[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Pages 23549-23550]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            FUNDING FOR IRAQ

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to discuss the 
pending administration request for $87 billion, including some $20 
billion for the rebuilding of Iraq. At the present time, the 
Appropriations Committee is considering this request and soon the 
matter will be on the floor. I urge my colleagues to give consideration 
to the proposition that the $20 billion to be advanced to rebuild Iraq 
ought to be in the form of either a loan or a loan guarantee. I 
understand this is contrary to the administration's position at the 
present time, but there may be some receptivity in the administration 
or, in any event, it is my thought that the Congress ought to consider 
this as an alternative in the spirit of trying to be helpful to the 
administration in working through the very difficult issues we are 
facing at the present time.
  There is no doubt that the appropriation for the military is a matter 
of necessity as it has been outlined by the President. There is a 
strong universal commitment in the Congress to backing our troops. We 
compliment them on the extraordinary job they have done in the military 
victory in Iraq, and we compliment them further on their ongoing 
efforts to try to restore law and order, try to establish a peace to 
maintain. It is a highly regrettable situation that our military find 
themselves in a position of being police, responsibilities for which 
they are not trained and responsibilities which ought to be undertaken 
by others.
  It is my hope that there will be assistance from countries such as 
Turkey and Pakistan, Muslim countries, to give more confidence to the 
Arab world, or that we will work through an arrangement with the United 
Nations so that there will be some sharing of the burden of rebuilding 
Iraq, so that when it comes to the funding for the military, there is 
universal agreement and certainly my support for that appropriation.
  The issue as to rebuilding Iraq, I submit, stands on somewhat 
different terms. As I think through the issue of funding the rebuilding 
of Iraq, I think about the analogy of a bankruptcy proceeding. There is 
no doubt that Iraq as a country is bankrupt. They have latent assets, 
sitting on the second largest oil pool in the world, but they do not 
have a government in existence. They cannot function. They are 
bankrupt.
  When the argument is made that we should not further burden Iraq 
beyond the $200 billion in debts which they have at the present time, 
the analogy to bankruptcy would say that those debts are owed to 
creditors that are general creditors, unsecured. When there is a 
bankruptcy, there are no funds to pay those creditors. They come last 
in line. If there are no funds, they simply get no funds.
  On that subject, while not dispositive and not critical, I think it 
ought to be noted that some of these debts were incurred in a context 
where the lending parties knew they were supporting a totalitarian and 
dictatorial regime which had used chemical warfare on their own people, 
the Kurds, had used chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war, a regime 
which was brutalizing the Iraqi people.
  In a very realistic sense, people who were loaning money to Saddam 
Hussein in a context knowing that is where the funds were going were 
accessories before the fact to some very heinous conduct. In a very 
fundamental way, as a matter of public policy, they are not entitled to 
be reimbursed for funds advanced in that context.

[[Page 23550]]

  Some of those moneys are owed by way of reparations to Kuwait and 
others. They stand on a somewhat different footing. But all of those 
funds are in a category, if it were a bankruptcy proceeding, of 
creditors that would take no assets when there are no assets to be 
taken. There is a further argument advanced that if the United States 
makes loans, then there would be no motivation or no leverage for the 
United States to get other donor nations to make contributions.
  In a meeting, as I understand it, scheduled in Madrid for October 23, 
the United States will be pressing other nations to make contributions. 
If we are to have a chance to get contributions from other nations, it 
seems to me that we ought not to make a blanket grant at the present 
time of $20 billion but ought to condition any such grant on getting 
cooperation and getting support from other countries. If the United 
States is to put up the $20 billion on our own without any commitments 
from other countries, there is the inevitable sense that the other 
countries say: Well, the United States is doing it. They are putting up 
$20 billion. Let them put up that money and whatever else is required.
  So the argument that if we condition the loans on collateral security 
or if we condition the money on a loan situation and look for 
collateral security that we will discourage other donors is essentially 
fallacious.
  The argument is also advanced that if we make loans, we will be 
reinforcing the view of the Arab world that the only reason we went to 
Iraq was for the Iraqi oil. We are not utilizing the Iraqi oil for U.S. 
purposes. We are not asking that the Iraqi oil be used to pay our 
military expenses. We are asking only that the Iraqi oil be used to 
rebuild Iraq--that is, to rebuild Iraq for the Iraqi people. So that it 
just is not plausible that we could be legitimately charged.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time for morning business has expired.

                          ____________________