 billion bill for the
military occupation and reconstruction of Iraq. That is a big, big
bill--$87 billion. That is $87 for every minute since Jesus Christ was
born, $87 for every minute since the water was changed into wine, $87
for every minute since Jesus Christ was born.
That is a lot of money. That is more than $3,000 for every Iraqi man,
woman, boy, and girl. Now, think about that. The taxpayers are being
asked--the taxpayers of this country are being asked--to shell out more
than $3,000 for every Iraqi man, woman, boy, and girl. That is what
this bill does.
There are roughly 25 million, we will say, Iraqis. One thousand
dollars per each Iraqi is $25 billion. Pretty easy to compute. So $75
billion would be $3,000 per every Iraqi. And $87 billion is roughly,
let's say, $3,500 for every Iraqi--every man, woman, boy, and girl.
Now, this is $87 billion on top of the $79 billion which was
appropriated in the fiscal year 2003 supplemental passed by the Senate
in April of this year.
We are putting upon the American taxpayers a load. This
administration, in this bill that we are being asked to pass, is asking
the American taxpayers to shell out--in this bill--over $3,000 per
Iraqi man, woman, boy, and girl, on top of the $79 billion in the
fiscal year 2003 supplemental.
So when you add both of these together, this year we will have--if we
pass this bill hook, line, and sinker--we will, in the Senate, have
passed legislation requiring the American taxpayers to shell out $6,600
per Iraqi--$6,600 per Iraqi.
Well, the American taxpayers have been presented with an $87 billion
bill for the military occupation and reconstruction of Iraq. Why?
Because the President decided 6 months ago to launch a preemptive
strike on Iraq in the face of very shaky evidence and worldwide
opposition--strong worldwide opposition.
We have seen the lengths to which some in this administration will
go. Now we learn of retribution efforts aimed at those who tried to
correct the zealous propaganda which drove this Nation into war. Now
the taxpayer is asked to pay the piper--pay the piper. It is a steep
price, indeed, in treasure and in blood.
Much has been made of the fact that we must pass this bill quickly
and without question to show our support for the troops. I do not
agree. ``Support the Troops'' is a bumper sticker. ``Support the
Troops'' is a bumper sticker, a bumper sticker. That is what it is:
``Support the Troops''--a bumper sticker. It is not a foreign policy.
Rubberstamping this bill is not--N-O-T--an expression of support for
our troops except in the most simplistic of ways. Rubberstamping this
bill merely means that thousands of American soldiers will be sentenced
to another year in Iraq, without the Senate even demanding to know why
so many United States soldiers need to remain there, how long they are
going to be there, or why this President has failed to persuade more
nations to send troops to help.
Are we to ask our troops to shoulder this burden alone for another
year? Are we to ask our troops to shoulder this burden alone for years
to come? When is this administration going to face the fact that we
need international help? We want to help our troops. Let's get other
nations to send their troops there and, thus, help our troops and help
us to bring our troops home. We are certainly not serving the long-term
interests of the military by rushing to embrace this bill.

The headline in yesterday's USA Today newspaper sums up the situation
succinctly: ``Army Reserve Fears Troop Exodus.'' That was the headline:
``Army Reserve Fears Troop Exodus.'' According to the article in
yesterday's USA Today, the chief of the Army Reserves is concerned that
the excessive demands on the Guard and Reserves as a result of the war
in Iraq could wreak havoc on military retention rates. That is a
serious matter.
Last week, another report documented a sharp drop in National Guard
recruiting rates. The military decisions this administration is making
in Iraq today will have serious long-term consequences on the viability
of America's All-Volunteer Armed Forces in the future, not to mention
our ability to counter future threats to our own national security.
It is time to face these facts. We are stretched thin. We are
stretched thin, and a long United States occupation in Iraq is not
wise. Moreover, how are we to exercise proper oversight of $87 billion?
The Wall Street Journal of September 26 states:

Without a United Nations imprimatur, the Administration has
constructed its so-called coalition of the willing in
piecemeal fashion, cutting open-ended, individual deals with
each country that is willing to send troops--save Britain,
which is picking up its own tab. Officials who have seen
these agreements acknowledge the deals are notably short on
specifics. In most cases, the U.S. will foot the bill for
transporting, equipping and feeding troops during their
service in Iraq, with no dollar figures mentioned and no cap
on costs.

It is not in our Nation's interest to rush this bill through the
Senate. By rushing to war based on inadequate, incorrect, or
unsubstantiated intelligence, without developing an international
consensus, President Bush has undermined the credibility of our Nation.
We need to make sure we do not compound that error by hustling this
bill through the Senate without adequate scrutiny and consideration.
The $20.3 billion contained in the spending bill for Iraq
reconstruction is equally troubling. For months, top administration
officials assured the American people that Iraq, sitting atop the
second--and possibly the largest--supply of oil in the world, could
finance its own reconstruction. Only now do we learn how woefully off
the mark the administration was on this count. Only now do we learn
that $20.3 billion is just a downpayment--hear me out there--just a
downpayment, and that the reconstruction of Iraq will cost as much as
$60 or $70 billion or more.
Last week, Ambassador Paul Bremer, the head of the Coalition
Provisional Authority in Iraq, told the Senate Appropriations Committee
that Iraq could not finance its own reconstruction because it was
overburdened with Saddam Hussein's debts to France, Germany, Russia,
Japan, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait. Ambassador Bremer conveniently ignored
the debt the United States is incurring in this spending package. The
debt the United States is incurring, the additional burden that will be
brought to bear upon the American taxpayer by this legislation,
Ambassador Bremer ignored that.
The President is insisting we pay for the war in Iraq and the
reconstruction

[[Page S12238]]

of that nation by plunging our own country deeper into debt. Every
dollar we spend in Iraq to avoid increasing Iraq's debt is an IOU we
are passing on to our children. Think of it. We are writing a $20.3
billion IOU for this year alone for building a massive new
infrastructure in Iraq.

The money the President wants to borrow for Iraq will come directly
out of American taxpayers' wallets in the form of Medicare and Social
Security surplus receipts. That is your money. We have collected that
money from the pockets of American workers, the American workers who
gave their sweat in the factories, in the mines, in the fields, on the
oceans--the American workers. No one told them they were paying to
rebuild Iraq. We don't even know how much of the $20 billion in
reconstruction funds will flow to government contractors in Iraq.
Estimates range from one-third of the reconstruction funds to almost
all of them. Whatever the amount is, we know that the size and the
scope of the profits being made will be enormous.
Former Bush administration officials are even setting up consulting
firms. Listen to that. Former Bush administration officials are even
setting up consulting firms to act as middlemen for contractors hoping
to take part in the Iraq bonanza. Are we turning the U.S. Treasury into
a grab bag for favorite campaign contributors to be financed at
taxpayer expense? Is that why the administration is so reluctant to
make concessions that would bring other countries on board?
Instead of redoubling our efforts to spread the burden of rebuilding
Iraq among the international community, the President appears content
to simply present the bill to the American taxpayers, and to their
children.
The stability of Iraq is of concern to nations other than the United
States. Could they be resisting helping out because they resent the
President's highhanded decision to spurn the United Nations and attack
Iraq on his own terms with only meager international support?
There is a donors conference in Madrid later this month. Could we be
overbilling the American taxpayers by rushing this package through the
Senate now and signing up for $20.3 billion in debt before we even try
to make the real accommodations which would encourage other nations to
reach into their own pockets?
The package before the Senate goes far beyond asking the Senate to
write a check on the taxpayers' account for $87 billion. The package
before us asks the Senate to underwrite the long-term democratization
of Iraq as some sort of catalyst for triggering the democratization of
the entire Middle East. One cannot help but wonder how the United
States can single-handedly precipitate the democratization of the
entire Middle East when, with all our will and all our might, we cannot
even budge the stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace process. How are we
going to do it? Where is the muscle?
I expect there will be a number of amendments offered to this
supplemental package. I have several I intend to offer. If they are
adopted, they will, in my opinion, improve this bill. Whether they will
improve it enough to win my endorsement remains to be seen.
I was opposed to the President's war in Iraq before it began. I am
strongly opposed to the doctrine of preemption on which the war in Iraq
was predicated--the doctrine of preemption, unilateralism, preemption,
strike-first, invade first.
I support unconditionally the men and the women in uniform and their
families--they are bearing the most direct burden of the war in Iraq--
but I remain unconvinced that this bill is the best way to offer those
troops our support. I, frankly, think our most meaningful support would
be to take the diplomatic steps needed to get help from other nations
which will result in getting our troops out of the quicksands of Iraq.
That is the way to support the troops. Get other nations in. This bill
does not do that.
This bill, in my opinion, sets the United States up for what could
well be a prolonged military and financial investment in Iraq. It
ignores the hard realities of democratization of totally different
cultures. It ignores the religious divisions which inflame the Middle
East.
Again, I thank Senator Stevens for his willingness to accommodate me
and others who have expressed concerns with this bill. I appreciate the
difficult conditions under which he is working. I look forward to a
full and robust debate. I encourage all Senators to focus closely on
this bill, listen carefully to the debate, and draw their own
conclusions in the fullness of time based on a dispassionate evaluation
of the merits of individual amendments.
I will have more to say at a later time. For now, I ask my colleagues
to consider carefully the implications of the policies implied in the
funding of the bill before us and to give this measure the full time
and attention it deserves.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we have a Senator who is on the way now
to offer an amendment. I will be happy to receive that.
In response to my good friend, our senior Member of the Senate, I
understand his position fully and I appreciate that he understands
mine.
Having been involved in my lifetime in service overseas, I have,
since I have been in the Senate, traveled many places in the world to
talk to our men and women in uniform. I find that today's group of
young men and women who represent us in our military service are the
finest I have ever known. I think the job they did in Iraq was
outstanding.
I have been privileged to read a whole series of letters that have
been written to families by those young men and women. As I have said
before today, I have not seen one that indicated any doubt about the
work they have done or lack of any sense of real commitment to that
job. They have just been really tremendous letters.
It is a different experience to go overseas now and visit these
people. They have the Internet. They have tents or buildings where they
can literally attend college during part of their days. They have
telephone service. They have mail service quite frequently--I am sure
not as frequently as they would like.
Going back to my day, I didn't have a telephone call from the time I
left home until the time I got back to Hawaii, having spent the better
part of 2 years roaming the world. We didn't have the Internet,
obviously. We didn't have much mail. Yet we came back with the belief
that what we had done was the right thing.
I think these people, when they come home, will tell us that. I think
the world will see a new generation of Americans, a different group,
educated in a new age, in terms of war, knowing what they are capable
of and knowing the horrors of war.
The impact of those people in the future is going to have a great
deal to do with our foreign policy. I do believe they know now what it
takes to follow on after a war. I can tell you, since I was coming
home, I am sure most people from my generation would say the same
thing: We didn't think about who was going to rule Germany, or we
didn't think about terrorists in Germany or who was going to run Japan;
we knew the military was going to do it. They were sending military
replacements at the time.
This is not that world. This is a different world now. Those kids of
ours are going to come home when we have replaced them with Iraqis who
are capable of defending themselves. We are going to move into that
age, a rapid reconstruction of that country. This is the way to do it.
It is a lot of money, no question about it. But the supplemental we
put up before was primarily for defense. Two-thirds of this money is
for defense. I don't know any argument about really the total amount of
this. We didn't have arguments in terms of providing for our men and
women who were dispatched to win the war. The problem is too often
people talking about the whole amount as being the whole amount for
reconstruction of Iraq.
That is not true. The major portion of our spending has been because
we rely upon a volunteer Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast
Guard. We have promised them we will go to every degree to support
them, to provide them their needs, to see their families are cared for,
and particularly to give them the kind of weaponry which will permit
them to survive.

[[Page S12239]]

As I said in the committee and before the press, in World War I,
manpower was expendable. In World War II, manpower was expendable. Even
in Korea, manpower was expendable. We do not do that now. We do not
have that philosophy as a Government, as a people. We put people in the
field to win wars and come home at tremendous cost. We pay that cost,
and this bill is for that cost--$66 billion for defense expenditures.
I don't expect to hear too many questions about those defense
expenditures because they are necessary to maintain this force. History
will show it is probably the most superb military operation in history,
keeping in mind how it had to be changed when we no longer could use
Turkey for access to the northern part of Iraq, the way it shifted, the
command worked--I think the commanders have been sheer military
geniuses, and they have done a good job under Secretary Rumsfeld. I
believe we should support them, we should take them further, and we
should do our best to make certain everything we do is designed to do
one thing: to bring those people home; to give them a chance to come
home and tell us what they did and, above all, not going into a period
of military occupation of this country.
That was not our mission, and I do believe the American people, once
they realize what we are doing, will understand why it costs money to
fight wars the way we fought this one and to fight for the peace with
this supplemental money when it is provided to the administration.
I am informed the Senator who was going to come to the Chamber will
not come for another 25 minutes.
I yield the floor. I see the Senator from Illinois wishes to speak.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagel). The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank the chairman. I am happy to come
to the floor and speak on the bill which we considered yesterday in the
Appropriations Committee, and that is the administration's request for
$87 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan.
First, there are items in this bill which I think are very valuable.
We were all shocked to learn the Department of Defense had a policy
which required those soldiers who were gravely injured and returned to
the United States for medical treatment would be charged on a per diem,
daily basis for the food they ate at the hospital.
It is my understanding this bill, among other things, eliminates that
requirement. Thank goodness. I cannot believe it existed, and it is
certainly unconscionable that men and women who have been gravely
injured and are going through medical treatment and rehabilitation
would be charged extra for the food they are served. I am glad that
requirement is removed.
I also salute my chairman, Senator Stevens from Alaska, for stopping
the administration from changing compensation for the military which
would have created a very great inequity and a disservice for so many
active soldiers and activated guardsmen and reservists who are assigned
to locations other than Iraq and Afghanistan.
The administration proposal originally would have resulted in the
family separation allowance--the money which we would give them so
families can get through this tough time--being eliminated for those
serving outside of the Iraq and Afghan theaters. This bill changes that
provision. So two Department of Defense policies which did not help our
soldiers and, in fact, I think were unfair to them, have been corrected
by this bill. I salute the chairman and members of the committee for
joining in making certain that happened.
Let me also add, this bill includes about $67 billion for the
maintenance of our military in Iraq and Afghanistan. I totally support
that effort. I came to the floor last October and voted against the
use-of-force resolution, but I feel today, as I did shortly thereafter,
that with the beginning of the hostilities, that vote, frankly, should
be set aside and we should focus on making certain the men and women
serving this country have everything they need to not only accomplish
their missions but come home safely. The request from the
administration for some $67 billion for that purpose is money that I
think should be made available through this Congress, and I totally
endorse it.
Of course, there is another portion of this bill, and that other
portion relates to the so-called reconstruction of Iraq. That, of
course, raises other questions, questions which I don't believe have
been adequately addressed by this Congress.
It strikes me as unusual that we are pushing through this $87 billion
supplemental appropriations bill on such an expedited schedule that we
have not taken the time to ask the hard questions. Keep in mind the $87
billion included in this bill is a sum total of taxpayer spending over
and above the total we spend each year on Federal aid to education and
foreign aid. So we are putting in this one bill $87 billion and
bringing it for consideration by the Senate in a matter of days, when
these other items--foreign aid and education--take weeks and months of
review and preparation before they come to the floor.

Of course, Senator Byrd has led our side in asking the question: Why
do we have to do this with such an abbreviated schedule where we don't
take the time to ask the hard questions? When Ambassador Bremer, who
serves our country in Iraq at this time, came to speak before the
Senators' luncheon 2 weeks ago, I asked him a series of questions about
the reconstruction effort.
The first question I asked him was this: If we didn't appropriate a
penny, if we didn't give you anything, when would you run out of money
for the reconstruction effort?
He said: December 1, maybe January 1, but somewhere in that range.
Clearly, a matter of a week or more to ask hard questions about the
reconstruction of Iraq would not create any disadvantage to the efforts
of Ambassador Bremer and the efforts on the ground in Iraq. But the
administration, the White House, is hellbent on moving this
appropriations bill through as quickly as possible.
I went on to ask Ambassador Bremer: If we are putting $20 billion
into the reconstruction of Iraq, what is the total cost? What would be
the total commitment necessary for us to reconstruct Iraq as you see
it? I asked him this question 2 weeks ago.
He said: $60 billion is the total cost. That is the estimate given to
us by the World Bank, $60 billion.
I said: The difference, obviously, of $40 billion is unresolved at
this moment. Where will it come from?
Ambassador Bremer told us it would come from donor countries that
would give money to this effort to rebuild Iraq.
I have to tell you in all candor, as I said to him, all of the
coalition of the willing, all of the countries in the world have
pledged less than $2 billion. Where are you going to find the
remainder?
He said we have to work on that.
Again, we find the Bush administration without a real plan and a real
budget for the reconstruction of Iraq. I said to Ambassador Bremer at
this point: Can you give me your word and the word of this
administration that you will not come back to us and ask for more money
than the $20 billion being requested for reconstruction in this
appropriations?
He said: That's it, $20 billion; that's it. That is all the United
States needs to come up with.
It doesn't add up. You can't put together $20 billion in this bill,
$2 billion for the rest of the world and total $60 billion. This could
be a bait-and-switch situation, and I think Senator Byrd has raised
that point. Once we have invested the first $20 billion, are we likely
to leave? The next argument would be: Come on, you don't want to stop.
You can't change horses in midstream. Let's finish it out. Let's finish
the job, which means more demands on the American people.
I hope you understand the skepticism that many of us bring to this
debate is based primarily on actual statements made by the Bush
administration about the reconstruction of Iraq.
Do my colleagues recall last year, when economic adviser at the White
House Lawrence Lindsey, on September 15, said he estimated that the
cost of the war, military and reconstruction, would be between $100
billion and $200 billion? Remember when he said that? As a result of
that statement, he was admonished by Mitch Daniels, then Budget
Director, who said:

[[Page S12240]]

$100 billion to $200 billion is likely very, very high, if
it's meant to apply to the cost to taxpayers.

So Mitch Daniels was sent out to admonish Larry Lindsey to not use
figures like $100 billion to $200 billion.
I would ask Senator Byrd: If I am not mistaken, did we not first
appropriate $79 billion in a supplemental appropriation for Iraq and
now we are coming back with the second supplemental request of $87
billion and more to follow? Are we not talking already over $160
billion that is being spent through these supplemental appropriations?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. In response to the Senator, if I may say, the first action
by the Senate was in April of this year when the Congress passed the
2003 supplemental appropriations bill. That appropriated $79 billion.
The Senate is now being asked to enact an $87 billion 2004 supplemental
appropriation. That is before the Senate today.
Mr. DURBIN. At the moment, the sum total of those bills, if I am not
mistaken, if this turns out to be $87 billion, is somewhere in the
range of $166 billion?
Mr. BYRD. It is indeed.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator, our Democratic leader and ranking
member on the Appropriations Committee, because it turns out that
Lawrence Lindsey was right. He said it was going to cost about $100
billion to $200 billion. He lost his job over that statement. He was
asked to leave the administration.
Mitch Daniels, then Director of the Office of Management and Budget,
was quoted on December 31, 2002, in the New York Times, as having said
then:

The administration's top budget official estimated today
that the cost of a war with Iraq could be in the range of $50
billion to $60 billion.

Well, we have blown past that, clearly. As I have noted, we are at
$166 billion and counting. The ultimate cost of reconstruction, if it
is $60 billion, means another $40 billion has to be found, and there
are not many coalition donors willing to step forward with real money,
and that is the reality.
The other thing that troubles many of us is that this administration,
in justifying the invasion of Iraq, said many things. They said, No. 1,
Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who should be replaced. No one argued with
that. Everyone agreed. He was a dictator who was cruel to his own
people, a threat to the region, and potentially a threat beyond. But
then when they started building the case of why we had to do it
quickly, before we built a coalition of support, before we brought in
the United Nations behind us, the administration said we cannot wait;
we have to go it alone; we have to create our own coalition; we have to
go outside the United Nations for the following reasons: First, they
said Saddam Hussein is developing nuclear weapons. Well, guess what.
There is no evidence of that. That was the first thing they told us was
the reason for the urgency, to get in there and stop the development of
these nuclear weapons. Here we are more than 5 months after the end of
military hostilities with no evidence whatsoever. In fact, the
statements by the President about this uranium, this yellowcake, coming
in from Africa to Iraq, that he made in his State of the Union Address,
he has had to say within the last few weeks were just wrong; that
evidence was not there. There was no reason to make that statement.

Then they went on to say there is immediacy for this invasion because
of the chemical and biological weapons. In fact, it has now been
declassified that we had identified 550 suspected sites of weapons of
mass destruction, chemical and biological weapons, in Iraq. We are 5
months after the fact, and after thousands of our inspectors have
combed all of those sites and others, they have come up empty. Now, Mr.
Kay may find some evidence of something, but in the 550 sites of
weapons of mass destruction they just were not discovered.
Then there was the argument that not only did they have those weapons
but they could launch them in 45 minutes--the word ``launch'' was
used--as a threat to the region, as a threat to the United States. That
was repeated by Prime Minister Tony Blair as well as this
administration, and in fact there is no evidence whatsoever that is the
case.
Then the argument was made, wait a minute, keep in mind that Saddam
Hussein was part of this grand terrorist conspiracy that struck the
United States on September 11, 2001, in concert with al-Qaida. Just 2
weeks ago, the President had to come forward, after Vice President
Cheney had said something very similar, and correct the record and say,
no, we have no evidence of linkage between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida.
So here we have a case that is being built for the invasion of Iraq
without a coalition that is global, without the support of the United
Nations, and we find that the rationale, the arguments for it, have all
broken down and fallen apart.
Others raised the question at the time, well, after we win in Iraq,
after we have deposed Saddam Hussein, they asked President Bush and his
administration, how will we rebuild it? What is the future of Iraq? And
that is where the statements started pouring out that are relevant to
this debate.
Vice President Cheney on ``Meet the Press,'' March 16, 2003:

In Iraq, you've got a nation that's got the second-largest
oil reserves in the world, second only to Saudi Arabia. It
will generate billions of dollars a year in cash flow if they
get back to their production of roughly three million barrels
of oil a day. . . .

That was Vice President Cheney pointing to the oil reserves of Iraq
as the way they will rebuild their nation.
Paul Wolfowitz, Assistant Secretary of the Department of Defense, the
man who is credited with being the architect of this Iraq strategy, the
man who was pushing harder than most for the invasion of Iraq even if
the United States had to go it alone, stated on March 27, 2003, when
asked about the cost of reconstruction:

And on a rough recollection, the oil revenues of that
country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the
course of the next two or three years. . . . We're dealing
with a country that can really finance its own
reconstruction, and relatively soon.

Six months ago, the leaders in this administration were telling the
American people they would not have to bear this burden; the Iraqis
with their oil revenues will be the ones to bear the burden.

Quoting Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld from March 27, 2003:

I don't believe that the United States has the
responsibility for reconstruction, in a sense. . . . And the
funds can come from those various sources I mentioned: frozen
assets, oil revenues and a variety of other things, including
the Oil for Food, which has a very substantial number of
billions of dollars in it.

So here we have the leaders in the administration who were
categorical in saying that this day would never come, that we would not
be on the Senate floor saying to the American people we need billions
of dollars for Iraq, saying to the American people we need to add to
the deficit of this Nation at the expense of spending for America's
schools and America's health care, saying that we need to add to our
Nation's deficit and money being taken out of the Social Security trust
fund. The administration told us time and time again this day would
never come. Yet here we are a few days after, 2 weeks after, and the
President tells us this is the only way we can end our commitment to
Iraq, the only way we can bring the troops home, to spend literally
billions of dollars for the reconstruction of this nation.
Let me give one other quote from USAID Administration Natsios. He
works in the Department of State. Mr. Natsios is responsible for the
agency that does reconstruction, redevelopment, and rebuilding around
the world. That is what that agency does.
The date is April 23 of this year, 6 months ago. He appeared on
``Nightline'' with Ted Koppel. Ted Koppel said to him:

I think you'll agree, this is a much bigger project--

Referring to Iraq--

than any that's been talked about. Indeed, I understand that
more money is expected to be spent on this than was spent on
the entire Marshall Plan for the rebuilding of Europe after
World War II.

Natsios replied:

No, no. This doesn't even compare remotely with the size of
the Marshall Plan.

Koppel:

The Marshall Plan was $97 billion.

Natsios:

[[Page S12241]]

This is $1.7 billion--

Not $97 billion. Natsios corrects him and says this is $1.7 billion
for Iraq.
Koppel says:

All right, this is the first. I mean, when you talk about
1.7, you're not suggesting that the rebuilding of Iraq is
gonna be done for $1.7 billion?

Natsios replied:

Well, in terms of the American taxpayer's contribution, I
do, this is it for the US. The rest of the rebuilding of Iraq
will be done by other countries who have already made
pledges, Britain, Germany, Norway, Japan, Canada, and Iraqi
oil revenues, eventually in several years, when it's up and
running and there's a new government that's been
democratically elected, will finish the job with their own
revenues. They're going to get in $20 billion a year in oil
revenues. But the American part of this will be $1.7 billion.
We have no plans for any further-on funding for this.

Six months ago, the Department of State USAID Administrator tells you
the sum total of America's responsibility for Iraq is $1.7 billion. And
we come today with a bill on the floor that is 20 times that--not quite
20 times that; it is $20 billion to be accurate.
Koppel couldn't believe it:

And we're back once again with Andrew Natsios,
administrator for the Agency for International Development. I
want to be sure I understood you correctly. You're saying the
. . . top cost for the U.S. taxpayer will be $1.7 billion. No
more than that?

Natsios says:

For the reconstruction.

That is it. Those are the commitments made by the administration that
led us up to this moment in the debate, and it is that point we have
reached where we are now debating on the floor a reconstruction bill
far in excess of what we ever anticipated.
Because it is in excess, many of us believe we need to step back and
acknowledge the obvious. Though the administration and the military may
have had an excellent plan for the military conquest of Iraq, they did
not have a plan to rebuild that nation. They had no idea what it would
cost, and they come to the American people today asking for more money
than was ever imagined even 6 months ago by the leaders of this same
administration.
I am going to yield the floor at this point because I know Senator
Byrd wants to offer an amendment.
Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?
This Senator is a little confused. I understand the Senator from
Illinois to say he is fully in support of the defense money. Yet when
he talks about the money he is unwilling to support, he includes it in
the total $87 billion.
Are we talking about the $20.3 billion or are we talking about the
$87 billion? Certainly the $87 billion, if the Senator from Illinois is
consistent, includes the $66 billion which he will support. It would
come from borrowed moneys from Social Security trust funds and other
funds, that is true.
I think the American public out there is going to be confused about
this business, the $66 billion. Is the Senator from Illinois talking
about $66 billion? I thought he said he was going to support that.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator for asking that question, allowing me
to clarify, because I want to make it clear, as I thought I had.
When it comes to the money to support the troops, I am there for
every dollar. That is why I think Senator Byrd's amendment is so
important, so we can--
Mr. STEVENS. Why does the Senator mention $87 billion?
Mr. DURBIN. That is the total cost of this bill, if I am not
mistaken. The difference, of course, the $20.3 billion, or $21 billion,
for reconstruction. I concede we have to add to our deficit and borrow
from the trust fund to support the troops. I will do that and go home
and defend it. But when it comes to the $20 billion for reconstruction,
this administration is asking 15 or 16 times more than they were asking
6 months ago.
So let's be very clear to the American people. The reconstruction of
Iraq, with a total cost of $60 billion, is just getting started with
this bill. We are in for the long haul, if we pass this bill as
written.

Senator Byrd has an appropriate amendment he offered in committee.
Let's separate it. Let's vote for the support of troops. Let's make
that clear and get it done. But then, to go on beyond that and the
reconstruction, let's address that in the specific terms it deserves.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I sought, in the Appropriations Committee on
yesterday, to sever the title that involves the reconstruction money
for Iraq and send to the Senate two bills, one dealing with the
military funding and one dealing with the reconstruction. I failed on a
party line vote.
I am trying, at this time, to do virtually the same thing. I ask
unanimous consent that the bill be divided into two freestanding bills,
the first including funds for our military in Iraq and Afghanistan and
the funds for rebuilding the Iraqi security forces and the emergency
designation included in title III, the second bill including the funds
for Iraq's reconstruction and the emergency designation included in
title III, and that the second bill be laid aside to be considered
immediately upon the disposition of the first bill dealing with the
funds for our military.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I wish to
state the Senator from West Virginia did offer this amendment. It would
have the impact of splitting these two portions of our programs that
deal with Iraq and leaving just a portion of the money. As I
understand, it would leave $5-plus billion in the fund from the $20.3
billion.
So I really am compelled to tell the Senator that I don't think we
can be for the troops, be for helping the troops, and be against the
$20.3 billion. So I am compelled to object, and I do object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. BYRD. Would the Senator withhold his objection temporarily?
Mr. STEVENS. I do withhold the objection. I am happy to have a dialog
on this matter.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is withheld.
The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the manager of the bill and chairman of the
committee.
Mr. President, the President has asked Congress to appropriate a
great deal of money for the occupation and reconstruction of Iraq. But
the American people have not yet been convinced that spending this
money is the right thing to do. One poll conducted by the Washington
Post found that 61 percent opposed spending $87 billion for Iraq and
that 85 percent were concerned about our country becoming bogged down
in a long and costly peacekeeping mission.
One of the most contentious parts of the President's request is $20.3
billion in reconstruction aid for Iraq. The more details that come out
about this aid, the more the American people are uncomfortable with
this spending. They are seeking important answers to fair questions.
Why can't our allies bear some of the cost? How much money will
the administration seek for Iraq after this aid package? What about our
needs for reconstruction here at home?

In the 14 days we have had in which to examine the President's
supplemental appropriations package, I do not think anyone has come up
with the answers to those questions. What we do know is that this
reconstruction money will not cover all that is needed to be done in
Iraq. Ambassador Bremer, in his testimony to the Appropriations
Committee, stated there are $60 billion to $70 billion in
reconstruction needs in Iraq over the next 4 to 5 years. Spending $20.3
billion now could leave us on the hook to spend billions more later.
Before we commit our country to this path, we would be wise to seek a
consensus and common understanding of the appropriate roles for the
United States, our allies, and the Iraqi people in rebuilding that
country.
I am offering a unanimous consent request to divide the bill that is
before the Senate so we may give close scrutiny to the two distinct
issues that are addressed in this bill, the $65.6 billion in defense
funding that is contained in title I, plus the $5.1 billion for Iraq's
security forces; and the remaining $15.2 billion in foreign aid
spending in title

[[Page S12242]]

II for Iraqi reconstruction. Each of these elements is deserving of
debate on its own right.
The administration is sure to oppose dividing the content of this
bill so that the Senate may consider independently the issues of
military funding and reconstruction funds. But, why? Perhaps the White
House is afraid that its $15.2 billion for Iraqi reconstruction cannot
withstand the scrutiny of the full Senate unless it is wrapped up in
the guise of support for our troops.
But that has not been administration's argument. We have heard again
and again from Ambassador Bremer and Secretary Rumsfeld that the
administration views this reconstruction money as every bit as
important as the military portion of the bill.
If they are confident in their case, let the Senate divide the bill.
Perhaps the administration's arguments will carry the day. But the
American people know this is really two bills wrapped into one.
In just a few days, the Senate will go into a week-long recess and
our constituents will ask Senators what they are doing to scrutinize
the huge amount of reconstruction spending in the bill. The American
people want us to deal with reconstruction spending differently than
with military spending. We owe it to them to consider the two
components of this bill in the most reasonable manner possible by
dividing the bill and giving each part the scrutiny it is due.
The task of rebuilding Iraq will be enormous. The American people are
beginning to understand this. The United States can hardly afford to
bear the costs of reconstruction by ourselves. For this reason alone,
we should debate the issue of reconstruction separately from the
request the President has made for our armed services. My unanimous
consent request is a commonsense approach to proceeding with this
debate in the Senate.
Let me again repeat my request.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be divided into
two freestanding bills, the first including the funds for our military
in Iraq and Afghanistan and the funds for rebuilding the Iraqi security
forces and the emergency designation included in title III; the second
including the funds for Iraq reconstruction and the emergency
designation included in title III, and that the second bill be laid
aside to be considered immediately upon the disposition of the first
bill dealing with the funds for our military.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, again reserving the right to object, I
think the Senator's explanation and the presentation of the Senator
from Illinois demonstrates the problem. The poll the Senator has
mentioned by the Washington Post polled $87 billion. Yet there is no
relevant objection to $66 billion of that money. Why didn't they poll
the $20.3 billion? I don't think the American public has been told that
$20.3 billion is part of the process that will eventually reduce the
military expense and bring our people back.
We have taken the position of a single package--a fund for the
military operation, and a fund for reconstruction and restoration of
Iraq going on concomitantly so we don't have to go into a period of
military occupation.
I think the Senator's amendment is sort of a dangerous thing because
it says go ahead with the military operation but we won't give you any
money to help to stand up the Iraqi army, or to stand up the Iraqi
security force, or to take action to assure the powerplants are working
and the oil pipelines are working because we think we ought to wait
until there is a government. You cannot get a new government without
some reconstruction and without some security and without some
mechanism to assist our forces so our forces can draw back and not take
over the whole job.
I object to the Senator's request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I respect my colleague greatly, and I
respect his reasons for objecting to my unanimous consent request.
I have already offered the unanimous consent request to divide the
President's supplemental request into portions, one on the $71.5
billion for our military and for Iraq's own security force, and one for
$15.2 billion in reconstruction aid. Although there was objection to my
request, the American people understand why the issue of security is
not the same as the issue of reconstruction. The amendment that I will
now offer would strike $15.2 billion in reconstruction aid from the
supplemental appropriations bill. This would allow the Senate to
proceed with its consideration of $70.7 billion in security-related
funding for Iraq, $5.6 billion for the Department of Defense, $5.1
billion for building the new Iraqi army and a national police force,
and $1 billion for aid to Afghanistan, and State Department operations.
Adopting my amendment would allow the Senate to return to the issue of
reconstruction after completing action on the President's request for
security-related funding.

In the meantime, the Senate should give more careful consideration to
the administration's plan for rebuilding Iraq. We should take a closer
look at the plan for postwar Iraq. The plan distributed by Ambassador
Bremer to the Appropriations Committee on September 22 adds but 28
pages. The plan provides few details, and it only looks out on the next
5 months of our occupation. However, in the same hearing, Ambassador
Bremer said he had a plan that ran to 98 pages and containing 300 or
400 individual action items. That does not sound like the plan he gave
to the Appropriations Committee. It sounds as if the Senate does not
even have the full version of the administration's plan for the
reconstruction for Iraq.
Surely if we are to commit the United States to spending $15.2
billion over the next 12 months, Congress should be able to see the
full plan for the rebuilding of Iraq. If it is indeed just the 28 pages
that were given to the Appropriations Committee, I think we are in
trouble.
If Congress is going to pay for the activities that are called for in
the plan to reconstruct Iraq, we should also have a say on formulating
that plan. By waiting to approve the $15.2 billion in reconstruction
funding, Congress could take advantage of that time to debate the
proper role of the United States, our allies, and the Iraqi people in
sharing the cost of reconstruction.
The cost of acting without a solid plan for rebuilding Iraq could be
very high--well beyond the $15.2 billion in reconstruction funds the
President has requested for the next year. We could end up wasting
billions of dollars more and losing even greater numbers of American
troops. In the words of Publius Cyrus, nothing can be done at once
hastily and prudently.
I urge my colleagues to vote to give Congress more time to consider
this $15.2 billion in rebuilding aid, and I urge my colleagues to
support the amendment.

Amendment No. 1794

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I send my amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd] proposes an
amendment numbered 1794.

(Purpose: Strike $15.2 billion of the $20.3 billion in Iraq Relief and
Reconstruction Funds, leaving $5.1 billion for training and equipping
the Iraqi Defense Corps and Iraqi national security forces and for
other public safety and justice purposes)

On page 25, line 7, strike ``rehabilitation and
reconstruction in Iraq'' and all that follows through page
28, line 15 and insert ``in Iraq, $5,136,000,000, to remain
available until expended, for security, including public
safety requirements, national security and justice; Provided,
That these funds may be transferred to any Federal account
for any Federal government activity to accomplish the
purposes provided herein: Provided further, That
notwithstanding any provision of this chapter, none of the
funds appropriated under this heading may be made available
to enter into any contract or follow-on contract that uses
other than full and open competitive contracting procedures
as defined in 41 U.S.C. 403(6).''

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, there are Senators who are at the signing
ceremony. Can we get an agreement on a time to vote on the Senator's
amendment? I would like to see us vote on the Senator's amendment
sometime around 4 o'clock. Is that possible?
Mr. BYRD. I am not in a position at the moment to respond to that
request, I say most respectfully.
Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator.
Mr. President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia for his
courtesy in

[[Page S12243]]

bringing this amendment forward. It is one of the key issues of this
bill. The Senator has offered an amendment. As I understand, it would
leave the defense money before the Senate and would strike all but
$5.136 billion for the public safety and national security requirements
of the proposal presented by the President in the emergency
supplemental bill.
In my judgment, this tries to separate just a portion of the problem.
The problem that has been brought before our committee is the problem
of thousands of Iraqi people who do not have jobs because the economy
is not functioning in this triangle where terrorists are. They do not
have security. This maintains the money for the security and public
safety, but it does not maintain the money for restoring the jails. All
the jails were destroyed and all the prisoners were let go. It does not
restore the money necessary to proceed with the development of the
systems that will lead to restoration of the economy and it does not
cover the balance of the money in the plan for this fiscal year. We
believe it carries beyond the July period when, hopefully by that time,
Iraqi oil money will be flowing at a rate where they can pick up and do
the reconstruction and rehabilitation of Iraq.
I am compelled to say I oppose this amendment. It is my hope we can
get an early vote on it. It is a significant portion of the problem.
Many people came to me as chairman and asked, why don't you take the
defense portions separately and take the rest in a separate bill? That
is what Senator Byrd tried to do in his previous unanimous consent
request. We conferred at length with Ambassador Bremer, with
Secretary Rumsfeld, with General Abizaid. They were all before our
committee. They all said this process is one of tying together the
reconstruction and rehabilitation with our continued military
operations with the hope that as the reconstruction moves forward, our
people can move out and we can start the process of withdrawing as soon
as it starts. That has already occurred. General Pace testified some of
our people have already been withdrawn from the areas where we think
there has been peace and stability restored. Although those areas do
not have a national government, they have local governments that are
now functioning. We are providing some security in the background
there, that is true. They need that for a little while more.

I firmly believe that if we can get this plan going and have the
reconstruction funds go forward with the military operations, there is
support for our soldiers there now and assurance that we will go into a
period where there comes a time we can withdraw more and more of our
forces. The plan the President has presented is a plan that could work.
I am not here to say I know it will work; it could work. If it worked,
it would be the first time in history this has been done. But there is
a substantial chance it will work.
There is another greater question ahead, a question of whether a
portion of the moneys should be repaid. We will have to address that
question in the near future. I thank the Senator for raising this
issue. It is the key issue he attached to a unanimous consent agreement
and I opposed.
For those who support the concept, you cannot be for the troops and
against the money. We need to assure the troops have the support they
should have coming out of the Iraqi people and out of the restoration
of their ability to defend themselves and to police for themselves and
set up their own new government.
This is the intertwining of these two proposals. I tell my friend I
must oppose this. I will ask for the vote to occur sometime soon, I
hope, because we ought to get this subject behind us as quickly as
possible.
I don't know if the Senator is willing to talk of a time certain.
Because of the problem of the signing ceremony for the Homeland
Security bill, it will not be possible to have the vote before 4, but I
am happy to have the vote at any time after 4 if the Senator is willing
to call for a vote.
How long would the Senator from Rhode Island like to speak?
Mr. REED. I will use about 20 minutes.
Mr. STEVENS. He is not speaking on the Senator's amendment, but has
his own statement?
Mr. REED. I will make a statement and also concur with the amendment
of the Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. KENNEDY. After the Senator from Rhode Island, I would like to
speak on the Byrd amendment for 15 minutes. I am happy to accommodate
the floor managers if we want to rotate back and forth.
Mr. STEVENS. That can be accommodated with a time limit we are
thinking about. Senator McConnell has a sense-of-the-Senate resolution.
I hope we establish a procedure where we have an amendment from one
side, the other side, and work on a basis of comity when that time
comes.
I am happy to yield the floor. I hope we have the dialog as to when
the vote will take place in the near future.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Dole). The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. I rise to indicate my support for the approach adopted by
the Senator from West Virginia. It is clear to everyone in this chamber
and to the American public that we will fund our forces in the field.
In fact, I am prepared in the next day or so to bring forth amendments
to increase the resources going to our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It is absolutely essential.
It is also essential we are given the time and the opportunity to
look carefully at the reconstruction funds. The Senator from West
Virginia has an amendment that allows that. I concur with his
amendment.
I will take a broader view at this time of the process before the
Senate. As we debate the administration's request for a supplemental
appropriation of $87 billion for operations in Iraq, a salient fact
emerges. We are committing ourselves to a long-term, expensive
involvement in Iraq. We should realistically assume that significant
military forces will be committed to Iraq for at least 10 years. The
cost of maintaining the forces will not become negligible. Indeed, they
are likely to spike even higher at times based on the level of violence
and instability.
This reality should also shape our views on force structure. The
nature of this insurgency places significant demands on the Army.
Without the contribution of additional international forces, the strain
on our military forces, but particularly the Army, will be serious.
These strains will be reflected in unsustainable operations tempo and
heightened demands for military police rather than conventional combat
forces. Ultimately, these stresses could seriously erode recruitment
and retention.
The administration is increasingly aware of these problems. Last
week, Secretary Rumsfeld indicated the Pentagon was preparing for the
callup of a large number of Army Reserves and National Guard. This is
only a short-term solution at best. Today, the Rhode Island National
Guard is in the thick of a fight in the Sunni triangle. The 115th
military police company, the 119th military police company, and the
118th police battalion have performed with distinction and sadly have
already sustained three soldiers killed in action along with several
wounded in action. These are proud and patriotic soldiers who will
continue to do their duty.
However, in the face of the probability of repeated callups over the
next several years, I am concerned many of these soldiers will leave
the Guard rather than face the prospects of repeatedly leaving their
families.
Given the escalating costs in both lives and national resources, it
is incumbent upon us to ask whether we have blundered into a strategic
mistake of the first magnitude.
The first principle of war is: ``Objective.'' In the words of the
Army field manual:

direct every military operation toward a clearly defined,
decisive and attainable objective.

The evolving rationale for a preemptive attack began with the
assertion that the Saddam Hussein regime had weapons of mass
destruction of immediate concern to the United States.
In addition, the administration consistently implied and, at times,
overtly asserted that there was a ``terrorist link'' with Iraq. The
larger implication was this ``terrorist link'' was tied directly to al-
Qaida. Both of these assertions have been proven to be exaggerated.
Now the administration claims we must stay and rebuild Iraq because
to

[[Page S12244]]

withdraw would be a grievous blow to our power and prestige. This point
has merit. But the kaleidoscope of rationales for our operations are
anything but ``clearly defined.''
Secondly, our actions should be focused on a decisive outcome. The
greatest danger facing the United States is another terrorist attack on
our homeland with weapons of mass destruction. One must ask whether our
actions in Iraq are decisive in blunting this threat.
Contrary to the President's assertion, Iraq is not the center of the
war on terrorism. Indeed, one of the vexing aspects of the war on
terror is the lack of a clearly defined center. The al-Qaida threat is
international. But, if one were to look for a more lucrative place to
strike at al-Qaida, it would be the Afghan-Pakistan border where bin
Laden dwells, not Iraq under Saddam Hussein.
When Secretary Wolfowitz testified before the Armed Services
Committee, he displayed for the cameras entry documents for jihadists
killed in Iraq. He was, once again, trying to make the terrorist
connection. However, all of these documents showed that the individuals
entered Iraq after March 19, the date hostilities commenced. Now a new
rationale may be emerging from the administration: Our operations in
Iraq are a giant trap to lure in Islamic terrorists so that they can be
destroyed. But this logic misses the point. The jihadists racing to
engage us in Iraq are not necessarily the same people who are plotting
to strike us here at home. In fact, our actions may have fermented new
legions of jihadists with ready access to Iraq. I posed the following
question to General Abizaid when he appeared before the Armed Services
Committee last week: If there is another terrorist attack against the
United States, is it more likely to emanate from Baghdad or from the
Afghan-Pakistan border? His answer is instructive:

Senator, if there is another attack on the United States,
it would be organized, planned, and executed through a
worldwide network of connections that are borderless. It
would be difficult to say where its geographic center would
be. There are certainly places on the Afghan/Pakistan border
that are semi-havens for terrorists, in the Waziristan area,
that the Pakistanis are working to clean up. There are other
ungoverned spaces where this is also possible. It is possible
that a terrorist group working in Baghdad, or New York for
that matter, could organize the attack, so there is no
geographic center that I would point to other than to say
we've got a lot of cells in a lot of locations that require
careful, difficult work to uncover and destroy.

We are in the midst of a global war, but we are disproportionately
concentrating our effort in Iraq. Now, I do understand there are
significant resources here for Afghanistan, and that is appropriate,
because Afghanistan today is in a very precarious position. But a
disproportionate concentration of resources are being directed in Iraq
when the real existential threat to the United States--a threat that
could mean a catastrophic attack upon the United States--is worldwide,
diffuse, and disbursed. And one has to question that logic.
While we focus on Iraq, both the North Koreans and the Iranians are
marching toward nuclear futures. If these nations obtain nuclear
weapons, then the barriers against proliferation will slip even
further. Once again, if the greatest threat facing us is nuclear armed
terrorists, is our strategic fixation with Iraq justified?
A third aspect of proper military objective is that the outcome must
be ascertainable. The administration's stated goal today is to
transform Iraq into a market economy and constitutional democracy. Some
doubt whether this goal can ever be achieved. It certainly cannot be
achieved quickly and at low cost.

The administration has placed us in a predicament where we cannot
afford to lose, but winning may have a negligible effect on the
existential threat to the Nation, an event with a catastrophic impact
on the United States. This could be a textbook definition of poor
strategy.
Now the administration comes before us promoting this appropriations
bill as a Marshall plan for Iraq. Many of my colleagues have pointed
out that this is revisionist history, a term that is frequently used in
Washington today. The Marshall plan was not whisked through Congress in
a few weeks. It was subject to what the Congressional Research Service
described as ``perhaps the most thorough examination prior to launching
of any program.'' The CRS added that President Truman ``closely
consulted with Congress.'' The authorization was for 1 year, allowing
the Congress, again, as described by CRS:

ample opportunity to oversee the Plan's implementation and
consider additional funding. Three more times during the life
of the Plan, Congress would be required to authorize and
appropriate funds. In each year, Congress held hearings,
debated, and further amended the legislation.

I think this comment is in the spirit of the Byrd amendment because
the Byrd amendment will allow us at least a small opportunity for that
implementation, that oversight, that review that was so present in the
Marshall plan.
The Marshall plan differed in significant details from the proposal
we have before us. The Marshall plan required a dollar-per-dollar match
by the recipient. It was not an unconditional grant from the Treasury
of the United States. About 10 percent of the aid was in the form of
loans that required repayment. The Marshall plan was based on
transparency, not secret contracts to companies favored by the
administration.
But it is not just revisionist history; it is highly selective
history. If a Marshall plan is the proper economic tonic for Iraq, why
aren't our occupation policies after World War II the right security
policy?
Former Ambassador James Dobbins and his associates at Rand conducted
a careful review of nation-building efforts since World War II.
Ambassador Dobbins was President Bush's special envoy to Afghanistan
after the defeat of the Taliban. Prior to that service, he oversaw
postwar efforts in Kosovo, Bosnia, Haiti, and Somalia. This report
points out:

On V-E day, General Dwight D. Eisenhower had 61 U.S.
divisions (1,622,000 men) in Germany out of a total of
3,077,000 men in Europe. These soldiers became the occupation
force for the U.S. sector. They manned border crossings,
maintained checkpoints at road junctions, and conducted
patrols throughout the sector. The occupation was
comprehensive and demonstrated the scope of the German
defeat.

Our occupation in Iraq is anything but comprehensive and has yet to
demonstrate to significant sectors in Iraq the scope of the defeat of
the Saddam Hussein regime.
Pressures in 1945 to shift forces to the Pacific theater and to
``bring the boys home'' led to a reduction of our forces in Germany.
Nevertheless, we maintained a robust military presence in Germany
compared to our current deployment in Iraq.
This chart is illustrative of the comparison of what our forces would
look like if we adopted the same policies in terms of troops to
population that we did in 1945.
This chart projects the experience in several different nation-
building scenarios on the present situation in Iraq. In other words, it
takes the ratio of the troops we used then versus population to the
current population of Iraq. And it is instructive.
The first blue bar shows the kind of forces we would have if we were
adopting anything close to the German approach after World War II. It
is literally off the charts. This shown here is the 600,000 troop
level. Our troop level is here--this red line--about 142,000 troops.
The next column, in the red, is Japan. It is slightly less than the
present troop level in Iraq, but there was a unique feature in
Japan. Rather than changing the regime in Japan, as we have in Iraq, we
basically co-opted the regime, keeping Hirohito in power, and his
presence was a decisive factor in limiting the troops we needed. The
next column is the Somalia level. Again, this is a situation in which
many would argue insufficient troops caused a tactical defeat on the
ground and a strategic retreat which was embarrassing for the United
States. It is certainly not the model for peacekeeping.

The next column is Haiti, a situation in which our entry into the
country was unopposed. There was very little violence. It was a small
country, even though it had a significant population for its size. We
turned over our efforts to the United Nations within 2 years.
Instructive are the next two columns: Bosnia and Kosovo. In these two
countries, under the Clinton administration, we went in with robust
forces.

[[Page S12245]]

As a result, there was none of the violence that we anticipated. We
have actually made progress, limited I would add, to ensure that there
is at least a growing economy and a growing civic culture in these
countries--a remarkable difference between the force levels relative to
those we have in Iraq.
The final column is Afghanistan, another situation in which the
administration has deliberately kept our forces low. Again, we are
reaping some of those costs today as we see heightened terror, a
rebounding Taliban, the largest increase in production of opium and
heroin in the world, at least getting to those proportions, and that is
another example.
We can see throughout the course of the next 3 years projected
forward where these troops sizes are significant. It raises the
question: If the economic policy is the right policy, if this is a
Marshall plan, where is the Marshall-like support in terms of troops on
the ground?
The administration repeatedly makes the point that stability and
reconstruction go hand in hand. They have seized on the Marshall plan
to justify this request for billions of dollars but ignore the reality
that stability is hard to come by with insufficient forces.
For example, the New York Times reported just yesterday ``that as
much as 650,000 tons of ammunition remains at thousands of sites used
by the former Iraqi security forces and that much of it has not been
secured and will take years to destroy. Meanwhile, insurgents are
obtaining huge amounts of weapons and explosives to attack our troops
each day. While we wait for international forces or Iraqi security
forces, these attacks go on.
Indeed, in the same article, General Abizaid sounded a cautionary
note about reliance on Iraqi security. He said:

There's probably places where we have put Iraqi guards that
may be vulnerable to people that would come in and bribe the
guards.

There are respected voices that say we do not need more American
troops. They say we need better intelligence and international
reinforcements to change the appearance of the occupation. But while we
wait for our intelligence apparatus to mature and for the arrival of
international reinforcements, who will secure the ammunition dumps and
the pipelines? Efforts to train Iraqis are underway, but the
availability and reliability of these troops is today uncertain.
The administration is quick to brandish the Marshall plan to justify
this appropriation. But it is not a Marshall Plan, it is a belated
attempt to provide resources for a thinly stretched occupation force
while throwing huge amounts of money at reconstruction with the hope
that some of it will stick. And this appropriation is the second
payment. Congress has already appropriated $74.8 billion in emergency
funds for Iraq this year. The demands in Iraq will be significant and
persistent. There are more payments to come.
The real question before us is not whether this legislation will
pass. The real question is whether the United States can sustain this
effort in Iraq over many years. The United States must set a defined,
decisive, and obtainable objective in Iraq. Then we must sustain the
effort to achieve that objective. To sustain such an objective and such
an effort, we must move more aggressively and quickly to secure
international support, both military and financial support. This means
giving the United Nations a meaningful role in Iraq without ceding our
leadership. Without such a development, our attempt to obtain
significant military and financial assistance from the world community
will be futile.

To sustain such an effort, we must expand our military forces,
particularly our Army, so that we can guarantee a predictable rotation
of our troops into and out of Iraq and so that we can lessen our
reliance on Reserve and National Guard troops. The strain on our ground
forces is severe. And because of our reliance on Reserve and National
Guard, this strain is transmitted to every town in America. The support
of the American people will be continually tested as they see their
neighbors serve and sacrifice without relief and with uncertain
results.
To sustain such an effort, we must pay for it. It is simply
irresponsible to run huge deficits to pay for the operation in Iraq.
The cost to our economy in the inevitable rise of interest rates and
the dampening of growth and the cost to our society in the
deterioration of social investment will not go unnoticed and will be
particularly resented if scarce American resources are strengthening
the Iraqi economy and improving the quality of life of the Iraqi
people.
If we fail in these tasks, money alone, the money in this bill, will
not allow us to stay the course.
Finally, we must place the objective and effort in Iraq in context.
We must recognize that the existential threats to America are not in
Iraq. They are worldwide. Al-Qaida has global reach, and we have not
yet finished hunting down and destroying their operatives. The
proliferation of nuclear weapons is a worldwide problem with both Iran
and North Korea on the precipice. We have yet to develop an effective
strategy to counter their nuclear ambitions.
The protection of our homeland is an ongoing challenge. The title of
a recent report of the Council on Foreign Relations actively conveyed
these challenges: ``Emergency Responders: Drastically Underfunded,
Dangerously Unprepared.'' The bill for these dangers still must be paid
regardless of what we do with this legislation. We must be mindful of
this as we go forward, and we must be honest and candid with the
American people. To sustain this effort, we must follow through on the
tasks I have suggested. This bill is just part of that effort.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, today, as has been stated by my
colleagues, starts one of the most important debates that we will have
in this Congress or any Congress, I believe. And the decision that is
going to be made over the next 2 weeks will, in all consequence, be as
important as the decision that was made in October a year ago when this
body voted to grant the authority to the President to bring us to war,
a resolution which I voted against.
At the outset, I want to speak briefly to the amendment before the
Senate; that is, the amendment of the Senator from West Virginia
separating those items that could be considered reconstruction and
rehabilitation, and those items which are directly related to the
support of our troops and say why I believe this is so important. That
is because we do not have a good idea about what the administration's
policy is on the issues of rehabilitation and the reconstruction in
Iraq. We don't have the plan of the administration.
I don't say that lightly. I am a member of the Armed Services
Committee. Just a week ago we had Ambassador Bremer before us. The
members of our committee were sent this document which is called the
``Coalition Provisional Authority, Achieving the Vision to Restore Full
Sovereignty to the Iraqi People.'' It is 28 pages long. The cover page
says:

A working document of July 23.

We are now on the 1st of October. We had hearings a week ago. We were
given the working document of July 23, these 28 pages. If you review
this document about our strategy in Iraq, you will find out on the
various pages--take page 9--we will, on the issues of security and
giving the goals, August to October, they say in item 4 on that page,
locate, secure, and eliminate weapons of mass destruction, from August
to October. From November to January, continue to locate and eliminate
the weapons of mass destruction. Then, February on, it says continue to
locate and secure and eliminate the weapons of mass destruction.
That is the plan. This program is full of those kinds of
platitudinous, empty statements and is basically an insult to our
troops and to our Congress. During the course of that hearing, the
Senator from Michigan asked Mr. Bremer when we would have a more
comprehensive document as to what the plan is on the reconstruction and
rehabilitation of Iraq. This is his quote on September 25:

I will keep you informed, but I want to keep my hands free
as to how I do that.

That was an answer to Senator Levin, the ranking minority member of
the Armed Services Committee, when he asked Ambassador Bremer: You have
submitted this document to us, which is a working document, July 23.
When is this going to be updated? When are we going to get the plan?

[[Page S12246]]

He said:

I will keep you informed, but I want to keep my hands free
as to how I do that.

And we have not had anything since that time. We had one document and
that is the 58 or 59 pages that lists the items requested. It is not a
plan; it is a budget. It is a budget on various items that are going to
be necessary, but no plan.
The administration and the military knew how to win the war. That was
never going to be the challenge or the question. But they have had no
plan on how to win the peace. They still don't have a plan to win the
peace. The Byrd amendment is trying to separate what is called for in
terms of the support for our troops to this rehabilitation and
reconstruction, to try to get the administration prior to the time we
are going to have a final vote to say what is the plan on
rehabilitation, what is the plan in terms of reconstruction. But we
have not had that. We have not had it in the Armed Services Committee.
We have the long list of items, some of which I will refer to in my
comments, but we still don't have the plan. The fact is, it is being
made up every single day over in Iraq. As we consider those reports we
all see every evening or morning on the Americans who lose their lives
over there, we also haven't got a real understanding of what security
is like in the major populated areas of that community. As we are
reminded in the excellent study that has been done by Mr. Dobbins and
RAND, it talks about how historically those individuals who are subject
to occupation view those who occupy their country. Perhaps some start
off and support them as liberators, but others will never forgive them
for occupying their country.
But there is one powerful factor and force, and that is the issue of
security. It is security not just out in the streets and the highways
between various communities, but it is what is happening in downtown
Baghdad every single day and night. The number of people who are
getting killed, the numbers who are coming into the morgues, the break-
ins taking place in people's houses, and the rapes taking place in
those communities have given a sense of insecurity to the people in
Baghdad and many other communities. We don't have a plan about how we
are going to deal with this. We are told we are training the police--
40-some-odd-thousand police--who were there under Saddam Hussein, the
great majority of whom were torturers and exterminators. But we have a
new view and we are retraining them in some particular way.

I talked with some extraordinarily impressive young Americans who
just came from Faluja. I talked with them in Massachusetts, and they
pointed out that the Iraqi police trained in their area won't leave the
barracks. They are frightened that if they are seen leaving the
barracks, something will happen to them or their families.
As we know, as the very important Dobbins document points out,
whether you are talking about Algeria, Northern Ireland, or Malaysia in
1958, or the West Bank, or Kosovo--any of these areas--what you need to
do is start to train a disciplined police force, and it takes 12 to 15
months--a new force adequately trained and highly motivated and that
can move toward the security issues. That is not the case. We are asked
to pour billions of dollars in taxpayers' funds into Iraq.
I think any fair reading of these requests would have to say the
overall strategy--whatever it is--is a top-down strategy, not a bottom-
up one. What we are seeing in the initial reports coming from Iraq is
the areas where they are having the greatest progress is where the
stakeholders are buying into the efforts in these local communities.
Most of the positive reports are coming as a result of the leadership
of the military, many of whom have gone through the campaigns in Kosovo
and other parts of the world, where they have seen what can work and
what is necessary.
So it is appropriate that we have some opportunity to talk about and
ask about this amount of resources that are being requested to go to
Iraq. There are a number of questions, obviously, that are going to be
raised, such as the whole issue of contracting and who is getting the
contracting. What are the circumstances of those contracts? What kind
of transparency is there over there? Are we taking these contracts with
single-bid contracts, with those who have a questionable record in
terms of the performance, and overcharging the Defense Department? Are
we giving opportunities for contracts to other countries around the
world who have had a relationship and know how to be able to
reconstruct and rebuild? Are we excluding them? What are the
circumstances of this?
These issues are going to be raised, as they should be. It is not
clear from what is coming out from the Appropriations Committee that
many of these issues have been addressed. I know they will be by my
colleagues. It is not just about the administration's policy and its
conduct in Iraq. It is about the way we pursue American interests in a
dangerous world, about the way our Government makes one of the most
important decisions, whether to send young men and women to war.
It is wrong to put American lives on the line for a dubious cause.
Many of us continue to believe the war in Iraq was the wrong war at the
wrong time. There were alternatives short of a premature rush to a
unilateral war, alternatives that could have accomplished our goals in
Iraq with far fewer casualties and far less damage to our goals in the
war against terrorism.
I commend my friend and colleague, the Senator from Rhode Island, for
once again reminding us what Mr. Tenet, who was head of the CIA,
reminded the Armed Services Committee time in and time out--all of last
year, up until the period of August--that the greatest threat to the
United States was terrorism and, obviously, the increasing concern that
all of us have about North Korea, Iran, and the deterioration and
spiraling violence in the Middle East.
Our troops deserve a plan that will bring in adequate foreign forces
immediately to share the burden of restoring the security and involve
the international community in building a new democracy for the future
of Iraq.
There is no question the Senate owes it to our men and women in
uniform to provide the support they need, to bring the day closer when
our troops can come home with dignity and honor, and Iraq will truly be
free.
The $87 billion cannot be a blank check. That is why I support the
Byrd amendment. Congress must hold the administration accountable. The
American people deserve to know how the money will be spent. Things are
out of control in Iraq. We need to stop the downward spiral, protect
our interests, and protect the lives of American soldiers.
The administration must tell the country in much greater detail what
it intends to do with the $87 billion and its plans for sharing the
burden with our allies and the United Nations to achieve our goals. The
American people are entitled to know whether, with all the current
difficulties, the administration has a plausible plan for the future
instead of digging the current hole even deeper.
Our soldiers' lives are constantly at stake. Patriotism is not the
issue. The safety of our 140,000 American service men and women serving
in Iraq today is the immediate issue. It is our solemn responsibility
to question, and question vigorously, the administration's current
request for funds. So far, the administration has failed utterly to
provide a plausible plan for the future of Iraq and ensure the safety
of our troops.
In its rush to war, the administration failed to recognize the danger
and the complexity of the occupation. They repeatedly underestimated
the likely cost of this enormous undertaking. Opposing voices in the
administration were ignored.
Last September, the chief Presidential economic adviser, Lawrence
Lindsey, said that the total cost of the Iraqi involvement might be as
much as $200 billion. His estimate was quickly rejected by White House
Budget Director Mitch Daniels who said Mr. Lindsey's estimate was
``very, very high'' and suggested the cost to be a more manageable $50
billion or $60 billion.
I raise this history because in many instances the people who are
making the recommendations on the rehabilitation of Iraq are the same
ones who miscalculated and misdirected the policy for months in the
past. If we are going to take a look at this policy

[[Page S12247]]

today, it is only appropriate to see what they had suggested over the
past months.
As I mentioned, when Mr. Lindsey was corrected by Mitch Daniels who
said Mr. Lindsey's estimate was ``very, very high'' and suggested the
cost would be a more manageable $50 billion or $60 billion, the
independent analysis indicated the cost might approach $300 billion,
and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld called that ``baloney.''
I say that against the background of what Ambassador Bremer, when he
was asked, when he was before the Armed Services Committee, about this
$21 billion or $23 billion, whether we could expect they would be back
before the appropriators and asking for more billions of dollars, and
said: Don't count us out; don't count us out.
The American people ought to understand this is a downpayment for the
administration. This isn't the beginning and the end. This is just the
downpayment. We have to ask ourselves, What is the policy?
Last spring, as part of a broader coalition in an effort to win the
support of the American people for the military, the administration
began to argue that Iraq can pay for its own reconstruction. The war
might be costly, we were told, but it would be quick and decisive. The
financial obligation of the United States would be limited because the
liberated Iraqi people would use their extraordinary wealth from the
world's second largest reserves of oil to finance the reconstruction.

What the Nation heard from the Bush administration was clear: Don't
worry about the cost. Iraq can pay for their own reconstruction.
Here they are a few weeks later with the $23 billion request. People
ought to ask: Is this the beginning, the middle, or the end? What is
the plan?
As the Congress debates the administration's request, we should be
looking for better answers from the administration, insisting on at
least minimal accountability. Before the war, the administration said,
``Trust us,'' and Congress did. We should have followed President
Reagan's wise counsel from years ago: ``Trust but verify.'' Hopefully,
it is not too late to verify.
Until this month, no one in the administration, other than Larry
Lindsey, who is no longer in the administration, said the war with Iraq
and its aftermath would be expensive. The administration's numbers were
worse than fuzzy math, and the American people have a right to be
furious about the gross disparity with the true costs. And they will be
even more furious as they learn more and more about what we are being
asked to fund.
The administration, obviously, did at least have one clearly thought-
out plan--they didn't have a plan for peace. They want $400 million for
maximum security prisons. That is $50,000 a bed.
They want $800 million for international police training for 1,500
officers. That is $530,000 per officer. Ask any mayor what it costs
them to train a police officer in their community.
They want a fund for consultants at $200,000 a year. That is double
normal pay. They want $1.4 billion to reimburse cooperating nations for
support provided to U.S. military operations. I would love to find out
how that money is going to be spent. For what is that $1.4 billion
intended?
The Bush administration went to the United Nations for help last
week, hat in hand and wallet open. But so far the response from other
nations has been: Why should we help clean up America's mess in Iraq?
Presumably, the negotiating is still continuing over how much
authority the U.N. will have, how many contracts other nations will
receive, and how many troops they will send. Could this be the most
embarrassing week the United States has ever had at the United Nations?
Trust but verify. That is why Congress has to stop writing a blank
check for Iraq. That is why Congress needs better answers. That is why
we need accountability. Credibility on the war is in tatters both at
home and in the United Nations, and our troops are paying for it with
their lives.
Our action on this legislation may well be a defining moment for the
war on Iraq, for the war on terrorism, for America's role in the world.
Cut and run is not an option. Hopefully, a concerned Congress and a
chastened administration can work together to set things right on Iraq
and right with other nations.
If there is any silver lining to this crisis, let us hope it is that
the administration's go-it-alone policy toward the rest of the world is
history and we are back on a better and less dangerous course for the
future.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Madam President, I rise to make some remarks about the
supplemental appropriations measure before us.
I was struck by the concerns of my colleague from Massachusetts about
how bad things are in Iraq. In case some of my colleagues missed it,
there was a very telling op-ed piece in this morning's Washington Post
by Representative Jim Marshall, a freshman Democrat from the Third
District of Georgia. He went to Princeton and left to go to Vietnam. He
was awarded the Bronze Star and the Purple Heart as a Ranger. He
attended Boston University Law School and in 1995 was mayor of Macon,
GA. He is in the House. He had a very urgent plea.
He said: ``Don't play politics on Iraq,'' directed at his Democratic
colleagues. He said he had heard all of these political charges, using
the words and phrases such as ``quagmire,'' ``our failure in Iraq,''
``just another Vietnam,'' or ``the Bush administration has no plan.''
He said:

I went to Iraq a couple weeks ago to resolve for myself the
recent contrast between gloomy news coverage and optimistic
Pentagon reports of our progress. My trip left no doubt that
the Pentagon's version is far closer to reality. Our news
coverage disproportionately dwells on the deaths, mistakes
and setbacks suffered by coalition forces.

I think this op-ed is worth reading. Madam President, I ask unanimous
consent that this op-ed be printed in the Record after my remarks for
the edification and elucidation of my colleagues.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. BOND. Madam President, I just came from a very interesting
luncheon meeting where we listened to Dr. Chalabi, a member of the
Iraqi Governing Council. He had almost the same thing to say. He said:
What President Bush has done is magnificent. Our people are victorious;
they are not vanquished. Our failure is that the media is not carrying
the stories. The antiwar folks who opposed the war from the beginning
are talking about the problems of liberation rather than the success of
a free people.
He would like to have a chance to tell his story more widely, and I
hope he is listened to. He said there are large areas of Iraq where
marines are withdrawing, turning the area over to coalition forces from
other countries, Macedonia and Spain. He said the Iraqis are in the
process of being trained and equipped to go out as police and as
military. With the backup of U.S. troops, they will be able to take on
more of the responsibilities of defending against armed paramilitary
groups and maintaining peace and order.
He said this is a tremendous development. They are setting up a free
market in Iraq. They are cutting customs rates and tax rates. I would
like some of my colleagues to hear what he says about the need for
lower taxes. I think that is important as well.
It is clear we are in a debate. I gather my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle, while we all recognize that $87 billion is a lot of
money, they are willing to support the $66 billion to support our
troops in Iraq. It costs us more than $4 billion a month to maintain
our troops in Iraq, and we cannot, as was just said by my colleague
from Massachusetts, cut and run.
So what are we going to do to make sure we do not continue to have
areas where terrorists are harbored in hostile, tyrannical,
authoritarian governments in the Middle East? Well, we are on the path
to helping the Iraqis establish a free country. Their ideas of freedom
may be different than ours, but basically Iraqis governing Iraqis,
providing security for Iraq, and helping us weed out the criminals, the
thugs, the paramilitary groups and the terrorists who live over there.
Now, $21 billion of the President's request is proposed as a grant to
help the Iraqis get on their feet. This is a very

[[Page S12248]]

important investment. It is a lot of money, but when we look at the
costs of 9/11, the cost was horrifying in human terms. Over 3,000
people killed, some of them horrible deaths. It is a day and a picture
that none of us will ever forget and we never should forget. These
terrorists operated out of safe havens, in countries which were ruled
by authoritarian tyrants. We are wiping out those governments. Under
President Bush's leadership, we wiped the Taliban out of Afghanistan.
Afghanistan is no longer a safe haven for terrorists. By a vote of 77
to 23, we said clean out the terrorists in Iraq, get rid of the Saddam
Hussein government. That is the most important step.
Some people want to go back and fight the war. If we want to get back
into it and say, why did we go, we can go back into that, but I think
it is time we started looking ahead to see what we do. The $21 billion
is absolutely essential to give the Iraqis the startup funds, the seed
money to build that free and safe country.
What do we gain from it? Some of my colleagues say it ought to be in
the form of loans or we should not spend that much. Well, what we get
for it is the opportunity to bring our troops home sooner, to make sure
our troops have the ability to work with Iraqi military and police, so
we can use the Iraqi people who understand the country and know the
language and know what is going on there as our allies.
As I understand it, the pending amendment leaves money in for the
troops, but it does not leave money in to restore the electricity, to
provide clean water, or to clean up the sewage.
There is a lot that has been done in the country already. I hear
carping voices saying we did not have any plans for the peace. Well, we
had a lot of plans. We had plans to take out Saddam Hussein's
Republican Guard and his elite forces before they used gas or
biological weapons. We did it. They had plans to protect the oil wells
so they could not turn Iraq into a blazing inferno, and we did that. We
had plans to help the Iraqis get on their feet. In less than 5 months,
virtually all major Iraqi hospitals and universities have been
reopened.

We cleaned out the weapons caches that were there. There are now
70,000 Iraqis being armed and trained. The first ones are graduating
the end of this week. It took 14 months to establish a police force in
post-war Germany, 10 years to begin training a new German army. We are
way ahead.
Commerce is opening up. Five thousand Iraqi small businesses have
been opened since liberation. The independent central bank has a new
currency announced in just 2 months. Here is a 5 dinar note from the
Central Bank of Iraq. The reason I can read it, it is in English. The
other side, I will just have to take their word for it. This is the
currency they have put out. It took them 3 years in Germany to do it.
The Iraqi Governing Council is making decisions. We listened to Dr.
Chalabi tell us what they plan to do, how they want to move forward,
and how the participation by the United States in this next step is
vitally important.
To date, our coalition has provided some 8,000 civil affairs projects
with their assistance, and we are making progress towards showing the
Iraqis and the people in the neighboring countries that there is a
better way to do it than to have a Saddam Hussein regime.
The issue before us in this pending amendment is whether we cut
reconstruction funds by two-thirds. This was similar to an amendment we
debated yesterday in the Appropriations Committee. That amendment just
cut out two-thirds of the reconstruction funds, left one-third of the
reconstruction funds. We defeated that. This one cuts out all of the
reconstruction funds.
The arguments made there, and I guess I will let the people who want
to cut out the reconstruction funds make their arguments here, but they
say we ought to go to the donors conference and let the donors decide.
What kind of leadership is it for us, on the Senate floor, to take
the President's proposal for a $21 billion reconstruction fund and cut
it to $5 billion? That is leadership? Is that going to cause other
countries to step forward and say we are going to make grants?
We want to see a strong, independent, free Iraq. We have to turn on
the power. We have to turn on the lights. As of yesterday, I believe we
were back up to the power generation of the pre-war era, 4,400
megawatts. That still only supplies about 60 percent of Iraq. We are
trying to get the power restored. We are trying to get the water clean
so people do not get sick. We are trying to get the sewage cleaned up
so they can go about the business of building a civilized government.
Some are saying we can use the oil revenues to collateralize. Well,
that does not really work because there is no government in Iraq that
can sign a loan. They cannot take out a loan at the World Bank. They
have not established a constitution, which is a necessary precedent for
making an international loan. If we called it a loan, Ambassador
Bremer, our representative on the provisional governing authority,
would have to sign it. It would be our loan. We would be making that
loan.
They have over $200 billion of debts outstanding that I hope they
will never pay. The interest on those loans would be more than
swallowed up by the projected oil revenues. So they are in a position
where there is no practical way that they can repay that.
Once we get them up and started and they get a government, then they
can go to the World Bank and get loans pledged against future oil
revenue, and they can get the capital, but we have to get them over
that first hump. Unless and until we do that, there is no government,
there is no security. The Iraqis are not controlling their destiny. We
cannot expect them to carry new burdens of debt. They are going to have
enough trouble as it is. And we hope to get the oil production up--6
million barrels a day. That is what Dr. Chalabi said. But it is going
to require $38 billion of new investment to do it. That is where the
collateral will be pledged to get the Iraqi oil production up.

Do we want to go in and say the reason we came to Iraq was for your
oil? That is not why we went. That is not why we went. We went to stop
the production of weapons of mass destruction.
The previous administration, President Clinton's administration, and
our colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle, said that, time
after time. We went in to stop weapons of mass destruction, to bring
some order out of a country that had been terrorized by a ruthless
tyrant over the years. Do we want to go in now and tell the people of
the Middle East that it really was about oil? We want a claim on your
oil?
That would be extremely shortsighted. That is not a sound investment
in peace.
When you take a look at the cost of our maintaining troops over
there, the cost of another terrorist attack, the cost we are going to
have to face if we do not bring peace and stability to a couple of
major countries in the Middle East--Afghanistan and Iraq--we are going
to spend a lot more time and shed a lot more American blood before we
can see an end to this terrorist war.
President Bush said the war against terrorism will be a long one.
Unfortunately, he was correct. We are going to have to ``bear any
burden, pay any price.'' I believe a well-known Democratic President
once said that; I think he was from Massachusetts.
We have to carry on the battle to show the people of the Middle East
that there is a better way to protect our people from terrorist
attacks.
There is no question that the battle against terrorism is being
fought in Baghdad. There are a lot of questions about what went on
before. There will be a report coming out of our Intelligence Committee
on that. I can't go into it, will not go into that until a report is
issued. But I can tell you right now, when you apply the ``show me''
test that we take in Missouri, the battle against terrorism is going on
in Baghdad.
It is like a roach motel. All the terrorists are coming into Baghdad.
We have our best trained, we have our best equipped, we have our best
prepared troops. We are working to get the best intelligence possible
so we can destroy the terrorist cells, kill the terrorists, capture
them as many as we can.
We are fighting the battle in Baghdad rather than Boston or Boise or
Baldwin, MO, or Burlington, NC.
This is unfortunate, where we have to continue the battle on
terrorism. But we are doing it on their territory and our terms. They
started this war

[[Page S12249]]

on our territory on their terms. This is a mark of genius. This is
tremendous leadership that this administration has shown. I am proud
that three-quarters of this body supported the President when he said
we needed to go in and clean out this nest of vipers, this fountainhead
of weapons of mass destruction with the potential of nuclear weapons.
We have won the war against Hussein's government. Now we need to win
the peace. I am convinced we can win the peace. But I believe, as
Ambassador Bremer said to us in the Appropriations Committee, as
Secretary Rumsfeld said, this $21 billion is the best hope we have of
assuring we win the peace in Iraq. Winning the peace in Iraq is vitally
important.
We can't walk away now and leave Iraq to fester and let the Baath
Party back in again, the remnants of the Republican Guard, the
terrorist organizations who threatened their neighbors, oppressed their
own people, and threatened our well-being and safety over the years. We
cannot let them back in. This $21 billion is the best investment we can
make to bring our troops home, to win the peace.
I hope we will have a strong vote not to try to cut the peace element
out of the appropriations bill, moneys that are necessary to make sure
we can have our troops there, protect our troops, and maintain order
against the terrorists who are in Iraq.
I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

[From the Washington Post, Oct. 1, 2003]

Don't Play Politics On Iraq

(By Jim Marshall)

My first trip to a combat zone occurred in 1969. I was a
21-year-old staff sergeant, naive as hell, a freshly trained
Army Ranger who had left Princeton University to volunteer
for ground combat in Vietnam. I vividly recall feeling way
out of step with my Ivy League colleagues.
Well, that same out-of-step feeling is back. But this time
it's about Iraq and involves some of my professional
colleagues, political leaders and activists who are
carelessly using words and phrases such as ``quagmire,''
``our failure in Iraq,'' ``this is just another Vietnam,'' or
``the Bush administration has no plan.''
I went to Iraq a couple of weeks ago to resolve for myself
the recent contrast between gloomy news coverage and
optimistic Pentagon reports of our progress. My trip left no
doubt that the Pentagon's version is far closer to reality.
Our news coverage disproportionately dwells on the deaths,
mistakes and setbacks suffered by coalition forces. Some will
attribute this to a grand left-wing conspiracy, but a more
plausible explanation is simply the tendency of our news
media to focus on bad news. It sells. Few Americans think
local news coverage fairly captures the essence of daily life
and progress in their hometowns. Coverage from Iraq is no
different.
Falsely bleak Iraq news circulating in the United States is
a serious problem for coalition forces because it discourages
Iraqi cooperation, the key to our ultimate success or
failure, a daily determinant of life or death for American
soldiers. As one example, coalition forces are now
discovering nearly 50 percent of the improvised explosive
devices through tips. Guess how they discover the rest.
We not only need Iraqi tips and intelligence, we need
fighting by our side and eventually assuming full
responsibility for their internal security. But Iraqis have
not forgotten the 1991 Gulf War. America encouraged the
Shiites to rebel, then abandoned them to be slaughtered. I
visited one of the mass graves, mute testimony to the wisdom
of being cautious about relying on American politicians to
live up to their commitments.
For Iraqis, news of America's resolve is critical to any
decision to cooperate with coalition forces, a decision that
can lead to death. Newspaper start-up ventures and sales of
satellite dishes absolutely exploded following the collapse
of Saddam Hussein's regime. With this on top of the Internet,
Iraqis do get the picture from America--literally.
Many in Washington view the contest for the presidency and
control of Congress as a zero-sum game without external costs
or benefits. Politicians and activists in each party
reflexively celebrate, spread and embellish news that is bad
for the opposition. But to do that now with regard to Iraq
harms our troops and our effort. Concerning Iraq, this normal
political tripe can impose a heavy external cost.
It is too soon to determine whether Iraqis will step
forward to secure their own freedom. For now, responsible
Democrats should carefully avoid using the language of
failure. It is false. It endangers our troops and our effort.
It can be unforgivably self-fulfilling.
Democratic candidates for the presidency should repeatedly
hammer home their support, if elected, for helping the Iraqi
people secure their own freedom. It is fine for each to
contend that he or she is a better choice for securing
victory in Iraq. But in making this argument, care should be
taken not to dwell on perceived failures of the current team
or plan. Americans, with help from commentators and others,
will decide this for themselves.
Instead of being negative about Iraq, Democratic
presidential candidates should emphasize the positive aspects
of their own plans for Iraq. Save the negative attacks for
the issues of jobs and the economy. Iraqis are far less
likely to support the coalition effort if they think America
might withdraw following the 2004 election.
Finally, no better signal of our commitment to this effort
could currently be provided than for Congress to quickly
approve, with little dissent or dithering, the president's
request for an additional $87 billion for Iraq and
Afghanistan. Of course no one wants to spend such a sum. But
it is well worth it if it leads to a stable, secular
representative government in Iraq, something that could
immeasurably improve our future national security.

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I listened with great interest to my
friend from Missouri. There is much that he had to say with which I
agree. Except I wish we would, as they say in my home State--he was
using Missouri phrases--I wish he would get real and others would get
real about the connection between the likelihood of America's being
struck by another terrorist attack and our fighting in Baghdad.
I don't know one security expert who will tell you, including, as
quoted by Senator Reid earlier today, General Abizaid, that the folks
we are fighting in the streets of Baghdad and in Iraq are the ones most
likely to strike the United States of America. That is not what our
officials tell us.
General Abizaid said, and I am paraphrasing him, that any attack
would be organized internationally. It will come from other places. As
a matter of fact, the argument can be made, because of a requirement of
being so preoccupied and having to devote so many resources to Iraq, we
are unable to spend the money we need to spend on homeland security.
For example, we have 106 nuclear powerplants, none of which are
secure, in the United States of America.
We have train tunnels in New York where 350,000 people today will
ride through them sitting in a car. Those tunnels are not secured;
there is no escape, no ventilation, and no lighting.
We are cutting the police program, so we are not going to supply
money for local law enforcement. It is not going to be a special forces
guy with night vision goggles who is going to come across a terrorist
who is about to poison the reservoir in a city or about to plant a bomb
in a movie theater or about to do anything else--it is going to be a
local cop.
That is not the reason I rose to speak today, but I wish we would get
it straight about terror. In the larger sense, we have to deal with the
war on terror by dealing with the situation in the Middle East. I don't
disagree with that.
As was said in an article written not too long ago by Timothy Ash and
how the west could be won, I quote him:

To emerge ultimately the victorious against the war on
terrorism it is the peace we have to win first in Iraq and
then in the wider Middle East.

In the broad sense of the word, it is affected by what happens in
Iraq. But the idea that because we are fighting in Baghdad, we are not
likely to be attacked again in the subway, or an aircraft, or whatever,
because they are preoccupied is as our British friends say, poppycock.
Many Members in this Chamber and millions of Americans did not
support the war in Iraq. The same goes for the millions of people
around the world. But I did. I voted to give President Bush the
authority to use force in Iraq. For me, the question was not whether we
had to deal with Saddam Hussein but when and how, and what we were
going to do after we brought him down.
I believed then and I believe now it was the responsibility of the
United States and the international community to enforce the solemn
obligation Saddam Hussein made when he sued for peace in the gulf war
in 1991. Those of us who understand the value of international
institutions and rules must also understand that when rules and
institutions are flouted, they must be defended, and by force if
necessary. That was, in my view, the underlying rationale to go to war
in Iraq, a rationale enhanced by the fact that the one flouting the
rule was a homicidal tyrant who murdered hundreds of thousands of
people and who, if left alone, would have eventually acquired weapons
of

[[Page S12250]]

mass destruction, although he had none and there was no evidence he had
any. But he would have gotten those weapons. That was the reason--not
some idea of preemption. We didn't need a new doctrine of preemption to
go after Saddam Hussein. He violated essentially a peace agreement he
signed in 1991. Had it been 1919 when he was defeated in Kuwait, he
would have been in Versailles, in France, signing a peace agreement.
Instead, he was representing the United Nations and he signed on to
United Nations resolutions, none of which he kept and I believe needed
to be enforced.
But I also believed then, as I believe now, that this administration
got the when and the how and the what we do the day after dangerously
wrong in Iraq. This administration wrongly painted Iraq as an imminent
threat to our society, something many of us at the time--not just now--
said was not the case. It hyped the intelligence most likely to raise
alarm bells of the American people. In speech after speech, television
appearance after television appearance, the most senior administration
officials told us Iraq was on the verge of possessing a nuclear weapon.
Indeed, at the same time I was on a show, the Vice President on a
similar show on a Sunday told us Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear
weapons program. I didn't believe then, I don't believe now, and there
is no evidence that that is true.
We are told that Iraq had UAVs--unmanned aerial vehicles--that could
drop lethal payloads on our shores--payloads of chemical and biological
weapons; that Iraq could weaponize its chemical and biological arsenal
in just 45 minutes; that the regime had a clear and present tie to al-
Qaida, and they implied that they were complicit in the events of 9/
11--none of which I believe to be true. Yet I still voted to go into
Iraq because it wasn't about if but when we dealt with this guy.

The administration stated each of these allegations as accepted facts
when in fact there was deep debate on each and every one of them within
our own intelligence community. I believe the administration did this
to create a false sense of urgency about the need to act immediately
and that as a result we went to war too soon.
There is no reason we could not have waited a month or even 6 months
or whatever time it took to build a true international coalition
without in any way jeopardizing American security. And we went to war
without the rest of the world.
As many of us said at the time--and the record will reflect--we
didn't believe we needed a single soldier from another country to win
the war. I stood on this floor and said I thought we would win this war
in terms of defeating Saddam's government in much less than a month and
maybe as little as 2 weeks. I said it at the time. My fight was never
with the need for other troops to help us fight the war. But it was
absolutely clear from every expert we spoke to in my committee and
folks on the Council on Foreign Relations, folks from Rand, folks from
all over this country who are experts on foreign policy, that we were
going to need other countries to win the peace--to win the peace--which
was going to be considerably harder.
Just to put in perspective what we all know, we have had 313 men and
women killed, 1,600 wounded--138 to win the war and 175 dead just
starting to win the peace.
On this floor I said if we did not have the support of the
international community, somewhere between 2 and 10 body bags a week
would be coming home. But this unilateralism, this idea that we didn't
need anybody else, was not only misplaced but, for some in the
administration, arrogance.
So we went to war with the Brits and a coalition--a coalition which
was the most anemic coalition with whom we have ever gone to war, after
the Brits; the one without the rest of the world. And as many of us
said at the time--and I wasn't the only one. Senator Lugar said it;
Senator Hagel said it; a number of other Republicans said it--we didn't
need a single soldier to win the war, but we needed tens of thousands
of soldiers to secure the peace--tens of thousands.
The chief of the Army got sacked because he dared to suggest we were
going to need a couple hundred thousand troops to secure the peace when
Mr. Rumsfeld--or at least the administration--was implying we wouldn't
need more than 30,000 folks and we would be out of there in 6 months.
Just as bad, we went without a plan for the day after.
Don't just take my word for this. Keep in mind that I have been
supporting the President, and I will support this appropriation. But
there was no serious planning. General Garner said he didn't begin
planning and wasn't asked until January 6. I was chairman of the
Foreign Relations Committee, and we held hearings in July of 2002. And
witness after witness after witness--former Commanders of NATO, former
Commanders of CENTCOM--said the plan for peace should be running
parallel with the plan for war. During those hearings, we wanted to
know what was going to happen not just the day after but the decade
after.
The President, I am told, has told people and I have told people. He
asked me in front of a half dozen of my colleagues in the Cabinet Room
back in September why I wasn't with him enthusiastically about going in
and why I was insisting on him going to the United Nations. I went in
the Oval Office with him and said, Mr. President, I want to remind you
there is a reason your father did not go to Baghdad. And he looked at
me like I was going to insult his father, for whom I have great
respect. I said, Mr. President, the reason your father didn't go to
Baghdad, he didn't want to stay for 5 years. Are you ready to stay?
Obviously, I did not say it in that tone to the President but I asked,
Are you ready to stay, Mr. President?

What was the impression given to the American people? The impression
was Johnny and Jane were going to come marching home by Christmas. Why
are you National Guard folks so angry? Is it because you are not
patriotic? Why are the reservists so angry? Is it because they are not
patriotic? Heck, no, they are angry because they were led to believe it
was not going to cost much, it was not going to take long, and we would
be out of there.
Mr. BOND. May I ask if the distinguished Senator from Delaware will
yield for a unanimous consent request?
Mr. BIDEN. I am happy to yield.
Mr. BOND. I ask unanimous consent the vote in relation to the Byrd
amendment No. 1794 occur at 3:45 today; provided that no amendments be
in order to the amendment prior to the vote; provided further that
following the vote, Senator McConnell be recognized to offer an
amendment. I further ask consent that following the disposition of the
McConnell amendment, the next amendment in order to the bill be offered
by Senator Biden.
Mr. BIDEN. Reserving the right to object, I was told it would be
4:45. I've been waiting for 4 hours to speak and I have at least
another 30 minutes to speak. If it is 3:45, I would object.
Mr. REID. How about if we made it 4 o'clock.
Mr. BIDEN. This is fine.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask the distinguished Senator from
Missouri amend his request to allow that.
I know Senator Smith is here to speak. How long do you wish to speak?
Mr. SMITH. Ten minutes.
Mr. BIDEN. I don't think I will take this long, but so I don't get
called on it, I will say half an hour.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, that will be 10 minutes before 4 o'clock, so
I ask if my friend would be further kind enough to allow Senator Biden
another 30 minutes, Senator Smith 10 minutes, Senator Boxer 8 minutes,
and then we would vote.
Mr. BOND. Madam President, I so amend the request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modified request?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, my committee, the Foreign Relations
Committee, pleaded with the administration, month after month,
beginning well over a year ago, to share with us plans for
reconstruction. We got obfuscation upon obfuscation, a rosy scenario
about oil revenues and being greeted as liberators, with most of our
troops coming home by Christmas.
When we really pressed--a certain word has worked its way into the
lexicon of this administration--we were told the answer was
``unknowable.'' I have never heard that word used as many times
anywhere, let alone by the administration.

[[Page S12251]]

In fact, the problems and prescriptions of postwar Iraq were
absolutely knowable. From the many hearings Senator Lugar and I
convened over this year as well as the Armed Services Committee, and
the work of our leading think tanks and policy experts from within the
administration itself, thanks to the State Department Future of Iraq
Project, whose detailed postwar plans were apparently ignored by the
Department of Defense, much of this was knowable.
We are paying a very high price for those mistakes now. I share the
widespread dismay at the miscalculations of this administration. I
share the shock of many that the reason the administration says it took
us to war, weapons of mass destruction, no longer is of any apparent
interest to the most senior administration officials. I share the
frustration of Members of Congress that because of the administration's
many miscalculations leading up to war, the good options are gone and
we are now left to find the least bad of the remaining options.
I understand the sticker shock many of my colleagues feel about the
$87 billion. I suspect my friend from Oregon, who was on this
committee, I know for my friend Senator Lugar, I know for my friend
Senator Hagel, I know for my friend Senator McCain, it came as no
shock, none whatever.
To be blunt, the reason there is such consternation in the Congress
and the country at the moment is not about the $87 billion,
notwithstanding that is an enormous amount. It is that we have lost
faith in the President. It is that we lost our confidence in his
ability to prosecute the peace. It is that we have great doubts since
there were so many fundamental miscalculations made about what would
happen after the regime fell. There is reason people are upset in the
Senate. They doubt this administration has its act together.
My Republican friends will deny what the whole world knows publicly
and privately acknowledge there is a giant rift in this administration
as broad and as deep as the San Andreas Fault. On one side of the
administration there is Mr. Cheney, a fine man, Mr. Rumsfeld, Mr.
Wolfowitz, Mr. Feif; on the other side there is the State Department
and the uniformed military.
Think about this one little piece, talking about the plan. What was
the plan announced in great detail by Mr. Rumsfeld as to what would
happen immediately after Saddam fell? There was guy named Jake Garner,
a retired general, who was going to be dropped into Iraq along with a
guy named Ahmed Chalabi, whom I know well, spent an hour with him alone
in my office last night, the head of the Iraqi National Congress, that
Garner announced when he hit the ground there would be elections within
a couple of months and that he was going to run the show.
How long did it take the President to figure out that was a gigantic
mistake? About 2 weeks. And he should be complimented for it.

All this malarkey about the planning, where is Garner? Where did he
go? What happened to the election that was going to take place in a
couple months?
The administration got on the ground and realized they did not have a
plan. So they got a guy named Bremer, first-rate guy, diplomat. Guess
what. That diplomat does not report to the Secretary of State; he
reports to the Secretary of Defense. Isn't that kind of interesting?
Assume we have gone in and the planning post-Saddam was as successful
as the planning to take down Saddam. Assume we had gone in and the
international community was doing what they do in every other
circumstance where we are building the peace: We usually supply 25
percent of the money, they supply 75 percent of the money--Bosnia,
Kosovo, even Afghanistan, NATO is now in. Assume we were not losing
Americans at the rate we are losing now. Assume this guy named Bremer,
a former official at the State Department, former comptroller, sent to
Iraq by the Secretary of Defense, did not come back and say the window
of opportunity to win the peace is closing rapidly in Iraq. Assume he
came back and said, the window is wide open. We have time and things
are moving. Would people in the Senate be flyspecking the $87 billion?
No.
My friend from Missouri has been in politics as long as I have.
Presidents get pretty broad support when what they propose is working.
What is happening here--and again, keep in mind, I'm for this
money. But I am angry about what happened. I am angry about the refusal
to listen. I am angry that we are there alone when we did not have to
be.

The administrations's assumptions were dead wrong, and the President
told the American people our mission was accomplished when he landed on
that aircraft carrier. And it had not even begun. It has not even
begun. And you wonder why the American people are mad. You wonder why,
when you go home--and those of us who supported it going in are getting
our brains kicked in at home--Democrat and Republican, we are wondering
why the polls show--what?--57, 58, 60 percent of the American people
say: Don't vote for this money.
The reason is, they were not leveled with. It seems to me that
explains why there is so much concern on both sides of the aisle about
this supplemental. That explains why it is so important that we do more
than simply vote yea or nay on this $87 billion, why we need to have
clear assurances from this administration that it understands--not
acknowledges--just understands its mistakes to date and has a sensible
plan to rectify them.
So for all the errors of the past, we must confront the reality of
the present and the imperative of the future. The reality of the
present is that the window of opportunity is closing on our ability to
bring peace to Iraq.
As I said, that is not just my conclusion. It is the conclusion of
the former Deputy Defense Secretary, John Hamre, who was sent there by
the Defense Department. The imperative of the future is that we cannot
afford to lose the peace in Iraq.
Losing the peace in Iraq is not about terror alone. It is so much
bigger than that. Losing the peace in Iraq would condemn the United
States to deal with the consequences of Iraq: chaos, not just in more
terrorism but what will happen.
If we lose Iraq, Iran becomes an incredibly empowered nation; Syria
becomes more emboldened; Turkey, an Islamic government, seeing a failed
state on their border, becomes more radicalized; Iran, surrounded by
the failed states of Iraq and Afghanistan, puts in jeopardy the very
existence of Pakistan.
Doesn't it occur to you a little bit why all of a sudden the
accusations are the ISI is cooperating with the Pastun warlords in
southern Afghanistan? These guys have figured it out. They are hedging
their bets. They are hedging their bets. And if the Musharraf falls in
Pakistan, we are not talking about an Iraq, we are not talking about an
Afghanistan, we are talking about a nuclear power that my friend on the
Intelligence Committee knows, as well as I do, is seething--seething--
with terror. There is a whole province in northwestern Pakistan that is
totally uncontrollable, where most people think bin Laden is and Omar
is, that they will not go in and we cannot go in.
So I wish to heck we would stop this stuff about: We are fighting
terror in Baghdad. We are, but it is so much bigger than that, and the
American people have not been told it.
So we cannot afford to lose the peace.
I will make another outrageous prediction. If we lose the peace in
Iraq, you will see at least two of the following countries fall--
Jordan, Egypt, or Saudi Arabia. How will King Hussein stand with Iraq
in shambles? How will that happen? How will any voice of moderation be
willing to speak up anywhere in the Middle East if Iraq falls? And you
know why Iraq may fall, beyond our mistakes? Because we have not
leveled with the American people, and they may very well say: Bring the
boys home.

I know my colleagues think I am a broken record on the Senate floor
saying this so many times, but the one thing we all learned from the
Vietnam generation--no matter whether we were for or against it, went
or did not--is that no foreign policy can be sustained without the
informed consent of the American people, their informed consent before
we act.
In short, losing the peace would reinforce the view held by the
extremists in the Arab and Islamic world that while the United States
can project

[[Page S12252]]

power, we have no staying power, and that all they have to do is wait
us out.
It would confirm the concerns of many moderate Arab regimes expressed
before we went to war with Iraq that we would not finish the job.
I think it is fair to say I met with every Arab head of state as
chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. I traveled to the region;
I traveled to Afghanistan; I traveled to northern Iraq--all before the
war. I did not meet one Arab leader who defended Saddam Hussein. Yet I
did not meet a single one who said anything other than what I am about
to paraphrase: If you go, make sure you finish the job because if you
do not, I am dead.
Our credibility in Iraq and the region and across the globe will be
at rock bottom if we do not successfully secure the peace. America and
Americans will be far less secure to boot.
We have to show the wisdom and the commitment to help Iraq write a
different future so we can have a different future. And this
supplemental request is critical to that effort. We have to succeed in
transforming Iraq into a stable, unified country, with a representative
government. And success in that effort would begin the process of
redrawing the strategic map of the region. It could boost the reformers
in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and elsewhere who have put Syria and its
allies and Hezbollah on the defensive, and improve the climate of
Israeli-Palestinian peace. It would deal a significant setback to those
who argue that the only future for Arabs and Muslims is one of
religious extremism, perpetual conflict, economic stagnation, and
autocratic governments.
So we are faced with a real choice. I say to my colleagues who
opposed the use of force in the first place, who believe there is
nothing this administration can do to win the peace, and who have
concluded that the dire consequences I have just predicted if we cut
and run are outweighed by the consequences of being dragged down into a
long, protracted war, I respect their vote to say no. I disagree with
them, but I respect it.
I have concluded that the peace is winnable but not without a change
of attitude and direction on the part of this administration.
I am convinced that winning the peace is possible if the President
keeps to the new course he seemed to set two weeks ago when he finally
addressed the American people.
He vowed to make Iraq the world's problem, not just our own, by going
back to the U.N. and seeking support of its members for troops, police
and money.
And the President began to level with American people about the hard
road ahead to win the peace in terms of time, troops and treasure.
If he sticks to that course, tells us how we are going to pay for the
$87 billion, and shows us a clear and coherent game plan, I believe we
should give him, and all of us, one last chance to get it right in
Iraq.
Since the President addressed the Nation, I have to admit I have been
given many new reasons to be skeptical that the administration has
genuinely changed course.
The President's speech to the U.N. missed a crucial opportunity to
rally the world to our side, just as he missed opportunities to get the
world with us before the war and in its immediate aftermath.
He should have made clear our willingness to bridge the differences
with our allies on a new U.N. resolution and to grant the U.N. real
authority. He should have laid our some specifics, and asked--asked--
for help.
So I am left questioning the sincerity of the President's midcourse
correction.
If we want the world to share the burden, we have to share authority
in Iraq in meaningful way.
The payers want to be players.
And I can't believe we can't find a compromise that meets our
rightful concerns about the premature transfer of power. But that also
empowers the U.N. and starts to put more power in the hands of the
Iraqi people.
I am also skeptical that the President will continue to level with
the American people about what it is going to take to win the peace.
Being open and honest about the commitment we must make to Iraq is the
only way to sustain public support. But the administration's approach
to the supplemental concerns me on this account too.
The administration itself estimates the total cost of reconstruction
in Iraq to be about $60 to $70 billion over the next 4 to 5 years. And
I and others predict the final tab will be higher still.
The supplemental request covers $20 billion of that total. That begs
a critical question: Where is the remaining $40 to $50 billion coming
from? Will it come from the international community? Normally, that
would be a reasonable expectation. The United States typically covers
about 25 percent of postconflcit reconstruction costs. By that ratio,
we could expect about $60 billion from the international community for
Iraq.
But we so poisoned the well in the lead up to this war and in its
aftermath that no one expects the international community to provide
more than $2 to $3 billion at the donors conference next month. That is
a terrible indictment of our foreign policy and a harsh example of the
price of unilateralism.
Will the missing money be generated by Iraq's oil revenues? That is
what the administration led the American people to believe, and
unfortunately even some Members of Congress now believe that is true.
In fact, if we are lucky, oil exports will generate about $14 billion
next year--just enough money to pay for the government's operating
costs and salaries for public sector workers, the police and the army.
Forget about oil paying for reconstruction.
Will the missing money be generated by others parts of the Iraqi
economy? Secretary Rumsfeld recently promoted the potential of Iraq's
tourism industry. The banks of the Tigris may replace the Outer Banks
as a destination of choice someday, but not any day soon.
Or maybe the missing money will come from taxpayers when the
administration comes back to Congress next year or the year after to
ask for more. If that is the plan, tell us now.
For today, this Congress must deal with the money that is being
requested.
Let me be clear, we must invest more in the effort to secure the
peace in Iraq. I support the supplemental request. It is necessary and
it is in our national security interest.
But that does not mean we should accept it on its face. The large
number of proposed amendments to the supplemental are evidence that
Republicans and Democrats alike don't have the confidence to take the
administration at its word.
We need to build in strict reporting requirements--the kind Senator
Lugar and I tried to add to the original congressional authorization to
use force.
We need to know how the administration will pay for this
supplemental. We need to know how the money will be spent. And we need
to see a coherent, detailed plan for success.
The first critical question that must be answered is: How are we
going to pay for this $87 billion? It seems to me there are three
options: We can turn the money for reconstruction from a grant to a
loan, to be recouped from Iraq when its economy gets going again. That
sounds attractive. Why shouldn't the Iraqis pay for their own future.
But here's the problem. Iraq already owes the international community
a crippling amount--some $200 billion in debt and compensation claims.
Adding to that debt will add to the dead weight holding back Iraq's
recovery.
The creditors are mostly European and Arab countries--the very
countries we are encouraging to contribute more to Iraq's
reconstruction. And we are lobbying them to forgive or reschedule the
debt Iraq owes them.
How can we add to Iraq's debt, put ourselves first in line to be paid
back, kick the other creditors out of line--and ask them to contribute
more and assume our debt? It won't work.
Second, we can do what the President is proposing: add to the
deficit, which is already close to $600 billion and pass along the bill
to our children and grandchildren. That, to me, is unacceptable.
Or third, we can call on the patriotism of the American people, and
ask them to help finance the $87 billion the President has asked for.
The President was right in saying that success in Iraq requires all of
us to sacrifice. But he

[[Page S12253]]

squandered the opportunity to rally the most fortunate among us to the
cause to help provide for our troops and meet the goal of achieving
security and stability in Iraq.
The bottom line is: The President doesn't seem to have a plan to pay
for troop support and reconstruction in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
After squandering an annual Federal budget surplus in excess of $200
billion upon taking office, and running up annual deficits estimated at
nearly $500 billion in less than 3 years, it would be fiscally
irresponsible for this administration to pass on the cost of our
security to our children and grandchildren. That gets it exactly
backwards.

We must step up to pay for our own security and that of future
generations. In fact, as the President said in his State of the Union
Address:

This country has many challenges.
We will not deny, we will not ignore, we will not pass
along our problems to other Congresses, to other presidents,
and other generations.
We will confront them with focus and clarity and courage.

In keeping with that view, the most obvious, fiscally responsible
approach is to reconsider a small portion of the $690 billion tax cuts
targeted for Americans with incomes in the top 2 percent--people with
incomes exceeding $360,000 and averaging $980,000 per year.
Cutting taxes responsibly in the middle of a jobless recovery,
especially for the middle class, makes good sense. But never has any
administration summoned Americans to war and, at the same time, pushed
through the biggest tax cuts in history, all in the face of already
historically high deficits.
The result is a mixed message to the American people, who are left to
wonder: How can we wage the fight against terrorism without paying any
price? In fact, the administration's thinking reflects a woeful
misunderstanding of the character of the American people.
I this post 9/11 period, Americans have been waiting to be asked to
do great things for this Nation.
Two years after that dark day, we have yet to tap into the surge of
patriotism deeply felt by every American. Imagine if the President's
address to the Nation had included the following request:

To all of you in the top one percent--those fortunate
Americans whose average income is more than $1 million a year
. . .
I am asking you to forgo a small part of your tax cut.
Instead of getting $690 billion of cuts, you will have to
make do with only $600 billion in cuts so we can pay for
peace in Iraq, security in Afghanistan, and the war against
terrorism.

Would a single American watching on television have said: ``No way.
That's not fair.'' Of course not.
Reducing a small part of the tax cuts for those in the top 1 percent
of income will have no bearing on an economic recovery. But it would
restore a sense of national purpose and unity that is our country's
greatest strength.
I hope the President will support an amendment to do just that--a
bipartisan amendment to the supplemental that Senator Kerry and I will
offer, along with Senators Chafee, Corzine, and Feinstein.
I think Americans would support the idea of paying for this mission
from the $1.8 trillion in tax cuts enacted in the last 3 years.
Let's look at the numbers. Americans in this bracket make, on
average, $1 million a year. They are being asked to give up a single
year's worth of their $690 billion 10-year tax cut, and do it
gradually.
For example, in a single year, 2008, the tax cuts going to the top 1
percent will total $87.7 billion--virtually the same amount of money
the President is requesting.
In my view, the most fortunate Americans surely would respond
favorably to such an idea. What we are saying is: They are no less
patriotic than anyone else. But also they have the best ability to
contribute because their tax cut is so much greater than everyone
else's.
The top 1 percent will get a cumulative 10-year tax cut of nearly
$690 billion. What I am proposing leaves them with a $600 billion tax
cut. That is clearly not punitive. If someone proposed today that the
richest 1 percent get a tax cut of $600 billion, it would sound
outrageous given the circumstances we now face, with growing deficits,
and growing security needs.
In making this proposal, I am not arguing about the fairness of that
distribution. I have already stated my position on that when I voted
against the tax cuts. But, whatever one thinks of the fairness of the
tax cuts themselves, it is clear which Americans are in the best
position to give up a small part of what they are getting to pay for
our mission in Iraq. And that, unfortunately, is the price we have to
pay for the unilateral foreign policy and the missed opportunities of
this administration.
If we give the administration the money it is seeking for Iraq's
reconstruction, it must give us a clear and coherent plan for
succeeding where it has failed so far.
The No. 1 priority must be to inject a sense of urgency to our
efforts. I don't want to minimize how hard this is, nor do I want to
minimize the successes we have already achieved: Standing up the Iraqi
Governing Council, opening schools and hospitals, establishing local
councils across the country. But all of this progress is jeopardized by
our failure thus far to get it right in two fundamental areas: security
and basic services.
If the Iraqi people do not soon see their living conditions improve,
they will begin to turn against us. Once that happens, the insecurity
we are seeing today will look mild by comparison.
In my judgment, there are five urgent priorities in Iraq.
We need a detailed gameplan to address them. And that plan should be
developed in close consultation with the Iraqi Governing Council.
First, we must improve the security situation on the ground for our
soldiers and for the Iraqi people. Over time, an Iraqi army can and
should take the place of our troops. But it will take time to train
such a force 1, 2, 3 years.
In the meantime, the best way to take some of the heat off of our
forces is to bring other countries in on the deal.
That is one reason a new U.N. resolution is important. If we had done
this right from the start, we would have been able to secure 60,000 or
70,000 foreign troops. I doubt we will get more than another 10,000.
But every single foreign soldier helps.
For Iraqis, law and order has broken down in large parts of the
country, especially in Baghdad and central Iraq. Murder, carjackings,
theft, and rape are taking place at an alarming rate. Criminal gangs
are organizing at a rate far faster than we are fielding trained Iraqi
police.
We have heard a lot of talk about whether the number of foreign
military forces on the ground is adequate. What does not receive nearly
enough attention is the urgent need to recruit international police
forces to train and work alongside the Iraqi police. Our own officials
tell us that we urgently need over 5,000 international police to train
and patrol with Iraqis. We should have deployed them over 5 months ago
when Baghdad fell. We should have started recruiting them 12 months
ago, just as President Clinton personally got on the phone to world
leaders to recruit police months before we went into Haiti. Yet, to my
knowledge, less than 10 percent of the international police forces we
need are on the ground.
Only Iraqis can effectively police Iraq. They know their country
better than any foreigner. But we also know that the police under
Saddam were corrupt and sadistic. They maintained order through fear
and coercion. We have to start from scratch in recruiting and training
an Iraqi police force. But that effort can't occur on a large scale
until we get trainers in from abroad. And we can if the President
builds an effective coalition, if he reaches out to our allies, and
recruits those forces.
The second priority is to restore basic services--particularly
electricity, water, and telephone service.
Ambassador Bremer set the end of September as a deadline for
restoring electricity to its prewar level of 4,400 megawatts. This is
enough to meet about two-thirds of countrywide demand.
While falling temperatures will ease demand in coming weeks, toward
the end of October, the month of fasting or Ramadan will begin. Iraqis
will expect to have electricity available during the evening meal when
they break their fast. If they don't, we should expect their discontent
to grow. It will take huge investments to bring the electricity grid up
to the level where it can

[[Page S12254]]

meet full demand countrywide. Ambassador Bremer estimates $13 billion.
Another official in Baghdad puts the price tag at a total of $21
billion.
The third urgent priority is a strategic communications plan. The
United States has the most advanced media industry in the world, yet we
are being beaten on Iraqi airwaves by the likes of al-Jazeera and
Iranian TV and radio. The messages these outlets are broadcasting do
not cast the United States in a positive light.
The quality of our broadcasts in Iraq makes public access TV look
good. It is hard to imagine succeeding in Iraq if we cannot succeed at
getting our message out.
Few Iraqis have a sense of the priorities, plans, and progress of the
United States. We need to communicate effectively and directly with
them. They need to hear us acknowledge their problems. They need to
hear us describe our plans for fixing them. They need to hear
timetables. It is not that complicated.
Our fourth urgent priority is helping to rebuild Iraq's economy. The
Iraqi economy is broken. It was destroyed by 35 years of mismanagement,
wars, sanctions, and extensive looting that followed Iraq's liberation.
It will take several years to recover.
Unemployment is over 60 percent. By contrast, at the height of the
Great Depression, our unemployment was just over 25 percent. A hot,
poor, unemployed, and well-armed population is not a good combination.
We need to get people off the streets and involved in their country's
reconstruction.
The final priority is to establish a clear timeline for handing power
back to the Iraqis. There is a legitimate debate going on with the
French over the pace of ``Iraqi-ization'' and the timing of elections.
All of us want to see sovereignty restored to Iraq as quickly as
possible. But none of us want a process that is so rushed that it ends
in failure.
Today, the best organized forces in Iraq are extremist religious
groups and ex-Baathists. They have the most to gain from early
elections.
Building a strong, democratic center and the institutions of civil
society will take time. We should seek a compromise at the U.N. that
creates a representative--perhaps partially elected--body that would
draft the new Iraqi constitution by early next year. That constitution
should be put before the people of Iraq in a referendum, and elections
should follow by next summer.
The administration should submit a detailed plan with specific
benchmarks and timelines in each of these areas I have mentioned.
The administration also must show us that, in working toward these
goals, it will spend the tax payers' money wisely. I have looked
closely at the budget request, as have most of my colleagues. And we
have a lot of questions. To cite just three examples:
Why does the administration propose to spend $33,000 apiece for
pickup trucks when you can get a new pickup here in the U.S. for
$14,000? Our Iraqi friends deserve AC--but not leather seats and a CD
changer.
Why does the administration propose to spend $10,000 per student for
a month-long business course--more than double the monthly cost of
Harvard Business School?
Why does it propose to spend $50,000 per prison bed--double the
average cost in the U.S.?
The bottom line is that we have an obligation to closely scrutinize
the President's request, to ensure we spend taxpayer dollars wisely and
effectively. But we must face up to our foreign policy and national
security obligations as well. We cannot meet our national security
needs on the cheap, or by playing off domestic constituencies against
our need to get it right in Iraq.
The stakes are too high, and an entire region's future--one that is
critical to America's security--is in the balance. Let's not take our
eye off the ball. Let's do the difficult thing, but the right thing.
Madam President, I just sum up by telling you what is in my heart. We
have three stark, basic choices. It is real simple. Given the facts--
the fact is, it is going to take years to build, not a democracy, just
a representative republic in Iraq. Never in history--never in history--
even in countries with a tradition of western values and democracy, has
a representative democratic government been built in a short amount of
time--never. I challenge you to challenge your staffs to give me an
example where that has occurred.
So, No. 1, it is going to take a long time. It is going to take tens
of billions of dollars beyond this. Mr. Bremer has begun to level, and
level first with us. He says after this $20 billion downpayment for
reconstruction, it is a minimum of $50 to $75 billion more--more--over
the next 4 years or so to do the essentials, to rebuild Iraq. Other
think tanks have said it is $100 billion. The World Bank says $75
billion or so. That is another essential fact.
The third fact is this country has never been a country--never. It
was the outgrowth of a deal made after World War I. So we are putting
together not a Germany, which was heterogenous, not a France, not a
defeated or victor in the last war, or big war; we are putting together
a country that has never been a country, other than held together by a
dictator or an autocrat or a colonial power. It is going to take a lot
of time.

Here is where we are. It is very simple. It is going to cost--
everybody knows--billions of more dollars beyond this supplemental. It
is going to take thousands of somebody's troops beyond those that are
there. And it is going to take a long time.
The choices are clear. We continue in our unilateral ways to take 95
percent of the casualties, pay 99 percent of the bill. One of the
things my colleagues know is that the Poles are being paid for by us.
God love them, they are there; we are happy they are there. Those other
20 nations are being paid for by us, but for Great Britain. So we get
95 percent of the deaths. We pay 90 percent of the bill, and we take 99
percent of the responsibility. That is one option.
The second option is--and which I predict this administration will do
if this does not go right--declare victory and leave and see chaos
ensue. Some Democrats will suggest that. Some in the administration
will suggest that.
Or there is a third option. We get someone else to pay the bill with
us. We get someone else to pay.
There is a fourth option that is not a real option. The Iraqis could
pay. Let's get this straight about Iraqi oil. No one before the war or
after the war is predicting in the next 5 or 6 years there will be more
than an excess of $5 to $10 billion a year to be able to pay for
reconstruction after the cost of paying for the government. Read
Bremer's report. So this is poppycock about Iraqi oil will pay our way
out.
We are left with the last option: We get the rest of the world to
jump in the tank with us. At the beginning of this process, the
President tried to importune the Indian foreign minister to send a
division. The Secretary of State and others said we are likely to get
that. The Turks were talking about a division. We were looking for 50
to 60,000 troops. Guess what. They ain't coming, folks.
Here is the deal, and it is real simple. The President can genuinely
internationalize this by sharing not only the responsibility but
sharing the authority. We continue to act like Iraq is a prize we won.
We continue to challenge the world to help us.
I went to the head of the European Union not long ago and I said:
Javier, what do we have to do to get your help?
He looked at me, held my shoulders, and said: Joe, ask. Not demand,
not challenge, ask. Ask. Ask.
There is not a major newspaper in America that didn't think the
President of the United States blew that opportunity when he recently
spoke to the United Nations. I am beginning to doubt--and I hope I am
wrong--that the United States is genuinely sincere about the U-turn he
has made and wanting to engage the international community. I pray he
means that.
Mr. BOND. Will the Senator from Delaware yield for a question.
Mr. BIDEN. Surely.
Mr. BOND. I am taken with the world view and the view of the peace by
the Senator from Delaware, but when he talks about the United Nations,
as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, I wonder if he recalls
this discussion with the Secretary of State: Last week you engaged in
tireless diplomatic efforts to seek such unity against Iraq. Oddly,
other members of the Security Council continue to indulge the fantasy
that Saddam would suddenly begin listening to reason.

[[Page S12255]]

Members of Congress do not share that delusion. We look forward to
receiving the President's recommendations with regard to the need to
use force to contain, if not destroy, Iraq's capability to produce
weapons of mass destruction.

Is my colleague familiar with that?
Mr. BIDEN. I think you are quoting one of the most articulate men who
has ever served in the Senate. I wonder who you are talking about?
Mr. BOND. I am referring to the distinguished Senator from Delaware--
Mr. BIDEN. I thought that is who you were talking about.
Mr. BOND. Who I understood made this statement to the Foreign
Relations Committee.
Mr. BIDEN. The Senator is absolutely right. If he wants to read the
rest of the statement, he will point out we in fact should have
continued to try to get the rest of the world to come along after the
fact. Can you imagine if the President of the United States had said,
the day after the statue of Saddam fell, if he went on national
television and made the following speech: My fellow Americans, I tell
you that our fighting men and women have bravely defeated the present
government, but we have much to do. It will cost billions of dollars
and take tens of thousands of troops for the foreseeable future. Toward
that end, I am going to ask our valued allies who disagreed with us,
whose democratic processes I respect but they disagreed with us, to now
step in and help us, ask them to participate in rebuilding Iraq and
share the responsibility of forming a new government and dealing with
the aftermath of Saddam. Toward that end, I have convened a meeting
with Mr. Chirac, Mr. Schroeder, the European Union, et cetera. What do
you think would have happened?
But what did we say? We said the same thing we said in Afghanistan.
When the French offered to send 5,000 of their marines, when Schroeder
risked a vote of confidence by one vote, he succeeded in voting for
sending 1,000 German marines to Afghanistan, Mr. Rumsfeld and company
said: We don't need them. And they stiff-armed them.
Senator Lugar and I contacted the President and said: Please, please
accept their forces.
We don't need them. We don't need them.
Technically we may not need them. But I would argue that is the nadir
of diplomacy that I have witnessed in this body, and I am now the
seventh most senior Member. The diplomacy has been so incredibly ham-
handed that we have to continue this foolish response. We have
hamstrung ourselves in a way that makes it almost impossible to do what
everybody on this floor knows we need to do.
It is real simple. If you think we can secure the peace in Iraq all
by ourselves without anybody else's help, then have at it. Go to it. I
don't know any reason why Bremer should not be dual-hatted like we are
in Bosnia. I don't know any reason why we should not be saying to the
French, the Germans, the European Union, and the U.N., you help us form
this government. I don't know any reason why we didn't have them in
there in the first place, beginning the electoral process, why we
stiff-armed them. I don't get it.
I do know the result. Whether you agree with me or not, somebody has
to pay the bill. All my friends who don't like international
institutions, all my unilateralist buddies who like to eat freedom
fries and engage in their little pettiness, have fun, but go home and
explain to your people why only Americans are dying. Go home and
explain to your people why only American taxpayers are paying the bill.
Go home and explain to your people why we have close to 200,000 troops
in the region and 140,000 troops there. Bravo. Bravo. Aren't we tough.
It is about time we wake up. By the way, I will be seeking the floor
later today with an amendment. This President has come along and said:
We need $87 billion and, by the way, just add it to the deficit. Add it
to our tab. Put it on the tab. Our kids will pay for our security.
So the budget deficit is going to approach $600 billion. Can anybody
name a time for me in American history when a President took us to war
and, after taking us to war, a war that I supported his going to, said:
It is going to be a long sacrifice, and, by the way, here is the
largest tax cut in the history of the United States of America, as we
go?
Can anybody name any time in American history when that has ever
happened? Isn't it kind of strange?
So, Madam President, I will not take the time to talk about how we
should pay for this now. But I will suggest--is there any time left?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 2 minutes 24 seconds.
Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, to me, this is real basic. If we want
people to share the burden, we have to be willing to have people share
the responsibility. Why does the administration propose--by the way, we
have every right to look at the details of this $87 billion.
Why does this administration propose to spend $33,000 apiece for
pickup trucks when you can get a brand new pickup in the U.S. for
$14,000? Our Iraqi friends deserve AC--but not leather seats and a CD
changer.
Why does the administration propose to spend $10,000 per student for
a month-long business course--more than double the monthly cost of the
Harvard Business School?
Why does it propose to spend $50,000 per prison bed, which is double
the average cost of a U.S. prison bed?
The bottom line is we have an obligation to closely scrutinize the
President's request, to ensure that taxpayers' dollars are spent wisely
and, most importantly, that this administration has changed its course
because literally the future of our children is at stake if they don't
get it right.
I thank my colleagues and I yield the floor.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, today I have voted in support of
Senator Byrd's amendment to strike $15.2 billion in reconstruction aid
from the supplemental appropriations bill. I supported this amendment
not because I oppose the overall intent of some of this spending--
helping Iraqis establish order and setting the country on a path to
stability and development--but because it is clear that there has been
insufficient planning and insufficient explanation as to how this $15.2
billion in reconstruction assistance would be spent.
This portion of the request needs careful consideration and, frankly,
this portion of the policy desperately needs improvement. It makes
sense to sever this portion from the rest of the request to allow for
that process without delaying action on all of the issues before us.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I rise today to explain my support for
Senator Byrd's amendment No. 1794 to S. 1689. While I support funding
the reconstruction of Iraq, I believe in the necessity to consider
these two very important issues funding for Iraqi security and Iraqi
reconstruction separately.
The purpose of the Byrd amendment was to separate the reconstruction
portion from the security portion of S. 1689. Had Senator Byrd's
amendment passed we would have been able to take immediate action on
the security portion of S. 1689 and passed that portion before we left
town this week. We could have then, upon our return, looked more
closely at the President's request for reconstruction funding and taken
the time to give thorough scrutiny to the administration's request and
better examine the ways in which we are prioritizing the spending
requests of this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I failed, and it is certainly my
oversight--prior to a vote on the Byrd amendment, the managers should
be recognized. They have both agreed to 8 minutes each.
I ask unanimous consent that the managers have 8 minutes each prior
to the vote on the Byrd amendment.
Mr. STEVENS. Reserving the right to object, that is on the Byrd
pending amendment?
Mr. REID. Yes.
Mr. STEVENS. To occur now?
Mr. REID. Yes, but first Senator Smith will speak, and then Senator
Boxer will speak for 8 minutes, and you and Senator Byrd will have 8
minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Oregon is recognized.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, before my friend Senator Biden leaves the
floor, I tell him that I think he is on the wrong

[[Page S12256]]

side of short-term politics, but he is on the right side of history to
support the President's request for $87 billion. He has made many
points where the administration could have done this or that better.
Some of them are valid.
I think it is important that we remind ourselves what this is really
all about. What are the bigger issues at play here? I have believed
throughout my life as a child of the cold war that American foreign
policy is something to be proud of. Born in the early 1950s, I remember
the nuclear bomb drills, where we would get under our desks and
practice how to survive a nuclear bomb. I remember great leaders such
as Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, and then Reagan, standing up for the
principles of the American Constitution at home and abroad.
I ask myself, what are the values of the American foreign policy? I
believe they are the spread of democracy. I believe they are the
defense of human rights. I believe they are the expansion of prosperity
and engaging in trade. The world doesn't need to fear the United States
of America as long as those values are intact. I believe they are very
much intact. When I came to this body in 1997, I was privileged to
serve on the Foreign Relations Committee with Senator Biden. I remember
during the Clinton administration a feeling that our foreign policy was
very well intentioned, but there was uncertainty about what to do with
it. We were attacked at the World Trade Center; we were attacked at the
Khobar Towers; we were attacked in our ship in a port in Yemen; our
embassies were blown up. In each case, our response was to hit them
with a cruise missile, but not the commitment to actually go get them.
I joined Senator Biden and others on the Democratic side in
supporting President Clinton in Kosovo, believing that the defense of
human rights included stopping genocide on a massive scale in Bosnia. I
remember when many Republicans criticized President Clinton for not
coming with a plan--planning for peace, having every jot and tittle
accounted for in the expenditures in Kosovo.
I suspect if we look up what we have spent in Kosovo on a per-capita
basis, it is about the same as President Bush is proposing to spend in
Iraq. As important as Kosovo was in terms of our strategic interests,
Iraq is infinitely more important.
Now I believe America's best days are still ahead. I believe our role
in world leadership is more important now than ever before. I believe
after the Second World War America was laden with debt and our people
wanted to go home, and President Truman came to this place and said we
have to have a Marshall Plan to save Europe. It was one of the most
beneficent acts ever by a government over a continent that had been
conquered and suffered much tyranny.
I believe that Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, MacArthur, and other
leaders helped to save the free world in that act. But if you added it
up at the time, as many did, and tried to make sense of it, it didn't
make sense. But as I say, Joe Biden is on the right side of history
because America has been called to a new sphere of responsibility, just
like our parents were in Europe and in Asia.
I talked about the spread of democracy being one of the pillars of
American foreign policy. Democracy is setting its roots everywhere on
the planet except in Arabia. The Arab peoples have suffered mightily
because of its absence, not having the rule of law. All you have to do
is go look at the mass graves in Iraq to understand that. All you have
to do is look at his people and his neighbors, the Iranians, who have
suffered the effects of weapons of mass destruction from Saddam Hussein
to understand his danger. All you have to do is understand where Hamas
got its money to blow up the people of Israel; they got it from Saddam
Hussein.
I believed this President when he came to us and asked for our
support. He said the threat was not imminent, but after 9/11 we could
no longer wait until it is imminent when we are dealing with a madman
like Saddam Hussein.
Many of my colleagues criticize President Bush for not planning for
the peace. Well, frankly, we, the Republicans, criticized President
Clinton for not planning sufficiently for the peace in Kosovo. I am not
sure how well you can plan for the peace, but I know every time a chief
executive, Republican or Democrat, comes here and says I have a plan
for the peace, we have many of our colleagues simply say we cannot pay
for the peace. We can pay to win a war, but we want to go home when it
is time to win the peace.
The American people, I know, are tired of paying, but world
leadership and American interests in relationship to that are
priceless, and sometimes we cannot tote it all up. But I ask you what
kind of a world we will live in if we succeed in this vision of
establishing a democracy in Iraq. Think what that means to Arabia, to
Israel; think what that means to our country if we can avoid a future
9/11.
It will make the pricetag for peace in Iraq look like a good price,
and it will mean that while some will complain we have created a
breeding ground for terrorists in Iraq, in the Middle East, we can
answer, yes, we have, but the ground is there; it is not here. That is
what I think President Bush is trying to do.
So when we criticize our leaders for bold vision, just as Republicans
criticized Roosevelt for Yalta, understand Roosevelt tilted the ship of
state in the right direction so we could ultimately win. Understand
that Truman laid the groundwork for democracy in Europe so we are not
constantly fighting between Germans and French. And understand that
what President Bush is now saying is, after 9/11, no more of them. If
they want to fight, it is there, not here, and we have to go and win
the peace. It falls to us now to pay for it.
I say Joe Biden is on the wrong side of short-term politics but Joe
Biden is on the right side of history, just as Republicans were when
they supported Truman with the Marshall plan. We are being asked to do
something that is historic. If the time of the Americans is over with
the cold war, vote no. If the time of the Americans and American
leadership is still present, vote yes, for this appropriation. Vote
against the amendments that would gut it because I believe our place in
the world, democracy's future on this planet, is in large measure
determined by what leadership we give to the world.
I wish I had more confidence in international organizations. I think
we should stay in them, but I don't believe we should ever have our
interests and our values subordinated to the veto of the Security
Council of the United Nations. That would be a mistake. And if we had
ever done that, we would never have defended Europe in the cold war, we
would never have defended our allies in Asia, because we never could
have gotten support of the Security Council for such things. So it does
require American leadership, and sometimes, with allies such as the
British, we have to go it nearly alone.
I believe the time of the Americans is still now, and I think we need
to support this President because I think the peace of the world and
the spread of democracy are dependent upon it.
I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). The assistant Democratic leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the agreement
now in effect be amended to allow the Senator from California to speak
for 10 minutes rather than 8 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. It is because I
prize America's leadership in the world that I will be proudly
supporting Senator Byrd's amendment because Senator Byrd's amendment
will allow us to really look at what we are doing in Iraq. It is
because I also prize this country and I respect and honor the needs of
our people that I am supporting Senator Byrd's amendment.
If we look at what we spend in a year on items most important to the
people in this country, and we compare it to what they are about to
spend in Iraq reconstruction which we were told would never fall to
American taxpayers, we will see that our people are being shortchanged.
Senator Byrd's amendment allows the funds for the military to move
forward and even $5 billion of reconstruction for the Iraqi police to
move forward, but it withholds the $15 billion because he prizes
America's leadership, because he doesn't want us to look

[[Page S12257]]

foolish, because he as well as I and many others are tired of reading
in the newspaper comments from the Iraqis.
For example, this is one from USA Today. It tells of an Iraqi
businessman who was surprised to see the $100 million estimate to build
a complex that will house more than 3,000 people. He said: I could
build this for $10 million.
If someone comes to the floor and says Senator Byrd is turning his
back on America's place in the world because Senator Byrd wants to
protect the people of this country and their taxpayer dollars so that
when and if we do build housing or shopping malls in Iraq, it is done
in the right way, I say the people who question him are on the wrong
track.
I have another quote. A member of the Iraqi Governing Council--
appointed by this administration, I might say--saying to Waxman staff
over on the House side that non-Iraqi contractors had charged about $25
million to refurbish 20 police stations in Basra, a job that he said
Iraqis could have done for $5 million. This is a disaster.
My friend talked about President Roosevelt. Let me tell you what FDR
said about this during World War II:

I don't want to see a single war millionaire created in the
U.S. as a result of this world disaster.

He was talking about war profiteering. Maybe my colleagues are
sanguine about the scandals we have already seen with no big contracts
in the back room to firms that have connections to the Vice President
of the United States. I am not sanguine.
The Byrd amendment is saving us from the embarrassments that will
flow, because they will flow. I have been in the area of military
procurement reform for a very long time. I served in the House for 10
years. I served on the Armed Services Committee. I discovered a lot of
problems with military procurement, and you ain't seen nothing yet when
you already have Iraqis saying we are charging so much.
What Senator Byrd is saying to us is, before we send hard-earned
American tax dollars over there for a rebuilding, if you will--
actually, it is not even a rebuilding; it is a building because a lot
of the things they never had before--before we do that, we need to look
at this situation.
When I see that the administration, the President, is asking for
$33,000 apiece for 80 pickup trucks when here they cost $14,000, I say
thank you, Senator Byrd.
When I see a $3.6 million request for satellite phones at an average
cost of $6,000 and we are told by the Iraqis that they paid on May 12
$900 each, I say thank you, Senator Byrd.
And $2 million for museums and memorials when the Iraqis say they are
tired of memorials. That is all Saddam ever gave them. They don't want
more memorials. I say thank you, Senator Byrd, for calling attention to
the fact that they want to build two prisons at a cost of $50,000 per
prison bed where in America it cost $25,000 per prison bed.
Others have talked about the cost of a 4-week business course in Iraq
at a cost of $10,000 per student when in Harvard it is $4,000. I say
thank you, Senator Byrd.
Where is the money going? Into somebody's pocket where it doesn't
belong over there or over here? It doesn't matter; it is taxpayers'
dollars.
Look at what we spend one year on drug enforcement, $1.6 billion, and
our kids are dying of overdoses, and we don't have the money, and this
administration won't give us the money for education.
This President cut afterschool programs in half, throwing 1 million
kids out on the street. Thank goodness we restored some of it. I say
thank you, Senator Byrd.
You can make the most lofty statements you want about America's
leadership. America's leadership doesn't move forward one iota when we
are not careful and we don't look at what we are doing.
I think it is extraordinary: $9 million for a state-of-the-art Iraqi
postal service. Per capita, this amount is greater than the Federal
Government spends on the U.S. Postal Service. Tell that to our
constituents who are told they may not get Saturday mail deliveries.

My constituents are perplexed by this request. The President will not
pay for it. He is adding to an already overblown deficit. If we do not
count the Social Security trust fund, it is up to $700 billion. He will
not pay for it. The numbers do not add up. They do not make sense.
My people want us to do our share to help the Iraq people, but they
were told a different story from this administration. Press Secretary
Ari Fleischer:

Iraq has tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi
people. And so there are a variety of means that Iraq has to
be able to shoulder much of the burden for their own
reconstruction.

Ari Fleischer, the spokesman for the President, said that in February
of this year. In March of this year, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul
Wolfowitz:

There's a lot of money to pay for this that doesn't have to
be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the
Iraqi people.

He also said:

We're dealing with a country that can really finance its
own reconstruction, and relatively soon.

This is what my constituents were told, and now they are told they
are supposed to blink their eye at tens of billions of dollars going
for things that cost half the price in this country.
How about Secretary Rumsfeld, the leader of this war:

I don't believe that the United States has the
responsibility for reconstruction.

Let me say that again. The top person in the Defense Department,
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld:

I don't believe that the United States has the
responsibility for reconstruction.

That is not Barbara Boxer speaking. That is not Robert Byrd speaking.
That is not Senator Murray speaking or Senator Stabenow.
This is what the American people were told, and Senator Byrd is
saying to this administration that they did not tell us the truth about
this.
It goes deeper than that. This administration has been wrong down the
line on this policy, and suddenly we are supposed to write this
enormous check for this reconstruction. I look at it as a blank check--
when one sees the numbers they have put forward. They were wrong on the
weapons of mass destruction. They were wrong on what would happen after
the war. They were wrong when they failed to predict that the
terrorists would move in and fill the void. They were wrong on what the
rebuilding would cost. They were wrong on the state of Iraq's ability
to recover economically. They were wrong on how many troops would be
needed. They were wrong on the oil revenues. They were wrong on how
much other countries would contribute.
I know it is hard to listen to this. I know some of my colleagues on
the other side do not really want to listen to this, but these are the
facts. We are not operating from a lack of experience. What Senator
Byrd is saying--and he is making a plea to colleagues on both sides of
the aisle--is that we need to take a further look at these requests,
especially at a point in time when we are told by this administration
that they cannot even meet our homeland defense needs.
I have an amendment to try to protect commercial aircraft from
shoulder-fired missiles. Let's support Senator Byrd. He is doing the
right thing for America.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Under the previous order, there will now be a period of 16 minutes
equally divided between the Senator from West Virginia and the Senator
from Alaska.
The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I assume this will be an up-or-down vote.
I am pleased to make my statement first and let the Senator close. That
would put people on notice that we should be voting in 15 minutes.
I have said repeatedly that the President's supplemental must be
considered as a complete package. This is one of the key votes on this
bill. If we try to separate even a portion of the package of the $20.3
billion, we will delay the return of our troops.
We are in a situation where the quicker the Iraqi people can get
control of their own affairs--or even greater control of their own
affairs, I should say--the better off we will be and the sooner we will
start bringing our forces home.
Support for our forces is directly linked to the funds for security,
infrastructure repair, and freedom in Iraq. All of the witnesses who
appeared before us from the military, the State Department, and
Ambassador Bremer,

[[Page S12258]]

representing both in Iraq, have indicated to us there is no question
that the safety of our people is linked to these funds for
reconstruction and restoration of Iraq.
Our colleagues have said they support the military money, but the
military money must be increased greatly if the forces are not
forthcoming from the Iraqi people to provide security and police. They
can provide their own people at much less cost than we can. To provide
security in a military concept will mean bringing a great many more
military people to Iraq to provide the security that is necessary to
deal with the situation, particularly in the triangle around Baghdad.
Our troops on the ground become greater targets the more the
dissidents increase their control over the Iraqi people. The dissidents
really are those who are unhappy about their own lack of necessities,
their own security, their own lack of fuel and electric power.
These costs for reconstruction are high, there is no question about
it. If we compare it to other engagements we have had in the world,
they are not high on a per capita basis. We are dealing with many more
people in Iraq than we were in Bosnia, and many more than we were in
Kosovo. In both of those countries, we ended up with a period of long
occupation that would have been unnecessary if we had moved into the
concept of aiding the people there to provide their own government and
their own security and their own basic future.
I do hope the Senate will vote against the Byrd amendment. It is the
first test really of the intention of this Senate to approve the
request of the President of the United States, which has been supported
by every person who is in authority in our Government today.
I wish I had with me some of the letters I have received, that have
been read to me, from our military people in Iraq. Those who are
serving there have done a magnificent job, and they know it. They are
writing their parents and telling them how proud they are of what they
have done and how proud they are to be helping these people have
permanent freedom in their own country.
I urge that this amendment be defeated.
I do want to point out that what we are dealing with is the question
of splitting this supplemental. The supplemental is in two parts. One
is military, and one is for reconstruction and restoration of the Iraqi
people. To split off any part of it is to defeat the purpose of the
administration and to defeat the goals we sought to achieve by
committing our forces to the cause of liberating Iraq.
I yield the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. How much time do I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 8 minutes.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, first I thank my colleague, Senator Stevens, for his
courtesy. I want to tell him again that my association with him is not
so fragile as to be injured by any differences we may have between us
on this amendment or any other question.
The American people have only recently been exposed to some of the
details of the $15.2 billion in funds that the President has requested
for the reconstruction of Iraq. The more the public learns about this
request, the more the people will want Congress to take a closer look
at this request.
My amendment would strike $15.2 billion in reconstruction funding for
Iraq. But it does not touch 1 cent of the security-related funding in
this $87 billion appropriations bill. My amendment would allow the
Senate to go back to the drawing board and consider an entirely new
bill that would only contain funds for rebuilding Iraq.
A vote for the Byrd amendment is a vote for taking a fresh look at
$15.2 billion in Iraqi reconstruction spending. A vote for the Byrd
amendment is a vote for more hearings, more hearings about why these
funds are needed, more hearings about your money. I have heard that
expression so much when it has been used by our friends on the other
side, talking about the tax cuts, saying: It is your money. It is your
money. It is the people's money that we are talking about here. A vote
for the Byrd amendment is a vote for more hearings about why these
funds are needed.
Are there reasons to vote against my amendment? There sure are. There
sure are reasons to vote against my amendment. If Senators want to
spend $10 million to hire 48 bureaucrats for Iraq at the cost of
$208,333 per pencil pusher, that is a good reason to vote against my
amendment.
If Senators want to support $9 million for creating new ZIP Codes in
Iraq, vote against my amendment. That is a good reason. That is a dandy
reason to vote against it.
Let me say that again. If Senators want to support $9 million for
creating new ZIP Codes in Iraq, vote against my amendment. Go to it.
If Senators want to buy 80 pickup trucks at $33,000 when pickup
trucks at a car dealership in any town in the USA start at just
$14,000, vote against my amendment. Go to it. Vote against my
amendment.
A vote against the Byrd amendment to strike $15.2 billion in aid to
Iraq is a vote for a padded bill. Go to it. A padded bill. The
questionable items funded by this bill go on and on and on.
The President's request contains $3.6 million for 600 radios and
telephones at $6,000 each. How about that? According to the Business
Week of May 12, Iraqi merchants sold satellite phones during the war
for $900 each.
This bill has $20 million to send Iraqis to a 4-week business school
course at a cost of $10,000 per month. How about that? That must be a
great education. That must be a great education because tuition at
Harvard Business School is less than $4,000 per month.
As long as we are talking about education, the administration also
wants to spend $30 million for English classes, at a cost of $1,500 per
student. How about that? Thirty million dollars for English classes at
a cost of $1,500 per student. Similar English programs in the United
States reportedly cost just $500 to $1,000 per student. And there is
more. There is more.
There are more reasons to vote against my amendment. For example,
there is also $2 million for museums and memorials. Is this money
really an emergency? Is it? Some Iraqis don't think so. On September
29, USA Today quoted a car dealer in Iraq as saying about this money:

OK, garbage collection I can understand, but statues? After
Saddam, we are fed up with statues.

If Senators support this kind of excessive spending, then vote
against the Byrd amendment. But I think the Senate must take a new look
at the $15.2 billion in reconstruction spending proposed by the
administration. Interestingly, just yesterday, members Of the Iraqi
Governing Council told the leadership of the Senate that they had not
been consulted in putting together this budget request for the
reconstruction of Iraq. We need to make sure there is a coherent plan
for how this money is to be spent.

I do not yet have any confidence that the administration has a solid
plan for how it plans to spend this money, and the lack of a plan could
leave working Americans on the hook for billions of dollars more for
many years.
I also do not yet have confidence that the administration has a plan
for bringing in the international community to the occupation and
reconstruction effort in Iraq. Some have argued that, if this
reconstruction spending is delayed, it will result in increased danger
to the troops. I simply don't understand how creating new ZIP Codes in
Iraq, how hiring more bureaucrats for Iraq, how purchasing more pickup
trucks for Iraq will make American troops any safer. What they need is
a plan and an exit strategy, which includes getting troops and money
from the international community.
Vote for the Byrd amendment to strike this $15.2 billion and let the
Senate take a new look at how we can share the cost of this
reconstruction spending with the international community.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question is on
agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. STEVENS. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.

[[Page S12259]]

Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the
Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from
Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 38,nays 59, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 371 Leg.]

YEAS--38

Akaka
Baucus
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Byrd
Chafee
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lincoln
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Stabenow
Wyden

NAYS--59

Alexander
Allard
Allen
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Cantwell
Carper
Chambliss
Clinton
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
Dayton
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham (SC)
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kyl
Landrieu
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Voinovich
Warner

NOT VOTING--3

Graham (FL)
Kerry
Lieberman
The amendment (No. 1794) was rejected.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, under the previous order Senator McConnell
will be offering a sense-of-the-Senate amendment on the troops. We are
currently working on an agreement to set up the vote for that for
tomorrow morning. Therefore, we will have no more votes tonight.
Senator Biden tonight will also be offering an amendment later. There
will be no more votes tonight. We will be announcing when we will be
voting tomorrow morning a little bit later this evening.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I know the Senator from Louisiana is
interested in talking for a few minutes as in morning business. I ask
unanimous consent the Senator from Louisiana be recognized for 4
minutes as in morning business, after which I be allowed to send my
amendment to the desk. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is
so ordered.
The Senator from Louisiana.
(The remarks of Senator Landrieu and Senator Craig are located in
today's Record under ``Morning Business.'')
Ms. LANDRIEU. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I will shortly offer an amendment
that should be supported by everyone in the Senate. It seems to me it
is time we had such a vote. It is an opportunity to set aside the
rancor that has occasionally occurred during the consideration of this
underlying measure, both in the Appropriations Committee and since, and
agree that the Armed Forces of the United States have performed
brilliantly in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and in
Operation Iraqi Freedom in, of course, Iraq.
Since October 7, 2001, when our Armed Forces of the United States and
its coalition allies launched military operations in Afghanistan,
designated as Operation Enduring Freedom, our soldiers and allies have
removed the Taliban regime, eliminated Afghanistan's terrorist
infrastructure, and captured significant and also important and
numerous members of al-Qaida.
Since March 19, 2003, when the Armed Forces of our country and its
coalition allies launched military operations, designated as Operation
Iraqi Freedom, our soldiers have removed Saddam Hussein's regime,
eliminated Iraq's terrorist infrastructure, ended Iraq's illicit and
illegal programs to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and captured
significant international terrorists.
During all of this time, during the heat of battle, our soldiers have
acted with all the efficiency that wartime commands, but all the
compassion and understanding that an emerging peace requires. They have
acted in the finest tradition of U.S. soldiers and are to be commended
by this Senate.

Amendment No. 1795

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and
ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] proposes an
amendment numbered 1795.

Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To commend the Armed Forces of the United States in the War
on Terrorism)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. COMMENDING THE ARMED FORCES FOR EFFORTS IN OPERATION
ENDURING FREEDOM AND OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM.

Recognizing and commending the members of the United States
Armed Forces and their leaders, and the allies of the United
States and their armed forces, who participated in Operation
Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom
in Iraq and recognizing the continuing dedication of military
families and employers and defense civilians and contractors
and the countless communities and patriotic organizations
that lent their support to the Armed Forces during those
operations.
Whereas the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the
United States, which killed thousands of people from the
United States and other countries in New York, Virginia, and
Pennsylvania, inaugurated the Global War on Terrorism;
Whereas the intelligence community quickly identified Al
Qaeda as a terrorist organization with global reach and the
President determined that United States national security
required the elimination of the Al Qaeda terrorist
organization;
Whereas the Taliban regime of Afghanistan had long harbored
Al Qaeda, providing members of that organization a safe haven
from which to attack the United States and its friends and
allies, and the refusal of that regime to discontinue its
support for international terrorism and surrender Al Qaeda's
leaders to the United States made it a threat to
international peace and security;
Whereas Saddam Hussein and his regime's longstanding
sponsorship of international terrorism, active pursuit of
weapons of mass destruction, use of such weapons against
Iraq's own citizens and neighboring countries, aggression
against Iraq's neighbors, and brutal repression of Iraq's
population made Saddam Hussein and his regime a threat to
international peace and security;
Whereas the United States pursued sustained diplomatic,
political, and economic efforts to remove those threats
peacefully;
Whereas on October 7, 2001, the Armed Forces of the United
States and its coalition allies launched military operations
in Afghanistan, designated as Operation Enduring Freedom,
that quickly caused the collapse of the Taliban regime, the
elimination of Afghanistan's terrorist infrastructure, and
the capture of significant and numerous members of Al Qaeda;
Whereas on March 19, 2003, the Armed Forces of the United
States and its coalition allies launched military operations,
designed as Operation Iraqi Freedom, that quickly caused the
collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime, the elimination of
Iraq's terrorist infrastructure, the end of Iraq's illicit
and illegal programs to acquire weapons of mass destruction,
and the capture of significant international terrorists;
Whereas in those two campaigns in the Global War on
Terrorism, as of September 27, 2003, nearly 165,000 members
of the United States Armed Forces, comprised of active,
reserve, and National Guard members and units, had mobilized
for Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom;
Whereas success in those two campaigns in the Global War on
Terrorism would not have been possible without the
dedication, courage, and service of the members of the United
States Armed Forces and the military and irregular forces of
the friends and allies of the United States;

[[Page S12260]]

Whereas the support, love, and commitment from the families
of United States service personnel participating in those two
operations, as well as that of the communities and patriotic
organizations which provided support through the United
States Organization (USO), Operation Dear Abby, and Operation
UpLink, helped to sustain those service personnel and enabled
them to eliminate significant threats to United States
national security while liberating oppressed peoples from
dictatorial regimes;
Whereas the civilian employees of the Department of
Defense, through their hard work and dedication, enabled
United States military forces to quickly and effectively
achieve the United States military missions in Afghanistan
and Iraq;
Whereas the commitment of companies making their employees
available for military service, the creativity and initiate
of contractors equipping the Nation's Armed Forces with the
best and most modern equipment, and the ingenuity of service
companies assisting with the global overseas deployment of
the Armed Forces demonstrates that the entrepreneurial spirit
of the United States is an extraordinary valuable defense
asset; and
Whereas the Nation should pause to recognize tributes and
days of remembrance the sacrifice of those members of the
Armed Forces who died or were wounded in Operation Enduring
Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom, as well as all who
served in or supported either of those operations: Now,
therefore, be it
Therefore, the Senate
(1) conveys its deepest sympathy and condolences to the
families and friends of the members of United States and
coalition forces who have been injured, wounded, or killed
during Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi
Freedom;
(2) commends President George W. Bush, Secretary of Defense
Donald H. Rumsfeld, and United States Central Command
Commander General Tommy Franks, United States Army, for their
planning and execution of enormously successful military
campaigns in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi
Freedom;
(3) expresses its highest commendation and most sincere
appreciation to the members of the United States Armed Forces
who participated in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation
Iraqi Freedom
(4) commends the Department of Defense civilian employees
and the defense contractor personnel whose skills made
possible the equipping of the greatest Armed Force in the
annals of modern military endeavor;
(5) supports the efforts of communities across the Nation--
(A) to prepare appropriate homecoming ceremonies to honor
and welcome home the members of the Armed Forces
participating in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation
Iraqi Freedom and to recognize their contributions to United
States homeland security and to the Global War on Terrorism;
and
(B) to prepare appropriate ceremonies to commemorate with
tributes and days of remembrance the service and sacrifice of
those service members killed or wounded during those
operations.
(6) expresses the deep gratitude of the Nation to the 21
steadfast allies in Operation Enduring Freedom and to the 49
coalition members in Operation Iraqi Freedom, especially the
United Kingdom, Australia, and Poland, whose forces, support,
and contributions were invaluable and unforgettable; and
(7) recommits the United States to ensuring the safety of
the United States homeland, to preventing weapons of mass
destruction from reaching the hands of terrorists, and to
helping the people of Iraq and Afghanistan build free and
vibrant democratic societies.

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, we will have further debate and a
vote on that amendment in the morning.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be temporarily laid aside so I may offer an amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 1796

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Biden], for himself, Mr.
Kerry, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Corzine, Mrs. Feinstein, and Mr.
Lautenberg, proposes an amendment numbered 1796.

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide funds for the security and stabilization of Iraq
by suspending a portion of the reductions in the highest income tax
rate for individual taxpayers)

At the end of title III, add the following:
Sec. ____. (a) Provision of Funds for Security and
Stabilization of Iraq Through Partial Suspension of
Reductions in Highest Income Tax Rate for Individual
Taxpayers.--Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
(relating to tax imposed) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(j) Provision of Funds for Security and Stabilization of
Iraq Through Partial Suspension of Reductions in Highest
Income Tax Rate.--
``(1) In general.--In the case of any taxable year
beginning in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010, the 35
percent rate of tax under subsections (a), (b), (c), and (d)
shall be adjusted to the percentage determined by the
Secretary to result in an increase in revenues into the
Treasury for all taxable years beginning in 2005, 2006, 2007,
2008, 2009, and 2010 equal to $87,000,000,000.
``(2) Adjustment of tables.--The Secretary shall adjust the
tables prescribed under subsection (f) to carry out this
subsection.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning in 2005.

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I promise I am not going to keep you
long. I plan on speaking in more detail to this tomorrow, but I wanted
to lay this amendment down tonight.
With the help of Senator Kerry, Senator Chafee, Senator Corzine, and
Senator Feinstein, we have a simple and we believe a very commonsense
amendment to pay for the President's request for funding the
supplemental for the war in Iraq.
For my bona fides here, I want to make it clear at the outset, No. 1,
I voted to give the President the authority to go to Iraq, and I
believe it was the correct vote. I am not at all happy with the way the
administration failed to plan for the fall of Saddam, notwithstanding
the importuning on the part of myself and many others--Republicans and
Democrats in the Congress--but nonetheless, I do not come at this as
someone who is opposed to the idea the American public is going to be
asked to spend more money to win the peace in Iraq. We are going to be
asked to spend more money. It is inevitable.
I might add, even if we had every other nation in the world with us,
our share would still be in the tens of billions of dollars to win the
peace in Iraq. We would still have tens of thousands of American troops
there.
I am, as I stated earlier today, very--I should not have said it
probably--angry with the failure of this administration to abandon the
assumptions they had which were dead wrong. It is understandable; we
all make mistakes, but they were dead wrong what we would find in Iraq
after Saddam fell.
My colleague from Maine knows a great deal about American foreign
policy, both in her incarnation as a senior staff person and now as a
serious United States Senator. She knows from her experience on the
Armed Services Committee and she knows from her experience on
intelligence matters of what I speak. I am not suggesting she agrees
with me; I am just suggesting she knows how much is at stake in winning
the peace in Iraq.
What I am about to say some will use an ad hominem argument and say
the reason Biden is doing this is because he is against funding the
peace in Iraq. Wrong. I want to amend what the President sent us. I
want to refine it.
For example, I voted against the Byrd amendment. The Byrd amendment
really was designed to say we should deal with getting the money to the
troops right away and then let's talk about the remainder for
rebuilding. I was likely to support that when it looked like we were
not going to be allowed to offer any amendments. I will have amendments
to this legislation.
For example, we are spending something like $50,000 or $55,000 for
every prison bed we are going to build in Iraq. They need to build
prisons. It is in our interest they do that. We spend half that in the
United States. Why in the devil should we be spending twice as much in
Iraq? One of three things: We either have not calculated correctly or
we are padding contractors who are going to go in and do the job, or
Bremer and others are looking for some cushion to have money to do
other things. In any of the three cases, it is the wrong way to go
about it.

[[Page S12261]]

I will be offering an amendment that says we are going to cut part of
the money for rebuilding Iraq; that we are only going to pay $30,000
per prison bed like we do here. We are talking about spending on
education programs twice what we pay a student to go to Harvard
Business School. There are a lot of things in the supplemental that
require accountability. I am going to try to hold the administration
accountable--not accountable for their sins, accountable so the
American public and we know what they are doing.

My friend from Maine--I do not want to get her in trouble, but I
think she and her colleagues were empathetic at least to the initial
proposal, the so-called Biden-Lugar amendment before the war as to what
the conditions of going to war were. On the amendment, which we never
got to, because Mr. Gephardt reached a deal with the President and the
House of Representatives and rendered our efforts moot, we had, I am
told, over 20 Republicans prepared to vote for it and 40 Democrats to
vote for it.
What did that amendment have in it that the authorization we finally
passed did not have? It had reporting requirements. The President was
required to report on a regular basis what he was doing, how the war
was going, whether or not we were doing the following things. So I
think there should be reporting requirements tied to this $87 billion,
and more. I will not bore you with what else.
The point I am trying to make is this is not a veiled attempt to
somehow undercut or defeat the President's request for significant
economic and military aid in Iraq. We have to do it, in my view.
The second point I want to make at the outset is I voted against the
President's tax cuts. I think they were excessive. I think they were
dangerous. I think they did not take into account the exigencies which
we are facing. I said so at the time. And I think they massively
contribute to the deficit. A lot of us disagree. Half a dozen of my
Democratic friends voted for it and most of my Republican friends voted
for it. I am not in any way impugning their vote with what I am about
to try to do.
Further, the fact I was against the amendment--this is not a back-
door way to try to rescind the tax cut. My colleagues at this point
will have to take that on faith, and hopefully, as I debate my
amendment, you will understand what I am trying to do. Some will say
the Biden, Kerry, Chafee, et cetera, amendment is designed to rescind
the President's tax cut. That is not what this is about.
I was listening to the President and, I might add, the President, I
think, were he to be asked--and there is no reason why he would be--and
the administration, including Dr. Rice and the Secretary of State, will
tell you the last 6 months I have been saying to the President: Tell
the American people what it is going to cost. Tell them it is going to
be billions of dollars. Tell them it is going to take tens of thousands
of troops for an extended period of time because, Mr. President, if you
don't, you are going to lose their support. They are going to be angry
when they find out Johnny and Jane are not going to be marching home by
Christmastime. They are going to be angry when they find out we are
going to have to devote billions of dollars--tens of billions of
dollars--to prosecute the peace, as we have already spent tens of
billions of dollars, over $70 billion, to prosecute ``the war.'' And
the President was reluctant to do that. I think his failure to level
with the American people early on is a serious mistake.
By the way, conservative senior Republicans, such as my friend
Senator Domenici, have used words such as ``level with the American
people,'' or ``the administration should level.'' Senator Lugar has
been saying that for 6, 8, 10 months. So this is not a partisan attack
on the President. This is just pointing out the President has to, to
keep these folks in the deal so we don't leave our troops over there
stranded, in effect, so we don't divide this Nation--the only
similarity between this and Vietnam, in my view, is this has the
potential to divide the Nation. Not in the sense it is a quagmire. It
is in a sense that it will divide the Nation, and we cannot afford a
divided Nation because if we lose the peace in Iraq--in a sense it is
silly me saying this to you, Madam President, because you know this
better than most--if we lose the peace in Iraq, we will significantly
strengthen Iran.
We will significantly undermine the moderates in Iran. We will put
incredible pressure on Musharraf in Pakistan, a nuclear power. We will
put incredible pressure on the new Islamic party in Turkey that wants
to become part of the European Union. We will probably cause every
moderate and modernizing voice in the Middle East to shut down. That is
a big problem well beyond terror.
If tonight the Lord Almighty came down and sat in this chair and
said: I guarantee all of you Senators there will not be a single
additional terrorist attack anywhere against American or American
interests in the world for the next 10 years, does anybody think we
still do not have a multibillion dollar problem in Iraq? Does anybody
think we still do not have a multithousand troop problem in Iraq?
This is a country that has never been governed as a participatory
republic, ever. This is a country that is not a country. This is not
the old Babylon. This is not the Babylonian Empire. This is a polyglot
of elements of the Middle East that were put together by the colonial
powers, Mr. Churchill, after World War I. It has never been a country.
Look how long it took to rebuild Germany, a unified, ethnically
coherent country--as a matter of fact, too ethnically coherent in a
sense.
So this is going to take a long time. My effort is like that of
Senator Reed of Rhode Island. We have to do more, not less. So this is
not designed to undercut the effort to rebuild Iraq. Nor is it designed
as a back-door way of eliminating the President's tax cut. Let me tell
my colleagues what it is designed to do. It is designed to pay for what
we need to do. There is the $87 billion we are about to--I believe, I
predict--at least the bulk of that we will vote for. The President will
sign it into law. The question is: What happens? How is that $87
billion, in effect, recorded on the books?
Well, the President's proposal is very simple and straightforward. It
increases the deficit to almost $600 billion. Just add the $87 billion
on top of the roughly $500 billion deficit for next year, and that is
it.
Put another way, my granddaughters Naomi, Finnegan, and Roberta Mabel
will pay for my security. They will pay for reconstructing Iraq. Now
where I come from, I thought it was the other way around. I thought we
were supposed to pay for our children's and our grandchildren's
security.
It is really simple. This is not hyperbole. This is not some great
insight. If it is added to the deficit, our children and grandchildren
pay for it. The pages will pay for my security, if we succeed in Iraq.
So that is one thing we can do. We can do the President's proposal.
The other way we can do it is some Members of both parties--I believe,
although I am not certain, but I think the Senator from Texas still has
the view and some colleagues on my side, Senator Dorgan and others,
believe there is so much oil in Iraq we can have them pay us back for
this $87 billion. So we can make it in the form of a loan.
There will be a vote on that. Someone will offer an amendment saying
this is a loan, not a grant. That is going to be very appealing to
everybody listening to this little talk of mine. All my folks back home
are saying: Joe, why would you not be for that? That is just fair. They
have all this money, all this oil. They should pay for the
reconstruction. They should pay for us liberating them.
Well, if they could, they should, but the fact of the matter is Iraq
already owes in hard debt and reparations well over $100 billion to the
international community, debts accumulated under Saddam Hussein. People
lent them money. There were claims against their assets by those who
were hurt by the invasion into Kuwait. There are indemnification claims
against them, almost $200 billion, we are told.
Everybody is big these days on using historical analogies, historical
examples, and as hopefully a relatively informed student of history, I
will use a comparison. We can either choose the World War I model of
reconstruction or the World War II model. In World War I, the world
defeated Germany and concluded at Versailles that the whole war

[[Page S12262]]

was Germany's fault and Germany should pay for its own reconstruction
and Germany should pay reparations to France, England, and others for
the damage they did.
So the new government came along and we said, have at it, establish a
democracy, rebuild your economy but, by the way, pay this overwhelming
debt first.
What happened? We ended up with Germany collapsing, the economy
collapsing, people using wheelbarrows full of deutsche marks to buy
bread, and Hitler, the demagog, racist, no good son of a gun, playing
on the angers, fears, and frustrations of the Germans, and we had World
War II.
We can use the World War II model. The World War II model, to vastly
oversimplify it--thank God your mother and father and my mother and
father were a lot smarter than their mothers and fathers--they came
along and said, the leadership of Republicans like Vandenberg and
Democrats like Truman, the World War I model did not work. If we try to
set up a new government in Germany, and in other parts of Europe, and
we say to them, first of all, you Germans caused 400,000 Americans to
die and over a million to be wounded and the debt, all of which is
accurate, and you have to pay us off for the war first, does anybody
believe we would have a democratic republic in Germany now?
What did we do? We did the exact opposite. After over a year of
debate, we did the exact opposite. A guy named Marshall made a speech
at the university--he was a Secretary of State and former general--and
we had the Marshall Plan. Some little bit of that was loans, but the
vast majority was grants, to give this fledgling new democracy, with
the Adenauers of the world, the opportunity to grow, because there has
never been a place where democracy has been able to take root without
economic growth. It has never happened.
So we did the opposite. We rebuilt Germany. Guess who benefited the
most. The United States. It started the greatest economic expansion in
the history of the United States of America.
There is a third model--a fourth model we can use. That is instead of
indemnifying them, how do we go out and say to the rest of the world,
look, here is the deal? The deal is we want you, the rest of the world,
to come up with $50 or $60 billion over the next couple years. We want
you to send 50,000 or 60,000 of your troops, which will cost other
billions of dollars, to be in Iraq. We want you to forgive the debt the
old Iraqi Government owes you, and, by the way, our $20 billion we are
putting in, we are going to indemnify against Iraqi oil, but not you.

That is what they call in some parts of my State being a penny wise
and a pound foolish. We may indemnify our $20 billion but we are sure
not going to get anyone else to put in any money.
So this a very appealing bad idea. This is the ``painted, tainted
rose'' of the song. This is not a good idea. This is the siren song. It
sounds great.
I am going to have trouble explaining at home why I would not vote to
have Iraq pay their way. The reason I won't is it will cost the
American taxpayers more, because no one else will get in the game if we
do it and we will have to do it all.
The last way we can do this is we can pay for it. The President
himself used these words in the State of the Union. He said:

This country has many challenges. We will not deny, we will
not ignore, we will not pass along our problems to other
Congresses, other Presidents, or other generations.

This is a sentiment that is a principle we can all support with
regard to Iraq. I would like to hold the President to his commitment.
Mr. President, do not pass on to my children and grandchildren the cost
of this war. Let us pay for it.
How do you pay for it? The amendment I have sent to the desk would
take a small share, less than 5 percent of the $1.8 trillion tax cut we
enacted in the last 3 years, to cover the $87 billion emergency
supplemental for Iraq. That would put the burden of paying for our
mission in Iraq on Americans today, not our grandchildren, which,
despite the fine words I just quoted, is exactly what the President is
doing.
This $87 billion request will be added to the mountains of debt we
have already piled up. From a projected 10-year surplus of $5.6
trillion when the President came to office, this administration has, by
a kind of reverse alchemy, turned gold into lead. We face a $480
billion deficit this year alone, and that is not counting the $164
billion we will borrow from Social Security. There is no one in this
Chamber who is a better expert on Social Security than the Presiding
Officer, so she knows the real deficit is actually $644 billion.
So what do I do? I believe the fair, equitable way to deal with
paying for this is to say to the wealthiest Americans, the top .7
percent, instead of you getting a total tax cut of $690 billion over
the term of this tax cut, you are only going to get $600 billion.
I tried this out on wealthy Americans, and wealthy Delawareans. Can
you imagine if the President of the United States, when he announced
this $87 billion supplemental, said: And because of this, I am going to
ask the wealthiest 1 percent of you--which means you have to be making
at least $360,000 to get into that category of income. The average
person in that category makes $1 million per year--I am asking you to
forgo 1 year of your tax cut; not the whole tax cut, just 1 year of the
10 years of the tax cut you are getting.
The reason this will have no impact on economic recovery, for those
who say the tax cut is causing economic recovery, the way it works is,
this will be paid from the year 2005 to 2010. It instructs the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue to find this $87 billion from that
category over a 5-year period. There is not a serious economist in the
world who would say to you it would have any impact on recovery--none.
Do you know the interesting part about it? Wealthy people are
prepared to do this. They know it is the right thing to do. They know
it is the right thing to do. What frustrates me about some in your
party and my party is, some in your party think only the wealthiest in
the Nation have any brains, and some in my party think everything is
class warfare.
The truth is, wealthy Americans are as patriotic as the poorest
American, as patriotic as middle class Americans. They have not been
asked to do anything yet. And to ask them to pay, give up 1 year of the
10 years of their tax cut, about which I will go into details
tomorrow--for someone making $360,000 a year would be something like,
what is it, $1,400 per year for 5 years. That is a sacrifice?
Some have said to me on the shows I have been on--the television
shows--Why don't you do it for all Americans? The truth is, middle-
class Americans need a tax break. Second, I am not taking away the tax
break. Instead of getting 100 times what the middle-class American
gets, you are only going to get 60 times.
Do you know what. I have not found a single wealthy American--I
challenge anyone who is making in that .7 percent, making over
$360,000, to write me a letter--this is on C-SPAN--telling me you don't
think it is fair for you to give up 1 year of your tax cut out of 10,
spread over 5 years.
I think the President vastly miscalculates the character of the
American people and the character of the wealthiest people among us.
So tomorrow, when we actually bring this up for debate, I will have
much more detail to say. I promised you I would not keep you long. But
I believe--and I sincerely believe this--this is the right thing to do.
The wealthiest people I am talking about I believe think it is the
right thing to do. I hope we have the courage to do it.
I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, just over 2 years ago, our lives were
forever changed when terrorists attacked the World Trade Center and the
Pentagon, claiming the lives of nearly 3,000 Americans and declaring
war on freedom and democracy everywhere.
In the aftermath of the tragic events of September 11, it became very
clear that we would be engaged in a war against terrorism that would
span

[[Page S12263]]

years rather than months and require the full attention of the United
States and our allies.
On September 12, 2001, I spoke on the Senate floor regarding the
challenge before America. I said:

Our determination to winning the war on terrorism must have
the same high priority that we gave to winning World War II,
and we must engage our allies in this war. We should make the
same preparations that we made for D-day and the world's
entry into the Persian Gulf war.

I also said:

Our actions must be ongoing and relentless, and be
dedicated to excising the cancer of terrorism wherever it
raises its ugly head. Our efforts cannot be another catharsis
after a national tragedy, and they must not fade away with
time and business as usual. We owe it to yesterday's victims
and their families, especially their children and
grandchildren, most of all we owe it to the American people
and the world community, to bring an end to terrorism
everywhere and forever.

Exactly one year ago this week, I spoke in the Senate as we
considered a resolution authorizing the President to use military force
to disarm Saddam Hussein and liberate the Iraqi people should our
diplomatic efforts fail. At that time, I said:

Saddam Hussein poses a clear threat to peace in the world,
to America and our interests, to regional stability and to
his own people.

That is why I voted in favor of a resolution expressing the
conviction of Congress that the United States should exhaust all
diplomatic options first, but if Iraq resisted diplomatic solutions the
President would be authorized to use all necessary means to enforce
U.N. Security Council resolutions in Iraq.
Though we all hoped and prayed the growing crisis would not have to
be settled with military action, Iraq's 12-year defiance of the world
community ultimately left no other action. Joined by members of the
international community, a United States-led coalition engaged in a
campaign against the Iraqi dictator, and as I stand before you 12
months later, the reign of terror of Saddam Hussein is no more. People
in Iraq and people in the world can breathe easier now that Iraq is rid
of a tyrant who used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands of
his own people, an enemy of humanity who shunned democracy and balked
at the rule of law. Saddam Hussein was a dangerous threat to his own
people, his regional neighbors, and the international community.
In an effort to perpetuate the fear on which his power was based, he
used his own people as test subjects for the development of weapons of
mass destruction. He depended on torture chambers as a method of
coercion. Operation Iraqi Freedom has annihilated this vile oppression.
This is significant not only for the well-being of the Iraqi people,
but it is also crucial for our national security and the future of our
children and grandchildren.
This is as much about us, and our war against terrorism, and the
security of the American people, as it is about Iraq. I repeat: This is
as much about us, our war against terrorism and the security of the
American people, as it is about Iraq.
We now have a chance of a lifetime to create a new paradigm of
democracy in the Middle East and to do for this part of the world what
we did for Germany and Japan in the aftermath of World War II. Today,
58 years after the Second World War, Japan is a strong ally in Asia,
and Germany is no longer a threat but instead our partner in NATO and
partners with its neighbors in the European Union.
We spent billions of dollars during the Cold War in anticipation that
one day our brothers and sisters behind the Iron Curtain and the Berlin
Wall would enjoy the freedom we have now enjoyed. Now the Wall is down,
the Curtain is torn, and we see democracy growing in that part of the
world. Many of us believed it would never happen.
Today we find ourselves with another historic opportunity to promote
a new era of peace, stability, and democracy in Iraq and the Middle
East. As Ken Pollack writes in his book ``The Threatening Storm":

This is our one opportunity to create a stable, prosperous,
self-sufficient Arab state that could serve as a model for
the region. This is our one opportunity to turn Iraq from a
malignant growth helping to poison the Middle East into an
engine for change for the entire region, and we must not
let it slip away from us.
I could not agree more. We have a chance to cultivate an important
friendship in the Middle East. By helping Iraq, we send an important
message not only to those who seek to undermine stability in Iraq but
to the entire world. By extending support to help stabilize and
strengthen a new democratic Iraq, our actions will demonstrate more
than any rhetoric could that we are genuinely interested in supporting
humane reconstruction in Iraq as we did following World War II. It will
show that we will take the necessary steps and devote the resources
required to secure a bright future for Iraq, especially for the young
people, and stabilize that part of the world.
Today we begin discussion of the President's critical request for an
additional $87 billion to support ongoing military operations and
reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. In testimony before
both Houses of Congress last week, the head of the coalition
provisional authority, Ambassador Bremer, outlined the resources that
will be required to enhance security and restore essential services in
Iraq, which total of $20.3 billion. Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumsfeld also testified regarding the funding that is required to
support ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and other
parts of the world, which totals roughly $66 billion, nearly two-thirds
of the total request.
The funding is urgently needed, both for military operations and
reconstruction. The portion to sustain military operations will support
the nearly 130,000 American soldiers on the ground, and it goes hand
and glove with the $20.3 billion requested for reconstruction in Iraq.
It is imperative that we act now to restore essential services, build
infrastructure, and improve life for the Iraqi people.
As Ambassador Bremer remarked last week:

Early progress on restoring basic infrastructure gives us
an edge against the terrorists.

Ambassador Bremer also said if we fail to act soon, ``the
consequences for American troops and American interests will be
severe.''
What I am saying is that the $20.3 billion they are asking for
infrastructure is just as important to the safety of our men and women
in harm's way as the $69 billion that has been called for in the rest
of the request.
This investment will also support our troops. The sooner Iraq is up
and running on its own, the sooner our troops will be able to come
home. United States-led coalition forces on the ground continue to
encounter on a daily basis those who seek to undermine our efforts to
ensure a free and democratic future for Iraq. We saw this last weekend
when facilities used by U.N. officials and other members of the
international community came under attack. There are those who would
like to see us fail, and they are working to undermine our efforts with
the expectation that our resolve is weak and that with enough violence
we will leave. That is why we must act now.
This is a considerable sum of money, and Congress has an obligation
to carefully consider this spending request in the broader context of
other domestic needs. I understand while Iraq is in need of funding for
security and infrastructure projects, we also have urgent spending
needs here at home. Congress and the administration should address
these priorities for the State of Ohio, my State, and cities and towns
across America and make a renewed commitment to invest in our Nation's
critical infrastructure, including our highways, bridges, drinking
water, wastewater treatment facilities, and other water resources.
As a member of the Senate, I believe Congress should work to move
critical infrastructure bills such as reauthorization of the surface
transportation program, water infrastructure funding legislation, the
Water Resources Development Act.
I have also urged the administration to create an emergency jobs bill
much like the emergency jobs bill that President Reagan created in 1983
while I was mayor of the city of Cleveland and lobbying the Reagan
administration to help my city, county, and State.
But while action on these items is important, it should not keep us
from doing what we need to do to finish the

[[Page S12264]]

job in Iraq. We must address the spending request before us today as a
separate issue. They are disconnected.

From the very beginning, it has been my belief that it will take a
considerable amount of time, manpower, and money to do what must be
done to truly secure a better future for the Iraqi people.
Again, I just want to mention, the money we spent in Japan, the money
we spent in Germany after World War II, and the money that we spent
during the Cold War--we spent billions of dollars. These were grants;
these were not loans. We did it because we thought it was important to
our national security. And we did it because we thought it was
important for world peace.
Our military campaign to topple the Iraqi regime was accomplished
swiftly and successfully. However, much of our work, as I said, has
just begun, and it is not going to be done overnight, nor is it best
done alone.
In February, prior to the onset of military action to disarm Saddam
Hussein, I raised this point as a member of the Foreign Relations
Committee with Under Secretary of State Marc Grossman and Under
Secretary of Defense Doug Feith when they testified before our
committee. I said then, and I believe now, if we are going to be
successful in our efforts in Iraq, it will require not only the long-
term commitment of the United States but our partners in the United
Nations and other members of the international community.
At that time, I underscored the importance of building the broadest
international coalition possible, and I urged the administration to lay
the groundwork with the American people regarding the number of troops
that would be required to win the peace in the aftermath of a military
campaign, how long they might be needed, and what this would cost the
U.S. taxpayers.
The answers to these questions are becoming even more critical as we
find ourselves assessing the resources that will be required now to
finish the job in Iraq. Our men and women in uniform are serving their
country proudly, but they are spending increasing amounts of time away
from their families. We must do everything we can to give them the
tools they need to do what we have asked them to do, and then bring
them home as quickly as possible.
One of the ways we can do that is to improve the Iraqi civil defense
operations themselves. We have some 55,000 people in place, and we are
trying to train another 20,000, I think, as Paul Wolfowitz said to us.
They are now taking over the border patrol and other civil and security
functions in Iraq. We need to move on that. Part of the funding
included in the $20.3 billion is to be used for that purpose.
I am pleased President Bush addressed the United Nations General
Assembly last week, and it is my sincere hope Secretary of State Colin
Powell will be successful in securing a U.N. resolution that will allow
for enhanced support from other countries, both in terms of military
forces and financial resources to help build Iraq.
In order to achieve our goals in Iraq and take care of important
needs here at home, it is essential we do all we can to make our
efforts in Iraq a shared responsibility, calling on other countries and
international organizations to invest in a free and democratic future
for Iraq. Our human and financial resources will stretch further when
they are supplemented by funds from our friends and allies abroad.
This was evident during the Persian Gulf War in 1991, when other
countries made significant contributions to the war and the
reconstruction effort. It has been estimated the Gulf War cost between
$60 and $80 billion. Members of the international community contributed
approximately $70 billion to aid in the gulf war. The largest donations
came from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Japan, Germany, and a smaller one from
the United Arab Emirates.
In all, approximately 40 countries contributed either financial or
military resources. In addition to the countries I have just listed,
another 35 countries together contributed an additional $10 billion to
the effort. We need a similar commitment right now.
Like many of my colleagues, I strongly believe we should provide the
resources necessary to restore essential services in Iraq. The funding
for reconstruction requested by the President and reflected in this
spending bill is an important part of the process. However, Ambassador
Bremer has indicated it will take considerably more than $20 billion,
perhaps as much as $70 billion, to meet Iraq's infrastructure needs in
the years ahead. Therefore, I believe it is particularly important to
step up our efforts to secure contributions from our friends and allies
and build the economy of Iraq as soon as possible so they can use their
resources to rebuild their own country.

As we look to increase contributions from the international
community, I think this funding must be in the form of a grant and not
a loan. While I initially thought this should be a loan, after
carefully considering the situation and listening to the points raised
by Ambassador Bremer and our colleagues, I have concluded this funding
must be in the form of a grant. It is important for several reasons.
No. 1, if we tell the American people we are going to loan this money
and that it is going to be paid back somewhere down the road, many of
them will be very cynical about whether or not we will get the money
back. I think we ought to level with them and say, this initial grant
is a grant.
Second, it should be a grant in an effort to encourage other
countries to make financial commitments for the reconstruction of Iraq.
How can we ask them to come forward with money if we say that we are
going to loan that $20.3 billion to Iraq? We will be going to the
Donors' Conference in Madrid later this month. If we make U.S. funds
for infrastructure projects contingent upon a loan, I do not think they
are going to be willing to come to the table and support money for
Iraq.
Third, Iraq's debt is already mountainous, totaling nearly $200
billion in debts and reparations. As Ambassador Bremer has pointed out,
Iraq can hardly service its existing debt, let alone take on more. As a
matter of fact, as one member of the Iraqi Governing Council has said,
in his opinion, those loans are morally repugnant to the Iraqi people
because they were made to a dictator who killed thousands of their
brothers and sisters and who made them live under a 35-year reign of
terror.
I would suggest to those who have made loans to the former regime in
Iraq that they step up quickly and waive those loans because I believe
it would be the smartest thing for them to do in terms of reaching out
rather than waiting until later on to have a new Iraq government say to
them: You know what, folks, we are not going to honor those loans you
made to Saddam Hussein.
Fourth, as we encourage other countries to eliminate their debt, we
should not saddle Iraq with any more loans. Countries that chose to do
business with Saddam should, as I said, eliminate that debt as a way to
share in the task of rebuilding a democratic Iraq.
In the past, the United States has also engaged in efforts to help
ease the debt burden incurred by rogue regimes. This was the case in
the former Yugoslavia, as the U.S. Government worked with the Paris
Club to reduce the amount of debt the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia,
now Serbia and Montenegro, owed to its creditors after Slobodan
Milosevic was removed from power. We did everything we could to work
with the World Bank, and with the IMF and the Paris Club, and we said:
Get the debt off the back of Yugoslavia--Serbia and Montenegro--because
we want them to get back on their feet, and this debt is killing them.
This was an important and necessary step as the country attempted to
move forward with democratic reforms after years of authoritative rule.
Finally, providing assistance to Iraq at this time in the form of a
grant is the right thing to do. We must contribute all necessary
resources to finish the job that has been started, while working
together with our friends and allies.
I submit to the desk an amendment that would encourage the
administration to step up efforts to gain support from the
international community, call on other countries to eliminate debt that
was incurred during Saddam Hussein's regime, and examine the
feasibility of repayment of funds spent on infrastructure projects. I
submit the amendment and will call it up later.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is submitted.
Mr. VOINOVICH. I thank the Chair.

[[Page S12265]]

Specifically, this amendment would require the President to report to
Congress within 4 months on the following items:
First, the amendment calls for an assessment of U.S. efforts to
enhance financial contributions from other countries and international
organizations to assist in the reconstruction of Iraq, including a list
of those countries contributing and the amount of their
contribution. As we move forward with our efforts, additional support
from other countries and organizations would be extremely helpful.

Second, the amendment requires an assessment of the impact that debt
incurred by the regime of Saddam Hussein has on the country's ability
to move forward with efforts to rebuild infrastructure and restore
essential services such as health care and education. It also calls for
an analysis of the impact that forgiveness of such debt would have on
Iraq's ability to move forward with reform, and it would require a
detailed list of countries that have eliminated their debt and the
amounts.
Finally, my amendment calls for an assessment of the feasibility of
Iraq's ability to repay the United States for a portion of American
funds spent on infrastructure projects in Iraq. Although I think we
must now provide funds in the form of a grant, we should look at the
possibility of any further help in terms of possible repayment.
I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this amendment which
underscores the importance of working together with our friends and
allies abroad to promote security and improve the quality of life for
the Iraqi people. While I believe we should encourage support from
foreign countries and international organizations as we move forward in
Iraq, I support the funding requested by the President, both the
military portion and the funds for reconstruction in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
We have a golden opportunity to guarantee a new era of freedom and
democracy for the people in Iraq. It is one we cannot afford to miss.
This is an investment in a better future for Iraq, the Middle East, and
the world at large. It is an investment for our children and our
grandchildren. I believe it is the right thing to do. I hope this body
has the courage to rise to the occasion and take advantage of this
wonderful opportunity that could ensure that our children and
grandchildren are going to live in a peaceful world and not be
threatened by terrorism, the cancer that has newly appeared on the face
of the world.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I spoke yesterday on the floor and also
in the Appropriations Committee in support of having the $20 billion
which the administration has asked for the reconstruction of Iraq to be
in the form of loans or loan guarantees instead of grants. I have made
that suggestion in an effort to be helpful to the administration.
I analogize the situation in Iraq to a company, an enterprise, an
entity in bankruptcy. Iraq is supposed to have some $200 billion in
obligations. By analogy to a bankruptcy proceeding, those obligations
are to be discharged. General creditors come last in line and, in the
absence of any assets, they receive nothing.
The situation for the United States in advancing funds for the
reconstruction of Iraq, it seems to me, ought to be in loans or loan
guarantees because Iraq has substantial potential for its oil revenues,
sitting on the second largest pool of oil in the world. I reject the
contention that this would discourage other donor nations from helping
Iraq. It seems to me if the United States is to come in and make a
gift, a grant, that just encourages other nations to say: Well, let's
let the United States do it.
If we at least refrain from taking a position until the donors
conference on October 23 in Madrid, then we might use our situation to
leverage funds from other countries.
The argument has also been advanced that if we make a loan or a loan
guarantee, it will confirm to the Arab nations the contention that we
are just there for Iraq oil. But that is a specious contention because
we are not taking the money for ourselves or our military operations
but using it only for the rebuilding of Iraq which is for the benefit
of the people of Iraq.
Since I made the statements yesterday, a very able staff member, my
general counsel David Brog, has researched the subject and has found a
Security Council resolution which is very relevant to this proposition,
a resolution which was enacted on May 21 of this year. The resolution
is No. 1483, and it provides that there is to be a fund created. And
the fund, under the control of the United States and the United
Kingdom, may be used to pay for the rebuilding of Iraq. So that when we
are searching for multilateralism and when we are searching for United
Nations approval, not just what the United States might want to do or
the United States and Great Britain might want to do, this U.N.
Resolution 1483 provides that authority.
It also is of substantial assistance in answering a legal question
which I had raised yesterday, which posed some difficulty, and that is:
To whom would the United States loan the money? Who would be the
contract party when there is no government in Iraq at the present time?
The U.N. resolution which establishes this fund has a reference to
U.N. participation, International Monetary Fund participation, World
Bank participation, and auditing which is to be done by many countries,
including Arab countries, so that the fund, in and of itself, it seems
to me, as a legal proposition, has sufficient status as an entity to be
a contracting party. So that when the revenues are realized from Iraqi
oil, or they go into the fund, the United States may deal with the
fund, with the other parties present--as I say, the World Bank,
International Monetary Fund, the U.N., and auditing countries--having
some status with the fund to give extra assurances of fairness that the
contract is really in the interest of the Iraqi people.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of U.N.
Resolution 1483 be printed in the Congressional Record following my
statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have further extracted an analysis of
this U.N. resolution, which is hard to follow if you just pick up the
resolution and read it. The analysis establishes the approach I have
just summarized. One clause, which is denominated Roman numeral I--
first, I ask unanimous consent that this addendum be printed in the
Record following my statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 2.)
Mr. SPECTER. Roman numeral I is the clause which recognizes the
United States and the United Kingdom as the authority.
Roman numeral II establishes the Development Fund for Iraq, including
establishing the International Advisory and Monitoring Board to audit
in the Development Fund.
Roman numeral III from the U.N. resolution gives the authority and
power to disburse the funds in the Development Fund for Iraq.
Roman numeral IV establishes that the Development Fund for Iraq must
be used, among other things, for the economic reconstruction and repair
of Iraq's infrastructure.
Roman numeral V mandates that 95 percent of the proceeds received
from export sales of petroleum, petroleum products, and natural gas
must be deposited into the Development Fund for Iraq until an Iraqi
government is properly constituted. The other 5 percent is to be
deposited into the Compensation Fund, which was set up, per U.N.
Resolution 687 in 1991, to compensate those who suffered losses or
damages as a result of Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait.
In effect, this Security Council resolution anticipates the precise
issue which the Congress is now facing. It is necessary to have these
funds for the rebuilding of Iraq, but there is no good reason it ought
to be a grant or a gift. When Iraq has the resources--the oil--to pay
for the reconstruction of Iraq and to take care of the rebuilding of

[[Page S12266]]

Iraq; and with the authority of the U.N. it eliminates any concern
about the United States acting unilaterally or in conjunction with the
United Kingdom--acting with the two countries unilaterally--because
this has been sanctioned by the United Nations. Creating this fund,
there is an entity to look to, to provide the repayment, as the U.N.
resolution calls for 95 percent of the fund to be used for the
rebuilding of Iraq.
There is significant concern in the Congress--I have heard it among
my colleagues--as to how these funds are to be advanced. The
administration has taken the position that they want grants or gifts.
From my soundings in Pennsylvania and from what I hear from my
colleagues in other States, the American people are very concerned
about what is going on in Iraq generally, they are very concerned about
the casualties and fatalities.
We honor and respect and praise the Armed Forces for the military
victory which has been achieved. We are concerned about our military
personnel there not really being police officials, hopeful that there
will be U.N. assistance on other forces being there, looking for an
Iraqi police force to be trained. But when it comes to the issue of the
advancement of funds, this Security Council resolution sets parameters,
sets the procedures, which authorizes and authenticates the propriety
of having the loans made or loan guarantees so that the United States
can be repaid.
I hear considerable concern among my constituents, and I hear it from
my colleagues in the Senate, about the tightness of our budget, the
difficulties of providing important discretionary funding. In
September, I managed the bill on Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education. Notwithstanding that $136.6 billion is really insufficient
funds to take care of all of our educational, health, and worker safety
needs, I think it is appropriate and reassuring to the American people
that where we can avoid adding to the deficit and to the national debt,
we take steps to do just that.

Exhibit 1

Analysis of the UN Resolution 1484 as it pertains to the Development
Fund for Iraq

(adopted by the United Nations on May 21, 2003 by a vote of 14-0, with
Syria not participating)

i. the following clause recognizes the united states and the united
kingdom as the ``authority'' (un resolution 1484, pg. 2 para. 3)

Noting the letter of 8 May 2003 from the Permanent
Representatives of the United States of America and the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the
President of the Security Council (S/2003/538) and
recognizing the specific authorities, responsibilities, and
obligations under applicable international law of these
states as occupying powers under unified command (the
``Authority''),

ii. the following clause establishes the development fund for iraq,
including establishing the international advisory and monitoring board
to audit the development fund. (un resolution 1484, pg. 4, para. 12)

12. Notes the establishment of a Development Fund for Iraq
to be held by the Central Bank of Iraq and to be audited by
independent public accountants approved by the International
Advisory and Monitoring Board of the Development Fund for
Iraq and looks forward to the early meeting of that
International Advisory and Monitoring Board, whose members
shall include duly qualified representatives of the
Secretary-General, of the Managing Director of the
International Monetary Fund, of the Director-General of the
Arab Fund for Social and Economic Development, and of the
President of the World Bank;

iii. the following clause gives the ``authority'' the power to disburse
the funds in the development fund for iraq. (un resolution 1484, pg. 4,
para. 13)

13. Notes further that the funds in the Development Fund
for Iraq shall be disbursed at the direction of the
Authority, in consultation with the Iraqi interim
administration, for the purposes set out in paragraph 14
below;

iv. the following clause establishes that the Development Fund for Iraq
must be used, among other things, for the economic reconstruction and
repair of the Iraq's infrastructure. (un resolution 1484, pg. 4, para.
14)

14. Underlines that the Development Fund for Iraq shall be
used in a transparent manner to meet the humanitarian needs
of the Iraqi people, for the economic reconstruction and
repair of Iraq's infrastructure, for the continued
disarmament of Iraq, and for the costs of Iraqi civilian
administration, and for other purposes benefiting the people
of Iraq;

v. the following clause mandates that 95% of the proceeds received from
export sales of petroleum, petroleum products, and natural gas must be
deposited into the development fund for iraq until an iraqi government
is properly constituted. (the other 5% will be deposited into the
compensation fund, which was set up, per un resolution 687 (1991), to
compensate those who suffered losses or damages as a result of iraq's
invasion and occupation of kuwait). (un resolution 1484, pg. 6, para.
20)

20. Decides that all export sales of petroleum, petroleum
products, and natural gas from Iraq following the date of the
adoption of this resolution shall be made consistent with
prevailing international market best practices, to be audited
by independent public accountants reporting to the
International Advisory and Monitoring Board referred to in
paragraph 12 above in order to ensure transparency, and
decides further that, except as provided in paragraph 21
below, all proceeds from such sales shall be deposited into
the Development Fund for Iraq until such time as an
internationally recognized, representative government of Iraq
is properly constituted;

Exhibit 2

(From the United Nations Security Council, 21 May 2003.)

spain, united kingdom of great britain and northern ireland and united
states of america: draft resolution

The Security Council,
Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions,
Reaffirming the sovereignty and territorial integrity of
Iraq,
Reaffirming also the importance of the disarmament of Iraqi
weapons of mass destruction and of eventual confirmation of
the disarmament of Iraq,
Stressing the right of the Iraqi people freely to determine
their own political future and control their own natural
resources, welcoming the commitment of all parties concerned
to support the creation of an environment in which they may
do so as soon as possible, and expressing resolve that the
day when Iraqis govern themselves must come quickly,
Encouraging efforts by the people of Iraq to form a
representative government based on the rule of law that
affords equal rights and justice to all Iraqi citizens
without regard to ethnicity, religion, or gender, and, in
this connection, recalls resolution 1325 (2000) of 31 October
2000,
Welcoming the first steps of the Iraqi people in this
regard, and noting in this connection the 15 April 2003
Nasiriyah statement and the 28 April 2003 Baghdad statement,
Resolved that the United Nations should play a vital role
in humanitarian relief, the reconstruction of Iraq, and the
restoration and establishment of national and local
institutions for representative governance,
Noting the statement of 12 April 2003 by the Ministers of
Finance and Central Bank Governors of the Group of Seven
Industrialized Nations in which the members recognized the
need for a multilateral effort to help rebuild and develop
Iraq and for the need for assistance from the International
Monetary Fund and the World Bank in these efforts,
Welcoming also the resumption of humanitarian assistance
and the continuing efforts of the Secretary-General and the
specialized agencies to provide food and medicine to the
people of Iraq,
Welcoming the appointment by the Secretary-General of his
Special Adviser on Iraq,
Affirming the need for accountability for crimes and
atrocities committed by the previous Iraqi regime,
Stressing the need for respect for the archaelogical,
historical, cultural, and religious heritage of Iraq, and for
the continued protection of archaeological, historical,
cultural, and religious sites, museums, libraries, and
monuments.
Noting the letter of 8 May 2003 from the Permanent
Representatives of the United States of America and the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the
President of the Security Council (S/2003/538) and
recognizing the specific authorities, responsibilities, and
obligations under applicable international law of these
states as occupying powers under unified command (the
``Authority''),
Noting further that other States are not occupying powers
are working now or in the future may work under the
Authority,
Welcoming further the willingness of Member States to
contribute to stability and security in Iraq by contributing
personnel, equipment, and other resources under the
Authority,
Concerned that many Kuwaitis and Third-State Nationals
still are not accounted for since 2 August 1990,
Determining that the situation in Iraq, although improved,
continues to constitute a threat to international peace and
security,
Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United
Nations,
1. Appeals to Member States and concerned organizations to
assist the people of Iraq in their efforts to reform their
institutions and rebuild their country, and to contribute to
conditions of stability and security in Iraq in accordance
with this resolution;
2. Calls upon all Member States in a position to do so to
respond immediately to the

[[Page S12267]]

humanitarian appeals of the United Nations and other
international organizations for Iraq and to help meet the
humanitarian and other needs of the Iraqi people by providing
food, medical supplies, and resources necessary for
reconstruction and rehabilitation of Iraq's economic
infrastructure;
3. Appeals to Member States to deny safe haven to those
members of the previous Iraqi regime who are alleged to be
responsible for crimes and atrocities and to support actions
to bring them to justice;
4. Calls upon the Authority, consistent with the Charter of
the United Nations and other relevant international law, to
promote the welfare of the Iraqi people through the effective
administration of the territory, including in particular
working towards the restoration of conditions of security and
stability and the creation of conditions in which the Iraqi
people can freely determine their own political future;
5. Calls upon all concerned to comply fully with their
obligations under international law including in particular
the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Hague Regulations of
1907;
6. Calls upon the Authority and relevant organizations and
individuals to continue efforts to locate, identify, and
repatriate all Kuwaiti and Third-State Nationals or the
remains of those present in Iraq on or after 2 August 1990,
as well as the Kuwaiti archives, that the previous Iraqi
regime failed to undertake, and, in this regard, directs
the High-Level Coordinator, in consultation with the
International Committee of the Red Cross and the
Tripartite Commission and with the appropriate support of
the people of Iraq and in coordination with the Authority,
to take steps to fulfil his mandate with respect to the
fate of Kuwaiti and Third-State National missing persons
and property;
7. Decides that all Member States shall take appropriate
steps to facilitate the safe return to Iraqi institutions of
Iraqi cultural property and other items of archaeological,
historical, cultural, rare scientific, and religious
importance illegally removed from the Iraq National Museum,
the National Library, and other locations in Iraq since the
adoption of resolution 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, including
by establishing a prohibition on trade in or transfer of such
items and items with respect to which reasonable suspicion
exists that they have been illegally removed, and calls upon
the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural
Organization, Interpol, and other international
organizations, as appropriate, to assist in the
implementation of this paragraph;
8. Requests the Secretary-General to appoint a Special
Representative for Iraq whose independent responsibilities
shall involve reporting regularly to the Council on his
activities under this resolution, coordinating activities of
the United Nations in post-conflict processes in Iraq,
coordinating among United Nations and international agencies
engaged in humanitarian assistance and reconstruction
activities in Iraq, and, in coordination with the Authority,
assisting the people of Iraq through:
(a) coordinating humanitarian and reconstruction assistance
by United Nations agencies and between United Nations
agencies and non-governmental organizations;
(b) promoting the safe, orderly, and voluntary return of
refugees and displaced persons;
(c) working intensively with the Authority, the people of
Iraq, and others concerned to advance efforts to restore and
establish national and local institutions for representative
governance, including by working together to facilitate a
process leading to an internationally recognized,
representative government of Iraq;
(d) facilitating the reconstruction of key infrastructure,
in cooperation with other international organizations;
(e) promoting economic reconstruction and the conditions
for sustainable development, including through coordination
with national and regional organizations, as appropriate,
civil society, donors, and the international financial
institutions;
(f) encouraging international efforts to contribute to
basic civilian administration functions;
(g) promoting the protection of human rights;
(h) encouraging international efforts to rebuild the
capacity of the Iraqi civilian police force; and
(i) encouraging international efforts to promote legal and
judicial reform;
9. Supports the formation, by the people of Iraq with the
help of the Authority and working with the Special
Representative, of an Iraqi interim administration as a
transitional administration run by Iraqis, until an
internationally recognized, representative government is
established by the people of Iraq and assumes the
responsibilities of the Authority;
10. Decides that, with the exception of prohibitions
related to the sale or supply to Iraq of arms and related
materiel other than those arms and related materiel required
by the Authority to serve the purposes of this and other
related resolutions, all prohibitions related to trade with
Iraq and the provision of financial or economic resources to
Iraq established by resolution 661 (1990) and subsequent
relevant resolutions, including resolution 778 (1992) of 2
October 1992, shall no longer apply;
11. Reaffirms that Iraq must meet its disarmament
obligations, encourages the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland and the United States of America to keep
the Council informed of their activities in this regard, and
underlines the intention of the Council to revisit the
mandates of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification, and
Inspection Commission and the International Atomic Energy
Agency as set forth in resolutions 687 (1991) of 3 April
1991, 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and 1441 (2002) of 8
November 2002;
12. Notes the establishment of a Development Fund for Iraq
to be held by the Central Bank of Iraq and to be audited by
independent public accountants approved by the International
Advisory and Monitoring Board of the Development Fund for
Iraq and looks forward to the early meeting of that
International Advisory and Monitoring Board, whose members
shall include duly qualified representatives of the
Secretary-General, of the Managing Director of the
International Monetary Fund, of the Director-General of the
Arab Fund for Social and Economic Development, and of the
President of the World Bank;
13. Notes further that the funds in the Development Fund
for Iraq shall be disbursed at the direction of the
Authority, in consultation with the Iraqi interim
administration, for the purposes set out in paragraph 14
below;
14. Underlines that the Development Fund for Iraq shall be
used in a transparent manner to meet the humanitarian needs
of the Iraqi people, for the economic reconstruction and
repair of Iraq's infrastructure, for the continued
disarmament of Iraq, and for the costs of Iraqi civilian
administration, and for other purposes benefiting the people
of Iraq;
15. Calls upon the international financial institutions to
assist the people of Iraq in the reconstruction and
development of their economy and to facilitate assistance by
the broader donor community, and welcomes the readiness of
creditors, including those of the Paris Club, to seek a
solution to Iraq's sovereign debt problems;
16. Requests also that the Secretary-General, in
coordination with the Authority, continue the exercise of his
responsibilities under Security Council resolution 1472
(2003) of 28 March 2003 and 1476 (2003) of 24 April 2003, for
a period of six months following the adoption of this
resolution, and terminate within this time period, in the
most cost effective manner, the ongoing operations of the
``Oil-for-Food'' Programme (the ``Programme''), both at
headquarters level and in the field, transferring
responsibility for the administration of any remaining
activity under the Programme to the Authority, including by
taking the following necessary measures:
(a) to facilitate as soon as possible the shipment and
authenticated delivery of priority civilian goods as
identified by the Secretary-General and representatives
designated by him, in coordination with the Authority and the
Iraqi interim administration, under approved and funded
contracts previously concluded by the previous Government of
Iraq, for the humanitarian relief of the people of Iraq,
including, as necessary, negotiating adjustments in the terms
or conditions of these contracts and respective letters of
credit as set forth in paragraph 4(d) of resolution 1472
(2003);
(b) to review, in light of changed circumstances, in
coordination with the Authority and the Iraqi interim
administration, the relative utility of each approved and
funded contract with a view to determining whether such
contracts contain items required to meet the needs of the
people of Iraq both now and during reconstruction, and to
postpone action on those contracts determined to be of
questionable utility and the respective letters of credit
until an internationally recognized, representative
government of Iraq is in a position to make its own
determination as to whether such contracts shall be
fulfilled;
(c) to provide the Security Council within 21 days
following the adoption of this resolution, for the Security
Council's review and consideration, an estimated operating
budget based on funds already set aside in the account
established pursuant to paragraph 8(d) of resolution 986
(1995) of 14 April 1995, identifying:
(i) all known and projected costs to the United Nations
required to ensure the continued functioning of the
activities associated with implementation of the present
resolution, including operating and administrative expenses
associated with the relevant United Nations agencies and
programmes responsible for the implementation of the
Programme both at Headquarters and in the field;
(ii) all known and projected costs associated with
termination of the Programme;
(iii) all known and projected costs associated with
restoring Government of Iraq funds that were provided by
Member States to the Secretary-General as requested in
paragraph 1 of resolution 778 (1992); and
(iv) all known and projected costs associated with the
Special Representative and the qualified representative of
the Secretary-General identified to serve on the
International Advisory and Monitoring Board, for the six
month time period defined above, following which these costs
shall be borne by the United Nations;
(d) to consolidate into a single fund the accounts
established pursuant to paragraphs 8(a) and 8(b) of
resolution 986 (1995);
(e) to fulfill all remaining obligations related to the
termination of the Programme, including negotiating, in the
most cost effective manner, any necessary settlement
payments, which shall be made from the escrow

[[Page S12268]]

accounts established pursuant to paragraphs 8(a) and 8(b) of
resolution 986 (1995), with those parties that previously
have entered into contractual obligations with the Secretary-
General under the Programme, and to determine, in
coordination with the Authority and the Iraqi interim
administration, the future status of contracts undertaken
by the United Nations and related United Nations agencies
under the accounts established pursuant to paragraphs 8
(b) and 8 (d) of resolution 986 (1995);
(f) to provide the Security Council, 30 days prior to the
termination of the Programme, with a comprehensive strategy
developed in close coordination with the Authority and the
Iraqi interim administration that would lead to the delivery
of all relevant documentation and the transfer of all
operational responsibility of the Programme to the Authority;
17. Requests further that the Secretary-General transfer as
soon as possible to the Development Fund for Iraq 1 billion
United States dollars from unencumbered funds in the accounts
established pursuant to paragraphs 8 (a) and 8 (b) of
resolution 986 (1995), restore Government of Iraq funds that
were provided by Member States to the Secretary-General as
requested in paragraph 1 of resolution 778 (1992), and
decides that, after deducting all relevant United Nations
expenses associated with the shipment of authorized contracts
and costs to the Programme outlined in paragraph 16 (c)
above, including residual obligations, all surplus funds in
the escrow accounts established pursuant to paragraphs 8 (a),
8 (b), 8 (d), and 8 (f) of resolution 986 (1995) shall be
transferred at the earliest possible time to the Development
Fund for Iraq;
18. Decides to terminate effective on the adoption of this
resolution the functions related to the observation and
monitoring activities undertaken by the Secretary-General
under the Programme, including the monitoring of the export
of petroleum and petroleum products from Iraq;
19. Decides to terminate the Committee established pursuant
to paragraph 6 of resolution 661 (1990) at the conclusion of
the six month period called for in paragraph 16 above and
further decides that the Committee shall identify individuals
and entities referred to in paragraph 23 below;
20. Decides that all export sales of petroleum, petroleum
products, and natural gas from Iraq following the date of the
adoption of this resolution shall be made consistent with
prevailing international market best practices, to be audited
by independent public accountants reporting to the
International Advisory and Monitoring Board referred to in
paragraph 12 above in order to ensure transparency, and
decides further that, except as provided in paragraph 21
below, all proceeds from such sales shall be deposited into
the Development Fund for Iraq until such time as an
internationally recognized, representative government of Iraq
is properly constituted;
21. Decides further that 5 percent of the proceeds referred
to in paragraph 20 above shall be deposited into the
Compensation Fund established in accordance with resolution
687 (1991) and subsequent relevant resolutions and that,
unless an internationally recognized, representative
government of Iraq and the Governing Council of the United
Nations Compensation Commission, in the exercise of its
authority over methods of ensuring that payments are made
into the Compensation Fund, decide otherwise, this
requirement shall be binding on a properly constituted,
internationally recognized, representative government of Iraq
and any successor thereto;
22. Noting the relevance of the establishment of an
internationally recognized, representative government of Iraq
and the desirability of prompt completion of the
restructuring of Iraq's debt as referred to in paragraph 15
above, further decides that, until December 31, 2007, unless
the Council decides otherwise, petroleum products, and
natural gas originating in Iraq shall be immune, until title
passes to the initial purchaser from legal proceedings
against them and not be subject to any form of attachment,
garnishment, or execution, and that all States shall take any
steps that may be necessary under their respective domestic
legal systems to assure this protection, and that proceeds
and obligations arising from sales thereof, as well as the
Development Fund for Iraq, shall enjoy privileges and
immunities equivalent to those enjoyed by the United Nations
except that the above-mentioned privileges and immunities
will not apply with respect to any legal proceeding in which
recourse to such proceeds or obligations is necessary to
satisfy liability for damages assessed in connection with an
ecological accident, including an oil spill, that occurs
after the date of adoption of this resolution;
23. Decides that all Member States in which there are:
(a) funds or other financial assets or economic resources
of the previous Government of Iraq or its state bodies,
corporations, or agencies, located outside Iraq as of the
date of this resolution, or
(b) funds or other financial assets or economic resources
that have been removed from Iraq, or acquired, by Saddam
Hussein or other senior officials of the former Iraqi regime
and their immediate family members, including entities owned
or controlled, directly or indirectly, by them or by persons
acting on behalf or at their direction,

shall freeze without delay these funds or other financial
assets or economic resources and, unless these funds or other
financial assets or economic resources are themselves the
subject of a prior judicial, administrative, or arbitral lien
or judgment, immediately shall cause their transfer to the
Development Fund for Iraq, it being understood that, unless
otherwise addressed, claims made by private individuals or
non-government entities on those transferred funds or other
financial assets may be presented to the internationally
recognized, representative government of Iraq; and decides
further that all such funds or other financial assets or
economic resources shall enjoy the same privileges,
immunities, and protections as provided under paragraph 22;
24. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Council
at regular intervals on the work of the Special
Representative with respect to the implementation of this
resolution and on the work of the International Advisory and
Monitoring Board and encourages, the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America
to inform the Council at regular intervals of their efforts
under this resolution;
25. Decides to review the implementation of this resolution
within twelve months of adoption and to consider further
steps that might be necessary.
26. Calls upon Member States and international and regional
organizations to contribute to the implementation of this
resolution;
27. Decides to remain seized of this matter.

Allegations of White House Leaks

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, a considerable controversy has arisen as
to the allegations of leaks from the White House with respect to the
identification of a CIA operative, or a CIA agent, and there have been
calls for special counsel to be appointed by the Attorney General.
The Attorney General has taken the position that the investigation
can be appropriately carried out by the professionals in the Department
of Justice and the professionals in the FBI.
I think it is curious that the call for a special counsel has come
only after the issue has become a cause celebre with the publication by
the Washington Post of the front page story on Sunday. This
investigation had been pending for a protracted period of time. It came
to light in a newspaper column back in July. But until it had attained
notoriety and attracted public attention, nobody came forward to make a
suggestion that there ought to be special counsel.
The Congress of the United States decided to allow the independent
counsel statute to lapse. We considered it in 1999 in the Governmental
Affairs Committee. Legislation was introduced by Senator Collins and
myself on the Republican side, and Senators Levin and Lieberman on
behalf of the Democrats. But there was no interest in having the
independent counsel statute continued.
I favored the independent counsel because it established a specific
procedure as to when there ought to be independent counsel in the event
of a prospective conflict of interest, or appearance of conflict; it
provided for judicial appointment of independent counsel. But that was
rejected by the Congress. And it is interesting to know that of all
those on the other side of the aisle among the Democratic Senators,
none of them had cosponsored the legislation or, to my knowledge, had
spoken in favor of the legislation--except, as I have noted, Senator
Levin and Senator Lieberman.
In rejecting a call to renew independent counsel, what we had was the
judgment of the Congress that the existing institutions were
sufficient. That is having it in the Department of Justice and having
the procedures established by the Attorney General who was in office
during the Clinton administration.

I suggest having decided that, we ought to give the existing
institutions an opportunity to function. I think it is important to
note that it wasn't the Attorney General who started the investigation,
it was one of his subordinates. The matter is being handled by Mr. John
Dion, who is a career professional. I had considerable contact with Mr.
Dion during the course of the Judiciary Committee oversight when
Independent Counsel Starr was in operation.
The matter is being investigated by the FBI and is being kept at the
headquarters level to assure greater involvement and control by
Director Robert Mueller. It ought to be noted Director Mueller has a
10-year term. His term will not expire for 2\1/2\ years after a
prospective second term of President Bush. FBI Directors have

[[Page S12269]]

been known to be independent and professional. Former FBI Director
Louis Freeh had considerable disagreements with President Clinton and
refused to give information to the White House at a time when Director
Freeh concluded there was a criminal investigation which might involve
President Clinton. So we have a standard for professionalism by the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, and we have a standard of
professionalism by the career people in the Department of Justice.
There is also the oversight by the Judiciary Committee. This is a
matter where we took considerable interest in what Independent Counsel
Ken Starr did. It is worth noting that there are many members of the
Judiciary Committee who have experience as prosecuting attorneys with
the attendant responsibilities for investigation.
I was district attorney of Philadelphia for some 8 years. We have on
the committee staff other former DAs, attorneys general, U.S.
attorneys, so that the Judiciary Committee is in a position to have
oversight, our constitutional responsibility, to see to it that the
investigation is appropriately carried out.
There may come a time when special counsel would be warranted, but it
seems to me that at this stage, there ought not to be politicization of
the matter, although I understand the ways of Washington, but it is
anomalous that those who are now calling for special counsel had no
interest in institutionalizing the independent counsel except, as I
say, for Senator Lieberman and Senator Levin.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant Democratic leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, we know there is concern on the other side
of the aisle, and certainly at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, regarding
problems with leaking information from the White House or someplace in
the administration to Robert Novak. We know that causes concern, as it
should. To try to cloud this with a lot of legal jargon that there are
other lawyers looking at it, that Democrats didn't support this
independent counsel statute is evading the question.
We don't have to support an independent counsel statute to have the
law as it now applies which allows the appointment of a special
counsel.
It seems to me common sense that if an independent counsel was
selected to look at Secretary Espy, the Secretary of Agriculture,
because he accepted tickets to a football game, which he was not
supposed to do, and President Clinton--by the way, an independent
counsel was not ordered; he agreed to an independent counsel to
investigate his real estate transaction in Arkansas--it seems to me
certainly we should have a special counsel look at what has taken
place.
We know a crime has been committed by a person or persons. We know
that Robert Novak, who I think is an honorable person, identified from
where that information came. So we know there are criminals there. We
know there are people there who have committed crimes. So it seems to
me this is a much more direct case than some of the other issues that
have taken place in the past; namely, the issue with President Clinton
and the situation with Secretary Espy.
The situation here is very clear: Someone leaked the name of a CIA
operative, a Central Intelligence Agency operative, a spy, an American
spy. They leaked the name of that person to the press by name.
Everyone--I agree--should take a deep breath and let this process go
forward. The White House should want a special counsel. In Government,
we not only have to do away with what is bad but what looks bad. The
American people clearly know this.
ABC and the Washington Post are going to report a poll tomorrow. I
will not go into a lot of the details, but one question they asked is:
Do you think this investigation should be handled by the U.S.
Department of Justice, part of the Bush administration, or should it be
handled by an outside investigator or special counsel who is not part
of the Bush administration?
About 70 percent of the people believe it should be handled outside
the White House, outside the Justice Department.
Another question: If the investigation finds that someone in the
White House leaked classified information, do you think that person
should or should not lose his job?
Ninety-one percent of the people believe that person or those people
should lose their jobs--91 percent of the people.
Another question that will be reported by the American Broadcasting
Company in the morning: If the investigation finds that someone in the
White House leaked classified information, do you think that person
should or should not face criminal charges?
About 85 percent of the people believe that person should face
criminal charges.
It is very clear to me this is an effort to cover up a problem. This
is not something that I brought up just to be talking. If people are
going to come here and try to cover this up, anytime anyone does that,
and I am on the Senate floor, I am going to talk about it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I agree with the Senator from Nevada that
this is a serious matter. When he quotes the poll, I would say it would
go beyond losing jobs. If someone has violated the law, there is a very
substantial jail sentence which is proposed. But my comments I do not
think constituted legal jargon at all. I think they were taking a look
at the fact that the Congress has decided we would not have an
independent counsel procedure when we did not renew the law. I fought
hard to have that done as a principal position, regardless of which
party is involved.
Now there is an immediate call for special counsel only after this
matter becomes highly publicized, only after it becomes an opportunity
for political gain--only then. This matter was pending since July when
the CIA and part of the administration asked the Department of Justice
for an investigation, and the investigation was going forward. Now it
has been the subject of a demand for a special prosecutor by people who
were indifferent to the institution of Government when independent
counsel was considered for renewal.
We have a Department of Justice with professionals. We have an FBI
with a Director who has a 10-year term. To repeat, his term will not
expire until 2\1/2\ years after the end of the prospective second term
for President Bush. So far, we have allegations, and they are serious
allegations, and they ought to be investigated in due course without an
immediate attempt for politicization, once it becomes a matter of high
visibility as it has been since last Sunday. It only took until Monday
to have a call for the independent counsel, and here we are on
Wednesday.
Mr. President, I have been asked to handle the wrapup material on
behalf of the majority leader as the sole remaining standing Republican
present on the Senate floor.

Amendment No. 1795, As Modified

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment
No. 1795 be modified with the language at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. COMMENDING THE ARMED FORCES FOR EFFORTS IN OPERATION
ENDURING FREEDOM AND OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM.

(a) Purpose.--Recognizing and commending the members of the
United States Armed Forces and their leaders, and the allies
of the Untied States and their armed forces, who participated
in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and Operation
Iraqi Freedom in Iraq and recognizing the continuing
dedication of military families and employers and defense
civilians and contractors and the countless communities and
patriotic organizations that lent their support to the Armed
Forces during those operations.
(b) The Senate finds
That the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the
United States, which killed thousands of people from the
United States and other countries in New York, Virginia, and
Pennsylvania, inaugurated the Global War on Terrorism;
That the intelligence community quickly identified Al Qaeda
as a terrorist organization with global reach and the
President determined that United States national security
required the elimination of the Al Qaeda terrorist
organization;
That the Taliban regime of Afghanistan had long harbored Al
Qaeda, providing members of that organization a safe haven
from

[[Page S12270]]

which to attack the United States and its friends and allies,
and the refusal of that regime to discontinue its support for
international terrorism and surrender Al Qaeda's leaders to
the United States made it a threat to international peace and
security;
That Saddam Hussein and his regime's longstanding
sponsorship of international terrorism, active pursuit of
weapons of mass destruction, use of such weapons against
Iraq's own citizens and neighboring countries, aggression
against Iraq's neighbors, and brutal repression of Iraq's
population made Saddam Hussein and his regime a threat to
international peace and security;
That the United States pursued sustained diplomatic,
political, and economic efforts to remove those threats
peacefully;
That on October 7, 2001, the Armed Forces of the United
States and its coalition allies launched military operations
in Afghanistan, designated as Operation Enduring Freedom,
that quickly caused the collapse of the Taliban regime, the
elimination of Afghanistan's terrorist infrastructure, and
the capture of significant and numerous members of Al Qaeda;
That on March 19, 2003, the Armed Forces of the United
States and its coalition allies launched military operations,
designated as Operation Iraqi Freedom, that quickly caused
the collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime, the elimination of
Iraq's terrorist infrastructure, the end of Iraq's illicit
and illegal programs to acquire weapons of mass destruction,
and the capture of significant international terrorists;
That in those two campaigns in the Global War on Terrorism,
as of September 27, 2003, nearly 165,000 members of the
United States Armed Forces, comprised of active, reserve, and
National Guard members and units, had mobilized for Operation
Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom.
That success in those two campaigns in the Global War on
Terrorism would not have been possible without the
dedication, courage, and service of the members of the United
States Armed Forces and the military and irregular forces of
the friends and allies of the United States;
That the support, love, and commitment from the families of
United States service personnel participating in those two
operations, as well as that of the communities and patriotic
organizations which provided support through the United
Services Organization (USO), Operation Dear Abby, and
Operation UpLink, helped to sustain those service personnel
and enabled them to eliminate significant threats to United
States national security while liberating oppressed peoples
from dictatorial regimes;
That the civilian employees of the Department of Defense,
through their hard work and dedication, enabled United States
military forces to quickly and effectively achieve the United
States military missions in Afghanistan and Iraq;
That the commitment of companies making their employees
available for military service, the creativity and initiative
of contractors equipping the Nation's Armed Forces with the
best and most modern equipment, and the ingenuity of service
companies assisting with the global overseas deployment of
the Armed Forces demonstrates that the entrepreneurial
spirit of the United States is an extraordinarily valuable
defense asset; and
That the Nation should pause to recognize with appropriate
tributes and days of remembrance the sacrifice of those
members of the Armed Forces who died or were wounded in
Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom, as
well as all who served in or supported either of those
operations: Now, therefore, be it (c) It is the Sense of the
Senate that the Senate
(1) conveys its deepest sympathy and condolences to the
families and friends of the members of United States and
coalition forces who have been injured, wounded, or killed
during Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi
Freedom;
(2) commends President George W. Bush, Secretary of Defense
Donald H. Rumsfeld, and United States Central Command
commander General Tommy Franks, United States Army, for their
planning and execution of enormously successful military
campaigns in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi
Freedom;
(3) expresses its highest commendation and most sincere
appreciation to the members of the United States Armed Forces
who participated in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation
Iraqi Freedom;
(4) commends the Department of Defense civilian employees
and the defense contractor personnel whose skills made
possible the equipping of the greatest Armed Force in the
annals of modern military endeavor;
(5) supports the efforts of communities across the Nation--
(A) to prepare appropriate homecoming ceremonies to honor
and welcome home the members of the Armed Forces
participating in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation
Iraqi Freedom and to recognize their contributions to United
States homeland security and to the Global War on Terrorism;
and
(B) to prepare appropriate ceremonies to commemorate with
tributes and days of remembrance the service and sacrifice of
those service members killed or wounded during those
operations;
(6) expresses the deep gratitude of the Nation to the 21
steadfast allies in Operation Enduring Freedom and to the 49
coalition members in Operation Iraqi Freedom, especially the
United Kingdom, Australia, and Poland, whose forces, support,
and contributions were invaluable and unforgettable; and
(7) recommits the United States to ensuring the safety of
the United States homeland, to preventing weapons of mass
destruction from reaching the hands of terrorists, and to
helping the people of Iraq and Afghanistan build free and
vibrant democratic societies.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the
Senate resumes consideration of the Iraq supplemental, the Senate then
resume consideration of the McConnell amendment, as modified, with the
technical changes at the desk; provided further, that there then be 40
minutes equally divided in the usual form; further, that following the
use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to a vote on or in
relation to the amendment, with no amendments in order to the amendment
prior to the vote.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would
appreciate it if the Senator would allow a modification: That of the 20
minutes we have on this side, 10 minutes be set aside for Senator Byrd.
Mr. SPECTER. Agreed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________