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

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

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I want to make sure the point the Senator has just made is driven home for those following this debate.

This administration told us we needed to invade Iraq because there were nuclear weapons there, which we cannot find.

They told us we needed to invade Iraq because there was uranium, fissile material coming in from Africa to Iraq, which now they say did not exist.

They told us we needed to invade Iraq because of weapons of mass destruction, which we cannot find.

They told us we needed to invade Iraq because of their linkage with 9/11 terrorists, which now the President has said is not a fact.

They told us we didn't have to worry about rebuilding Iraq because of all the oil revenues.
Is the Senator from North Dakota finding the same difficulty I am in following their logic? All the reasons to invade Iraq have disappeared. As I understand it, the oil is still there. The oil was supposed to be the source to rebuild Iraq. Is the administration suggesting there is no oil in Iraq?

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

Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator will yield for another question, if I understand this, the President and the Bush administration are asking us to borrow money from the Social Security trust fund to increase the deficit of the United States, to cut back on spending on education and health care so that we can provide reconstruction funds for Iraq which can then pump the oil and sell it and with the revenues pay off their debt to Saudi Arabia; is that the logic behind the administration's position?

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, the two largest creditors of Iraq are Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. The Senator from Illinois is absolutely correct.

Mr. DURBIN. Through the Chair, I would like to ask the Senator, so the administration is prepared to disappoint Social Security recipients in America rather than disappoint the Saudis who loaned money to Saddam Hussein and now want to be repaid?

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, Saddam Hussein has vanished. His government doesn't exist. The Iraqi people ought not be saddled with massive debts to countries like Saudi Arabia, some of the wealthiest countries in the world. The American taxpayer should not be told to pay for the reconstruction of Iraq, while Iraqi oil revenues are hauled off to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota for yielding and I rise in support of the amendment he has offered.

Also, I say welcome back to Senator Bob Graham of Florida. We are glad to have him off the trail and back in the Senate where we need him.

This is an interesting issue to bring to the American people because it is an issue where we ask this administration to stand by its own promises, to stand by its own words, and they cannot. They cannot because as recently as 6 months ago, the leaders of this administration said we would not be on the Senate floor today debating an $87 billion bill. They told not only the Senate and the House and the American people, they told the world that Iraq had the resources to take care of itself. It was part of the buildup to the war, a war which was built on false premises of nuclear weapons that did not exist, fissile material from Africa that did not exist, biological and chemical weapons which have not been discovered, and a link with al-Qaida which cannot be substantiated.

All of these were part of the rationale for invading Iraq with the coalition of the willing, which contained Great Britain and precious few other countries with major resources or troops. So we invaded Iraq and then said to the American people: Do not worry about after the war. The Iraqis are really rife with all sorts of oil resources and revenues. They can take care of themselves.

I am not making this up because if we followed the statements made by Paul Wolfowitz, the architect of the Iraq strategy, this is what Mr. Wolfowitz said in March:

.    .    . the oil revenues of that country—

Iraq—

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.

Hello. Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz, how can you rationalize coming to Congress 6 months later and asking for $20 billion after you told us that Iraq could finance its own reconstruction?

He was not alone in these pronouncements. This is Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld saying at about the same time:

I don't believe 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.

What they were trying to do was paint a picture to the American people that there was no pain, all gain: We will remove Saddam Hussein and, frankly, the world will greet us as heroes, as will the Iraqi people, and then they will use their revenues to rebuild the country and prove you can have a much better government in Iraq.

I certainly hope for the Iraqi people they do have a better government, but should it not be at their expense rather than our expense?

The point that was made by the Senator from North Dakota is a telling point. We are borrowing money in the United States from Social Security, from American taxpayers, and from our children; we are increasing the deficit of this country to come up with $87 billion, $20 billion of which is going to rebuild Iraq.

We are going to have that debt when it is over, according to President Bush and his supporters on the Senate floor. Yet the reason we cannot ask Iraq to shoulder this burden itself, despite all of these pronouncements from Secretary Rumsfeld and Assistant Secretary Wolfowitz, is that Iraq has its own obligations to countries such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

Look at the debt of Iraq that we are protecting by borrowing money from Social Security. Their biggest creditors include Saudi Arabia, the gulf states, Kuwait, Russia, Japan, France, and Germany. Frankly, I care less about the royal family in Saudi Arabia than I do about American families counting on Social Security.

Why doesn't the President? Why doesn't the President of the United States believe that Saudi Arabia, which trusted Saddam Hussein to lend him millions of dollars, should frankly be the ones to lose in any bargain about Iraq's future? No.
From the Bush administration viewpoint, the losers should be the American taxpayers, our children, and people counting on Social Security.

So the Senator from North Dakota asked an obvious question: If they have all of this oil revenue, why can't they pledge that revenue to raise the money to rebuild their own country? It is just that simple. Someone has to borrow the money to rebuild Iraq. It will either be the American taxpayers or the people of Iraq. I think the answer to that particular challenge is very obvious, and the Senator from North Dakota has hit the nail on the head with his amendment.

Let me add something else. This administration has really been floundering when it comes to the plans after the invasion of Iraq. I give credit to the military. In 3 weeks they did an extraordinary job. Since then, things have been just fumbled around. We went from General Garner to Ambassador Bremer, and while we were out last week and the Senate was back home, Condoleezza Rice was given the authority for rebuilding Iraq. This is getting hard to follow. It frankly betrays the fact that this administration does not know which way to head.

Here is the fundamental problem: We want Iraq to be a stable and secure nation. We would like to see them move toward self-government and toward a market economy, but all of this will take an enormous amount of money and time, and an enormous departure from a country which has no history of any of the things I just mentioned.

Iraq was created by the British colonial empire. They drew a line on a map and said: We will call this Iraq. Up until that point in time, there was little to trace the history of anything called Iraq. Now we are trying to make this into a nation state.
First we have to establish not only a national identity that is not from the command and control of a dictator, but also we have to establish an economy that can build a middle class that can participate in democracy as we know it. This is a long, expensive process.

Who should pay for it? American taxpayers or the people of Iraq? I think the answer to that question is very obvious. I hope my colleagues, who feel duty bound to stand by the Bush administration no matter what, will only stand by the statements made by the Bush administration to the American people 6 months ago. If the people in this Chamber will stand by the promises of Secretary Wolfowitz, Vice President Cheney, and Secretary Rumsfeld, then Senator Dorgan is going to be successful. However, if this turns out to be a partisan rollcall, take it or leave it, you are with the President or not, then the losers are going to be families across America. Families are going to see Social Security trust funds used to build Iraq while oil revenues in Iraq are used to pay off the Saudis who loaned money to Saddam Hussein. That I think is an outrageous outcome.

I think the Senator from North Dakota has it right. We have done a great deal for Iraq to date. We are spending $1 billion a week. We have lost over 300 brave American soldiers. Walter Reed Hospital, not far from Capitol Hill, has rooms filled with soldiers, men and women, who went to Iraq who came back wounded with grievous injuries. We have given a lot. We should not ask the American taxpayers to give up more.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, who is a Boston Red Sox fan, for allowing me an opportunity to present this amendment so I can watch the Cubs in a few minutes. I owe him big for this one.

This amendment takes into consideration that we have 1.2 million members of the National Guard and Reserve. Of that number, some 120,000 are also Federal employees—10 percent of the National Guard and Reserve—and 14,000 of the Federal employees are currently mobilized and serve on active duty.

All across the United States, States, local governments, and private corporations have said to the men and women in the
Reserve and Guard: If you are activated and mobilized, we will hold you harmless in terms of your salary. We will make up the difference between your military pay and what you would have made at home so that your family won't suffer a hardship and have to make a sacrifice.

Sadly, we do not make the same concession for Federal employees. My Reservist Pay Security Act of 2003 is legislation that will help alleviate the problems faced by many Federal employees who serve in the Reserves and must take time off from their jobs when our Nation calls. It allows these citizen-soldiers to maintain their normal salary when called to active service by requiring Federal agencies to make up the difference.

This amendment is affordable. A recent Department of Defense survey of 35,000 reservists found that 41 percent lost income during mobilization and deployment, while 59 percent either broke even or increased their income on active duty.
Of those who reported losing income, most—70 percent—said their income was reduced by $3,750 or less while serving on active duty.

Based on CBO estimates, this measure to protect the income of Federal employees who are activated and mobilized in Guard and Reserve units would cost us approximately $75 million for the next fiscal year. That seems like a very small amount in an $87 billion supplemental.

I think we need to provide these Reserve employees financial support so they can leave their civilian lives and serve our country without the added burden on their families.

I yield the floor.