[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 144 (Wednesday, October 15, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H9452-H9464]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  2045

  Because this is not an Iraq problem. This is not a United States 
problem. This is not a Western problem. This is a global problem, 
because we have learned if you turn your back, like we did in 
Afghanistan, sit back and wait, another 9/11-type sneak attack will 
happen. But if we stay committed, we will have a great nation that we 
will have played a part in, and, for future generations, we can all 
look back proudly.
  Vote yes for the supplemental.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, this is a very, very emotional 
issue. I come to the well with mixed emotions, simply because we are 
asked to do two things here: We are asked to stand up and support our 
troops, and, at the same time, we are asked to stand up and support our 
taxpayers.
  I want to answer the first question quite frankly and 
straightforward, that I will vote for this supplemental based on the 
needs of our soldiers who are not into this political debate, but 
simply need equipment and support to do the job that our country sent 
them to do.
  This bill provides $65 billion out of the $87 billion and provides 
needed funding for our troops. Part of this money is designed to go and 
purchase body armor to protect our soldiers. Part of this money is 
going to support continued payment of per diem for travel for family 
members.
  I have just come from my district, and I realize the hardships being 
placed upon family members. There is an increase in the monthly rate of 
imminent danger pay in this budget from $150 to $225, and also for 
family separation.
  Now, with that out of the way, it still remains a fundamental 
question that we must stand up for the taxpayer as well, and that is 
the convoluted position we are in. How do we stand up for our troops 
and support them in their needs for battle, to do the job that we sent 
them there to do? How can we not vote for these precious items that 
will protect their lives, including equipment to defuse ordinances away 
from land mines to save their lives? At the same time, we must speak up 
properly and effectively as good stewards of the taxpayers' money for 
the $20 billion going for the reconstruction?
  Many of us pleaded and worked hard to get this debate broken down 
along two lines, because, yes, we must stand up for our troops. But we 
are Congressmen and women. We are elected to do one essential thing, 
more than any other, and that is make the decisions to determine how 
the taxpayers' money is spent.
  I am here to tell you that this $20 billion added on for the 
infrastructure rebuilding of Iraq is not good stewardship of the 
taxpayers' money.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Concord, North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not an either/or budget, this is a both/and; 
both supporting the troops, and supporting Americans at home.
  Just one year ago this month, the House of Representatives found 
itself debating the authorization on the use of force against the 
regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. At that time, Iraqi people were 
living under a tyrant, a brutal dictator who murdered, gassed and 
tortured his own people.
  Saddam's reign of terror displaced some 700,000 people throughout 
Iraq, destroyed more than 2,000 Kurdish villages and killed thousands 
of Iraqis. This regime had more forced disappearance cases than any 
other country in the world. Iraqis were not free to practice their 
religion or express their political beliefs. Citizens lived in constant 
fear of a dictator whose image covered the Iraqi landscape. Saddam 
Hussein's regime was not a government of benevolence, it was a reign of 
unconscionable terror.
  Today Iraq is a vastly different place. Children are attending 
school. Girls are taking karate classes. The Iraqi National Symphony 
has performed again after years of absence. Oil flow is back up to 72 
percent of its prewar level. Markets are flourishing and a new Iraqi 
police force is being trained.
  I would like to share a few thoughts about the hope currently present 
in the society written by Major Michael Fenzel of the 173rd Airborne 
Division.
  ``When you see soldiers on the street patrolling with the new Iraqi 
police officers, you know there is great hope. When you have seen the 
stark difference between the empty and frightened streets of early 
April and the bustling markets of today, you feel the hope. The well-
publicized incidents of violence are spasms of resistance to a concept 
so compelling it cannot be denied, freedom. The attacks themselves are 
generated by a small bands of militants and hired guns at the behest of 
`return party' chieftains and terrorist financiers. And when you have 
the chance to see the steely determination of American and coalition 
soldiers serving here through the heat of each day, you cannot help 
knowing that hope has already defeated tyranny.''
  We do, however, still have many challenges ahead of us. We continue 
to hear reports of American servicemen giving their lives to help 
restore the peace in Iraq and the Middle East. Patience is required, 
but the cause is just, and even though the challenge is great, success 
is essential and achievable.
  Today we are at a crossroads. We have the opportunity to continue our 
commitment to the Iraqi and Afghani people in restoring freedom, 
liberty, and dignity to their lives. We also have a responsibility to 
further support our men and women currently serving in Iraq and 
Afghanistan.
  While there remain many domestic matters that are a top priority, we 
must send a signal today that we are committed to helping build a safe, 
secure and democratic government in Iraq and Afghanistan. Stability in 
Iraq and Afghanistan is directly related to America's security at home 
and abroad. Failing to establish a safe and secure Iraq will allow the 
region to continue as an incubator and supplier for terrorists.
  Winston Churchill said, ``The price of greatness is responsibility.'' 
My friends, today we have the responsibility to do what is right, what 
is just, and what will help foster a safe and stable environment in the 
Middle East. I encourage my colleagues to vote for this Iraqi 
supplemental.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Baird).
  Mr. BAIRD. I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not know how I am going to vote on this. Two weeks 
ago, I visited Walter Reed Hospital, and I met young soldiers who had 
double amputations, severe burns and head injuries that will be with 
them for life. Sending those soldiers into the field without adequate 
body armor, without armored Humvees, was inexcusable, if not criminal. 
We must act to protect those soldiers right now.
  But, I say to my friends, I have yet to hear the supporters of this 
supplemental say how they will pay for it. I will tell you right now, 
you can possibly get my vote if you will answer that question. I have 
only 2 minutes, less now, but I would yield at least 30 seconds to 
anyone who is supporting this bill if they will tell us how you want 
the American people to pay for it, when we are closing veterans 
hospitals, when we are $600 billion in deficit every year, when our 
schools are falling apart, and we cannot rebuild our roads.
  I yield 30 seconds to anyone who supports this bill to tell me how to 
pay for it.
  Mr. Chairman, that is the problem. That is the problem. We want to 
make lots of promises, but we do not have leadership in the 
administration or in this body that will tell the American people the 
hard truth; what programs we have to cut, what taxes we have to raise, 
whether we will borrow from Social Security or whether we will pass the 
debt on to our children. That is the problem.
  I am really sorry. We must support those troops. But they are 
fighting for

[[Page H9453]]

a democracy that owes it to its people to be honest with them, honest 
about the tough choices we must make. But we are not living up to that 
bargain, and it is a darn shame, because those kids deserve better.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Highland Village, Texas (Mr. Burgess).
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, in the last week in August of this year I 
was privileged to go with several of my colleagues to the country of 
Iraq. One of the things that sticks with me from that trip was the 
quote from General James Conway of the First Marine Expeditionary 
Force. He described to us what is going on in Iraq today as a ``vivid 
success story.''
  The American soldiers who fought in Iraq did so with skill, 
determination and bravery in the face of grave dangers. Their conquest 
of Iraq was rapid, overwhelming, and the victory was obtained with 
relatively limited civilian casualties or damage to Iraq's 
infrastructure.
  All Americans can be proud of the performance of our Armed Forces in 
Iraq, and we can unite in honoring of the memory of those courageous 
soldiers who made the ultimate sacrifice to protect their fellow 
Americans.
  Having overthrown Saddam's regime, we must now secure the peace. It 
is absolutely critical to the United States' national security that we 
help Iraq become a stable, free nation that does not support terrorism 
or pose a danger to its neighbors. A secure and free Iraq is in our 
country's national security interests, as it is in the world's security 
interests.
  The road ahead is difficult, and every lost American life is a 
tragedy, but our troops' incredible sacrifices are helping to secure a 
safer future for our children, our grandchildren and, indeed, the 
children of the world.
  It is also important to understand that the coalition forces in Iraq 
are making significant progress. Coalition forces have conducted over 
190 raids in the past several months, capturing over 1,000 terrorists 
and enemy fighters. They have secured or destroyed over 8,000 tons of 
ammunition since major combat operations ended.
  A new Iraqi police force and army are being trained and equipped 
right now. Additionally, Iraqis are gathering behind the new Governing 
Council that will have significant authority and will begin the process 
of drafting a new constitution for the Iraqi people.
  Finally, the coalition is making significant progress in rebuilding 
Iraq's infrastructure, its public health services and its economy.
  This much is certain: American troops will stay in Iraq as long as it 
takes to get the job done, and not a day longer.
  On September 7, President Bush announced in a televised address to 
the Nation that he would submit to Congress a request for $87 billion 
to cover the ongoing military, intelligence and rebuilding operations 
in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. $67 billion is allocated for 
military purposes and $20 billion is allocated for reconstruction.
  This request will provide resources to the Iraqi and Afghan people so 
they will be able to rebuild their own nations which have suffered 
through decades of oppression and mismanagement, and, with that, a 
return to secure states. These funds would also restore basic services, 
such as electricity and water. Without those basic services, that can 
be an extremely radicalizing issue. They will build new schools, roads 
and medical clinics. Supporting reconstruction is essential to the 
stability of Afghanistan and Iraq and, therefore, to our own security.
  I believe it is clear that we must support the Iraq supplemental. 
Congress has been diligent in its oversight efforts in analyzing the 
supplemental request. Both Houses of Congress have broken down, line-
by-line, this request, and they have debated the importance of each 
item. Having completed this process, we must now determine how best to 
use those funds.
  I would be most in favor of providing this assistance by means of 
loans. However, I recognize there are technical difficulties in 
administering funds in the way of a loan at this time and, therefore, 
as Congress exercises its oversight authority on the supplemental, we 
are obligated to provide assistance by means of a grant.
  We should continue to stress that other countries be called upon for 
debt forgiveness and we must, we must, ensure that no taxpayer money, 
no American taxpayer money, will ever go to repay Iraq's foreign debt.
  To that end, President Bush addressed the United Nations General 
Assembly on September 23 on the topics of terrorism, the future of Iraq 
and Afghanistan, and acting to meet the humanitarian crises throughout 
the world.
  He stated that America is working with our friends and allies on a 
new U.N. Security Council resolution that would expand the U.N.'s role 
in Iraq to assist the development of a constitution, in the training of 
civil servants and the conducting of free and fair elections.
  The resolution invites the Governing Council to submit its program 
and timetable for assuming additional responsibility in the months 
ahead, until Iraq is through the process of writing a constitution and 
holding elections. It also examines a role for the United Nations 
Secretary General and the special representative that is broader than 
their current roles.
  The President believes that the aid should be global, and I 
completely agree. Leading the way, the United States should support the 
$20 billion Iraq supplemental and look forward to many nations 
participating in the reconstruction efforts of Iraq in the future. The 
end result will be a new and prosperous democracy in Iraq and, 
ultimately, a safer world for our children and grandchildren.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Georgia (Ms. Majette).

                              {time}  2100

  Ms. MAJETTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the $87 billion 
supplemental appropriation in its current form. It is with deep regret 
that I do so. I cannot vote for the request because it does not give 
the troops and the American people what they need.
  We want a bill that more fully supports our troops and their 
families. Accordingly, I support the Obey substitute. We want a bill 
that honestly assesses what the military costs will be and protects the 
quality of life for all of the men and women who are serving so 
valiantly.
  For example, the administration's request contains only $15 million 
for water purification equipment. This will leave approximately 80 
percent of the troops in Iraq without clean water. Our men and women 
deserve better. The Obey substitute addresses that issue.
  We want a detailed accounting of the money that has been spent so far 
before handing out new money.
  I look at this the way I treat my teenage sons. If I give them $20 on 
Monday and then on Tuesday they come to me and ask me for $30, I want 
to know what happened to the money I gave them on Monday.
  We want a bill that will enable us to share the burdens and 
responsibilities of reconstruction with other nations and the people of 
Iraq and eliminate the back-scratching, good-old-boy, business-as-usual 
approach that this administration loves to use.
  It has become clearer and clearer every day that the administration 
has no postwar plan for Iraq.
  There is no exit strategy, only furloughs. America's men and women 
want to know when our husbands and wives and sons and daughters and 
partners and loved ones will come home.
  We do need to finish what we started, but we cannot operate in the 
dark forever.
  We want a bill that meets the obligation of shared sacrifice, one 
that puts equity and fairness in the equation. The men and women who 
wear the uniforms of the United States Armed Forces and their families 
are making sacrifices. Their level of sacrifice goes far beyond this 
administration's level of planning.
  We want a bill that tells us how we are going to pay for the cost of 
freedom, and this bill does not.
  As a Member of Congress, I have a constitutional obligation and 
responsibility to require that those conditions be met and that the 
administration be held accountable. Until the American people are 
presented with a bill that meets the requirements of accountability, 
transparency, and fiscal responsibility, I will vote ``no'' on the $87 
billion supplemental request.

[[Page H9454]]

  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Phoenix, Arizona (Mr. Shadegg), my friend and colleague.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise in strong support of this supplemental and in 
opposition to any effort to turn it into a loan.
  On January 20, 1961, President John F. Kennedy in his inaugural 
address said these words: ``Let every nation know, whether it wishes us 
well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any 
hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival 
and the success of liberty. This much we pledge, and more.''
  I would urge my colleagues that John F. Kennedy's words were true and 
right then, and they are true and right today; and they should guide 
this debate. When he spoke those words, we were engaged in a struggle 
with worldwide communism. Today, make no mistake about it: we are 
engaged in every bit as serious a struggle with those who would seek to 
destroy us: worldwide terrorism. And we must step up to the plate and 
finish this job.
  Now, I know there is a debate of some whether we should have begun 
this war or not. But whether one supported the war from the outset or 
opposed it, and however one feels about those issues today, we have an 
obligation to finish what we have started. National defense is indeed 
the first obligation of our government; and as has been said on the 
floor here tonight, failure is simply not an option. It is critically 
important that we establish a stable, free, and democrat Iraq; and we 
cannot do that without this supplemental.
  Now, some would divide it. Some would say, well, I will support the 
military side of these funds, but I will not support the funds for 
reconstruction. As also was said here earlier tonight, not only is that 
a dangerous distinction; it is a distinction which could cripple us.
  I was in Iraq in August of this year. I spent 3 days in three 
different cities in that country; and I heard firsthand from our troops 
on the ground and their commanders that the reconstruction of Iraq, 
that the money to help the people of Iraq is critically important to 
our mission there and that without it, we cannot succeed. But, more 
importantly, our colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Marshall), 
a Democrat, said it more eloquently in a debate we had here on the 
floor earlier this year when he said that he was in Vietnam when there 
was an effort by the locals to kill our troops, and he said, the best 
ally we can have in any war of that type are the locals, the people 
there. And he said, it is absolutely essential for our troops in Iraq 
today to have the support of the Iraqi people. So that when an 
improvised explosive device is planted by our enemies there, the 
terrorists who seek to kill us and to oppose us there get help from the 
local public.
  Now, some also would say we should make this a loan, and I strongly 
oppose that idea. The reality is to make this a loan would send the 
exact wrong message. America must prove today that we are a strong and 
stable ally and that having committed to the people of Iraq to get rid 
of Saddam Hussein, we will remain until there is a strong and stable 
nation there. To make this into a loan now would prove what the world 
has said, and that is that we went there solely for our own purposes.
  But there is a more important reason not to make it a loan. We will 
go to a donors conference in Spain in just a few days. If the United 
States is not willing to grant its funds without requesting repayment, 
no nation in the world will grant their funds, and we will burden the 
Iraqi economy and it will fail.
  We have learned this history in the past. At the end of World War I, 
we failed to rebuild Europe and we paid the price for it. At the end of 
World War II, we agreed to rebuild Europe, and we had a long and stable 
ally. At the end of the struggle in Afghanistan to throw the Soviets 
out, we abandoned the people of Afghanistan. This lesson repeats itself 
through history.
  I urge my colleagues, we owe it to the Iraqi people, we owe it to our 
friends in the Muslim world, we owe it to our grandchildren and their 
grandchildren to oppose terrorism in this world by proving that we are 
a strong and stable ally, that we are not there for just our interests. 
We are there to help the people of Iraq and the people of the Middle 
East, and we will not leave and we will not fall short of our 
commitment until a stable and strong government has been established in 
Iraq with a free and democratic people. And then the world will 
understand that America keeps its word.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the supplemental and to 
strongly oppose any amendment to make it a loan.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I cannot help but respond to some of the previous 
speaker's comments. The previous speaker quoted accurately President 
Kennedy who said that we would ``pay any price and bear any burden in 
the defense of freedom.'' That is a wonderful phrase. But my question 
is, what do you mean by ``we,'' ``we'' will bear any burden?
  I want to know who is bearing any burden in this society for this 
effort right now, except for the troops and their families. How much of 
a burden are the politicians in this Chamber bearing? They are not 
facing up to the tough choices that are necessary to finance this war. 
How much of a burden are we asking the most well-off and privileged 
people in this society to pay, when the majority party and the White 
House insist on guaranteeing that, despite the need to pay for the war, 
they will still, that top 1 percent of earners will still get on 
average a $130,000 tax cut, rather than the $52,000 that they would get 
under the Obey amendment, those who make $1 million a year I am talking 
about?
  If we are going to quote John Kennedy, let us live up to the spirit 
of Kennedy's remarks and support shared sacrifice for everyone, not 
just those who are serving in the military.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Marietta, Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this emergency 
appropriation to pay for this ongoing war in Iraq.
  The gentleman that spoke before me talked about taking exception to 
some of the comments that were made, and I want to do the same thing. 
As I sat here and listened and continue to listen to the debate, over 
and over again I hear this phrase, Mr. President, what is our exit 
strategy? Mr. President, what is our exit strategy? To me, exit 
strategy is nothing more than a euphemism for cut and run.
  I do not think we need to remind the Florida Marlins last night that 
if they had an exit strategy at the end of the seventh inning, they 
would not have won that ball game. You do not pull your team off in the 
third quarter or the seventh or eighth inning of a ball game, no matter 
how far you are ahead. You are not thinking about an exit strategy; you 
are thinking about the determination and the will to win. That is 
really what we are talking about here in making this emergency 
appropriation to continue until victory is ours.
  I am strongly in support of both parts of this bill. The $66 billion 
for our troops, giving them the resources necessary to succeed in the 
war on terror and protect them from terrorist attacks, including, as an 
example, armored Humvees to better protect our forces, lifesaving body 
armor, equipment, weapons, ammunition, better housing for our troops, 
yes, and to continue the increased monthly rate of imminent danger pay 
and family separation allowances that this bill calls for. And then 
$18.6 billion for the continued relief and reconstruction of Iraq. I do 
not think that this is any less important. As my colleague, the 
gentleman from Georgia, said earlier in his remarks, this is an 
investment in democracy, security and law enforcement, justice, public 
safety, and a civil society, infrastructure, water resources, 
electrical generation, distribution infrastructure, roads and bridges, 
health care; and, yes, Mr. Chairman, it is important, as the 
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), mentioned at the outset of this 
discussion, this needs to be a grant and not a loan; and he gave us a 
good history lesson, as did the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy).
  A loan with possible interest fees risks serious harm to America's 
image

[[Page H9455]]

in the Middle East and Iraq. Heavy debt repayments could become a 
destabilizing political issue in postwar Iraq and could easily be 
exploited by anti-American factions. It is likely that the Iraqi people 
will view the loan as a way for the profiteering American invaders to 
make money off of Iraq. A loan burden also would likely stifle any 
significant economic development in Iraq. With the added burden of 
interest payments to the United States, the Government of Iraq will be 
limited in its ability to invest in its new market-based economy.
  Mr. Chairman, we cannot expect the Iraqi people to pick themselves up 
off of the ground if we have got a boot at the back of their neck. It 
is very important that this be a grant and not a loan. We cannot expect 
other countries that are debtor nations, some which are owed $8 billion 
and $10 billion from Iraq, and we can say that, well, that debt was 
with Saddam Hussein. Well, it was not Saddam Hussein who signed a 
personal note to secure that debt; it was the country of Iraq.
  So I just want to say in closing, Mr. Chairman, that the people in 
the eleventh district of Georgia that I represent are very supportive 
of not only the ongoing military effort, and that will continue until 
we win the battle and then we will talk about an exit strategy, but 
they are also in favor of reconstructing the country of Iraq. I am 
fully supportive of this emergency appropriation, and I urge all of my 
colleagues to support it.

                              {time}  2115

  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey).
  (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight to talk about the brave men 
and women who are fighting in Iraq at this very moment, the hundreds 
who lost their lives and the thousands who have been wounded. Despite 
the fact that Congress appropriated $310 million in April, nearly one-
third of the troops in Iraq have not been issued vests that are strong 
enough to stop bullets from assault rifles, nor have they been issued 
hydration systems to protect them from the searing heat of the desert.
  In fact, many families have resorted to sending protective 
bulletproof vests and Camelbak hydration systems to their sons and 
daughters stationed in Iraq. No family should be paying extra to keep 
their loved ones safe. The Federal Government has this responsibility. 
After all, who sent these young people to war in the first place? 
Certainly not their families.
  In August of this year, Mr. Chairman, I stayed in Bethesda Naval 
Hospital where I visited with wounded men and women and their families 
who have never in their lives expected to be harmed the way they were 
and who will never again experience the world in the same way as a 
result of this war.
  We do not talk about the impact of this war. In fact, we do not talk 
about the impact of any war on the wounded and their loved ones. I met 
with individuals who had lost limbs, their sight, their hearing, parts 
of their beautiful faces, and we are not providing the best equipment 
available.
  It is pretty simple: If we are willing to spend another $65 billion 
to keep our troops in danger, then we must care enough to bring them 
home, bring them home safely, bring them home soon, and support them 
after the war.
  Since I see no real commitment to doing this from the administration, 
and I see no real reason for being in Iraq in the first place, I will 
be voting no on the supplemental.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, would you give us the amount of time 
remaining on debate.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Bass). The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Kolbe) has 1 hour 13\1/2\ minutes.
  The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) has 1 hour and 39\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight in very strong opposition to 
this $87 billion installment payment on the war in Iraq. Like all of my 
colleagues, I support our troops. And I must remind my colleagues that 
I am the daughter of a career military officer, and, as such, I could 
do nothing less.
  My heart and my prayers go out to our troops and their families. I 
want to see them safe at home. I want to see them reunited with their 
families as soon as possible. In the meantime, I want them to have the 
health benefits that they deserve, the bulletproof vests that they 
need, and the basic supplies that they have been denied.
  I want to know that our wounded and that our veterans receive proper 
treatment and proper respect. But we do not protect our troops, and the 
Congress will not have done its job if we blindly sign this $87 billion 
check. We have not had an accounting of how the last $78 billion was 
spent. And we still do not have anything close to sufficient proof that 
the allegations raised by the administration that Iraq posed an 
imminent threat to the United States was real.
  We do not have an exit strategy that leads the Iraqi people to 
control their own government, their own resources, and their own 
obligations that leads us out of this quagmire. We have none of this. 
We did not have to go down this path. We could have pursued containment 
and inspections, multilateralism and saved hundreds of American lives 
and potentially hundreds of billions of dollars.
  We have urgent, unmet needs here at home. We have schools here that 
need to be constructed and reconstructed, housing that needs to be 
built, and jobs that need to be created.
  Mr. Chairman, 44 million Americans have no health insurance. We had 
choices before we went to this war, and we have choices now. We should 
not appropriate another cent without a clear vision of how and when the 
United Nations will assume real authority over the political and 
economic transition in Iraq and how and when American troops will come 
home.
  As Dr. Martin Luther King said, even though this is not his birthday 
month we must remember what he said throughout the war, he said, In the 
wasteland of war, the expenditure of resources knows no restraint.''
  Now, we owe it to our children and grandchildren not to mortgage 
their future. I will vote no on this bill.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my time.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).
  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Chairman, today I rise also in strong support of our 
men and women who currently serve us with their uniforms that they so 
proudly wear in Iraq and Afghanistan, but I also have serious concerns 
about the President's supplemental request.
  The administration's $87 billion request fails to outline what I 
believe is a concrete plan for our soldiers' and our country's 
involvement in Iraq. We currently have, as you know, over 40,000 troops 
in Iraq who lack protective body plates and about 46 percent of the 
spare parts the Army needs, but this bill has no plan to address these 
urgent needs. We also have about 37,000 noncitizen soldiers, many of 
whom come from our districts who serve in our military, including about 
3,000 noncitizens who are serving right now in Iraq. These soldiers 
deserve to be granted citizenship since they are protecting and 
defending our country. But this bill has no outline or plan for 
expediting their citizenship.
  This past weekend, Members, another one of my constituents, Private 
First Class Jose Casanova was killed in Iraq. He deserves a better 
plan. He deserves a guarantee that he is going to be taken care of and 
his family will be taken care of.
  The Iraq supplemental outlines a $21 billion reconstruction plan for 
Iraq, but we need reconstruction here at home. I say that because in 
the county that I represent, Los Angeles County, we are faced with over 
an $800 million deficit that we will have to somehow pay for in the 
next 2 years. The deficit has caused the closures of 11 clinics, health 
clinics that will now deprive hundreds, if not thousands, hundreds of 
thousands of people without medical help and treatment in our 
districts. But this bill has no plan for reconstruction to restore 
those health clinics in our districts.
  Mr. Chairman, that is why I rise today to say that I am strongly 
against

[[Page H9456]]

this appropriation and urge my colleagues to follow suit.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to respond to one thing that was said by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis) when she said that there was no 
money in this bill that would protect our soldiers in Iraq. I am sure 
she just may not be aware, has not had time to examine the bill or the 
report carefully enough, but let me just remind my colleagues that, as 
contained in the report here, I am reading from the report, and this is 
the language that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the ranking member and the 
chairman of the defense subcommittees, who have three-fourths of the 
dollars put into this bill, and that is the language of their report, 
they say, The committee recommends significant increases in this bill 
to purchase protective body armor, improve portable radio frequency 
jammers, spare parts, and other critical items.''
  Moreover, the committee directs the Department, and, in particular, 
the Army, to fully fund requirements identified under the Soldier 
Enhancement Program, the Centralized Funding and Fielding Activity, and 
other accounts designed to expeditiously field new equipment to 
soldiers.
  The committee directs the Department to use funds approved in this 
measure to increase the availability of modern hydration systems to 
soldiers in the Iraq theater.
  So, Mr. Chairman, it is simply not accurate to say that there is not 
money in this legislation which would enhance the protection and the 
quality of life of our soldiers who are serving us so well in Iraq. 
There is money in there, there is a significant amount of money in 
there. And the defense subcommittee has shown that it is very aware of 
the problems that have existed there and have addressed it with the 
legislation that we have before us this evening.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the very 
distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to join many of my 
colleagues, patriots all, who are refusing to be rubber stamps for 
President Bush's failed policy in Iraq, who say ``no'' to an $87 
billion blank check for an ongoing war and occupation with no end in 
sight and no plan to get there.
  I support our troops, and I am proud of their professionalism, 
dedication, skill and sacrifice. But because Americans awaken nearly 
every day to hear the name of another dead soldier, because I have met 
with our brave patriot soldiers who are now recovering from devastating 
wounds at Walter Reed, and because more than a billion is being 
borrowed every week to finance this war of choice, I feel an obligation 
to demand accountability before another cent is authorized at this 
time.
  I, for one, will not be an enabler to an administration that clearly 
cannot be trusted with our treasure, our lives, and those of the Iraqi 
people.
  The most galling part of this debate is that the Bush administration 
and Republican leaders are blackmailing Members of Congress to vote for 
this blank check with the threat of being accused of not supporting our 
troops. Yet it is they who are guilty of tragically disregarding troop 
safety and comfort and betraying our veterans.
  I, personally, have talked to mothers and relatives who are sending 
their soldiers huge packages every week that include items like 
sunscreen and insect repellant, shampoo, and sanitary napkins because 
the administration did not make plans to provide these items. Worse, 
over 40,000 of our soldiers were sent to war without modern body armor, 
without quality boots, without jammers that block the signals between 
bombs and detonators. Fully 46 percent of the spare parts needed by the 
Army are not available.
  Now, some will say that is why we need more money, but General Myers 
said it is not lack of money that they do not have flak jackets. He 
says it is lack of capacity to manufacture these vests. I say it is 
lack of priorities. Newly released information today says that the 
money is not needed until May or June. I say vote no.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).
  (Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I was unable to speak when my colleague 
from Washington State asked a question about how we pay. Even I will 
follow up with this question. How did we pay for the Marshall Plan 
after World War II when we obviously were in debt in paying for the 
world effort? How did we come up with the dollars to enact the Marshall 
Plan? Well, we borrowed against future resources. And that is exactly 
what we will do today. And we will do that in the passage of this 
legislation.
  The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) spoke earlier on this debate 
and he mentioned Santayana, those who failed to learn from history are 
doomed to repeat it. He recited World War I and the reparations moving 
us into World War II, and I think it is very credible debate.
  And a part of the discussion to say if we continue to load down Iraq 
with massive foreign debts and debts to us, it is a credible debating 
position to say we may be doing World War I provisions in 
reconstruction this war, and not the successful application of the 
history defined by World War II.
  And I would like to be on the side of doing the job right and 
bringing the needed money, not holding additional debt over the Iraqi 
people, and allowing them transition to a vibrant, democratic 
institution and economy.
  I wish every Member of the floor of the House had a chance to go to 
Iraq before this debate. I was one of the fortunate folks that was 
available to visit.

                              {time}  2130

  And I do think a lot of the opinions would be changed. I think you do 
see the applications of some success. I had questions like everybody 
else, and I wanted to talk to my colleagues and friends. I have 
classmates over there. I wanted to talk to the Iraqi people. I wanted 
to see the economy. I wanted to see if there was a vibrant middle class 
trying to emerge, if there was entrepreneurial spirit starting to 
develop, and you can see that on the sides of the street. You can see 
individual vendors selling gasoline. You can see small shops 
developing. They have traffic jams. One of the biggest problems in 
Baghdad now is traffic, and a traffic problem says things are moving in 
the right direction.
  But there are great challenges. I am not going to be a person that 
says the media is doing wrong by highlighting the sacrifices that our 
men and women are making every day. Because as a veteran, as someone 
who has, again, classmates serving over there, the world needs to know 
and our citizens need to know when our friends and our neighbors and 
our constituents are paying the ultimate price for freedom; and they 
are doing it every day, and we need to continue to tell that story. But 
there is more to the story.
  Let us tell that story, but let us also tell the additional aspects 
of the story and what is occurring in there and in the great 
opportunities we have.
  The field commanders who briefed us, the major military aspects of 
the campaign are over. Battalions are not maneuvering, divisions are 
not maneuvering. We do not have tanks rolling. What we do have are 
security breaches and terrorist attacks. So how do you win against 
that? How do you affect the change? How do you continue to win the 
hearts and the minds of the Iraqi people? The Iraqi people are asking 
for a minimum standard of living and basic security issues addressed. 
And when you are comparing what we have in the United States versus 
what the Iraqi people have, you are comparing apples to oranges. And 
that is why I would encourage all of my colleagues to make a trip, 
visit our troops, check with the Iraqi people and talk to them 
personally because I think a lot of opinions would be changed.
  The field commanders want to continue to move forward on the minimum 
standard of living issues and the basic infrastructure needs to 
continue to show the good faith that the United States is there, 
committed to help transform over 30 years of a totalitarian regime to a 
thriving democratic

[[Page H9457]]

institution with free market principles which has the opportunity of 
changing the whole face of the Middle East. And they are asking for it. 
Our field commanders say this is the best way that they can finish and 
win this war and is the quickest way we can get our troops home. And I 
think this debate is about delivering to the folks that are asking for 
that need.
  Let me finish by relaying my discussions with four soldiers from 
Illinois who serve in the 101th Air Assault Division out of Fort 
Campbell, Kentucky. This is at a dinner in Mosul. I asked each one of 
them, I am going to be asked what to relate back to the floor of the 
House and what to relate back to citizens back in Illinois. If I am 
going to take back one thing from each one of you, what do you want me 
to tell? One sergeant, E-5, Hispanic American from Chicago, said, the 
Iraqi people are not getting the same care as us. I have made a friend 
who is an Iraqi driver. He has been injured. The care he is receiving 
does not equate to what an injured soldier would receive.
  That spoke volumes to me. What that spoke to me was that this 
sergeant E-5 had made a friend and was concerned about the health and 
welfare of an Iraqi citizen.
  The second, a female, African American, E-5, said, the family is 
important for us to maintain our strength in serving here in Iraq. So 
tell the families out there to stay supportive of the troops. So this 
is my ability to do that to the families and I think the larger family, 
and the larger family is here. And I think we need to do that here on 
the floor.
  The third one who is a Reservist lieutenant colonel from southern 
Illinois said, America must be patient. We are a very impatient 
country. We want things done now. And he says, this is going to take 
time.
  The last one, another lieutenant colonel, active duty, said, tell the 
people in America that we are willing to pay the price. We are willing 
to pay the price for freedom in Iraq.
  So I will just end, those four comments spoke volumes to me. So as I 
close, Mr. Chairman, I think that sounds like good advice. I think we 
need to continue to care for the Iraqis. And I think we need to stress 
the importance of staying united especially on the issues that when we 
cross the ocean boundaries and we have soldiers deployed in harm's way, 
we have to stay united.
  I think we need to be patient, but everybody wants to push this 
rapidly. We all want to go rapidly, but you do not want to go so 
rapidly that things fall down like a house of cards.
  We have the best military in the world, and they are doing incredible 
work under tough conditions. And they are willing to pay the price for 
freedom in Iraq and for freedom in the United States of America. Let us 
support them. We can really do no less.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight to express my strong 
opposition to this $87 billion appropriations request.
  While all of us believe that we must provide enough money to ensure 
that our troops are safe, the Congressional Research Service has 
calculated that if the Army continues to use resources at the current 
pace, it can fund military personnel requirements in Iraq, Afghanistan 
and elsewhere throughout the end of May 2004, even if we do not 
appropriate one more dime for Iraq. And operational and maintenance 
funding should last through March 2004. There is no justification for 
this $87 billion supplemental appropriations bill, and I will not 
support it under any circumstances.
  After months of misleading the American people, this administration 
cannot account for the $79 billion that has already been provided by 
Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, this President has mismanaged this costly and 
unnecessary war. They cannot account for American taxpayers' money 
already spent, and this administration has been caught with misleading 
and untruthful actions, and they are now being revealed. And now the 
President has the audacity to be angry with the media because they 
report to us on the continuous killing and maiming of our soldiers.
  Mr. Chairman, we need the truth about what is going on. Our soldiers 
are being picked off one by one. The President made this big flashy and 
costly announcement that the war was over. What a terrible 
miscalculation; 183 soldiers have been killed since that announcement, 
more than during the war.
  We do not need to give this administration 87 billion more of the 
taxpayers' dollars. We do need an exit strategy. It seems so easy for 
some of my colleagues to get up and talk about we cannot afford to cut 
and run.
  Mr. Chairman, we are talking about risking the lives of America's 
young people in Iraq. And someone has got our soldiers signing form 
letters talking about how well things are going. That too has been 
revealed. Yes, we do need an exit strategy. And we also need a domestic 
agenda for America. We need to create jobs, repair our roads and 
highways, and build schools and health clinics. I do not begrudge the 
Iraqi children and families education and health care; but Mr. 
Rumsfeld, Mr. Wolfowitz, Mr. Powell, and Ms. Rice told the American 
people the Iraqi infrastructure could be rebuilt with Iraqi oil 
revenue. Well, we find that is not true.
  I am tired of the lies and spinning by this administration. We must 
deny this administration the ability to borrow more money, create more 
debt, weaken our economy, and continue to cause the loss of lives of 
our precious young people.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Huntington Beach, California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3289. 
And what we are doing in Iraq is a noble endeavor. It is in our 
interest to stand tall and, yes, even to fight and to promote freedom 
throughout the world. It is especially important for us to promote 
freedom in those dictatorships that threaten our country or are run by 
tyrants who hate our country.
  Our military has done a magnificent job, and we need to give them 
what they say they need to do their job and to come home safely. Thus, 
there should not be any debate on the $66 billion that is being 
requested. They say they need it. Their lives are in danger. We must 
step forward. They have stepped forward for us.
  Our President is taking care of business. He has made the tough 
decisions to do what is necessary to secure our country and to make 
sure that we are safe in the years ahead. I wish that was the case in 
the past administration. I think many of the challenges we face today 
were left to us by jobs that should have been done in the past.
  Saddam Hussein hated America for what it did to kick him out of 
Kuwait over 10 years ago. And when I just said the previous 
administrations, I hope you just do not think I mean Democrats, because 
George Bush's father, George Bush, Sr., did not do the job right and 
left us with Saddam Hussein in power.
  So let us reflect that we did not do the job then, but let us just 
not place blame and say that means we should not be doing it today. No. 
The mistakes of the past should mean that we need to make sure we do 
what is right today so that America is safe in the future and that our 
children 10 years down the road will not have to face this same kind of 
problem because we cut and run, because we nit-picked our President at 
a time when he made the decision that should have been done 10 years 
ago.
  Saddam Hussein was a man who hated us. He hated us. He was an enemy 
to the United States of America. He was a murderer to his own people. 
He pillaged and destroyed his own economy, and that economy should have 
been very prosperous; but instead he pillaged and stole from it. And 
now that country is very poor and needs our help.
  America is safer. The people of Iraq are better off because of 
America's courage, our commitment, and, yes, our leadership.
  I support this bill, $66 billion in the supplemental that will help 
rebuild our military or bolster them at this pivotal moment. I will be 
voting for this bill, for the supplemental, H.R. 3289, even if my 
amendments are not made in order. But I have some serious problems with 
that part of the bill that provides $18.6 billion in reconstruction for 
Iraq, and

[[Page H9458]]

it has taken the form, as the administration is giving us, as a grant, 
a gift, a giveaway to the people of Iraq.
  Now, let me note Iraq is probably in essence one of the richest 
countries in the world. They have the third largest oil reserves now 
that we know. And, in fact, in the future we may find they are the most 
plentiful in oil of any country in the world. Why should we be 
borrowing money when we are in debt by $400 billion a year, almost $500 
billion in deficit spending right now, why should we borrow and then 
give a grant to the Iraqis, which when they get back on their feet they 
will not have to repay, but our children will then have to repay? That 
is ridiculous. That is an absolute absurdity.
  And I will present an amendment tomorrow that makes the 
reconstruction effort belong to the Iraqi Government, or the Iraqi 
people, of $18.6 billion. And if I am ruled out of order, I will offer 
another amendment to cut that funding from the budget.
  If that is ruled out of order, I will offer another amendment which 
will just cut from the budget $18.6 billion in the reconstruction part 
of the bill. And believe me, if we vote for that, within a few days the 
administration will come back with a loan package because the Senate 
will probably vote for that anyway.
  Let us keep faith with the American people in the long run. Let us 
make sure that everybody does their part, not just the American people 
having to bear this burden by themselves. And I would ask my Democratic 
colleagues as well as my Republican colleagues to please join me on the 
Rohrabacher amendment.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Price), a distinguished member of the 
Committee on Appropriations.
  (Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)

                              {time}  2145

  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, our Nation faces a 
tremendous challenge in Iraq and Afghanistan, with troops in the field 
and the threat looming of a reversion to tyranny or chaos. Because we 
cannot walk away from the need to sustain our troops and to stabilize 
these countries, I voted to report this bill from the Committee on 
Appropriations. But the Bush administration's Iraq policy has been 
marred by appalling failures of planning and execution and something 
close to a diplomatic meltdown with long-time allies. We must correct 
this course. The first step that this House must demand is an 
accounting of funds thus far expended, a more detailed justification 
for the present request, and an honest estimate of costs yet to come.
  I am pleased that the Committee on Appropriations improved the 
President's request in significant ways, providing critical new 
equipment for troops, including body armor and communications 
equipment, and eliminating funding for questionable and overpriced 
projects such as prison construction.
  The committee adopted additional provisions offered by the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) that would require the administration to 
provide detailed justification to Congress on the use of appropriated 
funds in Iraq and Afghanistan; would require an analysis of the impact 
of military operations on our troops and overall military readiness; 
and would mandate open and competitive bidding for rebuilding 
contracts.
  Despite these improvements, much still needs to be done. The 
administration must explain to Congress and American taxpayers how the 
$87 billion, every penny of it borrowed, is to be paid for. It is 
neither fair nor fiscally prudent to leave in place, much less to 
extend, massive tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans, 
cuts that have helped produce unprecedented annual deficits and that 
mock the very idea of shared sacrifice. We also need to secure greater 
international cooperation in the reconstruction effort in Iraq. These 
ideas were incorporated in amendments offered in committee and defeated 
along party lines, but we must and we will press them further during 
floor debate.
  Success in Iraq and the means by which we achieve it are fundamental 
to the United States' overall foreign policy strategy. This effort 
affects our relations with nearly every nation around the world, and 
should, therefore, not be divorced from those charged with developing 
and maintaining these relationships, the Department of State. While the 
Department of Defense adeptly demonstrated its prowess in securing a 
military victory in Iraq, it is not designed for the art of nation-
building nor is it sensitive to the requirements of diplomacy around 
the world.
  For this reason I plan to introduce legislation along with the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) to establish an Iraq 
Reconstruction Coordinator within the Department of State. It is now 
time to place experts in diplomacy and nation-building in charge of the 
reconstruction, and to allow the military to operate within its area of 
strength: security. This will help the United States build a true 
multi-national coalition to support reconstruction, and bring our 
efforts in Iraq in line with other foreign policy objectives. I urge my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this legislation, so 
that our Nation can move beyond the quagmire that confronts us.
  Mr. Chairman, there is too much at stake to turn away from Iraq 
before the job is done. But there is also too much at stake to continue 
along the same self-defeating course. Congress must reassert itself as 
a coordinate branch of government, calling this administration to 
account and getting our policy in Iraq and the entire Middle East on a 
more positive and promising course.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kennedyville, Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) who is from the Eastern Shore, 
and over there common sense is the rule of the day. So I am anxious to 
hear what he has to say.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for 
yielding me the time.
  The gentleman from Arizona will remember about 12 years ago we 
traveled to southeast Asia, and one of the countries we visited was 
Cambodia, and we talked to a number of people in Phnom Penh, the 
capital of Cambodia, only a very short period of time after Pohl Pot 
and the Khmer Rouge had ravaged the country. And we were discussing the 
issues with these former members of the Khmer Rouge who were forced to 
be the members of Khmer Rouge, and they were stricken with utter fear. 
They asked us the question, where were you when we needed you. If my 
colleagues will remember their history, it was the Vietnamese who went 
in and relieved the burden of that suppression from the Cambodians.
  Today, we are relieving the burden of fear and oppression for the 
Iraqis from a regime that has the psychology of serial killers.
  I recently went to Iraq with the delegation of eight Members. Four 
Members on this delegation voted against the resolution to give the 
President the authority to use force, and they were going to vote 
against this $87 billion package because they felt that we had not 
planned the war appropriately and did not plan for reconstruction and 
did not allow the State Department and other agencies in the Federal 
Government not associated with the military more access to the 
reconstruction in Iraq. Four of the eight Members were going to vote 
against this $87 billion. They are now voting for the $87 billion, the 
$60-some billion for our troops and the $20 billion to further 
reconstruct and bring democracy to the Iraqi people and here is why.
  What we found out when we went to Iraq was that the planning to 
reconstruct Iraq was almost entirely done a year ago. In the last 
September-October time frame, this government looked at what was going 
to be needed, and they began putting that together. Right now, there 
are 11,000 construction projects underway.
  To mention just a few, 1,600 schools were completely rebuilt and 
refurbished with the children with uniforms, with desks, with chalk 
boards, with books, materials ready for the school to be productive. 
The power plants are being rebuilt so there is now more electricity in 
Iraq than there was before the war; 150,000 tons of wheat have been 
harvested in Iraq as a result of the irrigation projects that were put 
in place last spring as a result of the Agriculture Department being 
involved in this productivity.
  What we have seen was a total integration of the military, the State 
Department, the Agency for International Development, the private 
sector, a

[[Page H9459]]

whole range of organizations that are in Iraq today bringing 
prosperity, bringing support and security for our troops, making Iraq 
an example for the rest of the Middle East.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to close with this comment, and there are 
a lot more positive stories that can be told. The situation in Iraq and 
the United States and the rest of the world, we are facing a fork in 
the road. If we take the wrong turn, we will allow Iraq, and 
subsequently the rest of the Middle East, to decay into radical 
religious oblivion and suppression. If we take the right turn, there 
will be a new renaissance of science, technology and human expression 
never before seen in the Middle East.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the full supplemental.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman 
for yielding me the time.
  I rise in favor of the Obey substitute and in opposition to the 
President's $87 billion appropriation request for Iraq. I am not in 
opposition because it has been proposed by the Commander in Chief. I am 
not in opposition because I do not think that we should not help 
rebuild Iraq. We tore it down; therefore, we should help to build it 
back.
  I am not in opposition because some major companies are going to make 
a lot of money. Bechtel and Halliburton should be able to make money. 
Some people call it profiteering, but since it was supposedly for Iraq, 
then local Iraqi businesses and contractors should also be able to make 
money. Small businesses, minority-owned businesses, women-owned 
businesses and others should be able to provide services and make some 
of the money.
  I am, however, opposed because all of the spending that will result 
from this $86.9 billion appropriation will be added to the public debt, 
the debt that would not be necessary if we were operating with rational 
tax and trade policies.
  I unequivocally support our troops, and I would love to vote for this 
supplemental to help rebuild Iraq, but I also would love to vote for 
health care for the millions who are uninsured. I would love to vote 
for affordable housing for millions who live in squalor. I would love 
to vote for the thousands and millions of poor children who need Head 
Start and cannot get it. I would love to vote for the thousands of 
young men and women in central city communities all over America who 
cannot find jobs and stand on the corners hollering crack and blow, 
pills and thrills and end up in prison for practically all of their 
lives.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I support our soldiers, but I cannot vote a $27 
billion blank check to rebuild Iraq and nothing to rebuild the south 
and west sides of Chicago, Maywood, Ford Heights and other 
disadvantaged communities all over America. We need a more balanced 
approach to priority spending.
  I support the Obey substitute and oppose the President's request.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the 
gentlewoman from New York for yielding me the time.
  I rise today to voice my concern over the President's $87 billion 
supplemental request and the failure to plan for postconflict 
peacekeeping and reconstruction in Iraq. In short, the administration 
has failed the American people here at home and the brave men and women 
who are serving overseas.
  In the months leading up to the war, we were repeatedly told that 
this war would be swift; that the loss of American life would be 
minimal; and that the costs of the war would not impose a burden on the 
American taxpayer because Iraq had sufficient reserve to finance its 
own reconstruction. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz said, 
There is a lot of money to pay for this that that does not have to come 
from U.S. taxpayers. We are dealing with a country that can really 
finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon.
  Now, we are faced with the chilling reality that the opposite is 
true. Over 320 Americans lives have been lost, and guerrilla war has 
escalated because the administration failed to admit the scope of the 
challenge we have on our hands, and of course, costs are skyrocketing.
  If we approve this supplemental, the United States cost of war to 
date will reach $141 billion. Some say it could reach $237 billion, 
some $418 billion, but the most glaring truth is that we cannot afford 
to lose and that our window to win the peace is quickly shutting.
  We not only have a moral obligation to help rebuild Iraq, but it is 
in our best national interest to facilitate the transition to a stable 
democratic and economically self-sufficient Iraq. We should have had a 
plan in place 6 months ago. We should have had a clear exit strategy. 
We should have had coalition partners lined up and ready to go. We 
should have prepared our troops for the tasks we are now asking them to 
face, and now we have to make up for lost time.
  Our first priority should be to get our troops the resources they 
need to complete their missions swiftly, transfer power to Iraqis and 
return home.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes and 10 
seconds to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, 2 months ago, I had an occasion 
to give a commencement speech in the rural part of my District. And 
after the speech, a woman walked up to me; she had tears in her eyes, 
and I assumed that she was crying about the graduation of her child 
that day, but she walked up to me and she looked at me and she said, 
Mr. Davis, I have a husband who serves in the Army National Guard. He 
has been in Iraq for 2 months now, has been in the Middle East for 
about a year, and every morning I get up and I turn my television on 
CNN, and I see that another American life has been lost, and for a span 
of a few seconds my heart jumps up into my throat, and I wonder until I 
see the name.
  When I spoke to that lady, Mr. Chairman, I could not talk with her 
about the geopolitics of our commitment in Iraq. I could not talk with 
her about whether or not it was right or wrong for us to engage this 
conflict because I do not think that she terribly cared. She, like so 
many other Americans, though, was searching for a solution to this 
conflict.
  I would like to be able to say to her that if her family and her 
husband are asked to sacrifice, that the sacrifice is not just limited 
to the middle ranks of this country. I would like to be able to say, as 
the ranking member of this committee said earlier, that if some are 
asked to pay any price or bear any burden that that will include some 
of the wealthiest Americans whose taxes have been cut in the last 
several months.
  I will vote against this supplemental as it currently stands for a 
very simple reason. It is unfair to ask families like that of the woman 
that I encountered in Perry County, Alabama, to sacrifice, when we 
cannot even ask families who are earning over $300,000 to forego a tax 
cut that most of them never really sought.
  This is a time when we have to decide the direction of our foreign 
policy, but our foreign policy has to be consistent with our values. 
Our values, and it ought to be the values of the Bush administration as 
well, do not dictate that we ask sacrifice of only some people. They 
dictate that we ask sacrifice of those who can most afford to pay it, 
and I urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution unless the 
administration can provide a means to pay for it.

                              {time}  2200

  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), a member of 
the Committee on International Relations.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
this time, and I do want to associate myself with the remarks, the very 
eloquent remarks of the gentleman that preceded me, the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Davis). I think he caught something when he spoke about 
our values.
  But let me speak just for a minute about an issue that was raised by 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher). We are told this must 
be grants, not loans. But as others have indicated, just a few months 
ago it was Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul

[[Page H9460]]

Wolfowitz who was telling us, telling the American people, that Iraq 
could finance its own reconstruction. I guess my question is: What 
happened? What has happened to change that particular dynamic?
  I look forward to supporting the amendment of my friend, the 
gentleman from California, tomorrow. I would again want to congratulate 
the gentleman from California for indicating that this is not a 
partisan issue. It is not about Clinton, and it is not about Bush One 
and President Reagan; but when the gentleman served in the White House, 
this government supported Saddam Hussein and we provided billions of 
dollars worth of loan guarantees to Saddam Hussein. Now we are talking 
about grants, about gifts; and we are asked not to question these 
numbers. But our own appointed Iraqi governing council tells us that 
they can do it much cheaper.
  Just recently, there was a report in The Washington Post that said 
clearly and unequivocally, by a prominent member of that committee, and 
that sentiment is shared by those 25 members, that we can do it for 10 
times less. For every billion dollars you spend, they say we will spend 
$100 million. We cannot in good conscience support this request.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland).
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, we have already appropriated about $65 
billion for Iraq, and now the President is asking for $87 billion more. 
The President wants to do this at a time when he is seeking to increase 
the copayment for veterans on their prescription drugs from $7 to $15 a 
prescription. The President wants $87 billion for Iraq when he wants to 
impose a $250 annual enrollment fee so that veterans can participate in 
veterans health care. They are excluding priority 8 veterans and saying 
you cannot even enroll in VA health care now because we do not have 
enough money. Yet he wants $87 billion more for Iraq. The President has 
threatened to veto a bill if we get rid of the disabled veterans tax, 
but he wants $87 billion for Iraq.
  This administration has given gold-plated, unbid contracts to the 
President's and the Vice President's friends at Halliburton, and now he 
wants $87 billion more. The President wants to build schools in Iraq, 
but he will not ask his wealthy contributors to reduce their tax cuts 
so that we can pay for those schools. No, the President wants to build 
schools in Iraq, and he wants to give the bill to America's children to 
pay for those schools.
  We are being told we must support this in order to support our 
troops. But the truth is we sent young Americans into battle, and some 
of them have lost their lives and been seriously injured without having 
protective vests. I got a letter from a young West Point graduate in 
Baghdad saying, ``Congressman, my men are wondering why they have the 
cheap vests. Shame. Shame.''
  Mr. Chairman, I resent the fact that the President and the leadership 
in this House are using our troops as leverage. They are using our 
troops as hostages in order to extract $87 billion out of this Congress 
for Iraq. I support our troops. We all support our troops. That is not 
the issue. The issue is whether or not we are going to support the 
misguided policies of this administration. I will vote ``no'' on this 
unwise request.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
this time, and I want to agree with my colleague, the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Strickland). I say that it is time to support our troops. We 
can best support our troops by bringing them home, by having the U.N. 
become involved. Bring the U.N. in and get the U.S. out. Support our 
troops; bring them home.
  If we support $87 billion on the next installment of our involvement 
in Iraq, what we are doing is supporting the continuation of the 
presence of American troops in Iraq. Make no mistake about it, this is 
only the second of many installments. There have been projections that 
the American presence there could cost now at least $245 billion. There 
are other projections that say it could be many hundreds of billions of 
dollars more.
  I presented for the consideration of Members of this House a plan 
that would get the U.N. in and the U.S. out, and the features of this 
plan are as follows:
  Number one, we go to the U.N. with a resolution that would permit the 
United Nations to handle all of the oil assets of Iraq, without any 
privatization, to handle that on behalf of the Iraqi people; number 
two, to handle all the contracts in Iraq without any sweetheart deals 
on behalf of certain select contractors; number three, to have the U.N. 
handle the cause of new governance in Iraq. It is time for the United 
States to rejoin the world community. In doing that, we can rotate U.N. 
troops in and U.S. troops out.
  It is time for us to rejoin the world community in the cause of 
stabilizing Iraq. You know and I know that the longer our troops are 
there, the more of them will not come back alive. The longer our troops 
are there, the deepening of the American involvement in Iraq will 
continue. This is the time for us to take a stand. Vote ``no'' on the 
$87 billion. Vote to bring our troops home. Vote to get the U.N. in and 
the U.S. out. Vote ``no'' on the $87 billion.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Before moving for the committee to rise, I would like to take just a 
few moments. Mr. Chairman, I think this has been an instructive and 
helpful debate here tonight. But as I have listened to many of the 
speakers, I am reminded of my own visit to Iraq just about 8 weeks ago. 
In several different places, security officers who were accompanying 
us, troops that were out there in the field that we talked to at the 
mess hall, people that we talked to in different places, over and over 
again the message I heard from those soldiers was the same; and they 
said, please go back and tell the American people that it is not what 
is being reported.
  They are also seeing CNN over there. It is not what is being reported 
on the news; it is much better than what they hear on the news; there 
are councils that are being elected; there are businesses that are 
being opened; there are people who are beginning to see livelihoods 
come back; people have the opportunity to speak out on the streets and 
speak out against the United States and speak out against the Coalition 
and speak out against their own governing council. That is something 
they never had the opportunity to do for all those years under Saddam 
Hussein.
  So the message that I heard from our soldiers was please go back and 
tell them that this is a war worth fighting.
  The question has been raised here tonight as to how it is going to be 
paid for. We have heard that over and over again. It is a legitimate 
question. But I would suggest to my colleagues that this is going to be 
paid for in the same way that we paid for World War I, the same way we 
paid for World War II, and for Korea and for Vietnam and for the first 
Gulf War, and for all the other conflicts that we have been involved 
with all these years. The money is borrowed. It is with the full faith 
and credit of the American people who believe in liberty, who believe 
in democracy, who believe in freedom for themselves and for peoples 
around the world that we undertake this burden of debt in order that 
others around the world may be free.
  I would note that the percentage of debt that we are incurring is a 
fraction of what we incurred in past wars. Yes, it is a lot of money. 
But can anybody doubt, can anybody doubt that this fight against 
terrorism is any less important than the struggle we fought against in 
World War I, or the struggle we had against Fascism and Nazism and 
against Japanese imperialism in World War II? Is it any less important 
than what we fought against in Korea in the 1950s? I would say, no, Mr. 
Chairman, it is not less important. This is just as important. This war 
on terrorism is a defining moment for the United States and for the 
American people, and we have no choice but that we must win.
  And let me close with this thought, because many have said, yes, I 
support our troops in the field, but I really do not think we should be 
spending this money on the reconstruction. I asked that question very 
specifically of General Abizaid when he appeared before our 
subcommittee, the CentCom commander, and General Abizaid said,

[[Page H9461]]

``Make no mistake about it, you cannot separate what we are spending on 
reconstruction from what we spend on our military. Every dollar we 
spend on the reconstruction is just as important to the safety and the 
security of our troops in Iraq as the money that is spent on 
ammunition, that is spent on flak vests, that is spent on armor for our 
vehicles.'' It is just as important. We must win this war by winning 
the war of reconstruction, by winning the civilian part of this war.
  Mr. Chairman, we will have more opportunity to discuss these matters 
again tomorrow as we go into general debate on the bill and then as we 
proceed with amendments, and I hope the debate will be an enlightening 
one and one that will help Members come to a good decision about what 
America should be doing in this region. There is no doubt in my mind 
what the right course of action for this body and for the United States 
is.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, 3 weeks ago, I had to opportunity to travel 
to Iraq with Chairman Lewis and several of my fellow members of the 
House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.
  While in Iraq, I had the opportunity to not only talk to our men and 
women in uniform, but also members of the Iraqi Governing Council and 
local citizens about the situation they are facing. Quite frankly, 
things are much better than what I had heard on the evening news and 
read in the newspapers.
  Most of the national media accounts of the situation in Iraq paint a 
picture of a country in rubble with unwelcome American troops being 
attacked and killed by the Iraqi people. After spending time there, I 
can attest that reality is quite different than what is being reported 
by many in the media. Republicans and Democrats who have been to Iraq 
have said the same. The Iraqi people appreciate the job we are doing, 
and enjoy the improvements in infrastructure and security the United 
States is providing.
  Despite what the American people are constantly told, all of the 
hospitals in Iraq are open, the markets are open, and the electricity 
is on in most places. The roads and bridges in Baghdad are actually 
quite good, and, with a few exceptions, the only damaged structures are 
government buildings, Saddam's palaces and military sites.
  There is no question about the need to improve and update the 
country's utility, agricultural and financial infrastructure. However, 
this need is not due to the U.S. military action against Iraq. It is 
because of 30 years of neglect under Saddam Hussein.
  Saddam basically spent the Iraqi oil revenue on three things: (1) his 
military; (2) transportation infrastructure so he could travel on good 
roads; and (3) approximately 85 palaces throughout the country. All of 
this while his regime executed, according to estimates, as many as 1.5 
million Iraqis.
  For these and other reasons, the vast majority of Iraqi citizens are 
glad they have been liberated.
  One of our generals told me a story about two Iraqi children telling 
some U.S. troops about a terrorist ambush site. The children showed our 
troops where some artillery shells had been strung together with a 
device that could be detonated remotely. These kids helped the 
Americans because these same troops helped rebuild their playgrounds 
and their schools, got the electricity running again and were providing 
a way of life they had not know before. These children did not want to 
lose that, so they helped our soldiers, the ones who have helped 
provide this new life.
  This visit convinced me that Congress should support President Bush's 
FY 2004 Supplemental request for the war on terrorism.
  The first $68.1 billion of this $86.7 billion supplemental 
appropriations bill will go directly to our military to replace and 
refurbish equipment, provide additional armored vehicles and replenish 
supplies.
  That leaves approximately $18.6 billion--which I believe should be 
grants, not loans--to help rebuild Iraq. As we prepare to ask the other 
nations of the world to forgive Iraqi debt and contribute to the 
reconstruction cost, the United States must lead by example. We can 
either be seen as liberators and allies or conquerors and opportunists.
  It is also important to keep in mind that as we help the Iraqi 
people, we are ensuring the safety of our young men and women in 
uniform and building a more secure future for our children and 
grandchildren at the same time.
  I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
  Mrs. BORDALLO. Mr. Chairman, despite the most advanced technology and 
the best of intentions, our operations in Iraq, followed by widespread 
looting and sabotage, degraded that country's antiquated infrastructure 
and left the people fearful and helpless. The people of Guam know how 
hard it is to recover from liberation. Hagatna, the capital of Guam was 
destroyed during World War II and has yet to fully recover. From this 
experience I can tell you that reconstruction is the hardest of tasks 
and every bit of assistance helps. If we do not follow through on our 
commitment to reconstruct Iraq we will have won the battle but lost the 
war. So I rise today in support of the Iraq Supplemental with sympathy 
for the people of Iraq whose liberation has left their country in 
chaos.
  I believe a people suffering under a tyrant can be restored by 
democracy. I believe a Soviet style economy can be revived with a 
healthy dose of American capitalism. I believe that a nation that has 
been isolated from the international community can, in partnership with 
the United States, step up and regain its rightful place in the world. 
The Iraq supplemental before us today will work to further these aims. 
Iraq is a test of our beliefs, just as it is a test of the ideology of 
those arrayed against us.
  At the same time our service men and women are not the world's 
policemen. They have accomplished their combat mission and should be 
relieved by an international peace/keeping force and Iraqis. Our Army 
has traditionally steered clear of law enforcement duties, which are 
better left to those with the special training and suitable equipment. 
We did not seek that role for them in Somalia, Haiti or Kosovo, nor 
should we seek it now.
  It is an example of the best of the American people when we help 
another. Yet it is only human nature to express concern that similar 
attention is not being paid to needs here at home. Each of us in this 
Chamber can list the unmet needs of our constituents such as concurrent 
receipt for veterans or healthcare for our seniors. The debate on the 
Iraq supplemental should not be a proxy for our failure to address 
these issues. Rather, we should commit ourselves to fixing these issues 
in the coming days. The Fiscal Year 2004 appropriations bills are not 
yet passed and we have time to make amends. We should come together in 
the same bipartisan manner that we have gathered to consider this Iraq 
supplemental and work to meet the needs of our Nation.
  Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express--in no uncertain 
terms--that I will not support President Bush's $87 billion request. I 
will not grant him another blank check. President Bush has lost my 
trust and that of the majority of my constituents. He has lost the 
trust of many of our allies and he has damaged America's credibility in 
the eyes of the world.
  Mr. Chairman, this President has taken us to war on false pretenses--
unilaterally--and with unnecessary impulse and haste. He has 
exaggerated claims of the imminent threat posed by the former Iraqi 
regime. He has fabricated an Al Qaeda-Iraq link. He has ignored 
American intelligence reports that Saddam Hussein did not have a 
massive arsenal of WMD. He has failed to make America safer or lessen 
the terrorist threat. He has misled Congress about the cost of this 
war, and he has neglected to provide us with a detailed accounting of 
expenditures in Iraq.
  The President's $87 billion request is an irresponsible diversion of 
funds that should be allocated for education, veterans, prescription 
drugs, homeland security and healthcare. It is unconscionable that the 
burden of this expenditure will fall on the backs of those who can 
least afford it. The President has talked about sacrifice and 
responsibility, and I challenge him to be responsible and sacrifice a 
portion of his ill-conceived tax cut to pay for continued operations in 
Iraq.
  Mr. Chairman, this Administration has demonstrated staggering 
negligence in failing to plan for post war Iraq, which has directly 
contributed to the continued loss of American lives and growing cost of 
operations on the ground. As an elected official I cannot--and will 
not--entrust President Bush with an additional $87 billion.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my concern 
regarding the $87 billion supplemental appropriation that President 
Bush requested on September 7, 2003. I want to make clear that I will 
support the 130,000 thousand United States troops currently stationed 
in Iraq and that I am committed to exiting Iraq in an appropriate 
manner. As a Korean War veteran, I always will insist that our 
servicemen and women have whatever they need to protect themselves and 
execute their missions. I will vote for the sums they need once 
President Bush accounts for what has already been spent. However, we 
must prevent wasted or padded expenditures and war profiteering and 
ensure that our troops get critical equipment and support, which the 
administration has failed to provide them.
  The $87 billion requested for military operations and reconstruction 
of Iraq and Afghanistan is troubling on many fronts. It is troubling 
that $20 billion of that $87 billion would be spent on Iraq's 
reconstruction when billions are needed domestically at home. It is 
troubling that on March 27, 2003 Deputy Defense Secretary Paul 
Wolfowitz told a House defense subcommittee that ``We are dealing with

[[Page H9462]]

a country that can finance its own reconstruction.'' Furthermore, 
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing 
on the same day said, ``I don't believe that the United States has the 
responsibility for reconstruction, in a sense * * * funds can come from 
various sources I mentioned--frozen assets, oil revenues and a variety 
of other things, including Oil for Food, which has a very substantial 
number of billions of dollars in it.'' If Iraq can pay for its own 
reconstruction, why is the administration returning to Congress with a 
$20 billion request for reconstruction in Iraq?
  I am concerned that the money the administration has requested may 
only be the tip of the iceberg in regards to total monies that the 
United States will spend in Iraq. On December 31, 2002, the New York 
Times reported, ``The Administration's top budget official estimated 
today that the cost of the war with Iraq could be in the range of 50 to 
60 billion dollars.'' Lest we forget, last year Congress appropriated 
$79 billion for the war effort in Iraq, almost $10-20 billion more than 
the administration initially estimated.
  Based on these concerns I am only prepared to vote ``yes'' for the 
$87 billion request if the following conditions are met:

  (1) The President specifies to Congress how the money will be spent 
and how its prudent distribution will be assured.
  The President is asking for $87 billion to stabilize Iraq, a second 
installment for Iraq's reconstruction that has no geographical, time, 
or force limitations. It has cost the lives of American men and women 
that were bravely performing their military duties in Iraq. The 
President and his advisors have not been reliable or trustworthy in 
handling their gravest responsibility: sending American soldiers in 
harm's way. As Members of Congress we must stand up to the President on 
behalf of the American people. Even if Congress is unfairly labeled 
``non-patriotic'' or ``non-supportive'' of our troops, we must require 
the President to clearly outline how he plans to spend American tax 
dollars in Iraq. It is not reasonable for the President to present us 
with a request that includes: $33,000 each for pickup trucks required 
for the effort; $360,000 for 600 radios and telephones; $800 million to 
train 1,500 Iraqi police officers at $530,000 per police officer; and 
$100 million to place five Iraqi families in a witness protection 
program at $200,000 per person.
  It is important that the American public be aware that $87 billion 
equates to $300 for every man, woman and child in the United States. 
When we are spending monies of this magnitude, we must have the courage 
to challenge policies until they are clear in purpose and direction.
  (2) The President provides sure-fire strategy for exiting Iraq.
  I, along with many others, believe that for the President to go to 
war in Iraq without international support and without an exit strategy 
was a fatal flaw. Given those tragic failures thus far, I am in ``shock 
and awe'' that the President has failed to fully explain how he plans 
to secure Iraq, achieve Iraqi self governance and share the burden of 
rebuilding the industries and society of Iraq. How can we be expected 
to endorse blank checks with no idea as to the overall plan for Iraq.
  (3) The President exercises diplomatic leadership in convincing other 
nations to join us in the effort in Iraq.
  Even now, with the benefit of hindsight, the President has not 
learned from his diplomatic failures. The United States refuses to 
relinquish appropriate levels of authority to the United Nations, and 
this refusal has significant diminished prospects for gaining 
international aid and support in Iraq. Two weeks ago, the United 
Nations greeted President Bush and his resolution coolly, finding that 
the resolution did not go far enough in the role it assigned to the 
U.N. and its timetable to transfer power to the Iraqi transitional 
government. Many international leaders, including United Nations 
Secretary General Kofi Annan, supported an accelerated timetable for 
the turnover of power to Iraqi leaders. However, the U.S. balked at 
their request. Secretary of State Colin Powell told the 25 Member U.S.-
appointed Governing Council in what has been characterized as ``very 
direct terms'' that the U.S. intends to resist the request that a U.S. 
backed Security Council Resolution place Iraq's political future in the 
hands of the U.N. Based on the President's unpersuasive speech and the 
U.S.'s weak resolution, it is expected that when donor countries meet 
in Madrid later this month, financial support will not be forthcoming.

  (4) That these funds will not divert the necessary resources from 
being used for priorities in the war on terrorism, such as homeland 
security in the U.S., the pursuit of Al Qaeda leaders and cells 
throughout the world.
  Though Mr. Bush has depicted the war in Iraq as the ``central front'' 
in the war on terrorism, it is important to note that the Iraq 
supplemental request is more than double the President's request for 
homeland security in fiscal year 2004. If these monies were utilized 
for the true war on terrorism, then: Port Security could be increased, 
the anti-missile system for commercial airliners could be put in place, 
and stricter security over unscreened air cargo could be implemented. 
Moreover, adequate training and equipment for emergency response 
personnel could be provided, and public health officials would have the 
resources to identify and treat people attacked by weapons of mass 
destruction. In my opinion, it is unacceptable for the U.S. to allocate 
billions to a war of choice in Iraq while we fail to allocate funds to 
secure America's borders from a myriad of dangers.
  Similarly, the primary objective in our war abroad against terrorism 
must remain the destruction of Al Qaeda and to capture its leadership. 
The war in Iraq has already diverted many key resources including, 
Special Forces, Intelligence personnel and specialized equipment from 
the search for bin Laden in Afghanistan and Pakistan. It was bin Laden 
and his Al Qaeda agents, not Saddam, who carried out the 9/11 disaster, 
despite discredited efforts by Vice President Cheney and others to 
suggest the contrary. Iraq is not the heart of the war on terrorism, 
despite President Bush's claims to the contrary. We must keep our 
priorities straight.
  (5) The President and Congress commits to a willingness to allocate 
funds to desperately needed programs vital to U.S. citizens.
  It should be known that the $20 billion reconstruction includes $9 
million for a zip code system, $20 million for a month long business 
course at $10,000 per pupil and $53 million for state of the art 
landfills. We should not forget that charity begins at home. How can we 
rebuild Iraq, if we refuse to acknowledge the social ills in the U.S.? 
Within our borders, we are faced with a troubled economy, scores of 
hungry children, millions of uninsured, deteriorating infrastructures, 
and devastating homelessness. The American public should know that $87 
billion would:
  1. Finance the educational needs of all 50 states.
  2. Provide health care for the elderly and those without health 
insurance.
  3. Provide incentives to Corporate America to generate jobs and bring 
unemployment levels back to where they were in December 2000.
  In conclusion, I would like to vote for this legislation because I 
want to support our troops in Iraq. I want to believe that these funds 
would provide our citizens with better protection from terrorism. I 
want to believe that the Administration has a plan and not just a price 
tag to protect our soldiers and to return Iraq to its citizens. 
However, at present, I remain unconvinced and cannot vote for the 
President's $87 billion supplemental until the above concerns are 
resolved.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, one year ago, Congress considered whether 
to authorize the President to use the armed forces of the United States 
to attack Iraq. The President asked us to pass a resolution that gave 
him unprecedented war powers at a time when he had yet to make the case 
for war. I voted against the resolution.
  Today the President asks us to pass an enormous spending bill to fund 
the ongoing war in Iraq and the continuing reconstruction of both Iraq 
and Afghanistan. Yet, everyday, American lives are lost while the 
President fails to garner broad international support and create a 
coherent exit strategy for a war that is less about self-defense and 
more about the President's obsession with Iraq. All along, our economy 
continues to remain on the ropes.
  Therefore, like my previous vote on authorizing the use of our armed 
forces in Iraq, I cannot support this supplemental bill to give the 
President a huge blank check to continue the occupation of Iraq and 
risk the lives of our troops. As Members of Congress, this is our 
opportunity to tell the President what our constituents are telling 
us--we won't spend another penny in Iraq until our President gives the 
American people a plan on how he intends to win the war, minimize 
costs, and most importantly, bring home our troops as safely and as 
quickly as possible.
  As we were debating whether or not to grant authority to the 
President to go to war in Iraq, I asked some serious questions that 
this Administration continues to have difficulty answering. Was the 
United States acting in self-defense against an imminent threat in 
Iraq? Did the United States have to pursue near unilateral action in 
Iraq without strong international support? And most importantly, what 
is our exit strategy?
  The President and his Administration repeatedly told us Iraq posed an 
imminent threat of safety to America. But where are those nuclear 
weapons?
  Before the war, the Administration also told us there was strong, 
credible evidence to link Saddam Hussein to September 11th. Yet, the 
President himself now admits there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein 
was involved with September 11th.
  We were told Iraq had thousands of weapons of mass destruction that 
could easily be

[[Page H9463]]

used against friends, our allies and the United States. But where are 
they?
  Worse yet, we were never told about an exit strategy and still don't 
have one today.
  Instead the President spent his time playing ``Top Gun'' by landing 
on an aircraft carrier to declare the major conflict in Iraq over. Yet, 
more courageous men and women have died in these last few months than 
before that dubious, made-for-political-campaign-commercial event.
  And now the President comes to us asking for enormous amounts of 
money to continue what is supposedly no longer a major conflict.
  Even if we agree to send money to Iraq, we shouldn't send it to 
contractors that are ripping off the American taxpayer. Why should the 
American taxpayer pay $15 million to Halliburton to repair a power 
plant when the Iraqi people can do it, and did, for $80,000?
  More importantly, we've already appropriated over $70 billion for the 
war in Iraq and related efforts, virtually every penny the President 
asked for to win this war and protect our troops. So why does the Army 
lack Kevlar protective plates for 40,000 of our troops in Iraq? Why do 
we continue to hear stories about parents sending their children better 
protective gear, basic supplies, and food and water at their own cost? 
Why does the Defense Department refuse to pay travel costs for soldiers 
returning from battle for a brief, two-week visit with loved ones? The 
President has given us no assurances that his new funding request will 
not be mismanaged and, instead be used in strong support of our troops.
  There is no question that we need to allocate whatever funds are 
necessary to support our troops in the field.
  But there is only one real opportunity for the Congress to have a say 
in the course of war or foreign affairs and that is when the President 
comes to us and asks us to appropriate the taxpayer's money for war.
  That time is now and this Congress must insist that the President 
deliver his exit plan and detail how he plains to get equipment, food 
and water to our troops.
  If this appropriation is defeated today, the President will be with 
us tomorrow delivering the exit plan that he should have provided to 
the American people one year ago.
  As I said during the debate over the war with Iraq, we are at our 
best when we are first among allies standing tall for the free world. 
Let us be at our best when we deal with Iraq, but always dedicate 
ourselves first and foremost to the freedom and prosperity of our great 
United States.
   Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Chairman, resolving the current instability in the 
region is in the long-term best interests of all Americans--failure in 
Iraq would lead to irreparable consequences.
   This emergency spending bill raises a host of critical concerns that 
must be addressed.
   More than 138,000 American troops are currently in Iraq and I 
believe that they absolutely must be adequately provided for and able 
to return home to their families as soon as possible.
   Today, I am offering an amendment to this bill so that Congress 
receives a detailed description of purpose for all projects over $1 
million. My amendment also calls for a comprehensive survey of security 
and infrastructure needs, including progress reports on previous 
projects. Finally, my amendment asks for necessary estimates on 
additional funding required and troop levels projections.
   We cannot maintain our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan without a 
clear understanding of our longer term needs. We must know how many 
troops will be needed and how much this entire operation will cost, 
including contingency plans, and decide how our nation will pay for the 
entire cost of the operation.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, the Administration rushed into this war 
before they understood the consequences. Nearly half a year prior to 
seeking out a United Nations mandate and two months before Congress 
even considered the resolution authorizing force, the war plans were 
already set. In fact, a recent Washington Times article tells of a 
secret report to the Joint Chiefs indicating that post-war planning had 
been insufficient. The administration clearly did not consider the 
enormous costs and effort that would be involved after the Iraqi army 
was defeated. Congress already appropriated $78 billion earlier this 
year. Now we are going to appropriate another $87 billion and 
undoubtedly there will be more requests to come. The taxpayers will 
have to pay billions to repair what we destroyed in the first place.
  There was not sufficient justification to start this war to begin 
with. To try to bolster their case for war, the administration had 
asserted that Iraq was an urgent threat to our national security and 
that we were at risk of an Iraqi surprise attack by weapons of mass 
destruction. But they offered no substantiation of these allegations, 
speaking only of hunches, probabilities, and suspicions. The 
administration also made dubious claims that there were ties between 
the 9/11 terrorists and Saddam. But in the months following the 
invasion, our intelligence community can still find no link between the 
Iraqi regime and the plot that led to those deadly terrorist attacks. 
No weapons of mass destruction have been found, despite intensive 
efforts and an attack on the U.S. was not imminent. President Bush 
could not prove his case for the war then, and he can't now!
  The notion that we have a ``coalition of the willing'' is also 
something of a farce. Our major partner in this effort, Britain, has 
committed only $908 million to the rebuilding efforts over the next two 
and a half years, and has 12,000 troops in Iraq, far less than the 
130,000 we have on duty there. For Pakistan, Jordan, and other unnamed 
lesser members of this coalition, this bill gives them $1.3 billion--
including $200 million in loan guarantees--to reward them for what 
amounts to little more than verbal support.
  The appropriations committee showed some common sense by rejecting 
such dubious provisions as the President's requests for $2 million for 
garbage trucks, $153 million for ``solid waste management programs,'' 
and $9 million to institute a ZIP code system in Iraq. I still have 
questions about the bill's funding of $10 million to fund 100 prison 
construction consultants at $100,000 each, over $150 million for 
``private sector development'' like computer literacy and English 
classes, and money to establish museums and memorials. While pouring 
billions into Iraq, critical needs are going unmet here at home.
  This measure would provide $793 million to modernize and obtain 
equipment for Iraq's health care facilities. While the President plans 
to spend hundreds of millions to provide better medical care in Iraq, 
health care costs in Milwaukee have skyrocketed, forcing more and more 
families to go without treatment. Last year 41,000 people in Milwaukee 
County and over 450,000 in Wisconsin went without health insurance. 
Nationwide, 43.6 million Americans currently have no health insurance, 
an increase of over 2 million since last year. There is a health 
emergency right here in this country. We should be investing federal 
funds to help struggling families here receive quality, comprehensive 
healthcare.

  This supplemental contains $90 million for education in Iraq. While 
the President boosts spending to help Iraqi children learn, in 
Milwaukee less than three-fourths of eighth graders are proficient in 
the skills necessary to advance to the ninth grade and many teachers 
are forced to teach in overcrowded classrooms. The Administration has 
under-funded its own education policy by $8 billion, leaving thousands 
of children in Milwaukee and throughout the nation left behind.
  This bill would also provide $950 million for recruiting, training, 
and equipping an Iraqi police force. An additional $509 million would 
be used for ``public safety facilities and services.'' While providing 
money to create Iraqi civil service jobs and pay their wages, here at 
home the Administration is trying to contract out thousands of good-
paying federal government jobs.
  With the total price tag of the supplemental at $87 billion, its 
passage will directly increase the projected deficit this year to a new 
record-setting height of over $500 billion. Instead of driving us 
further into debt, this bill should have been paid for. We could have 
delayed for one year the tax cut for the wealthiest one percent of 
Americans, which over ten years would raise the full cost of the 
proposal before us today. But the Republican leadership did not allow 
my colleague to offer his substitute proposition which would have paid 
for the package in this manner.
  Mr. Chairman, I did not vote to start this war and I cannot vote to 
fix up a country we destroyed. We have pressing needs here at home that 
are going unmet as planeloads of U.S. currency are being shipped to 
Iraq, raising the federal deficit. The President recently signed into 
law the $369 billion appropriation for the Department of Defense. Some 
of these funds should be used to provide for the cost of our troops in 
Iraq. The funds in this supplemental are apparently not so imperative 
since the Congressional Research Service indicates that the Army's 
available military personnel funding as well as operation and 
maintenance funding should last into the spring of next year.
  The administration's policy in Iraq has been a failure. Defeat of 
this measure would spur the President to come up with a workable exit 
strategy, one that would put a stop to the almost daily killing of our 
American troops. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.
  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, without a doubt, this period in history 
will record that the United States was committed to spreading democracy 
and freedom throughout the world. Building and guiding new democracies 
is one of the most difficult, yet important tasks, that the United 
States--as a leader of the free world--can undertake. With this debate 
today on the Iraq supplemental spending package, we seek to recommit 
ourselves to providing for those in the midst of that most important 
mission, our armed and foreign services.

[[Page H9464]]

  Deciding to wage war is not a decision that is made lightly or for 
political expediency. It involves the sweat and sacrifice of America's 
most courageous patriots, our armed forces. When someone joins the 
military and takes the yoke of freedom upon their shoulders, they 
deserve the maximum support we can muster. Mr. Chairman, that is why I 
have come to the well of this House, to make sure they are provided 
for.
  I support President Bush and believe that we should pass this 
supplemental as soon as possible. There should be no doubt about United 
States intentions: We stand behind our troops and their mission to 
bring democracy and freedom to Iraq.
  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my 
support for the President's supplemental request for operations in 
Iraq. Just over one year ago this body voted to authorize the use of 
military force to confront the grave and growing global threat posed by 
Saddam Hussein's Ba'athist regime. We convene one year later having 
achieved many successes toward that objective, but face new trials 
worthy of our continued sacrifice to protect the safety and security of 
the entire global community.
  I realize public opinion among Americans is fiercely divided when it 
comes to Iraq. Criticism is not a bad thing for our country during a 
time of war as long as it's constructive and does not undermine our 
ability to defeat the enemy. As it stands, opponents of the war and 
detractors of President Bush are too easily fortified by a mainstream 
press quick to underscore bad news and seemingly ambivalent toward the 
many positive developments occurring each day in Iraq.
  Several of my colleagues here in the 108th Congress have shared 
stories of the remarkable progress they have observed during recent 
trips to the Middle East. Electrical grids are being restored, public 
schools are open, the banking system is operating, thousands of 
reconstruction projects are underway and thousands more have already 
been completed. Most of all, the Iraqi people are free--and with the 
elimination of Saddam Hussein's rule--the world has taken a giant step 
in winning the war on terror.
  87 Billion dollars is a massive sum. As a conservative, I'm a strong 
supporter of fiscal responsibility and accountability. But I believe 
this supplemental is a wise and necessary investment, critical to our 
continued efforts to secure peace and future prosperity for the Iraqi 
people.
  The President's request covers two major expenses--troop support and 
reconstruction. $67 billion alone will be directed to the operational 
costs of our military forces: providing for essential equipment and 
provisions necessary for the safety and strength of U.S. troops. What 
American could shrink back from that commitment?
  The remaining 20 billion dollars will undoubtedly be the source of 
much debate here today. Some believe that American dollars designated 
for reconstruction should come in the form of a grant. Others argue it 
should be made as a loan, payable once Iraq rehabilitates its commerce 
and economy. We should all agree that the United States cannot withdraw 
from a crippled Iraq and expect a stable government and economy to take 
hold.
  Reconstructing Iraq is a top priority for the Bush administration and 
should win the appropriate support of this Congress. By agreeing to 
this supplemental, the United States military will have the resources 
necessary to rebuild infrastructure and restore social order, creating 
a politically secure and economically sound Iraq. Accomplishing this 
goal is the most significant factor that will bring our troops home for 
good.
  During his address to a joint session of Congress last July, British 
Prime Minister Tony Blair concluded with a prophetic statement we 
should all consider as questions and challenges arise in the aftermath 
of war in Iraq; ``Destiny put us in this place in history, in this 
moment in time, and the task is ours to do. If our spirit is right and 
our courage strong, the world will be with us.''
  I ask my colleagues to join me in acting in support of our President, 
our armed forces, the good people of Iraq, and the united freedom of 
all by voting in favor of this supplemental.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, could I ask for an accounting of the time 
before I move that we rise so that we can be ready for tomorrow?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Bass). The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Kolbe) has 53 minutes remaining, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey) has 1 hour and 16 minutes remaining.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mrs. 
Musgrave) having assumed the chair, Mr. Bass, Chairman pro tempore of 
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under further debate the subject of a 
bill making emergency supplemental appropriations for defense and the 
reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2004, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________