[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.

                          ____________________