[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 19]
[House]
[Pages 26488-26492]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 3289, 
   EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR DEFENSE AND FOR THE 
              RECONSTRUCTION OF IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN, 2004

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 424 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 424

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (H.R. 3289) making emergency supplemental appropriations 
     for defense and for the reconstruction of Iraq and 
     Afghanistan for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, 
     and for other purposes. All points of order against the 
     conference report and against its consideration is waived. 
     The conference report shall be considered as read.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate 
only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Frost), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 424 is a rule providing for the 
consideration

[[Page 26489]]

of a conference report to accompany H.R. 3289, a bill making emergency 
supplemental appropriations for defense and for the reconstruction of 
Iraq and Afghanistan for fiscal year 2004, and for other purposes. The 
rule waives all points of order against the conference report and its 
consideration. The rule also provides that the conference report shall 
be considered as read.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report that in its particulars, the 
conference agreement is largely consistent with the House passed 
version of the supplemental. In the aggregate, the agreement provides a 
total of $87.5 billion, which is $500 million above the President's 
request. Of that sum, $18.6 billion is provided for Iraq relief and 
reconstruction, which is $1.7 billion below the President's request.
  Mr. Speaker, now that the House and Senate conferees have reached 
agreement on this emergency supplemental, it is imperative that we move 
without delay to make these funds available both to our troops in the 
field and for the vitally important work of rebuilding Iraq.
  Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the 
conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a supporter of our efforts to replace 
Saddam Hussein's dangerous dictatorship with a stable and democratic 
Iraq. But I am deeply concerned that the Bush administration's stubborn 
refusal to be honest about Iraq has made the reconstruction process 
more difficult, more expensive and more dangerous.
  Mr. Speaker, President Bush said it best earlier this week at a press 
conference in the Rose Garden. In talking about the United Nations, he 
said, ``Credibility comes when you say something is going to happen and 
then it does happen. You are not credible if you issue resolutions and 
then nothing happens.''
  Well, that is exactly the situation President Bush has created for 
himself, a growing credibility gap that could threaten our ability to 
win the peace in Iraq.
  Before the war, the Bush administration refused to prepare the 
American people for the costly and deadly reconstruction effort they 
are now witnessing. And whenever people like General Eric Shinseki let 
slip the truth, that it would be very expensive and require lots of 
troops, the administration publicly rebuked them, and then relieved 
them of duty.
  On May 1 of this year, President Bush dressed up in a flight suit and 
had a pilot land him on an aircraft carrier so that he could declare 
victory in Iraq. Since then, nearly 120 American troops have been 
killed in action, more than before the President's May 1 victory 
speech, and nearly 1,200 have been wounded.
  In recent days, however, the Bush administration has reached a new 
low in its well-documented PR campaign to spin Americans into believing 
that the bad news coming out of Iraq these days is actually good news.
  On Tuesday, President Bush defended his May 1 ``victory'' pep rally 
by blaming the whole affair on the sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, 
as if he had somehow been the victim of the Navy's public relations 
stunt. That is not only an outrageous charge, especially coming from 
the man who runs the slickest White house PR machine ever, it is 
utterly unbelievable. After all, back in May, the Bush White House 
bragged to reporters that the President himself helped devise the 
event, and the New York Times reported that his aides ``had 
choreographed every aspect of the event.''
  Perhaps most disturbing, however, was the President's response to the 
series of sophisticated and deadly attacks against U.S. soldiers and 
our allies earlier this week. Sitting in the White House with 
Ambassador Bremer on Monday, President Bush tried to convince Americans 
that this was actually a sign of progress, that it proved how 
``desperate'' these Iraqi insurgents have become.
  This is what he told reporters who asked about the bombings, ``Again, 
I will repeat myself, that the more progress we make on the ground, the 
more desperate these killers become.''

                              {time}  2200

  That statement, Mr. Speaker, was literally incredible. When 
terrorists can coordinate multiple, separate attacks to kill 35 people 
and wound more than 230 people in just 45 minutes, it is a horrible 
tragedy, one that indicates a very real security problem on the ground 
in Iraq. And trying to spin it as good news simply undermines the 
President's credibility and harms our effort to win the peace in Iraq.
  Mr. Speaker, President Bush's credibility problem is such a serious 
concern because America cannot afford to fail in Iraq. That is why so 
many people took notice earlier this week, when Senator John McCain, a 
Republican, who supports our efforts in Iraq and who knows as well as 
anyone the lessons of Vietnam, said, ``This is the first time that I 
have seen a parallel to Vietnam in terms of information that the 
administration is putting out versus the actual situation on the 
ground.'' It makes it harder to convince our allies around the world to 
shoulder some of the burden for rebuilding Iraq. That forces American 
taxpayers and American soldiers to bear the lion's share of the cost. 
And that makes it harder to maintain public support for this expensive 
and dangerous effort.
  Mr. Speaker, that is why Democrats, and a few conscientious 
Republicans, have tried to force the Bush administration to account for 
the hundreds of billions of dollars it is spending in Iraq. And it is 
why we have tried to force the Bush administration to stop making 
American taxpayers pay the entire tab for this latest foreign aid 
package. After all, before war, the American people were told that Iraq 
was an oil-rich country that could fund its own reconstruction. 
Obviously, Iraq's proven oil reserves have not disappeared and America 
still has its own unmet priorities, like homeland security, education 
and health care. But now the Bush administration insists that Iraqi oil 
money can only be used to repay the debts that Saddam Hussein ran up to 
build his war machine and that U.S. taxpayers have to foot the bill for 
rebuilding Iraq. So Republican leaders have stripped out of this 
conference report the Senate's loan language.
  Mr. Speaker, U.S. taxpayers are already struggling under the mountain 
of debt the Bush administration has run up. And there is no good reason 
to force U.S. taxpayers to pay for President Bush's failure to convince 
our allies to help. That is why majorities in both Houses of Congress 
voted in favor of turning about half of the reconstruction grants into 
loans. But sometimes, Mr. Speaker, it seems like President Bush does 
not understand how seriously his credibility on Iraq has been damaged. 
Unfortunately, as long as the Bush administration refuses to treat the 
American people with more respect, it will become increasingly 
difficult to achieve a goal we all share, winning the peace in Iraq.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 
minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart), a 
valuable member of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, there are moments in 
history where we know the decisions we are making will affect the world 
in the future. Today we stand at such a moment, charged with the 
enormous task of helping to rebuild Iraq. Our own history offers us 
guidance about how to best rebuild a wartime adversary.
  After World War I, Germany was soundly defeated and the parties 
gathered in Versailles to negotiate the terms of surrender. The talks 
came to a question of who was responsible for the aftermath. Was 
Germany responsible? Should a country with a new government be burdened 
by the debts of a defeated regime? Should they be responsible for 
reconstruction or for reparations? We all realize how the reparations 
inflicted upon Germany at that time created an atmosphere of despair. 
We are also aware of how that

[[Page 26490]]

atmosphere was exploited by the evil monster Adolf Hitler. Mr. Speaker, 
we know how that story ended in Germany, and it could end up that way 
in Iraq.
  But after World War II, an alliance, once again scarred by battle, 
sat across from debt-heavy and defeated nations, and the alliance did 
not make the same mistake of 1918. The United States eventually 
formulated a systematic recovery program that became known as the 
Marshall Plan. The Marshall Plan was not entirely made up of U.S. aid. 
It also called upon the European nations to eventually contribute to 
their own recovery. Yet the first installment of $4 billion in aid 
required great political will. At that time, $4 billion represented 13 
percent of the entire budget. That act of congressional courage helped 
to make Western Europe into a subcontinent of strong economies, strong 
democracies and, thus, strong allies.
  It is my belief that this assistance may allow a free and democratic 
Iraq to become a beacon of hope in the Middle East. It will show the 
people of that region that democracy is possible, that the United 
States does not impose its will, only the ability for people to decide 
their own destiny.
  That is why I applaud President Bush for setting the course of 
reconstruction in Iraq. Encouraging progress is already happening. 
Schools are opening. Electricity is turning on. New currency is being 
distributed. As the Iraqi people see continued progress in rebuilding, 
we help keep Americans safe at home. In a section of the world that has 
already imperiled too many lives, in a country whose previous savage 
regime caused too much suffering and too many deaths, we in Congress 
should be inspired by the lessons of our history to support an emerging 
Iraqi democracy with our wisdom, our experience, and our resources.
  The vote we are about to cast will have enormous repercussions. If 
this assistance has the same effect that the Marshall Plan funding had 
in Western Europe, it will help toward the creation of a stable, 
democratic Iraqi government and a lifelong ally of the United States. 
It is with that hope, Mr. Speaker, that I will support this 
supplemental appropriation.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Hastings).
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I thank the ranking member of the Committee 
on Rules for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is Halloween and scary costumes are the order 
of the day. What is going to be the scariest costume of them all? The 
schoolteacher outfit with 60 children to teach? The small business suit 
with the bankruptcy notice? Or the elderly costume with its inadequate 
health care? Without a doubt, the desert camouflage uniform of the U.S. 
military is the scariest costume of all. Without flak jackets, 
traveling in nonarmored Humvees and without jammers to block incoming 
bombs, United States soldiers were sent to battle unprepared for the 
postwar hostilities they encountered and ill equipped to defend 
themselves. And all of us have a responsibility to all of them. But 
they are living a nightmare.
  This is the consequence of rushing to war. Congress has been begging 
the administration for a comprehensive plan to stabilize Iraq and an 
exit strategy to bring our troops home. There has been no response. 
Instead, President Bush has presented us a bill that we are voting on 
soon demanding $87 billion, having not accounted in full for the $66 
billion that was granted previously. The billions of dollars in this 
supplemental are not intended to get us out of Iraq. They are intended, 
in some respects, to keep us there, perhaps indefinitely.
  Realize what $87 billion could buy. To get some perspective here or 
some real-life comparisons about $87 billion and how it could benefit 
the American taxpayer:
  $87 billion is more than the combined total of all State budget 
deficits in the United States. $87 billion is approximately the total 
of 2 years' worth of all U.S. unemployment benefits. $87 billion is 
more than double the total amount the government spends on homeland 
security. $87 billion is 87 times the amount the Federal Government 
spends on after-school programs.
  The priorities of the President were those that in many respects were 
stripped out; but to add further insult to financial injury, billions 
of taxpayer dollars have been spent already on no-bid contracts for 
major U.S. corporations. In yet another tall tale from the 
administration, we were told that the funds for rebuilding Iraq must be 
in the form of grants to encourage other nations in the donor 
conference in Madrid the other day in rebuilding Iraq. Yet a total of 
$18 billion was pledged at the Madrid donors conference last week and 
$14 billion of that amount was in the form of loans. Therefore, there 
is no overarching reason for providing this money only in the form of 
grants.
  It is fundamentally flawed logic to expect the American taxpayer to 
incur a debt for problems America has not created. We are not 
rebuilding an Iraq that we destroyed. We are rebuilding an 
infrastructure decimated by Iraq's former dictator. What we owe the 
Iraqi people is an opportunity for a democratic way of life, and it is 
not unreasonable to expect them to shoulder the cost. Freedom and 
democracy never come cheap. They are exorbitantly expensive in terms of 
money and sacrifice. The continuing propaganda from the White House 
regarding Iraq is distracting our attention from Afghanistan and other 
countries.
  In my view, everyone should vote against this measure.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
  Mr. MENENDEZ. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference report that this 
rule seeks to bring to the House floor. During House consideration of 
this bill, I pledged that I would not write the Bush administration a 
blank check of the taxpayers' money for the $18.6 billion in 
reconstruction funds for Iraq. I pledged not to write a blank check for 
a plan with no exit strategy, no clear link to this supplemental, and 
no details for after January of this coming year. I pledged not to hand 
over $18.6 billion of the taxpayers' money to build Iraq's electricity 
infrastructure when ours is not functioning here at home. I pledged not 
to sanction the use of American money to modernize Iraq's medical 
facilities and medical equipment when millions of Americans here at 
home are living without health care. And I pledged not to spend the 
American people's money to pay for that which we did not damage and 
that which did not previously exist in Iraq. I pledged not to send 
$18.6 billion in grants to a country that has the second largest oil 
reserves in the world, worth approximately $7 trillion. Why should Iraq 
not be expected to pay back this money? And I pledged not to add 
another $18.6 billion to this year's deficit, estimated already at over 
$480 billion.
  Each of us in this Chamber has a responsibility to the American 
people to demand an Iraq package that will not bankrupt future 
generations. That is why the American people still support creating a 
loan package for Iraq, not a grant. Iraq can and should pay back the 
money for reconstruction with their future oil reserves. Period. 
Evidently, I reached the same conclusion many of the nations and 
organizations at the Madrid donors conference reached themselves. That 
conference only produced $4 billion in grants and roughly $13 billion 
in loans and trade credits, that amount toward a total estimated Iraqi 
need of $56 billion over the next 4 years. So, Mr. Speaker, this is not 
the last time that we will see moneys being brought by the 
administration for Iraq. And why should the American taxpayer not be 
paid back if the taxpayer in other countries, countries that did not 
support this effort, will be paid back?
  The consequence of this grant approach is that the American taxpayer 
will pay more than he or she should, will pay more for Halliburton to 
make more. The President's suggestion that bombings in Iraq are a 
result of our success is outrageous. The bombings

[[Page 26491]]

are a failure of our postintervention planning, not a symbol of 
success. And though I strongly support our American servicemembers and 
the money that is going to them in this bill, made much better because 
of Democratic efforts, I cannot in good conscience support this 
legislation.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the conference report.

                              {time}  2215

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Watson).
  Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I stand here outraged because I am asked to 
vote for a bill that would give $87 billion as a grant to a country 
that has billions of barrels of oil buried underground in reserve. At 
the same time, we have cut veterans services. I am outraged.
  I am hurt, because our POW Shoshanna Johnson, the first African 
American female ever to be a prisoner of war, was disregarded and given 
30 percent disability benefit. Oh, yes, Jessica Lynch got 80 percent.
  We should be ashamed. This young woman spent 22 days as a captive. 
She told me that twice a week they would bring her a little bowl of 
water to wash with. She is going to leave the Service, and what does 
she have to look forward to? She was shot through both of her ankles, 
and they are only going to award her 30 percent disability.
  Is that the way we treat our service personnel as veterans? Is that 
why we said to them, go into the Service, be all that you can be? We 
sent them over there in harm's way, and they served us well. And now 
they are coming home, and we are not serving them well, we are not 
serving her well. But we can give a country thousands of miles away our 
hard-earned tax dollars. There is something incredibly wrong with that.
  I do not care what you snuck into the bill at the eleventh hour. I 
understand the money for California's fires, how cynical, is in this 
bill. You ought to be ashamed of yourselves.
  So I am voting no. My veterans know I support them, my military 
people know I support them. I have been over to Walter Reed, I have let 
them see my face and know my support. So I do not have to play a game 
and vote for this bill, when we have problems right here in our own 
country.
  We had an incident in Cannon, it was a failed system, because none of 
us were notified as to what was going on over there.
  I just want to say to my colleagues, let us be truthful and let us be 
trustworthy, and let us treat the people of America right, and 
particularly those that we sent into harm's way, by choice. We were not 
attacked by Iraq. We chose to invade Iraq. Now, we are trying to 
rebuild a country at the expense of our own domestic needs.
  I cannot do it, and I hope you will not do it. Let us honor America. 
Let us honor our own fighting forces. Let us take that money and put it 
to their welfare after they leave that country and go home. Let us 
welcome them in an American way, and treat them fairly. Let us vote no 
on this rule.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise as one who voted for this 
supplemental last week because of our troops. Our troops need this 
help. We made the decision to send them into harm's way. They need the 
bulletproof vests to save their lives. That is in this request. They 
need the hydration systems to purify their water, so many of them are 
having dysentery from the water over there not being purified. There is 
so much, so we cannot turn our backs on our troops.
  But we have a dilemma. The American people have a dilemma. The 
American people are asking some questions of this administration and 
each and every one of us up here, Democrat and Republican, and that is 
this question: Where is the accountability for this money, these funds, 
to build Iraq?
  I wish we could have set aside, and I worked hard to see if we could, 
the money for our troops, the $67 billion, because that is another 
question. I do not think there is anybody in this House that would not 
vote to help our troops. But this House is in a convoluted state, just 
like this whole country is in a convoluted state, because there is a 
lack of accountability on this administration and this President for 
the monies that go to rebuild Iraq.
  There are serious questions. If we do not raise those questions, if 
we do not answer those questions, it is not going to be so easy to come 
back and get money the next time, because the American people, I am 
here to tell you, have had it about up to here.
  We are working with a country over there that is sitting on the 
world's second largest oil reserves, which arguably could be one of the 
richest countries in the world, and yet in this administration and in 
this supplemental there is not one timetable, there is not one direct 
amount of money that is going to get the oil wells producing, to get 
the oil production up and running at capacity. That should be the first 
business. Where is the money for that?
  Why is there a cloud over the handling of this noncompetitive 
business? The American people are asking these questions. Halliburton 
and Bechtel, two companies, fine companies though they may be, but 
should they have nonbidding rights to get the taxpayers' money?
  The American people are asking these questions. We owe it to them to 
ask these questions and get some answers. We have got to do it 
together, not as Democrats and Republicans, but together. We as a body 
must ask this administration to give the American people the 
accountability and the transparency on where this $20 billion is going 
and how it is going to be spent, or else we all will lose our 
credibility, and that is something we must not do. The American people 
are counting on us to ask the questions of this administration on this 
money and get the answers.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, as I have mentioned previously, I have been a supporter 
of our action against Iraq, I voted for the supplemental, and I will 
vote for this conference report. I will tell you that there are serious 
questions that have been raised by Members on this side of the aisle, 
and even some Members on the other side of the aisle, particularly on 
the issue of whether all of this money, all of this $20 billion, should 
be a grant, or whether at least a portion of it should be a loan.
  These are serious questions. The House went on record and the Senate 
went on record in favor of some of this money being a loan, but, 
unfortunately, the conference committee did not see the wisdom in 
taking that position.
  Members have indicated and have served notice, and I believe Members 
on the other side of the aisle should listen carefully, Members have 
served notice that it will be much more difficult for the 
administration next time they come to this body seeking more funds for 
reconstruction.
  Members have been willing to give the administration the benefit of 
the doubt, even though they have very serious reservations, but I would 
hope that this administration and the Members on the other side of the 
aisle, before they return to this Congress asking for additional 
billions of dollars, will take a long and hard look at this issue of 
loans versus grants and take a long and hard look at the opinions of 
the American people who are very concerned about unmet needs here in 
the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Ackerman).
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to speak on this. In 
listening and thinking this through, I feel compelled to take the well.
  I am one of the few on this side of the aisle that voted with 
President Bush

[[Page 26492]]

the first time, as well as this President Bush, because I thought it 
was important, the right thing to do, that those of us who have said 
``never again'' to tyrants must protect not just ourselves, but other 
people as well, and step up to the plate, and that it would be sinful 
not to do what we have to do in ridding the world of a tyrant. I am not 
sorry that I participated in that, because, indeed, it was the right 
thing to do, and remains so.
  But things have happened and things have changed as we watch what has 
evolved, as we watch an administration that ran for office and 
continually talked about bringing morality back to government and 
taking personal responsibility, and suddenly seeing the evolving of 
what has happened here, which is truly mind-boggling.
  Personal responsibility. Who knew what in the White House and when? 
Personal responsibility. Things starting to go wrong.
  Where is the plan? Those of us who supported the action always said 
we were going to win the war. There was no doubt about it. You could 
not find an oddsmaker in Las Vegas to say that Saddam Hussein was going 
to win the war. The day, the amount of time, the casualties, that was 
always a question.
  But the question that we pressed in the Committee on International 
Relations was, can you win the peace? What we have here is a Secretary 
of War who has now become the Secretary of Peace, and he does not know 
how to do it.
  The President stood here in this House and said to us Members of both 
bodies assembled, ``British intelligence tells us this.'' I think it is 
what Nixon called ``plausible deniability.''
  I never heard a President say someone else's intelligence told us 
this. He was warned. He was warned by the CIA Director that that 
intelligence was wrong. Blame the British. Blame the CIA Director. 
Blame the brave men in the Navy on the Abraham Lincoln.
  What happened to personal responsibility? Where is the plan? We have 
been deceived; we have been lied to, we in the Congress and the 
American people as well, and that is intolerable. People took the oath 
of office to tell the truth. Where is the truth?
  Indeed, this is a dilemma. We have so many American lives on the line 
in that country, but the President owes us a plan. A company declares 
bankruptcy for a half a million dollars, they have to have a plan. For 
$87 billion, there should be a plan. What is the plan? Nobody knows the 
plan.
  ``Trust us.'' Well, I have run out of trust in this administration. I 
do not mind that the emperor has no clothes; I mind that the emperor 
does not have a plan, because lives are at stake.
  We want to protect our troops. Bring back a bill that would protect 
the troops. We are not going to leave them hanging out there. But to 
spend $87 billion, and nobody knows how, nobody knows why, nobody knows 
where, nobody knows when, is something that is absolutely 
unconscionable, and something in which I can no longer participate.
  I will be voting no.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, we have no additional requests for time, and 
I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for this rule so we can get 
on to fund the very important operation that we have in the Mideast. I 
just remind my colleagues that more than 75 percent of this bill goes 
to make sure that our troops are secure in this theater.

                              {time}  2230

  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________