[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 144 (Wednesday, October 15, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H9467-H9471]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2004

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 7, 2003, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) is 
recognized for one half the time until midnight as the designee of the 
majority leader.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, today we have heard a great debate on 
H.R. 3289, the supplemental concerning Iraq and Afghanistan. This $87 
billion supplemental is the largest supplemental in American history, 
and we should look at it very closely; and we should be considering all 
portions of this supplemental.
  I support the supplemental basically, and I will be voting for it 
even if my perfecting amendments are rejected. However, I have several 
suggestions that I will be making tomorrow that I believe are vital to 
the well-being of the American people.
  So tonight I thought I would speak a little bit about the 
supplemental and about several of the changes that need to be made in 
order to ensure that the interests of the American people are being 
met.
  First of all, of the $87 billion we are being asked for in this 
supplemental, $66 billion of it is for our military. And this portion 
of the supplemental I support. And I will have to suggest that, even as 
we have heard today, if someone is complaining that there was a lack of 
body armor, one does not suggest that the way to solve that is not to 
give them the money that they believe is necessary to complete their 
mission in Iraq. In fact, being someone who respects our Armed Forces 
and their leaders and respects the job and the courage it takes to do 
this job and knowing that I am not an expert on military matters, I 
would lean towards granting the requests from our military when they 
claim they need a certain amount of money in order to get their job 
done and to come home safely.
  Certainly, a great deal of our defense resources have been expended 
in Afghanistan and Iraq; and many of these resources need to be 
replaced, whether it is fuel or ammunition, whether it is repairing 
equipment or whatever. We are going to need to spend a certain amount 
of money just to bring ourselves up to the point where we are not 
vulnerable because of the commitments that we have made overseas in 
these last 2 years. If we do not do this, if we do not pay heed to what 
our military says they need in order to finish their mission 
successfully and come home safely, either they will not succeed in 
their mission, more people will be killed, or we will be left 
vulnerable in years ahead. This makes no sense. So I will give the 
benefit of the doubt to the military, to Mr. Rumsfeld to try to do his 
best job and get this operation over in Iraq and bring our troops home 
safely.
  But, fundamentally, many people are talking about and challenging 
whether or not our military should have been in Iraq in the first 
place. Let me note that taking care of Saddam Hussein was necessary for 
America's security, and we should applaud our President for making the 
tough decisions and taking the heat and putting up with all the 
backbiting and nit-picking that he has had to go through in order to 
make sure that our operation, the democratic offensive there in Iraq, 
to make sure it kept going and was successful. The President has his 
detractors, and I am not saying he has not made mistakes, but by and 
large this has been a great President, a historic President who stepped 
up to the plate and did what was necessary and met the challenge of his 
day. And let us note that almost very few of the people who are now 
attacking our President and are attacking the supplemental would 
advocate that we permit Saddam Hussein to get back into power, and 
earlier we even heard the proposals that we give this to the United 
Nations so that Saddam Hussein will not come back into power. Unless we 
are going to provide leadership, the United Nations is useless, as we 
know. It is a debating society, and unless America provides the 
leadership, it will do nothing. So we can be very proud that our 
President said, I am going to take care of America's security.
  Saddam Hussein was a monster. He is a monster. And he was a monstrous 
threat when he was in power. He was a mass murderer to his own people. 
He was a torturer, and he was not only a scourge to his own people in 
his right, but he was a threat when he was in power to the United 
States of America. He was a threat to our safety because Saddam Hussein 
hated America, hated every one of us, and would have done us harm had 
he had the chance because America humiliated him by driving his forces 
out of Kuwait a decade ago. There is no getting around it.
  He had a blood grudge against us. What that means in that part of the 
world with a man who murders hundreds of thousands of his own people, 
that means he would not think twice if he had the opportunity to kill 
Americans in great numbers; and I am very pleased that our President 
took this tyrant out, eliminated this threat to America, and promoted 
democracy in Iraq at the same time.
  Unfortunately, the reason we had to do that now was because a decade 
ago President Bush One did not do his job. He did not finish the job he 
set out to do, and now we have been paying for it. Let us make sure 
that the decisions we make now with this supplemental and other 
decisions that we will be making ensure that we will not have to go 
back to that region. Let us finish the job,

[[Page H9468]]

get it done right. Let us not shortchange our people when they ask for 
their needs in the military, but let us make sure we get the job done 
so we do not have to go back again.

  How do we do that? First and foremost, yes, we back our military 
because Saddam Hussein was one of the most powerful military forces in 
that part of the world. In fact, he was the most powerful military 
force in that part of the world. So we had to use that tool to get him 
out. But succeeding also requires having the people of Iraq on our 
side. We need to help them build a democratic society. And I was in the 
forefront along with the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) in passing 
the Iraq Liberation Act 5 years ago, and I might note that the State 
Department under the last administration and under this administration 
until after September 11 did not expend the funds that were given to 
them in order to help the people of Iraq provide the democratic 
alternative to Saddam Hussein that they needed. That was a failure for 
the last 5 years of our government.
  We need now to work with the people of Iraq and build their 
democratic institutions, and we are succeeding in that. And, yes, there 
are people who will kill an American soldier, and we are drawing in the 
al Qaeda and the terrorists from around the world to attack Americans 
there. But overwhelmingly the people of Iraq are very gleeful that 
Saddam Hussein is gone and grateful to America for this. And I suggest 
that in years ahead that once the situation is stabilized and Iraq 
becomes part of the family of nations, the civilized family of nations, 
instead of headed by a rogue general like Saddam Hussein, that we will 
find that the people of Iraq are our best friends. They will be so 
grateful to us that they will stand beside us in the challenges that we 
face in the future, and they will tell us how grateful they are and the 
suffering that they went through under Saddam Hussein.
  And already our stand in the Middle East has done so much to increase 
our prestige. Already, for example, in Iran we see changes, movement 
for change in Iran, one of the most hardened anti-Western of Islamic 
societies, and we see that throughout the Islamic world that there is a 
possibility now because of America's increase in prestige that we can 
actually step in and do some good and we can be proud that with only a 
minor loss of civilian life we actually achieved our goal of 
eliminating Saddam Hussein's monstrous regime.
  In fact, more civilians would be dead, Iraqi civilians would be dead 
today, had we left Saddam Hussein in power and he killed the number of 
civilians that he was killing, that his rate of massacre of his own 
people would have continued unabated by American troops. Also, there 
were limited casualties on our side; and, yes, there are still a few 
casualties. Every day we hear about that. It is a tragedy. It is part 
of the price we are paying, but it does not reflect the Iraqi people, 
but instead is the last gasp of a tyrant and of a dictator of a 
monstrous regime that we have driven into oblivion and put on the ash 
heap of history.
  So our soldiers can be proud, and we are proud of them. They are 
risking their lives, and we are going to make sure they can do their 
job. So I want to make it very clear that I support those elements in 
the bill that will assist our military in that job; and as I say, 
America is safer because of what we have done. America will always be 
safer when we are championing the cause of liberty and justice.
  All too long in the Cold War, we found ourselves supporting dictators 
and tyrants, and there has been talk about what we did for Saddam 
Hussein himself at a time when he was in a conflict with Iranians. And, 
yes, people did help. I might add that the guaranteed loans that my 
friend referred to earlier happened in 1989 after Ronald Reagan had 
left the White House. I know that because it was my first year here, 
and one of the first things I did on the floor of this House was to 
pass out leaflets to Members as they came in through that door asking 
them not to vote for the loan guarantees to Saddam Hussein. These were 
loan guarantees that were going to permit him to buy American grain, 
which meant we were paying for his food while he used his money to pay 
for his army. It was a horrible mistake. It was a horrible thing to do. 
Anytime we give credit to dictators, it is wrong. When we helped 
support people like Samosa and these other dictators around the world, 
it was wrong. What we need to do now to be secure is to promote 
freedom.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. And 
I know he did serve in the course of the Reagan Presidency. I do 
believe, however, that one of the gravest mistakes that was made during 
the course of the 1980s right up until 1990 was this unholy, if you 
will, relationship that was formed with Saddam Hussein.

                              {time}  2245

  As the gentleman knows, it is the current Secretary of Defense, Mr. 
Rumsfeld, who was the special envoy to Saddam Hussein.
  In 1982, and I have this discussion because I think it is important 
that the American people pay attention, because we all have to learn 
from errors that were made in the past. In 1982, Saddam Hussein was 
removed from the terrorist list. In 1986, the United States installed 
an embassy in Baghdad, and, over the course of time, right up until the 
invasion by Saddam Hussein in Kuwait, but particularly during the Iraq-
Iran war, we were providing intelligence, we were selling, or we 
allowed to be sold, dual-use technology, and I have a long list and I 
would commend my friend to go to a Congressional Research Service 
publication dated June 22, 1992.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. If I could reclaim my time, let me just note that at 
times during World War II, we were known to send weapons to Joseph 
Stalin in order to fight Adolph Hitler, and during the Cold War we at 
times backed dictators like Samoza and some nefarious characters. And, 
I might add, we did not start winning the Cold War until Ronald Reagan 
said, and let me stress this, when he came to power he said, We are not 
just against communism anymore, we are for democracy. That is a very 
important part of how we won the Cold War.
  During that time period, Iran was considered a terrible threat, 
engaged with terrorist activities, murdering Americans, et cetera. We 
all remember that. I will admit probably the Reagan Administration, 
trying to balance off that Iranian threat, did some of these things 
that the gentleman is referring to.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. If the gentleman will yield for a moment, I want to be 
clear. It was after the Iran-Iraq war had concluded, and it was not 
President Reagan, but it was President Bush that denied this Congress 
by threat of veto to impose sanctions on Iraq for the atrocities that 
were committed in Halabja, the gassing of some 5,000 Kurdish Iraqis by 
Saddam Hussein.
  The lesson, I would respectfully submit, that we should learn is that 
we have got to be careful with whom we lie and forge an alliance.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. That is absolutely correct, and I am very proud that 
in the United States history we have been pragmatic at times, but all 
of our pragmatism has been balanced with a love of liberty and justice. 
And there have been debates on this floor, unlike in other countries 
where they are backing dictators, that it does not make the debate on 
the floor. And we can be very proud of our country, that we did save 
the world from the Nazis and the Japanese militarists.
  I am very proud of my father's generation. My father has passed away 
now. He was in the Pacific war. So many of these people did so much 
back in those days. The Japanese militarists and Nazis would have 
dominated this planet without them stepping forward.
  I am also very proud of what we did during the Cold War. It was a 
very perilous moment for humankind. We stepped forward. It was 
Americans that stepped into the breach. I might add, our allies 
nitpicked and backbit us every moment, the French and Germans, every 
time we tried to make a stand against the communists during that time 
period.
  But, today, who would have guessed after the Cold War that we would 
face a new major threat, a massive threat? On September 11, that threat 
became evident to all of us. That threat, where terrorists overseas, in 
a faraway country, their little tyranny, the Taliban

[[Page H9469]]

tyranny in Afghanistan, was able to be used as a base of operations, 
their country was used as a base of operations to slaughter 3,000 
Americans in the worst terrorist attack in the history of our country. 
This was the greatest slaughter of American civilians in the history of 
our country.
  This brought us to the reality of another great threat that we face. 
I would like to say that I believe President Bush has stepped up to 
this challenge. In Afghanistan, I think we did a terrific job. This 
bill does put another $1.5 billion in for reconstruction, which I 
believe should have happened immediately after the Taliban were thrown 
out, so we have not been exactly quick on this. We should have been 
quicker, no doubt.
  But we have got the terrorists on the run. Their home base has been 
eliminated. The Taliban regime, the ones that are not dead are running, 
along with bin Laden and their gang, looking over their shoulders. 
Otherwise, we would have had very many more terrorist acts in the 
United States.
  We arrested this guy in Thailand. He is the one who conducted the 
bombing of this discotheque in Indonesia, murdering a couple of hundred 
people, mostly surfers, one from my district, a guy named Webby 
Webster, who went down there to go surfing.
  These terrorists, radical Islamists, hate America's way of life. We 
must do our best to reach out to the Muslim world, to the moderate 
Muslims, to those people who would believe in democracy and want to be 
part of the Western family of nations. We must do so, and we must start 
right here in Iraq. This is the best place to turn around the entire 
Muslim world. Congress is being asked now.
  So I am supporting what we have done. But there is something in this 
bill which I find myself in opposition to, and I think the American 
people need to pay attention, and I would like to call this to the 
attention of my colleagues. I believe it is a vitally important issue 
which will be decided tomorrow.
  Of this $87 billion supplemental, Congress is being asked to approve 
$18.6 billion of it as a reconstruction package for Iraq. This American 
aid will be used, to some degree, to rebuild what was damaged or 
destroyed in our military operations, but, to a greater degree, it will 
be used to upgrade, refurbish and to make operational an Iraqi 
infrastructure that was neglected and allowed to degenerate under 
decades of Saddam Hussein's tyrannical dictatorship.
  The reconstruction package includes billions of dollars to be taken 
from the pockets of the American people to upgrade and refurbish Iraq's 
electric and water systems, as well as repairing and upgrading Iraq's 
oil industry, among many other projects, I might add.

  Well, these costly improvements, for example, there are clinics, and 
there are cranes that we are going to buy, and airports and things that 
will help Iraq in the future prosper, these costly improvements are 
necessary just to keep that society functioning, because it is so low 
at this point. But it will also lay the foundation for the future, a 
future of stability, and, yes, we can predict a future of prosperity in 
Iraq.
  Should we help now? The answer is yes. We bought onto that role when 
we sent our troops into that country. The administration is asking, 
again, for $66 billion for our military operations in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. I have no problem with that, because we do need to finish 
the job and see our troops come home safely. Again, I will not second-
guess or undercut our military about what form the military spending 
will take.
  The question facing us, however, is what form the $18.6 billion 
reconstruction program will take. Should it be in the form of a grant, 
a giveaway, something that will never be repaid, or should it be in the 
form of loans and investments in Iraq?
  Iraq's infrastructure challenges can be fixed and paid for by Iraqi 
consumers and producers through the sale of oil and through fees on the 
purchase of electricity and water and oil and gas. So the Iraqi people 
can pay for these things over a 20-year period, just as any similar 
effort to upgrade or refurbish systems in our country, whatever systems 
they are, you have the capital costs, and they are made part of the 
bill that the consumer pays, and then that is paid off over a 20-year 
period.
  Well, why can that same thing not work for the Iraqi people, 
especially when considering the Iraqi people in the future may be very 
prosperous?
  Our level of Federal Government deficit spending this year will be at 
least $400 billion. How can we borrow, which is being proposed to us, 
that we take $18 billion and give it as loans? We are borrowing that 
because we are in deficit. How can we borrow $18.6 billion and give it 
to the people of Iraq? We are being told we want to give it to them 
because we cannot expect them to accept more debt.
  Well, our people will have to pay it back. Our people, in time, will 
have to pay back that debt. What we are doing is borrowing money to 
give to the people of Iraq so that our children can pay back that debt.
  Well, the Iraqi people should pay that back. Iraq has the third 
largest oil reserves in the world. That is what we know today. They are 
just behind Saudi Arabia and Canada. But, guess what? Once a full and 
honest assessment is made, we may find that Iraq is the world's number 
one oil producer. That is it. It may end up that 10 years from now Iraq 
is the biggest oil producer in the world.
  Iraq today has 112 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, but only 
10 percent of the country has been explored. Only 17 percent of the 
country's 80 oil fields have been developed. We are talking about what 
may well be the richest country in the world.
  The only reason it is poor today is because it has been exploited and 
its people have been beaten down and its economy robbed by this 
monster, Saddam Hussein. But if they are potentially one of the richest 
countries in the world, why must we give away our limited resources, 
and give it away just as a grant, as a giveaway, never to be repaid? 
Why must our people pay for everything and never expect to get paid 
back? Why must the American people have to shell out another $18.6 
billion, to be taken from their pockets or to be taken from the money 
needed to run our schools or our hospitals or our transportation 
systems? Why? Why must we bear the burden, the whole burden?
  The answer we are being given by global planners over at the State 
Department suggests they are not watching out for the interests of the 
American people when they propose this plan, but, instead, they are 
watching out for what is best for the world. Well, who is supposed to 
watch out for the American people, if our government does not watch out 
for them?
  Unfortunately, the motive behind the strategy we have been presented 
of grants instead of loans does not appear to be based on a 
humanitarian concern for the long-suffering people of Iraq. That might 
be a little understandable, if the planners over at the State 
Department were basing it on that, because their hearts were touched. 
No, that would be admirable. It might be wrong-headed, but it would be 
admirable. It might be, for example, misguided charity.
  But, no, this is not a rational benevolence. That is not the driving 
force behind this $18.6 billion. The Americans are being told that we 
must give that as a gift, rather than expect any payback. Of course, 
the country we are giving it to is potentially a very, very wealthy 
country.
  No, what is motivating this demand, and we have heard it in the 
debate tonight, that it be a gift instead of a loan, this $18 billion 
reconstruction plan, is concern for the powerful international banking 
and financial interests. They are the driving force behind the demand 
that Americans give the gift of $18 billion for Iraqi reconstruction, 
rather than loan it to them. What is happening here is that a loan 
would increase the level of debt in Iraq.

                              {time}  2300

  We are told that Iraq already owes about $120 billion in foreign 
debt; and if we add another $18.6 billion to that, it just might be the 
straw that breaks the camel's back. And on this floor tonight we have 
heard that argued: oh, this is what happened to Germany in World War I, 
and this is what leads to further conflict, in that we put this debt, 
we give them such a burden of debt that the society breaks down; and 
then they say, nobody is going to get paid back

[[Page H9470]]

because the economy will fail, along with any hopes of recovery or any 
hopes of stability because of too much debt on Iraq. Well, that is what 
we are being told. All I have to say is, that is total, absolute 
nonsense. That is limiting our options and building a straw man and 
destroying a straw man.
  The American people have already carried a far too heavy burden. They 
have carried the load, the full load for peace and stability for almost 
the entire planet. Now we are being asked to cough up another $18.6 
billion, never to be repaid back. And why are we being asked? We have 
to give it away? Why is that? Because if we make it a loan, then it 
might threaten the viability of the loans that huge German, French, and 
Belgian banks have made to Saddam Hussein's regime. That is it. Got it?
  Now, do we know why everybody is saying the American people should 
not be paid back? Because if we make it a loan, those $120 billion that 
were loaned to Saddam Hussein might, in some way, be put in jeopardy. 
We are asking the American people to put out $20 billion to protect 
loans made by international bankers in Germany and France to Saddam 
Hussein's dictatorship? No. And Saddam Hussein, of course, was given 
credit lines by people like the Saudis and others in the Persian Gulf; 
and when he got these loans and this credit that we are talking about, 
he did not build bridges; he did not feed babies. He bought 
sophisticated weapons and opulent palaces that were complete with 
jacuzzis and torture chambers. That is what he did with those loans. 
The people of Iraq never benefited from those loans. He let his own 
country's infrastructure rot even though these loans were providing him 
billions of dollars along with Iraq's oil money.
  Now the American people are told we must donate $18.6 billion because 
to loan it, coupled with Saddam Hussein's debt, it would be too heavy a 
burden for the Iraqi people to climb out from under, and it would hurt 
the pillars of international finance.
  Well, the solution, I might add, again, there is another solution. We 
are not just talking about either a loan in and of itself and not 
changing anything else, or a gift. No, if we make a loan, it has to be 
coupled with a change in policy. The solution is not another $18.6 
billion to be taken from the hides of the American people. The solution 
is a repudiation of the Iraqi dictator's $120 billion debt.
  The Europeans, who loaned Saddam Hussein billions which he used for 
weapons and palaces, should try to find Saddam Hussein and collect from 
him if they want their money back. We are not the world's repo man or 
collection officer. The American position on the debt left by Saddam 
Hussein should be based on the principle that no people who rid 
themselves of a tyrant should be expected to pay the debts incurred by 
that dictator. Any financial institution or country that loans money or 
provides credit to a gangster regime like that of Saddam Hussein's 
should do so at their own risk, and they should certainly not expect 
America's taxpayers to guarantee their amoral transactions.
  Now, we have heard on this floor that none of this money is going to 
go to repay those loans. Yes, none of that money in particular. But by 
not making this a loan, by never getting it back, by just giving away 
$20 billion which our children will have to repay, because we are 
borrowing that, what that means is we are doing that in order to secure 
those loans so those big German and French and Saudi moneyed interests 
get paid the loans they made to Saddam Hussein.
  In summary, the insistence that we give, rather than loan, Iraq this 
$18.6 billion is really aimed at protecting these financial 
institutions that back Saddam Hussein's bloody regime. The debt left by 
Saddam Hussein's dictatorship should be repudiated. It should be wiped 
away. We have heard earlier today talk about the Marshall Plan. We have 
heard about, oh, we have to pass this as a gift, because other donor 
countries will not help in the weeks ahead.
  Well, first of all, look at the Marshall Plan argument. What did we 
do to make sure that Germany was able to prosper? The first thing we 
said in the Marshall Plan was that the German Government is not going 
to be responsible for the debts of the Hitler regime. Now, the 
reparations, yes. That is when the Nazis did things and that government 
had to pay reparations, but not the debts, not the people who just 
loaned money to the Hitler regime. All of those debts were forgiven.
  So here we have the Marshall Plan argument, and it just does not work 
here.
  The institutions, the institutions and the governments that hold the 
debt from Saddam's regime cannot be permitted to profit from these 
loans to this gangster. And when we go to that conference and we are 
asking, the President is saying, oh, we have to make it a grant instead 
of a loan because these other people then will not donate when we go to 
the donors conference. Look, my colleagues just noted, I worked in the 
White House for 7 years. This is ridiculous.
  First of all, how much money are we expecting to get from those 
people? I will guesstimate that it will be a very small amount. If 
there is $10 billion, I will be shocked, and shocked if the $10 billion 
is ever donated. But there is nothing that we can do at that donors 
conference; there is no amount of money that they can give that will be 
more beneficial to the economy of the Iraqi people than the repudiation 
of the debt that Saddam Hussein accumulated to those very same 
countries' banks.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, I think that is an excellent point that 
the gentleman makes, because we have heard a lot about the donors 
conference, and the gentleman uses a figure of $10 billion, which I 
would suggest is optimistic.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Really high.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. If he is unaware, he should know that the European 
Commission, which is the executive arm of the European Union, has 
already made its commitment. Now, obviously, individual countries will 
be asked to come and contribute. But does the gentleman know the figure 
that the European Union's executive arm, the European Commission, has 
made?
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. No. What is that?
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, $230 million. So again, I do not think 
that we are going to realistically expect that a figure of $10 billion, 
which has been circulated about, is realistic. And I cannot agree with 
the gentleman more. Not only have we carried the burden of military 
presence in Iraq, but at this point in time, to just simply give the 
money away, without having it collateralized with future oil revenue, 
it just simply is unfair to the American taxpayer and to the American 
people. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, I think the gentleman's information 
puts to bed the idea that we have to spend $18.6 billion and give it as 
a gift in order to make sure that the Europeans at this donors 
conference cough up the money. Well, there is very little chance that 
they will. But again, no matter how much money they give, in no way 
would it be as beneficial as if we had a policy that the debt owed or 
the debt accumulated by Saddam Hussein and spent by Saddam Hussein is 
no longer the responsibility of the Iraqi people. That would free the 
Iraqi people from a burden that will bend them over and break their 
economy.

                              {time}  2310

  Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman would yield for just a 
moment. I seek information. But what has gone unremarked during the 
course of this debate is that the American taxpayer has already, 
through our government, negotiated a loan to the government of Turkey 
for $8.5 billion. That is not part of this supplemental.
  Now, we are loaning American dollars, hard earned American dollars, 
to Turkey for $8.5 billion. We are taking dollars from Americans and 
loaning them to Turkey and, of course, American taxpayers will be asked 
to pay the interest on that $8.5 million.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, we will be paying 
the interest on that for 20 years and then our children, our young 
children today will have to pay those debts off in the future.
  Again, this comes back to a basic argument we will have on the floor 
tomorrow, and this is one of the center

[[Page H9471]]

core debates we will have tomorrow, about fiscal responsibility and 
what is going on.
  I support the President's war efforts. I have been a point person on 
them. No one can doubt that in this body. I support the Iraqi war 
efforts, supported what we did in Afghanistan. I am proud of our 
President. But we must stand up for fiscal responsibility, especially 
when it comes to this part of the package I think it is one-eighth of 
the package or something, one-sixth of the package, which deals 
specifically with Iraqi reconstruction. Should it be a loan? Should we 
expect that when Iraq gets back on its feet, starts producing its oil, 
which it may be the word's biggest oil producer in years to come, 
should we expect them to pay it back as we continue to prosper or 
should our children pay for that money because we had to borrow, make a 
greater debt to get the money there in the first place?
  Well, let me tell you what happened in the past when we followed the 
same course. We pressured the democratic governments that replaced the 
communist dictatorships in Russia and Eastern Europe to pay their debts 
of oppressors of the preceding communist regimes. What did that do when 
we forced them to pay for that? What happened was a decade of chaos, a 
decade of uncertainty, a decade where there was very little growth, and 
there was actual decline instead of what we could have had in Eastern 
Europe and Russia which could have been an era of progress, of freeing, 
of uplifting. But instead we wanted those people to pay for the debts.
  Well, all of this was done. Why? Here we were risking the democratic 
development of Russia itself and bringing us out of the Cold War and 
into a new world in order to protect powerful financial interests who 
had done business with these bloody dictatorships. Mainly, yes, huge 
European banks who had loaned money to Russia and to Eastern European 
countries. And we risked instability and we risked the whole future of 
development of the post-Cold War world in order to make sure that their 
loans to the dictatorships were honored. We cannot do that now. We 
cannot base our policy on keeping the loans to Saddam Hussein's loans 
viable for these nutty financiers from Saudi Arabia and from French and 
German banks.
  We are here to do right by the people of Iraq. And we can do that. 
What is right is for us to let them wipe the slate clean. Let them 
repudiate these debts. As I say, no amount of money is going to be 
donated at this conference that will make up, that could be anywhere as 
beneficial as just repudiating the Saddam Hussein debt.
  And let us renew, let us start anew, let them start anew as well. Let 
us offer money for reconstruction as a loan. If they can or cannot 
repay it in the future if something happens, we have not lost anything 
if we put it as a loan. Because if we give it as a grant, we are 
certainly not going to get anything back.
  Now, tomorrow I am going to offer two amendments on the Iraqi 
reconstruction. And my first amendment will suggest that the $18.6 
billion in Iraqi reconstruction, that part of the supplemental should 
be made only as a loan. Now, it may well be ruled out of order. It may 
be said that it is not germane because you cannot legislate on an 
appropriations bill. And we are talking about an appropriations bill.
  If my amendment there is ruled out of order, I will then offer 
another amendment. And that amendment will be to cut the $18.6 billion 
in reconstruction money from that bill. And I can assure my Democratic 
colleagues and my Republican colleagues, my friends on both sides of 
the aisle, that if we stand up and do what is right and insist that 
they not spend the money unless it is a loan, I can guarantee them the 
next day the administration will be here, will be here with a loan 
proposal.
  And, so, the vote on the Rohrabacher amendment tomorrow, and that is 
not a cutting amendment but it is an insistence that it be a loan 
instead of a give-away, the people of the United States need to know 
how we are voting, they need to contact their Member of Congress to say 
to vote for the Rohrabacher amendment making it a loan, and cutting it 
if it is not. Because it will come back within a few days as a loan.
  And I would hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
will be able to support that. We can stand by the people of Iraq, but 
we do not have to stand on the face of the American taxpayer to do it.

                          ____________________