[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Pages 23550-23551]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     EXTENSION OF MORNING BUSINESS

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have been asked by the leader to ask 
unanimous consent that morning business be extended until 12:30, with 
the time equally divided; provided further that the Senate then recess 
under the previous order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I note the Senator from New York is on 
the floor. So I ask unanimous consent to speak for just 10 additional 
minutes so as to not unduly burden my colleague.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I appreciate my colleague's courtesy.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I will make my points and conclude within 
10 minutes. I was on the point that some may charge the United States 
is there looking for the benefits from Iraqi oil. So long as we use the 
proceeds for the benefit of the Iraqi people, I don't think anybody can 
realistically make that argument.
  One factor is difficult, and that is, with whom would we contract to 
make the loan? I must confess that gives me some pause. When a trustee 
takes over, a trustee is appointed by the court. If a trustee takes 
over a company that has been mismanaged, or where the directors or 
officers have committed fraud, the trustee has carte blanche to run the 
company--in this case, run the country. I believe it would be possible 
for the United States to undertake what we are doing here, under the 
watchful eye of others, because others will be watching--we can count 
on the French for that, if for little else, and we can count on the 
Germans for that, if for little else. Under the watchful eye of others, 
we can discharge the fiduciary duty as trustees, and we are good for 
our word, and we are honorable, and we are there to help the Iraqi 
people.
  While some may doubt that, we can prove it, so that what we do would 
be used for the benefit of the Iraqi people. There are other ways we 
might find somebody to contract with. It is my hope the efforts now by 
Secretary of State Colin Powell to bring in a U.N. resolution will be 
successful. We have learned from our experience that it is regrettable 
we could not get the U.N. Security Council to support our military 
action.
  Going back to October 11 of last year, this Senator supported an 
amendment that would have gone back to the U.N. to try to get more 
multilateral action. It is true we led a number of nations--``the 
coalition of the willing''--but it was essentially the U.S. and Great 
Britain. While it was not quite unilateral, it didn't have the level of 
multilateral activity which would have been desirable. It is 
nonnegotiable that our troops would not be under any command other than 
the United States. But when it comes to the reorganization of Iraq and 
to what is going to happen in Iraq with respect to how contracts are 
going to be disbursed and the administration of Iraq, it is my hope the 
United States can show sufficient flexibility to get other nations to 
participate. If the United Nations is in, there might be the structure 
of someone with whom to contract to have these loans instead of grants. 
I am exploring the issue as to whether the International Monetary Fund 
or the World Bank might be able to come into the picture at least to 
have a quasi-trustee status, someone who could oversee the matter, 
perhaps even contract on behalf of Iraq. These are matters to be 
explored.
  I am advised that the International Monetary Fund is precluded from 
coming in in the absence of a sovereign, but that if the U.N. passes a 
resolution, there might be a sufficient basis for the International 
Monetary Fund to come in. In any event, these are complexities. There 
are no easy answers.
  It is my hope the Senate and the House will give consideration to 
trying to structure something that would be on the basis of a loan, or 
perhaps a loan guarantee. We have the precedent with Israel. We are not 
making grants, we are making loan guarantees. Why should we do more for 
Iraq than we are doing for Israel with the loan guarantees?
  I know that time is a consideration and there is an effort to pass 
this appropriations bill this week. That may or may not happen. At a 
meeting of the chairmen yesterday, there was doubt expressed as to 
whether it could be accomplished this week. We do know we have passed 
the Defense appropriations bill so that the Department of Defense has 
some $368 billion to operate. The aspect of this bill on funding the 
Department of Defense may not require immediate action, although I 
would not delay it. I am prepared to move ahead this week and decide 
all of the issues if we can resolve it this week.
  I think there is time to give consideration to a structure of the 
loan or a loan guarantee. I have consulted with a professor of 
bankruptcy to refresh my own recollection and my own knowledge on the 
subject and have been told the concept, the analogy to a bankruptcy, is 
solid; that there is another concept of ``creditor in possession,'' 
which would provide an analog in bankruptcy law for us to operate. And 
as we take a look and search through the possibilities of finding 
someone to act on behalf of the Iraqi government, I am not suggesting 
the council that has been created has sufficient authority to contract; 
but perhaps if we obtain a resolution from the United Nations, we might 
work in the International Monetary Fund, or the World Bank, or we may 
be able to structure some circumstance so the loan could be 
effectuated, or a loan guarantee could be effectuated.
  My soundings in my State, and what I hear from colleagues around the 
country, is the American people have grave questions about our policy 
in Iraq at the present time, questions about our military being in 
harm's way, questions about the casualties and fatalities that are 
occurring, questions about the United States advancing $20 billion to 
Iraq at a time when we have a very tight Federal budget.
  There is talk about the $20 billion, some suggesting for additional 
domestic programs to offset $20 billion. I do

[[Page 23551]]

not think now is the time, given the kind of national debt and deficit 
we are looking at, to be adding more money to domestic spending. Within 
the past month, I defended on the floor the $137 billion bill on Labor, 
Health, Human Services and Education and voted against many amendments 
I would like to have supported on increased education funding, health 
funding, or worker safety funding. But managing that bill, I opposed 
those amendments to stay within the budget resolution.
  When we talk about a grant to Iraq for $20 billion, there are 
inevitable questions on how much of that money will go for schools in 
Iraq, contrasted with how much money is going to be going for school 
construction in the United States. So I think it would be an act of 
generosity to make loans, an act of generosity to make loan guarantees. 
I understand there is considerable support in this body to make an 
outright grant, but as we consider this issue for the balance of the 
day and the balance of the week, I ask my colleagues to give 
consideration to the possibility of making a loan or making a loan 
guarantee.
  As a matter of interest, how much time remains, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 15 seconds remaining.
  Mr. SPECTER. I yield back that time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his words and 
his thoughts. His sense of timing is exquisite, realizing he had only 
15 seconds left. I always enjoy listening to him. I appreciate his 
remarks and thank him for his courtesy.

                          ____________________