[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 16]
[Senate]
[Pages 22599-22600]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                  IRAQ

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, yesterday we had a hearing in the Senate 
Appropriations Committee with Ambassador Bremer, who has just returned 
from Iraq and is here for the week to talk about the needs in the 
country of Iraq, especially to talk about the requested $87 billion 
that is the part of the President's request he says is necessary for 
both the military needs in Iraq, to support the troops stationed in 
Iraq and now completing their mission in Iraq, and also $20 billion for 
the reconstruction of Iraq. I want to make a couple of comments about 
that because, since our hearing yesterday, I have been doing some 
research.
  At the hearing yesterday I said to the Ambassador: It is quite clear 
to me the Congress will respond affirmatively. First of all, it is 
unthinkable to send America's sons and daughters wearing our military 
uniform to war anywhere in the world and not provide all the support 
that is necessary and that is requested. The military portion of that 
request, in my judgment, will be granted, should be granted completely 
and quickly.
  Second, on the question of reconstructing Iraq, the $20 billion 
necessary for the reconstruction of this country, I asked Ambassador 
Bremer a number of questions. I want to make a comment about that and 
some of the research I have done since that time.
  It is the case that the campaign that was called ``Shock and Awe,'' 
which we all saw on the television, of bombing and the ensuing military 
action with smart bombs, smart weapons--that campaign did not target 
Iraq's infrastructure. It did not target the electric facilities, did 
not target the power facilities or dams or roads or bridges. It 
targeted military targets, palaces, and

[[Page 22600]]

other items of strategic value, but it specifically did not target 
infrastructure in Iraq. So the damage to the infrastructure in Iraq is 
not damage caused by America's military action in Iraq. It is caused 
now, increasingly, by the insurgent movement in Iraq, the terrorists 
and others who are engaged in destruction in Iraq.
  But the question I was asking the Ambassador about reconstructing 
Iraq is, if we did not destroy Iraq's infrastructure, then why should 
the American taxpayer be paying money to reconstruct the 
infrastructure? I suggested the infrastructure obviously needs to be 
dealt with, but should not the oil reserves in Iraq be used to pump the 
oil and produce the revenue for the reconstruction of this country? 
Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world. Those oil 
reserves, it seems to me, ought to be used for the reconstruction of 
Iraq. Let Iraqi oil pay for the reconstruction of Iraq.
  Ambassador Bremer said to me: One of the problems with that approach 
is Iraq has a substantial amount of accumulated debt.
  Since yesterday I began to research what is this debt that Iraq owes 
the rest of the world. My guess is it is the Saddam Hussein government 
that owes the rest of the world. That government does not exist. He is 
in hiding somewhere. The government doesn't exist any longer.
  Here are the countries that Saddam Hussein presumably owes money to: 
Kuwait, probably somewhere around $20 billion; Saudi Arabia, $25 
billion; the other gulf states, probably $25 billion; Russia, $10 
billion; France, $6 billion. These are not specific amounts that are 
tied down very well because the World Bank Debtor Reporter System tells 
us there are no collated figures available from Iraq because Iraq is 
one of the few countries which did not report its debt statistics.
  So no documents exist in the Iraqi Ministry of Finance. None of it 
has yet emerged. They may well have been lost in the chaos. But would 
it be ironic if the American taxpayer is told that they must use their 
money to reconstruct Iraq and the Iraqi oil wells will pump oil, the 
proceeds of which will be used to pay Saudi Arabia and Kuwait for debts 
incurred while Saddam Hussein ran the Iraqi Government? You talk about 
a Byzantine result, that is it.
  I believe reconstruction is necessary. But I also believe that 
reconstruction ought to be paid for with Iraqi oil. The Ambassador will 
say, Well, there is not enough money left for the operation of the 
Iraqi Government, but the Ambassador also said yesterday with some 
satisfaction that they just put a new tax system in the country of 
Iraq. He said with some satisfaction that the top income tax rate is 15 
percent.
  So we are going to ask the Americans who will pay a top rate of 39-
percent income tax to send reconstruction money to Iraq whose economy 
is generating an income tax against that with respect to its wealthiest 
citizens at a rate of a 15-percent tax rate. I don't think that makes 
much sense.
  My only point is this: Of the $20 billion, $5 billion is for 
security. So there is $15 billion for security and reconstruction above 
the military needs. I believe that what we ought to do is have the 
Ambassador and the administration work very hard to resolve these 
debts. It seems to me one might well tell the Saudis and the Kuwaitis: 
You loaned the money to the Saddam Hussein regime. You know that debt 
is owed to you by Saddam Hussein. Go find him and go collect it. If you 
think you can find him, tell us where he is. But go find him and 
collect it. That ought not be a burden on the country of Iraq. The 
government with which you engaged in this credit transaction no longer 
exists.
  Following that, it seems to me that it would be reasonable to 
securitize or collateralize Iraqi oil. We know they will by next June 
or July be pumping 3 million barrels per day. The amount that is not 
needed in Iraq but that is available for export will yield revenues of 
about $16 billion a year. That is $160 billion in 10 years, or $320 
billion in 20 years, this for a country of 24 million people. If you 
can't securitize or collateralize $320 billion over 10 years to pay for 
a $20 billion reconstruction of Iraq, then there is something wrong 
with all the financiers and all the tall thinkers who are working on 
this.
  I believe the money requested is necessary. But I believe the 
construct of the reconstruction in Iraq and the payment for that 
reconstruction should not be a burden on the shoulders of the American 
taxpayer--not taxpayers who are paying more than double the rate the 
top taxpayers in Iraq will be asked to bear and not taxpayers who 
should pay taxes so Iraqi oil wells can pump oil to send money to Saudi 
Arabia and Kuwait. What a perverse result that would be.
  We are going to have a lot of discussion about that, and we should 
have. The President has made a request and said the money is necessary. 
He is right. The money is necessary. The question is not whether it is 
necessary on the military side because we ought to appropriate that 
money. We ought to do it now, and we ought not delay.
  On the reconstruction side, let us understand the money is necessary 
but it ought to come from the resources from Iraqi oil. By my 
calculation, those resources would be $320 billion conservatively in 
the next 20 years. It is easy to collateralize or securitize that with 
the private sector. Or, for that matter, if you do not want the private 
sector with the IMF or the World Bank in order not to impose this 
burden on the American taxpayer but instead rely on Iraqi oil, once 
again the second largest reserves of oil in the world under the sands 
of Iraq, a country with 24 million people, they surely can afford to 
construct a plan--that is, the Iraqi council, and also the allies that 
are involved, including this country--can surely construct a plan by 
which we use that resource to reconstruct and reinvest in that country. 
It is Iraq's resource. It is Iraq's oil. It ought not be an obligation 
of the American taxpayer to pay for that portion of the emergency 
request.
  My hope is, as we begin these discussions in the coming days, that 
two things will emerge: No. 1, the President and others will understand 
that Congress is going to respond and respond affirmatively to the 
needs that exist, especially for our soldiers but also with respect to 
reconstruction, and, No. 2, that Congress does not, should not, and 
will not respond by imposing a burden on the taxpayers of this country 
for the reconstruction needs that should be financed with Iraqi oil. 
That is a debate that we must have.
  I hope the result will be positive for the American taxpayer and 
positive for the people of Iraq, for that matter, because they have 
substantial resources with which to reconstruct the infrastructure of 
Iraq, which, by the way, was not destroyed by this country. That 
infrastructure in Iraq was not destroyed by this country's military 
campaign. This country's military campaign removed a brutal dictator. 
We are now opening football-field-size graves containing 10,000 and 
12,000 skeletons.
  That campaign, however, while removing the Saddam Hussein government, 
did not destroy their country's infrastructure, and there are plenty of 
resources under the sands of Iraq to produce oil with which to produce 
revenue to reinvest in that infrastructure and in the future without 
having the American people bear that burden.

                          ____________________