[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 18]
[Senate]
[Page 24449]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             FUNDS FOR IRAQ

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I have had a wonderful time 
this past week in my State of Florida, over the course of 4 days, 
having about 25 townhall meetings, many of those townhall meetings in 
the smaller communities and in some cases rural communities of our 
State. We have a State that has a wonderful blend of urban and rural. 
Indeed, the State of Florida, as we so well know in politics, is often 
a deciding factor in a Presidential race because Florida has become a 
microcosm of the country as a whole, with many people moving to Florida 
from other parts of the country. Indeed, people are moving to Florida 
from other parts of the world, particularly the Western Hemisphere.
  There have been very clear messages that have come to this Senator 
from Florida from the people of that State as expressed in these 
townhall meetings in the past week. One of the clear concerns is that 
people are uneasy with the fact that $87 billion is going to be spent 
on the occupation in Iraq when there are so many needs here at home. As 
I would break down that $87 billion for the people in these townhall 
meetings I would point out that $67 billion will be relatively 
noncontroversial because that is money that goes to the support of our 
U.S. troops. What is at controversy is the $20 billion requested for 
reconstruction in Iraq. The World Bank says $70 billion will be needed. 
So this is the first downpayment on $70 billion, and the administration 
is proposing that $20 billion come from the United States right now.
  What is it for? It is for building of roads and bridges, it is 
building schools, it is providing teachers, it is providing training of 
teachers, it is providing $800 million for the restoration of wetlands. 
It is providing for all of the infrastructure such as water systems and 
road systems and electrical systems.
  As I would explain this, I would see people get very restive in these 
townhall meetings, for they would say: Well, what about our needs for 
restoring wetlands in Florida? What about our needs for building roads 
and bridges and repairing roads? What about our needs for money going 
into education, just as the majority leader has talked about in the 
$6.5 billion that is needed to fully fund the No Child Left Behind 
Act--the disadvantaged kids.
  What about the superintendents of the school systems who came to 
every one of those townhall meetings and said not only did they need 
that kind of assistance in their schools, but need resources to take 
care of disabled kids, too?
  What about the IDEA legislation, of fully funding it?
  The clear message that came to me regarding the legislation we will 
be considering here today on the infrastructure needs in Iraq and the 
infrastructure needs of our people at home here in America.
  We will be considering a number of amendments that do not have to be 
an either/or question because clearly it is in the interest of the 
United States to stabilize Iraq, and that we stabilize it politically 
and economically. But it doesn't have to be an either/or question. Iraq 
is sitting on the second largest deposit of oil reserves in the world. 
There is going to be a revenue stream once that oil is up and producing 
at maximum capacity. There is going to be a huge revenue stream coming 
from that oil. One of the amendments we are going to consider is the 
amendment to pledge future Iraqi oil revenue to pay back the $20 
billion the United States of America is going to provide for building 
up the infrastructure, including the $800 million for wetlands 
restoration.
  That is a clear message given to me from the folks who came to these 
townhall meetings.
  I will close with this, because I want to hear from the Senator from 
Illinois.
  There was another bombing just a few minutes ago in Iraq. It was the 
bombing of the Turkish Embassy in Baghdad. It is clearly at first blush 
my impression that this is an attempt at intimidation of the Turks 
because they have indicated they were considering in their Parliament 
the sending of troops to assist United States troops in Iraq.
  There was another bombing yesterday. We are having, on average, one 
bombing a day, and/or the killing of U.S. and Iraqi civilian personnel. 
Iraq has become a magnet for terrorists.
  It is clearly in America's interests to stabilize Iraq. Yet, where is 
the attempt of the White House and this administration to reach out to 
the international community at the behest of bipartisan voices in this 
Chamber? Many of those bipartisan voices come from the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee saying you don't want just an American face as an 
occupier in Iraq; that what you want is an international face; that 
this is an international problem and not just America's problem; and we 
have to turn Iraq around from being a magnet for terrorists.
  It is my hope the administration will finally start listening to 
Republicans and Democrats in this Chamber who have not only argued but 
who have pled for an international approach to stabilize Iraq.
  Look at the experience in Bosnia. We are finally getting Bosnia 
stabilized. But it has taken 8 years. The United States had to go into 
Bosnia first. But then we were able to bring in the world community, 
including the United Nations. That can be a good model for us, but it 
is also a realistic model to realize that it is going to take a lot of 
troops and it is going to take a lot of time.
  With that somber note, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, how much time is remaining in morning 
business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 12 minutes remaining.
  Mr. DURBIN. Thank you very much, Madam President. I thank the Senator 
from Florida for his comments.

                          ____________________