Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan Security and Reconstruction Act, 2004

EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN SECURITY AND RECONSTRUCTION ACT, 2004

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank the chairman. I am happy to come to the floor and speak on the bill which we considered yesterday in the Appropriations Committee, and that is the administration's request for $87 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan.

First, there are items in this bill which I think are very valuable. We were all shocked to learn the Department of Defense had a policy which required those soldiers who were gravely injured and returned to the United States for medical treatment would be charged on a per diem, daily basis for the food they ate at the hospital.

It is my understanding this bill, among other things, eliminates that requirement. Thank goodness. I cannot believe it existed, and it is certainly unconscionable that men and women who have been gravely injured and are going through medical treatment and rehabilitation would be charged extra for the food they are served. I am glad that requirement is removed.

I also salute my chairman, Senator Stevens from Alaska, for stopping the administration from changing compensation for the military which would have created a very great inequity and a disservice for so many active soldiers and activated guardsmen and reservists who are assigned to locations other than Iraq and Afghanistan.

The administration proposal originally would have resulted in the family separation allowance—the money which we would give them so families can get through this tough time—being eliminated for those serving outside of the Iraq and Afghan theaters. This bill changes that provision. So two Department of Defense policies which did not help our soldiers and, in fact, I think were unfair to them, have been corrected by this bill. I salute the chairman and members of the committee for joining in making certain that happened.

Let me also add, this bill includes about $67 billion for the maintenance of our military in Iraq and Afghanistan. I totally support that effort. I came to the floor last October and voted against the use-of-force resolution, but I feel today, as I did shortly thereafter, that with the beginning of the hostilities, that vote, frankly, should be set aside and we should focus on making certain the men and women serving this country have everything they need to not only accomplish their missions but come home safely. The request from the administration for some $67 billion for that purpose is money that I think should be made available through this Congress, and I totally endorse it.

Of course, there is another portion of this bill, and that other portion relates to the so-called reconstruction of Iraq. That, of course, raises other questions, questions which I don't believe have been adequately addressed by this Congress.

It strikes me as unusual that we are pushing through this $87 billion supplemental appropriations bill on such an expedited schedule that we have not taken the time to ask the hard questions. Keep in mind the $87 billion included in this bill is a sum total of taxpayer spending over and above the total we spend each year on Federal aid to education and foreign aid. So we are putting in this one bill $87 billion and bringing it for consideration by the Senate in a matter of days, when these other items—foreign aid and education—take weeks and months of review and preparation before they come to the floor.

Of course, Senator Byrd has led our side in asking the question: Why do we have to do this with such an abbreviated schedule where we don't take the time to ask the hard questions? When Ambassador Bremer, who serves our country in Iraq at this time, came to speak before the Senators' luncheon 2 weeks ago, I asked him a series of questions about the reconstruction effort.

The first question I asked him was this: If we didn't appropriate a penny, if we didn't give you anything, when would you run out of money for the reconstruction effort?

He said: December 1, maybe January 1, but somewhere in that range.

Clearly, a matter of a week or more to ask hard questions about the reconstruction of Iraq would not create any disadvantage to the efforts of Ambassador Bremer and the efforts on the ground in Iraq. But the administration, the White House, is hellbent on moving this appropriations bill through as quickly as possible.

I went on to ask Ambassador Bremer: If we are putting $20 billion into the reconstruction of Iraq, what is the total cost?
What would be the total commitment necessary for us to reconstruct Iraq as you see it? I asked him this question 2 weeks ago.

He said: $60 billion is the total cost. That is the estimate given to us by the World Bank, $60 billion.

I said: The difference, obviously, of $40 billion is unresolved at this moment. Where will it come from?

Ambassador Bremer told us it would come from donor countries that would give money to this effort to rebuild Iraq.

I have to tell you in all candor, as I said to him, all of the coalition of the willing, all of the countries in the world have pledged less than $2 billion. Where are you going to find the remainder?

He said we have to work on that.

Again, we find the Bush administration without a real plan and a real budget for the reconstruction of Iraq. I said to Ambassador Bremer at this point: Can you give me your word and the word of this administration that you will not come back to us and ask for more money than the $20 billion being requested for reconstruction in this appropriations?

He said: That's it, $20 billion; that's it. That is all the United States needs to come up with.

It doesn't add up. You can't put together $20 billion in this bill, $2 billion for the rest of the world and total $60 billion.
This could be a bait-and-switch situation, and I think Senator Byrd has raised that point. Once we have invested the first $20 billion, are we likely to leave? The next argument would be: Come on, you don't want to stop. You can't change horses in midstream. Let's finish it out. Let's finish the job, which means more demands on the American people.

I hope you understand the skepticism that many of us bring to this debate is based primarily on actual statements made by the Bush administration about the reconstruction of Iraq.

Do my colleagues recall last year, when economic adviser at the White House Lawrence Lindsey, on September 15, said he estimated that the cost of the war, military and reconstruction, would be between $100 billion and $200 billion? Remember when he said that? As a result of that statement, he was admonished by Mitch Daniels, then Budget Director, who said:
$100 billion to $200 billion is likely very, very high, if it's meant to apply to the cost to taxpayers.

So Mitch Daniels was sent out to admonish Larry Lindsey to not use figures like $100 billion to $200 billion.

I would ask Senator Byrd: If I am not mistaken, did we not first appropriate $79 billion in a supplemental appropriation for Iraq and now we are coming back with the second supplemental request of $87 billion and more to follow? Are we not talking already over $160 billion that is being spent through these supplemental appropriations?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. BYRD. In response to the Senator, if I may say, the first action by the Senate was in April of this year when the
Congress passed the 2003 supplemental appropriations bill. That appropriated $79 billion. The Senate is now being asked to enact an $87 billion 2004 supplemental appropriation. That is before the Senate today.

Mr. DURBIN. At the moment, the sum total of those bills, if I am not mistaken, if this turns out to be $87 billion, is somewhere in the range of $166 billion?

Mr. BYRD. It is indeed.

Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator, our Democratic leader and ranking member on the Appropriations Committee, because it turns out that Lawrence Lindsey was right. He said it was going to cost about $100 billion to $200 billion. He lost his job over that statement. He was asked to leave the administration.

Mitch Daniels, then Director of the Office of Management and Budget, was quoted on December 31, 2002, in the New York Times, as having said then:

The administration's top budget official estimated today that the cost of a war with Iraq could be in the range of $50 billion to $60 billion.

Well, we have blown past that, clearly. As I have noted, we are at $166 billion and counting. The ultimate cost of reconstruction, if it is $60 billion, means another $40 billion has to be found, and there are not many coalition donors willing to step forward with real money, and that is the reality.

The other thing that troubles many of us is that this administration, in justifying the invasion of Iraq, said many things.
They said, No. 1, Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who should be replaced. No one argued with that. Everyone agreed. He was a dictator who was cruel to his own people, a threat to the region, and potentially a threat beyond. But then when they started building the case of why we had to do it quickly, before we built a coalition of support, before we brought in the United Nations behind us, the administration said we cannot wait; we have to go it alone; we have to create our own coalition; we have to go outside the United Nations for the following reasons: First, they said Saddam Hussein is developing nuclear weapons. Well, guess what. There is no evidence of that. That was the first thing they told us was the reason for the urgency, to get in there and stop the development of these nuclear weapons. Here we are more than 5 months after the end of military hostilities with no evidence whatsoever. In fact, the statements by the President about this uranium, this yellowcake, coming in from Africa to Iraq, that he made in his State of the Union Address, he has had to say within the last few weeks were just wrong; that evidence was not there. There was no reason to make that statement.

Then they went on to say there is immediacy for this invasion because of the chemical and biological weapons. In fact, it has now been declassified that we had identified 550 suspected sites of weapons of mass destruction, chemical and biological weapons, in Iraq. We are 5 months after the fact, and after thousands of our inspectors have combed all of those sites and others, they have come up empty. Now, Mr. Kay may find some evidence of something, but in the 550 sites of weapons of mass destruction they just were not discovered.

Then there was the argument that not only did they have those weapons but they could launch them in 45 minutes—the word "launch" was used—as a threat to the region, as a threat to the United States. That was repeated by Prime Minister Tony Blair as well as this administration, and in fact there is no evidence whatsoever that is the case.

Then the argument was made, wait a minute, keep in mind that Saddam Hussein was part of this grand terrorist conspiracy that struck the United States on September 11, 2001, in concert with al-Qaida. Just 2 weeks ago, the President had to come forward, after Vice President Cheney had said something very similar, and correct the record and say, no, we have no evidence of linkage between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida. So here we have a case that is being built for the invasion of Iraq without a coalition that is global, without the support of the United Nations, and we find that the rationale, the arguments for it, have all broken down and fallen apart.

Others raised the question at the time, well, after we win in Iraq, after we have deposed Saddam Hussein, they asked
President Bush and his administration, how will we rebuild it? What is the future of Iraq? And that is where the statements started pouring out that are relevant to this debate.

Vice President Cheney on "Meet the Press," March 16, 2003:

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. .    .    .

That was Vice President Cheney pointing to the oil reserves of Iraq as the way they will rebuild their nation.

Paul Wolfowitz, Assistant Secretary of the Department of Defense, the man who is credited with being the architect of this Iraq strategy, the man who was pushing harder than most for the invasion of Iraq even if the United States had to go it alone, stated on March 27, 2003, when asked about the cost of reconstruction:

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

Six months ago, the leaders in this administration were telling the American people they would not have to bear this burden; the Iraqis with their oil revenues will be the ones to bear the burden.

Quoting Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld from March 27, 2003:

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, including the Oil for Food, which has a very substantial number of billions of dollars in it.

So here we have the leaders in the administration who were categorical in saying that this day would never come, that we would not be on the Senate floor saying to the American people we need billions of dollars for Iraq, saying to the American people we need to add to the deficit of this Nation at the expense of spending for America's schools and America's health care, saying that we need to add to our Nation's deficit and money being taken out of the Social Security trust fund. The administration told us time and time again this day would never come. Yet here we are a few days after, 2 weeks after, and the President tells us this is the only way we can end our commitment to Iraq, the only way we can bring the troops home, to spend literally billions of dollars for the reconstruction of this nation.

Let me give one other quote from USAID Administration Natsios. He works in the Department of State. Mr. Natsios is responsible for the agency that does reconstruction, redevelopment, and rebuilding around the world. That is what that agency does.

The date is April 23 of this year, 6 months ago. He appeared on "Nightline" with Ted Koppel. Ted Koppel said to him:

I think you'll agree, this is a much bigger project—

Referring to Iraq—

than any that's been talked about. Indeed, I understand that more money is expected to be spent on this than was spent on the entire Marshall Plan for the rebuilding of Europe after World War II.

Natsios replied:

No, no. This doesn't even compare remotely with the size of the Marshall Plan.

Koppel:

The Marshall Plan was $97 billion.

Natsios:

This is $1.7 billion—

Not $97 billion. Natsios corrects him and says this is $1.7 billion for Iraq.

Koppel says:

All right, this is the first. I mean, when you talk about 1.7, you're not suggesting that the rebuilding of Iraq is gonna be done for $1.7 billion?

Natsios replied:

Well, in terms of the American taxpayer's contribution, I do, this is it for the US. The rest of the rebuilding of Iraq will be done by other countries who have already made pledges, Britain, Germany, Norway, Japan, Canada, and Iraqi oil revenues, eventually in several years, when it's up and running and there's a new government that's been democratically elected, will finish the job with their own revenues. They're going to get in $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.

Six months ago, the Department of State USAID Administrator tells you the sum total of America's responsibility for Iraq is $1.7 billion. And we come today with a bill on the floor that is 20 times that—not quite 20 times that; it is $20 billion to be accurate.

Koppel couldn't believe it:

And we're back once again with Andrew Natsios, administrator for the Agency for International Development. I want to be sure I understood you correctly. You're saying the .    .    . top cost for the U.S. taxpayer will be $1.7 billion. No more than that?

Natsios says:

For the reconstruction.

That is it. Those are the commitments made by the administration that led us up to this moment in the debate, and it is that point we have reached where we are now debating on the floor a reconstruction bill far in excess of what we ever anticipated.

Because it is in excess, many of us believe we need to step back and acknowledge the obvious. Though the administration and the military may have had an excellent plan for the military conquest of Iraq, they did not have a plan to rebuild that nation. They had no idea what it would cost, and they come to the American people today asking for more money than was ever imagined even 6 months ago by the leaders of this same administration.

I am going to yield the floor at this point because I know Senator Byrd wants to offer an amendment.

Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?

This Senator is a little confused. I understand the Senator from Illinois to say he is fully in support of the defense money.
Yet when he talks about the money he is unwilling to support, he includes it in the total $87 billion.

Are we talking about the $20.3 billion or are we talking about the $87 billion? Certainly the $87 billion, if the Senator from Illinois is consistent, includes the $66 billion which he will support. It would come from borrowed moneys from Social Security trust funds and other funds, that is true.

I think the American public out there is going to be confused about this business, the $66 billion. Is the Senator from Illinois talking about $66 billion? I thought he said he was going to support that.

Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator for asking that question, allowing me to clarify, because I want to make it clear, as I thought I had.

When it comes to the money to support the troops, I am there for every dollar. That is why I think Senator Byrd's amendment is so important, so we can—

Mr. STEVENS. Why does the Senator mention $87 billion?

Mr. DURBIN. That is the total cost of this bill, if I am not mistaken. The difference, of course, the $20.3 billion, or $21 billion, for reconstruction. I concede we have to add to our deficit and borrow from the trust fund to support the troops. I will do that and go home and defend it. But when it comes to the $20 billion for reconstruction, this administration is asking 15 or 16 times more than they were asking 6 months ago.

So let's be very clear to the American people. The reconstruction of Iraq, with a total cost of $60 billion, is just getting started with this bill. We are in for the long haul, if we pass this bill as written.

Senator Byrd has an appropriate amendment he offered in committee. Let's separate it. Let's vote for the support of troops.
Let's make that clear and get it done. But then, to go on beyond that and the reconstruction, let's address that in the specific terms it deserves.

I yield the floor.