[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 18]
[House]
[Pages 24650-24659]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




            EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2004

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
Tuesday, October 14, 2003, the Chair declares the House in the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for a period of 
debate on the subject of a bill making emergency supplemental

[[Page 24651]]

appropriations for defense and the reconstruction of Iraq and 
Afghanistan for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004.

                              {time}  1758


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for a period of debate on 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, with Mr. LaTourette in the chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey), or their designees, each will control 2\1/2\ hours.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, before we get started, let me announce for the 
membership that we expect to begin the 5 hours of debate agreed to 
under the unanimous consent agreement on the fiscal year 2004 
Supplemental Appropriations Act at this time, and we will continue 
through roughly 6:30 or 6:45 this evening. At that time, the committee 
will rise and the previous votes that were postponed will be called.
  After the votes, we will continue with the general debate through ten 
o'clock this evening. At that time, the committee will rise.
  Tomorrow morning, we will resume debate with any remaining time 
allocated under the unanimous consent agreement. Tomorrow there will 
also be one hour of debate on the rule and one additional hour of 
general debate on the supplemental before beginning the amendment 
process.

                              {time}  1800

  I am hopeful that with the assistance of our colleagues that we will 
be able to enter into a unanimous consent agreement to limit debate and 
amendments so that the House will have a full opportunity to dispose of 
the supplemental before adjourning on Friday.
  Mr. Chairman, last week, the Committee on Appropriations ordered this 
legislation reported by a vote of 47 to 14. The bill recommended by the 
committee provides total discretionary supplemental appropriations of 
$86.9 billion for reconstruction activities in both Iraq and 
Afghanistan, as well as funding for our military presence in both 
countries. We have had hearings and briefings to better understand the 
President's request. We have scrubbed the request, and we have made 
some improvements. I would say that a report of our subcommittees, who 
visited Iraq, were thoroughly vetted and we received really good 
information. We believe that the bill that we have written and provided 
to the House is a good bill.
  The bill prioritizes funding for urgent needs for security, for 
power, drinking water, health care, and infrastructure. Included is 
$64.8 billion for our national defense, for our troops in the field, 
for those who are at risk in the battle. That is $64.8 billion for 
their needs, $18.6 billion for Iraq relief and reconstruction, and $1.2 
billion for Afghanistan relief and reconstruction.
  I want to make the point, Mr. Chairman, that when I say 
reconstruction, I am not talking about building something back that the 
United States destroyed. We are talking about helping the people of 
Iraq build an infrastructure that Saddam Hussein for several decades 
allowed to deteriorate to the point that many, many Iraqis did not have 
sanitary conditions, did not have electrical power, did not have things 
that normal people would expect to have for quality of life.
  We have made a few changes to the President's request in our bill 
that we present today. I think we should highlight what those 
differences are, because I think most everyone has had an opportunity 
to read about the President's request. With regard to Iraq relief and 
reconstruction, there have been a number of questions about the 
Coalition Provisional Authority, or CPA, which is run by Ambassador 
Bremer. The CPA is in charge of the largest foreign assistance program 
since the Marshall Plan after World War II. Whether health care, 
electric power, water treatment, or democracy building, all of these 
activities are under the supervision of the Coalition Provisional 
Authority. These are not military items; they are civil issues and 
foreign assistance issues relating to the reconstruction of Iraq.
  The bill provides a direct appropriation of $858 million to the CPA 
for their operating expenses; and that is instead of providing these 
funds in the U.S. Army Operation and Maintenance accounts, as had been 
requested. The amount of money does not change; it is just the location 
in the bill. And we believe that by doing it this way, that we have far 
better accountability for how this money will be spent. This gives us 
considerable transparency.
  Our bill provides transfer authority of up to 1 percent of the funds, 
roughly $186 million, provided in the Iraq relief and reconstruction 
fund, for unanticipated expenses of the CPA. Again, this does not add 
anything to the bill; it just gives the CPA some flexibility in how 
they use some of the funds that are appropriated. We have not changed 
at all the reporting relationships of Ambassador Bremer to the 
President of the United States through the Secretary of Defense. We 
have prohibited funding to be administered by any official who is not 
answerable to Congress, and we believe that that strengthens our 
responsibilities under the Constitution to have accountability for 
appropriated funds.
  The bill includes a prohibition on the use of any funds in this act 
to be used to pay Iraq's foreign debts. I know that was a concern of a 
lot of Members, and rightfully so. Let me repeat that. The bill 
includes a prohibition on the use of any U.S. funds in this act to be 
used to pay Iraq's foreign debts. All of the funds provided here are in 
direct grants. There is no loan authority provided.
  A provision is also included to limit the use of noncompetitive 
contracts in the reconstruction and relief funds for Iraq. The 
provision preserves the prerogative of the President to waive the 
requirement for full and open competition in certain circumstances, but 
these circumstances are as presently outlined in applicable Federal 
procurement regulations. So the committee has made a strong statement 
that these contracts should be competitively bid. The provision 
requires the executive branch to provide notice and justification to 
Congress if and when the waiver authority is exercised.
  Let me take a couple of minutes to say a few things that we did not 
fund.
  We did not fund $50 million requested for buildings, equipment, and 
vehicles in support of Iraq's traffic police.
  We did not include $300 million for the construction of two 
additional prisons at $50,000 per bed. We did provide $100 million for 
one prison.
  We did not approve $153 million for improving solid waste management 
programs, including the procurement of 40 trash trucks at $50,000 each.
  We did not include $4 million for a nation-wide numbering scheme, or 
$9 million for postal information architecture and ZIP codes, or $10 
million to modernize the business practices of the Iraqi television and 
radio industry.
  We did not agree to the $100 million to build seven new housing 
communities.
  We did not agree to the $150 million to initiate a new $500 million 
to $700 million children's hospital in Basra. However, we channeled 
those funds to modernize current medical facilities in Iraq. We have 
funded $793 million for local and regional health clinics and hospital 
equipment throughout Iraq. And our rationale was that it would be far 
better to have the medical care facilities closer at hand for all Iraqi 
citizens rather than building one hospital that Iraqis from all over 
the country would have to find a way to get to if they needed the 
medical care of that hospital. So we think this is a wiser way to fund 
this.
  We did not include the $200 million requested to create an American-
Iraqi enterprise fund.

[[Page 24652]]

  Now, with regard to Afghanistan relief and reconstruction, we 
included $375 million above the President's request with the intent of 
showing tangible improvement in the security and quality of life of 
most Afghans by summer of 2004. Included are funds above the request 
for schools and education, private sector development, and electrical 
power generation to assist the central government of Afghanistan, 
including elections and improved governance.
  The mark also includes $245 million for peacekeeping in Liberia. This 
was not requested by the President. The Liberia deployment came later; 
but it was a necessary expense.
  We have included the bulk of the President's request for national 
defense. There are some differences from the request, and they would 
include the following:
  Our bill increases funds to purchase body armor, special armor plate 
inserts, for those who are on the battlefield. And we are tremendously 
disturbed that there are soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq today without 
adequate body armor. That is just not acceptable. We have provided 
funding in the past in an earlier supplemental to buy this body armor. 
We are disturbed that it has not been distributed yet to the soldiers 
in the field and we make a strong statement in this bill on that issue.
  We also increase funds for the clearing of unexploded ordnance, which 
is causing damage to a lot of our troops, and improved communications 
and replacement equipment. This equipment is being worn out as the 
deployment proceeds.
  The mark also provides funding for the contracting of civilian 
security guards to replace Reservists and Guardsmen currently 
performing these duties at Army installations. The Army has indicated 
this provision would permit the demobilization of 7,000 to 10,000 
Reserve component soldiers. Some of our National Guard and Reserves 
have actually spent more time in Iraq than some of the active duty 
forces.
  In addition, the mark includes $563 million not requested by the 
administration for recovery and repairs to military facilities damaged 
by Hurricane Isabel.
  Mr. Chairman, as I have said before in this Chamber, and I think this 
debate has pointed out, there are political and philosophical 
differences in this institution and in our country. That is why we have 
two parties. But there is a practical reality to the bill that is 
before the House today. This is not a partisan bill. No one on either 
side of the political spectrum has attempted to make it a partisan bill 
here in the House of Representatives. The reality is simple: we have 
140,000 men and women of our military in Iraq and Afghanistan today. 
Whether you agree with that or not, we have to make sure they have the 
tools, equipment, and resources necessary to carry out their mission in 
as safe and secure a manner as possible. The bill provides funds for 
that purpose.
  I want our troops home at the earliest possible time. We all want our 
troops home at the earliest possible time. That is not going to happen 
until some stability has been established in these countries. If we 
simply pull out now, all of their efforts and their losses would have 
been in vain, for naught. The bill provides money for that purpose. 
That is the reality of the situation we are in now. There is no turning 
back. We can debate at length the decisions that were made, but we must 
do the right thing and support the men and women who are carrying out 
our mission.
  Some have questioned whether there was an imminent threat in Iraq. As 
I see it, there was a cumulative threat that was building for years 
with a tyrant who we know turned poison gas on his own people on at 
least two occasions. We know that a significant foreign policy goal of 
the United States, peace in the Middle East, will never be achieved 
with this cumulative threat looming over the region. It was past time 
for Saddam to go.
  As for Afghanistan, unfortunately the imminent threat of al Qaeda 
training camps and terrorist activities became a reality readily 
apparent after the attacks of September 11. These terrorist threats, 
left undisrupted, became cumulative actions against our country. We 
witnessed this on February 26, 1993, when terrorists bombed the World 
Trade Center; and on June 25, 1996, when Khobar Towers, the home of 
American airmen, was bombed, killing 19 American airmen; then on August 
7, 1998, when our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed; and then 
on October 12, 2000, when the USS Cole, the United States destroyer, 
was bombed, with the loss of 17 sailors and injuries to many others.
  I would say the threat was imminent when these attacks occurred; but 
we responded with harsh words and a few cruise missiles, but not much 
more. Our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan not only address and respond 
to the threats and actions we have witnessed to date, but they will 
move us one step closer to achieving the goal of stability in this 
region. The funding in this bill supports that goal, supports our 
military, and will bring us one step closer to bringing our troops 
home.
  Mr. Chairman, we will hear, I am sure today, that we are spending 
money that we do not have and that the bill should be paid for. And 
that would be really nice. I am one of those who believes that you pay 
as you go and you do not go into deficit. But we are dealing with an 
unusual situation; and what I say, Mr. Chairman, is that we are 
investing in the future of our children and our grandchildren. We are 
investing in future generations: investing to provide security for 
those future generations free from the fear of threat, free from the 
threat of terrorist attacks, and free from having airlines hijacked and 
flown into buildings housing Americans.

                              {time}  1815

  We are making an investment, Mr. Chairman, in the security of our 
future, in the security of future generations, to do everything 
possible that we can to rid the world of the terrorist threat that has 
taken so many innocent lives in these items that I have just referred 
to. And so all in all, while I think that there will be some 
controversy, I believe the debate will be a very good, high-level 
debate. I am hopeful we can finish it within a couple of days. I am 
satisfied that when the roll is called that there will be a very 
substantial vote for this bill for the protection of our troops and for 
the ability to bring them home once they have stabilized the region and 
can do so safely.

[[Page 24653]]





[[Page 24654]]



[[Page 24655]]



[[Page 24656]]



[[Page 24657]]

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 11 minutes. This is not a 
debate about 9/11. After 9/11, Chairman Young and I pushed through the 
House a $40 billion appropriation to respond to the events that led to 
that sneak attack. Chairman Young and I then led an effort to add 
billions of dollars to Homeland Security to protect our ports, secure 
air transportation and equip our local first responders, our firemen, 
our policemen to deal with a whole range of terrorist threats. We 
worked to add more than $2 billion in Homeland Security funds, even 
though the President threatened to veto those additional expenditures. 
Even the President of the United States has admitted publicly that 
there is no evidence that Iraq had anything to do with that sneak 
attack. So let us make that clear.
  Secondly, let us also make clear that this should not be a debate 
about whether we should have attacked Iraq. Before the vote on that 
question, I asked a whole range of questions to try to determine 
whether the administration had real expectations and a real plan for 
dealing with the aftermath of the war. I wanted Saddam removed, but I 
wanted al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden removed even more. In the end, I 
voted to require the President to come back to Congress for another 
vote before attacking Iraq if he could not get the agreement of the 
United Nations so that we could take one last look at the evidence, one 
last look at the administration's planning for the aftermath before we 
pulled the trigger. But Congress gave the green light to attack 
unilaterally. The result, Saddam is gone, that is good, but now it 
appears that the administration sold the Congress on supporting a go-
it-alone strategy, except for a British puppy, through the selective 
manipulation of intelligence.
  This Congress was asked to do a rush job in providing $60 billion 
plus for the cost of going to war. We were asked to provide maximum 
flexibility in the use of that money, and Congress did. And now we 
find, with that maximum flexibility, that 40,000 troops were not 
supplied by the Pentagon with the correct body armor, American soldiers 
were killed and maimed by remotely detonated bombs because an 
insufficient number of electric jammers was supplied by the Pentagon, 
and there were days during the war when the troops only got one meal a 
day because of insufficient MREs.
  We are now isolated from our allies, and we have been left holding 
the bag financially, militarily, and politically for occupying and 
reconstructing the country. We are told we do not have enough soldiers 
on the ground to even protect ammunition dumps from looting and theft. 
We are told that the military is stretched to the breaking point, 
creating opportunities for more mischief from countries like Iran and 
North Korea.
  But that is all yesterday's argument. The time to think all of those 
things through was before we attacked, because once you are involved in 
a war, you are stuck with it for a while, and certainly you are stuck 
with the aftermath, as we are now. So at this point, I recognize the 
need and the obligation to support a reconstruction package. I agree 
that both reconstruction and additional military funding are needed to 
fix the situation. And I recognize that we cannot simply withdraw from 
something that we started, even though I was not in on the takeoff. But 
that does not mean that Congress must support any slap-dash request 
from the administration that is thrown on the table. The Founding 
Fathers gave us one overreaching power to affect major issues, the 
power of the purse. If we do not use that power constructively to make 
sure that actions of the executive branch are well-focused and well-
thought-out, we are AWOL from our duty.
  The fact is we still do not have a detailed accounting of how the 
dollars we previously appropriated for this action have been used. We 
still have no meaningful idea of what cost the administration expects 
to incur over the next 5 years, even though they surely have 
expectations about that and prepare 5-year plans for everything else 
under God's creation. We have yet to receive a realistic description of 
how our allies can be brought on board to help provide troops and funds 
to spread around the burden of reconstruction. We have no real idea 
about how the administration expects to deal with the overextension of 
our military and the disruption of troop rotation requirements because 
of that overextension. And we certainly do not know how we are going to 
pay for it, except to get out our kids' credit card and say, ``Charge 
it.''
  There is no question in the aftermath of this administration and this 
Congress' decision to invade Iraq that we have now incurred certain 
obligations to the Iraqi people, but we have also obligations to our 
own people. That is why the important question here today is not 
whether this committee funding proposition, or an alternative, is 
better. The amendment that I will offer does not solve most of the 
dilemmas that I described or answer most of the questions that I have 
raised because only the administration has the power to do that. All 
the amendment that I will offer at some point says is: if you are going 
to spend $87 billion, then there is a better way to do it, a way which 
will be more effective on the ground and less damaging to our 
taxpayers.
  The issue is not whether the administration's package should be cut 
or not because, frankly, I think the administration is still hiding 
from Congress its long-term expectations on the full cost of this war. 
But this Congress has an obligation to know what the whole picture is 
and what the whole bill will be before we write the check. And we have 
an obligation to know how it is going to be paid for. That is what the 
amendment that we will offer will try to do. That is all we can expect 
it to do at this point.
  Let me take just a moment or two to describe what we will try to do 
with that amendment. We will try to reduce the committee package for 
reconstruction so that the total number for reconstruction is $14 
billion rather than the $20 billion asked for by the administration. We 
will use that money in a number of ways. First of all, we would do it 
to provide a quality-of-life initiative for our troops. The first thing 
we would do under that heading is to recognize the fact that almost 80 
percent of our troops today are in situations where they are forced to 
drink putrid water because the administration asked for sufficient 
funding only to deal with the water problems at one of the nine bases 
where American troops are stationed. So we provide the money to try to 
correct that problem for the rest of the troops.
  Secondly, we would provide some of that money to provide 
predeployment health and dental screening for the Guard and Reserve 
forces who have to go into regular service so that they do not have to 
bear that cost themselves.
  Thirdly, we extend postdeployment health coverage, (that is health 
coverage) for people who served and are now returning to their 
communities. We would extend that from the present 60 days to 6 months. 
And we would expand prepaid phone card services so it is easier for 
those troops to call home. And cover more R&R transportation costs.
  We would also try to recognize what General Shinseki warned us about 
when he warned us not to follow a 12-division strategy if we only had a 
10-division Army. And so what we will do is face up to, squarely and 
promptly, the need to increase the size of the Army by at least 20,000 
people if we are going to be in a position to defend this country 
against other security problems that may develop anywhere from North 
Korea to Iran. And, secondly, we will try, by doing that, to relieve 
the pressure on the Guard and Reserve forces who have been forced to 
take up greater burdens than they expected when they first joined up.
  Then we will provide additional funding to refurbish the equipment 
that has been used up in the Iraqi war. We know what the services 
indicated they needed in this fiscal year. The problem is the Pentagon 
civilian leadership did not ask for that full amount. We provide the 
full amount that the services

[[Page 24658]]

asked for so that we do not have huge amounts of military equipment, 
tanks and Bradleys and other expensive equipment simply sitting in 
unusable condition because we have not sufficiently refurbished it.
  Let me now turn to what we do with the $14 billion remaining in the 
redevelopment account. What we attempt to do with that is to provide $7 
billion of that, half of it roughly, a little less than $7 billion, in 
cash money, as the administration requested, so that they have enough 
money to deal with their immediate cash flow problems. Then we take the 
other six plus billion dollars and we put it in a special account in 
the World Bank to be matched on a two-to-one basis by foreign 
contributors. That is a way, in our view, that you can do two things. 
You can help to internationalize the question of who is going to pay 
for the long-term redevelopment costs of Iraq and at the same time we 
can protect the American taxpayer from the cronyism in the awarding of 
contracts that is bound to be there if those contracts are let by an 
agency that is responsive to the political appointees in the White 
House.
  And then lastly and most importantly, in my view, we pay for it. What 
we simply say is that we should provide for a return to preexisting law 
of the levels of taxation for the very top bracket in this society, 
that top 1 percent that makes over $330,000 a year. What that would 
mean is that someone making $1 million, instead of getting a $130,000 
tax cut, would get a tax cut of about $52,000. That would still be more 
than 10 times as much as taxpayers who are in the $200,000 to $500,000 
bracket, and it would be considerably more than that if you compare 
what they get to the small tax cut of about $1,000 to people in the 50 
to $75,000 bracket. So I would suggest that anyone who thinks that we 
are penalizing the top 1 percent, I would simply say that is certainly 
not the case. We are simply limiting the size of their tax cut to the 
size that will be provided to the next wealthiest Americans in the 
country. I daresay I think most of the people in that top 1 percent 
would say that if that is what is necessary to pay our bills rather 
than sending them on to our grandkids, they would be more than willing 
to participate.
  Mr. Chairman, that is what we intend to try to accomplish as this 
debate moves forward.
  Let me take one other moment to simply congratulate the chairman of 
the committee, because there is no question about it, he has made 
significant improvements in the administration proposal. Both parties 
wanted to eliminate some of the ``quaint'' items, to put it politely, 
that were inserted which would be red flags to any hardworking taxpayer 
in this country. And I appreciate the fact that we were able to work 
together to eliminate those provisions. But I think we have a long way 
to go to get the answers that we need from the administration in order 
to justify providing another $90 billion in taxpayers' money.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3289 
and I will be voting, however it comes out in final form, for this very 
much needed legislation and commend our President and commend, of 
course, Chairman Young for the great job he has done on this.

                              {time}  1830

  I firmly support the $66 billion appropriated in this bill which 
covers our military costs in Iraq. It is vitally important that we pass 
this. That is why I will support the bill no matter how it comes out at 
the end.
  However, I will be opposing the $18.6 billion of reconstruction money 
in the bill as it is being presented to us today. Helping Iraq rebuild 
is certainly an important part of our winning in Iraq, but they should 
be based on loans, rather than based on gifts from the American people. 
Instead, we are being told today that this $18.6 billion reconstruction 
package must be in the form not of a loan that will be repaid to us 
when Iraq gets back on its feet but instead as a giveaway, as a grant.
  The American people are already carrying a heavy burden for peace in 
the region and the Federal level of deficit spending is almost $400 
billion. And Iraq someday very shortly is going to be one of the 
wealthiest countries of the world, if not the wealthiest, because they 
produce more oil and will be producing more oil than just about 
anybody. So we should be asking for a payback for this $18 billion.
  But why are we being told it has to be a grant instead of a loan? 
Because Iraq supposedly already owes $120 billion to foreign banks. 
Give me a break. What is being said here? We have got to spend $20 
billion in a grant form, a giveaway, to protect the loans, the billions 
of dollars of loans that German and French banks gave to Saddam 
Hussein? That makes no sense. I will be offering an amendment to make 
sure to secure wording which will suggest that this reconstruction 
package of $18.6 billion is in the form of a loan, not a gift.
  If this is ruled not germane or out of order, I will immediately 
offer another amendment which will strike $18.6 billion from the bill, 
and specifically reconstruction funds, which means a vote ``yes'' on 
the Rohrabacher amendment is a vote for the loans because if my 
amendment passes, the administration will quickly come back with 
providing this $18.6 billion reconstruction program in the form of a 
loan, rather than as a giveaway and a gift to the people of Iraq.
  So I would ask my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 3289 and 
voting for it in final passage no matter what happens to my amendment, 
but I would suggest that they support the Rohrabacher amendment which 
will guarantee that the reconstruction funds in this bill be paid back 
after a while when Iraq gets back on its feet. The American people 
carry too heavy a burden. Let us give them a break.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), the ranking member of the 
Defense Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, let me talk about a couple of different 
things. We have all talked about the shortages. I think we have taken 
care of most of the shortages. I am a little concerned about the 
jammers, although General Myers said he personally took an interest in 
them; but the inserts for the body armor, the tracks, and I have talked 
to the companies, I wanted to make sure that they were going all out. A 
couple of companies said 90 percent of their production was going to be 
getting this equipment out to the troops, and finally we are getting to 
the people in the field who are making the decisions rather than the 
bureaucrats.
  But one of the things that worries me now is I have got a letter in 
my pocket from a young person, and here is what the young sergeant 
says: he said he is in the 307th MP Company. He has been on active duty 
since the summer of 2001: ``We have served proudly in peacekeeping in 
Bosnia, stateside on homeland defense, and finally as warfighters in 
Iraq, and I think we have done our job.'' This young man is in the 
307th MP in the National Guard, and he wants to come home. He has been 
on active duty 2 out of 6 years that he has been in the National Guard. 
And one of the things I have talked about over the years is we cannot 
sustain these deployments. We need either more active-duty troops or we 
need to find a way to have foreign troops, Coalition forces, to replace 
our troops.
  I know that I am starting to get letters from people saying that the 
Reserve and Guard are having such a difficult time sustaining 
themselves in the period of time that they are overseas, and I agree 
with that. I understand that. I met a couple of Reservists not long ago 
who had been in Bosnia; and one of their friends had been killed 
accidentally with a .50 caliber, and they were talking about how often 
they have been called up during this period of time. We can say they 
volunteered, but this is not the normal procedure. When we talk about a 
low-intensity war, we are talking about the type of war we are in now.

[[Page 24659]]

  I have always said when somebody asks me how much money does the 
million military need, I have said it depends on the tempo of 
operations, and our tempo of operations and throughout the world where 
we have got 48 percent of the Army deployed, we have got 25 to 30 
percent of the Guard and/or Reserve deployed, and what we have to look 
at is how do we replace these people. The other day the budget director 
of the Army said to a group at the AUS dinner, he said we are running 
out of gas. What he means is he does not have troops to replace the 
ones that are overseas. Some of the equipment needs to be 
reconstituted. We need to find a way to support this.
  I am for the $87 billion. I think that is absolutely essential. There 
is no question in my mind that the reconstruction money is just as 
important as the military security money. I feel very strongly about 
that. If we want security, we have got to put people back to work. We 
have got between 50 and 60 percent unemployment. We have got all kinds 
of electricity problems. We have got water problems and everything 
else. And in order to provide a secure atmosphere, in order to get our 
people home, we have to reconstruct or spend money on reconstruction in 
Iraq itself.
  I know that every time I go to the field, I get troops that complain; 
but that is the normal thing that we see with troops. But on the other 
hand, we have got Reserve and Guards that have been deployed for such a 
long period of time. And the employers are starting to write to me 
saying I cannot keep these guys on any longer, small business people. 
Very few of them get paid the difference. We have got bankers and 
people who are in the Reserve and Guard, and those folks are not 
getting any kind of extra pay. So we have got some real problems here 
in sustaining this force.
  Hopefully, we will be able to get people from the Coalition force to 
replace our forces. Hopefully, in the near future we will have our 
people with all the equipment they need. We will get the security 
situation under control. We will Iraqitize. We will internationalize, 
and we will energize this operation.
  So I fully support the presentation by the President. I feel very 
strongly about it. But on the other hand, we have got an awful lot of 
work to do before we get our troops home.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now 
rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Duncan) having assumed the chair, Mr. LaTourette, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under 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.

                          ____________________