[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 54 (Monday, April 26, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4342-S4343]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  FUNDING MILITARY OPERATIONS IN IRAQ

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, what I want to talk about, in addition to 
the prescription drug issue, is the notion that--at the end of last 
week it was addressed--we would probably need more money for the 
military with respect to the fighting that is occurring in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. This Congress passed a supplemental emergency bill that 
was nearly $87 billion--I believe it was just under $87 billion--some 
months ago. We were told that would take us through the end of this 
calendar year and perhaps even a bit more.
  The President's budget that was sent to us contained zero money 
requested for the activities in Iraq and Afghanistan. The reason the 
President recommended there would be no funding in the regular budget 
for Iraq and Afghanistan is because he and the administration said they 
could not estimate what it would cost; therefore, they recommend zero.
  We know it is not zero. We know we are spending $5 billion a month--
$4 billion in Iraq and $1 billion in Afghanistan. If we are spending $5 
billion a month or $60 billion a year, it is unfathomable to me that we 
get a budget request from the President that says, ``I recommend 
nothing at this point because I will later on ask for an emergency 
appropriations.''
  Late last week we heard perhaps more money will be needed than was 
otherwise expected and that Congress would be asked to appropriate this 
on an emergency basis.
  It is clear to me we will do whatever is necessary to protect the 
safety of the troops we have sent to Iraq. There is no question but 
that when we ask American men and women in uniform to fight for this 
country and to defend this country's interest and then to send them 
overseas, there is no question we have an obligation to protect them 
and provide for their safety. If they need more equipment, if we need 
to spend more money to provide for their safety, this Congress, in my 
judgment, is going to do that.

  Let me make a point about all of this. In addition to providing the 
supplemental emergency funding that was necessary for the Pentagon some 
months ago--almost 6 months ago now--we also were requested by the 
President to appropriate $20.3 billion for reconstructing Iraq.
  I offered an amendment in the Senate to strike that spending. It was 
the largest proposed spending cut for this fiscal year that was offered 
in the Congress. The single largest spending cut that was offered last 
year is one I offered on the floor of the Senate to strike the $20.3 
billion for reconstructing Iraq.
  I came up short. I had over 40 votes for the amendment, but, 
nonetheless, it did not prevail. I want to explain why I did that and 
why it has relevance today.
  I proposed striking that funding for a very simple reason: We did not 
target Iraq's infrastructure. When we decided to displace Saddam 
Hussein and send American troops to Iraq, we did not

[[Page S4343]]

target their roads, bridges, dams, or electric grid. That is not what 
we targeted. We did not try to bomb Iraq in a way that destroyed their 
infrastructure.
  It is my judgment the American taxpayers should not be required to 
rebuild the Iraq infrastructure. Iraq has the second largest reserves 
of oil in the world, next only to Saudi Arabia. In fact, one of the 
troops who came back from Iraq with the National Guard unit from North 
Dakota told me one day he was standing in an area in Iraq, in some 
sandy area, and the bottom of his boots became black with oil.
  There is a great deal of oil in the country of Iraq. I believe, based 
on Ambassador Bremer's testimony of how much oil they would be pumping 
this year and next year, that when they get to 3 million barrels of oil 
a day, which is something they will reach very soon, they will have $16 
billion of net export value of oil in Iraq--$16 billion a year. That is 
$160 billion of net export value of oil in 10 years. That is above and 
beyond that which they need to use in Iraq.
  It seems to me with respect to the reconstruction of Iraq, it makes a 
great deal of sense for a country with the second largest reserves of 
oil in the world to be told the Iraq people ought to use Iraqi oil to 
reconstruct Iraq. It is not the job or the burden or the responsibility 
of the American people to reconstruct Iraq.
  I lost that debate in the Senate and lost the vote. So now we have 
just under $20 billion available to reconstruct Iraq. There is a very 
thick booklet that describes the reconstruction of Iraq. There is a 
jobs program for Iraq paid for by the American taxpayers. There is a 
housing program for Iraq paid for by the American taxpayers. There is a 
highway program for Iraq, a health care program for Iraq, a security 
program for Iraq, all paid for by American taxpayers. There is marsh 
restoration and there is the creation of ZIP codes, all paid for by the 
American taxpayers.
  Since I lost that vote on the floor of the Senate and since nearly 
$20 billion was then appropriated for the reconstruction of Iraq, paid 
for by the American taxpayers, I have watched the progress of that 
reconstruction and I noticed, for example, some of the things that were 
happening in Iraq with respect to expenditures. I have been bothered 
about it, but nonetheless I had my vote and I lost that vote.

  Then last week, I learned we are short of money for the troops in 
Iraq, and it is very likely an emergency supplemental request will need 
to be passed by the Congress and, indeed, we will pass it if it is 
necessary to support the troops in Iraq. I checked and discovered at 
the last count, somewhere close to $17 billion--$16-plus billion--
remains unspent with respect to the reconstruction funds that were 
appropriated by the Congress for Iraq. It seems to me what we ought to 
do is transfer that unexpended reconstruction funding and use it for 
the benefit of the support of the American troops in Iraq.
  If, in fact, we are short of money, if we are going to need to expend 
additional emergency funds in Iraq, why not use the funds that are 
unspent at this point for the reconstruction of Iraq and, indeed, use 
that for the support of the American troops in Iraq, and then engage 
the Iraqi government--first of all the provisional government and, 
second, the government that takes effect on July 1--and have that 
government securitize future production of Iraqi oil and raise their 
own funds to reconstruct this country. It is their job, not the job of 
the American taxpayers, to have a program for housing, health care, 
jobs, and highways in the country of Iraq. That ought not be the burden 
of the American taxpayer.
  When we have a fiscal policy that is desperately out of balance and 
we are borrowing money at a record pace--$530 billion this year alone--
I think it is responsible for us to take a look at how we might ease 
that burden and at least one small portion of that ought to be to 
revisit this proposition of a reconstruction fund for Iraq. A 
substantial amount of that money is as yet unspent.
  Incidentally, while I am on the subject, let me also say with respect 
to the military funding, we need to do a much better job with that 
expenditure. I noticed, for example, the Halliburton Corporation--I 
held a hearing on this subject in the Democratic Policy Committee a 
couple of months ago--the Halliburton Corporation has had to now 
restore funding for kickbacks they made for inappropriate expenditures.
  Here is a company, for example, that was billing the U.S. Government, 
the Defense Department--therefore, the U.S. taxpayers--they were 
billing us for serving 42,000 meals a day. The problem was they were 
only making 14,000 meals a day for the American troops. Somehow 28,000 
meals got lost. They were overbilling by 28,000 meals a day. I come 
from a small town of about 300 people. I can understand somebody 
overbilling for 10 meals, maybe 100 meals, but 28,000 meals a day? That 
is absurd.
  That is the sort of thing that the American taxpayer reads about and 
is angry about, and should be because there is a substantial amount of 
money being wasted, yes, even in these defense contracts. That is 
something the American taxpayers expect better of with respect to the 
use of their funds.
  I want to come back to this central point. I think it is time we 
revisit this question of reconstruction funds for Iraq. I suggest we do 
that by deciding that which is yet unspent be used to support the 
American troops because we are told there is not sufficient money to do 
that at this point, and I believe, because it is not the American 
taxpayers' burden to reconstruct Iraq but it is the American taxpayers' 
burden to support troops who we have asked to go in harm's way on our 
behalf, that this would represent a positive step and would also help 
with fiscal policy that now is creating the largest deficits in 
history.
  We will be on the subject of the Internet tax issue soon, and I will 
have more to say on that subject later, but in the meantime I yield the 
floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Dole). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________