Providing for further consideration of 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.

Mr. Chairman, last spring many of us warned that unilateral military action against Iraq would open a Pandora's Box; that the President had not prepared the American people for the sacrifices that would be entailed by such an action; and that to act without the support of the international community would seriously jeopardize our ability to win the post-war peace in Iraq. Regretfully, I fear that we were right. And there is little satisfaction in that realization--because the implications for our Nation and the American people are very serious indeed. Our President and his advisors have backed this country into a corner from which there is no easy escape.

Now the President has asked this Congress--asked the American people--for an additional $87 billion for the upcoming year to pay primarily for our efforts in Iraq. This request comes on top of the $79 billion already appropriated for these purposes this fiscal year and we can be sure that this will not be the President's last request for funds for Iraq. Iraq's stabilization and reconstruction needs over the next five years have been estimated at over $50 billion--without taking into the account the costs of continued troops deployment there.

In deciding whether or not to support this request, I believe we must consider three fundamental questions:

How did we get to the situation we are in today?

In light of the current state of affairs in Iraq, is the kind of investment the President has requested necessary to enhance our security and protect our national interests? and,

If this investment is necessary, has the Administration presented us with a responsible plan that will achieve our key national objectives, both in Iraq and at home?

how did we get here?

Six months ago, the President informed the American people that Saddam Hussein posed such a dangerous threat to the Untied States that we had to wage war in Iraq to protect our national security. The President and his advisors sold the Iraq war to the American people primarily based on the argument that Saddam Hussein was a ticking time bomb; that he posed a serious and growing danger to America; and that the only way to eliminate the threat was to eliminate Saddam Hussein.

The Administration's argument was based on the marriage of two claims. The first was the claim that Iraq possessed an arsenal of chemical and biological weapons and would soon obtain a nuclear weapons capability. The second was the claim that Saddam Hussein was in league with Al Qaeda. Taken together, these claims painted a very ominous picture. While many in the international community--and here at home-- had strong doubts about the nature, magnitude and imminence of the threat posed by Saddam, in its rush to war, the Administration exploited the fears of a post 9/11 America. They portrayed the United Nations Security Council, the U.N. weapons inspectors, most of the international community, and critics here at home as a bunch of spineless procrastinators who wanted to look the other way in the face of a growing Iraqi threat.

It now appears that the Administration's two most fundamental arguments for war were false. After interviewing hundreds of former Iraqi military personnel and allowing more than 1,200 of our own inspectors to roam across Iraq over the last six months, we have failed to uncover any actual weapons of mass destruction. The interim report submitted by Dr. David Kay, the Administration's own arms inspector, provides no hard evidence to support the kind of danger President Bush depicted when he made the case for immediate military action. In the absence of evidence of actual weapons, U.S. officials have shifted their rhetoric to focus on ``weapons programs'' and ``the intent'' of the pre-war Iraqi regime. And while it may be true that Iraq was not in full compliance with U.N. Security Council resolutions, it also appears that the sanctions regime, coupled with the inspectors deployed under Resolution 1441, was successful at containing Iraq's ambitions to develop weapons of mass destruction.

Time has also not borne out the Administration's claim that Al Qaeda was in league with Saddam Hussein. There is no credible evidence of any collaboration between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. This argument, made over the objections of many in the intelligence community and most regional experts in this town, was a calculated effort to establish a false link in the minds of the American people between the terrible terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and the need to go to war in Iraq. This strategy of fear was not based on the facts, but on a desire to do whatever it would take to win public support for the war.

It is undeniable that Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator. However, the security threat he posed to the United States was grossly exaggerated by the President and his public relations gurus. The question now looms--Having eliminated the regime of Saddam Hussein, are Americans safer today than they were six months ago?

situation on the ground

By almost every measure, the U.S. post-war mission in Iraq is not going well and the Administration remains deeply divided over the best way to proceed. While it is true that we have removed Saddam Hussein from power, it is far from clear that we have made the American people more secure as a result. The jury is still out on the implications of our actions for the Middle East region, the fight against terrorism and efforts to control the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

The Iraq of today does not reflect the rosy pre-war predictions made by the Bush Administration. The situation on the ground is far from secure. Since the President declared the end of major combat operations, 198 brave Americans have died--sixty more than died during the war itself. Hundreds more have been severely wounded. Every week more Americans are killed, more car bombs go off and more international aid workers leave the country.

Our military forces are stretched thin and our troops are prime targets for former Baasthists and other extremists in a country overflowing with supplies of arms and munitions. The senior American commander in the Persian Gulf region has told us that we are engaged in a ``guerrilla war'' in Iraq. At the same time, the political process in Baghdad is bogged down over security issues, the friction of the occupation and increasingly bitter Iraqi-American arguments over the pace of turning over control and responsibility to Iraq's Governing Council. Increasingly, we find ourselves in a shooting gallery with no real exit strategy.

Terrorist Threat. In one of the terrible ironies of the war, in the name of fighting terrorism, we have increased the level of terrorist activity in Iraq. Administration officials report that Baghdad has become a new magnet and breeding ground for extremists and terrorists from around the region. Even worse, our actions in Iraq appear to have forged a link for the first time between the fanatical Islamic extremists of Al Qaeda and the traditionally secular remnants of Saddam's Baathist regime. These two groups, ideological antagonists before the war, have now been driven together in an unholy alliance to wage war on Americans. While the terrorist attacks attributed to this newly forged partnership have so far been confined to Iraq, this virulent combination could begin to extend their activities elsewhere.

International Community. The Bush Administration's contempt for the international community in the lead-up to the war has seriously complicated our ability to gain the cooperation and assistance of the rest of the world in support of common objectives. In the immediate aftermath of September 11, 2001, the entire world stood with us in the war on terrorism. The United Nations and NATO unanimously pledged their support in our fight and multinational involvement in our mission against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan was the highest ever. However, today this situation has greatly changed. Our friends and allies have been unwilling to participate in a substantial way in the reconstruction effort in Iraq. Even under the auspices of a new U.N. Security Council Resolution establishing a United Nations role along side the U.S. in Iraq, very little is expected in new troops and financial pledges for the Iraqi mission.

U.S. Credibility. The Administration's misleading statements about the nature and magnitude of the Iraqi threat have undermined our credibility around the world. Secretary of State Powell's report to the United Nations prior to the war relied on forged documents and information we later admitted to be unreliable. The nuclear specter that Administration officials pointed to has been discredited. Even more recently, Administration Inspector David Kay has been forced to back down from post-war claims that two mobile trailers found in Iraq were used for making biological weapons. The huge credibility gap that now exists for the Administration undermines our future ability to sound the alarm based on sensitive intelligence matters. Future claims about Iran, North Korea and others will be viewed with deep suspicion by a more skeptical public and an international community that, as the Economist described, sees the Bush Administration as having its own arsenal of WMD--``Wielders of Mass Deception.''

Regional Stability in the Middle East. The Bush Administration's predictions that the fall of Saddam Hussein would put extremists in retreat throughout the Middle East and spur progress in the Arab- Israeli conflict have not be realized. The Arab-Israeli conflict has gone from bad to worse in the six months since the end of the Iraq war. And while it is premature to reach any conclusions about the long term effects, the Administration's prediction that the fall of Saddam Hussein would trigger a kind of democratic domino effect, spreading democracy throughout the Middle East, looks unlikely in the foreseeable future. The trend is toward more violence and polarization in that troubled region.

Conflict Management. The new ``preventive war doctrine,'' articulated by the Bush Administration to justify our action in Iraq, has set a dangerous precedent in international relations. The Administration's assertion that America has the right to attack another nation based on the perception of a future threat has--especially in light of what we know now to be faulty and hyped intelligence--undermined many of the long existing norms for international engagement. The world will become much less secure if nations with long histories of bitter differences, such as India and Pakistan, should choose to follow our example.

By almost every measure, our virtually unilateral attack on Iraq has, at least in the short term, made American less--not more--secure. The difficult question we must now face is: Where do we go from here?

Where do we go from here?

The President's request for this $87 billion marks the culmination of his repeated failures--his gross exaggeration of the threats posed by Iraq in order to justify the war; his contempt for the international community before the war; his inability to gain significant international backing to share the military burden and the financial costs of rebuilding Iraq; his failure to level with the American people about the cost and challenges of ``winning the peace''; and, the list goes on. The Bush Administration deserves to suffer the political consequences of these miscalculations, misrepresentations, and missteps. But that decision will--and should--be left to the American people at the ballot box.

In the meantime, we here in the 108th Congress have an obligation and a responsibility to limit the extent to which the American people will suffer the consequences of the President's bad decisions. These decisons have placed not just the Bush Administration--but our entire county--in a difficult predicament. The terrible irony of the war in Iraq is that, in the name of making America more secure, it has--at least for now--made us less secure.

We cannot turn back the clock. The stablization and reconstruction of Iraq is now a critical interest of the United States, Iraq and the international community. I believe that we must help in the reconstruction of Iraq for two reasons. The first is based on the simple principle: ``If you break it, you fix it.'' The second is based on our security interests in preventing another rogue state from emerging in Iraq or the outbreak of a violent crime conflict that will further destablize the volatile Middle East region and further enflame Muslim and world public opinion against the United States. Unless we invest in maintaining and protecting our troops, and in helping to rebuild Iraq, we will make a bad situation worse; we will compound the damage done by the reckless actions of this Administration--and make the challenges facing our Nation in the years to come even more difficult.

American Troops Are Still Necessary

Over two thirds of the request before us--$67 billion of the $87 billion--is allocated to cover the costs of maintaining and protecting the U.S. troop presence on the ground in Iraq. These troops are providing the security framework necessary to maintain some semblance of law and order as efforts are made to create a mechanism for writing a new constitution, holding elections and returning sovereignty to an internationally recognized and legitimate Iraqi authority. The immediate withdrawal of American troops would produce tremendous instability and would likely lead to civil war between the three major communities in Iraq--the Shia, the Sunnis and the Kurds. Just as the precipitous U.S. disengagement from Afghan affairs following the Soviet withdrawal from that country opened the door to the Taliban regime, premature U.S. withdrawal from Iraq would benefit extremists and terrorist groups. If we don't fill the power vacuum that exists, groups like Al Qaeda and Ansar Al Islam will help fill it.

In addition, the immediate withdrawal of American troops would undermine the status of our country around the world. The President engaged our military in Iraq with strong rhetoric about the type of Iraq Americans wished to enable Iraqis to create for themselves. He made pledges to the Iraqi people in our name. We must do what we can to make good on those pledges. Our hasty withdrawal would likely embolden our enemies in the region and around the world. It would be a setback to our common effort to expand representative government and combat terrorism.

The Administration has been forced to recognize that we cannot achieve our post-war goals in Iraq alone. We must do everything we can to replace our troops with international forces and a new Iraqi police force. However, we must be realistic. We face time and resource constraints. For now, it appears that we will be able to attract only a limited number of foreign troops. Our allies and other nations, still seething from the Bush Administration's pre-war treatment are not yet prepared to provide substantial troops and financial support for the current mission. The Security Council resolution passed on October 16th is unlikely to significantly change this situation. In addition, it will take time to train an Iraqi force that can assume day-to-day responsibility for security. Until that Iraqi force is trained, American forces will be needed to prevent chaos and anarchy.

Iraqi Reconstruction is a critical U.S. interest

About twenty billion of the President's $87 billion request is slated for reconstruction efforts in Iraq. This large investment is particularly difficult to stomach given both the mounting deficits caused by the Bush tax cuts weighted toward the super rich and the Administration's gross neglect of pressing needs here at home. However, I strongly believe that it would be short-sighted--and even dangerous-- for our country not to do what is necessary to attempt to win--or at least not lose--the battle for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. This will not be easy and the outcome is not guaranteed. Our chances of defeating the remnants of the Hussein regime and various extremists elements will be based in large part on our ability to show that the standard of living is better in the post-Saddam era. If we fail to create an environment in which the great majority of Iraqis see themselves as better off, we will open the door to ethnic, religious and regional strife. This could endanger our troops and undermine our efforts to build a new Iraq at peace with itself and its neighbors and on the course to representative government.

In the long run, our only chance of salvaging the situation is to make a substantial investment. The cost of not making a substantial investment today will be much greater sums tomorrow. We have opened a pandora's box. Significant funds are now needed to try to extricate ourselves from this difficult situation and try to ensure that over the long term the American people will not have been made less secure as a result of this war. The immediate withdrawal of our troops now is not a viable option. Handing the shattered Iraqi infrastructure, economy and body politic over to a makeshift government prematurely, is only a recipe for disaster. We must now all pay the price of the President's misrepresentations, miscalculations, and missteps.

Responsible Leadership

The key question facing Members of Congress today, however, is whether the supplemental request before us reflects an effective and sustainable plan for U.S. engagement in Iraq--and one that meets the test, both at home and abroad, of responsible leadership.

The task before us is enormous. To succeed in Iraq we need a coherent and international plan for moving forward. The Administration's record has been poor and they have given us little reason to believe that they understand the mistakes they have made and will make much needed adjustments to the course they are taking.

Experience with other nation-building efforts tells us that the mission before us is difficult and costly. It will require an extended commitment over a long period of time. And, unlike the military campaign, winning the peace will require the help of our friends and others in the international community. The American people are only beginning to realize the enormous implications of our involvement.

The World Bank has estimated Iraq's reconstruction needs at an additional $55 billion over the next four years--not including the costs of the continued military presence in that country. In Bosnia, a country one-eighth the size of Iraq, the international community has spent close to $50 billion over the last 8 years in nation-building and reconstruction--troop deployments have cost an additional tens of billions for individual countries--and the end is not in sight. Let there be no doubt that the request before us today is just the tip of the iceberg.

Given the record of the last six months it is frankly stunning how unwilling the Administration has been to meet its critics even halfway, to address the problems that exist, to provide a coherent roadmap for moving forward together with the international community, and to ensure that the bill for this mission will not be borne by America's children and grandchildren.

First, the Administration has stubbornly failed to admit the serious mistakes that it has made and to address the serious credibility problem that they have created for themselves among the American people, the U.S. Congress and the international community. This was evident most recently in the President's handling of the report on weapons of mass destruction submitted by former U.N. inspector David Kay, now working for the Bush Administration. The Kay report findings seriously undermined key elements of the Administration's pre-war claims. Yet, the President stubbornly sighted them as proof of his case. In a recent interview, Vice President Cheney suggested a link between Saddam Hussein and the attacks of September 11th, a claim the Administration had never previously made, and a link which the President himself rejected in statements a short time earlier. Unless the Administration is willing to address the serious credibility issue

that exists--or at least not compound it--it will be difficult for the American people to have any confidence in its statement about the situation in Iraq and its assessment of what needs to be done.

In addition, the Administration continues to act as though it has no responsibility or legal obligation to inform the Congress and the people of this country about how they plan to use the money that we approve in this chamber. In recent hearings Administration officials have refused to answer questions regarding the expenditure of funds previously authorized by this institution and to give little or no information on future projected costs. In my own committee I asked Administration representatives about U.S. commitments, financial and other, to the Turkish government in return for deployment of Turkish troops in Iraq and I was not able to get any satisfactory answers. If the American taxpayer is going to foot the bill for Turkish troops--by grant or by loan--they have the right to know. And if we are planning to send U.S. troops to fight--and maybe die--pacifying Turkish-Kurds opposing the Turkish government, then I believe the American people deserve the right to know about that deal.

Second, it has been true from the very start that the President's Iraq policy has suffered from deep divisions within the Administration on the most fundamental issues--dealing with the international community, organizing for reconstruction and interpreting the threat itself. These divisions have been the subject of recent public discussion over the announcement of a new task force headed by National Security Advisor, Condeleeza Rice, with the task of coordinating the stabilization and reconstruction efforts in Iraq. This announcement notwithstanding, there is considerable evidence to suggest that little real progress has been made in this area. Recent statements attributed to senior Administration officials are highly critical of the Bremer mission in Iraq and raise serious questions about who is calling the shots, even today, on U.S. policy.

Without a coherent plan that is implemented by a united Administration we cannot succeed. This plan does not exist today.

Third, it has long been clear that we cannot succeed in the post-war mission in Iraq alone. We must engage the international community for both political and material reasons. The Administration badly miscalculated the extent to which Iraqi suffering under Saddam Hussein would translate into goodwill toward America's role in Iraq. We must understand the complex situation we face today in our new role as an occupying force in Iraq.

Fourth, the Administration's actions must match its rhetoric about supporting Iraqi democracy. The $20.3 billion reconstruction budget presented by the Administration was drawn up without meaningful consultations with Iraqis. In addition, we watch as Administration officials arm twist the Iraqi Governing Council to accept the deployment of Turkish troops in Iraq over the strong objections of all three major Iraqi communities--the Kurds, the Shia and the Sunnis. It appears that the Administration has not grasped the first tenet of nation-building--that the Iraqi people must believe that they are rebuilding their own country.

Fifth, the Administration has ignored the importance of its role in accounting for the funds that we approve and preventing corporate profiteering and abuse of taxpayer money. It must take serious steps to allay fears that appropriated funds will be wasted on large favored corporations. In light of the many stories of abuse we have heard in recent weeks, the ``prudent'' transparency mentioned in Mr. Bremer's testimony before members of Congress does not go far enough. The Administration must provide a satisfactory accounting of how funds have been spent to date and how additional funds are being planned for.

Finally, and most importantly, the President is asking us to ignore the enormous budget implications of this request. Let's not fool ourselves or the American people. It won't be just this $87 billion. It will also require billions more in the months and years ahead.

While we have a responsibility to maintain security on the ground in Iraq and assist with the reconstruction of that country, we also have an obligation to level with the American people. The President totally failed to prepare the American people for the true costs of the war and of ``winning the peace.'' Now he seeks to escape responsibility for those costs by putting them on our national credit card and running up huge deficits. Every penny of the $87 billion requested by the President is borrowed money. But we all know there is no free lunch. His ``out-of-sight, out-of-mind'' approach to such important issues will wind up costing our children down the road.

We should not be waging war and peace by credit card. If we are willing to pay any price to defeat the scourge of terrorism, we must pay for it in an honest way. While the President has asked our troops and their families to make the ultimate sacrifice, he has given the wealthiest Americans a huge tax cut. That is wrong. It is wrong to pass the buck to the next generation; it is wrong to ask the younger generation, including our troops and their children, to bear the burden alone; and it is wrong to shield the wealthiest Americans from paying their fair share.

We have a huge responsibility gap in our government. It is the gap between those who understand that we have a responsibility to establish stability and help rebuild Iraq--and who are prepared to pay for it now, and those who call upon the country to pay any price in Iraq, but run from responsibility paying that price.

I had an amendment to fill that responsibility gap. It was an amendment to scale back the tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans to pay their share of the costs of this bill. Incredibly, the House leadership prohibited that amendment from coming to a vote.

This is a difficult time to be asking the American people to invest billions of dollars of their money to build schools, hospitals, roads, electric grids and communications systems. Here at home, our Federal, State and local governments are experiencing huge revenue shortfalls. The President's budget request for this year falls $9 billion short of what was promised by the Federal Government to meet our obligations to America's school children under the No Child Left Behind legislation. Three our of five children eligible for Head Start cannot receive help because of lack of funds. Years ago the Federal Government pledged to cover 40 percent of the costs of ensuring that children with disabilities received a good education, but today we are meeting only 18 percent of that cost. The same shortfalls occur in health programs, our national transportation infrastructure, and a range of other important domestic needs.

We must meet our needs at home at the same time we meet our international responsibilities in Iraq, Afghanistan and other places around the globe. We as a nation have enormous resources. We can meet both our domestic needs and our international responsibilities. We can help the Iraqis rebuild their country while we construct new hospitals and schools here at home. But we must be prepared to pay for them. If we refuse to pay now for our efforts in Iraq by reducing portions of the tax cut, it will make it impossible to make the investments we must make in education, health, transportation and other needs here at home. Already this year, when many of us called for full funding for No Child Left Behind and meeting our national obligations for special education we were told that we didn't have resources because of the large tax cuts. Adding this $87 billion to the deficit will make it even more difficult to meet those pressing needs. That is why we must pay now for the costs of our efforts in Iraq. We cannot put everything on our national credit card.

The President has totally abdicated his leadership responsibilities. His job is to level with the American people--to inform them that our international responsibilities require us to pay the price of leadership. Leadership is about setting priorities. The war in Iraq was a war of choice. Regardless of what each of us may think about how that choice was made, we now have a responsibility to pay for the consequences of that choice. The President--by refusing to pay for the war and its aftermath--refuses to acknowledge the real costs of those choices.

There are those who argue that, because the President has refused to scale back his tax cuts to pay for the war and its aftermath, those of us who believe we have a responsibility to provide security and aid in the reconstruction in Iraq have no alternative but to support the President's request for $87 billion without condition; that we have to go along with the President's plan to wage war and peace by credit card. That is an irresponsible position and a false choice. If paying for security and reconstruction is that important--and I believe that it is--when we should insist that we pay for it the right way. To do any less is to abdicate our responsibility to the American people.

the false choice

Money alone is not the answer to the problems we face in Iraq. The stakes are high and the mission is difficult. For those of us who support making this enormous investment I believe that we have a duty to ask if the money will be spent wisely and where it will come from.

The Bush Administration has treated our concerns, and those of others, with contempt and arrogance--the same way they treated the international community prior to the war. I fear that if we buckle-in to the Administration's demand to do it ``our way or the highway,'' we will simply be acquiescing in the continuation of a fundamentally failed approach to a very sensitive and vital mission. We cannot allow ourselves to be caught in the false choice that we must engage the Administration's way or no way at all.

For weeks I have struggled with this vote. As the son of a U.S. foreign service officer, I have always had a strong personal commitment to our country's international role. It is with great difficulty that I cast a vote against

funds requested by a President in pursuit of U.S. policies abroad. However, the Administration's arrogant refusal to consider alternative approaches and, most of all, its refusal to pay now for the consequences of its choices has convinced me that they will not address these issues in a responsible manner until we demand a higher standard of leadership. If the President believes, as I do, that we have an obligation to provide security and help rebuild Iraq, he should have the simple courage to pay for it. Despite all my other reservations, if the President were to present a plan to pay now for the costs of our efforts in Iraq, or if my amendment to reduce the tax cuts to cover our costs were adopted, I would support this bill. The choice is not between doing nothing and doing it the President's way. We have a responsibility to the American people to do it the right way.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 401 ask for its immediate consideration.

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 401 provides that H.R. 3289, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense and the Reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan, shall be considered as read, and that no further motion or amendment shall be in order.

Mr. Speaker, the House began debate 3 days ago on this emergency appropriations bill that provides for the needs and protection of our troops in Iraq. The unanimous consent agreement provided for 5 hours of general debate that began on Wednesday. The House resumed debate yesterday morning with discussion and consideration of amendments lasting well into last night. The House began a third day of debate this morning with consideration of 13 amendments.

After hours and days of debate, delay of a final vote on the emergency supplemental bill means a delay in getting the men and women in our military the resources and the equipment that they need. This rule, H. Res. 401, would end the delay and give our troops the funding they require and the support that they deserve.

I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the majority whip.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would advise the gentleman to use his speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, as has been mentioned in different forms earlier in this debate, this is serious business. It is serious business. And I believe knowing that we are engaged in this war on terrorism, which we have been now for over 2 years, we have to respond in a timely manner to those Americans that we put at risk. And I would remind my colleagues that three-fourths of this bill, or slightly more, goes to support our troops. And we have focused on other parts. Probably that is good for the debate, but we should not lose sight of the fact that three-fourths of this goes directly to our troops.

Now, we have some difference of opinion between the other House with their supplemental budget. The quicker we can get this into conference, the quicker we can get a bill passed; and the quicker we can get the President to sign it to support our troops, frankly, the better off we are.

I would just make one observation that I found rather interesting, because we spent a great deal of time debating before I was here on the Gulf War resolution. I was not here. But I understand that was a debate that was inspiring for the Congress. That really, when we look at that from a historical standpoint, is why we are here today, because of whatever reasons and agreements were made following the Gulf War, Saddam remained in power.

Now we are in a situation where we have to complete that. We had a long debate when we decided to go to war in Iraq this year, properly the right thing to do. And now we have debated this supplemental to support our troops for into the third day.

From a historical standpoint, I would just like to remind Members that sometimes this body moves extremely fast on important issues. Right after December 7, 1941, when we declared war on Japan and Germany, the U.S. House of Representatives allocated 40 minutes for each of those resolutions. I think it is important for us to get this done as quickly as we possibly can. So I urge my colleagues to vote for the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose this new rule to recklessly cease debate and eliminate all opportunity for amendments on behalf of the American people. I now will speak to H.R. 3289 before us. The task of stabilizing and reconstructing Iraq may end up being one of the greatest challenges of our generation. Although we are getting rosy reports of progress in Iraq from the administration, the fact that we have 130,000 troops in the area and are now being handed an $87 billion tab paints a fully different picture. It is now obvious that the administration grossly underestimated the cost and difficulty of stabilizing Iraq, almost to the same extent that they overestimated the threat posed to the American people by Saddam Hussein. Even the so- called ``soft costs'' of the war and its aftermath are enough to cripple some nations.

This is not revisionist history; at least a hundred of us in Congress, millions of citizens who took to the streets, and even a handful of brave souls in the administration itself, tried to warn the administration of what it was getting into with its pre-emptive strike on Iraq. We were ignored, and those in the administration--the Shinseki's and the Lindsey's have been encouraged to move on. But the problems in Iraq have not gone away so gracefully. We are now at an important crossroads. We can continue to beat this dead horse with the same policies of isolation from our allies around the world and partisanship here in the

United States or, we can start working together--employing the collective wisdom of all of us here and around the Nation with the experience and expertise to be of service in this endeavor--and who are committed to our troops, and to fulfilling the promise the President made to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan and to the world.

As this debate comes to the Halls of Congress, the people who marched us into this war will try to paint this vote as a vote for or against our troops. This is absolutely a false picture. For one thing, our military is extremely well funded. As I just described, including the Iraq supplementals, the Defense budget will be approaching $500 billion. Furthermore, Iraq is not an indigent nation.

If they wanted to, they could take better care of our troops. Secretary Rumsfeld wants to spend billions of dollars on a Star Wars defense system, while we are getting reports that our soldiers risking their lives in Iraq don't have adequate body armor, or clean water supplies, or basic human necessities like feminine hygiene products for our women soldiers. Six months after this battle started, we still have soldiers without kevlar body armor and water purifiers. What did they do with the first $79 billion war supplemental? We now have a new request for money, but we still have not heard details of how they spent the first money, what progress has been made, and what challenges remain.

I visited the As-Sayliyah Central Command Base in Doha, Qatar last weekend and heard the concerns of the troops from their own mouths. I heard testimony about how a ground soldier, watched his partner and the operator of a military vehicle get tossed out as the vehicle was thrown airborne by a land mine. ``Why did you hit this mine,'' I asked. ``It was just one of those mines that was missed in the sweep . . .,'' said the soldier. Because there isn't enough personnel or specialists to assign to technical tasks, unskilled or untrained technicians frequently get asked to do jobs that they have not mastered enough to guarantee the lives of those who must traverse the sands of Baghdad. The soldier misses his wife and newborn baby dearly. Because there hasn't been a change in the personnel on the front lines in several months, many reservists and active duty servicemen and women have spent a longer time in Iraq than was promised by the Administration. May 1, 2003 was supposed to have been a day of hope and homecoming; instead, it was a sham. Some of these troops feel like ``sitting ducks'' out in the foreign terrain. They don't speak Arabic. They don't know Tikrit like they know their hometowns. When I asked them if they have seen any troops of other coalition nations, they responded, ``what coalition troops?'' They need support and they need continuous relief.

The President and his friends in Leadership in Congress did not listen to the warnings of the Congressional Black Caucus, or our international allies, or hundreds of thousands of like-minded citizens who took to the streets. Some of my Democratic colleagues voted for this war, because they believed in the institution of the Presidency, and thought they had to give this administration the benefit of the doubt. I did not. Regardless, now the President has cut open this patient, and the patient is laying on the surgical table. The President has made a promise to the people of Iraq and to the world that we will leave the patient better than we found it--and it is up to our American soldiers and the American taxpayers to fulfill that promise.

Much of the toughest burden will fall on the shoulders of the families of our troops overseas. Therefore, I have submitted amendments that speak to alleviation of this burden. (1) I firmly believe that before any further funds are sent to Iraq to rebuild that country, we need to ensure that our men and women in the armed forces--reservists as well as active servicemen and women are receiving the money and services that they deserve and in a timely fashion. Dr. Jones, who works under Lt. Col. Corbett shared this concern with me during my visit. (2) I also believe that the Pentagon needs to develop a plan to ensure that none of our troops or government employees must remain stationed in Iraq for more than 6 months at a time. (3) Furthermore, the administration must announce a definite and clear exit plan for the troops to give them real hope and a notion that an end to the fighting is truly near. (4) There should also be more trained military policemen and women stationed in Iraq to mitigate the vulnerabilities experienced by these men and women. (5) Similarly, they need proper job allocation so that lives are not lost due to erroneous assignment of duties. (6) Moreover, as to the national guard servicepersons, the scheduled end of deployment should be honored rather than making them continue fighting until their respective units are released. Despite their frustrations, I encouraged them with the following phrase, ``you are as much defenders as you are peace-keepers'' to let them know that their work truly matters the most for the people of Iraq as well as the people at home in the United States.

I sincerely wish the President had not put us in this situation, but he and his administration did. And now we have to deal with it. If we are going to deal with it, I feel at this point it is critical to take some of the control away from the people who have made horrible misjudgments at every step of the way, who misled the American people and the Congress about the need for war, and who ignored warnings from inside and outside the administration. Either they knew the truth, chose to mislead us, or they did not take the time to adequately assess and plan for the true situation. Either way, senior members of this administration were not doing their jobs.

That is why before any appropriations are sent to rebuild Iraq, the Congress and the American people need to see an independent investigation in progress, looking deeply into several questions: whether U.S. intelligence reports were manipulated in order to misrepresent the threat Saddam Hussein posed to American interests; whether the costs and dangers of invading and occupying Iraq were deliberately understated; whether American officials who offered differing views of Iraq became the victims of inappropriate or illegal retaliation; and whether one or more individuals within the administration is or are responsible for the leak of classified information regarding intelligence reports and the veracity of accounts as to the purchase of ``yellowcake'' for nuclear weapons production.

If any of these allegations are proved true, those responsible must be held accountable. I am concerned that there has been a methodical and undemocratic effort to mislead and intimidate the American people and the world in order to march us into this war. And now we are being given an $87 billion bill to pay for that effort.

As we move forward in Iraq, unfortunately, we have severely limited options. Because people like Secretary Rumsfeld have used reckless speech that has angered and exasperated our allies, many of our most staunch allies are now reluctant to get involved in stabilizing and reconstructing Iraq. While our State Department has been reaching out around the world with a hand of cooperation and partnership, Mr. Rumsfeld has proudly displayed his arrogance and disdain for anyone not walking lockstep with him.

Too much is at stake to distance ourselves from those whose help we need. People from democracies around the world are now being asked to trust this administration with the lives of their sons and daughters in the military, by sending them to fight under a U.S. command whose leaders show them blatant disrespect. They are being encouraged to send their hard-earned money to reconstruct Iraq under the authority of this administration that gives the largest contracts to its political supporters, that seems to have no credible plan for the future, and that ignores the advice of even the most trusted experts on the world stage. It is not surprising that they are not stepping up with money and troops.

I think the problem is basically a lack of trust. I can't blame them. I do not trust this administration to do the right thing in Iraq either. I do not intend to vote to send another dime to Iraq until the President takes some dramatic steps to restore credibility to his Administration:

First, I want to see new faces in top positions, starting with Donald Rumsfeld. We need people who choose integrity over politics and respect over arrogance. Second, I want to see a full accounting of how they spent the first $79 billion, and exactly how they came up with this $87 billion figure. Our sources say that the armed services were barely consulted on those numbers--that some critical needs were totally left out, and others grossly exaggerated. We need honest accounting. And third, once we have a true picture of what funds are necessary to support our troops, Congress should be able to vote on that funding alone--separate from the money needed for reconstruction of Iraq. That ``bifurcated vote'' will allow us to quickly get money to protect our brave soldiers, but will also give us the time we need to thoughtfully craft a plan for reconstruction--a plan that will include our allies, and the World Bank, nongovernment organizations (NGOs), and oil and natural resources from Iraq itself.

Those are the three things I want to see before I can consider giving any more money to this administration for the United States effort in Iraq. This does not mean that I do not want to support our troops. And this does not mean that I want to break the president's promise to the Iraqi people and to the world that he would make things better in Iraq.

Instead, it is a call for action. I want to get the appropriate amount of money to the people who deserve it--but right now I am not confident that $87 billion is the right amount or that it would be spent in a way that would help our troops, help the Iraqi people, stabilize the region, or prevent terrorism.

Mr. Speaker, there are just too many questions and not enough answers. Why do we need $950 million for recruiting and training of

police forces in Iraq, when we need more money for police and firefighters in Houston, New York, Washington, DC, and Philadelphia? Why do we need $209 million for prison and detention facilities, and $100 million for construction of a new prison in Iraq, when our Federal prisons are overcrowded and severely underfunded. Too many questions, and not enough answers, Mr. Speaker. Do we really need $100 million for a witness protection program, and $5.65 billion to repair and rehabilitate the infrastructure in Iraq, when a few months ago the whole Eastern seaboard was without power? Are we really serious?

Finally, Mr. Speaker, are we really serious about supplying Iraq with $793 million for health care programs, when we still have children without health insurance, elderly without health insurance, and our poor citizens without health insurance. There are just too many questions, and not enough answers.

There will be many thoughtful amendments offered that could ensure that the funds that we do not bankrupt our Treasury, while failing our troops and the people who need our help. I urge all of my colleagues to put politics and pride aside and consider them, so that together we can get our efforts in the Middle East back on track.

I have several amendments that I think will help get our policies back on track.

My first amendment states that none of the funds made available in this act may be obligated or expended until Government personnel policies have been implemented to ensure that no members of the Armed Forces or Government employees are being required to be stationed in Iraq continuously for a period greater than 6 months. The President has stated that the war on terror will be a long and involved one. Therefore we must pace ourselves, and we must ensure that our armed services can continue to recruit good people in the future. This amendment will help ensure that our troops and their families remain mentally fit and rested, and that military tours will remain a reasonable commitment in service to this Nation.

The second states that of the funds made available in this act may be obligated or expended until all Reserve and National Guard personnel are paid in full.

The third amendment requires that none of the funds made available in this act may be obligated or expended until the President has submitted to Congress a report setting forth in detail the strategy and projected timetable for withdrawing U.S. forces in Iraq. Without goals, I am concerned that our efforts in Iraq could drift indefinitely. Congress and the American people must know what lies ahead, so that we can plan appropriately.

The fourth is a sense of the House of Representatives that, before any appropriation under this act is obligated, a special counsel should be appointed to investigate the propriety and legality of actions by the administration in connection with the unauthorized release of classified information. We have a complex mission ahead of us in the Middle East. To succeed we will need to take advantage of every single national security asset at our disposal. Recently, one of our top CIA operatives was ``outed'' by White House employees, thus compromising her work and even the lives of her sources and acquaintances overseas. If we do not show the appropriate immediate vigorous response, we could undermine our efforts in the Middle East, by discouraging people to come to American officials with assistance or information.

Finally, I have two amendments that will help refocus some of our energy and resources on Afghanistan. The supplemental continues to shortchange Afghanistan's reconstruction and security, and it does this at the peril of jeopardizing the rights of Afghan women and girls and hopes for a peaceful, democratic Afghanistan. The proposed funding levels neither adequately make up for the small amounts of reconstruction funding thus far nor do they meet the country's needs.

In the last 2 years only 1 percent of Afghanistan's reconstruction needs have been met. The country remains in shambles from two decades of war and lack of development. Most people in the country do not have access to electricity, health care, schools, and sanitation. Not only is the lack of reconstruction depriving people of very basic services, but it is contributing to instability in the country and a lack of confidence in the central government.

The transitional government in Afghanistan estimates that between $20 to 30 billion is needed over the next five years. In other post- conflict settings, an average of $250 per person was spent per year in aid. But in Afghanistan, donors spent only $64 per person in 2002.

The proposed $800 million Afghanistan reconstruction supplemental spending request represents less than 1 percent of the total $87 billion Iraq and Afghanistan package. The $20 billion request for Iraq reconstruction funding is 25 times as large as the Afghanistan request. Yet Afghanistan has approximately the same population size as Iraq and suffered more destruction over 23 years of war.

House Chairman Young's mark to increase reconstruction funding for Afghanistan by $400 million is a step in the right direction. But still more must be done. My first Afghanistan amendment will shift $20 million from the Iraq budget toward Afghanistan to be used for developing electricity-generation and transmission infrastructure. If Afghanistan is ever going to thrive and progress, it will need consistent sources of energy, to power its factories, hospitals and homes. These funds will help.

The other amendment will improve the plight of Afghan women and girls. Women and girls continue to face severe hardship and violations of their rights in Afghanistan. Yet the Afghanistan request does not specify funds for programs to improve the status of women and to remedy the tremendous injustices they faced under the Taliban regime. My amendment proposes designating $300 million for women's programs in the area of political rights and human rights, health care, education and training, and security, protection and shelters. I also propose earmarks of $10 million of the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission and $24 million for the Ministry of Women's Affairs. We must provide direct support to help strengthen those women-led, permanent Afghan institutions whose mission it is to promote women's rights and human rights. These are funds already authorized in the Afghan Freedom Support Act of 2002, but which still for the most part have not been appropriated.

Some girls have gone back to school in Afghanistan, but the majority have not because there are not enough schools and those that do exist are in very bad shape. The Asian Development Bank estimates that an additional 13,851 primary schools need to be constructed, but the administration request is only for 275 schools. Some 40 percent of schools in Afghanistan were completely destroyed during the war, another 15 percent were heavily damaged, and in many areas of the country there were no schools for girls.

What's more, the advances in girls' education that have been made are under attack. In the past year, fundamentalist extremists have burned down, bombed, and otherwise violently attacked more than 30 girls schools. At most of the sites of these attacks, leaflets have been distributed threatening the families of girls who attend school or the teachers who teach them. Flyers distributed at the site of one of the first attacks read ``Stop sending your women to offices and daughters to schools. It spreads indecency and vulgarity. Stand ready for the consequences if you do not heed the advice.'' Some families are now afraid to send their daughters to school. Our Nation promised to help free Afghan women; we cannot allow the extremists to take back these newly won freedoms.

I hope my colleagues will support these amendments. We must look toward a brighter future in Iraq, and work together to make that vision happen.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Chairman, the entire Persian Gulf war 12 years ago cost the United States much less than $8 billion. The total cost of that war was $61 billion, but because allies were participating, our share was only 12 percent of the total cost. We have already spent $79 billion on the present war on Iraq, and now we are asked to appropriate another $87 billion for a total of $166 billion, so far.

To put the $166 billion into perspective, the total appropriation for this fiscal year (FY 2003) for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Department of Transportation, the U.S. Department of Education, the U.S. Department of Labor, and the U.S. Department of State was less than $166 billion.

And on a per person basis, $166 billion is more for each person in Iraq than the total annual U.S. Government spending for each American citizen for everything other than Social Security and Defense.

Although this is a huge expenditure, the administration fails to even give lip service to explain how the bill will be paid. No outline of spending cuts or increased taxes has been presented. The Administration has opposed lending any portion of the funds to Iraq because the Administration claims that Iraq is too far in debt already, even though the national debt in Iraq is approximately $4,000 per person while the national debt in the United States is approximately $20,000 per person. It therefore has to be assumed that all of the money will be borrowed by the United States government. At 5-percent interest, the annual interest on this $166 billion of additional debt will be $8.3 billion or $160 million per week. A yes vote on the bill commits this country to additional annual interest payments that are more than the annual cost of the entire Head Start program.

The vote on this bill represents the only opportunity Congress has had to consider the President's policies in Iraq since October of last year. The President's decision to invade unilaterally, without allies, has meant that we are paying 100 percent of the costs of the war, in cash and in casualties. In the Persian Gulf war, allies paid more than 85 percent of the costs; if they were paying only 50 percent of the costs of this war, we would save $80 billion and countless lives. Unfortunately, a yes cot on the bill will mean that no significant attempt will be made to engage the international community's participation.

There have been widespread reports of financial waste in Iraq. A few weeks ago, ``60 Minutes'' chronicled the profitable no-bid contracts enjoyed by Halliburton and others and pointed out that there were firms who could do much of the work for half of the price paid to Halliburton under those contracts. Last week, National Public Radio's ``Morning Edition'' described sweetheart deals and corruption. Questions have also been raised about the extravagance of the reconstruction of Iraq and whether more modest construction might accomplish the same goals. A yes vote on this bill will mean that no change in contracting procedures will be made.

During his campaign, President Bush frequently insisted that no troops should ever be

deployed without an ``exit strategy''. Not only do we have no apparent exit strategy, we also have no apparent entry strategy: the President recently admitted that Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th; no weapons of mass destruction have been located; Iraq was never an imminent threat to the United States. We cannot develop an exit strategy, if we cannot articulate what the entry strategy was. A yes vote on the bill forfeits a Congressional opportunity to require the administration to clearly establish an exit strategy.

Notwithstanding all of the reasons to vote ``no'', if the passage of the bill would result in a safer America, it would be worth the cost. Unfortunately, even before the war, the CIA concluded that Iraq posed very little threat to the United States at the time, but would pose an increased threat if we attacked them. A letter form CIA Director George Tenet to the Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, dated October 7, 2002, and printed in the Congressional Record stated that: ``Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW (chemical and biological weapons) against the United States. Should Saddam conclude that a United States-led attack could no longer be deterred, he would probably become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions.'' Certainly we cannot be any safer than the CIA said we were before we attacked; but, most recent reports describe more terrorists now gathering in Iraq than before the war. So, the policy which includes the expenditure of $166 billion and the loss of many courageous lives has failed to make us safer.

Because the appropriations in the bill represent more than the United States last year for the United States Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Department of Transportation, the U.S. Department of Education, the U.S. Department of Labor, and the U.S. Department of State; because there is no plan for paying the bill; because failed policies will be validated by the passage of the bill; and because we are in fact more at risk, not safer as result of those polices, I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this request for nearly $87 billion to continue the occupation and rebuilding of Iraq and Afghanistan. This is money we do not have for a foreign welfare program. The burden on our already weakened economy could well be crippling.

Those who argue that we must vote for this appropriation because ``we must succeed'' in Iraq are misguided. Those who say this, have yet to define what it means--in concrete terms--to have ``success'' in Iraq. What is success in Iraq? How will we achieve success in Iraq? How will we know when we have succeeded in Iraq? About how long will ``success'' take to achieve and about how much will it cost? These are reasonable questions to have when we are asked to spend billions of taxpayers' dollars, but thus far we have heard little more than nice- sounding platitudes.

We have established a troubling precedent that no matter how ill- conceived an intervention, we must continue to become more deeply involved because ``we must succeed.'' That is one reason we see unrelated funding in this supplemental for places like Liberia and Sudan.

Mr. Chairman this reconstruction of Iraq--that we are making but a down-payment on today--is at its core just another foreign policy boondoggle. The $20 billion plan to ``rebuild'' Iraq tilts heavily toward creating a statist economy and is filled with very liberal social-engineering programs. Much of the money in this reconstruction plan will be wasted--as foreign aid most often is. Much will be wasted as corporate welfare to politically-connected corporations; much will be thrown away at all the various ``non-government organizations'' that aim to teach the Iraqis everything from the latest American political correctness to the ``right'' way to vote. The bill includes $900 million to import petroleum products into Iraq (a country with the second largest oil reserves in the world); $793 million for healthcare in Iraq when we're in the midst of our own crisis and about to raise Medicare premiums of our seniors; $10 million for ``women's leadership programs'' (more social engineering); $200 million in loan guarantees to Pakistan (a military dictatorship that likely is the home of Osama bin Laden); $245 million for the ``U.S. share'' of U.N. peacekeeping in Liberia and Sudan; $95 million for education in Afghanistan; $600 million for repair and modernization of roads and bridges in Iraq (while our own infrastructure crumbles).

There has been some discontent among conservatives about the $20 billion reconstruction price tag. They fail to realize that this is just the other side of the coin of military interventionism. It is the same coin, which is why I have consistently opposed foreign interventionism. There is a lesson here that those who call themselves fiscal conservatives seem to not have learned. There is no separation between the military intervention and the post-military intervention, otherwise known as ``nation-building.'' Fiscal conservatives are uneasy about nation-building and foreign aid. The president himself swore off nation-building as a candidate. But anyone concerned about sending American tax dollars to foreign countries must look directly at military interventionism abroad. If there is one thing the history of our interventionism teaches, it is that the best way for a foreign country to become a financial dependent of the United States is to first be attacked by the United States.

This request--which was not the first and will not be the last-- demonstrates in the most concrete terms that there is a real and concrete cost of our policy of interventionism. The American taxpayer paid to bomb Baghdad and now will pay to rebuild Iraq--its schools, hospitals, prisons, roads, and more. Many Americans cannot afford to send their own children to college, but with the money in this bill they will be sending Iraqi kids to college. Is this really what the American people want?

The real point is that the billions we are told we must spend to rebuild Iraq is indeed the natural outcome of our policy of pre-emptive military intervention. All those who voted for the resolution authorizing the president to attack Iraq have really already voted for this supplemental. There is no military intervention without a ``Marshall Plan'' afterward, regardless of our ability to pay. And the American people will be expected to pay for far more. This current request is only perhaps step four in what will likely be a 10 or more step program to remake Iraq and the rest of the Middle East in the image of Washington, D.C. social engineers and ``global planners.'' What will be steps five, six, seven, eight? Long-term occupation, micro-managing Iraq's economy, organizing and managing elections, writing an Iraqi constitution. And so on. When will it end?

There is also much said about how we must support this supplemental because to do otherwise would mean not supporting the troops. I resent this dishonest accusation. It is nothing but a red herring. I wonder if an American currently serving an open-ended occupation in Iraq would think that bringing him home next week would be a good show of support for our troops. Maintaining an increasingly deadly occupation of Iraq and bankrupting many of our reservists and national guard troops by unilaterally extending their contracts to serve in an active deployment is hardly ``supporting the troops.'' Perhaps that is why a Stars and Stripes newspaper survey of the troops in Iraq this week found that a majority had very low morale. And according to the same Stars and Stripes survey, an increasing number are not planning to re-enlist.

Conservatives often proclaim that they are opposed to providing American welfare to the rest of the world. I agree. The only way to do that, however, is to stop supporting a policy of military interventionism. You cannot have one without the other. If a military intervention against Syria and Iran are next, it will be the same thing: we will pay to bomb the country and we will pay even more to rebuild it--and as we see with the plan for Iraq, this rebuilding will not be done on the cheap. The key fallacy in the argument of the militarists is that there is some way to fight a war without associated costs--the costs of occupation, reconstruction, ``institution- building,'' ``democracy programs.''

I opposed our action against Iraq for two main reasons. I sincerely believed that our national security was not threatened and I did not believe that Saddam Hussein's regime was involved in the attack on the United States on 9/11. I believe what we have learned since the intervention has supported my view. Meanwhile, while our troops are trying to police the border between Syria and Iraq our own borders remain as porous as ever. Terrorists who entered our country could easily do so again through our largely un-patrolled borders. While we expend American blood and treasure occupying a country that was not involved in the attack on the U.S., those were responsible for the attack most likely are hiding out in Pakistan--a military dictatorship we are now allied with and to which this supplemental sends some $200 million in loan guarantees.

Our continued occupation of Iraq is not producing the promised results, despite efforts paint a brighter picture of the current situation. What once was a secular dictatorship appears to be moving toward being a fundamentalist Islamic regime--not the democracy we were promised. As repulsive as Saddam's regime was, the prospect of an Iraq run by Islamic clerics, aligned with Iranian radicals and hostile to the United States, is no more palatable. There are signs that this is the trend. The press reports regularly on attacks against Iraq's one million Christians. Those hand-picked by the United States to run Iraq have found themselves targets for assassination. Clerics are forming their own militias. The thousands of non-combatants killed in the U.S. intervention are seeking revenge against the unwanted American occupiers.

Mr. Chairman, throwing billions of dollars after a failed policy will not produce favorable

results. We are heading full-speed toward bankruptcy, yet we continue to spend like there is no tomorrow. There will be a tomorrow, however. The money we are spending today is real. The bill will be paid, whether through raising taxes or printing more money. Either way, the American people will become poorer in pursuit of a policy that cannot and will not work. We cannot re-make the world in our own image. The stated aim was to remove Saddam Hussein. That mission is accomplished. The best policy now for Iraq is to declare victory and bring our troops home. We should let the people of Iraq rebuild their own country. I urge my colleagues to vote against this supplemental request.

Mr. Chairman, as I did a year ago this month, I rise to address this chamber with a heavy heart. Over the past several days, we have engaged in a debate worthy of this institution's history. These deliberations have focused on providing additional funding for the Administration's Iraqi policy. Specifically, the resolution we are considering today would provide approximately $86.9 billion in emergency funding for U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, $18.6 billion of which would be used for ongoing reconstruction efforts in Iraq.

The debate over the President's policy in Iraq runs deeper than the discussions over the monetary size of this bill. At this moment, before us is the question of how we, as Members of Congress charged with the responsibility to represent our diverse constituencies, should fulfill our constitutional responsibilities. This is an obligation that I take very seriously.

After careful consideration of all sides of today's debate, I have decided to vote against the House's initial supplementary appropriations bill. I do so for three primary reasons. First, this proposal would continue to support a foreign policy that lacks a clear objective and fails to identify a well-reasoned plan for removing our troops from the region. Second, it would unfairly burden American taxpayers and future generations. Third, I look forward to a second opportunity to address this issue and vote on an improved bill based on negotiations with the Senate. I further believe that the Congress can, and should, take this time to reevaluate the Administration's approach to Iraq and recommit itself to our constitutional duties.

During these debates, many have stressed the importance of supporting our troops who find themselves in harm's way. I share these concerns. The fact of the matter is that Members of Congress on both sides of this debate recognize our responsibility to support our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. These brave American men and women are serving their country with great distinction and this Congress must ensure that they have the equipment, training, resources and amenities necessary to carry out their duties. I therefore very strongly support the more than $60 billion contained in this bill designated for supporting our troops.

Moreover, a vote on this bill is not about whether one political party or one individual Member of Congress supports our armed services. Instead, this debate is a question about how we can most effectively support our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, encourage regional stability over the long term, and ensure the appropriate use of taxpayer dollars. In a larger context, we must also seek whether this Congress will continue to unquestionable accept the Bush Administration's foreign policy approach to Iraq.

Given the chain of events of the past year, I believe that during this debate we should carefully review and studiously scrutinize the Administration's policy on Iraq. Last fall, President Bush and officials within his Administration made the argument to the Congress, to the American people, and to the world community that the threat to the United States posed by Iraq was imminent. They went to great lengths to present information to Members of this House, including personal presentations to me, about Iraq's imminent capabilities to use weapons of mass destruction against our citizens. Based on the evidence presented at that time, particularly pertaining to Iraq's use of mobile facilities to hide its biological weapons research and especially relating to Iraq's ability to use unmanned aerial vehicles to deliver these weapons to specific targets within the United States, I voted to grant the President the specific powers laid out in the congressional resolution authorizing the use of military force in Iraq.

Following the failure of the Administration to reach consensus on a unified course of action in the United Nations, the onset of hostilities authorized under that resolution, and the President's subsequent declaration of the end of the major combat operations, the Administration has thus far failed to locate any specified weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the means to deliver them. Moreover, it has uncovered no conclusive evidence of mobile facilities to the best of my knowledge. At this point, the evidence to support the Administration's fundamental premise for going to war--that Iraq posed an imminent threat to our country's national security--has not emerged.

Given these facts and circumstances, my vote today signals my unwillingness at this time to blindly accept the Administration's policy position on proceeding in Iraq. Until this point, I have given the President the benefit of the doubt. I supported the resolution passed by this House authorizing the use of force. When the President came before this Congress last spring requesting $63 billion in emergency funding for operations in Iraq, I joined an overwhelming number of my colleagues in supporting his request. At this time, I must demand accountability from this President in his management of the Iraqi effort and the use of U.S. taxpayer dollars that underwrite it.

One potential approach for promoting fiscal accountability and ensuring that the Iraqis and Americans support our rebuilding effort over the long term is to demand that American taxpayers have the opportunity to recover their investments in Iraq's reconstruction. Iraq is a country with considerable financial and natural resources. It could harness this capital to pay for the rebuilding of its infrastructure and the completion of new projects. In light of this reality, I presently believe that we should provide the reconstruction funds contained in this emergency spending measure in the form of a loan, not an outright grant.

Additionally, before proposing this emergency spending legislation Bush Administration officials had repeatedly heretofore stated that Iraq possessed the financial capability to self-finance its reconstruction efforts. For instance, in February then-White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said, ``Iraq has tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi people. And so there are a variety of means that Iraq has to be able to shoulder much of the burden for their own reconstruction.'' Additionally, when speaking about Iraq's reconstruction before the Senate Appropriations Committee in March Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld stated, ``I don't believe that the United States has the responsibility for reconstruction, in a sense. [Reconstruction] funds can come from those various sources I mentioned: frozen assets, oil revenues and a variety of other things, including the Oil for Food, which has a very substantial number of billions of dollars in it.''

In contrast to these statements, Administration officials in recent weeks have now argued that Iraq cannot incur additional debt and that the only way to promote stability in Iraq is through the issuance of an outright grant. For example, during his testimony before the House Appropriations Committee just last month, Secretary Rumsfeld averred, ``Iraq is in no position to pay its current debt service, let alone take on more additional debt. If we want to encourage Iraqi self reliance, so that Iraqis can fund their own reconstruction and so that American troops can go home, it would not be helpful to saddle Iraq with more debt it could not be reasonably expected to pay.'' The rhetorical about-face regarding this element of the Bush Administration's policy toward Iraq has been unmistakable and undisputed.

Yet these same Administration officials have been remiss in explaining why reality in postwar Iraq has not conformed to their original rhetoric. Is this a question of miscalculation, insufficient planning, or arrogance? Is this perhaps a question of a fundamental misunderstanding of the level of sacrifice required to implement a policy? The Congress has a responsibility to ask these questions and to probe the assumptions underlying the Administration's approach to Iraq in light of this significant, and as yet unexplained, foreign policy turnaround.

While I fully recognize the potential logistical difficulties in accessing Iraq's resources to pay for reconstruction efforts, I remain confident that Iraq ultimately will overcome these problems and have the financial capacity to repay these loans to the American people. In the unlikely event that Iraq's financial potential does not emerge, this Congress also can revisit this issue and forgive the loans at a later moment in time. It is, moreover, my understanding that our counterparts in the Senate are actively considering this issue as well, and they have already included a provision in their bill converting at least a portion of the funds appropriated from a grant to a forgivable loan, an approach which I consider fitting.

A vote in favor of this emergency spending legislation at this time would essentially send a message that I am satisfied with its content and the policies it supports. Simply stated: I am not. I, therefore, must fulfill my constitutional obligations to discharge the duties of my office, which include oversight of the executive branch, to the best of my abilities. As a result, I will vote against this bill.

Just one example of the need to scrutinize this Administration's implementation of reconstruction efforts is the repairs made to an Iraqi cement factory. Rather than spending the $15 million U.S. engineers estimated it would cost to transform the factory into a state-of-the-art facility, our troops worked with Iraqis to make the factory operational at a cost of just $80,000.

Moreover, voting against the initial House proposal at this time will, in my view, strengthen the Senate's position as we move into negotiations between the House and Senate on this important legislation and, hopefully, develop a realistic consensus for future action in Iraq. Furthermore, our vote today constitutes just the first step in the legislative process, and it is my strong hope that the coming deliberations on this bill will incorporate a forgivable loan provision or some similar stipulation. Observers should consequently construe my vote following the initial debate in the House over this matter as both evidence of my deep skepticism of the President's current Iraqi policy as well as my position that reconstruction funding should be allocated in the form of a loan to the Iraqi people.

The completion of today's proceedings brings to a close the initial debate over this legislation. It, however, should not end congressional evaluation of the President's Iraqi policy. Moving forward, this Congress must demand accountability from the President and officials in his Administration on these matters. Specifically, we should require the President to outline his objectives in Iraq, detail a logical plan and timetable for achieving those goals, and present long-term estimates of the costs of his proposed policies. We must accomplish these tasks while supporting the needs of our troops and their families.

The American commitment in Iraq has been thus far an open-ended affair, characterized by daily reports of troops under siege. Now my good friend and colleague from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) has brought to the attention of this House evidence that our troops are, in some cases, lacking the equipment they need and the amenities they deserve while selected favored corporations receive contract awards without participating in a competitive bidding process. In the face of all of these inconsistencies, the Administration additionally has to date failed to locate the imminent threats that served as the basis for war. The Congress consequently should take this opportunity to question these developments and ensure that this legislation and any subsequent allocation of federal funds include appropriate accountability measures.

The Constitution vests all legislative powers in us. As Members of this great institution, we

should take that responsibility seriously. While the President can, and does, submit legislative proposals for consideration, we have an obligation to our nation's founders, ourselves, and, most importantly, our constituents to deliberate on these matters, make necessary adjustments to them, and enact laws. I have worked with the President in an effort to remove the perceived threat in Iraq and bring greater stability to the region and the world. The developments of the past few months, however, should serve as evidence of the Administration's ineffective planning effort and misunderstanding of the challenges facing our troops. As this Congress works to support our troops, we must now hold the Bush Administration to account and demand that it provide a justification for its further use of taxpayer dollars to support these endeavors. Anything less would represent a failure of this Congress to meet its constitutional responsibilities and its leaders to provide clear direction for the future.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, this rule is a travesty, but certainly no surprise. In the years since the Republican Party took control of this body, their leadership has made a concerted effort to strip away the rights of Members of the House of Representatives, bit by bit by bit. This rule is just more of the same, and every Member of this House who believes in the small ``d'' democratic process should vote to defeat it.

The Republican Party's leadership has been nothing short of disingenuous about the debate on this supplemental.

Mr. Speaker, this has been anything but an open process. There have been some very important discussions on the floor, but those discussions have been truncated. Over 120 amendments were noticed to this bill, yet, despite the fact that there is obviously so much interest on the part of Members of the House in this $87 billion bill, the Republican leadership is now cutting off the last opportunity to bring over half of those amendments to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I voted in favor of the resolution authorizing the President's action in Iraq. I still believe my vote was the right vote to take. But, if I recall correctly, one of the many reasons the President and the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State gave the American people about why we should take military action against the regime of Saddam Hussein was to bring democracy to the Iraqi people.

Quite frankly, I think it is time we bring democracy back to the United States House of Representatives. The way the Republican Party runs this House makes a mockery of the President's laudable goal of bringing democracy to Iraq and its people.

Mr. Speaker, in September the President requested $87.5 billion in emergency funding for the continuing military operations in Iraq as well as to fund reconstruction projects in that country. He made the request and expected the Congress to rush it back to him ready to be signed into law.

We have no authorization for legislation for these funds. In fact, the committees with jurisdiction over the programs funded here have not even been given the chance to add their views to the bill.

On Wednesday, the Committee on Rules reported a so-called open rule, but I have to point out that the Republican Party's version of an open rule is one that does not allow Members the right to amend this bill in a way that affects the policies it moves forward. In fact, the chairman of the Committee on Rules told the committee that an open rule could and should waive all points of order against the committee bill, but not against Member amendments. And why? Why can legislative language offered by other Members be made in order? Because, Mr. Speaker, as the chairman said, ``We are considering this in the same manner which the Democrats did before 1995.''

Mr. Speaker, that is not the case. In fact, if we just take the emergency supplemental for fiscal year 1994, the Committee on Rules, controlled by the Democrats, reported a rule for that supplemental that waived all points of order against two Republican amendments. The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) expressed his opposition to the rule at that time because two other Republican amendments were not allowed to be considered under the rule. We may have cut off those two amendments during the consideration of that supplemental, but we did waive points of order against other Republican amendments because, as my chairman so ably pointed out on Wednesday evening, ``We are the Committee on Rules. We do have the authority to do that.'' So I have to ask, why did the Republican Party's leadership not grant waivers to at least some of the thoughtful and constructive policy amendments brought to the Committee on Rules on Wednesday?

As reported by the Committee on Appropriations, the funds for reconstruction in Iraq are $1.4 billion more than were contained in the entire foreign operations appropriation passed by the House and $500 million more than the Senate's foreign operations bill. That represents every single foreign assistance program this country participates in for the entire fiscal year. Yet the Committee on International Relations was not given an opportunity to consider the President's request in a legislative forum and amendments that sought to impose policy in this bill were denied the opportunity to be voted on during this debate.

The Committee on Appropriations has reported funds for the military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan that amount to 56 percent of the funds for all operations and maintenance in the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2004.

I strongly support this funding, but certainly the Committee on Armed Services should have been given an opportunity to fully examine the request and report legislation that would set some policy about how this money is to be spent. Perhaps amendments offered by the members of that committee who have great expertise in these matters might have added substantive policy limits to ensure that these funds are going to be used in the best interests of the men and women in uniform who are on the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan right now.

Yesterday I heard far too many Members on the other side of the aisle come to the floor and impugn the motives and perhaps the patriotism of Members who sought to reprioritize the funds in this bill. Mr. Speaker, those kinds of remarks are a shameful blemish on this institution. Every Member of this body is entitled to hold his own opinions. We are not elected to march in lockstep with the dictates of the Republican Party's leadership.

No, indeed, Mr. Speaker. We are all here to do what we think is best for the United States of America and its citizens. I hold a different view on going to war in Iraq than do many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle. I cannot and I do not hold them in any less regard for holding views that differ from mine. I believe that a vibrant and vital democracy requires that all of these views be heard, not hidden or muffled to escape the withering attacks of ideologues. I also believe that these views should be brought to this floor and discussed in a civil atmosphere, not subjected to the partisan pot shots that have been lobbed by the other side of the Chamber during this debate.

This rule shuts off debate, pure and simple. This rule cuts Members out of the discussion. By denying Members waivers to bring up amendments that address policy in addition to money, Members were shut out of the process in the first rule. But at least there was a chance for Members to bring up those issues before a point of order would be lodged against them. Now, the autocratic Republican Party leadership, for whatever reason, be it to go home for the weekend or to leave on a CODEL, or perhaps even to cut off debate so that the American people could not find out what the Congress is up to, has brought to the floor a rule that says, That's all, folks. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is just wrong.

In one last attempt to try to give the House an opportunity to set policy, it is my intention to oppose the previous question in order to give the House one last chance to discuss a matter that is of grave concern to millions of Americans who are deeply alarmed about using so many American tax dollars to rebuild Iraq. If the previous question is defeated, I would amend this rule to allow the House to vote on an amendment adopted by the Senate, by the other body, yesterday. That amendment, which is similar to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) yesterday in his substitute, is identical to the amendment offered by the senior Senator from Texas, a Republican, and would require half of the reconstruction funds of this bill to be funded through the World Bank. That passed in the United States Senate yesterday on a vote of 51 to 47. Under this rule, we will not even be permitted to vote on that measure on the floor today.

The House should go on record on this language; and if the previous question is defeated, it will have the opportunity to do so. Otherwise, it is, That's all, folks. What a mockery we will make of ourselves.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Speaker, I have an inquiry of the other side. Is the other side going to just play rope-a-dope here and not have any speakers? I guess the answer to that is yes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).

Mr. Speaker, I gather in this time of the World Series that my friend on the other side is the designated ``sitter.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. Speaker I would inquire as to the time remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I gather the other side is not intending to use any time at this point.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Democratic leader.

Mr. Speaker, we have only one concluding speaker, and I would ask if the other side intends to close. If they have any other speakers, do they intend to close after our concluding speech.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to oppose the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I would offer an amendment to the rule. This will give Members an opportunity to vote on an amendment by the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), which is identical to the bipartisan amendment passed in the other body last night by a vote of 51 to 47. That amendment will require that a portion of the money for reconstruction efforts will be in the form of a loan.

The amendment provides $5 billion as a grant to rebuild Iraqi security services, and it provides $5.2 billion as a grant for water, power and other critical infrastructure facilities. Congressional notification would be required for any projects in excess of $250 million; $10 million would be considered as a loan but would convert to a grant upon 90 percent forgiveness of prewar debt by other countries.

I want to stress that a ``no'' vote will not prevent us from voting on this supplemental. But a ``no'' vote will allow Members to vote on the identical language that will be included in the Senate bill.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this amendment be printed in the Record immediately before the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can have an opportunity to vote on the Senate loan amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.