Evan Bayh

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I rise today to tell you about the extraordinary young Hoosiers I recently had the privilege to meet. Last month, I hosted my first annual Service Leaders Summit to honor high school students from across Indiana for their service and dedication to their communities and hopefully to inspire them to continue serving throughout their lives. The young men and women I met last month have answered the call to service. Some of them have helped build homes, some tutored and mentored younger students, and others have raised money for cancer research and to feed the hungry. Several of the young men and women started service clubs to address the problems in their schools and communities. Each one of the students I met spent hours making a difference in their hometowns and together they impacted the lives of thousands of Hoosiers. The student leaders heard from Hoosiers of all backgrounds who have chosen to dedicate their lives to serving others. The speakers focused on the different aspects that go into a successful service project: inspiration, organization, dedication, evaluation and reflection. Following the speeches, the students broke up into different groups and participated in service projects throughout Indianapolis. Some students distributed coats to children of needy families, while others planted trees in the rain, cleaned up a park and beautified a neighborhood. Through their work together, the leaders were able to experience the dramatic results of the power of service. Robert F. Kennedy once said that ``Some men see things as they are and say `Why?' I dream of things that never were and say, `Why not?''Sec. ' Each one of the young men and women have already asked themselves ``why not?'' and have worked to make positive changes in their communities. These students represent a new generation of promise with the potential to make a real difference across Indiana and the nation. I would like to thank each one of the following individuals for participating in the summit and for their service to their communities: Ruchika Agrawal, Brooke Allen, Santiago Alvarez, Ricky Anderson, Tracy Anderson, Mary Anderson-Clark, Todd William Ault, Audrey Ballinger, Katherine Ban Wyk, Brenda Banks, Meghan Beeman, Nicole Blauvelt, Stephanie Bobcek, Jared Michael Bond, Thomas Borders, Jason Born, Samantha Brown, Brittany Brumfield, Michael Brunsman, Jordan Bruse, Jeremy Burton, Danielle Cave, Brett Claxton, Erin Clifford, Heather Coffman, Sarah Copley, Donald Davenport, Adrienne Davis, Matthew J. Day, Emily DeCamp, Todd Dell'Aquila, Hallie Denstorff, Rachel Dickerson, Carrie L. Doherty, Megan Drudy, Bryan T. Engh, Kaylee Fagg, Patrick Fenning, Whitney Mariah Fish, Matthew Fosler, Josh Gilbert, Stephanie Giles, Laura Glasebrook, Emily Gordon, Ronald Derries Gordon, Nathan Daniel Graber, Philip Graves, Stephanie Grider, Leigh Gusky, Mathew Guiterrez, Angela Hagerman, Lauren Kathleen Hanger, Thomas Haynes, Keenan Hecht, Jason Heck, Rebecca Jean Helms, Breanna Herschelman, Marc Hertz, Lindsay Holliman, Rachel Howser, Kellen Hubert, Ana Maria Huffman, Jenny Jackaway, Jayne Jeffries, Adam Jochim, Kyle Keaffaber, James William Kepner, Sarah Kittle, Hannah Laughlin, Kevin Lavery, Claire Lawless, Natalie Leach, Devon Lee, Leah Danielle Lee, Jonathan Lough, Bethany Lynch, Amy Maple, Stephanie Marshall, Katelyn McCool, Nathan Alan McGuire, Jeanna McKinzie, Latisha McMichel, Megan Meyers, Jala Miller, Jessica Muehr, Suzanne Natz, Chenai Saaku Netty, Laura Nicholson, Amanda Niehaus, Colin Grant Northeatt, Kathleen M. O'Brien, Amanda Oldham, Sophia Percival, Cara Perry, Tyler Lee Phelps, Helen Pirrie, Emily Poe, Alex Pollock, Miranda Polston, Andrea Poppe, Frank Pottorff, Dustin William Potts, Joseph Andrew Powell, Kristin Pryor, LaTrea Reed, Alex Richardson, Bryan Rogers, Michael Joseph Root, Helanie Rosinko, Molli K. Schaeffer, Travis Schamber, Jennifer Schlatter, Jennifer Schoenle, Ryan Schroer, Jessica Schulert, James Scott, Ryne R. Shadday, Derek Shaul, Chad Sinclair, Anita Sivam, Christian Michael Smeltzer, Paul A. Smith, Ellen Eileen Sojka, Kala Spangle, Katie L. Strohm, Ashlie Sullivan, Brett Taylor, Laura Thurston, Kavya S. Vaidyanathan, Leigh A. Vanarsdall, Brittany Nicole Waddle, Melissa Wadley, Laura Wagner, Kathleen Waldrew, Jacquie Walker, Caitlin Walsh, Frank Walsh, Antonia Wang, Krista Warner, Andrew Wassel, Alison West, J.D. Willett, David Wood, Lili Xu, and Erin Youst.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session and the Finance Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1853, a bill to extend unemployment insurance benefits for displaced workers; that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; the bill be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, this is an unfortunate debate, and I regret that all of us are here this evening. This debate will do nothing to speed the confirmation of judges about which this session has been called to consider. It will do nothing for the economy, for health care, for education, to protect the environment, or to advance the interests of our Nation's security. It will, however, at least in small part, bring this august body, about which we care so much, to additional disrepute with the American people, making us look ineffectual and irrelevant. In some respects, the Senate is being reduced to something close to a farce. It is becoming rapidly not the world's greatest deliberative body but instead the world's greatest Kabuki theater, a place where speeches are given to which very few people listen, no minds are changed, and votes are then held with complete predictability of results. The search for principled compromise, which has always been a long and honorable part, distinguishing this body from other legislative bodies, has been abandoned in favor of sterile, ideological warfare, satisfying to only the most fervent of partisans. After this debate, I suspect that the far right will be satisfied, I suspect that the far left will be satisfied, and that the rest of the American people will be left scratching their heads, wondering, what on Earth are they doing? I am reminded of nothing quite so much as some lines from Shakespeare when he characterized another instance as: Great sound and fury that signifyeth nothing. That is tonight's debate: Sterile, empty, barren of results. This debate, unfortunately, is a microcosm of everything the American people have come to not like about both the Congress and Washington, DC, something that is all too often all process and partisanship, with no progress on matters of substance and importance to the American people. Too often the American people view Washington as totally self- absorbed, indifferent to their real concerns, and ineffectual in accomplishing much of value on the things that do matter in their daily lives: Health care, jobs, education for our children and grandchildren. We must stop this cycle of constant recrimination, a process in which the minority obstructs to gain power and then turns around and complains about obstruction once power has been obtained. It makes us all look bad. If hypocrisy had a monetary value, we could easily erase the Federal deficit because of debates such as the one we are engaged in tonight. What is this all about? What are the facts that the American people deserve to know? Is it true that judges are being obstructed solely because of their partisan affiliation? That obviously cannot be the case. One hundred and sixty-eight of President Bush's judicial nominees have been confirmed. I assume that all of them, if not almost all of them, are good card-carrying Republicans or he would not have nominated them. Obviously, there cannot be some stonewall to object to Republicans being appointed to the Federal judiciary. This simply is not the case. Are judges being rejected up to a point based solely upon ideological concerns? This also cannot possibly be the case. Of these 168 judges who have been confirmed, I assume that all, if not almost all, are in fact fairly conservative jurists, or hold out the prospect of being fairly conservative jurists. Otherwise, they would not have been nominated by this President. So up to a point, it is obvious that conservatives are not being denied their place upon the Federal judiciary. This is all about power, the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches and whether the advise and consent function should be abolished whenever the Senate is controlled by the party of the President. It is all about the balance of power between the minority and the majority caucuses in this Senate and whether the right to debate should be limited in the case of judicial nominees, unlike any other business taken up by this body. It is also about tipping the balance of power within the Federal judiciary and setting the stage for a Supreme Court vacancy to be filled by someone of even the most extreme ideological conviction and views. Is that possibly what the Constitution had in mind when it established the right of advise and consent in this Senate? Is that something for which we should abrogate the right to unlimited debate in this Senate, selecting judicial nominees in exclusion to all other topics in this regard? Of course it is not. We are ignoring the issues this evening that are of most importance to the balance of the American people. When I go home, I hear great talk about the economy and job losses. In the last 3 years, we in the State of Indiana have lost approximately one out of every six of our manufacturing jobs. One hundred fifty-nine thousand jobs, nonfarm jobs, have been lost during this period of time. That is what I hear people talking about. Small business men wonder how they are going to compete in the global economy today. Large business men and women wonder how they are going to make ends meet, particularly with the skyrocketing cost of health care. Many people ask how we are going to compete with China, India, and other countries that all too often seek to abuse the rules of international trade to seek unfair economic advantage. Those are the subjects we should be debating tonight. Those are the topics that are on the minds of Hoosiers to whom I talk. Very rarely am I asked about vacancies in the Federal judiciary. When I was returning from Indiana just last evening, one of the security guards, a gentleman who looked somewhat advanced in his years, called out to me as I was going through security, saying: Senator, what about the Medicare drug benefit? Is something going to get passed? I said: I hope so. He said: Well, it probably will not be structured the way it ought to be anyway. I said: Well, I hope not. We are going to go back and see if we cannot hammer out a reasonable compromise. I see some of my colleagues, including Senator Grassley, who are laboring mightily toward that very end, and I salute him for that. That is what we should be debating tonight, how to reconcile our differences on providing drug coverage to senior citizens who are asking about it; how to make health care available to the American people in a way that is accessible and affordable. That is what is on the minds of Hoosiers to whom I talk. That is what we should be debating this evening in this body. What about our education standards and what about providing our children and grandchildren with access to quality affordable education? When I think about the economy of the future, more than anything else it is going to require advanced levels of education, skill, and know-how. We are going to prepare my young sons and the rest of our children and grandchildren to have a better standard of living in a prosperous economy. It is going to be based not upon how strong they are but upon how knowledgeable they are, how well trained they are, how skilled they are. That is going to enable us to build a better economy. We are not debating that tonight. At no point, in my recollection, have we set aside 30 hours to debate quality health care. At no point, in my recollection, have we set aside 30 hours to debate the economy or what we are going to do to create quality jobs. At no point, in my experience in the Senate, have we set aside 30 hours to talk about what we can do to debate quality education in the way we are setting aside these 30 uninterrupted hours in the wee hours of the morning. This is a clear example of misplaced priorities. I hope this Senate will extricate itself from the morass into which we have sunk and begin to rehabilitate ourselves in the eyes of our countrymen and women. I hope we can once again begin to address the great issues that are of concern to the American people, that press all around us--what our country can do to be more prosperous, more just and more free. Above all, I hope that we as Senators can remember why we are here, and that is not to wage war upon one another but instead to once again renew the struggle against the ancient enemies of man: Ignorance, poverty, disease. That is why we are here, not sterile ideological debates. I hope we can learn from this experience so that we will not have to repeat it. I hope we can focus on making progress, not dividing this body over the country. This aisle that separates the chairs, Republicans on one side and Democrats upon the other, gives us the opportunity to build bridges of reconciliation and understanding, forging principled compromise which has always been the hallmark of this institution. We have strayed from this heritage for too long. It is a tradition to which we must return if we are to once again recapture the confidence of the American people. The final thing I will say is that we had an election in Indiana for our mayors this last Tuesday, a week ago yesterday. Something on the order of 20 percent of the people of my State turned out to vote for our mayors. When I had the privilege of being elected to this body in 1998, about 36 percent of the eligible voters in my State took the time to go to the polls. That is barely one out of three. In the closest Presidential election in the history of our country 2 years ago, decided finally by the Supreme Court, barely half of the American people felt connected enough to their institutions of self-governance to take even the most elementary step of citizenship--going to the polls to register their preference. What has happened to our democracy? What has happened when 20 percent or 36 percent or a bare majority feel invested enough in the cause of shaping their own destiny to take the time to participate in our elections? If we are going to renew our democracy, if we are going to lead this country to meet the great challenges of our time, if there is one thing I am absolutely certain, it is that it will take all of us, each and every one of us from every ethnic group, racial group, gender, and walk of life. Too many people have become disillusioned. Too many cynical, too many skeptical whether this body and their government can make a difference anymore. Events such as this debate tonight do not help. We need to get back to the business at hand, putting before the American people an agenda of hope and opportunity so we can once again reenlist them in the cause of making this the greatest democracy known to man. That, at the end of the day, is what has brought us here. I suggest that is the business to which we must once again return. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I rise today with a heavy heart and deep sense of gratitude to honor the live of a brave young man from Fort Wayne, IN. Specialist Brian H. Penisten, 28 years old, died in Al Fallujah on November 2, 2003, after the Chinook helicopter he was traveling in made a crash landing. Brian joined the Army with his entire life before him. He chose to risk everything to fight for the values Americans hold close to our hearts, in a land halfway around the world. Brian was the seventeenth Hoosier soldier to be killed while serving his country in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Brian leaves behind his father, John Penisten, his mother, Mona, his fiancee, Johnna Loia, and his son, Trevor. Today, I join Brian's family, his friends, and the entire Fort Wayne community in mourning his death. While we struggle to bear our sorrow over his death, we can also take pride in the example he set, bravely fighting to make the world a safer place. It is this courage and strength of character that people will remember when they think of Brian, a memory that will burn brightly during these continuing days of conflict and grief. Before leaving to fight in Iraq, Brian Penisten told his mother that he was proud to be an American. Today, his family members him as a true American hero, and we honor the sacrifice he made while serving his country. Brian was born on March 30, 1975. He graduated from Bishop Dwenger High School, where he was a member of the wrestling team and was undefeated through the semi-State Championship in 1993. Friends and family members remember Brian for the inner drive he demonstrated in always challenging himself to be his best at whatever task lay at hand. After joining the Army, Brian left home to begin full-time duty at Fort Carson in Colorado. He was assigned to the 3rd Air Defense Artillery, 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment. As I search for words to do justice in honoring Brian's sacrifice, I am reminded of President Lincoln's remarks as he addressed the families of the fallen soldiers in Gettysburg: ``We cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here.'' This statement is just as true today as it was nearly 150 years ago, as I am certain that the impact of Brian's actions will live on far longer than any record of these words. It is my sad duty to enter the name of Brian H. Penisten in the official record of the United States Senate for his service to this country and for his profound commitment to freedom, democracy and peace. When I think about this just cause in which we are engaged, and the unfortunate pain that comes with the loss of our heroes, I hope that families such as Brian's can find comfort in the words of the prophet Isaiah who said, ``He will swallow up death in victory; and the Lord God will wipe away tears from off all faces.'' May God grant strength and peace to those who mourn, and may God bless the United States of America.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer a few remarks on behalf of myself and also the distinguished Senator from Oregon with regard to the brouhaha that has broken out over the Intelligence Committee and our inquiry into the possible existence of weapons of mass destruction and the use of intelligence information by this administration. In many ways, it is an unfortunate debate because if there is one thing that should absolutely be above and beyond partisanship, it is the Intelligence Committee, our intelligence services, and the use to which that information is put. We need to dedicate ourselves not to scoring political points but, instead, to protecting the national interest. When we have Members' motives cast in a bad light and heated rhetoric used, it does not serve that purpose in any way whatsoever. Senator Rockefeller, the ranking member on the Intelligence Committee, has been doing a very admirable job. It is my strong impression that he has been pursuing his responsibilities in a bipartisan way, trying to get at the truth in a way that is consistent with the finest traditions of the Intelligence Committee. I have never seen the report that has been alluded to. I understand it was simply a listing of possible options. And I can guarantee you that Senator Rockefeller has been under intense pressure by some others to pursue a much more partisan line of inquiry and to be much more confrontational. Instead, he has chosen to try to pursue the cooperative path first. I compliment him for that because it is exactly the course that needs to be pursued on the Intelligence Committee and in this body. Most importantly, we need to get beyond this current controversy. I happen to think those who are watching this debate out beyond the beltway are scratching their heads and saying: There they go again. What on Earth are they doing? We have gone to war at least in part because of the possible existence of weapons of mass destruction in the nation of Iraq. Our credibility is at stake. We need to get to the bottom of this and understand, if they do exist, what we can do to root them out and, if they do not exist, why we were led to believe they do exist. This is important to ensuring the national security interests of our country. We also need to get to the bottom of allegations about the possible manipulation or misuse of intelligence in the runup to the war--not for the purpose of scapegoating or witch hunting but for the purposes of ensuring that in fact it never takes place. Those in the majority shouldn't stonewall or circle the wagons, and those on our side of the aisle shouldn't engage in finger pointing and trying to score political points in a runup to a Presidential election next year. We need an objective, dispassionate search for the truth. That is what the American people deserve. It is my understanding that is what Senator Rockefeller is pursuing. Finally, the British have some experience in this area. They have just recently gone through an inquiry of their own over what was allegedly the ``dodgy dossier.'' I think that is how it is referred to in British circles. The Prime Minister even had to offer evidence under oath as part of that inquiry. No one is suggesting anything so intrusive on our side of the aisle. On the contrary, we would like to pursue this in a cooperative, nonpartisan manner to get at the truth, to determine whether weapons of mass destruction existed and, if not, why we were led to believe they did, and always to fairly and dispassionately analyze how information from the intelligence world was used in making the case to pursue the ouster of Saddam Hussein. That is in the national security interests of our country. I salute Senator Rockefeller for taking the appropriate course. I hope this debate will calm down and refocus on the business at hand, which is protecting the national security of our country, rather than engaging in heated, partisan rhetoric which we have way too much of around this town and in this Chamber. Those are my thoughts. I again compliment Senator Rockefeller, and I look forward to working with Members on both sides of the aisle to bring about that kind of inquiry. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the life of my fellow Hoosier, Congressman Frank McCloskey, who lost his battle with cancer on Sunday, November 2. Congressman McCloskey dedicated his life to serving his country and our home State of Indiana, setting an example of personal conviction and political courage throughout his years as a public servant. Francis Xavier McCloskey was born on June 12, 1939 in Philadelphia. He earned both his undergraduate and law degrees at Indiana University in Bloomington, where he would later serve as mayor for three terms, following 4 years in the Air Force and a brief career as a newspaper reporter. During his time as mayor, McCloskey transformed Bloomington politics with his new style of leadership. He initiated a transit service and the first direct passageway through the center of Bloomington, and oversaw the formation of city boards and commissions dedicated to the environment, women and human rights. In 1982, McCloskey was elected to the U.S. Congress from Indiana's 8th district. In a district known across the Nation for its tumultuous and closely contested races, McCloskey held his seat to serve as Congressman for six terms. During his time in office, Frank McCloskey became one of the first public servants to travel overseas and witness first hand the atrocities taking place in Bosnia. A man of great compassion and conviction, Frank McCloskey focused his career on ending the ethnic cleansing taking place in Bosnia during the 1990s. His dedication to the cause continued even after he left public office, until cancer forced him to cancel his plans to return to Bosnia and continue democratic reforms there. The sense of loss to all those who knew Congressman Frank McCloskey is tremendous. His work in Bloomington and later in Washington inspired a generation of Hoosiers to answer the call to public service. Many of Indian's current political leaders owe their start to the example set by McCloskey, and their continued works will serve as a lasting legacy to a man who dedicated his life to serving others. He is survived by his wife, Roberta Ann Barker, and their two children, Helen and Mark. It is my honor to enter the name of Congressman Frank McCloskey into the Congressional Record.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. I will yield a minute and a half to my distinguished colleague from Maryland.

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.

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

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.

Mr. BAYH. I am pleased to yield time to the distinguished Senator from Maine.

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. BAYH. Mr. President, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. BAYH. I ask my colleague: The Senator from Michigan has been waiting quite some time.

Mr. BAYH. I yield 8 minutes to the Senator from Michigan.

Mr. BAYH. If the Senator from Montana would like to follow the Senator from Michigan, I have no problem.

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 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.

Mr. BAYH. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Nevada.

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.

Mr. BAYH. Yes.

Mr. BAYH. That is correct.