Byron Dorgan

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. What will be the circumstances of the floor this afternoon, could I ask the manager?

Mr. DORGAN. I thank the Senator.

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, we are debating the emergency supplemental bill that deals with the request for funds for our military, as well as for reconstruction in the country of Iraq. I believe it is necessary to provide the funding that is requested for our military, and I believe the President will find wide support for that on the Senate floor. I believe it is also necessary for reconstruction to occur in Iraq. I don't disagree with that issue at all. However, I disagree as to where the funding should come for this reconstruction. I agree with my colleague who talked about this being an important time and that there are very important questions for the Senate to confront. These are serious questions and need to be dealt with in a serious way. I expect this debate will be respectful, even though we have some disagreements. I think there is more agreement than disagreement on most of these questions. I mentioned that when the President requests funding for our Defense Department and our soldiers who are on a mission this country has asked them to undertake, we have an obligation to provide the necessary funding for them to complete their mission. America cannot ask its sons and daughters to go to war and then withhold anything that is necessary for them to complete their mission. That which is needed in the Defense Department, that which those who are commanding our soldiers say they need to finish this job, we must provide and, in my judgment, will provide. This appropriations request, however, includes not only resources for our military, but also resources for the reconstruction of Iraq. I want to talk about that for a bit because we had a long debate in the Senate Appropriations Committee yesterday and had several votes. The votes turned out to be one-vote margins. I want to talk about that. First, let me say I believe that, while I have not visited Iraq, there are many important and positive things happening in the country of Iraq. Yesterday one of my colleagues asked the question: Why are those positive developments not being reported? I expect, based on talking to folks who have visited there, and from Ambassador Bremer's testimony, and others, including colleagues who have visited there, that there are things happening in that country which are very positive. I agree with that. Those who ask the question ``why are they not being reported'' might watch the television news in Washington, DC, tonight and see what is reported. What is reported is negative. It is not just with what is happening in Iraq, it is what is happening everywhere. That is the way the business works. Turn on the television tonight in Washington, DC, and see what the lead story will be. It will be a murder, or a kidnapping, or a robbery, or an accident. That is just the way it works. That is what is happening in Iraq. The media is reporting the bad news. That is what they will report tonight here in Washington, DC. There is an old saying, ``bad news travels halfway around the world before good news gets its shoes on.'' Never is that manifested more relentlessly than in our media. I understand that. It is not just happening with Iraq. But from eyewitnesses and those who have been on the ground in Iraq, we know that there are positive things happening there. Having said that, we cannot dismiss the fact there are some significant problems and challenges in Iraq as well. It is not ordinary and normal, and it is not something we should ever become accustomed to, to wake up in the morning and turn on the news and hear of another American soldier who was killed, or more American soldiers wounded. That is not something we can become accustomed to in this country. I also believe, as I indicated, that as we consider a piece of legislation with a price tag of $87 billion to support the troops and provide the resources necessary for the troops and also to provide for the reconstruction of Iraq, it is an appropriate and important time to ask some questions about especially the portion dealing with reconstruction. That is what I focused on yesterday in the Appropriations Committee. Let me talk about this reconstruction. This is a new subject that is offered us by the President--reconstruction. We understood what the President planned to do with respect to the campaign called shock and awe, which was a military campaign, would be devastating in its consequences to the Iraqi troops, but not devastating to the country of Iraq in terms of infrastructure, because we deliberately did not target the infrastructure there. We did not target their electric grid, their powerplants, their dams, their roads, or their bridges. We deliberately did not do that and we were successful in avoiding that. So then what is the requirement for reconstruction? The requirement for reconstruction, by and large, stems from a long- term deterioration of the assets of Iraq under Saddam Hussein, No. 1; and No. 2, from a type of guerrilla activity by insurgents inside the country of Iraq--Iraqis themselves, among others--to destroy property and infrastructure in Iraq. That is what caused this administration to ask us for nearly $21 billion to reconstruct the country of Iraq. Let me say that the request for the reconstruction of Iraq is a request for grants, where we will take the money from our Treasury--or borrow the money, as will be the case, because we are very deeply in debt in this country at this point and our annual budget deficit is roughly in the $475 billion range. We will borrow money to provide it to the Iraqis for reconstruction. Let me go back to some things and indicate why some of us are surprised by a request for nearly $21 billion to reconstruct Iraq. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz said this on March 27 of this year: And on a rough recollection, oil revenues of that country could bring in between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years. We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon. Again, Mr. Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense, said just 5 months ago: We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon. Richard Armitage, Assistant Secretary of State, said: When we approach the question of Iraq, we realize here is a country which has a resource. And it's obvious, it's oil. And it can bring in and does bring in a certain amount of revenue each year, it could--$10, $15, even $18 billion. So this is not a broke country, first of all. He is describing the resources the country of Iraq has. Vice President Cheney in March of this year said: There are estimates out there. Talking about Iraq. 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 and needs to be put to use by the Iraqi people for the Iraqi people, and that will be one of our major objectives. That was Vice President Cheney. So we have Richard Armitage, Assistant Secretary of State, saying Iraq can be reconstructed with Iraq oil; Paul Wolfowitz, Assistant Secretary of Defense, saying Iraq can finance its own reconstruction; Secretary Rumsfeld, on March 27 of this year, said: I don't believe the United States has the responsibility for reconstruction, in a sense. Those funds can come from those various funds I mentioned--frozen assets, oil revenues, and a variety of other things, including Oil for Food which has a substantial number of billions of dollars in it. We have the Secretary of Defense, the Assistant Secretary of Defense, the Assistant Secretary of State, and the Vice President. Let me read quotes from Mr. Natsios who runs USAID, which is the agency in the State Department involved in reconstruction. On April 23 on Ted Koppel's ``Nightline'' program, Ted Koppel says: I mean, when you talk about 1.7, you're not suggesting that the rebuilding of Iraq is going to be done for $1.7 billion? Mr. Natsios, who runs this program for the administration, says: Well, in terms of the American taxpayers' contribution, I do, this is it for the U.S. The rest of the rebuilding of Iraq will be done by other countries who already made pledges, Britain, Germany, Norway, Japan, Canada, and Iraqi oil revenues . . . Will be used eventually in several years when it is up and running and when a new government, democratically elected, will finish the job with new revenues. They are going to get $20 billion a year in oil revenues. But the American part of this will be $1.7 billion. We have no plans for any further on funding for this. This is 5 months ago from the point person in this administration with respect to Iraq's reconstruction, saying $1.7 billion. Ted Koppel comes back to him again on the same program and says: You're saying the, the top cost for the U.S. taxpayer will be $1.7 billion. No more than that? Mr. Natsios: For the reconstruction. . . . Ted Koppel: But as far as the reconstruction goes, the American taxpayer will not be hit by more than $1.7 billion no matter how long the process takes? Mr. Natsios: That is our plan and that is our intention. And these figures . . . I have to say, there's a little bit of hoopla involved in this. I guess he was referring to something else. There sure isn't a lot of hoopla involved in his figures. Later in the program, Mr. Natsios says, responding to Ted Koppel: That's correct, $1.7 billion is the limit on reconstruction for Iraq. That was 5 months ago from the point person on reconstruction in this administration. Five months later, we are asked for $21 billion--$21 billion. How did things change so quickly? Why did they change so quickly? Why was it decided that the obligation for the reconstruction of this country--not an impoverished country, I might say, a country with the second largest reserves of oil in the entire world--why was it decided the American taxpayers should bear this burden exclusively? Ambassador Bremer testified before our Appropriations Committee. I asked him about this issue. I said: Mr. Ambassador, Iraq has very substantial oil reserves. They have liquid gold under that sand. They have the capability of pumping a lot of oil. He said: Yes. In fact, when I asked about how much they would pump, he said: By July of next year, we expect Iraq will be pumping 3 million barrels of oil a day and, using their figures, we expect, when you take out of that the amount necessary to be used in Iraq by Iraqis, the amount of money that they will sell on the export market will produce $16 billion a year of revenue--$16 billion a year. Yesterday, members of the Iraqi Governing Council were in town, and they said they are going to be producing 6 million barrels of oil-- double that. Let's use the more conservative figure of 3 million barrels of oil produced a day by next July. This then is a country that has the capability of producing $160 billion in 10 years from oil revenue exports only or $320 billion in 20 years. Securitizing that oil production would be relatively easy for Iraq in order to raise the funds to reconstruct what is needed to be reconstructed in Iraq. I asked Ambassador Bremer, why then would you not propose that Iraqi oil be used to reconstruct Iraq? He said: Because Iraq has substantial foreign indebtedness, they will not be able to encumber their oil revenue; they will have to repay foreign indebtedness first. I asked Ambassador Bremer to whom Iraq owed money. He said, France--I believe he said Russia first--Russia, France, Germany. Following that hearing, I began to do some research on Iraq's indebtedness. It turns out that the largest of Iraq's creditors are Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. The best estimates are that Iraq owes somewhere close to $25 billion to Saudi Arabia. And they owe somewhere close to $25 billion to Kuwait. They owe somewhere between $20 billion and $30 billion to the other gulf states. They owe between $4 billion and $8 billion to France, $4 billion to Germany, and somewhere between $9 billion and $12 billion to Russia. But as one can see, the largest creditors of the country of Iraq are Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Now, I find it strange that anyone would suggest that the debts of Saddam's regime must be honored, but that the current Iraqi Governing Council is not able to incur debts. Some make the point that the Iraqi Governing Council has not been democratically elected. Well, does anyone think that Saddam Hussein was duly elected? Let's just remember the last couple of elections. In 1995, Saddam Hussein ran for President of Iraq. He ran unopposed and won 99.96 percent of the vote. Out of 8 million ballots, supposedly only 3,000 people voted against Saddam Hussein. Then in August of 2000, they had another election in Iraq and Saddam Hussein ran again for President. He again ran unopposed. This time, the official election count was better, actually. With a 100 percent voter turnout, Saddam Hussein received 100 percent of the vote. That was actually the official count. They provided no real polling booths. Voters were required to parade down a gallery containing 28 portraits of Saddam Hussein. They were required to hold their ballots over their head as they walked down this gallery so that everyone could see how they voted. Before the election, the Iraq phone company rigged their telephones so when a person picked up the phone to make a phone call, they heard the message that they had a requirement to go out and vote for Saddam Hussein. The fact is, there is very little tradition of democracy in Iraq, as we know. The Saddam Hussein regime, which obligated the people of Iraq, apparently, to $150 billion to $200 billion in foreign debt, was certainly no more duly constituted a government than the current Iraqi coalition authority or provisional authority. I believe Iraq does need reconstruction funding, but I believe very strongly that that ought not be the burden of the American people. I believe the result would be perverse if the American taxpayer was required to bear the burden of that $21 billion in expenditures, while Iraq pumped its oil, sold it on the open market, and used the revenues to ship suitcases full of cash to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and, yes, Russia and France and Germany. I do not understand how anyone thinks that is in our interest. I will briefly describe what we are told is urgently necessary for reconstruction in Iraq. I think some items are urgent, some are not, in order to advance the Iraq economy and in order to provide the Iraq people with an expanded set of opportunities and hope for the future. The $21 billion includes, for example, reengineering business practices of the Iraq postal service, including instituting ZIP Codes. Well, that is not part of an urgent supplemental, in my judgment. Then there is $54 million for a comprehensive consulting technical study for the Iraqi postal system. That is not urgent, in my judgment. Restoring marshlands; two 4,000-bed prisons at $50,000 a bed; garbage trucks at $50,000 apiece; creating best business practice and training courses and opening job centers, and so on. I think some of this is likely urgent, some of it not, but all of it can and should be paid for with Iraqi oil. I will describe how that could work and how it should work. I offered an amendment in committee yesterday that would create an Iraq Reconstruction Finance Agency. I lost that amendment by one vote. Following that, I offered a second amendment, which is a choice I do not particularly favor but one that is better than a series of grants. That amendment would provide that instead of grants, we extend loans. Both amendments were defeated in the committee, and I will offer both on the Senate floor as we proceed to have a debate about the reconstruction portion of this package. The Iraqi Governing Council, I believe, has ample authority to create an Iraq Reconstruction Finance Authority and do so in a way that obligates future oil revenues of Iraq through some securitization, by which they would sell securities against future oil revenues and raise the money for reconstruction of Iraq. As one of my colleagues earlier today suggested, that is not in some way having the United States get their hands on Iraq oil. It is nothing of the sort. This is the people in Iraq making use of their resources, by securitizing their future oil reserves. Understand, they have the second largest reserves in the world. This is not an impoverished country. They have dramatic and valuable resources. This is about Iraq citizens using Iraqi oil to reconstruct the country of Iraq. Why would someone choose the alternative of saying, let's have the American taxpayer pay for the reconstruction of Iraq so that Iraq can pump oil to pay for the past debts it owes to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait? Ambassador Bremer told me they were not recommending the use of Iraq oil for reconstruction because of the foreign debt that Iraq had and that it had to resolve. I think it ought to be resolved this way: I believe Ambassador Bremer and the Iraq authority ought to go to the donor conference and ought to be involved in bilateral and multilateral talks in which they seek debt forgiveness. After all, Saddam Hussein should not have been able to obligate the Iraq people and to mortgage their future. Saddam Hussein is gone. His government does not exist. Why do we believe that loans from the Saudis to Iraq back in the 1980s ought to be repaid now when those loans were made to Saddam Hussein? Let Saddam Hussein repay those loans, not the Iraqi people. This was not a duly constituted government in the first instance. I just described the mechanism by which he was in power. This is not a case, as my colleague earlier suggested, of just treating this in a nonserious way, believing that somehow the money is not needed for Iraq. I believe the military appropriations that the President has requested for our troops are related to reconstruction, but I believe very strongly that much of what is requested for reconstruction is, A, not urgent and, B, certainly not reconstruction that ought to be paid for by the American people. Let me come again to this point: we were told time and time again that the U.S. taxpayer would have, at most, a minimal financial burden in terms of reconstruction. The representations to us all along, all year, have been that Iraq oil would bear the burden for reconstruction. Vice President Cheney said on March 16 of this year--I am quoting directly: 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. Ari Fleischer at the White House said: Iraq, unlike Afghanistan, is a rather wealthy country. It has tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi people. He is talking about Iraq has to be able to shoulder much of the burden for their own reconstruction. Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense, said: On a rough recollection, the oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 billion to $100 billion over the course of the next few years. We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon. Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, on March 27, 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. The fact is, just months ago we were told by Secretary Rumsfeld, by Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz, by Vice President Cheney, and many others that the U.S. taxpayer would not have to foot the bill. We have not had anyone come to us to explain to us the reason for the change. We had Ambassador Bremer explain to us why he believes the proceeds from Iraqi oil are going to have to be committed to repay Iraq's foreign debt. Translated to the language from my hometown, it would be: Iraqi oil should produce some revenue so the Iraqi people can pay off Saddam's debts to some of the richest countries in the world, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. But nobody came forward to say, we did tell you all these things 4 or 5 months ago, and did tell the American people and tell you in Congress you are not going to have to pay for reconstruction of Iraq because Iraqi oil is going to pay for it--no one has come forward to say, I was wrong then, or I have changed my mind. The question is, Has the Vice President changed his mind? I am guessing so. Has Secretary Rumsfeld changed his mind? Has Mr. Wolfowitz changed his mind? Has Mr. Armitage changed his mind? I think it is important to ask the question.

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, are we under a time limit at this point? Could I have explained to me the time on the floor?

Mr. DORGAN. This time for debate was apparently evenly divided until 12:30; is that correct?

Mr. DORGAN

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

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, within the past hour or so the Senate Appropriations Committee finished its work on the supplemental appropriations request that President Bush has made for Iraq and Afghanistan. We had a rather lengthy session today starting at 10 this morning. We had a series of votes on a range of important issues. I wanted to comment about what we can expect on the floor of the Senate. I offered some amendments. I want to describe one of them for a moment because I intend to offer it tomorrow morning. The supplemental appropriations bill that is necessary for Iraq is an important issue. The President has asked for $87 billion in additional funding, immediate and urgent funding on an emergency basis for Iraq. Roughly $65 billion, close to 66, is for the military, and another $20.3 billion is for reconstruction in Iraq. I want to talk about the reconstruction issue because that is critically important. The question is this: Should the United States taxpayer bear the burden of $20 billion for reconstruction of Iraq? Among the list of items of reconstruction in a 55-page document from the administration are the following: $9 million to create a ZIP Code system, the purchase of a fleet of garbage trucks at $50,000 a truck, creating 2 prisons with 4,000 beds at $50,000 a bed, and the restoration of marshlands-- and I could go on. Many of these things may be desirable, but they are not urgent. Let me also say that in our recent military campaign in Iraq, the so- called Shock and Awe campaign--a devastating military campaign that very quickly crushed Saddam Hussein's army--we deliberately avoided damaging the infrastructure of Iraq. We deliberately did not target the electric grid, the powerplants, roads, dams. So while reconstruction for Iraq may be necessary, it is not because this country damaged Iraq's infrastructure. Instead, Saddam Hussein for many years took from the economy of Iraq and provided to his military. He starved Iraq's economy, and the economy is in pretty tough shape. Now, Iraq is a country of about 24 million people, something close to the size of the State of California. It is not an impoverished country flat on its back with no hope and no resources. This is a country that has the second largest oil reserves in the entire world, with liquid gold under its sands. It has the capability, Ambassador Bremer said, of pumping 3 million barrels of oil a day beginning in July next year. Three million barrels a day means Iraq will produce $16 billion a year of net export value of oil, conservatively. That is $160 billion in net export of oil in the next 10 years or $320 billion in 20 years. Members of the Iraq Governing Council were in town today, and the chairman of the Iraq governing authority said: It is not 3 million barrels, we are going to produce 6 million barrels a day, and we have the largest oil reserves in the world. Now, I don't know who is right about that. But this country of 24 million people has massive oil reserves, the pumping of which will produce substantial revenue that ought to be used to reconstruct Iraq. So it is incomprehensible to me that the Administration would be requesting that the cost of reconstruction be born by the American taxpayer. Do you want to know who said it was not the American taxpayers' job to reconstruct Iraq? Paul Wolfowitz, the Assistant Secretary of Defense. He said: This will be paid for with oil revenue. Vice President Dick Cheney also said: Oil revenue will help pay for the reconstruction. Mr. Natsios, the head of USAID, said reconstruction in Iraq would cost $1.7 billion, and that would be the total cost to the American taxpayers for the reconstruction of Iraq. He said this 5 months ago, and he said it three times on the same Ted Koppel program. To a person, the folks in this administration who spoke to this issue have said the reconstruction of Iraq should be done with the use of Iraqi oil proceeds. Now, I offered an amendment in committee today. It lost by a vote of 14 to 15. It lost by just 1 vote. My amendment directed Ambassador Bremer, working in consultation with the Iraqi Governing Council, to establish an Iraq Reconstruction Finance Authority. The amendment said that this Authority's mission would be to sell securities against future oil revenues, to raise the money to reconstruct the country of Iraq. I mentioned that Iraq could earn $160 million from oil over 10 years. If that Reconstruction Finance Authority would borrow $30 billion at 6 percent for 10 years, they would repay it at $4 billion a year. That is an easily achievable goal for the country of Iraq. And it would mean, simply, that Iraqis would use their oil to finance the reconstruction of their own country. When this amendment failed in committee today, we were told that, instead, the American taxpayers should pay this bill. Let me talk just for a moment about how my amendment--which I will offer again on the floor of the U.S. Senate--would work. I am not suggesting we loan money, I am not suggesting we have a guaranteed loan, I am not suggesting the American people take the Iraqi oil and sell it and use the proceeds. I am suggesting the Iraqis construct an Iraqi-controlled authority, called the Reconstruction Finance Authority, and that that authority use Iraqi oil as collateral for loans, or as security for bond issues. That financing would then be used to reconstruct Iraq. This is Iraqi people, using Iraqi oil, to invest in Iraq. It has nothing to do with the United States getting its hands on Iraq oil. But it does have to do with relieving the burden on the shoulders of the American taxpayers, the responsibility to pay $21 billion for the reconstruction of Iraq. When I asked Ambassador Bremer about this, I said: Mr. Ambassador, why can we not collateralize or securitize Iraqi oil, and let Iraq oil pay for the reconstruction of Iraq? His answer was: Senator, Iraq has a very substantial foreign debt. It owes a lot of money to other countries, such as Russia, France, and Germany, he said. Therefore, it can't pay for the reconstruction. After the hearing, I did some research on Iraq's debts. I discovered, in fact, that Iraq does owe a fair amount of money. It was Saddam Hussein, of course, who committed his people to those loans and other things. Saddam Hussein's government doesn't exist now; he is not there; he has vanished. But it is true that Saddam Hussein had foreign debt. The largest debt, however, is not--as Mr. Bremer suggested--to Russia, France, or Germany. The largest debt the country of Iraq owes is to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Oh, they owe some to Russia, France, Germany, and others, to be sure. But the largest debt is to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Wouldn't it be perverse if, as Ambassador Bremer suggested, Iraq oil had to be pumped out of the ground to provide the cash that would allow Iraq to send money to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait--two of the wealthiest countries in the world--so that the U.S. taxpayer could come in on the back side and reconstruct Iraq? In other words, does it make sense for the American taxpayer to ante up the money to reconstruct Iraq because Iraq's oil has to be used to send checks to the Saudis? I am sorry, I came from a really small town, but I recognize something really stupid when I see it. Has this town lost all common sense? Perhaps we can pump a little common sense back into this system when we have this debate on the floor of the Senate tomorrow. I intend to offer the same amendment tomorrow on the floor of the Senate, and I intend to get a vote on it. I know it will be second-degreed and we will have all kinds of machinations. I intend to hang in there and get a vote eventually on the amendment I offered in the Appropriations Committee. I intend to ask this question on behalf of the American taxpayers: Do you really think this burden ought to belong to the American taxpayer? Don't you believe a country with the vast resources that exist in Iraq ought to be able to produce these resources from their oil and invest back into that country? The answer is clear to me, and I think it is clear to a lot of Americans. We have debates on a lot of issues here, and I find it interesting that sometimes there is an issue of $2 million, sometimes $20 million, sometimes $200 million, or perhaps $2 billion, and we spend countless hours debating that. Well, this is $20 billion. This is a $20 billion ``urgent emergency'' that is being moved without a lot of debate. The Administration has proposed a whole list of things for Iraq as part of this $20 billion request, including English as a second language training, advanced business classes, computer literacy training. The Administration wants to improve Iraq's sewer systems, because only 6 percent of Iraqis have good plumbing. Under the Administration's proposal, about 12 percent of Iraqis would have good plumbing. Another interesting item the Administration is proposing is marshland restoration in Iraq. I find it really interesting that they would describe marshland restoration as an ``emergency.'' There are so many things in this 55-page document, that I hope all of my colleagues will read, which represent the urgent menu for reconstruction in Iraq, and the question that will be asked, or should be asked, is: who bears the burden? I am not suggesting reconstruction is not necessary. It is very likely that when Iraq has this reconstruction--and perhaps that should happen sooner than later--Iraq will be a safer and a better place with an expanded economy, and perhaps we will be able to bring our troops home earlier. And I obviously want American troops to be able to come out of Iraq as soon as possible and let Iraq control Iraq's destiny. I believe reconstruction will be a part of the key to doing a lot of important things in the future of Iraq. But I believe the question of how do you function with this reconstruction issue hanging over our head, as to who should finance it--I think that is a critical question. I cannot tell you how many times we have come here to talk about joblessness in this country, people losing jobs. My colleague, the other day, talked about Huffy bicycles. I went to one of these big department stores--I will not describe the one I was at--and I saw a big row of Huffy bicycles. They used to be made in Ohio. Not anymore. All of those jobs are now Chinese jobs. They flat out moved all of those jobs. So if you buy a Huffy bicycle, you are buying a Chinese bicycle. Why? There are lower wages over there. We have all these issues about job training, joblessness, trade, promotion of U.S. products and commodities, and so on. But when we offer an amendment, we are told we just don't have the money, we are deep in debt. But all of a sudden, when it is Iraq reconstruction, it is Katie bar the door; we have as much money as you need; it doesn't matter. All of it has to go for that; you cannot take one piece out because it is part of a package, it is symmetrical. Boy, it is one of these things where, when you pull a loose string on a cheap suit, the arm falls off. So I think we need to rethink the Administration's request with respect to reconstruction. Now, let's make sure we support our troops. This country should not send its sons and daughters to war and then say we won't support them. But on the issue of reconstruction of Iraq, let's make a better decision and a different decision, especially with respect to the use of oil revenues and the resources that exist in Iraq. I will speak tomorrow on that amendment. I see my colleague from Alaska is here. He sat in the chair from 10 o'clock to 5 o'clock this afternoon chairing the Appropriations Committee. While we had some disagreements and perhaps raised our voices a couple of times today, he is a chairman for whom I have the greatest respect. The way he handled that committee today demonstrates his skill in this Chamber. I only wish he would support my amendment. It would be a whole lot easier to adopt it. It probably would not even have a recorded vote if he were supporting it. I thank him for his leadership in the committee. I hope we will have an aggressive and full debate about these issues tomorrow when he brings the bill to the floor. I will pledge this: I know they want to move along to deal with these issues, so I will come to the floor early and offer my amendments. I want to have a full opportunity to discuss and debate them. The chairman will not have to inquire about whether I am going to come to the floor at some point soon. I will be here when we bring the bill to the floor tomorrow and hope to play a constructive role in improving the bill. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have just come from a meeting to discuss the Appropriations Committee work beginning next week on the request from President Bush for $87 billion in urgent supplemental appropriations for Iraq. Of that $87 billion, roughly $66 billion is in support of the military and the mission in Iraq; $21 billion is for the reconstruction of Iraq. We will begin writing an appropriations bill in response to all of this next Tuesday morning at 10. I wish to bring to my colleagues' attention a couple of things with respect to this issue. First, when America sends its sons and daughters to defend our interests, when America puts its soldiers in harm's way, it has an obligation to provide the resources and funding needed to support their mission. I will support that. I will vote for that. I believe the Senate, the entire Congress will do that. But, there is a difference between providing the funding on an urgent basis for support of our troops to carry out their mission in Iraq and Afghanistan and the request for the reconstruction of Iraq. I want to describe that difference. Iraq is a country with substantial resources. It is not a country desperately impoverished. It is a country with 24 million people. It possesses the second largest oil reserves in the world. Ambassador Bremer told us this week that when pumping at capacity, by next July he expects the Iraq oil fields to be pumping at about 3 million barrels per day. That produces about $20 billion in revenue per year, $16 billion of which is available for export; therefore, the development of currency as a result of the export sales of $16 billion a year of oil, each year, from the country of Iraq. This is not an impoverished country. This a country with substantial wealth under its sands. Pumping that wealth in the form of oil and selling it produces substantial revenue for the 24 million people. With respect to the question of the reconstruction, I want to go back to April of this year and to a ``Night Line'' program in which Ted Koppel had on one of the top folks in the Department of State who is in charge of the U.S. Agency for International Development, Andrew Natsios. He was asking Mr. Natsios about what would be required of the American taxpayers for the reconstruction of Iraq. I want to read this exchange because it occurred on the ABC television network 5 months ago. Ted Koppel says: You are saying that the top cost for the U.S. taxpayer will be $1.7 billion with respect to the reconstruction of Iraq? Mr. Natsios, one of the top officials in the Department of State, who heads the USAID which has the mission for projects for reconstruction: Yes, for the reconstruction. Then there is $700 million in the supplemental budget. He was referring to something we had done earlier this year for humanitarian relief. Koppel says: 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. That is our intention. Koppel says: And these figures, outlandish figures I have seen, there is a bit of hoopla in all of this? Mr. Natsios says, in response to a question: That is correct. One point seven billion is the limit on reconstruction for Iraq. Natsios says: The rest of it is going to come from other countries. He says: We have arrangements with other countries. Then he names the other countries. He says: In terms of the American taxpayers' contribution for the reconstruction of Iraq, $1.7 billion. The rest of the rebuilding of Iraq will be done by other countries that have already made pledges--Britain, Germany, Norway, Japan, Canada, Iraq. He says: Eventually, in several years, when it is up and running, and there is a new government that has been democratically elected, they will finish the job with their own revenues. They are going to get $20 billion a year in oil revenues. But the American part of the reconstruction for Iraq will be $1.7 billion. We have no plans for any further funding for this. That was this administration's spokesman said in April of this year. Well, 5 months later, we have a new request to the American taxpayers for almost $21 billion to continue the reconstruction of Iraq. Mr. Natsios said $1.7 billion. That is all. We have no plans for any other funding requests. Five months later, they are asking for another $21 billion. Let me tell you what my contention is on the $21 billion to reconstruct Iraq. My feeling is, rather than have the U.S. taxpayers provide $21 billion in grants to reconstruct Iraq, the revenue from Iraqi oil should be used to reconstruct Iraq. So I asked Ambassador Bremer about that. he said: Well, that is not possible. I asked: Why? He said: Iraq has a substantial amount of debt. They have a lot of debt. They have to repay this debt. I said: To whom does Iraq owe debt? He said: Germany and France and Russia. So after that hearing, I went and took a look at who Iraq owed money to. Well, guess what. The top of the list is not France, Russia, and Germany. At the top of the list is Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and the other Arab States, and then, yes, there is some owed to France and Russia and Germany, as well. But at the top of the list is Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. What the Ambassador was saying to me is we cannot use Iraq's oil to reconstruct Iraq. That oil is going to have to be pumped so they can sell it for cash and send money to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. So we will have the American taxpayers pay some of their taxes so they can reconstruct Iraq. Sound perverse? It sure does to me. I think we should say to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait: You loaned Saddam Hussein money. Well, you loaned money to a government that doesn't exist anymore. You know that $50 billion Saddam Hussein owes you, owed Saudi Arabia and Kuwait? Go find them and hand them a bill. It is not this country's obligation to bail out Saudi Arabia for debts that they allowed Saddam Hussein to run up with their countries. That is not our obligation. Iraqi oil ought not to be used to repay Saudi Arabia and Kuwait from money they loaned to Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein is gone. No one can find him. The Saddam Hussein government is out of power. It doesn't exist. So then the question is, How do you reconstruct this country? Well here is some of what American taxpayers are being asked to pay for: Forty garbage trucks, $50,000 each; $9 million to create a zip code for Iraq in the postal system; $54 million for technical and business process studies into a computer network for the Iraqi postal system; building seven new communities, 3,400 homes, including marketplaces, a church, and so on; two 4,000-bed prisons at $50,000 a bed. Well, that is just a start--fix some roads, fix up some electric grids. The interesting thing is that our ``shock and awe'' military campaign explicitly did not target Iraq's infrastructure. We didn't take out their power grid. We didn't do it because we didn't want to. We didn't destroy their dams or their power grid or the infrastructure of Iraq. Now we are told the infrastructure must be reconstructed. Why? Because guerrillas and insurgent movements inside Iraq have destroyed some of the infrastructure in Iraq, and because Saddam Hussein let it deteriorate for over 20 years. So the question is, What do we do in Iraq, and who pays for it? That is a long route to get to my central point. I don't believe it is the American taxpayers' responsibility to ante up $21 billion for the reconstruction of a country that has the capacity to borrow $30 billion, repay it in 10 years at 6 percent interest, with $4 billion a year that comes from a $16 billion-a-year stream of revenue by pumping oil out of the sands of Iraq. Common sense? Sure. Maybe there are some who cannot see that, but I think the American people will. I have a September 2003 document. I guess it is 55 pages. It is the reconstruction plan for the country of Iraq. Let me say, I believe Iraq needs some reconstruction; there is no question about that. The administration makes the point that the quicker this economy gets up and moving, the quicker you have a vibrant set of opportunities in Iraq for the people, and the safer it will be for our troops. I agree with that. That is fine. But if you look at what they are asking the American people to create in the country of Iraq in these 55 pages, let me go through some of it: Private sector development, $200 million to establish an American-Iraqi enterprise fund to capitalize the enterprise fund to invest in a wide array of private enterprises. This is sort of a venture capital fund of $200 million. Expand networks of employment centers, $8 million; on-the-job training for private sector employment, $35 million; develop a program for computer literacy training in Iraq, $40 million; specialized computer training in Iraq, $15 million; English as a second language in Iraq, $30 million; modernize vocational training institutes, $25 million. I could go on and on for 50 pages. I understand why they want to do this. What I don't understand is why the American people are required to pay for this, when this country is a country that has the second largest oil reserves in the world and has the capability to produce the revenue to pay for it themselves. This makes no sense. It defies common sense. I am going to offer an amendment in committee next Tuesday, and I will offer it on the floor if it doesn't prevail in committee. I think we ought to do a couple of things. One, I think we ought to separate this issue and move the support for the troops immediately. I don't think anybody here wants to withhold whatever necessary support is requested to support the military. We sent them there; we have a requirement to support them with all they need to complete the mission. Second, I think we ought to separate the question of the reconstruction in the country of Iraq and go back to April of 2003, 5 months ago, and the promise made to us and the American people by the head of the agency and the State Department that is going to do the reconstruction, Mr. Natsios, when he said our total obligation we are going to ask the American taxpayers to fund is $1.7 billion. Believe me, he said that is the total amount the American people are going to have to fund. Five months later, they came back and said: By the way, because Iraq owes money to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, and Iraqi oil has to be pumped to pay debts to them, we want the American taxpayer to pay for basic infrastructure in the country of Iraq. I am telling you, there is something fundamentally flawed about that. I hope my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee will see the same thing. We are going to have a chance to vote on my amendment. It is going to be relatively simple. It says this: Let's fund the military request the President sent to us and do so quickly, and in a way that says there is no question about supporting the troops we have sent abroad. Second, here is the way we ought to reconstruct Iraq. The President is right. Iraq needs reconstruction, but he is wrong to ask the American taxpayers to pay for that. The way to reconstruct Iraq is to securitize the oil to be pumped in Iraq at 3 million barrels a day, beginning in July, according to Bremer, and use that securitization for Iraqi oil to repay the securities from that over the next 10 to 20 years to reconstruct Iraq exactly as the administration wants it done. I don't dispute any of these needs. I don't take issue with the administration saying this ought to be done. I take very strong issue with the suggestion that somehow an administration that promised us 5 months ago the total cost of reconstruction would be $1.7 billion, now says it is $21 billion in reconstruction, which ought to come from American taxpayers' funds, when we are dealing with the second largest oil reserves in the world. So we are going to have votes on this in the Appropriations Committee. We are going to have votes on it on the floor if it doesn't prevail in committee. I have been reading in the paper that some colleagues feel the same way on both sides of the aisle. They think this makes no sense to talk about $21 billion in grants from the American taxpayers to fund these issues. I hope some of them will join me and that we can do what is right, use a big barrel full of common sense on an issue like this, and help the American taxpayers and the Iraqi people at the same time and, most importantly, do what is necessary to support the American military who is trying to carry out this critical mission in that part of the world. God bless those men and women. We pray for their safety. We pray for their families. As we work through this next week, I hope there is a healthy dose of common sense in this Senate dealing with this reconstruction issue. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, responding to the question, I am, and Ambassador Bremer made the same point as did Secretary Rumsfeld. There is a donor conference that is being held in Spain in just a matter of a couple of weeks. We have asked what is the proclivity of these countries to begin helping and donating. Here is what we were told: I believe it is 69 countries have donated $1.5 billion total. In this request, they are asking the American taxpayers for $21 billion but say there will be a dramatic amount more that is needed but that is going to come from somebody else. It appears very unlikely it is going to come from anybody else. That is my point. The first step is I think this administration ought to work to have debt forgiveness with Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and others so they do not have that debt overhanging that country and then have that country's oil produce the revenue to reconstruct the country. This is not a desperately impoverished country. This is a country that sits on top of massive quantities of money in the form of oil, and yet we are being told the American taxpayers--who are already facing very large, staggering deficits, I might say--that somehow the issues of building dams, building prisons, building communities, doing job training, building hospitals, building health care facilities, building roads, all of that should be borne by the American taxpayer at a time when they have the capability to produce the revenue in Iraq to pay for all of that. This is inexplicable to me. As I said to my colleague, I hope we have a healthy dose of common sense that prevails on this question. Not on the military issue. I want some common sense there, too, but I do not want anybody to question whether we are going to support the military. We do. On reconstruction, we really need to go at this on behalf of the American people, in their interest. It is not in their interest to have to add this to the Federal debt and say to America's children, you pay for the reconstruction of a country that has oil to pay for its own reconstruction. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. I was just recollecting, as the Senator from Montana was speaking, telemarketing is, of course, a legitimate business. It is an important business in many respects. But the point that my colleague, Senator Ensign, made is the American people also have their right, and their right is to put their name on a list to say, I do not want unsolicited calls. They call almost everyone. I received a call some long while ago from a telemarketer. I answered the phone, and the telemarketer said: May I speak to Haley Dorgan please? I could tell immediately it was a telemarketer. I said: You could, but I do not think she is going to buy anything. She is 4 years old. They get lists and they just blizzard the country with telephone calls to young and old. It is indiscriminate, and that is why this fervor has grown in this country to do something about giving the American people the right to say they do not want these unsolicited calls. That is what this legislation will do. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Kohl.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, unless the Senator from Nevada has time he wants to consume, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Arkansas, Mr. Pryor.

Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent Senator Reid of Nevada be added as an original cosponsor.

Mr. DORGAN. Might I just in less than a minute say we have not mentioned on the Senate floor, and we should, that the Federal Communications Commission took action that was complementary and action that coordinates with the Federal Trade Commission because action was needed by the Federal Communications Commission with respect to common carriers in areas under their jurisdiction to also create a do not call list, which is expansive. So while I, with some of my colleagues, have been critical of the Federal Communications Commission on other issues on the Senate floor in recent weeks, I did want to say that the Federal Communications Commission deserves our plaudits and deserves credit for moving very quickly to fill in a gap with respect to a do not call list. All of our discussion is about the Federal Trade Commission, but, again, I think the Federal Trade Commission has contributed substantially, and I compliment them for that, with the leadership of Michael Powell and all the Commissioners. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I compliment my colleagues, Senator McCain and Senator Hollings. This is an important issue, one we believed we had previously resolved only to learn that a court ruled that the Do Not Call list developed by the Federal Trade Commission was ``not authorized.'' Most of us in Congress and the Senate are surprised by that. Clearly, we authorized that. But if a court needs another authorization, it is something we can certainly do on a Thursday afternoon at 4:15. So this will be done with the support of many colleagues, and I am pleased to say that this is good public policy. Let me make a couple of comments about the substance. There may be some people who are terribly lonely and whose phone seldom rings except to have an advertiser of a credit card or a long-distance service call during meal time just wanting to visit about their product. There may be some people who welcome those calls, just talk the ear off these telemarketers. I can't say that for sure, but this country is full of very interesting people. As for me and for most of the American people, getting a telephone call in the middle of a meal or getting a telephone call at all hours of the day and night to have someone tell us that we really need a new long-distance service or a preapproved credit card gets a little annoying. Unsolicited phone calls are an intrusion on the phone line that most American people pay every month to have in their home. I come from a sparsely populated State, a wonderful place. It is 10 times the size of the Massachusetts landmass, with 642,000 people. It is spread out. We understand the importance of communications. We understand the importance of telephones. It took a long while to get telephones to the outer reaches of our country, including rural areas. Now with modern communications, we also understand that we are not alone in our homes. There are those who are working in large banks of employees who are randomly, with computers, calling telephone numbers from banks of telephone books, getting people on the line. And by the way, because these computers dial multiple numbers at once, when one person answers, perhaps a second person is answering a nanosecond later, no one will be on the line when they answer. That happens often. People should understand that comes from unsolicited phone calls with computer banks making calls. One person answers; the other doesn't get an answer. That is what is happening. It is enormously annoying. Do people have an inherent right to make solicitation calls? Yes. But the other question is, Do people who pay for their telephone service each month have a right to put their name on a registry saying: I really don't want these calls; don't have them come into my telephone instrument; I pay for the instrument and I don't want to be annoyed and I don't want to be interrupted by them? Do people have that right? Of course, they do. That is what this issue is about. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs in the Commerce Committee last year, I held hearings on this. At one of the reauthorization hearings for the FTC, we had an entire panel devoted to the discussion of a do not call registry. We had a hearing in which the Federal Trade Commission came up, the Commissioners themselves, and talked to us about this issue. I had a member of the Federal Trade Commission come to Fargo, ND. We held a public hearing there on this subject. This is not a foreign or strange subject to me nor to most of my colleagues. As a result of that, we took action in reauthorizing the Federal Trade Commission to include funding to allow them to put together a Do Not Call Registry. If you wonder whether the American people care about this, just remember these numbers. They put together a Do Not Call Registry and said to the people: If you think these unsolicited telephone calls are bothersome to you, if it is an intrusion on your family and an interruption to your life and annoying to you and you want to stop them, call and put your telephone number and your name on this registry. Guess what. In virtually a nanosecond, 50 million Americans have said: Count me out. I don't want to be a part of this unsolicited phone call mess going on. Put my name on the list and get rid of these phone calls. In the State of North Dakota, 131,000 people said: We don't want these calls. We don't want the interruptions. We don't want the annoyance. Stop it. Now one court has said somehow this is not operative, effective, because it is not authorized. So this afternoon the House will authorize it, the Senate will authorize it, and the bill will go to the President and be signed. I hope this court will understand that not only was it authorized, but we were pleased this afternoon to authorize it a second time just to reinforce our determination with the American people that we believe they have the power and they ought to have the ability to stop these calls. Let me make just a couple of additional points. Some say this is an important industry making these telephone calls, doing marketing. The answer is, sure, it is. It employs people. We are not saying with this legislation that you cannot make unsolicited phone calls. We are saying the American people, however, have a right to decide they don't want to be part of it; I don't want to receive them. This is empowering the American people. If there are people, as I said, who are lonely, have no one to talk to, who sit around all day with a desire to visit with somebody, if they want to get these phone calls, God bless them. Let them get the phone calls, let them get the credit cards and sign up for multiple long-distance services, and let them visit until they are visited out. I assume there are a few of those people. But in most cases the American people are saying: Put my name on the list. I don't want to be interrupted. I don't want unsolicited phone calls, especially during mealtime. There is this peculiar quality of this industry to call only when dinner or supper is ready. Lord only knows how that occurs, but it does. So today we have said we are going to authorize this explicitly once again, so that this Do Not Call list will not be interrupted. People whose names are on that list will be assured they will not receive unsolicited calls. I say to my colleague, Senator Ensign, I know he is working on this issue and has introduced legislation, and my colleague, Senator Feinstein, and others--again, we have worked hard on this in the Commerce Committee, going back to last July--July 17, at the reauthorization hearing I chaired. I will not go through all the negotiations that went on with appropriations and the reauthorization, but suffice it to say we believed very strongly the FTC should have taken the action they did. We provided the funding. We implicitly provided authorization for it, and today we are once again reauthorizing that which we have previously done just to satisfy some court in some corner of America, and in order to give comfort to those 50 million Americans and the at least 130,000 North Dakotans who have said: Take my name off this list. The American people have that right. This legislation allows them to keep that right. It is very important. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Inouye as a cosponsor.

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

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield the remaining time on our side to Senator Dodd from Connecticut.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. I appreciate this thorough report about the benefits of the Little Rock Audubon Nature Center.

Mr. DORGAN. Fetal Alcohol Syndrome is one of the most pressing health issues facing Native Americans and I am committed to helping advance our research efforts in this field.

Mr. DORGAN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

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

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, while we are waiting for some other presenters, speakers on the amendments that are pending, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for 5 minutes, and ask it appear in the morning business section of today's Record.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, yesterday we had a hearing in the Senate Appropriations Committee with Ambassador Bremer, who has just returned from Iraq and is here for the week to talk about the needs in the country of Iraq, especially to talk about the requested $87 billion that is the part of the President's request he says is necessary for both the military needs in Iraq, to support the troops stationed in Iraq and now completing their mission in Iraq, and also $20 billion for the reconstruction of Iraq. I want to make a couple of comments about that because, since our hearing yesterday, I have been doing some research. At the hearing yesterday I said to the Ambassador: It is quite clear to me the Congress will respond affirmatively. First of all, it is unthinkable to send America's sons and daughters wearing our military uniform to war anywhere in the world and not provide all the support that is necessary and that is requested. The military portion of that request, in my judgment, will be granted, should be granted completely and quickly. Second, on the question of reconstructing Iraq, the $20 billion necessary for the reconstruction of this country, I asked Ambassador Bremer a number of questions. I want to make a comment about that and some of the research I have done since that time. It is the case that the campaign that was called ``Shock and Awe,'' which we all saw on the television, of bombing and the ensuing military action with smart bombs, smart weapons--that campaign did not target Iraq's infrastructure. It did not target the electric facilities, did not target the power facilities or dams or roads or bridges. It targeted military targets, palaces, and other items of strategic value, but it specifically did not target infrastructure in Iraq. So the damage to the infrastructure in Iraq is not damage caused by America's military action in Iraq. It is caused now, increasingly, by the insurgent movement in Iraq, the terrorists and others who are engaged in destruction in Iraq. But the question I was asking the Ambassador about reconstructing Iraq is, If we did not destroy Iraq's infrastructure, then why should the American taxpayer be paying money to reconstruct the infrastructure? I suggested the infrastructure obviously needs to be dealt with, but should not the oil reserves in Iraq be used to pump the oil and produce the revenue for the reconstruction of this country? Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world. Those oil reserves, it seems to me, ought to be used for the reconstruction of Iraq. Let Iraqi oil pay for the reconstruction of Iraq. Ambassador Bremer said to me: One of the problems with that approach is Iraq has a substantial amount of accumulated debt. Since yesterday I began to research what is this debt that Iraq owes the rest of the world. My guess is it is the Saddam Hussein government that owes the rest of the world. That government does not exist. He is in hiding somewhere. The government doesn't exist any longer. Here are the countries that Saddam Hussein presumably owes money to: Kuwait, probably somewhere around $20 billion; Saudi Arabia, $25 billion; the other gulf states, probably $25 billion; Russia, $10 billion; France, $6 billion. These are not specific amounts that are tied down very well because the World Bank Debtor Reporter System tells us there are no collated figures available from Iraq because Iraq is one of the few countries which did not report its debt statistics. So no documents exist in the Iraqi Ministry of Finance. None of it has yet emerged. They may well have been lost in the chaos. But would it be ironic if the American taxpayer is told that they must use their money to reconstruct Iraq and the Iraqi oil wells will pump oil, the proceeds of which will be used to pay Saudi Arabia and Kuwait for debts incurred while Saddam Hussein ran the Iraqi Government? You talk about a Byzantine result, that is it. I believe reconstruction is necessary. But I also believe that reconstruction ought to be paid for with Iraqi oil. The Ambassador will say, Well, there is not enough money left for the operation of the Iraqi Government, but the Ambassador also said yesterday with some satisfaction that they just put a new tax system in the country of Iraq. He said with some satisfaction that the top income tax rate is 15 percent. So we are going to ask the Americans who will pay a top rate of 39- percent income tax to send reconstruction money to Iraq whose economy is generating an income tax against that with respect to its wealthiest citizens at a rate of a 15-percent tax rate. I don't think that makes much sense. My only point is this: Of the $20 billion, $5 billion is for security. So there is $15 billion for security and reconstruction above the military needs. I believe that what we ought to do is have the Ambassador and the administration work very hard to resolve these debts. It seems to me one might well tell the Saudis and the Kuwaitis: You loaned the money to the Saddam Hussein regime. You know that debt is owed to you by Saddam Hussein. Go find him and go collect it. If you think you can find him, tell us where he is. But go find him and collect it. That ought not be a burden on the country of Iraq. The government with which you engaged in this credit transaction no longer exists. Following that, it seems to me that it would be reasonable to securitize or collateralize Iraqi oil. We know they will by next June or July be pumping 3 million barrels per day. The amount that is not needed in Iraq but that is available for export will yield revenues of about $16 billion a year. That is $160 billion in 10 years, or $320 billion in 20 years, this for a country of 24 million people. If you can't securitize or collateralize $320 billion over 10 years to pay for a $20 billion reconstruction of Iraq, then there is something wrong with all the financiers and all the tall thinkers who are working on this. I believe the money requested is necessary. But I believe the construct of the reconstruction in Iraq and the payment for that reconstruction should not be a burden on the shoulders of the American taxpayer--not taxpayers who are paying more than double the rate the top taxpayers in Iraq will be asked to bear and not taxpayers who should pay taxes so Iraqi oil wells can pump oil to send money to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. What a perverse result that would be. We are going to have a lot of discussion about that, and we should have. The President has made a request and said the money is necessary. He is right. The money is necessary. The question is not whether it is necessary on the military side because we ought to appropriate that money. We ought to do it now, and we ought not delay. On the reconstruction side, let us understand the money is necessary but it ought to come from the resources from Iraqi oil. By my calculation, those resources would be $320 billion conservatively in the next 20 years. It is easy to collateralize or securitize that with the private sector. Or, for that matter, if you do not want the private sector with the IMF or the World Bank in order not to impose this burden on the American taxpayer but instead rely on Iraqi oil, once again the second largest reserves of oil in the world under the sands of Iraq, a country with 24 million people, they surely can afford to construct a plan--that is, the Iraqi council, and also the allies that are involved, including this country--can surely construct a plan by which we use that resource to reconstruct and reinvest in that country. It is Iraq's resource. It is Iraq's oil. It ought not be an obligation of the American taxpayer to pay for that portion of the emergency request. My hope is, as we begin these discussions in the coming days, that two things will emerge: No. 1, the President and others will understand that Congress is going to respond and respond affirmatively to the needs that exist, especially for our soldiers but also with respect to reconstruction, and, No. 2, that Congress does not, should not, and will not respond by imposing a burden on the taxpayers of this country for the reconstruction needs that should be financed with Iraqi oil. That is a debate that we must have. I hope the result will be positive for the American taxpayer and positive for the people of Iraq, for that matter, because they have substantial resources with which to reconstruct the infrastructure of Iraq, which, by the way, was not destroyed by this country. That infrastructure in Iraq was not destroyed by this country's military campaign. This country's military campaign removed a brutal dictator. We are now opening football-field-size graves containing 10,000 and 12,000 skeletons. That campaign, however, while removing the Saddam Hussein government, did not destroy their country's infrastructure, and there are plenty of resources under the sands of Iraq to produce oil with which to produce revenue to reinvest in that infrastructure and in the future without having the American people bear that burden.