[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 138 (Thursday, October 2, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H9196-H9202]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
QUESTIONS CONCERNING MONEY FOR IRAQ
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, this evening the Congressional Black
Caucus is coming before this Congress to address the issue of the $87
billion that the President just recently requested of this Nation to
continue our efforts in Iraq and in Afghanistan. We certainly are a
group of 39 people, and I often say 39 very gifted legislators, who are
simply ordinary people called to an extraordinary mission, and in the
process of doing the extraordinary, I do believe that we have become
extraordinary. And we have been consistently standing up for our troops
over and over and over again because they are our children, they are
our brothers and sisters, they are fathers, they are mothers.
And just the other night, Mr. Speaker, at the Congressional Black
Caucus annual banquet, we were very pleased to honor Sergeant Shoshanna
Johnson, who of course we know was shot in both feet and taken captive
in Baghdad. So tonight we come to address this $87 billion because it
is our belief that our troops must be supported, but at the same time
we are very clear that we need to look at the moneys that are being
spent on what I would title the resurrection of Iraq after we tore it
down, and we want to look at both sides of it.
In other words, we want to look at the money that it is going to take
to support our troops, but at the same time we want to look at the
money that will be spent, and is being spent, for these no-bid
contracts and for repairing the infrastructure of Iraq while the
infrastructure of so many of our cities and our rural areas are falling
apart. We want to certainly look at the issue of schools, building a
new school system. And it has all been on the news here recently,
particularly today and yesterday, about how the Iraqi children are now
beginning their school year, and certainly we are a very compassionate
group of legislators, but at the same time when we go back to our
districts, we fail to understand why it is that so many of our children
in our districts are sitting in classrooms with rain falling on their
heads and trudging through mud because they are in portables or they
have situations where they are in overcrowded schools. So we question
that.
We also come questioning the whole question of elections. It is our
understanding that a substantial amount of money is going to be spent
on making sure that Iraq has a wonderful election system. And then we
look at what we just saw here in the United States, the fiasco down in
Florida and throughout the United States with our election process in
the year 2000. And we believe, as the Congressional Black Caucus, that
we are asking the basic questions, the questions that anybody would ask
in any very serious family matter. This is not rocket science stuff.
Questions like, Mr. President, we just spent $80 billion. What did we
do with that?
{time} 1830
And can you account for that and tell us what that was spent for?
Questions like, it is our understanding that there is quite a bit of
oil over in Iraq, and we want to know simply what that money is being
spent for, because we were promised a long time ago that that money
from those oil reserves would be used to resurrect Iraq but, at the
same time, you now come to the American people asking them to do it.
The other thing that we are certainly concerned about is that we hear
over and over again that we are fighting terrorism for the world, and
we do believe that. But at the same time, we ask the question, if we
are fighting terrorism for the world, if there is going to be
substantial benefit to the world, why is there not substantial giving
or sacrifice on the part of other countries?
And certainly we want to know the exit strategy. One of the things
that the President said when he was running for office, and we
certainly hold him to it, as the American people do, is that he would
never go into another country, let our Armed Forces go into another
country without having an exit strategy. We want to know what the exit
strategy is.
Then finally, and there are some other questions that will be raised
by my colleagues, but certainly we are very interested in knowing, how
do we measure success. The answer has to be very clear with regard to
our schoolchildren, and he has made excellent arguments about how we
need to measure how our children are doing. That is all well and good.
So we come to the President asking him, exactly how do we measure our
accomplishments in Iraq?
I am so glad that this evening I am joined by my colleague who sits
on the Committee on Armed Services, the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Meek), a freshman who is just doing a great job. But the gentleman has
an opportunity to look at it from an armed services standpoint, and I
would like to hear from the gentleman.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I am just so pleased how the gentleman from
[[Page H9197]]
Maryland (Mr. Cummings), as chairman of the Black Caucus and also just
as a Member of Congress, is asking the kitchen table questions. These
are common questions that we took under assumption, we assumed, when
the Commander in Chief, the President of the United States, and the
Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, came to us and said, this is the
situation, this is the case at hand, this is what we need to do. Some
of us agreed, some of us did not agree, but genuinely as Americans, we
said that we want to support our troops and their families; and we went
right to work, thinking they were going to do the right thing.
We talk about the money. Mr. Speaker, $87 billion is an awful lot of
money. That will buy quite a few new schools in our country. That will
put forth quite a few opportunities as it relates to our youth in our
communities. But as I look through this, finally, I just want to say to
the gentleman that, finally, we got a plan, or what they call a plan,
from the administration on Iraq and the reconstruction of Iraq; and
that is supposed to explain the $87 billion.
I will tell my colleagues this, that what makes this plan flawed from
the outset is the fact that this administration has said, the
President, Donald Rumsfeld, and other leaders in the administration
have said that we are going to the U.N. and we are going to get $12
billion from the U.N. We are talking to our friends at the U.N. Well,
the President had an opportunity to go to the U.N. and make his case,
but he did not make his case. He went saying the same thing that he
said before to the U.N. And now, just today, just recently, the U.N.
has agreed to $234 million. Mr. Speaker, $234 million is a far cry from
$12 billion.
We of the Committee on Armed Services talk about the future need,
which this administration is very reluctant to talk about. Yesterday, I
think on Tuesday, Secretary Rumsfeld went before the Committee on
Appropriations as it relates to armed services or military services,
defense, and was very accurate as it relates to 14,000 recruits for the
Iraqi police force, and some 50-something thousand Iraqi soldiers
already out there. But when we asked the question, how many troops do
we have? Well, that is kind of hard to gauge right now. Well, how many
coalition troops do we have, of the willing? I must add. Well, that is
kind of hard to gauge also. Well, what is going to be our future for
us, leave alone 12 months from now, but 6 months from now? Well, that
is all so hard to predict. We are at the U.N. now trying to put
together, and they talk about this coalition of countries, but the
coalition of countries of the willing, they are few. There are very few
countries that have come forth that have put real people and real
troops on the ground. Why would they want to put troops on the ground
when this administration is not willing to give up some of the
decision-making in Iraq?
The gentleman from Maryland hit it right on the head when he spoke so
eloquently just moments ago by saying that if there is terrorism
throughout the world, we cannot solve the terrorism problem throughout
the world by ourselves. We do not have the money. Can I say that again?
We do not have the money to be able to spend the millions, no,
billions, and we are about to get to trillions, on borrowed money.
Some of the things that have taken place are just ironic. I am so
glad the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) and her staff and
others have gone forth to really look at the kitchen table questions,
like the gentleman from Maryland mentioned. We are looking at the cost
of them wanting to build two prisons over in Iraq, 4,000-bed prisons,
$50,000 per prison bed, when we build prison beds right here in the
U.S. for $26,000. What is the difference? Once again, we look at just
the issue of communications. $6,000 per radio phone. The Bush
administration has requested $1.3 million for 400 hand-held radios,
when here we can go down to the local Radio Shack and buy the same
thing for $54.99.
So when we start looking at, as we finally get outside of them saying
this is what we want, do not ask any questions, because if they do not
answer our questions, I say to the gentleman, then when will the
questions be answered? Should we just write the check and say, okay, we
are patriotic, God bless America, and Mr. President, we love you, and
Mr. Rumsfeld, we trust you? At no other time in recent history has the
Department of Defense taken on the rebuilding of a society which we
have gone into and have conquered in a battle, which the President
brought us into several months ago, that the State Department does not
have a say in this. The Department of Defense is still there, so we are
still at war.
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to continuing this conversation.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), the gentleman from Florida said something that
really hit home. I too thank our leader, the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi), for all of her hard work and the work of her
staff. When we look at some of the information that we have been
looking at here lately with regard to this whole $87 billion, it is
very interesting to know that that $87 billion can do a lot of things
with regard to our education system. Mr. Speaker, $87 billion will hire
2 million new teachers. That is a lot of teachers. And we could spend
an additional $1,824 on each child in American public schools. We could
spend seven times more than the President's proposal for title I
education programs in fiscal year 2004.
The reason why we are bringing this up is because we want people to
understand that we just spent about $80 billion a few months ago, and
now the President is talking about another $87 billion. And again, one
of those kitchen table questions is what should we expect in the
future, Mr. President? Will you be coming back to us asking for some
more money?
Some people look at it and say, oh, you are attacking the President.
It is not about attacking the President. It is a question of
accountability. What we want the President to do is be accountable.
Talking about accountability, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson-Lee) serves on the Committee on Homeland Security. I know the
gentlewoman has a number of comments she wants to make. But when we
look at what we are doing with homeland security, we are very concerned
about homeland security. I get complaints, and I am sure the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Meek) does, from our mayor and our local fire
departments about the fact that they do not have the kinds of things,
the equipment they need to really be true first responders. I just was
wondering, how does the gentlewoman see this $87 billion request with
regard to homeland security?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman raises a very
good point. I am very pleased to join my colleagues, and I thank the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), the chairman of the
Congressional Black Caucus, for addressing this crucial issue. We are
grateful for the expertise that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek)
brings to us on this issue, as a member of both the Committee on
Homeland Security and the Committee on Armed Services.
But the gentleman has really hit the nail on the head. If I might
build up to that answer, because when we hear where we are in terms of
dollars, and it was so good for the gentleman to cite teachers, because
2 days ago a distinguished colleague of ours down on the floor of the
House said that each child starting school in Iraq, and I applaud the
fact that these children are starting school, would have a book bag to
take to school. And I applaud that, I say to the gentleman. But the
gentleman from Maryland mentioned teachers. I do not know how many of
our young children in some of these inner city districts or rural
districts are given a book bag or even books, each child, to take with
them to school. This does not diminish the need in Iraq. But I think
what we are trying to explain to the American people is this is about
choices.
Just to let my colleagues know how we are giving away money, and I am
going to add some more money on top of the $87 billion, is that we
passed a continuing resolution a couple of days ago, a CR. What that
does, because we have not met our obligations, and the majority is in
charge, the Republicans of the Senate and the House, that means that we
will spend an extra $2.2 billion more than the 2004 funding limit
because we have not yet put in
[[Page H9198]]
place and finished all of our appropriations and we have a CR. The CR
accomplishes this feat by shifting $2.2 billion of previously
appropriated 2004 education funding back to fiscal year 2003. It is
sort of a gimmick. So we have $87 billion, and now we are spending an
extra $2.2 billion. We do not know where that is going; it is just sort
of filling the gap to keep us going.
One of the reasons we are doing that is because even as the President
is asking for the $87 billion, he is not rolling back this tax cut that
we have given to 1 percent of America's richest individuals. So we are
spending $1 trillion to pay them, and we are asking for $87 billion.
Now, let me contrast that with homeland security. The gentleman is
absolutely right. In this last budget, we were between 59 and $79
billion for homeland security, leaving out, however, many of the issues
that my colleague, my good friend, we discuss all the time. We are not
up to par where we need to be in cybersecurity. We had one of our very
fine representatives of the Homeland Security Department come and
testify in the last 10 days and said, I need a Department of 800
persons. I have only 200 that are staffed up at this point. My local
communities, police, and fire departments have already indicated, and I
am talking about across the Nation, police and fire, that means
sheriffs, constables, are still waiting for those direct funds to help
them with the extra dollars that they have expended responding to our
color alert. They responded to our color alert and have billed on the
overtime for responding when we have upped it to an orange alert, right
short under red alert. So the gentleman asks a very good question.
Let me throw all of this up against this backdrop, which is, I
believe, we should bifurcate and vote separately on the resources
necessary for the troops. Because the gentleman from Maryland said it,
and I think the Congressional Black Caucus has been very clear in
everything that we have said, because our constituents are those on the
frontline. We have been very clear. We support them. We support their
families. In fact, we have been on the frontline about where are the
benefits for these troops that are returning home; where are the
veterans benefits; where are the mental health and trauma dollars that
we understand Fort Bliss in Texas are cutting back on mental health
services that are needed for returning troops.
But let me just say this: the $87 billion, I have been told, is the
largest supplemental request, supplemental, because this is not in our
normal budget, supplemental request in history. It totals more than the
seven smallest supplemental bills that we have funded over the last
term of this Congress. It is more money than we spent in Vietnam.
Tragically, 50,000 of our young men and women lost their lives there.
But it is more money than we have spent in Vietnam, including all of
the defense appropriations during that era from 1965 to 1975. It is
more than that.
Our good friend, the gentleman from Florida, made another point.
Because as the gentleman well knows, we have had a series of
discussions, and there was a set of principles that I sent out, and I
think our good friend from Florida, the distinguished gentleman from
Florida, said it and the gentleman from Maryland said it: the President
made a commitment to go to the United Nations. I was in New York when
he spoke before the General Assembly, waiting for sort of the olive
branch to encourage our allies to give the big dollars that we needed
to truly make a dent. Just like President Bush One in the Persian Gulf
had a real coalition, whether we agreed or disagreed with the war, the
total spent in that war was $62 billion; and the United States spent
only a total of 7.5 in the Gulf War, where hundreds of thousands of
troops that included troops from all over the world were in that war.
So what we have here is a failure of the President to heal the rift,
so that we can sit down and get an extended commitment of dollars. I
think $234 million is a pittance compared to the $12 billion that would
truly have an impact on the $87 billion.
{time} 1845
So let me just finish because I see my friend, the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Meek), has a point to make.
Mr. MEEK. I say to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) the
unanswered questions are huge. These are not just small unanswered
questions. We talk about deficit spending. I want to remind Americans
that we are talking about borrowed money. We are not talking about
money we have in our pocket. We are talking about borrowed money.
Quickly, there is still not an accounting for the $80 billion that we
passed out last spring, that we entrusted to the administration, as it
relates to the deployment of 30,000 troops and reserves from their
homes.
Also, Secretary Rumsfeld, who I must say is getting very irritated
with the fact that people are asking questions, he had a press
conference today and chastised the press and said they are not
reporting about the good things the Members of Congress that went over
to Iraq had to say about what was going on. Well, you know, that is
fine. We have gone to the region. The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson-Lee of Texas) and I, we have gone to the region. That is fine.
That is okay for him to have some concern there. But do not get upset
with the press.
We are getting down to the nitty-gritty of saying, Mr. Rumsfeld and
President Bush, you have got to let us know what is going on. If you
can be accurate on 56,000 Iraqi soldiers that our military are training
and 4,000 police officers that have been recruited, the figures that he
gave this past Tuesday, but he cannot give us a count on our own
soldiers, something is wrong. These are unanswered questions.
The administration, as it relates to the fine print on contractual
services, remember we have $20-plus billion in this request in the
rebuilding of Iraq, and the administration is saying, you know, do not
put any language in the bill that will tie our hands so they can
continue to give sole-source contracts.
Now, we all know, as lovers of public education, as lovers of what we
have to do to even make our homeland safe and children ready to learn
when they get in school, think about how many Head Start programs who
have to go through yards and yards and stacks of paper to prove their
funding. I think it is important, Mr. Speaker, that we have that fine
print there.
I am glad the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas)
talked about the numbers. We are taking a credit card with a very high
interest rate and paying for this so-called ``trust me'' without the
help of the rest of the world. The last time the President went to the
U.N., Mr. Speaker, I must add, and left with the kind of reception that
he got, which was a bad one, we ended up by ourselves. And we are by
ourselves now.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. If I could just finish and build on what my
good friend said. He is absolutely right. I mean, the lack of interest,
unfortunately, in the presentation made by this administration to the
U.N. in the last 10 days, when all of the world was watching and all of
the world was there and at least seemingly wanting to provide the kind
of broad coalition which would be the key to the aftermath of Iraq, we
did not rise to the occasion.
So I think this idea of voting separately for the rebuilding which
allows us to then rebuild the friendships and move that dollar amount
up from $234 million, that shows that that is the result of an unhappy
group of allies. We realize that these are all issues of permanence and
all friends are tentative, but I think there is a common interest that
we want to make sure that the region is secure and the region is
stable. Even we are not doing that by having the kind of negotiations
that this administration needs to have.
Let me conclude by saying this: We have to support the troops to the
extent that they are on the front line. So it is imperative that the
document that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek of Florida) was
holding up is a document that has gone through a fine tooth comb.
Because what we find the greatest failure in Iraq being, besides not
finding the weapons of mass destruction, as David Kay has now come back
and indicated that even his team of 1,500 have not been able to
document the basis upon which we say we went to war, and the fact that
we were told that we were about to be imminently attacked, so that is
clearly something we should pursue, but we are now there and we
[[Page H9199]]
are told, and I guess my friend has more of these facts because I think
he was raising it, that our very troops do not have the kind of
ammunition, armor, and equipment that they need to do their job.
How in the world can the Secretary of Defense be insulted by media
questions? He should be here before us, before any committee of
jurisdiction or a caucus of Members who have the responsibility to ask
these questions for their constituents, to answer these questions.
Let me list them: Portable jammers. What does that mean? It means
that those of you who are trying to, using my own term, de-explode a
land mine, do not have to go up to it to do it. You can stand back and
do that. That causes less of a loss of life.
A non-broke-down Humvee. We see the ones that the kids of the rich
are driving, but this is a serious vehicle, broke down.
And then the other one is body armor.
These are the hard questions that I believe this special order is
generating. I am grateful that we have the opportunity to dialogue on
this, and I hope that our colleagues and the administration realize how
serious we are in these questions and how impossible it would be to
vote for the $87 billion under these circumstances.
Mr. CUMMINGS. I want to thank the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson-Lee of Texas).
One of the things that certainly concerns all of us and the last
thing that was just talked about is our troops being properly equipped.
That is why I said we are not asking rocket-scientist questions. What
we are asking are basic questions that any person would ask in their
family if they had a serious issue at hand. And I tell you, if your son
or daughter came to you and said, mom, I got an emergency, you gave her
$80 to deal with the emergency; and then she came back and the
emergency still was not dealt with, or you asked some questions about
it, you are going to ask the question, what happened to the money I
gave you? This is basic stuff.
So the more we look at what has happened here with the President, it
seems as if the President does not want any questions asked. That is
crazy. I mean, that does not even make sense.
So what we are trying to do, we want to make sure our troops are
protected and make sure when they go out on that battlefield in 100-
plus degree weather that they have everything they need, and we want to
make sure at the same time that if we are going to be about the
business of rebuilding Iraq, we would like to have a separate vote. Let
us vote on the resurrection of Iraq and let us vote on the support of
our troops and let us have accountability.
Speaking of accountability, the gentlewoman from Washington D.C. (Ms.
Norton) has consistently addressed this whole issue of accountability.
Being here in Washington D.C., and I do not say the capital of the
Nation because, actually, it is the capital of the world, we certainly
saw what happened on September 11; and when you talk about first
responders, we have to make sure that it starts here.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the Members understand the
vulnerability we feel here in the national capital. The gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Cummings) is in this region as well. And, of course,
there is almost no attention being paid to vulnerability at home. I am
on the Select Committee on Homeland Security, and I can tell you that
those issues have been moved off the screen by what is happening in
Iraq, by this $87 billion request.
I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) for coming
forward this evening to continue this dialogue in the way he is
continuing it among the members of the Congressional Black Caucus. I
thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek of Florida) and the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas) for the repartee and
colloquy that they have.
I see I have two of my good friends and sisters who need also to be
able to speak before our time is up, so I will try and have
consideration and bear that in mind as I speak briefly.
I want to congratulate my colleagues. I heard some of their colloquy
on the troops. I am tired of talking about the war. I want to talk
about the people who are being forced to make this war. Yes, they are
volunteers, but none of them, none of them expected and indeed none of
them were promised what has happened to them now.
We of the Congressional Black Caucus are concerned. A third of the
U.S. Army is African American. About 20 percent of the armed services
are all over, but when we speak about troops, we are talking about the
American men and women who are in Iraq. I am saying, Mr. Speaker, they
are not just in Iraq. My God, one begins to wonder where are they not?
We are still in Europe and Japan. How long ago was World War II? When
did the Cold War end? Nobody is talking about burden sharing anymore,
about pulling them out. Korea. I guess most of the Congressmen were not
even alive. Nobody is talking about going home from there. We are in
Philippines, Bosnia, Kosovo, the Sinai Peninsula, Liberia. This is all
that has come to mind. I have not done the encyclopedic rendition of
where we are.
I am very, very frightened for my country now. Because my country is
overly dependent on what we have come to call the weekend warriors. We
know who the weekend warriors are. The weekends warriors are not your
daughter and my son. They are not the folks who can go to college. The
weekends warriors are the people who, knowing full well they may have
to go abroad to fight a war, nevertheless had no expectation, for
example, of having 6 months turn into a year and then come back and
have to go again.
They want more troops. They say more foreign troops. They do not have
enough troops to fight this war. They say foreign troops because they
do not want to tell the American people the truth: They need more
folks. We know from what has happened at the U.N. they are not going to
get them from France and Germany. We are paying for the troops that are
there from other countries already, so we are getting no financial
relief. There are drips and dabs from other parts of the country.
Where is the pool going to go come from, Mr. Speaker? There is no
place else for it to come from. It is going to come from the people who
are now supporting their families here that have not been called up
yet. The people who are in the Reserves and in the National Guard,
largely for financial reasons, and are now becoming the blood and guts
of the Armed Forces.
Mr. Speaker, I do not believe, and I think it can be easily proved,
that this notion that we talked about endlessly of being able to fight
two wars at the same time is any longer the case. We are hardly able to
fight Afghanistan and Iraq at the same time, and there were howls about
how Afghanistan was being neglected.
I defy anybody to tell me if a major war were to break out somewhere
else in the world today how we would be prepared to go even a fight
that war. But that was always the paradigm. We could do that. Because
we invaded Iraq, a war of choice, that was unnecessary, we can no
longer do that.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to say why a country, not simply we who feel
for the troops, should be concerned about this. For the Active Duty and
the Reserves thus far, there have been no particular impact of this
war; and the reason the analysts tell us is there is no impact is the
bad economy. People are, in fact, still joining the Active Reserve and
Active Duty because they cannot get a job at home. Thank you, Uncle
Sam. What you are not providing in America, people are getting their
job risking their lives in the armed services.
But watch out for the National Guard. The National Guard is already
20 percent down on meeting its goal for the year. I ask you, Mr.
Chairman, do you think the average person seeing National Guard targets
in Iraq would now sign up to be in the National Guard? Moreover, the
parents and the relatives of those who are there now say that, in the
units where their husbands are fighting, three-quarters of the unit is
going to go as soon as they are able to get out.
Who is going to fight the wars at all if going into Iraq means nobody
wants to be in the Reserve anymore, nobody wants to be in the National
Guard?
[[Page H9200]]
{time} 1900
Mr. Chairman, did you know that you cannot get out now when your time
is up because there is something called the Stop Loss for mobilized
units? So your time is off. You signed up to X date; X date is passed
and you are still in. Last time I looked, that was called a draft, and
yet these are supposed to be volunteers.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me indicate a particular outrage that came
to public note only this week. I do not know if I were to ask the
average person what employer do you think has the largest number of
Reservists? And I think people might think of AT&T or General Motors.
Mr. Chairman, it is the United States Government. There are 65,000
Reservists who are employed by the Federal Government, people who serve
their country in a civilian capacity, serve their country as a
Reservist, the single largest employer in the United States is Uncle
Sam, and so it should come as no surprise that we would have more
Reservists. I did not realize until recently that 48,000 Federal
technicians, there are 48,000 Federal technicians who are required to
be members of the National Guard as a condition for employment by the
Federal Government. So you would think that we would do what we could
having so many of these Reservists.
We are not among the 200 private sector employers and 50 local and
State governments who make up the difference in pay between what they
earned on the job and their military pay. We are not among them,
although many State governments are and many private employers are. So
we have a chance to close that, to say we realize there is a war no one
expected to fight. We realize horrific things are happening to
families, so let us do what large companies do.
Instead, this week we learn that there was no chance, indeed, the
defense appropriators in conference indicated that there was no chance
that there would be a provision to close the gap that the civil service
employees who have been called to active duty face. It was being
considered by House and Senate negotiators working on the fiscal 2004
defense authorization bill, and word came on Monday that provision is
dead, and they said it costs too much money.
Let me tell you what is too much money to make up the difference, the
huge financial sacrifice to families would have cost over 5 years, $160
million dollars. We are talking about $87 billion. The notion that we
cannot find in the huge defense budget, $160 million to do what 200
private companies do, to make sure that the sacrifice which is already
horrific because you are already in the first place, would not come in
dollars and cents to you and your family. So I say shame on you,
Congress. Shame on the conferees for coming to the floor every day that
this Congress is in session to talk about the troops. And when time
comes to put up or shut up for the troops, they shut up.
Mr. Chairman, I want to invite one of my sisters to come forward now
who has not had an opportunity to speak, and I would like to thank the
gentleman for his leadership on this special order.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Lee) has just spent a phenomenal amount of time along with the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) on the whole issue of AIDS.
It is just interesting, again, we are trying to do a number of things
this evening, but we want to put this $87 billion in context. Before
the gentlewoman comes on, I just want to note that with $87 billion, we
could spend 27 times more on AIDS research than the Federal Government
spent in fiscal year 2000. We could spend $226,000 on each individual
AIDS patient in the United States, and we could fulfill the President's
promise of $3 billion for funding for AIDS in Africa this year and have
enough left over to make a similar commitment for 28 more years.
Ms. LEE. Madam Speaker, I thank the Chairman.
Let me commend the gentleman for his leadership and for insisting
that the voices of reason really speak out in terms of organizing these
speak-outs, and these special orders for the Congressional Black Caucus
to really talk to America about the critical issues. And, of course,
tonight under the gentleman's leadership, we are talking about this $87
billion that Congress is about to appropriate in the next couple of
weeks as it relates to the war in Iraq.
First of all, let me just say that I am the daughter of a military
officer, 25 years, much of the time was spent in Fort Bliss, Texas. In
fact I was born in El Paso, Texas, and so my support for the troops is
very deep, and I understand very well the issues with regard to what
makes sense in terms of the real deal in supporting the troops.
Our troops need all of the protection that they can receive, that we
should provide. They need their benefits. They need their survivor
benefits. They need their health care. They need the respect. They need
all of the budget items that I do not really see in this $87 billion. I
do not even know what happened to that, what, first $78 billion. Why
would our young men and women need such items as toiletries. Why would
they have to pay for certain items such as food at the hospitals? Why
would they not receive their full retirement benefits? And all of the
issues that we are talking about tonight, that first $73 billion, I
believe it was, what was in that? Was not that enough? Then you look at
the military budget in total, what is that, $400 billion or close to
$400 billion. We have got missile defense in there now. What is going
on with this budget?
I think first of all, we should demand some accountability, and I
think that is what, in fact, the principles that I want to applaud the
Congressional Black Caucus for putting together really enunciated.
Where is the accountability for the taxpayers' money?
With regard to what was mentioned earlier in terms of the whole HIV/
AIDS pandemic, we negotiated a measly $3 billion a year. We cannot even
get over $2 billion yet. We have asked the President just to live up to
his commitment. Over 100-some Members of Congress wrote a letter
requesting the additional $1 billion in the supplemental. We get a
response that I do not even want to talk about it. It is pitiful the
response we received.
Today we talked about Liberia in our Subcommittee on Africa and the
development efforts and the stabilization requirements in terms of
resources, minimally $200 million. We cannot even figure out where that
is coming from. I say we need $500 million plus. I do not see that
coming around. How do they find $87 billion and cannot find $1 billion
for HIV/AIDS in Africa? So I think we need to do this, and this is what
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) and the Congressional Black
Caucus is really exposing, what is really going on.
I think that is what is really going on, of course, we know in terms
of this entire effort to build a country. I personally believe that if
we bomb the heck out of a country, we have some responsibility to fix
what we damaged. Beyond that, in terms of long-term development, when
you look at Halliburton and Bechtel and contracts that are no-bid
contracts, money is being made as we speak and will be made, profits,
lots of money in terms of the development of a country, the
construction of a country.
Here in our own communities, what are we looking at? We are looking
at dilapidated schools. We have 44 million uninsured. No health care.
In my own State of California, I think we are up to seven million now
uninsured. Dilapidated housing, unaffordable housing. What is happening
in terms of jobs in our own country? What? Three million plus
unemployed now. So when we look at $87 billion, I think that $87
billion could be used right here at home.
Now, having said that, let me say that I believe also that in
supporting our troops, we support them by bringing them home, but we
also support them by developing an exit strategy, a time frame, a point
in which they know they will return home. And during this transition
period, we are required and should make sure that they are safe and
secure. But how can we give this administration, any administration a
blank check to engage in guerilla war in perpetuity. I could not
support it the first time around, the second time around, and the third
time around. And this is another payment now, another quarterly payment
I guess on what could end up being $400, $500 billion. I think that is
outrageous.
I think the American people deserve some answers to why in the world,
first of all, I must say why did we go to war?
[[Page H9201]]
And I think that we should stay here until we figure that out and
demand investigations as it relates to the weapons of mass destruction.
I mean, I think that is very important to know. And so we are going to
insist that an independent commission be established or the select
committee be established to investigate all of this. I do not think
Congress should recess until we know what happened. I think the
American people deserve answers.
This is our Government. We pay taxes and, of course, we want to make
sure that each and every dollar we spend goes in terms of peace and
security.
Let me just close by reading a quote from Dr. King. Often times we
quote Dr. King and extol his virtues. He was a prophet and a visionary,
but many only do that during January, but I think we should remember
Dr. King's message each and every day. I want to read this quote by Dr.
King who gave us this message in the 1960s. Dr. King warned us, he
said, ``In the wasteland of war, the expenditure of resources knows no
restraint.'' No restraint.
Dr. King knew that war would be, could be, is a bottomless pit in
which this great Nation could pour all of its resources, all of its
young people and really never come out safer or stronger.
Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the Congressional Black Caucus today
for remembering Dr. King and remembering his words of wisdom. He died
for what was right, and I think we have a duty and responsibility as it
relates to going to war, the use of force, $87 billion worth of
taxpayers' money. I think we have a duty and a responsibility that we
make sure that our troops are safe, that our young people are secure
and we develop an exit strategy so we know they will come home.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, how much time remains?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Miller of Michigan). The gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Cummings) has 12 minutes remaining.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I would like to say that the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Lee) just raised an issue.
The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) is on the Committee on Armed
Services. I was wondering briefly, have we heard anything about an exit
strategy or how we define success in this from anybody?
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Not at all. And not only has that information
not been given to the Committee on Armed Services, but it has not been
given to the committee in question that they are asking the money from,
that is the subcommittee, the Subcommittee on Defense and also the full
Committee on Appropriations. That question has not been answered,
neither in the House nor the Senate.
I must add also that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) hit on
so many points. The real question is if we vote or vote against the $87
billion, are we supporting the troops or are we supporting the
President with cowboy politics, with his cowboy politics? That is the
question.
So when folks say, I have to vote for it to support the troops, of
course we want to support the troops, but the troops are not at the UN.
The troops are not coming before Congress and saying, Ask no questions
or we question your patriotism.
The gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) came in
here and said, What about the individuals that are right here? There
are families right now watching us here on this House floor, and there
are family members over in Iraq, meanwhile, they are behind in their
house note. Meanwhile, the story cannot be read by mom or dad because
they are in Iraq.
So if we give the $87 billion plus, I have to add that, to this Bush
administration, then we are saying that we condone the President going
to the UN and not asking nicely for help. We condone individuals that
are going to be in Iraq for some time.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, if I might just add this
point as our colleague comes forward. The gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Lee) made a good point on that. First of all, we need to stay here
until the President gives a real exit strategy because what we see is
that the administration has no exit strategy. So the gentleman is
absolutely right.
{time} 1915
We need to stay here in session and not only stay here in session but
have the committees of jurisdiction, the relevant committees and this
body have the time to deliberate and debate so that we are responsible
to those families that are over there.
The other thing is we are absolutely right that we should not
separate out how we got there, whether it was weapons of mass
destruction, imminent attack, and say that is bygones. That is behind
us. We have lost lives. There are children, and forgive me for calling
them children. There are young people. They are enlisted persons. They
are National Guard. They are Reservists. They are our constituents in
these hospitals, Bethesda and Walter Reed, with amputated limbs and
with missing eyes; and they went to war on the basis of imminent threat
and homeland security.
Now they are telling us that, one, they have no exit strategy, and,
two, we should not ask any questions, and, three, weapons of mass
destruction, that is the bygones. We do not need to talk about it. We
need to stay here and question David Kay extensively on his report, no
weapons of mass destruction; and by the way, 1,500 people were the ones
under his team that went over there, and, two, we need to have the
administration not give us classified information but give to this
Congress a designed, defensive exit strategy. Lastly, we need to know
line by line how these dollars are going to help the troops and how we
are going to bring them home.
Mr. CUMMINGS. The interesting thing is that I think one of the most
brilliant moments since I have been here is the few weeks before we
went to war, and I think just about everybody who was on the floor
tonight came up, and we talked about the war. We talked about the
principles and we asked the President to meet with us, and he refused
to meet with us; but we wanted to raise those key questions, and I
think it does have relevance to a degree of what happened before the
war and the fact that no weapons of mass destruction have been found. I
think what it does is it should cause us to say, well, if we went to
war on that basis and weapons have not been found, then why is it that
we should just sit back and not at least question how we go further
into this venture? I think it is important that we do that; and as I
said, these are the basic questions.
That night, I will never forget the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Waters) stood up and gave probably the most brilliant speech I have
ever heard, talking about why we are going to war, and literally did a
wonderful job in just laying out her rationale; and I would be happy to
yield to her, but I believe she will come back just after we finish.
I want to thank my colleagues, and now I yield to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Lee) because I know you had a lot of concerns. I
do not want to go back and rehash a prior war, but I just do think it
has relevance because, again, we were told and I think the caucus was
trying to raise the issue back then that we questioned whether or not
we should be going to war, whether we should have more patience in
looking for these weapons. We felt the things were working well, maybe
not at the pace the President wanted them to, but at least we could
have avoided the loss of life.
Ms. LEE. Madam Speaker, if my colleagues remember, we consistently
said that the inspections process was working, that weapons of mass
destruction would be found, and when found, if they were found, we
would make sure, the U.N. would make sure, that they were destroyed. It
was a search and destroy mission. Containment was working, and I
believe that it is very, very critical at this moment, at this really
truly defining moment that we understand that this foreign policy
doctrine of preemption, the use of first strike based on a perceived
future threat is a very dangerous policy.
The President has the authority to use force in the event of an
imminent or immediate attack. That is not a question. The point where
we are now in our country I think is very dangerous, and we set the
standard for the rest of the world in terms of our foreign policy. If
it is okay for the United States to use force first, then it is okay
for North Korea or it is okay for Iran,
[[Page H9202]]
it is okay for any other country; and so I think that this is a moment
where we must go back to the drawing board, I think reevaluate our
foreign policy, and reevaluate the axis of evil concept because I
believe that it is provocative; and I do not believe that we are any
safer, that this course that we are on and that policy will not lead to
more security. I think it is very dangerous. It does not lead to peace
in the world.
I want to thank the Congressional Black Caucus for making sure the
American people know there are many of us who believe that.
Mr. CUMMINGS. One of the things that was so interesting, I shall
never forget at the State of the Union address, if my colleagues
recall, there was a part of the speech the President made that showed
over and over again on the television, when he said that we in our
generation right now must take care of this situation and that we
should not leave it to future generations to address terrorism and what
have you. Basically what he was saying, too, is that we should be
paying for it. It is going to be impossible for us, the living, to
completely pay for this war. This war will be paid for by our children
and our children's children and our children's children's children; and
when we look at this $87 billion again, one wonders where does it end,
and that is why this whole question of exit strategy is so very
significant.
How do we mention success? At what point do we say, okay, we have
done the job, we have accomplished what we are supposed to accomplish?
I just thank the Congressional Black Caucus for coming together this
evening and constantly over and over again being that conscience of the
Congress and I would say the conscience of the country; and I will
yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, my colleagues mentioned the
human factor, and I want to take us back briefly to the Vietnam War
because we know that many of our contemporaries and others, people that
live in our neighborhoods, maybe some of the homeless men that we see
in the streets of our cities and I do not think the Vietnam veterans
would mind us expressing their plight because they come to me all the
time, and I want to make it very clear that there is not one whose
support that I diminish, that I take away from them because of this war
or that war. They obeyed orders. They took the oath. They offered
themselves for my freedom.
But we are reminded of the Vietnam War, and I see a lot of the
brothers of all colors, shapes, sizes. I have spent Christmas days with
them, as my colleagues all have, in homeless shelters, the aftermath of
that war, the pain of that war, the pain of being subjected to
guerrilla warfare, the pain of not knowing who the enemy is or was, and
so they do not want to be caught up in shooting the wrong person. I am
fearful without an exit strategy, and I think the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee) mentioned that this guerrilla warfare, not knowing
who the enemy is and then not having an exit strategy, so not having a
definitive time certain to come home to your loved ones.
And then when you come home, what I am hearing is that we have got to
cut mental health services on the bases, so that means the traumatic
experiences that families are having, where are the counselors? I am
hearing, as was said, that we are paying for meals in hospitals. I am
hearing that veterans services are being cut. I am hearing that these
young men or women returning may not have the ability to go to college
because Pell grants are being cut.
What are we saying to these young people coming back, no jobs,
families in distress, families maybe in disarray? I am not condemning.
You may come back and the family was strong and they welcome you back.
What about the mourning parents who are mourning the loss of a 19-year-
old, who just want some connection? They are no longer connected to the
military. I do not know what they do with military families who have
lost a loved one, and so I think what you are doing here tonight is so
crucial because we are asking questions that apparently they are trying
to cover up, hide or they are not putting the human face to.
She is not here, but I just want to say the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Watson) recently visited one of our wounded
individuals. She said that person lost their limbs and was blinded in
one eye. That is the human face, why we are here tonight and talking
about this issue.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Meek).
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Madam Speaker, quickly, I just want to make sure
Americans understand, be very quick, you need to look at your children
and you need to look at your grandchildren. The administration is
saying ask no questions. They are spending their future away. If your
child's class size is 30, now look for it to being 50 because this
government will continue to cut back so local governments will be in
deficit spending.
Right now the States are $70 billion in deficits and that will
continue. So I am not looking forward to doing things on a credit card.
I am looking forward to doing things the way we are supposed to do and
govern, and when I hear the President say we need to fight the war on
terror in Iraq and not here, being in Iraq has nothing to do with
fighting the war on terror in the United States.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, we merely say to the President, be
accountable, be accountable. I thank my colleagues very much.
____________________