Supplemental Appropriations Act to Support Dept of Defense Operations in Iraq

SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT TO SUPPORT DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE OPERATIONS IN IRAQ FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise to speak against the amendment of a good friend of mine, Senator Ensign from Nevada. He introduced an amendment that maybe I should have been aware of but was unaware of until just a few minutes ago that reads:

No funds appropriated or otherwise made available in this Act for purposes of reconstruction of Iraq may be obligated or expended to pay any person who is a citizen of a country named in a subsection.

It goes on to name in the subsection France and Germany.

I don't want to speak for the Senator, but that view is an expression of the frustration of an awful lot of Americans and some anger at the failure of the Germans and the French to support our effort to disarm Saddam Hussein.

I begin by saying, I have just spoken with the White House and the State Department. They are adamantly opposed to this amendment. France and Germany are providing support for our effort to disarm Saddam that exceeds that of many countries who were formally members of the coalition. There are overflight and basing rights, and many of our wounded are being flown first to Germany before they come here, not to mention their absolutely critical support in the war on terrorism.

Again, I understand the motivation and the frustration and the anger that may be behind some who want to support the amendment. Our decision to use force in Iraq has created deep divisions within the Security Council. Nonetheless, America need not and cannot take sole responsibility for the challenges of postwar Iraq. That is exactly what this would produce. We can't allow the Security Council and our Atlantic alliances to become casualties of this war.
Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. BIDEN. I am happy to.

Mr. McCAIN. The Senator is aware there are German military and civilians working right now, helping in the reconstruction and peacekeeping in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan?

Mr. BIDEN. I am.

Mr. McCAIN. And have these Germans perhaps been associated with some firm that may also be in the work of reconstruction and peacekeeping in Bosnia and Kosovo and Afghanistan? Does my friend from Delaware believe somehow we should prevent any company, corporation, or individual who may have a contract in those three parts of the world from doing so?

Mr. BIDEN. Absolutely not. Any more than they should be in Iraq. This amendment is a disaster. I understand the frustration. But this is a case where, as my dear mother would say—and my friend from Arizona has met my mom—she would look at me when we were both young—neither the Senator from Arizona nor I have a temper any longer, but when we were young we were alleged to have tempers. My mother, every time I would lose my temper, would look at me and say: JOEY, don't bite your nose off to spite your face.

We are about to, in the colloquial phrase, bite our nose off to spite our face if, in fact, we were to ever allow this amendment to become law.

Mr. McCAIN. One more question: As the ranking member and senior and former chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, suppose in the case of Kosovo, where Germany contributed enormously in the force of peacekeeping, medical care, other provisions of sustenance, particularly in Kosovo and Bosnia, where there was enormous devastation, suppose we had passed a law like this with regard to Bosnia or Kosovo: Do you think we would have gotten the kind of assistance from the German government and the people we have received to date, including leadership of the peacekeeping forces?

Mr. BIDEN. Absolutely, positively not. Because of the, as some view them, arcane rules of the Senate, the Senator has to make his point by asking me questions. I would be delighted to yield him some time to speak to this directly as well.
What we are both saying is, this is a fool's errand. This is a foolish undertaking. Let me lay it out, if I may. And then I will be delighted to save some time for my friend from Arizona, who is not only a good personal friend, but a person for whom I have great respect on all matters, particularly foreign policy.

The first reason this would be such a profound mistake is that rebuilding Iraq an Iraq that is secure and self-sufficient, whole and free is going to require tens of billions of dollars over many years. While Iraq's long-term economic promise is good, its short-term prospects are bleak.

This is something we don't focus on. Iraq's annual oil revenues in the first 5 years after Saddam is out—God willing—are projected to be no more than $15 billion. Iraq is saddled, as they should be, with U.N. sanctions, an estimated $61 billion in foreign debt, and $200 billion in reparation claims through the U.N. Compensation Committee. So the idea that we can thumb our nose at the rest of the world and say, we don't need you in there helping us, is profoundly mistaken.

Many Senators think that what happens once Saddam is down, once the war is over, is that the oil is going to flow and there will be plenty of money for the Iraqis to move toward democracy, reconstruct their country, all from their oil revenues.

The fact is, the estimates are, if all goes well, there will be no more than $15 billion a year, and they sit now with obligations that exceed $61 billion in foreign debt and $200 billion in claims.

Experts who have testified before the Foreign Relations Committee put the price tag at post-conflict security—a fancy phrase for saying after the war is over—humanitarian assistance and reconstruction to be between $20 and $25 billion per year for the next 10 years.

My point is, the United States should not take on that obligation alone. Yet if we bar the companies of friendly countries who did not support us in the war from taking part in the peace, what incentive will there be for their governments to help pick up the tab? I respectfully suggest it would be zero.

Secondly, as pointed out to me by the State Department and my staff—and it is self-evident when you think about it—this is going to require the so-called "iffies," the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and other international banking institutions, to be part of this reconstruction. We are taking a country that has been decimated by a guy named Saddam for the past several decades, and we are going to try to make it a member of the family of nations on the road to democracy. We know how hard that is, even where there has been no war. We know how important it is to have international institutions part of the process of helping fledgling democracies come into being.

[Page S4760]
Now, what prospect do you think there is that the World Bank will get involved, or the IMF, if in fact the two leading members who make decisions on those boards are German and French and they are prohibited, in an almost spiteful way, from having any German or French individuals, let alone any companies, participating in anything having to do with the reconstruction of Iraq?

Third, we need military forces of those countries to be in on the peace. That is what the Secretary of State is doing right now. He is meeting with NATO. The Associated Press published an article today entitled: "Powell Says U.S. Will Lead Postwar Effort in Iraq." And I quote:

Powell and the Europeans did reach a tentative agreement, however, that NATO should consider deploying peacekeepers to Iraq.

I want someone else in the deal besides the United States. I don't want it merely to be for the next year or 2, 3, 4 or 5 years that there is a young American woman or man standing at every checkpoint, guarding every border crossing, guarding every oil field, and becoming the target of every malcontent and terrorist in the world.

I want the world to take on this responsibility with us. That is what the Secretary of State is trying to do. A military occupation, even temporary, that includes only Americans and British soldiers could fuel resentment throughout the Middle East, bolster al-Qaida's recruitment, make America the target for terrorists and malcontents everywhere. If the military mission stretches beyond several months or years, as is predicted, the failure to include other countries would compound these problems and, I predict, if history is any teacher, turn us from liberators into occupiers.

We need to make peace in Iraq the world's responsibility, not just our own. If we bar their companies from the peace, we may as well forget about their help on the security side. Let's not undermine our diplomacy here by passing such an ill-conceived amendment.
Four, if the United States alone selects a new Iraqi government—even an interim one—that will call into question the government's legitimacy in the eyes of the Iraqi people, the region, and the world. Iraqis who have lived through the brutality of Saddam Hussein's rule should be given the time, the space, and the support to choose their own leaders and to develop the institutions of a stable representative government. We should work with the international community to help achieve that. Who is going to be involved with us if, in fact, we take these punitive measures because they disagreed about the course of action to begin with?

Fifth, many around the world, even long-time allies, question our motives in Iraq. They believe, wrongly, that the President was driven by a quest for oil, driven by commercial interests, or imperial designs. They are dead wrong. But barring foreign companies in the industrialized world—particularly from France and Germany—from taking part in the peace, would only go a step further to confirm the misconception that we are in this for economic gain. We are not. That is not why the President moved. If we allow that to happen, I believe we risk further erosion of those alliances and institutions that have been essential to American security and global cooperation for more than 50 years. It would undermine our interests because we cannot contend with all the threats around the world, including the unfinished war on terrorism, the dangerous nuclear programs in North Korea and Iran, and the spread of infectious diseases, such as SARS, without the cooperation of others in the world. Making friends and allies who oppose the war our partners in Iraq's peace can go a long way to repair the hard feelings that have been emerging in recent months.

Six, if we start blackballing foreign companies, we better be prepared for retaliation against the many American companies operating in France, Germany, and other countries. These American companies bring in billions of dollars that support tens of thousands of jobs in the United States of America. If we were to blackball those who disagreed with us, including France and Germany, from participating in any way in the reconstruction of Iraq, I believe you would see retribution from that which will have impacts beyond anything I am sure my friend from Nevada, Mr. Ensign, intended. This amendment would put a lot in jeopardy.

Let me conclude—because I see the chairman on the floor—by reiterating what I said at the outset, which is that the Ensign amendment is opposed by the White House. I spoke to Dr. Rice, and I am authorized to say the White House opposes this amendment because it would deny the President of the United States the flexibility he needs. I spoke to the State Department, the Deputy Secretary of State, who pointed out that this would significantly undermine the other projects, the other issues we are trying to negotiate with our allies.

The last point I will make is this: Some will say, why do we have to reconstruct Iraq at all? If we fail to secure the peace in Iraq, then we will fail to honor those young marines and soldiers and airmen and Navy pilots who have been killed in Iraq. The purpose of this endeavor is not only to deny Saddam Hussein those weapons of mass destruction, but to begin the process of stabilizing in that region so we don't have to send, in the future, our children—young American men and women—to Iraq to give their lives to secure our freedom.

I am not in any way suggesting the motive of my friend from Nevada, Senator Ensign, is not a pure one. I am suggesting that it is dangerously misguided.

I am prepared to yield the floor. I am looking to the leadership here to determine whether I should suggest the absence of a quorum.

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