[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 144 (Wednesday, October 15, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H9391-H9396]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2004

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Pursuant to the order of 
the House of today, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is 
recognized for 30 minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to myself to explain the 
procedure of the situation.
  Mr. Speaker, we are proceeding under a very unusual circumstance to 
say the least. We will be having considerable discussion of a bill 
which is not yet before us but which will be before us tomorrow, 
assuming that the Committee on Rules brings out a rule that provides 
for its consideration tomorrow. Meanwhile, we will be having 
discussions about what the House anticipates will be on the floor 
tomorrow.
  We have just had a half an hour description of a trip taken by one of 
the congressional delegations to Iraq, and we are now yielding for the 
next half an hour to other Members of the House who want to express 
their thoughts on the subject in general, and when we are finished with 
that half an hour, we will then be proceeding to additional debate, 
which is provided for on the House floor today through a unanimous 
consent agreement reached yesterday.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman for yielding 
me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I will vote for the final supplemental package. However, 
I do rise to express a number of concerns that I have.
  This is the largest foreign aid package that any current Member of 
this Congress has voted for, and I do not believe that it should be 
left to our children and grandchildren to bear the burden of today's 
decision.
  During the Committee on Appropriations markup of this aid package 
last week, I voted in favor of an amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking minority member. The gentleman 
from Wisconsin's (Mr. Obey) amendment would have transferred $4.6 
billion from the reconstruction of Iraq to the equipment needs of our 
brave men and women who are still in harm's way. I would again support 
this amendment if it were allowed to be offered in the House because I 
strongly believe that it is our duty and our responsibility to first 
ensure that every American soldier and military personnel in Iraq has 
the equipment they need to fight and defend themselves; secondly, that 
our generation should pay for it, not our children.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin's (Mr. Obey) amendment would have added 
additional funds for repairing and replacing equipment used in 
operations. It would have included funds to allow the Army to increase 
its number of active-duty troops from the current level of 480,000 to 
500,000. These additional troops, enough for one full Army division, 
after 1 year would help relieve pressure on an already overdeployed 
active-duty force, but most importantly, the entire $87 billion package 
would be paid for by canceling the top tax cut rate of 1 percent. The 
amendment restores the top tax rate to pre-2001 levels of 39.6 percent. 
It would have placed us in a position of not borrowing money to fight a 
war today that our children would have to pay for tomorrow.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
the time.
  This is a very difficult time for me as a Member of this body to come 
before my colleagues and ask you to seek out, to write, to call, to e-
mail and to fax your United States Congressperson, your United States 
Senator and the President of the United States, letting us know, 
America, how you feel about $87 billion being spent on the country of 
Iraq at this time; $66 billion of that is for our troops; 18 plus 
billion of it is for the reconstruction of Iraq.
  I stand before my colleagues as an appropriator, one who has sat in 
two hearings on the $18 billion of your tax money. At the same time 
that we are building their electricity, their water, their schools, 
their hospitals, ours are crumbling. I believe that we should help 
Iraq, and I think the American people believe that, but we should not 
be building Iraq better than Iraq was built before the U.S. invaded. I 
think that is wrong, and I think the American people should speak out 
on that.
  We are in trying times in our own country. Many schools, many 
hospitals are in dire need. Our judicial system is falling and failing, 
and yes, we are going to rebuild their judicial system. I think 
something's wrong with that, and we need to speak out on that, and we 
need to hear from you, America, on this very question this week. As 
this supplemental goes this week, today, tomorrow, and probably early 
Friday

[[Page H9392]]

morning, we need to hear from you. It is your money. I am really 
appalled that it is going through quickly.
  I strongly support giving the troops what they need for the next 3 to 
6 months. This supplemental is for 15 months. How many hospitals in 
America will be closing during that time?

                              {time}  1400

  How many schools will be crumbling? How many people are out of work? 
We need investment in America. Yes, we need to help Iraq, after all, we 
have bombed it, with over 5,000 people killed and two or three of our 
soldiers being killed every day.
  Terrorism is an international problem, and we must address it with 
leadership and with leaders. So I urge you, America, speak out, let 
your voices be heard. Fax, call, write or e-mail your Congressperson, 
U.S. Senator, and President Bush.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The Chair would remind all 
Members to address their remarks to the Chair and not to individuals 
who may be watching these proceedings.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).
  (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman 
for yielding me this time and for the amendment that hopefully he will 
be able to offer later in this debate.
  It is very clear now to most Americans that the administration was 
planning more for war than it was for the peace after the war. The 
administration continued to insist that actions would be quick, easy, 
and inexpensive. The administration continued to tell Americans this 
even though they were advised otherwise. They were advised by the 
Council on Foreign Relations, by the James Baker Institute, the 
Washington Institute of Near East Policy, and the Center for Strategic 
International Studies. All warned of the postwar violence and the 
instability that would come about if we did not internationalize this 
effort immediately.
  They also warned about the inability of the oil fields to pay for 
this; about the special training that was going to be needed by our 
troops and by an international police force; about the likelihood of 
post-war violence and the need, again, for a specially trained police. 
By now, it must be clear that that advice was not taken by this 
administration.
  As a result, we were ill prepared for postwar Iraq. Soldiers were put 
needlessly in harm's way due to poor planning and the absence of proper 
supplies, and a mission for which they were not trained and which was 
properly not theirs. They were improperly equipped for the threat that 
they faced. And that comes on the heels of spending $79 billion.
  The failures and the threats have become even worse, and they 
continue to grow. The threats are more sophisticated, more dangerous. 
We now see parties from outside Iraq entering into that. The borders 
are not secure, and hundreds of American soldiers have been killed and 
severely wounded.
  The administration, in fact, with this first $79 billion and its 
planning for postwar Iraq has failed in its duty of care it owed these 
soldiers and their families. Now they seek another $87 billion. How 
will this be different from the first $79 billion, and how can they 
justify the additional $45 billion to $70 billion they are coming to 
ask for us next?
  This administration has a duty to the soldiers and the taxpayers to 
explain how is their safety going to be enhanced; how are we going to 
increase the number of bulletproof vests that are necessary, the 
bulletproof Humvees that are necessary. And when are we going to stop 
sending Guard units into this theatre with inferior equipment?
  It is clear to all that we simply cannot leave Iraq. It is not good 
for Iraq, and it is not good for the security of America. But what we 
must do is insist upon a plan that will bring about real international 
participation, force security that our soldiers are due, and a fairness 
to the taxpayer. But that is not this plan, and for that reason I must 
vote ``no.''
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), our ranking member on the 
Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, let me commend the chairman and the ranking 
member of the Committee on Appropriations for bringing to the floor 
this supplemental appropriations bill. This $86.7 billion supplemental 
will help improve the quality of life for our servicemembers currently 
serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.
  I am pleased that the committee chose to continue to increase the 
imminent danger pay for those who continue to face danger on the front 
lines. The supplemental also supports a continued increase in the 
family separation allowance, which will help separated families cope 
with the cost increases associated with the deployments.
  The bill also continues the authorization of per diem travel funding 
for family members whose servicemember may be ill or injured as a 
result of the activity or duty; and it would allow the Department of 
Defense to provide for a per diem to allow the servicemembers to 
purchase civilian clothing as well.
  The bill would improve the security of our forces in Iraq and in 
Afghanistan, with $251 million being provided to purchase additional 
special armor plates. These special armor plates are in short supply in 
Iraq. As a matter of fact, we were told they were 37,000 short. 
Increased funding has been provided for modern hydration systems, for 
clearing unexploded ordnance, for spare parts, and other necessary 
field equipment.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, despite these improvements, I believe more could 
have been done. For instance, the increase in imminent danger pay and 
family separation allowance increases should be permanent. Next 
September, servicemembers and their families should not have to wonder 
again and hope that Congress will do the right thing and extend the 
increases for another fiscal year.
  Additional funds should also have been provided to support the 
growing number of family assistance centers that are needed, 
particularly for the Guard and for the Reserve.
  In addition, supplemental funding could have been provided to enhance 
the transitional services for our injured servicemembers for whom 
continued military service will not be possible.
  These are just a few examples of the additional improvements that 
could have been included in this bill but are not.
  Mr. Speaker, I commend the chairman and the ranking member of the 
Appropriations Committee for bringing to the floor this supplemental 
appropriations bill for military and reconstruction activities in Iraq 
and Afghanistan.
  This $86.7 billion supplemental will help improve the quality of life 
for the service members currently serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom 
and Operation Enduring Freedom, as well as for their families. I am 
pleased that the committee chose to continue the increase in imminent 
danger pay for those who continue to face danger on the front lines. 
The supplemental also supports a continued increase in the family 
separation allowance, which will help separated families cope with the 
costs increases associated with deployments away from home. Both 
increases would be effective for the entire 2004 fiscal year.
  The bill would also continue the authorization of per diem travel 
funding for family members whose service member may be ill or inured as 
a result of service on active duty, and would also allow the Department 
of Defense to provide a clothing per diem allowance with which service 
members could purchase civilian clothing while recuperating from their 
injuries.
  The bill would also improve the security of our forces in Iraq and 
Afghanistan; $251 million has been provided to purchase additional 
special armor plate inserts--the armored protective plates that are in 
such short supply in Iraq. Increased funding has also been provided for 
modern hydration systems, for clearing unexploded ordnance, for spare 
parts and for other necessary field equipment.
  Despite these improvements, I believe more could be done. For 
example, the increase in imminent danger pay and family separation 
allowance increases should be permanent. Next September, service 
members and their families should not have to wonder and hope that 
Congress will do the right thing and extend the increases from one 
fiscal year to the next.

[[Page H9393]]

  Additional funds also should have been provided to support the 
growing number of family assistance centers that are needed, 
particularly for the Guard and Reserves. The majority of National Guard 
and Reserve families do not live near a military base and has 
difficulty accessing the family support programs that are provided by 
the services. Additional funds for family support programs would have 
been helpful.
  In addition, supplemental funding could have been provided to enhance 
the transitional services for our injured service members for who 
continued military service will not be possible. Providing more case 
managers, who provide direct assistance to recovering service members, 
would help smooth the transition. Creating additional social workers to 
work with the service member and the Department of Veterans Affairs for 
follow on health care services and disability compensation would also 
improve transitional services and help prevent these vulnerable service 
members from suffering undue hardships.
  These are just a few examples of additional improvements that could 
and should have been included in this bill. While I understand the 
difficulties the chairman faced in bringing forward a bill that would 
be acceptable, I believe that the committee should have made a better 
effort to include the amendment offered by the ranking member, Mr. 
Obey, which included a number of these quality of life improvements 
that I have previously mentioned.
  As such, I hope that my colleagues will support those amendments that 
seek to improve the protection of our troops and the quality of life 
for themselves and their families.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
this time.
  The President has requested of the United States Congress, on behalf 
of the American people, $87 billion to continue the conflict and build 
Iraq. I only have three problems with the President's request. Every 
penny of the $87 billion will be borrowed, obligating this generation 
and future generations of working Americans to foot the bill.
  It could be paid for; just suspend the tax cuts for those who earn 
over $300,000. It is a time of war and conflict and sacrifice. Maybe 
there could be a little bit of sacrifice at the top.
  Eighty-seven billion dollars is excessive. It is rife with the 
potential for sweetheart deals and war profiteering. There was a cement 
plant with a $15 million estimate; done for $80,000. Feed the Iraqi 
council, 25 people, $5,000 a day. They canceled the contract. They 
think we are nuts. Mr. Al-Barak on the council says, where you spend a 
billion dollars, we could do the job for $100 million. So maybe 10 
percent of this money is justified.
  And it is not to repair war damage; it is to build Iraq, not rebuild 
Iraq. The President is putting the needs of the Iraqi people first with 
borrowed funds.
  Now, we are going to borrow money to pay Iraqis for no-show jobs, but 
we cannot get an extension of unemployment benefits out of the 
Unemployment Trust Fund. The President says we cannot afford it. We are 
going to borrow money to build a water system for Basra because, ah, we 
are appalled, they have an open unlined channel providing water. I have 
a city in my district in Albany, Oregon, that has an open unlined 
channel providing water for that city, but they cannot get help from 
the Federal Government because the President says there is no money. We 
are providing another $50 million for the Port of Nasra. We cannot get 
money to dredge ports in the western United States. The President says 
there is no money.
  Americans at home need economic security, and the young men and women 
who we have sent over there need their basic needs in equipment and 
health care and food and shelter met, and this bill fails on all those 
points. It is $87 billion that is not going to meet the needs of the 
American people and the young men and women we have sent into harm's 
way.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in total support of our 
troops, yet I cannot deny my lingering concerns about the supplemental 
spending measure and the administration's priorities.
  Last spring, this Congress provided $79 billion in supplemental 
funding for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. And like most 
of my colleagues, I voted in favor of the bill and trusted that the 
administration's request was the result of a proper assessment of our 
military's needs. Imagine my shock to hear from my colleagues who 
visited Iraq that our soldiers and equipment are not equipped with 
lifesaving devices, such as top-of-the-line Kevlar inserts and armor 
for our Humvees.
  I cannot fathom why the Department of Defense did not put our 
soldiers' lives as a high enough priority to provide each of them with 
a Kevlar insert, a lifesaving device that costs only $517. I applaud 
our appropriator for making funding available in this second 
supplemental spending bill to provide our brave men and women this 
necessary protection.
  I also wish to commend my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for 
raising the important issue of whether these funds should be 
administered as loans. With more than a $400 billion deficit and 
pressing needs here at home, we should be giving serious consideration 
to loaning these reconstruction funds to Iraq.
  Our economy is sputtering along, we are not getting the international 
financial support we need for Iraq, and our deficit is ballooning. 
These are all signs that we should be seriously questioning the wisdom 
of granting Iraq and Afghanistan $87 billion that could be used wisely 
here at home.
  Mr. Speaker, Texas children are being dropped from the CHIPS rolls 
and losing much-needed health insurance, yet we do not have the money 
to help our States protect them. Our bridges and roads are crumbling 
here, but we cannot pass a highway spending bill because we do not want 
to spend the money to put into it, yet we are supposed to have over $18 
billion to simply grant Iraq for its reconstruction. I ask my 
colleagues, what about this country's reconstruction?
  Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, our troops have my full and unwavering 
support. They have served our country with honor and bravery, and I am 
voting for them in supporting this bill. But I implore my colleagues 
and the administration to remember the urgent needs we have here at 
home and always put the needs of our country first.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maine (Mr. Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, the administration of George W. Bush has done 
more damage to our Nation domestically and internationally in a shorter 
period of time than any administration in my lifetime. In the last 3 
years, this Republican Congress has made at least two grievous mistakes 
by acting on measures without a full and realistic assessment of the 
consequences.
  The first mistake made over time was to pass huge tax cuts for the 
rich, which have drained the Treasury and created record deficits. The 
second was authorizing a war against Iraq based on poor intelligence 
and the misrepresentation of the intelligence we had.
  We cannot afford a third mistake. I believe that approving the 
supplemental gives us the best chance of managing the consequences of 
the invasion. This vote is not a vote on the Iraq invasion. That 
question was decided a year ago. And like 132 others in this Chamber, I 
voted no to war, but the war was authorized. Today's vote is about 
where we go from here.
  Our primary goals are to remove U.S. troops as quickly as possible 
and to leave the Iraqis with the ability to govern themselves. The 
sooner we provide safe and stable conditions that allow for self-
government, the sooner our troops will come home. That is why, as hard 
as it is, we need to approve the military and reconstruction package. 
The alternative is to leave Iraq in a state of anarchy, a power vacuum 
likely filled by factional militias and terrorists.
  Because of the majority's obsession with tax cuts, we are financing 
this $87 billion package with debt that our children will pay in 
reduced services and higher taxes for decades to come. The generation 
that made these mistakes should pay this bill, and that is why we 
should freeze the tax breaks that the President has given away to the 
wealthiest 1 percent of Americans.
  We do not have good choices as we stand here today, but our troops 
need Kevlar vests and armored Humvees,

[[Page H9394]]

and Iraq needs money for reconstruction. They are poor choices, but I 
believe we need to support the supplemental.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Sherman).
  (Mr. SHERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, we all support the troops. We all want to 
see Iraq built, or at least restored. There is only one issue that is 
in doubt: whether the $18 billion goes to Iraq as a loan or as a gift.
  Now, we will have two chances to vote on that issue, at least two. 
First, the rule will come before this House. A vote for the rule is a 
vote to say that we will never get an explicit vote on whether this 
should be a loan or a gift. If you are in favor of an $18 billion gift 
out of the hides of the American taxpayer, you have to vote for the 
rule. If you vote against the rule, that opens it up to having a 
protected amendment, like one that I and others are proposing, to 
convert the $18 billion from a loan to a gift.
  The second opportunity will be on the Rohrabacher amendment, and 
there will be other amendments, when we can strike the $18 billion. 
People should understand that does not mean that we do not build Iraq. 
Instead, that means the administration has to come forward with a loan 
package. So what is at issue in those votes, the only major issue that 
is going to be close on this floor, is whether the $18 billion is a 
loan or a gift.
  Now, what happens if we make it a loan? I have a plan. Step one, 
renounce the $100 billion that Saddam Hussein borrowed.

                              {time}  1415

  Step two, loan $18 billion to Iraq. Result: Iraq has $18 billion of 
debt. The other approach, is to not renounce the $100 billion except 
that portion, that tiny portion, which is voluntarily forgiven. So then 
they will owe $60 or $70 or $80 billion, none of it to us. Then in 
2008, in 2010, and 2012, the vast majority of Saddam's debt will be 
repaid.
  Who gets the money? Twenty-five billion dollars to Saudi Arabia. 
Seventeen billion dollars to Kuwait. Seventeen to $30 billion to the 
other gulf states. That is right. If you go with the plan that is in 
this bill now, over $75 billion to rich oil states.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I think it is absolutely 
critical that we fund our troops and the rebuilding effort in Iraq, and 
I think some very good arguments have been made in support of that, 
particularly by the gentlemen who took the trip to Iraq to see, on the 
ground, firsthand, what is going on over there. We have an incredible 
investment over there that we must see through to the end. We must 
follow through on the policy and try to leave Iraq in as good a state 
as possible when we eventually withdraw. But the problem I have is I 
think we ought to pay for it. We should not simply add this $87 billion 
to the already growing Federal debt. And it is fairly easy to do. The 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has a suggestion in his amendment 
to take it out of the existing tax cut but, personally, I would be open 
to other options that reduce spending elsewhere and cover those costs.
  The problem I have with this supplemental is that it simply adds to 
our debt. And I know it is an incredibly important expenditure. We have 
had many incredibly important expenditures in the last several years, 
and we will have many more in the future, but at some point, those 
expenditures have got to add up to equal the revenue. If not, we are 
burdening not just future generations, I have heard that, but anyone 
here who plans on being alive more than 10 years in the future will 
also have to bear that burden of an incredibly high Federal debt, a 
debt that is over $6 trillion in total and a deficit that is going to 
push towards $500 billion next year.
  Let us do the right thing in Iraq, but let us pay for it. Let us pay 
for it preferably out of the tax cut, which could easily afford to see 
an $87 billion reduction but, as I said, I would have the offer to the 
colleagues on the other side, if there is some area of government 
spending that you want to cut specifically to fund it, then that is 
fine, but we cannot afford to continue to act like the debt does not 
matter. I think the most scary aspect of the debate on this subject has 
been the comments coming out of the administration in the last few 
months that have said just that, that deficits don't matter, that all 
of a sudden it doesn't matter if you balance your budget. That is 
wishful thinking and dead wrong. It matters whether or not we balance 
our budget. Let us start moving in the right direction and do the right 
thing in Iraq, but pay for it, for once.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Schiff).
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, over the next 2 days we will be debating the 
President's request for $87 billion in military reconstruction efforts 
in Iraq and Afghanistan. At the outset, I want to acknowledge the 
outstanding bravery and dedication shown by our men and women in 
uniform who are serving overseas. After visiting Iraq in August and 
visiting Afghanistan a year ago, I could not be more impressed with the 
young people who are standing in harm's way every day on our behalf. 
Our first priority, then, in this emergency supplemental must be to 
meet the needs of our troops and keep them safe. It has been alarming 
to learn over the past several months that many soldiers lack Kevlar 
vests, that there are insufficient armored vehicles, that spare parts 
and other essential supplies have not reached our troops. This must be 
corrected immediately. It is also essential that the administration 
demonstrate it has a well-thought-out plan for Iraq's reconstruction.
  When Ambassador Bremer testified before the Committee on 
International Relations, I asked him how much of the prewar planning 
was of use to him in the postwar period. His answer was both candid and 
astounding. He never read the postwar plan. He never had time to. The 
lack of adequate postwar planning has hurt our effort significantly. We 
must insist on far more planning and accountability. Any supplemental 
appropriation must not be a blank check but should require frequent 
reporting and consultation with Congress. Americans must also not bear 
this burden alone. It is in the profound interest of the world 
community that Iraq be placed on the road to self-governance and that 
it not be allowed to descend into chaos. The resolution which now 
appears likely to pass in the United Nations is a positive step forward 
but those words must be followed by deeds. Other nations must 
contribute troops and funds toward the security and reconstruction in 
Iraq. Moreover, private companies must not be allowed to profiteer from 
the vast sums expended. Open bidding processes should be used whenever 
possible and greater scrutiny should be applied to any and all 
contracts awarded. Maximum use of Iraqi labor should be employed to 
further obtain Iraqi support for reconstruction.
  Finally, to the degree we must finance the lion's share of the 
military reconstruction efforts, this burden must not be allowed to 
fall to the very soldiers and their children in the future. We should 
not debt finance this war.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy 
in yielding me time.
  Congress will provide the necessary support for our troops, and we 
will make a significant investment in stabilizing and rebuilding Iraq. 
But the question before Congress is how best to provide that troop 
support and how to make the appropriate investment. We have already 
provided huge sums that were clearly not well spent. We will be 
approaching $200 billion of borrowed money with no end in sight, and 
our troops continue to have unmet needs that were entirely foreseen.
  This request has serious problems because the administration has 
serious credibility problems, not just with this Congress. They have a 
credibility problem with the American public. The people know that the 
administration exaggerated threats; they dismissed people who gave 
accurate estimates of costs and consequences; they strained the 
evidence, to be charitable, and they ignored or misunderstood the 
realities.

[[Page H9395]]

  It was wrong to give this administration a blank check to wage 
unilateral war, and it is wrong to give them a blank check with vast 
sums of money for reconstruction. While this proposal has been improved 
by the Committee on Appropriations, there is still too much spent on 
the wrong things administered by the wrong people.
  There should be a better balance between what we spend in Afghanistan 
and what we spend in Iraq. The leadership of the Department of Defense 
who overruled the professionals, who have been unable to get it right, 
should not be administering reconstruction. It should be done by the 
Department of State, especially utilizing the USAID network.
  I would hope that the administration would stop whistling in the dark 
that this is all going according to plan, and it is going well. They 
should not lash out at people who are pointing out the obvious problems 
and flaws. This is an opportunity to have the administration display 
some candor, maybe a little humility, to help get everybody on the same 
page. Congress does no one any favors, not our troops, not our 
citizens, not the Iraqi people, to continue to fund and support the 
administration's ill-advised and shortsighted plan.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thompson).
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to insist that 
accountability is built into the supplemental appropriations. My vote, 
as a matter of fact, will be contingent on inclusion of an 
accountability provision.
  The history of our Nation has proven that accountability is not only 
patriotic, it most often determines our greatest successes from our 
most tragic failures. That is why I support provisions included in the 
alternative proposal that require reporting on the funding for both the 
military and the reconstruction components of the bill. By meeting 
these critical reporting requirements, the administration would ensure 
the necessary flow of funds to our troops.
  Three weeks ago, I introduced legislation that would require similar 
accountability, and I am pleased that these protections are included in 
the alternative proposal. We have an opportunity today, Mr. Speaker, to 
regain an oversight voice that has been lost for too long in this 
House. It is our duty, our duty to the some 40,000 troops who are 
serving in combat without Kevlar inserts, our duty to their parents who 
have to send their sons and daughters the most basic of supplies, and 
it is our duty to the American taxpayers who are footing the bill, a 
duty to ensure that these funds are being spent in the most effective 
and in the most efficient way. I urge my colleagues to demand that 
accountability is part of this measure.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  (Mr. DOGGETT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, with more than 2,000 young Americans dead 
and injured in Iraq, we have a constitutional obligation to hold this 
Administration accountable. We here in Congress need to demonstrate a 
little more of the type of courage that our young people have shown in 
Iraq.
  We are having this vote now because the Administration has been 
unwilling to build a genuine international coalition. The price of 
going it mostly alone is that American taxpayers continue to do most 
all the paying and our young men and women do most all the dying. 
Americans must ``pay it all'' because of the ``know-it-all'' ideologues 
who rejected the advice of our leading military experts, of our 
strongest allies and the experienced weapons inspectors.
  This is not a problem of too little money, it is a problem of too 
little thinking and planning.
  Throwing more taxpayer money at the problem has nothing to do with 
``standing by our troops.'' As the data in this chart demonstrates, if 
the supplemental is rejected entirely, at its current rate of spending, 
the Army will still have plenty of money for half a year. But the 
choice need not be between zero and $87 billion. If you really want to 
stand by the troops, then supplement some now and force the 
Administration to come back no later than January 2004 with a plan to 
protect our troops and ensure security in Iraq. Do not give the 
Administration a pass on accountability and a blank check through the 
next election.
  This vote has nothing to do about supplying Kevlar vests to our 
troops. It is about providing ``political Kevlar'' to the defenders of 
a failed policy.
  Do not allow the failure of the Administration ideologues in business 
suits to continue endangering those who so bravely serve us in uniform.
  This is an Administration that cannot find Osama bin Laden, cannot 
find Saddam Hussein, cannot find weapons of mass destruction, cannot 
even find the person in the White House who was responsible for 
illegally endangering a woman who put her life on the line working for 
the CIA. The only thing the Administration can find is the taxpayers' 
wallet, again and again.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I believe it is critically important that 
we get our military troops all the resources they need to safely 
complete their mission as soon as possible in Iraq. However, I do not 
support rubber-stamping this legislation so the Bush administration 
gets a free ride from Congress and does not have to account for its 
strategy in Iraq.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose outright the $18 billion in reconstruction 
funds included in the supplemental and feel the Bush administration has 
an obligation to explain to Congress why it downplayed our role in 
reconstruction prior to the war. Last March, Secretary Rumsfeld told 
the Senate Appropriations Committee, ``I don't believe that the United 
States has the responsibility for reconstruction. Funds can come from 
those various sources I mentioned, frozen assets, oil revenues and a 
variety of other things, including the Oil for Food which has a very 
substantial number of billions of dollars in it.'' But then the 
Secretary changed his mind over the last 6 months, stating last month, 
``Iraq is in no position to pay its current debt service, let alone 
take on more additional debt.''
  Was the administration bending the truth 6 months ago, or have events 
changed in Iraq to warrant these reconstruction funds? Congress 
deserves an answer to that question, and I do not believe we have 
received an adequate explanation yet.
  Mr. Speaker, I will not support a supplemental that does not create 
accountability for the funds Congress appropriates for no-bid contracts 
to companies like Vice President Cheney's old employer, Halliburton. I 
will not support a supplemental that does not turn the reconstruction 
funds into a loan rather than a grant. And I will not support a 
supplemental that is not paid for. If these changes were made, then I 
could support it, but I do not think that is going to happen. I think 
that this administration has the bill that they want, and so I cannot 
support the supplemental that is being put forward today. I think it is 
a mistake. I think we will regret it. I think, most importantly, we 
need accountability, and we are not getting it.
  What about all the money that could be spent that is being spent on 
Iraq that could be spent here at home for the needs that we have, 
whether it is infrastructure, like hospitals or sewage treatment 
plants, or roads or highways, whatever? Instead, we are spending it on 
Iraq. We do not need to do it. I think it is a mistake.

                              {time}  1430

  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I first want to say that we have for the next several hours, the next 
48 hours, a general debate and a final vote on what we will do with $87 
billion of the taxpayers' money that is not paid for. Are we going to 
saddle our children and grandchildren with this debt? Can some of this 
be a loan and what is needed right away be sent out forthwith? Those 
are the kinds of questions, and we hope that some of the amendments 
will be adopted as we debate the supplemental. Iraq is not a poor 
country; $2 trillion of oil reserves now can be used to secure and pay 
back some of this money.
  Mr. Speaker, it is important that we get engaged, that we speak to 
one another, that some of the amendments do

[[Page H9396]]

go forth and that we keep America strong, keep our troops healthy and 
protect them as God would have it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________