EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN SECURITY AND RECONSTRUCTION ACT, 2004
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President. I rise today to address the historic legislation before the Senate. I refer to S. 1689, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan Security and Reconstruction Act, 2004.
Let me begin with what seems to be the reaction of most Americans. I am captivated by the sheer sum of the bill$87 billion.
Once beyond the initial sticker shock, I began to look at the content of this package. I was sent to the Senate by Arkansans in part to watch over the Federal budget so I wanted to know what Americans were getting for their hard-earned $87 billion$87 billion that will propel our Nation even further into debt.
I want to go on record commending the work of my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee. They did the best that they could given the circumstances. I think that I am a fair-minded American but this $87 billion request was dumped in Congress's lap by the President on September 17, 2003.
Today is October 17 only 4 weeks since we have received this package. It takes most people longer to do their taxes than we have had to figure out an $87 billion package. And while we have heard testimony from the top brass in the Defense Department, we have not from any outside witnesses with views that might differ from the administration. For instance, would it not make sense to hear from the Iraqi Governing Council regarding this bill?
Regardless, here we are, and I have made every effort to fairly examine this package. This is what I have found.
The $87 billion package is broken down into two titlesNational Security and International Affairs.
Title I, the National Security section of the bill, provides $66.5 billion to carry out the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. The committee report accompanying S. 1689 says that these funds are for increased operational tempo, military personnel costs, military construction, procurement of equipment, increased maintenance and military health care support.
Title II, the International Affairs section of the bill, provides $21 billion to help secure the transition to democracy in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The committee states that these funds are for enhanced security and reconstruction activities including border enforcement, building a national police service in Iraq, standing up a new Iraqi army and continued building of the Afghan National Army, reconstituted judicial systems, rehabilitation of Iraq's oil infrastructure, and provision of basic electricity, water and sewer services and other critical reconstruction needs in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Let me tell you that once into the details, there is much in this bill that is straightforward and I wholeheartedly support.
For example, under the National Security section, this bill contains $1.2 billion for enhanced Special Pays including Family
Separation Allowance, Imminent Danger Pay, and Hostile Duty Pay. The Senate Appropriations Committee should be commended for their decision to support the continuation of the Family Separation Allowance and the Imminent Danger
Pay at the levels authorized for all of fiscal year 2004, rather than the Defense Department's request.
Title I contains other essential funding for personnel, operation and maintenance, procurement, the Defense Health Program, and military construction that one would expect to support our obligations to the uniform services totaling around $62-$63 billion.
I support this funding. It is responsible. It is necessary and part of our obligation to our troops.
The National Security section further provides funding for the Iraq Freedom Fund, the Overseas Humanitarian account, the Disaster and Civic Aid account, drug interdiction and counterdrug activities, and the intelligence community management account. While I wish we had greater details about these programs, I will put my trust in this administration who believes that these funds are needed to support the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
However, I can only extend so much good faith and trustwhich brings us to Title II of the bill. Title II or the International Affairs section of the supplemental is intended to help secure the transition to democracy in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Its price tag is $21 billion.
Some of this reconstruction request makes sense to me, such as the $35 million to establish a U.S. diplomatic presence in Iraq and Afghanistan and the $90 million for emergencies in the Diplomatic and Consular Service which includes reward funds to be paid for information leading to the capture or whereabouts of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. It is expensive, but we have to back the work that our troops have done and keep our commitment to the Iraqi people.
But overall I, along with many Arkansans, struggle to embrace the administration's obtuse and costly approach to reconstruction in Iraq.
I have followed the progress of the war in Iraq keenly. I have attended the administration's war briefings faithfully. I have gone to the Senate Armed Services Committee hearings consistently. I have had the benefit of firsthand accounts from Secretary Rumsfeld, Ambassador Bremer, and General John Abizaid, to name a few.
Yet I was not prepared for the strategy, or lack thereof, of rebuilding Iraq.
I was never told that the American people would be footing the entire bill for Iraqi reconstruction. Therefore, I understand the reaction of many Americans. I understand that they have questions and concerns. So do I, and they are reasonable questions:
We must ask: One, what reconstruction efforts should the U.S. be solely responsible for and what should the Iraqis pay for? Two, what does Iraq need, and what does Iraq need right now?
There are many reconstruction items that this administration is asking for that should be scrutinized so we can properly determine whether they are truly needed to stabilize Iraq. I fully understand that Iraq has needs, but Arkansas has needs, too.
The Senate has just had an important debate on this bill and I have used this time to be open to fresh ideas. There have been a few good alternatives to consider and I have supported several alternatives. One such measure was Senator Byrd's amendment that would have split U.S. troop funding from the Iraqi reconstruction proposal and given Congress an opportunity to sort through some of the administration's more questionable funding requests.
I want to hold this administration accountable but I do not wish to hold our troops hostage. By separating this money, we can ensure our troops get the support they need while making sure we are spending taxpayers' money in a wise and effective manner.
I also supported Senator Dorgan's amendment that would have used Iraqi oil revenues to offset the U.S. direct grant payments. Unfortunately, both amendments failed.
I came to Washington to protect the best interests of my constituents and all Americans. In spite of the rhetoric that many
Americans hear every day about the partisan nature of Capitol Hill, last night a vote was held on the Senate floor that demonstrates that my friends on both sides of the aisle take their commitments very seriously.
In the spirit in which this Nation was founded, last night the Senate adopted, with my support, a bipartisan agreement on Iraqi reconstruction. I am proud to support this bipartisan agreement sponsored by Senators BAYH, BEN NELSON, ENSIGN, GRAHAM and CHAMBLISS, to name a few.
Under the bipartisan agreement, the proposed $20 billion grant to rebuild Iraq will be divided into two parts: One, a $10.2 billion grant for security efforts in Iraq; and, two, a $10 billion loan.
Importantly, the $10 billion loan will be converted into a grant if 90 percent of Iraq's preliberation debts are forgiven. I am told that Iraq may have the largest oil reserve in the world, but is currently captive to more than $100 billion in foreign pre-war debt owed to countries such as Saudi Arabia, France and Russia. Even if the United States were to provide the $10 billion up front as a grant, Iraq will have a very difficult time recovering economically from the burden of the $100 billion debt. This amendment encourages the international community to forgive the debt incurred by Saddam Hussein by leveraging our negotiations for debt relief with the incentive that the United States will provide a $10 billion reconstruction grantabove the $10 billion already provided for in the supplementalif the international community forgives 90 percent of its bilateral debt.
I support this proposal. It would help the Iraqi people and it would provide a long-term solution to rebuilding Iraq. More importantly, it helps the United States to move forward on our own important domestic spending, as the Iraqi debt issue will hopefully be resolved. I hope that the administration will join in supporting this bipartisan plan.
Wars must be paid for and I intend to honor our commitments. I will support the amended version of the $87 billion Iraq supplemental bill. It supports our troops and it starts to address a long-term solution for the economic viability of Iraq. I believe that this amended request offers a better solution than what was originally offered by administration. It is a small, but positive step toward meeting our obligations in Iraq while protecting the American taxpayer.