Statement Of Senator Patrick Leahy
On The Conference Report To The Iraq Supplemental
November 3, 2003

Today the Senate will adopt by voice vote the conference report containing $87 billion in supplemental funds for Iraq and Afghanistan.

Before I speak about this legislation, I want to express my deepest condolences to the families and friends of those who were killed and wounded in the attack on a U.S. military helicopter yesterday. This tragedy illustrates, once again, the tremendous sacrifices of our soldiers in Iraq. They are there serving their country, and while their accomplishments rarely make the headlines, they are also enduring daily hardship and tragic losses.

This supplemental legislation has been controversial. We all want Iraq to become a democratic, prosperous, peaceful nation. But, we differ on the President’s decision to go to war, and on the way forward from here.

I did not support the supplemental when it was considered by the Senate, and was one of twelve Senators to vote against it. I discussed my reasons for this decision at length in this Chamber on October 17, 2003. My views have not changed since that date.

That said, I want to recognize the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens, for the effort he made to get this supplemental passed. During the past several days he has demonstrated strength on par with one of his favorite superheroes: The Incredible Hulk. Senator Stevens worked extremely hard, under difficult conditions, to accommodate a number of my priorities: Tricare for Guard and Reservists, humanitarian aid for Liberia, and additional assistance for Afghanistan.

He also supported my provision to impose new criminal penalties for war profiteering. Although the House Republican conferees ultimately rejected the new criminal penalties for war profiteering – a major mistake in my view – Chairman Stevens defended the Senate position on this issue during conference. I am grateful to him for doing so.

I will have more to say on the war profiteering provision in a moment, but I want to take a few moments to explain why I oppose this conference report.

I have no doubt that the world is far better off without Saddam Hussein. But, I also feel that the Administration rushed into this war prematurely, alienated some of our closest friends and allies, exaggerated the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and downplayed the extraordinary difficult and costly task of rebuilding Iraq. We all know the confident statements made senior Administration officials, including the Vice President, Secretary of Defense, National Security Adviser, Director of OMB, and Administrator of USAID, that have since been disavowed, debunked, or disputed.

Some say that we should simply move on – that the differences we have over the war and the Administration’s abysmal post war planning is water under the bridge. I disagree. There is no question that we have to work hard to succeed in Iraq. But, I cite the words of Ted Koppel, a well-respected journalist with long experience, who said:

"Before the Iraq war, senior officials confidently predicted that US troops would be welcomed as liberators, that vast quantities of weapons of mass destruction would be found, that Iraqi oil income would pay for post-war reconstruction, and that a successful military victory in Iraq would quickly lead to implementation of the "road map to peace" between Israelis and Palestinians. Not only were all those predictions wrong but there is growing evidence that officials should have known better at the time. But that was then, this is now. And everyone likes to pretend that what was said before the war is no longer relevant."

The decision to go to war in Iraq strikes at the very heart of our credibility as a nation. It is not a partisan issue. It is an American issue, and I am outraged by Administration officials who attacked the patriotism of those who have asked legitimate questions about the decision to launch a unilateral, preemptive attack. I think we all wish that more questions had been asked and answered before we decided to send hundreds of thousands of troops to Vietnam.

 

I agree with those who say that we cannot simply walk away from Iraq. However, I am deeply troubled by the Administration’s partisan, take-it or leave-it attitude towards this supplemental. There are better alternatives, and the Administration should have been open to considering other approaches. I believe they could have saved the taxpayers money and hastened the time when our soldiers can come home.

 

Amendments offered by Democrats on the Senate floor would have gone a long way towards accomplishing these goals. They would have: put the Secretary of State in charge of reconstruction efforts, which has been the case for every major post-conflict operation since the Marshall Plan; required the Administration to internationalize the effort, formulate a viable plan to rebuild Iraq, and come up with a workable exit strategy; and fully paid for the reconstruction by repealing the tax cut on the wealthiest Americans for just one year rather than raiding the Social Security Trust Fund and saddling future generations with even more debt.

 

Each of these amendments was defeated by the Republican leadership, acting in concert with the Administration, on the Senate floor.

 

Instead of acknowledging problems with the current policy and making bold proposals to turn around the situation in Iraq, the President’s approach does little more than throw more money at the status quo. This goes to the heart of my opposition to this conference report, and again, I refer any who may want further details about my views to review my October 17 statement.

 

Mr. President, I want to turn to an issue that I mentioned earlier , which is the refusal of House Republicans on the Appropriations Committee to include a provision which I , along with Senators Feinstein and Durbin, included in the Senate version of the Supplemental conference report. This provision would have created criminal penalties for war profiteers and cheats who try to defraud American taxpayers and cash in on the relief and reconstruction efforts in Iraq.

 

Our men and women in uniform are risking their lives in Iraq. Our aid workers and diplomats are laboring under difficult and dangerous conditions. This provision would have sent a message: if you cheat American taxpayers while our men and women are dying in Iraq, you will go to jail.

 

In rejecting this provision, House Republicans offered no substitute or willingness to compromise. They also offered, in my opinion, no real substantive arguments against this provision. More importantly, Representative Sensenbrenner, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, did not oppose this provision.

 

The partisan approach by the House Appropriators was in stark contrast to the Senate position. Both Republican and Democratic Senate conferees consistently supported the provision, which was unanimously accepted during the Senate Appropriations Committee markup of the bill. Not a single objection was raised to this provision during Senate consideration of the Supplemental.

 

Why is this provision so important? Congress is about to send about $70 billion dollars to a Iraq, where there is no functioning government, too little accountability and too few financial controls. This is a formula for mischief.

 

Because we are sending so much of the taxpayers’ money to a place without the usual oversight and controls, I strongly believe that we need an extra layer of protection to guard against waste, fraud, and abuse. This is what my provision would have done.

 

By creating strong criminal penalties and clarifying current uncertainties about jurisdiction , it would create a strong deterrent against this type of behavior.

 

As I said during the Conference discussion of this provision, if one warehouse is locked while another warehouse is unlocked , everyone knows which one will get robbed.

 

There are, of course, fraud statutes to protect against waste of tax dollars at home. But there are serious impediments, especially jurisdictional issues, to using these statutes to prosecute these types of crimes in Iraq. Moreover, there are no statutes that expressly prohibit war profiteering.

 

The provision in the Senate bill would have addressed these issues and made it easier to prosecute those accused of defrauding U.S. taxpayers in Iraq.

 

In addition, some of the penalties under existing fraud statutes are weak – perpetrators could walk away with little or no jail time. This provision would have increased the penalties to up to 20 years in prison and fines of up to $1 million or twice the illegal gross profits of the crime.

 

We have a duty to do our best to protect every penny of the taxpayers’ money from waste, fraud and abuse. I believe the House Appropriators, by refusing to accept this provision, abdicated this responsibility.

 

This is not a new idea. The United States has enacted similar laws after World War I, World War II, and the Korean War. These laws were successful, and there is a long history of case law on this issue. Advocating exactly such an approach, President Roosevelt once declared it our duty to ensure that "a few do not gain from the sacrifices of the many." The provision in the Senate bill borrowed heavily from this successful approach, especially the portions relating to war profiteering.

 

Some have asked me, you are the Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, why not go through the regular process and report a bill out of this Committee?

 

We all know that criminal penalties cannot be applied retroactively. I wanted to have this strong deterrent against defrauding the U.S. taxpayers in place on the same day that the President signed this bill into law and the money goes out the door. Clearly, this an unusual situation that called for quick action to ensure that these controls were in place.

 

We have missed this opportunity. But, I am hoping that in the bipartisan spirit of the Senate, we can come together to pass a law that will minimize the damage of the House’s refusal to act.

 

In the coming week, I will be introducing a free-standing bill that mirrors the provision in the Senate bill. I hope that the Senate will continue to do the right thing on this issue. I believe that we should press ahead and support its prompt passage through Congress.

 

Mr. President, in closing, I want to say that there has been bipartisan concern with the Administration’s approach in Iraq. I hope the Administration listens to the Congress and asks the tough questions of itself. It should reach out to Members of Congress and consult with experts who do not necessarily agree with what the Administration is doing in Iraq.

 

While we may disagree on how to get there, we all want the same thing: a peaceful and democratic Iraq and our troops home safely.

# # # # #