Byron Dorgan

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. I don't know whether the Senator from Mississippi intends to speak or has speakers at this point. If he does not intend to speak, I will make some additional comments. If he does, I certainly will yield the floor to him.

Mr. DORGAN. I was inquiring; I will yield the floor to the Senator from Mississippi if he is intending to speak.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Mississippi. I am well aware it is my amendment, of course. Normally in the debate on amendments, we try to go back and forth to be fair. I was simply inquiring whether he intended to speak. He apparently will speak at another time. I will make a couple of additional comments. We have some other Senators who are coming to the floor to comment as well. Let me describe in more detail the comments by the Vice President because my colleague indicates the administration is very much opposed to this. The administration has not been opposed to it in the past. In fact, they represented to the American people that Iraq oil shall be used to reconstruct Iraq, so apparently it is a changed position. Let me describe in more detail the comments of the Vice President on ``Meet The Press.'' This occurred in March of this year. Quoting Tim Russert, he says: Every analysis said this war itself would cost about $80 billion, recovery of Baghdad, perhaps of Iraq, about $10 billion per year. We should expect as American citizens that this would cost at least $100 billion for a two-year involvement. Vice President Cheney: I can't say that, Tim. There are estimates out there. It's important, though, to recognize that we've got a different set of circumstances than we've had in Afghanistan. In Afghanistan you've got a nation without significant resources. 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 three million barrels of oil a day, in the relatively near future. And that flow of resources, obviously, belongs to the Iraqi people, needs to be put to use by the Iraqi people for the Iraqi people and that will be one of our major objectives. That is the Vice President. Ambassador Bremer said in the last 2 weeks they will be producing 3 billion barrels a day in July. That is what he testified before the Appropriations Committee. If that in fact is the case, apparently there has been a change of mind here in the administration about whether Iraq oil should be used for Iraq reconstruction. It was alleged by Secretary Wolfowitz it should be, it was alleged by Secretary Rumsfeld it should be, by the Vice President it should be and would be. Now, apparently, they have changed their mind. Second Rumsfeld also said to me in testimony: What that country is suffering from [speaking of Iraq] is 30 years of a Stalinist-type economy and starvation of the infrastructure of the needed investments. That is not the obligation of the United States of America to repair. So the 20-plus-billion-dollars request we have for reconstruction of Iraq includes the replacement and the rehabilitation of power distribution networks that were in a highly deteriorated condition before the war, $50 million to restore marshland water projects, $125 million to restore railroad tracks that suffered from severe neglect. Locomotives and railcars were in a deplorable state; backup generators were inoperative due to lack of maintenance and spare parts. But more Members of the House of Representatives of the majority party saw fit to eliminate some of them--$9 million to study a ZIP Code for the Iraq Government or for the country of Iraq; $50,000 apiece for garbage trucks, $150 million for a children's hospital, and the list goes on and on. Clearly, some of it is not urgent. Some of it is not an emergency. In my judgment, it ought to be paid for with Iraqi oil. That was what was promised and alleged by the Vice President, by the Secretary of Defense, and the Assistant Secretary of Defense. We are told by the President and others as well--the Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense--the question is, What will strengthen the Iraq economy? That is an important question. I believe reconstruction will strengthen the Iraq economy. I believe that ought to be done and paid for with Iraq oil. But a more important question is, What will strengthen the U.S. economy? We are borrowing $20 billion. Will borrowing $20 billion and sending it to Iraq so Iraq can pump oil and send cash to the Saudis and Kuwaitis strengthen the United States economy? Absolutely not. That is why I offer this amendment. This amendment failed in the Appropriations Committee by a vote of 15 to 14. I don't diminish the arguments of those who oppose it, but, frankly, I think they are wrong. I believe this was represented by the administration to be the right course. I now offer it as an amendment and will hope when we have a vote at 6:30 it will prevail. I yield the floor and I make a point of order a quorum is not present.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am waiting for a couple of speakers whose offices have told me they are on the way. It is my understanding from the Senator from Mississippi that he or others will be speaking as well. I will put us in quorum call. I ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be charged equally against both sides.

Mr. DORGAN. Yes. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DORGAN. I yield 8 minutes to the Senator from New York.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, is my amendment now pending?

Mr. DORGAN. I yield myself such time as I may consume. We also have other speakers on this amendment. Mr. President, I have spoken about this amendment on previous occasions. The amendment directs the Coalition Provisional Authority, in cooperation with the Governing Council of Iraq, to create an Iraq Reconstruction Finance Authority. The purpose of the Iraq Reconstruction Finance Authority shall be to securitize future production of Iraqi oil, in order to finance the reconstruction of Iraq. In short, this amendment says that the reconstruction of Iraq should involve the Iraqi people, using Iraqi oil to reconstruct their country and that it should not be the American taxpayers reconstructing Iraq. This morning's Washington Post says that the Secretary of State is at the United Nations, attempting to get a resolution passed that would confer on the Iraqi Governing Council and its Ministers the sovereignty over the state of Iraq. Surely, if this administration is ready to recognize the Iraqi Governing Council as the sovereign of the state of Iraq, that body should have the ability to use future revenues from the sale of Iraqi oil, to reconstruct their own country. The fact is that, for months, this administration told us that Iraq's oil would allow the Iraqi people to finance their own reconstruction. Mr. Fleischer, the White House press secretary, said this in February: Iraq, unlike Afghanistan, is a rather wealthy country. They have tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi people and so therefore a variety of means that Iraq has to be able to shoulder much of the burden for their own reconstruction. Mr. Fleischer was followed by Mr. Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of State. He said that the oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 billion and $100 billion over the course of the next 2 or 3 years and that we are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon. The Defense Secretary himself, Donald Rumsfeld, in March, said: I don't believe the U.S. has the responsibility for reconstruction, in a sense . . . and the funds can come from those various sources I mentioned: frozen assets, oil revenues, and a variety of other things. Well, that is at odds with the current request by the President to the Congress, saying we need to have $20-plus-billion for the reconstruction. The Deputy Secretary of State said oil revenue could do that. The Secretary of Defense said that oil revenue would be available for that. And then Vice President Cheney, on March 16, said: In Iraq, you've got a nation that has the second largest reserves of oil in the world--second only to Saudi Arabia. It will generate billions of dollars a year in cash flow in the relatively near future. And that flow resources, which obviously belongs to the Iraqi people, needs to be put to use by the Iraqi people for the Iraqi people, and that will be one of the major objectives. Then, the person at the State Department who is responsible for reconstruction, Mr. Natsios, had the following exchange on ``Nightline'' with Ted Koppel. Koppel said: I understand that more money is expected to be spent on that than was spent on the entire Marshall plan for the rebuilding of Europe after the World War II. Natsios said: No, no, that doesn't even compare remotely with the size of the Marshall plan. Koppel: The Marshall plan was $97 billion. Natsios: This is $1.7 billion. Talking about the reconstruction plan for Iraq. The program continued. Koppel said: When you talk about 1.7, you are not suggesting that the rebuilding of Iraq is going to be done for $1.7 billion. Natsios: Well, in terms of the American taxpayers' contribution, I do. This is it for the U.S. The rest of the rebuilding will be done by other countries who have already made the pledges, and by Iraqi oil revenues. Will you excuse a few of us for believing the Vice President, the Secretary of Defense, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, and others, who repeatedly said this year that the American taxpayers won't be on the hook for the reconstruction of Iraq? Will you excuse us for believing we could use Iraq oil for this purpose? That is what they said would happen. Now the administration says that is not the case at all and they want to use the American taxpayers' dollars to shoulder the burden for reconstruction of Iraq.

Mr. DORGAN. Let me make this one point. I asked Ambassador Bremer to explain whether it would be possible to securitize Iraq's future oil revenues to pay for Iraq's reconstruction. Ambassador Bremer's answer: You can't use Iraq oil because Iraq owes foreign debt. I said: Who to? He said: Russia, France, and Germany. Following that hearing, I checked. In fact, Russia, France, and Germany are indeed owed money by Saddam Hussein's regime. But the biggest creditors of Saddam Hussein's regime are Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Wouldn't it be a perversity if, in fact, the American taxpayers are told that they have to pay taxes to ship $20 billion to Iraq to reconstruct Iraq--so Iraq can pump oil and send cash to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait in satisfaction of Saddam Hussein's debts? You talk about a perversity of public policy. That is it. My amendment is painfully simple. It says that the Iraqi Governing Council shall have a mechanism that would allow it to use Iraqi oil to reconstruct Iraq. One final point. During the recent military campaign in Iraq, we did not target Iraq's infrastructure. We didn't bomb its roads, bridges, dams, or electric grid. Now, Iraq does need reconstruction, no question about that, but the reconstruction is necessary because of decades of neglect. It is not because of any action by our military. And the fact is that the Iraqi people have a tremendous resource to finance that reconstruction, which they could and should use. So the President ought not be so quick to ask for $20 billion from the American taxpayers for reconstruction, when his Vice President, the Secretary of Defense, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, and all the rest of them said this year that the reconstruction of Iraq would be financed with Iraqi oil. Now we are told it cannot be done and won't be done. I say with this amendment that it can be done and should be done.

Mr. DORGAN. I am happy to yield to my colleague.

Mr. DORGAN. No. In fact, quite the contrary. Ambassador Bremer testified that by July of next year, they will be pulling 3 million barrels a day out of the sands of Iraq. There is liquid gold under those sands. Three million barrels a day by next July will net them $16 billion a year in net export revenue from oil--$16 billion a year. That is $160 billion in 10 years. They can easily securitize a small fraction of that to fund all of the reconstruction that is necessary in Iraq. It can easily be done if there is a will to do it. But they will not do it if the President says: Let's have the American taxpayers do it.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. DORGAN. My hope had been the normal courtesy of the Senate to have the offeror of the amendment close debate. That may not be possible because of the strategy of the quorum call here, so I don't know what the intention of the Senator from Mississippi is. In most cases, those who offer the amendment are allowed to close debate. I hoped to do that for 5 minutes. If I am prevented from doing that, we will deal with that at a later time. But in the remaining time, I wish to make one point. The Senator from Mississippi says he didn't hear any witnesses describe this approach to reconstruction. You know why they didn't hear any witnesses? Because Senator Byrd asked again and again to bring witnesses before the committee and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle decided they would not allow it to happen. They would not allow other witnesses to come before the committee. So it is curious now to hear people complain about not hearing other witnesses when they, in fact, prevented them from testifying before the committee. I yield the floor, and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, can you tell me how much time is remaining?

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the legislation pending before the Senate is the emergency supplemental bill dealing with Iraq; and that has to do with security: security for our troops, security in Iraq. But there are other issues of security that affect us in our country: issues of security that deal with protecting our homeland. We provide critically needed funds to try to prevent another terrorist attack on our soil. So I was surprised, as I was traveling the other day, to hear the President talk about using Homeland Security assets to track down Americans who are traveling in Cuba illegally and punishing those Americans. As you know, it is currently illegal for Americans to travel in Cuba, except by a license given by the U.S. Treasury Department. The fact is, though, that there are many Americans who do go to Cuba. Many go because they think it is their right as Americans to travel freely, and in many cases, they go because they are not aware that they are breaking any rules. I believe the travel ban unfairly punishes American citizens. In an attempt to take a slap at Fidel Castro, it ends up restricting the right of American people to travel. Many of us here think that makes no sense at all. When I heard the President describe his interest in having Homeland Security people track down American tourists traveling in Cuba, I thought I would come to the floor of the Senate, and talk about a grandmother named Joan Slote. As you can see from this picture, Joan is in her mid 70s. She is a Senior Olympian. She is a bicyclist. She bicycles all over the world. She is in her mid 70s. And she joined a bicycle tour of Cuba, with a cycling club from Canada. They bicycled in the country of Cuba for, I believe, 8 or 9 days. Joan Slote came back to this country from Cuba, and later on she was off to Europe where she was on a bicycle tour. While she was in Europe, she learned her son had brain cancer, and she rushed back to the United States, and just stopped at her home for a minute, and then rushed down to be with her son and attended to her son, who later died of brain cancer. When she finally came back to her home, apparently there was a letter waiting for some long while from the U.S. Treasury Department that said: Oh, by the way, you traveled to Cuba with a bicycle club from Canada, and that was illegal, and so we are administering a $7,630 fine. So Joan Slote, this mid 70s grandmother--no threat to this country for sure--is one of those Americans who is now being punished by the U.S. Government for travel in Cuba. Now, we have folks down at the Department of the Treasury in an organization called the Office of Foreign Assets Control, or OFAC for short--and that is the organization that is charged with tracking money to terrorist groups to protect our country. But instead of focusing on that critically important mission, OFAC officials are tracking retired grandmothers who are riding a bicycle in Cuba and try to slap them with a big fine. And now the President says: Oh, by the way, I would like to get more involved here. I want the Homeland Security Department tracking these people who are traveling to Cuba. I thought our interest here in the Senate was to fund a Homeland Security agency to protect our country against the threats of terrorists, not to chase little old grandmothers who take a bicycle trip to Cuba. Incidentally, OFAC finally negotiated with a $2,000 fine for Joan Slote. After I intervened, they said: All right, the $7,600 fine we will reduce to $2,000. So she sent them the money. But do you know what they did then? They sent a collection agency after her and told her they were going to begin to garnish her Social Security payments. Why? I do not have the foggiest idea. I guess it is just a bureaucratic mess. But I was just thinking as I was driving down the road the other day, hearing President Bush say we have to get tough on Cuba, we are going to take Homeland Security people to go chase American tourists in Cuba. The interesting thing is, Americans can travel virtually everywhere. You can travel to Communist China. Yes, that is a communist country. You can travel to Vietnam. Yes, that is a communist country. But you cannot travel to Cuba. And we are going to use Homeland Security assets--people, time, money--to go track down little old ladies who are bicycling in Cuba? Are we really threatened by the poor guy who took the ashes of his dead father to Cuba, which was his father's last wish, to be sprinkled on the lawn by the church where he ministered in Cuba many years before? Yes, they tracked that fellow down for taking his dad's ashes to Cuba. They fined him $7500. It is story after story after story like this. And now the President wants people in Homeland Security tracking Americans to punish Americans for traveling in Cuba. What about homeland security? How about tracking terrorists? Let's track terrorists, not retired grandmothers who are riding bicycles. Marshall McLuhan once said: I don't always believe everything I say. I thought to myself, that must surely have been the case in the White House when the President announced we are going to take Homeland Security Agency resources and start tracking American citizens so we can slap big fines on them for traveling into Cuba. This is preposterous. What on Earth can the President be thinking? I have talked to Joan Slote. She is just one of many examples of ordinary U.S. citizens who meant absolutely no harm. I have talked to another retired grandmother from Wisconsin. She traveled to Cuba innocently and rode a bicycle as well. I have talked to many such folks. I held a hearing on this. I had people show up who described their travel to Cuba. They did not know it was illegal but--guess what--they have the Federal Government after them. In an attempt to slap Fidel Castro, we are punishing American people. We are restricting the right of the American people to travel. And now the President gets into the act, which, I assume is about Florida politics, and says, oh, by the way, I want to divert Homeland Security assets to see if we can't get tougher on people like Joan Slote. This issue involves wasted resources, that could and should be spent on real threats to our homeland security. Homeland security is about protecting this country from the threat of terrorists, not chasing senior citizens riding around on bicycles. That is where the homeland security assets ought to be employed. That is where the Department of the Treasury assets ought to be employed, protecting our country from the threat of terrorist attacks, not chasing Joan Slote. My hope is that perhaps they will have another meeting at the White House and rethink this and finally do the right thing, at least meet some basic test of common sense. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the privilege of the floor be granted to Dale Jones during the pendency of S. 1689.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Missouri if he would add my name as a cosponsor to the amendment.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the Bond-Mikulski amendment described by the Senator from Missouri makes a great deal of sense to me. It seems to me that keeping our promise to our veterans is also a part of national security and national defense. We have a very serious problem in the VA health care system. It is going to grow worse, not better, and we need to add these resources. As we know, the number of people who have been wounded in Iraq and are going to come back home and justifiably lay claim to the health care they were promised in our VA system, we must provide the funding for that. I think all of us in this Chamber have had the experience of visiting with veterans with respect to their experience in the VA health care system. They will tell us of seeing the posters of Uncle Sam pointing at them saying, Uncle Sam wants you, and on the bottom of the poster it said, free health care for life. Many of our veterans have experienced something substantially less than that when they come home from having served our country, and that is why I think it is very important for us to provide the funding that is needed in the VA health care system. I recall one day being at a town meeting and a man named Thor came up to me. He had served in the Air Corps in the Second World War, had fought for this country, had done all that his country had asked of him, many years ago. Now he was without much income, in his late seventies, and he was having all kinds of health problems, some of it related to his service in the Second World War. He was not able to get the help he needed. The day he came to the meeting I held, he told me he was having trouble with his teeth and could not eat. He had false teeth. His teeth did not fit. They were cutting his mouth and he could not get new teeth from the VA system. At age 75 or 80 years of age, having served in the Second World War, done for this country what this country asked him to do, now living in very low-income circumstances, he should not have to beg VA to get new teeth. That ought not be the way it happens. I happened to get him new teeth because I had a friend who was a dentist. He talked to some people who run a laboratory and he was able to get a new set of teeth. But we ought to take care of these needs more systematically. We ought to fund the VA health care system to provide for the needs of these veterans. It is a promise we have made and, in my judgment, a promise we ought to keep. So I am pleased to add my name as a cosponsor to the Bond-Mikulski amendment. Amendment No. 1826

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. DORGAN. I offer this amendment on behalf of myself and Senators Durbin and Landrieu. This amendment is identical to that which I offered in the Appropriations Committee, and which lost on a 15-to-14 vote. It is the identical language. So my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee, at least, will be acquainted with the provisions and the specific language of this amendment. My colleague spoke earlier today about the goals we share for Iraq-- our country's objectives in the Middle East and around the world. We all want the Iraqi people to have a better country and to be able to control their own destiny. We all want to foster a democracy in Iraq, in which the Iraqi people are free to make their own decisions, could build a model economy with a market system that works, one that provides an expansion of economic opportunity and jobs for the Iraqi people--all of us would aspire to have that happen. Some of my colleagues, however, have said this can only happen if you inevitably link the two pieces of the appropriations request sent to us by the President, the $87 billion which includes the amount of money for the defense needs, which is some $66 billion, and the $20-plus billion for the reconstruction of Iraq. They say it must remain a single piece of legislation, inextricably linked, that cannot in any way be taken apart because one part makes the other work. I suppose it is like a loose thread on a cheap suit. You pull the thread and the arm falls off, so you can't take any part of this and adjust it or change it. That is what we are told. I believe there are pieces of this legislation that can be changed, and I think changed for the better, in ways that will still accomplish the goals the President and we have for the country of Iraq, but that will also help the American taxpayer. At the outset, let me say that I believe that the portion of the request relating to our military is important and is urgent, and this Congress will enact it very quickly. I don't think America sends its sons and daughters to war and then decides it will not fund that which is necessary for them to carry out their mission. That would be unforgivable. We have a responsibility to do that, and we will do that. The second portion of this request, dealing with the reconstruction of Iraq, is a different story. I think there are a couple of aspects to remember about that. First, the infrastructure of the country of Iraq was deliberately not targeted by the American military attack. The attack, which was called Shock and Awe, which most of us saw on television, did not target electric generation facilities, the electric grid, roads, bridges, dams. It deliberately did not target those. As a result of that, we do not have a country in which their infrastructure has been devastated by carpet bombing of the type that happened in some places during World War II. Second, many of the reconstruction items in the 20-plus billion request by the administration are not urgent. I will describe that in some detail. Third, the cost of the reconstruction effort need not, and ought not, to be borne by the American taxpayer. If the United States was the only possible source of funding for reconstruction, that would be one thing. But that is not the case. The fact is that Iraq has a wealth of oil reserves, and Iraq can easily use those resources to finance its own reconstruction. My amendment would help construct a mechanism for the Iraqis to do exactly that. My amendment simply proposes that there be established an Iraq Reconstruction Finance Authority, in Iraq, by the Governing Council of Iraq, working with the Coalition Provisional Authority. The Governing Council of Iraq is made up of Iraqis. They would create an Iraq Reconstruction Finance Authority. That authority would securitize or sell securities against the value of future oil that will be pumped in Iraq. Iraq has the second largest reserves of oil in the world and has substantial capability to pump a dramatic amount of oil in order to raise ample funds to reconstruct Iraq. Simply, my amendment says let Iraqi oil pay for the reconstruction of Iraq, not the U.S. taxpayer. And let Iraqis use that Iraqi oil revenue to reconstruct Iraq. This has nothing to do with the United States grabbing part of the resources that belong to the people of Iraq. On the contrary, my amendment says that the Iraqi people, through the Governing Council of Iraq, should use Iraqi oil revenue to reconstruct the country of Iraq. It is very simple. It is not hard to understand. Some believe that if we followed this approach, we would be accused of grabbing Iraqi oil. They will say: You attacked Iraq because you wanted their oil. That can't be the case because there is nothing here that would put American hands on Iraqi oil. It would be Iraqis in the country of Iraq using Iraqi oil to reconstruct Iraq. It simply relieves the burden of $21 billion from the shoulders of the American taxpayers, which is what is proposed by the administration for the reconstruction of Iraq. It says instead of having the U.S. taxpayers borrow the money, or the Federal Government borrow the money or pay taxes to reconstruct Iraq, Iraqis can use their oil resources to do that. Ambassador Bremer said that by July of next year, Iraq will be pumping 3 million barrels of oil per day. That is $160 billion of net export value of oil for the country of Iraq in 10 years. They can easily sell securities against that future production of oil and use that to reconstruct Iraq. As I indicated, this is the second largest oil reserve in the world. This is not a small resource. This is liquid gold under the sands of Iraq. When they pump it and sell it to a world that needs oil, they will have $16 billion a year. And Iraq could obtain immediate funding for reconstruction by selling securities, or obtaining loans, backed by that future revenue stream. The concept of securitizing these oil reserves has been endorsed by a number of sources and experts. The endorsement comes from a number of corners of thought. The President and Chairman of the Export-Import Bank, Philip Merrill, has said he supports that concept of using Iraqi oil for reconstruction. In fact, the Export-Import Bank used a similar approach for Russian oil and gas after the fall of the Soviet Union, which was credited with helping to stabilize the industry's finances and restoring Russia's infrastructure in the early 1990s. Mr. Merrill, the head of the Export-Import Bank says: What we want to do is securitize this flow of oil. Now, when Ambassador Bremer appeared before the Appropriation Committee, he said that this approach wouldn't work. Ambassador Bremer said you can't have Iraq securitize its oil, or use future sales of oil to reconstruct Iraq, because Iraq owes a lot of money. It has foreign debt. Ambassador Bremer said the foreign debt was owed to Russia, France, and Germany. After that hearing, I did a little research. It turns out that the largest foreign debt owed by Saddam's regime was not to Russia, France, and Germany. The largest foreign debt of the Saddam regime was owed to the Saudis, and the Kuwaitis, and the other Gulf Countries. The two largest single creditors, by far, are Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Saddam's regime also owed some money to Russia, Japan, France, and Germany, that is true, but the largest foreign debt was owed to the Saudis and the Kuwaitis. I just don't understand the Ambassador's contention that Iraqi oil must be sold right away in order to pay off the Saudis and the Kuwaitis. First of all, Saddam Hussein and his henchmen owed this money. Saddam Hussein ran the country of Iraq, and he engaged in strategies and policies that resulted in these debts. Ambassador Bremer suggested that some successor government in Iraq will inherit the debt. My question is, Why? Why not say to the Saudis and the Kuwaitis: You are owed a lot of money by Saddam Hussein and his henchmen. Find them, and collect it from them. The Iraqi people ought not have to bear the burden of Saddam Hussein's debt. It doesn't make any sense to me. This man is gone. His government no longer exists. And Iraq is sitting on top of an enormous oil resource. But we are told now that the American taxpayer should pay to reconstruct Iraq, because Iraqi oil revenues need to be immediately turned over to the Saudis and the Kuwaitis to settle Saddam's debts. I am sorry. It doesn't add up to me. It doesn't work for me. I don't understand the perversity of a strategy that says the American taxpayer shall bear the burden so that Iraq's assets can be free to pay the Saudis and the Kuwaitis past foreign debt. Does this make sense to anybody? If you answer, yes, we think this makes sense, the American taxpayers will pay the bill, and Iraqi oil will pay the Saudis, then I am sorry, you need to go back and do some remedial training someplace. You are not thinking straight. Now, there are those who argue that the current Iraqi Governing Council is not a duly elected government, and has no standing to do anything with Iraq's oil. But on Friday, Ambassador Bremer said the following: The Iraqis are perfectly ready now to accept a lot of responsibility, and they are doing that. There are Iraqi ministers running all 25 ministries. . . . They are making policy in every ministry. They are responsible for the budgets of their ministry. They've got to spend the money. They can move the money around within their budget. They have great latitude. And they are now operating ministries. The Governing Council of Iraq is made up of Iraqis. They are running Iraq's Oil Ministry, among others. It seems to me that they have the capability to securitize future Iraq oil revenues and pay this reconstruction cost. Is the Governing Council of Iraq somehow less legitimate than Saddam Hussein's government? To anyone who argues that the Governing Council of Iraq cannot enter into debt on behalf of Iraq, I ask this: Do you think that Saddam's regime was a duly elected government? In 1995, Saddam ran for President of Iraq unopposed, and he won 99.96 percent of the vote. That's right. Less than four one-hundredths of one percent of the voters voted against Saddam. In August of 2000, Saddam Hussein ran again for President. He ran unopposed. This time, the official reelection count was better. With 100-percent voter turnout, he received 100 percent of the vote. That was the official result announced by the Iraqi government. In that election, there were no polling booths. Voters were required to hold their ballot over their heads as the approached the ballot box, so that everybody could see how they voted. When they voted, they had to parade past 28 portraits of Saddam Hussein, and they had to hold these ballots over their heads so they could demonstrate how they voted. Was that a duly constituted government? I don't think so. The Iraq Governing Council is much more legitimate than the Saddam regime, in my estimation. Why would anyone argue with that? Who wants to come to the Senate floor and say that the debts incurred by Saddam's regime are legitimate, but securities that would be issued by the current Governing Council would not be legitimate? I ask that again because I think it is important. Why would anyone argue that the massive debts run up by Saddam Hussein's government are legitimate and payable, but securities issued by the current government of Iraq's Governing Council against future oil revenues with which they could reconstruct Iraq would somehow not be legitimate? It doesn't make any sense. Until a few months ago, the Administration was telling everyone that Iraq's oil would allow the Iraqis to pay for their own reconstruction. Let me show what Mr. Ari Fleischer at the White House said about this. He was the President's spokesperson. He said in February of this year: And Iraq, unlike Afghanistan, is a rather wealthy country. Iraq has tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi people. And so there are a variety of means that Iraq has to be able to shoulder much of the burden of their own reconstruction. He is, of course, talking about Iraqi oil, the second largest oil reserve in the world. Shortly after that time, Mr. Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, said: . . . the oil revenues of that country could bring in between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three. . . . We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon. That is the administration speaking. They say Iraq can finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon, because it has massive oil resources. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, in March of this year, said: I don't believe that the United States has the responsibility for reconstruction, in a sense. . . . And the funds can come from those various sources I mentioned: frozen assets, oil revenues and a variety of other things. That is the Secretary of Defense saying the American taxpayer is not going to have to pay for the reconstruction of Iraq. Vice President Cheney, on national television in March of this year, said: In Iraq we have 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 cashflow in the relatively near future, and that flow of resource obviously belongs to the Iraqi people and needs to be put to use by the Iraqi people. And that will be one of our major objectives. This administration has said time and time and time again that the reconstruction of Iraq will be done with Iraqi oil. Let me describe a ``Nightline'' program with Ted Koppel and Mr. Natsios, head of USAID, the lead reconstruction agency in our country. Mr. Koppel: I understand that more money is expected to be spent on this than was spent on the entire Marshall plan for the rebuilding of Europe after World War II. Mr. Natsios: No. This doesn't even compare. The Marshall plan was $97 billion. This is $1.7 billion. Mr. Koppel: I mean, you talk about 1.7. You are not suggesting the rebuilding of Iraq is going to be done for $1.7 billion? Mr. Natsios: Well, in terms of the American taxpayers' contribution, I do. This is for the U.S. The rest of the rebuilding of Iraq will be done by other countries that have already made pledges: Britain, Germany, Norway, Canada and Iraqi oil revenues. They are going to get $20 billion in revenues but the American part of this will be $1.7 billion. Again, this is the lead person on the reconstruction of Iraq speaking last March. Mr. Koppel: I understand. But as far as reconstruction goes, the American taxpayer will not be hit for more than $1.7 billion no matter how long the process takes? Mr. Natsios: That is our plan, and that is our intention. Over and over and over again, Mr. Natsios said exactly the same thing. It is strange that not many months later all of those folks-- Secretary Rumsfeld, Vice President Cheney, Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz, Mr. Natsios--all said the same thing. And now there is this eerie silence from those folks who told the American taxpayer, you won't have to pay for this, Iraqi oil will pay for it. Now they send up a $21 billion request to say to the American taxpayer, you will pay for this. And, by the way, you can't change any element of this, because this all fits together like a puzzle; take out one piece and you destroy the puzzle. Now, in Ambassador Bremer's request, part of the nearly $21 billion involves items that are clearly not related to any damage caused by our military action: $1 billion to rehabilitate power distribution networks that were in a highly deteriorated condition before the war. This has nothing to do with the war. It is just 20 years of devastation by Saddam Hussein's government. $50 million to rectify the actions of the former regime and reconnect the Euphrates River to 30 villages and 100 farms. That is an irrigation water project and has nothing to do with the war. There is $50 million to restore a marsh and rectify some of the environmental tragedies ``of the past 25 years''; $50 million for water projects in Basra, a ``long neglected city''; $125 million to restore railroad tracks that suffered from ``severe neglect over time.'' There are a whole series of things like that, that on their face are not a result of the war and in many cases not particularly urgent. Here is a pretty symbolic item: $1.6 million requested to build museums and memorials. I have never heard of an urgent request for a museum. I have heard of important requests for museums, but I have never heard of a request for a museum that is urgent or an emergency. I am wondering if there is anyone in our country who thinks that the building of a new museum in Iraq is an emergency. Many have mentioned, and I did in the Appropriations Committee, some of the expenditures: For a 4-week business course for executives, $10,000 per student. That 1-month catchup course in business is double the monthly cost of going to Harvard Business School. There is $55 million for computer training, $330 a month for half-day courses; $1,500 per student for a 6-month second language English course; $9 million to study ZIP Codes for the postal service in Iraq; $100 million for 2,000 garbage trucks; $4 million to start telephone area codes. The fact is, many of these items are not an emergency and not urgent. And the American taxpayer should not have to pay for any of this, because Iraq has the resources to pay for its own reconstruction. Yet we have this piece of legislation that we are told is not separable, it comes as one piece; pull a string on the cheap sweater and the arm comes out; take one piece out and it destroys the rest. That is nonsense. When you look at the $66 million requested by the Pentagon to support our troops, no question: We need to do that, and we need to do that now. But when you look at the $21 billion with respect to reconstruction, in my judgment, that can be done by having Iraqis securitize Iraqi oil, and using that financing for the reconstruction of their own country. I said when I started, everyone has the same ultimate objective. I want not just Iraqi people, I want people around this world, to have opportunity and hope, to live free, to live in circumstances where they have an economy in their country that expands and produces jobs and opportunity. There is a hopelessness and helplessness in many parts of the world. One-half of the population of the world lives on less than $2 a day. One-half have never made a telephone call; 150 million have no access to potable water that is healthy and is of good quality; 150 million kids are not in school. This is a big, challenging world. We are focused now on the country of Iraq. I want things to go well in Iraq. I want our soldiers to be safe. I want them to be able to come home as soon as possible. I want the Iraqi people to come through this experience believing their country has turned a corner and they can live in freedom and have some hope and have the opportunity to make a good future for themselves. But as we do all of that, we have some responsibilities at home. We need to be able to deal with those. We are lucky to be Americans, lucky to be alive now and to live in what I think is the greatest country in the world, but we have a lot of challenges. We have huge homeland security issues right here at home. The plain fact is, we have had major studies done, most notably the Hart-Rudman study by two of our former colleagues for the Council of Foreign Relations. That study says we are dangerously unprepared. In fact, that is the title of the study. We have a lot of things to do at home to make sure we are prepared to protect our country against another attack by terrorists. We can't just write a blank check for Iraq's reconstruction, and say spend whatever you need, let's spend $9 million for new ZIP Codes and buy pickup trucks and build prison beds at $50,000 a bed in Iraq. We have urgent needs here, in this country, and we do not have infinite resources. With respect to the country of Iraq, our country ought to be supportive. We ought to be helpful. We ought to aspire to have the same kind of future for the folks in Iraq that we want for ourselves; that is, a future of hope. But that does not mean the American taxpayer ought to bear the burden of solving problems created by Saddam Hussein when he borrowed money from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Russia, France, Germany, and others. It does not mean we ought to bear that burden. Those debts ought to be forgiven or restructured. Iraqis ought to be able to use their oil resource to pay for the reconstruction of Iraq right now. Very simple. Sometimes we get so rigid in this political process, we do not hear each other; we talk past each other. The discussion about this in the committee came down to this: the President says it has to be this way now, and therefore it must be this way and we cannot consider another way. I offered two amendments in the Appropriations Committee. The first amendment, identical to the one I am offering today on the Senate floor, was that there should be created an Iraq Reconstruction Finance Authority. They should borrow money against future Iraq oil and reconstruct Iraq. It is the burden of Iraqi oil, not the burden of the American taxpayer, to reconstruct Iraq. That amendment lost by a vote of 15 to 14, though at least one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle expressed support for the concept, and said he might consider this approach on the Senate floor. So I offered a second amendment in the Appropriations Committee, which said that instead of providing a 20 billion-plus dollar grant, we should extend Iraq a loan. That is not something I prefer, because I think Iraqis can finance their reconstruction by securitizing their oil. But it is a better approach than just extending a grant. I lost that second amendment as well, by a vote of 15 to 14. I understand that a number of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle are interested in this concept. So we will have these debates in the Senate. I expect that we will vote on the amendment I offered today, once we return. My hope is we can find a bipartisan way to agree on something that shows common sense. Most of us know little about Iraq. But Iraq is not a desperately impoverished country. Iraq sits on top of the largest reserves imaginable. The oil reserves exist under that sand. There is only one country that has larger reserves. That is Saudi Arabia. Iraq has great capability to invest in itself and build and grow and provide opportunity for the Iraqi people. Even as we aspire to have that happen, we had better look inward a bit in this country and ask ourselves where we are headed. We are facing record Federal budget deficits. This year, we also had the largest trade deficit in the history of this country, by far. The combined budget and trade deficit is very close to $900 billion. Yet people walk around here as if it is ``Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.'' It is as if none of this exists. All of this money we are talking about today, $87 billion--all of it is borrowed against our children's futures. Why? The President wants to have it all: We need tax cuts. We need increased military spending. We need increased homeland security spending, and, at the same time, $87 billion now for Iraq, on top of the $79 billion earlier this year. Someone, someday, in some way, pays the cost of that. That cost comes with a lower standard of living in this country if we do not get our fundamentals in order. You just cannot keep doing this. Mathematics is taught the same way from Maine to California. There is only one way to add and subtract. What we require, I think, is a bit of backbone from Republicans and Democrats, this President and the Congress, to stand up and take a look at what we are facing, our budget deficits, our trade deficits, our long-term future economic health, and decide we have to put things back on track. That is important for this country. Yes, I care about Iraq, as do my colleagues. Yes, we should be concerned about the reconstruction of Iraq. But that is a burden that Iraqis can bear, by using their vast oil resources. It is not a burden that ought to be borne by the American taxpayer. The Senate will not be in session next week. But I will seek to have a vote on this amendment when we return. I thank my colleagues. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. This afternoon the Senate is taking action to solve a problem for our soldiers serving in Iraq. Senator Coleman, myself, Senator Stevens, and others have offered an amendment that deals with the cost of travel soldiers experience when they are going on a 15-day leave from the country of Iraq. The life of a soldier is a heavy burden--in harm's way, away from home for long periods of time. It is also a heavy burden for their families. The decision by the Pentagon to provide a 15-day leave for those soldiers who are serving in Iraq to be able to come home to visit their families is a wonderful decision. It is the right thing to do. But there has been a bureaucratic snag in this with respect to some rules that have said the soldiers on this leave will be dropped off at some central points in the U.S.--Baltimore, BWI Airport, Los Angeles-- and then they must buy their own airplane ticket back to their home base. That is not right nor is it fair. The amendment today says to those soldiers your travel will be covered, leaving Iraq to this country, all the way back to your home base. That is the right thing to do. This amendment will be welcome news to the soldiers and welcome news to their families. This amendment is one small way for this country to continue to say thank you to those who serve our country. Once again, I don't think it was ever intended that a soldier, asked to serve in the country of Iraq and then given a 15-day leave, should have to pay for part of the travel to get back home. Many of these soldiers can't afford it. They are living on soldier pay. They and their families very much look forward to these 15 days that will reunite them once again, and they ought not have to be burdened by having to buy an airplane ticket from Baltimore or Los Angeles. After all, that wasn't their point of departure. They left home to serve this country in Iraq and this country ought to say to them, for this furlough, for this opportunity to go back to your family, we will pay for the ticket back to your home. That is the obligation of this country. This Congress on a bipartisan basis this afternoon said to those soldiers, Thank you. We are pleased to fix this problem--a solution that I believe is going to be very welcome news to the U.S. soldiers and their families. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous consent that the time running on the quorum call be counted equally against both sides.