[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6214-6216]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            MORNING BUSINESS

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to a period for morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I listened with interest to my friend 
from Montana. While I had not prepared a response, I feel, nonetheless, 
moved to make a response.
  My colleague from Montana made the point that Saddam Hussein must be 
removed and then suggested that we need more time and we should be 
willing to grant more time. This is, indeed, the position of many 
people in the United Nations. They keep saying just another week, just 
another month if necessary. The Senator from Montana used that same 
timeframe.
  In my opinion, we do not have that option. In my opinion, we have two 
options, not three. The two options are either to go ahead or to come 
home. The option of staying in place and allowing the inspections to go 
on for an

[[Page 6215]]

indeterminate period of time is not a viable option.
  The reason for that is that our troops are not where they are on 
anything like a permanent status. They are there at the indulgence of 
foreign governments that have allowed them to come in with the firm 
understanding that they will be there very briefly. In the countries 
where they are currently bivouacked, they are simply there, on the edge 
of moving forward.
  If we now say to those countries, the host countries that are 
harboring our troops, we are going to leave them there for an 
indefinite period of time while the inspectors continue to poke around 
Iraq, I expect that country after country will say: No. We did not 
bargain for American troops in these numbers on our territory for an 
indefinite period of time.
  If you are not moving ahead into Iraq, withdraw your forces and go 
home. And if we do withdraw our forces and go home, it is clear Saddam 
Hussein will not be removed until he dies. And he may very well die in 
his bed, because once the United States has sent the signal to the 
world that we are prepared to do whatever is necessary to remove this 
brutal dictator and then we back down and bring our troops home, we can 
never put them back in those places again. No host government currently 
allowing American forces on its soil will say OK, now that Saddam 
Hussein has nuclear weapons, you can come back and be on our soil and 
make us a target for those nuclear weapons. No. We have two choices. We 
can either move ahead or we can come home.
  It is not the most sympathetic character in Shakespeare. A comment 
made by Lady Macbeth becomes appropriate here. ``If it were done when 
'tis done, then 'twere well it were done quickly.''
  If we are going to remove Saddam Hussein, we must do it quickly. And 
if we are not, we should not leave our troops in their present posture 
for an indefinite period of time while inspectors poke around on a 
scavenger hunt in Iraq.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, obviously, the major conversation today is 
about how we might successfully disarm Saddam Hussein of the weapons of 
mass destruction, which many of us still believe are there in Iraq and 
pose a serious threat, not only to ourselves but to allies and others.
  I certainly do not minimize the importance of dealing with this 
issue. In fact, as my constituents know, I voted for the resolution 
last fall authorizing the President to use force if that became 
necessary. I still support that position.
  I think the President ought to have that authority from Congress. I 
am grateful to him for coming to Congress and asking for that kind of 
backing. When I voted to give him that authority, I did not mean, of 
course, necessarily that authority would be used regardless of other 
circumstances. And certainly, over the past several months, we have 
seen a concerted effort to try to resolve the problem of Iraq short of 
using military force.
  In fact, the President's own words, deserve being repeated; that is, 
that he did not welcome or look forward to the use of military force to 
solve this problem. He hoped it would be resolved without using force. 
I applaud him for making those statements and hope he is still 
committed to that proposition.
  I am concerned, still, as are many Americans, that we may see a 
military conflict in the coming days, and that every effort to try to 
resolve this matter, diplomatically and politically, has not yet been 
exhausted. I know the administration is working on it.
  As one Member of this body, I encourage them to continue doing so. I 
do not mean indefinitely, obviously. There are obviously points at 
which you have to accept the fact that there is not going to be the 
kind of cooperation you would like to have. I certainly would not 
suggest we ought to go on indefinitely here at all, but I do believe 
our allies and friends--principally Great Britain, which has been 
remarkably steadfast in their loyalty to the U.S. Government on this 
issue--need to be listened to, that their advice and counsel have value 
and weight. And if there are ways in which you can craft resolutions 
which would build support at the U.N. Security Council, then we ought 
to try to do that. That does not mean you go on weeks trying to sort 
that out. But I hope every effort is being made to fashion just such an 
arrangement that would allow us to deal with Saddam Hussein.
  I happen to believe, in the absence of the threat of force, I don't 
think diplomacy would work alone, nor do I necessarily believe the 
threat of force, without some effort by diplomacy and politics, would 
necessarily work as well as we would like.
  It is a combination of the threat of force and the use of diplomacy 
that I think has produced the significant, positive results we have 
seen in the last number of weeks. And the President deserves credit for 
that, in my view.
  There is almost a sense of victory occurring here. He may be the most 
critical voice regarding this progress that has been made, but, 
nonetheless, I think progress is being made.
  Mr. President, I want to shift quickly, if I can, however, to the 
cost of reconstruction. I know the conversation is whether or not there 
will be a war. Let's assume, for a second, that comes. As regrettable 
as it is--and we hope it will, obviously, be done at a minimal loss of 
innocent lives and the lives of the men and women in uniform--I am 
deeply troubled by the fact this administration has been unwilling to 
come before Congress to share with us their best and worst-case 
scenarios in terms of the cost of reconstruction in Iraq.
  Certainly, I do not expect, nor should anyone, that the 
administration would be able to tell you with any great deal of 
specificity exactly what those costs would be. But you are not going to 
convince anybody in this Chamber, or most Americans, that the 
administration has not projected some cost figures on what it is going 
to cost us to rebuild Iraq, either alone or with the cooperation of 
others around the globe.
  The reason I say that is because I noticed the other day that the 
administration had solicited bids from four or five major U.S. 
corporations to bid on an almost $1 billion contract for reconstruction 
or partial reconstruction in Iraq.
  I am convinced that those firms had to have some knowledge of what 
the bid was all about in order to make it. What concerns me is that 
there may be people in those corporations who know far more about what 
the costs may be than the representatives and taxpayers of this 
country, who will ultimately be asked to pay the bill.
  I was stunned, when we had a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee just a few days ago on this very subject matter, at the cost 
of reconstruction, that the administration refused to send any 
witnesses up to share with the committee, under the leadership of the 
distinguished chairman of that committee, Senator Richard Lugar of 
Indiana--that the administration refused to even step forward and share 
with the committee their general thoughts on what may be the costs.
  How is it that four or five corporations can apparently have access 
to information and yet the Congress of the United States does not? The 
four or five corporations were Bechtel, the Fluor Corporation, 
Halliburton, owned by Kellogg, Brown and Root, the Lewis Berger Group, 
the Parson Group. Those, I believe, are the names of the corporations 
invited to bid on the reconstruction contracts.
  If you are telling these corporations about what the costs may be, 
and what may be involved, and yet you can't let Members of Congress 
know--particularly the committee charged with the responsibility--
ultimately, I think that is a mistake.
  There was a report conducted, I think by the Brookings Institution, 
with such distinguished Americans as James Schlesinger and others, that 
made an analysis of the post-cost figures on reconstruction. They all 
made the similar recommendation. You have to step forward.
  As our former colleague, John Glenn, used to say: If you want the 
American public to be supportive of actions like

[[Page 6216]]

this, they have to be involved in the takeoff as well as the landing.
  I think his words, that I heard him repeat on numerous occasions, 
have particular value in talking about this debate. This is not to 
suggest that everyone is going to endorse the numbers. But you need to 
let the American public know what they are in for, so that there is 
some understanding of what this involvement is going to cost us. I 
think you are going to do far better at winning support ultimately for 
these figures if you share your ideas.
  Again, no one is expecting you are going to have to be wedded to 
these numbers. But you are not going to build the kind of domestic 
support you need for a number of years on the reconstruction of Iraq if 
you do not begin to share with the American public what sort of cost 
figures we are talking about.
  It is estimated by some groups already that the cost could be at a 
low figure of $20 billion a year. The cost of the war, of course, we 
can't get any numbers on. We don't have any numbers on how many of our 
U.S. military personnel might have to be stationed in Iraq for how long 
a period of time during the period of occupation.
  Let me share with you from the Brookings report. Even assuming, they 
said, little war-related damage--we hope that is the case--the 
reconstruction requirements in Iraq will be very substantial. Estimates 
of the requirement vary considerably from as little as $25 billion over 
a multiyear period to as much as $300 billion over 10 years. It is 
estimated that repairing and restoring Iraq's electrical power grid to 
its pre-1990 level would cost as much as $20 billion and that the 
short-term repairs for the oil industry would cost about $5 billion. 
Additional reconstruction requirements involve water, sanitation, 
transportation, and other infrastructure.
  I bring this up not because I am trying to persuade people they ought 
not to be for using force, if that becomes necessary, but just to 
suggest that if you don't involve people and share with them what the 
estimated cost of this may be, you will be in trouble.
  Let me tell you what I suspect is really behind a lot of this. As I 
am speaking on the floor of this Chamber, the budget committees of the 
Congress are meeting. They are talking about the cost of Government 
over the next number of years--tax policy, spending policy, what they 
will be. The estimates now for the deficit are hovering around $400 
billion a year. I don't find it merely coincidental that the 
administration is refusing to share with us how much this war may cost, 
how much the reconstruction may cost at a time we are also considering 
the budget. Why is it they won't share these numbers? Is it because 
they don't want the Budget Committee or this Chamber, which will vote 
next week on the budget, to have before it some idea of what taxpayers 
will be asked to shoulder as a result of this involvement? Again, you 
will not convince me that those numbers don't exist. They do exist.
  It is outrageous that the administration won't step forward and say: 
Here is our best estimate, worst case, best case. Regardless of how you 
feel about this conflict, potential conflict--again, I voted with the 
President to support the use of force if necessary--where are the 
Members of the Senate? Why don't they stand up for the Senate when it 
comes to the budget--we are the ones being asked to vote on this--and 
be as demanding as I am about sharing these numbers? I would think 
every single Member of this body, regardless of how you feel about the 
war, would want to know what the cost may be, so that when you cast a 
vote either in the Budget Committee or on the floor of the Senate next 
week, you would have some idea of what the implications are going to 
be. Without having that information, I don't know how you will vote for 
some of these other matters, knowing that the cost could be billions 
and billions of dollars in the coming 5 or 10 years.
  Maybe I am the only one who feels this way. I suspect I am not. I 
suspect there is a tremendous concern growing that we are digging a 
very deep hole for ourselves financially with these massive tax cuts 
and massive spending going on. I find it more than ironic that some of 
the strongest advocates for this budget only a few short years ago were 
standing here begging us to vote for a constitutional amendment to 
balance the budget and, but for one vote, we would have written it into 
the Constitution. Now they stand before us and tell us deficits don't 
matter and that we don't even have to share with you the estimated 
costs of our involvement in Iraq.
  My hope is that in these coming days before the end of this week or 
the first part of next week, the administration might share through 
some vehicle, if not before a congressional committee then some other 
forum, what the costs are apt to be so that next week when we vote on 
the budget, we can include those numbers in the estimated burden the 
American taxpayer may be asked to shoulder.
  I am deeply worried that we are digging a very deep hole for 
ourselves, and we are not being honest and square with the American 
public about what those implications will be.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________