[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 18]
[House]
[Pages 24882-24903]
[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}  1231


                     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. LaTourette in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday, 
October 15, two hours and nine minutes remained in debate.
  The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) has 53 minutes remaining, and 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 1 hour and 16 minutes 
remaining.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. What I was going to do was just announce the time remaining.
  In addition, I would announce that once we have completed this time 
of general debate under the unanimous consent agreement of yesterday, 
we would then rise and reconvene under the rule for an additional 1 
hour of general debate as provided by the rule on the bill.
  At this point then, I will begin the debate.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished 
chairman for yielding time to me, and I rise just to make one point to 
my colleagues and friends, and that is, to compare what we are being 
asked to do today with what we have done since I have been in this 
Congress for 17 years.
  Mr. Chairman, President Bush, with the strong support of both parties 
and both bodies, agreed to commit us to end the reign of Saddam Hussein 
in Iraq and to aid in removing the Taliban in Afghanistan, and we 
committed to that effort with a great vote in both bodies. This is much 
like what happened during the previous 8 years under President Clinton 
when he requested us to deploy our troops 38 times in 8 years.
  I want to call the attention of my colleagues to the fact that in the 
previous 40 years, from 1950 to 1990, all the Presidents combined 
deployed our troops 10 times. In the 8 years from 1991 until 1999, 
2000, largely under President Clinton, our troops were deployed 38 
times. One of those deployments, actually under President Bush, Senior, 
in Desert Storm, was actually reimbursed $51 billion from our allies. 
In the other 37 deployments, Mr. Speaker, this Congress, largely 
controlled by the Republican party, gave President Clinton the money 
that he needed for every deployment.
  Let us look at some of those deployments. They were in Somalia, East 
Timor, Macedonia, Cambodia, Colombia, Bosnia. In fact, Mr. Speaker, 
here is the irony of what we are debating today. Eleven times we have 
approved supplementals in the 1990s for President Clinton, after the 
fact, to reimburse our military for the costs that we spent for the 
deployments that he got us into, 11 supplementals.
  In addition, Mr. Chairman, we cut our Defense budget so bad that 
Democrats and Republicans on this floor restored $43 billion over 6 
years that had to be put in because those moneys went from our military 
budget to subsidize the deployments.
  What did we deploy in the 1990s? Let us see, Mr. Chairman. We 
subsidized troops from other countries and Kosovo and Bosnia and 
Macedonia. We paid for OSCE inspectors. We built hundreds of schools. 
Mr. Chairman, during the 1990s, under President Clinton, this Congress 
built hundreds of schools. In fact, we did more than build hundreds of 
schools. We trained police forces. We trained and equipped local police 
forces. In fact, Mr. Chairman, we used taxpayer money to send fire 
trucks to Sarajevo. We paid for fire equipment. We rebuilt countries. 
In fact, in addition, we started small business loans.
  All of these things were done with 11 supplementals for the 37 
deployments that President Clinton got us into, but Mr. Chairman, there 
is one difference. President Clinton never came up to us in advance and 
said this is what it is going to cost. He simply put the troops in 
harm's way. He started the process of building the schools, training 
the police departments and doing all the

[[Page 24883]]

other nation-building work, and then came to us and said to the 
Congress, you find the money. So $43 billion of that money came out of 
our Defense budget and we had to replace it.
  In addition to that, we spent 10s of billions of dollars of 
supplemental money through 11 supplemental bills which were supported 
with the Republican party in control.
  Mr. Chairman, there is an inconsistency here. I did not hear my 
colleagues saying back in Bosnia we were told we would be out in 
December 1996, that it should be a loan. We have now spent $25 billion 
in Bosnia. We are still there. Where is the loan request? Where was the 
loan request from the Bosnian government? Where was the loan request 
from Kosovo? Where was the loan request from Macedonia, from East 
Timor, from Colombia?
  This Congress supported Democratic President Bill Clinton, and I 
think this Congress has an obligation. I think this Congress has an 
obligation to be consistent. We as Republicans supported the funding 
through 11 supplementals to pay for those same items that President 
Bush has asked for here, and if we total up the amount of money of 
these 37 supplementals, it is far in excess of what we are talking 
about with this bill. The difference is we have been asked to approve 
it in advance. In every other case, in the 1990s, it was done after the 
fact.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I have great respect for the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon). I probably will vote the way he is going to 
vote on this, but does my colleague recall, I think it was 1999, the 
sense of congress resolution supporting the troops in Kosovo, if I am 
not mistaken, my good friend voted no on that. So as my colleague 
thinks about my colleagues on this side expressing reservation, I hope 
we are not labeled anything other than patriots that he and I am.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I will remind my colleague 
I was the one who took 11 Members of Congress, including five from his 
side, to Vienna, and the reason was, we did not disagree with the 
actions against Milosevic. We felt we had not put enough pressure on 
Russia, and in going to Vienna, and my colleague can ask the gentleman 
from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. 
Sanders), and the gentleman can ask the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. 
Corrine Brown), we wrote the plan that became the basis of the G-8 
agreement to end the war. If we had brought Russia in earlier, we could 
have avoided much of that.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will further yield, did the 
gentleman vote against that resolution?
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Reclaiming my time, I supported removing 
Milosevic.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), the ranking member on the 
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, the $87 billion supplemental request, in its present 
form, is profoundly flawed, and if it is not improved by responsible 
amendments, among them one I have proposed, I will reluctantly oppose 
it.
  I take a backseat to no one when it comes to support of our Nation's 
defense and our intelligence community, but I believe there are better 
options to support our troops and rebuild Iraq, while respecting the 
American taxpayer in the process.
  Simply put, the plan that Congress is being asked to fund is not 
ready for prime time. Our troops, our veterans and America's families 
deserve better.
  Among my concerns are deficiencies in prewar intelligence that have 
not been acknowledged by the administration, let alone fixed. If our 
intelligence is flawed, our forces presently in Iraq are at risk, and 
our predictions about threats posed by other hot spots like Iran and 
North Korea will lack credibility.
  Second, we have only belatedly reached out to those with extensive 
experience in stabilization and reconstruction. Iraq is the sixth such 
rebuilding effort in a decade; yet lessons learned from earlier 
experiences have been largely ignored.
  Third, we are at best limping along in our quest for an international 
reconstruction strategy, one that restores wealth to the Iraqi people 
and enjoys the support of the United Nations and other countries 
capable of contributing to a successful result.
  Fourth, by sending forward a second emergency funding request, the 
President has again bypassed the annual budgeting process and its 
critical constraints.
  Fifth, we owe it to our veterans to fully fund their needs. My 
amendment would do this in the context of a balanced budget framework.
  Mr. Chairman, the United States has a moral obligation to finish the 
job in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, and I support finishing the 
job, but we must not provide this administration or any other with a 
blank check.
  Mr. Chairman, the $87 billion supplemental request in its present 
form is profoundly flawed--and if it is not improved by amendment on 
the House floor, I intend to oppose it.
  I take a back seat to no one when it comes to my support of our 
Nation's defense and our intelligence community. But I believe there 
are better ways to support our troops and rebuild Iraq while respecting 
the American taxpayer in the process.
  Simply put, the plan that Congress is being asked to fund is not 
ready for prime time. Our troops, our veterans and America's families 
deserve better.
  Members of this body rightly have complained about the Bush 
administration's lack of a sustainable strategy for Iraq and the lack 
of a sincere attempt to explain the supplemental's details.
  The failure to spend funds wisely in Iraq and Afghanistan is already 
having a profound effect on our fighting men and women there. Earlier 
this week newspapers reported that ceramic inserts for soldiers' flak 
jackets--to be paid for with $300 million already appropriated--still 
have not been delivered and might not arrive until December. This is 
irresponsible. U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are targets of daily 
attacks; wearing the inserts is literally a matter of life and death 
should they be hit by assault rifle fire.
  I also have serious concerns about our policy going forward.
  First, deficiencies in pre-war intelligence have not been 
acknowledged by the Administration, let alone fixed. If our 
intelligence is flawed, our forces are at risk. And our predictions 
about threats posed by other hot spots like Iran and North Korea will 
lack credibility. This supplemental does nothing to fix these problems.
  Second, we have only belatedly reached out for those Americans with 
extensive experience in stabilization and reconstruction. Iraq is the 
sixth such rebuilding effort in a decade. Yet, lessons learned from 
earlier experiences have been largely ignored.
  Third, we are at best limping along in our quest for an international 
reconstruction strategy--one that restores wealth to the Iraqi people 
and enjoys the support of the United Nations and other countries 
capable of contributing to a successful result.
  Fourth, by sending forward a second emergency funding request and 
demanding that the crisis requires its immediate passage, the President 
has bypassed the annual budgeting process and its fiscal constraints. 
It is even more troubling in this case since the Administration 
resisted for months the call for openness and honesty about the true 
costs of managing post-war Iraq.
  Fifth, we owe it to our veterans and those soldiers returning from 
the war on terrorism to fully fund the benefits to which they are 
entitled--and to make up the $1.8 billion shortfall in health care 
funding in the fiscal year 2004 VA-HUD bill.
  Since 9/11, I have called for a wartime budget that would fully fund 
the war on terror as well as reconstruction and stabilization in Iraq 
within a balanced budget framework. Americans are prepared to make hard 
and responsible choices. Every previous war has been paid for by the 
generation that fought it, and not by saddling our children and 
grandchildren with mountains of debt.
  The United States has a moral obligation to finish the job in Iraq, 
Afghanistan and elsewhere--and I support finishing that job.
  To this end, I would support, as I believe many other Members would, 
an incremental approach to the supplemental package--one that provides 
funding in installments and only after certain benchmarks and 
milestones are met.

[[Page 24884]]

  But I am not prepared to provide this Administration with another 
blank check.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, at this time my next speaker is 
detained, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire how much time is remaining on 
each side?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 74\1/4\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) has 48 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I stand behind our men and women in 
uniform who are sacrificing so much for their country in Iraq. Most 
importantly, I want to ensure that our troops receive the resources 
they need. In my view, this bill underfunds the immediate needs of the 
military, leaving the men and women serving there in a vulnerable 
position.
  This bill is a belated and a poorly-planned attempt to provide 
resources for a thinly-sketched occupation force and a laundry list of 
economic development projects that seem well beyond the scope of 
reconstruction. The administration needs to provide Congress with a 
more detailed and comprehensive reconstruction plan before we authorize 
an explosive increase in taxpayer dollars in Iraq.
  The military phase of the campaign has been over since May; yet the 
agencies formally charged with delivering foreign aid have taken a 
backseat to the Pentagon. Foreign aid is and should be the 
responsibility of the State Department. Their people are trained for 
it. It is time we let our men and women in the military focus on the 
security side of the effort and let them hand off efforts like getting 
water and electricity to the Iraqi people to the experts at the State 
Department and USAID.
  The Congress should not give the President a blank check. Congress 
needs specifics on important questions, the projected duration of the 
U.S. military occupation in Iraq, the estimate of the total cost of 
military operations and reconstruction, the schedule to restore basic 
services to the Iraqi people, the plan for withdrawal of American 
forces, and when will we begin to significantly share the burden with 
our allies.
  I am worried that greed may trump patriotism in Iraq. The President 
has chosen to conduct this process behind closed doors and by awarding 
no-bid contracts to friendly companies, with so much room for corporate 
abuse. I believe this process should mirror the historic Marshall Plan, 
which was conducted in a transparent way, under the authority of 
foreign aid experts at the State Department, with open bidding for 
contracts.
  The President and others have compared our efforts in Iraq to the 
Marshall Plan. I believe we should aspire to that historic 
reconstruction effort. Let us be clear; this is not the Marshall Plan. 
The Marshall Plan was not an unconditional grant from America's 
taxpayers, nor was it a blank check.
  This plan is packed with a laundry list of projects that lack 
accountability. We can do better. We owe it to the Iraqi people. Most 
importantly, we owe it to those young men and women who are putting 
their lives on the line every single day.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that the 
gentleman from Wisconsin has substantially more time, I wonder if he 
would be willing to go ahead with additional speakers.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, when President Bush told the American 
people he was against nation-building, no one, including myself, 
thought he was talking about America.
  Let me begin at the outset by making very clear my support for our 
valiant soldiers who are pursuing our enemies in Afghanistan and other 
parts of the world and are securing the peace in Iraq.

                              {time}  1245

  The bill before us today, just as it ignites the Iraqi economy and 
keeps Iraqi kids out of more debt, it costs our American grandchildren 
and great, great grandchildren more long-term debt while America 
herself crumbles.
  This bill's priorities are wrong, Mr. Chairman. There is plenty of 
money in here for Iraqi health care but not one dime of the $1.8 
billion American veterans need for their health care, which the 
majority in this Congress seem hell bent on ignoring. Why is that?
  The White House will not fund the No Child Left Behind education 
initiative, but we are supposed to pay Iraqi teachers' salaries. Why is 
that?
  The President wants $856 million to upgrade three Iraqi airports, a 
seaport, and rail lines, while Amtrak is starved for funds in this 
country, and our ports remain vulnerable to attack. Why is that?
  The White House has a paltry underfunded proposal for road building 
here at home, but wants to spend millions building roads and bridges 
elsewhere. Why is that?
  The President wiped out the COPS program here at home, and now he 
wants to pay more than $3 billion for Iraqi law enforcement. Why is 
that?
  The priorities are all skewed. Let us support our troops, but not 
with this $87 billion Iraqi economy rebuilding measure.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, one of the most relevant 
facts about this debate was in The New York Times a couple of days ago. 
The Republicans, who are putting together a prescription drug bill, 
plan to institute a copayment for people receiving home health care. 
The frailest and the poorest in our society, elderly people who are 
unable to perform basic functions and stay in their own homes, and who 
get help from very low-paid workers, will now, according to the 
Republican plan, if it becomes law, be forced to pay out of their 
meager incomes hundreds of dollars a year for this basic service.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania who spoke before said that during the 
Clinton administration, he made a rather partisan speech, but he said 
during the Clinton administration we also had to make some payments. 
Yes, but at that time we were not trying to cut taxes for millionaires.
  When the Committee on Rules refused to allow the amendment of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin, which would have paid for this by undoing the 
great tax relief that is coming to a handful of very wealthy people in 
this country, they posed a very stark choice to this House: vote the 
$87 billion and have it come out of home health care for the elderly; 
have it come out of the Environmental Protection Administration.
  I have a Superfund site in the district I represent where EPA has 
shut down the work because they cannot afford it. So, yes, there are 
plenty of us prepared to meet our obligations, but not by either adding 
to the hundreds of billions of debt we already face or by cutting back 
on basic needs.
  So if this leadership in the House would allow this House to vote to 
assess a fair taxation on the richest people in this country instead of 
promising them additional hundreds of billions of tax relief, we would 
avoid the terrible choices they have forced the House to make.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens).
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I hope we are not exporting to Iraq the kind 
of democracy which would allow a minute and a half only for a 
Representative of more than 650,000 people to speak. We need more time 
to excuse how we are going to spend $87 billion. We have enough money 
for our troops to last until next spring. What is the hurry?
  Sixty percent of the American people are against this $87 billion 
blank check to an administration that has mismanaged the war against 
terrorism. Sixty percent. I speak for the majority here. The American 
people want us to

[[Page 24885]]

issue a mandated RFP to Secretary Rumsfeld and the White House: give a 
proposal that makes more sense. We have better proposals that we can 
put on the table for the expenditure of $87 billion.
  What could this Nation do with the energy, the brainpower, and the 
billions of dollars being invested in the great deadly blunder in Iraq? 
That is what it is, a great deadly blunder. That is what we have done 
in Iraq. We have put all of our energy, all of our money, all of our 
effort into a place where we will not increase the safety of the 
American people; we will not fight terrorism appropriately.
  With this kind of huge giveaway package, the American people could 
have more effective initiatives to eliminate terrorism. We could have 
more money going to Pakistan, for instance, where we have a battle in 
that country for the hearts and minds of people. We have half the 
population on our side, half not; but we are not giving them billions 
of dollars to win the war for democracy in Pakistan.
  With this kind of package, how can we strengthen the homeland 
defenses, our ports and the number of areas that are still vulnerable? 
This is a great waste, and the American people know it. The majority 
say no, and I am with the majority.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon), who is a member of 
the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for 
yielding me this time, and I rise in support of the war on terror and 
the President's $87 billion supplemental request in funding this war.
  Mr. Chairman, while the previous administration chose to often 
treatment the acts of terrorism foisted against the American people as 
mere criminal proceedings, President Bush has taken strong action in 
fully addressing these acts for what they are. They are acts of war 
against the American Nation, not simply a crime, but acts of terror 
which demand full and swift and final military action.
  It is unfortunate that the $20 billion in this budget request 
appropriated for rebuilding Iraq has been shamelessly and unnecessarily 
politicized by those seeking political gain at the expense of true and 
lasting peace. The stability of Iraq is directly related to America's 
long-term security interests. If we fail to establish a safe and secure 
Iraq, then we allow Iraq to possibly return to a country that serves 
the purposes of terror, and we enable it to become an incubator for 
future terrorist acts.
  Some may wonder why U.S. taxpayers should be asked to pay for water 
projects, health care facilities, and public schools. We have heard 
repeatedly from commanders in the field that this type of funding is 
critical if we are going to be able to achieve stability in this 
region. We must not allow Iraq to revert to becoming a homeland for 
terrorists.
  Another important point is the simple fact that we have spent over 
$14 billion over the last 10 years containing Iraq. It is not a choice 
of spending the money or not spending the money; it is a choice of 
whether we do the right thing or the wrong thing here.
  Not 2 years ago, a terrorist group inflicted terrible damage on the 
American people through the acts of 9-11. This was a huge humanitarian 
tragedy, but as well a $2 trillion impact on our economy. This $87 
billion funding request is dwarfed by the negative economic impact of 
the toll of 9-11.
  Some may argue that the $20 billion should be loaned to Iraq. Sending 
this money as a loan rather than as a grant, I feel very strongly, 
would be very shortsighted. Did we not learn anything from World War I? 
The Treaty of Versailles saddled Germany with a significant debt, 
eventually setting the stage for the rise of an authoritarian regime 
under Adolf Hitler and ultimately ushering in World War II. Conversely, 
at the end of World War II, America's leaders established the Marshall 
Plan, a plan that ushered in decades of economic prosperity and peace 
for the region of Europe.
  Ambassador Bremer testified on September 22 that Iraq has almost $200 
billion in debt and reparations hanging over its head right now. This 
idea of saddling them with additional debt, I think, is wrong and very 
misguided; and we should support the President's request and support 
this motion.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Lewis).
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, in good conscience I cannot and 
will not support President Bush's misled, failed policy.
  I did not vote for going to war, I did not vote to put our young 
people in harm's way, and I will not be a party to financing this war. 
This administration has been hell bent from day one to have a war with 
Iraq, and they have stopped at nothing to get it. Their record on Iraq 
is one of secrecy, deceit, and fear-mongering.
  They deceived Members of Congress, the American people, and the 
community of nations. They told us that Saddam had ties to al Qaeda, 
that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, that oil from Iraq would pay 
to rebuild Iraq. I am sick and tired of lies, and I am sick and tired 
of war and killing and hatred and violence.
  People are dying. For what? And while our troops and their families 
sacrifice, corporate America is getting rich. These war profiteers are 
making money off the blood and toil of our soldiers and the people of 
Iraq. Halliburton. Bechtel Jacobs.
  It is time to stop the madness. It is time to hold President Bush 
accountable for his words and his deeds. I cannot and will not be a 
party to this war. I will not vote for $87 billion for more violence, 
for more killing, for more war.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola).
  Mr. CHOCOLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise today in support of the supplemental.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not think the case for support of this 
supplemental can be made any better than by a young woman I met in Iraq 
recently. Recently, I was in the town of Tikrit, Saddam Hussein's 
hometown; and I met a young woman who is a private in the Marines. I 
asked her, as we were having dinner with several other soldiers, what 
would you like me to tell people when I go back home?
  And she said what I want the people at home to understand is that I 
am here in harm's way. I am here because I want to protect my family at 
home and my country at home. She went on to explain that if we are 
successful in this effort, Iraq will become a free, democratic, 
prosperous society that will be a model for the Middle East; and it 
will have ripple effects of stability and peace and security not only 
through the Middle East but all over the world. And she said if we do 
not succeed, Iraq will become the home of terrorists and radical 
Islamists and jihadists that will export hate, murder, and violence all 
over the world.
  So, Mr. Chairman, this is an issue that is much bigger than $87 
billion; it is much bigger than the people of Iraq. It is about the 
future of the Middle East; it is about the future of our globe and 
having the opportunity to bring much stronger stability all over the 
world, which will protect every single American at home. So, Mr. 
Chairman, I strongly encourage every Member of this body to support the 
supplemental of $87 billion.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Wynn).
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Some would have us believe that today's vote is just about supporting 
our troops, about promoting democracy, and about helping the people of 
Iraq. Look, I voted for the use of force in Iraq. I support the troops, 
and I believe we should rebuild Iraq. But it is not quite that simple. 
We need to do this in the right way.
  The real issue is the credibility of the Bush administration, the 
accountability of this administration; but most importantly, the real 
issue is protecting the American people.
  We went to war on bad intelligence without our allies. We were either 
deliberately misled, misled by ineptness,

[[Page 24886]]

or we have had a massive intelligence failure. We did the right thing, 
but we did it for the wrong reasons.
  Secretary Rumsfeld tell us, oh, we will be greeted as heroes and 
liberators to mask the fact they had no plan. Secretary Wolfowitz said, 
do not worry about reconstruction, Iraq is a country rich in natural 
resources and oil reserves, and they can pay for their own 
reconstruction, which brings us to today's debate.

                              {time}  1300

  This grant should be a loan to the Iraqi people. We should not be 
giving this money away. Interestingly, despite the Halliburton 
controversy, the Republican administration has refused to unbundle 
these contracts so small businesses could participate, so that women 
and minority businesses could participate. Then they say, we're going 
to give this money away. The fact of the matter is while we are giving 
money to Iraq, Iraq will be paying back grants to Russia and Germany 
for loans that they got from those countries. This smells.
  Other countries know that America has contributed both in cash and in 
blood. The fact of the matter is if the problem is debt in Iraq, what 
about the debt in the United States, the $500 billion that this 
administration has put on the American people? Our schools are 
crumbling, our streets are crumbling, and we do not have prescription 
drug benefits for our seniors. We need to protect the American public. 
This program should be a loan. Enough is enough. Let us vote ``no'' on 
this ill-conceived proposal.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the very 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), a member of 
the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I listened intently to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) yesterday in his opening remarks. Many of the 
things he said were true. And then I listened to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) on the Defense appropriations committee and 
many of the things he said were true and I agree with. One of those 
things is it is time to get our kids home.
  Many of us have served in combat and away from our families. I was 
critical of President Clinton, 216 deployments, and our kids were 
tired. Our equipment was getting worn out. And it was time to get our 
kids home to be with their families. But now it is also approaching the 
same thing under President Bush in the amount of time that our people 
are gone. The only way to get them home is to stabilize Iraq and 
Afghanistan and that is what the President's goal is. I have been with 
the President. I have seen him get teary when he talks about the losses 
that we have of our men and women overseas and the principles that he 
is guided upon that my mother and dad, who were Democrats, talked about 
the reach for freedom and outreach to the rest of the world. I believe 
those words, not just from my mother and father, but fought for them.
  When you talk about the loans, if you want to end up going through 
the World Bank, we only have an 18 percent vote. Do we want France and 
Germany and Russia controlling where our dollars go? If you have a 
grant, it is going to be harder for them to ask us to forgive our loan. 
Instead, they will have to forgive their loans of billions of dollars. 
That also includes Kuwait. I think we need to give freedom a chance 
there.
  And if you do not think that this does not affect our economy, I 
wanted to look at loans. I said, why can't Iraq, after they get 
reconstructed and stable, sell the United States oil at two bucks a 
barrel less? It sounded like a good idea. But I have heard many from 
the left talk about the only reason we went there was the oil, and you 
know that many of the Arabs feel that that is why we went there as 
well. But if you do take a look, if we have a steady flow of oil coming 
into the United States, look at the gas pumps today. When you talk 
about the low- and middle-income folks, how are they affected 
negatively with energy costs, getting in their cars? We saw the 
truckers that were here in this Capitol protesting because they were 
going out of business because of energy costs. By stabilizing that part 
of the world, when they do become solvent, we have got a steady flow of 
oil. And they are part of OPEC, but when OPEC starts messing around 
with the United States like they have in the past, I think we are going 
to have a loud voice in support of the United States, so I think it 
will affect our economy. I rise in support.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, my 
remarks are directed to the staffers of all of those Members on the 
Democratic side of the aisle who have asked us for time on this bill. 
Our dilemma is we now have about 40 people on the list. Only two of 
them are in the Chamber. If they do not want to lose their time, I 
would suggest that some of them come to the Chamber now or they are 
going to lose their time forever.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. McDermott).
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I am here to vote ``no'' on a blank 
check for Mr. Bush. This is only the latest funding request. We heard 
earlier it is going to take another $120 billion. They are already 
putting the figure out here. They are floating it. Nothing has changed. 
The same Secretary of War, the same Secretary of State, the same 
Security Council, the same plan, the same viceroy. It is all the same. 
The President is still going alone. And as he goes alone, he is 
excluding the Congress. But now he has put out a PR push, and he is 
saying if we just had some better stories, why, it would not look so 
bad over there.
  Mr. Chairman, I submit for printing in the Congressional Record the 
article by Maureen Dowd called ``Bewitched, Bothered, Billy-Goated'' 
and the article ``War Without End'' from The Guardian of October 13.

              [From the New York Times, October 16, 2003]

                   Bewitched, Bothered, Billy-Goated

                           (By Maureen Dowd)

       Washington--I'm not sure I should use the poor schlub's 
     name. ESPN has used it, and The Chicago Sun-Times. but given 
     all the Cubs fans who hurled beer and debris and bleeped 
     epithets at the guy and screamed, ``Kill him!'' and, ``You 
     can tell we're better than Boston or he'd be dead already!'' 
     it might be as dangerous to print the name of the accursed 
     26-year-old who fouled up with that foul ball as it would be 
     to print the name of a C.I.A. spy.
       You had to feel sorry for the terrified persona-non-Cubbie 
     when his own dad refused to confirm that he was related to 
     him.
       On the cusp of Halloween, we are possessed with curses, 
     hexes and jinxes. Superstitions about a black cat, a billy 
     goat, a bambino and now, a Cub fan's mano morto. It is also 
     the season of the witch in politics. America's First Baseball 
     Fans, the former and current Presidents Bush, have their own 
     historical jinx with the land of Nebuchadnezzar: you might 
     call it the curse of Nebuchabunkport.
       As soon as the Bushes think they've got Iraq subdued, it 
     flares up and foils them--turning victory sour and sending 
     saintly poll numbers wobbly. Every time the Bushes think 
     they've licked Saddam--who modeled himself on Nebuchadnezzar, 
     the dictator who built palaces and stored arms in the Iraqi 
     desert 2,600 years ago--he comes back to haunt them.
       The president has tried to shake off the curse with a P.R. 
     push to circumvent the national media and get smaller news 
     outlets to do sunny stories about Iraq.
       The P.R. campaign shamelessly included bogus cheerful form 
     letters sent to newspapers, supposedly written by soldiers in 
     Iraq. It also entailed sweetening up the official Web site of 
     the United States Central Command. Until recently, the site 
     offered a mix of upbeat stories and accounts of casualties 
     and setbacks. Now it's a litany of smiley postings, like 
     ``Soldiers host orphans in Mosul'' and ``Ninevah Province 
     schools benefit from seized Iraqi assets.'' You have to go to 
     a different page for casualty reports.
       Mr. Bush said in interviews that he wanted to ``go over the 
     heads of the filter and speak directly with the people'' 
     because there was a ``sense that people in America aren't 
     getting the truth.''
       He is right that there has been a filter that has made it 
     hard for Americans--and even Congress--to get the truth on 
     Iraq, but it isn't the press. It's an administration that 
     comically thinks when it hauls out Dick Cheney to say in his 
     condescending high school principal voice that 2 + 2 = 5 
     we'll buy it.
       The vice president hasn't come up with W.M.D., Osama or 
     Saddam. But he says we have uncovered a video of Saddam 
     letting two Doberman pinchers eat one of his generals alive 
     because he didn't trust him. Oh, that's worth $87 billion, 
     the Iraqi version of ``When Good Pets Go Bad.''

[[Page 24887]]

       On Monday, Representative George Nethercutt Jr., a 
     Republican from Washington State who visited Iraq, chimed in 
     to help the White House: ``The story of what we've done in 
     the postwar period is remarkable. It is a better and more 
     important story than losing a couple of soldiers every day.'' 
     The congressman puts the casual back in casualty.
       It would be a lot easier to heed good news as well as bad 
     if Bush officials hadn't assured us before we invaded Iraq 
     that there would be no bad.
       First they sold the war to trusting Americans with spin, 
     and now they are trying to sell the occupation to skeptical 
     Americans with more spin.
       Greg Thielmann, the retired State Department official who 
     was a top analyst for Colin Powell on Iraq's W.M.D., told 
     ``60 Minutes II'' last night that Iraq had been so far from 
     being an imminent threat that Mr. Powell's speech making that 
     case at the U.N. was ``probably one of the low points in his 
     long, distinguished service to the nation.''
       The Bush team prepared the ground for American doubt; they 
     told us to expect a fairy tale and now resent the fact that 
     we refuse to treat it like one.
       The fundamental problem for the Bush administration is that 
     it is endlessly propounding a contradiction: Wanting us to 
     worry that we are battling for our lives against the 
     terrorists, and wanting us to stop worrying about the state 
     of the battle.
       Everything is wrong, and nothing is wrong. We are trapped 
     in the Bush illogic. Call It our curse.
                                  ____


                 [From the Guardian, October 13, 2003]

            War Without End; A Catalogue of Killings in Iraq

       May 8, US soldier shot dead by unknown assailant while 
     directing traffic in Baghdad.
       May 13, US soldier killed when convoy ambushed near 
     Diwaniya.
       May 26, vehicle hits landmine in Baghdad killing one 
     soldier and injuring three.
       May 26, soldier killed and another wounded as convoy comes 
     under enemy fire near Haditha.
       May 27, Two US soldiers killed and nine wounded in attack 
     on army unit in Falluja. Two attackers killed, six captured.
       May 29, US soldier killed travelling on supply route.
       June 3, US soldier killed at checkpoint south of Balad.
       June 5, US soldier killed and five injured in rocket-
     propelled grenade attack in Falluja.
       June 7, US soldier killed and four injured in attack near 
     Tikrit involving rocket-propelled grenade and small arms 
     fire.
       June 8, US soldier shot dead at checkpoint in al-Qaim, near 
     Syrian border, by men who had approached vehicle asking for 
     medical help. One assailant killed and one captured, but 
     others escape.
       June 10, US paratrooper killed and another injured in 
     rocket-propelled grenade attack in south-west Baghdad. They 
     were manning trash collection point when assailants got out 
     of a van and opened fire. One attacker killed.
       June 17, US soldier on patrol in Baghdad killed by sniper.
       June 18, One US soldier dies and one wounded in drive-by 
     shooting at petrol station in Baghdad.
       June 19, US soldier killed and two injured in grenade 
     attack on military ambulance in Al Iskandariya.
       June 22, One US marine killed and eight other US service 
     members injured in explosion that may have been caused by 
     bomb dropped from B-52 Stratofortress that landed near forces 
     at Godoria Range, along northern coast of Djibouti.
       June 22, US soldier killed and another injured in grenade 
     attack on military convoy south of Baghdad in Khan Azad.
       June 24, Six British military personnel killed and eight 
     wounded in two incidents in southern Iraq, both near town of 
     Amara, 125 miles north-west of Basra.
       June 26, U.S. soldier attached to 1st Marine Expeditionary 
     Force killed in ambush near Najaf while investigating car 
     theft.
       June 26, One special operations force service member killed 
     and eight injured in hostile fire incident in south-west 
     Baghdad.
       June 28, Two soldiers assigned to 3rd Battalion, 18th Field 
     Artillery Regiment, deployed from Fort Sill, Oklahoma, 
     reported missing three days earlier, found dead west of Al 
     Taji.
       June 30, Nine Iraqis, including imam, killed after 
     explosion beside mosque in Falluja. U.S. later claim it was 
     caused by a bomb-making class inside mosque.
       July 2, U.S. Army 352nd Civil Affairs Command soldier dies 
     of wounds received on previous day, after Baghdad convoy hit 
     by explosive device.
       July 3, Sniper kills U.S. soldier in Baghdad, while mortar 
     attack on American military base to north-west injures at 
     least 10.
       July 3, U.S. marine killed and three others injured during 
     mine-clearing operations in Kerbala, south of Baghdad.
       July 5, Blast kills seven Iraqi police recruits at 
     graduation ceremony in Ramadi, 60 miles west of Baghdad.
       July 6, U.S. soldier from 1st Armored Division dies of 
     gunshot wound, while guarding Baghdad University.
       July 6, Soldier of 1st Armored Division dies after platoon 
     patrolling Baghdad's Ad Hamiya neighbourhood ambushed by two 
     Iraqi gunmen.
       July 7, U.S. soldier killed when explosive device blasts 
     vehicle during routine patrol in Kadhimya neighbourhood of 
     Baghdad.
       July 13, One person killed and another injured after bomb 
     explodes near police station in Baghdad suburb.
       July 14, U.S. military convoy attacked by rocket-propelled 
     grenades and machine guns in Baghdad. One soldier killed and 
     10 others injured.
       July 16, Bomb explodes near highway west of Baghdad killing 
     U.S. soldier and injuring two others.
       July 18, Bomb attack on U.S. convoy in Falluja kills 
     soldier.
       June 19, 1st Armored Division soldier dies after small arms 
     and rocket-propelled grenade attack in Abu Ghureib 
     neighbourhood of Baghdad.
       July 20, Two U.S. soldiers killed during ambush by 
     guerrillas firing funs and rocket-propelled grenades near 
     northern city of Mosul.
       July 21, Soldier of 1st Armored Division killed and three 
     wounded after vehicle hits explosive device in As Sulaykh 
     district of Baghdad.
       July 22, U.S. soldier killed and another wounded when 
     convoy hit by rocket-propelled grenade and small arms fire 
     north-west of Baghdad.
       July 23, Soldier of 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) 
     killed and seven soldiers wounded when explosive device 
     strikes two military vehicles outside Mosul.
       July 23, Soldier of 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment killed and 
     another soldier and contractor wounded when convoy attacked 
     by explosive device on Highway 1 in Ar Ramadi.
       July 24, Three U.S. soldiers from 101st Airborne Division 
     killed in rifle and grenade attack while travelling to 
     Qayarra West outside Mosul.
       July 26, Three U.S. soldiers guarding Ba'qubah children's 
     hospital killed and four others wounded in grenade attack.
       July 26, One U.S. soldiers killed and two wounded when 
     convoy attacked with small arms, rocket-propelled grenades 
     and possibly an explosive device on Highway 10 near Abu 
     Ghureib. Three Iraqis wounded.
       July 27, U.S. soldier killed and another wounded when 
     rocket-propelled grenade hits patrol in northern Babil 
     province near village of Al Haswa.
       July 28, Explosive device dropped from overpass on to U.S. 
     convoy travelling through Al Rashid district of Baghdad, 
     killing soldier of 1st Armored Division and injuring three 
     others.
       July 30, Soldier of 4th Infantry Division killed and two 
     wounded in small arms attack at tactical operation centre 26 
     miles east of Ba'qubah.
       July 31, U.S. soldier killed and two wounded after vehicle 
     hits landmine on road to Baghdad airport.
       August 1, Soldier of 4th Infantry Division killed and three 
     injured after rocket-propelled grenade attack on convoy south 
     of Shumayt. In separate incident, soldier of 1st Armored 
     Division dies of gunshot wound received previous day in 
     Baghdad.
       August 6, Two 1st Armored Division soldiers killed and one 
     wounded in firefight in Al Rashid district of Baghdad.
       August 7, At least 17 people killed and 60 wounded when 
     truck bomb explodes outside Jordanian embassy compound in 
     Baghdad. In separate incident, 82nd Airborne Division soldier 
     shot dead on guard duty in Al Mansor district of Baghdad.
       August 10, Soldier of 4th Infantry Division killed and two 
     wounded in improvised explosive attack near police station in 
     Tikrit.
       August 12, U.S. soldier killed and two wounded in bomb 
     attack in Sunni Muslim town of Ramadi, 60 miles west of 
     Baghdad.
       August 13, Bomb attack on four-vehicle convoy south-east of 
     Tikrit kills U.S. soldier and wounds another. A further U.S. 
     soldier killed when M-113 armored personnel carrier strikes 
     explosive device near town of Ad Dwar.
       August 14, Bomb blast hits military ambulance in Basra 
     killing one British soldier and wounding two others.
       August 16, Mortar attack on Abu Ghraib prison on outskirts 
     of Baghdad kills six Iraqis and injures 59.
       August 17, Danish soldier killed in gun battle between 
     troops and group of looters in southern Iraq. Two Iraqis also 
     die. Dane is first non-U.S. or British soldier to die in 
     conflict.
       August 18, Soldier of 1st U.S. Armored Division killed by 
     explosive device in central Baghdad.
       August 19, Twenty-two people killed, including Sergio 
     Vieira de Mello, top UN envoy to Iraq, after truck bomb 
     devastates UN headquarters in Baghdad in worst attack on UN 
     civilian complex ever.
       August 20, U.S. citizen working as interpreter killed and 
     two U.S. soldiers wounded in small arms fire and rocket-
     propelled grenade attack in Tikrit. Soldiers of 1st Armored 
     Division killed and two wounded by improvised explosive 
     device in Karkah district of Baghdad.
       August 21, U.S. marine shot dead in Al Hilla by 
     unidentified gunman.
       August 23, Three British servicemen killed and another 
     wounded in Basra.

[[Page 24888]]

       August 26, Soldier of 3rd Corps Support Command killed and 
     two wounded after convoy blasted by explosive device near 
     town of Hamariya.
       August 27, Soldier of 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment soldier 
     killed and three wounded by explosive device on Falluja. 
     205th Military Intelligence Brigade soldier killed in attack 
     on military convoy in Baghdad.
       August 28, British soldier killed and another wounded 
     during attack by a crowd of Iraqis armed with rocket-
     propelled grenades and small arms in Ali al-Sharqi, 120 miles 
     northwest of Basra.
       August 29, Car bomb at Imam Ali mosque in Najaf kills at 
     least 83 people, including top Shi'ite Muslim leader, 
     Ayatollah Mohammed Baqer al-Hakim, and wounds around 175. In 
     separate rocket-propelled grenade and small arms fire attack 
     just north of As Suaydat soldier of 4th Infantry Division 
     killed and three wounded.
       August 31, Two U.S. soldiers killed and one wounded in 
     firefight five miles northeast of Shkin in Paktika province.
       September 1, Two 220th Military Police Brigade soldiers 
     killed and one wounded when vehicle strikes explosive device 
     along main supply route south of Baghdad.
       September 2, Car bomb blasts Rasafa police headquarters in 
     east Baghdad, killing one and wounding 15.
       September 3, Suicide bombing in town of Ramadi kills Iraqi 
     civilian and injures two U.S. soldiers.
       September 9, Car bomb kills one Iraqi and wounds 53, 
     including six American military personnel, in Arbil, northern 
     Iraq. In a separate incident, U.S. soldier killed and another 
     wounded after vehicle hits improvised explosive device on 
     supply route northeast of Baghdad.
       September 10, Explosive device kills soldier in 1st Armored 
     Division in Baghdad.
       September 12, Two U.S. soldiers killed and seven wounded 
     during pre-dawn raid in Ramadi, 60 miles west of Baghdad.
       September 14, U.S. soldier killed and three wounded as 
     convoy runs over bomb planted on road in Falluja.
       September 15, U.S. soldier on patrol in Baghdad killed in 
     rocket-propelled grenade attack.
       September 18, Iraqi guerrillas kill three and wound two 
     U.S. soldiers inspecting suspected weapons site near Tikrit.
       September 20, Two U.S. soldiers die and 13 are injured in 
     mortar attack on U.S.-run Abu Ghreib prison complex. 
     Elsewhere, U.S. soldier killed by roadside bomb near Ramadi.
       September 22, Suicide bomber at car park next to U.N. 
     headquarters in Baghdad kills Iraqi security guard.
       September 24, Bomb apparently aimed at U.S. troops tears 
     two buses in Baghdad, killing an Iraqi and wounding about 20. 
     Elsewhere, several injured after bomb blast in cinema in 
     Mosul.
       September 25, Bomb explodes at Baghdad's Aike hotel housing 
     journalists from U.S. television network NBC, killing a 
     Somali guard. Separately, a rocket-propelled grenade attack 
     kills U.S. soldier and wounds two others in Kirkuk.
       September 29, U.S. soldier killed in bomb and gunfire 
     attack in town of Habbaniya, about 42 miles from Baghdad.
       October 1, Bomb blast near U.S. military base in Tikrit 
     kills woman soldier and wounds three others. Elsewhere, U.S. 
     soldier killed in rocket-propelled grenade attack near town 
     of Samarra, north of Baghdad.
       October 4, Rocket-propelled grenade and gun attack on 
     American patrol in Baghdad kills one U.S. soldier and wounds 
     another.
       October 6, U.S. soldier killed and another wounded by bomb 
     attack west of Baghdad. Separately, two more U.S. soldiers 
     and Iraqi interpreter killed and two U.S. soldiers wounded in 
     bomb blast south of Baghdad.
       October 7, No casualties after blast hits compound of Iraqi 
     Foreign Ministry in Baghdad.
       October 9, Two suicide bombers kill eight Iraqis at police 
     station in Shi'ite Muslim district of Sadr City, northeast 
     Baghdad. In same area two U.S. soldiers killed and four 
     wounded in ambush. Another U.S. soldier killed in separate 
     rocket-propelled grenade attack on military convoy northeast 
     of Iraqi capital.
       October 12, At least six people killed in blast outside 
     Baghdad Hotel in city centre.

  On the article by Ms. Dowd, a Member from my State is quoted as 
saying, ``The story of what we've done in the postwar period is 
remarkable. It is a better and more important story than losing a 
couple of soldiers every day.'' The article from The Guardian is five 
pages of the names of people who continue to die in this foolish 
process. The premise was wrong of this war. The tactics were wrong in 
this war. The urgency was wrong in this war. The reasons given on the 
floor of this House for doing it were not correct. And now the 
President says, throw some more good money after bad. The answer from 
my district is ``no,'' and it ought to be from the entire Congress, 
until we have some changes in this whole plan and we have some 
explanation for what he did with the last amount.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Indiana (Ms. Carson).
  Ms. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, as I was listening to the debate 
on the other side in support of this $87 billion throwaway, I was 
reminded of a fact that a head of household would have wife and 
children and probably a grandmother in need of prescription drugs, but 
instead they would take all of their earnings and give it to their 
mistress. In this particular situation, it seems as though we have some 
mistress out there that we are going to support and not support our own 
family. When you travel back and forth by air, you hear the speaker 
come on and the lady tells you that in the event of a problem, to be 
sure you secure yourself and then if you have any opportunity, secure 
others.
  I have no doubt that this bill will pass, Mr. Chairman, but I am 
concerned about what happens to our troops. This bill, on its face, is 
purportedly supporting our troops when, in fact, we sent thousands of 
troops into Iraq unprepared, unguarded, without the proper equipment, 
without bullet vests, without food, without weapons that they needed. 
We just rushed and went to Iraq for whatever reason which still remains 
a mystery to me. The $87 billion in my opinion does not have any 
accountability or responsibility. What happened to the money that the 
Bush administration has already expended? Where is the report on that? 
We ask those with earned income tax credit to be audited. Why can we 
not audit these people who want to spend more money for this conflict 
that I could not understand why we initiated in the first place? $87 
billion is going to cost my State $1.4 billion. It is going to cost us 
$246.3 million for local and State roads and bridges which would have 
created 6,672 new jobs, 5,955 new firefighters, and health care 
coverage for 88,000 people.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English).
  Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman, sometimes great nations are called on to 
assume great responsibilities. As the greatest Nation on earth and as 
the target of fundamentalist terror on 9/11, we have been obliged to 
assume the mantle of leadership in a global war on terrorism. That 
conflict for better or for worse has brought us and brought our allies 
to Iraq and Afghanistan. We now have a fundamental obligation to 
support the aspiration of those peoples for a free society and a free 
economy. Unfortunately, the regimes that have been removed in both 
countries have left their people in such a wretched position that it 
requires an active intervention by the U.S. to restore their economic 
potential. It is our responsibility to help these peoples as much as we 
helped western Europe after World War II in the hope that they will 
join us eventually in the community of free nations.
  The part of this appropriation measure that I wish to speak to is not 
the one dealing with military expenditures. There are many of my 
colleagues who are better equipped, better qualified, to speak to that. 
Today I rise in support of the social investments and economic 
assistance which we are offering Iraq and Afghanistan, $20 billion for 
two countries devastated by decades of dictatorship.
  This appropriation finances the improvement of water resources and 
sanitation, including drinking water for millions of Iraqis. This 
appropriation measure would allow Iraq to restore much of their budget 
for the critical transportation infrastructure destroyed by the war and 
allowed to deteriorate by a rogue regime. This measure would provide 
for critical investments in civil society necessary to allow Iraqis to 
restore order. It would also rebuild Iraq's oil infrastructure and put 
its oil economy back on course.
  And, for the record, America did not go to Iraq for oil, but Iraq's 
vast oil reserves are key to its economic resurrection and a keystone 
to stability in the region. If these countries are to become bulwarks 
of freedom, resistant to the influence of Islamic fundamentalism, we 
need to give the peoples of

[[Page 24889]]

Iraq and Afghanistan the tools they need to put themselves on a sound 
footing. Iraq, in particular, has been devastated by decades of 
dictatorship and U.N. sanctions.
  Frankly, I would have preferred to be in a position of being a 
lender, extending to Iraq credits rather than direct loans in order to 
allow the use of their natural economic strengths and huge mineral 
resources to put themselves on a sound footing. Yet, so large are the 
dictator's debts against the limited revenues available, I believe what 
Iraq needs now is direct assistance, not the weight of additional IOUs. 
I hope that our allies will see their way to write down those Iraqi 
debts that they hold. Until then, we have to accept the obligation that 
springs from being a great Nation, a good neighbor and a global 
defender of freedom to support a prostrate people to give them an 
opportunity to revive their nation's fortunes.
  This vote will be one of the most important that I ever cast. It 
certainly is going to be among the most controversial. But if America 
is to truly lead by example, adhere to its principles and to assume the 
responsibility that comes with national greatness and national 
interests in every corner of the world, then we must make this 
contribution now for their sake, for ours, and for the sake of future 
generations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor).
  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I voted for the supplemental, and I voted 
for the Defense appropriations and the Defense authorization. My 
support for the troops is well-documented, and I have shown that I 
support them. But I have to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that this 
administration misinformed the American people and misinformed this 
Congress for the reasons to go to Iraq. Weapons of mass destruction, 
the nuclear plan, the chemicals, the biological, we have yet to see any 
of that. Yet, he continues to tell us a story that is not true. This 
administration miscalculated what we would do in Iraq. He said that we 
would be seen as liberators and, in fact, to date, Mr. Chairman, they 
see us as invaders. I believe that this administration and the policy 
it has towards Iraq and its construction is misguided. The plan right 
now, if there is a plan, is not working. The ghosts of Vietnam are 
around this Congress and this city. For those that talk about the 
loans, I just want to remind them that we forced the Arabian states, we 
forced Russia, France and England to give loans to the regime when they 
were in a battle with Iran.

                              {time}  1315

  It was because of our encouragement that this debt is carried by Iraq 
today.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the very 
distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), a member of the 
Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this 
time. And certainly I appreciate the leadership of the gentleman from 
California (Chairman Lewis) and the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman 
Kolbe) as this most important investment in Iraq worked its way through 
the full Committee on Appropriations. Our committee scrubbed this bill 
down and reduced it, streamlined it, built in much more accountability; 
and I think collectively Republicans and Democrats came together to do 
an important work to bring this bill to the floor, and I certainly rise 
in support of making this necessary investment.
  I also want to say over the last 3 weeks it has been an interesting 
experience for me because I began to ask questions and look at ways to 
propose an amendment to make a portion of this investment, this 
reconstruction investment, a loan as opposed to a grant. That is a long 
story that I will not try to go back through except to say that when I 
met last week face to face with the President of the United States 
about whether this investment in Iraq should be a loan or a grant and 
he explained to me that negotiations were under way, I have to say that 
today at the United Nations with the resolution that our country 
achieved, what he told us last week is coming true, and that is support 
is building among other nations for making this necessary investment 
and for liberating on a permanent basis an Arab country.
  And Iraq is a true test for freedom and opportunity for our allies 
and this great Nation, and I just want to come to the floor today to 
say, while I had differences of opinion about how to go about it, we 
need to come together as a Nation, as a people, and as a Congress on 
the fact that we must succeed in Iraq. At this point we have no choice 
but to go forward and finish what we have started. We cannot afford to 
fail; and the world must see us in a bold, successful move at this 
point in the history of the world to open up freedom in the Arab world, 
and what better place to do it than where tyranny and oppression were 
rampant.
  Years ago I was a Member of this body and came to the floor with 
concerns about President Clinton's efforts in Eastern Europe, but I 
have also said in recent weeks that I was wrong and that that 
investment that our country made in resources and danger and peril for 
our troops to remove a genocidal murderer named Slobodan Milosevic was 
a very successful and necessary effort to promote freedom and better 
secure our country and so is this mission in Iraq, and we must not 
flinch.
  We must invest the full amount. While I would love to see a portion 
of this made into a loan and I made my case and presented that 
argument; at the end of the day, those leaders in the executive branch 
in negotiations with the G-7 nations, our allies, others in the region 
from the Saudis to the Kuwaitis to the Qatars, they are talking about 
ways to write down this so-called debt; I call it bankruptcy debt. That 
debt that Saddam Hussein built up should not be payable, and I believe 
that the pressure is mounting for Germany and France and Russia and 
others to write that debt down dramatically. Ambassador Bremer told me 
that that is the goal, to have that debt written down or written off. 
And I do not want the U.S. taxpayer to invest a dime that might go to 
those other countries; and we built in conditions in this bill that 
would not allow that to happen.
  But at the end of the day the bottom line, after we weigh in and have 
this debate and make our case and stand our ground and carry out our 
constitutional responsibility, is we need to do this. Whether one 
supported it from the start or not, here is where we are today, and we 
have got to finish what we started and make the necessary investments. 
We cannot afford not to, and freedom comes with a huge price. For some 
brave Americans it is the loss of life, it is their limbs, it is going 
into harm's way on our behalf. For taxpayers, it is investments. We 
thank everyone for these investments; but the cost of freedom is high, 
very high today, but we cannot afford not to do it or invest it. We 
must finish what we started, and we must preserve our country with some 
preemptive action on the other end of the world. And I see it that way. 
I see Saddam Hussein as a threat, and terrorism is looking for a place 
to take root; and we cannot let it take root. We took decisive action, 
and now we have got to win the peace. And it is expensive, but we do 
not have any choice but to do this. And I hope everybody comes together 
to make this necessary investment.
  We are all Americans, and we are at the waterfront. Democrats and 
Republicans, we are all patriots and we are standing with our country. 
Make one's case. At end of the day, support this necessary investment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Filner).
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I represent San Diego, California, a place from which 
thousands and thousands of our troops have been sent to the war in 
Iraq. My constituents' families are personally involved in this effort 
every day, and I say to them that those who are going to vote against 
this blank check for the President are thinking about their brave sons 
and daughters. It is we who are thinking about their safety.

[[Page 24890]]

  This administration, with $79 billion that we gave them, cannot equip 
our troops with the body armor they need to survive. We have killed 
dozens of soldiers. We have maimed dozens of them because they did not 
have that body armor. What kind of an administration would do that and 
then say they support the troops? We have no accountability for what 
they did before. We have no accountability for this $87 billion that 
they are asking us to give them now. This is not what a legislative 
branch's duty is. A legislative branch is to exert co-equal control, 
co-equal influence with the executive branch; and the only way we can 
do that is through the purse strings.
  The gentleman before me said we have to keep going with what we are 
doing. Even if it is wrong, even if we have thrown in so much money, 
even if we have no plan to get out, let us keep going. I heard those 
arguments with Vietnam, and we were in a quagmire then. We are in an 
``Iraqmire'' now. And we need to turn those troops' responsibilities 
over to an international body. We need to make sure that our troops 
come home alive. We are going to have the accountability that this body 
deserves only if we vote ``no'' on this matter. And I say to my 
friends, to my families in San Diego, it is time to turn this matter 
over to the United Nations. It is time that we internationalize this 
force. It is time that we bring our troops home; and we can spend that 
$87 billion on education, on health, on our veterans here at home. Vote 
``no'' on the supplemental.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  I announce to the gentleman who just spoke that the United Nations 
has now voted unanimously to agree to the resolution offered by the 
United States of America on the issue of Iraq.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Paul).
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, this $87 billion is a little bit steep for my wallet, 
and it is a little bit steep for probably the wallets of most 
Americans. So I will be voting against it.
  But I understand this is called a supplemental. It is interesting 
that it is a supplemental because we have not passed a budget; so I 
have to suggest maybe we ought to call this a preemptive budget rather 
than a supplemental. But it is the largest, and to have it before the 
regular budget is pretty astounding that we are going to spend this 
type of money.
  But I want to take this minute I have to quote from a book, ``A World 
Transformed,'' and this was written about 5 years ago talking about 
Iraq. And I think this is a very serious quote and something worth 
listening to:
  ``Trying to eliminate Saddam Hussein . . . would have incurred 
incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably 
impossible . . . We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in 
effect, rule Iraq . . . There was no available `exit strategy' we could 
see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been 
self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the 
post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally 
exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the 
precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to 
establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could 
conceivably be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land.''
  That was written 5 years ago, very perceptive. It was written by 
President Bush, Sr. So I think we are here now in a very hostile land 
with a very difficult situation.
  I was a strong opponent of the war for two reasons: one, I sincerely 
believed our national security was not threatened, and I also was 
convinced that it had no relationship to 9-11; and I think those two 
concerns have been proven to be correct. Many who had voted against the 
war now suggest that they might vote for this appropriation because 
they feel it is necessary to vote to support the troops. I think that 
is a red herring argument because if we take a poll, and there have 
been some recent polls of the troops in Iraq, we find out that probably 
all of them would love to come home next week. So I do not see how a 
vote against this appropriation can be construed. As a matter of fact, 
that is challenging the motivation of those of us who will oppose the 
legislation, that we do not support the troops. So I am in support of 
voting against this appropriation.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Deutsch).
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, one of the things that all of us know is 
one and one equals two, and I think a very good question for all of us 
to ask is why are the two parts of this supplemental one part? Why are 
the military and the reconstruction parts of this bill together?
  Let me give the Members the answer, which is not very complicated: 
one and one plus two, is that if they were separate, the supplemental 
part dealing with reconstruction would fail. Every Member knows that. 
Why would it fail? Because my Republican colleagues would vote against 
it and it would fail. So they have leveraged to put the two things 
together and said if we vote against the bill, we are against the 
troops. That is not why this bill is in one bill. The reason it is in 
one bill is because if the two things were separate, the reconstruction 
effort would fail.
  Let me tell the Members why it would fail. Because it is crazy. 
Because it is crazy. Because it is indefensible from policy grounds to 
have American taxpayers, literally American taxpayers, pay for the 
reconstruction of a country, 27 million people, that has trillions, 
trillions of dollars in oil reserves, the second largest oil reserves 
in the world. At the same time, this country, Iraq, is part of OPEC 
today, will be part of OPEC when the middle class, lower class people 
in America take their hard-earned tax dollars and their hard-earned 
wages taxed by the monopoly power of OPEC, which is exactly what Iraq 
is going to do, some of that monopoly tax, hundreds of billions of 
dollars of taxes that we are paying as Americans, see some of that 
money going to terrorists. Some of that money is going to terrorists; 
and the terrorists, in fact, are trying to kill us. Vote down the whole 
amendment, and let us send it back as separate bills.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this 
time.
  I do rise in support of the emergency spending measure that we have 
before us, and I do thank the members of the Committee on 
Appropriations and the chairman for their great work on this.
  I appreciate the scrutiny of the reconstruction request to fund the 
priority projects to continue the development of a stable and self-
sufficient Iraq and to eliminate those which may not be necessary. The 
sooner we accomplish this, the sooner our brave troops can return home.
  A few days ago, several of my colleagues and I returned from a trip 
to Iraq where we gained firsthand knowledge of the challenges we face 
and the responsibilities we have. While there, we met with many 
American servicemen and -women representing us in Iraq.

                              {time}  1330

  I felt their passion for the mission at hand and the pride they felt 
for making a difference in the lives of Iraqis. I met military men and 
women from Delaware who described building schools, developing access 
to water and electricity and talking with Iraqis who are discovering, 
for the first time, the opportunities that only come from being free.
  This trip also exposed me to the pain of this conflict, the senseless 
loss of life. While we were there, three U.S. servicemen were attacked 
and killed. Our troops in Iraq face serious danger every second of 
every day, but they remain committed to establishing a stable Iraq so 
we are not forced to send a future generation to deal with another 
Saddam Hussein.
  We can all agree that we want our troops home safe and as soon as 
possible. I believe the best way to do that

[[Page 24891]]

is by sending them the funding necessary to hand Iraq over to a 
democratically-elected body that represents a thriving, multiethnic, 
self-sufficient nation.
  To prevent future vulnerability to terrorist attacks, the 
international community must be united. I have a great deal of pride in 
the leadership the United States currently provides in our stand 
against terror, but I support an immediate increase of involvement by 
the United Nations on the ground in Iraq and feel their leadership has 
long been overdue. The resolution just passed by the Security Council 
was altered in good faith for Russia, France and U.N. Secretary Annan, 
to include a loose time line for Iraqi sovereignty.
  A time line should be a goal, but real progress in Iraq depends on 
the drafting of an Iraqi constitution, free and fair elections and the 
establishment of an elected governing body. Access to water and 
electricity, police protection, judicial accountability, secured 
borders, an internationally recognized monetary system, viable economic 
structure and making sure Iraqis are getting paid for the work they are 
doing are all necessities for moving forward and continue to be 
priorities for the Americans in Iraq.
  In response to amendments attempting to shift grants to loans, I 
share their concern for our growing deficit. The fact is that we are 
the leaders of the governing body in Iraq. There is no government 
structure to guarantee repayment. Next week at the International Donors 
Conference in Spain, we will call upon France and Russia to forgive 
tens of billions of dollars in debt, request billions in aid and ask 
that other nations send their soldiers to join ours.
  I believe that all of us would prefer that the United States focus 
our attention wholly on our domestic priorities, but we do not have 
that luxury. Our responsibility is to make our world safer for 
generations to come and finish the job we started.
  I would encourage all of us to support the supplemental.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, today we consider providing additional 
funding for military and reconstruction activities. I am frustrated 
that we are paying for this request through increased deficit spending, 
without even considering the options of international loans or other 
revenue sources that would spread the burden to those who can most 
afford it. Nonetheless, I believe that the United States, ultimately, 
has responsibility to follow through on our international commitments.
  We must not forget the majority of this bill's funding goes toward 
ensuring the safety and success of our troops, and they should have all 
the resources they need to get the job done. Last week, I visited 
Walter Reed Medical Center and spoke with soldiers whose injuries might 
have been prevented if they had been driving the armored vehicles 
funded in this bill.
  With regard to the reconstruction component, I am pleased that some 
of the more controversial requests have been deemed unworthy of 
emergency funding. The remaining items will improve the safety and 
self-sufficiency of the Iraqi people.
  Unfortunately, in meeting our commitments, we will add $87 billion to 
an already historic deficit, which translates into larger interest 
payments on the national debt and less funding for important domestic 
priorities.
  Mr. Chairman, my constituents are fully aware of the impact on our 
budget. The costs of this package fall unfairly on the American 
taxpayers, and we must rectify this problem. I know that some of my 
colleagues share my reservations, and I look forward to the upcoming 
amendment process as an opportunity to address some of these concerns.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, my trip to Iraq last week convinced me of the need to 
support this bill, to provide to our troops with the tools and 
protection they need to do their job. In addition, I am convinced if we 
do not adopt this bill, Iraq will descend into chaos and ultimately 
violence.
  However, while I support the bill, I want to take the opportunity to 
urge President Bush to abandon the unilateral approach we have taken 
over the last few months in Iraq and begin to share more of the burden 
with our allies. For months, Democrats and Republicans in Congress have 
been urging the President to do exactly that.
  In my trip to Iraq, I was remarkably struck by the resistance in the 
office of the CPA, the authority running Iraq, to bring our allies in. 
The stakes are too high, the challenges are too great, for us to try to 
do this by ourselves. We need to bring in allies, particularly from 
some of the Muslim countries, to help our soldiers work on a side-by-
side basis.
  I understand we have had a coalition in Iraq. That includes our good 
friends, the Canadians. How many troops do the Canadians have in Iraq? 
One troop. We need to get beyond symbolism. We need people on the 
ground that speak Arabic, that are equipped to work side-by-side with 
our soldiers.
  The CPA, the Coalition Provisional Authority, is overwhelmed. I 
talked to soldiers who told me they have been counting on the Iraqi 
people to help them deal with the threats they face every day. They 
cannot even communicate with them, so few of our soldiers speak Arabic, 
so few of the Iraqis speak English.
  Many of our troops are involved in jobs they were not trained to do. 
We have troops that are being policemen, that are training police. We 
need to call upon allies like the Germans and the Italians to train our 
police.
  We are not in Iraq to do business. We are in Iraq to help the Iraqi 
people take control of their country. We need to bring our allies in to 
help us succeed in this monumental task.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez).
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, there is a glaring omission in this emergency bill. We 
have once again neglected to provide resources for our veterans. I 
sought to add an amendment of $1.8 billion from the Iraqi Relief and 
Reconstruction Fund to the Veterans Health Administration.
  Today, as we move forward, each day over 10 to 11 people come in that 
have been injured in Iraq, over 1,500 to this day. We need to make sure 
that we have additional resources for our veterans. That $1.8 billion 
does not begin to even address additional programs. It is to make sure 
we keep existing services as it is.
  This administration has chosen to come forward and disallow Priority 
7 and Priority 8 veterans. Now, they have also come forward with a lot 
of fuzzy math when they came with a proposal for $3 billion for 
veterans, when that $3 billion consisted of $1.8 billion from 
copayments of veterans alone, and an additional $1.2 billion when there 
were copayments from prescription drug payments from themselves. The 
other was supposed to be efficiencies.
  The money is not there. There is a need for us to concentrate and 
provide resources for our veterans.
  Let me also add that the previous time that we dished money for Iraq, 
a little bit over $79 billion that has gone out for the war on 
terrorism, there was $2 billion in there for health care for Iraqis. 
Well, I am only asking for $1.8 billion for our own veterans right 
here. As they come home, and as we have over 1,500 that have been 
identified as needing services, we need to be there for them. I ask 
that we take that into consideration.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), a member of the Committee 
on Armed Services.
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, it is an honor for me to 
be

[[Page 24892]]

here today on the bipartisan effort to support the President on the 
supplemental. I was particularly pleased to hear a moment ago the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis). He and I are both graduates of 
Washington and Lee University, so we have a kinship there, and I am 
delighted to hear of his support for the supplemental.
  Today is a significant day with the support that has been received on 
the international stage. We began this morning hearing that Japan is 
going to contribute $1.5 billion, up to $5 billion, for the 
reconstruction and redevelopment of Iraq. We also had today the 
unanimous vote of the U.N. Security Council to support the proposals 
that the United States put forward today to bring order to Iraq and 
protect the American people.
  Additionally, I had the opportunity today to be present with the 
gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert), meeting for the first time 
in history with Speaker Ognyan Gerdjikov, the Speaker of the Bulgarian 
National Assembly. He, of course, indicated, as their government has 
done on the Security Council and by providing troops to Iraq, that 
Bulgaria is standing very strong with its ally, the United States.
  I had the opportunity 3 weeks ago to visit with General David 
Petraeus and with General Ricardo Sanchez in Iraq. I saw the progress 
being made.
  Another indication of progress was in the New York Times today, and 
that is that the currency of Iraq is being exchanged. It began 
yesterday. This is a 90-day proposal or project to turn in the currency 
which has the dictator's face on it, Saddam Hussein. Yesterday, on the 
very first day, nearly one-third of all the currency in Iraq was turned 
in. This is an extraordinary indication of progress, support by the 
people of Iraq, for the changes that are needed to be made.
  Just as after World War II, we helped reconstruct Germany so it would 
not be a breeding ground for communists, we can now have a 
reconstruction of Iraq so it is not a breeding ground for terrorism. We 
defeated communism. I believe in the war on terrorism, with our 
wonderful troops, with our President, that we can make progress today 
supporting the supplemental.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I say to the chairman, ranking member, 
men of good conscience, everyone is of good conscience, I believe, on 
this floor, but Iraq is too important to pull up our stakes now.
  We saw in Somalia, with the withdrawal of the United States, it soon 
reverted to its precolonial past consisting of a mosaic of independent 
clans with different laws and rulers, each with its own militia.
  We pulled out of Afghanistan in 1989, we pulled out of Iraq in 1991, 
and what happened? I imagine that somewhere right now, Mr. Chairman, 
former Presidential economic adviser, Larry Lindsey, is enjoying the 
resurgence of his reputation. After he predicted that we would have to 
spend $100 billion to $200 billion in Iraq, on September 15, 2002 he 
made that statement, he was dismissed from the White House.
  If this latest supplemental is enacted, the United States will have 
spent close to $157 billion on military operations. Excluding that one 
moment of candor from Mr. Lindsey, this is indeed a far cry from the 
talking points. And this is more than talking points, these are faces 
of American soldiers. Every other administration official presented to 
Congress these talking points, these scripts, these spins, and to the 
American people, before we even went to Iraq.
  Iraq is important, Mr. Chairman. The attitude of the administration 
must change regardless of how this vote comes out today. It must be 
more transparent, it must be more open, and it must allow for debate, 
instead of moving to secrecy. Let us not forget Somalia in our vote 
today.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I did not vote for the original war resolution. I 
thought it was ill-advised to delegate to the President authority that 
the Congress had, and I thought it was ill-advised for the President to 
proceed to war without world support and support from the U.N. in the 
absence of an imminent threat to the United States.
  I had some reservations, because people were saying that there was an 
imminent threat. The President was saying that. But I did not think we 
should rush into this war in the first place. I have seen nothing since 
then to change my mind about that.
  I think we were ill-advised to proceed to this war in a hasty fashion 
without the support of the U.N., and I think our policies continue to 
be flawed to stay there and to pursue this war without world support.
  The only reason that I have vexed about this vote is that our 
soldiers are there, and they are in harm's way. But I think to support 
this resolution would be to sanction the flawed policies of this 
administration. Consequently, my intention is to vote no on this 
proposed appropriation.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Waxman), the distinguished ranking member of the 
Committee on Government Reform who has done considerable work on the 
need for accountability in contracting on this issue.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, the Bush administration has made it 
impossible for me and others to do what we would otherwise want to do. 
Under normal circumstances, I would support the President's request for 
$87 billion in additional spending for Iraq and Afghanistan, but I 
cannot do that today. The Bush administration's Iraq policy has been 
grounded in secrecy, deceit, and politics. Some suspected that a year 
ago. I refused to believe it. But now, it is inescapable.
  The intolerable reality is that they blatantly twisted intelligence 
information to fit preconceived policies. They lied to promote public 
relations, from the Jessica Lynch ordeal to the President's campaign 
landing on the USS Abraham Lincoln and on what the war would cost our 
country. And through all of it, they have refused to answer questions, 
provide honest information, and accept any oversight or accountability 
for their actions. It is an abysmal and, at times, inexcusable record.
  I voted for the Iraq resolution last year. I relied on the 
President's representations about the imminent threat Iraq posed to the 
United States. And I relied on the statements that other senior 
administration officials, including the Vice President, made regarding 
Iraq's nuclear capability. I will not make that same mistake again. 
They have squandered their credibility and the normal deference we give 
to any administration, Democratic or Republican.
  I say all of this knowing full well we must finish what we started in 
Iraq. I feel that as strongly as any member of the House. And as one 
who voted for the resolution, I feel a responsibility to make sure we 
honor the sacrifice so many have already made by achieving a democratic 
and safe Iraq. And I feel a special obligation to our troops to make 
sure they have everything they need to be as safe and effective as 
possible. But before I agree to the President's request, I want to be 
confident that those running the war are doing their job and that the 
reconstruction effort is effective, not wasteful, spending.
  Some say the easy political vote is to support the President's 
request and defend it by saying we are supporting the troops. But if we 
really want to support the troops, we will first make sure that the 
people running the war know what they are doing. No American soldier 
should die because of mistakes up the line.
  This administration must put aside its stubbornness and make the 
world community a serious and active part of this process. Then we 
could vote for the President's request in good conscience.
  Mr. Chairman, the Bush administration has made a series of terrible 
mistakes in formulating its Iraq policy. But even in the face of those 
mistakes, the administration insists on going it alone. No help from 
other countries. No

[[Page 24893]]

oversight by the Congress. No accountability to the American people. 
That will never change if we give them an automatic ``yes'' vote on 
today's bill. Instead, voting ``yes'' will encourage them to continue 
the policies that do not work and tactics that deserve condemnation. 
Our troops deserve better than that. We should oppose the President's 
request until this administration demonstrates that it puts our troops 
before politics and honesty before pride.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), a ranking member of the Select 
Committee on Homeland Security.
  Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I returned from Iraq last night, 
and every American can be very proud of the work that our men and women 
in uniform are doing there for our country. The sacrifice they are 
making and the danger they face demand that we provide them with the 
best in equipment, supplies, and quality of life that we possibly can 
as they continue the effort to bring stability to Iraq.
  I commend our ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey), for the efforts he has made to move more of the $87 billion to 
protect our troops. Irrespective of one's views about the wisdom of 
preemptive action against Saddam Hussein and concerns about the 
intelligence analysis upon which that action was based, we are now 
confronted as a Nation with a challenge and a responsibility where 
failure is not an option. The future of Iraq and the success there will 
depend upon the willingness that we have to stay the course. This will 
require sacrifice on the part of the American people, and I commend the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for calling upon the top 1 percent 
of Americans measured by income to share in the sacrifice being made by 
our troops in Iraq.
  The future stability of the region demands stability in Iraq. I found 
the Iraqi people to be capable, intelligent, and determined to provide 
a better way of life for their people. And in the eyes of Iraqi 
teachers, in the eyes of the Iraqi policemen and firefighters that we 
are training, and in the eyes of members of the Iraqi governing 
council, I found hope. We have assumed a stake in the success of their 
future, and we must not fail; and I hope that we will be joined by 
others in the world community in assisting us in achieving success in 
Iraq.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) for the purpose of a colloquy.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida 
(Chairman Young) for yielding me this time and for his willingness to 
engage in this colloquy regarding an issue of tremendous importance. I 
am concerned, as are many of our colleagues, about the out-of-pocket 
costs to U.S. soldiers participating in the Rest and Recuperation 
program for Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.
  As my colleague from Florida knows, soldiers granted leave through 
the R&R program are flown by the Department of Defense to Baltimore, 
Washington International Airport for a 2-week leave from arduous duties 
on the front lines of freedom. The Pentagon restarted the R&R program, 
which had been dormant since Vietnam, to boost morale of soldiers who 
are being deployed for over a year. Once soldiers arrive at BWI, it is 
up to them to pay for the rest of their travel costs to see their 
families. Often, airlines have provided discounted rates, but some 
soldiers have reported paying in excess of $1,000. Now, we should not 
be causing an additional burden on soldiers or their families during 
this comparatively short stay in the United States.
  Mr. Chairman, the Senate adopted an amendment during floor 
consideration offered by Mr. Coleman of Minnesota to alleviate this 
burden on our Armed Forces. Several Members of this House, including 
myself, have introduced legislation to correct this issue. I would ask 
the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations if he would consider 
supporting the Senate provision in the conference committee.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would like to assure the 
gentleman from Arizona that I understand the importance of this issue. 
At a time when we are spending nearly $90 billion to support the 
mission of our Nation and our troops, we should be willing to ease the 
strain on our soldiers and their families.
  The gentleman from Arizona is a cosponsor of a bill, H.R. 2998, that 
I introduced to help ease the financial burden on returning troops and, 
in this case, troops who are charged a subsistence fee for their stay 
in military hospitals. So I am supportive of the gentleman's goal.
  I would also like to mention that the Department of Defense has plans 
to expand the R&R program to include airports beyond BWI, which should 
help some. Airports in Los Angeles, Atlanta, and Dallas-Fort Worth 
should become part of the program before the end of the year.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Arizona for bringing this matter 
to the attention of the House. I agree that it is an issue of great 
importance, and I can give the gentleman assurance that the Senate 
provision will be given every consideration by this chairman.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Today we are debating the administration's request for an $87 billion 
bailout occasioned by its failed planning, or rather, its failure to 
plan, its lack of planning for postwar Iraq. We are asked to pass this 
$87 billion bailout despite the fact that the Bush administration has 
not yet articulated a coherent or workable underlying strategy to 
accomplish our mission and to bring our troops home safely and soon. It 
is either unwilling or incapable of doing so.
  The only way this Congress can ensure for the American people that 
such a strategy exists and that it has a reasonable chance of success 
is by using its power of the purse. We are dealing with an 
administration that has already had over $400 billion in its Department 
of Defense budget, and it has already received one supplemental 
appropriation of $63 billion. Yet it fails to explain how and why our 
forces had tens of thousands of men and women unprotected with the 
proper Kevlar breast plates, Humvees without proper armor, and rancid 
water for 80 percent of the troops, or how those conditions continued, 
even after they knew in June that people were dying and being injured.
  In addition, the administration, in its zeal to get all of the money 
now so it will not have to come back in 2004's election year to report 
to the American people, insinuates that a vote against this bailout is 
a vote against our troops and a vote to cut and run. Nothing could be 
further from the truth. The administration's own figures show that this 
is just another dissembling of the facts. According to the nonpartisan 
Congressional Research Service, the Pentagon can stay in Iraq another 6 
months without an additional penny in funds. But we have been prevented 
from seeking accountability from this administration as it asserts a 
need for emergency funds.
  Mr. Chairman, this Congress has a moral and practical responsibility 
to modify and condition these funds, and it is time to reject this 
rubber stamp blank check and insist on an alternative that the 
Democrats want to put forward, but the majority and the administration 
have prohibited it from seeing the light of day.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), who can speak in this 
Chamber, even though, unfortunately, she is not allowed to vote.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. The President himself woke up the American people with his 
September 7, $87 billion sticker-shock

[[Page 24894]]

speech. People have already voted. Choose the poll: 59 percent in one, 
66 percent in another. The vote is ``no.''
  The reason is the President failed to seize the issue, the one issue 
that could have changed people's minds, that is paying for the war with 
a tax cut from the top 1 percent of the wealthiest Americans. Instead, 
he persists in making sacrifice a one-way street, sacrifice for the 
troops, while the rest of us remain untouched. The President has really 
touched the American people this time, though, with his $87 billion 
request. Having almost wrecked the economy with a crippling deficit, 
this $87 billion will prove our economic denouement.
  First, the wreck of our relations with the very allies necessary for 
our own protection in the war against terrorism. Then, the wreck of the 
volunteer Army, particularly the loss of many of our weekend warriors 
from the National Guard and Reserve who never signed up for an 
indefinite duty in a preemptive war. Every amendment before this body 
must be paid for except this one.
  Mr. Chairman, if we approve this request, the final wreck will be the 
appropriation power meant to check Presidential power. Our 
appropriation responsibility in time of war, never a tiger, will become 
a pussy cat that delivers to the cat in the White House, even without 
getting its proverbial cup of milk.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for 
yielding me this time.
  I rise today to join every Member of this Chamber in supporting the 
American men and women serving in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere 
around the globe. We are indebted to their service, to their courage, 
to what they do to preserve the American Dream and freedom.
  However, let us not confuse support for our troops with support for 
any half-baked plan, or lack of a plan, for securing our troops and 
rebuilding Iraq. Let us not fool ourselves into believing that our 
shared patriotism somehow absolves us, Members of Congress, from the 
responsibility to stand up and criticize a flawed policy.
  On September 7, President Bush addressed the Nation and called upon 
this body to pass $87 billion in supplemental appropriations. Within 
minutes after the President's address and every day since, my 
constituents have been telling me that they are alarmed by this 
request. Some tell me that $1,000 per family is a lot of money when 
they think the President is just throwing money at a problem without 
having a plan to fix it. Some tell me that we should be spending the 
money to address obligations here at home, like paying for the adequate 
health care for our veterans from previous wars, as well as the 
veterans from this war.
  Others tell me that the President should not ask Congress for more 
money until he secures more international support, or that we should 
not have to bear the cost alone. Some tell me that when the government 
is borrowing money to give tax cuts to the wealthy, we should not be 
borrowing this $87 billion from our children.

                              {time}  1400

  And like my constituents, I have all of these reservations and more.
  I had hoped the President would send Congress a detailed, long-term 
plan for the reconstruction of Iraq. I had hoped the President would 
come with a plan for help from our allies. He has failed to do that.
  I would support the Obey substitute if it were allowed, but without 
significant changes, I cannot support the President's request at this 
time.
  I had hoped that by now the President would have secured the 
significant financial support of our allies. I had hoped that by now 
thousands of our men and women serving in Iraq would see international 
troops coming to relieve them so that some of them might return home.
  Instead, the President has sent his request to Congress before 
developing a clear plan for reconstruction. He has sent his request 
before he has secured hardly any international financial support. And 
he has sent his request before he has convinced our allies to provide 
multinational forces to internationalize the troop presence in Iraq. In 
effect, he is asking the American people to subsidize his failed 
diplomacy and poor post-war planning.
  Nevertheless, a Member of Congress should not vote no on this request 
out of spite. I believe that Congress can and should pass a 
supplemental bill that will adequately support our troops in Iraq. The 
President has committed us to helping to stabilize and rebuild Iraq and 
we must live up to that commitment. However, we cannot blindly approve 
whatever the President requests, especially when his request is not 
well thought-out and when it includes wasteful spending.
  There are two parts to this $87 billion request. About two-thirds is 
to support military operations and our troops, while the other third is 
for reconstruction. There are serious problems with both. First, the 
military portion gives the Secretary of Defense the authority to 
reprogram almost $40 billion. In other words, the President is so 
unsure of what programs need support that he has given the Secretary 
the power to change how $40 billion worth of this bill will be spent. 
Forty billion dollars is a large petty cash fund. Why don't we just 
write the Secretary a personal check and send him on his way?
  There are problems with the reconstruction portion of the bill, too. 
Imagine; the bill calls for $900,000,000 to import oil to Iraq. We 
spend money we don't have so that we can import oil to the country with 
the world's second largest oil reserves. I am pleased that my colleague 
Rep. David Obey and the other members of the Appropriations Committee 
were able to eliminate some of the $1.7 billion worth of the most 
wasteful portions of the President's request, including hundreds of 
millions of dollars to build luxury prisons in Iraq, hundreds of 
millions to buy state-of-the-art garbage trucks, and millions to send 
Iraqis to business school.
  I am also pleased that they were able to guarantee that the Pentagon 
will have no flexibility when it comes to procuring bulletproof body 
armor and other critical need safety equipment for our troops. We must 
keep our troops safe. Unfortunately, these changes only scratch the 
surface of what is necessary to fix this request.
  How can Americans be asked to spend a billion dollars to import oil 
into one of the largest oil producing countries in the world? Another 
amendment would make sure that this Administration is adopting 
competitive practices when awarding contracts to companies that are 
hired to help with Iraq's construction. Still, another would invest in 
making sure we have trained linguists who can speak the languages 
employed by terrorists.
  I also would vote for the Obey substitute, if the Chair would allow a 
vote. It would help pay for the reconstruction of Iraq by eliminating 
the tax cut currently enjoyed by the top one percent of Americans. We 
cannot afford to go any deeper into debt that this Administration has 
taken us and we cannot saddle middle class Americans with a financial 
burden that they cannot afford and should not be asked to bear.
  A year ago I stood here on the House floor and I voted against the 
resolution authorizing the President to launch a unilateral, preventive 
war against Iraq. At the time, I defended my vote, arguing that it was 
``at the least premature, and more likely contrary to our national 
interest,'' for Congress to authorize military action against Iraq. 
Today, our troops are in Iraq and we have made a commitment as a nation 
to make sure they complete their mission. But as I stand here again, I 
cannot help but ask whether voting for this $87 billion request right 
now is at the least premature, and most likely, contrary to our 
national interest.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I just returned after leading a bipartisan 
trip to Iraq this last Friday. We had Members from all over the 
country, Republicans and Democrats, and we had Members on our trip that 
both had supported the war resolution last year, as well as those that 
opposed it.
  I have to say all of us were very proud of every American we met from 
the USAID, workers at the schools, to the hospitals, and Ambassador 
Bremer, the generals, the leaders of our troops, and every man and 
woman in our Armed Services. I wish I could have taken all of us here 
in this Chamber, as well as across the country, to see how proud we are 
of every person that we met with.
  Whether you opposed the war resolution or not this last year, we are 
there now. We need this mission to succeed.

[[Page 24895]]

I would have to say that nobody here would be against the money for our 
troops. Yes, we need armored Humvees. Yes, we need more body armor for 
our vehicles. I would hope that no one here would be opposed to the 
money to help those that are serving our great land. But we also need 
the money for reconstruction. It will expedite our troops' withdrawal 
to come home from that region of the world. It will help promote 
democracy by birthing democracy where it can flourish.
  Now, there will be a dispute here that we will resolve, whether it 
should be a grant or a loan. We will decide that perhaps later today or 
tomorrow in the House, in the other body, or certainly in the 
conference between the House and the other body. But we need the money 
for reconstruction. Because without those security funds, without 
seeing those dollars come to help that land begin to prosper, our 
troops will be there a lot longer. And we will fail in our mission to 
achieve democracy in that important region of the world.
  I ask my colleagues to support the resolution that we are dealing 
with later on tonight and tomorrow. We need to encourage it in every 
way, freedom and democracy to flourish.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cummings).
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the supplemental and 
support the Obey amendment. This is a question of accountability. I 
continue to abide by the principles set forth by the Congressional 
Black Caucus last month to determine whether we, as Members of 
Congress, would support the President's request for more aid in Iraq.
  I believe that the President should provide the Congress with the 
full details of the information relied upon by him to go to war. He has 
not done that. I asked that the President provide full details about 
how the efforts will be paid for, including full accounting of how and 
to what extent Iraqi resources could be used to reduce the U.S. costs. 
He has not done that.
  He should provide us with full details about the future obligations 
of the United States and about how responsibility and authority for 
these obligations will be shared with the United Nations and other 
nations. He has not done that.
  Congress should ask for a detailed accounting from the administration 
as to all funds expended to date, including details about all 
contractors for work in or related to Iraq.
  Lastly, the President should set forth criteria he expects will be 
necessary to meet before we bring our troops home. In other words, what 
is considered victory? He has not done that.
  No more blank checks. People in my district want better schools. They 
want better health care. They care about the Iraqi people, but they ask 
are we spending our money effectively and efficiently. And what they 
have concluded is because this President will not tell us what has been 
done with the money we already spent, we question what will be done 
with this money.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, the commander of the Army's 101st Airborne 
Division in Iraq, Major General Petraeus, likes to remind Congressional 
visitors that money is ammunition in the battle to stabilize Iraq: 
money to reopen the cement factory outside Mosul, money to buy ice and 
food from local merchants, money to productively employ the now-idle 
hands of former Iraqi Army officers, money for 1,000 other local 
projects that capitalize on the boundless potential of the Iraqi people 
and arm them to defeat their most entrenched, insidious enemies, 
powerlessness and despair.
  This bill provides the ammunition needed to wage and win the next 
critical battle in the war against terrorism and oppression in Iraq. 
Building on the administration's original request, the committee has 
met our first obligation, to arm and equip U.S. warfighters to prevail 
in this complex mission while fueling construction of a viable, 
sustainable civil society in Iraq.
  During two trips to Iraq since April, I saw the strength and courage 
of our forces as they worked alongside Iraqis rebuilding schools by day 
and risking their lives patrolling those same streets by night. The 
dedicated men and women of our Armed Forces know their quickest route 
home goes through as many markets as minefields, and that their victory 
over tyranny will be secured as soon as Iraqis are running their own 
democratic nation.
  We are stewards of Iraqi sovereignty. With the reconstruction, 
economic development, and public diplomacy funds in this bill, we make 
wise investments to preserve and grow the precious assets in our trust. 
But the deed of trust is not indefinite. The window of opportunity to 
build on an oasis of hope in that troubled region will close. This bill 
reflects our national commitment to meet history's challenge and set 
Iraq on an inevitable course toward democracy and economic vitality.
  Fiscal pressures here at home cannot change the harsher fact that 
Iraq faces its new future encumbered with a crushing debt burden 
estimated to be as high as $220 billion. Adding to that debt would be 
wrong morally and politically. Imposing debt without consent of the 
governed is the way despots and conquerors build monuments to 
themselves and past glories. That was how Saddam Hussein built his 
palaces. Liberators leave behind memorials to generosity and 
investments in a better future. That is what this bill will buy. Our 
investment will be returned manyfold by a free and prosperous Iraq.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes and 15 seconds to my 
distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka).
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman and Members, Thomas Friedman, a columnist 
for the New York Times, back in February of this year indicated in a 
column, ``You do not take the country to war on the wings of a lie.'' 
My friends, that is exactly what has happened. We were told that we 
have to attack Iraq because they have weapons of mass destruction. We 
have to attack Iraq because the United States was in imminent danger of 
attack by this country. And also we were told that Iraq and Saddam 
Hussein were involved in the terrorist attack of 9/11.
  My friends, all those rationale have been proved wrong. We have not 
found any weapons of mass destruction. We know that there is no way in 
God's green earth that Saddam had any missile or any other armament 
that could come near to attacking this country. And over and over again 
we have been told, including by the CIA, that Saddam and Iraq was not 
involved in 9/11. So why are we there? Why did we attack this country?
  My colleagues, I did not vote for the War Powers Resolution, and I am 
not going to vote today for this supplemental bill which will, in 
effect, continue the war and the killing of our troops. Now, we are 
told that if we do not pass this bill, our troops will not get the 
bullets they need and the food and supplies. That is all wrong, and it 
is not true.
  The President signed the Department of Defense appropriation bill, 
and so funding is available until May or June of next year. So what we 
are left with is supplying reconstruction dollars to Iraq to build the 
things that we blew up in the first place.
  But it is more than that. This bill also provides things like school 
buildings and books for Iraqi children. Now how nice. But why do not we 
do the same for our kids? It provides health care and medical 
facilities, free medical care for Iraqis, as we have 42 million 
Americans with no health care whatsoever.
  My friends, those who support this bill should at least have the 
intestinal fortitude to pay for it. For if it passes, which will happen 
later today, $87 billion will be borrowed. We are broke. We do not have 
the money. And that $87 billion will be put on the $500 billion deficit 
that already exists. When are we going to stop the insanity around 
here?
  I urge my colleagues to vote no.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).

[[Page 24896]]


  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, during the lead-up 
to this war in Iraq, this body had great assurances from the President 
and his staff that in the aftermath, the United States would not be 
tagged with the bill. Here we are debating to commit $87 billion to 
this war.
  And this war has been described to us as fighting terrorists. Not a 
single terrorist has come from this area. And this really could not 
come at a worse time because we have no money. Our economy is the worst 
we have seen in 70 years. We have lost many, many jobs. Just in my 
area, 105,000 jobs have been lost in Dallas.
  Protecting our troops in Iraq, or anywhere they are, is important and 
necessary. But I have been to Iraq, and they are not protected. I have 
been to Germany to look at those who have been injured, and here. Where 
is the money going? There is no accountability. No accountability for 
the first money that has been appropriated. Now, we are asking for 
more.
  And we are financing this war in Iraq with deficit spending. We are 
borrowing money to pay for this war. We are not cutting spending, we 
are not raising taxes. If anything, we are going to see another tax 
break coming soon. We are endangering Social Security.
  Vote against this spending. We do not need another blank check being 
handed to the President.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Iraq 
supplemental legislation before this Congress and commend the careful 
deliberation of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and all the 
members of the Committee on Appropriations for this outstanding 
legislative work in every respect, save one. On the issue of whether 
reconstruction costs in Iraq should take the form of a grant or a loan, 
I have considered the arguments of the administration and the opinions 
of my constituents with much deliberation and prayer. On this question, 
I have decided it is appropriate for me to stand firm in my belief that 
a portion of the reconstruction costs should eventually be repaid by 
the Iraqi people to the people of the United States.

                              {time}  1415

  Accordingly, today I will offer the Pence amendment which provides, 
Mr. Chairman, a middle ground between the challenges of extending a 
loan to a nation, Iraq, and the desire of the American people to see 
this oil-rich nation bear the cost at some point in the future of 
building a civil society.
  It is not appropriate, as some will argue on this floor today and 
tonight, to make all of the reconstruction funding in the form of a 
loan. As the administration has argued, and as has the chairman, the 
possibility of extending a loan from the United States to a nation not 
yet formed is problematic. In recognition of this reality, the Pence 
amendment makes the first 50 percent of the funding available 
immediately as a grant, giving priority consideration emergency 
purposes of security, electricity, oil infrastructure, and the like. 
Once the administration informs the Congress that a democratically 
elected government in Iraq has been established, the balance of the 
funds would be made available under the Pence amendment in the form of 
loans from the United States Government under terms determined by the 
President.
  Having addressed the logistical concerns raised by the administration 
and others, I believe it is appropriate that the Congress defer to the 
consent of the governed, especially in matters of foreign aid. Many 
Americans, even in my conservative district, overwhelmingly support 
some repayment of reconstruction costs. Most Americans know that Iraq 
is an oil-rich nation, possessing the second largest oil reserves on 
the planet, and will eventually be able to bear the burden of repaying 
some of the costs of rebuilding its own infrastructure.
  At a time of mounting Federal deficits, making a portion of the 
reconstruction a loan also reassures the American people that there is 
a financial end-game strategy in Iraq.
  Finally, Congress today in adopting the Pence amendment would set an 
important precedent as we partner with the Iraqi people in establishing 
the elements of a free and just society.
  In the end, Mr. Chairman, I would state firmly that I will support 
the final version of the Iraq supplemental bill because I am anxious to 
support the leadership and the Congress and the President and, of 
course, our military and civilian personnel in Iraq. But nonetheless, I 
am offering the Pence amendment today with the first belief that the 
United States should provide for the liberty and security of Iraq, but 
improvements in civil society in Iraq should ultimately be borne by the 
Iraqi people.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, once again I would attempt to notify any Members who 
are watching that if they are on the Democratic list for speaking on 
this matter, they need to get to the House floor pronto or they will 
lose their opportunity.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown).
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by 
commending the Congressional Black Caucus for standing up for the 
troops and voting against this appalling supplemental bill.
  Just yesterday I visited Walter Reed Medical Center and was very 
impressed by our brave troops. They have done their part in fighting 
and risking their lives for our Nation. In addition, I talked to our 
men and women stationed in bases in the Caspian Sea last summer, and I 
was appalled to see that the female soldiers were not supplied with 
enough personal items and they were not even given access to showers 
nearby.
  Yes, Mr. Chairman, I wholeheartedly support our troops; and for that 
reason I would like to know why after Congress appropriated $79 billion 
for Iraq just 6 months ago, we are going to vote for another $87 
billion appropriations. By the way, the largest supplemental that ever 
passed this House.
  I was horrified to learn that tens of thousands of our troops were 
sent out to battle without proper armor and to this day they still need 
many necessary items, for example, enough drinking water, showers, 
tennis shoes, proper chemical attack suits, quality boots, and even 
simple toothpaste.
  Once again, I want to know, where is the beef? Where is the first $79 
billion? Our troops are doing their job. It is the Members in this body 
that are not doing what we were elected to do.
  I want to also point out to the media, you are not doing your job. 
You have given this administration a blank check. We have not seen one 
shred of evidence that links 9-11 to Iraq.
  Mr. Chairman, our troops are doing their job. It is up to the Members 
of this body to do theirs.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers at 
this time, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Meeks).
  Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak about my 
recent trip to Iraq and to answer some of the questions millions of 
Americans have been asking every day since the President first 
announced that he would seek another $87 billion for Iraq and 
Afghanistan.
  Just this Friday I returned from a 5-day trip with eight of my 
Republican and Democratic colleagues as part of a delegation. We toured 
the south, the north of Iraq, as well as Bagdad; and I was able to see 
firsthand the schools that have been rebuilt, the teachers we have 
retrained, and the hospitals, universities and newspapers that we have 
helped open. I saw Iraqi police in training; and most importantly, I 
talked to our young men and women, many of them still teenagers or just 
in their early twenties, who have continued to risk their lives to 
bring democracy and the comforts of life we enjoy here in the U.S. to 
Iraq.
  I came back, like so many of my colleagues, believing that there is 
no

[[Page 24897]]

question that this should be about us providing for and supporting our 
troops, and that we do need to assist in reconstructing Iraq and to 
ensure the safety of Americans here in the United States and those 
working abroad in our embassies or even simply traveling abroad.
  However, it is just as clear to me that we cannot really afford to 
stay in Iraq, nor can we leave at this time. We cannot stay because the 
basis upon which we invaded and now occupy that country, in my opinion, 
was false. Our preparations and understanding of what occupation would 
require were faulty. Yet, if we were to pull out now, our mistake could 
subject the region, the world, and especially our country and our 
people, to grave dangers of terrorism. Iraq under Saddam Hussein was 
not a haven for terrorists, but the porous borders of post-Saddam and 
even the failure of the administration to plan for such an eventuality 
may be making Iraq such a haven now.
  The President has put us in a terrible fix. We cannot afford to stay, 
yet we cannot leave. Meanwhile, we cannot even afford the initial down 
payment on his flawed policy of preemption. The country cannot afford 
the $87 billion the President is asking the Congress to appropriate. 
Indeed, experts say that Iraq this year could only absorb $6 billion. 
So why is Mr. Bush demanding three times that amount?
  America cannot afford the price tag that the President has put on 
this Iraqi misadventure unless he agrees to rescind the tax cuts to the 
top 1 percent of Americans, unless he understands that we have got to 
work in a multilateral situation and brings in a true form other 
nations to share in the cost of this. Because otherwise, the money that 
we will be spending will be money that we will be taking from the 
middle class and working class people of this great Nation and the poor 
who are already paying for this war, especially with their sons and 
their daughters.
  Let us make it so this is a shared sacrifice by all Americans. Most 
of all, our men and women in uniform in Iraq need a change in policy.
  Mr. Chairman, I vote against this measure. This is a perpetuation of 
a failed policy and misguided priorities. Even so, the President can 
turn this around once he makes a choice between troop strength and tax 
cuts to the wealthiest of Americans. The President can turn this around 
once he makes a choice between international cooperation and stuffing 
the pockets of partisan cronies. Mr. Chairman, we know this is just the 
first installment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, last fall we were told that Congress needed 
to authorize military force against Iraq in order to convince the U.N. 
to send the inspectors back into Iraq. But as soon as we did so, the 
Bush administration pulled the rug out from under the U.N. inspectors 
and decided it would use the authority Congress granted them to fight a 
unilateral war.
  Now we are learning that there were no weapons of mass destruction in 
Iraq. Congress and the American people were deceived, misled, and 
manipulated with false and misleading intelligence and political spin 
from the Bush White House.
  Now the Bush administration cannot find any weapons of mass 
destruction. It cannot find Saddam Hussein. It cannot find Osama bin 
Laden. It cannot find Taliban leader Mullah Omar, and it cannot even 
find out who within the White House staff leaked the name of that 
covert CIA operative.
  What does the Bush administration now ask the Congress for? They ask 
us to trust them and to grant their request for another $87 billion 
going into Iraq, a blank check with no clear vision of how we are going 
to extricate ourselves from this morass.
  Now, I hear a lot of talk from the administration and its supporters 
about how we are crafting with this legislation a new Marshall Plan for 
Iraq. Well, let me tell you, when George Marshall was crafting a plan 
for Harry Truman to reconstruct Europe after the devastation of World 
War II, he was not setting up a sweetheart, no-bid contract system for 
companies associated with the old Pendergast Machine in Kansas City.
  That is what we are seeing today with the contracts being given to 
Halliburton and other favored companies. We are providing broad 
transfer and reallocation authority to the executive branch that gives 
the Bush administration virtually unfettered discretion to spend the 
monies we appropriate in any way they wish. At the same time the 
President asks us to spend $87 billion in Iraq, he is also going around 
the country giving speeches calling for additional tax cuts for the top 
1 percent wealthiest people in the United States of America.
  So if you are wealthy in this country, you get tax cuts and fat 
government contracts. But if you are an ordinary working American, you 
get Social Security and Medicare trust funds raided, the 50 percent who 
are in nursing homes, the elderly dependent upon Medicaid, payments for 
their nursing home care, they are cut; and meanwhile it is all raided 
for the reconstruction of Iraq, while at the same time tax cuts of the 
same amounts are being given to the wealthiest 1 percent in our 
country.
  So the Republicans are busy at work coming up with new schemes to 
increase your Medicare co-pays, means test your benefits, increase 
payments for seniors with home health care visits. All of it is wrong, 
just plain wrong. It is a blank check. It gives the President and 
Secretary Rumsfeld too much authority. And it fails to do what is 
needed to build international support for peacekeeping and 
reconstruction in Iraq or craft an appropriate exit strategy to get our 
troops back home. And that can only happen if we have multilateral 
support for this effort, if we have a real vision for what is going on.
  As long as this administration believes that it is going to bring 
Jeffersonian democracy at the point of a gun to an occupied country, 
then we are operating with one of the most naive political schemes ever 
put together in the history of this world. And it is time for us to be 
ensuring that the Congress makes this administration accountable, 
rather than handing over a blank check with no accountability with at 
least 60 to 70 percent of this money capable of being reprogrammed by 
the administration at its own whim without Congress voting upon it 
again, all of it a mistake of historic proportions.
  This is where Congress must check in. It did so after World War II. 
Today it is just providing a blank check.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane).
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3289, 
which provides supplemental appropriations to our national defense and 
the reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  I would like to commend President Bush for his strong leadership 
during the war on terrorism. Under his leadership, our homeland has 
been free from terrorist acts since the attacks of September 11, 2001.
  For the past 2 years we, as Americans, have come together in an 
effort to protect ourselves from all aspects of terrorism in both the 
United States and abroad. Patriotism has soared as Americans have 
supported the war on terrorism and our troops who are fighting it.
  During these difficult times, we have managed to liberate millions of 
Afghanis and Iraqis while improving their way of life and allowing them 
to experience the benefit of democratic rule. We must not stop at this 
critical juncture.

                              {time}  1430

  We must push forward in our efforts in these countries and pass this 
necessary funding measure.
  The $87 billion Supplemental Appropriations Act for 2004 provides the 
essential funding which is the step toward expanding democracy abroad 
and is an investment in America's safety. The $19.8 billion provided 
for reconstruction in both Iraq and Afghanistan will be used to 
rehabilitate critical infrastructure so their citizens will have

[[Page 24898]]

safe drinking water, roads, bridges, adequate sanitation, electricity 
in their homes and an increase in public safety overall. The $64.7 
billion provided for our national defense will give our troops the 
necessary equipment to continue the war on terrorism and protect our 
shores from anyone who seeks to do us harm.
  This debate should focus on providing the necessary resources to 
complete this phase of the war on terrorism and providing adequate 
tools for our troops to complete their mission. Now, more than ever, we 
need to rally behind our troops, and providing adequate tools for them 
to complete their mission is the best way to show our support. A vote 
in favor of this bill is a vote in support of our troops.
  Finally, I would like to commend the gentleman from Florida (Chairman 
Young) and the members of the Committee on Appropriations for their 
hard work and dedication in the crafting of this legislation.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 23\3/4\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) has 10 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, because we are in search of absent speakers, 
I will yield myself 5 minutes until some of them arrive.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to take this time to address one issue that I 
have seen appear in the newspapers on almost a daily basis. There is 
somehow an impression on the part of a number of Members of this House 
and a number of members of the press that somehow we will endanger our 
ability to provide a responsible reconstruction package in Iraq if we 
scale back the reconstruction package now before us. I would like to 
suggest why that is not true, and to do so, I am simply going to read 
several paragraphs from the dissenting views that I filed with the 
committee in the report accompanying this bill, and here is what I 
wrote for that purpose.
  ``While the Committee wisely pared back some of the more outlandish 
projects proposed by the Coalition Provisional Authority, the bill the 
committee is sending to the House does little to alter the underlying 
approach to reconstruction envisaged by the CPA. That approach relies 
on huge contracts with large, multinational corporations to provide 
high tech and capital-intensive construction, training and services to 
Iraq requiring the importation of heavy equipment, highly-paid 
consultants and the payment of corporate overhead and profits.
  ``The consequence of this approach is that the American taxpayer will 
pay much more than he or she should; the amount of construction or 
reconstruction that can be performed within available funds will be 
significantly less than might otherwise be accomplished; the 
development of Iraqi businesses and institutions to deal with such 
problems will be negligible and the number of Iraqis who will be 
employed will be far fewer than could be productively used if less 
capital-intensive and lower-tech approaches were followed. In short, we 
will be paying more for smaller results and particularly smaller 
results with respect to employment and other economic changes necessary 
to bring about greater political stability.''
  Then I go on to cite one example. After U.S. engineers had told Major 
General Patraeus that it would cost $15 million to bring a concrete 
factory up to Western standards, the commander of the 101st Airborne 
Division gave the contract to local Iraqis who were able to get that 
cement plant running for just $80,000.
  It seems to me that the message that Congress ought to be sending the 
administration is that we need to focus more on low tech, indigenous 
strategies for development rather than simply getting in the old habit 
of going to the big multinationals like Halliburton and others and 
saying, okay, boys, what can you do for us with your high-paid 
consultants and high fees.
  So that is why it seems to me that the responsible thing to do is to 
scale back this package until the administration revisits its approach. 
In the end, if they do that, we will provide better benefits to Iraq 
and better benefits to the American taxpayer.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Watson).
  Ms. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, it has been over a year since the President 
began pressing to invade Iraq. At the time, many of us pressed the 
President to fully account for the cost of his planned war. Most 
Americans would agree that if the issue of Iraq was important enough to 
start a war over, it was important enough to pay for it.
  For a year, Congress has asked for hard numbers on the cost of 
occupying and rebuilding Iraq, and for a year, the President gave us 
nothing but blandishments and pie-in-the-sky forecasts. At the time, 
experts, including the President's own chief economist, predicted the 
war and reconstruction would cost as much as $200 billion, but the 
President and his aides actively downplayed those numbers, saying it 
would only cost around $50 billion.
  Well, guess what. Last month, the President finally admitted that he 
had lowballed the cost of the war when selling it to Congress a year 
earlier. The President is now asking for an additional $87 billion to 
extricate our troops from what is beginning to look like a quagmire. 
This additional $87 billion comes on top of $78.5 billion Congress gave 
the President just 5 months ago, bringing the grand total so far to 
$165 billion, and a recent analysis of House Committee on the Budget 
staffers showed that the entire costs for rebuilding Iraq could rise to 
as much as $400 billion over the next 5 years. If the numbers we 
received last year were intentionally lowballed, it would almost seem 
as the President had decided to rebuild with pinstripe patronage.
  The amount we are now being asked to provide almost looks as though 
it has been inflated to line the pockets of others. Just listen to some 
of the price tags in this bill: $950 million for recruiting, training 
and equipping police forces in Iraq, including a police training center 
with international trainers. This seems to me to be a bit exorbitant. 
$209 million for prison and detention facilities. Could we not save 
money if the facilities were built by Iraqis?
  A hundred million for a witness protection program? This amount is 
way too high. Do we really need to spend this money to ensure the lives 
of Iraqis who are assisting the U.S.? How many could there possibly be? 
Our own witness protection plan has nowhere near that amount. Are we 
going to put them up in Taj Mahals?
  A hundred million dollars to investigate crimes against humanity? 
Again, this amount is absurd. We have plenty of evidence of Saddam's 
crimes against humanity. The parents, the families of loved ones 
missing have come forward to volunteer that information. It will not 
cost us $100 million to find victims willing to come forward and 
document his crimes.
  Then there is $2.1 billion to rebuild Iraq's oil infrastructure. This 
is on top of the $948 million and counting already given to Halliburton 
and to Bechtel to refurbish Iraqi's oil fields.
  Then there is $697 million to improve the sewage system. This, when 
the administration is fighting to prevent Congress from passing a 
highway and transit bill? This is absurd.
  Please, Mr. President, do not insult our intelligence.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the yielding time to me 
and my friend from Wisconsin for his leadership on this issue.
  In April, almost every Member of the House, myself included, voted 
$60 billion for our effort in Iraq. Unfortunately, since April that $60 
billion has simply not been used well. We failed to protect and supply 
our troops adequately. We hear stories. I met last week with 25 
families of people who had loved ones in Iraq. We are not supplying 
them with safe drinking water. We are not supplying them with 
antibiotics. In some cases we are not supplying them with body armor, 
and we

[[Page 24899]]

are told in committee that body armor will not be available for every 
one of our soldiers there until December. What was the administration 
thinking?
  We appropriated $60 billion. The administration has failed to submit 
any plan to the American people, to this Congress, to tell them how 
this is going to work, to tell all of us when there will be an exit 
strategy. This administration has failed to show any evidence that the 
United Nations is cooperating. We cannot get other governments, other 
countries to send money, to send troops, to send resources, and we 
failed in terms of accountability.
  Today, Mr. Chairman, we are spending about $1 billion a week in Iraq. 
Three hundred million of that billion dollars is going to private 
contractors, and most of those private contracts are unbid contracts. 
So we are giving hundreds of millions of dollars to Halliburton and 
Bechtel and other friends of the President. Yet, we cannot protect and 
we cannot fully and adequately supply our troops. We do not have enough 
body armor. We do not have enough safe drinking water for our troops. 
We cannot send our troops home on leave. We are making them pay for it. 
We are charging our troops for food when they are in the hospital in 
some cases. Yet, we are spending hundreds of millions of dollars that 
are going to private contractors, Halliburton, Bechtel and other 
friends of the President.
  In fact, Mr. Chairman, Vice President Cheney still is receiving 
$13,000 every month from the Halliburton Corporation on the one hand, 
and we are giving them hundreds of millions of dollars in unbid 
contracts on the other. Vote no on the $87 billion. Do not give 
President Bush a blank check to continue the incompetence and the 
corruption and the ineptness in Iraq.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey) for yielding time to me and for his continued leadership on so 
many important issues.
  Mr. Chairman, I will be offering an amendment later along with my 
colleague and very good friend the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. 
Biggert). It will discourage the ongoing violence against women in 
Afghanistan and the deplorable attacks on girls schools in that 
country.
  The legislation before us appropriates more than $230 million over 
the administration's request for Afghanistan, and I thank the gentleman 
from Florida (Chairman Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Ranking 
Member Obey) for making this increase possible.
  While the country has made progress in the last 2 years since the 
fall of the Taliban, warlords and reactionary Islamic forces continue 
to wage a campaign of hatred against their own women. According to 
recent press reports, more than 30 schools for Afghan girls were burned 
to the ground, depriving hundreds of girls of a chance to receive a 
basic education. This amendment designates $60 million of the $672 
million in the supplemental bill to help women and girls.

                              {time}  1445

  It also provides $5 million in support to the National Human Rights 
Commission in Afghanistan, which is doing critical work in bringing to 
light human rights abuses against women and men throughout the country. 
Without human rights, the Afghan Project and the efforts to create a 
constitution are seriously threatened. If we are to succeed in 
Afghanistan, these issues must be addressed and addressed now.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time, and I rise in support of the amendment of the gentlewoman 
from New York (Mrs. Maloney) to be offered later this afternoon.
  The conditions for women and young girls in Afghanistan are still 
worsening. Further assistance to the Afghan women and girls for 
education, protection of human rights is crucial, it is necessary, and 
it is the right thing to do. So I support the amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time remains on this 
side.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 11\3/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner).
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about the rule. I know that most 
Americans want to see us do everything possible to support our troops 
in the field and in harm's way, but there is $20 billion in this 
request that is full of fat and pork and is intended to construct, not 
reconstruct, infrastructure in Iraq.
  I asked for an amendment yesterday that was not made in order to make 
this in the form of a loan. We have this notion in Tennessee that 
people who receive the proceeds of the loan ought to be the ones 
borrowing the money. I take the position, Mr. Chairman, that Americans 
have paid with the blood of young American soldiers. And the people who 
are going to benefit from this $20 billion largess are going to be the 
Iraqis, not Americans.
  Let me say one further thing about this matter. Somebody has to 
borrow this money. Do my colleagues not think it ought to be the people 
who benefit from the proceeds of the loan? We are borrowing $20 
billion, some of which comes from China. We had a $400 billion deficit 
this year. That is $16 billion in additional mandatory spending next 
year and every year thereafter on interest.
  This leadership in Washington, D.C. is spending more money than has 
ever been spent before in the history of the country. They are not 
spending it today, they are spending it tomorrow, and it is called 
interest and it is going to wreck our economy and wreck this country's 
future.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I think at least for now, with the blood of 
American soldiers being spilled, the least we can expect is that the 
people who get the proceeds of the borrowing ought to borrow it, not 
the American taxpayer.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 9\3/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished 
gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding me this time, and I want to thank 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) for allowing for a very serious 
debate.
  I thank all of our service men and women and their families who 
really are prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice. Tragically, this 
means sometimes their lives, but certainly the sacrifices of their 
families.
  Mr. Chairman, I have had the opportunity to visit on a number of 
occasions our wounded in our hospitals here in Washington, D.C. I have 
never seen such a group of valiant and stronghearted, wonderful 
individuals who are still committed to this Nation. That is why I 
believe this debate is one of the most important, historic debates and 
occasions we will have ever in our congressional careers.
  Mr. Chairman, I have determined that I am going to stand up on behalf 
of these troops that I had a chance to talk to over the weekend in 
Doha, Qatar; these troops who have said that there is no exit strategy; 
that they, in fact, do not know when they are going to return home. Mr. 
Chairman, the equipment that they have is riddled with inadequacies, so 
that if they are in a Humvee, it does not meet the test of avoiding 
explosion and great injury.
  This is the largest supplemental in the history of this Nation, so I 
ask the leaders of this Congress, let us delay this vote, let us vote 
only for the finite amount of money that will provide for our troops. 
Let us hold off on this $20 billion or $30 billion or $36 billion.

[[Page 24900]]

  Look at what Secretary Rumsfeld has said. He told us in the fall of 
2002 not to worry about the cost, that Iraq is a very different 
situation from Afghanistan because they have oil. But now they are 
coming to us and asking for $20 billion, and we do not have any 
accountability for the $79 billion that we gave just 6 months ago. And 
our troops are in need. What about the Reserves and the National Guard 
that told me that they have problems in getting paid? And that is why I 
have an amendment.
  We do not need to go to the donor conference in Madrid with a check. 
What we need to go with is a collaborative spirit, where we can sit 
down with France and Germany and Russia and our allies and develop a 
resolution that talks about troops and money.
  Mr. Chairman, I am going to stand on behalf of these troops. Until 
they get paid, until there is an exit strategy, until there are mental 
health benefits for those that are returning, they will not get a vote 
out of me. Because we need to stand on behalf of the American people, 
and we need to find the right solution.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 7\3/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), the ranking Democrat on the 
Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I just heard somebody mention Halliburton. 
This $87 billion is not about loans or grants; it is not about 
Halliburton or Bechtel. This is about a war that we are committed to. 
We voted for this war. Whether individuals voted for it or not, the 
Congress committed ourselves to this war.
  This is about a commitment to our troops thousands of miles away and 
a mission that we have had trouble getting them trained for, that they 
are not used to, about the lack of MOSes, people in specialties that 
are not in the jobs they should be in. This is about finishing a war as 
quickly as possible and allowing our men and women of the Armed Forces 
to come home victorious; to, indeed, march into the sunlight. This is 
about keeping our troops safe and not coming home in body bags so that 
they can again be with their mothers, fathers, wives, husbands, and 
children. In order to do that, they not only need the money for the 
military side, they need the reconstruction money.
  The administration sometimes refers to this significant effort of our 
troops in Iraq as a low-intensity conflict. This minimizes the effort 
of our 150,000 troops still in the theater and around Iraq. This is not 
a low-intensity conflict when you cannot tell the activated Reserves 
and Guards, who have been active duty for 2 out of 6 years, what time 
they are coming home. This is not a low-intensity conflict when we are 
wearing out our equipment, when we have a third of our Bradleys that 
are deadlined because of lack of tracks or when we have people short of 
body armor. This is not a low-intensity conflict when I find a 67-year-
old Reservist calling the office because the Army called him and said 
we would like you to volunteer to come back because your specialty is 
short, and if you do not volunteer, we are liable to call you back.
  I called the Army, and it turns out they said, no, we are not going 
to call anybody back involuntary. But it shows the shortages. We have a 
shortage of MOSes. Those are the specialties, important military 
specialties. We have 6,300 that are not in the jobs that they should be 
in. We have the number of people there, but we do not have the trained 
personnel because the shortages are starting to come up in the 
replacement area.
  Now, I have been to the hospitals, and I have talked to the troops in 
Iraq. They are not complaining about incidentals. They are complaining 
about what would save their lives, things that are essential to their 
lives. They complain about the lack of potable water. They complain 
about equipment that will save them, if they run over a land mine; 
equipment that will stop bombs from detonating in their path; equipment 
that will save them from shrapnel and fragments that penetrate the body 
armor or penetrate their bodies.
  I saw a poll in ``Stars and Stripes,'' and the general said, well, 
these polls, we always have people complain. The military always 
complains. But these are not the same kind of complaints I have heard 
in the past. These are serious complaints. These are complaints which 
are life-saving, essential to their life. This is about giving the 
resources needed to stabilize and secure Iraq as quickly as possible to 
bring our troops home as whole human beings to live out their lives in 
the sunlight.
  Every time I go to the hospitals, every time I talk to them, and the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) has been there, his wife has been 
there, and many of my colleagues have been there to the hospitals, and 
they appreciate us coming, and they talk about how the body armor saved 
their lives. The inserts in the body armor were the key. When our 
subcommittee, and most of us have been on that subcommittee 15 to 20 
years, for most of us our entire career, and everything we do is to try 
to protect the troops, try to make sure they have what they need, and 
when bureaucrats stop the money from getting out to them, that is 
almost criminal.
  Let me say this. The reconstruction money is just as important as the 
money that we are putting in for the combat. We have to win what I call 
the ``X factor.'' The X factor is winning the hearts and minds of the 
Iraqi people. We have seen polls that show they are in favor of us. We 
have sent people over there, and they say they are all happy with us. 
Well, let me tell you this. If they were happy with us, if they were 
for us, they would not allow people to fire RPGs, which are missile-
guided weapons, at our Humvees and then disappear into the crowd. We 
have a lot of work to do.
  I urge the people to vote for this entire supplemental. It is 
absolutely essential to the troops' security.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the very 
distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), a member of the 
Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding me this time, and I just want to commend the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania for his statement.
  History has an uncanny way of reminding us of our motivation. General 
Marshall outlined a program to help war-torn Europe without knowing 
that 30 years later the United States would face a similar crossroad. 
400,000 Americans were killed in World War II, paying the ultimate 
price for mistakes made after World War I. And following the second 
European war, the continent ran out of food and suffered from runaway 
inflation and turned to communism.
  Learning the lessons of World War I and its failed peace, the U.S. 
Congress backed the Marshall Plan. The plan went far beyond feeding the 
hungry to laying the foundation for the postwar recovery. This plan, 
the Marshall Plan, was very expensive. In today's dollars it cost $105 
billion. And as we face a similar crossroad, we have the benefit of 
history.
  We know that President Truman's decision to back the Marshall Plan 
helped to prevent World War III. A third generation of Americans did 
not return to the killing fields of Europe. Today, we face a similar 
challenge of rebuilding Iraq and preventing a third Middle Eastern war.
  This week, the House debates the Iraq supplemental. In considering 
$19 billion to rebuild Iraq, we face the same question that President 
Truman faced. Truman asked: How much should we pay to help avoid World 
War III? And the American people of 1947 answered: $105 billion, as 
approved by Congress and the Marshall Plan.

                              {time}  1500

  Today, we see the unfinished work of Desert Storm and we ask, how 
much should Congress pay to help avoid a third war in Iraq?

[[Page 24901]]

  Let us look at the costs of these wars to bring things into 
perspective. We know that in current dollars, World War II cost $4.7 
trillion and remains the most expensive conflict in U.S. history. So 
far, the war on terror costing $193 billion, including this Iraq-
Afghanistan supplemental, is more costly than Desert Storm at $82 
billion but less costly than other major conflicts, including Korea at 
$400 billion and Vietnam at $600 billion. We know the Marshall Plan's 
cost of $105 billion is roughly five times the $19 billion cost for 
Iraq proposed here.
  Cost is also relative to income. Today's U.S. economy is larger than 
it was in 1947. The Marshall Plan imposed a heavy financial burden on 
the American people, 5 percent of our national income. This plan is a 
much lighter burden; .02 percent of America's income finances this 
plan. In such terms, the Marshall Plan was over 200 times more 
expensive than this Iraqi plan.
  Under this plan, the reconstruction of Iraq has already begun. 
Chairman Lewis and I returned from Baghdad where we saw the main power 
plant returning to prewar capacity. We saw firsthand a budding 
democracy taking root on the front pages of no less than 120 new 
newspapers founded since May 1 in Iraq. Under Saddam, only half of 
schoolchildren attended class. Last week, 90 percent of schoolkids 
attended class, many with some of the 1.5 million book bags provided by 
the U.S. They also returned to class with 5 million new textbooks, but 
these textbooks were absent the pictures of Saddam and the rhetoric of 
hate that undermined the future of this region.
  We need to work with our allies, and as oil begins to flow, a well-
educated people will return to work, but like their predecessors in 
Europe, our troops need to finish this mission, earning a ticket home 
with no future Middle Eastern war forcing a return to the killing 
fields of Iraq. The stakes are high. I think we should finish the job 
so that there is no third war in Iraq.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
  Mr. EMANUEL. I thank my colleague from Wisconsin for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of our troops in Iraq. Thousands of 
young men and women, my neighbors and yours, remain in harm's way. They 
are suffering casualties daily and fatalities every week. We must do 
all we can to provide for their protection. We are indebted to our 
troops for their service and sacrifice. The men and women of the Armed 
Forces make all Americans proud. My vote for this bill is for one 
reason only, to give our troops the resources they need to carry out 
their mission. But my vote should not be interpreted as supporting this 
administration's postwar policy in Iraq or the lack of one.
  As I cast a ``yes'' vote, I will supply the troops with the resources 
they need. My hope is that the President and the administration will 
finally supply a policy the Nation deserves. Because the absence of a 
policy has never measured up to the valor and patriotism of our troops. 
As we will do our part in Congress, now it is long overdue for the 
administration to do theirs, enunciating a policy. Our troops will get 
the Humvees and the Kevlar vests they need, but the policy is as 
important for their protection as the equipment.
  Just over 2 years have passed since the September 11 attacks when the 
world reached out and expressed sympathy and solidarity with America 
and Americans. Because of our arrogance, we have turned the world's 
sympathy into antipathy. This administration lacks a policy that is 
coherent, that spells out a clear vision for Iraq's mission, invites 
support from our allies and provides an exit strategy that will bring 
our troops home and reunite American families. I supported the war. I 
still believe getting rid of Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do. 
But the administration has made a legitimate war illegitimate through 
its actions. While it sold the war on a set of claims that were never 
true, the administration never leveled with the American people.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. OBEY. It is my understanding that after this leg, we will still 
have an hour of general debate remaining under the rule that was 
adopted; is that not correct?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct. The Committee will rise for 
some business in the House and then go to an hour of debate on the bill 
back in Committee.
  Mr. OBEY. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent 
request to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall).
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the 
supplemental and support the Obey amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this bill. While I 
support the funds allotted for our courageous troops, I cannot support 
the bill in its current form.
  The lack of information we have received from the Administration on 
operations in Iraq and future costs is embarrassing, especially as we 
hear daily about new casualties on the ground. We have seen no timeline 
estimating when elections will be held to allow the Iraqi people to 
choose their own government. We have heard no estimated date from this 
Administration for sending our troops home. We still have seen no 
estimate of the total cost of operations in Iraq.
  While we must work toward quelling the attacks and stabilizing Iraq, 
passing this bill is not the answer. If Congress approves this request, 
the amount spent on Iraq will exceed $150 billion. But we still don't 
know how the Administration spent the first $70 billion the Congress 
approved for Iraq and Afghanistan, a funding request I supported. 
American taxpayers deserve some accountability. American taxpayers 
deserve to know how their hard-earned money is being spent, and they 
deserve to know how much will be spent in the future.
  When someone puts a down payment on a house, that person does so 
knowing not just the amount of the first payment, but also the full 
cost of the mortgage. We need to know what the mortgage on Iraq is--we 
deserve that, and the President has a responsibility to tell us. Its 
that simple.
  It is unfortunate that the Majority would not allow us to consider 
the funds for the troops separately from the reconstruction funds. I 
don't know of one colleague in this House that does not support the 
troops, and to say that a no vote on this bill is a vote against them 
is offensive.
  This past August, I was able to visit troops in my district in New 
Mexico who had recently returned from Iraq. In fact, just this week, I 
met with veterans in my district, and the overwhelming majority do not 
support this effort. I also visited troops on active duty in Germany 
and closer to home in Bethesda Medical Center during the war. I heard 
their stories, all of them heroic, and expressed my gratitude for their 
service to our country. I voted in favor of the resolution to support 
the troops in this war, and I am proud of that vote.
  What I am not proud of, however, is the process we have seen in 
considering this funding bill. I submitted an amendment to pay for this 
funding bill by modifying the President's irresponsible tax cut so that 
the rate of the top one percent of the taxpayers would change to 38.2 
percent--still less than the percentage before the tax cuts--for 2005 
through 2010. Unfortunately I was not permitted to offer the amendment, 
so we will not have a vote. A similar provision was also included in 
Mr. Obey's amendment which was also not allowed a vote on the floor.
  The new cost of the war--$150 million--if fifty percent more than 
Administration officials estimated a few months ago. This year the 
Federal Government has the largest deficit in its history--over $400 
billion--and this does not include this new request. Because of poor 
decisionmaking, poor planning, and plain old bad math, our 
grandchildren will be paying for this war.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Ford).
  Mr. FORD. I hope that as this vote proceeds, Mr. Chairman, I will say 
to my friends on the other side of the aisle that some of us who are 
struggling with this, please refrain in your press statements and 
releases from referring to anybody on this side of the aisle as being 
unpatriotic. I think there

[[Page 24902]]

are legitimate questions about how this was brought to the floor, about 
the specificity associated with it, about the term of our stay there. I 
have been on the ground, as I know many of my colleagues on the other 
side have there in the region, so I would hope that we can all refrain 
from referring to anyone in this body, anyone in this Chamber, Democrat 
or Republican, as being unpatriotic.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 15 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I know that that 15 seconds has been bugging 
you all day. I am going to yield it back.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes, once 
again, to briefly explain that when we have concluded this phase of the 
debate, then the Committee will rise, and we will officially then take 
up the bill. We will go through the regular process of calling up the 
bill under the rule.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent 
request to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham), a member of the 
Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this supplemental 
appropriation.
  This is one of the most important votes we will cast this year. For 
the future of peace in the Middle East and the promise of a better 
future for the children of Iraq--this vote should be one vote you will 
remember for the rest of your life.
  Without question, we will have concerns about the amount of money the 
reconstruction of Iraq will cost the American public. Eighty-six 
billion dollars . . . it's a lot of money.
  Like you, I have received many letters from my constituents asking 
``why?'' I have been peppered during town hall meetings. ``Why is it 
that Americans are always the ones who have to pay?''
  Why? Because we are Americans.
  Because, when ruthless dictators take innocent lives, when people--
like Saddam Hussein--terrorize their own people, when evil people 
conduct unspeakably evil acts against their own--we must ask ourselves, 
``Who else will act?''
  ``Who else will?''
  Time and again, America has given its blood, its strength and its 
money to promote and protect freedom overseas.
  As the world's standard bearer for democracy and freedom we have 
inherited this duty. We are America--This is what we do.
  Some will say that we cannot afford to support Iraq. I say we can't 
afford not to.
  We are committed--like it or not--to the rebuilding efforts in Iraq. 
It is incumbent upon us to lay the foundation of a free economy for a 
country now free from oppression.
  The Iraqi people are looking to us to uphold our responsibility for 
security and reconstruction. We must follow through on our commitments 
to the Iraqi people and the local population must understand that we 
have their true interests at heart.
  We should never again come to the floor of this House and make 
speeches about mass graves, malnutrition, environmental devastation and 
WMD. Neither should we again detail to our constituents the horrors of 
state-sponsored rape, murder and torture in Iraq.
  Can it happen again? You bet.
  Saddam's minions want us to leave, they want Americans dead--because 
they will use the same forces of terror they are using today, to kill 
innocent Iraqis and American soldiers, as a path to power tomorrow.
  If we abandon Iraq, we are back to square one. We dishonor the men 
and women who have given their lives for us and the Iraqi people during 
this necessary mission. Our Nation's fight for freedom in Iraq.
  Our job will have been left undone and for what?
  This Congress should be committed to assisting Iraq in becoming an 
independent, self-governing and economically viable nation. We must 
finish the work and honor the sacrifice of so many dedicated soldiers.
  To abandon our efforts would be inhumane to the people of Iraq and 
dangerous to our national security.
  The world has changed. Many of us--especially those of us on the 
Appropriations Committee--sensed a new insecurity after the 1998 
embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya and the attack on the USS Cole 
in Yemen.
  The United Stated did not act appropriately then.
  The events in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania forced us into 
this new role because we must protect ourselves and the free world.
  Why? Once again. Because who else will?
  So here we are today, setting the course for a free Iraq.
  We have all been sent to Washington by our constituents to make 
difficult and honest choices. You will make a choice today.
  This package reflects a vision and a hope that America can be a 
catalyst for freedom and peace in the Middle East--freedom that 
generations of Iraqis have not yet experienced and the kind of freedom 
we take for granted every day.
  Be a catalyst for freedom and security. Vote in favor of this 
appropriations bill.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, under the balance of the debate 
time, I have a series of thoughts that I would like to present, but I 
am going to wait until we actually have the bill before us.
  In the meantime, I just want to make this one closing thought before 
yielding to the majority leader. We have talked so often about what our 
constituents have told us, this week, last week, the week before. After 
Desert Storm, over a decade ago, one complaint was we went to war 
against Saddam Hussein, but we never finished the job. This finishes 
the job. I still hear that complaint today. We got rid of Saddam 
Hussein and most of his henchmen, and now we are finishing the job to 
get our troops back home. We cannot do that until we have established, 
as the United Nations agreed today to help expedite the establishment, 
a government in Iraq, to establish a form of constitution and to 
provide those things that a government would provide for their people.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. DeLay), the very distinguished majority leader.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I really appreciate the gentleman bringing this to the floor and 
conducting what I think is one of the most important debates in the 
country and in our careers. It has been a good debate.
  I hope Members of this House would pay attention to the statement by 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha). As I sat in this Chamber 
listening to the gentleman from Pennsylvania speak, I was looking at a 
gentleman that I have the utmost respect for but mostly because he 
knows what he is talking about. If the Members back in their offices 
did not see the gentleman from Pennsylvania's comments, I would hope 
that they would get the transcript and read it. Because when he says 
that the reconstruction money is as important as the money to go to the 
troops, he is absolutely right, and it is part of the war on terror.
  Mr. Chairman, this debate, for all the time and energy that it has 
consumed, really comes down to one question: Are we at war with 
international terrorism or are we not? And with this vote, every Member 
of the House will tell the world how seriously they take the war on 
terror. Let us put an end to the sleight-of-hand rhetoric some of the 
war's opponents have used of late. To those who have feigned offense 
about their patriotism being questioned, this is not about your 
patriotism. It is about your judgment. While I am on it, let me just 
say that that old debating tactic of ``I support the troops, but'' is 
just not going to cut it this time. If you support the war and you 
support the troops, you must vote for this bill. The war that we are 
fighting cannot be won without a safe and secure Iraq. It cannot be won 
without the reconstruction funding in this bill. It is just that 
simple.
  Everyone in this building and everyone in this country has the right 
to oppose this war and oppose this war supplemental, but that 
opposition and the weak and indecisive foreign policy that it 
represents has consequences. A ``no'' vote on this bill is a ``no'' 
vote on the war on terror and will serve to undermine our coalition. If 
you oppose the war, feel free to vote ``no.'' But at that moment, the 
American people will know for sure who is working to win the war on 
terror. This bill does not just fund the war, it funds the overall 
strategy of the war on terror. That

[[Page 24903]]

means, Mr. Chairman, that the reconstruction money is defense spending; 
it is war spending; and it is homeland security spending. These 
priorities are one and the same, because they serve the same strategy 
and combat the same enemy. And that enemy, I would remind my 
colleagues, is not each other but the enemy is the terrorists.
  This is life and death, Mr. Chairman, not politics. And if we are 
serious about winning this war, we must pass this bill. Since we took 
on this fight 2 years ago, two oppressed nations have been liberated. 
Terrorist networks around the world have been destroyed or forced into 
hiding. And the brotherhood of human freedom has been expanded by 50 
million Iraqis and Afghanis. This is all because the American people 
have once again decided, Mr. Chairman, in the face of an unthinkable 
evil to stand and fight.
  I urge my colleagues to stand and fight with them today and vote for 
this bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of October 14, 2003, the Committee 
rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Kirk) 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 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.

                          ____________________