[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 18]
[Senate]
[Pages 24536-24537]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        NATION BUILDING IN IRAQ

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I wanted to add a couple of thoughts 
this morning regarding the plan for nation building in Iraq. I had 
supported vigorously the amendment by Senator Dorgan last evening, but 
because of the time constraints I was not able to speak on that 
particular amendment. I plan to offer a similar amendment--and there 
are others--that will try to help the Senate focus again on the 
opportunities and possibilities for sustaining a successful effort in 
Iraq--a successful effort of nation building--by shifting the burden 
from the American taxpayers to the Iraqi people and their great 
resources.
  As you know, Mr. President, I supported the use of force; I supported 
the overthrow of that regime. I believe that a lot of the information 
that was given to us has proven not to be true and accurate; 
nonetheless, I support the effort because this was a regime that needed 
to be overthrown. I am also here to say and agree that in order to be 
successful we have to sustain a long-term commitment, not cut and run, 
not window dress, not put lipstick on a pig, not pretend that things 
are going well--but have things really go well. The verdict is still 
out. I am sure it is not as bad as it is portrayed by the media. 
Usually nothing is as bad as that. The stories tend to be one-sided in 
many instances. The fact is, this is a very difficult undertaking. We 
have undertaken it only seven times since World War II.
  There is a very interesting report that I want to mention at this 
time. I will give more detailed comments about it later. It is an 
extensive Rand report just finished on nation building. The title is, 
``The Inescapable Responsibility of the World's Only Superpower.'' This 
is bipartisan; it is not a Republican plan, not a Democratic plan. This 
is a bipartisan American view of this issue, a very balanced approach. 
It says, basically, there are seven lessons that we have learned since 
Germany and our successful Marshall plan effort. I will read excerpts 
from them quickly and talk about it later.
  It says that:

       Multilateral nation-building is more complex and time-
     consuming than a unilateral approach. But the multilateral 
     approach is considerably less expensive for individual 
     participants.

  So there are tradeoffs. We are doing this in a more unilateral way. I 
don't necessarily have a problem with that. I understand we have made 
efforts to reach out to our multinational partners, and we have not 
been able to reach agreement. Sometimes the United States has to lead 
alone and lead decisively. I am, for one, not opposed to that. I just 
understand that it is more expensive. So let's find a way to pay for 
it. Further, the report says:

       Multilateral nation-building can produce more through 
     transformations and greater regional reconciliation than can 
     unilateral efforts.

  That is an argument for multilateral involvement. It also says:

       Unity of command is essential. . . .

  I believe unity of command is one element we have to preserve in 
Iraq. It seems as though we are on the path to that end. There are 
problems, though, that this report points out. One of them is:

       There appears to be an inverse correlation between the size 
     of the military stabilization force and the level of 
     casualties.

  In other words, the more troops and peacekeepers you have on the 
ground, the less soldiers you lose. One of the objectives I have as a 
Senator from Louisiana is to lose as few soldiers as possible.
  I want to show you a picture--of course, we are touched by many 
pictures that we see, but I hope the cameras can pick up SGT Rich 
Armstrong of Lynchburg, VA. This man is not from Louisiana but from 
Virginia, right across the river. He is a staff sergeant who is saying 
goodbye to his wife Beth and his 8-month-old daughter Olivia. I hope 
this soldier can be brought back home so he can spend the rest of his 
life with his daughter and wife.
  This is not about campaigns or politics. This is about trying to lay 
down the best plan to bring these soldiers home. The more troops you 
have there and the more police you have there, the less soldiers will 
come home either wounded or ``not'' at all.
  This reports goes on to say:

       Neighboring states can exert significant influence, for 
     good or bad. It is nearly impossible to put together a 
     fragmented nation if its neighbors try to tear it apart.

  One of the amendments in the House, I thought, took us a step 
backward. It took aid away from neighboring states, when we need to 
encourage them to help in this effort.
  I continue to quote:

       Accountability for past injustices can be a powerful 
     component of democratization. Such accountability can be 
     among the most controversial aspects of any nation-building 
     endeavor, however, and therefore should be attempted only if 
     there is a deep and long-term commitment to the overall 
     operation.

  My contention is that we are going to be there as long as we need to 
be, but the American people are not going to sacrifice their children 
or grandchildren's education, or the solvency of the Social Security 
trust fund, unless we find a better way to pay for it. If we do, then 
we can be there not just for 2 or 3 years, but like this Rand study 
says:

       None of our cases were successfully completed in less than 
     seven years.

  So one of my questions is, How many times is the administration going 
to come back and ask us to forego college education for our children, 
support for public schools, and the establishment of a good health care 
system in Louisiana to rebuild Iraq, when we have the resources in Iraq 
to do it; when the people of Iraq, in partnership with the United 
States--friends and allies in a strong partnership--using our know-how 
and their resources, can rebuild the country? This is not new; this is 
not Mary Landrieu's idea. We did this during the Marshall plan. We used 
Germany's coal reserves. It was one of the principles of the Marshall 
plan--how to rebuild Europe. Thank goodness we were dealing with a 
country--Germany, the aggressor in that situation--that had vast coal 
reserves. It was one of the reasons we could build the Marshall plan. 
That was very different from this. The Marshall plan said that for 
every dollar the donor nation put

[[Page 24537]]

in, the recipient nation would put up one. It structured a bipartisan, 
comprehensive, sustainable program.
  What this administration is doing, even if this bill passes this 
week, is not sustainable because the people in your States and in my 
State are not going to dig down, putting the debt on the American 
taxpayers to pay for this. The one way to do it correctly is to use the 
great oil resources. This is not my idea. This is not just something 
based on the Marshall plan.
  I will show you what Paul Wolfowitz said. Paraphrasing, he said the 
oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 billion and $100 
billion over the course of the next 2 or 3 years. He said that we are 
dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, 
and relatively soon. This is not the Democratic leadership, Mr. 
President, and this is not Senator Landrieu saying that; that is Paul 
Wolfowitz, on March 27, 2003.
  Let's see what Vice President Cheney said only a year ago. People 
say, what is the confusion? Why are we not using the oil resources? It 
is not because it was a bad idea. The administration put forward this 
idea. Yet for some reason they have changed their minds.
  Paraphrasing this, Tim Russert said every analysis said this war 
would cost about $80 billion for the recovery of Baghdad, perhaps of 
Iraq, about $10 million. Vice President Cheney said he can't say that, 
and that in Iraq we have a nation that has the second largest oil 
reserves in the world, second only to Saudi Arabia. He said it would 
generate billions of dollars a year in cashflow if they get back to 
their production of roughly 3 million barrels a day in the relatively 
near future.
  That was before the war. That is the plan the people were told. We 
would use the oil. Now we have to use our kids' trust funds for 
college. It is not right.
  Let me show the amount of oil that is in Iraq. I know something about 
this because Louisiana produces a lot of oil. If we export from Iraq 1 
million barrels a day, that is $8 billion a year at $22 a barrel. The 
range for OPEC is $22 to $29. These are using the most conservative 
figures. If we would get up to 10 million barrels a day--it is not only 
possible, it is likely--we could be generating in Iraq $80 billion.
  Why would the American people be picking up the tab when the Iraqis 
have their own resources, building pride, dignity, independence? Why? I 
don't understand it. Maybe someone else has their eyes on the profit.
  I think the Iraqi people should benefit from their reserves. I think 
the American taxpayers should benefit from these reserves, not a 
handful of companies, if that is the idea. I am not saying it is, but 
we are very confused about why the administration said they wanted to 
use oil and now they don't.
  I have an article titled ``Iraqi Plans to Increase Oil Output in 
2004.'' This article was in the Wall Street Journal this morning. This 
is quicker than they thought. Trust me, horizontal drilling and new 
technologies can produce a lot of wealth.
  I am going to finish this speech later in the day. The question 
Louisianans have is, Why can't we use the resources and riches of that 
nation to help rebuild it and stabilize democracy in a part of the 
world that desperately needs it?
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on the two 
sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority has 20 minutes 53 seconds. The 
minority has 2 minutes 20 seconds.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Does the Senator from Louisiana wish to finish with 
the 2 minutes?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I yield to the other side, and I reserve the 2\1/2\ 
minutes for closing this morning on our side.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, what I will do is allow the Senator 
from Louisiana to have the 2 minutes or the minority side to have the 2 
minutes after Senator McConnell, but then I am going to yield, because 
we have the last 30 minutes, to the Senator from Montana. The Senator 
from Louisiana can take the time now or take it after Senator 
McConnell.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. If that is the understanding, I have to ask the Chair--
I know the time was equally divided--was it also established which side 
would speak in the last 2 minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The order previously agreed to was for the 
minority to consume their time first.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Then I will take those 2 minutes.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. If the Senator from Louisiana wishes to reserve her 
time after Senator McConnell, I am going to yield up to 10 minutes to 
Senator McConnell, after which, she can speak; is that acceptable?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. That is acceptable. The next 10 minutes will be for 
Senator McConnell, and I will then take the 2\1/2\ minutes that is 
remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I thank the Chair, and I thank my friend from Texas.

                          ____________________