Don Nickles

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, first I congratulate Senator Shelby for his management of this bill. This is an appropriations bill. The budget authority of this bill is actually less than last year's level. And the outlays under this bill, as far as the outlays that are controlled, grew by 3.6 percent. So it is within the budget. It is within the budget that we have passed, and it is also within the budget agreement that the chairman of the Appropriations Committee made with the President. This amendment is not. This amendment does bust the budget. This amendment does have a budget point of order that lies against it. But it also is not necessary. I heard my colleague say it is necessary. Let me state a different opinion than that. In last year's appropriations bill, we appropriated $1.5 billion for election assistance. There is $833 million of that that has not been used. As a matter of fact, there is an election assistance commission that was formed under that legislation. The commissioners haven't even been appointed or confirmed. I understand they are going to be soon. I heard my colleague from Missouri say: We can't take the enforcement provisions unless we get this money. That is not correct. They need the commission. The commission hasn't been confirmed. I am not sure; maybe that is because the names weren't submitted. Maybe they were not confirmed because of a little disagreement between Democrats and Republicans. We have had trouble confirming some people this year. But I understand they are going to. I think that is good. The facts are, there is $833 million of 2003 money that has not been spent. In the 2004 appropriations bill, there is $500 million that is in the bill. That is a total of $1.3 billion for this purpose that is available to be spent as soon as the appropriations bill is passed. How much did the administration request? The administration requested $500 million. They requested $500 million which is in the bill. So by the time we pass this bill, there will be $1.3 billion to be spent. I would venture to say the States couldn't spend another billion if we tried. I wouldn't be surprised if they can't spend $1.3 billion in the next 12 months. They have only been able to spend less than $800 million this year. So now we want to increase that and make it $2.3 billion that they are going to spend in the next 12 months. I don't think they can do it. Certainly, it would be busting the budget. Sometimes we have things we would like to do, but we can't do because we have fiscal constraints. We have very large deficits and they are going to get larger if we come up and say, I am sorry, but, yes, there is a good cause here; and even though elections have always been basically administered and paid for by the States, we would love to have the Federal Government assume all the costs and throw out billions of dollars in the process. We have been very generous with $1.5 billion last year, $500 million this year, and $831 million yet to be spent. I think we have ample money and every reason to sustain the budget point of order that will soon be raised by the chairman of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from Arizona for his generosity. I compliment Senator Warner and Senator McCain and Senator Levin and others. I think a purchase is so much more fiscally responsible, and it is such more honest with the budget. We are going to save billions of dollars by doing the purchase. The lease, in my opinion, is, frankly, not the right way to do it if we are going to be honest with the taxpayers and honest in saving money for the system. We need the airplanes. I am all in favor of moving forward with the airplanes. And certainly this is a much more logical deal. I thank my colleague from Arizona. The CBO, Congressional Budget Office, certainly concurs that a purchase is a much more fiscally responsible method of purchasing the airplanes.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, as I am sure all of my colleagues know by now, the procedure banned by this bill--the partial-birth abortion procedure--defies description. I am not going to go into the terrible details of this procedure which is performed on a living child late in pregnancy. This is a truly shocking procedure--absolutely indefensible. The term ``partial-birth'' is perfectly accurate. Some prominent defenders of partial-birth abortions insist that anesthesia kills the babies before they are removed from the womb. This myth has been refuted by professional societies of anesthesiologists. In reality, the babies are alive and experience great pain when subjected to a partial-birth abortion. It has been asserted that this procedure is the only way to prevent serious health damage. However, partial-birth abortions are performed thousands of times annually on healthy babies of healthy mothers. Hundreds of ob-gyns and fetal/maternal specialists, along with former Surgeon General Koop have come forward to unequivocally state that ``partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary to protect another's health or her future fertility.'' Thus, the first section of S. 3 contains Congress' factual findings that, based upon extensive medical evidence compiled during congressional hearings, a partial- birth abortion is never necessary to preserve the health of a woman. In January 2003, even the Alan Guttmacher Institute--an affiliate of Planned Parenthood--published a survey of abortion providers that estimated that 2,200 abortions were performed by the method in the year 2000. While that figure is surely low, it is more than triple the number that AGI estimated in its most recent previous survey, for 1996. The stark fact is that unless this bill becomes law, more innocent unborn children will have their lives brutally ended by the inhumane partial-birth procedure. It is unbelievable to me that this unspeakable abortion procedure even exists in this country, much less that we are having to take legislative action to ban such a procedure. It is further unbelievable to me that anyone in good conscience can even defend the partial-birth abortion procedure. It is a fiction to believe that it is all right to end the life of a baby whose body, except the head, is fully delivered. In order to engage in such a fiction, one has to take the position that curling fingers and kicking legs have no life in them. Those who subscribe to such a fiction, are at best, terribly misguided. As Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop stated: ``. . . in no way can I twist my mind to see that the late-term abortion as described-- you know, partial birth and then destruction of the unborn child before the head is born--is a medical necessity for the mother. It certainly can't be a necessity for the baby.'' American Medical News, August 19, 1996. Now it is time for the Senate to approve a ban on partial-birth abortions. It is time to end this injustice and the practice of this inhumane procedure. I urge my colleagues to join me in ending this atrocity.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, first, I wish to tell my colleagues who debated on the other side of the issue that I have great respect for their position. I just happen to disagree with it. I stated some time ago that I had hoped a significant portion of the $20 billion for reconstruction of Iraq could be in the form of a loan. I would like to see that be the case. I just happen to think, upon further review, that it is not possible now. It might be possible a year from now, but it is not possible now, at least in my opinion. There is no government in Iraq today. Hopefully, there will be. It is our objective to have a democracy in Iraq. It is our objective to have Iraq run by Iraqis. There is nobody in Iraq who can sign a note and say: We will borrow $10 billion and pay you back. Nobody. I guess one could say Ambassador Bremer could do it. I listened to Ambassador Bremer, and I have great confidence in him. I think he has done a great job. This amendment is saying we know better than he does. He happens to be living in Iraq. He is working there. He is risking his life daily. I don't know how many assassination attempts have been made on his life and on the lives of the people working with him. I actually have a former staff member who is working in the Iraqi government. She is fluent in Arabic. I happen to think they have made a good choice. Maybe in the future loans can be made, but right now there is not an Iraqi government. There is no one to sign the note. There is no one who can say: We will make payments and pay this back. Frankly, if one looks at their current situation--Iraq is a country that was so ignored by Saddam Hussein, so devastated by his terrible plundering of the country for military purposes, that their ability to pay back debt is nonexistent for some time. Iraq has inherited a lot of debt. I have an amendment we will be voting on shortly that says countries that own Saddam Hussein's incurred debt should forgive that debt. I hope that amendment will be supported, and I hope that will send a signal to those countries that hold some of that paper. That paper is worthless. Saddam Hussein did not make payments on it. There is no way in the world future Iraqis could inherit that debt and prosper. So it needs to be written off. If we say, before you write that off, we want to add another $10 billion, even though you don't have a government, we want to add another $10 billion on top of that, and, oh, yes, we want to be paid back, but we want you to write off the $100 billion or the $150 billion of debt previously owned, I think that complicates that message. Maybe I am wrong, but when we are saying we want to lend $10 billion and we want to be paid off, but you other countries who hold a bunch of Iraqi debt, you should forgive that, I think it will get lost in the translation. This amendment says $10 billion will be released when and if 90 percent of that debt is forgiven. Maybe it is a carrot, maybe it is an incentive that $10 billion will never be spent. I do know there is not a government that can sign this note. There is not an Iraqi government that can make the payment. Maybe it will make people feel better to say it is a loan, but there is nobody to sign that note. There is nobody who has the authority and who is supported by the Iraqi people who can say: Yes, we will be making these payments. Likewise, it greatly complicates our efforts to get other countries that currently hold worthless Iraqi paper to write off that debt. They are going to say: United States, if you are going to take on $10 billion of loans and you expect to be paid, then we expect to be paid. I think it will greatly complicate efforts to get other countries to write off their debt. Let me say this about Ambassador Bremer. He has done a fantastic job. Do we support him or not? I asked Secretary Powell yesterday: Is there a government in Iraq that can pay this note back? He said no. Is there anybody there who can pay this note back? He said no. That is our Secretary of State. I asked basically the same questions of Ambassador Bremer. Is this possible? He said no. He was strongly urging us to go the grant approach; give them the flexibility to get this country going, not complicate their efforts when they are trying to get other countries to write off some of the existing worthless debt. I have confidence in Ambassador Bremer. I have confidence in Secretary Powell. I think this amendment is very well intended. Again, I have no complaints whatsoever about the authors of this amendment. I respect them greatly as colleagues, but I think they made a mistake, and I urge our colleagues to vote no on this amendment when we vote. I yield the floor.

Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendments Nos. 1869, As Modified; 1870; and 1857, As Modified, En bloc

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

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

Mr. NICKLES. There is a significant range. I will go over a few of these countries, but the essence of it is that none of these countries have received payments on Iraqi debt for years. In most cases, for decades payments have not been made. Saddam Hussein incurred a lot of debt. The countries holding that debt may hold it as if it is worth something, but, frankly, no payments have been made on that debt for some time. Who holds that debt? The range of the total amount of debt according to CRS--and I am not talking about war reparations for Saddam Hussein's war with Iran and invasion of Kuwait. There are a lot of claimed reparations for damages. That is not covered by this resolution. We are talking about debt incurred by Saddam Hussein's regime, and that was estimated by CRS as being a total of $95 billion and $153 billion. Some of the debt ranges are for Western countries and some are for Middle Eastern Gulf States. Some of the Western countries are: Canada is estimated to have $1 billion. France, from $2 billion to $8 billion; we are not certain of the exact amount. Germany, from $2 billion to $4 billion. Italy, from $1 billion to $2 billion. Japan, from $3 billion to $7 billion. Russia, from $3 billion to $16 billion. The U.K., from $1 billion to $2 billion. The United States, from $2 billion to $5 billion. These were debts incurred under the regime of Saddam Hussein. The essence of this amendment is to urge these countries to forgive or wipe off the debt from the books. For the Middle Eastern Gulf States, it is much more. Saudi Arabia is reported to hold $25 billion of Iraqi loans; Kuwait, $17 billion to $27 billion; other Gulf States, from $18 billion to $30 billion. If the Iraqi debt is from $95 billion to $150 billion--let's say it is $120 billion--if we were making payments even at 5 percent--that is $5 billion, $6 billion, $7 billion a year in interest payments--they could not afford to pay that. These interest payments would consume 80 percent to 130 percent of Iraq's oil revenues. Clearly, that is not sustainable. The Iraqis have a lot of infrastructure needs. They have a lot of rebuilding needs. They have a lot of needs that have been ignored by the previous regime, by Saddam Hussein, for decades. If they had to make payments on this existing debt, I think it would only complicate, frankly, their future and their survival. I urge in this sense-of-the-Senate amendment countries that are holding debt that was incurred by Saddam Hussein's regime to forgive that debt so Iraq can move forward with a new government without being so constrained, so the new government can move forward and rebuild Iraq without being so tied up with this existing debt. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

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

Mr. NICKLES. I would be happy to.

Mr. NICKLES. The Senator is correct.

Mr. NICKLES. To respond to the statement of my friend and colleague, he is exactly right. If one were trying to take this debt or paper on the international market prior to the U.S. liberation of Iraq, it would be worthless because no payments were made on it before. I think it was generally assumed no payments would be made by the Saddam Hussein regime. My colleague from New Mexico is exactly correct.

Mr. NICKLES. I appreciate that. You mentioned a couple of these countries. Saudi Arabia has the largest, according to CRS estimates it is $25 billion. They say Kuwait may have $17 billion to $27 billion of Iraqi debt. They are Iraq's neighbors. Our liberation of Iraq eliminates a threat to them. I believe most of that money was lent when Iraq was fighting Iran. Frankly, they should not be insisting on payment. They were never repaid in the past. Nor should U.S. taxpayers or other people who were in the process of trying to rebuild Iraq be making contributions thinking maybe that will be going to satisfy creditors from the previous regime. That would be a mistake. I thank my friend and colleague from New Mexico. I yield the floor.

Mr. NICKLES. I urge our colleagues to vote in favor of this sense-of- the-Senate resolution which urges countries that currently hold Iraqi debt that was incurred by Saddam Hussein to forgive that debt. If they do not, the Iraqi people and the Iraqi economy will suffocate. The Congressional Research Service says there is from $95 to $153 billion worth of debt. They cannot service that debt and grow as an economy. That debt is owned or held by Saudi Arabia. They have $25 billion. It is held by Kuwait, $15 to $27 billion; Russia, $3 to $16 billion; Japan, $3 to $7 billion; Germany, $2 to $4 billion; France, $2 to $8 billion. We urge the countries that took debt, made loans to Saddam Hussein's regime, to forgive that debt and allow the Iraqi people and their economy to grow. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to report on the budgetary effect of S. 1689, the Emergency Supplemental for Iraq and Afghanistan Security and Reconstruction for Fiscal Year 2004, as reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations. The pending bill provides $87 billion in budget authority and $36.7 billion in outlays for Fiscal Year 2004 for ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and reconstruction of Iraq. Since all funds contained in the reported bill are either emergencies or contingent emergencies, under section 502(c) of the 2004 budget resolution none of these funds count for purposes of section 302, 303, 311, and 401 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and sections 504 and 505 of the 2004 Budget Resolution. Additionally, I would like to remind my colleagues of the criteria for using the emergency designation. Section 502 of the 2004 budget resolution identifies the following criteria for the appropriate use of the emergency designation: that the funding is (1) necessary, essential, or vital, not merely useful or beneficial; (2) sudden, quickly coming into being, and not building up over time; (3) an urgent, pressing, and compelling need requiring immediate action; (4) unforseen, unpredictable, and unanticipated; and (5) not permanent, temporary in nature. The reported bill has satisfied these criteria. Given the fact that most of the regular appropriation bills have not yet been enacted, we ought to view any further use of the emergency designation with great skepticism. I also note for my colleagues that we are in a highly unusual parliamentary situation with this supplemental. Instead of doing a 2004 supplemental after all regular appropriation bills have been enacted, we are considering an $87 billion supplemental before most of the regular bills have been enacted. While there is an allocation for each of the 13 regular bills, there is no additional or special allocation for a supplemental. Because this is such an unusual situation, I do not want people to think that the way the Senate deals with possible amendments on this bill sets a precedent for the way the Budget Committee will enforce the 302(b) allocations in the future. If any amendments are adopted adding nonemergency spending to this bill, then members should know that the cost of such amendments will be counted against the appropriate subcommittee allocation. And I will remind the Senate at the appropriate time about any points of order that apply to subsequent bills and will insist that bills be changed to remedy the situation or will raise the appropriate point of order. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the Budget Committee scoring of the bill be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I move to table the amendment.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I ask unanimous consent the Senator from Arizona be allowed to speak for 3 minutes and the opposing side be allowed to speak for 3 minutes.

Mr. NICKLES. I renew my request to 2 minutes on each side.

Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator from Arizona yield?

Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator from Arizona yield?

Mr. NICKLES. The Senator from Arizona--

Mr. NICKLES. Correct me if I am wrong. It is my understanding the Department of Defense opposes this amendment.

Mr. NICKLES. For the reasons stated by the Senator from Virginia and the Senator from Arizona.