[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 18]
[House]
[Pages 24662-24670]
[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 further 
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.

                              {time}  1928


                     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 further 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. Shimkus (Chairman pro tempore) 
in the chair.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole rose 
earlier today, 4 hours and 24 minutes remained in debate.
  The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) has 2 hours and 10 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 2 hours and 
14 minutes remaining.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the very 
distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde).
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, it is unfortunate that an issue as vital to 
our national security as the war in Iraq gets embedded in Presidential 
politics.

                              {time}  1930

  There is an irony that seeing the bumper stickers which say ``United 
We Stand,'' that is more a hope than an expectation. The reason we are 
at war in Iraq, regardless of all the lint-picking and mistakes and the 
mis-
judgments and all the discrepancies, boils down to its simplest terms. 
The strategic threat from a brutal aggressor that was a challenge to 
the region as well as to ourselves is a matter of record. And we can 
debate and argue over this point or that point, but Saddam Hussein was 
a threat to the region and to the United States, and somebody had to 
exercise leadership and it devolved upon our President and he has done 
so. However, I do not propose to talk about that aspect of this many-
faceted discussion.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to talk about the very difficult question of 
loan versus grant. I can say to the chairman how much I would like to 
vote for this to be a loan. It makes sense. It is the most defensible 
position one can take on this issue. But I have come to the conclusion 
that that would be a mistake and that we should make this a grant, and 
I will try to tell you my reasons.
  There is a philosopher named Santayana who said something a long time 
ago, I have never been able to confirm that he said it, but that is the 
common opinion, those who do not read history are condemned to relive 
it.
  World War I brought on the Treaty of Versailles. It was punitive. The 
reparations and the punishment that we leveled on Germany, however 
deserved, ended up in the creation of the Nazi Party.
  Mr. Chairman, the punitive Ver-
sailles Treaty imposed upon Germany after World War I resulted in a 
country rife with poverty and the ground was sown for the Nazi Party, 
and ultimately in 1933 the election of Adolf Hitler and out of that, of 
course, came World War II.
  Now, we learned that lesson because after World War II, instead of 
imposing punitive measures on the losers, we came up with the Marshall 
Plan, which was largely grant and not loans. And the result of the 
Marshall Plan was Europe was rebuilt, Europe flourished; and instead of 
being a cradle of dissention and war, it became a source of serenity 
and peace.
  And so it would seem to me if we impose on Iraq, which already has 
$200 billion in debt, another how-many-billions more in debt and then 
demand that we be repaid, we are not purchasing freedom with that. We 
are purchasing another dissident country with people who have one more 
reason to hate us because we are imposing a burden on them.
  Now, another reason it seems to me is the example we set. We are the 
leader of the free world whether we like it or not. History has imposed 
that on us. And if we loan money, other countries are going to loan and 
add to the debt and add to the misery that Iraq has already undergone. 
I think if we make a

[[Page 24663]]

grant, other countries will follow our lead, there is going to be a 
donors' conference in Madrid later this month, and I think the example 
we set will result in other countries making a contribution.
  Now, it is important for this reason: one way we can get our money 
back or at least have our burden lessened is by other countries 
contributing to the rebuilding of Iraq. They will not do that if we 
loan the money. They will do that. Other countries will follow our 
example; and if they do, they can pick up some of the burden that we 
are at this point perhaps going to have to assume.
  Now, Ambassador Bremer has pointed out that creating a sovereign 
democratic prosperous Iraq is a real blow to the terrorists, and that 
is our aim. We cannot go to war and then turn on a dime and walk out. 
We will create a cesspool for terrorists and another problem area, and 
we are buying difficulty for the future.
  Things are better in Iraq. The schools are open. The hospitals are 
open, a free press, utilities coming back on, infrastructure being 
repaired, a governing council, writing a constitution. There are some 
30 countries standing with us. No, they are not in large numbers, but 
about 20,000, which is a sizable group, British, Polish, Spanish, 
Czechs and many others. And so we are in this war. It is a war that 
deserves our support. And I hope that this House will not burden Iraq 
which already has tremendous burdens and lots of debt with additional 
debt, but that we show the way for the rest of the world to make their 
contributions and truly have a united front.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the ranking member on the 
Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related 
Programs of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, it was 1 year ago that Congress voted to 
authorize the President to use force in Iraq. Many of us supported that 
resolution; others did not. And I have deep respect for the differences 
that still divide us.
  Those of us who voted ``yes'' wanted to do this right. We realized 
that any action in Iraq would require adequate forces, rigorous 
planning, and a commitment to stay until the whole mission, the war and 
the peace, was accomplished. A year has gone by, and now we are all in 
the same boat. We have undertaken a project that if done well can 
change the face of the Middle East for the better. If done poorly, in 
my judgment it will pose a grave threat to our national security.
  However, the requests made by the President and the Coalition 
Provisional Authority was shaped in part by a series of 
miscalculations, miscalculations about how the international community 
would react to a United States operation to rid Iraq of Saddam Hussein; 
miscalculations about how our troops and our best intentions would be 
received by much of the Iraqi public; miscalculations about what would 
be required to rebuild; miscalculations about how generous other 
nations would be with donations even as their policy input was 
rebutted; miscalculations about how long it would take to bring Iraqi 
oil revenues online; and, finally, miscalculations about how this 
massive undertaking would affect our Federal budget.
  The Committee on Appropriations, led by our able and fair chairman, 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Lewis), and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), as well as the 
ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), and the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), along with myself, reviewed 
the administration's request seriously and with close attention. Some 
necessary changes were made. Other adjustments may be made by the full 
House as they have been made in the Senate, and this is appropriate.
  Congress is a co-equal branch of government and we have a 
responsibility to our constituents, our heroic armed forces, and our 
democracy to actively participate in this effort, not just rubber stamp 
the executive branch's request.
  Despite deep reservations, I have decided to support this 
supplemental. First and foremost, I believe we have a responsibility to 
the people of the United States and to the people of Iraq to do our 
utmost to build a democratic and prosperous Iraq. This remains a 
fundamental part of our national security strategy. But we cannot do it 
haphazardly. We must be clear about our priorities and how much money 
and time it will take to achieve them. We need a plan, a coherent 
complete strategy that clearly lays out our obligations and shows how 
we plan to address them in the most efficient and effective way.
  We need priorities. We need to know that our efforts in Iraq will not 
just be about building roads, bridges, and buildings. They will also be 
about building democracy.
  We need assurances, assurances that United States taxpayer funds are 
being spent wisely through the use of competitive procurement 
procedures and strict auditing and oversight of ongoing projects.
  We need diplomacy, sincere efforts by the administration to marshal 
other donor contributions on an ongoing basis and to get the support of 
the United Nations for the rebuilding effort.
  This problem is a marked change from how the United States handled 
last year's diplomatic effort. I continue to be amazed at our inability 
to stick to our goal when I read that after a ridiculously brief period 
of diplomacy at the U.N., the U.S. is said to be ``frustrated and ready 
to give up.''
  The problem as I see it is that we do not have a plan, priorities, 
safeguards or sustained diplomatic efforts. We have done what we could 
with the massive requests of broad parameters of how it would be spent. 
We asked repeatedly for more detailed information from the CPA and we 
got some information, removed some of the more problematic provisions, 
but serious concerns remain. Among them are the impact this borrowed 
$87 billion will have on our own budget and the priorities that will 
not be funded because of our responsibilities in Iraq.
  Many of my colleagues have asked how we can fund school construction 
in Baghdad, but not in Briarcliff or Boston; how we have money for 
quality housing in Najaf but not in New York City or Newark; and how we 
can plan for fair elections in Mosul in northern Iraq but not in Miami 
in southern Florida.
  I agree with them. I find it hard to agree that, with this weak 
economy, the climbing deficit and with the enormous need at home, that 
we are not engaged in any effort to review our fiscal policies, our tax 
and spending, as if we still enjoy surpluses as far as the eye can see.
  That is why I also support the package drafted by our ranking member, 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). The Obey package would provide 
for all emergency reconstruction needs, important military needs not 
addressed in the request, and increased donor participation by giving 
part of the United States funding in cash and part as a loan to the 
World Bank.
  In my judgment this is realistic. If we are only anticipating $3 
billion in direct contributions from allies around the world, we need 
to find other ways to leverage as much money as we can. And providing 
$7 billion to the World Bank would leverage up to $40 billion in World 
Bank funds for reconstruction. The Obey package also provides for 
detailed reporting and accountability and that is key.
  However Members vote on this supplemental, we share the 
responsibilities for keeping our troops safe and following through on 
our commitment in Iraq. I believe we must finish the effort we began in 
Iraq for the people in my district as much as for the citizens in 
Karbala or Basra. But I also believe that we must be honest about what 
reconstructing Iraq and Afghanistan costs Americans, especially our 
military families.

                              {time}  1945

  We must be realistic about the tough choices this Nation faces.

[[Page 24664]]

  I hope, Mr. Chairman, that as we move to conference that a sense of 
responsibility and realism governs our work. The stakes are very high.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
Before I yield to my colleague from Michigan, let me just make a couple 
of comments.
  First of all, I want to thank the gentlewoman from New York for her 
thoughtful statement. I have had the privilege these last 3 years to 
work with the gentlewoman from New York as the ranking member on the 
Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related 
Programs, and she and I have, she would be the first to concede, have 
not always agreed on every policy issue, but we have approached the 
legislation, the bill, each time, whether it has been the regular 
appropriation bill or the supplemental appropriation bill, we have 
approached it in the spirit of compromise, and we have approached it in 
the spirit of bipartisanship because we both believe very strongly that 
when it comes to our foreign policy, partisanship ends at the shores of 
this country. It has been truly a great joy to work with the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), and I want to thank her 
publicly for that.
  Mr. Chairman, I will also have more remarks of my own tomorrow when 
we get to the general debate under the rule for this bill.
  Once more before I yield, I would also like to thank, though he is no 
longer here, the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the 
Chairman of the Committee on International Relations of the House of 
Representatives for his extremely cogent and thoughtful statement. 
There are few people in this body that have been such leaders for 
liberty, democracy and freedom around the world, that have been voices 
for those basic American values as has the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Hyde). So when he speaks on an issue such as the funding for Iraq 
reconstruction and for our military in Iraq, he speaks, I think, with a 
voice of certainty and a voice of authority that it would do well for 
all of us to listen to.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), a member of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
supplemental appropriations bill and urge all my colleagues to support 
it.
  I want to commend the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), obviously, we could go on 
commending a great number of people, but everybody's contributed to 
this bill, and I think it shows in that while we ensure the urgent 
priorities like drinking water, enhanced security and electrical 
infrastructure, these are all funded, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Young), the chairman, did look over this process, oversighted it, and 
he eliminated projects from the President's request that were simply 
not necessary in this bill, removing a total of almost $2 billion. The 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) does not get credit sometimes for 
the work he does, but I am very pleased to give him credit here this 
evening.
  As chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Construction, I do want 
to make my colleagues aware that a portion of this bill falls under my 
subcommittee's jurisdiction. We have provided about $400 million to 
support military construction needs for Iraq and Afghanistan. Let me 
turn now to the need to support the supplemental as it is written.
  A little over 2 years ago, this country was attacked by terrorists 
whose organizations had received safe harbor from tyrants. In the wake 
of those attacks, we made it a goal of this country to defeat the 
terrorists who are actively seeking to kill Americans so that our 
citizens could be safe and secure at home and abroad.
  In Afghanistan, we removed from power a regime that had given safe 
haven to al Qaeda, and we routed the terrorist organization from its 
hiding places. The people of Kabul cheered its liberators, and that 
country is headed in the right direction, though much work still needs 
to be done.
  In Iraq, we removed a danger to an entire region when we defeated the 
regime of Saddam Hussein, a regime that denied the international 
community time and time again. We no longer have the prospect of a 
country being led by an individual who had invaded two neighbors, used 
chemical and biological weapons on his own people, ran a political 
prison for children, harbored terrorists, rewarded the families of 
suicide bombers and pursued weapons of mass destruction when the chance 
arose. Again, the people cheered its liberators.
  These are important steps in the war on terrorism. The United States 
and the world is safer because of our actions. We have not been left 
holding the bag, as some have suggested. We are there because as a 
world's leader, we exercised our leadership and took action against a 
menace that was Saddam Hussein's regime. We have nothing to apologize 
for.
  Now, we face the harder part, the thankless part. Having made the 
world safer, in this moment we must ensure that it is safer in the 
future. We do not want these two countries to become terrorist havens 
again. That is why we must go about the task of rebuilding two 
countries torn down by decades of war and tyranny.
  There is no folly in pursuing this course. There is great folly, 
however, in abandoning it before it is finished. It is not going to be 
easy, but it is going to get done, and that is why we are here today.
  This supplemental is critical to supporting our troops and our 
mission. We all accept the responsibility to provide our soldiers with 
the weapons and equipment they need to secure Iraq, but we must also 
accept the responsibility to aid the new government of Iraq without 
placing an undue burden on it. Turning reconstruction funds included in 
this bill into loans does not serve our mission.
  I encourage my colleagues to continue to ask those tough questions 
about the efforts in Iraq. That is our job, but let us stand up for our 
soldiers and our mission by passing this supplemental today.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the leader of 
our caucus.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the time.
  Mr. Chairman, the question before us tonight and tomorrow is whether 
to give the President a blank check of nearly $87 billion or to fashion 
a bill that represents and promotes the best interests of our troops 
and the American people. I, for one, will not write the President a 
blank check for $18.6 billion in reconstruction funds of American 
taxpayers' money based on a reconstruction plan just sent to Congress, 
which rebuilds Iraq's electricity infrastructure, among other things, 
when ours is not functioning here at home; which modernizes Iraq's 
medical facilities and medical equipment, when millions of Americans 
here at home are living without health care; which pays for that which 
we did not damage and did not previously exist in Iraq; and which sends 
$18.6 billion in grants to a country that has the second largest oil 
reserve in the world valued at over $7 trillion.
  I do not intend to add another $18.6 billion to this year's deficit, 
estimated at over $480 billion, and that is why we demand an Iraq 
package that will not bankrupt future generations, that is paid for.
  This administration failed to present a financially responsible plan 
for reconstruction in Iraq. It failed in its responsibilities to our 
troops in Iraq. Was it responsible to send American troops into Iraq 
without adequate planning, with tens of thousands of our troops without 
border armor, without an exit strategy, without a realistic troop 
deployment and rotation schedule, without a plan to get them eventually 
back home? No, and that is why we support our troops and the Democratic 
proposal to improve the funds in this bill that go to protect them.
  Our troops and the American people have paid the brunt of the cost in 
lives

[[Page 24665]]

lost and resources spent. In our war on terror and our war in Iraq, 
they are looking for honest leadership and demand a realistic plan from 
this President.
  So we must give our men and women in uniform the resources they need 
to do the job they have been given, and we must do all we can to return 
them to their families quickly and safely. It does not mean cutting and 
running, but it does mean protecting them while they are there and 
finding a plan to have them ultimately exit and to bring more people 
from the international community to bear in Iraq.
  However, our troops should not be held hostage to an outright grant 
for Iraq's reconstruction, and I bristle when I hear already the 
beginnings of suggestions that question those who have a different 
view. We demand an opportunity to vote for the money for our troops and 
at the same time to limit the unbridled grant money to fund 
reconstruction in Iraq.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a 
unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann 
Davis).
  Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of 
this supplemental.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this supplemental 
appropriations legislation as a necessary component in our efforts to 
liberate the nation of Iraq and continue our successful fight against 
terrorism.
  Mr. Chairman, over the past month, the American people have been 
bombarded by a very negative portrayal of our efforts in Iraq. However, 
as we have heard from so many of our colleagues who have recently 
visited Iraq, these media portrayals are far from the truth.
  We are winning the war on terror, and we are setting people free. 
America is building a free Iraq, and this supplemental funding measure 
is part of America's exit strategy. A strategy that will see a new Iraq 
(founded on freedom and democracy) flourish in the Middle East.
  Mr. Chairman, I am a fiscal conservative, and the thought on spending 
$87 billion on anything gives me pause. The concept of turning some of 
this funding into a loan appears to be a sound one, but one we will 
have time to discuss as this debate continues. However, this spending 
measure is an investment in the peace and stability of our world. We 
cannot put a price tag on peace, and we cannot turn our back on 
freedom.
  Our own American history should be the book we study from. When 
President Harry Truman came to Congress with his Marshall Plan 
proposal, the price tag, for the times, was staggering indeed.
  However, it was not the price tag that Congress finally looked at--it 
was the mission at hand that drove support for this plan. It was the 
rebuilding of the post World War II world, in an effort to restore 
peace to the planet, that drove Congress to support this measure.
  Mr. Chairman, this Congress has a similar opportunity, to rebuild a 
nation that will represent freedom and democracy while bringing 
stability to a very tumultuous and dangerous part of the world.
  We have a very unique opportunity in front of us. We have the 
opportunity to invest in freedom, and to set men free. Most 
importantly, we can take proactive steps necessary to stabilize a 
region that presents a great danger to our Nation, and the well-being 
of our people.
  Mr. Chairman, we will be making history with this vote. We will be 
sending a message to terrorists that America has no intention of 
allowing the fight against terrorism to be fought on our streets and in 
our neighborhoods.
  We will also be sending a message to the world that we are a nation 
of peace, and Iraqi liberation in the pursuit of freedom is a component 
of our democratic principles.
  Congress has a responsibility to protect our people, and to promote 
freedom and democracy worldwide. This supplemental helps move these 
responsibilities forward, and it is our duty to approve this 
legislation.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), a member of the 
committee.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Kolbe) for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the supplemental package 
and urge its prompt adoption. In fact, the sooner we pass this 
legislation and provide material support for our troops and begin 
rebuilding the Iraqi economy savaged by decades of Saddam Hussein's 
corrupt rule, the sooner our dedicated service personnel will come home 
with their mission accomplished.
  I have just returned from Iraq with a number of my colleagues as part 
of a fact-finding trip led by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Lewis), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Defense. We visited with 
our troops. These brave young men and women are proud of what they are 
doing and know that it is important to our national security. Of 
course, we mourn the loss of any American soldiers' lives, and we pray 
for the early recovery of our wounded. We are forever in their debt and 
reject the mindless notion of some that their sacrifice has been in 
vain.
  Since my return, I have also been struck by the stark contrast 
between the reality of the success of our military and civilian 
missions in Iraq and the stubborn perception that we are failing there. 
It is not true.
  I am also one who strongly objects to the notion held by some that 
our involvement in Iraq does not count for something. Our involvement 
does count. The world and our homeland are safer for Saddam's removal. 
There is a better life for the Iraqi people after 30 years of 
oppression and torture and killing. Our involvement there and the 
sacrifices of our soldiers count for something. The reality is 
encouraging.
  Two hundred and forty hospitals are now operating, and 90 percent of 
the medical clinics are now reopened. A hundred primary schools and 22 
universities have been rehabilitated and reopened this month. More than 
55,000 Iraqi police officers are better trained and back to work, and 
they are being trained by the Coalition Provisional Authority in 
professional policing, including border security and human rights. Over 
4,000 Iraqis are working side by side with coalition soldiers as part 
of the Civil Defense Corps, and the CPA is working to field 27 
battalions of a new Iraqi Army.
  Among the most hopeful signs, and we saw it firsthand, were the fact 
that 90 percent of the cities, towns and villages in Iraq are now 
governed by elected or appointed local councils, representing, indeed, 
diverse ethnic groups and religious groups from across the country. 
Clearly, there is hope growing in Iraq.
  Thankfully, the Coalition Provisional Authority, working with 
military and civilian officials of more than 30 nations, have been 
working hard to improve the quality of life and deliver much-needed 
assistance, and now we debate the supplemental for Iraq and 
Afghanistan.
  As we know, more than 60 percent of these funds will go to support 
the efforts of our young men and women in uniform, including extra 
combat pay, stronger physical protection, better-quality housing, and 
most importantly, enhanced intelligence gathering and the equipment 
that includes the latest technology to win the war on terrorism.
  I am grateful, as all Members are, that we will now be providing, 
with these new funds, more money for body armor, radio jammers and 
reinforced Humvees. These are concrete steps to protect the well-being 
of our soldiers. The remaining funds will go towards creating 
conditions on the ground in Iraq that will enable our troops to succeed 
in their mission.
  This supplemental is needed.

                              {time}  2000

  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), a member of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. This debate tonight is not about support of our troops. There is 
not a Member of Congress that does not support our troops. And it is 
not about national security. It is about one thing. It is about 
politics. And I say that for three reasons:
  First of all, the timing. It was just a year ago that we were rushed 
to judgment to give the President the authority to unilaterally invade 
Iraq, at a time when the U.N. inspectors were saying give us more time; 
we have not found weapons of mass destruction. If

[[Page 24666]]

they are there, give us more time to look for them, which had the 
support of the international community. But why was that vote passed a 
year ago today? Because it was on the eve of the November elections and 
the President wanted the vote before the November elections so he could 
use it in the campaigns.
  We followed that vote last spring with a $78 billion supplemental 
request. That money does not run out until next April. In the defense 
appropriations bill, we put enough money in for the troops, so why now? 
Why have this vote now? Could it be the rush to judgment this year is 
to get it as far away from the next November elections? Because if we 
went to next spring, there may not be national support for this bill. I 
think today is a sure rush to judgment, and I do not think we need to 
do that. We need to prove to the world that we have a workable plan.
  The second is capacity. Where is the building of Iraq capacity? Look 
at the number of idle people in Iraq, unpaid. Yet American contractors 
are rushing in on American salaries and American consultant fees who 
require protection of American troops in order to do the American work 
in Iraq. We ought to be spending that money on building the capacity 
for the Iraqis to do it, not for American corporations.
  And lastly, the contracting. These are emergency appropriations. They 
are asking that we forego the regular corporate way of giving out 
contracts. There is no transparency. This is a gift of funds to 
American companies, not to Iraqi people.
  This Emergency Appropriations bill can't be called the ``Iraq bailout 
bill'' when the contracts only go to businesses friendly to the 
partisan interests of the White House.
  The money doesn't go to Iraq, it goes to K Street. It goes to 
American companies that pay U.S. consultant wages, not the wages earned 
by Iraqis.
  Timing is not necessary, its political capacity building for Iraq is 
not planned. Contracts don't help earn friends but create animosity.
  I have and will continue to vote against the wrong approach to 
winning peace in the Middle East.

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood), a member of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
supplemental emergency appropriations bill. I too went to Iraq 3 weeks 
ago to see for myself, and I think we all need to go and see for 
ourselves the progress that is being made. I would like to give a few 
of my observations.
  As we flew low over the country in our helicopter, I saw that there 
is more water than I would have imagined and more agriculture. The 
other thing is that the farmers and the children out in the country 
always waved at the helicopter. That was the military helicopter with a 
machine gunner on each window. They did not know there were Congressmen 
in there, but the machine gunner waved back.
  As we went through Iraq, the people waved at us. They stood; they 
smiled. I have a pretty good idea of body language, and 70 percent of 
the people in that country are delighted we are there.
  Mr. Chairman, we found and deposed the greatest weapon of mass 
destruction that this world has known since Hitler and Stalin. Go to 
the burying fields at al-Hilla, with the mass graves, where they have 
buried hundreds of thousands of people who were marched into a pit and 
mowed down with a machine gun and covered over with a bulldozer, 
whether they were alive or dead, and you understand what went on in 
that country.
  We talked to the doctors and the hospital administrators and the 
keepers of the graves and the operators of the power plant. These are 
people striving to get back on their feet, and they need our help. This 
will be one of the greatest things that we have done in our term in 
Congress, not only to support our troops but to support the putting 
back together of Iraq, putting it back together from the damages 
inflicted on it by Saddam Hussein, because the damage inflicted by our 
military on structures is very small.
  This money in the supplemental will do more for the safety of our 
troops and the safety of our citizens than most anything we could do. 
It is hard to comment on some of the things that have been said 
tonight; they are so ridiculous. We are on a path with a good plan. It 
is being carried out by young men and women of intense bravery whom we 
can be very proud of and we need to support them.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds.
  Two-run homer by Boston. They are ahead by three in the ninth.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Moran), a member of the Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee 
on Appropriations.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend and leader, 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). I wish he had not told me 
that, because now that is all I can think of.
  But I am going to begin by quoting the dissenting views of the 
ranking member of the full Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), because it states the reason for voting for 
this supplemental better than anything that I have heard stated before. 
It says, ``The Bush administration is still incapable or unwilling to 
articulate a coherent and workable underlying strategy to accomplish 
our mission and bring our troops home. Since the power of the purse 
remains the only effective means that we in the Congress have to ensure 
the American people that such a strategy exists, and that it has a 
reasonable chance for success, support for these funds prior to 
evidence of such a strategy would be an abdication of responsibility.'' 
And it will be an abdication if this supplemental passes.
  We had any number of hearings in the appropriation subcommittees 
before this bill went to the full committee. Administration witnesses 
time and again told us they could not comment on a time frame to 
transition to decision-making with Iraqi leaders, which was the 
original intent, to establish a democratic government. They had no idea 
how many troops would be required beyond next September. They could not 
guess as to what contributions in terms of military assistance or cash 
would be forthcoming from other nations. They had no idea how much 
additional Iraqi reconstruction money would be requested. And they had 
no idea how Iraqi deployment might affect long-term priorities within 
the defense budget.
  Yet we are asked to support an $87 billion request. This entire 
venture has been a pattern of deception. We went into this war 
unilaterally and prematurely based upon that pattern of deception. If 
anyone should challenge me, I can give three instances. We were told we 
had to go to war immediately, with or without our allies, because of 
Saddam's connection to, and I quote our President, ``because of the 
terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.'' President Bush has now 
admitted we had no evidence, and I am quoting again, ``no evidence of 
such a connection.''
  Our Vice President said, and I am quoting, ``Saddam has reconstituted 
nuclear weapons.'' Now Mr. Cheney admits, ``I did misspeak.''
  Secretary Rumsfeld told us that ``we know where the weapons of mass 
destruction are. They are around Tikrit and Baghdad.'' They were not 
there.
  I could go on and on, but the fact is that we have no reason to truly 
trust even that this money is going to be used for the purposes for 
which it is intended, to support our troops, to do the right thing, and 
then to get out of Iraq and protect our country from future threats. I 
ask the American people to look at the dissenting views of the leader 
of the Democrats on the Committee on Appropriations.
  The fact is, Mr. Chairman, this supplemental, if it is granted, 
leaves 80 percent of our troops in Iraq without clean water. We 
provided over $60 billion for our troops, yet they could not find a few 
million dollars to provide all of our troops with Kevlar jackets. 
46,000 of them went into battle without body armor. They could not 
protect the vehicles that they were driving for a few million dollars. 
They could not give them hand-held devices for remotely controlled 
explosive devices.

[[Page 24667]]

  They did not do that because they knew they would use it as leverage 
to get this supplemental. Vote down this supplemental. Teach them that 
that is not the right way to conduct business.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Granger), another member of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my strong support for 
this supplemental funding. Like some of the other speakers we have 
heard tonight, I returned from Iraq just 2 weeks ago. I was part of a 
congressional delegation, a bipartisan delegation, that came from all 
sorts of views. Some had strongly supported the resolution, some 
strongly spoke out against it, others were more cautious, and some 
questioned why now and how much. But I can say from that bipartisan 
congressional delegation, we came back and unanimously said, after 
seeing it, we truly understand, first of all, what is being done there 
and how well it is being done.
  It is startling, startling, Mr. Chairman, the contrast in what we saw 
and what we hear here; what the American people hear and the people all 
over the world hear, because it is not at all what we saw.
  First of all, it is startling because of Saddam Hussein's presence, 
his palaces, the gilding, the money that has been socked away, and then 
of course the mass graves that we have heard about today. The one we 
went to had 3,000 bodies that were discovered, the remains of men, 
women, and children as young as 2 years of age, shot in the back of the 
head and dumped in those mass graves. Some were not shot. Perhaps they 
ran out of ammunition, perhaps they got tired and they just threw them 
living into those graves.
  Then, Mr. Chairman, we saw the citizens, citizens living in poverty 
and citizens who had lived in terror for years. And I object to the 
term rebuilding, because people think, when we say rebuilding, it is 
what we destroyed. That is not the situation at all. What we are doing 
is building, because we went to a country that was not without assets. 
In fact, the oil reserves were second only to Saudi Arabia. But we had 
a leader who would not put those assets back into his own country. 
Instead, he stole those assets and used them to buy guns, but he did 
not keep up the infrastructure of his country.
  We visited, for instance, a power plant, unlike any I have ever seen, 
because it was held together by rope and hope and rust. The engines 
themselves, the plant itself was so badly in need of not repair, but in 
need of a new facility.
  We went to a hospital, the largest in Baghdad. We went to a maternity 
ward, and I have never seen equipment like that in my lifetime, perhaps 
in old movies of World War I or World War II; but I saw terrible 
conditions, where the roof was leaking so much there was water on the 
floor. We went to a neonatal unit where a child died that day because 
we saw such terrible equipment. No backup. They had electricity that 
was on 3 hours, off 3 hours. We saw a country where, with all those 
assets, they should have had a modern hospital; instead they had infant 
mortality as high as India. So I am absolutely in support of this.
  We did have a stunning military victory, but we have not finished the 
job. We owe it to the men and women in that country, from our country 
and the Coalition forces that have lost their lives in Iraq, to keep 
our promise and to say we will let you finish the job.
  The most telling comment was that of General Sanchez, when he said, 
``We will not win this militarily. We will win it by winning the hearts 
and the minds of the Iraqi people.'' So we need to keep our promises 
and let them enjoy and understand some of what we have in this country: 
the freedom, the opportunity, the ability to pursue the happiness that 
they have not had. It is that possibility, the possibility of having 
that in that part of the world which will be a real victory, because 
they can understand what we enjoy and they can be a part of that.
  So this supplemental has my very strong support. I went back to my 
district and told everyone, this is what you need to know, because it 
is not what you are hearing anyplace else.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the substitute to the 
bill that is before us that was offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey) in the Committee on Appropriations. The Obey substitute was 
rejected then and will likely be ruled out of order tomorrow. That is 
unfortunate, because the Obey substitute offers a plan for fixing the 
chaos in post-war Iraq.
  Mr. Chairman, the war on Iraq was a war of choice, not of necessity. 
The administration's two primary reasons for this war, Saddam Hussein's 
alleged weapons of mass destruction and his alleged links to al Qaeda, 
were both deliberately exaggerated to build support for that war. No 
weapons of mass destruction will be found, and the President himself 
has now downplayed the alleged link between Saddam Hussein and al 
Qaeda.
  If the aftermath of the war were going well, Americans would probably 
overlook the deliberately misrepresented intelligence on Iraq's weapons 
and its ties to al Qaeda. Now, as Americans are killed almost every 
day, it is clear that winning the peace will be a long, difficult, and 
expensive process; and people are questioning how we got where we are 
today.

                              {time}  2015

  The American people are learning that the President's insistence on a 
unilateral war means that we will pay for a unilateral peace. There is 
popular opposition to the President's request for so much money for 
Iraq. This year America will run the largest deficit in our history, 
over $475 billion, without even including this $87 billion request for 
Iraq. The $87 billion that we are debating today is money that would 
have been better used to create jobs and improve health care and 
education for Americans here at home. The Obey substitute is an 
excellent proposal that provides the body armor, the equipment and 
adequate pure drinking water that our troops need to finish their jobs 
and return home quickly and safely. The Obey substitute makes our 
troops safer. The Obey substitute insists on accountability and 
transparency for the expenditure of reconstruction dollars, and it 
encourages support from other nations, thereby reducing the burden on 
American taxpayers.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose the President's war on Iraq, but I support the 
Obey substitute because it makes better use of our limited resources.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Green Bay, Wisconsin (Mr. Green). Few Members of this 
body have a greater appreciation or understanding of America's role in 
the world, for he himself was a former Peace Corps member.
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman both for 
yielding time and for his kind remarks.
  Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt that this bill that we are debating 
tonight spends a lot of money. There is no doubt that the costs of war 
are high. There is no doubt that the costs of reconstruction are high. 
But I think the point we need to remember is that the costs of 
inaction, the costs of leaving Iraq behind are far greater and, more 
importantly, the costs of failing to give our troops what they need as 
quickly as possible, those costs are absolutely unacceptable.
  Some here tonight will try to break the package apart and make a 
false distinction, a distinction between military assistance and 
reconstruction assistance. They claim they support one but not the 
other, and they will try to put strings on one and not the other. Mr. 
Chairman, that approach is wrong and what is more, it is dangerously 
wrong. The mission in Iraq from a military perspective will only end 
when freedom and democracy have begun to take root, when the economy is 
starting to move, when there is some semblance of hope restored into 
Iraq. Those goals collectively represent an antidote to terrorism.
  The reconstruction dollars that we are talking about tonight, in my 
view,

[[Page 24668]]

will help us achieve those goals and achieve them much more quickly. 
Therefore, the reconstruction dollars will bring about final victory to 
Iraq more quickly, they will bring our mission to a close and just as 
importantly, of course, to everyone back home, they will bring our 
troops back safe and sound. On the other hand, failing to approve 
reconstruction dollars or hamstringing our ability to use it will 
extend the mission. It will delay it. It will lengthen the time line. 
Worse yet, it will, in my view, weaken the mission. It will foster the 
fear that America will withdraw or walk away, a fear that is very real 
to everyday Iraqis, a fear that will only increase despair and steal 
hope from them at the very time when hope is just beginning to appear. 
It will make the mission of our troops all that much more dangerous.
  Iraq has become, in my view, the central battle in the war against 
terrorism. We have received many reports of terrorists entering Iraq 
from countries throughout the region. We must remember that they are 
entering Iraq not because we are failing, but because we are winning, 
because we are succeeding. This is the time we must push on, we must 
build on that mission, we must give our diplomats, we must give our 
soldiers, we must give the leaders the tools and the resources they 
need to finish this job. To fail to give this money to our troops, to 
fail to give money to reconstruction that they are overseeing would 
strengthen the hands of those who want us to fail.
  We must live up to our responsibilities. We must not abandon the 
Iraqis. We must not abandon our troops. I strongly support this 
supplemental. It is critically important, and it is important we get it 
done now.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), a member of the committee.
  Mr. BERRY. I thank the distinguished ranking member from Wisconsin 
for yielding me this time, and I appreciate his leadership in this 
matter.
  Mr. Chairman, there should be no doubt that we support the troops and 
support whatever resources they need. Clearly the Defense Department 
and the Secretary of Defense have done a terrible job preparing to go 
into this mission. Just yesterday, I saw on television where the 
administration says America is not being told the truth. I could not 
agree more. Just yesterday, I saw where the President now says that he 
is in charge. That is about the third boss in a week that we have had 
over this project. He says that debt for Iraq is bad, debt for America 
is good. The truth is Iraq can afford to pay this debt off more than we 
can. I can tell you this. The miscalculations, the poor planning, say 
anything we can dream up to try to make the American people think that 
this is a good idea, change stories every week and now we are asked to 
give this same administration that has engaged in this another $87 
billion with no plan, no requirement for us to know how this money is 
going to be spent, and, clearly, they have not known how to spend it 
before now.
  I can tell you this, Mr. Chairman. In the First Congressional 
District of Arkansas, if you spend a billion dollars, you do not have 
to wonder how it got spent. You can drive down the road and see it. It 
takes us a long time to make a billion dollars in the First 
Congressional District of Arkansas. It has been referred to that they 
have got hospitals in Iraq that have leaky roofs, that they have 
hospitals in Iraq that do not have backup generators. Come to the First 
Congressional District of Arkansas, and I can show you the same thing. 
There is simply no reason to borrow this money from our children and 
our grandchildren and expect them to repay this debt when we have the 
ability. If we are going to do this, we should at the very least pay 
for it ourselves. But I have to tell you, I think the Iraqi people 
ought to pay for it or at least pay for part of it. I urge the defeat 
of this bill and the support of the Obey amendment.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the very 
distinguished gentleman from LeMoyne, Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).
  Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Chairman, I think everyone that I know in this body 
agonizes over an additional $87 billion supplemental spending bill. No 
one is real happy about it. While we may disagree on some of the 
details, I hope that we can agree on two things. Number one, we are 
engaged in a conflict that we cannot afford to lose. Whatever it takes 
to win needs to be done. And, number two, more than ever, we need to 
display a unity of purpose and a common resolve in this body that we 
may not have seen since 9/11.
  Our opponents believe that persistent acts of terrorism will 
eventually prevail. They saw internal strife that resulted in failure 
in Vietnam. They saw us leave Beirut after a truck bomb destroyed a 
Marine barracks. They saw us relocate troops after the Khobar Towers 
bombing in Saudi Arabia. And, unfortunately, they also see 
partisanship, and they see discord, and they see finger-pointing on the 
floor of this House at a time when this country cannot afford that. And 
so they see us as a Nation which can be divided. If we pull out, if we 
back down, if we give up, if we fail to see this through, every soldier 
that has died in Iraq will have died in vain, and we will have sent a 
clear signal to terrorists everywhere that we are an easy target. We 
will have shown that the U.S. no longer has the national resolve 
demonstrated at Valley Forge, at Gettysburg, at The Argonne, and on D-
Day. When the stakes are high and when the task is daunting, and this 
is, commitment, perseverance and unity of purpose eventually prevail. I 
urge approval of the supplemental, and I hope that this can be 
accomplished with a spirit of bipartisan cooperation that displays a 
united front to the world.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the proposal for $87 billion 
and in support of the Obey substitute. $87 billion translates into 
1,720,000 jobs in this country. That is how big $87 billion is. This 
administration was unwilling to spend a few billion in our country this 
year to create jobs in America as unemployment--ticks up. Yet they are 
willing to spend $87 billion and add that to our deficit. This year 
this administration will have the largest deficit in modern history. 
This proposal is fiscally irresponsible. $87 billion is as much as we 
spend on all our foreign aid, plus $68 billion. It is more than we 
spend on all the countries of the world rolled together. It is as much 
as we spend in one year on our entire budget for housing, for veterans, 
for NASA, for transportation, for environment, all rolled into one. 
This is a lot of money. In fact, it is as much money as our States were 
in deficit earlier this year before they had to raise taxes, sales 
taxes, excise taxes to cut services.
  This morning the Detroit News reports, Michigan has to cut $900 
million from its State budget. They do not have the money. My own 
newspaper this morning, Lucas County, my home county, $10 million in 
deficit for this year. They are cutting services for first responders. 
And where are we from this administration to help us at the local 
level? And the Cleveland paper over the weekend, what does $87 billion 
mean? It means that the Mayor of Cleveland needs over $2 billion just 
to take care of the homeless in Cleveland, and she does not have the 
money to do it.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a lot of money, and it averages $3,000 for each 
Iraqi citizen. Maybe we would be wiser just to give them the money. 
Three thousand dollars per citizen. I have in my hand here a picture of 
our soldiers handing out $20 bills in Iraq. I have never seen anything 
like this. Are we creating a modern version of the welfare state over 
in the Middle East? Pallets of $100 bills being sent over to Iraq, what 
is that all about?
  Secretary Rumsfeld said, ``I don't know that there is much 
reconstruction to do.'' Why, then, is this the second time the 
administration has asked Congress for money to support this war? The 
administration cannot even agree on who is supposed to take the lead in 
Iraq. We were told it was Secretary Rumsfeld; then it switched to

[[Page 24669]]

Mr. Bremer; and then General Abizaid and now Condoleezza Rice. It seems 
to me they are making it up as it goes along and attacks are increasing 
every day inside Iraq.
  We need global allies to stabilize the situation. The administration 
continues to go it alone. Relations with our NATO allies have never 
been worse. The road map for peace in Israel and the Palestinian 
Authority has utterly broken down and the madrassas in Pakistan 
continue to churn out hate-filled youth every day.
  I intend to vote ``no'' on this bill. It is not paid for. The 
administration has to develop a plan that stands a chance of succeeding 
by engaging both the Arab world and our allies. We need a plan before 
us that is fiscally responsible and diplomatically hopeful.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
just to respond to one thing that was said here.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from Ohio made note of the fact that we 
were actually handing out cash in Iraq and wondering what the heck that 
was for and how we could account for that. I think it is worth noting 
that a couple of years ago, when I visited Mozambique after the huge, 
horrendous floods there, we found that a very creative and innovative 
way of actually providing for relief from the flood, instead of going 
around and handing out pots and pans or aluminum or wood for rebuilding 
their house, to give them actually cash and they made decisions about 
how they would use it. We gave it to the woman of the household. It 
turned out to be a very creative and innovative way of handling 
immediate kinds of relief.

                              {time}  2030

  Apparently what was creative and innovative in the previous 
administration is now a bad thing in this administration.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Watertown, 
Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy).
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, we are hearing two sides of a 
story here. On one side we are hearing doom and gloom. On the other 
side from folks like myself who have had a chance to go over to Iraq, 
we are hearing a story that there is much more progress there than the 
press is reporting. There are much greater prospects there if we just 
take the time to finish the job and invest in this country.
  And what I would like to do today to try to shed some more light on 
that is quote from an article that was e-mailed to me by a constituent, 
a Major Cepleche who is serving in Iraq. I am just going to quote an 
excerpt from the article, but I will include the whole article in the 
Record.
  What it says is: ``Over 3 months after a formal declaration of an end 
to hostilities, the occupation is bogged down. Fanatical elements of 
the former . . . regime who, in their zeal to liberate their nation 
from the foreign occupiers . . . continue to commit almost-daily acts 
of sabotage against an already-ravaged infrastructure, and attack 
American troops.'' It also says that many complain of a lack of 
security, that in the wake of the budding disaster, some have called 
for more international participation in peacekeeping.
  It goes on to say: ``. . . It's time to ask whether the people are 
better off now than they were a few months ago. Yes, a brutal dictator 
has been deposed, but at least the electricity and water supply were 
mostly working.'' It says: ``Many have criticized flawed intelligence 
for our failure,'' and finally says: ``Without this man that they told 
us was such a great threat to America, how can they even claim that 
this war was justified?''
  Mr. Chairman, this sounds like a lot of the things that are being 
said here today by some others talking tonight, but this was really a 
1945 article that Reuters wrote about Germany during the time of 
America's reconstruction of Germany. We all know that Germany was a 
success. It was a success because America's troops were there to bring 
stability and security because we invested through the Marshall Plan in 
reconstructing Germany. If we think about Germany in the 50 years 
before 1945 that helped contribute to starting two world wars that 
caused millions of deaths, in the 50 years since then they have been a 
great friend, a supporter, and have brought prosperity and peace to the 
region.
  We are well ahead of Germany in our reconstruction of Iraq in so many 
important variables such as naming a cabinet, such as reforming the 
currency and so many other things. Reforming Iraq, having a democratic 
government there and an open economy can transform that region; and 
that will not only be a great benefit to that region but a great 
benefit to our security here a home. Let us continue America's proud 
tradition of reforming as we did in Germany and Japan and continue on 
in Iraq; and I am confident that when we look back in a decade or two 
from now, we will be proud of the work that we are authorizing here 
today. I encourage support of the amendment.

                     [From Reuters, Aug. 12, 1945]

           Administration in Crisis Over Burgeoning Quagmire

       Washington.--President Truman, just a few months into his 
     young presidency, is coming under increasing fire from some 
     Congressional Republicans for what appears to be a 
     deteriorating security situation in occupied Germany, with 
     some calling for his removal from office.
       Over three months after a formal declaration of an end to 
     hostilities, the occupation is bogged down. Fanatical 
     elements of the former Nazi regime who, in their zeal to 
     liberate their nation from the foreign occupiers, call 
     themselves members of the Werwolf (werewolves) continue to 
     commit almost-daily acts of sabotage against Germany's 
     already-ravaged infrastructure, and attack American troops. 
     They have been laying road mines, poisoning food and water 
     supplies, and setting various traps, often lethal, for the 
     occupying forces.
       It's not difficult to find antagonism and anti-Americanism 
     among the population--many complain of the deprivation and 
     lack of security. There are thousands of homeless refugees, 
     and humanitarian efforts seem confused and inadequate.
       In the wake of the budding disaster, some have called for 
     more international participation in peacekeeping.
       A Red Cross official said that, ``. . . the German people 
     will be more comfortable if their conquerors weren't now 
     their overlords. It makes it difficult to argue that this 
     wasn't an imperialistic war when the occupying troops in the 
     western sector are exclusively American, British and 
     French.''
       The administration, of course, claims that, given the chaos 
     of the recent war, such a situation is to be expected, and 
     that things will improve with time. As to the suggestion to 
     internationalize the occupying forces, the administration had 
     no official comment, but an unofficial one was a repetition 
     of the quote from General McAuliffe, when asked to surrender 
     in last winter's Battle of the Bulge--``Nuts.''
       In an attempt to minimize the situation, a White House 
     spokesman pointed out that the casualties were extremely 
     light, and militarily inconsequential, particularly when 
     compared to the loss rates prior to VE Day. Also, the attacks 
     seem to be dying down with each passing month. But this 
     statement was leaped upon by some as heartless, trivializing 
     the deaths and injuries of young American men.
       Many critics back in Washington seem now to be prescient 
     with their previous warnings of just such an outcome a little 
     over a year ago.
       One congressman said that ``. . . It's time to ask whether 
     the German people are better off now than they were a few 
     months ago. Yes, a brutal dictator has been deposed, but at 
     least the electricity and water supply were mostly working, 
     and the trains running on time. After years of killing them 
     and destroying their infrastructure with American bombs, it 
     seems to me that the German people have suffered enough 
     without the chaos that our occupation with its inadequate 
     policing, is bringing.''
       It's not clear how much support the Werwolf has among the 
     populace, who may be afraid to speak their true minds, given 
     the fearfully overwhelming ``Allied'' presence in the 
     country. But it is possible that, like the guerrilla forces 
     themselves, the people have been inspired by Propaganda 
     Minister Josef Goebbels' pre-victory broadcasts, and those of 
     Radio Werwolf.
       ``God has given up the protection of the people . . . Satan 
     has taken command.'' Goebbels broadcast last spring. ``We 
     Werwovles consider it our supreme duty to kill, to kill and 
     to kill, employing every cunning and wile in the darkness of 
     the night, crawling, groping through towns and villages, like 
     wolves, noiselessly, mysteriously.''
       While no new broadcasts of Goebbels' voice have been heard 
     since early May, no one can be certain as to whether he is 
     alive or dead, and continuing to help orchestrate the attacks 
     and boost morale among the forces for

[[Page 24670]]

     German liberation. As long as his fate, and more importantly, 
     that of the former leader Adolf Hitler himself, remains 
     unresolved, the prospects for pacifying the brutally 
     conquered country may be dim.
       Although Grand-Admiral Donitz made a radio announcement of 
     Hitler's brave death in battle to the beleaguered German 
     people on the evening of May 1, some doubt the veracity of 
     that statement, and there has been no evidence to support it, 
     or any body identified as the former Fuehrer's. Rumors of his 
     whereabouts continue to abound, including reported sightings 
     as far away as South America, and many still believe that he 
     is hiding with the ``Edelweiss'' organization, with thousands 
     of Wehrmacht troops, in a mountain stronghold near the Swiss 
     border.
       Many have criticized flawed intelligence for our failure to 
     find him, causing some, in the runup to next year's 
     congressional elections, to call for an investigation.
       A staffer of one prominent Senator said, ``For months, 
     starting last fall, we were told by this administration that 
     Hitler would make a last stand in a `National Redoubt' in 
     Bavaria. General Bradley diverted troops to the south and let 
     the Russians take Berlin on the basis of this knowledge. But 
     now we find out that there was no such place, and that Hitler 
     was in Berlin all along. And now we're told that we can't 
     even be sure of where he is, or whether he's alive or dead.''
       For many, marching in the streets with signs of ``No Blood 
     For Soviet Socialism,'' and ``It's All About The Coal,'' this 
     merely confirmed that the administration had other agendas 
     than its stated one, and that the war was unjustified and 
     unjustifiable.
       General Bradley's staff has protested that this is an 
     unfair criticism--that the strategic decision made by General 
     Eisenhower was driven by many factors, of which Hitler's 
     whereabouts was a minor one, but this hasn't silenced the 
     critics, some of whom have bravely called for President 
     Truman's impeachment, despite the fact that most of these 
     decisions were made even before he became president in April.
       But some have taken the criticism further, and say that 
     failure to get Hitler means a failed war itself.
       ``Sure, it's nice to have released all those people from 
     the concentration camps, but we were told we were going to 
     war against Hitler, even though he'd done nothing to us,'' 
     argued one concerned anti-war Senator. ``Now they say that we 
     have `Victory in Europe,' but it seems to me that if they 
     can't produce the man we supposedly went to war against, it's 
     a pretty hollow victory. Without this man that they told us 
     was such a great threat to America, how can even they claim 
     that this war was justified?''

  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 (Mr. 
Kingston) having assumed the chair, Mr. Shimkus, 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.

                          ____________________