[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 145 (Thursday, October 16, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12673-S12725]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        HELP AMERICA TO VOTE ACT

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the Senator from Connecticut and I 
wanted to address the Senate just for a few moments on another matter. 
I yield the floor and suggest the recognition of the Senator from 
Connecticut.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Kentucky.
  Very briefly, I had intended to offer an amendment at an appropriate 
time, most reluctantly, because it is unrelated to the subject matter 
at hand. But all my colleagues can relate to this frustration from time 
to time. When there is something you want to get done and you have few 
opportunities to get it done, you pick any vehicle coming along which 
might help you get it done. Recognizing that this was going to be one 
of the last funding measures to move along this year, I had intended at 
the appropriate time to offer an amendment that would have provided 
additional resources for the Help America Vote Act, on which my friend 
from Kentucky and Senator Bond and many others played a very critical 
role almost a year ago when it became the law of the Nation. In fact, 
October 29, 2003, will mark the 1-year anniversary of the day the 
President signed the legislation into law.
  I am hopeful we can get the level of funding up to full in a timely 
manner. As all my colleagues must know, almost every Secretary of 
State, local election official, and legislative officer around the 
country are anxious for Congress to meet our obligations. The states 
can then get their election administration and technology up and 
running in the years 2004-2006 in a way that will be in compliance with 
the efforts made to pass the Help America Vote Act in the first place.
  But my colleague from Kentucky, as he has done on numerous occasions, 
has persuaded me there may be a better opportunity and a better place 
to get this job done. So I wanted to take a moment out to express my 
appreciation. I thank him for his willingness to help me try to achieve 
these results in the coming weeks if at all possible.
  To reiterate, I was prepared to offer an amendment to fully fund the 
Help America Vote Act, HAVA. Senators Corzine, Johnson, and Durbin had 
asked to cosponsor that amendment.
  Why? Because now is the time to make our rhetoric a reality to live 
up to our promise of just 1 year ago to fully fund the new Federal 
requirements we imposed on the States for conducting Federal elections.
  The President has recognized that Iraq and Afghanistan have many 
emergency needs, including the ability of those nations to establish 
democracies by conducting free and fair elections.
  As a result, the administration request for the fiscal year 2004 
Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq, Afghanistan and the Global War on 
Terrorism earmarked at least $35 million for voter registration and 
elections in Afghanistan.
  I accept that priority. All countries must have the resources to 
establish and maintain their democracies and to administer and conduct 
elections for their citizens. The voice of the people, exercised at the 
polls, secures the future of any democracy, whether abroad or at home. 
And while I remain unconvinced that all of the funding in this bill is 
truly an emergency--such as for $3,000 computers or $50,000 dump 
trucks--when it comes to election funding, I will agree with the 
President. Funding to ensure the system by which a nation establishes 
and preserves a democracy is an emergency.
  But if it is an emergency in Afghanistan, it can be no less of an 
emergency in America. The basic premise of a democracy is that every 
citizen must have an equal voice in the determination of its 
government. In this Nation, that voice is expressed through the equal 
opportunity to cast a vote and have that vote counted. If America is to 
be the example for emerging democracies, whether in Afghanistan, or 
Iraq or any other part of the world, then our system of giving our 
citizens an equal voice--our system of elections--must meet this test.
  But what we learned in the elections of 2000 was that not all 
American citizens enjoyed an equal voice. In fact,

[[Page S12674]]

some citizens were denied a voice at all because of malfunctioning or 
outdated voting equipment, inaccurate and incomplete voter registration 
records, and allegations of voter intimidation and fraud.
  A bipartisan group of members came together last Congress to change 
that and on October 29--almost exactly 1 year ago--President Bush 
signed into law the Help America Vote Act. At the signing ceremony at 
the White House, the President proclaimed:

     [w]hen problems arise in the administration of elections, we 
     have a responsibility to fix them.

  But rhetoric alone will not fix the problems. It will take leadership 
and funds, and that is what the Help America Vote Act provides--Federal 
leadership in the form of new minimum requirements that all States must 
meet in the conduct of Federal elections and $3.8 billion to fund the 
implementation of these requirements.
  Some of these requirements must be in place in time for the Federal 
elections next year. But Congress has failed to provide the funds to 
the States to finance them.
  All 50 States have begun the process of drafting the required State 
plans outlining how Federal funds will be used to meet the 
requirements. Many of the States have begun implementation of the new 
requirements; but, they require full funding of the promised Federal 
funds to complete implementation of some requirements by next year and 
have compliant voting equipment in place by the 2006 Federal elections.
  Federal funding is the most critical key to nationwide implementation 
of this Act and may well govern the success and effectiveness of the 
new law.
  Federal funding is crucial. Since the States are in key planning and 
implementation stages of HAVA, they are relying on Federal funds to 
make election reform a reality nationwide.
  To help pay for election reforms and avoid an unfunded mandate on the 
States, HAVA authorizes a total of $3.9 billion over 3 fiscal years: 
$2.16 billion in fiscal year 2003; $1.04 billion in fiscal year 2004; 
and $660,000 in fiscal year 2005.
  But in fiscal year 2003, Congress appropriated only $1.5 billion. Of 
that amount, $650 million has been distributed to all 50 States, the 
District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands and 
American Samoa.
  I thank my colleagues for their support during the fiscal year 2003 
appropriations process. In particular, I thank my two lead co-sponsors 
of HAVA and both major players in the appropriations process--Senator 
McConnell who was lead co-sponsor of election reform and Senator Bond 
who also co-sponsored HAVA and championed the anti-fraud provisions. I 
also thank Senator Stevens, chair of the Appropriations Committee and 
Senator Byrd, ranking member on Appropriations.
  But the fact is, the fiscal year 2003 appropriation reflects a 
reality starkly different from our promise. As a result, the States 
have experienced a shortfall of over $660 million in the first critical 
year of funding under HAVA. Given the dire financial budget constraints 
faced by our States and counties, the shortfall in promised Federal 
support creates an unfunded mandate that is both unfair and 
unnecessary.
  While the fiscal year 2004 Transportation, Treasury appropriations 
bill has not been completed in the Senate, I note that both the 
President and Congress has earmarked a mere $500 million for HAVA, a 
funding level that is half of what was authorized and is both 
inadequate and unacceptable.
  According to the National Governors Association, the current 
financial health of State and local governments was at its lowest point 
since World War II last year and has worsened in the past 10 months.
  Full Federal funding for HAVA is crucial to ensuring that the reforms 
that Congress overwhelmingly approved, on a broad bipartisan basis, and 
the President endorsed with his signature, are implemented. The very 
integrity of our elections, and consequently our democracy, hangs in 
the balance.
  Surely, it cannot be argued that building ``taj mahal'' Iraqi prisons 
and market centers for the private sector in Afghanistan are more of an 
emergency than securing democracy in America.
  We can do both. We must do both. But it is unacceptable to chose the 
reconstruction needs of Iraq and Afghanistan over the needs of our own 
democracy.
  Full funding of HAVA is critical to our national credibility for 
fairness and accuracy in Federal elections. It is fundamental to the 
integrity of our democratic process.
  The problem of Federal funding for HAVA can be solved by Congress 
today, now. The problem of Federal funding for HAVA can be solved right 
here in the context of the fiscal year 2004 Supplemental bill that we 
debate today.
  I seek bipartisan support from my colleagues to help me strengthen 
democracy both abroad and at home--the same bipartisan support that 
lead 98 members of this Senate and 357 Members of the House to pass 
HAVA just 1 year ago; the same bipartisan support, and need, that 
encouraged President Bush to sign this legislation into law.
  In order to make election reform a reality, and to live up to the 
promise we made to State and local officials to be a full partner in 
Federal elections, I intend to offer an amendment to this measure which 
will provide full funding for HAVA in an amount of $1.86 billion. This 
amount reflects the total authorization for the Federal partnership.
  This effort is overwhelmingly supported by a bipartisan and powerful 
coalition of State and local election officials, in conjunction with 
all the major civil rights, disability, language minority, and other 
voter interest groups in the United States.
  I thank each and every one of them for their strong support in 
passing HAVA and their continuing commitment to see that Congress makes 
good on its promise to be a full partner in Federal elections by fully 
funding the provisions of HAVA.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter by the 
coalition, entitled ``Democracy Begins At Home: Fully Fund the Help 
America Vote Act.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. DODD. Any effort to fully fund HAVA is as much of an emergency as 
the needs presented in the bill before us for Iraq and Afghanistan and 
I am prepared to ask the Senate to support full funding of HAVA on the 
same emergency basis.
  However, there are sufficient funds in the reconstruction portion of 
this bill which are of questionable emergency status that can be used 
to offset the entire cost of fully funding election reform. For 
example, $450 million from the public safety, national security and 
justice sector of this bill, including, $400 million in funds to 
construct 2 maximum security prisons of 4000 beds each at a cost of 
$50,000 per prison bed; and $50 million for witness protection at a 
cost of $1 million per Iraqi family.
  There is $1.02 billion from the electrical sector, including $1 
billion for the development and construct of thermal power stations--
which are more expensive than other forms of power generation and will 
take up to 3 years to construct; and $20 million for embedded 
consultants, building repairs and a master plan for the Iraqi 
Electricity Commission.
  There is $37 million from the public works section, including funds 
for waste management that would pay for a portion of the proposed 2,000 
dump trucks, at a cost of $50,000 per truck.
  There is $353 million from the private sector development funds, 
including $200 million for an American-Iraq Enterprise Fund to be run 
by a private board of directors; $85 million for 5000 computers at a 
cost of $3000 per computer and basic and specialized computer training 
and teaching English as a second language to Iraqis; $25 million to 
modernize equipment and curriculum in vocational institutes; and $43 
million subsidy to private employers for on the job training of new 
employees and the improvement of employment centers.
  I close with a quote from the Coalition's letter:

       No Civil Right Is More Fundamental to America's Democracy 
     than the Right to Vote. As Our Nation Spends Billions of 
     Dollars Helping to Promote Democracies Abroad, Congress 
     Simply Should Not Allow Doubts about the Legitimacy of Our 
     Electoral Process to Continue to Linger Here at Home.

  I urge my colleagues to fulfill our commitment of last year to ensure 
the integrity of our Federal elections and

[[Page S12675]]

the very foundation of our democracy by fully funding the Help America 
Vote Act.
  I commend Senator McConnell for his commitment to securing additional 
funds this year, and so I will withhold offering my amendment at this 
time.

                               Exhibit 1

   Democracy Begins at Home--Fully Fund the ``Help America Vote Act''

                                               September 29, 2003.
       Dear Member of Congress: We, the undersigned organizations, 
     urge you to ensure that full funding for the Help America 
     Vote Act (P.L. 107-252) (``HAVA'') is included in the 
     upcoming supplemental appropriations for reconstruction 
     efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. As you know, the Bush 
     administration has requested that Congress provide $21.4 
     billion for these reconstruction efforts. We ask that 
     Congress provide, at the same time, a mere fraction of that 
     amount for the purpose of strengthening our own democracy 
     here at home.
       The Help America Vote Act was enacted with overwhelmingly 
     bipartisan support in order to prevent the many problems of 
     the 2000 election from ever happening again. Among its many 
     reforms, it places significant mandates upon states and 
     localities to replace outdated voting equipment, create 
     statewide voter registration lists and provide provisional 
     ballots to ensure that eligible voters are not turned away, 
     and make it easier for people with disabilities to cast 
     private, independent ballots.
       To help pay for these reforms, HAVA authorizes a total of 
     $3.9 billion over three fiscal years, including $2.16 billion 
     for FY03 and $1.045 billion for FY04. To date, however, the 
     actual funding of HAVA has been woefully inadequate. So far, 
     only $1.5 billion of FY03 funding has been appropriated, and 
     $830 million of that amount has yet to reach the states 
     because the President has not nominated and the Senate has 
     not confirmed the members of the new Election Assistance 
     Commission. Additionally, only $500 million is currently 
     included in pending FY04 appropriations; once again, this is 
     a sum that falls well below what is needed for successful 
     implementation of HAVA. States and localities were assured by 
     Congress that this new law would not evolve into a set of 
     unfunded federal mandates. It is now time for Congress to 
     honor its commitment to the states and to the American public 
     at large.
       Given the difficult fiscal circumstances facing state and 
     local governments, immediate and full funding of HAVA is now 
     needed in order to make essential progress before Election 
     Day in 2004. Without the strong leadership that HAVA promised 
     at the federal level, states and local governments simply do 
     not have the ability to complete implementation of the 
     important reforms that they are now required to make.
       No civil right is more fundamental to America's democracy 
     than the right to vote. As our nation spends billions of 
     dollars helping to promote democracies abroad, Congress 
     simply should not allow doubts about the legitimacy of our 
     electoral processes to continue to linger here at home.
       We thank you for your support of funding for the ``Help 
     America Vote Act,'' and we look forward to working with you 
     on this critical issue. Should you have any questions, please 
     contact Rob Randhava of the Leadership Conference on Civil 
     Rights at (202) 466-6058, Leslie Reynolds of the National 
     Association of Secretaries of State at (202) 624-3525, or any 
     of the individual organizations listed below.
           Sincerely,


          organizations representing state and local officials

       National Association of Secretaries of State.
       National Conference of State Legislatures.
       Council of State Governments.
       National Association of State Election Directors.
       National Association of Counties.
       National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed 
     Officials Educational Fund.
       National League of Cities.
       International City/County Management Association.
       International Association of Clerks, Recorders, Election 
     Officials and Treasurers.
       National Association of County Recorders, Election 
     Officials and Clerks.


                       civil rights organizations

       Alliance for Retired Americans.
       American Association of People with Disabilities.
       American Civil Liberties Union.
       American Federation of Labor--Congress of Industrial 
     Organizations.
       Americans for Democratic Action.
       Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund.
       Asian Law Alliance.
       Asian Law Caucus.
       Asian Pacific American Legal Center.
       Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.
       Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law.
       California Council for the Blind.
       Center for Governmental Studies.
       Center for Voting and Democracy.
       Common Cause.
       Demos: A Network for Ideas & Action.
       Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund.
       Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.
       League of Women Voters of the United States.
       Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.
       National Alliance of Postal and Federal Employees.
       National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium.
       National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.
       National Association of Protection and Advocacy Systems.
       National Council of Churches.
       National Council of La Raza.
       Neighbor to Neighbor Action Fund.
       Organization of Chinese Americans.
       People For the American Way.
       Project Vote.
       Public Citizen.
       The Arc of the United States.
       United Auto Workers.
       United Cerebral Palsy.
       U.S. Action Education Fund.
       U.S. Public Interest Research Group.
       National Spinal Cord Injury Association.
       National CURE (Citizens United for Rehabilitation of 
     Events).
       American Foundation for the Blind.
       National Industries for the Severely Handicapped.
       Association of University Center on Disabilities.
       American Council of the Blind.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Let me say to my friend from Connecticut that was a 
grand quest on which we were mutually engaged over a year ago to enact 
new election reform legislation, a major piece of civil rights 
legislation, along with Senator Bond and others. Both of us are 
committed to getting it fully funded and both of us agree the current 
supplemental appropriations is not the place to do it. But we are 
committed to trying to achieve that, and to achieve it soon, and at a 
more appropriate time.
  I thank my colleague from Connecticut for not offering the amendment 
on this measure and pledge to work with him to achieve the goal we both 
desire.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Kentucky. I thank 
Senator Reid as well, the minority whip, Senator Stevens, and Senator 
Inouye for interrupting his prepared statement. I thank my colleagues.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I stepped off the floor. Just so I 
understand, it is my understanding that the distinguished Senator from 
Hawaii, the ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on 
Defense, is going to speak for approximately 20 minutes. Senator 
Stevens indicated to me that there were two or three amendments on the 
majority side that they want to offer, and we have offered several 
amendments this morning. They wanted to, in effect, catch up. We want 
to reciprocate with amendments. Following that, we will offer an 
amendment. I don't know how many amendments the Senator from Alaska 
wants his side to offer prior to going back to our side. If we just had 
some idea so we can have our folks lined up here.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I had an 
amendment with Senator Durbin. Are we ready for that amendment?
  Mr. REID. I would be happy to talk to the Senator off camera, so to 
speak. But we have a plan, if the Senator will approve. I will talk off 
camera momentarily.
  Could Senator Stevens give us an idea of how long the work on your 
side is going to take so we can have an amendment lined up after that?
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I really can't tell how long it is going 
to be. We haven't put any time limit on amendments today. I won't do it 
on this side. They wouldn't take them on the other side. There will be 
no time limit on these amendments: Senator Hollings has an amendment, 
Senator Hutchison has an amendment, and Senator Warner has an 
amendment. I think there is an amendment on the list for Senator 
Nickles. There are a series of Senators on this side who still have 
amendments that could be raised.
  My understanding is that once we have measured about the same number 
of amendments presented by the other side so far today we would come 
back to our side of the aisle.
  Mr. REID. The only thing I would say is that everyone knows we have a 
lot more amendments than the other side. We have at this time I think 
still 29 or 30 amendments. It doesn't seem fair,

[[Page S12676]]

for lack of a better word, that the majority is going to get rid of 
basically all of their amendments leaving us with all of ours when we 
still have to finish this bill tomorrow. That is looking more remote 
all the time. I don't see how in the world we can do that under the 
guidelines. I apologize to my friend from Alaska for not being able to 
get a time agreement on one of the amendments. That is the only one. On 
the rest of them, we worked out time agreements.
  I think, again for lack of a better word, in basic fairness we should 
have some idea about how long it is going to take on the other side 
until we are ready with amendments over here. Otherwise, I would have 
no alternative but just say go ahead with regular order and start 
offering the amendments that are already pending.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, that may be the alternative because I 
have tried all day to speed up that side in terms of consideration of 
amendments--all day long now. I started at 11 o'clock this morning. We 
have just finished handling five amendments on that side of the aisle. 
We haven't had one from this side of the aisle yet. I don't think it is 
beyond fair to say Senators who notified me they want to bring up their 
amendments that it is time for us to bring up amendments on this side. 
We couldn't get any agreement on time over there. I don't know of any 
reason why we should have time agreements over here.
  If the Senator wants to proceed with regular order, I am all for it. 
There are 16 amendments. We will be on those until midnight. Some of 
them may not be called up at all. But we can call them up, if the other 
side wants to do that.
  I believe, in balance and fairness, we have been compelled to be 
balanced on this side now for 5 hours. I think we are now going to be 
on this side for about 4 or 5 hours.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, everyone here should know that this bill 
will not be finished tomorrow. Understand that it will not be finished 
tomorrow. If it is going to be 4 or 5 hours on amendments on the 
majority side when they have just a few amendments, this bill will not 
be finished tomorrow, period. Take however long they want. We have done 
everything to cooperate. There was one amendment that we didn't get a 
time agreement on, but we still finished that in a reasonable period of 
time.
  I have the greatest affection, respect, and admiration for the 
distinguished manager of this bill. But to take 4 or 5 hours, that is 9 
o'clock. To think we can finish this bill tomorrow is hallucinating. We 
can't do that.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I remember my good friend from Nevada 
saying just let things work out this morning at 11 o'clock when I tried 
to get the time; let things work out.
  I don't know how long these amendments are going to take. I haven't 
seen them, either. I didn't see the ones either from that side this 
morning. You can't tell how long an amendment is going to take until 
you look at it and read it.
  As a practical matter, I am asking the Senator from Nevada to do on 
their side exactly what we had to this morning--take the assurance that 
we are going to move as quickly as we can and turn to some of the 
amendments on this side for a while.

  Mr. REID. There is a basic difference. If I may say, there are some 
people over here who really don't care much about this bill ever 
passing. That is the way the Senate is.
  Senator Daschle has used his good office because of a gentlemen's 
agreement that he had with the manager of the bill and Senator Frist to 
move this along as quickly as possible. We are trying to do that. It is 
no one's fault, but one of the Senators had a medical problem that held 
us up for several hours before we were scheduled to vote. It seems 
there is always some problem here.
  We have tried as much as we can to be responsible in our ability to 
move this bill.
  Four or five hours--I just repeat, we can't finish this bill 
tomorrow. Everyone should understand that. That isn't done with any 
animosity. It just can't be done.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Senator is correct in terms of the 
process. We still have a lot more than six amendments. We have a whole 
list of amendments, depending on what amendments are raised on that 
side. All I am asking for is balance and fairness in terms of what we 
allowed the other side to do in handling their amendments until now. If 
that means we have to go to regular order, I am prepared to call for 
regular order. If that is the case, I am saddened to hear my friend 
from Nevada say a gentlemen's agreement was made on the basis that the 
Democratic side of the aisle is allowed to call up amendments whenever 
they want and for how long they want but they want time agreements and 
assurances on our side. That isn't the agreement we made. That is not 
the gentlemen's agreement which I understand we made.
  If the gentlemen's agreement is broken and we do not finish by 
tomorrow, we should know that right now. If that is the case, then I 
can assure the Senate that we will be back in session Saturday and we 
will be here Sunday. We are going to finish this bill this week. That 
word I took as a word of a Senator. All leadership agreed that we would 
finish this bill tomorrow to the best of our ability. I am still 
relying on that word.
  Mr. President, I suggest we proceed with Senator Inouye.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith). Under the previous order, the 
Senator from Hawaii is recognized.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the current 
situation in Iraq and the growing concern that many of my colleagues 
have expressed regarding our policies in this most volatile and 
dangerous region of the world.
  Last October, I was one of 23 Members of this Senate who voted 
against a resolution to authorize the war in Iraq. Voting on a 
resolution to send our young men and women to war is one of the most 
difficult issues any politician has to face.
  I voted against going to war for five main reasons.
  First and foremost, I did not believe the administration had made a 
compelling case that attacking Iraq was in our vital national interest.
  Second, I was not convinced that the classified information presented 
to the Senate offered conclusive evidence that Saddam Hussein provided 
a threat to the American people or that he would use weapons of mass 
destruction if he possessed them.
  Third, I was not convinced that his regime was aligned with al-Qaida 
terrorists or was in any way involved with the September 11 attack on 
the United States.
  Fourth, I did not see that the administration had presented a well-
thought-out plan for dealing with postwar Iraq.
  Finally, I believed that attacking Iraq when many of our closest 
allies and virtually all of the Nations in the region were opposed to 
it would cast the United States as the aggressor in this conflict and 
deal a terrible blow to our international reputation and prestige.
  I was convinced that going to war under these circumstances would 
almost certainly sacrifice the almost near universal support and good 
will this Nation had gained following the terrorist attacks in New York 
and Washington. I regret today I still have many of the same concerns 
about the policy.
  Having said that, the majority of my colleagues disagreed with me, 
and Congress approved an attack on Iraq. I know this is not to second-
guess but only because it sets the stage for where we are today. The 
question for the Senate is what should the Congress do at this point? 
Our principal responsibility as Senators is to protect the people of 
this great Nation. Particularly, it is my belief we must fight for 
those who defend us. I have often said less than 1 percent of our 
population protects all the rest of us by wearing our Nation's uniform. 
I will say once again, I strongly believe it is our sacred duty to 
serve them. We simply must support the men and women willing to serve 
in harm's way.
  Our forces fought gallantly in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Our military 
strategy proved to be effective in war even if the rationale for war 
and postwar strategy can be questioned. Our forces proved once again 
that they are the most effective fighting force in the world.
  Today, more than 125,000 U.S. military personnel remain in Iraq. 
While

[[Page S12677]]

all of us would like to know how long they will stay and how long they 
will be needed, I am confident each and every one of my colleagues 
agree they deserve our support. To guarantee the support, we must 
ensure that we provide sufficient funding for our forces to be equipped 
and ready to meet the challenges they face in Iraq.
  Many in this body question the administration's policy. They want to 
criticize the war because we have not yet found weapons of mass 
destruction. Our debate should not be focused on whether Saddam had 
weapons of mass destruction. Regardless of how we came to be in Iraq, I 
ask my colleagues what do we want to do now? Should we punish the 
administration for putting us in this position? I would only say in 
seeking to mete out punishment on those political leaders with whom we 
might disagree, we will most likely only punish our sons and daughters 
who have volunteered to risk their lives. That we cannot let happen.
  The question we must ask at this moment is, How should we proceed? 
The cost of the ongoing war on terrorism is staggering. As has been 
mentioned often in the Senate, $87 billion is an enormous amount of 
money. Since September 11, the Congress has approved the supplemental 
defense funding in excess of $100 billion in response to the terrorist 
attacks on our Nation and for the operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. 
Moreover, because of these costs, coupled with the impact of large tax 
cuts, we no longer are running a surplus. Instead, we have a deficit 
estimated to exceed $500 billion.

  I understand my colleagues' frustration and understand why they 
demand better accountability. In seeking solutions, they have argued we 
should not have to pay for the reconstruction of Iraq. They want Iraq 
to use its oil reserves to pay for its own infrastructure. I am all for 
Iraq paying as much as it can to rebuild its country, but 
realistically, it is not in any position today to do much of that.
  So should we wait? I would argue no. Our sons and daughters are in 
Iraq and the conditions are not good. The infrastructure to support our 
military and Ambassador Bremer and his staff is not conducive to 
getting Iraq back on its feet. We cannot turn our backs on our men and 
women serving in that theater because we disagree with this war. But 
even more important, we want our forces to come home as soon as 
possible.
  I can assure my colleagues of one thing: Our forces will be in Iraq a 
lot longer if we refuse to make the investment in that country's 
infrastructure.
  Three weeks ago, Hurricane Isabel caused widespread power outage in 
the Washington, DC, area. For several days, many were without power and 
we complained. Let me say to my colleagues that was a minor 
inconvenience compared to what our forces face in Iraq. I know we were 
all grateful when we finally saw the Pepco truck in our neighborhoods. 
It was a real boost to our morale.
  I can assure you our troops in Iraq are the strongest supporters of 
us putting up $20 billion to help get Iraq reconstruction started. For 
them, getting this money will be like seeing the Pepco truck finally 
enter their neighborhood.
  This funding is not charity. The fastest way for us to get our sons 
and daughters home is to get Iraq back up and running. Congress 
approved this war, the Congress agreed it was worth the cost to rid the 
international community of Saddam Hussein. In reviewing this request, 
it is not a question of whether Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. 
It is not really relevant if Saddam was or was not linked to Osama bin 
Laden. It is not a question of whether this war was right or wrong for 
our country. Those issues will be debated next year as the country 
determines its next President and its next Congress. It does not matter 
how we voted last October. This October it is our responsibility to 
support the men and women in the military who are doing what we 
required of them.
  I urge my colleagues to support the supplemental request to support 
our military forces to help end this conflict quickly and do all we can 
to get our sons and daughters home sooner.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.


                           Amendment No. 1874

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, we turn to discussion of the amendment 
currently pending before the Senate.
  Today, we call on the Department of Defense to finalize regulations 
that will ensure that the Global War on Terrorism Medal, the medal that 
the Joint Chiefs of Staff picked and that the President has authorized 
for military operations, will be awarded on an expedited basis to the 
men and women of the Armed Forces of our country who serve in the 
global war on terrorism.
  Recently, on this bill we dealt with an amendment that would have 
created a congressionally mandated medal when a medal already 
authorized by the President and recommended by the military was already 
in the works and awaiting final approval of the necessary regulations. 
That medal awaiting final approval is the Global War on Terrorism 
Expeditionary Medal. It can be awarded to all who serve in Operation 
Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom.

  Our victories in the global war on terrorism would not have been 
possible without the dedication, the courage, and the service of the 
members of the U.S. Armed Forces and their coalition partners.
  It is entirely appropriate that we recognize these brave men and 
women of the Armed Forces by awarding them service medals for personal 
bravery and other leadership actions and for their service in military 
operations abroad and for support operations at home and support 
operations overseas.
  But the fact is, historically, the President has relied on senior 
military officers to recommend the personal and theater campaign 
medals.
  Here, with the Global War on Terrorism Medal, that longstanding 
tradition was preserved with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the 
combatant commanders, including GEN Tommy Franks, U.S. Army, former 
Commander of the U.S. Central Command, recommending the medal to be 
awarded.
  Taking the advice of his senior military and civilian defense 
leaders, President Bush, by Executive Order 13289, on March 12 of this 
year, established the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal to be 
awarded to service members who served in military operations to combat 
terrorism on or after September 11, 2001, including, but not limited 
to, actions in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom, 
in such locations as Afghanistan, Iraq, the Republic of the 
Philippines, and elsewhere in Southwest Asia.
  Now, that Executive Order by the President went beyond our men and 
women in the Armed Forces and much further than the recent, other medal 
amendment would have. It also established a Global War on Terrorism 
Service Medal, recognizing duty in Operation Noble Eagle and the 
homeland defense mission against further terrorist attacks and 
recognizing duty in support of military operations performed in areas 
that do not qualify for the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary 
Medal.
  We all know of the fine work that is going on to preserve our 
homeland security. We know of the efforts to guard our borders, hunt 
down terrorists, and screen our airports. We recognize those efforts 
with this amendment and the medal. But we bring focus and attention to 
all of the important support staff. Ask any soldier, ask any sailor, 
ask any airman, and each will tell you how important it is to have the 
right staff sending you the right stuff--having the right staff sending 
you the right stuff. Without a competent, capable, and talented support 
staff in the global war on terrorism, our men and women in the Armed 
Forces would not have the right tools for the job. Their lives would be 
at greater risk and so, too, would the freedom we cherish here at home. 
It is right that we recognize all that they provide for our soldiers, 
our sailors, and our airmen, as well as what they do for all of us.
  Yet the implementing regulations for eligibility for both these 
medals have not been issued by the Secretary of Defense.
  So today, what we will do, if my amendment is adopted, is we, in the 
Senate, will call upon the Secretary of Defense to complete action as 
soon as possible on implementing regulations so these awards can go to 
any person who renders qualifying service with the Armed Forces in 
those phases of the

[[Page S12678]]

global war on terrorism, including Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation 
Enduring Freedom, and Operation Noble Eagle.
  This amendment says the regulations providing for a medal already in 
the works, designed by soldiers and authorized by the President, should 
be implemented as soon as possible and, in doing so, should also 
recognize those who serve in Operation Noble Eagle and in support roles 
for our military abroad. These are the critical distinctions between 
the amendment before us now and the amendment that was considered 2 
days ago.
  Mr. President, I know Senator McCain and Senator Warner would also 
like to speak to my amendment. They are not in the Chamber at the 
moment but would like to speak. And I believe there is another Senator 
on our side of the aisle who would like to speak on this amendment as 
well.
  So pending their arrival, 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. WARNER. 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. WARNER. Mr. President, I want to address the sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution on behalf of men and women in the Armed Forces offered by 
our distinguished Senator from Kentucky. I ask unanimous consent that I 
be listed as a cosponsor of the resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise to give strong support to this and 
I want to say against the background--and the other day we had a 
similar matter before the Senate and I rose to address that. It was a 
technical problem, primarily, with that resolution. This one, which I 
have read carefully, in a very straightforward manner, recites the 
history of personal decorations and theater awards and, in particular, 
how these matters, throughout the military history of this country, 
have been actions taken by Presidents upon the recommendation of the 
senior officers of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and, 
indeed, the Coast Guard. In this instance, this administration has 
moved to put in place those recognitions--most deserving, I would say--
of men and women who have gone to the farflung corners of the globe and 
accepted the risks, together with their families, of going to those 
areas for the cause of freedom and to protect the security interests of 
the United States of America.
  That region of Iraq is very much in our hearts and minds every day. I 
have had the privilege, as have many in this body, to go there and 
visit with our troops. Likewise, I have had the privilege to go and 
visit with our forces in Afghanistan. Most recently, I went to Liberia, 
where the strike task force--largely composed of U.S. marines but under 
the control of a very fine Army officer--performed extraordinary duties 
on behalf of the people of Liberia, who have suffered a decade-plus of 
civil war turmoil. I could go on and on, but others are anxious to 
address this.

  The point I wish to make is these decorations are proudly worn on the 
uniform of the men and women in the Armed Forces. They are coveted 
items of families for generations. In my office, I have proudly 
displayed the decoration earned by my father who volunteered as a young 
Army doctor in World War I to go to France where he served in the 
trenches. I remember as a young person of his telling stories to me 
about life in the trenches, the extraordinary devastation he witnessed, 
the loss of life, and the carnage. But there on the wall was his World 
War I Victory Medal. It had on it three bars of the three major 
conflicts. He was proud to wear it on the uniform of the United States 
when he saw service.
  It is a carefully thought through process that we cannot award a 
separate medal for every conflict. We have to recognize the theater of 
operations. For example, in World War II, it was the European theater 
and it was the Pacific theater. There was a medal given to those in the 
continental limits in training commands. There were three basic 
theaters of operation, and then stars were awarded for the major 
conflicts in the theaters of Europe or the Pacific.
  It is not a wise course of action to award a separate medal of 
decoration for each of the many theaters we are engaged in today. 
Rather, there should be just the principal decoration which, as we say 
in the final paragraph of this resolution, and I will read that:

       It is the sense of the Senate that the Secretary of Defense 
     should, on an expedited basis, issue the necessary 
     regulations to implement these awards and ensure that any 
     person who renders qualifying service to the Armed Forces in 
     those phases of the Global War on Terrorism, including 
     Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom, and 
     Operation Noble Eagle should promptly receive these awards.

  That is a category of awards given primarily for Iraq and Afghanistan 
and contiguous areas where the men and women of the Armed Forces are 
serving actually in the front lines or, indeed, in a support phase.
  I strongly urge the Senate adopt this amendment. I hope there are 100 
votes in recognition of this course of action.
  To those who, with the best of intentions, have recommended specific 
theaters, specific zones, such as Iraq, we then have to think of 
Afghanistan, we have to think of Liberia, although, fortunately, that 
was an operation that was successfully performed in a relatively short 
period of time. I could go throughout the world.
  It is better there be theater-of-operations awards and individuals 
singled out. I know, for example, if I may say, when I was Secretary of 
the Navy and heavily involved in the subject of awards, I remember so 
much working with the father of the distinguished Senator from Arizona 
who was commander in chief of all military forces in the Pacific, ADM 
``Jumpin'' Jack McCain. I remember him well. I learned a lot from him.
  The Senator from Arizona will recall from his earlier experience how 
theater recognition is given and then the star to recognize those 
engagements in which one participated. That is a process carefully 
supervised by the senior military, primarily the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
  I am quite interested in the views of the distinguished Senator from 
Arizona on this subject. I yield to the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a 
colloquy with the Senator from Virginia.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Virginia that 
perhaps we should for a moment discuss what happened yesterday and what 
we are trying to do under the leadership and initiation of Senator 
McConnell.
  Yesterday there was, as part of the $87 billion assistance package to 
Iraq, an amendment that was proposed which would have bestowed a 
specific decoration on those who fought in the Iraqi conflict. There 
was a provision also that prohibited others, those eligible for that 
medal, from being eligible for other decorations, as I understood it. 
Then that provision was voluntarily removed by the sponsor of the 
amendment. I ask my friend, isn't it a little appropriate to remember 
what happened?
  On March 12, 2003--that was a number of months ago--the President of 
the United States, by Executive order, which is the proper and accepted 
methodology for this kind of designation of awards, established the 
Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal to be awarded to service 
members who serve in military operations to combat terrorism on or 
after September 11, 2001, including, but not limited to, actions in 
Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom, in such 
locations as Afghanistan, Iraq, the Republic of the Philippines, and 
elsewhere in Southwest Asia, in recognition of sacrifice and 
contribution.
  In addition to that, in that same Executive order, the President 
established the service medal, the Global War on Terrorism Service 
Medal recognizing service in Operation Noble Eagle and the homeland 
defense mission against further terrorist attacks--for example, 
military duties here domestically--in providing security and much-
needed service here.
  In other words, isn't it the Senator's understanding there were two 
medals? That by Executive order, following the advice of senior 
military and civilian defense leaders, President Bush established two 
different medals for men and

[[Page S12679]]

women who have engaged in the war on terrorism since September 11?
  I guess what I see coming from my colleague is, if we are going to 
make a specific award for Iraq, shouldn't the same award be bestowed in 
Afghanistan? In other words, in other areas? Wouldn't, at least in the 
President's Executive order, the expeditionary medal and the service 
medal cover service literally globally? I think we might have 
difficulty if you gave a specific medal for Iraq, which was a dangerous 
mission which entailed the loss and injury of brave young Americans, 
but also Afghanistan is being left out. I think that was the point the 
Senator from Virginia and I were trying to make yesterday.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the Senator is very correct in the 
recitation of the facts. I add one other perspective, and that is how 
well the Senator from Arizona understands with his distinguished career 
the identification of the families with the serviceperson, and should a 
special award be made for Iraq, think of the families of those who 
served in Afghanistan, particularly who lost life and limb. They would 
think: Why is not the sacrifice of our family in every respect equal to 
the sacrifice of the other families in the Iraqi situation?
  Yesterday, or today, the Senator from Arizona and I took to the floor 
together in a similar colloquy to urge colleagues to let the system 
work because it is working and it is working in the traditions of our 
military.
  It is working in a manner that is equitably recognizing the 
performance in this area.
  Mr. McCAIN. Could I also point out to my colleague, this was also an 
argument, I think he would agree with me, to allow the executive branch 
to act in what has been, frankly, the executive branch's area of 
responsibility, and that is the designation of service medals, 
expeditionary medals, et cetera, including, by the way, higher awards 
which would be bestowed for acts of heroism and courage no matter where 
they fall. This is not the only medal of recognition available for a 
lot of these young men. But when we get into a bill which is 
legislation that is for the reconstruction of Iraq, and all of a sudden 
we come up with a great idea to designate a medal, we have to think 
these things through.
  The Senator from Virginia is the distinguished chairman of the Armed 
Services Committee. Was this issue ever raised in the Armed Services 
Committee?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, no. Our committee does have jurisdiction 
over these matters. It was not brought to the attention of myself.
  I saw momentarily the ranking member. I do not see him at the moment. 
To the best of my knowledge, he did not have knowledge of it aforehand.
  Mr. McCAIN. Again, I know the Senator from Virginia shares my 
admiration and appreciation for the Senator from New Mexico who 
proposed this amendment. In a good-faith effort, he wanted to recognize 
the service and sacrifice of those who had served. I appreciate that. 
But I would also caution my colleagues that it is probably best to 
explore what has been done and also what should be done by the 
committees of jurisdiction. Otherwise, we should not have committees of 
jurisdiction; we should all just come to the floor with our ideas as to 
how best to address issues.
  I think the Armed Services Committee has a reputation, as one of the 
oldest committees in the Senate, of never shirking in its duty to 
address issues, including ones such as these.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague. I also add that, very importantly, 
one very good development resulted from the debate we had yesterday.
  I was under the impression that the two declarations to which the 
distinguished Senator from Arizona made mention were actually in being. 
I am perhaps remiss. I thought that by now they were in being, but in 
fact when I went directly to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, 
and those involved in the process, I found this needed a little 
congressional incentive. That is the basic reason for this amendment 
that is laid down today. We have their attention now, and they are 
going forward with these decorations.
  So for that reason, we must say to Senator Bingaman that that was a 
very fortunate development.
  Mr. McCAIN. Again, I thank the Senator from New Mexico for his desire 
and motivation to honor these brave young people.
  I say to my friend, President Bush signed this Executive order on 
March 12. The way I count, that is 7 months ago. I am deeply disturbed 
that the Secretary of Defense has not acted to implement these 
regulations. I would like to tell my friend from Virginia that I still 
have people who work over in the Pentagon, who provide me from time to 
time with information--usually anonymously, for obvious reasons--but I 
have been told that these regulations have been on Deputy Secretary 
Wolfowitz's desk for 3\1/2\ weeks. That is not right. I know the Deputy 
Secretary of Defense is busy and I know the Secretary of Defense is 
busy, but I think we have every right to expect immediate action on 
this so that these men and women can go about receiving this 
recognition because they cannot until these papers are signed.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the Senator is correct.
  Mr. McCAIN. I yield to my friend from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. The Senator is absolutely correct. As I said, we have 
brought this matter and the urgency of it to their attention, and that 
is one of the very positive results from the efforts of our colleagues 
on the other side and the initiative taken by the distinguished whip on 
this side in this amendment.
  Mr. McCAIN. Could I mention to my friend from Virginia, too, as 
chairman of the Armed Services Committee, perhaps we should look at 
whether individual medals should be given for operations in Iraq, and 
perhaps individual decorations should be given for the conflict in 
Afghanistan, as two prime examples. Perhaps it is not sufficient to 
just have an expeditionary medal and a service medal.
  I had hoped that if we had acted in order to separate those two 
conflicts from others, we would get input from the Secretary of 
Defense, that there would be proper consultation and hearing and 
scrutiny before the Senate Armed Services Committee before we acted.
  I think the Senator from Virginia pointed out that if we only gave an 
Iraqi freedom medal, what about those in Afghanistan? Is there an 
Afghanistan freedom medal, too? No, that was not part of the proposal 
yesterday. That is why these things with noble motivation have to be 
thought through. I hope that with this sense-of-the-Senate resolution, 
which we will all vote on, we will send a message that we are all in 
support of the incredible importance of recognizing the service and 
sacrifice of the young men and women of our Armed Forces today.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank our distinguished colleague. I 
have known the McCain family. I served with the Senator's father and 
have followed the distinguished Senator's career, and it stands in 
parallel to the finest careers of those who have served in this body in 
years past, today, and who will serve in the future, who have worn the 
uniform of this country. So I value greatly the views of the Senator 
from Arizona and I thank him.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I say to my good friend he fails to 
mention that I served under the distinguished Senator from Virginia 
when he held the position of Secretary of the Navy. I might say I 
served way under. Given the chain of command, there were probably at 
least seven or eight individuals who separated the two of us, but I 
certainly appreciate the honor and pleasure of having served under 
then-Secretary of the Navy Warner. I have appreciated the relationship 
we have enjoyed in the intervening 30 years.
  Mr. WARNER. I do not know. I fail to count the number of years. It is 
30 plus. But I thank the Senator for his kind remarks. My career is so 
inconsequential in the U.S. military compared with his. I do believe I 
received the good conduct medal. To the best of my knowledge, the 
Senator never received that; did he?
  Mr. McCAIN. I do not think I was ever considered for that.
  Mr. WARNER. I do not think the Senator was eligible then and he is 
not eligible now. I think it is likely the Senator will never be 
eligible.

  Mr. McCAIN. If it was up to a vote of our colleagues, I doubt I would 
be eligible today.

[[Page S12680]]

  Mr. WARNER. Well, maybe we should cease this colloquy at this moment. 
I see others who perhaps would like to speak.
  Again, we commend the distinguished Senator from Kentucky for his 
initiative on this matter. I was somewhat saddened yesterday that we 
had to have a division of views on what I believe was the best of 
intentions by the Senator from New Mexico. I think now this is an 
opportunity for us to shake hands on both sides and move on and resolve 
this matter.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. I note the presence of the Senator from New Mexico. I 
hope he was able to hear our remarks concerning our appreciation for 
his motivation to honor these young men and women who have served and 
sacrificed. We look forward to and anticipate we will continue working 
together on this worthy cause.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I understand the majority leader will be coming to the 
floor shortly to address our current legislative circumstances. I have 
become increasingly concerned about our ability to finish this bill. We 
have noted that concern to the majority leader, as well as to the 
manager of the bill.
  Our concern stems from really two issues: One, the unwillingness on 
the part of some to have votes on the pending amendments. I am told now 
there are eight or nine amendments that are pending, that have been 
offered and that have been set aside. Tomorrow is Friday. We wanted to 
have votes on all of those amendments. Yet for whatever reason, we have 
been unable to get to the votes.

  The second issue is the issue involving the amendment to be offered 
by the Senators from Indiana and Wyoming, Mr. Bayh and Mr. Ensign. I am 
told, for whatever reason, many of our colleagues on the other side are 
unwilling to allow that amendment even to be brought up. If that is the 
case, obviously we are not going to be able to finish this bill. We 
can't have completion of the consideration of this legislation until 
that amendment has been offered and we have an opportunity to debate it 
and vote on it.
  So, for whatever reason, we are stymied this afternoon at 5 o'clock 
with, I guess, some 30 amendments pending.
  We had indicated all along we would make our best good-faith effort 
to try to finish this legislation. But I emphasized all the way 
through, this is going to take cooperation on both sides. I think we 
have cooperated in every sense of the word. We have laid down the 
amendments. I think most of the amendments that have been offered have 
been our amendments. We have laid them down. We have not in any way 
stalled consideration of this legislation.
  Now we are here Thursday afternoon at 5 o'clock with nine amendments 
we are told we cannot have votes on, and one of them that cannot even 
be offered. So we are going to have to come to some understanding about 
how to proceed. I must say, with each passing hour the likelihood that 
we will be able to complete our work as we had hoped we could--by the 
end of the day tomorrow--dwindles and diminishes to a point where it 
will soon be nonexistent.
  I call these concerns to the attention of my colleagues and ask we 
get some clarification about the schedule and about our ability to deal 
with these issues.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I say to my friend, the Democratic leader, we agree 
that the amendment to which you referred is one of the last--I hope the 
last important amendment to be offered. I don't know whether there are 
other amendments on that side of the aisle that will have a need for 
debate at some length. But the amendment to which the Democratic leader 
referred is obviously one a number of people are going to want to speak 
to. I think we will be able to go to it sometime in the early evening 
because there are people here who are going to want to speak on that 
amendment. I know people on your side are going to want to speak on 
that amendment.
  I am still optimistic that we can press on into the evening. It is 
still our hope to finish the bill.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am gratified to hear the distinguished 
assistant Republican leader is optimistic. I was optimistic. I hope I 
can have that optimism restored. As I noted just a moment ago, there 
are about 30 amendments pending, but we really believe that a lot of 
the amendments that are still pending depend on the outcome of the 
amendment to be offered by Senators Bayh and Ensign. So it is hard for 
us to move forward on the other amendments until that one has been 
resolved.
  So we are in a situation where we cannot move forward until our 
Republican colleagues acknowledge the need to, not only offer the 
amendment, but to have it debated and voted upon, so we can clear the 
way for whatever additional amendments along the lines of the subject 
matter the Bayh-Ensign amendment addresses.

  That is the issue. That is the concern we have. I hope we can clarify 
it soon. But I only raise this concern because I suggest the hour, 
while it is not late, is getting later, and we do not have a lot of 
time to finish all the work that is left.
  I believe we made our commitment, kept our commitment, and I hope we 
can accomplish what many of us had hoped we could do 2 weeks ago.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Not to prolong this, because I think we are at 
essential agreement, but it was hard to get anything going during the 
day today, as is often the case around here. This is quite a nocturnal 
institution. The Sun goes down and we get busy working. But I certainly 
share the view of the Democratic leader the amendment to which he 
referred is a significant amendment. It is certainly our expectation we 
will be able to go to that amendment sometime early in the evening, 
accommodate those who want to speak, on both sides, move in the 
direction of completing action on the amendment at some point this 
evening, and move ahead, I hope.
  I say to my good friend, that doesn't mean we have a whole lot more 
amendments coming from that side of the aisle that are going to require 
extensive debate. I heard the Senator from South Dakota and others say 
that is the last significant amendment. I certainly hope that is the 
case because then I think we have a chance of wrapping it up sometime 
soon and moving on to other matters.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I hope I didn't say that this was the 
last significant amendment because I know many of my colleagues who 
have amendments to offer certainly view them as significant. I wouldn't 
want to characterize their amendments as insignificant. If I led the 
Senator from Kentucky to that conclusion, I want to clarify that was 
not my intention.
  But I also reiterate, we have eight or nine amendments pending that 
would require votes. We are basically in a quorum call with no real 
expectation of a vote on many of these amendments for the foreseeable 
future.
  There are two issues. One is this amendment on loans offered by 
Senators Bayh and Ensign. The other is clearing the logjam of 
amendments that have already been offered, including one by this 
Senator, that awaits a vote. So the sooner we can get on with those 
votes, the sooner we can get on with the consideration of the Bayh 
amendment and the sooner we can address the other backlog of amendments 
that are waiting to be offered.
  I thank my colleagues for their attention to this and hope we hear 
from the majority leader sometime soon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic whip.
  Mr. REID. I very much appreciate the Democratic leader's observation 
and his patience. We have a number of amendments that we have asked 
Members to withhold offering because there have been other matters on 
the Senate floor. During this period of time, we have had virtually no 
quorum calls until the recent episode where there has been movement--
speaking only for myself--preventing anything from happening on this 
bill.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. REID. I will in just one second. So we have basically been 
without

[[Page S12681]]

quorum calls. And we still have, as the Senator from South Dakota, the 
Democratic leader, mentioned, about 30 amendments we have to dispose 
of.

  As the leader said, some of these will fall as a result of the vote 
on the Bayh-Ensign amendment. But that still leaves at least 15 or 20 
amendments we have to dispose of, and that doesn't count those at the 
desk. Just basic numbers indicate we have a lot of work to do.
  I would also say that for my friend, the distinguished majority whip, 
to indicate we haven't been doing anything during the day--we have. 
There were some concerned about the time Senator Byrd spent on his 
amendment. But there was nothing done to stall for time. That time was 
taken, every minute, by some of the more distinguished Senators who 
spoke in support of Senator Byrd's amendment. He wouldn't agree to any 
time limit, but there certainly was no effort to stall anything. Then 
we were waiting to offer other amendments.
  My point is that just by sheer numbers, if the Senator from Kentucky 
says it will take several hours of debate when we get to it this 
evening, does that mean we get to it at 6 o'clock or 7 o'clock? Are we 
going to spend 2 hours on that? That means we finish that debate at 9 
or 9:30. We have a vote on that, we have 9 matters at the desk to vote 
on, and then we still have the amendments that have not even been 
offered.
  So this is no easy chore we have. I, frankly, in spite of the good 
will between the distinguished majority whip and our Democratic 
leader--I think it is going to be difficult to do that based upon what 
we have been told by the majority this afternoon.
  I am happy to yield for a question from my friend.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I was going to suggest we vote on this amendment at 20 
minutes to 6, the pending amendment.
  Mr. REID. The amendment before us? I would say I haven't had a chance 
to speak to my friend from New Mexico, but is this anything we object 
to?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I certainly have no objection to voting 
on this, voting at 20 minutes to 6. I would like a chance to speak for 
4 or 5 minutes on the amendment, if I could.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, without losing my right to the floor, 
through the Chair I say to my friend from New Mexico that it is my 
understanding he does not oppose the amendment.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, that is correct. I have no opposition to 
the amendment. I just want to speak to and explain my views on it.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, that is my whole point. There is no reason 
to vote on this amendment. This is the old stall we are getting. That 
is all this is. There is no reason to vote on this amendment. We have 
substantive issues, and this is very important. I appreciate the good 
speeches from the chairman of the committee on this most important 
issue. But everybody is going to vote for it. If we are trying to 
finish this bill, which obviously we are not at this stage, the stall 
is going on and whatever has to happen to make sure the vote count is 
right on the Bayh amendment.
  We need to move forward on this legislation. I will vote on it 
anytime we want. But I am just saying that it is a waste of time. I 
have seen stalls before. This is a stall. That is speaking only for 
myself.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, we are prepared to vote now, if that is 
agreeable with the Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. I would be happy to.
  Mr. McCAIN. Is it true----
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I have the floor. I yield to the 
Senator from Arizona for a question.
  Mr. McCAIN. Is it true that we had a 97-to-0 vote on the Byrd 
amendment, as I recall?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I believe that is correct.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I have the floor.
  Mr. REID. I would like to respond to the question.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Nevada to 
respond.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I think it would be totally appropriate to 
have a vote on this as long as the Senator from New Mexico has 5 
minutes to speak. This issue brought now by the majority is a result of 
the very important amendment offered by the Senator from New Mexico. I 
have no problem. My only point is this: There may have been one vote 
that was 98 to 0. I don't remember that. There certainly could have 
been. I assume this will be another one. But I think that will be fine 
after the Senator from New Mexico speaks, and then vote.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, reserving my right to the floor, I ask 
unanimous consent that there be 10 minutes equally divided between the 
Senator from Virginia and the Senator from New Mexico and that at the 
end of those 10 minutes, the Senate proceed to a rollcall vote on the 
pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I reserve the right to object and ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment of the Senator from Indiana, Mr. 
Bayh, No. 1871, be the next amendment in order.
  Mr. STEVENS. Reserving the right to object, as the Senator knows, we 
had an amendment as lined up to be considered on this side. Senator 
Nickles also is not able to be here, but he has given me the 
information and I am prepared to offer that amendment for him. This is 
the first of the three amendments we are going to call up. I would 
be compelled to object to that setting of the Bayh amendment before we 
have some consideration of amendments on this side.

  Mr. REID. I then ask unanimous consent that the request be modified 
so the Senator from Indiana may be allowed to offer his amendment 
following the disposal of the Nickles amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator so modify his request?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object----
  Mr. STEVENS. I will not object to that. I ask unanimous consent to 
amend this request so that I may be recognized to present the Nickles 
amendment following the vote on the McConnell amendment, and following 
that Senator Bayh be recognized to present his amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me speak very briefly on the pending 
McConnell amendment which Senator McConnell, Senator Warner, and 
Senator McCain have offered.
  First, I congratulate them. I think this is a very constructive 
amendment. It gives recognition to the men and women who are serving 
overseas in various locations. It puts the Senate on record, even 
though it is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment, in support of the 
issuance of appropriate medals to these individuals.
  I believe, as I was arguing the day before yesterday when we had the 
other debate on this issue, that the appropriate course is either on 
the initiative of the Pentagon or through action by the Congress that 
at some stage fairly soon we authorize combat medals for those who 
serve in Iraq and for those who perhaps serve in Afghanistan. That 
seems to me to me to be consistent with the course we followed 
previously. We had a medal of that sort for those who served in the 
first gulf war. We had a medal of that sort for those who served in 
Kosovo. There is ample precedent for that.
  To lump all military engagements that we have after 9/11 under this 
large umbrella of the global war on terrorism and say we are going to 
give you one medal for whatever military engagements you serve in after 
that date I think is inadequate. I think the men and women serving in 
Iraq today deserve special recognition for that.
  I have seen the suggestions being considered at the Pentagon for 
putting a star on some designation--on a generic kind of a medal 
dealing with the global war on terrorism, some kind of star indicating 
services in Iraq. To me, that would not be consistent with what we have 
done before. I hope we won't go that route.
  Obviously, this is a step forward. I commend the Senator from 
Virginia, the Senator from Arizona, and the Senator from Kentucky for 
putting forward this amendment. I intend to support it. I hope all 
Senators will support it.
  But I hope we will find a way or that the Pentagon will find a way to 
do

[[Page S12682]]

more to recognize the service of these individuals both in Iraq and in 
Afghanistan.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, may I say to my colleague from New Mexico, 
with whom I have had the privilege to serve now for close to two 
decades in this body, and who was a member of the Senate Armed Services 
Committee, and a very valued member, that he has gotten this Senator's 
attention. I appreciate what he is doing to support the pending 
amendment, and I urge colleagues to do likewise.
  If I might say first, while he was not present in the Chamber when I 
brought to the attention of the Senate that the debate which followed 
his amendment the other day did bring about this Senator's personal 
attention on the status of several decorations, I found that it was not 
moving along, in my judgment, in an expeditious and timely manner. That 
debate the other day served a very important service to the men and 
women of the Armed Forces who are engaged in these particular theaters.
  I would like to work with the Senator and with the Department of 
Defense to pursue his thoughts about perhaps additional recognition for 
service in the theaters of Iraq Afghanistan. I am just not prepared at 
this time to give a definitive answer.
  This is the course, as proposed by the amendment which is before the 
Senate, which has been followed for years. So many places in the world 
today have often no geographic boundaries and have no identity. Yet 
people who are on guard wearing our uniform, coalition forces and other 
nations, are subject to loss of life and limb in combating that 
terrorism.
  I am not able at this point in time to come up with some definitive 
suggestion. But I certainly would like to associate myself with the 
Senator's remarks that there should be an expression of gratitude to 
those persons serving in these theaters right now for their service and 
that given by their families. I thank the Senator.

  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield back the remaining time.
  Mr. WARNER. Have the yeas and nays been ordered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not.
  Mr. WARNER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment numbered 1874. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Craig) is 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from Idaho 
(Mr. Craig) would vote ``yea.''
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. 
Lieberman) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chambliss). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 97, nays 1, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 387 Leg.]

                                YEAS--97

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Corzine
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (FL)
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--1

       
     Jeffords
       

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Craig
     Lieberman
       
  The amendment (No. 1874) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


Amendments Nos. 1869, As Modified; 1870; and 1857, As Modified, En bloc

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have three amendments that have been 
cleared by both sides: Amendment No. 1869, as modified; amendment No. 
1870; and amendment No. 1857, as modified. I send them to the desk and 
ask that they be considered en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments will be 
considered en bloc.
  Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendments?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendments.
  The amendments were agreed, as follows:


                    Amendment No. 1869, as modified

   (Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds to arm, train, or employee 
  individuals under the age of 18 years for the Facilities Protection 
                                Service)

       At the end of title II, add the following:
       Sec. 2313. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act under the heading ``Iraq Relief and 
     Reconstruction Fund'', or under any other heading, may be 
     obligated or expended for the purpose of arming, training, or 
     employing individuals under the age of 18 years for the 
     Facilities Protection Service, to carry out any function 
     similar to the functions performed by the Service, or for any 
     other security force.


                           amendment no. 1870

       Insert at the appropriate place in the bill:
       Sec.   . Section 1605 of title 28, United States Code is 
     amended by adding a new subsection (h) as follows:
       ``(h) Notwithstanding any provision of the Algiers Accords, 
     or any other international agreement, any United States 
     citizen held hostage during the period between 1979 and 1981, 
     and their spouses and children at the time, shall have a 
     claim for money damages against a foreign state for personal 
     injury that was caused by the Foreign State's act of torture 
     or hostage taking. Any provision in an international 
     agreement, including the Algiers Accords that purports to bar 
     such suit is abrogated. This subsection shall apply 
     retroactively to any cause of action cited in 28 U.S.C. 
     1605(a)(7)(A).


                    amendment no. 1857, as modified

 (Purpose: To improve the process for timely informing members of the 
     reserve components of the Armed Forces, their families, their 
employers, and Congress of changes in deployment policies and schedules 
       applicable to mobilize members of the reserve components)

       On page 22, between lines 12 and 13, insert the following:
       Sec. 316. (a) In the administration of laws and policies on 
     the period for which members of reserve components of the 
     Armed Forces called or ordered to active duty under a 
     provision of law referred to in section 101(a)(13)(B) of 
     title 10, United States Code, are deployed outside the United 
     States, the deployment shall be considered to have begun on 
     the first day of the active-duty service to which called or 
     ordered and shall be considered to have ended on the last day 
     of the active-duty service to which called or ordered.
       (b) The Secretary of Defense may waive the requirements of 
     subsection (a) in any case in which the Secretary determines 
     that it is necessary to do so to respond to a national 
     security emergency or to meet dire operational requirements 
     of the Armed Forces.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BREAUX. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Ms. CANTWELL. I have offered an amendment to this bill that will 
bring predictability and clarity to our deployment of National Guard 
and Reserve units.
  I thank my cosponsors, Senators Bond and Leahy, the cochairs of the 
Senate National Guard Caucus, as well as Senators Bingaman, Leahy, 
Johnson, Nelson of Florida, Graham of Florida, Murray, Kennedy, Pryor, 
Lautenberg, and Kerry, who are joining me in sending a message that we 
need to be consistent in how we calculate the deployment times for our 
Guard and Reserve personnel.
  This amendment will direct the Pentagon to consider the full 
activation time for Guard and Reserve personnel in considering its 
deployment policies and also to establish a program to

[[Page S12683]]

more effectively notify troops and their families of changes in 
deployment policies and/or extensions in deployment periods.
  This action will go a long way in ensuring better predictability for 
our military reservists, their families, and employers--they certainly 
deserve it.
  I am proud to say that it has been endorsed by the National Guard 
Association of the United States, the Reserve Officers Association and 
the National Military Families Association.
  As many in this Chamber know, over 20,000 troops in Iraq were faced 
with a rude awakening last month when the administration changed a 50-
year standard practice in calculating deployment policies--a change the 
effectively extended deployments for these troops by several months in 
many cases.
  Prior to last month's decision, the length of deployment was 
calculated based on the time a reservist was activated--when a member 
of the Guard and Reserve left home. However, last month, the 
administration changed the method of calculation to time deployed ``in 
theater.''
  This is not the way to treat our Reserve component. We are asking 
more and more from them, and they deserve better. The Guard and Reserve 
are critically important to our national security both at home and 
abroad.
  Since September 11, 2001, the National Guard has mobilized 210,000 of 
its 350,000 soldiers at one time or another. The Reserve has mobilized 
85,000 of its 205,000 in that same time period.
  In my own State, with the recent alert of the Army National Guard's 
81st Armored Brigade, 41 percent of Washington State's National Guard--
4,041 troops--are currently alerted and deployed, as well as 2,100 
reservists from bases around my State.
  These are historic levels of sustained mobilization, and we need to 
be clear that we are asking a lot from these men and women--and we must 
do everything we can to ensure that the Guard and Reserve continue to 
recruit and retain skilled and committed personnel.
  It goes without saying that these men and women definitely signed up 
to serve when their country calls. The reservists in my State do not 
dispute their commitment; they embrace it.
  However, we need to know that we are asking an extraordinary 
commitment from our Nation's Guard and reservists, their families and 
their employers and we need to recognize the full commitment.
  This is why I was concerned when the Pentagon announced that it will 
calculate deployment lengths for the over 20,000 Guard and Reserve 
members in Iraq based on the actual time in the theater of operations--
otherwise known as ``boots on the ground.''
  This change altered a long-standing practice dating back to the 
Korean-war era in which deployment lengths for Guard and Reserve 
officers were calculated from the moment they were actually activated--
that is, when they are called to leave their jobs and families to begin 
pre-mobilization preparation time and included post-mobilization time.
  This preparation time can sometimes take as much as 3 to 6 months.
  As a result, thousands of troops in the theater of operations who 
were expecting to go home--literally counting the days to return--were 
just informed that their time would be extended, some by as much as 6 
months.
  This is just wrong.
  As Mark Kimmey, an Army reservist, wrote in the New York Times: ``the 
message to reservists is unmistakable: the Army no longer takes into 
account sacrifices made to maintain two career lives.''
  We absolutely own it to our Guard and reservists to give them 
predictability in the process and to fully recognize that the Guard and 
reservists' lives are serving from the point they are activated.
  My amendment will direct the Pentagon to revert back to the standard 
practice in considering, for the purposes of deployment announcements, 
mobilization reports and communications, the clock to start ticking 
from the point of activation--that is, ``boots out of the house.''
  If we need our reservists to serve in theater for 1 year and 6 months 
in preparation time, that's fine. But let's be honest, these troops are 
being deployed for 18 months--not a year. Troops, families, and 
employers deserve the respect of our acknowledging the sacrifice.
  Let me be absolutely clear--this amendment does not, by any means, 
seek to limit the operational use of the Guard and Reserve, nor are we 
seeking to limit the flexibility of their use.
  This does absolutely nothing to limit the ability of the Pentagon to 
mobilize and use our Guard and Reserve units, nor does it limit the 
length of time that they can be deployed.
  Moreover, the amendment's provisions can be waived at any point in 
the case of dire, unexpected operational needs.
  We are simply asking the administration to adopt the standard 
practice in effect for decades in calculating deployment times so that 
troops and their families can know when to start their clocks.
  Ultimately, this is a very modest amendment. We are asking the 
Pentagon to be honest, consistent and predictable in the use of our 
Guard and Reserve. They deserve it; their families deserve it; we owe 
it to them.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Oklahoma is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 1876

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Nickles] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1876.

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, 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 express the sense of the Senate that all countries that 
  hold debt from the former Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein should be 
                      urged to forgive their debt)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a) The Senate finds the following:
       (1) When Saddam Hussein came to power in the 1970's Iraq 
     was a prosperous county with no foreign debt and significant 
     foreign cash reserves.
       (2) Iraq's reserves were exhausted during the Iran-Iraq War 
     in the 1980's and Iraq became a debtor nation.
       (3) Today, the debts incurred by Saddam Hussein's regime 
     are estimated to be as much as $150,000,000,000.
       (4) A process has been put in place that will establish a 
     new representative Iraqi government based on a democratic 
     political system with a free market economy. The goal is a 
     prosperous Iraq that is not a threat to its neighbors.
       (5) For Iraq to be prosperous it must rebuild. In the near 
     term the United States and other donor countries will provide 
     grants to begin the process. In the longer term Iraq must be 
     able to fully participate in the international financial 
     system.
       (6) It is impossible for Iraq to borrow funds in 
     international financial markets based on its existing debt. 
     Eliminating that debt will make possible Iraq's continued 
     rebuilding toward a prosperous and stable nation. A 
     prosperous nation is less likely to be a threat to its 
     neighbors and to be a breeding ground for terrorists. A 
     prosperous Iraq is more likely to be a positive force in the 
     region and participant in the world economy.
       (b) It is the sense of the Senate that all countries that 
     hold debt from loans to the former Iraqi regime of Saddam 
     Hussein should be urged to forgive their debt.

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, this is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment 
urging the countries that presently hold Iraqi debt to cancel or 
forgive that debt. All of the Iraqi debt was generated after Saddam 
Hussein came to power in that country.
  The history of the Iraqi debt was that, when Saddam Hussein took 
control, it was a very rich country, and it had no debt. Saddam Hussein 
started a war with Iran and he incurred a lot of debt. As a matter of 
fact, when he came into power, they had no foreign debt. During Iraq's 
war with Iran, Iraq incurred debts estimated at about $80 billion. Most 
of that was to finance the war.
  Iraqi arms purchases during the 1980s were estimated from $52 billion 
to $102 billion. Saddam Hussein used debt to purchase arms. He used 
debt to build palaces. He used very little debt, if any, to help the 
Iraqi people.
  We asked the Congressional Research Service to give us an analysis of 
what countries hold or own Iraqi debt.
  I ask unanimous consent to print this information in the Record.

[[Page S12684]]

  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                 COUNTRIES TO WHICH IRAQ MAY BE INDEBTED
                        [In billions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Low    High
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Western Countries (G-8)...................................     16     44
  Canada..................................................      1      1
  France..................................................      2      8
  Germany.................................................      2      4
  Italy...................................................      1      2
  Japan...................................................      3      7
  Russia..................................................      3     16
  United Kingdom..........................................      1      2
  United States...........................................      2      5
Middle East Gulf States...................................     60     82
  Saudi Arabia............................................     25     25
  Kuwait..................................................     17     27
  Other...................................................     18     30
Other Countries...........................................     16     16
Commercial (London Club)..................................      3     11
                                                           -------------
    Total.................................................     95    153
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Congressional Research Service Memorandum.

  Mr. NICKLES. There is a significant range. I will go over a few of 
these countries, but the essence of it is that none of these countries 
have received payments on Iraqi debt for years. In most cases, for 
decades payments have not been made. Saddam Hussein incurred a lot of 
debt. The countries holding that debt may hold it as if it is worth 
something, but, frankly, no payments have been made on that debt for 
some time.
  Who holds that debt? The range of the total amount of debt according 
to CRS--and I am not talking about war reparations for Saddam Hussein's 
war with Iran and invasion of Kuwait. There are a lot of claimed 
reparations for damages. That is not covered by this resolution. We are 
talking about debt incurred by Saddam Hussein's regime, and that was 
estimated by CRS as being a total of $95 billion and $153 billion.
  Some of the debt ranges are for Western countries and some are for 
Middle Eastern Gulf States. Some of the Western countries are: Canada 
is estimated to have $1 billion. France, from $2 billion to $8 billion; 
we are not certain of the exact amount. Germany, from $2 billion to $4 
billion. Italy, from $1 billion to $2 billion. Japan, from $3 billion 
to $7 billion. Russia, from $3 billion to $16 billion. The U.K., from 
$1 billion to $2 billion. The United States, from $2 billion to $5 
billion. These were debts incurred under the regime of Saddam Hussein.
  The essence of this amendment is to urge these countries to forgive 
or wipe off the debt from the books.
  For the Middle Eastern Gulf States, it is much more. Saudi Arabia is 
reported to hold $25 billion of Iraqi loans; Kuwait, $17 billion to $27 
billion; other Gulf States, from $18 billion to $30 billion.
  If the Iraqi debt is from $95 billion to $150 billion--let's say it 
is $120 billion--if we were making payments even at 5 percent--that is 
$5 billion, $6 billion, $7 billion a year in interest payments--they 
could not afford to pay that. These interest payments would consume 80 
percent to 130 percent of Iraq's oil revenues. Clearly, that is not 
sustainable.
  The Iraqis have a lot of infrastructure needs. They have a lot of 
rebuilding needs. They have a lot of needs that have been ignored by 
the previous regime, by Saddam Hussein, for decades. If they had to 
make payments on this existing debt, I think it would only complicate, 
frankly, their future and their survival.
  I urge in this sense-of-the-Senate amendment countries that are 
holding debt that was incurred by Saddam Hussein's regime to forgive 
that debt so Iraq can move forward with a new government without being 
so constrained, so the new government can move forward and rebuild Iraq 
without being so tied up with this existing debt.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I was interested in the comments by my 
colleague from Oklahoma. I don't know of anyone here who would object 
or disagree with the contention that those who hold Iraqi debt ought to 
forgive that debt. I have spoken on this subject at some length a 
couple of times.
  Ambassador Bremer appeared before our Appropriations Committee and 
indicated that Iraq would be producing about 3 million barrels of oil a 
day beginning in July of next year. I asked the question then about 
using future proceeds from pumping Iraq oil for the purpose of 
reconstruction. He indicated that would not be possible because of the 
encumbrance that existed with foreign debt.
  I asked Ambassador Bremer who holds this foreign debt. He said 
Russia, Germany, France, among others. When I did research later, I 
discovered exactly what the Senator from Oklahoma discovered. In fact, 
Russia, Germany, and France do hold Iraqi debt, but the larger debt is 
owed to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and other Arab states which, 
incidentally, in combination, equal about the debt that both the Saudis 
and the Kuwaitis hold with Iraq.
  It occurred to me that if we are concerned that Saudi Arabia and 
Kuwait recover the loans they gave to Iraq, maybe we ought to ask the 
Saudis and Kuwaitis to track Saddam Hussein down and present him with a 
bill. The Iraqi government that incurred that debt, the government that 
existed at that point, was the Saddam Hussein government. It clearly 
was not a legitimate government.
  As you know, in the last election of that government, Saddam Hussein 
received 100 percent of the vote and those who voted had to walk down 
an aisle, a long gallery of pictures of Saddam Hussein, and hold their 
ballot above their head that was clearly marked ``Saddam Hussein.''
  That is the government we are now told legitimately owes money to the 
Saudis and the Kuwaitis. In my judgment, that government no longer 
exists, and the encumbrance of Saddam Hussein ought not, in my judgment 
at least, obligate the Iraqi citizens to do anything.
  I know there will be people who are tall thinkers with thick glasses 
who have some thought about international obligations that I may not 
understand. It may be that I don't understand all the nuances, but I do 
understand this: That Saddam Hussein has vanished. The Saddam Hussein 
government was a government run by a butcher. We are, in fact, opening 
football-field-size graves with 10,000 and 12,000 skeletons in them, 
and we are told the only legacy of that government that ought to remain 
an obligation is the debt Saddam Hussein ran up with other countries.
  I don't think that debt ought to be considered to be existing debt at 
this point, with all due respect to those countries. If in the 1980s we 
had countries that were pals of Saddam Hussein because he was taking on 
the country of Iran and they were lending Saddam Hussein money, at this 
point it seems to me they ought to track down Saddam Hussein and 
present him with a bill.
  We are told from time to time by intelligence sources that Saddam 
perhaps has a substantial amount of money squirreled away in Swiss 
banks. They say he stole that country blind. I don't know the facts 
about that. I suspect that is the case. I suspect Saddam Hussein and 
his government squirreled away a substantial amount of money. In any 
event, we can't find him. I suggest to those to whom he owes money or 
to those whom his former government owes money, they ought to track him 
down and present him with a bill.
  We have had a long discussion here and will, I guess, again, perhaps 
tonight or tomorrow, about what kind of obligation the American 
taxpayers should have with respect to the reconstruction of Iraq. It 
was my belief--and I regret my amendment was not adopted, but I accept 
the voice of the Senate on that amendment--it was my belief that we 
should lend the money to Iraq for reconstruction and that Iraq should 
repay those loans out of the proceeds from oil that it pumps out of the 
ground in the future.
  Once again, we expect, according to the testimony of Ambassador 
Bremer, about 3 million barrels of oil a day. In fact, the Iraqi 
Governing Council--these are the Iraqis who are now in charge, running 
ministries and so on--they visited here a couple weeks ago and said 
they thought it would be 6 million barrels a day.
  Let's take Ambassador Bremer's number instead, 3 million a day. That 
means that country will pump about $20 billion of oil, about $16 
billion of which is available for export. So we have $16 billion a year 
of Iraqi oil, beginning next July, available for export. That is $160 
billion in 10 years, $320 billion in 20 years. That is a substantial 
amount of money for the reconstruction of a country the size of 
California with 24 million people. It is ample money to do that job.

[[Page S12685]]

  I understand we have already decided that question. My amendment did 
not pass the Senate. But as we discuss further amendments about grants 
versus loans, I wanted to make a comment following the discussion by 
the Senator from Oklahoma. I believe his numbers are accurate. Those 
are the numbers I discovered with respect to foreign debt owed by Iraq. 
More properly, I think it is foreign debt owed by Saddam Hussein's 
government, a nonlegitimate government, a brutal dictatorship.
  In my judgment, the Iraqi people ought not at this point be burdened 
by that debt and I would suggest to creditors, including the Saudis and 
Kuwaitis, that the paper for those debts is worth only that which it 
will produce once Saddam Hussein is found and it is presented to him.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment by the 
Senator from Oklahoma, and I think perhaps a little discussion about 
the history of debt and debt repudiation, debts being placed upon 
countries that have been defeated or liberated, might be in order.
  In anticipation perhaps of this debate, a member of the staff of the 
Joint Economic Committee, Melanie Mickelson, prepared a memo for me and 
other members of the committee entitled ``Iraqi Debt and 
Reconstruction.'' I ask unanimous consent that this memo be printed in 
the Record following my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, when we think of forgiveness of debt or 
repudiation of debt, we think back usually to Germany, to the debt that 
was placed on Germany at the end of the First World War by the 
Versailles Treaty and the great political hay Adolf Hitler was able to 
make out of this debt as he told the people of Germany that the 
Versailles Treaty had been a stab in the back and the people who had 
imposed that debt on Germany were the people who were Germany's primary 
enemies.
  I do not want to make too much out of that aspect of Hitler's rise to 
power, but there was no question but what the enormous debt placed on 
Germany at the end of the First World War was destabilizing on the 
country and made it very difficult for Germany to bring itself back as 
a viable nation and made Germany potentially vulnerable to the kind of 
political appeal Adolf Hitler represented.
  Let us put this in some perspective with respect to Iraq and what we 
are talking about here. At this time, the debt that was placed upon 
Germany was roughly two times Germany's gross domestic product, or GDP. 
To put that into perspective for the United States, right now our debt 
is roughly half of America's GDP. If we assume the GDP is running at 
$11 trillion in round figures, we would say the debt Germany faced by 
comparison would be similar to putting a debt on the United States of 
$22 trillion. That, of course, takes one's breath away when you think 
about the impact of that on the United States. Twenty-two trillion 
dollars. How in the world, even with as vital and vibrant an economy as 
we have, would we be able to survive if we had a national debt of $22 
trillion? That was the debt that had such significant historic impact 
on Germany in the last century.
  What are we talking about with respect to the debt Iraq currently 
faces? Is it half their GDP, as it is in the United States? Would it be 
as burdensome as the German debt at two times GDP? No, neither of those 
figures applies. When we talk about the size of the debt Iraq currently 
carries compared to their present GDP, we are talking about ten times 
GDP; not two times but ten times current GDP. Again, to translate that 
into numbers we can compare to America, that would mean that America, 
the strongest economy in the world, with our present GDP of roughly $11 
trillion, would be saddled with a debt in excess of $120 trillion.
  How prosperous would America be if we were faced with that kind of a 
debt load? Obviously, it would sink us, even though we have the 
strongest economy in the world.
  We have people around here who are worried because our current debt 
is roughly half of GDP, and to talk about ten times GDP is absolutely 
impossible. So the logical thing to do is for all of the countries to 
respond to the call that is represented by the amendment of the Senator 
from Oklahoma and forgive the debt.
  Why? Let us go through the reasons. One of them has been raised by 
Senator Dorgan. That is, this debt was incurred on behalf of a brutal 
regime which has been overthrown. Some of the debtor countries might 
say, when there is a coup in a country and the government is 
overthrown, whoever takes over takes over the obligations. Saddam 
Hussein was not overthrown by a coup from the Iraqis. He was overthrown 
by the 82nd Airborne. He was overthrown by the United States of America 
and the marines, by the British troops, the Polish troops, and the 
other coalition members that joined us in overthrowing that government.
  So while the Iraqi people are very grateful Saddam Hussein has been 
overthrown, while the Iraqi people rejoice that Saddam Hussein has been 
overthrown, the Iraqi people by no means are responsible for the debt 
that survives because he was overthrown. They were the victims of the 
debt, not the beneficiaries or perpetrators of the debt. For that 
reason, they should not be held accountable.
  There are other reasons. There are sound economic reasons. We have a 
principle of bankruptcy in this country. When, as a result of 
circumstances, whether they were caused or just out of somebody's 
control, someone finds himself absolutely incapable of repaying the 
debt, we go through bankruptcy court and say we are going to give you 
an opportunity for a fresh start. We are going to give you an 
opportunity to wipe the slate clean and move forward. We are going to 
discharge your debt through bankruptcy.
  If any country has been reduced to bankruptcy, it is Iraq. The GDP I 
described is substantially below what their potential earning power 
will be, but they can never realize that earning power if they are not 
free from their past debts by virtue of a bankruptcy action.
  What the Senator from Oklahoma is proposing is essentially the 
countries that hold the debt allow the Iraqis to file bankruptcy; that 
the countries that hold the debt say, we recognize reality. We 
recognize we are never, ever going to get this money.
  There are some who might say, yes, but Iraq has all that oil and 
eventually maybe they will be able to give us this money, so let's just 
restructure the debt. Let's just say okay, no payments for a while, no 
payments on principal, interest is deferred, we will give you a chance 
to get on your feet, and then we will collect the debt.
  That is not a principle that applies in reality with respect to most 
bankruptcy situations. Even those who have the ability to earn money 
later on can get everything discharged with bankruptcy if it is clear 
the existence of the debt as it stands is going to prevent them from 
earning money later on.
  The most significant return that can come to the countries that are 
currently holding Iraqi debt will come from a vibrant Iraqi economy 
with which they can open meaningful trade relations.
  Think of what the potential of Iraq is in terms other than oil. We 
held a hearing on this in the Joint Economic Committee. Of course, the 
primary focus was on oil revenue, but I was interested to discover that 
Iraq has other things besides oil. Iraq is blessed with fertile soil. 
Iraq is blessed with water. Iraq has a history, pre-Saddam Hussein, of 
being a net exporter of food. In other words, an economically healthy 
Iraq, rebuilding its infrastructure, reclaiming its opportunity to move 
water around the country through canals and pipelines and starting 
irrigation can be an Iraq that can have a vibrant agricultural sector; 
an Iraq that can then create a manufacturing sector to provide the farm 
implements that are necessary to support its agriculture; an Iraq that 
can have a middle class that can buy things; that can have a society 
that is not just based on oil.
  It can become, properly reconstructed, one of the most vibrant 
economies in the region. It can outstrip some of the economies around 
it that are dependent solely upon oil and

[[Page S12686]]

thereby become an example of capitalism in the region, from which we 
and others around Iraq can reap enormous benefits. Those benefits, 
properly reaped, will establish greater economic value than the 
collection of the debt.
  This is the prospect you have here. If we wipe out all of the debt, 
if the countries respond to the plea contained in the amendment by the 
Senator from Oklahoma and forgive their debts so a vibrant Iraq can be 
built without the shadow of debt hanging over it, those very countries 
that currently hold the debt can benefit with the opportunity for trade 
with a vibrant and vital Iraq.
  I congratulate the Senator from Oklahoma in proposing his amendment. 
I hope it will pass overwhelmingly as a message to those countries that 
do hold Iraqi debt, to say to them the United States recognizes the 
importance of allowing Iraq to declare bankruptcy as if it were, if you 
will, an American corporation. The United States recognizes that the 
hope of the future will come from allowing all of this to happen, 
allowing these debts to disappear, and allowing Iraq to get on with 
their reconstruction.

                               Exhibit 1

                        Joint Economic Committee

     Memo: Iraqi Debt and Reconstruction.
     Date: October 9, 2003.


                        The ABC's of Iraqi Debt

       Dealing with debt accrued by Saddam Hussein and the Baath 
     party is a lynchpin to Iraqi reconstruction. According to 
     Businessweek, Iraq owes $216 billion. Of that, $32 billion is 
     war reparations, owed mainly to Kuwait. Loans comprise $127 
     billion of the debt, and contracts agreed to during the past 
     ten years racked up $57 billion. Other estimates of total 
     debt skate from $95 billion to $350 billion (the Bush 
     administration calculates Iraqi debt to be $200 billion, as 
     reported by CRS).
       The debt's creditors include a long list of nations, as 
     compiled by Jubilee Iraq, an organization of British origin 
     dedicated to the repudiation of Iraqi debts. Table 1 displays 
     the list of nations as well as amounts owed. In addition to 
     these nations and organizations, Iraq also owes the IMF and 
     World Bank a total of $150 million, as reported by 
     Representative Carolyn Maloney at the June 11, 2003 JEC 
     Hearing.


                           A Second Germany?

       In American history, precedents of debt repudiation focus 
     on post-war Germany. Following WWI, Germany's economy was 
     shallow with debts amounting to two times German GDP. The 
     Treaty of Versailles pointed out German guilt and obligation 
     to pay war reparation, however the United States renounced 
     all reparations and did not sanction the treaty. Due to 
     German government resistance and inability to collect funds, 
     the Dawes Plan of 1924 reorganized the Reichsbank under 
     Allied supervision and created a tax system to fund 
     reparation payments. Reparations to the European Allied 
     nations made the bulk of their lend-lease payments to the 
     United States. Germany staggered under heavy debt as Europe 
     suffered through the 1920 depression. The Young Plan (1929) 
     reduced the sum Germany owed, delineating a distinct dollar 
     amount as well as how to collect it through budgeting and a 
     transportation tax. In 1931, President Hoover issued a one-
     year moratorium on all international debts. The Lausanne Pact 
     of 1932 substituted bond issues for reparation debt, but 
     Adolf Hitler repudiated all WWI reparations while in office. 
     Payment resumed in 1953 by West Germany.
       The debts owed to the U.S. by our WWI allies were defaulted 
     by 1934 excepting Hungary, which did so in 1939, Finland, 
     which paid in full, and Russia. Russia repudiated the debt, 
     owing to its becoming the Union of Soviet Socialist 
     Republics.
       After WWII, the Allies received German reparations in the 
     form of assets and industrial equipment. Because of 
     disagreements between the USSR and U.S. regarding payments, 
     West and East Germany formed, each paying reparations to 
     their respective political counterpart. The U.S. ended German 
     payments in 1952, the USSR ended payments in 1953. Germany 
     paid reparations to its former allies, against U.S. 
     advisement. The United States collected war reparations from 
     Germany's ally, Japan, through 1949, and renounced all 
     further payments in 1951.


                         economic implications

       Iraqi debt differs from German post-war debt in a major 
     way. Germans dealt with a debt twice the size of the 
     country's GDP. Iraq faces debt estimated to be ten times 
     national output (BusinessWeek). The payment of such an amount 
     is near impossible, even with the development and future 
     revenues of oil resources. Placing this burden on a new 
     government cripples Iraq's ability to accumulate capital, 
     expand production, and increase the standard of living. 
     Repudiating this debt also sends the red light to creditors 
     who loan to sketchy governments, in this case, nations whose 
     loans were used to amass Hussein's weaponry and technology. 
     Some argue the new government will have trouble obtaining 
     loans with such history of repudiation. However, no moral 
     hazard issue exists; the loans forgiven belong to Saddam, not 
     the Coalition Provisional Authority or the government that 
     may follow.
       Those on the opposing bench feel repudiating Saddam's debt 
     will jostle the credit market and create uncertainty now and 
     whenever government turnovers occur. This cannot be the case. 
     Iraq is such a unique situation; few countries, if any, can 
     follow this paradigm.
       On a side note, Basil Al-Rahim, founder of the Iraq 
     Foundation, Spoke of creating a debt trading system in Iraq. 
     At the June 11, 2003 JEC hearing on transforming Iraq's 
     economy, Al-Rahim spoke of trading debt for points in a 
     system that would use the points in dealings of concessions, 
     licenses, and contracts (see p 20-21 of the JEC transcript).

            TABLE 1.--COUNTRIES TO WHICH IRAQ MAY BE INDEBTED
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               ($bn)       Date       Sources and notes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Australia.................  0.5.......  1991......  Paris Club (11 July
                                                     '03).
Austria...................  0.8.......  1991......  Paris Club (11 July
                                                     '03).
Belgium...................  0.2.......  1991......  Paris Club (11 July
                                                     '03).
Brazil....................  0.2.......  1991......  Paris Club (11 July
                                                     '03).
Bulgaria..................  1.........  1998......  CSIS.
                            1.512.....  1995......  22nd Bulgarian Iraq
                                                     Committee on
                                                     Cooperation does
                                                     not include
                                                     interest.
                            1.7.......  2003......  Deutsche Presse-
                                                     Agentur 7/3/03.
                            1.7.......  2003......  Exotix (Iraq: Just
                                                     the Debt, Exotix
                                                     Ltd, April 2003).
Canada....................  0.6.......  1991......  Paris Club (11 July
                                                     '03).
China.....................  >2........  2003......  ABC, China claims it
                                                     is owed
                                                     ``billions''.
Czech Rep.................  0.06-0.1..  2003......  Boston Globe 20/4/
                                                     03.
Denmark...................  0.03......  1991......  Paris Club (11 July
                                                     '03).
Egypt.....................  ??........  ..........  CSIS.
Finland...................  0.2.......  1991......  Paris Club (11 July
                                                     '03).
France....................  3.........  1991......  Paris Club (11 July
                                                     '03).
                            1.7.......  ??........  Paris Club (10 July
                                                     '03).
                            3.75-4.3..  ??........  Dow Jones 29/3/3.
                            8.........  2003......  Salah al-Shaikhly's
                                                     estimate quoted in
                                                     Moscow Times.
                            4.........  2003......  Noreenah Hertz. Ff1
                                                     fighters, Exocet
                                                     air-to-surface
                                                     missiles, laser
                                                     guided missiles,
                                                     attack helicopters.
                            8.........  2003......  Financial Times.
Germany...................  2.4.......  1991......  Paris Club (11 July
                                                     '03).
                            2.1.......  ??........  Paris Club (10 July
                                                     '03).
                            3.9.......  2003......  The official number
                                                     from the German
                                                     ministry of
                                                     finance, on
                                                     Handelsblatt (03/04/
                                                     25).
                            4.3.......  2003......  Financial Times.
Gulf States...............  30........  2002......  CSIS--The war debt.
                            17.5......  Exotix....  ....................
Hungary...................  0.017.....  1995......  CSIS.
India.....................  1.........  2003......  The Hindu, 14/4/03.
Italy.....................  1.7.......  1991......  Paris Club (11 July
                                                     '03).
                            0.33......  ??........  Paris Club (10 July
                                                     '03).
Japan.....................  4.1.......  1991......  Paris Club (11 July
                                                     '03).
                            3.4.......  ??........  Paris Club (10 July
                                                     '03).
                            7.02......  2003......  $4.109bn + $2.919bn
                                                     in arrears. Export
                                                     credit $6.46bn,
                                                     Japan Bank or
                                                     International
                                                     Development (JBIC)
                                                     $4550m. (June
                                                     11th).
Jordan....................  0.295.....  1991......  CSIS.
                            1.3.......  2003......  Minister of Finance,
                                                     Michael Manto (July
                                                     15th).
Korea.....................  0.04......  1991......  Paris Club (11 July
                                                     '03).
                            1.1.......  2003......  Dow Jones 29/3/3,
                                                     debt to Hyundai for
                                                     infrastructure
                                                     projects in 70s and
                                                     80s.
Kuwait....................  17........  1992......  CSIS.
                            27........  2003......  MEES quoting Kuwait
                                                     Investment
                                                     Authority (KIA).
London Club...............  2.6.......  2003......  Syndicated loans
                                                     issued by Rafidain
                                                     Bank and others
                                                     Reuters. Also loans
                                                     in 1983 from Chase
                                                     Manhattan (now J.P.
                                                     Morgan Chase),
                                                     Irving Trust (now
                                                     Bank of New York)
                                                     and BNP (now BNP
                                                     Paribas) Forbes.
                            11........  2003......  Herald Tribune 26/4/
                                                     3 Emergent
                                                     Alternative Fund,
                                                     Aberdeen Asset
                                                     Management and Argo
                                                     Capital Management
                                                     all offer funds
                                                     that dabble in
                                                     Iraqi debt.
Morocco...................  0.032.....  1999......  CSIS.
Multilaterals.............  1.1.......  2003......  Exotix.
Netherlands...............  0.1.......  1991......  Paris Club (11 July
                                                     '03).

[[Page S12687]]

 
Paris Club (others).......  0.8.......  ??........  Paris Club (10 July
                                                     '03): Belgium,
                                                     Denmark, Finland,
                                                     Ireland, Norway,
                                                     Spain, Sweden.
Poland....................  0.4.......  1998......  CSIS.
                            0.564.....  2003......  FT ``Iraq after
                                                     Saddam'', 17/4/03.
                            0.7.......  2003......  Boston Globe 20/4/
                                                     03.
Poland + Czech + Romania..  0.1.......  2003......  Exotix.
Romania...................  1.7.......  2003......  (Bucharest Business
                                                     Week on 21st
                                                     April).
Russia....................  3.4.......  1991......  Paris Club (11 July
                                                     '03).
                            9.6.......  ??........  Paris Club (10 July
                                                     '03).
                            9.........  2003......  Dow Jones 29/3/3.
                                                     Used to buy:
                                                     helicopters, MIG
                                                     fighters and radar
                                                     equipment.
                            12........  2002......  SIS.
                            8.........  2003......  Financial Times.
                            16........  2003......  Including interest--
                                                     Channel News Asia.
Saudi.....................  25........  2002......  Arab News SR94bn.
                            25........  2003......  Exotix.
                            25........  2003......  Financial Times.
Serbia....................  1.8-2.....  2003......  Minister of Economy.
                                                     Serbia + Montenegro
                                                     claim 38% of this
                                                     (about $700-750m).
Spain.....................  0.3.......  1991......  Paris Club (11 July
                                                     '03).
Sweden....................  0.1.......  1991......  Paris Club (11 July
                                                     '03).
Switzerland...............  0.1.......  1991......  Paris Club (11 July
                                                     '03).
                            0.7.......  2003......  Exotix.
                            0.3.......  2003......  Swissinfo mainly
                                                     machinery &
                                                     building materials.
Turkey....................  0.8.......  1993......  CSIS.
United Kingdom............  0.9.......  1991......  Paris Club (11 July
                                                     '03).
                            1.6.......  2003......  ECGD (Conversation,
                                                     623 pounds
                                                     principal).
United States.............  2.2.......  1991......  Paris Club (11 July
                                                     '03) Inc no accrued
                                                     interest.
                            2.1.......  ??........  Paris Club (10 July
                                                     '03).
                            5.........  ??........  Dow Jones 29/3/3.
                                                     Clinton considered
                                                     using Foreign
                                                     Claims Settlement
                                                     Commission to
                                                     satisfy Creditors
                                                     with frozen Iraqi
                                                     funds, but the
                                                     creditors failed to
                                                     agree how to
                                                     distribute the
                                                     small amount of
                                                     frozen funds
                                                     available.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Jublilee Iraq, www.jubileeiraq.org/reperations.htm.


                                   TABLE 2.--COMPENSATION CLAIMS FROM 1991 WAR
                                            [In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Category                       Resolved      Award         Paid        Unpaid     Unresolved
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Individuals:
    A..........................................       $3,450       $3,210       $3,210            0            0
    B..........................................           20           13           13            0            0
    C..........................................        8,760        4,990        4,990            0       $2,540
    D..........................................        4,440        2,040        1,740         $300       15,410
                                                                                       -------------------------
                                                                                                300       17,950
Corporations:
    E1--oil....................................      443,300       21,430          660       20,770          285
    E2--non-Kuwait.............................       12,650          848          779           69        1,010
    E3.........................................        7,830          364          337           27          280
    E4--Kuwait.................................       11,300        3,280        2,920          360          176
                                                                                       -------------------------
                                                                                             21,230        1,760
Governments:
    E/F--export................................        6,120          311          180          131            0
    F1--non-Kuwait.............................       18,610          291          244           47            0
    F2--Saudi and Jordan.......................       17,670          264          256            8            0
    F3--Kuwait.................................      113,900        8,260        2,150        6,110            0
    F4--environmental..........................        1,680          954          315          639       78,200
                                                                                       -------------------------
                                                                                              6,940       78,200
                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------
      Total....................................      251,160       46,250       17,780       28,470       97,900
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key to categories
A: Individuals' who had to depart from Kuwait or Iraq between the date of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait on 2 August
  1990 and the date of the cease-fire, 2 March 1991.
B: Individuals' who suffered serious personal injury or whose spouse, child or parent died. There were 5,734 of
  these claims.
C: Individuals' claims for damages up to US$100,000, including those relating to departure from Kuwait or Iraq;
  personal injury; mental pain and anguish; loss of personal property; loss of bank accounts, stocks and other
  securities; loss of income; loss of real property; and individual business losses.
D: Individuals' claims for damages above US$100,000 each, losses similar to those in category C, with the most
  frequent being the loss of personal property; the loss of real property; the loss of income and business-
  related losses.
E: Corporations and public sector enterprises. Including claims for construction or other contract losses;
  losses from the non-payment for goods or services; losses relating to the destruction or seizure of business
  assets; loss of profits; and oil sector losses.
F: Governments and international organizations for losses incurred in evacuating citizens; providing relief to
  citizens; damage to diplomatic premises and loss of, and damage to, other government property; and damage to
  the environment.
 
Source: http://www.jubileeiraq.org/reperations.htm.

                               References

       Buckley, William F. ``Odious Activities.'' October 7, 2003. 
     http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/
buckley200310071228.asp.
       Crock, Stan. ``Iraqi Debt: Fast-Track the Restructuring.'' 
     BusinessWeek. October 13, 2003. http://www.businessweek.com/
magazine/content/03_41/b3853055.htm.
       Joint Economic Committee. Hearing on Transforming Iraq's 
     Economy. June 11, 2003.
       ``Paying for Saddam's sins.'' Economist. May 15, 2003. 
     http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1780943.
       Sanford, Jonathan E. ``Foreign Debt of Iraq and Foreign 
     Claims Against Iraq.'' CRS Memorandum. October 2, 2003.
       Sanford, Jonathan E. and Elsea, Jennifer K. ``Export-Import 
     Bank Operations in Iraq.'' CRS Memorandum. September 12, 
     2003.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Utah, Senator 
Bennett, for his comments. He is exactly right. This existing Saddam 
Hussein-incurred debt will suffocate Iraq and prevent Iraq from really 
rejoining the world economy, from making significant progress. These 
are countries, including the United States--Canada, Germany, France, 
Russia, and others that have something at stake--sure. But they have 
never been paid a dime on this debt and, frankly, they will not be. I 
hope they all saddle up and say: We want to have an investment in 
Iraq's future. By doing so, we forgive this debt and we will enable 
Iraq to start to grow and make some progress.
  This idea we are going to be debating shortly, that maybe the $20 
billion or a portion of the $20 billion should be a loan, that is if 
this existing debt, is not written off, there is no chance whatsoever 
any additional debt would ever be able to be repaid. We can act as if 
it can be, we can pretend it will be, but it will not be. So this debt 
needs to be written off.
  We made a mistake at the conclusion of World War I. The victors 
didn't write off the debt of the Germans. At the end of World War II, 
we did write off the debt of the Germans and the Japanese. That was 
significant. It was controversial but it was the right thing to do, and 
this is the right thing, not only for the Western countries, the G8 
countries, but also for the Gulf States--for Kuwait, for Saudi Arabia. 
The Gulf States benefitted greatly because we have eliminated a real 
threat to them. If it had not been for the U.S. protection, the 1991 
war and the war just concluded, their future, their freedom would have 
been in jeopardy. So they benefitted probably more than any country and 
they have every reason, in my opinion, to write off this debt.
  I hope we will have a unanimous vote, an overwhelming vote from the 
Senate. That would encourage these countries to do the right thing and

[[Page S12688]]

that would be to write off the debt and not suffocate the Iraqi economy 
from being able to rebuild and grow and join the world economy in the 
future.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I wonder if Senator Nickles, before he 
yields the floor, would just discuss this with me and answer a couple 
of questions.
  Mr. NICKLES. I would be happy to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. As the Senator spoke, it dawned on me that none of this 
debt would be worth 2 cents if the United States had not done what we 
did.
  Mr. NICKLES. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Where would they get the money, if the United States 
were not involved in having invaded Iraq, trying to free them and then 
trying to put their economy back? This debt here would not be worth the 
matches that it would take to burn it.
  So I don't think you are just offering a resolution giving some 
kindly advice. It seems to me you are expressing a reality that these 
countries ought to be very serious before they try to extract from new 
Iraq, old Iraq's debt when it would be absolutely useless, based upon 
the country they lent the money to, and the dictator to whom they lent 
the money. Right?
  Mr. NICKLES. To respond to the statement of my friend and colleague, 
he is exactly right. If one were trying to take this debt or paper on 
the international market prior to the U.S. liberation of Iraq, it would 
be worthless because no payments were made on it before. I think it was 
generally assumed no payments would be made by the Saddam Hussein 
regime. My colleague from New Mexico is exactly correct.
  Mr. DOMENICI. So the point of it is that whatever they are having 
this debtor's conference for, people ought to be thinking about what 
they are going to be discussing and we ought to be thinking about how 
we are going to respond.
  You are offering some kind advice to us, what we ought to be saying, 
right? We ought to be thinking: Well, how long has it been since we 
have been involved in trying to make this country have some money and 
have it worthwhile? How many billions have we spent? And that I am for. 
How many more are we going to spend? And they would have the audacity 
to come to some kind of conference and say, put us on this debtors 
list; we will take 50 cents on a dollar. Yes, 50 cents on the dollar 
maybe 30 years from now, or 50, when everything that has gone into 
making this country alive again has been taken care of.
  There are a lot of messages from this simple resolution to these 
countries. In simplest terms: Forget about it. But in more 
sophisticated terms, the truth is, but for America, what you got is 
worth nothing. That is what I think is important about the resolution. 
I think, rather than just being a typical one that we offer as a 
resolution, I think it is a very important sense of those of us who are 
sharing, with very few countries, the burden of trying to help that 
country.
  Look at all those countries. Where have they been when we have been 
going through all this? They have been offering nice words, maybe; call 
the President and say hello. Maybe they have been sending a little 
postcard. They haven't put up anything yet. Some of them are thinking 
about it. I hope they keep thinking.
  Mr. NICKLES. I appreciate that.
  You mentioned a couple of these countries. Saudi Arabia has the 
largest, according to CRS estimates it is $25 billion. They say Kuwait 
may have $17 billion to $27 billion of Iraqi debt. They are Iraq's 
neighbors. Our liberation of Iraq eliminates a threat to them. I 
believe most of that money was lent when Iraq was fighting Iran.
  Frankly, they should not be insisting on payment. They were never 
repaid in the past. Nor should U.S. taxpayers or other people who were 
in the process of trying to rebuild Iraq be making contributions 
thinking maybe that will be going to satisfy creditors from the 
previous regime. That would be a mistake.
  I thank my friend and colleague from New Mexico.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I understand we can get an agreement that 
we would postpone the vote on the Nickles amendment until we consider 
the Bayh amendment. By a previous order, that is the next business.
  I ask unanimous consent that the vote on the Nickles amendment take 
place following the debate on the Bayh amendment, and the Bayh 
amendment follow that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. It is my understanding staff is preparing a unanimous 
consent request; is that right?
  Mr. STEVENS. Yes, we are preparing it, but that will be the 
understanding so Members will know there will not be a vote here until 
sometime, at least I would say, 8:30 or 9 o'clock.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Democratic leader is here. He has 
agreed, on our side, if we can have the vote at 9 o'clock, and have the 
time until 9 o'clock equally divided between both sides and at that 
time have 2 minutes for the amendment of Senator Nickles, equally 
divided on that amendment, and then 2 minutes prior to the vote on the 
Bayh amendment, equally divided.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the time would be equally divided between 
now and 9 o'clock on the Bayh amendment. Is that the proposal?
  Mr. REID. That is right. There would be no amendments in order to 
either amendment prior to a vote on or in relation to each amendment.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, reserving right to object, could I add 
by unanimous consent that after those two votes I be allowed 30 minutes 
equally divided?
  Mr. REID. Senator Byrd has been waiting all day for an amendment 
which he and Senator Durbin have.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Is there a possibility for some time in the morning?
  Mr. REID. I say to the distinguished Senator from Louisiana that she 
has been very patient, and she has been here for the last 2 days, and I 
understand that. We will do our very best to get her on that as soon as 
possible.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we have sent out a hot line for people 
who want to speak on this amendment. There are 10 Members who want to 
speak for 5 to 15 minutes. We have really basically 80 minutes left 
between now and 9 o'clock. I would suggest we ought to at least make 
the first vote start at 9:30.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the request I propounded be 
modified to that effect.
  Mr. STEVENS. Let me ask this: I ask unanimous consent that the 
pending Nickles amendment be temporarily set aside and Senator Bayh be 
recognized to offer his amendment; provided further that the time until 
9:30 be equally divided for debate in the usual form.
  I further ask unanimous consent that at 9:30 p.m. the Senate proceed 
to a vote in relation to the Nickles amendment to be followed by a vote 
in relationship to the Bayh amendment with no second-degree amendments 
in order to either amendment, and prior to the votes there be 2 minutes 
equally divided before each vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The Senator from Indiana.


                           Amendment No. 1871

  Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Ben Nelson, Clinton, 
Dorgan, Ensign, Collins, Snowe, Graham of South Carolina, the 
distinguished Presiding Officer, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Indiana [Mr. Bayh], for himself and Mr. 
     Nelson of Nebraska, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Ensign, Ms. 
     Collins, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Graham of South Carolina, and Senator 
     Chambliss, proposes an amendment numbered 1871.

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

(Purpose: To require that funds for reconstruction in Iraq be used for 
                           certain purposes)

       On page 38, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following 
     new section:
       Sec. 2313. (a) Of the amounts appropriated under the 
     subheading ``Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund''--
       (1) the $5,136,000,000 allocated for security, including 
     public safety requirements, national security, and justice 
     shall be used to rebuild Iraq's security services;

[[Page S12689]]

       (2) $5,168,000,000 shall be available for the purposes, 
     other than security, set out under such subheading; and
       (3) $10,000,000,000 shall be available to the President to 
     use as loans to Iraq for the purposes, other than security, 
     set out under such subheading until the date on which the 
     President submits the certification described in subsection 
     (c).
       (b) The President shall submit a notification to Congress 
     if, of the amounts referred to in paragraphs (1) and (2) of 
     subsection (a), an amount in excess of $250,000,000 is used 
     for any single purpose in Iraq.
       (c)(1) The certification referred to in subsection (a)(3) 
     is a certification submitted to Congress by the President 
     stating that not less than 90 percent of the total amount of 
     the bilateral debt incurred by the regime of Saddam Hussein 
     has been forgiven by the countries owed such debt.
       (2) On the date that the President submits the 
     certification described in paragraph (1)--
       (A) the unobligated balance of the $10,000,000,000 referred 
     to in subsection (a)(3) may be obligated and expended with no 
     requirement that such amount be provided as loans to Iraq; 
     and
       (B) the President may waive repayment of any amount made as 
     a loan under subsection (a)(3) prior to such date.
       (d) The head of the Coalition Provisional Authority shall 
     ensure that the amounts appropriated under the subheading 
     ``Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund'', are expended, 
     whether by the United States or by the Governing Counsel in 
     Iraq, for the purposes set out under such subheading and in a 
     manner that the head of the Coalition Provisional Authority 
     does not find objectionable.
       (e) It is the sense of Congress that each country that is 
     owed bilateral debt by Iraq that was incurred by the regime 
     of Saddam Hussein should--
       (1) forgive such debt; and
       (2) provide robust amounts of reconstruction aid to Iraq 
     during the conference of donors scheduled to begin on October 
     23, 2003, in Madrid, Spain and during other conferences of 
     donors of foreign aid.
       (f) In this section:
       (1) The term ``amounts appropriated under the subheading 
     `Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund' '' means the amounts 
     appropriated by chapter 2 of this title under the subheading 
     ``Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund'' under the heading 
     ``OTHER BILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO 
     THE PRESIDENT''.
       (2) The term ``Coalition Provisional Authority'' means the 
     entity charged by the President with directing reconstruction 
     efforts in Iraq.

  Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I also neglected to mention that our 
distinguished colleague, Byron Dorgan, is an original cosponsor of this 
amendment, along with the other distinguished Members I mentioned.
  Mr. President, the question of Iraq has divided our Nation and this 
Senate for some time now. I count myself in the camp that believes 
removing Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do. The evidence of 
torture chambers and mass graves is evidence enough for me. The fact he 
invaded his neighbors not once but twice and that he would surely have 
threatened them and the world again which would doubtless require 
American action at some point in the future means to me it is better to 
deal with him on our terms and at a time of our choosing rather than on 
his terms and at a time of his choosing.
  Finally, the fact he previously had and used biological and chemical 
weapons, had a nuclear program, and would almost surely seek to 
reconstitute those programs, even if they had currently been destroyed 
and even if there is a 10-percent chance that weapons of mass death 
would fall into the hands of suicidal terrorists or would be used by 
regimes like Saddam against a peaceful world, means this is a threat 
best removed.
  But regardless of where Members stood on the question of what to do 
about Iraq toward the war, we are now there. We have no choice but to 
succeed in our efforts toward reconstituting and rebuilding a more 
stable, a more democratic, and a more secure Iraq. There can be no 
alternative but success.
  If we are not successful, the southern part of this country will 
probably reconstitute itself into some sort of radical Shiite state 
closely aligned with the nation of Iran, the foremost sponsor of terror 
in the world.
  The northern part of what is currently Iraq would probably be first a 
Kurdish entity of some type followed by a Turkish invasion which would 
create further chaos in that part of the world.
  The central part of this troubled land would undoubtedly develop into 
some chaotic Sunni enclave serving as a base for terror against both 
the United States and the rest of the peaceful world.
  We must not let that happen. We must not.
  I favor, along with my colleagues who have cosponsored this 
amendment, aggressive steps to stabilize and create a free, prosperous, 
and diverse Iraq. This means unwavering support for security because we 
understand security measures are the essential prerequisite for 
democracy, for investments, for commerce, and for the development of 
civil society in Iraq. It means equally aggressive steps to restart 
Iraq's economy and Iraqi society, which is rebuilding schools, 
hospitals, roads, and many other activities.
  A strong, vibrant Iraqi economy is the foundation which is essential 
to Iraq's stability and our ultimate withdrawal. But if this 
reconstruction is to succeed, it must be conducted on terms that 
maximize our chances of success in Iraq and terms that are fair and 
equitable to the American people. American perseverance and resolve is 
being tested in Iraq today as seldom before, and for that perserverance 
and resolve to be forthcoming we must base our efforts there on 
principles of fundamental fairness without which our efforts will be 
impossible to sustain.
  Specifically, we have to call upon the other nations of the world to 
do the right thing with the Iraqi people and for themselves by 
forgiving the loans they extended to Saddam Hussein's tyrannical 
regime, to wipe the slate clean, and to give the Iraqi people a fresh 
start. It is the moral thing to do.

  Particularly for countries such as France and Germany, which have 
previously benefited from the rest of the world's largess through the 
Marshall plan, they must now demonstrate similar generosity in the case 
of another country in need--Iraq.
  If the rest of the world demanded the repayment of Nazi debt or Vichy 
debt, clearly that would not be tolerable. Neither are the repayments 
of these debts.
  Second, if you do business by extending loans to dictators, you 
assume the risk of nonrepayment in the event those dictators are 
overthrown. This is truly ``odious debt,'' to use the term employed by 
international lawyers. The Iraqi people have a right to repudiate this 
debt. If they do not, the other nations that incurred it should surely 
do the right thing by forgiving it.
  Finally, with regard to the debt forgiveness issue, if Russia, 
France, Germany, and the other nations insist upon repayment, then so 
must we. We can't possibly tolerate a situation where those who propped 
up the tyrannical regime of Saddam Hussein are repaid their debts but 
the American people who helped to liberate the country are repaid 
nothing. That would be an outrageous outcome and one our amendment will 
prevent through terms which I will shortly discuss.
  It also gives us a seat at the table if these other nations are not 
willing to do the right thing, and it gives us leverage in any further 
debt restructuring negotiations to insist that they forgive the Iraqi 
people.
  Our proposal gives us maximum leverage toward an equitable and fair 
outcome, lower debts for Iraq, a fresh start, but fairness to the 
American people if other nations are not willing to join us in this 
case.
  Second, we must also ask the Iraqi people to do what they can to help 
themselves. This is not a country that is dead broke like some in sub-
Saharan Africa or Afghanistan. In fact, the nation of Iraq has great 
wealth. It is estimated to be $2.8 trillion to $5.1 trillion. What the 
nation of Iraq has is a cashflow problem, one we should be willing to 
help them with. But a temporary cashflow problem is no excuse for not 
doing what they can to help rebuild themselves to the extent they are 
capable and, as I have just mentioned, they have great capabilities.
  This is compounded by the fact that when the Iraqis finally are able 
to sell oil in some quantity on the international markets, they will 
sell it at a price that is not set by a free market but which is 
instead dictated in large part by a cartel known as OPEC--giving them 
the ability to reap profits from that not once but twice if our loans 
are given first in the form of monopoly oil payments and, second, if we 
just give them the cash.
  This is particularly inequitable if other nations do not forgive 
their debt and essentially contribute nothing at

[[Page S12690]]

all when the American taxpayers are being asked and the American 
consumers have been asked and required to contribute not once but 
twice.
  Our amendment calls for three steps: First, the immediate provision 
of $5 billion to meet the immediate security needs of the nation of 
Iraq because we understand that we should err on the side of being more 
aggressive than less when it comes to stabilizing that country, ending 
the bloodshed and violence, and allowing the Iraqi people to get on 
with commerce, civil society, free elections, and the other things that 
will head them in the proper direction.
  Second, we would propose providing $5 billion in terms of an 
immediate grant to meet the eminent reconstruction needs. The World 
Bank has estimated this would provide almost the entirety of the funds 
to be absorbed by Iraq for reconstruction over the next year. It is our 
proposal to err on the side of being more generous rather than less in 
providing the Iraqi economy with momentum, an immediate jump-start, 
priming the pump to get things going. The first $10 billion would be $5 
billion to meet the immediate security needs of Iraq in the form of a 
grant, $5 billion to meet the immediate reconstruction needs, those 
that we envision over the next year in terms of an immediate grant.
  The third provision would be in the form of a $10 billion loan for 
long-term reconstruction needs of the Government and the people of Iraq 
to be forgiven whenever the other nations of the world that extended 
debt to the regime of Saddam Hussein are willing to forgive up to 90 
percent of those sovereign debts. Again, that will maximize and provide 
an incentive for those nations to do the right thing and give us a seat 
at the table and leverage to insist they do the right thing in the 
event they are dragging their feet in doing so.
  Doubtless we have heard several arguments against our approach. Let 
me address them briefly.
  First, the argument that our amendment should not be adopted because 
we would merely add to the already burdensome debt facing the people of 
Iraq estimated to be between $100 and $130 billion. Let me say clearly 
that, on the contrary, our approach seeks to eliminate, minimize, do 
away with the outstanding burdens facing the Iraqi people and gives us 
a seat at the table and maximum leverage to accomplish the objective to 
do the right thing, giving the country a free start.
  Second, we have a recent example in the case of Argentina. There, a 
democracy with a freely elected government voluntarily incurred 
unsustainable debt. They chose to default recently upon their debts and 
were rewarded within 48 hours by a new agreement from the International 
Monetary Fund. Argentines are seeking up to 75-percent reduction from 
their creditors of their outstanding debts. In the private sector, it 
would be known as a cram-down. They threatened to default entirely and 
are now demanding the creditors forgive the loans. Surely what is good 
enough for the people of Argentina, who did not exercise physical 
adequate fiscal control over their affairs, should at least be good 
enough for the people of Iraq who have had the burdens imposed upon 
them by a tyrannical dictator.
  Next, it is the principled thing to do. Surely we cannot allow a 
state of affairs to exist where those who helped sustain the regime of 
Saddam Hussein are repaid, but the American taxpayers who helped to 
liberate the country are not. This would be an outrageous outcome and 
one that our amendment seeks to prohibit.
  The second argument offered against our proposal is that there is no 
Iraqi Government currently in power to take on these obligations. 
Really? Can it possibly be argued by others that the obligations of 
Saddam Hussein are more legitimate than the decisions undertaken by the 
newly empowered Iraqi Council? How can that possibly be? Is it possible 
to say that the obligations of Saddam Hussein should be enforced but 
those undertaken by the council should not? Obviously not. No one 
elected Saddam Hussein. How can he be given more legitimacy and more 
credence than the new council of the newly liberated Iraq? Obviously, 
that is something that cannot be allowed to happen. Our amendment is 
perfectly consistent with not allowing that to happen.

  Finally, the new council is perfectly empowered to apply the freedom 
of the people of Iraq by enforcing its laws against a variety of 
criminal activities. They are empowered to hold elections. They are 
empowered to draft a constitution. How can it possibly be that they are 
not allowed to take out a simple loan on behalf of the people of their 
country? Obviously, that is an illogical inconsistency to those who 
adhere to the argument there is no Iraqi entity in power to take on the 
obligations.
  Finally, we hear repeatedly the argument requiring some of these 
obligations to be undertaken in the form of a loan if other countries 
are not willing to forgive their debts. That would feed the perception 
alive in the Middle East and across the Islamic world that our 
activities in Iraq were solely about the Iraqi oil. This is a slippery 
and dangerous slope. If we begin to tread down that line of argument, 
no telling where we will end up.
  For starters, this is clearly a lie. We all know it. The American 
people did not shed their blood in Iraq, we have not spent our treasure 
there to seize the Iraqi oil. This is a malicious falsehood and one 
that we cannot possibly allow to influence our deliberations in this 
great body.
  Second, how can someone seriously argue that false opinions in other 
countries should set the public policy of a great Nation like the 
United States of America? What precedent would this set for this body 
and for our people? Should we stop the hunt for Osama bin Laden because 
it is popularly believed in other parts of the world that the attack on 
September 11 was designed as a zionist plot against our country? There 
have been polls on Al-Jazeera indicating a majority in some nations in 
that part of that world believe this canard. Should we allow that to 
affect the activities of our country? Obviously no. That would be 
outrageous.
  Should we end our alliance with the State of Israel and form one with 
the Palestinians and Yasser Arafat because popular opinion in that part 
of the world would have us do so? Of course we cannot do that. The 
policies of the United States of America must be based upon the 
principles to which our great country has always adhered. We must base 
our policies upon the truth, upon the facts, and not the misguided 
beliefs of others.
  We know our intentions in Iraq have always been honorable. This 
amendment is perfectly consistent with those intentions. Should we not 
do the right thing because of the misguided arguments about public 
opinion elsewhere in the world?
  Finally, this argument is obviously a demonstrable mathematical 
falsehood. This is in repayment, not a confiscation or an 
appropriation. If I give you $100 and say that I am going to give you 
$50 of it as a grant, and I am even willing to forgive the other $50 
and make that a grant, if another creditor is willing to forgive $100 
that he has also given you, how can that possibly be characterized as a 
confiscation or expropriation of your property? Obviously, it is not.

  So, in conclusion, let me say our amendment provides for the 
aggressive help that the Iraqi people need to meet their pressing 
security needs. Our amendment provides for generous and substantial 
help to meet the pressing reconstruction burdens facing that country. 
It gets them on their feet, provides them with a fresh start, and 
primes the pump for increased commercial activity there that is 
important to the success of our endeavor. But it does so in a way that 
is consistent with the principles of fairness to the American people 
and in a way that maximizes the prospects from the success of these 
moneys in the nation of Iraq, without which this endeavor, these funds, 
the blood and treasure that we have expended to date, will have gone 
for naught. That is something we must avoid. That is something this 
amendment will avoid.
  Therefore, I ask our colleagues' support, and I thank my cosponsors.
  I am pleased to yield time to others who have so patiently waited to 
speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. BAYH. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I thank the chief sponsor of the bill. It 
has been

[[Page S12691]]

a pleasure working with him and others in a bipartisan manner on this 
important amendment.
  I understand there are deep feelings on both sides of this amendment. 
This is a fundamental, legitimate disagreement on policy: What is the 
best way to go forward for the United States, with the same goals in 
mind--that goal being that we have a stable Iraq in the future--that is 
in the interest of all Americans?
  It is worth doing the $87 billion investment that the President has 
requested, the rebuilding of Iraq. All who support this amendment are 
in support of that concept because we think it is important to have a 
stable type of government, whatever that will be in Iraq, democracy or 
whatever they choose. It is important to have that for the stability of 
the region and for the spread of freedom and freedom-loving people, 
especially in that part of the world which up to this point has only 
known rule under dictatorship.
  I will make a couple of points about the bill. Of around $20 
billion--and I will use the round numbers--$5 billion was recognized 
for security needs for the Iraqi Government; in other words, money to 
train and get security forces and an army in place as quickly as 
possible. Everyone recognized that is in the direct interest of the 
United States because every person put in place, every Iraqi put in 
place, allows an American not to be in harm's way. So there is no 
question that everybody agreed that $5 billion should be in the form of 
a grant.

  With other sponsors of the bill, we had a little disagreement on the 
next $5 billion. But basically around $5.2 billion is needed in the 
first 12 months. And working together, in a bipartisan fashion, we 
wanted to make sure the President had the maximum flexibility for that 
next $5 billion, so we decided to make that in a grant as well. We did 
not want to get caught up in any bureaucracies or any kinds of 
problems, so that Ambassador Bremer could go ahead, fund what he needs 
to fund right now, get everything started over the next 12 months, and 
get Iraq on the road to recovery.
  Now, the next $10 billion is the part that we said we think is best 
to do in the form of a loan. First of all, that is not the money that 
is needed right away, so we have some time on that. But another point 
on this--and my colleague from Indiana said it well when he talked 
about we are not trying to undermine the President; we are actually 
trying to strengthen the President's hand.
  Let me make a couple comments about the President and the 
administration in the job they have done in handling the war in Iraq 
and postwar Iraq.
  I think the President and his administration, the Department of 
Defense, and, obviously, our military have performed in a spectacular 
manner. Have there been problems? Absolutely. There always are 
problems, and they have adjusted to the problems. They have handled an 
incredibly difficult situation. And especially the President has shown 
great leadership through the entire process. It is incredibly 
challenging in that part of the world to deal with different cultural 
problems than we are used to dealing with in this country.
  So we are trying to strengthen the President's hand. And that is what 
many of us believe this amendment will do. When we are going out and we 
are asking other countries to put in grants, we are saying: We, the 
taxpayers of the United States, are putting up $10 billion in grants. 
But a lot of countries are also owed money, and so is the United States 
right now. We are owed money. We, the sponsors of this amendment, 
believe that Iraq would be best off going forward if they had no debt.
  We believe the best way to ensure they will have no debt is if the 
President is able to go forward with a $10 billion loan from the United 
States and is able to look at those other countries and say: We gave 
$10 billion in grants; We have a $10 billion loan here; and we are 
willing to forgive that $10 billion loan if you will.
  But why should the American taxpayer--when the oil starts producing 
revenue, when people start actually paying their power bills, when 
other things start generating revenues in Iraq, why should the American 
taxpayer not be paid back if the taxpayer in France, if the taxpayer in 
Germany, if the taxpayer in Russia--countries that were not willing to 
support us when we were doing what was right in the world--why should 
those taxpayers be paid back and not the taxpayers of America?
  That is really the whole point of this, which is, if we can give the 
President the leverage, he can do the best job he can to try to provide 
Iraq going forward with as little debt as possible. But if these other 
countries will not forgive the debt, then the American taxpayer will 
have a chance to be paid back. And that is what the fundamental purpose 
of the language in the amendment really is.

  I want to make just a couple of comments about some of these other 
countries in the world that are owed this money. Remember, we are 
loaning this money to a legitimate government in the future in Iraq. 
This is a legitimate, democratically elected government going forward, 
a free people going forward that the loan is going to.
  Who did France, Germany, Russia, and others loan that money to? An 
illegitimate regime, the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein. And the 
argument that they should be paid back for loaning a brutal dictator 
money, and the American people not paid back for loaning a legitimate 
free people money, is just very difficult to justify for this Senator. 
That is why this Senator is so strongly supportive of this amendment.
  We hope this amendment is adopted. We think it has a good chance of 
being adopted tonight.
  So I will close by saying that working across the aisle, doing what 
is right--and I have heard people say, you are just trying to pander to 
people back home. Frankly, I do not know how many people back home are 
even paying attention. On a night like tonight, I think most people are 
going to pay attention to the Red Sox and the Yankees and not to what 
we are doing here.
  In a bipartisan fashion, we are just doing what we believe is right. 
And the people on the other side of this issue believe what they are 
doing is right. It is OK to fundamentally disagree. What I hope does 
not happen in this debate tonight is that we impugn each other's 
motives. There are true, fundamental differences of belief on the way 
we should go forward.
  We are presenting one alternative that we believe strongly we should 
go forward with. So I hope the debate stays on a high ground, and let 
the votes fall where they may. That is the kind of debate we need in 
the Senate.
  I thank the chief sponsor of this bill for yielding me time, and I 
yield the floor, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I thank our distinguished colleague for his 
comments and his leadership.
  Mr. President, as you know, this has been a truly bipartisan 
undertaking by those of us who supported this effort in Iraq from the 
beginning, members on your side of the aisle and members on my side of 
the aisle.
  So I commend my colleague for his leadership and his courage. It is a 
pleasure to work with him.
  I now yield time to our distinguished colleague from Nebraska.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from 
Indiana for the opportunity to speak in support of this amendment. I 
thank my colleagues who are cosponsoring this amendment: Senators 
Ensign, Collins, Snowe, Lindsey Graham, and the Presiding Officer, 
Senator Chambliss. It is a pleasure to be working with them in a 
bipartisan way on what I think is an important point to the American 
people and an important point as a message to the world.
  When the President delivered his address announcing the $87 billion 
he would ask Congress to approve for postwar military operations and 
construction and reconstruction in Iraq, known as the supplemental, 
there was clearly a collective gasp from the American people. This was 
primarily because I do not believe the American public was prepared, 
before the war, for the cost of reconstruction after the war.
  Americans clearly want our mission in Iraq to succeed. We cannot 
fail. And

[[Page S12692]]

we want our young men and women to come home safely. Now our No. 1 
priority must be that we do everything in our power to make sure that 
happens in a fiscally responsible way for the United States and Iraq.
  The American role in the liberation of Iraq planted the seeds for 
democracy. The creation of the Coalition Provisional Authority, led by 
Ambassador Bremer, and the interim Iraqi Governing Council, have laid 
the foundation for what I hope will be a lasting Iraqi Republic.
  Now is the time to seek greater international support for security, 
perhaps through NATO, as I have previously suggested, and also to seek 
more international support through the United Nations, to help 
democracy and freedom in Iraq by the drafting of a constitution, the 
holding of legitimate elections, and the participation by all Iraqis in 
the political process.
  Funds for military operations must not be delayed and should be 
quickly appropriated so that the 140,000 American troops in theater, 
and those supporting them, will have the tools they need to do their 
job.
  Our soldiers should not be held hostage because of deliberations on 
controversial portions of this supplemental.
  The reconstruction funding the President requested may be the 
appropriate amount to accomplish our goals. However, as we have all 
indicated, we have concerns with the way the funding is being made to 
the Iraqis. The President's reconstruction request simply gives money 
to Iraq as a grant. It asks the American taxpayer to pick up the entire 
cost for postwar construction with the hope that we will get others to 
be donors in this process. It asks nothing from the international 
community at the present time, and certainly it asks nothing of Iraq in 
return.
  The United States liberated Iraq, but should reconstruction become 
the sole responsibility of the American people with the expectation and 
the hope we might get additional contributions from the donors 
conference? Furthermore, the question can be, Is that the best for 
Iraq? I don't think so.
  The amendment we offer today will ask that the international 
community do more to aid Iraq in their reconstruction, while 
simultaneously easing the financial burden that Iraq now carries 
because of the policies of a brutal tyrant. In contrast to the 
administration's proposed total direct grant, which does not ask Iraq 
to contribute financially to its own recovery, this amendment is both 
generous and fair.
  As my colleague from Indiana has indicated, the amendment first 
provides for a grant covering $5 billion for building Iraq's security 
services. That is a grant. And it provides $5.2 billion in emergency 
economic assistance. That is a grant. It also asks the administration 
to notify all relevant congressional committees of every $250 million 
obligated out of the $5.2 billion so that there is some transparency 
and accountability on how these dollars are going to be spent.
  Most importantly, our proposal asks America to negotiate with the 
world on behalf of Iraq. Iraq, unfortunately, due to the tyrannical 
powers and programs of Saddam Hussein, owes money in reparations to 
Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. It also has debts to France and Russia 
primarily for military purposes. France and Russia are owed $6 billion 
and $6.9 billion, respectively. Saudi Arabia is owed approximately $25 
billion. This is debt that was incurred by Iraq as a result of the 
tyrannical forces, powers, and programs of Saddam Hussein.
  Our colleague from Oklahoma has proposed a sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution which will be voted on later this evening, as will this 
amendment. He has asked that we request the countries that own the debt 
to forgive the debt. I think that is a start that is halfway to the 
conclusion that this amendment brings us. But it is only halfway. It is 
asking rather than providing leverage where I think we will absolutely 
have the opportunity to seek the forgiveness of this debt. So that if 
France, Russia, and others can forgive Iraq's debt, the international 
community would consider this as a positive step toward independence. 
This immense gesture would enable the Iraqi economic engine to become 
energized, free of a burden most Iraqis never wanted in the first 
place.
  It is estimated as well that Iraq's proven oil reserves are worth 
$2.8 trillion and its potential oil reserves might be worth $5.5 
trillion. Freeing the Iraqis of their prewar debt would help them use 
their oil resources immediately to provide for their people and their 
reconstruction.
  Our amendment is the only amendment offered that directly addresses 
the issue of Iraqi debt. Our amendment provides an incentive to those 
nations to forgive Iraq of its Saddam-era debt. It is my hope the 
administration and the Iraqi Governing Council will be able to 
satisfactorily and successfully negotiate with the international 
community to eliminate 90 percent of the prewar bilateral Iraqi debt. 
If those negotiations are indeed successful, this amendment would 
provide that the remaining $10 billion in reconstruction funding to the 
Iraqi people would be in the form of a grant. It will be convertible 
from a loan to a grant in exchange for the forgiveness of 90 percent of 
the prewar bilateral Iraqi debt.
  If the negotiations are unsuccessful, which we hope they would not 
be, then the $10 billion will be appropriated as a long-term loan to 
the Iraqi Governing Council and all prewar debts will be subordinated 
to the U.S. postwar debt of $10 billion. This would allow the Iraqi 
people to get the same jump-start on rebuilding their country while 
delaying their payments to us and the world until this Iraqi nation has 
established an economy and can meet its responsibilities to the world 
community. The loan would be secured by revenues from Iraqi oil exports 
in the future.
  There are some who will charge that making reconstruction funds 
available as a loan is evidence that the United States is after Iraq's 
oil. In my estimation, they will hold that contention regardless of 
what we do or don't do in regard to funding reconstruction. In fact, 
the use of the funds to rebuild within Iraq is evidence to the 
contrary. But even if we can't prove to the rest of the world that we 
are not after the oil, we must pursue a loan approach as we are 
proposing.
  I can understand that the administration does not want to add to the 
debt of the Iraqi people. This isn't, as long as the prewar Saddam 
Hussein indebtedness is forgiven. We owe it to our taxpayers to be just 
as concerned about growing our budget deficit as we are about Iraq's 
deficit.
  I hope my colleagues will join in support of this generous and fair 
amendment, recognizing that those who said an entity doesn't exist, 
that that argument just doesn't wash. If it exists for a grant, it 
exists for a loan. There are those who have said we are loading it up 
with debt. It is just the opposite. They have even cited post-World War 
I Germany with the debt that was added there. The intent here is to 
clear the debt, to clear it up so we put Iraq on a firm financial 
footing as it moves forward. All we ask is the help of the other 
nations.
  This provides leverage to go to the donors conference and say: We are 
prepared to make a grant. We just want to make sure the debt that is 
existing prior to the war, the Saddam-era debt, is forgiven.
  I appreciate the opportunity. It is a pleasure to work with my 
colleagues. I thank my colleague from Indiana.
  Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, we are grateful for the leadership and the 
eloquence of our colleague from Nebraska. He was a successful 
businessman, an outstanding Governor, and now a very wise Member of 
this body. I thank him for his leadership.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time?
  Mr. BAYH. I am pleased to yield time to the distinguished Senator 
from Maine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, before I give my remarks, let me thank my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have worked so hard to craft 
this amendment. It has been a great pleasure to work with all of them. 
I believe the proposal we are advancing this evening not only reflects 
a great deal of thought and deliberation but is by far the best policy 
we could pursue.
  The Senate is engaged in a historic debate: the consideration of the 
most comprehensive package of military and foreign reconstruction 
assistance since the Marshall plan. The administration has asked the 
Congress to appropriate $87 billion, some of which would go to

[[Page S12693]]

Afghanistan, but the vast majority would go for Iraq.
  As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I visited Iraq 
last July. I am well aware of the urgent need for additional funding to 
support our troops. Rogue elements operating in Iraq, whether it is the 
remnants of the Baathist regime or terrorists from other countries, 
endanger our troops and threaten to undermine our efforts to establish 
a prosperous and democratic society. It is imperative that our troops 
have all the support they need to be as safe and as effective as 
possible. In that regard, it is indeed heartening that the $66 billion 
included in this package that will be used to support our troops enjoys 
widespread support.

  The stakes are very high. We simply cannot fail in Iraq. The 
sacrifices of our young men and women in uniform cannot be in vain. 
This funding will help to support their efforts and to ensure their 
success.
  I also recognize that Iraq needs our assistance in constructing a 
modern infrastructure and rebuilding its security services. There are 
$20 billion included in this bill targeted for those purposes. I note 
the significance of that amount; it is more than our entire foreign aid 
budget. So this is a very significant assistance package we are 
considering tonight.
  It is vital that basic services be restored to the Iraqi people as 
soon as possible so that their hardships do not continue. Without 
reliable electricity and clean water, the Iraqi people cannot rebuild 
their lives, their country, and their economy. I believe there are, 
however, ways to structure this assistance to provide the Iraqis with 
the help they need while lessening the impact on the American taxpayer. 
That is the goal of the bipartisan amendment we have put forth this 
evening.
  While I fully support the President's overall budget request, we have 
an obligation to explore ways to lessen the burden on the American 
taxpayer. To accomplish this goal, our amendment proposes that part of 
this assistance be provided to the Iraqi people in the form of a loan, 
to be repaid at some point in the future when Iraq once again becomes 
the prosperous nation it has the capacity to be.
  When I visited Iraq, I was struck by how little damage the war 
actually inflicted on the infrastructure of that nation. I saw 
firsthand evidence of how our precision weaponry and the care our 
troops took were successful in targeting installations that posed a 
threat to our troops or supported the regime of Saddam Hussein while 
sparing the civilian community.
  I was also struck, however, by the dreadfully poor infrastructure of 
communities throughout the nation. Basic elements of a modern nation, 
such as the electricity, clean water, schools, hospitals, roads, and 
bridges, were ignored by Saddam Hussein as he looted the country and 
left it in shambles. In fact, when you think about it, what we are 
really talking about is construction costs, not reconstruction. Iraq 
lacks many of the elements of a modern and well-functioning 
infrastructure.
  I do not believe it is in any way unfair to ask the Iraqi people to 
invest in their own future by repaying the American taxpayers some of 
the funding used to construct their infrastructure, particularly when 
they clearly will have the ability someday to do so, for Iraq is not 
Afghanistan; Iraq has an educated population, abundant natural 
resources and, most notably, the second largest oil reserves in the 
world.
  The administration projects that Iraq will be generating $20 billion 
in annual oil revenue within just 2 years. With such economic assets, 
Iraq undoubtedly one day will have the financial wherewithal to repay 
this loan. Moreover, asking the Iraqis to take some responsibility for 
rebuilding their own country will help give them a sense of ownership, 
increasing the chances that our reconstruction efforts will endure long 
after our troops have returned home.
  One of the arguments put forth by opponents of the loan concept is 
that Iraq is already burdened with an estimated $100 billion to $125 
billion in debt from Saddam Hussein's regime. But what is often left 
out is that some of the largest holders of that debt are Saudi Arabia, 
France, Germany, and Russia. If it were up to the leaders of three of 
those nations, the Iraqi people would still be suffering under the 
brutal and repressive regime of Saddam Hussein.

  The American people will be justifiably outraged if one dime of their 
money is sent to France while the American people are pouring millions 
of their hard-earned tax dollars into rebuilding Iraq. France, Germany, 
and Russia should not be paid for the debts incurred by one of the most 
despicable and violent leaders in decades while the American taxpayer 
invests billions in the rebuilding and stabilization of Iraq.
  I also point out that structuring our assistance as loans is not 
without precedent. Most of the large-scale infrastructure projects 
undertaken in postconflict Bosnia have been administered through the 
World Bank in the form of loans with reasonable repayment conditions. 
If this approach is not hindering the reconstruction of Bosnia, the 
same surely should hold true for Iraq, a country with far greater 
economic resources.
  That is why we have joined this evening to offer this amendment. This 
amendment ensures that the American taxpayer will eventually be 
reimbursed for a portion of our investment in Iraq. Under our proposal, 
$10 billion in our construction assistance will be made available for 
use as loans while the other $10 billion will be available as grants.
  So you can see we have taken a very reasonable, moderate approach in 
constructing this amendment. By making available $5 billion in grants 
for rebuilding Iraq's security services and yet another $5 billion to 
jump start the reconstruction process, our approach ensures that the 
administration has the funds necessary to address the immediate and 
pressing needs.
  Furthermore, the amendment requires the administration to notify 
congressional committees after the expenditure of every $250 million of 
the funds. This provision will help to enhance accountability. The 
President is then authorized to use the remaining $10 billion as loans 
to the Iraqi Governing Council or its successor.
  Here is an important provision of our amendment. We say that if, 
however, 90 percent of Iraq's bilateral foreign debt is forgiven, then 
the remaining assistance will be converted to grants and the loans 
already obligated will be forgiven. So this is a very generous 
proposal.
  This provision will encourage other countries to forgive at least a 
portion of their debt and ensure that we are not financing the 
rebuilding of Iraq's infrastructure while nations that loaned money to 
Saddam Hussein are repaid.
  In addition, the amendment includes a sense-of-the-Senate provision 
encouraging all the nations to forgive their pre-liberation bilateral 
debt and to provide robust levels of reconstruction aid to postwar Iraq 
at the upcoming donors conference.
  The American people are very generous. They not only want to give our 
troops the support they need but they want to provide help to the Iraqi 
people. The American people understand that Iraq cannot repay this 
money immediately. That is not what we are asking. But the American 
taxpayer does deserve to be repaid eventually for some of our 
investment in this country. And Iraq deserves to be treated as a 
country that has the enormous economic potential that it clearly has. 
Structuring our reconstruction assistance as a loan is a reasonable 
approach that satisfies both concerns.
  Again, I acknowledge the hard work of the group of Senators, 
including the Presiding Officer, who have worked very hard to come up 
with what I believe is a commonsense approach to this aid package.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes in opposition to 
the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, first, I wish to tell my colleagues who 
debated on the other side of the issue that I have great respect for 
their position. I just happen to disagree with it.
  I stated some time ago that I had hoped a significant portion of the 
$20

[[Page S12694]]

billion for reconstruction of Iraq could be in the form of a loan. I 
would like to see that be the case. I just happen to think, upon 
further review, that it is not possible now. It might be possible a 
year from now, but it is not possible now, at least in my opinion.
  There is no government in Iraq today. Hopefully, there will be. It is 
our objective to have a democracy in Iraq. It is our objective to have 
Iraq run by Iraqis. There is nobody in Iraq who can sign a note and 
say: We will borrow $10 billion and pay you back. Nobody. I guess one 
could say Ambassador Bremer could do it.
  I listened to Ambassador Bremer, and I have great confidence in him. 
I think he has done a great job. This amendment is saying we know 
better than he does. He happens to be living in Iraq. He is working 
there. He is risking his life daily. I don't know how many 
assassination attempts have been made on his life and on the lives of 
the people working with him. I actually have a former staff member who 
is working in the Iraqi government. She is fluent in Arabic. I happen 
to think they have made a good choice.
  Maybe in the future loans can be made, but right now there is not an 
Iraqi government. There is no one to sign the note. There is no one who 
can say: We will make payments and pay this back.
  Frankly, if one looks at their current situation--Iraq is a country 
that was so ignored by Saddam Hussein, so devastated by his terrible 
plundering of the country for military purposes, that their ability to 
pay back debt is nonexistent for some time.

  Iraq has inherited a lot of debt. I have an amendment we will be 
voting on shortly that says countries that own Saddam Hussein's 
incurred debt should forgive that debt. I hope that amendment will be 
supported, and I hope that will send a signal to those countries that 
hold some of that paper.
  That paper is worthless. Saddam Hussein did not make payments on it. 
There is no way in the world future Iraqis could inherit that debt and 
prosper. So it needs to be written off.
  If we say, before you write that off, we want to add another $10 
billion, even though you don't have a government, we want to add 
another $10 billion on top of that, and, oh, yes, we want to be paid 
back, but we want you to write off the $100 billion or the $150 billion 
of debt previously owned, I think that complicates that message.
  Maybe I am wrong, but when we are saying we want to lend $10 billion 
and we want to be paid off, but you other countries who hold a bunch of 
Iraqi debt, you should forgive that, I think it will get lost in the 
translation. This amendment says $10 billion will be released when and 
if 90 percent of that debt is forgiven. Maybe it is a carrot, maybe it 
is an incentive that $10 billion will never be spent. I do know there 
is not a government that can sign this note. There is not an Iraqi 
government that can make the payment. Maybe it will make people feel 
better to say it is a loan, but there is nobody to sign that note. 
There is nobody who has the authority and who is supported by the Iraqi 
people who can say: Yes, we will be making these payments.
  Likewise, it greatly complicates our efforts to get other countries 
that currently hold worthless Iraqi paper to write off that debt. They 
are going to say: United States, if you are going to take on $10 
billion of loans and you expect to be paid, then we expect to be paid. 
I think it will greatly complicate efforts to get other countries to 
write off their debt.
  Let me say this about Ambassador Bremer. He has done a fantastic job. 
Do we support him or not? I asked Secretary Powell yesterday: Is there 
a government in Iraq that can pay this note back?
  He said no.
  Is there anybody there who can pay this note back?
  He said no. That is our Secretary of State.
  I asked basically the same questions of Ambassador Bremer. Is this 
possible?
  He said no. He was strongly urging us to go the grant approach; give 
them the flexibility to get this country going, not complicate their 
efforts when they are trying to get other countries to write off some 
of the existing worthless debt.
  I have confidence in Ambassador Bremer. I have confidence in 
Secretary Powell. I think this amendment is very well intended. Again, 
I have no complaints whatsoever about the authors of this amendment. I 
respect them greatly as colleagues, but I think they made a mistake, 
and I urge our colleagues to vote no on this amendment when we vote.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to Senator Roberts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I am going to start off with a quote from Winston 
Churchill and people are going to say: Why on Earth would I be quoting 
Winston Churchill in this regard as to whether or not we will come to 
the assistance of the Iraqis with a loan or a grant? But I think it has 
application, and it refers back to what the distinguished Senator from 
Indiana said. I would like to repeat what the Senator from Oklahoma has 
stated. I have nothing but admiration for the work the Senator from 
Indiana and others who have spoken to this amendment have done on this 
issue. Senator Bayh is a very valued member of the Intelligence 
Committee.
  Let me get back to my point, and that is, Churchill said on hearing 
about the attack on Pearl Harbor--if you stop and think about it, 9/11 
is our modern-day Pearl Harbor, so I think it is an apt quote. He said:

       Silly people, that was the description many gave in 
     discounting the force of the United States. Some said they 
     were soft, others that they would never be united, that they 
     would never come to grips, they would never stand 
     bloodletting, that their system of government and democracy 
     would paralyze their war effort.

  Let me repeat that:

     that their system of government and democracy would paralyze 
     their war effort.
       Now we will see the weakness of this numerous but remote, 
     wealthy and very talkative people.

  Then Churchill said:

       But, I had studied the American Civil War fought out to the 
     last desperate inch. American blood flowed in my veins. I 
     thought of a remark made to me years before--the United 
     States is like a gigantic boiler. Once the fire of freedom is 
     lighted under it, there is no limit to the power it can 
     generate. It is a matter of resolve.

  Let me repeat that:

       It is a matter of resolve.

  Why do I bring up the Churchill quote and the issue of resolve in 
regard to whether or not we apply a grant or a loan to the Iraqi 
people?
  I think it is a question of resolve in the eyes of more especially 
those in the Arab world, more especially the Iraqis. In the last 2 
days, I have had visits from three ambassadors. I am not going to go 
into their names or countries. It was a confidential discussion. 
Obviously, they were countries directly involved in this whole effort. 
They asked me quite frankly about American resolve. They asked me about 
the whole WMD issue, whether or not the American people still had the 
resolve to see this through.
  Then they asked me about this loan situation and this grant 
situation. They were very mindful of the attitude the Senator from 
Indiana already spoke to that there will be those in the Arab world, 
our adversaries, if you will, who will interpret this as a grab that 
they originally described as to why the United States became involved 
in this conflict--a grab for the oil of Iraq.
  On April 8, 2003, the President and the Prime Minister of Britain 
said in a joint statement regarding the future of Iraq:

       We reaffirm our commitment to protect Iraqi's natural 
     resources, as the patrimony of the people of Iraq, which 
     should be used only for their benefit.

  U.S. interests in Iraq lie solely with the development of a free and 
democratic nation. Congress should not now add a condition of our 
involvement that suggests the United States had an interest in Iraqi 
oil all along. Using the Iraq's oil as collateral for loans would play 
now into the hands of those who wrongly attributed an oil motive. That 
is in reference to a statement made by both the President and the Prime 
Minister of Britain.
  Now, the distinguished Senator from Indiana said that is not true. I 
do not

[[Page S12695]]

think it is true either, but I think it is true in the minds of many 
Arab leaders. I do not know who is paying attention to this debate 
tonight. There are not many Members present. We are going to have a 
vote later, but most Americans are probably watching the playoffs in 
regard to the World Series, so I doubt if too many people are paying 
attention.
  I tell my colleagues who will pay attention: Every intelligence 
community and every Arab leader in the world will go over every word of 
what we say tonight. I have had three ambassadors come to me wondering 
about the resolve of the United States and are we reneging in regard to 
our support for the war. Rightly or wrongly, I think that is a real 
problem.
  I think we also have a real problem with the timing of this in regard 
to the loan, just as the President goes overseas, goes to the donors 
conference. People say, well, this will allow us a seat at the table. 
My colleagues, we are the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 5 minutes. Does he 
request more time?
  Mr. ROBERTS. I request an additional 30 seconds, if that would be 
possible.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection.
  Mr. ROBERTS. In summing up, I support the amendment that has been 
introduced by the Senator from Oklahoma and would say it is a matter of 
resolve in the eyes of the Arab world. It is much larger than Iraq and 
much larger than a $10 billion loan or $5 billion here or $5 billion 
there. In fact, it will be viewed in the Arab world, in the Arab 
community, as a test of America's resolve, and I do not want us to fail 
that test.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
distinguished Senator from South Carolina.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, probably by the end of 
the week, if things stay the way they have been, unfortunately we will 
have some injured troops and maybe some will lose their lives.
  There is a resolve by the American people and this body to stay the 
course. If anybody has looked at what we have done in a reasonable, 
rational manner--and that is all I ask the world to do--they will see 
great resolve on our part. The biggest contribution we have made to the 
Iraqi people has nothing to do with money. It is the 350, somewhere in 
that number, growing by the day, young men and women. That is our 
biggest contribution. We have spent a lot of money, a billion dollars a 
week, to try to transform a country from tyranny to civility, and the 
middle is chaos. We are making great improvements. That is an honest 
statement.
  Having been to Iraq, one can see the resolve in the soldiers' eyes. I 
dare say there may be some men and women in the Armed Forces who are so 
decent that they would say: Give the Iraqi people money, we do not want 
to be paid back. That is the strength of our country.
  We are in it for the long haul. There is more dying to come. There is 
more money to be spent. If we try to build up the infrastructure in the 
next months to come, chances are it will be attacked because we have 
not secured the country yet. To expect it to be secured in 6 months is 
impossible, because the Iraqi Army and all the bad people who are in it 
have gone into the civilian population.
  Senator McConnell is right; they are not just killing Americans. They 
are killing people who are trying to transform the country into 
democracy.
  People may say, oh, this loan proves they were over there for our 
oil. I cannot tell my colleagues how much it bothers me to hear that 
because my colleagues know it is not true and I know it is not true. 
Nobody in a rational thought process would send 350 people and climbing 
to their death, spend $70 billion and climbing, to make a $10 billion 
loan that may never be collected.
  So people can say what they want to say. If our country gives in to 
that way of thinking, and if we are swayed by people who hate us to 
begin with and we change our policy based on people who are never going 
to be with us, we will never get this right.
  My hope is that the Iraqi people who see our soldiers on the ground, 
see the schools being opened and built, and the hospitals being 
repaired would be the first to reject this kind of reasoning, because 
God knows we are not there to take anything they have. We are there to 
help them, but we are also there to help us.
  Why did we go to war? Why did we pick people from South Carolina, 
California, and all the places in between to go to a foreign land and 
risk their lives and have some die? To make sure that Saddam Hussein 
could do no more damage to the region or us than he has already done.
  President Bush has shown great leadership. He has said that the 21st 
century will not be ruled or dictated by terrorists, dictators, and 
murderers. He is absolutely right. God bless him for his resolve.
  This amendment puts $10 billion on the table, unencumbered, to spend 
however you would like. This chart shows from $95 billion to $153 
billion of debt incurred to Saddam Hussein. The reason I am so 
passionate about this, I do not want to give in to a great lie. We 
cannot buy our way out of this problem. We cannot take $10 billion of 
taxpayer money and people are losing their jobs to buy our way out of a 
great lie.
  It would be terrible if the people of this country, who have 
sacrificed so much, wound up not getting a dime back for doing a good 
thing, and all they invested in Iraq to produce profit and money went 
to pay the people back who kept Saddam Hussein in power. That is 
unacceptable to me, and that is the scenario we are charting. Please do 
not do that. It would be bad for everyone. It would not make the world 
safer.
  How much time do I have remaining, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. STEVENS. I yield 5 minutes to Senator Sessions.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham of South Carolina). The Senator 
from Alabama is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the distinguished chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens, and appreciate his 
leadership in this matter. He has been in this body a long time. He has 
served his country in the military, and I think he sized up this matter 
quite correctly. We are at war.
  I was at the Walter Reed Hospital a couple of weeks ago, meeting 
soldiers who served in Iraq. They have been wounded, some seriously. 
Most who I met were getting better. They were great in spirit and were 
most impressive young people.
  We are in a war. We have an $87 billion request, and $67 billion of 
that is going to be to fund our military at $4 billion a month. Twenty 
billion dollars is what has been set aside for infrastructure.
  My goal, and I believe the goal of this country, is to stabilize 
Iraq, create a healthy environment as best we can, and to continue to 
draw down our troops in a rapid way; get out and come home. The $20 
billion gives us the best chance to do that. That means we need money 
for police.
  When I visited Iraq in August, I went to observe the police training. 
I wanted to do that because I was a Federal prosecutor for a number of 
years and I wanted to see how they were doing. They are doing very 
well. They are being targeted now because they are doing so well.
  We need money to get electricity. Electricity needs to be on in 
Baghdad. When we get the electricity on, that country is going to be 
better off. It is going to be more stable and there is going to be less 
violence. That is what the infrastructure money does.

  I do not see how this President can ask other countries to not try to 
collect on debts they have to the Saddam Hussein regime if he is asking 
that the money we put in for this infrastructure be classified as a 
debt. I just do not believe that is good policy for him. I think it is 
going to complicate matters in many different ways. Secretary of State 
Colin Powell indicated those ways to us recently. The entire 
administration, the Vice President, those

[[Page S12696]]

who dealt with this issue so closely, are passionately of the belief it 
would be a colossal error for us to try to put a mortgage on Iraq in 
order to get paid back for half, I guess, now of the money we are 
providing to improve the infrastructure in that country. It does not 
make good sense to me.
  I think the right thing to do is for us to step forward as we are 
doing, be bold and courageous, complete this job, improve the 
infrastructure, establish a police force that has ability and 
integrity, a security force that can protect areas of the country that 
are at risk, and bring on an Iraqi Army.
  I visited the training camps for the Iraqi Army. We have the 
potential to do even more than we are doing, in bringing on those 
troops even more rapidly than we are doing. If we spend that money for 
that purpose, I believe this country can be in a position to continue 
to draw down our troops.
  We had 250,000 troops at the peak of this effort. We are now down to 
138,000. I see no reason that number cannot continue to go down. Whole 
areas of the country are doing very well. We have to be pleased with 
what has happened in Mosul in the north, where the 101st and General 
Petraus have done so well; Kirkuk in the south. Basra is doing 
exceedingly well.
  We have seen reports recently of the economic vitality on the streets 
of the country. I believe it is just a big mistake for us to try to now 
come in and worry about whether this ought to be a loan.
  I don't take a back seat to anybody in this Senate on trying to 
preserve the taxpayers' money. In fact, most of the people I hear who 
want to make this a loan and are so worried about collecting this money 
back have not been counted on a lot of tough votes on spending when we 
have had some real challenges here, to contain the growth in spending. 
So it is painful to me to think about $67 billion, $87 billion to be 
spent there. But we made a commitment. This Senate voted over three-
fourths to support this effort. We had no doubt when we entered this 
effort that it was going to be costly. In fact, we have to be pleased 
the war went better than we could ever have expected it to go. It went 
faster.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Alabama has 
expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair and will just conclude by saying I 
believe the amendment should not be adopted. We ought to make this a 
grant. Let's go forward, stabilize this country, and bring our soldiers 
home.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. STEVENS. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Pennsylvania.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Senator from Alaska for yielding the time, 
and I compliment Members on both sides of this issue for the excellent 
debate, the tone of this debate.
  It is a very important debate we are engaged in right now. This is 
probably the most important decision we will make because it is going 
to shape the postwar policy of a reconstruction that will have a 
dramatic impact on the national security of this country. So I think 
people are taking this vote very seriously and I think they should take 
it seriously because it has incredible ramifications.
  This is a vote I believe we will look back on as one of the most 
significant votes we will cast in the area of foreign policy, certainly 
in the time I have been in the Senate, in Congress. So I am pleased to 
see there is a good, active debate. The words being exchanged I think 
have been helpful.
  A lot of the comments I heard from some of my colleagues who support 
the Bayh amendment, which I do not, have been reassuring to me. The 
intent of this amendment is not to show a lack of resolve on the part 
of any Member of the Senate that the policy of this administration in 
Iraq is being supported by those who may differ with the way the 
package is put together. Those words are important. Those words matter.
  My concern with those words is those words do matter, those words are 
important, but what matters more and what is more important are 
actions. There are too many people around this world who are not going 
to hear these words, but they are going to see the action. There are 
too many people in this world who will ignore the words and focus and 
take advantage of them to portray America really differently and 
portray this Senate differently than what the words in support of the 
Bayh amendment articulate.
  Yes, words matter. Intent of the offerors of this amendment, 
supporters of this amendment, matters. But the problem is the action of 
what is going to occur matters most. The action here is clear. We are 
saying to a country that is flat on its back economically, that has 
just gone through a 25-year-plus horrific regime, has just been through 
a war, we are saying to them: We came there to liberate you, to create 
freedom and rebuild your society into one that is peaceful and 
democratic, and, oh, by the way--and it is the ``oh, by the way'' this 
amendment is all about. The ``oh, by the way'' is we want some of that 
money back.
  Of course, the only way they can pay it back, and this is what the 
world community will see, this is what the people in the Arab world 
will see, is through oil revenues.
  That ``oh, by the way'' action trumps all of the words we heard here 
tonight which are no, we are not after oil, we are not after this. But 
it really doesn't matter what we say because what will be interpreted 
is what we do.
  The impact of that in this very fragile postwar period is profound, 
the impact on the donors conference which is coming up, where we are 
asking those around the world to contribute money, not to loan the 
money but to give the money. These are people who did not participate, 
in many cases, in supporting the United States action. So we are asking 
them, for humanitarian purposes, for purposes of promoting stability in 
the world, to support reconstruction in some cases where they didn't 
support the action in the first place. To go there with less than 
generous support--although I agree with many of my colleagues, we have 
been generous. The American public has been incredibly generous. But to 
have those strings attached is going to send a message that is not 
going to be positive in getting additional contributions from the donor 
nations. That will have a serious impact on the buy-in we need to make 
postwar Iraq successful.

  It was said by someone in the administration yesterday at our 
luncheon that there are now elections being held in Saudi Arabia, local 
elections for the first time as a result of the model that is being set 
in Iraq. The impact of a successful Iraq, a democratic Iraq, on that 
region of the world is like the MasterCard commercial--it is priceless. 
It is priceless.
  Why we, in any small way, would put that in jeopardy or give those 
who would like to see it not succeed an opportunity to use this vote 
and this action by the Senate to undermine that objective is to me 
something that does not make sense.
  So I hope my colleagues understand, this is an important vote, one we 
will look back on throughout history, like I believe those in 1948 look 
back on their vote on the Marshall plan. I hope we will get a vote to 
defeat this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. Who 
yields time?
  Mr. STEVENS. I yield to the Senator from Georgia 8 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I say to Senators Bayh, Nelson, Graham, Collins, Snowe, and Ensign 
what a pleasure it is to work with all of you on this issue where we 
know we are doing the right thing for America and the American people 
as well as for the people of Iraq.
  I start out by saying that nobody, according to my political 
opponents, has been a stronger supporter of this administration and 
this President than this Senator from Georgia. I continue to support my 
President. I support his request for $87 billion in funding for Iraq. 
The only thing I disagree with the administration about is how we 
structure that funding. None of us disagrees about the fact that we 
need the $67 billion for the military operation in Iraq. But to take 
the remainder of the $20 billion and to put half of it in the form of a 
grant to tell the people of Iraq we

[[Page S12697]]

are going to give you the money to go in and rebuild your 
infrastructure is certainly reasonable. To tell them also that we want 
you to make an investment in Iraq just like we as the American 
taxpayers are making an investment in Iraq is also reasonable.
  There are three reasons that I feel so strongly about this issue. 
Before I talk about those three reasons, I wish to address one issue on 
which I know our political enemies in the press, particularly in other 
parts of the world, are going to be attacking us as Members of the 
Senate tomorrow if this amendment does pass. That attack is going to be 
geared to saying: Here we go, we told you all along that the Americans 
came into Iraq because they wanted our oil. My friend from Oklahoma has 
already addressed this issue. What he has said is very clear; that is, 
the debt that Iraq now owes--it is listed on this chart that has been 
entered into the Record--there is no money left. No money is left to 
pay this debt.
  To say we went into Iraq for oil because we are asking the Iraqi 
people to make an investment in infrastructure is simply not true. 
There is no way you can say it is true.
  Let me get to my three reasons.
  First of all, should the American taxpayer invest money in Iraq so 
that the Iraqi people can have their infrastructure rebuilt and have 
their economy revitalized so that these debts can be repaid? My friend 
from Maine has already addressed this issue, and I think the answer is 
very clear.
  Second, if America is to invest in Iraq in rebuilding its 
infrastructure, is it unreasonable to ask the Iraqi people to share in 
that investment?
  What is going to happen when we start investing over there and start 
rebuilding their infrastructure? I can tell you what is going to 
happen--some of the same things we have already seen happen. We have 
seen pipelines attacked by the terrorist community in that part of the 
world. We have seen bombs blown up in front of the hotels in Baghdad. 
We have seen other entities, including Americans, attacked on a regular 
basis.
  When we rebuild the infrastructure, we can expect the terrorist 
community, which is alive and well in that part of the world, to 
continue to come out and attack those investments we are making.
  If the Iraqi people share in that investment, are they going to be 
more likely to help us in preventing those attacks and also in bringing 
the perpetrators of those attacks to justice? You bet they will. I 
think there is every reason in the world to ask them to make a joint 
investment with us.
  Third, my goal is that when the American presence in Iraq is gone, 
all of these debts are relieved. How do we best do that? Do we best do 
that by investing $20 billion and saying: OK, we are going to rebuild 
your infrastructure? You go out, and because your economy is back up 
and running, you take care of those debts. No. They are not going to 
leave them debt free if we do that.
  If the President goes to the donors conference next week or calls up 
President Putin or any of these other countries and says, Look, my 
country is owed $10 billion, we invested $10 billion to rebuild the 
infrastructure, if you forgive your debt, we will forgive our debt, 
does that give a moral leverage in what he would have if he went in and 
said, We put $20 billion in there, why don't you forgive your debt? Be 
a nice guy and forgive it? The nice guys have already spoken--Germany, 
France, and these other countries such as Russia have already spoken. 
They are not going to be nice guys. We simply can't expect that from 
them.

  We need to give the President the leverage he can use to go in and 
get these debts forgiven. When that happens--and I sincerely hope it 
does happen in the short term--then our $10 billion in the form of a 
loan is going to be converted to a grant, and it won't be repaid.
  That is what we are here debating tonight--whether or not we are 
going to give the President the right kind of leverage he needs to deal 
with these countries that sit in creditor status with Iraq today.
  What has been our investment in Iraq? Our investment has been 
whatever it costs us to this point in time. I don't know how many 
billions of dollars--maybe $100 billion. I don't know what it is. How 
much is it going to cost us in the future? It is going to cost us 
another $21 billion, or is it another $87 billion? That is going to get 
us through the next year. Next year we will be back here debating on 
another supplemental on continuing the effort in Iraq.
  All we are asking the Iraqi people to do is to take part of that $130 
billion, $150 billion, or $170 billion--whatever it has been today--and 
share part of it with us; share $10 billion with us.
  Second, there is not a country on this chart, outside of the U.K., 
that has lost one life as a result of the conflict in Iraq and freeing 
and liberating the Iraqi people. As of today, we have lost 332 American 
lives--just as of today. A young soldier from Valdosta, GA, was found 
floating in a river. He apparently drowned over there. We have lost 332 
brave American men and women. These countries, outside of the U.K., 
have lost none. They have made no investment of life in the freedom of 
Iraq.
  Let me close by answering my friend from Oklahoma, who is truly one 
of my dearest friends and a guy I respect so much. But when he says, 
from the standpoint of to whom we are going to lend this money, there 
is nobody to sign a note, what are we going to do with this $21 
billion? Are we going to stand in a hotel window and throw it on the 
streets of Baghdad? Give me a break. There is somebody in place to give 
the money to. There is somebody in place to lend the money to. All you 
have to do is think about what we are going to do with the money. We 
are going to rebuild the infrastructure in Iraq. There is somebody who 
owns that infrastructure. I don't care whether it is the former 
government or the Coalition Provisional Authority. There is an entity 
in place that is capable of signing a note. That is simply a very weak 
argument, to say that we don't have the legal capacity to make this 
loan.
  Again, I am very proud of the fact that we have come together in a 
bipartisan way to do what we think is right for the American people.
  Again, I am thankful for the leadership of Senator Bayh, Senator 
Collins, and Senator Ensign, who were so instrumental in this.
  I ask my colleagues to think seriously about this because it is maybe 
the most important vote we will make. The future of our children and 
grandchildren, particularly when it comes to rooting out terrorism 
around the world, may rest in this vote. I am very confident that the 
right vote is in support of this amendment.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. BAYH. I ask my colleague: The Senator from Michigan has been 
waiting quite some time.
  Mr. STEVENS. I have had the Senator from Washington waiting for a 
substantial amount of time, too.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Washington.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise to join my well-meaning 
colleagues on both sides of this debate in trying too determine the 
best mechanism for not only our leadership in Iraq and getting the 
Iraqi people on their feet, but also in getting other countries to help 
by forgiving Iraqi debt.
  It is crucial that we in this Chamber send a strong message to the 
Iraqi people that we will be the world's most outspoken advocate for 
Iraqi reconstruction and that the United States will play a leadership 
role.
  Now I don't impugn the motives of other Members who want to qualify 
our assistance through a loan formula.
  I share my colleagues' concerns that the funding for Iraq 
reconstruction is a serious cost that we need to thoroughly consider 
and oversee.
  However, I think it is critically important to realize that Americans 
have already been making a serious investment in this region in order 
to ensure that we are so close to achieving: A stable, peaceful, 
democratic Iraq.
  We spent billions of dollars to expel Hussein out of Kuwait; we spent 
billions throughout the nineties patrolling a no-fly zone; and we spent 
billions to liberate Iraq, and we are spending billions to secure and 
stabilize the country.
  We are now the closest we have ever been to achieving the very goal 
that we have sacrificed lives and spent billions to achieve.

[[Page S12698]]

  We are very close to taking the Iraqi people off their knees and 
putting them on their feet. Yet, the right way to do this is by helping 
them build a strong economy not by saddling the Iraqis with further 
debt.
  Let's consider what we are saying when we ask the Iraqi people to 
take on this loan. Think about it. Iraq's annual oil revenues may be 
somewhere around $15 billion, but we are on the verge of adding to an 
existing debt level of $200 billion--and expecting them to pay with 
their oil revenues.
  To think that Iraq can pay off a loan by oil revenues when its debt 
is thirteen times its annual oil revenues is ridiculous. A future Iraq 
would end up spending half of its oil revenues on interest payments 
alone.
  Is that the message we want to send to the Iraqi people?
  Is that the message we want to send to the mayor of Kirkuk who I met?
  To the governor of Basra who doesn't have enough electricity to serve 
his community?
  To the members of the Iraqi council, who are not only giving their 
time to serve their country, but are risking their lives.
  To the woman of the Iraqi council who spent 16 years in hiding with 
other women only to rejoice when she found out that the United States 
was coming to give them an opportunity to meet and express their 
opinions in public.
  These courageous leaders have stepped out to rebuild this country, 
and are willing to give their lives to do so.
  We need to help these people re-build their country, not pile on 
additional debt.
  Now is not the time for the United States to back away form its 
leadership role in nurturing Iraq's future.
  Make no mistake, I am disappointed like all my colleagues that the 
American economy isn't recovering as well as it should.
  I am disappointed in our terribly low levels of domestic investment.
  I have as much concern as anyone over our domestic economy--my home 
state of Washington is still facing a terribly high 7.5 percent 
unemployment rate.
  But we cannot tell the American people that we are going to solve 
their problem by somehow holding down the Iraqi people to a future debt 
that will not let them stand on their feet.
  The United States must play a leadership role in Iraq reconstruction.
  And it is very hard to play a leadership role when our commitment to 
Iraq reconstruction is qualified by the conditions of a loan.
  We need to say to the rest of the world community that it is time for 
them to help build Iraq, too.
  We need to say that if they are serious in their commitments about 
rebuilding Iraq, as the U.N. did in its resolution today, then get 
behind that message and deliver.
  But to say that out of the $87 billion that we are talking about, 
that some-how $10 billion of it ought to be paid back in a loan--only 
if the other countries are not willing to commit to debt forgiveness--
is not the message of a leader.
  A leader who believes in the Iraqi people will stand behind them and 
give them the ability to get their country on their feet. We must be 
this leader and get them on their feet and get our troops back home.
  Mr. BAYH. I yield 8 minutes to the Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, after that, I yield to Senator Burns 5 
minutes from our side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is requesting that Senator Burns 
follow Senator Levin.
  Mr. BAYH. If the Senator from Montana would like to follow the 
Senator from Michigan, I have no problem.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I first thank the Senators who have been so 
deeply engaged in coming up with a bipartisan amendment. It is 
critically important there be a bipartisan amendment relative to issues 
of war, peace, reconstruction, and the aftermath of war. I congratulate 
them on it. I support this amendment.
  The administration has requested approximately $20 billion for the 
reconstruction of Iraq and the entire sum is intended to be a grant. We 
are told that Saddam Hussein's debts are so great that we cannot 
contemplate the new Iraq taking out a loan against their huge resource, 
the second largest oil reserves in the world, perhaps $1 trillion or 
more, so that they can become involved in their own reconstruction. 
Only a grant, we are told, will do, even though this is a country with 
a tremendous resource. We are told they cannot contribute to their own 
reconstruction financially.
  It was just last March Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz said 
that ``we are dealing with a country that can really finance its own 
reconstruction, and relatively soon.'' And it can. It surely can help 
finance its own reconstruction and would be far better off if it did 
help to finance its own reconstruction.
  If the Iraqis possessed billions of dollars in gold bullion, I cannot 
imagine anyone talking about granting them $20 billion. They have $1 
trillion in liquid goal. Yet the suggestion for us to propose to Iraq 
that they can stand on their own feet, that they can contribute to 
their own reconstruction by a tiny fraction of that asset being used, 
somehow or other that does not mean we are leading--I reject that. We 
have led with our lives, almost 350 American lives. Every one of those 
lives shows resolve. Every one of the 1,700 Americans who have been 
injured show resolve. And we are going to continue to show resolve with 
our lives on the line.
  To suggest that Iraq, with an asset of $1 trillion, somehow or other 
should not be part of its own reconstruction financially is portrayed 
here as a lack of leadership. To me, it is a central element of wisdom 
and recognizing that Iraq has a right to be treated as a country that 
has great resources, great capabilities and we need to treat them as a 
partner.
  What is missing from the Bremer plan is a sense of ownership by Iraq 
of its own reconstruction. The money involved in the plan is U.S. money 
being appropriated to a U.S. administrator, who is going to spend the 
money pretty much as he sees fit. That is not the best way to succeed 
in Iraq. The best way is Iraq having the will to succeed.
  There has been a suggestion that somehow or other we do not have the 
resolve if we become partners with Iraq. It is quite the opposite. Iraq 
must have the will to succeed and contribute to its own reconstruction 
with a tiny fraction of its own resources as a reflection of that will 
to succeed.
  If Iraqi money were involved, I don't think this plan would have 
proposed new ZIP Codes for Iraq; sending Iraqi students, at huge 
expense, to business schools; some kind of a big honeypot for U.S. 
consultants. Is that how the Iraqis would be spending their money? I 
doubt it. When we talked to the Iraqis who came here, we asked them if 
they had a role in this plan? We were told, no; this was our plan.
  This has got to be their plan for their own reconstruction. They have 
to own it. It is their country. We can help them. We can be a partner, 
and God knows we have been. All the blood that we have shed for their 
liberation has surely made us a partner. Nobody is going to be able to 
misconstrue this as our aiming at their oil resource. No one can 
misconstrue a grant of $10 billion, and a following loan of another $10 
billion if others will contribute, as somehow or other targeting their 
resources. Nobody is going to buy it. There may be an effort made to 
misconstrue it, but nobody is going to buy that. We shed too much 
blood. We have spent too much money in Iraq for this to be misconstrued 
this way.

  One other thing: Our simply giving them billions without their 
participating, and then our deciding how to spend it, is going to keep 
America as the target of terrorists, not just because of the military 
power that we deploy so visibly, but because of the reconstruction 
projects that we choose so unilaterally. If an electric power plant is 
built with our money--it's a visible U.S. target for terrorists. If its 
built with Iraqi money--it's less of a lightening rod.
  The distinction is important in another way. Iraqis will have more 
incentives to protect and to fight what their money builds. For those 
reasons alone, the future of Iraq will be more assured if Iraqis have 
the financial stake to succeed.
  This has to be a partnership. We must join with Iraq in the 
reconstruction. We should not dominate. We should not control. We 
should not determine. Their resources should be

[[Page S12699]]

spent on their own reconstruction, with them, surely in part, choosing 
their priorities as to what is important for them.
  That is what we should all want for Iraq. And our simply saying, here 
is $20 billion, these are the ways we will spend the $20 billion--is 
not the way to help Iraq get back on its feet. It is the way to signal 
to the world that we control, we dominate, and that is the worst 
message that we can send to the world.
  Mr. President, do I have time remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 40 seconds.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, my own preference would have been, instead 
of a direct loan from us, that there be a loan from a third party, 
guaranteed by us. That is my preference because that would have taken 
away any possibility of misconstruing what we are doing, any propaganda 
value that might be gained by anybody else by saying somehow or other 
the United States is going to be a creditor, therefore, we have designs 
on Iraq. That could have been avoided if there were a third party 
making the loan, with our guarantee. If this amendment were not 
adopted--and I hope it will be--I would offer such a loan guarantee 
amendment as a preferable way to go. But this amendment is preferable 
to the grant approach of the administration.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator from Indiana yield for a question?
  Does the Senator have control of the time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Montana is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Maryland, if he 
wants to ask a question, I don't see any harm in that.
  Mr. SARBANES. No.
  Mr. President, does the time then come back to the Senator from 
Indiana?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Correct. The Senator from Indiana can seek 
recognition at that time. The Senator from Indiana has 13 minutes.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I will defer until the Senator 
concludes, and then I will seek to have an exchange with the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chambliss). The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, we just got back from Iraq last Saturday. I 
just want to share with you a couple of thoughts that I had while I was 
there and coming back because once you go and you look and you see and 
you feel what is going on in that country--I am going to oppose this 
amendment, but I am opposing the amendment, and I am opposing the idea, 
but not because some of my good colleagues, for whom I have the utmost 
respect, are promoting this.
  There are as many Iraqis and more dying today than there are 
Americans. If we lose one American life, it is a tragedy. But their new 
police department that is on the street is doing a good job, and they 
are paying with their lives also.
  I am not going to get into whether we can afford it or we can't 
afford it or whether they can afford it or they can't afford it. But 
this investment, my colleagues, is probably one of the biggest ones we 
will make. The returns in the next 20 years will be way beyond 
expectation. We are changing something in the Middle East that has not 
even been touched since the end of World War I.
  We went into those communities where poverty is rampant, with trash, 
garbage. Kids are happy. They come up to you. We talked to parents in 
refurbished schools. And, by the way, we have refurbished 1,500 of 
them, done by an Iraqi contractor who hired 30,000 Iraqi workmen to do 
it.
  We talked to parents. I talked to one woman there and asked: Do you 
want us to go away?
  She said: No, absolutely not.
  And I asked her: Give me one reason, one reason.
  She said: My little girl is going to school.
  Little girls did not go to school under Saddam Hussein. Think about 
that impact on that neighborhood. I am talking ground level, folks. 
This is not the palaces. This is not the CPA or the IGC. These are 
people who are on the street.
  What kind of a message is this: ``Well, we will loan you the money, 
but expect you to pay it back''? And they will say: ``Gee, thanks. The 
last thing we need is another loan.''
  We have all been down that street. We loan; we lose control of the 
money. Is it spent where it is supposed to be spent? Does it really 
build the infrastructure? Or do we see somebody going out and buying a 
Mercedes-Benz and putting it in their trunk and saying: ``Well, I have 
had enough of this''? We have seen that happen, too. That has been 
our experience with some of our foreign aid.

  We control it. But I want to get back to this issue that we are going 
to change some things over there on the success of Iraq. We don't know 
whether their constitution will be like ours. I daresay it will not. 
But it will be some form of representative government, which to us is a 
baby step, but to them it is a giant step.
  If you throw a map down on the floor and you take a look at all of 
the Middle East, here is what we have done: We have invested in a 
corridor that will be the economic road for not only Iraq but for 
Jordan, for Egypt, for all the countries that border Iraq because, for 
the first time, we will have a communications and transportation system 
that is free and open, and even in the fly zones that run from the 
Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I have 5 more 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield the time?
  Mr. STEVENS. I am sorry, I do not have an additional 5 minutes.
  Mr. BURNS. Will you give me another minute to close?
  Mr. STEVENS. I yield the Senator 1 minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 1 additional 
minute.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, if you think, why is King Abdullah of 
Jordan so supportive of us? Why is Turkey so supportive of what we are 
trying to do? It is very simple: because the corridor of freedom is 
being opened.
  Now you tell me if there is not a better investment in this world. 
And you have cracked closed societies. Would Saudi Arabia announce they 
are going to have free elections had we not done what we have done?
  We cannot make it in the form of a loan because we lose control of 
it. Let's help those people. They want to do it. Their will for freedom 
is just as strong as ours. How strong is our will? How strong is ours?
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. BAYH. Yes.
  Mr. SARBANES. I want to make sure, as I understand the Senator's 
amendment, $10 billion of this $87 billion which he proposes as a loan 
on the reconstruction side, under the very terms of his amendment would 
be forgiven if 90 percent of Iraq's outstanding debt were forgiven by 
other countries; is that correct?
  Mr. BAYH. That is correct.
  Mr. SARBANES. I want to commend the Senator for the wisdom of his 
amendment. If we do not adopt this amendment, the United States 
presumably will go to a debtors conference trying to persuade people 
that they should forgive the debt to Iraq. If your amendment passes, 
the United States is in a position at that debtors conference to say: 
If you will forgive your debt, we will forgive this debt. In fact, the 
amendment, by its terms, would require that.
  If we make it all a grant, we will go to the debtors conference and 
we will say to them: We made a grant. Now you should forgive your debt.
  They are going to say: Well, that is over and done with. That is 
water over the dam. That grant has happened. What do you have to give 
us here at this conference?
  So presumably at that point, we are going to come up with another 
chunk of money, would that be correct?
  Mr. BAYH. The Senator understands the amendment perfectly. It 
provides an incentive for the rest of the countries to forgive their 
odious debt they extended to Saddam, and if they do

[[Page S12700]]

not, it puts our country in a position of maximum leverage to insist 
that they do in any debtors conference.
  Mr. SARBANES. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. BAYH. I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Louisiana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, as usual the Senator from Maryland has 
put his finger on one of the most important aspects of this amendment. 
It is one of the reasons I rise to support the Bayh-Nelson-Ensign-
Collins-Snowe amendment. It is a very sound proposal. It establishes 
several important principles relative to the steadfast commitment of 
this Congress to finish a job that has already been started.
  As the chief sponsor of this amendment stated in his opening remarks, 
whether you voted to use force to overthrow this regime or not, the 
fact is, we are there now. We have an important job to complete. This 
is one of the most challenging tasks ever undertaken by the people of 
the United States. The Bayh amendment outlines a roadmap that might 
actually get us to where we want to go. Words such as freedom, 
education, prosperity, democracy, vibrancy, a free enterprise economy, 
I have heard my colleagues speak with passion. This amendment is an 
attempt not to undermine those principles but to ensure that we will 
actually get there, to the goal of this whole effort.
  I am afraid without this amendment, the plan before the Senate, which 
we are well aware of, will not get us where we want to go.
  It establishes a couple of important priorities. It says Iraqi 
security is important. It says the Congress, by good faith, will put up 
the $5 billion which, by the way, dwarfs the contributions of all other 
countries. And it sets up an incentive, a very important incentive, for 
the other nations to forgive the debts. It highlights the strength of 
the resources in Iraq and opens the opportunity to perhaps expand on 
that by rebuilding with the Iraqi-owned resources, once this plan is 
laid down.

  The Bush-Bremer plan of billion-dollar grants only, often, and alone 
will simply not work. Let me repeat: The plan we have before us--not 
this amendment--the plan that has been presented of billion-dollar 
grants only, often, and alone will not work. It can't be sustained. The 
American people don't support it now. They will not support it in 30 
days. They will not support it in 4 months. They will not support it in 
4 years. The little girl the Senator from Montana spoke so passionately 
about is in school today. This amendment is about keeping her in school 
2 years from now and 3 years from now and seeing that she graduates 
from college.
  This amendment lays a sustainable roadmap to get us where we want to 
go. That is why I support it. That is why it is important. The RAND, 
World Bank, and Institutes of International Finance have estimated the 
cost will exceed $36 billion, $75 billion over the next not 30 days but 
5 to 7 years. We need this amendment to get us on the right roadmap, 
laying down the right plan so we can sustain it to complete the task 
ahead of us which is very important, very complex and, as I said, one 
of the most challenging.
  I support the amendment and urge my colleagues to do so as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I yield the Senator from Virginia 5 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished manager, and I 
commend the Senate for an excellent debate. I rise today to oppose this 
amendment that would use loans for much needed reconstruction, and I 
urge my colleagues to do the same. Seldom do we have choices before us 
as fundamental as this one. We can truly help the Iraqi people and 
secure an important opportunity for change in this part of the world, 
or we can turn our backs and watch this fledging nation drown in a sea 
of debt. The second choice would represent failure. There is no choice. 
Failure is not an option. We must go forward; we must stay the course 
and help the people of Iraq win the peace without conditions.
  We have achieved extraordinary success, in a relatively short period, 
in Iraq. Saddam Hussein and the threat he posed are gone; the future is 
hopeful for the Iraqi people. We must send a strong message of resolve 
to our fellow countrymen, to our troops, to our coalition partners, and 
to the rest of the world, that we will see this through to completion--
to win the peace.
  Over the July 4, recess, I traveled, along with eight colleagues from 
the Armed Forces and Intelligence Committees, to Iraq. During the 3 
days we spent in Iraq, we met with Coalition Provisional Authority 
leaders, military leaders, soldiers, and local Iraqi leaders. Their 
courage, dedication and determination in a very difficult environment 
was inspiring. We saw the enormity of the task with our own eyes--the 
antiquated, dilapidated oil infrastructure; the mismanaged irrigation 
system; the piles of garbage and open sewers; and the cowed and 
brutalized, but hopeful people of Iraq. These problems will not be 
fully fixed overnight, or even with this significant infusion of 
resources. But, it is an important step forward. We must quickly build 
on the foundation that has been laid by Ambassador Bremer, his 
international team, and the Iraqi people, to sustain and accelerate the 
momentum for building a secure, and economically viable, democracy in 
Iraq.
  Over the past few weeks, I have had the opportunity to meet with 
several Iraqi leaders. Recently, I met members of the Iraqi Governing 
Council. We noted the tragic absence of Ms. Akila al-Hashimi, a member 
of the Governing Council who was scheduled to travel to the United 
States this week but was gunned down last week outside her home in 
Baghdad, most likely by remnants of the Ba'athist regime intent on 
intimidating the new Iraqi leaders. She symbolized the courage, hope, 
and determination of many Iraqis to build a new, democratic Iraq, even 
in the face of great personal risk. We mourn her loss, along with the 
people of Iraq, and we must now renew our pledge to help Iraq establish 
the security, quality of life, and opportunity to enjoy the liberties 
of a free, democratic nation. Her colleagues on the Iraqi Governing 
Council are clearly committed to achieving these goals and deserve our 
support.
  Some have suggested that providing $20.3 billion dollars for Iraqi 
reconstruction is too generous and that full or partial repayment 
should be formulated. This notion is borne from the belief that Iraq is 
a potentially prosperous nation, well-endowed with oil reserves, that 
should be able to pay for its own reconstruction. I respectfully 
disagree.
  The idea of loans for Iraqi reconstruction, instead of grants, would 
be a terrible mistake. Iraq already has crushing debt, accumulated 
during Saddam Hussein's brutal, incompetent reign. Estimates of this 
debt range from $180 billion to almost $400 billion. Additional debt or 
encumbrances on future earnings now would be economically disastrous, 
and send the wrong message to Iraqis and, indeed, the world.
  General Jay Garner and Ambassador Bremer have both forcefully argued 
that Iraq must be granted significant debt reduction or forgiveness. 
The United States will seek to convince the principal holders of Iraqi 
loans--Russia, France, Germany and Saudi Arabia--to foregive some of 
all of these loans. To add additional loans, at the same time we are 
asking others to forgive loans, would be counterproductive and 
hypocritical.

  Later this month, the U.S. will hold a donors' conference in Madrid 
to solicit contributions from the international community for Iraqi 
reconstruction. To ask others to make grants to Iraq after we have 
structured some or all of our contribution to Iraqi reconstruction as 
loans would undercut our Government's efforts to obtain international 
support.
  In the conversations with Iraqi leaders I mentioned earlier, they 
were emphatic in their opposition to reconstruction support being 
structured as loans, especially if these loans were made in the form of 
``liens'' against potential Iraqi oil revenues. They rightfully argued 
that the Iraqi people and the larger Arab and Islamic world would 
regard such a move negatively

[[Page S12701]]

and conclude that their earlier suspicions that the U.S. was more 
interested in Iraqi oil than Iraqi liberation were true.
  We have an opportunity before us to send a message of full commitment 
to Iraq and of a balanced, fair U.S. foreign policy in the larger 
Middle Easter region, by providing this reconstruction assistance as 
grants to Iraq. A loan program using Iraqi oil as collateral would be 
viewed as just the opposite, and would be counterproductive to our 
larger goals and interests in this important region.
  There is a perception, I fear, that this supplemental will fully fund 
Iraq's reconstruction. Nothing could be further from the truth. The 
reconstruction needs of Iraq are enormous--not because of war damage, 
but because of three-plus decades of neglect, mismanagement and greed 
by Saddam Hussein's regime. The fund included in this supplemental will 
only begin to address these daunting needs, but adoption of this 
package will put the Iraqis in a much better position to help 
themselves in the future. The Iraqi leaders I spoke with want nothing 
more than to do just that, but they need our help for now, not with 
crippling conditions attached.
  Some have compared this supplemental for the reconstruction of Iraq 
and Afghanistan to the Marshall plan that funded the reconstruction of 
Europe following World War II. Most would agree that the investment of 
our Nation in the Marshall plan has been paid back a hundred-fold.
  Some have correctly pointed out that the Marshall plan included loans 
that had to be paid back and the requirement for matching funds by the 
beneficiary nations, in some cases. The bulk of Marshall plan 
assistance, however, was in the form of grants. Students of history, of 
which there are many in this chamber, will recall, also, that while the 
Marshall plan began in 1948, it was preceded by a series of programs 
over a number of years, to provide financial support to meet the 
immediate needs of devastated European nations, including Germany. In 
today's dollar, the equivalent of over $100 billion in aid was provided 
by the U.S. to these nations before the Marshall plan went into effect. 
Included in this aid was over $35 billion in grants to put these 
nations in a position to help themselves with subsequent assistance.
  The situation is similar in Iraq today. This is a nation crippled by 
multiple wars, mismanagement, and neglect. The Iraqis are not yet in a 
position to help themselves, but they can be with our help.
  Providing loans to Iraq is an idea that may have merit in the future, 
but not now. By voting overwhelmingly to authorize the use of force in 
Iraq, we accepted the responsibilities and challenges of subsequent 
reconstruction. We must not now shrink from that responsibility. We 
must first provide the unconditional assistance that will lay the 
foundation for full reconstruction. That is in Iraq's best interest; it 
is in America's best interest.
  Let us join together to provide the resources that will meet the 
immediate needs of the Iraqi people and best serve our interests in 
Iraq and the larger Middle East region. I urge my colleagues to defeat 
this amendment and send a message to the Iraqi people that we are 
committed to their liberation and reconstruction unconditionally.
  I was very deeply influenced and moved by the Senator from 
Washington, Senator Cantwell. She hit it. What is the message we send 
forth from this Chamber tonight?
  I must admit, in the briefings and so forth that took place today 
before the Armed Services Committee, I repeatedly heard, we are not 
getting the message out in that part of the world about what we are 
trying to do and the successes we have had to date in helping the 
people. Consequently, a vote that would carry this amendment will just 
spread through that world and be interpreted by that press. It will 
undo so much of what we have been able to achieve thus far in trying to 
convince that world we are there for their own interests, not for oil, 
not to profit from a loan or give a loan. It will be misinterpreted as 
a consequence of a very small amount of funding in this whole $87 
billion.
  I would like to put a question to my good friend, fellow member of 
the Armed Services Committee, who is a strong supporter of the men and 
women of the Armed Forces, a simple question: Does this amendment make 
the streets safer for the men and women of the Armed Forces tonight, 
tomorrow tonight, and in the days and weeks to come, together with 
their coalition partners? If somehow you can convince me this will 
bring about a greater measure of safety--this is the thing that 
concerns me above all. The sacrifices being made by the men and women 
of the Armed Forces, their families here at home, people in the 
villages and towns who watched them march off to take up their stations 
in this battle for freedom. I cannot fairly discern any basis that this 
will help to make the streets safer for the uniformed people now 
serving in the coalition forces.
  I ask that most respectfully of my good friend and distinguished 
member of our committee.
  Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague's question. The 
timekeeper informs me I don't have much time left. I will answer 
succinctly if the time is not deducted from our time.
  Mr. WARNER. It should not take very long.
  Mr. BAYH. The chairman of the committee, for whom I have the utmost 
respect with regard to his comments about the message we send, I think 
would agree that there is no vote we can cast tonight, or no amount of 
money that we can spend that could compare possibly to the message our 
brave men and women are giving to the Iraqi people every day with their 
presence and the heroic efforts they are making to rebuild that nation. 
I think that is eloquent testimony that far surpasses anything we might 
do.
  To directly answer your question, my answer would be, yes, we provide 
an immediate $5 billion to meet every security need that has been asked 
for by the Iraqi government. That is over and above the $67 billion for 
all of the American security costs while we are there. So there is a 
complete grant of every security need.
  With regard to the domestic reconstruction, we provide $5 billion 
immediately--
  Mr. WARNER. I think the Senator has answered the question. I believe 
we just have an honest difference of opinion. I think the press in that 
part of the world will be whipped into a frenzy, with those who will be 
saying ``we are winning, we are winning.'' That troubles me. I think 
that will endanger the security of our people in uniform when they are 
trying to carry out this mission. The press will be whipped up, and 
this will be the most clear symbolism that those who are against----
  Mr. BAYH. May I ask the question? The Senator is concerned that those 
who wish us ill in that part of the world may say they are winning. In 
what way will they say they are winning?
  Mr. WARNER. They will say it is because we are there for oil, and 
they will say, oh, they are going to make the Iraqis borrow the money. 
They don't understand the nuances, the technicalities of a loan, and so 
forth.
  What they will understand is that the Senate did not stand in support 
of the Commander in Chief, and I am fearful that the press will seize 
upon this and it will endanger the safety of our people. I say that as 
a friend and most respectfully.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Tennessee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, President Harry Truman once said that 
``the only thing new is what we have forgotten about history.'' I am 
reminded of our history when I think about this debate on giving a 
loan. I am thinking of the choices we made when dealing with Germany 
after World War I, and then after World War II. After World War I, we 
made a choice that was a grave mistake. We defeated Germany, left them 
in ruins, sent them a bill, and we went home. What was the result? 
Adolf Hitler.
  As early as 1922, Hitler was railing against the Treaty of 
Versailles, talking about the payments Germany was forced to make. 
Eleven years later, in

[[Page S12702]]

1933, he became Chancellor of Germany. He was democratically elected. 
He, again, blamed the Treaty of Versailles and the payment of those 
debts for Germany's woes.
  Under such a debt with a failed reconstruction policy, we can see the 
same thing happening in Iraq. Our post-World War I policy with Germany 
was an utter failure. It gave us World War II. After World War II, we 
almost made the same mistake. We began by making loans. This is a 
summary of the Marshall plan by the Marshall Foundation. I ask 
unanimous consent that this document be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                     A Summary of the Marshall Plan

    (From the Marshall Foundation Chart on Funding from USAID, 1975)

       Even now a model for positive economic diplomacy, the 
     Marshall Plan was a rational effort by the United States 
     aimed at reducing the hunger, homelessness, sickness, 
     unemployment, and political restlessness of the 270 million 
     people in sixteen nations in West Europe. Marshall Plan funds 
     were not mainly directed toward feeding individuals or 
     building individual houses, schools, or factories, but at 
     strengthening the economic superstructure (particularly the 
     iron-steel and power industries). The program cost the 
     American taxpayers $11,820,700,000 (plus $1,505,100,000 in 
     loans that were repaid) over four years and worked because it 
     was aimed at aiding a well-educated, industrialized people 
     temporarily down but not out. The Marshall Plan significantly 
     magnified their own efforts and reduced the suffering and 
     time West Europe took to recover from the war. The program--
     whose official title was ``European Recovery Program''--aimed 
     at: (1) Increasing production; (2) expanding European foreign 
     trade; (3) facilitating European economic cooperation and 
     integration; and (4) controlling inflation, which was the 
     program's chief failure.
       The idea of massive U.S. loans to individual countries had 
     already been tried (nearly $20 billion--mainly long-term, low 
     interest loans--since the war's end) and had failed to make 
     significant headway against Europe's social and economic 
     problems. The plan that Marshall enunciated at Harvard 
     University on June 5, 1947, was revolutionary in that it 
     required the recipients to organize to produce a rational, 
     multilateral approach to their common economic problems. 
     Another innovative feature was its limited duration: four 
     years maximum, thereby assuring American taxpayers and their 
     representatives that the program would not be an indefinite 
     commitment.
       The economic problems in 1947-48 included not only the lack 
     of capital to invest, but also the need for Europeans to 
     overcome a U.S. trade surplus with them so massive as to 
     imperil further trade and to encourage unmanageable 
     inflation. Marshall Plan money helped stimulate the revival 
     of European trade with the world and increased trade among 
     European countries.
       Americans were reluctant to invest in Europe because their 
     profits were available only in local currencies that were 
     little desired by U.S. businesses and investors. The Marshall 
     Plan guaranteed that these investors would be able to convert 
     their profits earned in European currencies into U.S. 
     dollars. Grants and loans in U.S. dollars enabled managers in 
     Europe to purchase in America specialty tools for their new 
     industries. Marshall Plan money also paid for industrial 
     technicians and farmers to visit U.S. industries and farms to 
     study American techniques. Plan funds even paid the postage 
     on privately contributed relief packages.
       Many people in Washington helped to implement and manage 
     the European Recovery Program that Marshall Plan first 
     outlined at Harvard; this is why, in addition to his normal 
     modesty, Marshall refused to call the idea the ``Marshall 
     Plan.'' He always believed that his greatest contribution to 
     the program was his 1947-48 nationwide campaign to convince 
     the American people--and through them the Congress--of its 
     necessity; he likened his efforts in scope and intensity to a 
     campaign for the presidency.
       Over its four-year life, the Marshall Plan cost the U.S. 
     2.5 to 5 times the percent of national income as current 
     foreign aid programs. One would need to multiply the 
     program's $13.3 billion cost by 10 or perhaps even 20 times 
     to have the same impact on the U.S. economy now as 
     the Marshall Plan had between 1948 and 1952. (Most of the 
     money was spent between 1948 and the beginning of the 
     Korean War (June 25, 1950); after June 30, 1951, the 
     remaining aid was folded into the Mutual Defense 
     Assistance Program.)
       On December 10, 1953, George C. Marshall received the Nobel 
     Peace Prize in Oslo, Norway. He accepted it, not as his 
     individual triumph, but as the representative of the American 
     people, whose efforts and money had made the program a 
     success.

 MARSHALL PLAN EXPENDITURES--ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE, APRIL 3, 1948 TO JUNE
                                30, 1952
                        [In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Country                   Total      Grants       Loans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total for all countries.............   $13,325.8   $11,820.7    $1,505.1
                                     -----------------------------------
Austria.............................       677.8       677.8  ..........
Belgium-Luxembourg..................       559.3       491.3    \1\ 68.0
Denmark.............................       273.0       239.7        33.3
France..............................     2,713.6     2,488.0       225.6
Germany, Federal Republic of........     1,390.6     1,173.7   \2\ 216.9
Greece..............................       706.7       706.7  ..........
Iceland.............................        29.3        24.0         5.3
Ireland.............................       147.5        19.3       128.2
Italy (including Trieste)...........     1,508.8     1,413.2        95.6
Netherlands (*East Indies) \3\......     1,083.5       916.8       166.7
Norway..............................       255.3       216.1        39.2
Portugal............................        51.2        15.1        36.1
Sweden..............................       107.3        86.9        20.4
Turkey..............................       225.1       140.1        85.0
United Kingdom......................     3,189.8     2,805.0       384.8
Regional............................   \4\ 407.0   \4\ 407.0  ..........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Loan total includes $65.0 million for Belgium and $3.0 million for
  Luxembourg: grant detail between the two countries cannot be
  identified.
\2\ Includes an original loan figure of $16.9 million, plus $200.0
  million representing a pro-rated share of grants converted to loans
  under an agreement signed February 27, 1953.
\3\ Marshall Plan aid to the Netherlands East Indies (now Indonesia) was
  extended through the Netherlands prior to transfer of sovereignty on
  December 30, 1949. The aid totals for the Netherlands East Indies are
  as follows: Total $101.4 million, Grants $84.2 million, Loans $17.2
  million.
\4\ Includes U.S. contribution to the European Payments Union (EPU)
  capital fund, $361.4 million; General Freight Account, $33.5 million;
  and European Technical Assistance Authorizations (multi-country or
  regional), $12.1 million.

  Mr. ALEXANDER. The Marshall Foundation said:

       The idea of massive U.S. loans to individual countries had 
     already been tried [right after World War II] (nearly $20 
     billion--mainly long-term low-interest loans--since the war's 
     end) and had failed to make significant headway against 
     Europe's social and economic problems.

  But there was a better idea, a different choice that someone learned 
from history. It was George C. Marshall. The Marshall plan was a 4-year 
plan, $13.3 billion, helping to rebuild the economies of 16 countries. 
Nearly $12 billion was grants, about $1 billion was loan, and what was 
the result? A continent that had been fighting itself for a thousand 
years became democratic, stopped fighting among themselves, and became 
our allies.
  That is why we need a ``Marshall plan'' for Iraq. We need a 4- or 5-
year plan for building a democracy. The Marshall plan was used for a 
variety of purposes. It paid for the building of railroads, water 
systems, medicines, modernizing factories, restoring ports to allow 
foreign trade, and much, much more.
  We should do the same in Iraq. It cost $13 billion from 1948 to 
1952--more than $100 billion in today's dollars. We can learn a 
valuable lesson from our experiences with Germany after World War I, a 
terrible failure, and after World War II, a remarkable success. After 
World War I, we made Germany pay its debts and we left them in ruins. 
We sent them a bill. We went home. We got Adolf Hitler. After World War 
II, we pursued the Marshall plan. It cost us some money. We gave them 
the money but as a result we got peace, new democratic economies, and 
our greatest allies.
  President Kennedy said it best in 1961. In his inaugural address, he 
said:

       We shall pay any price, we shall bear any burden . . . to 
     assure the survival and success of liberty.

  The people of Iraq need our support. We paid for German 
reconstruction under the Marshall plan because it was in our interest. 
We should do the same in Iraq and support the President's request. We 
cannot afford, in our own interest, to do anything less.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. STEVENS. How much time remains on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 38 minutes 20 seconds remaining.
  Mr. STEVENS. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Nickles amendment 
and in opposition to the Bayh amendment. I believe in truth in lending, 
and I think there are some Members of the Senate who think somehow if 
we talk about this loan, it is going to be acceptable to the American 
people. Frankly, I believe the loan is going to be a grant.
  We just need to be upfront with the American people and say that the 
$20 billion in the President's request is going to be a grant and 
explain it to the American people. Iraq has a huge debt--from sources I 
have heard in testimony--of anywhere between $100 billion to $200 
billion. We just heard on the news this evening where one of their 
major pipelines has been blown up so they are not going to have any 
ability to expect to export oil. The oil they have now will be used for 
domestic purposes. That is as a result of an attack by terrorists this 
particular evening as we are debating.
  Let's be honest; whether this is couched as a loan or a grant, it is 
going to be a grant. It is something we are going to have to give to 
the American

[[Page S12703]]

people in order to move forward with the development of the 
infrastructure in that country, which I happen to believe is essential 
if we want to get our troops home quickly. We simply have to get that 
in place along with security forces. The only way that will happen is 
if we give the full amount of $87 billion available for the 
reconstruction and for the security in Iraq.
  We have heard time and time again about the complications of going 
the route of a loan. In fact, Ambassador Bremer testified before 
several committees in the Senate, and he has actually sent a letter to 
the chairman, the Honorable Ted Stevens. I will read from it. He says:

       I understand there are various proposals being offered 
     which would convert portions of the funding request to a loan 
     mechanism of some type. Any such proposal would merely add 
     further debt to the already-huge debt currently owed by the 
     Iraqis. As you know from my testimony three weeks ago, I am 
     concerned that, as was the case in the young, fragile 
     democracy in Weimar, Germany, such a situation could 
     destabilize the young Iraqi democracy before it even gets off 
     the ground. Moreover, if the United States makes its 
     contribution in the form of a loan, we will encourage other 
     nations to follow that example at the Madrid Donors 
     Conference next week--further exacerbating Iraq's debt 
     situation, I might add, complicating the eventual process of 
     restructuring the country's overall debt burden.

  I sat down with a group of people and I visited with Colin Powell. He 
also urges us, in the strongest terms, to not make this a loan and that 
we grant these dollars. It gives us an opportunity to maintain control 
of those dollars.
  We have to keep in mind that Iraq has established trade agreements 
with many of those countries that opposed our presence in Iraq. If this 
goes to a loan, they will control the money; they will be the ones 
letting out the contracts. I feel their inclination would be to be to 
disburse it all over the international community. That means that 
countries such as France, Germany, and Russia will be looked to also to 
share in the contracting out of the building of the infrastructure in 
Iraq.
  The other advantage of a grant is it gives us control of the moneys 
as they are spent in Iraq.
  Finally, a loan means Iraq is going to have that control. It means it 
is going to complicate our ability to work with other countries with 
the loss of control. We ought to be straightforward with the American 
people. We need to tell them this is going to be a grant and account 
for it accordingly and move forward with the rapid reconstruction of 
the infrastructure in Iraq. That is the best policy. It is a 
straightforward policy.
  I believe if we are true and straightforward with the American 
people, the American people will understand the need to move forward 
with the full $87 billion the President requested.
  Mr. President, I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. STEVENS. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Kentucky.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized for 10 
minutes.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, this has been an extraordinarily good 
day for the President's policy in Iraq. The naysayers said: Go get 
international support, Mr. President. Let's prove we can get the rest 
of the world behind us.
  Today, by a vote of 15 to 0--15 to 0--the United Nations passed a 
resolution. It was one that simply suggested we do what we were going 
to do anyway. It is a thoroughly acceptable resolution.
  To get a 15-to-0 vote, that means the President had the support of 
the Russians, the French, the Germans, and, believe it or not, the 
Syrians. This administration's policy in Iraq, as adopted by the United 
Nations today, had the support of the Syrians. The only remaining 
obstacle appears to be the Senate, and we will get an opportunity at 
around 9:30 p.m. to see if the Senate will join with the Russians, the 
French, the Germans, and the Syrians to do the right thing and begin to 
rebuild Iraq.
  There are some Senators who have argued that somehow this loan-grant 
issue really is not that important or they have better judgment than 
the President, the Vice President, and the Secretary of State, and 
others about how to structure this.
  It seems to this Senator that those who are skilled at conducting 
foreign policy have gotten it right, and their judgment is that you 
cannot go to a donor conference next week in Madrid and ask countries 
to grant--not loan--grant money to share the costs with us of 
reconstructing Iraq if we say we are going to try to get paid back.
  Let's take a look at what we know is going to happen at the donor 
conference already. The Japanese are down for $1.5 billion, not an 
insubstantial amount of money; the British, $900 million; the 
Canadians, $224 million; the European Union, $234 million. These are 
all grants, not loans. The Japanese, the British, the Canadians, the 
European Union are not saying you have to pay us back. They know Iraq 
is on its back after 25 or 30 years of Saddam Hussein.
  In addition to that, there are over 50 countries that have either 
already provided or have pledged humanitarian assistance; to name a few 
of them: Kuwait, Spain, Australia, Korea, Germany, Denmark, and the 
United Arab Emirates; and there are going to be others. They are all 
going to be at Madrid next week looking at this United Nations 
resolution that passed 15 to 0 today, with the support of the Russians, 
the French, the Germans and, for goodness' sake, the Syrians. This is 
the time to speak with a united voice.
  The administration has united the world. They may have been divided 
about whether this war should have been fought in the first place, but 
on the issue of reconstruction of Iraq, we are moving toward world 
unity, and we ought not to disrupt that here tonight.
  I had an opportunity last week, along with Senator Thomas, whom I see 
in the Chamber, Senator Burns, Senator Craig, and Senator Chafee, to go 
to Iraq and take a look firsthand at what is happening there. I must 
tell you, Mr. President, there is a lot of good news in Iraq. We have a 
hard time picking it up watching the evening news. They teach them in 
journalism school that good news is not news. I think you can accept 
that and still say that in Iraq good news is news because they had no 
good news for 30 years--no good news. Saddam Hussein murdered 300,000 
of his own people during that quarter of a century. There was no good 
news in Iraq. Now 9 out of 10 things that are happening there are good: 
13,000 construction projects completed; 1,500 schools renovated; local 
elections up in Mosul. They had a provincial election in the Ninawa 
province, and they have elected officials up there. We sat down with 
them and talked with them. They are brave people.

  In the violence area where obviously there is still much to be done, 
the Iraqis themselves are providing a lot of security. The attack on 
the Baghdad Hotel was thwarted. Some people were killed, indeed, but 
the bomber wanted to get into the hotel and blow it all up. He was 
thwarted by Iraqi security.
  Part of this Iraqi security force is up to 60,000 people now and 
growing on a daily basis. The attack on the Turkish Embassy was 
thwarted, not by us but by Iraqi security. We are on the way to putting 
the security force in place so that the Iraqis can carry this job 
forward.
  Let's compare it to Bosnia. I was one of a minority of Republicans 
who supported President Clinton on Bosnia and Kosovo. I met the head of 
the 101st headquartered in Kentucky and Tennessee. He was in Bosnia, 
too. General Petraeus said we made more progress in Iraq in 6 months 
than we made in Bosnia in 6 years--more progress in 6 months than in 
Bosnia in 6 years. Great progress is being made.
  This is a time to unify behind the reconstruction policy in Iraq. Now 
is the time to do that.
  The last stumbling block is this amendment in the Senate tonight. The 
House is going to finish up tonight, and we are going to finish up 
tonight or tomorrow, and this is probably the last vote with any real 
drama attached to it. No matter how long you have been in the Senate, 
you haven't cast a more important vote than this one. We are casting 
votes all the time around here, and if you are in my job, you are 
twisting arms every day on some issue, but it reminds me of what Orwell 
said in ``Animal Farm.'' He said all pigs were equal, but then some 
pigs were more equal than others. All votes are equal, but some votes 
are more equal than others. This is a more equal vote. This is a big 
vote, one that makes a difference for America and for the world

[[Page S12704]]

and certainly for the Iraqis for whom this policy is so important.

  There are 170 newspapers in Iraq. I do not think anybody in America 
knows that, but there are 170 newspapers in Iraq. They have by far more 
newspapers in Iraq than we have in my hometown. Some of them are even 
more credible than the New York Times, arguably. The streets are 
crowded with people engaged in commerce with their little businesses, 
which the Iraqis are quite good at when allowed to be. Just this week, 
they have a new currency. I happened to have picked up a souvenir, the 
last of the previous currency. It has a picture of Saddam Hussein on 
it. I can tell my colleagues this: The new currency being issued over 
the next few weeks in Iraq has no picture of Saddam Hussein on it.
  Today we heard--Senator Thomas and I were at the same meeting--that 
international bankers are interested in coming into Iraq. So everything 
is heading in the right direction. Let's not get off track tonight by 
leaving the impression with the Iraqi people that we came into the 
country to help them and then to send them a bill for it. I hope the 
amendment will be defeated.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ensign). Who yields time?
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from 
Arizona.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized for 10 
minutes.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I 
congratulate all of my colleagues on a very important and well-
conducted debate.
  I strongly oppose the Bayh amendment because its enactment would 
undermine the central purpose of our mission in Iraq, which is to 
empower the Iraqi people to build a prosperous and secure future in 
which their country's natural resources support progressive government 
and economic prosperity, not additional debt payments to rich Western 
powers.
  I oppose the amendment because I believe decisions on how to finance 
Iraq's reconstruction should be made in Washington, not in Moscow, 
Paris, Berlin, or Bonn, whose leaders' decisions, if this amendment 
were enacted, could determine what form United States assistance takes. 
I cannot accept the prospect that the United States, with our British 
allies, who liberated Iraq, would now cede our leadership on 
reconstructing it to Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroeder.
  Let's talk about what is at stake. Things are not going as well in 
Iraq as we would hope. They are not going as poorly as some would 
allege. In the northern part of Iraq, in the southern part of Iraq, 
democracy and reconstruction are proceeding apace. As I said, things 
are not going as well in some parts of Iraq but they are going very 
well in other parts. The fact is that every few days, tragically, we 
lose additional American lives. This is the result primarily of a 
concerted effort in what we know of as the Sunni triangle, of a rare 
combustible mixture of ex-Baathists, criminals who were released from 
prison, terrorists from outside the country of Iraq who have 
infiltrated into the country, and former military people who really 
know that they will never attain their goals unless the United States 
is driven out of Iraq. These people have done very bad things. We know 
all about them. We hear about them or see them every single day.

  What are they telling the people of Iraq? They are telling the people 
of Iraq the following: The United States of America is not on your 
side. The United States of America supported Saddam Hussein all during 
the 1980s. They propped up his regime, as a matter of fact. They turned 
a blind eye while he used weapons of mass destruction twice, once 
against the Iranians and once against his own people.
  In 1991, the Americans told the people of Iraq that Saddam Hussein 
was on his way out the door. That turned out not to be the case. Saddam 
Hussein stayed in power and slaughtered thousands of people who rose up 
against him in places such as Basra. In the 1990s, the Iraqi economy 
was crippled by economic sanctions imposed by coalitions led by the 
United States of America, and now the United States of America is about 
to do what they came for, and that is to take your oil.
  Now, I can rebut every single one of those arguments that these bad 
people are making to the people in the Sunni triangle, but, frankly, I 
am not there to talk to them. Nor is there much besides Al-Jazeera for 
them to watch.
  The battle for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people is not over 
by a long shot, and the passage of this amendment will send a clear 
signal that the United States is really there for the oil as they 
alleged all along.
  The Washington Post, on October 15, 2003, stated that Iraq is already 
burdened with $200 billion in debt. Either much of that will be 
forgiven, in which case the United States reconstruction loan will 
prove mostly symbolic, or Iraq will struggle for years under a crushing 
debt burden--by the way, the estimates are that the interest on that 
debt is as high as $6 billion or $7 billion a year--in which case, 
another loan only adds to the memory. To make a loan in these 
circumstances is like swimming out to a drowning man and handing him a 
10-pound weight. That is from the Washington Post on October 15, that 
well-known, conservative, right-wing periodical.
  I do not know who is going to volunteer to go to the donors meeting 
if this amendment is passed. If we go to the donors meeting and say, my 
dear friends, we want you to give money for Iraq but, by the way, we 
are only going to loan it to them, the rest of you give the money but 
we are going to loan it to them, I am sure there is somebody who is 
highly paid in the State Department who will carry out that task, but 
it cannot be a pleasant one because it is hypocrisy. How can we ask 
other countries to give money when ours is in the form of a loan?
  I would like to express a little sympathy for my colleagues who 
support this amendment. It is tough going home when people are without 
jobs and the economy is still stumbling along and say, we are going to 
give all this money to Iraq and, by the way, I know that the local 
highway needs to be fixed and a bridge needs to be built. It is tough, 
but I want to tell my colleagues what is at stake here.
  The reason these bad guys came from all of these other countries into 
Iraq, the reason the Muslim extremists all over the Middle East are 
doing everything they can to incite people against America, the reason 
we are seeing such fierce opposition in some quarters, is that they 
know that the day democracy flourishes in Iraq, their day is over. The 
day of the Middle East despot is gone. The day of the Muslim extremist 
is gone. No longer will the madrasahs, funded by the Saudis, function 
anymore to train people who are terrorists who will then sacrifice 
their lives as well as taking others'.
  The seminal event since the Vietnam war in American history is now, 
and there has never been more at stake. We paid a very heavy price for 
a long time for our failure in Vietnam. We should not pay that price 
here because we send a signal to the Iraqi people that our commitment 
to democracy and freedom is somehow contingent upon their ability to 
pay us back a loan which will then be gauged by the willingness of 
other countries. Are we going to be the Blanche DuBois of loans? Are we 
going to be dependent upon the generosity of others? Is it going to be 
Mr. Chirac and Mr. Schroeder who determine whether we give money to the 
Iraqis?
  I don't think we should. I think this has been a fine debate. I hope 
we will vote to turn down this amendment. I hope we will vote to 
maintain the commitment we made when we sent our young men and women to 
fight and some to die in a conflict which is important, not only to the 
future of the Middle East but the future of the United States of 
America.
  I yield my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. STEVENS. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There remain 14\1/2\ minutes on the majority 
side and 6\1/2\ on the minority side. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. BAYH. I will yield a minute and a half to my distinguished 
colleague from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise as an enthusiastic supporter of 
this wonderful bipartisan agreement, the

[[Page S12705]]

Bayh-Ensign amendment. I do it because it meets four of my principles 
on supplemental spending.
  No. 1, there must be international burden sharing.
  With international burden sharing, if the stability of Iraq is in the 
world's interest, then the world should help pay for the 
reconstruction. If we say we are going to go it alone, they are going 
to let us go it alone. If we say we are going to go grants, they will 
say fine with us.
  We need a coalition of the willing. We need a coalition of the 
wallet.
  No. 2, in helping Iraq, we should have loans, not giveaways.
  Iraq has the world's largest oil reserves, capable of pumping out 
millions of barrels a day. These profits should help pay for 
reconstruction.
  There are those who say Iraq has debt. Well, so does America. America 
has a lot of debt and we think that this debt, the very balanced 
approach of the Bayh-Ensign amendment, will provide 50 percent as a 
grant for $10 billion, including $5 billion for police and military, 
but the other will be converted to a grant only if 90 percent of Iraq's 
preliberation bilateral debts are absolved.
  That is what I call burden sharing. We need the world's help. Iraq 
needs the world's help. I am glad we have a legislative framework to do 
it.
  No. 3, is accountability to stop waste, cronyism contracting, and 
profiteering.
  No. 4, the administration must lay out a plan to end the occupation 
of Iraq. There was a plan for the war. Now we need a plan for the 
peace.
  What will this amendment do? Half the requested aid to Iraq will be 
provided as a grant, a total of $10 billion, including $5 billion to 
rebuild Iraq's police and military forces. The other half of the 
requested aid will be a loan.
  So the President can lend up to $10 billion to Iraq. The loan would 
be converted to a grant and only if 90 percent of Iraq's pre-liberation 
bilateral debts are absolved.
  The amendment also expresses the sense of the Senate that all 
countries should forgive the bilateral debts owed by Saddam Hussein's 
regime and provide robust levels of reconstruction aid at the Madrid 
Donors Conference.
  Why is this amendment important? I support this amendment because it 
is consistent with my principles for aid to Iraq: No. 1, international 
burden-sharing; No. 2, loans, not give-aways.
  The amendment clearly supports international burden-sharing, not just 
with words of encouragement but by providing an incentive for other 
countries to forgive Iraq's debts. Ambassador Bremer says Iraq can't 
afford to borrow more because it is already shackled with $200 billion 
in debt. I say America can't afford more debt, not when we're facing a 
$2 trillion deficit. The Iraqi debts were racked up by Saddam Hussein 
to pay for his wars against Iran. Most is owed to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait 
and other Gulf states, and to Russia and France. Saudi Arabia and 
Kuwait and Russia and France should forgive Iraq's debt as their share 
of rebuilding costs. If these countries let Iraq start with a clean 
slate then Iraq's oil income can be used to pay for Iraq's 
reconstruction.
  The amendment also promotes my principle that U.S. aid to Iraq should 
be loans, not giveaways. Until and unless 90 percent of Iraq's debts 
are forgiven, half of U.S. aid will be in the form of loans.
  I supported Senator Dorgan's effort to make all of America's new aid 
to Iraq loans rather than grants--the full $20 billion.
  Here's why. Iraq can afford to pay. Iraq oil sales can finance 
building Iraq's infrastructure so we can use American tax dollars to 
build America's infrastructure. Iraq already has a very developed 
infrastructure and suffered relatively little damage during the war.

       It's certainly the complete opposite of the situation in 
     Afghanistan, where that's a country that has no prospect of 
     being self-sufficient for quite some time to come . . . We're 
     dealing with a country that can really finance its own 
     reconstruction and relatively soon.

That's not just me talking. That's the testimony of Deputy Secretary of 
Defense Paul Wolfowitz back in March.
  Iraq has the world's second-largest proven oil reserves and could 
have even more oil and natural gas. Iraqi oilfields are already 
producing close to 2 million barrels a day. That means billions of 
dollars a year in oil revenue. According to Ambassador Bremer, by 2005, 
Iraq will produce enough oil to take care of its basic needs and have 
additional funds.
  I understand that Ambassador Bremer doesn't want to delay 
reconstruction in Iraq until after Iraq has a constitution and an 
elected government. I remind the Senate that we have already provided 
aid to meet Iraq's immediate needs. Just this April Congress provided 
$75 billion requested by the President. That supplemental bill covered 
ongoing military operations in Iraq. It also included $2.5 billion for 
Iraq Relief and Reconstruction. That was grant aid.
  I believe the aid we provide now should be all loans, but half is 
better than none. America's taxpayers stand to get $10 billion back 
from Iraq's oil revenues under this amendment.
  I appreciate the efforts of the cosponsors, my Republican colleagues, 
Senators Ensign, Snowe, Collins, Graham, and Chambliss, and my 
Democratic colleagues, Senators Bayh and Nelson. They worked together 
on a bipartisan basis to improve this bill.
  I urge my colleagues to join in support of this bipartisan amendment 
to promote burden-sharing and to provide loans, not giveaways.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of fiscal year 2004 
supplemental appropriations request for military operations and 
reconstruction activities in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am also pleased to 
cosponsor this amendment with my colleagues Senator Bayh, Ben Nelson, 
Chambliss, Ensign, Dorgan, Lindsey Graham, and my fellow Senator from 
Maine, Senator Collins. This amendment directs that $10 billion of the 
funds requested for the rehabilitation and reconstruction of the Iraq's 
infrastructure be provided as loans rather than grants.
  It is incumbent upon us as stewards of the public trust to scrutinize 
this $87 billion supplemental legislation, to assure ourselves of the 
soundness of the proposals and to understand what it is the American 
people are being asked to provide. I believe that we all fundamentally 
agree that the $65.6 billion requested to support our military forces 
in the field must be made available immediately. As our troops continue 
to root out the remnants of Hussein's horrific regime and work to 
ensure stability in Iraq, we must do no less than provide them with the 
most advanced technology, the most reliable force protection equipment, 
and the best personal care available.
  Rather, the amendment before us focuses on the $20.3 billion 
designated for the rehabilitation and reconstruction of Iraq. I have 
maintained during this debate that a portion of these reconstruction 
funds should be in the form of loans, and this amendment designates $10 
billion of the $20.3 billion toward that very end. At the same time, 
the amendment contains a ``trigger with a purpose''--designed to both 
encourage existing creditor countries to forgive at least 90 percent of 
the debt owned on loans that were made to the former regime of Saddam 
Hussein, and to foster within Iraq itself a greater sense of 
responsibility toward, and a stake in, their own long-term rebuilding 
success.
  I know some have said that loans simply aren't feasible. But let's 
take a look at the totality of what we're talking about. While American 
men and women are putting themselves in harm's way day in and day out 
in securing the liberation of the people of Iraq, we are also in the 
process of spending $100 billion and more for that very same purpose.
  And let there be no mistake--the American people aren't making a 
distinction between the money we are spending to support our troops and 
the additional funds being proposed to rebuild Iraq when it comes to 
the total measure of our Nation's sacrifice toward this cause. So 
asking Iraq to repay one-tenth of that $100 billion in the form of 
loans hardly seems unreasonable.
  But what about those who have argued there is no legitimate 
government in Iraq that can obligate the nation to the repayment of 
loans? Well, just today, the U.N. Security Council passed Resolution 
1511 which specifically determines that the Governing

[[Page S12706]]

Council and its ministers are the principal bodies of the Iraqi interim 
administration which ``embodies the sovereignty of the State of Iraq 
during the transitional period until an internationally recognized, 
representative government is established.'' So this interim 
administration discussed in Resolution 1511 will be that legitimate 
government to which U.S. loans are made, while Iraq moves forward 
toward complete self-governance.
  Still others say that providing loans to Iraq would run counter to 
the U.S. policy of shifting away from loans for development because of 
the ineffectiveness of such programs in the past. But that policy is 
predicated on the fact that many heavily-indebted, poor countries do 
not have the resources to both service debt and institute economic and 
social reform. Iraq, in contrast, is tremendously rich in resources to 
an extent sufficient to service this debt and continue to make future 
investments in their own infrastructure.
  Of course, as I have mentioned, there is also that ``trigger with a 
purpose''. What exactly is that purpose? Well, I would hope we can all 
agree that long-term stability in Iraq is a global concern that 
requires global action and a global commitment. A secure, stable Iraq 
is not only in the best interests of the Middle East, it is also 
unquestionably in the best interest of freedom-loving nations 
everywhere.
  What we are saying with this amendment is, we have been willing to 
send our American men and women to liberate Iraq . . . we have been 
willing to spend $100 billion--and undoubtedly that figure will only 
climb in the future--for that worthy cause . . . and we're even willing 
to make that ten percent we expend as loans into full fledged grants--
if only those nations who loaned money to the horrific, corrupt Hussein 
regime in the past will forgive those loans. We are saying, the United 
States has been willing to accept the overwhelming responsibility for 
the liberation and rebuilding of Iraq--in money and in lives--now, all 
we ask is that you, as a creditor nation, contribute to the cause by 
forgiving loans that only ultimately enriched a criminal, self-
aggrandizing regime we all agree we're better off without today.
  The bottom line is, this amendment sends a message to these creditor 
nations that they can have a positive role in ensuring a better future 
for Iraq, not only by lessening Iraq's debt load by the forgiveness of 
their own loans, but also by triggering our provision that transitions 
our $10 billion loan into grants. This is a win-win for the 
international community and for Iraq--and in the long run, with the 
reduced debt burden for Iraq, it may even save some additional American 
taxpayer dollars that would have otherwise been expended for further 
Iraqi rebuilding.
  Frankly, I don't believe for a moment that taxpayer money sent to 
Iraq for reconstruction should in any way, shape or form be used to pay 
back loans made to the heinous regime of Saddam Hussein. So I hope that 
with the passage of this amendment creditor nations will do the right 
thing and vitiate their claims against Iraq.
  Moreover it should be noted that the amendment provides $5.1 billion 
in direct funding for the purpose of re-establishing the rule of law 
through the establishment fire and civil defense forces, police forces, 
a more fully developed judicial system, and the development and 
enforcement of public safety requirements.
  The fact is, the sooner we can transfer the responsibility of 
providing basic police, fire and first responder services to the Iraqi 
people, the sooner we can begin to remove our troops from the front 
line and focus them on the missions they are trained for--conducting 
combat-type operations against the forces bent on attacking American 
interests at home and abroad. Additionally, as we have learned in 
Eastern Europe and Latin America, the rule of law is critical to the 
effective transition of a state-based economy to a free-market economy.
  Finally, the amendment would provide $5.1 billion immediately to 
Ambassador Bremer as ``seed'' money for the infrastructure projects he 
identified in the request.
  In closing, I do not believe that the provision of $10 billion in 
loans to the Iraqi people for the reconstruction of their nation will 
unduly burden them or their economy. Instead, by investing these loans 
in Iraq, we are working to restore their national pride and enhance 
their sense of responsibility as we work toward the common goal of a 
free and stable Iraq. Furthermore, I do not believe it is too much to 
ask that, as we stand willing to turn our loans into grants, creditor 
nations who loaned money to the Hussein regime help the cause by wiping 
their debt slate clean.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I am an original cosponsor to the Bayh-
Nelson amendment to this Supplemental Appropriations bill. This 
amendment would authorize the President to lend $10 billion in 
reconstruction funds to the Iraqi Governing Council or its recognized 
successor. These funds could be converted to grants provided that 90 
percent of Iraq's pre-liberation bilateral debts are absolved, 
including loan forgiveness for any funds obligated as loans. It also 
provides the sense of the Senate that it is the strong preference of 
the United States that all countries forgive their pre-liberation 
bilateral debts owed by the Saddam regime and provide robust levels of 
reconstruction aid to post-liberation Iraq at the October 23 Madrid 
Donors Conference.
  The American people are being asked to contribute over $20 billion of 
their taxpayer dollars for the reconstruction of Iraq. Before the war 
against Iraq, the administration was vague about how much security and 
reconstruction funding would be needed in Iraq. Instead, Congress was 
told by administration officials, as my colleague Senator Dorgan has 
pointed out, that we could expect Iraqi oil revenues to pay for Iraqi 
reconstruction or that other nations would join us in shouldering the 
burden of rebuilding Iraq.
  Now the administration argues that it needs over $20 billion for 
Iraq's reconstruction. The administration argues that this money must 
be given as grants and not loans. However, once the money is used to 
rebuild Iraq's infrastructure and economy, the Iraqi government will 
then be obligated to pay back other nations who hold Iraqi debt. 
Nations like France and Russia, who loaned money to Saddam Hussein's 
regime, will receive debt payments off the backs of the U.S. taxpayer.
  This amendment directly addresses this problem by requiring 90 
percent of Iraqi debt to be forgiven before $10 billion can be 
converted to grants. It gives an incentive to the administration to 
engage in diplomacy with nations that hold Iraqi debt in order to 
encourage them to forgive it. And it will ensure that other nations' 
taxpayers are not treated more generously than U.S. taxpayers.
  In these difficult economic times with U.S. deficits ballooning, the 
administration is asking the American people to increase the fiscal 
burden without any hope of recouping these funds. The American taxpayer 
should not be treated more shabbily than debtors from other nations and 
we should be encouraging other nations to help rebuild Iraq's economy.
  Taxpayers are concerned that we are simply passing on the bill for 
this and other problems to our children. They are concerned that this 
Congress can find the resources for Iraq, but at the same time can't 
find the resources for after-school programs, for prescription drug 
benefits, and for rebuilding the infrastructure here at home.
  We need to allay some of the very legitimate concerns of the American 
taxpayers. They are concerned about our ballooning debts and shrinking 
services while we send billions overseas. We need to address these 
concerns of every American. By ensuring that taxpayer funds are treated 
just as dearly as the debts owed to other nations, we can begin to 
address those concerns.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. Who 
yields time?
  Mr. STEVENS. How much more time now remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There remain 14\1/2\ minutes on your side.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I was prepared to yield time to another 
Senator who is not here.
  Let me just say this. I am impressed with the debate. There is 
clearly a division in the Senate. But I do hope Senators will keep in 
mind that the President of the United States is traveling

[[Page S12707]]

abroad on a very important mission. We have been appealed to before, on 
this side, when Presidents have been traveling abroad, to honor the 
position of the Presidency and not to take positions that would 
embarrass him when he is abroad.
  I believe there is no question that the problem we face in Iraq is 
the populace of Iraq that wants to be part of a new government, wants 
to have a new government, a new democratic government, really faces a 
quandary of what can they do? How can they be involved? How can they 
get their electricity back? How can they get their police service back? 
How can they get their banks open? How can they get their hospitals 
open? How can they get potable water? How can they be sure they have 
the capability to present a firm, new constitution that will be 
approved by their people?
  That takes the money the President has requested. I believe if we do 
not take action to get this money into Iraq and get it moving so they 
can have the momentum of building a new government, the hearts and 
minds of those people will be hardened against us. As they are hardened 
against us, we will have more violence in the street and our soldiers, 
people in uniform, even the people who are there in civilian capacity 
now, will be at greater risk.
  I think that is what the Senator from Arizona has been saying. The 
risk we face is, if we do not support these loans, our men and women in 
uniform are going to be in greater harm's way.
  If you want to support the troops--and I have heard that from every 
Member of the Senate so far--if you want to support these troops, 
support the President on this issue and do not approve these loans. As 
to the concept of loans, I am sure, sometime, there will be some way 
the people of Iraq are going to under--see the debt they have to the 
United States when they become a real, strong government.
  Look what happened to us after World War II. We did not saddle France 
and Germany with loans. We forgave all the indebtedness, even the 
indebtedness we had from prior to that war. We helped them through the 
Marshall Plan to get going.
  These grants that we have in this part of this bill are absolutely 
essential to the continued safety, improvement of the safety of our men 
and women in uniform. I appeal to those who say they support the troops 
to support the President. He is the Commander in Chief of these troops 
and he has told us, his military commanders have told us, they need 
this money.
  It goes hand in glove with the $66 billion here, to assure they have 
the right equipment, the right protection while they are there. But 
let's take the actions necessary to get them out of there.
  I hope we would have the support of the Senate to do that tonight.
  Mr. THOMAS addressed the Chair.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eleven minutes.
  Mr. STEVENS. I will yield 2 minutes. I believe the leader is on his 
way to take the remainder of our time.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I had the honor to travel last week with 
the Senator to Iraq and to Afghanistan. Frankly, it was a very 
interesting meeting, one that makes us feel a little differently, being 
on the ground, than it is when we hear what we hear.
  I wish to make I think a fairly practical point, and that is that 
when we were there, obviously, we had a lot of security things to do. 
We have a lot of problems there.
  On the other hand, they have a plan that is being put into place for 
the schools, for the hospitals, for the government. They are making 
great progress. So we are talking here about $87 billion, $67 of which 
goes to support the troops. The other goes to try to get Iraq on its 
own feet.
  I have to suggest from a point of view of someone who is inclined not 
to want to spend a lot of money, if we really want to get them going on 
their own and get our troops out of there, the best way to do it is for 
us to take this money and to help them get on their feet.
  The biggest cost is maintaining our troops there. We can move that 
much more quickly if this $20 billion is put in the hands of our folks 
who are there now and we can move to get the Iraqis on their own feet 
and get our troops home more quickly than if we have to do this again 
to support the troops.
  I am talking about a very practical expenditure matter. I think we 
are much better off to go ahead and do this $20 billion as a grant, be 
able to have authority over how it is spent, and be able to get our 
troops home more quickly.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. STEVENS. I yield the remainder of our time to the leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, we have reached a point in this debate 
where each of us must make difficult decisions. We debated many 
amendments over the past 2 weeks and we have, in my view, come to a 
point about which most all of us agree; that is, we are at war against 
terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the assistance that we are 
considering is integral to our victory and the safe return of our 
soldiers, the men and women who represent us in Afghanistan and Iraq.
  I am confident, when the final vote is taken on the $87 billion, that 
there will be an overwhelming bipartisan majority in favor of this 
commitment--in favor of this legislation. But now the Senate has moved 
on to consider the very best way, the very best manner in which to 
deliver this assistance, which we all know is so important.
  How best can we stabilize the country in which our men and women 
right now are serving us right this very moment, risking their own 
lives so others and, indeed, we can live in safety.
  I respectfully suggest the amendment which we will be voting upon 
shortly and which we are now considering simply does not help in this 
regard. In fact, I would argue it has the very real potential of 
complicating and, yes, even undermining our ability to do what we all 
want; that is, to successfully stabilize Iraq.
  Let me suggest what this amendment is not. The amendment before us 
purports to save money for the American taxpayer by insisting upon 
foreign help and foreign assistance by making this a loan that will be 
paid back by the Iraqi people. But, as has been discussed on the floor 
already, the Congressional Budget Office, due to Iraq's already 
crushing burden, will score or value this amendment in the same way as 
if it were a grant. In other words, there is absolutely no savings to 
the American taxpayer, who might be listening right now, as a result of 
this amendment.
  This amendment purports to provide an incentive for other countries 
to relieve that crushing burden, that $200 billion of debt that is 
already as we speak on the backs of the Iraqi people. This logic 
completely escapes me.
  As we began this debate tonight, the newly liberated country of Iraq 
was $200 billion in debt. By the time this debate finishes tonight, if 
this amendment were to pass, Iraq would be $210 billion in debt.
  By a single vote, we might--I hope and pray we don't--catapult the 
United States to the front of the line as Iraq's greatest creditor if 
this amendment were to pass. Iraq would owe more to us than to France, 
or to Germany, or to Russia.
  The Washington Post I thought captured the essence in the editorial 
yesterday when it said it is the equivalent of swimming out to a 
drowning man and handing him a 10-pound weight.
  If the idea is that by in some way adding to Iraq's debt we will 
create an incentive for other countries to move toward debt 
forgiveness, I am confused. How is seizing the moral low ground 
advantageous in that debate? If we want others to forgive Iraqi debt, 
we must stop piling that debt on.
  I remain utterly unconvinced by the suggestion that by adding to this 
burden of Iraqi debt and then tying the forgiveness of our debt to the 
willingness of France and Russia and Germany to relieve 90 percent of 
their debt, that we will leverage the desired result. France, Russia, 
and Germany showed no shame whatsoever in loaning their money to prop 
up Saddam Hussein, one of the world's most brutal dictators. Despite 
the abundant evidence that he used weapons of mass destruction on his 
own people, invaded surrounding neighbors, and tortured and mass-
murdered his own people, these three nations could not find the

[[Page S12708]]

resolve to support the coalition's successful effort to remove Saddam 
Hussein from power. They will find their conscience now?
  Hope does spring eternal.
  This amendment purports to talk about what the Iraqi people should do 
to help themselves, but it offers them less help than the President 
proposed. This amendment purports to talk about what our allies should 
do, but we do not and cannot govern their actions either.
  What this amendment and this debate truly speaks to is who we are as 
a people. Throughout history, the American people have responded again 
and again to the tyranny of dictators, to defend the name of freedom, 
to liberate the oppressed, to relieve the plight of the downtrodden. We 
send our soldiers to fight and to die in foreign lands. We send the 
hard-earned tax dollars of our citizenry to the impoverished and sick 
around the world.

  When communism collapsed in Europe, we were there with billions of 
dollars in assistance to heal the wounds of tyranny.
  When Israel and Egypt found the courage to negotiate peace at Camp 
David, we were there with billions of dollars in assistance to make it 
a lasting peace.
  Earlier this year, we approved $15 billion to treat and care for 
those who suffer from HIV/AIDS. Now we stand with billions more to help 
the people of Iraq to stand with the free nations of the world.
  Why? We help others because it is good and it is right. We do so 
without the expectation of gratitude because that is who we are as a 
people. As the beneficiaries of the blessings of liberty, we understand 
freedom is not free. The American people are a generous and good 
people. We do not sell our commitment to liberty, and we do not loan 
our good will to the needy.
  So what are we to do with this amendment and this vote tonight? What 
are we to do? For me it is an easy question. We vote no. There is 
nothing in this amendment that will make the President's job easier or 
our soldiers safer. Nothing in this amendment will save the taxpayers 
money or ease the burden upon the people of Iraq. Others of good 
conscience think otherwise, and that is their right as elected 
representatives to this body. For those who have not decided, I ask you 
to vote no.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from South 
Carolina.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized 
for 3 minutes.
  Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, I am new to the Senate. 
This has been a terrific debate in the best traditions of the Senate. I 
come to this conclusion after having listened to people I admire and 
respect, such as our leader, the President, the Vice President, and 
Secretary Powell. I asked myself: Who are you to disagree?
  I thought about it, and I came to this conclusion. I do disagree. I 
know they are genuine in their beliefs, but I just do not believe we 
are being unfair to the people of Iraq. We have lost 332 lives 
liberating Iraq. We are spending $1 billion a week, and all we are 
asking for is once the country gets something going--we are going to 
build schools and hospitals, we are going to do great things for the 
Iraqi people--but once the oil refineries are fixed, because that is 
what makes the money, and once we do other things to get you back in 
business, consider helping us because we are deep in debt. We borrowed 
every penny of this $87 billion. And I would vote tomorrow to borrow 
more money to make our country safe.
  We have one of the highest deficits in our Nation's history because 
our economy has turned down. But we have to win this war. The only way 
we will lose this war--here is where I am tonight--is if the American 
people leave. It is very hard for me to go home and explain how you 
have to give $20 billion to a country that is sitting on $1 trillion 
worth of oil and the net result of this policy we are pursuing is the 
people who died to liberate Iraq are going to be left holding the bag, 
and the only people who will get paid back are the people who lent 
money to Saddam Hussein. If we follow that policy, people will leave us 
because it is not fair to the taxpayer. We need to make sure we don't 
divide ourselves here at home.
  This is very important, not just for international politics but for 
domestic politics.
  The French and the Germans voted today for a resolution, but in the 
same breath they said they would send no troops and no money.
  We are pretty much alone for a while. Let us stay together and not 
ask more of the American people. It would be unfair to ask.
  I really do love my country. We give $15 billion in aid to Africa and 
we don't want a penny back. We are giving $10 billion in grants, and we 
don't want a penny back. But if we are going to build your 
infrastructure to make you prosperous, help us because we are in debt. 
And if other countries will do the right thing, we will even forgive 
that.
  The biggest thing we have done for Iraq is give our young men and 
women, and more are going to die. That is a fact.
  Tonight is important. We need to stay together and look at the 
American taxpayer, and say, Yes, you can be helped too. Don't feel 
guilty to ask for some of your money back, because you have given and 
you have given, and there is more to give.
  Please vote for this amendment for the sake of the American people.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). Who yields time?
  Mr. BAYH. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute 40 seconds on your side and 1 
minute 40 seconds on the other side.
  Mr. BAYH. I thank all the cosponsors on both sides of the aisle for 
their support and say to my colleagues, all of us are committed to the 
success in Iraq. To achieve that success we must have the help of the 
rest the world and the help of the Iraqi people on their own behalf.
  Several arguments have been offered in opposition to our amendment. 
Let me address them. First, there is no government in power to take on 
these obligations. Really? Was Saddam Hussein in power to burden the 
Iraqi people with these loans? I suggest the current council has at 
least as much legitimacy as Saddam Hussein. If his loans were 
legitimate, so are the actions of the council.
  It is said this is a test of our resolve. That is true. But the 
surest way to assure the resolve of the American people is to do what 
is just and fair and right. How can we possibly say to the American 
people the French, the Germans, and the Russians may get repaid, those 
who propped up Saddam Hussein, but those who paid to liberate the 
country receive nothing. Is that fair? That would undermine the 
resolve.
  There is a perception this is all about the oil. That is a lie. We 
know it is a lie. It is a demonstrable lie. I say to my colleagues, no 
great power, including our country, can base its policy upon falsehoods 
and lies. We must base our policy upon the truth and the facts. We know 
why we are in Iraq.
  It is also said this will undermine our effort to achieve loan 
forgiveness. On the contrary. This will provide an incentive for others 
to forgive their loan and puts us in a position of maximum leverage to 
insist they do. If they drag their heels and refuse, it is said we will 
lose control of this money. No, my friends, we include a specific 
provision providing Ambassador Bremer with veto power over 
expenditures.
  Finally, this is about American leadership. We lead when we do the 
right thing. I ask for your support for this amendment. It will 
accomplish our objectives in Iraq.
  Mr. STEVENS. Have the yeas and nays been ordered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1876

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 2 minutes evenly divided prior to 
the vote.
  Mr. NICKLES. I urge our colleagues to vote in favor of this sense-of-
the-Senate resolution which urges countries that currently hold Iraqi 
debt that was incurred by Saddam Hussein to forgive that debt. If they 
do not, the Iraqi people and the Iraqi economy will suffocate.
  The Congressional Research Service says there is from $95 to $153 
billion

[[Page S12709]]

worth of debt. They cannot service that debt and grow as an economy. 
That debt is owned or held by Saudi Arabia. They have $25 billion. It 
is held by Kuwait, $15 to $27 billion; Russia, $3 to $16 billion; 
Japan, $3 to $7 billion; Germany, $2 to $4 billion; France, $2 to $8 
billion.
  We urge the countries that took debt, made loans to Saddam Hussein's 
regime, to forgive that debt and allow the Iraqi people and their 
economy to grow.
  I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  Mr. REID. We yield back our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back. The question is on 
agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd) 
and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily 
absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--``yeas'' 98, ``nays'' 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 388 Leg.]

                                YEAS--98

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (FL)
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Byrd
     Lieberman
       
  The amendment (No. 1876) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1871

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there are 2 minutes 
evenly divided in relation to the Bayh amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. Is it 1 minute a side or 2 minutes a side? I thought I 
had a standing order there would be 2 minutes before every vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. This order says 2 minutes evenly divided.
  Mr. STEVENS. I am sorry. I ask unanimous consent that it be 2 minutes 
on each side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from New 
Mexico and 1 minute to the Senator from Arizona.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I only have a minute. I want you to take 
a trip with me. I want you to take a trip to Iraq. The first thing we 
are going to do is walk up to a soldier. His name is Joe Chavis. We are 
going to say: Hi, Joe, how are you? I see that tank of yours. It needs 
repairing. Hey, Joe, that electric line isn't working and those kids 
don't have any electricity. Which do you think we ought to do: Fix your 
tank or fix the electricity?
  Sergeant Chavis says: Fix the electricity, Senator.
  I walked down the road a little bit and I saw another soldier, a 
woman who was there in military uniform.
  I said: Ma'am, I understand that you don't have the vests that you 
need to protect yourself. But I also noticed over there a schoolhouse 
is broken down and it needs fixing. I said: What do you need most?
  She said: Fix the schoolhouse.
  I did that five times. Every time the soldier said: Fix whatever it 
is, give them whatever it is and wait on me. I can wait.
  I think you should all understand that is what is going on. If we 
don't do that, they will be there forever. That is why they are saying, 
fix the other things and don't worry so much about us.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this has been a very important debate. I 
congratulate all who took part. This is obviously a very important and 
critical vote. This vote is a message to our constituents about how we 
feel about foreign aid. It is a message to the Iraqis about what we 
expect from them and what they can expect from us. It is a message to 
our allies about their obligations to peace in the Middle East and our 
willingness to meet our own.
  Ultimately, this vote speaks to who we are as a nation and as a 
people. We won the peace. Let's win the reconstruction and democracy 
and freedom for the Iraqi people. I ask you to vote no on this 
amendment.
  Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, how much time does our side have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes.
  Mr. BAYH. I yield 1 minute of my time to the distinguished Senator 
from Nevada.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, everything that the Senator from New 
Mexico asked, this amendment doesn't take away any of that. The full 
$20 billion stays within this amendment. The difference is, do we give 
it all in a grant and does that strengthen the President's hand or do 
we give half of it in a grant and half of it in a loan? We believe if 
you give half in a loan, the President's hand is strengthened on 
getting other countries that are owed money from the previous Saddam 
Hussein regime to forgive that debt. I make no apologies for the 
American people to say, if France, Germany, and Russia can be paid 
back, then we should be paid back. I hope all of the debt is forgiven. 
I think that is best for Iraq. But if the rest of the countries don't 
forgive their debt, then the American taxpayer should be paid back.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana is recognized.
  Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, it has been said that our decision tonight 
will determine whether America is perceived as a leader in the world. 
What kind of message will we send after all the dying and treasure and 
blood we have expended in Iraq? Can there be any doubt about American 
leadership and about the message we send? When we removed Saddam 
Hussein, America sent a message that we lead to stand for freedom--the 
freedom to choose your own government, the freedom to run your own 
economy.
  Tonight, again, we lead with $72 billion free and clear in grants for 
the security of Iraq; further, $5 billion for the immediate 
reconstruction needs, free and clear to Iraq; further, $10 billion for 
the long-term reconstruction needs for the people of Iraq is a loan to 
be forgiven if the rest of the world will join us in this cause.
  That is American leadership. That is the message we send. That is why 
we ask for your support.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this be a 
10-minute vote. A number of Senators still hope to offer amendments 
tonight, and that would save us some time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am compelled to object because I think 
there are some people who have left the building already. I inquired 
whether it was going to be a 10-minute vote. I asked the 
Parliamentarian if we had agreed, and then I told them we had not. I 
urge the leader to leave it the normal 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  All time has expired.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd) 
and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily 
absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ensign). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?

[[Page S12710]]

  The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 389 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Campbell
     Carper
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham (FL)
     Graham (SC)
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                                NAYS--47

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Bunning
     Burns
     Cantwell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Byrd
     Lieberman
       
  The amendment (No. 1871) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DURBIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, there will be no further votes tonight. 
What we plan to do now is ask Members who still have amendments to be 
considered to consult with us. We are prepared to accept some of them. 
We will have an early session of the Senate tomorrow starting at 9. We 
will start voting on the amendments that are still pending that have 
not been resolved tonight. There are still a couple of amendments that 
Members wish to offer tomorrow, but first we will vote on the pending 
amendments. So all Senators should be on notice there will be votes 
starting immediately in the morning. After the first vote, I shall ask 
that the amendments be 10 minutes each so that there will be a series 
of probably 19 to 20 amendments, as I count them right now, that could 
well be voted on before we will then take up the several amendments, 
two to three amendments, that Members wish to debate.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. STEVENS. I do yield.
  Mr. REID. Senator Byrd has asked me to announce that tonight we would 
have Senator Boxer offer an amendment. She is going to just take a 
couple of minutes. Senator Leahy has an important amendment. He will 
take a reasonably short period of time. Senator Durbin has an 
amendment. He will take a short period of time, and then Senator 
Corzine and Senator Landrieu, in that order.
  Mr. STEVENS. I am not agreeing to any order, Mr. President. We have a 
list of amendments. We are going to go down the list of amendments and 
see who is here.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I do not know then how to operate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will come to order.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, who has the floor?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska has the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS. I am perfectly ready to start considering amendments, 
but I am not going to have any time agreement right now on any 
amendment.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. STEVENS. Yes.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have not asked for any time agreement. I 
am trying to help. I am trying to move this along. I personally do not 
care if we ever finish this bill. I am trying to work and move this 
bill along. I was asked to have some people offer some amendments who 
have a vote. I have spent probably an hour and a half getting these 
people lined up to offer amendments.
  If we are going to finish this bill tomorrow, then we have to do it 
this way. Otherwise, count me out of the ball game. Somebody else can 
figure out how to do it.
  Mr. STEVENS. The Senators are at liberty to offer their amendments as 
they wish tonight. We will be glad to stay as long as Senators want to 
offer amendments and present them to us. We are trying to work out 
those amendments with people who want to settle amendments first, not 
those who want to bring up amendments and demand a vote tomorrow. There 
are a bunch of Senators willing to compromise on amendments and I want 
to let them proceed and have them go home before the other people who 
want to offer amendments, argue, and then have a vote tomorrow.

  I think that is a logical progress.
  Mr. REID. If the Senator will yield. I then say to Senator Boxer, 
Senator Leahy, Senator Durbin, Senator Corzine, and Senator Landrieu, 
go home. We will do them tomorrow.
  Mr. STEVENS. That is perfectly all right with me, Mr. President. I am 
here until Saturday, Sunday, whatever it takes. The bill will be 
finished sometime before the end of this week.
  To stand up and say these people are going to come first before those 
we have been negotiating with, we told them we will accept amendments 
and can handle those, I think that is wrong. So if Senators want to go 
home, go home. If they want to stay here and settle this bill, stay.
  Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska still has the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska still has the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison, 
has an amendment that has been cleared on both sides. She wants to make 
a few remarks on that amendment. I welcome her offering that amendment 
at this time and discussing it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I will be very brief. I am happy to 
work within the system. I have a sense-of-the-Senate amendment.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, may we have order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will suspend.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I send up a modified amendment.
  Mr. LEAHY. The Senator from Texas is entitled to be heard. If we 
could have order, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will come to order. Senators 
engaging in conversations, please take those conversations from the 
Senate floor.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will suspend. The Senate is not in 
order.
  Mrs. BOXER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas has the floor. 
Conversations will be taken from the floor. The Senate will come to 
order.


                    amendment No. 1877, as modified

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I send a modified version of my 
amendment No. 1877 to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are 
set aside. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1877, as modified.

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. 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 express the sense of Congress on reconstruction efforts in 
                                 Iraq)

       On page 38, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following 
     new section:
       Sec. 2313. (a) Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) A coalition of allied countries led by the United 
     States entered Iraq on March 19, 2003, to liberate the people 
     of Iraq from the tyrannical rule of Saddam Hussein and the 
     Baathist party and to remove a threat to global security and 
     stability.
       (2) Achieving stability in Iraq will require substantial 
     monetary investments to develop a secure environment and 
     improve the physical infrastructure.
       (3) A stable and prosperous Iraq is important to peace and 
     economic development in the Middle East and elsewhere.

[[Page S12711]]

       (4) As of October 2003, the United States has provided the 
     majority of the personnel and financial contributions to the 
     effort to rebuild Iraq.
       (5) Congress fully supports efforts to establish a stable 
     economic, social, and political environment in Iraq.
       (6) The President is currently seeking to increase global 
     participation in the effort to stabilize and reconstruct 
     Iraq.
       (7) While the United States should aid the people of Iraq, 
     the participation of the people of Iraq in the reconstruction 
     effort is essential for the success of such effort.
       (b) It is the sense of Congress that the President should--
       (1) make every effort to increase the level of financial 
     commitment from other nations to improve the physical, 
     political, economic, and social infrastructure of Iraq; and
       (2) seek to provide aid from the United States to Iraq in a 
     manner that promotes economic growth in Iraq and limits the 
     long-term cost to taxpayers in the United States.

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I will be brief. The sense of the 
Senate says we support helping Iraq as it builds a new democracy and 
believe we need to finish what we have started there and in 
Afghanistan. It is critical that this reconstruction effort have a 
multilateral approach, that our allies would help us in the war on 
terrorism, because our allies are reaping the benefits of this war on 
terrorism. No one will be free in the world if we lose the war on 
terrorism. It is essential we have all of the support we need to finish 
this job. So we ask the administration to continue to seek commitments 
during the donors conference and afterward. It encourages the President 
to provide aid in a way that promotes economic growth in Iraq and 
limits the long-term cost to our taxpayers. The President is in the 
best position to determine how to accomplish this, and we must support 
him in every way.
  That is my amendment, my sense of the Senate. I hope we can support 
it and vote for it.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared on both 
sides. I ask the Senate consider and adopt this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mrs. BOXER. I object to the unanimous consent request.
  Mr. STEVENS. I did not ask unanimous consent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is whether there is further 
debate on the amendment.
  The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I believe this is open for debate. I want 
to express myself tonight. I have not said this before, but I have to 
tell you that the Senator from Nevada has been working so diligently 
with his colleagues on the other side to move along the business of 
this body.
  He suggested that four of us who have very brief amendments be 
allowed to go forward--not in advance of the other side. I don't have 
any problem with a few people going first or alternating back and 
forth. But I have to say, I feel very bad about this, and I am not 
going to be cooperating tonight if we are not going to allow this to 
take on some kind of comity at this late hour where we hear from 
Senator Hutchison, who has a very good amendment, and then we go to our 
side, and back and forth.
  I want to speak just as one Senator to say I feel bad about the way 
things are deteriorating tonight and I am not going to cooperate.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
  Mrs. BOXER. Yes.
  Mr. REID. The Senator from California and I came to Washington 
together many years ago. We are very close friends. I consider Senator 
Boxer a sister. I appreciate her saying a few words on my behalf. But I 
think probably part of the blame was mine. I know the Senator from 
Alaska very well, and I probably would have been well advised, when he 
was raising his voice a little bit, for me not to raise my voice. The 
fact of the matter is, we both have been working on this bill for hours 
and days, and probably we are both a little testy. So I think there is 
blame to go around on both sides. I do appreciate my friend from 
California defending me. She has made her point, at least as confirming 
our friendship, and I think Senator Stevens and I can work this out and 
move the bill along.
  I do appreciate very much my friend from California sticking up for 
me as she has done tonight and has done for the last 22 years we have 
been together.
  Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, will the Senator from Alaska yield?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Can we get this amendment adopted? May we adopt the 
amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? The 
question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1877), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. The procedure we had, and I told people on this side we 
would do, we have two amendments on this side, one amendment on that 
side, that have been cleared and we will let them go home. I am 
perfectly willing to go to anyone else who wants to talk, but as the 
manager of the bill we have the right to say to people: Look, if you 
will agree to offer these and make these changes, we will take them up 
right away, as soon as this vote is over. That I did, so I don't 
apologize to anyone.
  I would like to yield to my friend from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will be very brief. As I look around, 
there is only one person on this floor who has served longer than I 
have and that is the Senator from Alaska. I know the difficulties--both 
he and I have gone back and forth, sometimes one is chairman, sometimes 
the other is, on different committees--how difficult it is to keep a 
major bill going through. I understand his concern in doing it.
  The senior Senator from Nevada has done the job of being whip for our 
side better than anybody I have ever known who served here. There is a 
great deal of respect for his integrity on both sides of the aisle, as 
there is for the senior Senator from Alaska. I know both have been 
trying to work this out. I hope we would just continue that way. It is 
not an easy process. There are differences of opinion on a number of 
these amendments. But I know both the Senator from Alaska and the 
Senator from Nevada are two of the finest people I have served with, 
and I hope we would allow the two of them to work, as they do so very 
well, and Members on both sides of the aisle would work with them and 
allow them to work out the schedule.
  The Senator from Vermont is perfectly satisfied with that kind of 
arrangement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. I said I wouldn't apologize. I do apologize to my friend 
from Nevada if I offended him. I did not intend to offend him. He is a 
valuable Member of the Senate and has worked, whether in the majority 
or minority, assiduously to see the Senate does its work. I don't argue 
with that at all. I have great fondness for the Senator from Nevada.
  I wish I lived in Nevada. I might even vote for him if I lived there.
  I see the current occupant of the chair is laughing at that, but it 
is true.
  The difficulty I have is I think we don't communicate well enough 
across this aisle in terms of the plans we each make as manager of our 
side on this particular bill.
  Right now the Senator from Nevada has an amendment by Senator Nelson 
we agreed to clear. I am pleased to yield the floor.


                    Amendment No. 1858, As Modified

  Mr. REID. I send a modification of the Nelson amendment to the desk.
  Mr. President, this is an amendment offered by Senator Nelson. He has 
been in negotiations with the majority staff for several days now.
  Mr. STEVENS. It is acceptable.
  Mr. REID. I urge its adoption.
  Mr. STEVENS. I urge its adoption also.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? Without objection, 
the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1858), as modified, was agreed to, as follows:

       At the end of title I, add the following:
       Sec. 316. Of the amounts appropriated by this title, 
     $10,000,000 shall be available only for the Family Readiness 
     Program of the National Guard.

  Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote and move to lay that 
motion on the table.

[[Page S12712]]

  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1867

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have the amendment for Senator Warner, 
for himself, Mr. Sarbanes, and Mr. Edwards. It has been cleared on both 
sides. According to my information, it is amendment No. 1867.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside.
  That amendment is currently pending.


                Amendment No. 1880 to Amendment No. 1867

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I also have a second-degree amendment to 
that amendment. I ask that amendment be adopted. This is the hurricane 
flood damage amendment. We are taking out of the bill those items which 
were not relevant to the bill. I send that amendment to the desk.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Mr. Warner, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1880 to amendment numbered 
     1867.

  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To designate the amount designated for disaster relief 
   provided in connection with Department of Defense infrastructure 
 damaged or destroyed by Hurricane Isabel as an emergency requirement.)

       At the end of line 8, strike ``.'' and insert the 
     following:
       ``: Provided, That the entire amount is designated by the 
     Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 502 
     of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress): provided further that 
     the entire amount shall be available only to the extent that 
     an official budget request for a specific dollar amount, that 
     includes the designation of the entire amount of the request 
     as an emergency requirement as defined in House Concurrent 
     Resolution 95, the concurrent resolution on the budget for 
     fiscal year 2004, is transmitted by the President to the 
     Congress.''

  Mr. STEVENS. I ask consideration of the amendment, the adoption of 
the amendment, and consideration of the amendment as amended.
  Mr. REID. This amendment is also one that has been reviewed by the 
two Senators from Maryland. They both think this is good. There has 
been tremendous damage at the Naval Academy. This covers that also.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the second-degree amendment 
is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1880) was agreed to.
  The question is on agreeing to the first-degree amendment, as 
amended.
  Without objection, that amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1867), as amended, was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.


                           Amendment No. 1843

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I want to state to the Senator from 
California that on amendment No. 1843 we sent a notice to the Senator 
that we are prepared to accept that retroactive assistance meal 
reimbursement amendment, if she is prepared to offer it tonight. That 
is Senator Boxer's amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay the pending 
amendment aside, and I call up my amendment which is at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1843.

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

(Purpose: To make retroactive the relief of hospitalized members of the 
 uniformed services from the obligation to pay for food or subsistence 
 while hospitalized; and to provide an offset for the additional cost)

       On page 20, strike lines 9 through line 12, and insert the 
     following:
       (b) Section 1075(b) of title 10, United States Code, as 
     added by subsection (a), shall take effect as of September 
     11, 2001, and shall apply with respect to injuries or 
     diseases incurred on or after that date.
       (c) The amount appropriated by chapter 2 of title II under 
     the heading ``Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund'' is hereby 
     reduced by $1,500,000, to be derived from the amount set 
     aside under such heading for transportation and 
     telecommunications for the Iraqi Postal Authority for the 
     administration of a zip code system.

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today, I am offering an amendment that 
will help service members who have been hospitalized after being 
wounded or becoming ill during combat or other operations in Iraq, 
Afghanistan and during the war on terror since September 11, 2001.
  Right now, when one of our soldiers is wounded, they are evacuated to 
a military hospital. When whey are discharged from the hospital, they 
receive a bill for their hospital food. The current daily rate for 
those charges is $8.10.
  I want to thank my good friend and colleague from Florida, Senator 
Bob Graham, for offering leadership on this issue. Accepted as part of 
the manager's package, his amendment exempts service members who are 
hospitalized from combat injuries and other conditions from having to 
pay for their meals. His amendment addresses the problem 
prospectively--in the future.
  My amendment supplements his--by closing the loop. It will require 
the Department of Defense to reimburse troops who paid for meals while 
hospitalized as a result of either injury or illness while in combat or 
training for combat since September 11, 2001.
  I recently learned about a Marine staff sergeant who was injured when 
an Iraqi dropped a grenade in the HUMVEE he was driving. As a result of 
the explosion, he lost part of his food, and spent 26 days in the 
hospital recovering. He was then discharged to return home and to his 
job as a sheriff's deputy. At the same time, he was handed a bill for 
$210.60 for his food.
  Mr. President, $210.60 may not seem like a lot of money to some of 
us. But to an enlisted person with a family making under $20,000 a 
year--this is a serious financial burden.
  When service members are discharged, we should express our gratitude 
for their profound personal sacrifice, not hand them a bill for their 
hospital food.
  My amendment is simple and corrects this stunning injustice. It shows 
our strong support for the courageous men and women who fought in 
Afghanistan and Iraq and have returned, wounded, ill, missing limbs, 
too often permanently disabled.
  The price to the Government for correcting this serious affront to 
our service members is very, very small indeed. This amendment costs 
just $1.5 million, with the offset found in the account to create new 
zip codes in Iraq, which the House eliminated in their bill last week.
  I understand the Department of Defense has recouped only $1.5 million 
this year for hospital meals from all hospitalized service members 
world-wide. We are talking about just $1.5 million from over 2 million 
active and reserve forces across the globe.
  What I am proposing is much more limited in scope. It would only 
reimburse service members who have been wounded or become ill due to 
combat or training for combat since September 11, 2001. According to 
the Defense Department, approximately 2,000 service members have been 
injured or wounded in action in Iraq. Considerably less were injured in 
our operations in Afghanistan. The Defense Department says the total 
for both conflicts may be roughly 3,500 people.
  I am talking about giving back a small amount to our troops for their 
extraordinary sacrifice. It would mean a great deal to the service 
members and military families who face extended separations, financial 
hardship, and sometimes serious injury.
  We were very fortunate that Representative Bill Young from Florida 
discovered that our service men and women who are in hospitals were 
being asked to pay for meals as they checked out of the hospital. Some 
of them had horrible injuries and some lost limbs. Congressman Young 
fixed the problem, and Senator Graham, working with Senator Stevens and 
others, fixed the problem. But the fix has only been for the future. It 
has not been fixed for those who actually went to war in Afghanistan 
and Iraq and are getting hit with these bills.
  I recently learned about a marine staff sergeant who was injured when 
an Iraqi dropped a grenade on a Humvee he was driving, and he lost part 
of his foot. He spent 26 days in a hospital. When he was discharged to 
return home as a sheriff's deputy, he was handed a $210.60 bill for his 
food. That may not seem like a lot to some, but

[[Page S12713]]

when you are earning approximately $20,000 a year, it is a serious 
financial burden.
  I know we all want to fix this. What we have done in the amendment is 
very simple. We pay back those who served in Afghanistan and in Iraq 
who wound up in hospitals and were billed for their food, and we pay 
for it with an offset. The amendment will cost $1.5 million. We pay for 
it in an offset found in the account for a new ZIP Code in Iraq. I 
think it is very important for us to do this. It is much more important 
than new ZIP Codes in Iraq.
  I am very hopeful that tomorrow we will have an overwhelming vote in 
favor of this amendment.
  I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  At the moment, there is not.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I wish to make a comment. The Senator 
from California is absolutely right. If there is a saint in this town, 
it is Mrs. Bill Young. She has been extremely helpful to all of the 
soldiers and sailors at Walter Reed and at Bethesda. Just today, she 
called me and told me that the admiral at Bethesda told her he is under 
orders to send bills for about $5,000 to several different military 
people who are in the hospital for reimbursement of their meals. I told 
my staff to notify the admiral that we had fixed it in this bill, or I 
would personally guarantee the payment, and not just have standard 
garnishing of these kids' salaries.
  I commend the Senator for the amendment. We attempted to fix that in 
one former bill. But that bill hasn't become law. I think the bill will 
become law very fast.
  I support the Senator's amendment and urge its adoption.


                    Amendment No. 1843, As Modified

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Boxer 
amendment be modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 1843), as modified, is as follows:

       On page 20, strike lines 9 through line 12, and insert the 
     following:
       (b) Section 1075(b) of title 10, United States Code, as 
     added by subsection (a), shall take effect as of September 
     11, 2001, and shall apply with respect to injuries or 
     diseases incurred on or after that date.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have an amendment, if I could be heard 
briefly.
  Mr. STEVENS. Is that modification of the amendment we just agreed to 
the yeas and nays on? I have no objection.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, 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. REID. 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. REID. Mr. President, the Senator from California was concerned 
about the modification. This had been approved by staff. She wanted to 
make sure everyone understood that the money she is seeking would be 
paid for out of existing funds rather than offset. That is the purpose 
of the modification.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I wonder if I could ask the Senator from 
Alaska this question. We will not have an offset. I have agreed not to 
have an offset. Is it the chairman's understanding that the $1.5 
million will come from----
  Mr. STEVENS. From the funds that are in the bill. Those amounts are 
de minimis, really. There will be no budget point of order against 
that.
  Mrs. BOXER. And it will happen.
  Mr. STEVENS. It will happen. It is in another bill also. The question 
is which bill gets there first.
  Mrs. BOXER. This is retroactive. We took care of it prospectively. 
This is to actually write checks to people.
  Mr. STEVENS. The Senator is right. Our current amendment which we 
have out there somewhere goes through 2004. The Senator's amendment 
goes back to 2001.
  We are happy to accept that, but the moneys are there. It is 
carryover money from past years.
  Mrs. BOXER. As long as I am clear on that, I am very happy. I thank 
everyone.
  Mr. STEVENS. I congratulate the Senator. It is a good amendment.
  We have no objection to Senator Daschle's amendment, if it is cleared 
by Senator Byrd.
  We have that, by the way, in the managers' package. We worked it out 
with Senator Byrd's staff and mine. We will be happy to adopt it now, 
if the Senator would like to do that.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am told by staff that in the usual fine 
work of Senators Reid and Stevens there has been a slight misstep. This 
was already approved earlier today.
  Mr. REID. Unless Senator Stevens has something else--I know it is in 
order--I call up the amendment of the Senator from Vermont who has been 
waiting around for a while. He has a short statement to make.
  Mr. STEVENS. I have no objection. I would like to confer with the 
Senator and Members on that side on items we believe are subject to 
budget points of order and give notice of that.
  Mr. REID. We will do that as he is speaking.
  Mr. STEVENS. Very well.


                    Amendment No. 1807, As Modified

  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be laid 
aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. I call up amendment numbered 1807 on behalf of Senators 
Leahy and Chafee and ask unanimous consent that the amendment be 
modified with the changes at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment will be so modified.
  The amendment (No. 1807), as modified, is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide for humanitarian assistance and reconstruction of 
                                Liberia)

       Beginning on page 29, strike line 13 and all that follows 
     through page 31, line 5, and insert the following:

       International Disaster Assistance and Military Assistance

       For an additional amount for ``International Disaster 
     Assistance'' for relief, rehabilitation, and reconstruction 
     assistance for Liberia, and for an additional amount for 
     military assistance programs for Liberia for which funds were 
     appropriated by title III of the Foreign Operations, Export 
     Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2003 
     (division E of Public Law 108-7; 117 Stat. 176), 
     $200,000,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     $100,000,000 shall be derived by transfer from funds 
     appropriated in this title under the subheading ``Iraq Relief 
     and Reconstruction Fund'' under the heading ``OTHER BILATERAL 
     ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO THE PRESIDENT''.

  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that Senators Coleman, Daschle, 
Biden, Lieberman, Feingold, Reed of Rhode Island, and Lautenberg be 
added as cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for Mr. Chafee, for 
     himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Coleman, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Biden, Mr. 
     Lieberman, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Reed, and Mr. Lautenberg, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1807, as modified.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. This amendment addresses the humanitarian crisis in 
Liberia. This is a bipartisan amendment, supported by Senators Chafee, 
Coleman, Biden, Lieberman, Feingold, Reed, Lautenberg, and Landrieu.
  Anyone who has read a newspaper or watched CNN over the past couple 
of months knows about the tremendous suffering in Liberia today.
  Three-quarters of Liberians do not have access to safe drinking 
water.
  Three-quarters are living in poverty.
  Three-quarters do not have access to acceptable sanitation.
  Eighty-five percent of Liberians are unemployed.
  These numbers, provided by the U.N. are absolutely appalling. To me, 
this is more than enough reason to act.
  We have deep historical ties to its people. Presidents James Monroe 
and Andrew Jackson, along with some of the most notable Senators ever 
to serve in this body, Henry Clay and Daniel Webster, helped create the 
nation of Liberia. Liberia's flag is nearly identical to our own.
  We have heard urgent pleas from the Liberian people for the U.S. to 
help.

[[Page S12714]]

Archbishop Michael Francis of Monrovia, wrote a letter in support of 
this amendment. He wrote:

       [W]e are at a critical juncture where an intervention by 
     the United States, renewing its leadership role, will greatly 
     help to ensure the stabilization of Liberia. It is for this 
     reason that your amendment to include $200 million in the FY 
     2004 Supplemental Appropriations bill to address relief and 
     reconstruction needs in Liberia is timely and must be 
     supported by the Senate body.

  I ask unanimous consent that his letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                                 October 14, 2003.
     Hon. Bill Frist,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Thomas Daschle,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Majority Leader Frist and Minority Leader Daschle: 
     Thank you for your leadership on the important issues that 
     face the African continent each day. Your important voice on 
     many of the issues such as infectious disease, conflict 
     resolution, human rights, and democratic transition the 
     continent is incredibly appreciated, particularly by those of 
     us on the ground who are working daily to affect the change 
     necessary to bring peace, justice, and stability to our 
     respective nations.
       As you know, the on-going human rights crisis in Liberia 
     continues to require close examination and a comprehensive 
     response so that the country does not spiral back to the days 
     when Liberia was governed by warlord Charles Taylor. As this 
     transition progresses, we are at a critical juncture where an 
     intervention by the United States, renewing its leadership 
     role, will greatly help to ensure the stabilization of 
     Liberia. Thus, I write to strongly urge your support for the 
     Chafee-Leahy amendment which would include $200 million in 
     the FY2004 Supplemental Appropriations bill to address the 
     relief and reconstruction needs of Liberia.
       Liberia has endured years of a brutal conflict. The signing 
     of a peace agreement in Accra, Ghana, as well as the 
     deployment of peacekeeping troops to Liberia have paved the 
     way for the best opportunity for peace and stability in the 
     West African nation since the onset of civil strife in 1989.
       We have seen that, despite a peace accord between rebel 
     forces and the Government of Liberia, fighting continues in 
     our war-ravaged nation. The inability of humanitarian 
     organizations to safely deliver aid, given grave security 
     problems, has precipitated a large-scale humanitarian crisis 
     in the small West African nation. U.S. Agency for 
     International Development estimates more than 500,000 
     Liberians are currently internally displaced. Many internally 
     displaced and tens of thousands of refugees who fled to 
     Liberia from other conflicts in the region have been cut off 
     from outside assistance. Moreover, the country's physical 
     infrastructure is in dire straits, and the peace process in 
     Liberia is dependent on investments from the United States, 
     which will help provide good governance, employment, law and 
     order, and basic social services.
       In testimony before the House International Relations 
     Committee on October 2, 2003, Assistant Secretary of State 
     for African Affairs Walter Kansteiner, III, agreed that at 
     least $200 million would be needed to address humanitarian 
     and reconstruction needs in Liberia in FY2004. He also 
     pledged to work with the Congress to include such funding in 
     the supplemental bill.
       Senators Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT) 
     have introduced a corresponding amendment to address the 
     humanitarian and reconstruction needs of Liberia in the 
     supplemental. The $200 million would come from funds already 
     in the supplemental and would not raise the total amount of 
     the bill.
       Additionally these resources would assist by sending a 
     strong, clear and unequivocal message to all the parties, 
     expressing the United States' determination to play an active 
     and robust role in the initiative aimed at ameliorating the 
     Liberian crisis. I appeal to you to ensure that this funding 
     remain consistent with our desire to avoid any rush to quick 
     fixes and semi-solutions. Rather our collective strategy 
     should be aimed at achieving the following strategic 
     objectives:
       1. Consolidating the cease fire and stabilizing the 
     security situation on the ground;
       2. Ensuring the demobilization of the militia and their 
     proper reintegration into the civil society;
       3. Creating a secure environment over the entire country;
       4. Contributing to consolidating national unity and 
     assisting in establishing a viable transitional government;
       5. Reestablishing the necessary state structures for 
     effective governance and ensuring that they function in a 
     proper and durable way; and
       6. Once these pre-conditions have been met, we must further 
     assist in the preparation of free, fair, transparent, and 
     democratic elections.
       As you know, the supplemental request, as it was sent to 
     Congress, fails to identify any resources to meet these 
     urgent needs in Liberia. Without adding money to the 2004 
     supplemental, Liberia will receive no significant funding 
     until FY2005, a full year after the outbreak of a fragile 
     peace. I implore you, on behalf of the Liberian people, to 
     assist us in addressing Liberia's human rights, peace 
     building, and reconstruction needs. Without strong U.S. 
     support, Liberia threatens to fall once more into violence 
     and chaos, possibly becoming a haven for criminal and 
     terrorist activity on the African continent.
       The critical human rights needs of our brothers and sisters 
     in Liberia and West Africa require your uncompromising 
     support of the Chafee-Leahy amendment to include $200 million 
     for humanitarian and reconstruction needs in Liberia in the 
     FY2004 Supplemental Appropriations bill when it comes to the 
     Senate floor.
           Sincerely,
                               Archbishop Michael Kpakala Francis.

  Mr. LEAHY. Archbishop Francis is said to be the only man in Liberia 
that Charles Taylor feared. This is because of the archbishop's 
tireless criticism of Charles Taylor and his brutal regime.
  If we don't move decisively to help solidify the fragile peace in 
Liberia, fighting could easily resume and spread throughout the region. 
Guess who the world will look to help solve the crisis?
  The United States. More lives will have been lost, more time will 
have been wasted and it will be more difficult and expensive to act.
  Mr. President, this amendment gives the Senate a chance to take 
decisive action to address the crisis in Liberia. This amendment 
provides $200 million in badly needed aid, and it allows the 
administration to determine the best way to spend these funds.
  How did we arrive at this figure? Two hundred million dollars is what 
the Bush administration says we should spend to respond to this crisis. 
On October 2, Assistant Secretary of State for Africa Walter Kansteiner 
told the House International Relations Committee that $200 million is 
what the U.S. should contribute to Liberia.
  In other words, this is the administration's own number.
  This amendment is fully offset--it does not add one dime to the total 
amount of the supplemental. It also allows the administration to use 
these funds for virtually any purpose: humanitarian, reconstruction, or 
security assistance.
  We have an $87 billion bill before the Senate. But there is no money 
in this bill designated for Liberia.
  We are already involved in Liberia. The United States worked to get 
rid of a despicable dictator who is wanted for war crimes. We sent the 
Marines to Liberia. The United States has deep historical ties to 
Liberia. We should do the job right--not just stick a band-aid on the 
problem and hope it goes away.
  Mr. President, it is up to Congress to show leadership on this issue.
  The House has acted. It has included $100 million of international 
disaster assistance for Liberia and Sudan. The Senate should build on 
this effort. This amendment does that.
  There should be no question. We should join together and pass this 
bipartisan amendment and help the people of Liberia. That is why I urge 
my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? At the moment, 
there is not a sufficient second.
  Mr. LEAHY. 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. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. I withhold the quorum call.
  Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment offered by the 
Senator from Vermont.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. 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. REID. 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. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside for the purpose of Senator Durbin offering an 
amendment.

[[Page S12715]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Illinois.


                           Amendment No. 1837

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk on Reserve 
pay which I will be asking to be put in the queue for a vote tomorrow. 
This amendment I offered 2 days ago.
  I am not going to belabor the issue other than to say to my 
colleagues, and for the record, that what it provides is that Federal 
employees who are members of the Guard and Reserves who are activated 
would have the difference in their pay--their military pay and their 
Federal pay--made up by the Federal agency for which they work. This is 
done by State governments and private companies and local units of 
government. It is not done by the Federal Government.
  Frankly, this amendment was offered in good faith to have the Federal 
Government establish the standard so that activated Guard and Reserves 
who are Federal employees will receive this difference.
  There are 1.2 million Guard and Reserves in America. Ten percent of 
them are Federal employees, 14,000 are now activated, and almost half 
of them have seen a cut in pay. Since activation has gone for an 
extended period of time, I will ask that that amendment be put in the 
queue tomorrow.


                           Amendment No. 1879

  Mr. President, I have another amendment, but before I send the 
amendment to the desk, let me describe it to my colleagues.
  I offered an amendment, earlier today, on the global AIDS epidemic, 
an amendment which said we have made a commitment as a nation to spend 
$15 billion over the next 5 years to deal with this epidemic. This is 
an epidemic which President Bush acknowledged in his State of the Union 
Message and one that he has spoken of extensively here in the United 
States and while traveling abroad.
  Unfortunately, the administration did not come up, in the first year, 
with $3 billion to deal with the global AIDS epidemic.
  We know there is a serious need across the world to spend the funds 
necessary. I would say to my colleagues who might ask, ``Why would you 
raise the global AIDS epidemic on this emergency appropriations bill,'' 
consider the statement made by Secretary of State Colin Powell to the 
United Nations just a few weeks ago. I quote:

       AIDS is more devastating than any terrorist attack, any 
     conflict, or any weapon of mass destruction.

  The extended quote will be made a part of the Record. But what I 
would like to say to my colleagues is this: I hope--as we consider what 
it takes to make this a safe world for future generations, as we 
consider what is necessary in the Middle East and Iraq--we also 
consider that we are living in a world devastated by AIDS, that AIDS is 
an epidemic destabilizing countries, making them vulnerable to 
terrorist takeovers, and creating the kind of instability that 
guarantees the United States must pay heed.
  There is a way to deal with this, and the way to do it is to keep our 
word.
  My earlier version of this amendment was objected to by Senator 
Stevens. He argued it included legislative language. We have stricken 
all legislative language in this amendment.
  Secondly, this would not be subject to a budget point of order 
because the foreign operations appropriations bill has not passed, and 
the set-off in the amendment comes in emergency appropriations, so 
there is no problem with either the budget or the spend-out rate.
  Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are 
set aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1879.

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 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 prevention, treatment, and control 
                     of, and research on HIV/AIDS)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a) Global HIV/AIDS Funding.--For necessary 
     expenses to carry out the provisions of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 for the prevention, treatment, and 
     control of, and research on HIV/AIDS, in addition to funds 
     appropriated under the heading ''Global AIDS Initiative'' in 
     the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related 
     Programs Act, 2004, $879,700,000.
       (b) Offset.--The total amount appropriated under title II 
     under the heading ``OTHER BILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE--
     FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO THE PRESIDENT--Iraq Relief and 
     Reconstruction Fund'' (other than the amount appropriated for 
     Iraqi border enforcement and enhanced security communications 
     and the amount appropriated for the establishment of an Iraqi 
     national security force and Iraqi Defense Corps) shall be 
     reduced by $879,700,000.

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, as we consider this $87 billion 
supplemental--and what is truly in the interest of our national 
security, for this generation and generations to come--these words from 
the Secretary of State about the impact of AIDS have special resonance: 
``more devastating than any terrorist attack, any conflict, or any 
weapon of mass destruction.''
  AIDS is fast becoming the worst plague the world has ever 
encountered. Already, 25 million people have been killed by the 
disease.
  Today, another 42 million people around the world face a death 
sentence from AIDS because they have no access to life-saving treatment 
that can cost as little as a dollar a day.
  As parents are dying, 14 million AIDS orphans have been left without 
the care and support that they need. Unless we act soon, there will be 
25 million AIDS orphans by the end of the decade.
  Each year the world loses a population greater than the city of 
Chicago because of AIDS. Yet, we know how to stop these deaths.
  Keeping our promises in the fight against AIDS is in America's 
interest. AIDS represents not only a humanitarian crisis on a scale the 
world has never seen. AIDS also presents a growing security threat 
around the world.
  Living up to the President's promises on AIDS makes good sense for 
our national security. It is also important for showing the world that 
we make good on our commitments.
  As the CIA Director recently said about AIDS:

       Is this a security issue? You bet it is. With more than 40 
     million people infected right now, a figure that--by 2010--
     may reach 100 million, AIDS is building dangerous momentum in 
     regions beyond Africa.

  As the disease spreads, it unravels social structures, decimates 
populations and destabilizes entire nations.
  The National Intelligence Council found that in five of the world's 
most populous nations, the number of HIV-infected people will grow to 
an estimated 50 to 75 million by 2010.
  AIDS is particularly devastating national armies around the world 
that ensure stability. In South Africa, according to the Rand 
Institute, some military units have infection rates as high as 90 
percent.
  Keeping our promises on AIDS is not only the compassionate thing to 
do, it is the smart thing to do in terms of our national security as 
well.
  Today, we have a change to change the course of the AIDS pandemic and 
strengthen our national security by providing $3 billion in the coming 
year.
  In this State of the Union address, the President made a 5-year 
pledge of $15 billion to help the millions of AIDS sufferers in Africa 
and around the world. We must keep that pledge today.
  The President has said:

       We can turn our eyes away in resignation and despair, or we 
     can take decisive, historic action to turn the tide against 
     this disease and give the hope of life to millions who need 
     our help.

  Unfortunately the President's budget failed to live up to the 
President's rhetoric. His budget fell nearly $1 billion short of the $3 
billion for the coming year.
  The President's shortchanging on AIDS will cost lives. The additional 
funding which we seek to restore today can put 1 million people on 
treatment and prevent 2.5 million new infections.
  In July, 78 members of this body voted for sense of the Senate 
language calling for fully funding the $3 billion to fight AIDS this 
year, even if it meant exceeding the levels authorized in the budget.
  The President himself said that ``we care more about results than 
words.

[[Page S12716]]

We're interested in lives saved.'' Now is our opportunity to go beyond 
words and fulfill the pledge that the President made in the State of 
the Union and that we made in July.
  The amendment I am putting forward will close the gap between the 
rhetoric and the real needs of AIDS sufferers by fully funding the $3 
billion.
  This amendment will provide the $879.7 million necessary to close the 
gap and fully fund the $3 billion pledge made in the authorizing 
legislation.
  It will do so by reducing the $20.3 Billion Iraq Relief and 
Reconstruction Fund in the supplemental by a pro-rata $879.7 million. 
This allows the administration to choose where to take the reduction--
and the options are many.
  For example, the supplemental contains $2.1 billion for ``oil 
infrastructures''--$900 million for importation of petroleum products 
into Iraq. Perhaps instead of spending nearly a billion dollars to 
import oil into Iraq, a billion dollars might be better spent treating 
1 million additional people with AIDS and preventing an additional 2.5 
million new infections.
  The stakes could not be higher. As Majority Leader Frist said 
recently:

       History will judge whether a world led by America stood by 
     and let transpire one of the greatest destructions of human 
     life in recorded history--or performed one of its most heroic 
     rescues.

  Instead of fulfilling this pledge, the White House is claiming that 
the full amount cannot be spent in the coming year. All the leading 
development organizations and medical authorities reject this White 
House claim as baseless and have said so publicly.
  Last month in Roll Call, all of the leading relief and development 
organizations in the United States placed an ad that endorsed the fact 
that the full $3 billion could be well spent.
  The White House is also ignoring the capacity of the Global Fund to 
Fight AIDS, TB and malaria--the most effective tool we have to beat 
AIDS. The Global Fund, Chaired by Secretary of Health and Human 
Services Tommy Thompson, is scaling up successful programs on the 
ground in Africa and is working to stop the next wave of the pandemic 
in places such as India and it needs hundreds of millions of dollars 
more by this fall to fund a new round of grants.
  The White House is also forgetting the extraordinary needs of AIDS 
orphans. According to a soon to be released report by the Earth 
Institute at Columbia, orphans and vulnerable children need $15 billion 
each year for basic health, education and community services.
  The Global HIV Prevention Working Group found that AIDS prevention 
spending falls $3.8 billion short of what is needed by 2005. Although 
we can spare babies a life with AIDS for the price of a Sunday 
newspaper, only 5 percent of women at risk have access to medication to 
prevent mother-to-child transmission.
  I hope today that the 78 of my colleagues who committed to fully fund 
the $3 billion to fight AIDS will join me in supporting this amendment. 
We have a unique chance to change the future and save many lives. 
Today, a 15-year-old boy in Botswana faces an 80 percent chance of 
dying of AIDS. If we act now, we can change the future for these 
children before it is too late.
  Mr. President, at this point it is my understanding this amendment 
will be put in the queue with the others for consideration tomorrow. 
With that understanding, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.


                           Amendment No. 1881

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have an amendment that has been cleared on 
both sides. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set 
aside and send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
pending amendments are set aside. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for Mr. Nelson of 
     Florida, proposes an amendment numbered 1881.

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

   (Purpose: To require a report on the plans of the Navy for basing 
                    aircraft carriers through 2020)

       At the end of title I, add the following:
       Sec. 316. (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following 
     findings:
       (1) The Committee on Armed Services of the Senate specified 
     in Senate Report 107-151 to accompany S. 2514 (107th 
     Congress) that the Chief of Naval Operations submit to the 
     congressional defense committees a report, not later than 
     June 2, 2003, on the plans of the Navy for basing aircraft 
     carriers through 2015.
       (2) As of October 16, 2003, the report has not been 
     submitted.
       (b) Report on Aircraft Carrier Basing Plans Through 2020.--
     Not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the 
     congressional defense committees a report on the plans of the 
     Navy for basing aircraft carriers through 2020.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have been advised by the majority that 
this amendment has been approved on both sides.
  Mr. STEVENS. The Senator is correct. It has been approved on our side 
for Mr. Nelson.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1881) was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if the Chair would allow, we now have two 
amendments we would like to offer tonight and debate tonight, one by 
the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Corzine, and the other by the Senator 
from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu. And we have been told that the mother of 
two small babies is going to go first, Senator Landrieu. I will yield 
to her if there is no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate the courtesies. 
The children have been long in bed and are sound asleep before this 
hour. But I appreciate the courtesies extended to allow me to take a 
few minutes to explain this amendment.


                           Amendment No. 1859

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be 
temporarily laid aside and call up amendment No. 1859, which is at the 
desk, on behalf of myself, Senator Dorgan, and Senator Levin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is already pending.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, this is a modified amendment based on a 
concept that Senator Dorgan, Senator Levin, and others have been 
working on now for several weeks. It is a very important amendment to 
consider in terms of shaping a sustainable aid package for Iraq.
  It does not address or take any money away from the $20 billion. It 
simply establishes a framework whereby future reconstruction efforts in 
Iraq could be financed through a financing mechanism using the great 
oil wealth of that nation. It does not, in any way, affect the 
immediate $20 billion which the Chair and others and I were proud to 
cosponsor and which was shaped and crafted over an hour ago on the Bayh 
amendment.
  This is about the future, not the present. It does not have an effect 
on the $20 billion.
  Within an hour or two of this time, the Senate rose to the occasion. 
We had a very vigorous and enlightening, at times tough, but very good 
debate on the way we should put out our reconstruction efforts for 
Iraq. The Senate is fulfilling its role, shaping foreign policy, being 
a partner with the executive branch, and, in my opinion, since that 
amendment passed, improving the original plan.
  As I said when I supported the Bayh amendment, the administration's 
original plan, which seems to people in Louisiana and to the American 
people to be billions of dollars of grants often, only, and alone will 
not work. Not only is it not popular, it is not sustainable in our 
democracy. Iraq doesn't have a democracy yet, but we do. In a 
democracy, we have to lay down plans that not only will the leadership 
support but the people support. Because without the people's support, 
no plan that

[[Page S12717]]

we lay down, either at the White House or in Congress, in the House or 
the Senate, is sustainable over a long period of time.
  Why is that important? It is important because every study that has 
been conducted by independent think tanks and authorities has said that 
the task we have undertaken in Iraq is not going to be completed in the 
next 6 months or 1 year or 2 years. As the Presiding Officer knows, 
this is at a minimum a 5 to 7-year effort. Does that mean our troops 
will be there for 5 to 7 years? We hope not. Does it mean all the 
troops there now will have to be there in that number even 2 or 3 
years? The effort itself of reconstruction--helping take a country that 
was cruelly administered by a dictator, taking it to a vibrant 
democracy with democratic institutions in place, based on the history 
and the region we are talking about--is not going to be easy.
  Yes, I think the Iraqi people want that. Yes, we will be good 
partners. But it is not going to be easy. It is going to take time.
  The amendment we spoke about earlier tonight, and voted on by a 52 or 
53-vote margin, helps to take the original plan, which was not 
sustainable, and turn it into something that can be sustainable over 
time. It targeted the grants. It was strategic. It had strong 
incentives for debt forgiveness, which is a crucial aspect and 
principle of a strong reconstruction plan. And most importantly, it put 
up the $20 billion right now so we can get started and build a strong 
foundation for a successful reconstruction plan.
  This amendment I am offering tonight, and hopefully we will vote on 
tomorrow, is a complementary piece. It says that because Iraq has some 
of the richest oil reserves in the world, most people think they are 
the second largest resource of oil in the world, they could be the 
first because not all of the fields have been explored and developed. 
In fact, it has in some instances been barely touched.
  Let me show a picture of the country. As you can see, these are the 
oil fields that are outlined right here in the north, in the center, 
right outside of Baghdad, and in the southern portion of the country. 
But the geologists, the industry publications believe that there is as 
much oil in this section of Iraq, in the southwestern section, as there 
is here. As you can see, there is not one designation on this map 
because it has been totally unexplored.
  The reserves we are calculating--and they are in the hundreds of 
millions, billions of barrels of oil, and not even counting the gas--
are well underestimated.

  The point of this is that when these oil fields come back on line--
and they are coming back on rather quickly with the support of the 
communities and with the support of American ingenuity and technology 
and know-how, and, by the way, that technology is improving and has 
improved substantially--there is going to be even more oil and gas 
found, thus making the possibility of future construction and 
renovation and reconstruction definitely possible to be refinanced with 
these resources.
  This amendment will help to ensure that the Iraqi people themselves 
are benefiting from their own oil reserves. It seeks to make that point 
in no uncertain terms. The reconstruction of Iraq for the benefit of 
the people of Iraq can be done and accomplished through a financing 
mechanism, allowing the oil reserves, which are plentiful and quite 
substantial, to be used in that way.
  This is not Senator Landrieu's idea. I didn't come up with this idea. 
I heard about it. I heard administration officials speaking about it. 
In fact, Secretary Wolfowitz said just a year ago in an interview on 
this subject:

       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.

  This is what our own Secretary said. This Senate voted a few minutes 
ago to decide that, no, we were not going to move to this system right 
now. We were going to vote for this amendment that Senator Bayh and 
others offered. We said we would not move to the reconstruction based 
on the oil reserves at this time. Let's lay down the $20 billion in the 
way that we did it, part in a loan that could be forgiven if other 
debts are forgiven, part immediately for the construction. But, in the 
future, my amendment says that establishing this financing mechanism 
could match what the administration originally said they wanted to do, 
which, of course, makes sense not only to me but to the American 
people.
  The American people want us to be successful in Iraq. This is their 
challenge. It is not something that belongs only to the leaders here in 
Washington or the President or the White House. The American people are 
giving their own sons and daughters to the effort. They are sending 
their own family members to the effort. They want us to come up with a 
plan that can make sure they are not sending them in vain. It is not 
just a matter of getting the troops home. As a mother, as a parent, I 
can appreciate and understand that if we lost a child, I would want to 
make sure the death was not in vain, that we actually accomplished what 
we set out to do.
  We have to get a plan that will work. The American people know one 
thing that won't work, and that is asking the American people to foot 
the bill, 100 percent of it, with limited help, with us carrying the 
burden of the troops and the finances over a long period of time. What 
the American people think would work, and I agree with them, is to 
jump-start it with some grants, do everything we can to make other 
nations relieve the debt, and then, over the long run, establish a 
financing mechanism that the country of Iraq can themselves begin the 
reconstruction. And let me just say that it is not often that the 
administration agrees with the U.N. or that the U.N. agrees with the 
administration. We have been trying to find common ground now for 
months. The U.N. thinks one way and this administration thinks a 
different way, so they cannot get together.

  Let me tell you one thing they agree on. This is U.N. Security 
Council Resolution 1483 that lifted sanctions on Iraq right after we 
were successful in the war. Summarizing, it says the U.N. itself says 
the oil resources in Iraq should not be used to pay down debt owed to 
other countries. It should not be, basically, given away to anyone. But 
what should it be used for? The U.N. said it should be used for the 
reconstruction of Iraq. So the U.N. and members of the administration, 
including the Vice President--and I will show you what the Vice 
President said just a few months ago, in March. He said in answer to 
Tim Russert on one of the talk shows:

       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 3 million barrels of 
     oil a day, and in the relatively near future.

  He is saying, no, we are not going to have to pick up the $100 
billion, which is estimated; the Iraqis have that ability to do so 
themselves. Mr. President, this is something the U.N. supports. It is 
something the administration told the American people would be part of 
the reconstruction effort. Now we are finding, for some reason, a 
tremendous amount of resistance to this. It is hard to understand, and 
so that is why I am putting forth this amendment, which has been 
modified.
  It doesn't try to substitute the financing mechanisms for any part of 
the $20 billion. It says in the future, after we have allocated this 
$20 billion, it is the sense of the Senate that the future 
reconstruction could be paid for using the Iraqi resources, which are 
plentiful--oil and gas.
  Let me make one other point. I know my time is almost up. A lot has 
been said about the Marshall plan. One of the principles of the 
Marshall plan, one of the foundations on which the Marshall plan rested 
was the fact that Germany had more coal reserves than any country in 
Europe, and that because Germany was rich in coal, in natural 
resources, the U.S. plan that was fashioned in a way that was 
sustainable over a long period of time and could be based on the riches 
and resources of that coal was not to take it from Germany but to help 
Germany use its resources to rebuild itself, to establish peace and 
prosperity for itself and its neighbors.
  So I don't have any reason to understand or know why the same 
administration that would say this is the way

[[Page S12718]]

we should proceed is now objecting to even outlining a possibility to 
use these resources, not for the people of the United States, not for 
the people of Europe, but for the Iraqis themselves. So that is the 
essence of the amendment that Senator Dorgan and Senator Levin and I 
have sent to the desk and asked for the Senate to consider. Hopefully, 
we will have a vote tomorrow.
  To summarize briefly, the most important thing that we need to do is 
to, together with the President and the Congress and in partnership 
with the American people, right now, today, tonight, tomorrow, fashion 
a reconstruction plan that brings our troops home safely, minimizes the 
loss of life, and actually achieves our objectives.

  A tremendous amount is riding on America's reputation, our position 
in the world, our pride, our word. It is resting on how well we do 
this. We have to have a plan that will work. What will work in the long 
run is unleashing the tremendous wealth of that nation, not for anybody 
else but for themselves, to fashion a plan that is good for the people 
of Iraq and for the American taxpayers who have already sacrificed a 
great deal in terms of treasure, life, and American blood--to come up 
with a plan that works for both countries and actually has a chance of 
working, so that this long-range strategy of peace in the Mideast we 
could actually accomplish.
  So we offer this in good faith. I am sorry the other side has not yet 
accepted this amendment, so we are going to have to vote on it 
tomorrow. I hope that perhaps overnight, through the early hours of the 
morning, we can consider the great benefit of establishing such a 
financing mechanism and, that way, we will send the right signal to the 
Iraqi people that America is there to stay; that we have a plan that we 
can sustain in partnership with them using our strength and our 
technology and our ingenuity, their natural resources, to accomplish 
what their leaders have not been able to accomplish for them and which 
they tried to take from them.
  Saddam Hussein took the oil revenues and used it for himself and his 
family, to build palaces. I know a little bit about this because I come 
from a State where the oil revenues are not always used on behalf of 
the people. I am very familiar with what happens when leaders take the 
public's resources and use it for their own benefit and not the 
people's: Children don't read, they don't go to college, hospitals are 
not built, roads stay gravel, highways don't get built, and jobs are 
not created. I know about that. I am saying this as passionately as I 
can to try to explain this. The people of Iraq need help with unleashig 
these resources for themselves, and setting up this financing mechanism 
is one of the best things we can do for them. It sends the right 
signal, and I am positive the American people would think that this 
makes a lot of sense, it makes common sense. Instead of asking us to 
bring the troops home, or we cannot sustain it, they might say: 
Senator, we can do this, we can help and be there for as long as it 
takes because it is important for America to be successful.
  That is the essence of the amendment. I thank my colleagues. The hour 
is late. I know others have to offer amendments. I thank the leader 
from Nevada. This will be in line for a vote tomorrow.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set 
aside to allow Senator Corzine to offer an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1882

(Purpose: To establish a National Commission on the Development and Use 
                   of Intelligence Related to Iraq.)

  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, in a few minutes I will be sending an 
amendment to the desk. This amendment calls for a bipartisan commission 
to study the development and use of intelligence related to Iraq. The 
mission would examine several key issues, including intelligence 
related to the following questions: Whether Iraq possessed chemical, 
biological, and nuclear weapons; whether Iraq had a link to al-Qaida; 
whether they attempted to acquire uranium in Africa; whether Iraq 
attempted to procure aluminum tubes for the development of nuclear 
weapons; whether Iraq possessed mobile laboratories for the production 
of weapons of mass destruction; whether Iraq possessed delivery systems 
for weapons of mass destruction.
  Mr. President, this is the same amendment I offered in July. At that 
time, 45 Senators joined in the effort to establish an independent 
commission, reflecting broad public concern about the potential misuse 
of intelligence information leading up to the war.
  Since then, however, additional troubling information has come out 
and these concerns have grown considerably in many people's minds. 
These concerns also have grown in the context of a larger intelligence 
shortcoming. One need only look at our failure thus far to find Osama 
bin Laden or Saddam Hussein, to know that we have a long way to go to 
ensure that our intelligence capacities are as strong as they can be.
  Time after time we have seen news stories about the administration's 
selective use of intelligence. Just last night, it was reported in a 
very troubling report on ``60 Minutes II'' that a former aide to 
Secretary of State Powell, Greg Thielmann, a senior career State 
Department official, made serious charges against the Secretary and the 
administration.
  According to Mr. Thielmann, at the time of Secretary Powell's 
dramatic prewar presentation to the United Nations, Iraq's weapons of 
mass destruction capability was so weak that it posed no threat to the 
United States and little threat even to its immediate neighbors.
  According to Mr. Thielmann, the administration adopted a ``faith-
based approach to intelligence.'' He went on to say:

       They knew what they wanted the intelligence to show. They 
     were really blind and deaf to any kind of countervailing 
     information the intelligence community would produce.

  I have a full transcript of that interview which I ask unanimous 
consent to print in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                  [From 60 Minutes II, Oct. 15, 2003]

   The Man Who Knew; Former Powell Chief of Intelligence and Others 
         Disagree With Evidence Presented to UN for War in Iraq

       Scott Pelley (co-host). In the run-up to the war in Iraq, 
     one moment seemed to be a turning point: the day Secretary of 
     State Colin Powell went to the United Nations to make the 
     case for the invasion. Millions of us watched as he laid out 
     the evidence and reached a damning conclusion: that Saddam 
     Hussein was in possession of weapons of mass destruction. But 
     the man you will hear from tonight says that key evidence in 
     that speech was misrepresented and the public was deceived. 
     Greg Thielmann should know. He had been Powell's own chief of 
     intelligence when it came to Iraqi weapons of mass 
     destruction.
       When you saw Secretary of State Powell make his 
     presentation to the United Nations, what did you think?
       Mr. Greg Thielmann. I had a couple of initial reactions. 
     Then I had a--a more mature reaction. I--I think my 
     conclusion now is that it's probably one of the low points in 
     his long and distinguished service to the nation.
       Pelley. At the end of the speech, the United Nations and 
     the American people had been misinformed, in your opinion?
       Mr. Thielmann. I think so.
       Pelley. Greg Thielmann was a foreign service officer for 25 
     years. His last job at the State Department was acting 
     director of the Office of Strategic Proliferation and 
     Military Affairs, responsible for analyzing the Iraqi weapons 
     threat for Secretary Powell.
       You and your staff had the highest security clearances.
       Mr. Thielmann. That's right.
       Pelley. And you saw virtually everything.
       Mr. Thielmann. That's right.
       Pelley. Whether it came in to the CIA or the Defense 
     Department, it all came through your office sooner or later.
       Mr. Theilmann. That's right, yes.
       Pelley. Thielmann was admired at State. One high-ranking 
     official called him ``honorable, knowledgeable, very 
     experienced.'' Thielmann took a long-planned retirement four 
     months before Powell's big moment at the UN. February 5th was 
     the day the world was waiting for: Secretary Powell would 
     reveal evidence against Saddam. The speech represented a 
     change in Powell's thinking. Before 9/11, he said that Saddam 
     had not developed any significant capability in weapons of 
     mass destruction. But now, two years later, he warned that 
     Saddam had stockpiled those very weapons.
       Sec. Colin Powell (State Department). (From UN Speech) The 
     gravity of this moment is matched by the gravity of the 
     threat that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction pose to the 
     world.

[[Page S12719]]

       Pelley. Do you believe that Iraq posed an imminent threat 
     to the United States of America at the point we went to war?
       Mr. Thielmann. No. I--I think it didn't even constitute an 
     imminent threat to its neighbors at the time we went to war.
       Pelley. Theilmann says that's what the intelligence really 
     showed. For example, he points to the evidence behind 
     Powell's charge that Iraq was importing these aluminum tubes 
     to use in a program to build nuclear weapons.
       Sec. Powell. (From UN speech) Saddam Hussein is determined 
     to get his hands on a nuclear bomb. He is so determined that 
     he's made repeated covert attempts to acquire high-
     specification aluminum tubes from 11 different countries, 
     even after inspections resumed.
       Mr. Thielmann. This is one of the most disturbing parts of 
     Secretary Powell's speech for us.
       Pelley. The tubes were intercepted by intelligence agents 
     in 2001. The CIA said that they were parts for a centrifuge 
     to enrich uranium, fuel for an atom bomb. But Thielmann 
     wasn't so sure. Experts at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 
     the scientists who enriched uranium for American bombs, 
     advised that the tubes were all wrong for a bomb program. At 
     about the same time, Thielmann's office was working on 
     another explanation. It turned out the tubes' dimensions 
     perfectly matched an Iraqi conventional rocket.
       Mr. Thielmann. The aluminum was e--exactly, I think, what 
     the Iraqis wanted for artillery.
       Pelley. And you sent that word up to the secretary of 
     State----
       Mr. Thielmann. That's right.
       Pelley. Many months before.
       Mr. Thielmann. That's right.
       Mr. Houston Wood: You'll see where it intersects. This is 
     the velocity.
       Pelley. Houston Wood was a consultant who worked on the Oak 
     Ridge analysis of the tubes. He watched Powell's speech, too.
       When you saw the presentation in full wi--with regard to 
     the aluminum tubes, what were you thinking?
       Mr. Wood. I guess I was angry. I think that's probably the 
     best emotion that I--best way to describe my emotions. I was 
     angry at that.
       Pelley. Wood is among the world's authorities on uranium 
     enrichment by centrifuge. He found that the tubes couldn't be 
     what the CIA thought they were. They were too heavy, three 
     times too thick and certain to leak.
       Mr. Wood. It wasn't going to work. No, they would--they 
     would have failed.
       Pelley. Wood reached that conclusion back in 2001. 
     Thielmann reported to Secretary Powell's office that he was 
     confident the tubes were not for a nuclear program. Then 
     about a year later, when the administration was building a 
     case for war, the tubes were resurrected on the front page of 
     The New York Times.
       Mr. Wood. I thought when I read that, ``There must be some 
     other tubes that people were talking about.'' I--I just wa--
     was flabbergasted that people were still pushing that those 
     might be centrifuges.
       Pelley. Flabbergasted?
       Mr. Wood. Yeah. Yeah. So it just didn't--it didn't make any 
     sense to me.
       Pelley. The New York Times reported that senior 
     administration officials insisted the tubes were for an atom 
     bomb program.
       Was it clear to you that science wasn't pushing this 
     forward?
       Mr. Wood. Yes. That's a very good way to put it. Science 
     was not pushing this forward. Scientists had made their 
     evaluation and made their determination, and now we didn't 
     know what was happening.
       Pelley. In his UN speech, Secretary Powell acknowledged 
     there was disagreement about the tubes, but he said most 
     experts agreed with the nuclear theory.
       Sec. Powell. (From UN speech) There is controversy about 
     what these tubes are for. Most US experts think they are 
     intended to serve as rotors in centrifuges used to enrich 
     uranium.
       Mr. Wood. Most experts are located in Oak Ridge, and that 
     was not the position there.
       Pelley. Do you know one in academia, in government, in a 
     foreign country who disagrees with your appraisal, who says, 
     ``Yes, these are for nuclear weapons?''
       Mr. Wood. I don't know a single one anywhere.
       Pelley. Greg Thielmann says the nuclear case was filled 
     with half-truths.
       If the secretary took the information that his own 
     intelligence bureau had developed and turned it on its head, 
     which is what you're saying, to what end?
       Mr. Thielmann. I can only assume that he was doing it to 
     loyally support the president of the United States and build 
     the strongest possible case for arguing that there was no 
     alternative to the use of military force.
       Pelley. That was a case the president himself was making 
     only eight days before Secretary Powell's speech, but the 
     argument in the State of the Union address turned out to be 
     too strong.
       President George W. Bush. From State of the Union) The 
     British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently 
     sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our 
     intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to 
     purchase high strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear 
     weapons production.
       Pelley. After the war, the White House said the African 
     uranium claim was false and shouldn't have been in the 
     president's address, but at the time, it was part of a 
     campaign that painted the intelligence as irrefutable.
       Vice President Dick Cheney. There is no doubt that Saddam 
     Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no 
     doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, 
     against our allies and against us.
       Pelley. But if there was no doubt in public, Greg Thielmann 
     says there was plenty of doubt in the intelligence community. 
     He says the administration took murky information out of the 
     gray area and made it black and white.
       Sec. Powell. (From UN speech) My colleagues, every 
     statement I make today is backed up by sources--solid 
     sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are 
     facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence.
       Pelley. Solid intelligence, Powell said, that proved Saddam 
     had amassed chemical and biological weapons.
       Sec. Powell. (From UN speech) Our conservative estimate is 
     that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons 
     of chemical weapons agent. That is enough agent to fill 
     16,000 battlefield rockets.
       Pelley. And part of that stockpile, he said, was clearly in 
     these bunkers.
       Sec. Powell. (From UN speech) The four that are in red 
     squares represent active chemical munitions bunkers. How do I 
     know that? How can I say that? Let me give you a closer look.
       Pelley. Up close, Powell said, you could see a truck used 
     for cleaning up chemical spills, a signature, he called it, 
     for a chemical bunker.
       Sec. Powell. (From UN speech) It's a decontamination 
     vehicle in case something goes wrong.
       Mr. Thielmann. My understanding is that these particular 
     vehicles were simply fire trucks that you cannot really 
     describe as being a unique signature.
       Pelley. Satellite photos were notoriously misleading, 
     according to Steve Allinson. He was a UN inspector in Iraq in 
     the months leading up to the war.
       Was there ever a time, in your experience, that American 
     satellite intelligence provided you with something that was 
     truly useful?
       Mr. Steve Allinson. No, n--no, not to me, not on--not on 
     inspections that I participated in.
       Pelley. Not once?
       Mr. Allinson. No.
       Pelley. Ever?
       Mr. Allinson. No.
       Pelley. Allinson had been sent to find decontamination 
     vehicles that turned out to be fire trucks. And another time 
     a satellite spotted what they thought were trucks used for 
     moving biological weapons.
       Mr. Allinson. We were told that we were going to the site 
     to look for refrigerated trucks specifically linked to 
     biological agents.
       Pelley. And you found the trucks?
       Mr. Allinson. We did. We found about seven or eight of 
     them, I think, in total. And they were--they had cobwebs in 
     them. Some samples were taken, and nothing was found.
       Pelley. Steve Allinson watched Powell's speech in Iraq with 
     a dozen other UN inspectors. There was great anticipation in 
     the room, something like waiting for the Super Bowl. They 
     always suspected that the U.S. was holding back its most 
     damning evidence for this moment.
       And as you watched the speech unfold, what was the reaction 
     among the inspectors?
       Mr. Allinson. Various people would laugh at various times 
     because the information he was presenting was just--you know, 
     it didn't mean anything. It had--had no meaning.
       Pelley. When the secretary thanked everyone for listening 
     and had finished the speech, you and the other inspectors 
     turned to each other and said what?
       Mr. Allinson. ``They have nothing.''
       Pelley. If Allinson doubted the satellite evidence, 
     Thielmann watched with worry as Secretary Powell told the 
     Security Council that human intelligence provided conclusive 
     proof. Thielmann says that many of the human sources were 
     defectors who came forward with an ax to grind.
       Give me some sense of how reliable the defector information 
     was across the board. You got bad information--What?--rarely?
       Mr. Theilmann. I guess I would say frequently we got bad 
     information.
       Pelley. Some of it came from defectors supplied by the 
     Iraqi National Congress, the leading exile group headed by 
     Ahmed Chalabi.
       Mr. Theilmann. You had the Iraqi National Congress with a 
     clear motive for presenting the worst possible picture of 
     what was happening in Iraq to the American government.
       Pelley. That may have been the case with this man. Adnan 
     Sayeed Haideiri was provided by the Iraqi National Congress 
     to the US Government, the New York Times, and he appeared 
     on CBS News. Haideiri said he was a civil engineer and he 
     claimed to have visited many secret weapon production 
     sites. The government thought he was so valuable they put 
     him in a witness protection program, and the White House 
     listed him first in its Web page on Iraqi weapons.
       Mr. David Albright. He was, basically, an epoxy painter.
       Pelley. David Albright is a physicist who has investigated 
     defectors for his work with the UN. He studied a transcript 
     of Haideiri's claims.
       Mr. Albright. Well, if you read a transcript of an 
     interview that he went through, he has no knowledge of--of 
     chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.
       Pelley. Based on Haideiri's statement, did UN inspectors go 
     in and try to follow up on what he said?

[[Page S12720]]

       Mr. Albright. Certainly.
       Pelley. And what did they find from Haidieri's information?
       Mr. Albright. Nothing.
       Pelley. There was a good deal more in Secretary Powell's 
     speech that bothered the analysts. For example, Powell 
     claimed that Saddam still had a few dozen Scud missiles.
       Mr. Thielmann. I wondered what he was talking about. We did 
     not have evidence that the Iraqis had those missiles, pure 
     and simple.
       Pelley. Powell warned that empty chemical warheads found 
     recently by the UN could be the `tip of the iceberg.'
       Mr. Allinson. They were shells that were left over from the 
     Gulf War or pri--prior to the Gulf War from their past 
     program.
       Pelley. Powell did make several points that day that turned 
     out to be right. Among them, he was right when he said Iraqi 
     labs were removing computer hard drives, he was right that 
     Iraq had drawings for a new long-range missile, and he was 
     right about Saddam's murder of thousands of Iraqi citizens. 
     But an interim report by coalition inspectors say, ``So far 
     there is no evidence of a uranium enrichment program, no 
     chemical weapons, no biological weapons, no Scud missiles.'' 
     The State Department told us Secretary Powell would not be 
     available for an interview, but earlier this month, he said 
     the jury on Iraqi is still out.
       Sec. Powell. And so I think one has to look at the whole 
     report. Have we found a factory or a--a plant or a warehouse 
     full of chemical rounds? No, not yet.
       Pelley. Powell added that Iraq was a danger to the world. 
     He said, ``How clear and present a danger it was, people can 
     judge.'' As for Greg Thielmann, he told us he's a reluctant 
     witness. He ways the president's address worried him because 
     he knew the African uranium story was false. And he watched 
     Secretary Powell's speech with disappointment because, up 
     until then, he said, he'd seen Powell bringing what he called 
     ``reason'' to the administration's inner circle. Today, 
     Thielmann believes the decision to go to war was made, and 
     the intelligence was interpreted to fit that conclusion.
       Mr. Thielmann. There's plenty of blame to go around. But 
     the main problem was the senior administration officials have 
     what I've called faith-based intelligence. They know what 
     they wanted the intelligence to show. They were really blind 
     and deaf to any kind of countervailing information the 
     intelligence community would produce. So I would a--I would 
     assign some blame to the intelligence community and most of 
     the blame to the senior administration officials.
       Pelley. The administration wants to spend several hundred 
     millions dollars more to continue the search for evidence.

  Mr. CORZINE. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, the administration's own search for weapons of mass 
destruction in Iraq has borne out the concerns that Mr. Thielmann and 
others held. After months of searching throughout the country, 
inspectors still have not found any evidence of such weapons. Several 
times the administration tried to claim that such evidence had, in 
fact, been found. But each time the claims have proven empty.
  Recently heard again from David Kay, the man leading the CIA's 
search, that no chemical or biological weapons have been found to date 
and that Iraq's alleged nuclear program--the one that administration 
officials regularly raised when discussing the specter of a mushroom 
cloud--was only at ``the very most rudimentary stage.''
  Let me give a couple examples of other claims that may have been 
intentionally misleading.
  Last September, President Bush, surrounded by Members of Congress in 
the White House Rose Garden, claimed that Iraq could launch a chemical 
or biological strike within 45 minutes. White House Press Secretary Ari 
Fleischer cited this capability as the elusive ``smoking gun'' when it 
first came to light. Just 2 weeks later, Congress gave the President 
authority to go to war in Iraq. Yet this claim, the strongest evidence 
that Iraq represented an imminent threat, was dropped after the 
administration consulted with the CIA.
  One has to ask: Why wasn't that consultation done with the CIA before 
making the claim and before Congress used the information in 
deliberations about the war resolution?
  Similarly, President Bush and his top advisers repeatedly asserted 
Saddam and al-Qaida had a strong relationship. On September 25, 2002, 
President Bush said:

       You can't distinguish between al-Qaida and Saddam.

  The implication was clear: There was a connection between Saddam and 
the terrorist attacks of September 11.
  Only in the last month, after the Vice President repeated a similar 
assertion strongly disputed by the press and security analysts, did the 
President admit no such connection existed.
  It is now clear that the administration has either been grossly wrong 
in its interpretation of intelligence or has intentionally misused the 
intelligence produced by the community.
  When I offered this amendment in July, we were focused on a 
particular assertion that was made in the January State of the Union 
Address. That is:

       The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein 
     recently sought significant quantities of uranium from 
     Africa.

  At the time, there was a flurry of press interests in these words, 
though lately that seems to have largely been forgotten. The power of 
the President's allegation in those words is difficult to overstate. 
The Bush administration used legalistic language apparently intended to 
lead people to believe that Saddam Hussein had a nuclear program. The 
President didn't say the British were claiming anything. He didn't say 
they alleged anything. He said they learned Saddam was attempting to 
buy uranium, implicitly accepting the charge as fact.
  Although just 16 words, it was a powerful statement that resonated 
throughout the Nation and the world. It became a key argument in the 
case of immediate use of force in Iraq. Only after many months did we 
learn the statement was based on information that the CIA had 
repeatedly flagged the White House as inaccurate.

  We didn't learn about this from the administration. We learned about 
it from the International Atomic Energy Agency and the media. Only 
later did the administration spokesperson and the President admit the 
statement was inappropriate for the State of the Union Address. The 
administration has yet to fully explain how it got there.
  Instead, the administration has turned on those who have reported the 
truth. Recently, unknown senior administration officials publicly 
disclosed the name of a covert CIA operative apparently in retaliation 
for public statements by the operative's spouse that contradicted the 
administration's claims about Iraqi attempts to obtain uranium from 
Niger.
  This wasn't just any operative. It was one of the CIA's elite 
intelligence officers, a nonofficial cover agent. Releasing the agent's 
name was a betrayal of intelligence apparatus for political purposes, 
which has likely harmed our national security and has only contributed 
to a sense among many that the administration is uninterested in 
protecting the integrity and objectivity of our intelligence 
operations.
  In this case, the administration continues to resist efforts to 
appoint a special counsel to investigate this criminal act.
  Nor has this been the only example of opposition to independent, 
nonpartisan reviews on national security matters. The administration 
also seems unwilling to openly share information with the commission 
established by Congress to investigate the events of September 11. The 
commission was established on a bipartisan basis. It is charged not 
only with investigating the events leading up to 9/11 but with 
producing recommendations to prevent future terrorist attacks.
  Their mission is critical. I can tell you as a Senator who comes from 
a State where 693 people died on September 11--10 in my hometown--this 
is a serious investigation and review of the failures that led to 9/11. 
Yet, according to recent statements by several commission members, the 
administration has been stonewalling. Too many of their requests are 
being ignored. Too much evidence is being withheld. And the commission 
has been frustrated in its efforts to get the information it needs to 
do the job.
  Again, just yesterday, the commission was forced to issue subpoenas 
to officials at the FAA for documents that the administration should 
have been handing over voluntarily. By the way, this was not the CIA, 
not the Pentagon, but the FAA.
  The question of accurate intelligence is central to Congress's 
ability to make decisions about national security. It is especially 
important now that the Bush administration has endorsed a doctrine of 
preemptive war, a doctrine the administration reiterated today 
preceding its trip to the Far East.
  As we confront ongoing threats to U.S. interests, particularly with 
regard to weapons of mass destruction, we must be sure that what we are 
told is true.

[[Page S12721]]

  Last October, for example, during the Iraqi debate, Secretary James 
Kelly was in Pyongyang meeting with the North Koreans. At that 
meeting--a meeting that occurred a full week prior to the Senate vote 
on the resolution authorizing force in Iraq--the North Koreans admitted 
to Mr. Kelly that they had an active nuclear program. Yet despite the 
importance of such information from the North Koreans, admitting a 
nuclear weapons program, and its relevance to debate regarding Iraq and 
America's national security posture generally, administration officials 
waited until after Congress had voted on the resolution to authorize 
the use of force before revealing the details of the North Korean 
disclosure to most Members of Congress and certainly the American 
people.
  As I see it, that information was both relevant and timely to the 
debate on whether to go to war in Iraq. What should have our priorities 
been? What was the information that should have been factored in when 
we made that judgment?
  Was the information withheld because it might affect Congress's 
debate on the war resolution? I cannot be sure. But the American people 
have a right to know.
  While matters such as these may be beyond the scope of the commission 
I am proposing, a thorough review of intelligence questions related to 
Iraq is necessary if we are to successfully address other threats and 
we are to have credibility and confidence in those judgments--including 
North Korea, Iran, and other rogue states and international terrorist 
networks.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I hope some of those 
who initially opposed it will see that the time has come for a 
thorough, independent, nonpartisan review, structured so there would 
not be any partisan bias. David Kay's report finding no weapons of mass 
destruction after a 6-month search, the statements from former 
administration insiders charging that intelligence was misused, a 
willingness of administration officials to retaliate against one such 
insider by revealing the identity of a key CIA operative, the 
administration's refusal to appoint a special counsel to investigate 
the crime, the administration's failure to cooperate fully with the 
commission investigating the 9/11 terrorist attacks, all highlight the 
need for an independent, nonpartisan commission to examine what are 
already acknowledged deficiencies in how intelligence related to Iraq 
was presented to the American people prior to the war.
  The goal of this commission is not to assign blame. The goal is to 
understand what happened and then use those findings to recommend 
improvements in our intelligence operations and make certain 
intelligence is used for policy formulation, not policy justification.
  I say to my colleagues, why would anybody be afraid to let an 
independent commission find the truth? If the administration was acting 
in good faith, they should want the facts to come out. If there were 
systemic problems in our intelligence establishment, its relationship 
with the White House, we all have an interest in identifying them and 
correcting them. The commission would not prejudge anything. It would 
simply provide a mechanism to find the truth and bring it to light.
  Again I hope my colleagues will support this amendment. In the end, 
the safety and security of the American people are at stake and so, by 
the way, is the safety and protection of our men and women in uniform. 
They deserve unbiased, nonpolitical, actionable intelligence to be able 
to do their job and do it well. Just as much as they need financial 
support, just as much as they need the support of all of America, they 
need to have unbiased, nonpolitical intelligence to do their job.
  I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so I 
can offer this amendment which I send to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are 
set aside. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Corzine] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1882.

  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. 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 printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. CORZINE. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.


                      Amendment No. 1848 Withdrawn

  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 1848 be 
withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. 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. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1834

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent my notice of 
reconsideration on amendment No. 1834 be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask for a voice vote of the Reed amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator referring to amendment 1834, 
the Reed of Rhode Island amendment?
  Mr. STEVENS. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
numbered 1834.
  The amendment (No. 1834) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. 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.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, in amendment No. 1834 the distinguished 
Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Reed, raises a number of good points 
about our global commitments, especially those in Iraq. The increased 
operational tempo is straining the Army, the National Guard, and the 
Reserves. We do run the risk of hurting recruitment and retention in 
both the Active and Reserve component. We are committing our troops to 
such an extent that we may not be able to sustain all of those 
commitments indefinitely. I am greatly concerned about these and other 
issues raised by the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island. However, 
I do not agree that increasing the end strength of the Army is the 
answer to these problems.
  The increase in end strength does not necessarily solve our immediate 
problem of overextended troops. It will take years to get the 10,000 
soldiers recruited, trained, equipped, and deployed. We need solutions 
now. We need more foreign troops in Iraq and we need to work with the 
international community toward that goal. We also need to work with our 
allies to fight against terrorism with more than just military might. 
Most importantly, we need to refocus ourselves on the fight against 
terrorism instead of diverting our focus to ideologically driven wars 
of our choosing.
  Furthermore, according to rough estimates done by the CBO, increasing 
the end strength of the Army by 10,0000 will cost $409 million this 
year. Senator Reed's amendment fully offsets that amount. However, the 
following year the cost of this end strength increase will jump to over 
$800 million a year, and it will continue to grow. By passing this 
amendment, we will either be locking in an increase in Department of 
Defense spending of over $800 million a year or asking the Army and/or 
the other military services to simply absorb that cost. Neither option 
seems good to me.
  But the Senator from Rhode Island was right to bring this debate to 
the Senate. I agree with my colleague that the important issues he 
raised must be dealt with expeditiously and I look forward to working 
with him to address these problems.


                           Amendment No. 1852

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask that the Chair lay before the 
Senate amendment No. 1852.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
  Mr. STEVENS. This is the Feingold military family leave amendment. I 
ask for adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

[[Page S12722]]

  Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1852) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. 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.
  Mr. STEVENS. 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. STEVENS. 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. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 9 a.m. 
this morning, the Senate proceed to a series of consecutive votes in 
relation to the following amendments; further, that there be no 
amendments in order to the amendments in the below stacked sequence 
prior to the votes, with 2 minutes equally divided before each vote, 
and that each vote in sequence after the first be limited to 10 
minutes. The stacked sequence is: the Durbin amendment No. 1837, the 
Daschle amendment No. 1854, the Landrieu amendment No. 1859, the Boxer 
amendment No. 1843, the Leahy amendment No. 1807, and the Durbin 
amendment No. 1879.
  I further ask unanimous consent that other than the above mentioned 
amendments, the only other amendments in order to the bill be the 
following, and they be subject to second-degree amendments that will be 
relevant to the first-degree amendment to which they are offered: Byrd 
amendment No. 1819; Corzine amendment No. 1882; Bond amendment No. 
1825; Domenici amendment No. 1864; Senator Brownback is to offer an 
amendment relative to rescission; Senator Collins will have an 
opportunity to offer an amendment relative to loans; Senator McConnell, 
a sense of the Senate on troops; Senator Specter on loans; Senator 
Byrd, the remaining amendments on his list; Senator Dorgan, an 
amendment related to Iraqi oil; Senators Boxer and Schumer, shoulder-
fired weapons; Senator Daschle, a relevant amendment; Senator Frist, a 
relevant amendment; myself, a relevant amendment; Senator McConnell, a 
relevant amendment; and Senator Reid, a relevant amendment.
  I further ask unanimous consent that budget points of order not be 
waived by virtue of this agreement and that no other points of order 
lie against any pending amendments at this time.
  I state, as an explanation, that the order of the nonstacked 
amendments will be determined by when people arrive and they are called 
up. That second part is not a list of order in which they will 
necessarily be called up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object, we were just notified by 
the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy, that he would prefer to have his 
amendment taken out of the stacked list and brought down to the second 
group in order for additional debate on the amendment. But we expect it 
is possible that something could be worked out. So I ask that 
modification be made in the unanimous consent agreement.
  Mr. STEVENS. That is acceptable to us, and we will be pleased to move 
amendment No. 1807 to be just prior to the Byrd amendment No. 1819. As 
I said, the amendments on the second list are not in any order of 
sequence.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, to clarify, we would like it to follow 
the Byrd amendment, not precede it.
  Mr. STEVENS. That is not in sequence.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I stand today in support of the President's 
supplemental appropriations request. This request primarily funds 
ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, but it also 
provides reconstruction assistance to both of those countries, so that 
fundamental economic and civic infrastructure can be rebuilt. We must 
all recognize that providing for the initial reconstruction of the 
infrastructure is a practical requirement for us to succeed in the 
establishing the stability necessary--in both of those countries--
before we can begin to withdraw our military forces.
  I have not heard anyone here speak of a military failure in either 
Iraq or Afghanistan, but I have heard a great deal of speculation that 
we are failing to win the peace. It is not accurate to make this 
assertion. But I cannot emphasize strongly enough that the chances of 
winning a sustainable peace are directly related to the support we give 
this request before us.
  We cannot support our troops, our mission, and our goal of a peaceful 
and stable Iraq without providing the funding necessary to achieve 
these goals, and providing that funding now.
  For this reason, I would think--I would hope--that this request would 
receive unanimous support from my colleagues. I regret to see that this 
will not be the case. As best as I can understand, this is because many 
of my colleagues in the other party have declared the President's 
policy a failure. We have won the war, we seem to agree, but the peace 
is being lost.
  As I review the many reports I receive on the situation in Iraq, I do 
not think we can declare that the peace is being lost. Yet I do not 
think we can rest assured that security has been achieved.
  The President has a plan, and every Member in this body has had a 
chance to review the plan. I have heard the declarations of failure, 
but I have heard no alternatives to the detailed plan that the 
President has provided us. What do our opponents propose to do instead? 
The President's critics are silent here.
  It is both unfair and unrealistic to take the reports of bombings and 
deaths coming out of Iraq and declare that our plan has failed. The 
President never said that it would be easy. Nobody in this body had 
reason to believe that it would be.
  The President and our military had a brilliant battle plan. And we 
had the best post-conflict plans available, considering the dearth of 
analysis we had from inside this Arab Stalinist state. Would I have 
been pleased to have had more political intelligence on what was going 
on inside Iraq? Would I have been pleased to have a better assessment 
of the level of decay of Iraq's economic infrastructure? Of course. 
There is not a military planner in the history of mankind that has not, 
in retrospect, wished for better intelligence prior to a conflict. We 
always wish we had better intelligence.
  But those questions should not be the basis for criticizing an 
ongoing policy. We are in Iraq. We must, as our critics agree, win the 
peace. And we do not have time to waste.
  Some of the opponents of the President have criticized him for 
altering his policy during this occupation, as if altering a policy 
based on changing circumstances--or simply as a result of a better 
understanding of a fluid environment--should be seen as an admission of 
failure. I ask anyone here: What great undertaking occurs without 
changes in plan? Is it a sign of failure to shape your plans according 
to new discoveries, changes in the situation, and a shifting context? 
Of course, the answer is no.
  Today, fewer than 6 months after the conclusion of major military 
operations in Iraq, the security situation is still dangerous. We are 
losing precious American lives every week, and we are suffering 
injuries every day. I see no good reason to downplay this grim reality, 
in this debate or anywhere else.
  But the situation is far from dire: Iraqis, by almost all measure, 
are thankful for their liberation from the dictatorship of Saddam 
Hussein. Few, very few, declare their wish to return to his dungeon 
state.
  Instead, as we have heard from administration sources in the past 
weeks, more than 70,000 Iraqis are presently serving in police, border 
patrol, facilities protection and civil defense positions. Fewer than 6 
months after the conclusion of the Coalition's major military 
operations, Iraqis are serving side by side with coalition forces, and 
they have already conducted thousands of joint patrols with our forces.

  Their enemies are our enemies: The criminal Saddamite resistance and 
the international jihadists, the terrorist brethren of Osama bin Laden.
  No one can argue that Iraq has currently become calling ground for 
terrorists. That presents us with a great

[[Page S12723]]

challenge, and an immediate security threat. We knew this was a 
possibility before we invaded Iraq. Saddam Hussein had long associated 
with almost all of the known terror organizations through the last 
decades, including, beginning in the 1990s, with Osama bin Laden and 
his associates.
  I, for one, was not surprised when bin Laden called his followers to 
Iraq prior to our invasion. I was not surprised for a number of 
reasons, beginning with the reports we read through the years about bin 
Laden's associations with Saddam's Iraq.
  But another reason I have not been surprised to see al-Qaida join the 
Saddamite resistance is that I have never believed al-Qaida is about 
ideology, religious or otherwise. I believe bin Laden seeks power, and 
he has hijacked his religion for his attempts to gain power. Bin 
Laden's use of religion as ideological appeal is as sincere as Saddam's 
use of Arab socialism, in the guise of Ba'athism. Both are about 
gaining and holding dictatorial power--for personal ends. And the 
joining of forces of bin Laden's terrorists and Saddam's thugs proves 
this point.
  The tools of the Saddamite resistance are the tools of gangsters: car 
bombs and assassinations. Some of these recent horrific bombings have 
been committed by suicide terrorists, which, we know, is not a common 
gangster tactic. But in my years of studying international crime and 
terrorism, I have concluded this: You cannot remain an ideologue--
religious or secular--while behaving like and coordinating with 
criminals.
  Saddam's reign was a criminal dictatorship. There was no ideology but 
the one that made Saddam more powerful, that enriched his clan and 
cronies, that crushed all of his real or perceived opponents. When his 
sons, Uday and Qusay, were cornered and killed, they were not part of a 
well-organized resistance, protected by a dedicated network of 
ideologically motivated supporters. They were alone, and they were 
cornered and killed, like common gangsters, because an Iraqi dropped a 
dime on them.
  By joining with the Saddamites, bin Laden and his fellow jihadists 
have exposed themselves to be gangsters. They are demonstrating this to 
all who wish to see: To the masses in the Middle East who bin Laden has 
tried to convert, they can now see him hand-in-hand with the corrupt 
butchers and jailors of Saddam's Tikriti clique, who the Iraqi people 
have roundly rejected and now publicly detest. Bin Laden and his 
supporters can now be seen allying with those who deny the Iraqis 
freedom.
  Yes, the situation in Iraq is dangerous now, for the short term. But 
the defeat of the Saddamite-led resistance--which we will accomplish, 
and which we will accomplish with the active support of the Iraqi 
people--will provide a great victory in the war on terrorism, will 
bring peace to Iraq, will advance peace and stability in the region and 
will enhance the national security of this country.
  Some of the Iraqi voices calling for our departure are not anti-
American. Some Iraqis fear that we will overstay, that we will not move 
fast enough in transferring power and political legitimacy to the Iraqi 
people. I believe Ambassador Bremer's seven-point plan to move toward 
full sovereignty is sound and sensible. I am watching with great 
interest as the Iraqis begin to draft the constitution that will 
delineate their system of government, with all the protections of the 
freedoms they have been granted by coalition action and sacrifice.
  I wish I could predict the future and declare here how long it will 
take for us to succeed. We can't give a finite number on costs, nor 
give a definite date of conclusion. To do so is to fall into one of the 
most partisan traps in Washington: If we can not say how much it will 
ultimately cost and we can not say when we will have achieved our 
goals, we are accused of having no plans; if we do, we will inevitably 
be wrong and the opposition naysayers will scream ``gotcha.''
  Many state that the cost is high. I agree. America's ventures abroad 
have always been costly, never more so than when we pay in the lives of 
our men and women. The dollar figures pale in comparison.
  I am not happy that we are faced with such a financial requirement 
today. Certainly many of our constituents are concerned about such a 
commitment when they worry about the national economy and the economies 
of their families.
  But the budget proposed is not arbitrarily chosen. It is based on 
providing necessary resources that must be allocated to achieve the 
goals that the President outlined: to deny terrorists a new sanctuary 
by creating a secure and stable Iraq, by providing a minimal level of 
essential services and civic infrastructure which will enhance the 
stability we need to transfer sovereignty to the Iraqi people.
  Over the past weeks, since the President first announced his request, 
the Senate Appropriations, Armed Services, Foreign Relations, 
Intelligence, and Joint Economic Committees have held numerous 
hearings. We have had reports from the Office of Management and Budget, 
from the White House, Pentagon, State Department, and Coalition 
Provisional Authority. Numerous witnesses from the administration have 
briefed both bodies of Congress.
  The President's plan is broken into four parts, or core foundations: 
security; essential services; economy; and governance. As Ambassador 
Bremer, the Administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority, 
stated, ``These are intertwined: none can be pursued in isolation. 
Political and economic progress depends, in part, on security, but 
should itself help to create a safer environment.''
  That is how I view the President's request. If we wish to protect our 
troops, the Iraq people must believe that our forces are there to 
improve their lives and that cooperation instead of confrontation is 
the road to a better future. The Iraqis are responding: More and more 
are working, and thousands are working with us.
  To gain intelligence on the location of terrorists in Iraq, the local 
population must believe that we have their true interests at heart and 
not the terrorists. These goals cannot be achieved by funding just our 
military operations. We must assist the Iraqi people in developing an 
infrastructure that was allowed to fall into disrepair by a greedy 
tyrant.
  During this debate, some have made a valid point in suggesting that 
Iraq's vast oil resources might be used for reconstruction costs. I 
have opposed all the amendments that have attempted to convert our 
grants to loans, however, and I have done so for the following reasons 
I will now outline.
  First, Iraqi oil output while still low, is already being used by the 
Iraqi people to fund the resumption of their government costs.
  Second, Iraq is weighed down by a staggering debt for a small country 
whose economy has been ravaged by years of Saddam's thievery and 
neglect. Paying this debt is something that the future Iraqi sovereign 
will have to negotiate. Certainly no U.S. funds should be used for such 
repayment. And it is my opinion that the future Iraqi sovereign should 
not be beholden to the debts incurred by its former torturer, nor the 
nation states who cynically loaned to the dictatorship of Saddam 
Hussein. For the moment, however, incurring further debt while 
attempting to reconstruct a country without a basic economic foundation 
could seriously stifle necessary economic recovery. Any delay in 
rebuilding the economy only improves the chances of terrorists of 
taking root among the local population.
  But I have a more basic reason for opposing all attempts to turn our 
grants into loans. This would be a radical departure in the conduct of 
American foreign policy. For the first time in our history, we would be 
occupying a country and forcing them to incur loans. Far more than a 
meager attempt to preserve financial capital with such misguided 
proposals, we would be seriously risking our moral capital.
  I note to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that, despite the 
recriminations and accusations, this administration has done its best 
to work within the context of international law. I believe that we have 
been successful in respecting international law, while preserving our 
sovereign right to defend our national interests. I commend the 
administration for its successes here, from debates about preemption 
which has been hotly disputed but not discredited, under terms of 
international law to the herculean efforts going on to

[[Page S12724]]

this day, as our State Department works to craft resolutions that will 
build international support for our policies in the Security Council.
  I believe that if the United States sets the precedent of occupying a 
country and then foisting debt upon them, we will have done our 
standing before the rest of the world long-term harm.
  Soon enough, because of their oil resources, because of their human 
capital, and because of the assistance they will get from us and the 
rest of the international community, the Iraqi people will begin the 
process of paying for portions of the reconstruction themselves. This 
will become increasingly true as their oil infrastructure is repaired.
  I believe that President Bush's proposal supports the long-term 
interests of the United States by addressing the short-term interests 
of the Iraqi people. By assisting the Iraqi people in developing these 
four core foundations identified in the President's plan, I believe we 
are undermining the Saddamite resistance, denying terrorists a 
sanctuary, and advancing our long-term security.
  We have faced this challenge of winning a peace before. We won the 
First World War, and returned to isolationism while a fragile peace 
failed to take root in Europe. We won the Second World War, and stayed 
in Europe, making massive commitments which laid the foundation for 
winning the peace and the cold war that continued for nearly 50 years.
  We must follow through on what we have begun, and we cannot delay. 
While the sums we are appropriating here are large, the costs of 
failing to succeed are larger. While the bill may seem big, we have 
already paid in measure far greater. Today I am thinking of: SSG James 
W. Cawley, U.S. Marine Corps Reserve; SSG Nino D. Livaudais of the 
Army's Ranger Regiment; SFC Randall S. Rehn, of the Army's 3rd Infantry 
Division; SGT Mason Whetstone, of the U.S. Army; and Brett Thorpe--a 
former Army special forces operator working with the State Department.
  I understand if these names may be unfamiliar to others. They are not 
to me. These are the names of the sons of Utah that died defending us 
during this these operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. They followed 
through on their commitments. There job is done now. It is our turn to 
follow through.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of 
Senator Cantwell's Truth in Deployment amendment. This amendment 
supports our reserve forces and corrects an error in our deployment 
process.
  I am extremely proud of our reserve forces. The Arkansas Army 
National Guard's 39th Infantry Brigade is beginning their mobilization 
in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The 39th Infantry Brigade 
consists of over 3,000 soldiers who are ready to serve their country.
  The 39th Infantry Brigade soldiers are going to sacrifice time away 
from their family, place their civilian careers on hold, and place at 
risk the greatest gift provided by our Creator, their very life, to 
protect the freedoms and liberties we hold so dear.
  If the 39th Infantry Brigade and other reserve forces are willing to 
do so much without complaint, I believe it is not too much to ask that 
we provide them as much opportunity as possible to minimize the impact 
of overseas deployments on themselves, their families and their 
employers. This amendment provides for this opportunity.
  This amendment is straightforward. It starts the deployment period 
for members of the reserve component as the date of activation. This 
has always been the standard practice, prior to the administration's 
shift in policy on September 9th. This amendment simply asks our Nation 
to remain true to the standard practice, tradition of considering the 
date of activation as the date of deployment for reserve members.
  Nothing in this amendment weakens our ability to employ our reserve 
forces. In fact the exact opposite is the case. This amendment enhances 
the ability and effectiveness of our reserve forces by enabling them to 
plan their lives to reduce the inherent adverse impact of overseas 
deployment on their families, employers, and community. I thank my 
fellow Senators for supporting this amendment. It will enhance the 
ability and effectiveness of our reserve forces and support the men and 
women like those who serve in the 39th Infantry Brigade.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, yesterday the Senate considered 
amendment No. 1811 offered by Senator Corzine to lower the age at which 
members of the Reserve components can collect retirement pay from age 
60 go age 55. This amendment had no offset and would have created a 
huge bill for the Department of Defense which we cannot afford to pay. 
For this reason, the floor manager of the bill raised a budget point of 
order against the amendment and I voted to uphold this point of order.
  I believe the Congress should carefully review pay and benefits for 
members of the Reserve components, including lowering the age at which 
reservists and guardsmen can receive retirement pay. These men and 
women provide an invaluable service to our Nation and we should provide 
them pay and benefits which recognize their contributions and help 
retain them as citizen soldiers in the U.S. Armed Forces. However, I 
believe there are several options we should consider for lowering the 
retirement age, and that we should consider this issue alongside other 
benefits in order to offer a complete package that makes sense and 
accomplishes the goals we are trying to achieve. The Iraqi supplemental 
is not the right context to undertake a careful review or make long-
term changes in this area, and for this reason I opposed the amendment.
  As cochair of the Senate Reserve Caucus, these are issues that I take 
very seriously. I will continue to work with my colleagues in that 
caucus and in the Senate to ensure that we make wise financial 
decisions, and that our guardsmen and reservists receive the pay and 
benefits they deserve while recognizing their unique contribution to 
our Nation.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to report on the 
budgetary effect of S. 1689, the Emergency Supplemental for Iraq and 
Afghanistan Security and Reconstruction for Fiscal Year 2004, as 
reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations.
  The pending bill provides $87 billion in budget authority and $36.7 
billion in outlays for Fiscal Year 2004 for ongoing operations in Iraq 
and Afghanistan and reconstruction of Iraq. Since all funds contained 
in the reported bill are either emergencies or contingent emergencies, 
under section 502(c) of the 2004 budget resolution none of these funds 
count for purposes of section 302, 303, 311, and 401 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and sections 504 and 505 of the 2004 
Budget Resolution.
  Additionally, I would like to remind my colleagues of the criteria 
for using the emergency designation. Section 502 of the 2004 budget 
resolution identifies the following criteria for the appropriate use of 
the emergency designation: that the funding is (1) necessary, 
essential, or vital, not merely useful or beneficial; (2) sudden, 
quickly coming into being, and not building up over time; (3) an 
urgent, pressing, and compelling need requiring immediate action; (4) 
unforseen, unpredictable, and unanticipated; and (5) not permanent, 
temporary in nature.
  The reported bill has satisfied these criteria. Given the fact that 
most of the regular appropriation bills have not yet been enacted, we 
ought to view any further use of the emergency designation with great 
skepticism.
  I also note for my colleagues that we are in a highly unusual 
parliamentary situation with this supplemental. Instead of doing a 2004 
supplemental after all regular appropriation bills have been enacted, 
we are considering an $87 billion supplemental before most of the 
regular bills have been enacted. While there is an allocation for each 
of the 13 regular bills, there is no additional or special allocation 
for a supplemental. Because this is such an unusual situation, I do not 
want people to think that the way the Senate deals with possible 
amendments on this bill sets a precedent for the way the Budget 
Committee will enforce the 302(b) allocations in the future.
  If any amendments are adopted adding nonemergency spending to this 
bill, then members should know that the cost of such amendments will be 
counted against the appropriate subcommittee allocation. And I will 
remind the Senate at the appropriate time about any points of order 
that apply to subsequent bills and will insist that bills be changed to 
remedy

[[Page S12725]]

the situation or will raise the appropriate point of order.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the 
Budget Committee scoring of the bill be printed in the Record at the 
conclusion of my remarks.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 
        S. 1689--EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL FOR IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN
                     [Fiscal Year 2004, $ millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Discretionary
                                                              spending
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emergencies in S. 1689, as reported: *
    Budget authority.....................................        87,004
    Outlays..............................................        36,695
Non-Emergencies in S. 1689, as reported:
    Budget authority.....................................             0
    Outlays..............................................             0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Section 502(c) of H. Con. Res. 95, the Concurrent Resolution on the
  Budget for FY 2004, states that any provision designated as an
  emergency requirement by both Congress and the President shall not
  count for purposes of sections 302, 303, 311, and 401 of the
  Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and section 504 (relating to
  discretionary spending limits in the Senate) and section 505 (paygo
  point of order) of H. Con. Res. 95.

  

                          ____________________