[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 18]
[Senate]
[Pages 24446-24447]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS

  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, we are back, as all of our colleagues 
know, on the supplemental appropriations request offered by the 
administration. There are a number of amendments pending--as I 
understand it, five--and there will be other amendments offered today. 
I urge colleagues to come to the floor to offer their amendments and to 
ensure we have adequate time by the end of the week to dispose of those 
amendments that have yet to be offered.
  There is a good deal left to be done on the bill. Our focus will be 
on four areas. The first will be the need for the President to clarify 
more effectively what our plan is with regard to the use of the $87 
billion, the $22 billion in particular for reconstruction aid. Today we 
saw yet another indication of the murkiness with regard to the plan. 
The

[[Page 24447]]

administration has made a decision to reverse itself with regard to 
some of the demands it was making upon the United Nations, and, as a 
result, we are perhaps more hopeful now that the U.N. could be 
involved. But without a plan, it makes it very difficult for us to 
commit the resources. Simply asking for a plan is no substitute for the 
plan that is required.
  Secondly, we want more transparency. Billions and billions of dollars 
are being spent. Corporations, such as Halliburton and Bechtel and 
others, have benefited, but we have no way of knowing how much, what 
will be the profit. When we passed the Marshall plan 50 years ago, we 
had an explicit prohibition on profiteering. There is no explicit 
prohibition today. As a result, there is no transparency as well. I 
think it is critical for us to have a better understanding for the 
taxpayers and the Congress to know precisely how this money is going to 
be spent and who is going to benefit and how, if we can, avoid the 
wasteful expenditures that some have already reported.
  The third area we want to concentrate on is the need for a 
recognition that it ought to be paid for. Whether it is paid for in a 
way of collateralizing the money requested, if it is asking those at 
the very top of the income scale to help pay--there has been no request 
for sacrifice on their part--whether we simply make this a loan, 
recognizing that somebody is going to have to pay for this, somebody is 
going to have to be willing to borrow it and give it to Iraq or, the 
question is, Does it merit at least consideration that we ask Iraq to 
borrow the money rather than the United States? But somebody will 
borrow the money. That is the bottom line, and I think we need to 
recognize that point.
  Finally, we also need to recognize important domestic priorities. 
Senator Mikulski and Senator Bond, as I understand it, will be offering 
an amendment to provide the resources necessary to fully fund the 
Veterans' Administration budget for this year. We are over $1 billion 
short. Their message is simply that if we are going to support the 
troops, we ought to support the veterans--the veterans who are coming 
home needing health care, veterans who are now being asked to wait up 
to 6 months for health care, in some cases. But there are important 
domestic priorities that ought to be addressed as well.
  It is our hope that through this amendment, and other amendments like 
it, we will be in a better position to say, yes, we want to be 
supportive of the need to reconstruct, to provide the resources to 
Iraq, but we also need to recognize the importance of providing those 
resources as well for important needs here at home, especially those 
involving veterans.
  That will be the debate for the week. I am hopeful that many of these 
amendments will be adopted; that we can improve the legislation as it 
was offered and proposed, and, at the end of the day, we have the 
assurance we know where the money is going; that at least in part it 
will be paid for; that it recognizes domestic priorities; and that 
there is a plan, a recognition that we are not going to be there 
interminably; that we need a clear and much more precise way of 
analyzing our success or our shortcomings as we commit these resources 
for the course of the next several months.

                          ____________________