[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 138 (Thursday, October 2, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12306-S12308]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR IRAQ SECURITY

  Mr. INHOFE. The whole issue of the $87 billion is so misunderstood by 
most of the American people, I would like to try to put it in a context 
that is more understandable. First of all, you are talking about $87 
billion, of which $66 billion is going back into the military. Most of 
that is rebuilding the military for what happened to the military 
during the 1990s, and to rebuild it, to get us up to be able to meet 
the challenges that are very serious today. I would like to go into 
more detail on that, but there is not time in this 5 minutes.
  But I would say this, of the $87 billion--and you take away the $66 
billion--we are talking about $20 billion, less $5 billion. It is very 
important we understand this; $5 billion of this will be going toward 
border security, having nothing to do with rebuilding infrastructure, 
rebuilding any of the water systems, electrical systems, the highways, 
the other infrastructure systems we are going to have to get done.
  It leaves $15 billion.
  The big discussion here is--and I know it sounds good to the American 
people and it sounds good to my wife--with all of the potential oil 
revenues, why don't we restructure this as a loan as opposed to a 
grant? There is very good reason for that.
  CSIS has come up with an analysis of the debt that is owed currently 
by Iraq. It is not just $140 billion or the $200 billion figure you 
have heard. When you put the claims in there that would have to be 
subordinate to the $383 billion, if we do restructure this as a loan, 
it would come in only after $383 billion has been repaid by some 
source. We all know logically that would never ever happen. But the 
rewards of expending this $15 billion and doing it quickly, as the 
President is requesting, are immense. To have a friend in that country 
of Iraq in the Middle East would have a great benefit for us.
  When you stop to think about just the cost of petroleum for the no-
fly zone, that amounts to $15 billion each decade. If we don't do this, 
we are going to be right back in that box where we didn't finish the 
job we should have finished in 1991 and 1996. Now is the time to finish 
the job.
  I suggest to you that the greatest disservice we could do to our 
troops on the ground over in Iraq would be to stall this thing, to not 
get over there and put the necessary money in to fix the 
infrastructure.
  I am not sure how many people in this body know how much our troops 
are doing. They are actually putting roofs on buildings, they are 
actually constructing houses, and they are doing things on their own 
with their own labor. They desperately need to have us come in and make 
the necessary fixes.
  We have had a success story. My gosh, we have had over 5,000 
businesses started. The hospitals and clinics are now open. The schools 
opened 2 days ago, and 56,000 Iraqis are now working in the security 
control system.
  All of this can continue only if we get the $15 billion over there 
for the reparations and to take care of the infrastructure. If we don't 
do that, we are leaving our troops out there in a very dangerous 
situation.
  I would like for everyone to remember their history a little bit.
  The Treaty of Versailles was in 1919, at the end of World War I. 
France insisted on leaving $32 billion in debt for the Germans to pay. 
As a result of being covered up with debt and knowing there was no 
possible way out, they became ripe for Hitler to come along. And we 
know the rest of the story.
  That is the same situation we are facing in Iraq right now. If we 
don't come to the table with the $15 billion and get in there and start 
repairing the infrastructure and continue the success we have had so 
far, and do it immediately, then we are going to leave our troops 
hanging out there to dry.
  For the sake of national security, the most significant thing we 
probably will be dealing with--certainly in this year and maybe during 
our entire careers--is to get the money in there and get the job done, 
and this time not do what we did in 1991 or 1996 but finish the job and 
bring this country back up so it can be our ally in the Middle East.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, one of the anecdotes about politics I 
enjoy the most and that I think is most illustrative of some of the 
situation that is going on now with respect to Iraq relates to the late 
Pauline Kael. She was the movie editor for the New Yorker magazine. In 
1972, when Richard Nixon won an overwhelming and historic victory in 
the Presidential election, carrying every single State except 
Massachusetts and the District of Columbia, Pauline Kael was terribly 
surprised. She said when commenting on this: Nixon can't possibly have 
won. I don't know a single person who voted for him.
  There might be some who will say that speaks well of her circle of 
friends, but it demonstrates that she lived in a very tight 
intellectual circle and had no real contact with what was happening in 
the country as a whole.
  I cite that because I think that is what is happening with respect to 
reporting in Iraq right now. I had an experience over the weekend which 
I will share briefly before I yield the remainder of our morning 
business time to the Senator from Texas.
  An old friend from Utah and his wife came to Washington on a tourist 
visit, and I took them around to the various monuments. This man and 
his wife expressed great concern about Iraq. The wife said: We have 
real problems in

[[Page S12307]]

Iraq. I said: Yes, we do. Tell me what they are, from your perspective.
  She said: People are dying all the time, and we are making no 
progress whatsoever, and we have no plan of making progress. We are in 
real trouble in Iraq. I said to her: Let me ask you a few things. I 
said: Are you aware of the fact that about 90 percent of the country is 
peaceful and that the attacks on Americans are taking place only in 
what is known as the Sunni Triangle, which goes from Baghdad to Tikrit, 
and that outside of the Sunni Triangle Americans are not being attacked 
and killed? She said: No, I didn't know that.
  I said: Which country do you think is providing the most troops other 
than America to help fight for security in Iraq? She said: I guess it 
is the British. I said: No, it is not the British. Not the British? Is 
there another country that has more troops in Iraq fighting for Iraq 
besides the British? I said: Yes. It is the Iraqis. She said: What do 
you mean? Why, there are close to 50,000 Iraqis under arms providing 
security support for Americans. She said: I didn't know that.
  I said: How many schools do you think have been reopened since the 
war? She said: I assume probably none. I said: No. I said: 90 percent 
of the schools and hospitals are now operating. She said: I didn't 
know.
  I will not prolong the time because the Senator from Texas wishes to 
speak. But the point is that we have in the American press today a lot 
of Pauline Kaels, someone who said, I don't know a single person who 
voted for Richard Nixon, in the face of the most historic landslide we 
had with Richard Nixon. We have press people who are telling us what is 
going on in Iraq who don't know anybody who has anything good to say 
about what is going on in Iraq.
  I have said before and I will conclude with this: During the height 
of hostilities in Iraq, to watch television, it was clear we were 
losing the war on CNN. But, fortunately, we won it on Fox. Ultimately, 
the fact that we won came through even to the CNN executives.

  I think the good things that are happening in Iraq will eventually 
come through, even to the people at CNN and the New York Times and some 
of the other places that are living in a Pauline Kael world.
  I yield the remainder of our morning business time to the Senator 
from Texas.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I inquire how much time remains on our 
side.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas has 20 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. CORNYN. I thank the President, and I thank the Senator from Utah 
for the courtesy and the opportunity to rise to say a few words about 
the President's budget request.
  I want to be clear about this. The sooner we accomplish our mission 
of securing Iraq and freeing the economy and stabilizing the 
government, the sooner our young men and women will be able to come 
home and we can turn Iraq over to the Iraqis so that they can enjoy the 
blessings of self-government and liberty.
  By the same token, the longer we delay in voting on this supplemental 
request, the longer we delay in getting money that is needed both to 
support our troops and to restructure that troubled region and the 
longer it will be before our troops will be able to come home to their 
families. Slowing this funding request merely delays the return of our 
troops from harm's way. And that should not be the role of the Senate, 
either unintentionally or otherwise.
  We all know that the Congress voted to authorize the President to use 
necessary force to remove Saddam Hussein's regime last November. But 
there are some in this body today who appear to be playing the politics 
of the moment, making claims that seem to exploit for political gain 
the hardships that our military is enduring in serving the cause of 
freedom. This is nothing more than crass political games. They 
certainly have no place in this body.

  I have the utmost respect and regard for my fellow Senators. Yet I 
must confess that I am dumbfounded at how soon some have appeared to 
forget the truth of Saddam's vile regime. The fundamental question we 
ought to be asking is, Are the Iraqi people better off today than they 
were under Saddam's regime? The answer to that is unequivocally yes. 
Are the American people safer today than they were when Saddam was in 
power? Again, the answer is unequivocally yes. The only remaining 
question is, Have we finished the job we started with Saddam's ouster? 
The answer to that question is no. But we must and we will.
  I had the honor of traveling to Iraq with members of the Senate Armed 
Services Committee last June. I was sickened by the inhumanity 
evidenced by the mass graves, holding some 300,000 Iraqis and others 
who were victims of Saddam's regime. I was also shocked to learn from a 
U.N. representative that there are some 1.5 million people simply 
missing. We do not know whether they are dead or alive.
  The suggestion in the face of these silent witnesses that Iraq, the 
Middle East, indeed the entire free world, are not better off today 
than before we took Saddam down is simply false.
  Today there is religious freedom and human rights in Iraq unlike 
anything experienced during Saddam's regime. The Iraqi people now have 
hope, they have a future, something that must have seemed only like a 
dream to them a few short months ago.
  I am proud to commend President Bush for the resolute leadership that 
he has demonstrated in pursuing the war on terror both in Iraq and 
around the world. Everyone who has been engaged in this fight, whether 
it is the most junior recruit or the Commander in Chief, is doing a 
remarkable job under extraordinarily difficult circumstances. I 
strongly believe we must remain committed to finishing the job in Iraq 
by supporting this supplemental.
  I ask those who oppose this supplemental or who want to slow it down 
or who want to cut it in pieces and engage in lengthy delay, what is 
the message America sends to our enemies in the war on terror if we are 
shaken in our commitment? Do we doubt our mission so easily? Do our 
international commitments mean so little? We did not undertake the war 
against terror because it was easy. We undertook it because it was the 
right thing to do, because it was necessary to make America safer.
  As I said, there are some in the Senate who have advocated separating 
the moneys requested in this $87 billion supplemental between 
assistance to the troops and reconstruction of Iraq. I am opposed to 
any such separation and I am glad we voted down an amendment yesterday 
on that issue. Some argue that we should loan the money to Iraq instead 
of providing it to Iraq in the form of a grant--that is, that portion 
that should go to reconstruction. If we are to get our young men and 
women in uniform back home as soon as possible, which should be our 
goal, and turn the government over to the Iraqi people as soon as 
possible, which should also be our goal, we should not allow for any 
delay in the delivery of these funds.
  General Abizaid, the CENTCOM commander, testified before the Senate 
Armed Services Committee that these reconstruction funds are 
inextricably intertwined with the security of our men and women on the 
ground.

  I also believe it would be foolish to extract what would be only an 
illusory guarantee of loan repayment, and the delay in getting such 
loan funds to those who need it on the ground will likely jeopardize 
the security of our troops, according to General Abizaid.
  The economic assistance and the reconstruction support requested 
today are essential to the success and security of our troops and 
essential to our success in Iraq. We must build up Iraqi security, we 
must gain the confidence of the Iraqi people by improving the 
infrastructure, and we must begin the capacity to deal with all of the 
threats they face on the ground.
  I share my colleagues' concerns and their sense of fiscal 
responsibility when dealing with taxpayer dollars. I strongly believe 
we should be good stewards of the taxpayers' money at all times. I wish 
this newfound concern pervaded all aspects of our fiscal 
responsibilities in Congress, not just this one. We cannot preach 
fiscal restraint on one hand and practice fiscal irresponsibility on 
the other. True, responsibility cannot depend on political convenience.

[[Page S12308]]

  The numbers we are dealing with today are hard for many to grasp but 
boil down to the American taxpayer, according to a recent USA Today 
article, this way: Each year American households spend about 1 percent 
of their income on alcoholic beverages, another 1 percent on tobacco 
products, and we spent about .7 percent of our income on cosmetics. To 
put it into context, if this request were approved, our combined 
operations to combat terror in the Middle East and Afghanistan will 
have cost .8 percent of our income next year, a bit more than we 
annually spend on makeup and shampoo and a bit less than we annually 
spend on alcohol and tobacco. Significant? Yes. Budget busting? No. 
Worth it? Yes.
  The American people are well aware that we are engaged in a 
Presidential election season and they recognize the difference between 
those with an honest difference of opinion and those who seek to 
exploit the President's handling of the war purely in order to gain 
political advantage. I find something particularly unsavory about the 
comments of those who seek political advantage in questioning our 
commitment to our troops and our dedication to winning the war on 
terror. Those who spend their time playing political games with our 
mission in Iraq, even as our young men and women labor to secure and 
stabilize that fledgling nation, do a dishonor not only to themselves 
but to our soldiers in the field and the memories of those who have 
sacrificed everything they had opposing Saddam's blood thirsty regime.
  There are clearly obstacles to overcome in Iraq and there will 
certainly be setbacks along the way, as we have seen. I only hope the 
politics of the moment do not drive criticism that only serves to 
undermine our commitment to winning the war on terror and American 
resolve. We must not cut and run. We must not leave the Iraqi people 
with a promise unfulfilled. We owe it to our young men and women in 
uniform to give them our unequivocal support as they labor on in a 
dangerous place for an honorable cause.
  Our troops, I am convinced, have the will to win. I only hope our 
politicians share that will to win.
  As President Kennedy said 42 years ago:

       Let every nation know whether it wishes us well or ill, 
     that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any 
     hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the 
     survival and the success of liberty.

  I only wish those who are consciously or not intent on denying our 
troops what they need to finish the job and to get home as soon as 
possible will stop to reconsider. We have liberated Iraq of Saddam 
Hussein and now we must simply finish the job. We seek to make Iraq 
secure, to make it a place where the rule of law can be established so 
that civilian leaders, including the Iraqi Governing Council, can 
establish a new government for a new nation. This is not an easy task 
and it is not without cost. But it must be done, so Iraq can flourish 
as a free nation, and so that the victories won, the lives lost, will 
not be in vain.

  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________