[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 143 (Tuesday, October 14, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12485-S12486]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, we are back, as all of our colleagues
know, on the supplemental appropriations request offered by the
administration. There are a number of amendments
[[Page S12486]]
pending--as I understand it, five--and there will be other amendments
offered today. I urge colleagues to come to the floor to offer their
amendments and to ensure we have adequate time by the end of the week
to dispose of those amendments that have yet to be offered.
There is a good deal left to be done on the bill. Our focus will be
on four areas. The first will be the need for the President to clarify
more effectively what our plan is with regard to the use of the $87
billion, the $22 billion in particular for reconstruction aid. Today we
saw yet another indication of the murkiness with regard to the plan.
The administration has made a decision to reverse itself with regard to
some of the demands it was making upon the United Nations, and, as a
result, we are perhaps more hopeful now that the U.N. could be
involved. But without a plan, it makes it very difficult for us to
commit the resources. Simply asking for a plan is no substitute for the
plan that is required.
Secondly, we want more transparency. Billions and billions of dollars
are being spent. Corporations, such as Halliburton and Bechtel and
others, have benefited, but we have no way of knowing how much, what
will be the profit. When we passed the Marshall plan 50 years ago, we
had an explicit prohibition on profiteering. There is no explicit
prohibition today. As a result, there is no transparency as well. I
think it is critical for us to have a better understanding for the
taxpayers and the Congress to know precisely how this money is going to
be spent and who is going to benefit and how, if we can, avoid the
wasteful expenditures that some have already reported.
The third area we want to concentrate on is the need for a
recognition that it ought to be paid for. Whether it is paid for in a
way of collateralizing the money requested, if it is asking those at
the very top of the income scale to help pay--there has been no request
for sacrifice on their part--whether we simply make this a loan,
recognizing that somebody is going to have to pay for this, somebody is
going to have to be willing to borrow it and give it to Iraq or, the
question is, Does it merit at least consideration that we ask Iraq to
borrow the money rather than the United States? But somebody will
borrow the money. That is the bottom line, and I think we need to
recognize that point.
Finally, we also need to recognize important domestic priorities.
Senator Mikulski and Senator Bond, as I understand it, will be offering
an amendment to provide the resources necessary to fully fund the
Veterans' Administration budget for this year. We are over $1 billion
short. Their message is simply that if we are going to support the
troops, we ought to support the veterans--the veterans who are coming
home needing health care, veterans who are now being asked to wait up
to 6 months for health care, in some cases. But there are important
domestic priorities that ought to be addressed as well.
It is our hope that through this amendment, and other amendments like
it, we will be in a better position to say, yes, we want to be
supportive of the need to reconstruct, to provide the resources to
Iraq, but we also need to recognize the importance of providing those
resources as well for important needs here at home, especially those
involving veterans.
That will be the debate for the week. I am hopeful that many of these
amendments will be adopted; that we can improve the legislation as it
was offered and proposed, and, at the end of the day, we have the
assurance we know where the money is going; that at least in part it
will be paid for; that it recognizes domestic priorities; and that
there is a plan, a recognition that we are not going to be there
interminably; that we need a clear and much more precise way of
analyzing our success or our shortcomings as we commit these resources
for the course of the next several months.
____________________