To make retroactive the relief of hospitalized members of the uniformed services from the obligation to pay for food or subsistence while hospitalized; and to provide an offset for the additional cost.

HELP AMERICA TO VOTE ACT

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the Senator from Connecticut and I
wanted to address the Senate just for a few moments on another matter.
I yield the floor and suggest the recognition of the Senator from
Connecticut.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Kentucky.
Very briefly, I had intended to offer an amendment at an appropriate
time, most reluctantly, because it is unrelated to the subject matter
at hand. But all my colleagues can relate to this frustration from time
to time. When there is something you want to get done and you have few
opportunities to get it done, you pick any vehicle coming along which
might help you get it done. Recognizing that this was going to be one
of the last funding measures to move along this year, I had intended at
the appropriate time to offer an amendment that would have provided
additional resources for the Help America Vote Act, on which my friend
from Kentucky and Senator Bond and many others played a very critical
role almost a year ago when it became the law of the Nation. In fact,
October 29, 2003, will mark the 1-year anniversary of the day the
President signed the legislation into law.
I am hopeful we can get the level of funding up to full in a timely
manner. As all my colleagues must know, almost every Secretary of
State, local election official, and legislative officer around the
country are anxious for Congress to meet our obligations. The states
can then get their election administration and technology up and
running in the years 2004-2006 in a way that will be in compliance with
the efforts made to pass the Help America Vote Act in the first place.
But my colleague from Kentucky, as he has done on numerous occasions,
has persuaded me there may be a better opportunity and a better place
to get this job done. So I wanted to take a moment out to express my
appreciation. I thank him for his willingness to help me try to achieve
these results in the coming weeks if at all possible.
To reiterate, I was prepared to offer an amendment to fully fund the
Help America Vote Act, HAVA. Senators Corzine, Johnson, and Durbin had
asked to cosponsor that amendment.
Why? Because now is the time to make our rhetoric a reality to live
up to our promise of just 1 year ago to fully fund the new Federal
requirements we imposed on the States for conducting Federal elections.
The President has recognized that Iraq and Afghanistan have many
emergency needs, including the ability of those nations to establish
democracies by conducting free and fair elections.
As a result, the administration request for the fiscal year 2004
Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq, Afghanistan and the Global War on
Terrorism earmarked at least $35 million for voter registration and
elections in Afghanistan.
I accept that priority. All countries must have the resources to
establish and maintain their democracies and to administer and conduct
elections for their citizens. The voice of the people, exercised at the
polls, secures the future of any democracy, whether abroad or at home.
And while I remain unconvinced that all of the funding in this bill is
truly an emergency--such as for $3,000 computers or $50,000 dump
trucks--when it comes to election funding, I will agree with the
President. Funding to ensure the system by which a nation establishes
and preserves a democracy is an emergency.
But if it is an emergency in Afghanistan, it can be no less of an
emergency in America. The basic premise of a democracy is that every
citizen must have an equal voice in the determination of its
government. In this Nation, that voice is expressed through the equal
opportunity to cast a vote and have that vote counted. If America is to
be the example for emerging democracies, whether in Afghanistan, or
Iraq or any other part of the world, then our system of giving our
citizens an equal voice--our system of elections--must meet this test.
But what we learned in the elections of 2000 was that not all
American citizens enjoyed an equal voice. In fact,

[[Page S12674]]

some citizens were denied a voice at all because of malfunctioning or
outdated voting equipment, inaccurate and incomplete voter registration
records, and allegations of voter intimidation and fraud.
A bipartisan group of members came together last Congress to change
that and on October 29--almost exactly 1 year ago--President Bush
signed into law the Help America Vote Act. At the signing ceremony at
the White House, the President proclaimed:

[w]hen problems arise in the administration of elections, we
have a responsibility to fix them.

But rhetoric alone will not fix the problems. It will take leadership
and funds, and that is what the Help America Vote Act provides--Federal
leadership in the form of new minimum requirements that all States must
meet in the conduct of Federal elections and $3.8 billion to fund the
implementation of these requirements.
Some of these requirements must be in place in time for the Federal
elections next year. But Congress has failed to provide the funds to
the States to finance them.
All 50 States have begun the process of drafting the required State
plans outlining how Federal funds will be used to meet the
requirements. Many of the States have begun implementation of the new
requirements; but, they require full funding of the promised Federal
funds to complete implementation of some requirements by next year and
have compliant voting equipment in place by the 2006 Federal elections.
Federal funding is the most critical key to nationwide implementation
of this Act and may well govern the success and effectiveness of the
new law.
Federal funding is crucial. Since the States are in key planning and
implementation stages of HAVA, they are relying on Federal funds to
make election reform a reality nationwide.
To help pay for election reforms and avoid an unfunded mandate on the
States, HAVA authorizes a total of $3.9 billion over 3 fiscal years:
$2.16 billion in fiscal year 2003; $1.04 billion in fiscal year 2004;
and $660,000 in fiscal year 2005.
But in fiscal year 2003, Congress appropriated only $1.5 billion. Of
that amount, $650 million has been distributed to all 50 States, the
District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands and
American Samoa.
I thank my colleagues for their support during the fiscal year 2003
appropriations process. In particular, I thank my two lead co-sponsors
of HAVA and both major players in the appropriations process--Senator
McConnell who was lead co-sponsor of election reform and Senator Bond
who also co-sponsored HAVA and championed the anti-fraud provisions. I
also thank Senator Stevens, chair of the Appropriations Committee and
Senator Byrd, ranking member on Appropriations.
But the fact is, the fiscal year 2003 appropriation reflects a
reality starkly different from our promise. As a result, the States
have experienced a shortfall of over $660 million in the first critical
year of funding under HAVA. Given the dire financial budget constraints
faced by our States and counties, the shortfall in promised Federal
support creates an unfunded mandate that is both unfair and
unnecessary.
While the fiscal year 2004 Transportation, Treasury appropriations
bill has not been completed in the Senate, I note that both the
President and Congress has earmarked a mere $500 million for HAVA, a
funding level that is half of what was authorized and is both
inadequate and unacceptable.
According to the National Governors Association, the current
financial health of State and local governments was at its lowest point
since World War II last year and has worsened in the past 10 months.
Full Federal funding for HAVA is crucial to ensuring that the reforms
that Congress overwhelmingly approved, on a broad bipartisan basis, and
the President endorsed with his signature, are implemented. The very
integrity of our elections, and consequently our democracy, hangs in
the balance.
Surely, it cannot be argued that building ``taj mahal'' Iraqi prisons
and market centers for the private sector in Afghanistan are more of an
emergency than securing democracy in America.
We can do both. We must do both. But it is unacceptable to chose the
reconstruction needs of Iraq and Afghanistan over the needs of our own
democracy.
Full funding of HAVA is critical to our national credibility for
fairness and accuracy in Federal elections. It is fundamental to the
integrity of our democratic process.
The problem of Federal funding for HAVA can be solved by Congress
today, now. The problem of Federal funding for HAVA can be solved right
here in the context of the fiscal year 2004 Supplemental bill that we
debate today.
I seek bipartisan support from my colleagues to help me strengthen
democracy both abroad and at home--the same bipartisan support that
lead 98 members of this Senate and 357 Members of the House to pass
HAVA just 1 year ago; the same bipartisan support, and need, that
encouraged President Bush to sign this legislation into law.
In order to make election reform a reality, and to live up to the
promise we made to State and local officials to be a full partner in
Federal elections, I intend to offer an amendment to this measure which
will provide full funding for HAVA in an amount of $1.86 billion. This
amount reflects the total authorization for the Federal partnership.
This effort is overwhelmingly supported by a bipartisan and powerful
coalition of State and local election officials, in conjunction with
all the major civil rights, disability, language minority, and other
voter interest groups in the United States.
I thank each and every one of them for their strong support in
passing HAVA and their continuing commitment to see that Congress makes
good on its promise to be a full partner in Federal elections by fully
funding the provisions of HAVA.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter by the
coalition, entitled ``Democracy Begins At Home: Fully Fund the Help
America Vote Act.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. DODD. Any effort to fully fund HAVA is as much of an emergency as
the needs presented in the bill before us for Iraq and Afghanistan and
I am prepared to ask the Senate to support full funding of HAVA on the
same emergency basis.
However, there are sufficient funds in the reconstruction portion of
this bill which are of questionable emergency status that can be used
to offset the entire cost of fully funding election reform. For
example, $450 million from the public safety, national security and
justice sector of this bill, including, $400 million in funds to
construct 2 maximum security prisons of 4000 beds each at a cost of
$50,000 per prison bed; and $50 million for witness protection at a
cost of $1 million per Iraqi family.
There is $1.02 billion from the electrical sector, including $1
billion for the development and construct of thermal power stations--
which are more expensive than other forms of power generation and will
take up to 3 years to construct; and $20 million for embedded
consultants, building repairs and a master plan for the Iraqi
Electricity Commission.
There is $37 million from the public works section, including funds
for waste management that would pay for a portion of the proposed 2,000
dump trucks, at a cost of $50,000 per truck.
There is $353 million from the private sector development funds,
including $200 million for an American-Iraq Enterprise Fund to be run
by a private board of directors; $85 million for 5000 computers at a
cost of $3000 per computer and basic and specialized computer training
and teaching English as a second language to Iraqis; $25 million to
modernize equipment and curriculum in vocational institutes; and $43
million subsidy to private employers for on the job training of new
employees and the improvement of employment centers.
I close with a quote from the Coalition's letter:

No Civil Right Is More Fundamental to America's Democracy
than the Right to Vote. As Our Nation Spends Billions of
Dollars Helping to Promote Democracies Abroad, Congress
Simply Should Not Allow Doubts about the Legitimacy of Our
Electoral Process to Continue to Linger Here at Home.

I urge my colleagues to fulfill our commitment of last year to ensure
the integrity of our Federal elections and

[[Page S12675]]

the very foundation of our democracy by fully funding the Help America
Vote Act.
I commend Senator McConnell for his commitment to securing additional
funds this year, and so I will withhold offering my amendment at this
time.

Exhibit 1

Democracy Begins at Home--Fully Fund the ``Help America Vote Act''

September 29, 2003.
Dear Member of Congress: We, the undersigned organizations,
urge you to ensure that full funding for the Help America
Vote Act (P.L. 107-252) (``HAVA'') is included in the
upcoming supplemental appropriations for reconstruction
efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. As you know, the Bush
administration has requested that Congress provide $21.4
billion for these reconstruction efforts. We ask that
Congress provide, at the same time, a mere fraction of that
amount for the purpose of strengthening our own democracy
here at home.
The Help America Vote Act was enacted with overwhelmingly
bipartisan support in order to prevent the many problems of
the 2000 election from ever happening again. Among its many
reforms, it places significant mandates upon states and
localities to replace outdated voting equipment, create
statewide voter registration lists and provide provisional
ballots to ensure that eligible voters are not turned away,
and make it easier for people with disabilities to cast
private, independent ballots.
To help pay for these reforms, HAVA authorizes a total of
$3.9 billion over three fiscal years, including $2.16 billion
for FY03 and $1.045 billion for FY04. To date, however, the
actual funding of HAVA has been woefully inadequate. So far,
only $1.5 billion of FY03 funding has been appropriated, and
$830 million of that amount has yet to reach the states
because the President has not nominated and the Senate has
not confirmed the members of the new Election Assistance
Commission. Additionally, only $500 million is currently
included in pending FY04 appropriations; once again, this is
a sum that falls well below what is needed for successful
implementation of HAVA. States and localities were assured by
Congress that this new law would not evolve into a set of
unfunded federal mandates. It is now time for Congress to
honor its commitment to the states and to the American public
at large.
Given the difficult fiscal circumstances facing state and
local governments, immediate and full funding of HAVA is now
needed in order to make essential progress before Election
Day in 2004. Without the strong leadership that HAVA promised
at the federal level, states and local governments simply do
not have the ability to complete implementation of the
important reforms that they are now required to make.
No civil right is more fundamental to America's democracy
than the right to vote. As our nation spends billions of
dollars helping to promote democracies abroad, Congress
simply should not allow doubts about the legitimacy of our
electoral processes to continue to linger here at home.
We thank you for your support of funding for the ``Help
America Vote Act,'' and we look forward to working with you
on this critical issue. Should you have any questions, please
contact Rob Randhava of the Leadership Conference on Civil
Rights at (202) 466-6058, Leslie Reynolds of the National
Association of Secretaries of State at (202) 624-3525, or any
of the individual organizations listed below.
Sincerely,

organizations representing state and local officials

National Association of Secretaries of State.
National Conference of State Legislatures.
Council of State Governments.
National Association of State Election Directors.
National Association of Counties.
National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed
Officials Educational Fund.
National League of Cities.
International City/County Management Association.
International Association of Clerks, Recorders, Election
Officials and Treasurers.
National Association of County Recorders, Election
Officials and Clerks.

civil rights organizations

Alliance for Retired Americans.
American Association of People with Disabilities.
American Civil Liberties Union.
American Federation of Labor--Congress of Industrial
Organizations.
Americans for Democratic Action.
Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund.
Asian Law Alliance.
Asian Law Caucus.
Asian Pacific American Legal Center.
Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.
Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law.
California Council for the Blind.
Center for Governmental Studies.
Center for Voting and Democracy.
Common Cause.
Demos: A Network for Ideas & Action.
Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund.
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.
League of Women Voters of the United States.
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.
National Alliance of Postal and Federal Employees.
National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium.
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.
National Association of Protection and Advocacy Systems.
National Council of Churches.
National Council of La Raza.
Neighbor to Neighbor Action Fund.
Organization of Chinese Americans.
People For the American Way.
Project Vote.
Public Citizen.
The Arc of the United States.
United Auto Workers.
United Cerebral Palsy.
U.S. Action Education Fund.
U.S. Public Interest Research Group.
National Spinal Cord Injury Association.
National CURE (Citizens United for Rehabilitation of
Events).
American Foundation for the Blind.
National Industries for the Severely Handicapped.
Association of University Center on Disabilities.
American Council of the Blind.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. Let me say to my friend from Connecticut that was a
grand quest on which we were mutually engaged over a year ago to enact
new election reform legislation, a major piece of civil rights
legislation, along with Senator Bond and others. Both of us are
committed to getting it fully funded and both of us agree the current
supplemental appropriations is not the place to do it. But we are
committed to trying to achieve that, and to achieve it soon, and at a
more appropriate time.
I thank my colleague from Connecticut for not offering the amendment
on this measure and pledge to work with him to achieve the goal we both
desire.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Kentucky. I thank
Senator Reid as well, the minority whip, Senator Stevens, and Senator
Inouye for interrupting his prepared statement. I thank my colleagues.
I yield the floor.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I stepped off the floor. Just so I
understand, it is my understanding that the distinguished Senator from
Hawaii, the ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on
Defense, is going to speak for approximately 20 minutes. Senator
Stevens indicated to me that there were two or three amendments on the
majority side that they want to offer, and we have offered several
amendments this morning. They wanted to, in effect, catch up. We want
to reciprocate with amendments. Following that, we will offer an
amendment. I don't know how many amendments the Senator from Alaska
wants his side to offer prior to going back to our side. If we just had
some idea so we can have our folks lined up here.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I had an
amendment with Senator Durbin. Are we ready for that amendment?
Mr. REID. I would be happy to talk to the Senator off camera, so to
speak. But we have a plan, if the Senator will approve. I will talk off
camera momentarily.
Could Senator Stevens give us an idea of how long the work on your
side is going to take so we can have an amendment lined up after that?
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I really can't tell how long it is going
to be. We haven't put any time limit on amendments today. I won't do it
on this side. They wouldn't take them on the other side. There will be
no time limit on these amendments: Senator Hollings has an amendment,
Senator Hutchison has an amendment, and Senator Warner has an
amendment. I think there is an amendment on the list for Senator
Nickles. There are a series of Senators on this side who still have
amendments that could be raised.
My understanding is that once we have measured about the same number
of amendments presented by the other side so far today we would come
back to our side of the aisle.
Mr. REID. The only thing I would say is that everyone knows we have a
lot more amendments than the other side. We have at this time I think
still 29 or 30 amendments. It doesn't seem fair,

[[Page S12676]]

for lack of a better word, that the majority is going to get rid of
basically all of their amendments leaving us with all of ours when we
still have to finish this bill tomorrow. That is looking more remote
all the time. I don't see how in the world we can do that under the
guidelines. I apologize to my friend from Alaska for not being able to
get a time agreement on one of the amendments. That is the only one. On
the rest of them, we worked out time agreements.
I think, again for lack of a better word, in basic fairness we should
have some idea about how long it is going to take on the other side
until we are ready with amendments over here. Otherwise, I would have
no alternative but just say go ahead with regular order and start
offering the amendments that are already pending.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, that may be the alternative because I
have tried all day to speed up that side in terms of consideration of
amendments--all day long now. I started at 11 o'clock this morning. We
have just finished handling five amendments on that side of the aisle.
We haven't had one from this side of the aisle yet. I don't think it is
beyond fair to say Senators who notified me they want to bring up their
amendments that it is time for us to bring up amendments on this side.
We couldn't get any agreement on time over there. I don't know of any
reason why we should have time agreements over here.
If the Senator wants to proceed with regular order, I am all for it.
There are 16 amendments. We will be on those until midnight. Some of
them may not be called up at all. But we can call them up, if the other
side wants to do that.
I believe, in balance and fairness, we have been compelled to be
balanced on this side now for 5 hours. I think we are now going to be
on this side for about 4 or 5 hours.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, everyone here should know that this bill
will not be finished tomorrow. Understand that it will not be finished
tomorrow. If it is going to be 4 or 5 hours on amendments on the
majority side when they have just a few amendments, this bill will not
be finished tomorrow, period. Take however long they want. We have done
everything to cooperate. There was one amendment that we didn't get a
time agreement on, but we still finished that in a reasonable period of
time.
I have the greatest affection, respect, and admiration for the
distinguished manager of this bill. But to take 4 or 5 hours, that is 9
o'clock. To think we can finish this bill tomorrow is hallucinating. We
can't do that.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I remember my good friend from Nevada
saying just let things work out this morning at 11 o'clock when I tried
to get the time; let things work out.
I don't know how long these amendments are going to take. I haven't
seen them, either. I didn't see the ones either from that side this
morning. You can't tell how long an amendment is going to take until
you look at it and read it.
As a practical matter, I am asking the Senator from Nevada to do on
their side exactly what we had to this morning--take the assurance that
we are going to move as quickly as we can and turn to some of the
amendments on this side for a while.

Mr. REID. There is a basic difference. If I may say, there are some
people over here who really don't care much about this bill ever
passing. That is the way the Senate is.
Senator Daschle has used his good office because of a gentlemen's
agreement that he had with the manager of the bill and Senator Frist to
move this along as quickly as possible. We are trying to do that. It is
no one's fault, but one of the Senators had a medical problem that held
us up for several hours before we were scheduled to vote. It seems
there is always some problem here.
We have tried as much as we can to be responsible in our ability to
move this bill.
Four or five hours--I just repeat, we can't finish this bill
tomorrow. Everyone should understand that. That isn't done with any
animosity. It just can't be done.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Senator is correct in terms of the
process. We still have a lot more than six amendments. We have a whole
list of amendments, depending on what amendments are raised on that
side. All I am asking for is balance and fairness in terms of what we
allowed the other side to do in handling their amendments until now. If
that means we have to go to regular order, I am prepared to call for
regular order. If that is the case, I am saddened to hear my friend
from Nevada say a gentlemen's agreement was made on the basis that the
Democratic side of the aisle is allowed to call up amendments whenever
they want and for how long they want but they want time agreements and
assurances on our side. That isn't the agreement we made. That is not
the gentlemen's agreement which I understand we made.
If the gentlemen's agreement is broken and we do not finish by
tomorrow, we should know that right now. If that is the case, then I
can assure the Senate that we will be back in session Saturday and we
will be here Sunday. We are going to finish this bill this week. That
word I took as a word of a Senator. All leadership agreed that we would
finish this bill tomorrow to the best of our ability. I am still
relying on that word.
Mr. President, I suggest we proceed with Senator Inouye.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith). Under the previous order, the
Senator from Hawaii is recognized.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the current
situation in Iraq and the growing concern that many of my colleagues
have expressed regarding our policies in this most volatile and
dangerous region of the world.
Last October, I was one of 23 Members of this Senate who voted
against a resolution to authorize the war in Iraq. Voting on a
resolution to send our young men and women to war is one of the most
difficult issues any politician has to face.
I voted against going to war for five main reasons.
First and foremost, I did not believe the administration had made a
compelling case that attacking Iraq was in our vital national interest.
Second, I was not convinced that the classified information presented
to the Senate offered conclusive evidence that Saddam Hussein provided
a threat to the American people or that he would use weapons of mass
destruction if he possessed them.
Third, I was not convinced that his regime was aligned with al-Qaida
terrorists or was in any way involved with the September 11 attack on
the United States.
Fourth, I did not see that the administration had presented a well-
thought-out plan for dealing with postwar Iraq.
Finally, I believed that attacking Iraq when many of our closest
allies and virtually all of the Nations in the region were opposed to
it would cast the United States as the aggressor in this conflict and
deal a terrible blow to our international reputation and prestige.
I was convinced that going to war under these circumstances would
almost certainly sacrifice the almost near universal support and good
will this Nation had gained following the terrorist attacks in New York
and Washington. I regret today I still have many of the same concerns
about the policy.
Having said that, the majority of my colleagues disagreed with me,
and Congress approved an attack on Iraq. I know this is not to second-
guess but only because it sets the stage for where we are today. The
question for the Senate is what should the Congress do at this point?
Our principal responsibility as Senators is to protect the people of
this great Nation. Particularly, it is my belief we must fight for
those who defend us. I have often said less than 1 percent of our
population protects all the rest of us by wearing our Nation's uniform.
I will say once again, I strongly believe it is our sacred duty to
serve them. We simply must support the men and women willing to serve
in harm's way.
Our forces fought gallantly in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Our military
strategy proved to be effective in war even if the rationale for war
and postwar strategy can be questioned. Our forces proved once again
that they are the most effective fighting force in the world.
Today, more than 125,000 U.S. military personnel remain in Iraq.
While

[[Page S12677]]

all of us would like to know how long they will stay and how long they
will be needed, I am confident each and every one of my colleagues
agree they deserve our support. To guarantee the support, we must
ensure that we provide sufficient funding for our forces to be equipped
and ready to meet the challenges they face in Iraq.
Many in this body question the administration's policy. They want to
criticize the war because we have not yet found weapons of mass
destruction. Our debate should not be focused on whether Saddam had
weapons of mass destruction. Regardless of how we came to be in Iraq, I
ask my colleagues what do we want to do now? Should we punish the
administration for putting us in this position? I would only say in
seeking to mete out punishment on those political leaders with whom we
might disagree, we will most likely only punish our sons and daughters
who have volunteered to risk their lives. That we cannot let happen.
The question we must ask at this moment is, How should we proceed?
The cost of the ongoing war on terrorism is staggering. As has been
mentioned often in the Senate, $87 billion is an enormous amount of
money. Since September 11, the Congress has approved the supplemental
defense funding in excess of $100 billion in response to the terrorist
attacks on our Nation and for the operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Moreover, because of these costs, coupled with the impact of large tax
cuts, we no longer are running a surplus. Instead, we have a deficit
estimated to exceed $500 billion.

I understand my colleagues' frustration and understand why they
demand better accountability. In seeking solutions, they have argued we
should not have to pay for the reconstruction of Iraq. They want Iraq
to use its oil reserves to pay for its own infrastructure. I am all for
Iraq paying as much as it can to rebuild its country, but
realistically, it is not in any position today to do much of that.
So should we wait? I would argue no. Our sons and daughters are in
Iraq and the conditions are not good. The infrastructure to support our
military and Ambassador Bremer and his staff is not conducive to
getting Iraq back on its feet. We cannot turn our backs on our men and
women serving in that theater because we disagree with this war. But
even more important, we want our forces to come home as soon as
possible.
I can assure my colleagues of one thing: Our forces will be in Iraq a
lot longer if we refuse to make the investment in that country's
infrastructure.
Three weeks ago, Hurricane Isabel caused widespread power outage in
the Washington, DC, area. For several days, many were without power and
we complained. Let me say to my colleagues that was a minor
inconvenience compared to what our forces face in Iraq. I know we were
all grateful when we finally saw the Pepco truck in our neighborhoods.
It was a real boost to our morale.
I can assure you our troops in Iraq are the strongest supporters of
us putting up $20 billion to help get Iraq reconstruction started. For
them, getting this money will be like seeing the Pepco truck finally
enter their neighborhood.
This funding is not charity. The fastest way for us to get our sons
and daughters home is to get Iraq back up and running. Congress
approved this war, the Congress agreed it was worth the cost to rid the
international community of Saddam Hussein. In reviewing this request,
it is not a question of whether Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.
It is not really relevant if Saddam was or was not linked to Osama bin
Laden. It is not a question of whether this war was right or wrong for
our country. Those issues will be debated next year as the country
determines its next President and its next Congress. It does not matter
how we voted last October. This October it is our responsibility to
support the men and women in the military who are doing what we
required of them.
I urge my colleagues to support the supplemental request to support
our military forces to help end this conflict quickly and do all we can
to get our sons and daughters home sooner.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.

Amendment No. 1874

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, we turn to discussion of the amendment
currently pending before the Senate.
Today, we call on the Department of Defense to finalize regulations
that will ensure that the Global War on Terrorism Medal, the medal that
the Joint Chiefs of Staff picked and that the President has authorized
for military operations, will be awarded on an expedited basis to the
men and women of the Armed Forces of our country who serve in the
global war on terrorism.
Recently, on this bill we dealt with an amendment that would have
created a congressionally mandated medal when a medal already
authorized by the President and recommended by the military was already
in the works and awaiting final approval of the necessary regulations.
That medal awaiting final approval is the Global War on Terrorism
Expeditionary Medal. It can be awarded to all who serve in Operation
Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Our victories in the global war on terrorism would not have been
possible without the dedication, the courage, and the service of the
members of the U.S. Armed Forces and their coalition partners.
It is entirely appropriate that we recognize these brave men and
women of the Armed Forces by awarding them service medals for personal
bravery and other leadership actions and for their service in military
operations abroad and for support operations at home and support
operations overseas.
But the fact is, historically, the President has relied on senior
military officers to recommend the personal and theater campaign
medals.
Here, with the Global War on Terrorism Medal, that longstanding
tradition was preserved with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the
combatant commanders, including GEN Tommy Franks, U.S. Army, former
Commander of the U.S. Central Command, recommending the medal to be
awarded.
Taking the advice of his senior military and civilian defense
leaders, President Bush, by Executive Order 13289, on March 12 of this
year, established the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal to be
awarded to service members who served in military operations to combat
terrorism on or after September 11, 2001, including, but not limited
to, actions in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom,
in such locations as Afghanistan, Iraq, the Republic of the
Philippines, and elsewhere in Southwest Asia.
Now, that Executive Order by the President went beyond our men and
women in the Armed Forces and much further than the recent, other medal
amendment would have. It also established a Global War on Terrorism
Service Medal, recognizing duty in Operation Noble Eagle and the
homeland defense mission against further terrorist attacks and
recognizing duty in support of military operations performed in areas
that do not qualify for the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary
Medal.
We all know of the fine work that is going on to preserve our
homeland security. We know of the efforts to guard our borders, hunt
down terrorists, and screen our airports. We recognize those efforts
with this amendment and the medal. But we bring focus and attention to
all of the important support staff. Ask any soldier, ask any sailor,
ask any airman, and each will tell you how important it is to have the
right staff sending you the right stuff--having the right staff sending
you the right stuff. Without a competent, capable, and talented support
staff in the global war on terrorism, our men and women in the Armed
Forces would not have the right tools for the job. Their lives would be
at greater risk and so, too, would the freedom we cherish here at home.
It is right that we recognize all that they provide for our soldiers,
our sailors, and our airmen, as well as what they do for all of us.
Yet the implementing regulations for eligibility for both these
medals have not been issued by the Secretary of Defense.
So today, what we will do, if my amendment is adopted, is we, in the
Senate, will call upon the Secretary of Defense to complete action as
soon as possible on implementing regulations so these awards can go to
any person who renders qualifying service with the Armed Forces in
those phases of the

[[Page S12678]]

global war on terrorism, including Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation
Enduring Freedom, and Operation Noble Eagle.
This amendment says the regulations providing for a medal already in
the works, designed by soldiers and authorized by the President, should
be implemented as soon as possible and, in doing so, should also
recognize those who serve in Operation Noble Eagle and in support roles
for our military abroad. These are the critical distinctions between
the amendment before us now and the amendment that was considered 2
days ago.
Mr. President, I know Senator McCain and Senator Warner would also
like to speak to my amendment. They are not in the Chamber at the
moment but would like to speak. And I believe there is another Senator
on our side of the aisle who would like to speak on this amendment as
well.
So pending their arrival, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I want to address the sense-of-the-Senate
resolution on behalf of men and women in the Armed Forces offered by
our distinguished Senator from Kentucky. I ask unanimous consent that I
be listed as a cosponsor of the resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise to give strong support to this and
I want to say against the background--and the other day we had a
similar matter before the Senate and I rose to address that. It was a
technical problem, primarily, with that resolution. This one, which I
have read carefully, in a very straightforward manner, recites the
history of personal decorations and theater awards and, in particular,
how these matters, throughout the military history of this country,
have been actions taken by Presidents upon the recommendation of the
senior officers of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and,
indeed, the Coast Guard. In this instance, this administration has
moved to put in place those recognitions--most deserving, I would say--
of men and women who have gone to the farflung corners of the globe and
accepted the risks, together with their families, of going to those
areas for the cause of freedom and to protect the security interests of
the United States of America.
That region of Iraq is very much in our hearts and minds every day. I
have had the privilege, as have many in this body, to go there and
visit with our troops. Likewise, I have had the privilege to go and
visit with our forces in Afghanistan. Most recently, I went to Liberia,
where the strike task force--largely composed of U.S. marines but under
the control of a very fine Army officer--performed extraordinary duties
on behalf of the people of Liberia, who have suffered a decade-plus of
civil war turmoil. I could go on and on, but others are anxious to
address this.

The point I wish to make is these decorations are proudly worn on the
uniform of the men and women in the Armed Forces. They are coveted
items of families for generations. In my office, I have proudly
displayed the decoration earned by my father who volunteered as a young
Army doctor in World War I to go to France where he served in the
trenches. I remember as a young person of his telling stories to me
about life in the trenches, the extraordinary devastation he witnessed,
the loss of life, and the carnage. But there on the wall was his World
War I Victory Medal. It had on it three bars of the three major
conflicts. He was proud to wear it on the uniform of the United States
when he saw service.
It is a carefully thought through process that we cannot award a
separate medal for every conflict. We have to recognize the theater of
operations. For example, in World War II, it was the European theater
and it was the Pacific theater. There was a medal given to those in the
continental limits in training commands. There were three basic
theaters of operation, and then stars were awarded for the major
conflicts in the theaters of Europe or the Pacific.
It is not a wise course of action to award a separate medal of
decoration for each of the many theaters we are engaged in today.
Rather, there should be just the principal decoration which, as we say
in the final paragraph of this resolution, and I will read that:

It is the sense of the Senate that the Secretary of Defense
should, on an expedited basis, issue the necessary
regulations to implement these awards and ensure that any
person who renders qualifying service to the Armed Forces in
those phases of the Global War on Terrorism, including
Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom, and
Operation Noble Eagle should promptly receive these awards.

That is a category of awards given primarily for Iraq and Afghanistan
and contiguous areas where the men and women of the Armed Forces are
serving actually in the front lines or, indeed, in a support phase.
I strongly urge the Senate adopt this amendment. I hope there are 100
votes in recognition of this course of action.
To those who, with the best of intentions, have recommended specific
theaters, specific zones, such as Iraq, we then have to think of
Afghanistan, we have to think of Liberia, although, fortunately, that
was an operation that was successfully performed in a relatively short
period of time. I could go throughout the world.
It is better there be theater-of-operations awards and individuals
singled out. I know, for example, if I may say, when I was Secretary of
the Navy and heavily involved in the subject of awards, I remember so
much working with the father of the distinguished Senator from Arizona
who was commander in chief of all military forces in the Pacific, ADM
``Jumpin'' Jack McCain. I remember him well. I learned a lot from him.
The Senator from Arizona will recall from his earlier experience how
theater recognition is given and then the star to recognize those
engagements in which one participated. That is a process carefully
supervised by the senior military, primarily the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
I am quite interested in the views of the distinguished Senator from
Arizona on this subject. I yield to the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a
colloquy with the Senator from Virginia.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Virginia that
perhaps we should for a moment discuss what happened yesterday and what
we are trying to do under the leadership and initiation of Senator
McConnell.
Yesterday there was, as part of the $87 billion assistance package to
Iraq, an amendment that was proposed which would have bestowed a
specific decoration on those who fought in the Iraqi conflict. There
was a provision also that prohibited others, those eligible for that
medal, from being eligible for other decorations, as I understood it.
Then that provision was voluntarily removed by the sponsor of the
amendment. I ask my friend, isn't it a little appropriate to remember
what happened?
On March 12, 2003--that was a number of months ago--the President of
the United States, by Executive order, which is the proper and accepted
methodology for this kind of designation of awards, established the
Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal to be awarded to service
members who serve in military operations to combat terrorism on or
after September 11, 2001, including, but not limited to, actions in
Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom, in such
locations as Afghanistan, Iraq, the Republic of the Philippines, and
elsewhere in Southwest Asia, in recognition of sacrifice and
contribution.
In addition to that, in that same Executive order, the President
established the service medal, the Global War on Terrorism Service
Medal recognizing service in Operation Noble Eagle and the homeland
defense mission against further terrorist attacks--for example,
military duties here domestically--in providing security and much-
needed service here.
In other words, isn't it the Senator's understanding there were two
medals? That by Executive order, following the advice of senior
military and civilian defense leaders, President Bush established two
different medals for men and

[[Page S12679]]

women who have engaged in the war on terrorism since September 11?
I guess what I see coming from my colleague is, if we are going to
make a specific award for Iraq, shouldn't the same award be bestowed in
Afghanistan? In other words, in other areas? Wouldn't, at least in the
President's Executive order, the expeditionary medal and the service
medal cover service literally globally? I think we might have
difficulty if you gave a specific medal for Iraq, which was a dangerous
mission which entailed the loss and injury of brave young Americans,
but also Afghanistan is being left out. I think that was the point the
Senator from Virginia and I were trying to make yesterday.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the Senator is very correct in the
recitation of the facts. I add one other perspective, and that is how
well the Senator from Arizona understands with his distinguished career
the identification of the families with the serviceperson, and should a
special award be made for Iraq, think of the families of those who
served in Afghanistan, particularly who lost life and limb. They would
think: Why is not the sacrifice of our family in every respect equal to
the sacrifice of the other families in the Iraqi situation?
Yesterday, or today, the Senator from Arizona and I took to the floor
together in a similar colloquy to urge colleagues to let the system
work because it is working and it is working in the traditions of our
military.
It is working in a manner that is equitably recognizing the
performance in this area.
Mr. McCAIN. Could I also point out to my colleague, this was also an
argument, I think he would agree with me, to allow the executive branch
to act in what has been, frankly, the executive branch's area of
responsibility, and that is the designation of service medals,
expeditionary medals, et cetera, including, by the way, higher awards
which would be bestowed for acts of heroism and courage no matter where
they fall. This is not the only medal of recognition available for a
lot of these young men. But when we get into a bill which is
legislation that is for the reconstruction of Iraq, and all of a sudden
we come up with a great idea to designate a medal, we have to think
these things through.
The Senator from Virginia is the distinguished chairman of the Armed
Services Committee. Was this issue ever raised in the Armed Services
Committee?
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, no. Our committee does have jurisdiction
over these matters. It was not brought to the attention of myself.
I saw momentarily the ranking member. I do not see him at the moment.
To the best of my knowledge, he did not have knowledge of it aforehand.
Mr. McCAIN. Again, I know the Senator from Virginia shares my
admiration and appreciation for the Senator from New Mexico who
proposed this amendment. In a good-faith effort, he wanted to recognize
the service and sacrifice of those who had served. I appreciate that.
But I would also caution my colleagues that it is probably best to
explore what has been done and also what should be done by the
committees of jurisdiction. Otherwise, we should not have committees of
jurisdiction; we should all just come to the floor with our ideas as to
how best to address issues.
I think the Armed Services Committee has a reputation, as one of the
oldest committees in the Senate, of never shirking in its duty to
address issues, including ones such as these.
Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague. I also add that, very importantly,
one very good development resulted from the debate we had yesterday.
I was under the impression that the two declarations to which the
distinguished Senator from Arizona made mention were actually in being.
I am perhaps remiss. I thought that by now they were in being, but in
fact when I went directly to the Office of the Secretary of Defense,
and those involved in the process, I found this needed a little
congressional incentive. That is the basic reason for this amendment
that is laid down today. We have their attention now, and they are
going forward with these decorations.
So for that reason, we must say to Senator Bingaman that that was a
very fortunate development.
Mr. McCAIN. Again, I thank the Senator from New Mexico for his desire
and motivation to honor these brave young people.
I say to my friend, President Bush signed this Executive order on
March 12. The way I count, that is 7 months ago. I am deeply disturbed
that the Secretary of Defense has not acted to implement these
regulations. I would like to tell my friend from Virginia that I still
have people who work over in the Pentagon, who provide me from time to
time with information--usually anonymously, for obvious reasons--but I
have been told that these regulations have been on Deputy Secretary
Wolfowitz's desk for 3\1/2\ weeks. That is not right. I know the Deputy
Secretary of Defense is busy and I know the Secretary of Defense is
busy, but I think we have every right to expect immediate action on
this so that these men and women can go about receiving this
recognition because they cannot until these papers are signed.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the Senator is correct.
Mr. McCAIN. I yield to my friend from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. The Senator is absolutely correct. As I said, we have
brought this matter and the urgency of it to their attention, and that
is one of the very positive results from the efforts of our colleagues
on the other side and the initiative taken by the distinguished whip on
this side in this amendment.
Mr. McCAIN. Could I mention to my friend from Virginia, too, as
chairman of the Armed Services Committee, perhaps we should look at
whether individual medals should be given for operations in Iraq, and
perhaps individual decorations should be given for the conflict in
Afghanistan, as two prime examples. Perhaps it is not sufficient to
just have an expeditionary medal and a service medal.
I had hoped that if we had acted in order to separate those two
conflicts from others, we would get input from the Secretary of
Defense, that there would be proper consultation and hearing and
scrutiny before the Senate Armed Services Committee before we acted.
I think the Senator from Virginia pointed out that if we only gave an
Iraqi freedom medal, what about those in Afghanistan? Is there an
Afghanistan freedom medal, too? No, that was not part of the proposal
yesterday. That is why these things with noble motivation have to be
thought through. I hope that with this sense-of-the-Senate resolution,
which we will all vote on, we will send a message that we are all in
support of the incredible importance of recognizing the service and
sacrifice of the young men and women of our Armed Forces today.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank our distinguished colleague. I
have known the McCain family. I served with the Senator's father and
have followed the distinguished Senator's career, and it stands in
parallel to the finest careers of those who have served in this body in
years past, today, and who will serve in the future, who have worn the
uniform of this country. So I value greatly the views of the Senator
from Arizona and I thank him.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I say to my good friend he fails to
mention that I served under the distinguished Senator from Virginia
when he held the position of Secretary of the Navy. I might say I
served way under. Given the chain of command, there were probably at
least seven or eight individuals who separated the two of us, but I
certainly appreciate the honor and pleasure of having served under
then-Secretary of the Navy Warner. I have appreciated the relationship
we have enjoyed in the intervening 30 years.
Mr. WARNER. I do not know. I fail to count the number of years. It is
30 plus. But I thank the Senator for his kind remarks. My career is so
inconsequential in the U.S. military compared with his. I do believe I
received the good conduct medal. To the best of my knowledge, the
Senator never received that; did he?
Mr. McCAIN. I do not think I was ever considered for that.
Mr. WARNER. I do not think the Senator was eligible then and he is
not eligible now. I think it is likely the Senator will never be
eligible.

Mr. McCAIN. If it was up to a vote of our colleagues, I doubt I would
be eligible today.

[[Page S12680]]

Mr. WARNER. Well, maybe we should cease this colloquy at this moment.
I see others who perhaps would like to speak.
Again, we commend the distinguished Senator from Kentucky for his
initiative on this matter. I was somewhat saddened yesterday that we
had to have a division of views on what I believe was the best of
intentions by the Senator from New Mexico. I think now this is an
opportunity for us to shake hands on both sides and move on and resolve
this matter.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. I note the presence of the Senator from New Mexico. I
hope he was able to hear our remarks concerning our appreciation for
his motivation to honor these young men and women who have served and
sacrificed. We look forward to and anticipate we will continue working
together on this worthy cause.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
Mr. DASCHLE. I understand the majority leader will be coming to the
floor shortly to address our current legislative circumstances. I have
become increasingly concerned about our ability to finish this bill. We
have noted that concern to the majority leader, as well as to the
manager of the bill.
Our concern stems from really two issues: One, the unwillingness on
the part of some to have votes on the pending amendments. I am told now
there are eight or nine amendments that are pending, that have been
offered and that have been set aside. Tomorrow is Friday. We wanted to
have votes on all of those amendments. Yet for whatever reason, we have
been unable to get to the votes.

The second issue is the issue involving the amendment to be offered
by the Senators from Indiana and Wyoming, Mr. Bayh and Mr. Ensign. I am
told, for whatever reason, many of our colleagues on the other side are
unwilling to allow that amendment even to be brought up. If that is the
case, obviously we are not going to be able to finish this bill. We
can't have completion of the consideration of this legislation until
that amendment has been offered and we have an opportunity to debate it
and vote on it.
So, for whatever reason, we are stymied this afternoon at 5 o'clock
with, I guess, some 30 amendments pending.
We had indicated all along we would make our best good-faith effort
to try to finish this legislation. But I emphasized all the way
through, this is going to take cooperation on both sides. I think we
have cooperated in every sense of the word. We have laid down the
amendments. I think most of the amendments that have been offered have
been our amendments. We have laid them down. We have not in any way
stalled consideration of this legislation.
Now we are here Thursday afternoon at 5 o'clock with nine amendments
we are told we cannot have votes on, and one of them that cannot even
be offered. So we are going to have to come to some understanding about
how to proceed. I must say, with each passing hour the likelihood that
we will be able to complete our work as we had hoped we could--by the
end of the day tomorrow--dwindles and diminishes to a point where it
will soon be nonexistent.
I call these concerns to the attention of my colleagues and ask we
get some clarification about the schedule and about our ability to deal
with these issues.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. I say to my friend, the Democratic leader, we agree
that the amendment to which you referred is one of the last--I hope the
last important amendment to be offered. I don't know whether there are
other amendments on that side of the aisle that will have a need for
debate at some length. But the amendment to which the Democratic leader
referred is obviously one a number of people are going to want to speak
to. I think we will be able to go to it sometime in the early evening
because there are people here who are going to want to speak on that
amendment. I know people on your side are going to want to speak on
that amendment.
I am still optimistic that we can press on into the evening. It is
still our hope to finish the bill.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am gratified to hear the distinguished
assistant Republican leader is optimistic. I was optimistic. I hope I
can have that optimism restored. As I noted just a moment ago, there
are about 30 amendments pending, but we really believe that a lot of
the amendments that are still pending depend on the outcome of the
amendment to be offered by Senators Bayh and Ensign. So it is hard for
us to move forward on the other amendments until that one has been
resolved.
So we are in a situation where we cannot move forward until our
Republican colleagues acknowledge the need to, not only offer the
amendment, but to have it debated and voted upon, so we can clear the
way for whatever additional amendments along the lines of the subject
matter the Bayh-Ensign amendment addresses.

That is the issue. That is the concern we have. I hope we can clarify
it soon. But I only raise this concern because I suggest the hour,
while it is not late, is getting later, and we do not have a lot of
time to finish all the work that is left.
I believe we made our commitment, kept our commitment, and I hope we
can accomplish what many of us had hoped we could do 2 weeks ago.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
Mr. McCONNELL. Not to prolong this, because I think we are at
essential agreement, but it was hard to get anything going during the
day today, as is often the case around here. This is quite a nocturnal
institution. The Sun goes down and we get busy working. But I certainly
share the view of the Democratic leader the amendment to which he
referred is a significant amendment. It is certainly our expectation we
will be able to go to that amendment sometime early in the evening,
accommodate those who want to speak, on both sides, move in the
direction of completing action on the amendment at some point this
evening, and move ahead, I hope.
I say to my good friend, that doesn't mean we have a whole lot more
amendments coming from that side of the aisle that are going to require
extensive debate. I heard the Senator from South Dakota and others say
that is the last significant amendment. I certainly hope that is the
case because then I think we have a chance of wrapping it up sometime
soon and moving on to other matters.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I hope I didn't say that this was the
last significant amendment because I know many of my colleagues who
have amendments to offer certainly view them as significant. I wouldn't
want to characterize their amendments as insignificant. If I led the
Senator from Kentucky to that conclusion, I want to clarify that was
not my intention.
But I also reiterate, we have eight or nine amendments pending that
would require votes. We are basically in a quorum call with no real
expectation of a vote on many of these amendments for the foreseeable
future.
There are two issues. One is this amendment on loans offered by
Senators Bayh and Ensign. The other is clearing the logjam of
amendments that have already been offered, including one by this
Senator, that awaits a vote. So the sooner we can get on with those
votes, the sooner we can get on with the consideration of the Bayh
amendment and the sooner we can address the other backlog of amendments
that are waiting to be offered.
I thank my colleagues for their attention to this and hope we hear
from the majority leader sometime soon.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic whip.
Mr. REID. I very much appreciate the Democratic leader's observation
and his patience. We have a number of amendments that we have asked
Members to withhold offering because there have been other matters on
the Senate floor. During this period of time, we have had virtually no
quorum calls until the recent episode where there has been movement--
speaking only for myself--preventing anything from happening on this
bill.
Mr. McCONNELL. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. REID. I will in just one second. So we have basically been
without

[[Page S12681]]

quorum calls. And we still have, as the Senator from South Dakota, the
Democratic leader, mentioned, about 30 amendments we have to dispose
of.

As the leader said, some of these will fall as a result of the vote
on the Bayh-Ensign amendment. But that still leaves at least 15 or 20
amendments we have to dispose of, and that doesn't count those at the
desk. Just basic numbers indicate we have a lot of work to do.
I would also say that for my friend, the distinguished majority whip,
to indicate we haven't been doing anything during the day--we have.
There were some concerned about the time Senator Byrd spent on his
amendment. But there was nothing done to stall for time. That time was
taken, every minute, by some of the more distinguished Senators who
spoke in support of Senator Byrd's amendment. He wouldn't agree to any
time limit, but there certainly was no effort to stall anything. Then
we were waiting to offer other amendments.
My point is that just by sheer numbers, if the Senator from Kentucky
says it will take several hours of debate when we get to it this
evening, does that mean we get to it at 6 o'clock or 7 o'clock? Are we
going to spend 2 hours on that? That means we finish that debate at 9
or 9:30. We have a vote on that, we have 9 matters at the desk to vote
on, and then we still have the amendments that have not even been
offered.
So this is no easy chore we have. I, frankly, in spite of the good
will between the distinguished majority whip and our Democratic
leader--I think it is going to be difficult to do that based upon what
we have been told by the majority this afternoon.
I am happy to yield for a question from my friend.
Mr. McCONNELL. I was going to suggest we vote on this amendment at 20
minutes to 6, the pending amendment.
Mr. REID. The amendment before us? I would say I haven't had a chance
to speak to my friend from New Mexico, but is this anything we object
to?
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I certainly have no objection to voting
on this, voting at 20 minutes to 6. I would like a chance to speak for
4 or 5 minutes on the amendment, if I could.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, without losing my right to the floor,
through the Chair I say to my friend from New Mexico that it is my
understanding he does not oppose the amendment.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, that is correct. I have no opposition to
the amendment. I just want to speak to and explain my views on it.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, that is my whole point. There is no reason
to vote on this amendment. This is the old stall we are getting. That
is all this is. There is no reason to vote on this amendment. We have
substantive issues, and this is very important. I appreciate the good
speeches from the chairman of the committee on this most important
issue. But everybody is going to vote for it. If we are trying to
finish this bill, which obviously we are not at this stage, the stall
is going on and whatever has to happen to make sure the vote count is
right on the Bayh amendment.
We need to move forward on this legislation. I will vote on it
anytime we want. But I am just saying that it is a waste of time. I
have seen stalls before. This is a stall. That is speaking only for
myself.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, we are prepared to vote now, if that is
agreeable with the Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. I would be happy to.
Mr. McCAIN. Is it true----
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I have the floor. I yield to the
Senator from Arizona for a question.
Mr. McCAIN. Is it true that we had a 97-to-0 vote on the Byrd
amendment, as I recall?
Mr. McCONNELL. I believe that is correct.
Mr. McCAIN. I thank my colleague.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I have the floor.
Mr. REID. I would like to respond to the question.
Mr. McCONNELL. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Nevada to
respond.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I think it would be totally appropriate to
have a vote on this as long as the Senator from New Mexico has 5
minutes to speak. This issue brought now by the majority is a result of
the very important amendment offered by the Senator from New Mexico. I
have no problem. My only point is this: There may have been one vote
that was 98 to 0. I don't remember that. There certainly could have
been. I assume this will be another one. But I think that will be fine
after the Senator from New Mexico speaks, and then vote.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, reserving my right to the floor, I ask
unanimous consent that there be 10 minutes equally divided between the
Senator from Virginia and the Senator from New Mexico and that at the
end of those 10 minutes, the Senate proceed to a rollcall vote on the
pending amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I reserve the right to object and ask
unanimous consent that the amendment of the Senator from Indiana, Mr.
Bayh, No. 1871, be the next amendment in order.
Mr. STEVENS. Reserving the right to object, as the Senator knows, we
had an amendment as lined up to be considered on this side. Senator
Nickles also is not able to be here, but he has given me the
information and I am prepared to offer that amendment for him. This is
the first of the three amendments we are going to call up. I would
be compelled to object to that setting of the Bayh amendment before we
have some consideration of amendments on this side.

Mr. REID. I then ask unanimous consent that the request be modified
so the Senator from Indiana may be allowed to offer his amendment
following the disposal of the Nickles amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator so modify his request?
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object----
Mr. STEVENS. I will not object to that. I ask unanimous consent to
amend this request so that I may be recognized to present the Nickles
amendment following the vote on the McConnell amendment, and following
that Senator Bayh be recognized to present his amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me speak very briefly on the pending
McConnell amendment which Senator McConnell, Senator Warner, and
Senator McCain have offered.
First, I congratulate them. I think this is a very constructive
amendment. It gives recognition to the men and women who are serving
overseas in various locations. It puts the Senate on record, even
though it is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment, in support of the
issuance of appropriate medals to these individuals.
I believe, as I was arguing the day before yesterday when we had the
other debate on this issue, that the appropriate course is either on
the initiative of the Pentagon or through action by the Congress that
at some stage fairly soon we authorize combat medals for those who
serve in Iraq and for those who perhaps serve in Afghanistan. That
seems to me to me to be consistent with the course we followed
previously. We had a medal of that sort for those who served in the
first gulf war. We had a medal of that sort for those who served in
Kosovo. There is ample precedent for that.
To lump all military engagements that we have after 9/11 under this
large umbrella of the global war on terrorism and say we are going to
give you one medal for whatever military engagements you serve in after
that date I think is inadequate. I think the men and women serving in
Iraq today deserve special recognition for that.
I have seen the suggestions being considered at the Pentagon for
putting a star on some designation--on a generic kind of a medal
dealing with the global war on terrorism, some kind of star indicating
services in Iraq. To me, that would not be consistent with what we have
done before. I hope we won't go that route.
Obviously, this is a step forward. I commend the Senator from
Virginia, the Senator from Arizona, and the Senator from Kentucky for
putting forward this amendment. I intend to support it. I hope all
Senators will support it.
But I hope we will find a way or that the Pentagon will find a way to
do

[[Page S12682]]

more to recognize the service of these individuals both in Iraq and in
Afghanistan.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, may I say to my colleague from New Mexico,
with whom I have had the privilege to serve now for close to two
decades in this body, and who was a member of the Senate Armed Services
Committee, and a very valued member, that he has gotten this Senator's
attention. I appreciate what he is doing to support the pending
amendment, and I urge colleagues to do likewise.
If I might say first, while he was not present in the Chamber when I
brought to the attention of the Senate that the debate which followed
his amendment the other day did bring about this Senator's personal
attention on the status of several decorations, I found that it was not
moving along, in my judgment, in an expeditious and timely manner. That
debate the other day served a very important service to the men and
women of the Armed Forces who are engaged in these particular theaters.
I would like to work with the Senator and with the Department of
Defense to pursue his thoughts about perhaps additional recognition for
service in the theaters of Iraq Afghanistan. I am just not prepared at
this time to give a definitive answer.
This is the course, as proposed by the amendment which is before the
Senate, which has been followed for years. So many places in the world
today have often no geographic boundaries and have no identity. Yet
people who are on guard wearing our uniform, coalition forces and other
nations, are subject to loss of life and limb in combating that
terrorism.
I am not able at this point in time to come up with some definitive
suggestion. But I certainly would like to associate myself with the
Senator's remarks that there should be an expression of gratitude to
those persons serving in these theaters right now for their service and
that given by their families. I thank the Senator.

I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield back the remaining time.
Mr. WARNER. Have the yeas and nays been ordered?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not.
Mr. WARNER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment numbered 1874. The clerk
will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Craig) is
necessarily absent.
I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from Idaho
(Mr. Craig) would vote ``yea.''
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr.
Lieberman) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chambliss). Are there any other Senators
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 97, nays 1, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 387 Leg.]

YEAS--97

Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Chambliss
Clinton
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Corzine
Crapo
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham (FL)
Graham (SC)
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hollings
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Miller
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden

NAYS--1

Jeffords

NOT VOTING--2

Craig
Lieberman

The amendment (No. 1874) was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 1869, As Modified; 1870; and 1857, As Modified, En bloc

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have three amendments that have been
cleared by both sides: Amendment No. 1869, as modified; amendment No.
1870; and amendment No. 1857, as modified. I send them to the desk and
ask that they be considered en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments will be
considered en bloc.
Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendments?
If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendments.
The amendments were agreed, as follows:

Amendment No. 1869, as modified

(Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds to arm, train, or employee
individuals under the age of 18 years for the Facilities Protection
Service)

At the end of title II, add the following:
Sec. 2313. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act under the heading ``Iraq Relief and
Reconstruction Fund'', or under any other heading, may be
obligated or expended for the purpose of arming, training, or
employing individuals under the age of 18 years for the
Facilities Protection Service, to carry out any function
similar to the functions performed by the Service, or for any
other security force.

amendment no. 1870

Insert at the appropriate place in the bill:
Sec.   . Section 1605 of title 28, United States Code is
amended by adding a new subsection (h) as follows:
``(h) Notwithstanding any provision of the Algiers Accords,
or any other international agreement, any United States
citizen held hostage during the period between 1979 and 1981,
and their spouses and children at the time, shall have a
claim for money damages against a foreign state for personal
injury that was caused by the Foreign State's act of torture
or hostage taking. Any provision in an international
agreement, including the Algiers Accords that purports to bar
such suit is abrogated. This subsection shall apply
retroactively to any cause of action cited in 28 U.S.C.
1605(a)(7)(A).

amendment no. 1857, as modified

(Purpose: To improve the process for timely informing members of the
reserve components of the Armed Forces, their families, their
employers, and Congress of changes in deployment policies and schedules
applicable to mobilize members of the reserve components)

On page 22, between lines 12 and 13, insert the following:
Sec. 316. (a) In the administration of laws and policies on
the period for which members of reserve components of the
Armed Forces called or ordered to active duty under a
provision of law referred to in section 101(a)(13)(B) of
title 10, United States Code, are deployed outside the United
States, the deployment shall be considered to have begun on
the first day of the active-duty service to which called or
ordered and shall be considered to have ended on the last day
of the active-duty service to which called or ordered.
(b) The Secretary of Defense may waive the requirements of
subsection (a) in any case in which the Secretary determines
that it is necessary to do so to respond to a national
security emergency or to meet dire operational requirements
of the Armed Forces.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. BREAUX. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Ms. CANTWELL. I have offered an amendment to this bill that will
bring predictability and clarity to our deployment of National Guard
and Reserve units.
I thank my cosponsors, Senators Bond and Leahy, the cochairs of the
Senate National Guard Caucus, as well as Senators Bingaman, Leahy,
Johnson, Nelson of Florida, Graham of Florida, Murray, Kennedy, Pryor,
Lautenberg, and Kerry, who are joining me in sending a message that we
need to be consistent in how we calculate the deployment times for our
Guard and Reserve personnel.
This amendment will direct the Pentagon to consider the full
activation time for Guard and Reserve personnel in considering its
deployment policies and also to establish a program to

[[Page S12683]]

more effectively notify troops and their families of changes in
deployment policies and/or extensions in deployment periods.
This action will go a long way in ensuring better predictability for
our military reservists, their families, and employers--they certainly
deserve it.
I am proud to say that it has been endorsed by the National Guard
Association of the United States, the Reserve Officers Association and
the National Military Families Association.
As many in this Chamber know, over 20,000 troops in Iraq were faced
with a rude awakening last month when the administration changed a 50-
year standard practice in calculating deployment policies--a change the
effectively extended deployments for these troops by several months in
many cases.
Prior to last month's decision, the length of deployment was
calculated based on the time a reservist was activated--when a member
of the Guard and Reserve left home. However, last month, the
administration changed the method of calculation to time deployed ``in
theater.''
This is not the way to treat our Reserve component. We are asking
more and more from them, and they deserve better. The Guard and Reserve
are critically important to our national security both at home and
abroad.
Since September 11, 2001, the National Guard has mobilized 210,000 of
its 350,000 soldiers at one time or another. The Reserve has mobilized
85,000 of its 205,000 in that same time period.
In my own State, with the recent alert of the Army National Guard's
81st Armored Brigade, 41 percent of Washington State's National Guard--
4,041 troops--are currently alerted and deployed, as well as 2,100
reservists from bases around my State.
These are historic levels of sustained mobilization, and we need to
be clear that we are asking a lot from these men and women--and we must
do everything we can to ensure that the Guard and Reserve continue to
recruit and retain skilled and committed personnel.
It goes without saying that these men and women definitely signed up
to serve when their country calls. The reservists in my State do not
dispute their commitment; they embrace it.
However, we need to know that we are asking an extraordinary
commitment from our Nation's Guard and reservists, their families and
their employers and we need to recognize the full commitment.
This is why I was concerned when the Pentagon announced that it will
calculate deployment lengths for the over 20,000 Guard and Reserve
members in Iraq based on the actual time in the theater of operations--
otherwise known as ``boots on the ground.''
This change altered a long-standing practice dating back to the
Korean-war era in which deployment lengths for Guard and Reserve
officers were calculated from the moment they were actually activated--
that is, when they are called to leave their jobs and families to begin
pre-mobilization preparation time and included post-mobilization time.
This preparation time can sometimes take as much as 3 to 6 months.
As a result, thousands of troops in the theater of operations who
were expecting to go home--literally counting the days to return--were
just informed that their time would be extended, some by as much as 6
months.
This is just wrong.
As Mark Kimmey, an Army reservist, wrote in the New York Times: ``the
message to reservists is unmistakable: the Army no longer takes into
account sacrifices made to maintain two career lives.''
We absolutely own it to our Guard and reservists to give them
predictability in the process and to fully recognize that the Guard and
reservists' lives are serving from the point they are activated.
My amendment will direct the Pentagon to revert back to the standard
practice in considering, for the purposes of deployment announcements,
mobilization reports and communications, the clock to start ticking
from the point of activation--that is, ``boots out of the house.''
If we need our reservists to serve in theater for 1 year and 6 months
in preparation time, that's fine. But let's be honest, these troops are
being deployed for 18 months--not a year. Troops, families, and
employers deserve the respect of our acknowledging the sacrifice.
Let me be absolutely clear--this amendment does not, by any means,
seek to limit the operational use of the Guard and Reserve, nor are we
seeking to limit the flexibility of their use.
This does absolutely nothing to limit the ability of the Pentagon to
mobilize and use our Guard and Reserve units, nor does it limit the
length of time that they can be deployed.
Moreover, the amendment's provisions can be waived at any point in
the case of dire, unexpected operational needs.
We are simply asking the administration to adopt the standard
practice in effect for decades in calculating deployment times so that
troops and their families can know when to start their clocks.
Ultimately, this is a very modest amendment. We are asking the
Pentagon to be honest, consistent and predictable in the use of our
Guard and Reserve. They deserve it; their families deserve it; we owe
it to them.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Oklahoma is recognized.

Amendment No. 1876

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Nickles] proposes an
amendment numbered 1876.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that all countries that
hold debt from the former Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein should be
urged to forgive their debt)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. __. (a) The Senate finds the following:
(1) When Saddam Hussein came to power in the 1970's Iraq
was a prosperous county with no foreign debt and significant
foreign cash reserves.
(2) Iraq's reserves were exhausted during the Iran-Iraq War
in the 1980's and Iraq became a debtor nation.
(3) Today, the debts incurred by Saddam Hussein's regime
are estimated to be as much as $150,000,000,000.
(4) A process has been put in place that will establish a
new representative Iraqi government based on a democratic
political system with a free market economy. The goal is a
prosperous Iraq that is not a threat to its neighbors.
(5) For Iraq to be prosperous it must rebuild. In the near
term the United States and other donor countries will provide
grants to begin the process. In the longer term Iraq must be
able to fully participate in the international financial
system.
(6) It is impossible for Iraq to borrow funds in
international financial markets based on its existing debt.
Eliminating that debt will make possible Iraq's continued
rebuilding toward a prosperous and stable nation. A
prosperous nation is less likely to be a threat to its
neighbors and to be a breeding ground for terrorists. A
prosperous Iraq is more likely to be a positive force in the
region and participant in the world economy.
(b) It is the sense of the Senate that all countries that
hold debt from loans to the former Iraqi regime of Saddam
Hussein should be urged to forgive their debt.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, this is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment
urging the countries that presently hold Iraqi debt to cancel or
forgive that debt. All of the Iraqi debt was generated after Saddam
Hussein came to power in that country.
The history of the Iraqi debt was that, when Saddam Hussein took
control, it was a very rich country, and it had no debt. Saddam Hussein
started a war with Iran and he incurred a lot of debt. As a matter of
fact, when he came into power, they had no foreign debt. During Iraq's
war with Iran, Iraq incurred debts estimated at about $80 billion. Most
of that was to finance the war.
Iraqi arms purchases during the 1980s were estimated from $52 billion
to $102 billion. Saddam Hussein used debt to purchase arms. He used
debt to build palaces. He used very little debt, if any, to help the
Iraqi people.
We asked the Congressional Research Service to give us an analysis of
what countries hold or own Iraqi debt.
I ask unanimous consent to print this information in the Record.

[[Page S12684]]

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

COUNTRIES TO WHICH IRAQ MAY BE INDEBTED
[In billions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low    High
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Western Countries (G-8)...................................     16     44
Canada..................................................      1      1
France..................................................      2      8
Germany.................................................      2      4
Italy...................................................      1      2
Japan...................................................      3      7
Russia..................................................      3     16
United Kingdom..........................................      1      2
United States...........................................      2      5
Middle East Gulf States...................................     60     82
Saudi Arabia............................................     25     25
Kuwait..................................................     17     27
Other...................................................     18     30
Other Countries...........................................     16     16
Commercial (London Club)..................................      3     11
-------------
Total.................................................     95    153
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Congressional Research Service Memorandum.

Mr. NICKLES. There is a significant range. I will go over a few of
these countries, but the essence of it is that none of these countries
have received payments on Iraqi debt for years. In most cases, for
decades payments have not been made. Saddam Hussein incurred a lot of
debt. The countries holding that debt may hold it as if it is worth
something, but, frankly, no payments have been made on that debt for
some time.
Who holds that debt? The range of the total amount of debt according
to CRS--and I am not talking about war reparations for Saddam Hussein's
war with Iran and invasion of Kuwait. There are a lot of claimed
reparations for damages. That is not covered by this resolution. We are
talking about debt incurred by Saddam Hussein's regime, and that was
estimated by CRS as being a total of $95 billion and $153 billion.
Some of the debt ranges are for Western countries and some are for
Middle Eastern Gulf States. Some of the Western countries are: Canada
is estimated to have $1 billion. France, from $2 billion to $8 billion;
we are not certain of the exact amount. Germany, from $2 billion to $4
billion. Italy, from $1 billion to $2 billion. Japan, from $3 billion
to $7 billion. Russia, from $3 billion to $16 billion. The U.K., from
$1 billion to $2 billion. The United States, from $2 billion to $5
billion. These were debts incurred under the regime of Saddam Hussein.
The essence of this amendment is to urge these countries to forgive
or wipe off the debt from the books.
For the Middle Eastern Gulf States, it is much more. Saudi Arabia is
reported to hold $25 billion of Iraqi loans; Kuwait, $17 billion to $27
billion; other Gulf States, from $18 billion to $30 billion.
If the Iraqi debt is from $95 billion to $150 billion--let's say it
is $120 billion--if we were making payments even at 5 percent--that is
$5 billion, $6 billion, $7 billion a year in interest payments--they
could not afford to pay that. These interest payments would consume 80
percent to 130 percent of Iraq's oil revenues. Clearly, that is not
sustainable.
The Iraqis have a lot of infrastructure needs. They have a lot of
rebuilding needs. They have a lot of needs that have been ignored by
the previous regime, by Saddam Hussein, for decades. If they had to
make payments on this existing debt, I think it would only complicate,
frankly, their future and their survival.
I urge in this sense-of-the-Senate amendment countries that are
holding debt that was incurred by Saddam Hussein's regime to forgive
that debt so Iraq can move forward with a new government without being
so constrained, so the new government can move forward and rebuild Iraq
without being so tied up with this existing debt.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I was interested in the comments by my
colleague from Oklahoma. I don't know of anyone here who would object
or disagree with the contention that those who hold Iraqi debt ought to
forgive that debt. I have spoken on this subject at some length a
couple of times.
Ambassador Bremer appeared before our Appropriations Committee and
indicated that Iraq would be producing about 3 million barrels of oil a
day beginning in July of next year. I asked the question then about
using future proceeds from pumping Iraq oil for the purpose of
reconstruction. He indicated that would not be possible because of the
encumbrance that existed with foreign debt.
I asked Ambassador Bremer who holds this foreign debt. He said
Russia, Germany, France, among others. When I did research later, I
discovered exactly what the Senator from Oklahoma discovered. In fact,
Russia, Germany, and France do hold Iraqi debt, but the larger debt is
owed to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and other Arab states which,
incidentally, in combination, equal about the debt that both the Saudis
and the Kuwaitis hold with Iraq.
It occurred to me that if we are concerned that Saudi Arabia and
Kuwait recover the loans they gave to Iraq, maybe we ought to ask the
Saudis and Kuwaitis to track Saddam Hussein down and present him with a
bill. The Iraqi government that incurred that debt, the government that
existed at that point, was the Saddam Hussein government. It clearly
was not a legitimate government.
As you know, in the last election of that government, Saddam Hussein
received 100 percent of the vote and those who voted had to walk down
an aisle, a long gallery of pictures of Saddam Hussein, and hold their
ballot above their head that was clearly marked ``Saddam Hussein.''
That is the government we are now told legitimately owes money to the
Saudis and the Kuwaitis. In my judgment, that government no longer
exists, and the encumbrance of Saddam Hussein ought not, in my judgment
at least, obligate the Iraqi citizens to do anything.
I know there will be people who are tall thinkers with thick glasses
who have some thought about international obligations that I may not
understand. It may be that I don't understand all the nuances, but I do
understand this: That Saddam Hussein has vanished. The Saddam Hussein
government was a government run by a butcher. We are, in fact, opening
football-field-size graves with 10,000 and 12,000 skeletons in them,
and we are told the only legacy of that government that ought to remain
an obligation is the debt Saddam Hussein ran up with other countries.
I don't think that debt ought to be considered to be existing debt at
this point, with all due respect to those countries. If in the 1980s we
had countries that were pals of Saddam Hussein because he was taking on
the country of Iran and they were lending Saddam Hussein money, at this
point it seems to me they ought to track down Saddam Hussein and
present him with a bill.
We are told from time to time by intelligence sources that Saddam
perhaps has a substantial amount of money squirreled away in Swiss
banks. They say he stole that country blind. I don't know the facts
about that. I suspect that is the case. I suspect Saddam Hussein and
his government squirreled away a substantial amount of money. In any
event, we can't find him. I suggest to those to whom he owes money or
to those whom his former government owes money, they ought to track him
down and present him with a bill.
We have had a long discussion here and will, I guess, again, perhaps
tonight or tomorrow, about what kind of obligation the American
taxpayers should have with respect to the reconstruction of Iraq. It
was my belief--and I regret my amendment was not adopted, but I accept
the voice of the Senate on that amendment--it was my belief that we
should lend the money to Iraq for reconstruction and that Iraq should
repay those loans out of the proceeds from oil that it pumps out of the
ground in the future.
Once again, we expect, according to the testimony of Ambassador
Bremer, about 3 million barrels of oil a day. In fact, the Iraqi
Governing Council--these are the Iraqis who are now in charge, running
ministries and so on--they visited here a couple weeks ago and said
they thought it would be 6 million barrels a day.
Let's take Ambassador Bremer's number instead, 3 million a day. That
means that country will pump about $20 billion of oil, about $16
billion of which is available for export. So we have $16 billion a year
of Iraqi oil, beginning next July, available for export. That is $160
billion in 10 years, $320 billion in 20 years. That is a substantial
amount of money for the reconstruction of a country the size of
California with 24 million people. It is ample money to do that job.

[[Page S12685]]

I understand we have already decided that question. My amendment did
not pass the Senate. But as we discuss further amendments about grants
versus loans, I wanted to make a comment following the discussion by
the Senator from Oklahoma. I believe his numbers are accurate. Those
are the numbers I discovered with respect to foreign debt owed by Iraq.
More properly, I think it is foreign debt owed by Saddam Hussein's
government, a nonlegitimate government, a brutal dictatorship.
In my judgment, the Iraqi people ought not at this point be burdened
by that debt and I would suggest to creditors, including the Saudis and
Kuwaitis, that the paper for those debts is worth only that which it
will produce once Saddam Hussein is found and it is presented to him.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment by the
Senator from Oklahoma, and I think perhaps a little discussion about
the history of debt and debt repudiation, debts being placed upon
countries that have been defeated or liberated, might be in order.
In anticipation perhaps of this debate, a member of the staff of the
Joint Economic Committee, Melanie Mickelson, prepared a memo for me and
other members of the committee entitled ``Iraqi Debt and
Reconstruction.'' I ask unanimous consent that this memo be printed in
the Record following my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, when we think of forgiveness of debt or
repudiation of debt, we think back usually to Germany, to the debt that
was placed on Germany at the end of the First World War by the
Versailles Treaty and the great political hay Adolf Hitler was able to
make out of this debt as he told the people of Germany that the
Versailles Treaty had been a stab in the back and the people who had
imposed that debt on Germany were the people who were Germany's primary
enemies.
I do not want to make too much out of that aspect of Hitler's rise to
power, but there was no question but what the enormous debt placed on
Germany at the end of the First World War was destabilizing on the
country and made it very difficult for Germany to bring itself back as
a viable nation and made Germany potentially vulnerable to the kind of
political appeal Adolf Hitler represented.
Let us put this in some perspective with respect to Iraq and what we
are talking about here. At this time, the debt that was placed upon
Germany was roughly two times Germany's gross domestic product, or GDP.
To put that into perspective for the United States, right now our debt
is roughly half of America's GDP. If we assume the GDP is running at
$11 trillion in round figures, we would say the debt Germany faced by
comparison would be similar to putting a debt on the United States of
$22 trillion. That, of course, takes one's breath away when you think
about the impact of that on the United States. Twenty-two trillion
dollars. How in the world, even with as vital and vibrant an economy as
we have, would we be able to survive if we had a national debt of $22
trillion? That was the debt that had such significant historic impact
on Germany in the last century.
What are we talking about with respect to the debt Iraq currently
faces? Is it half their GDP, as it is in the United States? Would it be
as burdensome as the German debt at two times GDP? No, neither of those
figures applies. When we talk about the size of the debt Iraq currently
carries compared to their present GDP, we are talking about ten times
GDP; not two times but ten times current GDP. Again, to translate that
into numbers we can compare to America, that would mean that America,
the strongest economy in the world, with our present GDP of roughly $11
trillion, would be saddled with a debt in excess of $120 trillion.
How prosperous would America be if we were faced with that kind of a
debt load? Obviously, it would sink us, even though we have the
strongest economy in the world.
We have people around here who are worried because our current debt
is roughly half of GDP, and to talk about ten times GDP is absolutely
impossible. So the logical thing to do is for all of the countries to
respond to the call that is represented by the amendment of the Senator
from Oklahoma and forgive the debt.
Why? Let us go through the reasons. One of them has been raised by
Senator Dorgan. That is, this debt was incurred on behalf of a brutal
regime which has been overthrown. Some of the debtor countries might
say, when there is a coup in a country and the government is
overthrown, whoever takes over takes over the obligations. Saddam
Hussein was not overthrown by a coup from the Iraqis. He was overthrown
by the 82nd Airborne. He was overthrown by the United States of America
and the marines, by the British troops, the Polish troops, and the
other coalition members that joined us in overthrowing that government.
So while the Iraqi people are very grateful Saddam Hussein has been
overthrown, while the Iraqi people rejoice that Saddam Hussein has been
overthrown, the Iraqi people by no means are responsible for the debt
that survives because he was overthrown. They were the victims of the
debt, not the beneficiaries or perpetrators of the debt. For that
reason, they should not be held accountable.
There are other reasons. There are sound economic reasons. We have a
principle of bankruptcy in this country. When, as a result of
circumstances, whether they were caused or just out of somebody's
control, someone finds himself absolutely incapable of repaying the
debt, we go through bankruptcy court and say we are going to give you
an opportunity for a fresh start. We are going to give you an
opportunity to wipe the slate clean and move forward. We are going to
discharge your debt through bankruptcy.
If any country has been reduced to bankruptcy, it is Iraq. The GDP I
described is substantially below what their potential earning power
will be, but they can never realize that earning power if they are not
free from their past debts by virtue of a bankruptcy action.
What the Senator from Oklahoma is proposing is essentially the
countries that hold the debt allow the Iraqis to file bankruptcy; that
the countries that hold the debt say, we recognize reality. We
recognize we are never, ever going to get this money.
There are some who might say, yes, but Iraq has all that oil and
eventually maybe they will be able to give us this money, so let's just
restructure the debt. Let's just say okay, no payments for a while, no
payments on principal, interest is deferred, we will give you a chance
to get on your feet, and then we will collect the debt.
That is not a principle that applies in reality with respect to most
bankruptcy situations. Even those who have the ability to earn money
later on can get everything discharged with bankruptcy if it is clear
the existence of the debt as it stands is going to prevent them from
earning money later on.
The most significant return that can come to the countries that are
currently holding Iraqi debt will come from a vibrant Iraqi economy
with which they can open meaningful trade relations.
Think of what the potential of Iraq is in terms other than oil. We
held a hearing on this in the Joint Economic Committee. Of course, the
primary focus was on oil revenue, but I was interested to discover that
Iraq has other things besides oil. Iraq is blessed with fertile soil.
Iraq is blessed with water. Iraq has a history, pre-Saddam Hussein, of
being a net exporter of food. In other words, an economically healthy
Iraq, rebuilding its infrastructure, reclaiming its opportunity to move
water around the country through canals and pipelines and starting
irrigation can be an Iraq that can have a vibrant agricultural sector;
an Iraq that can then create a manufacturing sector to provide the farm
implements that are necessary to support its agriculture; an Iraq that
can have a middle class that can buy things; that can have a society
that is not just based on oil.
It can become, properly reconstructed, one of the most vibrant
economies in the region. It can outstrip some of the economies around
it that are dependent solely upon oil and

[[Page S12686]]

thereby become an example of capitalism in the region, from which we
and others around Iraq can reap enormous benefits. Those benefits,
properly reaped, will establish greater economic value than the
collection of the debt.
This is the prospect you have here. If we wipe out all of the debt,
if the countries respond to the plea contained in the amendment by the
Senator from Oklahoma and forgive their debts so a vibrant Iraq can be
built without the shadow of debt hanging over it, those very countries
that currently hold the debt can benefit with the opportunity for trade
with a vibrant and vital Iraq.
I congratulate the Senator from Oklahoma in proposing his amendment.
I hope it will pass overwhelmingly as a message to those countries that
do hold Iraqi debt, to say to them the United States recognizes the
importance of allowing Iraq to declare bankruptcy as if it were, if you
will, an American corporation. The United States recognizes that the
hope of the future will come from allowing all of this to happen,
allowing these debts to disappear, and allowing Iraq to get on with
their reconstruction.

Exhibit 1

Joint Economic Committee

Memo: Iraqi Debt and Reconstruction.
Date: October 9, 2003.

The ABC's of Iraqi Debt

Dealing with debt accrued by Saddam Hussein and the Baath
party is a lynchpin to Iraqi reconstruction. According to
Businessweek, Iraq owes $216 billion. Of that, $32 billion is
war reparations, owed mainly to Kuwait. Loans comprise $127
billion of the debt, and contracts agreed to during the past
ten years racked up $57 billion. Other estimates of total
debt skate from $95 billion to $350 billion (the Bush
administration calculates Iraqi debt to be $200 billion, as
reported by CRS).
The debt's creditors include a long list of nations, as
compiled by Jubilee Iraq, an organization of British origin
dedicated to the repudiation of Iraqi debts. Table 1 displays
the list of nations as well as amounts owed. In addition to
these nations and organizations, Iraq also owes the IMF and
World Bank a total of $150 million, as reported by
Representative Carolyn Maloney at the June 11, 2003 JEC
Hearing.

A Second Germany?

In American history, precedents of debt repudiation focus
on post-war Germany. Following WWI, Germany's economy was
shallow with debts amounting to two times German GDP. The
Treaty of Versailles pointed out German guilt and obligation
to pay war reparation, however the United States renounced
all reparations and did not sanction the treaty. Due to
German government resistance and inability to collect funds,
the Dawes Plan of 1924 reorganized the Reichsbank under
Allied supervision and created a tax system to fund
reparation payments. Reparations to the European Allied
nations made the bulk of their lend-lease payments to the
United States. Germany staggered under heavy debt as Europe
suffered through the 1920 depression. The Young Plan (1929)
reduced the sum Germany owed, delineating a distinct dollar
amount as well as how to collect it through budgeting and a
transportation tax. In 1931, President Hoover issued a one-
year moratorium on all international debts. The Lausanne Pact
of 1932 substituted bond issues for reparation debt, but
Adolf Hitler repudiated all WWI reparations while in office.
Payment resumed in 1953 by West Germany.
The debts owed to the U.S. by our WWI allies were defaulted
by 1934 excepting Hungary, which did so in 1939, Finland,
which paid in full, and Russia. Russia repudiated the debt,
owing to its becoming the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics.
After WWII, the Allies received German reparations in the
form of assets and industrial equipment. Because of
disagreements between the USSR and U.S. regarding payments,
West and East Germany formed, each paying reparations to
their respective political counterpart. The U.S. ended German
payments in 1952, the USSR ended payments in 1953. Germany
paid reparations to its former allies, against U.S.
advisement. The United States collected war reparations from
Germany's ally, Japan, through 1949, and renounced all
further payments in 1951.

economic implications

Iraqi debt differs from German post-war debt in a major
way. Germans dealt with a debt twice the size of the
country's GDP. Iraq faces debt estimated to be ten times
national output (BusinessWeek). The payment of such an amount
is near impossible, even with the development and future
revenues of oil resources. Placing this burden on a new
government cripples Iraq's ability to accumulate capital,
expand production, and increase the standard of living.
Repudiating this debt also sends the red light to creditors
who loan to sketchy governments, in this case, nations whose
loans were used to amass Hussein's weaponry and technology.
Some argue the new government will have trouble obtaining
loans with such history of repudiation. However, no moral
hazard issue exists; the loans forgiven belong to Saddam, not
the Coalition Provisional Authority or the government that
may follow.
Those on the opposing bench feel repudiating Saddam's debt
will jostle the credit market and create uncertainty now and
whenever government turnovers occur. This cannot be the case.
Iraq is such a unique situation; few countries, if any, can
follow this paradigm.
On a side note, Basil Al-Rahim, founder of the Iraq
Foundation, Spoke of creating a debt trading system in Iraq.
At the June 11, 2003 JEC hearing on transforming Iraq's
economy, Al-Rahim spoke of trading debt for points in a
system that would use the points in dealings of concessions,
licenses, and contracts (see p 20-21 of the JEC transcript).

TABLE 1.--COUNTRIES TO WHICH IRAQ MAY BE INDEBTED
------------------------------------------------------------------------
($bn)       Date       Sources and notes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Australia.................  0.5.......  1991......  Paris Club (11 July
'03).
Austria...................  0.8.......  1991......  Paris Club (11 July
'03).
Belgium...................  0.2.......  1991......  Paris Club (11 July
'03).
Brazil....................  0.2.......  1991......  Paris Club (11 July
'03).
Bulgaria..................  1.........  1998......  CSIS.
1.512.....  1995......  22nd Bulgarian Iraq
Committee on
Cooperation does
not include
interest.
1.7.......  2003......  Deutsche Presse-
Agentur 7/3/03.
1.7.......  2003......  Exotix (Iraq: Just
the Debt, Exotix
Ltd, April 2003).
Canada....................  0.6.......  1991......  Paris Club (11 July
'03).
China.....................  >2........  2003......  ABC, China claims it
is owed
``billions''.
Czech Rep.................  0.06-0.1..  2003......  Boston Globe 20/4/
03.
Denmark...................  0.03......  1991......  Paris Club (11 July
'03).
Egypt.....................  ??........  ..........  CSIS.
Finland...................  0.2.......  1991......  Paris Club (11 July
'03).
France....................  3.........  1991......  Paris Club (11 July
'03).
1.7.......  ??........  Paris Club (10 July
'03).
3.75-4.3..  ??........  Dow Jones 29/3/3.
8.........  2003......  Salah al-Shaikhly's
estimate quoted in
Moscow Times.
4.........  2003......  Noreenah Hertz. Ff1
fighters, Exocet
air-to-surface
missiles, laser
guided missiles,
attack helicopters.
8.........  2003......  Financial Times.
Germany...................  2.4.......  1991......  Paris Club (11 July
'03).
2.1.......  ??........  Paris Club (10 July
'03).
3.9.......  2003......  The official number
from the German
ministry of
finance, on
Handelsblatt (03/04/
25).
4.3.......  2003......  Financial Times.
Gulf States...............  30........  2002......  CSIS--The war debt.
17.5......  Exotix....  ....................
Hungary...................  0.017.....  1995......  CSIS.
India.....................  1.........  2003......  The Hindu, 14/4/03.
Italy.....................  1.7.......  1991......  Paris Club (11 July
'03).
0.33......  ??........  Paris Club (10 July
'03).
Japan.....................  4.1.......  1991......  Paris Club (11 July
'03).
3.4.......  ??........  Paris Club (10 July
'03).
7.02......  2003......  $4.109bn + $2.919bn
in arrears. Export
credit $6.46bn,
Japan Bank or
International
Development (JBIC)
$4550m. (June
11th).
Jordan....................  0.295.....  1991......  CSIS.
1.3.......  2003......  Minister of Finance,
Michael Manto (July
15th).
Korea.....................  0.04......  1991......  Paris Club (11 July
'03).
1.1.......  2003......  Dow Jones 29/3/3,
debt to Hyundai for
infrastructure
projects in 70s and
80s.
Kuwait....................  17........  1992......  CSIS.
27........  2003......  MEES quoting Kuwait
Investment
Authority (KIA).
London Club...............  2.6.......  2003......  Syndicated loans
issued by Rafidain
Bank and others
Reuters. Also loans
in 1983 from Chase
Manhattan (now J.P.
Morgan Chase),
Irving Trust (now
Bank of New York)
and BNP (now BNP
Paribas) Forbes.
11........  2003......  Herald Tribune 26/4/
3 Emergent
Alternative Fund,
Aberdeen Asset
Management and Argo
Capital Management
all offer funds
that dabble in
Iraqi debt.
Morocco...................  0.032.....  1999......  CSIS.
Multilaterals.............  1.1.......  2003......  Exotix.
Netherlands...............  0.1.......  1991......  Paris Club (11 July
'03).

[[Page S12687]]

Paris Club (others).......  0.8.......  ??........  Paris Club (10 July
'03): Belgium,
Denmark, Finland,
Ireland, Norway,
Spain, Sweden.
Poland....................  0.4.......  1998......  CSIS.
0.564.....  2003......  FT ``Iraq after
Saddam'', 17/4/03.
0.7.......  2003......  Boston Globe 20/4/
03.
Poland + Czech + Romania..  0.1.......  2003......  Exotix.
Romania...................  1.7.......  2003......  (Bucharest Business
Week on 21st
April).
Russia....................  3.4.......  1991......  Paris Club (11 July
'03).
9.6.......  ??........  Paris Club (10 July
'03).
9.........  2003......  Dow Jones 29/3/3.
Used to buy:
helicopters, MIG
fighters and radar
equipment.
12........  2002......  SIS.
8.........  2003......  Financial Times.
16........  2003......  Including interest--
Channel News Asia.
Saudi.....................  25........  2002......  Arab News SR94bn.
25........  2003......  Exotix.
25........  2003......  Financial Times.
Serbia....................  1.8-2.....  2003......  Minister of Economy.
Serbia + Montenegro
claim 38% of this
(about $700-750m).
Spain.....................  0.3.......  1991......  Paris Club (11 July
'03).
Sweden....................  0.1.......  1991......  Paris Club (11 July
'03).
Switzerland...............  0.1.......  1991......  Paris Club (11 July
'03).
0.7.......  2003......  Exotix.
0.3.......  2003......  Swissinfo mainly
machinery &
building materials.
Turkey....................  0.8.......  1993......  CSIS.
United Kingdom............  0.9.......  1991......  Paris Club (11 July
'03).
1.6.......  2003......  ECGD (Conversation,
623 pounds
principal).
United States.............  2.2.......  1991......  Paris Club (11 July
'03) Inc no accrued
interest.
2.1.......  ??........  Paris Club (10 July
'03).
5.........  ??........  Dow Jones 29/3/3.
Clinton considered
using Foreign
Claims Settlement
Commission to
satisfy Creditors
with frozen Iraqi
funds, but the
creditors failed to
agree how to
distribute the
small amount of
frozen funds
available.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Jublilee Iraq,
www.jubileeiraq.org/reperations.htm
.

TABLE 2.--COMPENSATION CLAIMS FROM 1991 WAR
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category                       Resolved      Award         Paid        Unpaid     Unresolved
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Individuals:
A..........................................       $3,450       $3,210       $3,210            0            0
B..........................................           20           13           13            0            0
C..........................................        8,760        4,990        4,990            0       $2,540
D..........................................        4,440        2,040        1,740         $300       15,410
-------------------------
300       17,950
Corporations:
E1--oil....................................      443,300       21,430          660       20,770          285
E2--non-Kuwait.............................       12,650          848          779           69        1,010
E3.........................................        7,830          364          337           27          280
E4--Kuwait.................................       11,300        3,280        2,920          360          176
-------------------------
21,230        1,760
Governments:
E/F--export................................        6,120          311          180          131            0
F1--non-Kuwait.............................       18,610          291          244           47            0
F2--Saudi and Jordan.......................       17,670          264          256            8            0
F3--Kuwait.................................      113,900        8,260        2,150        6,110            0
F4--environmental..........................        1,680          954          315          639       78,200
-------------------------
6,940       78,200
----------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................      251,160       46,250       17,780       28,470       97,900
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key to categories
A: Individuals' who had to depart from Kuwait or Iraq between the date of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait on 2 August
1990 and the date of the cease-fire, 2 March 1991.
B: Individuals' who suffered serious personal injury or whose spouse, child or parent died. There were 5,734 of
these claims.
C: Individuals' claims for damages up to US$100,000, including those relating to departure from Kuwait or Iraq;
personal injury; mental pain and anguish; loss of personal property; loss of bank accounts, stocks and other
securities; loss of income; loss of real property; and individual business losses.
D: Individuals' claims for damages above US$100,000 each, losses similar to those in category C, with the most
frequent being the loss of personal property; the loss of real property; the loss of income and business-
related losses.
E: Corporations and public sector enterprises. Including claims for construction or other contract losses;
losses from the non-payment for goods or services; losses relating to the destruction or seizure of business
assets; loss of profits; and oil sector losses.
F: Governments and international organizations for losses incurred in evacuating citizens; providing relief to
citizens; damage to diplomatic premises and loss of, and damage to, other government property; and damage to
the environment.

Source:
http://www.jubileeiraq.org/reperations.htm
.

References

Buckley, William F. ``Odious Activities.'' October 7, 2003.
<a href='http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/
buckley200310071228.asp'>http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/
buckley200310071228.asp</a>.
Crock, Stan. ``Iraqi Debt: Fast-Track the Restructuring.''
BusinessWeek. October 13, 2003. <a href='http://www.businessweek.com/
magazine/content/03_41/b3853055.htm'>http://www.businessweek.com/
magazine/content/03_41/b3853055.htm</a>.
Joint Economic Committee. Hearing on Transforming Iraq's
Economy. June 11, 2003.
``Paying for Saddam's sins.'' Economist. May 15, 2003.

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1780943
.
Sanford, Jonathan E. ``Foreign Debt of Iraq and Foreign
Claims Against Iraq.'' CRS Memorandum. October 2, 2003.
Sanford, Jonathan E. and Elsea, Jennifer K. ``Export-Import
Bank Operations in Iraq.'' CRS Memorandum. September 12,
2003.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Utah, Senator
Bennett, for his comments. He is exactly right. This existing Saddam
Hussein-incurred debt will suffocate Iraq and prevent Iraq from really
rejoining the world economy, from making significant progress. These
are countries, including the United States--Canada, Germany, France,
Russia, and others that have something at stake--sure. But they have
never been paid a dime on this debt and, frankly, they will not be. I
hope they all saddle up and say: We want to have an investment in
Iraq's future. By doing so, we forgive this debt and we will enable
Iraq to start to grow and make some progress.
This idea we are going to be debating shortly, that maybe the $20
billion or a portion of the $20 billion should be a loan, that is if
this existing debt, is not written off, there is no chance whatsoever
any additional debt would ever be able to be repaid. We can act as if
it can be, we can pretend it will be, but it will not be. So this debt
needs to be written off.
We made a mistake at the conclusion of World War I. The victors
didn't write off the debt of the Germans. At the end of World War II,
we did write off the debt of the Germans and the Japanese. That was
significant. It was controversial but it was the right thing to do, and
this is the right thing, not only for the Western countries, the G8
countries, but also for the Gulf States--for Kuwait, for Saudi Arabia.
The Gulf States benefitted greatly because we have eliminated a real
threat to them. If it had not been for the U.S. protection, the 1991
war and the war just concluded, their future, their freedom would have
been in jeopardy. So they benefitted probably more than any country and
they have every reason, in my opinion, to write off this debt.
I hope we will have a unanimous vote, an overwhelming vote from the
Senate. That would encourage these countries to do the right thing and

[[Page S12688]]

that would be to write off the debt and not suffocate the Iraqi economy
from being able to rebuild and grow and join the world economy in the
future.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I wonder if Senator Nickles, before he
yields the floor, would just discuss this with me and answer a couple
of questions.
Mr. NICKLES. I would be happy to.
Mr. DOMENICI. As the Senator spoke, it dawned on me that none of this
debt would be worth 2 cents if the United States had not done what we
did.
Mr. NICKLES. The Senator is correct.
Mr. DOMENICI. Where would they get the money, if the United States
were not involved in having invaded Iraq, trying to free them and then
trying to put their economy back? This debt here would not be worth the
matches that it would take to burn it.
So I don't think you are just offering a resolution giving some
kindly advice. It seems to me you are expressing a reality that these
countries ought to be very serious before they try to extract from new
Iraq, old Iraq's debt when it would be absolutely useless, based upon
the country they lent the money to, and the dictator to whom they lent
the money. Right?
Mr. NICKLES. To respond to the statement of my friend and colleague,
he is exactly right. If one were trying to take this debt or paper on
the international market prior to the U.S. liberation of Iraq, it would
be worthless because no payments were made on it before. I think it was
generally assumed no payments would be made by the Saddam Hussein
regime. My colleague from New Mexico is exactly correct.
Mr. DOMENICI. So the point of it is that whatever they are having
this debtor's conference for, people ought to be thinking about what
they are going to be discussing and we ought to be thinking about how
we are going to respond.
You are offering some kind advice to us, what we ought to be saying,
right? We ought to be thinking: Well, how long has it been since we
have been involved in trying to make this country have some money and
have it worthwhile? How many billions have we spent? And that I am for.
How many more are we going to spend? And they would have the audacity
to come to some kind of conference and say, put us on this debtors
list; we will take 50 cents on a dollar. Yes, 50 cents on the dollar
maybe 30 years from now, or 50, when everything that has gone into
making this country alive again has been taken care of.
There are a lot of messages from this simple resolution to these
countries. In simplest terms: Forget about it. But in more
sophisticated terms, the truth is, but for America, what you got is
worth nothing. That is what I think is important about the resolution.
I think, rather than just being a typical one that we offer as a
resolution, I think it is a very important sense of those of us who are
sharing, with very few countries, the burden of trying to help that
country.
Look at all those countries. Where have they been when we have been
going through all this? They have been offering nice words, maybe; call
the President and say hello. Maybe they have been sending a little
postcard. They haven't put up anything yet. Some of them are thinking
about it. I hope they keep thinking.
Mr. NICKLES. I appreciate that.
You mentioned a couple of these countries. Saudi Arabia has the
largest, according to CRS estimates it is $25 billion. They say Kuwait
may have $17 billion to $27 billion of Iraqi debt. They are Iraq's
neighbors. Our liberation of Iraq eliminates a threat to them. I
believe most of that money was lent when Iraq was fighting Iran.
Frankly, they should not be insisting on payment. They were never
repaid in the past. Nor should U.S. taxpayers or other people who were
in the process of trying to rebuild Iraq be making contributions
thinking maybe that will be going to satisfy creditors from the
previous regime. That would be a mistake.
I thank my friend and colleague from New Mexico.
I yield the floor.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I understand we can get an agreement that
we would postpone the vote on the Nickles amendment until we consider
the Bayh amendment. By a previous order, that is the next business.
I ask unanimous consent that the vote on the Nickles amendment take
place following the debate on the Bayh amendment, and the Bayh
amendment follow that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. REID. It is my understanding staff is preparing a unanimous
consent request; is that right?
Mr. STEVENS. Yes, we are preparing it, but that will be the
understanding so Members will know there will not be a vote here until
sometime, at least I would say, 8:30 or 9 o'clock.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Democratic leader is here. He has
agreed, on our side, if we can have the vote at 9 o'clock, and have the
time until 9 o'clock equally divided between both sides and at that
time have 2 minutes for the amendment of Senator Nickles, equally
divided on that amendment, and then 2 minutes prior to the vote on the
Bayh amendment, equally divided.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the time would be equally divided between
now and 9 o'clock on the Bayh amendment. Is that the proposal?
Mr. REID. That is right. There would be no amendments in order to
either amendment prior to a vote on or in relation to each amendment.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, reserving right to object, could I add
by unanimous consent that after those two votes I be allowed 30 minutes
equally divided?
Mr. REID. Senator Byrd has been waiting all day for an amendment
which he and Senator Durbin have.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Is there a possibility for some time in the morning?
Mr. REID. I say to the distinguished Senator from Louisiana that she
has been very patient, and she has been here for the last 2 days, and I
understand that. We will do our very best to get her on that as soon as
possible.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we have sent out a hot line for people
who want to speak on this amendment. There are 10 Members who want to
speak for 5 to 15 minutes. We have really basically 80 minutes left
between now and 9 o'clock. I would suggest we ought to at least make
the first vote start at 9:30.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the request I propounded be
modified to that effect.
Mr. STEVENS. Let me ask this: I ask unanimous consent that the
pending Nickles amendment be temporarily set aside and Senator Bayh be
recognized to offer his amendment; provided further that the time until
9:30 be equally divided for debate in the usual form.
I further ask unanimous consent that at 9:30 p.m. the Senate proceed
to a vote in relation to the Nickles amendment to be followed by a vote
in relationship to the Bayh amendment with no second-degree amendments
in order to either amendment, and prior to the votes there be 2 minutes
equally divided before each vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
The Senator from Indiana.

Amendment No. 1871

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Ben Nelson, Clinton,
Dorgan, Ensign, Collins, Snowe, Graham of South Carolina, the
distinguished Presiding Officer, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Indiana [Mr. Bayh], for himself and Mr.
Nelson of Nebraska, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Ensign, Ms.
Collins, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Graham of South Carolina, and Senator
Chambliss, proposes an amendment numbered 1871.

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To require that funds for reconstruction in Iraq be used for
certain purposes)

On page 38, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following
new section:
Sec. 2313. (a) Of the amounts appropriated under the
subheading ``Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund''--
(1) the $5,136,000,000 allocated for security, including
public safety requirements, national security, and justice
shall be used to rebuild Iraq's security services;

[[Page S12689]]

(2) $5,168,000,000 shall be available for the purposes,
other than security, set out under such subheading; and
(3) $10,000,000,000 shall be available to the President to
use as loans to Iraq for the purposes, other than security,
set out under such subheading until the date on which the
President submits the certification described in subsection
(c).
(b) The President shall submit a notification to Congress
if, of the amounts referred to in paragraphs (1) and (2) of
subsection (a), an amount in excess of $250,000,000 is used
for any single purpose in Iraq.
(c)(1) The certification referred to in subsection (a)(3)
is a certification submitted to Congress by the President
stating that not less than 90 percent of the total amount of
the bilateral debt incurred by the regime of Saddam Hussein
has been forgiven by the countries owed such debt.
(2) On the date that the President submits the
certification described in paragraph (1)--
(A) the unobligated balance of the $10,000,000,000 referred
to in subsection (a)(3) may be obligated and expended with no
requirement that such amount be provided as loans to Iraq;
and
(B) the President may waive repayment of any amount made as
a loan under subsection (a)(3) prior to such date.
(d) The head of the Coalition Provisional Authority shall
ensure that the amounts appropriated under the subheading
``Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund'', are expended,
whether by the United States or by the Governing Counsel in
Iraq, for the purposes set out under such subheading and in a
manner that the head of the Coalition Provisional Authority
does not find objectionable.
(e) It is the sense of Congress that each country that is
owed bilateral debt by Iraq that was incurred by the regime
of Saddam Hussein should--
(1) forgive such debt; and
(2) provide robust amounts of reconstruction aid to Iraq
during the conference of donors scheduled to begin on October
23, 2003, in Madrid, Spain and during other conferences of
donors of foreign aid.
(f) In this section:
(1) The term ``amounts appropriated under the subheading
`Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund' '' means the amounts
appropriated by chapter 2 of this title under the subheading
``Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund'' under the heading
``OTHER BILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO
THE PRESIDENT''.
(2) The term ``Coalition Provisional Authority'' means the
entity charged by the President with directing reconstruction
efforts in Iraq.

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I also neglected to mention that our
distinguished colleague, Byron Dorgan, is an original cosponsor of this
amendment, along with the other distinguished Members I mentioned.
Mr. President, the question of Iraq has divided our Nation and this
Senate for some time now. I count myself in the camp that believes
removing Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do. The evidence of
torture chambers and mass graves is evidence enough for me. The fact he
invaded his neighbors not once but twice and that he would surely have
threatened them and the world again which would doubtless require
American action at some point in the future means to me it is better to
deal with him on our terms and at a time of our choosing rather than on
his terms and at a time of his choosing.
Finally, the fact he previously had and used biological and chemical
weapons, had a nuclear program, and would almost surely seek to
reconstitute those programs, even if they had currently been destroyed
and even if there is a 10-percent chance that weapons of mass death
would fall into the hands of suicidal terrorists or would be used by
regimes like Saddam against a peaceful world, means this is a threat
best removed.
But regardless of where Members stood on the question of what to do
about Iraq toward the war, we are now there. We have no choice but to
succeed in our efforts toward reconstituting and rebuilding a more
stable, a more democratic, and a more secure Iraq. There can be no
alternative but success.
If we are not successful, the southern part of this country will
probably reconstitute itself into some sort of radical Shiite state
closely aligned with the nation of Iran, the foremost sponsor of terror
in the world.
The northern part of what is currently Iraq would probably be first a
Kurdish entity of some type followed by a Turkish invasion which would
create further chaos in that part of the world.
The central part of this troubled land would undoubtedly develop into
some chaotic Sunni enclave serving as a base for terror against both
the United States and the rest of the peaceful world.
We must not let that happen. We must not.
I favor, along with my colleagues who have cosponsored this
amendment, aggressive steps to stabilize and create a free, prosperous,
and diverse Iraq. This means unwavering support for security because we
understand security measures are the essential prerequisite for
democracy, for investments, for commerce, and for the development of
civil society in Iraq. It means equally aggressive steps to restart
Iraq's economy and Iraqi society, which is rebuilding schools,
hospitals, roads, and many other activities.
A strong, vibrant Iraqi economy is the foundation which is essential
to Iraq's stability and our ultimate withdrawal. But if this
reconstruction is to succeed, it must be conducted on terms that
maximize our chances of success in Iraq and terms that are fair and
equitable to the American people. American perseverance and resolve is
being tested in Iraq today as seldom before, and for that perserverance
and resolve to be forthcoming we must base our efforts there on
principles of fundamental fairness without which our efforts will be
impossible to sustain.
Specifically, we have to call upon the other nations of the world to
do the right thing with the Iraqi people and for themselves by
forgiving the loans they extended to Saddam Hussein's tyrannical
regime, to wipe the slate clean, and to give the Iraqi people a fresh
start. It is the moral thing to do.

Particularly for countries such as France and Germany, which have
previously benefited from the rest of the world's largess through the
Marshall plan, they must now demonstrate similar generosity in the case
of another country in need--Iraq.
If the rest of the world demanded the repayment of Nazi debt or Vichy
debt, clearly that would not be tolerable. Neither are the repayments
of these debts.
Second, if you do business by extending loans to dictators, you
assume the risk of nonrepayment in the event those dictators are
overthrown. This is truly ``odious debt,'' to use the term employed by
international lawyers. The Iraqi people have a right to repudiate this
debt. If they do not, the other nations that incurred it should surely
do the right thing by forgiving it.
Finally, with regard to the debt forgiveness issue, if Russia,
France, Germany, and the other nations insist upon repayment, then so
must we. We can't possibly tolerate a situation where those who propped
up the tyrannical regime of Saddam Hussein are repaid their debts but
the American people who helped to liberate the country are repaid
nothing. That would be an outrageous outcome and one our amendment will
prevent through terms which I will shortly discuss.
It also gives us a seat at the table if these other nations are not
willing to do the right thing, and it gives us leverage in any further
debt restructuring negotiations to insist that they forgive the Iraqi
people.
Our proposal gives us maximum leverage toward an equitable and fair
outcome, lower debts for Iraq, a fresh start, but fairness to the
American people if other nations are not willing to join us in this
case.
Second, we must also ask the Iraqi people to do what they can to help
themselves. This is not a country that is dead broke like some in sub-
Saharan Africa or Afghanistan. In fact, the nation of Iraq has great
wealth. It is estimated to be $2.8 trillion to $5.1 trillion. What the
nation of Iraq has is a cashflow problem, one we should be willing to
help them with. But a temporary cashflow problem is no excuse for not
doing what they can to help rebuild themselves to the extent they are
capable and, as I have just mentioned, they have great capabilities.
This is compounded by the fact that when the Iraqis finally are able
to sell oil in some quantity on the international markets, they will
sell it at a price that is not set by a free market but which is
instead dictated in large part by a cartel known as OPEC--giving them
the ability to reap profits from that not once but twice if our loans
are given first in the form of monopoly oil payments and, second, if we
just give them the cash.
This is particularly inequitable if other nations do not forgive
their debt and essentially contribute nothing at

[[Page S12690]]

all when the American taxpayers are being asked and the American
consumers have been asked and required to contribute not once but
twice.
Our amendment calls for three steps: First, the immediate provision
of $5 billion to meet the immediate security needs of the nation of
Iraq because we understand that we should err on the side of being more
aggressive than less when it comes to stabilizing that country, ending
the bloodshed and violence, and allowing the Iraqi people to get on
with commerce, civil society, free elections, and the other things that
will head them in the proper direction.
Second, we would propose providing $5 billion in terms of an
immediate grant to meet the eminent reconstruction needs. The World
Bank has estimated this would provide almost the entirety of the funds
to be absorbed by Iraq for reconstruction over the next year. It is our
proposal to err on the side of being more generous rather than less in
providing the Iraqi economy with momentum, an immediate jump-start,
priming the pump to get things going. The first $10 billion would be $5
billion to meet the immediate security needs of Iraq in the form of a
grant, $5 billion to meet the immediate reconstruction needs, those
that we envision over the next year in terms of an immediate grant.
The third provision would be in the form of a $10 billion loan for
long-term reconstruction needs of the Government and the people of Iraq
to be forgiven whenever the other nations of the world that extended
debt to the regime of Saddam Hussein are willing to forgive up to 90
percent of those sovereign debts. Again, that will maximize and provide
an incentive for those nations to do the right thing and give us a seat
at the table and leverage to insist they do the right thing in the
event they are dragging their feet in doing so.
Doubtless we have heard several arguments against our approach. Let
me address them briefly.
First, the argument that our amendment should not be adopted because
we would merely add to the already burdensome debt facing the people of
Iraq estimated to be between $100 and $130 billion. Let me say clearly
that, on the contrary, our approach seeks to eliminate, minimize, do
away with the outstanding burdens facing the Iraqi people and gives us
a seat at the table and maximum leverage to accomplish the objective to
do the right thing, giving the country a free start.
Second, we have a recent example in the case of Argentina. There, a
democracy with a freely elected government voluntarily incurred
unsustainable debt. They chose to default recently upon their debts and
were rewarded within 48 hours by a new agreement from the International
Monetary Fund. Argentines are seeking up to 75-percent reduction from
their creditors of their outstanding debts. In the private sector, it
would be known as a cram-down. They threatened to default entirely and
are now demanding the creditors forgive the loans. Surely what is good
enough for the people of Argentina, who did not exercise physical
adequate fiscal control over their affairs, should at least be good
enough for the people of Iraq who have had the burdens imposed upon
them by a tyrannical dictator.
Next, it is the principled thing to do. Surely we cannot allow a
state of affairs to exist where those who helped sustain the regime of
Saddam Hussein are repaid, but the American taxpayers who helped to
liberate the country are not. This would be an outrageous outcome and
one that our amendment seeks to prohibit.
The second argument offered against our proposal is that there is no
Iraqi Government currently in power to take on these obligations.
Really? Can it possibly be argued by others that the obligations of
Saddam Hussein are more legitimate than the decisions undertaken by the
newly empowered Iraqi Council? How can that possibly be? Is it possible
to say that the obligations of Saddam Hussein should be enforced but
those undertaken by the council should not? Obviously not. No one
elected Saddam Hussein. How can he be given more legitimacy and more
credence than the new council of the newly liberated Iraq? Obviously,
that is something that cannot be allowed to happen. Our amendment is
perfectly consistent with not allowing that to happen.

Finally, the new council is perfectly empowered to apply the freedom
of the people of Iraq by enforcing its laws against a variety of
criminal activities. They are empowered to hold elections. They are
empowered to draft a constitution. How can it possibly be that they are
not allowed to take out a simple loan on behalf of the people of their
country? Obviously, that is an illogical inconsistency to those who
adhere to the argument there is no Iraqi entity in power to take on the
obligations.
Finally, we hear repeatedly the argument requiring some of these
obligations to be undertaken in the form of a loan if other countries
are not willing to forgive their debts. That would feed the perception
alive in the Middle East and across the Islamic world that our
activities in Iraq were solely about the Iraqi oil. This is a slippery
and dangerous slope. If we begin to tread down that line of argument,
no telling where we will end up.
For starters, this is clearly a lie. We all know it. The American
people did not shed their blood in Iraq, we have not spent our treasure
there to seize the Iraqi oil. This is a malicious falsehood and one
that we cannot possibly allow to influence our deliberations in this
great body.
Second, how can someone seriously argue that false opinions in other
countries should set the public policy of a great Nation like the
United States of America? What precedent would this set for this body
and for our people? Should we stop the hunt for Osama bin Laden because
it is popularly believed in other parts of the world that the attack on
September 11 was designed as a zionist plot against our country? There
have been polls on Al-Jazeera indicating a majority in some nations in
that part of that world believe this canard. Should we allow that to
affect the activities of our country? Obviously no. That would be
outrageous.
Should we end our alliance with the State of Israel and form one with
the Palestinians and Yasser Arafat because popular opinion in that part
of the world would have us do so? Of course we cannot do that. The
policies of the United States of America must be based upon the
principles to which our great country has always adhered. We must base
our policies upon the truth, upon the facts, and not the misguided
beliefs of others.
We know our intentions in Iraq have always been honorable. This
amendment is perfectly consistent with those intentions. Should we not
do the right thing because of the misguided arguments about public
opinion elsewhere in the world?
Finally, this argument is obviously a demonstrable mathematical
falsehood. This is in repayment, not a confiscation or an
appropriation. If I give you $100 and say that I am going to give you
$50 of it as a grant, and I am even willing to forgive the other $50
and make that a grant, if another creditor is willing to forgive $100
that he has also given you, how can that possibly be characterized as a
confiscation or expropriation of your property? Obviously, it is not.

So, in conclusion, let me say our amendment provides for the
aggressive help that the Iraqi people need to meet their pressing
security needs. Our amendment provides for generous and substantial
help to meet the pressing reconstruction burdens facing that country.
It gets them on their feet, provides them with a fresh start, and
primes the pump for increased commercial activity there that is
important to the success of our endeavor. But it does so in a way that
is consistent with the principles of fairness to the American people
and in a way that maximizes the prospects from the success of these
moneys in the nation of Iraq, without which this endeavor, these funds,
the blood and treasure that we have expended to date, will have gone
for naught. That is something we must avoid. That is something this
amendment will avoid.
Therefore, I ask our colleagues' support, and I thank my cosponsors.
I am pleased to yield time to others who have so patiently waited to
speak.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. BAYH. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Nevada.
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I thank the chief sponsor of the bill. It
has been

[[Page S12691]]

a pleasure working with him and others in a bipartisan manner on this
important amendment.
I understand there are deep feelings on both sides of this amendment.
This is a fundamental, legitimate disagreement on policy: What is the
best way to go forward for the United States, with the same goals in
mind--that goal being that we have a stable Iraq in the future--that is
in the interest of all Americans?
It is worth doing the $87 billion investment that the President has
requested, the rebuilding of Iraq. All who support this amendment are
in support of that concept because we think it is important to have a
stable type of government, whatever that will be in Iraq, democracy or
whatever they choose. It is important to have that for the stability of
the region and for the spread of freedom and freedom-loving people,
especially in that part of the world which up to this point has only
known rule under dictatorship.
I will make a couple of points about the bill. Of around $20
billion--and I will use the round numbers--$5 billion was recognized
for security needs for the Iraqi Government; in other words, money to
train and get security forces and an army in place as quickly as
possible. Everyone recognized that is in the direct interest of the
United States because every person put in place, every Iraqi put in
place, allows an American not to be in harm's way. So there is no
question that everybody agreed that $5 billion should be in the form of
a grant.

With other sponsors of the bill, we had a little disagreement on the
next $5 billion. But basically around $5.2 billion is needed in the
first 12 months. And working together, in a bipartisan fashion, we
wanted to make sure the President had the maximum flexibility for that
next $5 billion, so we decided to make that in a grant as well. We did
not want to get caught up in any bureaucracies or any kinds of
problems, so that Ambassador Bremer could go ahead, fund what he needs
to fund right now, get everything started over the next 12 months, and
get Iraq on the road to recovery.
Now, the next $10 billion is the part that we said we think is best
to do in the form of a loan. First of all, that is not the money that
is needed right away, so we have some time on that. But another point
on this--and my colleague from Indiana said it well when he talked
about we are not trying to undermine the President; we are actually
trying to strengthen the President's hand.
Let me make a couple comments about the President and the
administration in the job they have done in handling the war in Iraq
and postwar Iraq.
I think the President and his administration, the Department of
Defense, and, obviously, our military have performed in a spectacular
manner. Have there been problems? Absolutely. There always are
problems, and they have adjusted to the problems. They have handled an
incredibly difficult situation. And especially the President has shown
great leadership through the entire process. It is incredibly
challenging in that part of the world to deal with different cultural
problems than we are used to dealing with in this country.
So we are trying to strengthen the President's hand. And that is what
many of us believe this amendment will do. When we are going out and we
are asking other countries to put in grants, we are saying: We, the
taxpayers of the United States, are putting up $10 billion in grants.
But a lot of countries are also owed money, and so is the United States
right now. We are owed money. We, the sponsors of this amendment,
believe that Iraq would be best off going forward if they had no debt.
We believe the best way to ensure they will have no debt is if the
President is able to go forward with a $10 billion loan from the United
States and is able to look at those other countries and say: We gave
$10 billion in grants; We have a $10 billion loan here; and we are
willing to forgive that $10 billion loan if you will.
But why should the American taxpayer--when the oil starts producing
revenue, when people start actually paying their power bills, when
other things start generating revenues in Iraq, why should the American
taxpayer not be paid back if the taxpayer in France, if the taxpayer in
Germany, if the taxpayer in Russia--countries that were not willing to
support us when we were doing what was right in the world--why should
those taxpayers be paid back and not the taxpayers of America?
That is really the whole point of this, which is, if we can give the
President the leverage, he can do the best job he can to try to provide
Iraq going forward with as little debt as possible. But if these other
countries will not forgive the debt, then the American taxpayer will
have a chance to be paid back. And that is what the fundamental purpose
of the language in the amendment really is.

I want to make just a couple of comments about some of these other
countries in the world that are owed this money. Remember, we are
loaning this money to a legitimate government in the future in Iraq.
This is a legitimate, democratically elected government going forward,
a free people going forward that the loan is going to.
Who did France, Germany, Russia, and others loan that money to? An
illegitimate regime, the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein. And the
argument that they should be paid back for loaning a brutal dictator
money, and the American people not paid back for loaning a legitimate
free people money, is just very difficult to justify for this Senator.
That is why this Senator is so strongly supportive of this amendment.
We hope this amendment is adopted. We think it has a good chance of
being adopted tonight.
So I will close by saying that working across the aisle, doing what
is right--and I have heard people say, you are just trying to pander to
people back home. Frankly, I do not know how many people back home are
even paying attention. On a night like tonight, I think most people are
going to pay attention to the Red Sox and the Yankees and not to what
we are doing here.
In a bipartisan fashion, we are just doing what we believe is right.
And the people on the other side of this issue believe what they are
doing is right. It is OK to fundamentally disagree. What I hope does
not happen in this debate tonight is that we impugn each other's
motives. There are true, fundamental differences of belief on the way
we should go forward.
We are presenting one alternative that we believe strongly we should
go forward with. So I hope the debate stays on a high ground, and let
the votes fall where they may. That is the kind of debate we need in
the Senate.
I thank the chief sponsor of this bill for yielding me time, and I
yield the floor, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I thank our distinguished colleague for his
comments and his leadership.
Mr. President, as you know, this has been a truly bipartisan
undertaking by those of us who supported this effort in Iraq from the
beginning, members on your side of the aisle and members on my side of
the aisle.
So I commend my colleague for his leadership and his courage. It is a
pleasure to work with him.
I now yield time to our distinguished colleague from Nebraska.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from
Indiana for the opportunity to speak in support of this amendment. I
thank my colleagues who are cosponsoring this amendment: Senators
Ensign, Collins, Snowe, Lindsey Graham, and the Presiding Officer,
Senator Chambliss. It is a pleasure to be working with them in a
bipartisan way on what I think is an important point to the American
people and an important point as a message to the world.
When the President delivered his address announcing the $87 billion
he would ask Congress to approve for postwar military operations and
construction and reconstruction in Iraq, known as the supplemental,
there was clearly a collective gasp from the American people. This was
primarily because I do not believe the American public was prepared,
before the war, for the cost of reconstruction after the war.
Americans clearly want our mission in Iraq to succeed. We cannot
fail. And

[[Page S12692]]

we want our young men and women to come home safely. Now our No. 1
priority must be that we do everything in our power to make sure that
happens in a fiscally responsible way for the United States and Iraq.
The American role in the liberation of Iraq planted the seeds for
democracy. The creation of the Coalition Provisional Authority, led by
Ambassador Bremer, and the interim Iraqi Governing Council, have laid
the foundation for what I hope will be a lasting Iraqi Republic.
Now is the time to seek greater international support for security,
perhaps through NATO, as I have previously suggested, and also to seek
more international support through the United Nations, to help
democracy and freedom in Iraq by the drafting of a constitution, the
holding of legitimate elections, and the participation by all Iraqis in
the political process.
Funds for military operations must not be delayed and should be
quickly appropriated so that the 140,000 American troops in theater,
and those supporting them, will have the tools they need to do their
job.
Our soldiers should not be held hostage because of deliberations on
controversial portions of this supplemental.
The reconstruction funding the President requested may be the
appropriate amount to accomplish our goals. However, as we have all
indicated, we have concerns with the way the funding is being made to
the Iraqis. The President's reconstruction request simply gives money
to Iraq as a grant. It asks the American taxpayer to pick up the entire
cost for postwar construction with the hope that we will get others to
be donors in this process. It asks nothing from the international
community at the present time, and certainly it asks nothing of Iraq in
return.
The United States liberated Iraq, but should reconstruction become
the sole responsibility of the American people with the expectation and
the hope we might get additional contributions from the donors
conference? Furthermore, the question can be, Is that the best for
Iraq? I don't think so.
The amendment we offer today will ask that the international
community do more to aid Iraq in their reconstruction, while
simultaneously easing the financial burden that Iraq now carries
because of the policies of a brutal tyrant. In contrast to the
administration's proposed total direct grant, which does not ask Iraq
to contribute financially to its own recovery, this amendment is both
generous and fair.
As my colleague from Indiana has indicated, the amendment first
provides for a grant covering $5 billion for building Iraq's security
services. That is a grant. And it provides $5.2 billion in emergency
economic assistance. That is a grant. It also asks the administration
to notify all relevant congressional committees of every $250 million
obligated out of the $5.2 billion so that there is some transparency
and accountability on how these dollars are going to be spent.
Most importantly, our proposal asks America to negotiate with the
world on behalf of Iraq. Iraq, unfortunately, due to the tyrannical
powers and programs of Saddam Hussein, owes money in reparations to
Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. It also has debts to France and Russia
primarily for military purposes. France and Russia are owed $6 billion
and $6.9 billion, respectively. Saudi Arabia is owed approximately $25
billion. This is debt that was incurred by Iraq as a result of the
tyrannical forces, powers, and programs of Saddam Hussein.
Our colleague from Oklahoma has proposed a sense-of-the-Senate
resolution which will be voted on later this evening, as will this
amendment. He has asked that we request the countries that own the debt
to forgive the debt. I think that is a start that is halfway to the
conclusion that this amendment brings us. But it is only halfway. It is
asking rather than providing leverage where I think we will absolutely
have the opportunity to seek the forgiveness of this debt. So that if
France, Russia, and others can forgive Iraq's debt, the international
community would consider this as a positive step toward independence.
This immense gesture would enable the Iraqi economic engine to become
energized, free of a burden most Iraqis never wanted in the first
place.
It is estimated as well that Iraq's proven oil reserves are worth
$2.8 trillion and its potential oil reserves might be worth $5.5
trillion. Freeing the Iraqis of their prewar debt would help them use
their oil resources immediately to provide for their people and their
reconstruction.
Our amendment is the only amendment offered that directly addresses
the issue of Iraqi debt. Our amendment provides an incentive to those
nations to forgive Iraq of its Saddam-era debt. It is my hope the
administration and the Iraqi Governing Council will be able to
satisfactorily and successfully negotiate with the international
community to eliminate 90 percent of the prewar bilateral Iraqi debt.
If those negotiations are indeed successful, this amendment would
provide that the remaining $10 billion in reconstruction funding to the
Iraqi people would be in the form of a grant. It will be convertible
from a loan to a grant in exchange for the forgiveness of 90 percent of
the prewar bilateral Iraqi debt.
If the negotiations are unsuccessful, which we hope they would not
be, then the $10 billion will be appropriated as a long-term loan to
the Iraqi Governing Council and all prewar debts will be subordinated
to the U.S. postwar debt of $10 billion. This would allow the Iraqi
people to get the same jump-start on rebuilding their country while
delaying their payments to us and the world until this Iraqi nation has
established an economy and can meet its responsibilities to the world
community. The loan would be secured by revenues from Iraqi oil exports
in the future.
There are some who will charge that making reconstruction funds
available as a loan is evidence that the United States is after Iraq's
oil. In my estimation, they will hold that contention regardless of
what we do or don't do in regard to funding reconstruction. In fact,
the use of the funds to rebuild within Iraq is evidence to the
contrary. But even if we can't prove to the rest of the world that we
are not after the oil, we must pursue a loan approach as we are
proposing.
I can understand that the administration does not want to add to the
debt of the Iraqi people. This isn't, as long as the prewar Saddam
Hussein indebtedness is forgiven. We owe it to our taxpayers to be just
as concerned about growing our budget deficit as we are about Iraq's
deficit.
I hope my colleagues will join in support of this generous and fair
amendment, recognizing that those who said an entity doesn't exist,
that that argument just doesn't wash. If it exists for a grant, it
exists for a loan. There are those who have said we are loading it up
with debt. It is just the opposite. They have even cited post-World War
I Germany with the debt that was added there. The intent here is to
clear the debt, to clear it up so we put Iraq on a firm financial
footing as it moves forward. All we ask is the help of the other
nations.
This provides leverage to go to the donors conference and say: We are
prepared to make a grant. We just want to make sure the debt that is
existing prior to the war, the Saddam-era debt, is forgiven.
I appreciate the opportunity. It is a pleasure to work with my
colleagues. I thank my colleague from Indiana.
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, we are grateful for the leadership and the
eloquence of our colleague from Nebraska. He was a successful
businessman, an outstanding Governor, and now a very wise Member of
this body. I thank him for his leadership.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time?
Mr. BAYH. I am pleased to yield time to the distinguished Senator
from Maine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, before I give my remarks, let me thank my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have worked so hard to craft
this amendment. It has been a great pleasure to work with all of them.
I believe the proposal we are advancing this evening not only reflects
a great deal of thought and deliberation but is by far the best policy
we could pursue.
The Senate is engaged in a historic debate: the consideration of the
most comprehensive package of military and foreign reconstruction
assistance since the Marshall plan. The administration has asked the
Congress to appropriate $87 billion, some of which would go to

[[Page S12693]]

Afghanistan, but the vast majority would go for Iraq.
As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I visited Iraq
last July. I am well aware of the urgent need for additional funding to
support our troops. Rogue elements operating in Iraq, whether it is the
remnants of the Baathist regime or terrorists from other countries,
endanger our troops and threaten to undermine our efforts to establish
a prosperous and democratic society. It is imperative that our troops
have all the support they need to be as safe and as effective as
possible. In that regard, it is indeed heartening that the $66 billion
included in this package that will be used to support our troops enjoys
widespread support.

The stakes are very high. We simply cannot fail in Iraq. The
sacrifices of our young men and women in uniform cannot be in vain.
This funding will help to support their efforts and to ensure their
success.
I also recognize that Iraq needs our assistance in constructing a
modern infrastructure and rebuilding its security services. There are
$20 billion included in this bill targeted for those purposes. I note
the significance of that amount; it is more than our entire foreign aid
budget. So this is a very significant assistance package we are
considering tonight.
It is vital that basic services be restored to the Iraqi people as
soon as possible so that their hardships do not continue. Without
reliable electricity and clean water, the Iraqi people cannot rebuild
their lives, their country, and their economy. I believe there are,
however, ways to structure this assistance to provide the Iraqis with
the help they need while lessening the impact on the American taxpayer.
That is the goal of the bipartisan amendment we have put forth this
evening.
While I fully support the President's overall budget request, we have
an obligation to explore ways to lessen the burden on the American
taxpayer. To accomplish this goal, our amendment proposes that part of
this assistance be provided to the Iraqi people in the form of a loan,
to be repaid at some point in the future when Iraq once again becomes
the prosperous nation it has the capacity to be.
When I visited Iraq, I was struck by how little damage the war
actually inflicted on the infrastructure of that nation. I saw
firsthand evidence of how our precision weaponry and the care our
troops took were successful in targeting installations that posed a
threat to our troops or supported the regime of Saddam Hussein while
sparing the civilian community.
I was also struck, however, by the dreadfully poor infrastructure of
communities throughout the nation. Basic elements of a modern nation,
such as the electricity, clean water, schools, hospitals, roads, and
bridges, were ignored by Saddam Hussein as he looted the country and
left it in shambles. In fact, when you think about it, what we are
really talking about is construction costs, not reconstruction. Iraq
lacks many of the elements of a modern and well-functioning
infrastructure.
I do not believe it is in any way unfair to ask the Iraqi people to
invest in their own future by repaying the American taxpayers some of
the funding used to construct their infrastructure, particularly when
they clearly will have the ability someday to do so, for Iraq is not
Afghanistan; Iraq has an educated population, abundant natural
resources and, most notably, the second largest oil reserves in the
world.
The administration projects that Iraq will be generating $20 billion
in annual oil revenue within just 2 years. With such economic assets,
Iraq undoubtedly one day will have the financial wherewithal to repay
this loan. Moreover, asking the Iraqis to take some responsibility for
rebuilding their own country will help give them a sense of ownership,
increasing the chances that our reconstruction efforts will endure long
after our troops have returned home.
One of the arguments put forth by opponents of the loan concept is
that Iraq is already burdened with an estimated $100 billion to $125
billion in debt from Saddam Hussein's regime. But what is often left
out is that some of the largest holders of that debt are Saudi Arabia,
France, Germany, and Russia. If it were up to the leaders of three of
those nations, the Iraqi people would still be suffering under the
brutal and repressive regime of Saddam Hussein.

The American people will be justifiably outraged if one dime of their
money is sent to France while the American people are pouring millions
of their hard-earned tax dollars into rebuilding Iraq. France, Germany,
and Russia should not be paid for the debts incurred by one of the most
despicable and violent leaders in decades while the American taxpayer
invests billions in the rebuilding and stabilization of Iraq.
I also point out that structuring our assistance as loans is not
without precedent. Most of the large-scale infrastructure projects
undertaken in postconflict Bosnia have been administered through the
World Bank in the form of loans with reasonable repayment conditions.
If this approach is not hindering the reconstruction of Bosnia, the
same surely should hold true for Iraq, a country with far greater
economic resources.
That is why we have joined this evening to offer this amendment. This
amendment ensures that the American taxpayer will eventually be
reimbursed for a portion of our investment in Iraq. Under our proposal,
$10 billion in our construction assistance will be made available for
use as loans while the other $10 billion will be available as grants.
So you can see we have taken a very reasonable, moderate approach in
constructing this amendment. By making available $5 billion in grants
for rebuilding Iraq's security services and yet another $5 billion to
jump start the reconstruction process, our approach ensures that the
administration has the funds necessary to address the immediate and
pressing needs.
Furthermore, the amendment requires the administration to notify
congressional committees after the expenditure of every $250 million of
the funds. This provision will help to enhance accountability. The
President is then authorized to use the remaining $10 billion as loans
to the Iraqi Governing Council or its successor.
Here is an important provision of our amendment. We say that if,
however, 90 percent of Iraq's bilateral foreign debt is forgiven, then
the remaining assistance will be converted to grants and the loans
already obligated will be forgiven. So this is a very generous
proposal.
This provision will encourage other countries to forgive at least a
portion of their debt and ensure that we are not financing the
rebuilding of Iraq's infrastructure while nations that loaned money to
Saddam Hussein are repaid.
In addition, the amendment includes a sense-of-the-Senate provision
encouraging all the nations to forgive their pre-liberation bilateral
debt and to provide robust levels of reconstruction aid to postwar Iraq
at the upcoming donors conference.
The American people are very generous. They not only want to give our
troops the support they need but they want to provide help to the Iraqi
people. The American people understand that Iraq cannot repay this
money immediately. That is not what we are asking. But the American
taxpayer does deserve to be repaid eventually for some of our
investment in this country. And Iraq deserves to be treated as a
country that has the enormous economic potential that it clearly has.
Structuring our reconstruction assistance as a loan is a reasonable
approach that satisfies both concerns.
Again, I acknowledge the hard work of the group of Senators,
including the Presiding Officer, who have worked very hard to come up
with what I believe is a commonsense approach to this aid package.
Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes in opposition to
the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, first, I wish to tell my colleagues who
debated on the other side of the issue that I have great respect for
their position. I just happen to disagree with it.
I stated some time ago that I had hoped a significant portion of the
$20

[[Page S12694]]

billion for reconstruction of Iraq could be in the form of a loan. I
would like to see that be the case. I just happen to think, upon
further review, that it is not possible now. It might be possible a
year from now, but it is not possible now, at least in my opinion.
There is no government in Iraq today. Hopefully, there will be. It is
our objective to have a democracy in Iraq. It is our objective to have
Iraq run by Iraqis. There is nobody in Iraq who can sign a note and
say: We will borrow $10 billion and pay you back. Nobody. I guess one
could say Ambassador Bremer could do it.
I listened to Ambassador Bremer, and I have great confidence in him.
I think he has done a great job. This amendment is saying we know
better than he does. He happens to be living in Iraq. He is working
there. He is risking his life daily. I don't know how many
assassination attempts have been made on his life and on the lives of
the people working with him. I actually have a former staff member who
is working in the Iraqi government. She is fluent in Arabic. I happen
to think they have made a good choice.
Maybe in the future loans can be made, but right now there is not an
Iraqi government. There is no one to sign the note. There is no one who
can say: We will make payments and pay this back.
Frankly, if one looks at their current situation--Iraq is a country
that was so ignored by Saddam Hussein, so devastated by his terrible
plundering of the country for military purposes, that their ability to
pay back debt is nonexistent for some time.

Iraq has inherited a lot of debt. I have an amendment we will be
voting on shortly that says countries that own Saddam Hussein's
incurred debt should forgive that debt. I hope that amendment will be
supported, and I hope that will send a signal to those countries that
hold some of that paper.
That paper is worthless. Saddam Hussein did not make payments on it.
There is no way in the world future Iraqis could inherit that debt and
prosper. So it needs to be written off.
If we say, before you write that off, we want to add another $10
billion, even though you don't have a government, we want to add
another $10 billion on top of that, and, oh, yes, we want to be paid
back, but we want you to write off the $100 billion or the $150 billion
of debt previously owned, I think that complicates that message.
Maybe I am wrong, but when we are saying we want to lend $10 billion
and we want to be paid off, but you other countries who hold a bunch of
Iraqi debt, you should forgive that, I think it will get lost in the
translation. This amendment says $10 billion will be released when and
if 90 percent of that debt is forgiven. Maybe it is a carrot, maybe it
is an incentive that $10 billion will never be spent. I do know there
is not a government that can sign this note. There is not an Iraqi
government that can make the payment. Maybe it will make people feel
better to say it is a loan, but there is nobody to sign that note.
There is nobody who has the authority and who is supported by the Iraqi
people who can say: Yes, we will be making these payments.
Likewise, it greatly complicates our efforts to get other countries
that currently hold worthless Iraqi paper to write off that debt. They
are going to say: United States, if you are going to take on $10
billion of loans and you expect to be paid, then we expect to be paid.
I think it will greatly complicate efforts to get other countries to
write off their debt.
Let me say this about Ambassador Bremer. He has done a fantastic job.
Do we support him or not? I asked Secretary Powell yesterday: Is there
a government in Iraq that can pay this note back?
He said no.
Is there anybody there who can pay this note back?
He said no. That is our Secretary of State.
I asked basically the same questions of Ambassador Bremer. Is this
possible?
He said no. He was strongly urging us to go the grant approach; give
them the flexibility to get this country going, not complicate their
efforts when they are trying to get other countries to write off some
of the existing worthless debt.
I have confidence in Ambassador Bremer. I have confidence in
Secretary Powell. I think this amendment is very well intended. Again,
I have no complaints whatsoever about the authors of this amendment. I
respect them greatly as colleagues, but I think they made a mistake,
and I urge our colleagues to vote no on this amendment when we vote.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to Senator Roberts.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I am going to start off with a quote from Winston
Churchill and people are going to say: Why on Earth would I be quoting
Winston Churchill in this regard as to whether or not we will come to
the assistance of the Iraqis with a loan or a grant? But I think it has
application, and it refers back to what the distinguished Senator from
Indiana said. I would like to repeat what the Senator from Oklahoma has
stated. I have nothing but admiration for the work the Senator from
Indiana and others who have spoken to this amendment have done on this
issue. Senator Bayh is a very valued member of the Intelligence
Committee.
Let me get back to my point, and that is, Churchill said on hearing
about the attack on Pearl Harbor--if you stop and think about it, 9/11
is our modern-day Pearl Harbor, so I think it is an apt quote. He said:

Silly people, that was the description many gave in
discounting the force of the United States. Some said they
were soft, others that they would never be united, that they
would never come to grips, they would never stand
bloodletting, that their system of government and democracy
would paralyze their war effort.

Let me repeat that:

that their system of government and democracy would paralyze
their war effort.
Now we will see the weakness of this numerous but remote,
wealthy and very talkative people.

Then Churchill said:

But, I had studied the American Civil War fought out to the
last desperate inch. American blood flowed in my veins. I
thought of a remark made to me years before--the United
States is like a gigantic boiler. Once the fire of freedom is
lighted under it, there is no limit to the power it can
generate. It is a matter of resolve.

Let me repeat that:

It is a matter of resolve.

Why do I bring up the Churchill quote and the issue of resolve in
regard to whether or not we apply a grant or a loan to the Iraqi
people?
I think it is a question of resolve in the eyes of more especially
those in the Arab world, more especially the Iraqis. In the last 2
days, I have had visits from three ambassadors. I am not going to go
into their names or countries. It was a confidential discussion.
Obviously, they were countries directly involved in this whole effort.
They asked me quite frankly about American resolve. They asked me about
the whole WMD issue, whether or not the American people still had the
resolve to see this through.
Then they asked me about this loan situation and this grant
situation. They were very mindful of the attitude the Senator from
Indiana already spoke to that there will be those in the Arab world,
our adversaries, if you will, who will interpret this as a grab that
they originally described as to why the United States became involved
in this conflict--a grab for the oil of Iraq.
On April 8, 2003, the President and the Prime Minister of Britain
said in a joint statement regarding the future of Iraq:

We reaffirm our commitment to protect Iraqi's natural
resources, as the patrimony of the people of Iraq, which
should be used only for their benefit.

U.S. interests in Iraq lie solely with the development of a free and
democratic nation. Congress should not now add a condition of our
involvement that suggests the United States had an interest in Iraqi
oil all along. Using the Iraq's oil as collateral for loans would play
now into the hands of those who wrongly attributed an oil motive. That
is in reference to a statement made by both the President and the Prime
Minister of Britain.
Now, the distinguished Senator from Indiana said that is not true. I
do not

[[Page S12695]]

think it is true either, but I think it is true in the minds of many
Arab leaders. I do not know who is paying attention to this debate
tonight. There are not many Members present. We are going to have a
vote later, but most Americans are probably watching the playoffs in
regard to the World Series, so I doubt if too many people are paying
attention.
I tell my colleagues who will pay attention: Every intelligence
community and every Arab leader in the world will go over every word of
what we say tonight. I have had three ambassadors come to me wondering
about the resolve of the United States and are we reneging in regard to
our support for the war. Rightly or wrongly, I think that is a real
problem.
I think we also have a real problem with the timing of this in regard
to the loan, just as the President goes overseas, goes to the donors
conference. People say, well, this will allow us a seat at the table.
My colleagues, we are the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 5 minutes. Does he
request more time?
Mr. ROBERTS. I request an additional 30 seconds, if that would be
possible.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection.
Mr. ROBERTS. In summing up, I support the amendment that has been
introduced by the Senator from Oklahoma and would say it is a matter of
resolve in the eyes of the Arab world. It is much larger than Iraq and
much larger than a $10 billion loan or $5 billion here or $5 billion
there. In fact, it will be viewed in the Arab world, in the Arab
community, as a test of America's resolve, and I do not want us to fail
that test.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the
distinguished Senator from South Carolina.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, probably by the end of
the week, if things stay the way they have been, unfortunately we will
have some injured troops and maybe some will lose their lives.
There is a resolve by the American people and this body to stay the
course. If anybody has looked at what we have done in a reasonable,
rational manner--and that is all I ask the world to do--they will see
great resolve on our part. The biggest contribution we have made to the
Iraqi people has nothing to do with money. It is the 350, somewhere in
that number, growing by the day, young men and women. That is our
biggest contribution. We have spent a lot of money, a billion dollars a
week, to try to transform a country from tyranny to civility, and the
middle is chaos. We are making great improvements. That is an honest
statement.
Having been to Iraq, one can see the resolve in the soldiers' eyes. I
dare say there may be some men and women in the Armed Forces who are so
decent that they would say: Give the Iraqi people money, we do not want
to be paid back. That is the strength of our country.
We are in it for the long haul. There is more dying to come. There is
more money to be spent. If we try to build up the infrastructure in the
next months to come, chances are it will be attacked because we have
not secured the country yet. To expect it to be secured in 6 months is
impossible, because the Iraqi Army and all the bad people who are in it
have gone into the civilian population.
Senator McConnell is right; they are not just killing Americans. They
are killing people who are trying to transform the country into
democracy.
People may say, oh, this loan proves they were over there for our
oil. I cannot tell my colleagues how much it bothers me to hear that
because my colleagues know it is not true and I know it is not true.
Nobody in a rational thought process would send 350 people and climbing
to their death, spend $70 billion and climbing, to make a $10 billion
loan that may never be collected.
So people can say what they want to say. If our country gives in to
that way of thinking, and if we are swayed by people who hate us to
begin with and we change our policy based on people who are never going
to be with us, we will never get this right.
My hope is that the Iraqi people who see our soldiers on the ground,
see the schools being opened and built, and the hospitals being
repaired would be the first to reject this kind of reasoning, because
God knows we are not there to take anything they have. We are there to
help them, but we are also there to help us.
Why did we go to war? Why did we pick people from South Carolina,
California, and all the places in between to go to a foreign land and
risk their lives and have some die? To make sure that Saddam Hussein
could do no more damage to the region or us than he has already done.
President Bush has shown great leadership. He has said that the 21st
century will not be ruled or dictated by terrorists, dictators, and
murderers. He is absolutely right. God bless him for his resolve.
This amendment puts $10 billion on the table, unencumbered, to spend
however you would like. This chart shows from $95 billion to $153
billion of debt incurred to Saddam Hussein. The reason I am so
passionate about this, I do not want to give in to a great lie. We
cannot buy our way out of this problem. We cannot take $10 billion of
taxpayer money and people are losing their jobs to buy our way out of a
great lie.
It would be terrible if the people of this country, who have
sacrificed so much, wound up not getting a dime back for doing a good
thing, and all they invested in Iraq to produce profit and money went
to pay the people back who kept Saddam Hussein in power. That is
unacceptable to me, and that is the scenario we are charting. Please do
not do that. It would be bad for everyone. It would not make the world
safer.
How much time do I have remaining, Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Who yields time?
Mr. STEVENS. I yield 5 minutes to Senator Sessions.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham of South Carolina). The Senator
from Alabama is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the distinguished chairman of the
Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens, and appreciate his
leadership in this matter. He has been in this body a long time. He has
served his country in the military, and I think he sized up this matter
quite correctly. We are at war.
I was at the Walter Reed Hospital a couple of weeks ago, meeting
soldiers who served in Iraq. They have been wounded, some seriously.
Most who I met were getting better. They were great in spirit and were
most impressive young people.
We are in a war. We have an $87 billion request, and $67 billion of
that is going to be to fund our military at $4 billion a month. Twenty
billion dollars is what has been set aside for infrastructure.
My goal, and I believe the goal of this country, is to stabilize
Iraq, create a healthy environment as best we can, and to continue to
draw down our troops in a rapid way; get out and come home. The $20
billion gives us the best chance to do that. That means we need money
for police.
When I visited Iraq in August, I went to observe the police training.
I wanted to do that because I was a Federal prosecutor for a number of
years and I wanted to see how they were doing. They are doing very
well. They are being targeted now because they are doing so well.
We need money to get electricity. Electricity needs to be on in
Baghdad. When we get the electricity on, that country is going to be
better off. It is going to be more stable and there is going to be less
violence. That is what the infrastructure money does.

I do not see how this President can ask other countries to not try to
collect on debts they have to the Saddam Hussein regime if he is asking
that the money we put in for this infrastructure be classified as a
debt. I just do not believe that is good policy for him. I think it is
going to complicate matters in many different ways. Secretary of State
Colin Powell indicated those ways to us recently. The entire
administration, the Vice President, those

[[Page S12696]]

who dealt with this issue so closely, are passionately of the belief it
would be a colossal error for us to try to put a mortgage on Iraq in
order to get paid back for half, I guess, now of the money we are
providing to improve the infrastructure in that country. It does not
make good sense to me.
I think the right thing to do is for us to step forward as we are
doing, be bold and courageous, complete this job, improve the
infrastructure, establish a police force that has ability and
integrity, a security force that can protect areas of the country that
are at risk, and bring on an Iraqi Army.
I visited the training camps for the Iraqi Army. We have the
potential to do even more than we are doing, in bringing on those
troops even more rapidly than we are doing. If we spend that money for
that purpose, I believe this country can be in a position to continue
to draw down our troops.
We had 250,000 troops at the peak of this effort. We are now down to
138,000. I see no reason that number cannot continue to go down. Whole
areas of the country are doing very well. We have to be pleased with
what has happened in Mosul in the north, where the 101st and General
Petraus have done so well; Kirkuk in the south. Basra is doing
exceedingly well.
We have seen reports recently of the economic vitality on the streets
of the country. I believe it is just a big mistake for us to try to now
come in and worry about whether this ought to be a loan.
I don't take a back seat to anybody in this Senate on trying to
preserve the taxpayers' money. In fact, most of the people I hear who
want to make this a loan and are so worried about collecting this money
back have not been counted on a lot of tough votes on spending when we
have had some real challenges here, to contain the growth in spending.
So it is painful to me to think about $67 billion, $87 billion to be
spent there. But we made a commitment. This Senate voted over three-
fourths to support this effort. We had no doubt when we entered this
effort that it was going to be costly. In fact, we have to be pleased
the war went better than we could ever have expected it to go. It went
faster.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Alabama has
expired.
Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair and will just conclude by saying I
believe the amendment should not be adopted. We ought to make this a
grant. Let's go forward, stabilize this country, and bring our soldiers
home.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. STEVENS. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Pennsylvania.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Senator from Alaska for yielding the time,
and I compliment Members on both sides of this issue for the excellent
debate, the tone of this debate.
It is a very important debate we are engaged in right now. This is
probably the most important decision we will make because it is going
to shape the postwar policy of a reconstruction that will have a
dramatic impact on the national security of this country. So I think
people are taking this vote very seriously and I think they should take
it seriously because it has incredible ramifications.
This is a vote I believe we will look back on as one of the most
significant votes we will cast in the area of foreign policy, certainly
in the time I have been in the Senate, in Congress. So I am pleased to
see there is a good, active debate. The words being exchanged I think
have been helpful.
A lot of the comments I heard from some of my colleagues who support
the Bayh amendment, which I do not, have been reassuring to me. The
intent of this amendment is not to show a lack of resolve on the part
of any Member of the Senate that the policy of this administration in
Iraq is being supported by those who may differ with the way the
package is put together. Those words are important. Those words matter.
My concern with those words is those words do matter, those words are
important, but what matters more and what is more important are
actions. There are too many people around this world who are not going
to hear these words, but they are going to see the action. There are
too many people in this world who will ignore the words and focus and
take advantage of them to portray America really differently and
portray this Senate differently than what the words in support of the
Bayh amendment articulate.
Yes, words matter. Intent of the offerors of this amendment,
supporters of this amendment, matters. But the problem is the action of
what is going to occur matters most. The action here is clear. We are
saying to a country that is flat on its back economically, that has
just gone through a 25-year-plus horrific regime, has just been through
a war, we are saying to them: We came there to liberate you, to create
freedom and rebuild your society into one that is peaceful and
democratic, and, oh, by the way--and it is the ``oh, by the way'' this
amendment is all about. The ``oh, by the way'' is we want some of that
money back.
Of course, the only way they can pay it back, and this is what the
world community will see, this is what the people in the Arab world
will see, is through oil revenues.
That ``oh, by the way'' action trumps all of the words we heard here
tonight which are no, we are not after oil, we are not after this. But
it really doesn't matter what we say because what will be interpreted
is what we do.
The impact of that in this very fragile postwar period is profound,
the impact on the donors conference which is coming up, where we are
asking those around the world to contribute money, not to loan the
money but to give the money. These are people who did not participate,
in many cases, in supporting the United States action. So we are asking
them, for humanitarian purposes, for purposes of promoting stability in
the world, to support reconstruction in some cases where they didn't
support the action in the first place. To go there with less than
generous support--although I agree with many of my colleagues, we have
been generous. The American public has been incredibly generous. But to
have those strings attached is going to send a message that is not
going to be positive in getting additional contributions from the donor
nations. That will have a serious impact on the buy-in we need to make
postwar Iraq successful.

It was said by someone in the administration yesterday at our
luncheon that there are now elections being held in Saudi Arabia, local
elections for the first time as a result of the model that is being set
in Iraq. The impact of a successful Iraq, a democratic Iraq, on that
region of the world is like the MasterCard commercial--it is priceless.
It is priceless.
Why we, in any small way, would put that in jeopardy or give those
who would like to see it not succeed an opportunity to use this vote
and this action by the Senate to undermine that objective is to me
something that does not make sense.
So I hope my colleagues understand, this is an important vote, one we
will look back on throughout history, like I believe those in 1948 look
back on their vote on the Marshall plan. I hope we will get a vote to
defeat this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. Who
yields time?
Mr. STEVENS. I yield to the Senator from Georgia 8 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Thank you, Mr. President.
I say to Senators Bayh, Nelson, Graham, Collins, Snowe, and Ensign
what a pleasure it is to work with all of you on this issue where we
know we are doing the right thing for America and the American people
as well as for the people of Iraq.
I start out by saying that nobody, according to my political
opponents, has been a stronger supporter of this administration and
this President than this Senator from Georgia. I continue to support my
President. I support his request for $87 billion in funding for Iraq.
The only thing I disagree with the administration about is how we
structure that funding. None of us disagrees about the fact that we
need the $67 billion for the military operation in Iraq. But to take
the remainder of the $20 billion and to put half of it in the form of a
grant to tell the people of Iraq we

[[Page S12697]]

are going to give you the money to go in and rebuild your
infrastructure is certainly reasonable. To tell them also that we want
you to make an investment in Iraq just like we as the American
taxpayers are making an investment in Iraq is also reasonable.
There are three reasons that I feel so strongly about this issue.
Before I talk about those three reasons, I wish to address one issue on
which I know our political enemies in the press, particularly in other
parts of the world, are going to be attacking us as Members of the
Senate tomorrow if this amendment does pass. That attack is going to be
geared to saying: Here we go, we told you all along that the Americans
came into Iraq because they wanted our oil. My friend from Oklahoma has
already addressed this issue. What he has said is very clear; that is,
the debt that Iraq now owes--it is listed on this chart that has been
entered into the Record--there is no money left. No money is left to
pay this debt.
To say we went into Iraq for oil because we are asking the Iraqi
people to make an investment in infrastructure is simply not true.
There is no way you can say it is true.
Let me get to my three reasons.
First of all, should the American taxpayer invest money in Iraq so
that the Iraqi people can have their infrastructure rebuilt and have
their economy revitalized so that these debts can be repaid? My friend
from Maine has already addressed this issue, and I think the answer is
very clear.
Second, if America is to invest in Iraq in rebuilding its
infrastructure, is it unreasonable to ask the Iraqi people to share in
that investment?
What is going to happen when we start investing over there and start
rebuilding their infrastructure? I can tell you what is going to
happen--some of the same things we have already seen happen. We have
seen pipelines attacked by the terrorist community in that part of the
world. We have seen bombs blown up in front of the hotels in Baghdad.
We have seen other entities, including Americans, attacked on a regular
basis.
When we rebuild the infrastructure, we can expect the terrorist
community, which is alive and well in that part of the world, to
continue to come out and attack those investments we are making.
If the Iraqi people share in that investment, are they going to be
more likely to help us in preventing those attacks and also in bringing
the perpetrators of those attacks to justice? You bet they will. I
think there is every reason in the world to ask them to make a joint
investment with us.
Third, my goal is that when the American presence in Iraq is gone,
all of these debts are relieved. How do we best do that? Do we best do
that by investing $20 billion and saying: OK, we are going to rebuild
your infrastructure? You go out, and because your economy is back up
and running, you take care of those debts. No. They are not going to
leave them debt free if we do that.
If the President goes to the donors conference next week or calls up
President Putin or any of these other countries and says, Look, my
country is owed $10 billion, we invested $10 billion to rebuild the
infrastructure, if you forgive your debt, we will forgive our debt,
does that give a moral leverage in what he would have if he went in and
said, We put $20 billion in there, why don't you forgive your debt? Be
a nice guy and forgive it? The nice guys have already spoken--Germany,
France, and these other countries such as Russia have already spoken.
They are not going to be nice guys. We simply can't expect that from
them.

We need to give the President the leverage he can use to go in and
get these debts forgiven. When that happens--and I sincerely hope it
does happen in the short term--then our $10 billion in the form of a
loan is going to be converted to a grant, and it won't be repaid.
That is what we are here debating tonight--whether or not we are
going to give the President the right kind of leverage he needs to deal
with these countries that sit in creditor status with Iraq today.
What has been our investment in Iraq? Our investment has been
whatever it costs us to this point in time. I don't know how many
billions of dollars--maybe $100 billion. I don't know what it is. How
much is it going to cost us in the future? It is going to cost us
another $21 billion, or is it another $87 billion? That is going to get
us through the next year. Next year we will be back here debating on
another supplemental on continuing the effort in Iraq.
All we are asking the Iraqi people to do is to take part of that $130
billion, $150 billion, or $170 billion--whatever it has been today--and
share part of it with us; share $10 billion with us.
Second, there is not a country on this chart, outside of the U.K.,
that has lost one life as a result of the conflict in Iraq and freeing
and liberating the Iraqi people. As of today, we have lost 332 American
lives--just as of today. A young soldier from Valdosta, GA, was found
floating in a river. He apparently drowned over there. We have lost 332
brave American men and women. These countries, outside of the U.K.,
have lost none. They have made no investment of life in the freedom of
Iraq.
Let me close by answering my friend from Oklahoma, who is truly one
of my dearest friends and a guy I respect so much. But when he says,
from the standpoint of to whom we are going to lend this money, there
is nobody to sign a note, what are we going to do with this $21
billion? Are we going to stand in a hotel window and throw it on the
streets of Baghdad? Give me a break. There is somebody in place to give
the money to. There is somebody in place to lend the money to. All you
have to do is think about what we are going to do with the money. We
are going to rebuild the infrastructure in Iraq. There is somebody who
owns that infrastructure. I don't care whether it is the former
government or the Coalition Provisional Authority. There is an entity
in place that is capable of signing a note. That is simply a very weak
argument, to say that we don't have the legal capacity to make this
loan.
Again, I am very proud of the fact that we have come together in a
bipartisan way to do what we think is right for the American people.
Again, I am thankful for the leadership of Senator Bayh, Senator
Collins, and Senator Ensign, who were so instrumental in this.
I ask my colleagues to think seriously about this because it is maybe
the most important vote we will make. The future of our children and
grandchildren, particularly when it comes to rooting out terrorism
around the world, may rest in this vote. I am very confident that the
right vote is in support of this amendment.
I thank the Chair.
Mr. BAYH. I ask my colleague: The Senator from Michigan has been
waiting quite some time.
Mr. STEVENS. I have had the Senator from Washington waiting for a
substantial amount of time, too.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Washington.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise to join my well-meaning
colleagues on both sides of this debate in trying too determine the
best mechanism for not only our leadership in Iraq and getting the
Iraqi people on their feet, but also in getting other countries to help
by forgiving Iraqi debt.
It is crucial that we in this Chamber send a strong message to the
Iraqi people that we will be the world's most outspoken advocate for
Iraqi reconstruction and that the United States will play a leadership
role.
Now I don't impugn the motives of other Members who want to qualify
our assistance through a loan formula.
I share my colleagues' concerns that the funding for Iraq
reconstruction is a serious cost that we need to thoroughly consider
and oversee.
However, I think it is critically important to realize that Americans
have already been making a serious investment in this region in order
to ensure that we are so close to achieving: A stable, peaceful,
democratic Iraq.
We spent billions of dollars to expel Hussein out of Kuwait; we spent
billions throughout the nineties patrolling a no-fly zone; and we spent
billions to liberate Iraq, and we are spending billions to secure and
stabilize the country.
We are now the closest we have ever been to achieving the very goal
that we have sacrificed lives and spent billions to achieve.

[[Page S12698]]

We are very close to taking the Iraqi people off their knees and
putting them on their feet. Yet, the right way to do this is by helping
them build a strong economy not by saddling the Iraqis with further
debt.
Let's consider what we are saying when we ask the Iraqi people to
take on this loan. Think about it. Iraq's annual oil revenues may be
somewhere around $15 billion, but we are on the verge of adding to an
existing debt level of $200 billion--and expecting them to pay with
their oil revenues.
To think that Iraq can pay off a loan by oil revenues when its debt
is thirteen times its annual oil revenues is ridiculous. A future Iraq
would end up spending half of its oil revenues on interest payments
alone.
Is that the message we want to send to the Iraqi people?
Is that the message we want to send to the mayor of Kirkuk who I met?
To the governor of Basra who doesn't have enough electricity to serve
his community?
To the members of the Iraqi council, who are not only giving their
time to serve their country, but are risking their lives.
To the woman of the Iraqi council who spent 16 years in hiding with
other women only to rejoice when she found out that the United States
was coming to give them an opportunity to meet and express their
opinions in public.
These courageous leaders have stepped out to rebuild this country,
and are willing to give their lives to do so.
We need to help these people re-build their country, not pile on
additional debt.
Now is not the time for the United States to back away form its
leadership role in nurturing Iraq's future.
Make no mistake, I am disappointed like all my colleagues that the
American economy isn't recovering as well as it should.
I am disappointed in our terribly low levels of domestic investment.
I have as much concern as anyone over our domestic economy--my home
state of Washington is still facing a terribly high 7.5 percent
unemployment rate.
But we cannot tell the American people that we are going to solve
their problem by somehow holding down the Iraqi people to a future debt
that will not let them stand on their feet.
The United States must play a leadership role in Iraq reconstruction.
And it is very hard to play a leadership role when our commitment to
Iraq reconstruction is qualified by the conditions of a loan.
We need to say to the rest of the world community that it is time for
them to help build Iraq, too.
We need to say that if they are serious in their commitments about
rebuilding Iraq, as the U.N. did in its resolution today, then get
behind that message and deliver.
But to say that out of the $87 billion that we are talking about,
that some-how $10 billion of it ought to be paid back in a loan--only
if the other countries are not willing to commit to debt forgiveness--
is not the message of a leader.
A leader who believes in the Iraqi people will stand behind them and
give them the ability to get their country on their feet. We must be
this leader and get them on their feet and get our troops back home.
Mr. BAYH. I yield 8 minutes to the Senator from Michigan.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, after that, I yield to Senator Burns 5
minutes from our side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is requesting that Senator Burns
follow Senator Levin.
Mr. BAYH. If the Senator from Montana would like to follow the
Senator from Michigan, I have no problem.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I first thank the Senators who have been so
deeply engaged in coming up with a bipartisan amendment. It is
critically important there be a bipartisan amendment relative to issues
of war, peace, reconstruction, and the aftermath of war. I congratulate
them on it. I support this amendment.
The administration has requested approximately $20 billion for the
reconstruction of Iraq and the entire sum is intended to be a grant. We
are told that Saddam Hussein's debts are so great that we cannot
contemplate the new Iraq taking out a loan against their huge resource,
the second largest oil reserves in the world, perhaps $1 trillion or
more, so that they can become involved in their own reconstruction.
Only a grant, we are told, will do, even though this is a country with
a tremendous resource. We are told they cannot contribute to their own
reconstruction financially.
It was just last March Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz said
that ``we are dealing with a country that can really finance its own
reconstruction, and relatively soon.'' And it can. It surely can help
finance its own reconstruction and would be far better off if it did
help to finance its own reconstruction.
If the Iraqis possessed billions of dollars in gold bullion, I cannot
imagine anyone talking about granting them $20 billion. They have $1
trillion in liquid goal. Yet the suggestion for us to propose to Iraq
that they can stand on their own feet, that they can contribute to
their own reconstruction by a tiny fraction of that asset being used,
somehow or other that does not mean we are leading--I reject that. We
have led with our lives, almost 350 American lives. Every one of those
lives shows resolve. Every one of the 1,700 Americans who have been
injured show resolve. And we are going to continue to show resolve with
our lives on the line.
To suggest that Iraq, with an asset of $1 trillion, somehow or other
should not be part of its own reconstruction financially is portrayed
here as a lack of leadership. To me, it is a central element of wisdom
and recognizing that Iraq has a right to be treated as a country that
has great resources, great capabilities and we need to treat them as a
partner.
What is missing from the Bremer plan is a sense of ownership by Iraq
of its own reconstruction. The money involved in the plan is U.S. money
being appropriated to a U.S. administrator, who is going to spend the
money pretty much as he sees fit. That is not the best way to succeed
in Iraq. The best way is Iraq having the will to succeed.
There has been a suggestion that somehow or other we do not have the
resolve if we become partners with Iraq. It is quite the opposite. Iraq
must have the will to succeed and contribute to its own reconstruction
with a tiny fraction of its own resources as a reflection of that will
to succeed.
If Iraqi money were involved, I don't think this plan would have
proposed new ZIP Codes for Iraq; sending Iraqi students, at huge
expense, to business schools; some kind of a big honeypot for U.S.
consultants. Is that how the Iraqis would be spending their money? I
doubt it. When we talked to the Iraqis who came here, we asked them if
they had a role in this plan? We were told, no; this was our plan.
This has got to be their plan for their own reconstruction. They have
to own it. It is their country. We can help them. We can be a partner,
and God knows we have been. All the blood that we have shed for their
liberation has surely made us a partner. Nobody is going to be able to
misconstrue this as our aiming at their oil resource. No one can
misconstrue a grant of $10 billion, and a following loan of another $10
billion if others will contribute, as somehow or other targeting their
resources. Nobody is going to buy it. There may be an effort made to
misconstrue it, but nobody is going to buy that. We shed too much
blood. We have spent too much money in Iraq for this to be misconstrued
this way.

One other thing: Our simply giving them billions without their
participating, and then our deciding how to spend it, is going to keep
America as the target of terrorists, not just because of the military
power that we deploy so visibly, but because of the reconstruction
projects that we choose so unilaterally. If an electric power plant is
built with our money--it's a visible U.S. target for terrorists. If its
built with Iraqi money--it's less of a lightening rod.
The distinction is important in another way. Iraqis will have more
incentives to protect and to fight what their money builds. For those
reasons alone, the future of Iraq will be more assured if Iraqis have
the financial stake to succeed.
This has to be a partnership. We must join with Iraq in the
reconstruction. We should not dominate. We should not control. We
should not determine. Their resources should be

[[Page S12699]]

spent on their own reconstruction, with them, surely in part, choosing
their priorities as to what is important for them.
That is what we should all want for Iraq. And our simply saying, here
is $20 billion, these are the ways we will spend the $20 billion--is
not the way to help Iraq get back on its feet. It is the way to signal
to the world that we control, we dominate, and that is the worst
message that we can send to the world.
Mr. President, do I have time remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 40 seconds.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, my own preference would have been, instead
of a direct loan from us, that there be a loan from a third party,
guaranteed by us. That is my preference because that would have taken
away any possibility of misconstruing what we are doing, any propaganda
value that might be gained by anybody else by saying somehow or other
the United States is going to be a creditor, therefore, we have designs
on Iraq. That could have been avoided if there were a third party
making the loan, with our guarantee. If this amendment were not
adopted--and I hope it will be--I would offer such a loan guarantee
amendment as a preferable way to go. But this amendment is preferable
to the grant approach of the administration.
I yield the floor.
Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator from Indiana yield for a question?
Does the Senator have control of the time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Montana is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Maryland, if he
wants to ask a question, I don't see any harm in that.
Mr. SARBANES. No.
Mr. President, does the time then come back to the Senator from
Indiana?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Correct. The Senator from Indiana can seek
recognition at that time. The Senator from Indiana has 13 minutes.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I will defer until the Senator
concludes, and then I will seek to have an exchange with the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chambliss). The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, we just got back from Iraq last Saturday. I
just want to share with you a couple of thoughts that I had while I was
there and coming back because once you go and you look and you see and
you feel what is going on in that country--I am going to oppose this
amendment, but I am opposing the amendment, and I am opposing the idea,
but not because some of my good colleagues, for whom I have the utmost
respect, are promoting this.
There are as many Iraqis and more dying today than there are
Americans. If we lose one American life, it is a tragedy. But their new
police department that is on the street is doing a good job, and they
are paying with their lives also.
I am not going to get into whether we can afford it or we can't
afford it or whether they can afford it or they can't afford it. But
this investment, my colleagues, is probably one of the biggest ones we
will make. The returns in the next 20 years will be way beyond
expectation. We are changing something in the Middle East that has not
even been touched since the end of World War I.
We went into those communities where poverty is rampant, with trash,
garbage. Kids are happy. They come up to you. We talked to parents in
refurbished schools. And, by the way, we have refurbished 1,500 of
them, done by an Iraqi contractor who hired 30,000 Iraqi workmen to do
it.
We talked to parents. I talked to one woman there and asked: Do you
want us to go away?
She said: No, absolutely not.
And I asked her: Give me one reason, one reason.
She said: My little girl is going to school.
Little girls did not go to school under Saddam Hussein. Think about
that impact on that neighborhood. I am talking ground level, folks.
This is not the palaces. This is not the CPA or the IGC. These are
people who are on the street.
What kind of a message is this: ``Well, we will loan you the money,
but expect you to pay it back''? And they will say: ``Gee, thanks. The
last thing we need is another loan.''
We have all been down that street. We loan; we lose control of the
money. Is it spent where it is supposed to be spent? Does it really
build the infrastructure? Or do we see somebody going out and buying a
Mercedes-Benz and putting it in their trunk and saying: ``Well, I have
had enough of this''? We have seen that happen, too. That has been
our experience with some of our foreign aid.

We control it. But I want to get back to this issue that we are going
to change some things over there on the success of Iraq. We don't know
whether their constitution will be like ours. I daresay it will not.
But it will be some form of representative government, which to us is a
baby step, but to them it is a giant step.
If you throw a map down on the floor and you take a look at all of
the Middle East, here is what we have done: We have invested in a
corridor that will be the economic road for not only Iraq but for
Jordan, for Egypt, for all the countries that border Iraq because, for
the first time, we will have a communications and transportation system
that is free and open, and even in the fly zones that run from the
Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I have 5 more
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield the time?
Mr. STEVENS. I am sorry, I do not have an additional 5 minutes.
Mr. BURNS. Will you give me another minute to close?
Mr. STEVENS. I yield the Senator 1 minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 1 additional
minute.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, if you think, why is King Abdullah of
Jordan so supportive of us? Why is Turkey so supportive of what we are
trying to do? It is very simple: because the corridor of freedom is
being opened.
Now you tell me if there is not a better investment in this world.
And you have cracked closed societies. Would Saudi Arabia announce they
are going to have free elections had we not done what we have done?
We cannot make it in the form of a loan because we lose control of
it. Let's help those people. They want to do it. Their will for freedom
is just as strong as ours. How strong is our will? How strong is ours?
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. BAYH. Yes.
Mr. SARBANES. I want to make sure, as I understand the Senator's
amendment, $10 billion of this $87 billion which he proposes as a loan
on the reconstruction side, under the very terms of his amendment would
be forgiven if 90 percent of Iraq's outstanding debt were forgiven by
other countries; is that correct?
Mr. BAYH. That is correct.
Mr. SARBANES. I want to commend the Senator for the wisdom of his
amendment. If we do not adopt this amendment, the United States
presumably will go to a debtors conference trying to persuade people
that they should forgive the debt to Iraq. If your amendment passes,
the United States is in a position at that debtors conference to say:
If you will forgive your debt, we will forgive this debt. In fact, the
amendment, by its terms, would require that.
If we make it all a grant, we will go to the debtors conference and
we will say to them: We made a grant. Now you should forgive your debt.
They are going to say: Well, that is over and done with. That is
water over the dam. That grant has happened. What do you have to give
us here at this conference?
So presumably at that point, we are going to come up with another
chunk of money, would that be correct?
Mr. BAYH. The Senator understands the amendment perfectly. It
provides an incentive for the rest of the countries to forgive their
odious debt they extended to Saddam, and if they do

[[Page S12700]]

not, it puts our country in a position of maximum leverage to insist
that they do in any debtors conference.
Mr. SARBANES. I thank the Senator.
Mr. BAYH. I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
Senator from Louisiana.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, as usual the Senator from Maryland has
put his finger on one of the most important aspects of this amendment.
It is one of the reasons I rise to support the Bayh-Nelson-Ensign-
Collins-Snowe amendment. It is a very sound proposal. It establishes
several important principles relative to the steadfast commitment of
this Congress to finish a job that has already been started.
As the chief sponsor of this amendment stated in his opening remarks,
whether you voted to use force to overthrow this regime or not, the
fact is, we are there now. We have an important job to complete. This
is one of the most challenging tasks ever undertaken by the people of
the United States. The Bayh amendment outlines a roadmap that might
actually get us to where we want to go. Words such as freedom,
education, prosperity, democracy, vibrancy, a free enterprise economy,
I have heard my colleagues speak with passion. This amendment is an
attempt not to undermine those principles but to ensure that we will
actually get there, to the goal of this whole effort.
I am afraid without this amendment, the plan before the Senate, which
we are well aware of, will not get us where we want to go.
It establishes a couple of important priorities. It says Iraqi
security is important. It says the Congress, by good faith, will put up
the $5 billion which, by the way, dwarfs the contributions of all other
countries. And it sets up an incentive, a very important incentive, for
the other nations to forgive the debts. It highlights the strength of
the resources in Iraq and opens the opportunity to perhaps expand on
that by rebuilding with the Iraqi-owned resources, once this plan is
laid down.

The Bush-Bremer plan of billion-dollar grants only, often, and alone
will simply not work. Let me repeat: The plan we have before us--not
this amendment--the plan that has been presented of billion-dollar
grants only, often, and alone will not work. It can't be sustained. The
American people don't support it now. They will not support it in 30
days. They will not support it in 4 months. They will not support it in
4 years. The little girl the Senator from Montana spoke so passionately
about is in school today. This amendment is about keeping her in school
2 years from now and 3 years from now and seeing that she graduates
from college.
This amendment lays a sustainable roadmap to get us where we want to
go. That is why I support it. That is why it is important. The RAND,
World Bank, and Institutes of International Finance have estimated the
cost will exceed $36 billion, $75 billion over the next not 30 days but
5 to 7 years. We need this amendment to get us on the right roadmap,
laying down the right plan so we can sustain it to complete the task
ahead of us which is very important, very complex and, as I said, one
of the most challenging.
I support the amendment and urge my colleagues to do so as well.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I yield the Senator from Virginia 5
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished manager, and I
commend the Senate for an excellent debate. I rise today to oppose this
amendment that would use loans for much needed reconstruction, and I
urge my colleagues to do the same. Seldom do we have choices before us
as fundamental as this one. We can truly help the Iraqi people and
secure an important opportunity for change in this part of the world,
or we can turn our backs and watch this fledging nation drown in a sea
of debt. The second choice would represent failure. There is no choice.
Failure is not an option. We must go forward; we must stay the course
and help the people of Iraq win the peace without conditions.
We have achieved extraordinary success, in a relatively short period,
in Iraq. Saddam Hussein and the threat he posed are gone; the future is
hopeful for the Iraqi people. We must send a strong message of resolve
to our fellow countrymen, to our troops, to our coalition partners, and
to the rest of the world, that we will see this through to completion--
to win the peace.
Over the July 4, recess, I traveled, along with eight colleagues from
the Armed Forces and Intelligence Committees, to Iraq. During the 3
days we spent in Iraq, we met with Coalition Provisional Authority
leaders, military leaders, soldiers, and local Iraqi leaders. Their
courage, dedication and determination in a very difficult environment
was inspiring. We saw the enormity of the task with our own eyes--the
antiquated, dilapidated oil infrastructure; the mismanaged irrigation
system; the piles of garbage and open sewers; and the cowed and
brutalized, but hopeful people of Iraq. These problems will not be
fully fixed overnight, or even with this significant infusion of
resources. But, it is an important step forward. We must quickly build
on the foundation that has been laid by Ambassador Bremer, his
international team, and the Iraqi people, to sustain and accelerate the
momentum for building a secure, and economically viable, democracy in
Iraq.
Over the past few weeks, I have had the opportunity to meet with
several Iraqi leaders. Recently, I met members of the Iraqi Governing
Council. We noted the tragic absence of Ms. Akila al-Hashimi, a member
of the Governing Council who was scheduled to travel to the United
States this week but was gunned down last week outside her home in
Baghdad, most likely by remnants of the Ba'athist regime intent on
intimidating the new Iraqi leaders. She symbolized the courage, hope,
and determination of many Iraqis to build a new, democratic Iraq, even
in the face of great personal risk. We mourn her loss, along with the
people of Iraq, and we must now renew our pledge to help Iraq establish
the security, quality of life, and opportunity to enjoy the liberties
of a free, democratic nation. Her colleagues on the Iraqi Governing
Council are clearly committed to achieving these goals and deserve our
support.
Some have suggested that providing $20.3 billion dollars for Iraqi
reconstruction is too generous and that full or partial repayment
should be formulated. This notion is borne from the belief that Iraq is
a potentially prosperous nation, well-endowed with oil reserves, that
should be able to pay for its own reconstruction. I respectfully
disagree.
The idea of loans for Iraqi reconstruction, instead of grants, would
be a terrible mistake. Iraq already has crushing debt, accumulated
during Saddam Hussein's brutal, incompetent reign. Estimates of this
debt range from $180 billion to almost $400 billion. Additional debt or
encumbrances on future earnings now would be economically disastrous,
and send the wrong message to Iraqis and, indeed, the world.
General Jay Garner and Ambassador Bremer have both forcefully argued
that Iraq must be granted significant debt reduction or forgiveness.
The United States will seek to convince the principal holders of Iraqi
loans--Russia, France, Germany and Saudi Arabia--to foregive some of
all of these loans. To add additional loans, at the same time we are
asking others to forgive loans, would be counterproductive and
hypocritical.

Later this month, the U.S. will hold a donors' conference in Madrid
to solicit contributions from the international community for Iraqi
reconstruction. To ask others to make grants to Iraq after we have
structured some or all of our contribution to Iraqi reconstruction as
loans would undercut our Government's efforts to obtain international
support.
In the conversations with Iraqi leaders I mentioned earlier, they
were emphatic in their opposition to reconstruction support being
structured as loans, especially if these loans were made in the form of
``liens'' against potential Iraqi oil revenues. They rightfully argued
that the Iraqi people and the larger Arab and Islamic world would
regard such a move negatively

[[Page S12701]]

and conclude that their earlier suspicions that the U.S. was more
interested in Iraqi oil than Iraqi liberation were true.
We have an opportunity before us to send a message of full commitment
to Iraq and of a balanced, fair U.S. foreign policy in the larger
Middle Easter region, by providing this reconstruction assistance as
grants to Iraq. A loan program using Iraqi oil as collateral would be
viewed as just the opposite, and would be counterproductive to our
larger goals and interests in this important region.
There is a perception, I fear, that this supplemental will fully fund
Iraq's reconstruction. Nothing could be further from the truth. The
reconstruction needs of Iraq are enormous--not because of war damage,
but because of three-plus decades of neglect, mismanagement and greed
by Saddam Hussein's regime. The fund included in this supplemental will
only begin to address these daunting needs, but adoption of this
package will put the Iraqis in a much better position to help
themselves in the future. The Iraqi leaders I spoke with want nothing
more than to do just that, but they need our help for now, not with
crippling conditions attached.
Some have compared this supplemental for the reconstruction of Iraq
and Afghanistan to the Marshall plan that funded the reconstruction of
Europe following World War II. Most would agree that the investment of
our Nation in the Marshall plan has been paid back a hundred-fold.
Some have correctly pointed out that the Marshall plan included loans
that had to be paid back and the requirement for matching funds by the
beneficiary nations, in some cases. The bulk of Marshall plan
assistance, however, was in the form of grants. Students of history, of
which there are many in this chamber, will recall, also, that while the
Marshall plan began in 1948, it was preceded by a series of programs
over a number of years, to provide financial support to meet the
immediate needs of devastated European nations, including Germany. In
today's dollar, the equivalent of over $100 billion in aid was provided
by the U.S. to these nations before the Marshall plan went into effect.
Included in this aid was over $35 billion in grants to put these
nations in a position to help themselves with subsequent assistance.
The situation is similar in Iraq today. This is a nation crippled by
multiple wars, mismanagement, and neglect. The Iraqis are not yet in a
position to help themselves, but they can be with our help.
Providing loans to Iraq is an idea that may have merit in the future,
but not now. By voting overwhelmingly to authorize the use of force in
Iraq, we accepted the responsibilities and challenges of subsequent
reconstruction. We must not now shrink from that responsibility. We
must first provide the unconditional assistance that will lay the
foundation for full reconstruction. That is in Iraq's best interest; it
is in America's best interest.
Let us join together to provide the resources that will meet the
immediate needs of the Iraqi people and best serve our interests in
Iraq and the larger Middle East region. I urge my colleagues to defeat
this amendment and send a message to the Iraqi people that we are
committed to their liberation and reconstruction unconditionally.
I was very deeply influenced and moved by the Senator from
Washington, Senator Cantwell. She hit it. What is the message we send
forth from this Chamber tonight?
I must admit, in the briefings and so forth that took place today
before the Armed Services Committee, I repeatedly heard, we are not
getting the message out in that part of the world about what we are
trying to do and the successes we have had to date in helping the
people. Consequently, a vote that would carry this amendment will just
spread through that world and be interpreted by that press. It will
undo so much of what we have been able to achieve thus far in trying to
convince that world we are there for their own interests, not for oil,
not to profit from a loan or give a loan. It will be misinterpreted as
a consequence of a very small amount of funding in this whole $87
billion.
I would like to put a question to my good friend, fellow member of
the Armed Services Committee, who is a strong supporter of the men and
women of the Armed Forces, a simple question: Does this amendment make
the streets safer for the men and women of the Armed Forces tonight,
tomorrow tonight, and in the days and weeks to come, together with
their coalition partners? If somehow you can convince me this will
bring about a greater measure of safety--this is the thing that
concerns me above all. The sacrifices being made by the men and women
of the Armed Forces, their families here at home, people in the
villages and towns who watched them march off to take up their stations
in this battle for freedom. I cannot fairly discern any basis that this
will help to make the streets safer for the uniformed people now
serving in the coalition forces.
I ask that most respectfully of my good friend and distinguished
member of our committee.
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague's question. The
timekeeper informs me I don't have much time left. I will answer
succinctly if the time is not deducted from our time.
Mr. WARNER. It should not take very long.
Mr. BAYH. The chairman of the committee, for whom I have the utmost
respect with regard to his comments about the message we send, I think
would agree that there is no vote we can cast tonight, or no amount of
money that we can spend that could compare possibly to the message our
brave men and women are giving to the Iraqi people every day with their
presence and the heroic efforts they are making to rebuild that nation.
I think that is eloquent testimony that far surpasses anything we might
do.
To directly answer your question, my answer would be, yes, we provide
an immediate $5 billion to meet every security need that has been asked
for by the Iraqi government. That is over and above the $67 billion for
all of the American security costs while we are there. So there is a
complete grant of every security need.
With regard to the domestic reconstruction, we provide $5 billion
immediately--
Mr. WARNER. I think the Senator has answered the question. I believe
we just have an honest difference of opinion. I think the press in that
part of the world will be whipped into a frenzy, with those who will be
saying ``we are winning, we are winning.'' That troubles me. I think
that will endanger the security of our people in uniform when they are
trying to carry out this mission. The press will be whipped up, and
this will be the most clear symbolism that those who are against----
Mr. BAYH. May I ask the question? The Senator is concerned that those
who wish us ill in that part of the world may say they are winning. In
what way will they say they are winning?
Mr. WARNER. They will say it is because we are there for oil, and
they will say, oh, they are going to make the Iraqis borrow the money.
They don't understand the nuances, the technicalities of a loan, and so
forth.
What they will understand is that the Senate did not stand in support
of the Commander in Chief, and I am fearful that the press will seize
upon this and it will endanger the safety of our people. I say that as
a friend and most respectfully.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Who yields time?
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from
Tennessee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, President Harry Truman once said that
``the only thing new is what we have forgotten about history.'' I am
reminded of our history when I think about this debate on giving a
loan. I am thinking of the choices we made when dealing with Germany
after World War I, and then after World War II. After World War I, we
made a choice that was a grave mistake. We defeated Germany, left them
in ruins, sent them a bill, and we went home. What was the result?
Adolf Hitler.
As early as 1922, Hitler was railing against the Treaty of
Versailles, talking about the payments Germany was forced to make.
Eleven years later, in

[[Page S12702]]

1933, he became Chancellor of Germany. He was democratically elected.
He, again, blamed the Treaty of Versailles and the payment of those
debts for Germany's woes.
Under such a debt with a failed reconstruction policy, we can see the
same thing happening in Iraq. Our post-World War I policy with Germany
was an utter failure. It gave us World War II. After World War II, we
almost made the same mistake. We began by making loans. This is a
summary of the Marshall plan by the Marshall Foundation. I ask
unanimous consent that this document be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

A Summary of the Marshall Plan

(From the Marshall Foundation Chart on Funding from USAID, 1975)

Even now a model for positive economic diplomacy, the
Marshall Plan was a rational effort by the United States
aimed at reducing the hunger, homelessness, sickness,
unemployment, and political restlessness of the 270 million
people in sixteen nations in West Europe. Marshall Plan funds
were not mainly directed toward feeding individuals or
building individual houses, schools, or factories, but at
strengthening the economic superstructure (particularly the
iron-steel and power industries). The program cost the
American taxpayers $11,820,700,000 (plus $1,505,100,000 in
loans that were repaid) over four years and worked because it
was aimed at aiding a well-educated, industrialized people
temporarily down but not out. The Marshall Plan significantly
magnified their own efforts and reduced the suffering and
time West Europe took to recover from the war. The program--
whose official title was ``European Recovery Program''--aimed
at: (1) Increasing production; (2) expanding European foreign
trade; (3) facilitating European economic cooperation and
integration; and (4) controlling inflation, which was the
program's chief failure.
The idea of massive U.S. loans to individual countries had
already been tried (nearly $20 billion--mainly long-term, low
interest loans--since the war's end) and had failed to make
significant headway against Europe's social and economic
problems. The plan that Marshall enunciated at Harvard
University on June 5, 1947, was revolutionary in that it
required the recipients to organize to produce a rational,
multilateral approach to their common economic problems.
Another innovative feature was its limited duration: four
years maximum, thereby assuring American taxpayers and their
representatives that the program would not be an indefinite
commitment.
The economic problems in 1947-48 included not only the lack
of capital to invest, but also the need for Europeans to
overcome a U.S. trade surplus with them so massive as to
imperil further trade and to encourage unmanageable
inflation. Marshall Plan money helped stimulate the revival
of European trade with the world and increased trade among
European countries.
Americans were reluctant to invest in Europe because their
profits were available only in local currencies that were
little desired by U.S. businesses and investors. The Marshall
Plan guaranteed that these investors would be able to convert
their profits earned in European currencies into U.S.
dollars. Grants and loans in U.S. dollars enabled managers in
Europe to purchase in America specialty tools for their new
industries. Marshall Plan money also paid for industrial
technicians and farmers to visit U.S. industries and farms to
study American techniques. Plan funds even paid the postage
on privately contributed relief packages.
Many people in Washington helped to implement and manage
the European Recovery Program that Marshall Plan first
outlined at Harvard; this is why, in addition to his normal
modesty, Marshall refused to call the idea the ``Marshall
Plan.'' He always believed that his greatest contribution to
the program was his 1947-48 nationwide campaign to convince
the American people--and through them the Congress--of its
necessity; he likened his efforts in scope and intensity to a
campaign for the presidency.
Over its four-year life, the Marshall Plan cost the U.S.
2.5 to 5 times the percent of national income as current
foreign aid programs. One would need to multiply the
program's $13.3 billion cost by 10 or perhaps even 20 times
to have the same impact on the U.S. economy now as
the Marshall Plan had between 1948 and 1952. (Most of the
money was spent between 1948 and the beginning of the
Korean War (June 25, 1950); after June 30, 1951, the
remaining aid was folded into the Mutual Defense
Assistance Program.)
On December 10, 1953, George C. Marshall received the Nobel
Peace Prize in Oslo, Norway. He accepted it, not as his
individual triumph, but as the representative of the American
people, whose efforts and money had made the program a
success.

MARSHALL PLAN EXPENDITURES--ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE, APRIL 3, 1948 TO JUNE
30, 1952
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Country                   Total      Grants       Loans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total for all countries.............   $13,325.8   $11,820.7    $1,505.1
-----------------------------------
Austria.............................       677.8       677.8  ..........
Belgium-Luxembourg..................       559.3       491.3    \1\ 68.0
Denmark.............................       273.0       239.7        33.3
France..............................     2,713.6     2,488.0       225.6
Germany, Federal Republic of........     1,390.6     1,173.7   \2\ 216.9
Greece..............................       706.7       706.7  ..........
Iceland.............................        29.3        24.0         5.3
Ireland.............................       147.5        19.3       128.2
Italy (including Trieste)...........     1,508.8     1,413.2        95.6
Netherlands (*East Indies) \3\......     1,083.5       916.8       166.7
Norway..............................       255.3       216.1        39.2
Portugal............................        51.2        15.1        36.1
Sweden..............................       107.3        86.9        20.4
Turkey..............................       225.1       140.1        85.0
United Kingdom......................     3,189.8     2,805.0       384.8
Regional............................   \4\ 407.0   \4\ 407.0  ..........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Loan total includes $65.0 million for Belgium and $3.0 million for
Luxembourg: grant detail between the two countries cannot be
identified.
\2\ Includes an original loan figure of $16.9 million, plus $200.0
million representing a pro-rated share of grants converted to loans
under an agreement signed February 27, 1953.
\3\ Marshall Plan aid to the Netherlands East Indies (now Indonesia) was
extended through the Netherlands prior to transfer of sovereignty on
December 30, 1949. The aid totals for the Netherlands East Indies are
as follows: Total $101.4 million, Grants $84.2 million, Loans $17.2
million.
\4\ Includes U.S. contribution to the European Payments Union (EPU)
capital fund, $361.4 million; General Freight Account, $33.5 million;
and European Technical Assistance Authorizations (multi-country or
regional), $12.1 million.

Mr. ALEXANDER. The Marshall Foundation said:

The idea of massive U.S. loans to individual countries had
already been tried [right after World War II] (nearly $20
billion--mainly long-term low-interest loans--since the war's
end) and had failed to make significant headway against
Europe's social and economic problems.

But there was a better idea, a different choice that someone learned
from history. It was George C. Marshall. The Marshall plan was a 4-year
plan, $13.3 billion, helping to rebuild the economies of 16 countries.
Nearly $12 billion was grants, about $1 billion was loan, and what was
the result? A continent that had been fighting itself for a thousand
years became democratic, stopped fighting among themselves, and became
our allies.
That is why we need a ``Marshall plan'' for Iraq. We need a 4- or 5-
year plan for building a democracy. The Marshall plan was used for a
variety of purposes. It paid for the building of railroads, water
systems, medicines, modernizing factories, restoring ports to allow
foreign trade, and much, much more.
We should do the same in Iraq. It cost $13 billion from 1948 to
1952--more than $100 billion in today's dollars. We can learn a
valuable lesson from our experiences with Germany after World War I, a
terrible failure, and after World War II, a remarkable success. After
World War I, we made Germany pay its debts and we left them in ruins.
We sent them a bill. We went home. We got Adolf Hitler. After World War
II, we pursued the Marshall plan. It cost us some money. We gave them
the money but as a result we got peace, new democratic economies, and
our greatest allies.
President Kennedy said it best in 1961. In his inaugural address, he
said:

We shall pay any price, we shall bear any burden . . . to
assure the survival and success of liberty.

The people of Iraq need our support. We paid for German
reconstruction under the Marshall plan because it was in our interest.
We should do the same in Iraq and support the President's request. We
cannot afford, in our own interest, to do anything less.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. STEVENS. How much time remains on our side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 38 minutes 20 seconds remaining.
Mr. STEVENS. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Colorado.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Nickles amendment
and in opposition to the Bayh amendment. I believe in truth in lending,
and I think there are some Members of the Senate who think somehow if
we talk about this loan, it is going to be acceptable to the American
people. Frankly, I believe the loan is going to be a grant.
We just need to be upfront with the American people and say that the
$20 billion in the President's request is going to be a grant and
explain it to the American people. Iraq has a huge debt--from sources I
have heard in testimony--of anywhere between $100 billion to $200
billion. We just heard on the news this evening where one of their
major pipelines has been blown up so they are not going to have any
ability to expect to export oil. The oil they have now will be used for
domestic purposes. That is as a result of an attack by terrorists this
particular evening as we are debating.
Let's be honest; whether this is couched as a loan or a grant, it is
going to be a grant. It is something we are going to have to give to
the American

[[Page S12703]]

people in order to move forward with the development of the
infrastructure in that country, which I happen to believe is essential
if we want to get our troops home quickly. We simply have to get that
in place along with security forces. The only way that will happen is
if we give the full amount of $87 billion available for the
reconstruction and for the security in Iraq.
We have heard time and time again about the complications of going
the route of a loan. In fact, Ambassador Bremer testified before
several committees in the Senate, and he has actually sent a letter to
the chairman, the Honorable Ted Stevens. I will read from it. He says:

I understand there are various proposals being offered
which would convert portions of the funding request to a loan
mechanism of some type. Any such proposal would merely add
further debt to the already-huge debt currently owed by the
Iraqis. As you know from my testimony three weeks ago, I am
concerned that, as was the case in the young, fragile
democracy in Weimar, Germany, such a situation could
destabilize the young Iraqi democracy before it even gets off
the ground. Moreover, if the United States makes its
contribution in the form of a loan, we will encourage other
nations to follow that example at the Madrid Donors
Conference next week--further exacerbating Iraq's debt
situation, I might add, complicating the eventual process of
restructuring the country's overall debt burden.

I sat down with a group of people and I visited with Colin Powell. He
also urges us, in the strongest terms, to not make this a loan and that
we grant these dollars. It gives us an opportunity to maintain control
of those dollars.
We have to keep in mind that Iraq has established trade agreements
with many of those countries that opposed our presence in Iraq. If this
goes to a loan, they will control the money; they will be the ones
letting out the contracts. I feel their inclination would be to be to
disburse it all over the international community. That means that
countries such as France, Germany, and Russia will be looked to also to
share in the contracting out of the building of the infrastructure in
Iraq.
The other advantage of a grant is it gives us control of the moneys
as they are spent in Iraq.
Finally, a loan means Iraq is going to have that control. It means it
is going to complicate our ability to work with other countries with
the loss of control. We ought to be straightforward with the American
people. We need to tell them this is going to be a grant and account
for it accordingly and move forward with the rapid reconstruction of
the infrastructure in Iraq. That is the best policy. It is a
straightforward policy.
I believe if we are true and straightforward with the American
people, the American people will understand the need to move forward
with the full $87 billion the President requested.
Mr. President, I yield back my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. STEVENS. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Kentucky.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized for 10
minutes.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, this has been an extraordinarily good
day for the President's policy in Iraq. The naysayers said: Go get
international support, Mr. President. Let's prove we can get the rest
of the world behind us.
Today, by a vote of 15 to 0--15 to 0--the United Nations passed a
resolution. It was one that simply suggested we do what we were going
to do anyway. It is a thoroughly acceptable resolution.
To get a 15-to-0 vote, that means the President had the support of
the Russians, the French, the Germans, and, believe it or not, the
Syrians. This administration's policy in Iraq, as adopted by the United
Nations today, had the support of the Syrians. The only remaining
obstacle appears to be the Senate, and we will get an opportunity at
around 9:30 p.m. to see if the Senate will join with the Russians, the
French, the Germans, and the Syrians to do the right thing and begin to
rebuild Iraq.
There are some Senators who have argued that somehow this loan-grant
issue really is not that important or they have better judgment than
the President, the Vice President, and the Secretary of State, and
others about how to structure this.
It seems to this Senator that those who are skilled at conducting
foreign policy have gotten it right, and their judgment is that you
cannot go to a donor conference next week in Madrid and ask countries
to grant--not loan--grant money to share the costs with us of
reconstructing Iraq if we say we are going to try to get paid back.
Let's take a look at what we know is going to happen at the donor
conference already. The Japanese are down for $1.5 billion, not an
insubstantial amount of money; the British, $900 million; the
Canadians, $224 million; the European Union, $234 million. These are
all grants, not loans. The Japanese, the British, the Canadians, the
European Union are not saying you have to pay us back. They know Iraq
is on its back after 25 or 30 years of Saddam Hussein.
In addition to that, there are over 50 countries that have either
already provided or have pledged humanitarian assistance; to name a few
of them: Kuwait, Spain, Australia, Korea, Germany, Denmark, and the
United Arab Emirates; and there are going to be others. They are all
going to be at Madrid next week looking at this United Nations
resolution that passed 15 to 0 today, with the support of the Russians,
the French, the Germans and, for goodness' sake, the Syrians. This is
the time to speak with a united voice.
The administration has united the world. They may have been divided
about whether this war should have been fought in the first place, but
on the issue of reconstruction of Iraq, we are moving toward world
unity, and we ought not to disrupt that here tonight.
I had an opportunity last week, along with Senator Thomas, whom I see
in the Chamber, Senator Burns, Senator Craig, and Senator Chafee, to go
to Iraq and take a look firsthand at what is happening there. I must
tell you, Mr. President, there is a lot of good news in Iraq. We have a
hard time picking it up watching the evening news. They teach them in
journalism school that good news is not news. I think you can accept
that and still say that in Iraq good news is news because they had no
good news for 30 years--no good news. Saddam Hussein murdered 300,000
of his own people during that quarter of a century. There was no good
news in Iraq. Now 9 out of 10 things that are happening there are good:
13,000 construction projects completed; 1,500 schools renovated; local
elections up in Mosul. They had a provincial election in the Ninawa
province, and they have elected officials up there. We sat down with
them and talked with them. They are brave people.

In the violence area where obviously there is still much to be done,
the Iraqis themselves are providing a lot of security. The attack on
the Baghdad Hotel was thwarted. Some people were killed, indeed, but
the bomber wanted to get into the hotel and blow it all up. He was
thwarted by Iraqi security.
Part of this Iraqi security force is up to 60,000 people now and
growing on a daily basis. The attack on the Turkish Embassy was
thwarted, not by us but by Iraqi security. We are on the way to putting
the security force in place so that the Iraqis can carry this job
forward.
Let's compare it to Bosnia. I was one of a minority of Republicans
who supported President Clinton on Bosnia and Kosovo. I met the head of
the 101st headquartered in Kentucky and Tennessee. He was in Bosnia,
too. General Petraeus said we made more progress in Iraq in 6 months
than we made in Bosnia in 6 years--more progress in 6 months than in
Bosnia in 6 years. Great progress is being made.
This is a time to unify behind the reconstruction policy in Iraq. Now
is the time to do that.
The last stumbling block is this amendment in the Senate tonight. The
House is going to finish up tonight, and we are going to finish up
tonight or tomorrow, and this is probably the last vote with any real
drama attached to it. No matter how long you have been in the Senate,
you haven't cast a more important vote than this one. We are casting
votes all the time around here, and if you are in my job, you are
twisting arms every day on some issue, but it reminds me of what Orwell
said in ``Animal Farm.'' He said all pigs were equal, but then some
pigs were more equal than others. All votes are equal, but some votes
are more equal than others. This is a more equal vote. This is a big
vote, one that makes a difference for America and for the world

[[Page S12704]]

and certainly for the Iraqis for whom this policy is so important.

There are 170 newspapers in Iraq. I do not think anybody in America
knows that, but there are 170 newspapers in Iraq. They have by far more
newspapers in Iraq than we have in my hometown. Some of them are even
more credible than the New York Times, arguably. The streets are
crowded with people engaged in commerce with their little businesses,
which the Iraqis are quite good at when allowed to be. Just this week,
they have a new currency. I happened to have picked up a souvenir, the
last of the previous currency. It has a picture of Saddam Hussein on
it. I can tell my colleagues this: The new currency being issued over
the next few weeks in Iraq has no picture of Saddam Hussein on it.
Today we heard--Senator Thomas and I were at the same meeting--that
international bankers are interested in coming into Iraq. So everything
is heading in the right direction. Let's not get off track tonight by
leaving the impression with the Iraqi people that we came into the
country to help them and then to send them a bill for it. I hope the
amendment will be defeated.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ensign). Who yields time?
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from
Arizona.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized for 10
minutes.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I
congratulate all of my colleagues on a very important and well-
conducted debate.
I strongly oppose the Bayh amendment because its enactment would
undermine the central purpose of our mission in Iraq, which is to
empower the Iraqi people to build a prosperous and secure future in
which their country's natural resources support progressive government
and economic prosperity, not additional debt payments to rich Western
powers.
I oppose the amendment because I believe decisions on how to finance
Iraq's reconstruction should be made in Washington, not in Moscow,
Paris, Berlin, or Bonn, whose leaders' decisions, if this amendment
were enacted, could determine what form United States assistance takes.
I cannot accept the prospect that the United States, with our British
allies, who liberated Iraq, would now cede our leadership on
reconstructing it to Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroeder.
Let's talk about what is at stake. Things are not going as well in
Iraq as we would hope. They are not going as poorly as some would
allege. In the northern part of Iraq, in the southern part of Iraq,
democracy and reconstruction are proceeding apace. As I said, things
are not going as well in some parts of Iraq but they are going very
well in other parts. The fact is that every few days, tragically, we
lose additional American lives. This is the result primarily of a
concerted effort in what we know of as the Sunni triangle, of a rare
combustible mixture of ex-Baathists, criminals who were released from
prison, terrorists from outside the country of Iraq who have
infiltrated into the country, and former military people who really
know that they will never attain their goals unless the United States
is driven out of Iraq. These people have done very bad things. We know
all about them. We hear about them or see them every single day.

What are they telling the people of Iraq? They are telling the people
of Iraq the following: The United States of America is not on your
side. The United States of America supported Saddam Hussein all during
the 1980s. They propped up his regime, as a matter of fact. They turned
a blind eye while he used weapons of mass destruction twice, once
against the Iranians and once against his own people.
In 1991, the Americans told the people of Iraq that Saddam Hussein
was on his way out the door. That turned out not to be the case. Saddam
Hussein stayed in power and slaughtered thousands of people who rose up
against him in places such as Basra. In the 1990s, the Iraqi economy
was crippled by economic sanctions imposed by coalitions led by the
United States of America, and now the United States of America is about
to do what they came for, and that is to take your oil.
Now, I can rebut every single one of those arguments that these bad
people are making to the people in the Sunni triangle, but, frankly, I
am not there to talk to them. Nor is there much besides Al-Jazeera for
them to watch.
The battle for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people is not over
by a long shot, and the passage of this amendment will send a clear
signal that the United States is really there for the oil as they
alleged all along.
The Washington Post, on October 15, 2003, stated that Iraq is already
burdened with $200 billion in debt. Either much of that will be
forgiven, in which case the United States reconstruction loan will
prove mostly symbolic, or Iraq will struggle for years under a crushing
debt burden--by the way, the estimates are that the interest on that
debt is as high as $6 billion or $7 billion a year--in which case,
another loan only adds to the memory. To make a loan in these
circumstances is like swimming out to a drowning man and handing him a
10-pound weight. That is from the Washington Post on October 15, that
well-known, conservative, right-wing periodical.
I do not know who is going to volunteer to go to the donors meeting
if this amendment is passed. If we go to the donors meeting and say, my
dear friends, we want you to give money for Iraq but, by the way, we
are only going to loan it to them, the rest of you give the money but
we are going to loan it to them, I am sure there is somebody who is
highly paid in the State Department who will carry out that task, but
it cannot be a pleasant one because it is hypocrisy. How can we ask
other countries to give money when ours is in the form of a loan?
I would like to express a little sympathy for my colleagues who
support this amendment. It is tough going home when people are without
jobs and the economy is still stumbling along and say, we are going to
give all this money to Iraq and, by the way, I know that the local
highway needs to be fixed and a bridge needs to be built. It is tough,
but I want to tell my colleagues what is at stake here.
The reason these bad guys came from all of these other countries into
Iraq, the reason the Muslim extremists all over the Middle East are
doing everything they can to incite people against America, the reason
we are seeing such fierce opposition in some quarters, is that they
know that the day democracy flourishes in Iraq, their day is over. The
day of the Middle East despot is gone. The day of the Muslim extremist
is gone. No longer will the madrasahs, funded by the Saudis, function
anymore to train people who are terrorists who will then sacrifice
their lives as well as taking others'.
The seminal event since the Vietnam war in American history is now,
and there has never been more at stake. We paid a very heavy price for
a long time for our failure in Vietnam. We should not pay that price
here because we send a signal to the Iraqi people that our commitment
to democracy and freedom is somehow contingent upon their ability to
pay us back a loan which will then be gauged by the willingness of
other countries. Are we going to be the Blanche DuBois of loans? Are we
going to be dependent upon the generosity of others? Is it going to be
Mr. Chirac and Mr. Schroeder who determine whether we give money to the
Iraqis?
I don't think we should. I think this has been a fine debate. I hope
we will vote to turn down this amendment. I hope we will vote to
maintain the commitment we made when we sent our young men and women to
fight and some to die in a conflict which is important, not only to the
future of the Middle East but the future of the United States of
America.
I yield my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. STEVENS. How much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There remain 14\1/2\ minutes on the majority
side and 6\1/2\ on the minority side. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. BAYH. I will yield a minute and a half to my distinguished
colleague from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise as an enthusiastic supporter of
this wonderful bipartisan agreement, the

[[Page S12705]]

Bayh-Ensign amendment. I do it because it meets four of my principles
on supplemental spending.
No. 1, there must be international burden sharing.
With international burden sharing, if the stability of Iraq is in the
world's interest, then the world should help pay for the
reconstruction. If we say we are going to go it alone, they are going
to let us go it alone. If we say we are going to go grants, they will
say fine with us.
We need a coalition of the willing. We need a coalition of the
wallet.
No. 2, in helping Iraq, we should have loans, not giveaways.
Iraq has the world's largest oil reserves, capable of pumping out
millions of barrels a day. These profits should help pay for
reconstruction.
There are those who say Iraq has debt. Well, so does America. America
has a lot of debt and we think that this debt, the very balanced
approach of the Bayh-Ensign amendment, will provide 50 percent as a
grant for $10 billion, including $5 billion for police and military,
but the other will be converted to a grant only if 90 percent of Iraq's
preliberation bilateral debts are absolved.
That is what I call burden sharing. We need the world's help. Iraq
needs the world's help. I am glad we have a legislative framework to do
it.
No. 3, is accountability to stop waste, cronyism contracting, and
profiteering.
No. 4, the administration must lay out a plan to end the occupation
of Iraq. There was a plan for the war. Now we need a plan for the
peace.
What will this amendment do? Half the requested aid to Iraq will be
provided as a grant, a total of $10 billion, including $5 billion to
rebuild Iraq's police and military forces. The other half of the
requested aid will be a loan.
So the President can lend up to $10 billion to Iraq. The loan would
be converted to a grant and only if 90 percent of Iraq's pre-liberation
bilateral debts are absolved.
The amendment also expresses the sense of the Senate that all
countries should forgive the bilateral debts owed by Saddam Hussein's
regime and provide robust levels of reconstruction aid at the Madrid
Donors Conference.
Why is this amendment important? I support this amendment because it
is consistent with my principles for aid to Iraq: No. 1, international
burden-sharing; No. 2, loans, not give-aways.
The amendment clearly supports international burden-sharing, not just
with words of encouragement but by providing an incentive for other
countries to forgive Iraq's debts. Ambassador Bremer says Iraq can't
afford to borrow more because it is already shackled with $200 billion
in debt. I say America can't afford more debt, not when we're facing a
$2 trillion deficit. The Iraqi debts were racked up by Saddam Hussein
to pay for his wars against Iran. Most is owed to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait
and other Gulf states, and to Russia and France. Saudi Arabia and
Kuwait and Russia and France should forgive Iraq's debt as their share
of rebuilding costs. If these countries let Iraq start with a clean
slate then Iraq's oil income can be used to pay for Iraq's
reconstruction.
The amendment also promotes my principle that U.S. aid to Iraq should
be loans, not giveaways. Until and unless 90 percent of Iraq's debts
are forgiven, half of U.S. aid will be in the form of loans.
I supported Senator Dorgan's effort to make all of America's new aid
to Iraq loans rather than grants--the full $20 billion.
Here's why. Iraq can afford to pay. Iraq oil sales can finance
building Iraq's infrastructure so we can use American tax dollars to
build America's infrastructure. Iraq already has a very developed
infrastructure and suffered relatively little damage during the war.

It's certainly the complete opposite of the situation in
Afghanistan, where that's a country that has no prospect of
being self-sufficient for quite some time to come . . . We're
dealing with a country that can really finance its own
reconstruction and relatively soon.

That's not just me talking. That's the testimony of Deputy Secretary of
Defense Paul Wolfowitz back in March.
Iraq has the world's second-largest proven oil reserves and could
have even more oil and natural gas. Iraqi oilfields are already
producing close to 2 million barrels a day. That means billions of
dollars a year in oil revenue. According to Ambassador Bremer, by 2005,
Iraq will produce enough oil to take care of its basic needs and have
additional funds.
I understand that Ambassador Bremer doesn't want to delay
reconstruction in Iraq until after Iraq has a constitution and an
elected government. I remind the Senate that we have already provided
aid to meet Iraq's immediate needs. Just this April Congress provided
$75 billion requested by the President. That supplemental bill covered
ongoing military operations in Iraq. It also included $2.5 billion for
Iraq Relief and Reconstruction. That was grant aid.
I believe the aid we provide now should be all loans, but half is
better than none. America's taxpayers stand to get $10 billion back
from Iraq's oil revenues under this amendment.
I appreciate the efforts of the cosponsors, my Republican colleagues,
Senators Ensign, Snowe, Collins, Graham, and Chambliss, and my
Democratic colleagues, Senators Bayh and Nelson. They worked together
on a bipartisan basis to improve this bill.
I urge my colleagues to join in support of this bipartisan amendment
to promote burden-sharing and to provide loans, not giveaways.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of fiscal year 2004
supplemental appropriations request for military operations and
reconstruction activities in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am also pleased to
cosponsor this amendment with my colleagues Senator Bayh, Ben Nelson,
Chambliss, Ensign, Dorgan, Lindsey Graham, and my fellow Senator from
Maine, Senator Collins. This amendment directs that $10 billion of the
funds requested for the rehabilitation and reconstruction of the Iraq's
infrastructure be provided as loans rather than grants.
It is incumbent upon us as stewards of the public trust to scrutinize
this $87 billion supplemental legislation, to assure ourselves of the
soundness of the proposals and to understand what it is the American
people are being asked to provide. I believe that we all fundamentally
agree that the $65.6 billion requested to support our military forces
in the field must be made available immediately. As our troops continue
to root out the remnants of Hussein's horrific regime and work to
ensure stability in Iraq, we must do no less than provide them with the
most advanced technology, the most reliable force protection equipment,
and the best personal care available.
Rather, the amendment before us focuses on the $20.3 billion
designated for the rehabilitation and reconstruction of Iraq. I have
maintained during this debate that a portion of these reconstruction
funds should be in the form of loans, and this amendment designates $10
billion of the $20.3 billion toward that very end. At the same time,
the amendment contains a ``trigger with a purpose''--designed to both
encourage existing creditor countries to forgive at least 90 percent of
the debt owned on loans that were made to the former regime of Saddam
Hussein, and to foster within Iraq itself a greater sense of
responsibility toward, and a stake in, their own long-term rebuilding
success.
I know some have said that loans simply aren't feasible. But let's
take a look at the totality of what we're talking about. While American
men and women are putting themselves in harm's way day in and day out
in securing the liberation of the people of Iraq, we are also in the
process of spending $100 billion and more for that very same purpose.
And let there be no mistake--the American people aren't making a
distinction between the money we are spending to support our troops and
the additional funds being proposed to rebuild Iraq when it comes to
the total measure of our Nation's sacrifice toward this cause. So
asking Iraq to repay one-tenth of that $100 billion in the form of
loans hardly seems unreasonable.
But what about those who have argued there is no legitimate
government in Iraq that can obligate the nation to the repayment of
loans? Well, just today, the U.N. Security Council passed Resolution
1511 which specifically determines that the Governing

[[Page S12706]]

Council and its ministers are the principal bodies of the Iraqi interim
administration which ``embodies the sovereignty of the State of Iraq
during the transitional period until an internationally recognized,
representative government is established.'' So this interim
administration discussed in Resolution 1511 will be that legitimate
government to which U.S. loans are made, while Iraq moves forward
toward complete self-governance.
Still others say that providing loans to Iraq would run counter to
the U.S. policy of shifting away from loans for development because of
the ineffectiveness of such programs in the past. But that policy is
predicated on the fact that many heavily-indebted, poor countries do
not have the resources to both service debt and institute economic and
social reform. Iraq, in contrast, is tremendously rich in resources to
an extent sufficient to service this debt and continue to make future
investments in their own infrastructure.
Of course, as I have mentioned, there is also that ``trigger with a
purpose''. What exactly is that purpose? Well, I would hope we can all
agree that long-term stability in Iraq is a global concern that
requires global action and a global commitment. A secure, stable Iraq
is not only in the best interests of the Middle East, it is also
unquestionably in the best interest of freedom-loving nations
everywhere.
What we are saying with this amendment is, we have been willing to
send our American men and women to liberate Iraq . . . we have been
willing to spend $100 billion--and undoubtedly that figure will only
climb in the future--for that worthy cause . . . and we're even willing
to make that ten percent we expend as loans into full fledged grants--
if only those nations who loaned money to the horrific, corrupt Hussein
regime in the past will forgive those loans. We are saying, the United
States has been willing to accept the overwhelming responsibility for
the liberation and rebuilding of Iraq--in money and in lives--now, all
we ask is that you, as a creditor nation, contribute to the cause by
forgiving loans that only ultimately enriched a criminal, self-
aggrandizing regime we all agree we're better off without today.
The bottom line is, this amendment sends a message to these creditor
nations that they can have a positive role in ensuring a better future
for Iraq, not only by lessening Iraq's debt load by the forgiveness of
their own loans, but also by triggering our provision that transitions
our $10 billion loan into grants. This is a win-win for the
international community and for Iraq--and in the long run, with the
reduced debt burden for Iraq, it may even save some additional American
taxpayer dollars that would have otherwise been expended for further
Iraqi rebuilding.
Frankly, I don't believe for a moment that taxpayer money sent to
Iraq for reconstruction should in any way, shape or form be used to pay
back loans made to the heinous regime of Saddam Hussein. So I hope that
with the passage of this amendment creditor nations will do the right
thing and vitiate their claims against Iraq.
Moreover it should be noted that the amendment provides $5.1 billion
in direct funding for the purpose of re-establishing the rule of law
through the establishment fire and civil defense forces, police forces,
a more fully developed judicial system, and the development and
enforcement of public safety requirements.
The fact is, the sooner we can transfer the responsibility of
providing basic police, fire and first responder services to the Iraqi
people, the sooner we can begin to remove our troops from the front
line and focus them on the missions they are trained for--conducting
combat-type operations against the forces bent on attacking American
interests at home and abroad. Additionally, as we have learned in
Eastern Europe and Latin America, the rule of law is critical to the
effective transition of a state-based economy to a free-market economy.
Finally, the amendment would provide $5.1 billion immediately to
Ambassador Bremer as ``seed'' money for the infrastructure projects he
identified in the request.
In closing, I do not believe that the provision of $10 billion in
loans to the Iraqi people for the reconstruction of their nation will
unduly burden them or their economy. Instead, by investing these loans
in Iraq, we are working to restore their national pride and enhance
their sense of responsibility as we work toward the common goal of a
free and stable Iraq. Furthermore, I do not believe it is too much to
ask that, as we stand willing to turn our loans into grants, creditor
nations who loaned money to the Hussein regime help the cause by wiping
their debt slate clean.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I am an original cosponsor to the Bayh-
Nelson amendment to this Supplemental Appropriations bill. This
amendment would authorize the President to lend $10 billion in
reconstruction funds to the Iraqi Governing Council or its recognized
successor. These funds could be converted to grants provided that 90
percent of Iraq's pre-liberation bilateral debts are absolved,
including loan forgiveness for any funds obligated as loans. It also
provides the sense of the Senate that it is the strong preference of
the United States that all countries forgive their pre-liberation
bilateral debts owed by the Saddam regime and provide robust levels of
reconstruction aid to post-liberation Iraq at the October 23 Madrid
Donors Conference.
The American people are being asked to contribute over $20 billion of
their taxpayer dollars for the reconstruction of Iraq. Before the war
against Iraq, the administration was vague about how much security and
reconstruction funding would be needed in Iraq. Instead, Congress was
told by administration officials, as my colleague Senator Dorgan has
pointed out, that we could expect Iraqi oil revenues to pay for Iraqi
reconstruction or that other nations would join us in shouldering the
burden of rebuilding Iraq.
Now the administration argues that it needs over $20 billion for
Iraq's reconstruction. The administration argues that this money must
be given as grants and not loans. However, once the money is used to
rebuild Iraq's infrastructure and economy, the Iraqi government will
then be obligated to pay back other nations who hold Iraqi debt.
Nations like France and Russia, who loaned money to Saddam Hussein's
regime, will receive debt payments off the backs of the U.S. taxpayer.
This amendment directly addresses this problem by requiring 90
percent of Iraqi debt to be forgiven before $10 billion can be
converted to grants. It gives an incentive to the administration to
engage in diplomacy with nations that hold Iraqi debt in order to
encourage them to forgive it. And it will ensure that other nations'
taxpayers are not treated more generously than U.S. taxpayers.
In these difficult economic times with U.S. deficits ballooning, the
administration is asking the American people to increase the fiscal
burden without any hope of recouping these funds. The American taxpayer
should not be treated more shabbily than debtors from other nations and
we should be encouraging other nations to help rebuild Iraq's economy.
Taxpayers are concerned that we are simply passing on the bill for
this and other problems to our children. They are concerned that this
Congress can find the resources for Iraq, but at the same time can't
find the resources for after-school programs, for prescription drug
benefits, and for rebuilding the infrastructure here at home.
We need to allay some of the very legitimate concerns of the American
taxpayers. They are concerned about our ballooning debts and shrinking
services while we send billions overseas. We need to address these
concerns of every American. By ensuring that taxpayer funds are treated
just as dearly as the debts owed to other nations, we can begin to
address those concerns.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. Who
yields time?
Mr. STEVENS. How much more time now remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There remain 14\1/2\ minutes on your side.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I was prepared to yield time to another
Senator who is not here.
Let me just say this. I am impressed with the debate. There is
clearly a division in the Senate. But I do hope Senators will keep in
mind that the President of the United States is traveling

[[Page S12707]]

abroad on a very important mission. We have been appealed to before, on
this side, when Presidents have been traveling abroad, to honor the
position of the Presidency and not to take positions that would
embarrass him when he is abroad.
I believe there is no question that the problem we face in Iraq is
the populace of Iraq that wants to be part of a new government, wants
to have a new government, a new democratic government, really faces a
quandary of what can they do? How can they be involved? How can they
get their electricity back? How can they get their police service back?
How can they get their banks open? How can they get their hospitals
open? How can they get potable water? How can they be sure they have
the capability to present a firm, new constitution that will be
approved by their people?
That takes the money the President has requested. I believe if we do
not take action to get this money into Iraq and get it moving so they
can have the momentum of building a new government, the hearts and
minds of those people will be hardened against us. As they are hardened
against us, we will have more violence in the street and our soldiers,
people in uniform, even the people who are there in civilian capacity
now, will be at greater risk.
I think that is what the Senator from Arizona has been saying. The
risk we face is, if we do not support these loans, our men and women in
uniform are going to be in greater harm's way.
If you want to support the troops--and I have heard that from every
Member of the Senate so far--if you want to support these troops,
support the President on this issue and do not approve these loans. As
to the concept of loans, I am sure, sometime, there will be some way
the people of Iraq are going to under--see the debt they have to the
United States when they become a real, strong government.
Look what happened to us after World War II. We did not saddle France
and Germany with loans. We forgave all the indebtedness, even the
indebtedness we had from prior to that war. We helped them through the
Marshall Plan to get going.
These grants that we have in this part of this bill are absolutely
essential to the continued safety, improvement of the safety of our men
and women in uniform. I appeal to those who say they support the troops
to support the President. He is the Commander in Chief of these troops
and he has told us, his military commanders have told us, they need
this money.
It goes hand in glove with the $66 billion here, to assure they have
the right equipment, the right protection while they are there. But
let's take the actions necessary to get them out of there.
I hope we would have the support of the Senate to do that tonight.
Mr. THOMAS addressed the Chair.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eleven minutes.
Mr. STEVENS. I will yield 2 minutes. I believe the leader is on his
way to take the remainder of our time.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I had the honor to travel last week with
the Senator to Iraq and to Afghanistan. Frankly, it was a very
interesting meeting, one that makes us feel a little differently, being
on the ground, than it is when we hear what we hear.
I wish to make I think a fairly practical point, and that is that
when we were there, obviously, we had a lot of security things to do.
We have a lot of problems there.
On the other hand, they have a plan that is being put into place for
the schools, for the hospitals, for the government. They are making
great progress. So we are talking here about $87 billion, $67 of which
goes to support the troops. The other goes to try to get Iraq on its
own feet.
I have to suggest from a point of view of someone who is inclined not
to want to spend a lot of money, if we really want to get them going on
their own and get our troops out of there, the best way to do it is for
us to take this money and to help them get on their feet.
The biggest cost is maintaining our troops there. We can move that
much more quickly if this $20 billion is put in the hands of our folks
who are there now and we can move to get the Iraqis on their own feet
and get our troops home more quickly than if we have to do this again
to support the troops.
I am talking about a very practical expenditure matter. I think we
are much better off to go ahead and do this $20 billion as a grant, be
able to have authority over how it is spent, and be able to get our
troops home more quickly.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. STEVENS. I yield the remainder of our time to the leader.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, we have reached a point in this debate
where each of us must make difficult decisions. We debated many
amendments over the past 2 weeks and we have, in my view, come to a
point about which most all of us agree; that is, we are at war against
terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the assistance that we are
considering is integral to our victory and the safe return of our
soldiers, the men and women who represent us in Afghanistan and Iraq.
I am confident, when the final vote is taken on the $87 billion, that
there will be an overwhelming bipartisan majority in favor of this
commitment--in favor of this legislation. But now the Senate has moved
on to consider the very best way, the very best manner in which to
deliver this assistance, which we all know is so important.
How best can we stabilize the country in which our men and women
right now are serving us right this very moment, risking their own
lives so others and, indeed, we can live in safety.
I respectfully suggest the amendment which we will be voting upon
shortly and which we are now considering simply does not help in this
regard. In fact, I would argue it has the very real potential of
complicating and, yes, even undermining our ability to do what we all
want; that is, to successfully stabilize Iraq.
Let me suggest what this amendment is not. The amendment before us
purports to save money for the American taxpayer by insisting upon
foreign help and foreign assistance by making this a loan that will be
paid back by the Iraqi people. But, as has been discussed on the floor
already, the Congressional Budget Office, due to Iraq's already
crushing burden, will score or value this amendment in the same way as
if it were a grant. In other words, there is absolutely no savings to
the American taxpayer, who might be listening right now, as a result of
this amendment.
This amendment purports to provide an incentive for other countries
to relieve that crushing burden, that $200 billion of debt that is
already as we speak on the backs of the Iraqi people. This logic
completely escapes me.
As we began this debate tonight, the newly liberated country of Iraq
was $200 billion in debt. By the time this debate finishes tonight, if
this amendment were to pass, Iraq would be $210 billion in debt.
By a single vote, we might--I hope and pray we don't--catapult the
United States to the front of the line as Iraq's greatest creditor if
this amendment were to pass. Iraq would owe more to us than to France,
or to Germany, or to Russia.
The Washington Post I thought captured the essence in the editorial
yesterday when it said it is the equivalent of swimming out to a
drowning man and handing him a 10-pound weight.
If the idea is that by in some way adding to Iraq's debt we will
create an incentive for other countries to move toward debt
forgiveness, I am confused. How is seizing the moral low ground
advantageous in that debate? If we want others to forgive Iraqi debt,
we must stop piling that debt on.
I remain utterly unconvinced by the suggestion that by adding to this
burden of Iraqi debt and then tying the forgiveness of our debt to the
willingness of France and Russia and Germany to relieve 90 percent of
their debt, that we will leverage the desired result. France, Russia,
and Germany showed no shame whatsoever in loaning their money to prop
up Saddam Hussein, one of the world's most brutal dictators. Despite
the abundant evidence that he used weapons of mass destruction on his
own people, invaded surrounding neighbors, and tortured and mass-
murdered his own people, these three nations could not find the

[[Page S12708]]

resolve to support the coalition's successful effort to remove Saddam
Hussein from power. They will find their conscience now?
Hope does spring eternal.
This amendment purports to talk about what the Iraqi people should do
to help themselves, but it offers them less help than the President
proposed. This amendment purports to talk about what our allies should
do, but we do not and cannot govern their actions either.
What this amendment and this debate truly speaks to is who we are as
a people. Throughout history, the American people have responded again
and again to the tyranny of dictators, to defend the name of freedom,
to liberate the oppressed, to relieve the plight of the downtrodden. We
send our soldiers to fight and to die in foreign lands. We send the
hard-earned tax dollars of our citizenry to the impoverished and sick
around the world.

When communism collapsed in Europe, we were there with billions of
dollars in assistance to heal the wounds of tyranny.
When Israel and Egypt found the courage to negotiate peace at Camp
David, we were there with billions of dollars in assistance to make it
a lasting peace.
Earlier this year, we approved $15 billion to treat and care for
those who suffer from HIV/AIDS. Now we stand with billions more to help
the people of Iraq to stand with the free nations of the world.
Why? We help others because it is good and it is right. We do so
without the expectation of gratitude because that is who we are as a
people. As the beneficiaries of the blessings of liberty, we understand
freedom is not free. The American people are a generous and good
people. We do not sell our commitment to liberty, and we do not loan
our good will to the needy.
So what are we to do with this amendment and this vote tonight? What
are we to do? For me it is an easy question. We vote no. There is
nothing in this amendment that will make the President's job easier or
our soldiers safer. Nothing in this amendment will save the taxpayers
money or ease the burden upon the people of Iraq. Others of good
conscience think otherwise, and that is their right as elected
representatives to this body. For those who have not decided, I ask you
to vote no.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from South
Carolina.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized
for 3 minutes.
Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, I am new to the Senate.
This has been a terrific debate in the best traditions of the Senate. I
come to this conclusion after having listened to people I admire and
respect, such as our leader, the President, the Vice President, and
Secretary Powell. I asked myself: Who are you to disagree?
I thought about it, and I came to this conclusion. I do disagree. I
know they are genuine in their beliefs, but I just do not believe we
are being unfair to the people of Iraq. We have lost 332 lives
liberating Iraq. We are spending $1 billion a week, and all we are
asking for is once the country gets something going--we are going to
build schools and hospitals, we are going to do great things for the
Iraqi people--but once the oil refineries are fixed, because that is
what makes the money, and once we do other things to get you back in
business, consider helping us because we are deep in debt. We borrowed
every penny of this $87 billion. And I would vote tomorrow to borrow
more money to make our country safe.
We have one of the highest deficits in our Nation's history because
our economy has turned down. But we have to win this war. The only way
we will lose this war--here is where I am tonight--is if the American
people leave. It is very hard for me to go home and explain how you
have to give $20 billion to a country that is sitting on $1 trillion
worth of oil and the net result of this policy we are pursuing is the
people who died to liberate Iraq are going to be left holding the bag,
and the only people who will get paid back are the people who lent
money to Saddam Hussein. If we follow that policy, people will leave us
because it is not fair to the taxpayer. We need to make sure we don't
divide ourselves here at home.
This is very important, not just for international politics but for
domestic politics.
The French and the Germans voted today for a resolution, but in the
same breath they said they would send no troops and no money.
We are pretty much alone for a while. Let us stay together and not
ask more of the American people. It would be unfair to ask.
I really do love my country. We give $15 billion in aid to Africa and
we don't want a penny back. We are giving $10 billion in grants, and we
don't want a penny back. But if we are going to build your
infrastructure to make you prosperous, help us because we are in debt.
And if other countries will do the right thing, we will even forgive
that.
The biggest thing we have done for Iraq is give our young men and
women, and more are going to die. That is a fact.
Tonight is important. We need to stay together and look at the
American taxpayer, and say, Yes, you can be helped too. Don't feel
guilty to ask for some of your money back, because you have given and
you have given, and there is more to give.
Please vote for this amendment for the sake of the American people.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). Who yields time?
Mr. BAYH. How much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute 40 seconds on your side and 1
minute 40 seconds on the other side.
Mr. BAYH. I thank all the cosponsors on both sides of the aisle for
their support and say to my colleagues, all of us are committed to the
success in Iraq. To achieve that success we must have the help of the
rest the world and the help of the Iraqi people on their own behalf.
Several arguments have been offered in opposition to our amendment.
Let me address them. First, there is no government in power to take on
these obligations. Really? Was Saddam Hussein in power to burden the
Iraqi people with these loans? I suggest the current council has at
least as much legitimacy as Saddam Hussein. If his loans were
legitimate, so are the actions of the council.
It is said this is a test of our resolve. That is true. But the
surest way to assure the resolve of the American people is to do what
is just and fair and right. How can we possibly say to the American
people the French, the Germans, and the Russians may get repaid, those
who propped up Saddam Hussein, but those who paid to liberate the
country receive nothing. Is that fair? That would undermine the
resolve.
There is a perception this is all about the oil. That is a lie. We
know it is a lie. It is a demonstrable lie. I say to my colleagues, no
great power, including our country, can base its policy upon falsehoods
and lies. We must base our policy upon the truth and the facts. We know
why we are in Iraq.
It is also said this will undermine our effort to achieve loan
forgiveness. On the contrary. This will provide an incentive for others
to forgive their loan and puts us in a position of maximum leverage to
insist they do. If they drag their heels and refuse, it is said we will
lose control of this money. No, my friends, we include a specific
provision providing Ambassador Bremer with veto power over
expenditures.
Finally, this is about American leadership. We lead when we do the
right thing. I ask for your support for this amendment. It will
accomplish our objectives in Iraq.
Mr. STEVENS. Have the yeas and nays been ordered?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not.
Mr. STEVENS. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.

Amendment No. 1876

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 2 minutes evenly divided prior to
the vote.
Mr. NICKLES. I urge our colleagues to vote in favor of this sense-of-
the-Senate resolution which urges countries that currently hold Iraqi
debt that was incurred by Saddam Hussein to forgive that debt. If they
do not, the Iraqi people and the Iraqi economy will suffocate.
The Congressional Research Service says there is from $95 to $153
billion

[[Page S12709]]

worth of debt. They cannot service that debt and grow as an economy.
That debt is owned or held by Saudi Arabia. They have $25 billion. It
is held by Kuwait, $15 to $27 billion; Russia, $3 to $16 billion;
Japan, $3 to $7 billion; Germany, $2 to $4 billion; France, $2 to $8
billion.
We urge the countries that took debt, made loans to Saddam Hussein's
regime, to forgive that debt and allow the Iraqi people and their
economy to grow.
I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
Mr. REID. We yield back our time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back. The question is on
agreeing to the amendment.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd)
and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily
absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--``yeas'' 98, ``nays'' 0, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 388 Leg.]

YEAS--98

Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Chambliss
Clinton
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Corzine
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham (FL)
Graham (SC)
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hollings
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Miller
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden

NOT VOTING--2

Byrd
Lieberman

The amendment (No. 1876) was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1871

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there are 2 minutes
evenly divided in relation to the Bayh amendment.
Mr. STEVENS. Is it 1 minute a side or 2 minutes a side? I thought I
had a standing order there would be 2 minutes before every vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. This order says 2 minutes evenly divided.
Mr. STEVENS. I am sorry. I ask unanimous consent that it be 2 minutes
on each side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from New
Mexico and 1 minute to the Senator from Arizona.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I only have a minute. I want you to take
a trip with me. I want you to take a trip to Iraq. The first thing we
are going to do is walk up to a soldier. His name is Joe Chavis. We are
going to say: Hi, Joe, how are you? I see that tank of yours. It needs
repairing. Hey, Joe, that electric line isn't working and those kids
don't have any electricity. Which do you think we ought to do: Fix your
tank or fix the electricity?
Sergeant Chavis says: Fix the electricity, Senator.
I walked down the road a little bit and I saw another soldier, a
woman who was there in military uniform.
I said: Ma'am, I understand that you don't have the vests that you
need to protect yourself. But I also noticed over there a schoolhouse
is broken down and it needs fixing. I said: What do you need most?
She said: Fix the schoolhouse.
I did that five times. Every time the soldier said: Fix whatever it
is, give them whatever it is and wait on me. I can wait.
I think you should all understand that is what is going on. If we
don't do that, they will be there forever. That is why they are saying,
fix the other things and don't worry so much about us.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this has been a very important debate. I
congratulate all who took part. This is obviously a very important and
critical vote. This vote is a message to our constituents about how we
feel about foreign aid. It is a message to the Iraqis about what we
expect from them and what they can expect from us. It is a message to
our allies about their obligations to peace in the Middle East and our
willingness to meet our own.
Ultimately, this vote speaks to who we are as a nation and as a
people. We won the peace. Let's win the reconstruction and democracy
and freedom for the Iraqi people. I ask you to vote no on this
amendment.
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, how much time does our side have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes.
Mr. BAYH. I yield 1 minute of my time to the distinguished Senator
from Nevada.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, everything that the Senator from New
Mexico asked, this amendment doesn't take away any of that. The full
$20 billion stays within this amendment. The difference is, do we give
it all in a grant and does that strengthen the President's hand or do
we give half of it in a grant and half of it in a loan? We believe if
you give half in a loan, the President's hand is strengthened on
getting other countries that are owed money from the previous Saddam
Hussein regime to forgive that debt. I make no apologies for the
American people to say, if France, Germany, and Russia can be paid
back, then we should be paid back. I hope all of the debt is forgiven.
I think that is best for Iraq. But if the rest of the countries don't
forgive their debt, then the American taxpayer should be paid back.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana is recognized.
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, it has been said that our decision tonight
will determine whether America is perceived as a leader in the world.
What kind of message will we send after all the dying and treasure and
blood we have expended in Iraq? Can there be any doubt about American
leadership and about the message we send? When we removed Saddam
Hussein, America sent a message that we lead to stand for freedom--the
freedom to choose your own government, the freedom to run your own
economy.
Tonight, again, we lead with $72 billion free and clear in grants for
the security of Iraq; further, $5 billion for the immediate
reconstruction needs, free and clear to Iraq; further, $10 billion for
the long-term reconstruction needs for the people of Iraq is a loan to
be forgiven if the rest of the world will join us in this cause.
That is American leadership. That is the message we send. That is why
we ask for your support.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this be a
10-minute vote. A number of Senators still hope to offer amendments
tonight, and that would save us some time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am compelled to object because I think
there are some people who have left the building already. I inquired
whether it was going to be a 10-minute vote. I asked the
Parliamentarian if we had agreed, and then I told them we had not. I
urge the leader to leave it the normal 15 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
All time has expired.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the
roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd)
and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily
absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ensign). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?

[[Page S12710]]

The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 47, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 389 Leg.]

YEAS--51

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Campbell
Carper
Chambliss
Clinton
Collins
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Ensign
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham (FL)
Graham (SC)
Harkin
Hollings
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lincoln
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Snowe
Stabenow
Wyden

NAYS--47

Alexander
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Biden
Bond
Bunning
Burns
Cantwell
Chafee
Cochran
Coleman
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Specter
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Voinovich
Warner

NOT VOTING--2

Byrd
Lieberman

The amendment (No. 1871) was agreed to.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. DURBIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, there will be no further votes tonight.
What we plan to do now is ask Members who still have amendments to be
considered to consult with us. We are prepared to accept some of them.
We will have an early session of the Senate tomorrow starting at 9. We
will start voting on the amendments that are still pending that have
not been resolved tonight. There are still a couple of amendments that
Members wish to offer tomorrow, but first we will vote on the pending
amendments. So all Senators should be on notice there will be votes
starting immediately in the morning. After the first vote, I shall ask
that the amendments be 10 minutes each so that there will be a series
of probably 19 to 20 amendments, as I count them right now, that could
well be voted on before we will then take up the several amendments,
two to three amendments, that Members wish to debate.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. STEVENS. I do yield.
Mr. REID. Senator Byrd has asked me to announce that tonight we would
have Senator Boxer offer an amendment. She is going to just take a
couple of minutes. Senator Leahy has an important amendment. He will
take a reasonably short period of time. Senator Durbin has an
amendment. He will take a short period of time, and then Senator
Corzine and Senator Landrieu, in that order.
Mr. STEVENS. I am not agreeing to any order, Mr. President. We have a
list of amendments. We are going to go down the list of amendments and
see who is here.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I do not know then how to operate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will come to order.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, who has the floor?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska has the floor.
Mr. STEVENS. I am perfectly ready to start considering amendments,
but I am not going to have any time agreement right now on any
amendment.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. STEVENS. Yes.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have not asked for any time agreement. I
am trying to help. I am trying to move this along. I personally do not
care if we ever finish this bill. I am trying to work and move this
bill along. I was asked to have some people offer some amendments who
have a vote. I have spent probably an hour and a half getting these
people lined up to offer amendments.
If we are going to finish this bill tomorrow, then we have to do it
this way. Otherwise, count me out of the ball game. Somebody else can
figure out how to do it.
Mr. STEVENS. The Senators are at liberty to offer their amendments as
they wish tonight. We will be glad to stay as long as Senators want to
offer amendments and present them to us. We are trying to work out
those amendments with people who want to settle amendments first, not
those who want to bring up amendments and demand a vote tomorrow. There
are a bunch of Senators willing to compromise on amendments and I want
to let them proceed and have them go home before the other people who
want to offer amendments, argue, and then have a vote tomorrow.

I think that is a logical progress.
Mr. REID. If the Senator will yield. I then say to Senator Boxer,
Senator Leahy, Senator Durbin, Senator Corzine, and Senator Landrieu,
go home. We will do them tomorrow.
Mr. STEVENS. That is perfectly all right with me, Mr. President. I am
here until Saturday, Sunday, whatever it takes. The bill will be
finished sometime before the end of this week.
To stand up and say these people are going to come first before those
we have been negotiating with, we told them we will accept amendments
and can handle those, I think that is wrong. So if Senators want to go
home, go home. If they want to stay here and settle this bill, stay.
Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska still has the floor.
Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska still has the floor.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison,
has an amendment that has been cleared on both sides. She wants to make
a few remarks on that amendment. I welcome her offering that amendment
at this time and discussing it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I will be very brief. I am happy to
work within the system. I have a sense-of-the-Senate amendment.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, may we have order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will suspend.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I send up a modified amendment.
Mr. LEAHY. The Senator from Texas is entitled to be heard. If we
could have order, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will come to order. Senators
engaging in conversations, please take those conversations from the
Senate floor.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will suspend. The Senate is not in
order.
Mrs. BOXER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas has the floor.
Conversations will be taken from the floor. The Senate will come to
order.

amendment No. 1877, as modified

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I send a modified version of my
amendment No. 1877 to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are
set aside. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison] proposes an
amendment numbered 1877, as modified.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To express the sense of Congress on reconstruction efforts in
Iraq)

On page 38, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following
new section:
Sec. 2313. (a) Congress makes the following findings:
(1) A coalition of allied countries led by the United
States entered Iraq on March 19, 2003, to liberate the people
of Iraq from the tyrannical rule of Saddam Hussein and the
Baathist party and to remove a threat to global security and
stability.
(2) Achieving stability in Iraq will require substantial
monetary investments to develop a secure environment and
improve the physical infrastructure.
(3) A stable and prosperous Iraq is important to peace and
economic development in the Middle East and elsewhere.

[[Page S12711]]

(4) As of October 2003, the United States has provided the
majority of the personnel and financial contributions to the
effort to rebuild Iraq.
(5) Congress fully supports efforts to establish a stable
economic, social, and political environment in Iraq.
(6) The President is currently seeking to increase global
participation in the effort to stabilize and reconstruct
Iraq.
(7) While the United States should aid the people of Iraq,
the participation of the people of Iraq in the reconstruction
effort is essential for the success of such effort.
(b) It is the sense of Congress that the President should--
(1) make every effort to increase the level of financial
commitment from other nations to improve the physical,
political, economic, and social infrastructure of Iraq; and
(2) seek to provide aid from the United States to Iraq in a
manner that promotes economic growth in Iraq and limits the
long-term cost to taxpayers in the United States.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I will be brief. The sense of the
Senate says we support helping Iraq as it builds a new democracy and
believe we need to finish what we have started there and in
Afghanistan. It is critical that this reconstruction effort have a
multilateral approach, that our allies would help us in the war on
terrorism, because our allies are reaping the benefits of this war on
terrorism. No one will be free in the world if we lose the war on
terrorism. It is essential we have all of the support we need to finish
this job. So we ask the administration to continue to seek commitments
during the donors conference and afterward. It encourages the President
to provide aid in a way that promotes economic growth in Iraq and
limits the long-term cost to our taxpayers. The President is in the
best position to determine how to accomplish this, and we must support
him in every way.
That is my amendment, my sense of the Senate. I hope we can support
it and vote for it.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared on both
sides. I ask the Senate consider and adopt this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
Mrs. BOXER. I object to the unanimous consent request.
Mr. STEVENS. I did not ask unanimous consent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is whether there is further
debate on the amendment.
The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I believe this is open for debate. I want
to express myself tonight. I have not said this before, but I have to
tell you that the Senator from Nevada has been working so diligently
with his colleagues on the other side to move along the business of
this body.
He suggested that four of us who have very brief amendments be
allowed to go forward--not in advance of the other side. I don't have
any problem with a few people going first or alternating back and
forth. But I have to say, I feel very bad about this, and I am not
going to be cooperating tonight if we are not going to allow this to
take on some kind of comity at this late hour where we hear from
Senator Hutchison, who has a very good amendment, and then we go to our
side, and back and forth.
I want to speak just as one Senator to say I feel bad about the way
things are deteriorating tonight and I am not going to cooperate.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
Mrs. BOXER. Yes.
Mr. REID. The Senator from California and I came to Washington
together many years ago. We are very close friends. I consider Senator
Boxer a sister. I appreciate her saying a few words on my behalf. But I
think probably part of the blame was mine. I know the Senator from
Alaska very well, and I probably would have been well advised, when he
was raising his voice a little bit, for me not to raise my voice. The
fact of the matter is, we both have been working on this bill for hours
and days, and probably we are both a little testy. So I think there is
blame to go around on both sides. I do appreciate my friend from
California defending me. She has made her point, at least as confirming
our friendship, and I think Senator Stevens and I can work this out and
move the bill along.
I do appreciate very much my friend from California sticking up for
me as she has done tonight and has done for the last 22 years we have
been together.
Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, will the Senator from Alaska yield?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Can we get this amendment adopted? May we adopt the
amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? The
question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1877), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. The procedure we had, and I told people on this side we
would do, we have two amendments on this side, one amendment on that
side, that have been cleared and we will let them go home. I am
perfectly willing to go to anyone else who wants to talk, but as the
manager of the bill we have the right to say to people: Look, if you
will agree to offer these and make these changes, we will take them up
right away, as soon as this vote is over. That I did, so I don't
apologize to anyone.
I would like to yield to my friend from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will be very brief. As I look around,
there is only one person on this floor who has served longer than I
have and that is the Senator from Alaska. I know the difficulties--both
he and I have gone back and forth, sometimes one is chairman, sometimes
the other is, on different committees--how difficult it is to keep a
major bill going through. I understand his concern in doing it.
The senior Senator from Nevada has done the job of being whip for our
side better than anybody I have ever known who served here. There is a
great deal of respect for his integrity on both sides of the aisle, as
there is for the senior Senator from Alaska. I know both have been
trying to work this out. I hope we would just continue that way. It is
not an easy process. There are differences of opinion on a number of
these amendments. But I know both the Senator from Alaska and the
Senator from Nevada are two of the finest people I have served with,
and I hope we would allow the two of them to work, as they do so very
well, and Members on both sides of the aisle would work with them and
allow them to work out the schedule.
The Senator from Vermont is perfectly satisfied with that kind of
arrangement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. I said I wouldn't apologize. I do apologize to my friend
from Nevada if I offended him. I did not intend to offend him. He is a
valuable Member of the Senate and has worked, whether in the majority
or minority, assiduously to see the Senate does its work. I don't argue
with that at all. I have great fondness for the Senator from Nevada.
I wish I lived in Nevada. I might even vote for him if I lived there.
I see the current occupant of the chair is laughing at that, but it
is true.
The difficulty I have is I think we don't communicate well enough
across this aisle in terms of the plans we each make as manager of our
side on this particular bill.
Right now the Senator from Nevada has an amendment by Senator Nelson
we agreed to clear. I am pleased to yield the floor.

Amendment No. 1858, As Modified

Mr. REID. I send a modification of the Nelson amendment to the desk.
Mr. President, this is an amendment offered by Senator Nelson. He has
been in negotiations with the majority staff for several days now.
Mr. STEVENS. It is acceptable.
Mr. REID. I urge its adoption.
Mr. STEVENS. I urge its adoption also.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? Without objection,
the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 1858), as modified, was agreed to, as follows:

At the end of title I, add the following:
Sec. 316. Of the amounts appropriated by this title,
$10,000,000 shall be available only for the Family Readiness
Program of the National Guard.

Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote and move to lay that
motion on the table.

[[Page S12712]]

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1867

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have the amendment for Senator Warner,
for himself, Mr. Sarbanes, and Mr. Edwards. It has been cleared on both
sides. According to my information, it is amendment No. 1867.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is
set aside.
That amendment is currently pending.

Amendment No. 1880 to Amendment No. 1867

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I also have a second-degree amendment to
that amendment. I ask that amendment be adopted. This is the hurricane
flood damage amendment. We are taking out of the bill those items which
were not relevant to the bill. I send that amendment to the desk.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Mr. Warner,
proposes an amendment numbered 1880 to amendment numbered
1867.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To designate the amount designated for disaster relief
provided in connection with Department of Defense infrastructure
damaged or destroyed by Hurricane Isabel as an emergency requirement.)

At the end of line 8, strike ``.'' and insert the
following:
``: Provided, That the entire amount is designated by the
Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 502
of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress): provided further that
the entire amount shall be available only to the extent that
an official budget request for a specific dollar amount, that
includes the designation of the entire amount of the request
as an emergency requirement as defined in House Concurrent
Resolution 95, the concurrent resolution on the budget for
fiscal year 2004, is transmitted by the President to the
Congress.''

Mr. STEVENS. I ask consideration of the amendment, the adoption of
the amendment, and consideration of the amendment as amended.
Mr. REID. This amendment is also one that has been reviewed by the
two Senators from Maryland. They both think this is good. There has
been tremendous damage at the Naval Academy. This covers that also.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the second-degree amendment
is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 1880) was agreed to.
The question is on agreeing to the first-degree amendment, as
amended.
Without objection, that amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 1867), as amended, was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Amendment No. 1843

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I want to state to the Senator from
California that on amendment No. 1843 we sent a notice to the Senator
that we are prepared to accept that retroactive assistance meal
reimbursement amendment, if she is prepared to offer it tonight. That
is Senator Boxer's amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay the pending
amendment aside, and I call up my amendment which is at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer] proposes an
amendment numbered 1843.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To make retroactive the relief of hospitalized members of the
uniformed services from the obligation to pay for food or subsistence
while hospitalized; and to provide an offset for the additional cost)

On page 20, strike lines 9 through line 12, and insert the
following:
(b) Section 1075(b) of title 10, United States Code, as
added by subsection (a), shall take effect as of September
11, 2001, and shall apply with respect to injuries or
diseases incurred on or after that date.
(c) The amount appropriated by chapter 2 of title II under
the heading ``Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund'' is hereby
reduced by $1,500,000, to be derived from the amount set
aside under such heading for transportation and
telecommunications for the Iraqi Postal Authority for the
administration of a zip code system.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today, I am offering an amendment that
will help service members who have been hospitalized after being
wounded or becoming ill during combat or other operations in Iraq,
Afghanistan and during the war on terror since September 11, 2001.
Right now, when one of our soldiers is wounded, they are evacuated to
a military hospital. When whey are discharged from the hospital, they
receive a bill for their hospital food. The current daily rate for
those charges is $8.10.
I want to thank my good friend and colleague from Florida, Senator
Bob Graham, for offering leadership on this issue. Accepted as part of
the manager's package, his amendment exempts service members who are
hospitalized from combat injuries and other conditions from having to
pay for their meals. His amendment addresses the problem
prospectively--in the future.
My amendment supplements his--by closing the loop. It will require
the Department of Defense to reimburse troops who paid for meals while
hospitalized as a result of either injury or illness while in combat or
training for combat since September 11, 2001.
I recently learned about a Marine staff sergeant who was injured when
an Iraqi dropped a grenade in the HUMVEE he was driving. As a result of
the explosion, he lost part of his food, and spent 26 days in the
hospital recovering. He was then discharged to return home and to his
job as a sheriff's deputy. At the same time, he was handed a bill for
$210.60 for his food.
Mr. President, $210.60 may not seem like a lot of money to some of
us. But to an enlisted person with a family making under $20,000 a
year--this is a serious financial burden.
When service members are discharged, we should express our gratitude
for their profound personal sacrifice, not hand them a bill for their
hospital food.
My amendment is simple and corrects this stunning injustice. It shows
our strong support for the courageous men and women who fought in
Afghanistan and Iraq and have returned, wounded, ill, missing limbs,
too often permanently disabled.
The price to the Government for correcting this serious affront to
our service members is very, very small indeed. This amendment costs
just $1.5 million, with the offset found in the account to create new
zip codes in Iraq, which the House eliminated in their bill last week.
I understand the Department of Defense has recouped only $1.5 million
this year for hospital meals from all hospitalized service members
world-wide. We are talking about just $1.5 million from over 2 million
active and reserve forces across the globe.
What I am proposing is much more limited in scope. It would only
reimburse service members who have been wounded or become ill due to
combat or training for combat since September 11, 2001. According to
the Defense Department, approximately 2,000 service members have been
injured or wounded in action in Iraq. Considerably less were injured in
our operations in Afghanistan. The Defense Department says the total
for both conflicts may be roughly 3,500 people.
I am talking about giving back a small amount to our troops for their
extraordinary sacrifice. It would mean a great deal to the service
members and military families who face extended separations, financial
hardship, and sometimes serious injury.
We were very fortunate that Representative Bill Young from Florida
discovered that our service men and women who are in hospitals were
being asked to pay for meals as they checked out of the hospital. Some
of them had horrible injuries and some lost limbs. Congressman Young
fixed the problem, and Senator Graham, working with Senator Stevens and
others, fixed the problem. But the fix has only been for the future. It
has not been fixed for those who actually went to war in Afghanistan
and Iraq and are getting hit with these bills.
I recently learned about a marine staff sergeant who was injured when
an Iraqi dropped a grenade on a Humvee he was driving, and he lost part
of his foot. He spent 26 days in a hospital. When he was discharged to
return home as a sheriff's deputy, he was handed a $210.60 bill for his
food. That may not seem like a lot to some, but

[[Page S12713]]

when you are earning approximately $20,000 a year, it is a serious
financial burden.
I know we all want to fix this. What we have done in the amendment is
very simple. We pay back those who served in Afghanistan and in Iraq
who wound up in hospitals and were billed for their food, and we pay
for it with an offset. The amendment will cost $1.5 million. We pay for
it in an offset found in the account for a new ZIP Code in Iraq. I
think it is very important for us to do this. It is much more important
than new ZIP Codes in Iraq.
I am very hopeful that tomorrow we will have an overwhelming vote in
favor of this amendment.
I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
At the moment, there is not.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I wish to make a comment. The Senator
from California is absolutely right. If there is a saint in this town,
it is Mrs. Bill Young. She has been extremely helpful to all of the
soldiers and sailors at Walter Reed and at Bethesda. Just today, she
called me and told me that the admiral at Bethesda told her he is under
orders to send bills for about $5,000 to several different military
people who are in the hospital for reimbursement of their meals. I told
my staff to notify the admiral that we had fixed it in this bill, or I
would personally guarantee the payment, and not just have standard
garnishing of these kids' salaries.
I commend the Senator for the amendment. We attempted to fix that in
one former bill. But that bill hasn't become law. I think the bill will
become law very fast.
I support the Senator's amendment and urge its adoption.

Amendment No. 1843, As Modified

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Boxer
amendment be modified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 1843), as modified, is as follows:

On page 20, strike lines 9 through line 12, and insert the
following:
(b) Section 1075(b) of title 10, United States Code, as
added by subsection (a), shall take effect as of September
11, 2001, and shall apply with respect to injuries or
diseases incurred on or after that date.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have an amendment, if I could be heard
briefly.
Mr. STEVENS. Is that modification of the amendment we just agreed to
the yeas and nays on? I have no objection.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Senator from California was concerned
about the modification. This had been approved by staff. She wanted to
make sure everyone understood that the money she is seeking would be
paid for out of existing funds rather than offset. That is the purpose
of the modification.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I wonder if I could ask the Senator from
Alaska this question. We will not have an offset. I have agreed not to
have an offset. Is it the chairman's understanding that the $1.5
million will come from----
Mr. STEVENS. From the funds that are in the bill. Those amounts are
de minimis, really. There will be no budget point of order against
that.
Mrs. BOXER. And it will happen.
Mr. STEVENS. It will happen. It is in another bill also. The question
is which bill gets there first.
Mrs. BOXER. This is retroactive. We took care of it prospectively.
This is to actually write checks to people.
Mr. STEVENS. The Senator is right. Our current amendment which we
have out there somewhere goes through 2004. The Senator's amendment
goes back to 2001.
We are happy to accept that, but the moneys are there. It is
carryover money from past years.
Mrs. BOXER. As long as I am clear on that, I am very happy. I thank
everyone.
Mr. STEVENS. I congratulate the Senator. It is a good amendment.
We have no objection to Senator Daschle's amendment, if it is cleared
by Senator Byrd.
We have that, by the way, in the managers' package. We worked it out
with Senator Byrd's staff and mine. We will be happy to adopt it now,
if the Senator would like to do that.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am told by staff that in the usual fine
work of Senators Reid and Stevens there has been a slight misstep. This
was already approved earlier today.
Mr. REID. Unless Senator Stevens has something else--I know it is in
order--I call up the amendment of the Senator from Vermont who has been
waiting around for a while. He has a short statement to make.
Mr. STEVENS. I have no objection. I would like to confer with the
Senator and Members on that side on items we believe are subject to
budget points of order and give notice of that.
Mr. REID. We will do that as he is speaking.
Mr. STEVENS. Very well.

Amendment No. 1807, As Modified

Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be laid
aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. I call up amendment numbered 1807 on behalf of Senators
Leahy and Chafee and ask unanimous consent that the amendment be
modified with the changes at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment will be so modified.
The amendment (No. 1807), as modified, is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide for humanitarian assistance and reconstruction of
Liberia)

Beginning on page 29, strike line 13 and all that follows
through page 31, line 5, and insert the following:

International Disaster Assistance and Military Assistance

For an additional amount for ``International Disaster
Assistance'' for relief, rehabilitation, and reconstruction
assistance for Liberia, and for an additional amount for
military assistance programs for Liberia for which funds were
appropriated by title III of the Foreign Operations, Export
Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2003
(division E of Public Law 108-7; 117 Stat. 176),
$200,000,000, to remain available until expended, of which
$100,000,000 shall be derived by transfer from funds
appropriated in this title under the subheading ``Iraq Relief
and Reconstruction Fund'' under the heading ``OTHER BILATERAL
ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO THE PRESIDENT''.

Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that Senators Coleman, Daschle,
Biden, Lieberman, Feingold, Reed of Rhode Island, and Lautenberg be
added as cosponsors.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for Mr. Chafee, for
himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Coleman, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Biden, Mr.
Lieberman, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Reed, and Mr. Lautenberg,
proposes an amendment numbered 1807, as modified.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. This amendment addresses the humanitarian crisis in
Liberia. This is a bipartisan amendment, supported by Senators Chafee,
Coleman, Biden, Lieberman, Feingold, Reed, Lautenberg, and Landrieu.
Anyone who has read a newspaper or watched CNN over the past couple
of months knows about the tremendous suffering in Liberia today.
Three-quarters of Liberians do not have access to safe drinking
water.
Three-quarters are living in poverty.
Three-quarters do not have access to acceptable sanitation.
Eighty-five percent of Liberians are unemployed.
These numbers, provided by the U.N. are absolutely appalling. To me,
this is more than enough reason to act.
We have deep historical ties to its people. Presidents James Monroe
and Andrew Jackson, along with some of the most notable Senators ever
to serve in this body, Henry Clay and Daniel Webster, helped create the
nation of Liberia. Liberia's flag is nearly identical to our own.
We have heard urgent pleas from the Liberian people for the U.S. to
help.

[[Page S12714]]

Archbishop Michael Francis of Monrovia, wrote a letter in support of
this amendment. He wrote:

[W]e are at a critical juncture where an intervention by
the United States, renewing its leadership role, will greatly
help to ensure the stabilization of Liberia. It is for this
reason that your amendment to include $200 million in the FY
2004 Supplemental Appropriations bill to address relief and
reconstruction needs in Liberia is timely and must be
supported by the Senate body.

I ask unanimous consent that his letter be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
October 14, 2003.
Hon. Bill Frist,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Thomas Daschle,
Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Majority Leader Frist and Minority Leader Daschle:
Thank you for your leadership on the important issues that
face the African continent each day. Your important voice on
many of the issues such as infectious disease, conflict
resolution, human rights, and democratic transition the
continent is incredibly appreciated, particularly by those of
us on the ground who are working daily to affect the change
necessary to bring peace, justice, and stability to our
respective nations.
As you know, the on-going human rights crisis in Liberia
continues to require close examination and a comprehensive
response so that the country does not spiral back to the days
when Liberia was governed by warlord Charles Taylor. As this
transition progresses, we are at a critical juncture where an
intervention by the United States, renewing its leadership
role, will greatly help to ensure the stabilization of
Liberia. Thus, I write to strongly urge your support for the
Chafee-Leahy amendment which would include $200 million in
the FY2004 Supplemental Appropriations bill to address the
relief and reconstruction needs of Liberia.
Liberia has endured years of a brutal conflict. The signing
of a peace agreement in Accra, Ghana, as well as the
deployment of peacekeeping troops to Liberia have paved the
way for the best opportunity for peace and stability in the
West African nation since the onset of civil strife in 1989.
We have seen that, despite a peace accord between rebel
forces and the Government of Liberia, fighting continues in
our war-ravaged nation. The inability of humanitarian
organizations to safely deliver aid, given grave security
problems, has precipitated a large-scale humanitarian crisis
in the small West African nation. U.S. Agency for
International Development estimates more than 500,000
Liberians are currently internally displaced. Many internally
displaced and tens of thousands of refugees who fled to
Liberia from other conflicts in the region have been cut off
from outside assistance. Moreover, the country's physical
infrastructure is in dire straits, and the peace process in
Liberia is dependent on investments from the United States,
which will help provide good governance, employment, law and
order, and basic social services.
In testimony before the House International Relations
Committee on October 2, 2003, Assistant Secretary of State
for African Affairs Walter Kansteiner, III, agreed that at
least $200 million would be needed to address humanitarian
and reconstruction needs in Liberia in FY2004. He also
pledged to work with the Congress to include such funding in
the supplemental bill.
Senators Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
have introduced a corresponding amendment to address the
humanitarian and reconstruction needs of Liberia in the
supplemental. The $200 million would come from funds already
in the supplemental and would not raise the total amount of
the bill.
Additionally these resources would assist by sending a
strong, clear and unequivocal message to all the parties,
expressing the United States' determination to play an active
and robust role in the initiative aimed at ameliorating the
Liberian crisis. I appeal to you to ensure that this funding
remain consistent with our desire to avoid any rush to quick
fixes and semi-solutions. Rather our collective strategy
should be aimed at achieving the following strategic
objectives:
1. Consolidating the cease fire and stabilizing the
security situation on the ground;
2. Ensuring the demobilization of the militia and their
proper reintegration into the civil society;
3. Creating a secure environment over the entire country;
4. Contributing to consolidating national unity and
assisting in establishing a viable transitional government;
5. Reestablishing the necessary state structures for
effective governance and ensuring that they function in a
proper and durable way; and
6. Once these pre-conditions have been met, we must further
assist in the preparation of free, fair, transparent, and
democratic elections.
As you know, the supplemental request, as it was sent to
Congress, fails to identify any resources to meet these
urgent needs in Liberia. Without adding money to the 2004
supplemental, Liberia will receive no significant funding
until FY2005, a full year after the outbreak of a fragile
peace. I implore you, on behalf of the Liberian people, to
assist us in addressing Liberia's human rights, peace
building, and reconstruction needs. Without strong U.S.
support, Liberia threatens to fall once more into violence
and chaos, possibly becoming a haven for criminal and
terrorist activity on the African continent.
The critical human rights needs of our brothers and sisters
in Liberia and West Africa require your uncompromising
support of the Chafee-Leahy amendment to include $200 million
for humanitarian and reconstruction needs in Liberia in the
FY2004 Supplemental Appropriations bill when it comes to the
Senate floor.
Sincerely,
Archbishop Michael Kpakala Francis.

Mr. LEAHY. Archbishop Francis is said to be the only man in Liberia
that Charles Taylor feared. This is because of the archbishop's
tireless criticism of Charles Taylor and his brutal regime.
If we don't move decisively to help solidify the fragile peace in
Liberia, fighting could easily resume and spread throughout the region.
Guess who the world will look to help solve the crisis?
The United States. More lives will have been lost, more time will
have been wasted and it will be more difficult and expensive to act.
Mr. President, this amendment gives the Senate a chance to take
decisive action to address the crisis in Liberia. This amendment
provides $200 million in badly needed aid, and it allows the
administration to determine the best way to spend these funds.
How did we arrive at this figure? Two hundred million dollars is what
the Bush administration says we should spend to respond to this crisis.
On October 2, Assistant Secretary of State for Africa Walter Kansteiner
told the House International Relations Committee that $200 million is
what the U.S. should contribute to Liberia.
In other words, this is the administration's own number.
This amendment is fully offset--it does not add one dime to the total
amount of the supplemental. It also allows the administration to use
these funds for virtually any purpose: humanitarian, reconstruction, or
security assistance.
We have an $87 billion bill before the Senate. But there is no money
in this bill designated for Liberia.
We are already involved in Liberia. The United States worked to get
rid of a despicable dictator who is wanted for war crimes. We sent the
Marines to Liberia. The United States has deep historical ties to
Liberia. We should do the job right--not just stick a band-aid on the
problem and hope it goes away.
Mr. President, it is up to Congress to show leadership on this issue.
The House has acted. It has included $100 million of international
disaster assistance for Liberia and Sudan. The Senate should build on
this effort. This amendment does that.
There should be no question. We should join together and pass this
bipartisan amendment and help the people of Liberia. That is why I urge
my colleagues to support this amendment.
I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? At the moment,
there is not a sufficient second.
Mr. LEAHY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call
be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. I withhold the quorum call.
Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment offered by the
Senator from Vermont.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside for the purpose of Senator Durbin offering an
amendment.

[[Page S12715]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Illinois.

Amendment No. 1837

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk on Reserve
pay which I will be asking to be put in the queue for a vote tomorrow.
This amendment I offered 2 days ago.
I am not going to belabor the issue other than to say to my
colleagues, and for the record, that what it provides is that Federal
employees who are members of the Guard and Reserves who are activated
would have the difference in their pay--their military pay and their
Federal pay--made up by the Federal agency for which they work. This is
done by State governments and private companies and local units of
government. It is not done by the Federal Government.
Frankly, this amendment was offered in good faith to have the Federal
Government establish the standard so that activated Guard and Reserves
who are Federal employees will receive this difference.
There are 1.2 million Guard and Reserves in America. Ten percent of
them are Federal employees, 14,000 are now activated, and almost half
of them have seen a cut in pay. Since activation has gone for an
extended period of time, I will ask that that amendment be put in the
queue tomorrow.

Amendment No. 1879

Mr. President, I have another amendment, but before I send the
amendment to the desk, let me describe it to my colleagues.
I offered an amendment, earlier today, on the global AIDS epidemic,
an amendment which said we have made a commitment as a nation to spend
$15 billion over the next 5 years to deal with this epidemic. This is
an epidemic which President Bush acknowledged in his State of the Union
Message and one that he has spoken of extensively here in the United
States and while traveling abroad.
Unfortunately, the administration did not come up, in the first year,
with $3 billion to deal with the global AIDS epidemic.
We know there is a serious need across the world to spend the funds
necessary. I would say to my colleagues who might ask, ``Why would you
raise the global AIDS epidemic on this emergency appropriations bill,''
consider the statement made by Secretary of State Colin Powell to the
United Nations just a few weeks ago. I quote:

AIDS is more devastating than any terrorist attack, any
conflict, or any weapon of mass destruction.

The extended quote will be made a part of the Record. But what I
would like to say to my colleagues is this: I hope--as we consider what
it takes to make this a safe world for future generations, as we
consider what is necessary in the Middle East and Iraq--we also
consider that we are living in a world devastated by AIDS, that AIDS is
an epidemic destabilizing countries, making them vulnerable to
terrorist takeovers, and creating the kind of instability that
guarantees the United States must pay heed.
There is a way to deal with this, and the way to do it is to keep our
word.
My earlier version of this amendment was objected to by Senator
Stevens. He argued it included legislative language. We have stricken
all legislative language in this amendment.
Secondly, this would not be subject to a budget point of order
because the foreign operations appropriations bill has not passed, and
the set-off in the amendment comes in emergency appropriations, so
there is no problem with either the budget or the spend-out rate.
Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are
set aside.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] proposes an
amendment numbered 1879.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide funds for the prevention, treatment, and control
of, and research on HIV/AIDS)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. __. (a) Global HIV/AIDS Funding.--For necessary
expenses to carry out the provisions of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 for the prevention, treatment, and
control of, and research on HIV/AIDS, in addition to funds
appropriated under the heading ''Global AIDS Initiative'' in
the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related
Programs Act, 2004, $879,700,000.
(b) Offset.--The total amount appropriated under title II
under the heading ``OTHER BILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE--
FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO THE PRESIDENT--Iraq Relief and
Reconstruction Fund'' (other than the amount appropriated for
Iraqi border enforcement and enhanced security communications
and the amount appropriated for the establishment of an Iraqi
national security force and Iraqi Defense Corps) shall be
reduced by $879,700,000.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, as we consider this $87 billion
supplemental--and what is truly in the interest of our national
security, for this generation and generations to come--these words from
the Secretary of State about the impact of AIDS have special resonance:
``more devastating than any terrorist attack, any conflict, or any
weapon of mass destruction.''
AIDS is fast becoming the worst plague the world has ever
encountered. Already, 25 million people have been killed by the
disease.
Today, another 42 million people around the world face a death
sentence from AIDS because they have no access to life-saving treatment
that can cost as little as a dollar a day.
As parents are dying, 14 million AIDS orphans have been left without
the care and support that they need. Unless we act soon, there will be
25 million AIDS orphans by the end of the decade.
Each year the world loses a population greater than the city of
Chicago because of AIDS. Yet, we know how to stop these deaths.
Keeping our promises in the fight against AIDS is in America's
interest. AIDS represents not only a humanitarian crisis on a scale the
world has never seen. AIDS also presents a growing security threat
around the world.
Living up to the President's promises on AIDS makes good sense for
our national security. It is also important for showing the world that
we make good on our commitments.
As the CIA Director recently said about AIDS:

Is this a security issue? You bet it is. With more than 40
million people infected right now, a figure that--by 2010--
may reach 100 million, AIDS is building dangerous momentum in
regions beyond Africa.

As the disease spreads, it unravels social structures, decimates
populations and destabilizes entire nations.
The National Intelligence Council found that in five of the world's
most populous nations, the number of HIV-infected people will grow to
an estimated 50 to 75 million by 2010.
AIDS is particularly devastating national armies around the world
that ensure stability. In South Africa, according to the Rand
Institute, some military units have infection rates as high as 90
percent.
Keeping our promises on AIDS is not only the compassionate thing to
do, it is the smart thing to do in terms of our national security as
well.
Today, we have a change to change the course of the AIDS pandemic and
strengthen our national security by providing $3 billion in the coming
year.
In this State of the Union address, the President made a 5-year
pledge of $15 billion to help the millions of AIDS sufferers in Africa
and around the world. We must keep that pledge today.
The President has said:

We can turn our eyes away in resignation and despair, or we
can take decisive, historic action to turn the tide against
this disease and give the hope of life to millions who need
our help.

Unfortunately the President's budget failed to live up to the
President's rhetoric. His budget fell nearly $1 billion short of the $3
billion for the coming year.
The President's shortchanging on AIDS will cost lives. The additional
funding which we seek to restore today can put 1 million people on
treatment and prevent 2.5 million new infections.
In July, 78 members of this body voted for sense of the Senate
language calling for fully funding the $3 billion to fight AIDS this
year, even if it meant exceeding the levels authorized in the budget.
The President himself said that ``we care more about results than
words.

[[Page S12716]]

We're interested in lives saved.'' Now is our opportunity to go beyond
words and fulfill the pledge that the President made in the State of
the Union and that we made in July.
The amendment I am putting forward will close the gap between the
rhetoric and the real needs of AIDS sufferers by fully funding the $3
billion.
This amendment will provide the $879.7 million necessary to close the
gap and fully fund the $3 billion pledge made in the authorizing
legislation.
It will do so by reducing the $20.3 Billion Iraq Relief and
Reconstruction Fund in the supplemental by a pro-rata $879.7 million.
This allows the administration to choose where to take the reduction--
and the options are many.
For example, the supplemental contains $2.1 billion for ``oil
infrastructures''--$900 million for importation of petroleum products
into Iraq. Perhaps instead of spending nearly a billion dollars to
import oil into Iraq, a billion dollars might be better spent treating
1 million additional people with AIDS and preventing an additional 2.5
million new infections.
The stakes could not be higher. As Majority Leader Frist said
recently:

History will judge whether a world led by America stood by
and let transpire one of the greatest destructions of human
life in recorded history--or performed one of its most heroic
rescues.

Instead of fulfilling this pledge, the White House is claiming that
the full amount cannot be spent in the coming year. All the leading
development organizations and medical authorities reject this White
House claim as baseless and have said so publicly.
Last month in Roll Call, all of the leading relief and development
organizations in the United States placed an ad that endorsed the fact
that the full $3 billion could be well spent.
The White House is also ignoring the capacity of the Global Fund to
Fight AIDS, TB and malaria--the most effective tool we have to beat
AIDS. The Global Fund, Chaired by Secretary of Health and Human
Services Tommy Thompson, is scaling up successful programs on the
ground in Africa and is working to stop the next wave of the pandemic
in places such as India and it needs hundreds of millions of dollars
more by this fall to fund a new round of grants.
The White House is also forgetting the extraordinary needs of AIDS
orphans. According to a soon to be released report by the Earth
Institute at Columbia, orphans and vulnerable children need $15 billion
each year for basic health, education and community services.
The Global HIV Prevention Working Group found that AIDS prevention
spending falls $3.8 billion short of what is needed by 2005. Although
we can spare babies a life with AIDS for the price of a Sunday
newspaper, only 5 percent of women at risk have access to medication to
prevent mother-to-child transmission.
I hope today that the 78 of my colleagues who committed to fully fund
the $3 billion to fight AIDS will join me in supporting this amendment.
We have a unique chance to change the future and save many lives.
Today, a 15-year-old boy in Botswana faces an 80 percent chance of
dying of AIDS. If we act now, we can change the future for these
children before it is too late.
Mr. President, at this point it is my understanding this amendment
will be put in the queue with the others for consideration tomorrow.
With that understanding, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.

Amendment No. 1881

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have an amendment that has been cleared on
both sides. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set
aside and send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
pending amendments are set aside. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for Mr. Nelson of
Florida, proposes an amendment numbered 1881.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To require a report on the plans of the Navy for basing
aircraft carriers through 2020)

At the end of title I, add the following:
Sec. 316. (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following
findings:
(1) The Committee on Armed Services of the Senate specified
in Senate Report 107-151 to accompany S. 2514 (107th
Congress) that the Chief of Naval Operations submit to the
congressional defense committees a report, not later than
June 2, 2003, on the plans of the Navy for basing aircraft
carriers through 2015.
(2) As of October 16, 2003, the report has not been
submitted.
(b) Report on Aircraft Carrier Basing Plans Through 2020.--
Not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the
congressional defense committees a report on the plans of the
Navy for basing aircraft carriers through 2020.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have been advised by the majority that
this amendment has been approved on both sides.
Mr. STEVENS. The Senator is correct. It has been approved on our side
for Mr. Nelson.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 1881) was agreed to.
Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, if the Chair would allow, we now have two
amendments we would like to offer tonight and debate tonight, one by
the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Corzine, and the other by the Senator
from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu. And we have been told that the mother of
two small babies is going to go first, Senator Landrieu. I will yield
to her if there is no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate the courtesies.
The children have been long in bed and are sound asleep before this
hour. But I appreciate the courtesies extended to allow me to take a
few minutes to explain this amendment.

Amendment No. 1859

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be
temporarily laid aside and call up amendment No. 1859, which is at the
desk, on behalf of myself, Senator Dorgan, and Senator Levin.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is already pending.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, this is a modified amendment based on a
concept that Senator Dorgan, Senator Levin, and others have been
working on now for several weeks. It is a very important amendment to
consider in terms of shaping a sustainable aid package for Iraq.
It does not address or take any money away from the $20 billion. It
simply establishes a framework whereby future reconstruction efforts in
Iraq could be financed through a financing mechanism using the great
oil wealth of that nation. It does not, in any way, affect the
immediate $20 billion which the Chair and others and I were proud to
cosponsor and which was shaped and crafted over an hour ago on the Bayh
amendment.
This is about the future, not the present. It does not have an effect
on the $20 billion.
Within an hour or two of this time, the Senate rose to the occasion.
We had a very vigorous and enlightening, at times tough, but very good
debate on the way we should put out our reconstruction efforts for
Iraq. The Senate is fulfilling its role, shaping foreign policy, being
a partner with the executive branch, and, in my opinion, since that
amendment passed, improving the original plan.
As I said when I supported the Bayh amendment, the administration's
original plan, which seems to people in Louisiana and to the American
people to be billions of dollars of grants often, only, and alone will
not work. Not only is it not popular, it is not sustainable in our
democracy. Iraq doesn't have a democracy yet, but we do. In a
democracy, we have to lay down plans that not only will the leadership
support but the people support. Because without the people's support,
no plan that

[[Page S12717]]

we lay down, either at the White House or in Congress, in the House or
the Senate, is sustainable over a long period of time.
Why is that important? It is important because every study that has
been conducted by independent think tanks and authorities has said that
the task we have undertaken in Iraq is not going to be completed in the
next 6 months or 1 year or 2 years. As the Presiding Officer knows,
this is at a minimum a 5 to 7-year effort. Does that mean our troops
will be there for 5 to 7 years? We hope not. Does it mean all the
troops there now will have to be there in that number even 2 or 3
years? The effort itself of reconstruction--helping take a country that
was cruelly administered by a dictator, taking it to a vibrant
democracy with democratic institutions in place, based on the history
and the region we are talking about--is not going to be easy.
Yes, I think the Iraqi people want that. Yes, we will be good
partners. But it is not going to be easy. It is going to take time.
The amendment we spoke about earlier tonight, and voted on by a 52 or
53-vote margin, helps to take the original plan, which was not
sustainable, and turn it into something that can be sustainable over
time. It targeted the grants. It was strategic. It had strong
incentives for debt forgiveness, which is a crucial aspect and
principle of a strong reconstruction plan. And most importantly, it put
up the $20 billion right now so we can get started and build a strong
foundation for a successful reconstruction plan.
This amendment I am offering tonight, and hopefully we will vote on
tomorrow, is a complementary piece. It says that because Iraq has some
of the richest oil reserves in the world, most people think they are
the second largest resource of oil in the world, they could be the
first because not all of the fields have been explored and developed.
In fact, it has in some instances been barely touched.
Let me show a picture of the country. As you can see, these are the
oil fields that are outlined right here in the north, in the center,
right outside of Baghdad, and in the southern portion of the country.
But the geologists, the industry publications believe that there is as
much oil in this section of Iraq, in the southwestern section, as there
is here. As you can see, there is not one designation on this map
because it has been totally unexplored.
The reserves we are calculating--and they are in the hundreds of
millions, billions of barrels of oil, and not even counting the gas--
are well underestimated.

The point of this is that when these oil fields come back on line--
and they are coming back on rather quickly with the support of the
communities and with the support of American ingenuity and technology
and know-how, and, by the way, that technology is improving and has
improved substantially--there is going to be even more oil and gas
found, thus making the possibility of future construction and
renovation and reconstruction definitely possible to be refinanced with
these resources.
This amendment will help to ensure that the Iraqi people themselves
are benefiting from their own oil reserves. It seeks to make that point
in no uncertain terms. The reconstruction of Iraq for the benefit of
the people of Iraq can be done and accomplished through a financing
mechanism, allowing the oil reserves, which are plentiful and quite
substantial, to be used in that way.
This is not Senator Landrieu's idea. I didn't come up with this idea.
I heard about it. I heard administration officials speaking about it.
In fact, Secretary Wolfowitz said just a year ago in an interview on
this subject:

On a rough recollection, the oil revenues of that country
could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of
the next two or three years. . . . We're dealing with a
country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and
relatively soon.

This is what our own Secretary said. This Senate voted a few minutes
ago to decide that, no, we were not going to move to this system right
now. We were going to vote for this amendment that Senator Bayh and
others offered. We said we would not move to the reconstruction based
on the oil reserves at this time. Let's lay down the $20 billion in the
way that we did it, part in a loan that could be forgiven if other
debts are forgiven, part immediately for the construction. But, in the
future, my amendment says that establishing this financing mechanism
could match what the administration originally said they wanted to do,
which, of course, makes sense not only to me but to the American
people.
The American people want us to be successful in Iraq. This is their
challenge. It is not something that belongs only to the leaders here in
Washington or the President or the White House. The American people are
giving their own sons and daughters to the effort. They are sending
their own family members to the effort. They want us to come up with a
plan that can make sure they are not sending them in vain. It is not
just a matter of getting the troops home. As a mother, as a parent, I
can appreciate and understand that if we lost a child, I would want to
make sure the death was not in vain, that we actually accomplished what
we set out to do.
We have to get a plan that will work. The American people know one
thing that won't work, and that is asking the American people to foot
the bill, 100 percent of it, with limited help, with us carrying the
burden of the troops and the finances over a long period of time. What
the American people think would work, and I agree with them, is to
jump-start it with some grants, do everything we can to make other
nations relieve the debt, and then, over the long run, establish a
financing mechanism that the country of Iraq can themselves begin the
reconstruction. And let me just say that it is not often that the
administration agrees with the U.N. or that the U.N. agrees with the
administration. We have been trying to find common ground now for
months. The U.N. thinks one way and this administration thinks a
different way, so they cannot get together.

Let me tell you one thing they agree on. This is U.N. Security
Council Resolution 1483 that lifted sanctions on Iraq right after we
were successful in the war. Summarizing, it says the U.N. itself says
the oil resources in Iraq should not be used to pay down debt owed to
other countries. It should not be, basically, given away to anyone. But
what should it be used for? The U.N. said it should be used for the
reconstruction of Iraq. So the U.N. and members of the administration,
including the Vice President--and I will show you what the Vice
President said just a few months ago, in March. He said in answer to
Tim Russert on one of the talk shows:

In Iraq you've got a nation that's got the second largest
oil reserves in the world, second only to Saudi Arabia. It
will generate billions of dollars a year in cash flow if they
get back to their production of roughly 3 million barrels of
oil a day, and in the relatively near future.

He is saying, no, we are not going to have to pick up the $100
billion, which is estimated; the Iraqis have that ability to do so
themselves. Mr. President, this is something the U.N. supports. It is
something the administration told the American people would be part of
the reconstruction effort. Now we are finding, for some reason, a
tremendous amount of resistance to this. It is hard to understand, and
so that is why I am putting forth this amendment, which has been
modified.
It doesn't try to substitute the financing mechanisms for any part of
the $20 billion. It says in the future, after we have allocated this
$20 billion, it is the sense of the Senate that the future
reconstruction could be paid for using the Iraqi resources, which are
plentiful--oil and gas.
Let me make one other point. I know my time is almost up. A lot has
been said about the Marshall plan. One of the principles of the
Marshall plan, one of the foundations on which the Marshall plan rested
was the fact that Germany had more coal reserves than any country in
Europe, and that because Germany was rich in coal, in natural
resources, the U.S. plan that was fashioned in a way that was
sustainable over a long period of time and could be based on the riches
and resources of that coal was not to take it from Germany but to help
Germany use its resources to rebuild itself, to establish peace and
prosperity for itself and its neighbors.
So I don't have any reason to understand or know why the same
administration that would say this is the way

[[Page S12718]]

we should proceed is now objecting to even outlining a possibility to
use these resources, not for the people of the United States, not for
the people of Europe, but for the Iraqis themselves. So that is the
essence of the amendment that Senator Dorgan and Senator Levin and I
have sent to the desk and asked for the Senate to consider. Hopefully,
we will have a vote tomorrow.
To summarize briefly, the most important thing that we need to do is
to, together with the President and the Congress and in partnership
with the American people, right now, today, tonight, tomorrow, fashion
a reconstruction plan that brings our troops home safely, minimizes the
loss of life, and actually achieves our objectives.

A tremendous amount is riding on America's reputation, our position
in the world, our pride, our word. It is resting on how well we do
this. We have to have a plan that will work. What will work in the long
run is unleashing the tremendous wealth of that nation, not for anybody
else but for themselves, to fashion a plan that is good for the people
of Iraq and for the American taxpayers who have already sacrificed a
great deal in terms of treasure, life, and American blood--to come up
with a plan that works for both countries and actually has a chance of
working, so that this long-range strategy of peace in the Mideast we
could actually accomplish.
So we offer this in good faith. I am sorry the other side has not yet
accepted this amendment, so we are going to have to vote on it
tomorrow. I hope that perhaps overnight, through the early hours of the
morning, we can consider the great benefit of establishing such a
financing mechanism and, that way, we will send the right signal to the
Iraqi people that America is there to stay; that we have a plan that we
can sustain in partnership with them using our strength and our
technology and our ingenuity, their natural resources, to accomplish
what their leaders have not been able to accomplish for them and which
they tried to take from them.
Saddam Hussein took the oil revenues and used it for himself and his
family, to build palaces. I know a little bit about this because I come
from a State where the oil revenues are not always used on behalf of
the people. I am very familiar with what happens when leaders take the
public's resources and use it for their own benefit and not the
people's: Children don't read, they don't go to college, hospitals are
not built, roads stay gravel, highways don't get built, and jobs are
not created. I know about that. I am saying this as passionately as I
can to try to explain this. The people of Iraq need help with unleashig
these resources for themselves, and setting up this financing mechanism
is one of the best things we can do for them. It sends the right
signal, and I am positive the American people would think that this
makes a lot of sense, it makes common sense. Instead of asking us to
bring the troops home, or we cannot sustain it, they might say:
Senator, we can do this, we can help and be there for as long as it
takes because it is important for America to be successful.
That is the essence of the amendment. I thank my colleagues. The hour
is late. I know others have to offer amendments. I thank the leader
from Nevada. This will be in line for a vote tomorrow.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set
aside to allow Senator Corzine to offer an amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 1882

(Purpose: To establish a National Commission on the Development and Use
of Intelligence Related to Iraq.)

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, in a few minutes I will be sending an
amendment to the desk. This amendment calls for a bipartisan commission
to study the development and use of intelligence related to Iraq. The
mission would examine several key issues, including intelligence
related to the following questions: Whether Iraq possessed chemical,
biological, and nuclear weapons; whether Iraq had a link to al-Qaida;
whether they attempted to acquire uranium in Africa; whether Iraq
attempted to procure aluminum tubes for the development of nuclear
weapons; whether Iraq possessed mobile laboratories for the production
of weapons of mass destruction; whether Iraq possessed delivery systems
for weapons of mass destruction.
Mr. President, this is the same amendment I offered in July. At that
time, 45 Senators joined in the effort to establish an independent
commission, reflecting broad public concern about the potential misuse
of intelligence information leading up to the war.
Since then, however, additional troubling information has come out
and these concerns have grown considerably in many people's minds.
These concerns also have grown in the context of a larger intelligence
shortcoming. One need only look at our failure thus far to find Osama
bin Laden or Saddam Hussein, to know that we have a long way to go to
ensure that our intelligence capacities are as strong as they can be.
Time after time we have seen news stories about the administration's
selective use of intelligence. Just last night, it was reported in a
very troubling report on ``60 Minutes II'' that a former aide to
Secretary of State Powell, Greg Thielmann, a senior career State
Department official, made serious charges against the Secretary and the
administration.
According to Mr. Thielmann, at the time of Secretary Powell's
dramatic prewar presentation to the United Nations, Iraq's weapons of
mass destruction capability was so weak that it posed no threat to the
United States and little threat even to its immediate neighbors.
According to Mr. Thielmann, the administration adopted a ``faith-
based approach to intelligence.'' He went on to say:

They knew what they wanted the intelligence to show. They
were really blind and deaf to any kind of countervailing
information the intelligence community would produce.

I have a full transcript of that interview which I ask unanimous
consent to print in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From 60 Minutes II, Oct. 15, 2003]

The Man Who Knew; Former Powell Chief of Intelligence and Others
Disagree With Evidence Presented to UN for War in Iraq

Scott Pelley (co-host). In the run-up to the war in Iraq,
one moment seemed to be a turning point: the day Secretary of
State Colin Powell went to the United Nations to make the
case for the invasion. Millions of us watched as he laid out
the evidence and reached a damning conclusion: that Saddam
Hussein was in possession of weapons of mass destruction. But
the man you will hear from tonight says that key evidence in
that speech was misrepresented and the public was deceived.
Greg Thielmann should know. He had been Powell's own chief of
intelligence when it came to Iraqi weapons of mass
destruction.
When you saw Secretary of State Powell make his
presentation to the United Nations, what did you think?
Mr. Greg Thielmann. I had a couple of initial reactions.
Then I had a--a more mature reaction. I--I think my
conclusion now is that it's probably one of the low points in
his long and distinguished service to the nation.
Pelley. At the end of the speech, the United Nations and
the American people had been misinformed, in your opinion?
Mr. Thielmann. I think so.
Pelley. Greg Thielmann was a foreign service officer for 25
years. His last job at the State Department was acting
director of the Office of Strategic Proliferation and
Military Affairs, responsible for analyzing the Iraqi weapons
threat for Secretary Powell.
You and your staff had the highest security clearances.
Mr. Thielmann. That's right.
Pelley. And you saw virtually everything.
Mr. Thielmann. That's right.
Pelley. Whether it came in to the CIA or the Defense
Department, it all came through your office sooner or later.
Mr. Theilmann. That's right, yes.
Pelley. Thielmann was admired at State. One high-ranking
official called him ``honorable, knowledgeable, very
experienced.'' Thielmann took a long-planned retirement four
months before Powell's big moment at the UN. February 5th was
the day the world was waiting for: Secretary Powell would
reveal evidence against Saddam. The speech represented a
change in Powell's thinking. Before 9/11, he said that Saddam
had not developed any significant capability in weapons of
mass destruction. But now, two years later, he warned that
Saddam had stockpiled those very weapons.
Sec. Colin Powell (State Department). (From UN Speech) The
gravity of this moment is matched by the gravity of the
threat that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction pose to the
world.

[[Page S12719]]

Pelley. Do you believe that Iraq posed an imminent threat
to the United States of America at the point we went to war?
Mr. Thielmann. No. I--I think it didn't even constitute an
imminent threat to its neighbors at the time we went to war.
Pelley. Theilmann says that's what the intelligence really
showed. For example, he points to the evidence behind
Powell's charge that Iraq was importing these aluminum tubes
to use in a program to build nuclear weapons.
Sec. Powell. (From UN speech) Saddam Hussein is determined
to get his hands on a nuclear bomb. He is so determined that
he's made repeated covert attempts to acquire high-
specification aluminum tubes from 11 different countries,
even after inspections resumed.
Mr. Thielmann. This is one of the most disturbing parts of
Secretary Powell's speech for us.
Pelley. The tubes were intercepted by intelligence agents
in 2001. The CIA said that they were parts for a centrifuge
to enrich uranium, fuel for an atom bomb. But Thielmann
wasn't so sure. Experts at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
the scientists who enriched uranium for American bombs,
advised that the tubes were all wrong for a bomb program. At
about the same time, Thielmann's office was working on
another explanation. It turned out the tubes' dimensions
perfectly matched an Iraqi conventional rocket.
Mr. Thielmann. The aluminum was e--exactly, I think, what
the Iraqis wanted for artillery.
Pelley. And you sent that word up to the secretary of
State----
Mr. Thielmann. That's right.
Pelley. Many months before.
Mr. Thielmann. That's right.
Mr. Houston Wood: You'll see where it intersects. This is
the velocity.
Pelley. Houston Wood was a consultant who worked on the Oak
Ridge analysis of the tubes. He watched Powell's speech, too.
When you saw the presentation in full wi--with regard to
the aluminum tubes, what were you thinking?
Mr. Wood. I guess I was angry. I think that's probably the
best emotion that I--best way to describe my emotions. I was
angry at that.
Pelley. Wood is among the world's authorities on uranium
enrichment by centrifuge. He found that the tubes couldn't be
what the CIA thought they were. They were too heavy, three
times too thick and certain to leak.
Mr. Wood. It wasn't going to work. No, they would--they
would have failed.
Pelley. Wood reached that conclusion back in 2001.
Thielmann reported to Secretary Powell's office that he was
confident the tubes were not for a nuclear program. Then
about a year later, when the administration was building a
case for war, the tubes were resurrected on the front page of
The New York Times.
Mr. Wood. I thought when I read that, ``There must be some
other tubes that people were talking about.'' I--I just wa--
was flabbergasted that people were still pushing that those
might be centrifuges.
Pelley. Flabbergasted?
Mr. Wood. Yeah. Yeah. So it just didn't--it didn't make any
sense to me.
Pelley. The New York Times reported that senior
administration officials insisted the tubes were for an atom
bomb program.
Was it clear to you that science wasn't pushing this
forward?
Mr. Wood. Yes. That's a very good way to put it. Science
was not pushing this forward. Scientists had made their
evaluation and made their determination, and now we didn't
know what was happening.
Pelley. In his UN speech, Secretary Powell acknowledged
there was disagreement about the tubes, but he said most
experts agreed with the nuclear theory.
Sec. Powell. (From UN speech) There is controversy about
what these tubes are for. Most US experts think they are
intended to serve as rotors in centrifuges used to enrich
uranium.
Mr. Wood. Most experts are located in Oak Ridge, and that
was not the position there.
Pelley. Do you know one in academia, in government, in a
foreign country who disagrees with your appraisal, who says,
``Yes, these are for nuclear weapons?''
Mr. Wood. I don't know a single one anywhere.
Pelley. Greg Thielmann says the nuclear case was filled
with half-truths.
If the secretary took the information that his own
intelligence bureau had developed and turned it on its head,
which is what you're saying, to what end?
Mr. Thielmann. I can only assume that he was doing it to
loyally support the president of the United States and build
the strongest possible case for arguing that there was no
alternative to the use of military force.
Pelley. That was a case the president himself was making
only eight days before Secretary Powell's speech, but the
argument in the State of the Union address turned out to be
too strong.
President George W. Bush. From State of the Union) The
British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently
sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our
intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to
purchase high strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear
weapons production.
Pelley. After the war, the White House said the African
uranium claim was false and shouldn't have been in the
president's address, but at the time, it was part of a
campaign that painted the intelligence as irrefutable.
Vice President Dick Cheney. There is no doubt that Saddam
Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no
doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends,
against our allies and against us.
Pelley. But if there was no doubt in public, Greg Thielmann
says there was plenty of doubt in the intelligence community.
He says the administration took murky information out of the
gray area and made it black and white.
Sec. Powell. (From UN speech) My colleagues, every
statement I make today is backed up by sources--solid
sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are
facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence.
Pelley. Solid intelligence, Powell said, that proved Saddam
had amassed chemical and biological weapons.
Sec. Powell. (From UN speech) Our conservative estimate is
that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons
of chemical weapons agent. That is enough agent to fill
16,000 battlefield rockets.
Pelley. And part of that stockpile, he said, was clearly in
these bunkers.
Sec. Powell. (From UN speech) The four that are in red
squares represent active chemical munitions bunkers. How do I
know that? How can I say that? Let me give you a closer look.
Pelley. Up close, Powell said, you could see a truck used
for cleaning up chemical spills, a signature, he called it,
for a chemical bunker.
Sec. Powell. (From UN speech) It's a decontamination
vehicle in case something goes wrong.
Mr. Thielmann. My understanding is that these particular
vehicles were simply fire trucks that you cannot really
describe as being a unique signature.
Pelley. Satellite photos were notoriously misleading,
according to Steve Allinson. He was a UN inspector in Iraq in
the months leading up to the war.
Was there ever a time, in your experience, that American
satellite intelligence provided you with something that was
truly useful?
Mr. Steve Allinson. No, n--no, not to me, not on--not on
inspections that I participated in.
Pelley. Not once?
Mr. Allinson. No.
Pelley. Ever?
Mr. Allinson. No.
Pelley. Allinson had been sent to find decontamination
vehicles that turned out to be fire trucks. And another time
a satellite spotted what they thought were trucks used for
moving biological weapons.
Mr. Allinson. We were told that we were going to the site
to look for refrigerated trucks specifically linked to
biological agents.
Pelley. And you found the trucks?
Mr. Allinson. We did. We found about seven or eight of
them, I think, in total. And they were--they had cobwebs in
them. Some samples were taken, and nothing was found.
Pelley. Steve Allinson watched Powell's speech in Iraq with
a dozen other UN inspectors. There was great anticipation in
the room, something like waiting for the Super Bowl. They
always suspected that the U.S. was holding back its most
damning evidence for this moment.
And as you watched the speech unfold, what was the reaction
among the inspectors?
Mr. Allinson. Various people would laugh at various times
because the information he was presenting was just--you know,
it didn't mean anything. It had--had no meaning.
Pelley. When the secretary thanked everyone for listening
and had finished the speech, you and the other inspectors
turned to each other and said what?
Mr. Allinson. ``They have nothing.''
Pelley. If Allinson doubted the satellite evidence,
Thielmann watched with worry as Secretary Powell told the
Security Council that human intelligence provided conclusive
proof. Thielmann says that many of the human sources were
defectors who came forward with an ax to grind.
Give me some sense of how reliable the defector information
was across the board. You got bad information--What?--rarely?
Mr. Theilmann. I guess I would say frequently we got bad
information.
Pelley. Some of it came from defectors supplied by the
Iraqi National Congress, the leading exile group headed by
Ahmed Chalabi.
Mr. Theilmann. You had the Iraqi National Congress with a
clear motive for presenting the worst possible picture of
what was happening in Iraq to the American government.
Pelley. That may have been the case with this man. Adnan
Sayeed Haideiri was provided by the Iraqi National Congress
to the US Government, the New York Times, and he appeared
on CBS News. Haideiri said he was a civil engineer and he
claimed to have visited many secret weapon production
sites. The government thought he was so valuable they put
him in a witness protection program, and the White House
listed him first in its Web page on Iraqi weapons.
Mr. David Albright. He was, basically, an epoxy painter.
Pelley. David Albright is a physicist who has investigated
defectors for his work with the UN. He studied a transcript
of Haideiri's claims.
Mr. Albright. Well, if you read a transcript of an
interview that he went through, he has no knowledge of--of
chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.
Pelley. Based on Haideiri's statement, did UN inspectors go
in and try to follow up on what he said?

[[Page S12720]]

Mr. Albright. Certainly.
Pelley. And what did they find from Haidieri's information?
Mr. Albright. Nothing.
Pelley. There was a good deal more in Secretary Powell's
speech that bothered the analysts. For example, Powell
claimed that Saddam still had a few dozen Scud missiles.
Mr. Thielmann. I wondered what he was talking about. We did
not have evidence that the Iraqis had those missiles, pure
and simple.
Pelley. Powell warned that empty chemical warheads found
recently by the UN could be the `tip of the iceberg.'
Mr. Allinson. They were shells that were left over from the
Gulf War or pri--prior to the Gulf War from their past
program.
Pelley. Powell did make several points that day that turned
out to be right. Among them, he was right when he said Iraqi
labs were removing computer hard drives, he was right that
Iraq had drawings for a new long-range missile, and he was
right about Saddam's murder of thousands of Iraqi citizens.
But an interim report by coalition inspectors say, ``So far
there is no evidence of a uranium enrichment program, no
chemical weapons, no biological weapons, no Scud missiles.''
The State Department told us Secretary Powell would not be
available for an interview, but earlier this month, he said
the jury on Iraqi is still out.
Sec. Powell. And so I think one has to look at the whole
report. Have we found a factory or a--a plant or a warehouse
full of chemical rounds? No, not yet.
Pelley. Powell added that Iraq was a danger to the world.
He said, ``How clear and present a danger it was, people can
judge.'' As for Greg Thielmann, he told us he's a reluctant
witness. He ways the president's address worried him because
he knew the African uranium story was false. And he watched
Secretary Powell's speech with disappointment because, up
until then, he said, he'd seen Powell bringing what he called
``reason'' to the administration's inner circle. Today,
Thielmann believes the decision to go to war was made, and
the intelligence was interpreted to fit that conclusion.
Mr. Thielmann. There's plenty of blame to go around. But
the main problem was the senior administration officials have
what I've called faith-based intelligence. They know what
they wanted the intelligence to show. They were really blind
and deaf to any kind of countervailing information the
intelligence community would produce. So I would a--I would
assign some blame to the intelligence community and most of
the blame to the senior administration officials.
Pelley. The administration wants to spend several hundred
millions dollars more to continue the search for evidence.

Mr. CORZINE. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, the administration's own search for weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq has borne out the concerns that Mr. Thielmann and
others held. After months of searching throughout the country,
inspectors still have not found any evidence of such weapons. Several
times the administration tried to claim that such evidence had, in
fact, been found. But each time the claims have proven empty.
Recently heard again from David Kay, the man leading the CIA's
search, that no chemical or biological weapons have been found to date
and that Iraq's alleged nuclear program--the one that administration
officials regularly raised when discussing the specter of a mushroom
cloud--was only at ``the very most rudimentary stage.''
Let me give a couple examples of other claims that may have been
intentionally misleading.
Last September, President Bush, surrounded by Members of Congress in
the White House Rose Garden, claimed that Iraq could launch a chemical
or biological strike within 45 minutes. White House Press Secretary Ari
Fleischer cited this capability as the elusive ``smoking gun'' when it
first came to light. Just 2 weeks later, Congress gave the President
authority to go to war in Iraq. Yet this claim, the strongest evidence
that Iraq represented an imminent threat, was dropped after the
administration consulted with the CIA.
One has to ask: Why wasn't that consultation done with the CIA before
making the claim and before Congress used the information in
deliberations about the war resolution?
Similarly, President Bush and his top advisers repeatedly asserted
Saddam and al-Qaida had a strong relationship. On September 25, 2002,
President Bush said:

You can't distinguish between al-Qaida and Saddam.

The implication was clear: There was a connection between Saddam and
the terrorist attacks of September 11.
Only in the last month, after the Vice President repeated a similar
assertion strongly disputed by the press and security analysts, did the
President admit no such connection existed.
It is now clear that the administration has either been grossly wrong
in its interpretation of intelligence or has intentionally misused the
intelligence produced by the community.
When I offered this amendment in July, we were focused on a
particular assertion that was made in the January State of the Union
Address. That is:

The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein
recently sought significant quantities of uranium from
Africa.

At the time, there was a flurry of press interests in these words,
though lately that seems to have largely been forgotten. The power of
the President's allegation in those words is difficult to overstate.
The Bush administration used legalistic language apparently intended to
lead people to believe that Saddam Hussein had a nuclear program. The
President didn't say the British were claiming anything. He didn't say
they alleged anything. He said they learned Saddam was attempting to
buy uranium, implicitly accepting the charge as fact.
Although just 16 words, it was a powerful statement that resonated
throughout the Nation and the world. It became a key argument in the
case of immediate use of force in Iraq. Only after many months did we
learn the statement was based on information that the CIA had
repeatedly flagged the White House as inaccurate.

We didn't learn about this from the administration. We learned about
it from the International Atomic Energy Agency and the media. Only
later did the administration spokesperson and the President admit the
statement was inappropriate for the State of the Union Address. The
administration has yet to fully explain how it got there.
Instead, the administration has turned on those who have reported the
truth. Recently, unknown senior administration officials publicly
disclosed the name of a covert CIA operative apparently in retaliation
for public statements by the operative's spouse that contradicted the
administration's claims about Iraqi attempts to obtain uranium from
Niger.
This wasn't just any operative. It was one of the CIA's elite
intelligence officers, a nonofficial cover agent. Releasing the agent's
name was a betrayal of intelligence apparatus for political purposes,
which has likely harmed our national security and has only contributed
to a sense among many that the administration is uninterested in
protecting the integrity and objectivity of our intelligence
operations.
In this case, the administration continues to resist efforts to
appoint a special counsel to investigate this criminal act.
Nor has this been the only example of opposition to independent,
nonpartisan reviews on national security matters. The administration
also seems unwilling to openly share information with the commission
established by Congress to investigate the events of September 11. The
commission was established on a bipartisan basis. It is charged not
only with investigating the events leading up to 9/11 but with
producing recommendations to prevent future terrorist attacks.
Their mission is critical. I can tell you as a Senator who comes from
a State where 693 people died on September 11--10 in my hometown--this
is a serious investigation and review of the failures that led to 9/11.
Yet, according to recent statements by several commission members, the
administration has been stonewalling. Too many of their requests are
being ignored. Too much evidence is being withheld. And the commission
has been frustrated in its efforts to get the information it needs to
do the job.
Again, just yesterday, the commission was forced to issue subpoenas
to officials at the FAA for documents that the administration should
have been handing over voluntarily. By the way, this was not the CIA,
not the Pentagon, but the FAA.
The question of accurate intelligence is central to Congress's
ability to make decisions about national security. It is especially
important now that the Bush administration has endorsed a doctrine of
preemptive war, a doctrine the administration reiterated today
preceding its trip to the Far East.
As we confront ongoing threats to U.S. interests, particularly with
regard to weapons of mass destruction, we must be sure that what we are
told is true.

[[Page S12721]]

Last October, for example, during the Iraqi debate, Secretary James
Kelly was in Pyongyang meeting with the North Koreans. At that
meeting--a meeting that occurred a full week prior to the Senate vote
on the resolution authorizing force in Iraq--the North Koreans admitted
to Mr. Kelly that they had an active nuclear program. Yet despite the
importance of such information from the North Koreans, admitting a
nuclear weapons program, and its relevance to debate regarding Iraq and
America's national security posture generally, administration officials
waited until after Congress had voted on the resolution to authorize
the use of force before revealing the details of the North Korean
disclosure to most Members of Congress and certainly the American
people.
As I see it, that information was both relevant and timely to the
debate on whether to go to war in Iraq. What should have our priorities
been? What was the information that should have been factored in when
we made that judgment?
Was the information withheld because it might affect Congress's
debate on the war resolution? I cannot be sure. But the American people
have a right to know.
While matters such as these may be beyond the scope of the commission
I am proposing, a thorough review of intelligence questions related to
Iraq is necessary if we are to successfully address other threats and
we are to have credibility and confidence in those judgments--including
North Korea, Iran, and other rogue states and international terrorist
networks.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I hope some of those
who initially opposed it will see that the time has come for a
thorough, independent, nonpartisan review, structured so there would
not be any partisan bias. David Kay's report finding no weapons of mass
destruction after a 6-month search, the statements from former
administration insiders charging that intelligence was misused, a
willingness of administration officials to retaliate against one such
insider by revealing the identity of a key CIA operative, the
administration's refusal to appoint a special counsel to investigate
the crime, the administration's failure to cooperate fully with the
commission investigating the 9/11 terrorist attacks, all highlight the
need for an independent, nonpartisan commission to examine what are
already acknowledged deficiencies in how intelligence related to Iraq
was presented to the American people prior to the war.
The goal of this commission is not to assign blame. The goal is to
understand what happened and then use those findings to recommend
improvements in our intelligence operations and make certain
intelligence is used for policy formulation, not policy justification.
I say to my colleagues, why would anybody be afraid to let an
independent commission find the truth? If the administration was acting
in good faith, they should want the facts to come out. If there were
systemic problems in our intelligence establishment, its relationship
with the White House, we all have an interest in identifying them and
correcting them. The commission would not prejudge anything. It would
simply provide a mechanism to find the truth and bring it to light.
Again I hope my colleagues will support this amendment. In the end,
the safety and security of the American people are at stake and so, by
the way, is the safety and protection of our men and women in uniform.
They deserve unbiased, nonpolitical, actionable intelligence to be able
to do their job and do it well. Just as much as they need financial
support, just as much as they need the support of all of America, they
need to have unbiased, nonpolitical intelligence to do their job.
I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so I
can offer this amendment which I send to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are
set aside. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Corzine] proposes an
amendment numbered 1882.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
Mr. CORZINE. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.

Amendment No. 1848 Withdrawn

Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 1848 be
withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 1834

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent my notice of
reconsideration on amendment No. 1834 be withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. I ask for a voice vote of the Reed amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator referring to amendment 1834,
the Reed of Rhode Island amendment?
Mr. STEVENS. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment
numbered 1834.
The amendment (No. 1834) was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, in amendment No. 1834 the distinguished
Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Reed, raises a number of good points
about our global commitments, especially those in Iraq. The increased
operational tempo is straining the Army, the National Guard, and the
Reserves. We do run the risk of hurting recruitment and retention in
both the Active and Reserve component. We are committing our troops to
such an extent that we may not be able to sustain all of those
commitments indefinitely. I am greatly concerned about these and other
issues raised by the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island. However,
I do not agree that increasing the end strength of the Army is the
answer to these problems.
The increase in end strength does not necessarily solve our immediate
problem of overextended troops. It will take years to get the 10,000
soldiers recruited, trained, equipped, and deployed. We need solutions
now. We need more foreign troops in Iraq and we need to work with the
international community toward that goal. We also need to work with our
allies to fight against terrorism with more than just military might.
Most importantly, we need to refocus ourselves on the fight against
terrorism instead of diverting our focus to ideologically driven wars
of our choosing.
Furthermore, according to rough estimates done by the CBO, increasing
the end strength of the Army by 10,0000 will cost $409 million this
year. Senator Reed's amendment fully offsets that amount. However, the
following year the cost of this end strength increase will jump to over
$800 million a year, and it will continue to grow. By passing this
amendment, we will either be locking in an increase in Department of
Defense spending of over $800 million a year or asking the Army and/or
the other military services to simply absorb that cost. Neither option
seems good to me.
But the Senator from Rhode Island was right to bring this debate to
the Senate. I agree with my colleague that the important issues he
raised must be dealt with expeditiously and I look forward to working
with him to address these problems.

Amendment No. 1852

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask that the Chair lay before the
Senate amendment No. 1852.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
Mr. STEVENS. This is the Feingold military family leave amendment. I
ask for adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

[[Page S12722]]

Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 1852) was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 9 a.m.
this morning, the Senate proceed to a series of consecutive votes in
relation to the following amendments; further, that there be no
amendments in order to the amendments in the below stacked sequence
prior to the votes, with 2 minutes equally divided before each vote,
and that each vote in sequence after the first be limited to 10
minutes. The stacked sequence is: the Durbin amendment No. 1837, the
Daschle amendment No. 1854, the Landrieu amendment No. 1859, the Boxer
amendment No. 1843, the Leahy amendment No. 1807, and the Durbin
amendment No. 1879.
I further ask unanimous consent that other than the above mentioned
amendments, the only other amendments in order to the bill be the
following, and they be subject to second-degree amendments that will be
relevant to the first-degree amendment to which they are offered: Byrd
amendment No. 1819; Corzine amendment No. 1882; Bond amendment No.
1825; Domenici amendment No. 1864; Senator Brownback is to offer an
amendment relative to rescission; Senator Collins will have an
opportunity to offer an amendment relative to loans; Senator McConnell,
a sense of the Senate on troops; Senator Specter on loans; Senator
Byrd, the remaining amendments on his list; Senator Dorgan, an
amendment related to Iraqi oil; Senators Boxer and Schumer, shoulder-
fired weapons; Senator Daschle, a relevant amendment; Senator Frist, a
relevant amendment; myself, a relevant amendment; Senator McConnell, a
relevant amendment; and Senator Reid, a relevant amendment.
I further ask unanimous consent that budget points of order not be
waived by virtue of this agreement and that no other points of order
lie against any pending amendments at this time.
I state, as an explanation, that the order of the nonstacked
amendments will be determined by when people arrive and they are called
up. That second part is not a list of order in which they will
necessarily be called up.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object, we were just notified by
the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy, that he would prefer to have his
amendment taken out of the stacked list and brought down to the second
group in order for additional debate on the amendment. But we expect it
is possible that something could be worked out. So I ask that
modification be made in the unanimous consent agreement.
Mr. STEVENS. That is acceptable to us, and we will be pleased to move
amendment No. 1807 to be just prior to the Byrd amendment No. 1819. As
I said, the amendments on the second list are not in any order of
sequence.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, to clarify, we would like it to follow
the Byrd amendment, not precede it.
Mr. STEVENS. That is not in sequence.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I stand today in support of the President's
supplemental appropriations request. This request primarily funds
ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, but it also
provides reconstruction assistance to both of those countries, so that
fundamental economic and civic infrastructure can be rebuilt. We must
all recognize that providing for the initial reconstruction of the
infrastructure is a practical requirement for us to succeed in the
establishing the stability necessary--in both of those countries--
before we can begin to withdraw our military forces.
I have not heard anyone here speak of a military failure in either
Iraq or Afghanistan, but I have heard a great deal of speculation that
we are failing to win the peace. It is not accurate to make this
assertion. But I cannot emphasize strongly enough that the chances of
winning a sustainable peace are directly related to the support we give
this request before us.
We cannot support our troops, our mission, and our goal of a peaceful
and stable Iraq without providing the funding necessary to achieve
these goals, and providing that funding now.
For this reason, I would think--I would hope--that this request would
receive unanimous support from my colleagues. I regret to see that this
will not be the case. As best as I can understand, this is because many
of my colleagues in the other party have declared the President's
policy a failure. We have won the war, we seem to agree, but the peace
is being lost.
As I review the many reports I receive on the situation in Iraq, I do
not think we can declare that the peace is being lost. Yet I do not
think we can rest assured that security has been achieved.
The President has a plan, and every Member in this body has had a
chance to review the plan. I have heard the declarations of failure,
but I have heard no alternatives to the detailed plan that the
President has provided us. What do our opponents propose to do instead?
The President's critics are silent here.
It is both unfair and unrealistic to take the reports of bombings and
deaths coming out of Iraq and declare that our plan has failed. The
President never said that it would be easy. Nobody in this body had
reason to believe that it would be.
The President and our military had a brilliant battle plan. And we
had the best post-conflict plans available, considering the dearth of
analysis we had from inside this Arab Stalinist state. Would I have
been pleased to have had more political intelligence on what was going
on inside Iraq? Would I have been pleased to have a better assessment
of the level of decay of Iraq's economic infrastructure? Of course.
There is not a military planner in the history of mankind that has not,
in retrospect, wished for better intelligence prior to a conflict. We
always wish we had better intelligence.
But those questions should not be the basis for criticizing an
ongoing policy. We are in Iraq. We must, as our critics agree, win the
peace. And we do not have time to waste.
Some of the opponents of the President have criticized him for
altering his policy during this occupation, as if altering a policy
based on changing circumstances--or simply as a result of a better
understanding of a fluid environment--should be seen as an admission of
failure. I ask anyone here: What great undertaking occurs without
changes in plan? Is it a sign of failure to shape your plans according
to new discoveries, changes in the situation, and a shifting context?
Of course, the answer is no.
Today, fewer than 6 months after the conclusion of major military
operations in Iraq, the security situation is still dangerous. We are
losing precious American lives every week, and we are suffering
injuries every day. I see no good reason to downplay this grim reality,
in this debate or anywhere else.
But the situation is far from dire: Iraqis, by almost all measure,
are thankful for their liberation from the dictatorship of Saddam
Hussein. Few, very few, declare their wish to return to his dungeon
state.
Instead, as we have heard from administration sources in the past
weeks, more than 70,000 Iraqis are presently serving in police, border
patrol, facilities protection and civil defense positions. Fewer than 6
months after the conclusion of the Coalition's major military
operations, Iraqis are serving side by side with coalition forces, and
they have already conducted thousands of joint patrols with our forces.

Their enemies are our enemies: The criminal Saddamite resistance and
the international jihadists, the terrorist brethren of Osama bin Laden.
No one can argue that Iraq has currently become calling ground for
terrorists. That presents us with a great

[[Page S12723]]

challenge, and an immediate security threat. We knew this was a
possibility before we invaded Iraq. Saddam Hussein had long associated
with almost all of the known terror organizations through the last
decades, including, beginning in the 1990s, with Osama bin Laden and
his associates.
I, for one, was not surprised when bin Laden called his followers to
Iraq prior to our invasion. I was not surprised for a number of
reasons, beginning with the reports we read through the years about bin
Laden's associations with Saddam's Iraq.
But another reason I have not been surprised to see al-Qaida join the
Saddamite resistance is that I have never believed al-Qaida is about
ideology, religious or otherwise. I believe bin Laden seeks power, and
he has hijacked his religion for his attempts to gain power. Bin
Laden's use of religion as ideological appeal is as sincere as Saddam's
use of Arab socialism, in the guise of Ba'athism. Both are about
gaining and holding dictatorial power--for personal ends. And the
joining of forces of bin Laden's terrorists and Saddam's thugs proves
this point.
The tools of the Saddamite resistance are the tools of gangsters: car
bombs and assassinations. Some of these recent horrific bombings have
been committed by suicide terrorists, which, we know, is not a common
gangster tactic. But in my years of studying international crime and
terrorism, I have concluded this: You cannot remain an ideologue--
religious or secular--while behaving like and coordinating with
criminals.
Saddam's reign was a criminal dictatorship. There was no ideology but
the one that made Saddam more powerful, that enriched his clan and
cronies, that crushed all of his real or perceived opponents. When his
sons, Uday and Qusay, were cornered and killed, they were not part of a
well-organized resistance, protected by a dedicated network of
ideologically motivated supporters. They were alone, and they were
cornered and killed, like common gangsters, because an Iraqi dropped a
dime on them.
By joining with the Saddamites, bin Laden and his fellow jihadists
have exposed themselves to be gangsters. They are demonstrating this to
all who wish to see: To the masses in the Middle East who bin Laden has
tried to convert, they can now see him hand-in-hand with the corrupt
butchers and jailors of Saddam's Tikriti clique, who the Iraqi people
have roundly rejected and now publicly detest. Bin Laden and his
supporters can now be seen allying with those who deny the Iraqis
freedom.
Yes, the situation in Iraq is dangerous now, for the short term. But
the defeat of the Saddamite-led resistance--which we will accomplish,
and which we will accomplish with the active support of the Iraqi
people--will provide a great victory in the war on terrorism, will
bring peace to Iraq, will advance peace and stability in the region and
will enhance the national security of this country.
Some of the Iraqi voices calling for our departure are not anti-
American. Some Iraqis fear that we will overstay, that we will not move
fast enough in transferring power and political legitimacy to the Iraqi
people. I believe Ambassador Bremer's seven-point plan to move toward
full sovereignty is sound and sensible. I am watching with great
interest as the Iraqis begin to draft the constitution that will
delineate their system of government, with all the protections of the
freedoms they have been granted by coalition action and sacrifice.
I wish I could predict the future and declare here how long it will
take for us to succeed. We can't give a finite number on costs, nor
give a definite date of conclusion. To do so is to fall into one of the
most partisan traps in Washington: If we can not say how much it will
ultimately cost and we can not say when we will have achieved our
goals, we are accused of having no plans; if we do, we will inevitably
be wrong and the opposition naysayers will scream ``gotcha.''
Many state that the cost is high. I agree. America's ventures abroad
have always been costly, never more so than when we pay in the lives of
our men and women. The dollar figures pale in comparison.
I am not happy that we are faced with such a financial requirement
today. Certainly many of our constituents are concerned about such a
commitment when they worry about the national economy and the economies
of their families.
But the budget proposed is not arbitrarily chosen. It is based on
providing necessary resources that must be allocated to achieve the
goals that the President outlined: to deny terrorists a new sanctuary
by creating a secure and stable Iraq, by providing a minimal level of
essential services and civic infrastructure which will enhance the
stability we need to transfer sovereignty to the Iraqi people.
Over the past weeks, since the President first announced his request,
the Senate Appropriations, Armed Services, Foreign Relations,
Intelligence, and Joint Economic Committees have held numerous
hearings. We have had reports from the Office of Management and Budget,
from the White House, Pentagon, State Department, and Coalition
Provisional Authority. Numerous witnesses from the administration have
briefed both bodies of Congress.
The President's plan is broken into four parts, or core foundations:
security; essential services; economy; and governance. As Ambassador
Bremer, the Administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority,
stated, ``These are intertwined: none can be pursued in isolation.
Political and economic progress depends, in part, on security, but
should itself help to create a safer environment.''
That is how I view the President's request. If we wish to protect our
troops, the Iraq people must believe that our forces are there to
improve their lives and that cooperation instead of confrontation is
the road to a better future. The Iraqis are responding: More and more
are working, and thousands are working with us.
To gain intelligence on the location of terrorists in Iraq, the local
population must believe that we have their true interests at heart and
not the terrorists. These goals cannot be achieved by funding just our
military operations. We must assist the Iraqi people in developing an
infrastructure that was allowed to fall into disrepair by a greedy
tyrant.
During this debate, some have made a valid point in suggesting that
Iraq's vast oil resources might be used for reconstruction costs. I
have opposed all the amendments that have attempted to convert our
grants to loans, however, and I have done so for the following reasons
I will now outline.
First, Iraqi oil output while still low, is already being used by the
Iraqi people to fund the resumption of their government costs.
Second, Iraq is weighed down by a staggering debt for a small country
whose economy has been ravaged by years of Saddam's thievery and
neglect. Paying this debt is something that the future Iraqi sovereign
will have to negotiate. Certainly no U.S. funds should be used for such
repayment. And it is my opinion that the future Iraqi sovereign should
not be beholden to the debts incurred by its former torturer, nor the
nation states who cynically loaned to the dictatorship of Saddam
Hussein. For the moment, however, incurring further debt while
attempting to reconstruct a country without a basic economic foundation
could seriously stifle necessary economic recovery. Any delay in
rebuilding the economy only improves the chances of terrorists of
taking root among the local population.
But I have a more basic reason for opposing all attempts to turn our
grants into loans. This would be a radical departure in the conduct of
American foreign policy. For the first time in our history, we would be
occupying a country and forcing them to incur loans. Far more than a
meager attempt to preserve financial capital with such misguided
proposals, we would be seriously risking our moral capital.
I note to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that, despite the
recriminations and accusations, this administration has done its best
to work within the context of international law. I believe that we have
been successful in respecting international law, while preserving our
sovereign right to defend our national interests. I commend the
administration for its successes here, from debates about preemption
which has been hotly disputed but not discredited, under terms of
international law to the herculean efforts going on to

[[Page S12724]]

this day, as our State Department works to craft resolutions that will
build international support for our policies in the Security Council.
I believe that if the United States sets the precedent of occupying a
country and then foisting debt upon them, we will have done our
standing before the rest of the world long-term harm.
Soon enough, because of their oil resources, because of their human
capital, and because of the assistance they will get from us and the
rest of the international community, the Iraqi people will begin the
process of paying for portions of the reconstruction themselves. This
will become increasingly true as their oil infrastructure is repaired.
I believe that President Bush's proposal supports the long-term
interests of the United States by addressing the short-term interests
of the Iraqi people. By assisting the Iraqi people in developing these
four core foundations identified in the President's plan, I believe we
are undermining the Saddamite resistance, denying terrorists a
sanctuary, and advancing our long-term security.
We have faced this challenge of winning a peace before. We won the
First World War, and returned to isolationism while a fragile peace
failed to take root in Europe. We won the Second World War, and stayed
in Europe, making massive commitments which laid the foundation for
winning the peace and the cold war that continued for nearly 50 years.
We must follow through on what we have begun, and we cannot delay.
While the sums we are appropriating here are large, the costs of
failing to succeed are larger. While the bill may seem big, we have
already paid in measure far greater. Today I am thinking of: SSG James
W. Cawley, U.S. Marine Corps Reserve; SSG Nino D. Livaudais of the
Army's Ranger Regiment; SFC Randall S. Rehn, of the Army's 3rd Infantry
Division; SGT Mason Whetstone, of the U.S. Army; and Brett Thorpe--a
former Army special forces operator working with the State Department.
I understand if these names may be unfamiliar to others. They are not
to me. These are the names of the sons of Utah that died defending us
during this these operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. They followed
through on their commitments. There job is done now. It is our turn to
follow through.
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of
Senator Cantwell's Truth in Deployment amendment. This amendment
supports our reserve forces and corrects an error in our deployment
process.
I am extremely proud of our reserve forces. The Arkansas Army
National Guard's 39th Infantry Brigade is beginning their mobilization
in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The 39th Infantry Brigade
consists of over 3,000 soldiers who are ready to serve their country.
The 39th Infantry Brigade soldiers are going to sacrifice time away
from their family, place their civilian careers on hold, and place at
risk the greatest gift provided by our Creator, their very life, to
protect the freedoms and liberties we hold so dear.
If the 39th Infantry Brigade and other reserve forces are willing to
do so much without complaint, I believe it is not too much to ask that
we provide them as much opportunity as possible to minimize the impact
of overseas deployments on themselves, their families and their
employers. This amendment provides for this opportunity.
This amendment is straightforward. It starts the deployment period
for members of the reserve component as the date of activation. This
has always been the standard practice, prior to the administration's
shift in policy on September 9th. This amendment simply asks our Nation
to remain true to the standard practice, tradition of considering the
date of activation as the date of deployment for reserve members.
Nothing in this amendment weakens our ability to employ our reserve
forces. In fact the exact opposite is the case. This amendment enhances
the ability and effectiveness of our reserve forces by enabling them to
plan their lives to reduce the inherent adverse impact of overseas
deployment on their families, employers, and community. I thank my
fellow Senators for supporting this amendment. It will enhance the
ability and effectiveness of our reserve forces and support the men and
women like those who serve in the 39th Infantry Brigade.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, yesterday the Senate considered
amendment No. 1811 offered by Senator Corzine to lower the age at which
members of the Reserve components can collect retirement pay from age
60 go age 55. This amendment had no offset and would have created a
huge bill for the Department of Defense which we cannot afford to pay.
For this reason, the floor manager of the bill raised a budget point of
order against the amendment and I voted to uphold this point of order.
I believe the Congress should carefully review pay and benefits for
members of the Reserve components, including lowering the age at which
reservists and guardsmen can receive retirement pay. These men and
women provide an invaluable service to our Nation and we should provide
them pay and benefits which recognize their contributions and help
retain them as citizen soldiers in the U.S. Armed Forces. However, I
believe there are several options we should consider for lowering the
retirement age, and that we should consider this issue alongside other
benefits in order to offer a complete package that makes sense and
accomplishes the goals we are trying to achieve. The Iraqi supplemental
is not the right context to undertake a careful review or make long-
term changes in this area, and for this reason I opposed the amendment.
As cochair of the Senate Reserve Caucus, these are issues that I take
very seriously. I will continue to work with my colleagues in that
caucus and in the Senate to ensure that we make wise financial
decisions, and that our guardsmen and reservists receive the pay and
benefits they deserve while recognizing their unique contribution to
our Nation.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to report on the
budgetary effect of S. 1689, the Emergency Supplemental for Iraq and
Afghanistan Security and Reconstruction for Fiscal Year 2004, as
reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations.
The pending bill provides $87 billion in budget authority and $36.7
billion in outlays for Fiscal Year 2004 for ongoing operations in Iraq
and Afghanistan and reconstruction of Iraq. Since all funds contained
in the reported bill are either emergencies or contingent emergencies,
under section 502(c) of the 2004 budget resolution none of these funds
count for purposes of section 302, 303, 311, and 401 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and sections 504 and 505 of the 2004
Budget Resolution.
Additionally, I would like to remind my colleagues of the criteria
for using the emergency designation. Section 502 of the 2004 budget
resolution identifies the following criteria for the appropriate use of
the emergency designation: that the funding is (1) necessary,
essential, or vital, not merely useful or beneficial; (2) sudden,
quickly coming into being, and not building up over time; (3) an
urgent, pressing, and compelling need requiring immediate action; (4)
unforseen, unpredictable, and unanticipated; and (5) not permanent,
temporary in nature.
The reported bill has satisfied these criteria. Given the fact that
most of the regular appropriation bills have not yet been enacted, we
ought to view any further use of the emergency designation with great
skepticism.
I also note for my colleagues that we are in a highly unusual
parliamentary situation with this supplemental. Instead of doing a 2004
supplemental after all regular appropriation bills have been enacted,
we are considering an $87 billion supplemental before most of the
regular bills have been enacted. While there is an allocation for each
of the 13 regular bills, there is no additional or special allocation
for a supplemental. Because this is such an unusual situation, I do not
want people to think that the way the Senate deals with possible
amendments on this bill sets a precedent for the way the Budget
Committee will enforce the 302(b) allocations in the future.
If any amendments are adopted adding nonemergency spending to this
bill, then members should know that the cost of such amendments will be
counted against the appropriate subcommittee allocation. And I will
remind the Senate at the appropriate time about any points of order
that apply to subsequent bills and will insist that bills be changed to
remedy

[[Page S12725]]

the situation or will raise the appropriate point of order.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the
Budget Committee scoring of the bill be printed in the Record at the
conclusion of my remarks.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

S. 1689--EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL FOR IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN
[Fiscal Year 2004, $ millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary
spending
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emergencies in S. 1689, as reported: *
Budget authority.....................................        87,004
Outlays..............................................        36,695
Non-Emergencies in S. 1689, as reported:
Budget authority.....................................             0
Outlays..............................................             0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Section 502(c) of H. Con. Res. 95, the Concurrent Resolution on the
Budget for FY 2004, states that any provision designated as an
emergency requirement by both Congress and the President shall not
count for purposes of sections 302, 303, 311, and 401 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and section 504 (relating to
discretionary spending limits in the Senate) and section 505 (paygo
point of order) of H. Con. Res. 95.

____________________