Providing for Operation Iraqi Freedom cost accountability.

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I rise on behalf of the 44- member strong fiscally conservative Democratic Blue Dog Coalition.

Mr. Speaker, as you walk the Halls of Congress, you will notice these Blue Dog Coalition posters along the hallways which signify that you are walking by the door to an office of a fellow Blue Dog Member. And the reason you will find these posters scattered across the Cannon, Longworth and Rayburn House Office Buildings is because we are committed to restoring common sense and fiscal discipline to our Nation's government. And it is important to us, Mr. Speaker, that we remind every Member of Congress, as well as the general public that walk these Halls, that our Nation is in debt. In fact, the U.S. national debt, as of today, is $8,721,415,192,294. And we ran out of room on the poster, Mr. Speaker, but 43 cents. Our national debt, $8,721,415,192,294.43. That is a big number. What does it mean?

Well, Mr. Speaker, I will tell you what it means. For every man, woman and child living in America, including those children being born today, their share of the national debt is $29,093.20. It is what we refer to as the debt tax, D-E-B-T. That is one tax that cannot be cut, that cannot go away until we get our Nation's fiscal house in order.

Why is it important? Because our Nation is borrowing about $1 billion a day. But, Mr. Speaker, before we borrow $1 billion a day, we are going to spend a half a billion dollars paying interest on the debt we have already got. And many of America's priorities in the area of education, veterans benefits, health care, roads, many of America's priorities continue to go unmet and they will until we get our Nation's fiscal house in order.

As members of the Blue Dog Coalition, which is just another name for fiscally conservative Democrats, we are concerned about this. But, Mr. Speaker, our concerns do not end with the debt and the deficit. We are also concerned about accountability, and this Democratic Congress is going to restore accountability to this Chamber, to this administration, and, yes, to the Government of the United States of America.

The Constitution clearly gives Congress, not only the power and the authority, but it is our constitutional duty to provide oversight of this administration. And yet this Republican Congress that we have had for the past 6 years has been nothing more than a rubber stamp for President Bush and his administration.

It is time that Congress did its job. It is time that Congress put the rubber stamp in the drawer and pull out the Constitution and read it and understand that we have a duty, a constitutional duty, to provide oversight to this administration and to this government. We are going to do that. And we are doing it in many areas, including providing for accountability for how the hardworking people of this country's tax money is being spent in places like Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, you ask a hundred different people what they think about this Iraq war policy, you will get about a hundred different answers. And by the way, very few or none of them are going to agree with the direction that President Bush is currently going. If you ask fellow Blue Dog members, you will get different answers as well. I, personally, am opposed to the surge. Others may not be. That is something that we believe each Member must make a decision on and speak from their heart and represent their constituency.

But one of the things that we are united on as Blue Dog members is restoring accountability for how this money is being spent in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I want to show here a couple of numbers that are very important. One is the cost of the Iraq war. They spent $2.5 billion pre-invasion in 2001 and 2002. In 2003, $51 billion was spent. In 2004, $77.3 billion was spent. In 2005, $87.3 billion was spent. In 2006, $100.4 billion. 2007, to date, we are getting ready to vote on another supplemental appropriation bill for the war, but to date, $60 billion. That puts the total cost to the taxpayers of America at nearly $400 billion, $378.5 billion.

Now, what does that mean? That is a lot of money. How do you break it out? The total cost for 2006 alone, $100.4 billion. That is $8.44 billion per month of your tax money, Mr. Speaker, going to Iraq.

Another way of putting it, $275 million a day, or about 11 or $12 million per hour. And yet there has been a lack of accountability on how your tax money is being accounted for and how it is being spent in Iraq.

So we, Mr. Speaker, have what is called House Resolution 97 that we have filed as members of the Blue Dog Coalition. And it is a resolution to provide for Operation Iraqi Freedom cost accountability. And let me just get to the meat of it. Basically, the resolution says this: that within 30 days after the adoption of this resolution, and every 90 days thereafter, the Department of Defense Inspector General and the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction shall prepare and transmit to Congress an unclassified report with a classified annex, if necessary, that would contain, one, a detailed accounting of how military and reconstruction funds in Iraq have been spent thus far; two, a detailed accounting of the types and terms of contracts awarded on behalf of the United States, including the methods by which such contracts were awarded and contractors selected; three, a description of efforts to obtain support and assistance from other countries toward the rehabilitation of Iraq; and, four, an assessment of what additional funds is needed to complete military operations and reconstruction efforts in Iraq, including a plan for security of Iraq, a detailed plan for how any future funds will be spent and a statement of how those funds will advance the interests of the United States and Iraq.

If either Inspector General fails to submit a quarterly report, the Government Accountability Office shall conduct an audit and report to Congress. Sanctions shall be imposed against contractors who have engaged in fraud or abuse or war profiteering. Congress should create a Truman-like committee to conduct an ongoing study and investigation of the awarding and carrying out of contracts by the United States to conduct activities with regard to Operation Iraqi Freedom and make such recommendations to the House as the Select Committee deems appropriate.

Funding requests for Operation Iraqi Freedom in fiscal year 2008 and beyond must come through the regular appropriations process and not be hidden through these so-called emergency supplementals. In furtherance of the partnership that is critical to success in Operation Iraqi Freedom, the administration should firmly condition further American financial, military and political resources upon steady improvement in Iraq, assumption of principal responsibility for internally policing Iraq.

In other words, Mr. Speaker, this resolution says that it is time for this administration to be accountable for how the hardworking people of this country's tax money is being spent in Iraq, no more rubber stamps for this administration. We will fulfill our constitutional duty of providing oversight.

And it also says, Mr. Speaker, that the President should do all he can to get Iraq to take responsibility for their own actions and to take the lead on trying to restore order to that country.

And it also says that this administration must be held accountable for how your tax money is being spent, that there should be transparency to the process, and full disclosure of who is getting paid to do what in Iraq when it comes to private contractors, and to make sure that this war profiteering in Iraq by private contractors comes to an end. That is basically what the resolution says.

Mr. Speaker, every one of us in the Blue Dog Coalition, and I think every one of us in this Congress, Democrat and Republican alike, supports our troops. We can't do enough for our troops. And I can tell you, as far as I am concerned, as long as we have men and women in uniform in harm's way, I am going to do my part to ensure that we provide them the resources they need to get the job done as safely as possible.

But it is also important that this Congress fulfill its constitutional oversight responsibility and demand that this administration be accountable for how your tax money, some $275 million a day, is being spent in Iraq. And there are reports that indicate that at least 20 percent of the money going to Iraq cannot be accounted for.

Think what we could do to provide health care benefits, housing benefits and other benefits for our veterans. And in Iraq and Afghanistan we have got a new generation of veterans coming home, and we have got to be there for them as a country. We cannot do enough for our men and women in uniform. We cannot do enough for our veterans. We have got to be there for them.

We have also got to be sure that this money, some $100.4 billion in 2006 that this administration is sending to Iraq, is accounted for and that it is being spent in support of our soldiers and that we have the resources to take care and to honor our veterans, including a new generation of veterans coming home today from Iraq and Afghanistan.

A number of fellow Blue Dog members will be joining me this evening as we talk about providing for Operation Iraqi Freedom cost accountability. And one of those who has joined me is a fellow Blue Dog member, someone that is very active in the Blue Dogs, was a member of our nominating committee for officers earlier this year, and that is the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Chandler). And I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

I thank the gentleman from Kentucky, former State auditor, former State attorney general for his leadership within the fiscally conservative Democratic Blue Dog Coalition, and someone who played an important role in helping us draft this resolution, House Resolution 97. And I certainly thank him for helping sponsor this resolution that, hopefully, we will get through the House to demand accountability, fiscal responsibility and accountability for how this administration spends billions of tax money, Mr. Speaker, in a place a long way from Arkansas and a long way from America, and that is in Iraq.

And I couldn't help but think when the gentleman from Kentucky was talking about accountability, I think it is important to note that Congress has appropriated over $25 billion to various departments and agencies for reconstruction projects that are intended to improve the lives and living standards of the Iraqi people, and, yes, to endear them to our way of life; and yet we find that only half the projects have been completed.

For example, the Special Inspector General for Iraq reconstruction reported that funds allocated for health care projects, health care projects, are more than 65 percent expended--that is, the funds--but fewer than 36 percent of the projects have been completed. Funds were allocated for construction of 142 primary health care clinics and only 20 were completed.

Likewise, the Inspector General reported that a contract was made to construct 20 rehabilitation hospitals, and only 12 were completed.

A New York Times report found that thousands of weapons intended for Iraqi forces, the good guys in Iraq, our allies in Iraq, are missing. This study investigated 19, count them, 19 contracts that totaled $133 million for more than 370,000 weapons. No one knows where these weapons are. Three hundred seventy thousand weapons in Iraq, bought with U.S. tax money, are missing, and no one can account for them.

We need accountability in Iraq.

Because this Republican Congress for the past 6 years did not fulfill its constitutional duty of providing oversight of this administration and the Department of Defense. There was no oversight. It was rubber stamp after rubber stamp, and more money after more money, and no accountability.

The gentleman is right. It shouldn't matter if it is a Democratic Congress or a Republican Congress, the American people are sick and tired of all the partisan bickering. What the American people want is for us to provide leadership and accountability on how their tax money is being spent. And I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that as members of the fiscally conservative Democratic Blue Dog Coalition, we are going to do our part to hold this administration accountable to find out where in the world this $133 million of your tax money, Mr. Speaker, that went to purchase 370,000 weapons, what happened to them.

It doesn't matter if there is a Democratic President or a Republican President, the gentleman from Kentucky is absolutely right, what matters is being accountable and being good stewards of the tax money of the people of this country.

I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

And for the troops.

I want to thank the gentleman from Kentucky for joining us today. And, Mr. Speaker, if you have any questions comments or concerns for Mr. Scott or any of us, you can e-mail us at BlueDog@mail.house.gov.

And it is a pleasure for me to be joined by a real leader within the Blue Dog Coalition, someone that demands fiscal responsibility and accountability, someone who is helping us with this House Resolution 97, a cosponsor of it, someone that helped author it, and a member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, Mr. Chandler, and that is my friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

I thank the gentleman from Georgia, a fellow Blue Dog member, a member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, for joining us to discuss the fiscally conservative Democratic Blue Dog Coalition's House Resolution 97 that provides for Operation Iraqi Freedom cost accountability.

The Constitution clearly gives Congress oversight authority, and this Congress, this new Democratic Congress, is going to provide oversight of this administration, of this government, and fulfill our constitutional duty and demand that our troops get the money they need to get the job done as safely as possible; but also demand that it be done in a way to where this administration is held accountable for how, Mr. Speaker, your tax money is being spent in Iraq.

I recently received an e-mail from a soldier from my hometown. He wrote to me in an e-mail from Iraq, and there are a couple of points I would like to point out. I am quoting this soldier now in Iraq. ``Needless to say, war profiteering is high, and disgusting to witness as a taxpayer.'' This is a citizen soldier, this is a soldier that comes to us from the Army Reserve. He has now been in Iraq 7 months. And in his e-mail to me he said, ``Needless to say, war profiteering is high, and disgusting to witness as a taxpayer.''

He goes on to say, ``And the black market thrives over here as well. For example, much of the fuel never reaches the military; it ends up in the wrong hands through a complex network of interconnected relationships that truly reminds me of the Mafia.''

Another example from a soldier on the ground in Iraq that has been there 7 months about the need for accountability for how tax money, some $400 billion so far, some 20 percent of that $400 billion is unaccounted for, according to the most recent reports.

As members of the Blue Dog Coalition, we are offering up a resolution to demand that this money, your tax money, Mr. Speaker, be accounted for in how it is being spent in support of our soldiers in Iraq. And you know what? We might just find enough waste, fraud and abuse in Iraq that we could take that money and invest it in veterans' benefits, to ensure that our men and women coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan are properly cared for.

With that, I yield to a gentleman that knows a lot about this subject, a gentleman that is not only a very important member of the Blue Dog Coalition, but someone who served on the House Armed Services Committee, someone who now serves on the Foreign Operations Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, and that is the gentleman from Long Island (Mr. Israel).

I thank the gentleman from Long Island for his insight on this resolution to put an end to war profiteering and demand accountability on how the American people, the hardworking American people's tax money is being spent in Iraq.

I yield back to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

I thank the gentleman from Georgia for his heartfelt comments.

This war has had an impact on just about every family in America; and my brother-in-law, who is in the United States Air Force, career, is now in Kurdistan, which is one of the entry points to Afghanistan.

My first cousin, his wife, gave birth to their first child while he was in Iraq, and it has had a tremendous toll on the families, and not only for the military but also the citizen soldier, those who serve as members of a National Guard and as a member of an Army reserve.

When the President talks about a surge, when the President talks about adding another 21,500 troops to Iraq, that is code for calling back up the National Guard and the Reserves. Many folks in the National Guard today have been sent out of country at historic levels. In many instances, the citizen soldiers, those in the Guard, have been called up more times than some soldiers that are in the full-time military as a career. It has a tremendous toll on the family, the families that are left behind, and a huge increase in the number of divorces that occur when they come back.

The bottom line is we are creating a generation of veterans in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we can sit here and talk about being patriotic and supporting our soldiers all night long, but what is important is that we cast our votes in a way that honors them and ensures that they have health care and the things they need when they come back so hopefully we can minimize the number of divorces. We cannot do enough to thank our men and women in uniform for their service to our country.

One of the ways I think we can honor them is by demanding accountability for how tax money is being spent in Iraq, not only in the rebuilding efforts but also in support of them, making sure those men and women in uniform have the resources they need to stay safe while they are there.

Mr. Speaker, if you have got any comments, questions or concerns for us, I would encourage you to e-mail us at bluedog@mail.house.gov. Again, that is bluedog@mail.house.gov.

The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Chandler) was talking about Halliburton earlier. Let me just make this quick point and I want to yield to the gentleman from Long Island, but last year, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction reported that the Coalition Provisional Authority could not track over $8 billion it had transferred to Iraqi ministries and that CPA officials left millions of dollars in cash unsecured in their offices.

Halliburton failed to complete required work under its oil infrastructure work, leaving distribution points unusable. Auditors in one region found that contract managers could not account for $97 million disbursed from the development fund for Iraq.

Under its no-bid contract to rebuild Iraq's oil infrastructure contract, Halliburton overcharged by over 600 percent for the delivery of fuel from Kuwait. An audit of programs designed to train guards to protect Iraq's oil and electrical infrastructure concluded that U.S. agencies could not provide reasonable assurance that $147 million expended under these programs was used for its intended purpose.

In one case, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction found that a company which was awarded a security management contract worth

hundreds of millions of dollars could provide no assurance that it was providing the best possible safety for government and reconstruction personnel as required by the contract and could not even show that its employees, authorized to carry weapons, were trained to use those weapons.

Halliburton tripled the cost of hand towels, hand towels at taxpayer expense, by insisting on having its own embroidered logo on each towel, and Halliburton employees dumped 50,000 pounds of nails in the desert. Why? Because they ordered the wrong size, all at taxpayer expense because it was a cost-plus contract.

Halliburton double charged tax payers for $617,000 worth of soda and charged taxpayers for services that it never provided and tens of thousands of meals that it never served our soldiers.

That is why, Mr. Speaker, we have filed H. Res. 97 to demand accountability on how tax money is being spent in Iraq, and I yield to the gentleman from Long Island.

H. Res. 97, providing for Operation Iraqi Freedom cost accountability, and it is quite simple. We want this administration to be accountable for your tax money, Mr. Speaker, that is being spent in Iraq, number one.

Number two, we want a Truman-like commission to put an end to war profiteering in Iraq.

And, finally, we want this administration to stop playing games and asking for emergency supplementals to hide the true cost of the war and ask for the money the way that all other funds are appropriated by this Congress, through the normal process.

One hundred point four billion dollars was the cost for 2006. Over $400 billion has been spent since this war began. That is $8.4 billion a month. That is $275 million a day, and that is nearly $12 million an hour of your tax money, Mr. Speaker, and the tax money of every hardworking man and woman in this country; and it is time to restore commonsense, fiscal discipline and accountability to our government. That is one way, Mr. Speaker, that we believe we can honor our men and women in uniform.

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

Mr. Speaker, he was conscientious, committed to peace and momentarily praised. His laurels burned in the bombings. His valorous and vain efforts had but hastened upon his people.

Yet, in eulogizing this ``English worthy,'' Sir Winston Churchill, an ardent opponent of the deceased's policy of appeasement, unexpectedly struck a conciliatory chord toward the late Neville Chamberlain:

``It is not given to human beings, happily for them, for otherwise life would be intolerable, to foresee or to predict to any large extent the unfolding course of events. In one phase, men seem to have been right, in another they seem to have been wrong. Then again, a few years later when the perspective of time is lengthened, all stands in a different setting. There is a new proportion. There is another scale of values. History, with its flickering lamp, stumbles along the trail of the past, trying to reconstruct its scenes, to revive its echoes, and kindle with pale gleams the passion of former days. What is the worth of all this? The only guide to a man is his conscience; the only shield to his memory is the rectitude and sincerity of his actions. It is very imprudent to walk through life without this shield, because we are so often mocked by the failure of our hopes and the upsetting our calculations; but with this shield, however the fates may play, we march always in the ranks of honor.''

Mr. Speaker, while not serving in this Chamber during the debates on the resolution authorizing the President of the United States to use martial force to remove Iraq's Baathist regime for numerous just causes, including its refusal to honor its Gulf War cease-fire and United Nations' resolutions, during my time as a temporary custodian of my constituents' office, I have striven to ensure our Nation's victory in the battles for Iraq, Afghanistan, and in the overarching war on terror. In doing so for 3 years, I have four times traveled to Iraq and once to Afghanistan to meet with our troops; visited wounded citizen soldiers, eulogized our fallen, and consoled their grieving families. As a witness to their courage, sacrifice and suffering, I have been morally compelled to support every appropriation for our military and civilian personnel in harm's way, oppose every policy injurious to our country's common cause of victory; advance my own ideas on how to secure our victory, including the introduction of bipartisan, though ultimately unaccepted, legislation to establish concerted congressional oversight over the course of this conflict; and refused to condone a resolution by my Republican peers which failed to meet its duty; and, immediately afterwards, introduced a resolution of my own in order to fulfill my duty to our soldiers, my constituents, and our country.

As a staunch supporter of our Nation's mission in Iraq, Afghanistan, and throughout the world, I did so in the belief that it is morally imperative for every sovereign American citizen and their congressional servants to ensure our valiant troops victoriously come home to their loved ones' arms. Were I to do otherwise and lapse in my moral duty, I would not only be violating our troops and my constituents' trust, I would be violating the dictates of my conscience.

It is equally true, of course, how within this House other Members' dictates of conscience have led them to a decidedly different, though equally constant course of action. To these Members and their fellow citizens who have done so to date, I share the sentiments Sir Winston held for Neville Chamberlain: You are ``An American Worthy,'' who ``however the fates may play, will ``march always in the ranks of honor.'' Yet, because the resolution thrust before us is a craven exposition of political expediency in a time of national crisis, today many may stray from the ranks of honor.

This resolution is ``nonbinding,'' which means the resolution has no force of law to compel future legislative acts in compliance with its dictates. In sum, then, this resolution legally changes nothing. Americans' money will still unabatedly facilitate our troops' continued deployment into harm's way, despite the United States Congress collectively condemning the President's announced troop reinforcement plan. This impotent resolution is injurious in the eyes of its opponents because it will undermine the morale

of our troops, their families, and our fellow citizens even as it heartens and emboldens our enemies; and this impotent resolution is injurious because it will not stop what many of its supporters purport will be a loss of life in a lost cause. By neither stopping the war nor speeding our victory and by calculatedly doing nothing in this time of national crisis, this resolution is immoral.

This immorality is manifest in how the resolution guilefully attempts to insinuate the United States Congress can simultaneously support our troops and oppose their mission. During a time of war, if an act is not i our national interest, such as the President's plan is deemed to be in this resolution, the act is injurious to the national interest. At best, the act will expend resources, most tragically claim lives without furthering the cause of victory. Better than anyone, our troops understand this. Therefore, this Congress does not support our troops when it proclaims they are risking their lives in a doomed mission injurious to America.

Yet, if Congress persists in this insanity, the Members must meet their responsibility to enumerate the reasons they disapprove of the President's plan and, in point of fact, the mission upon which our troops have already embarked. But this resolution does not provide any rationale for its conclusion. Thus, rather than deserving our collective concurrence, this resolution deserves our universal condemnation.

To this, some supporters will object and allege two defenses for this resolution's fatal omission. Do not these supporters' floor remarks provide the rationales sufficient to sustain this resolution? No. If floor remarks alone are sufficient to sustain the resolution's conclusions, then floor remarks alone would be sufficient to derogate the President's plan and, ergo, vitiate any necessity for a written resolution. Conversely, if it is imperative for the plan's detractors to express their opposition in a written resolution, it is also imperative to express their reasons in writing. Alas, such logic pales before some Members' impulsive muse of the moment.

Let us, then, move to some of the resolution's supporters' second, far more distressing defense: ``A vote of disapproval on the President's plan will set the stage for additional Iraq legislation which will be coming to the House floor.'' As no one who participated in the crafting of this covert legislative agenda has deigned to inform the American people as to its aims, one wonders if it will cut off funding for our troops in harm's way or cut off critical reconstruction funding in the supplemental appropriations bill, thus toppling an unheralded but essential pillar of the President's new victory strategy and proving the perspicacity of the present resolution. While we wonder and worry, according to newspaper reports there is a strategy to make this rumored legislative plan palatable to the public. This strategy's tactics, which its instigators are more than happy to relate to the media, are reputed to include a coordinated multimillion-dollar TV campaign by leftist special-interest pressure groups. No doubt somewhere beyond this ephemeral stream of time there lurks a jealous Clement Vallandigham. But, in fairness, let us disdain a priori speculation, and instead examine a previous resolution to glean the potentialities of the present resolution's supporters' secret legislative plan. The following passages are excerpted from a previous resolution which, albeit more forthrightly, also opposes the Commander in Chief's decisions:

``Resolved, That this convention does explicitly declare, as the sense of the American people, that after 4 years of failure . . . by the experiment of war, during which, under the pretense of a military necessity of war-power higher than the Constitution, the Constitution itself has been disregarded in every part, and public liberty and private right alike trodden down, and the material prosperity of the country essentially impaired, justice, humanity, liberty, and the public welfare demand that immediate efforts be made for cessation of hostilities . . . to the end that, at the earliest practicable moment, peace be restored.''

This previous resolution too expresses its support for our troops in harm's way:

``Resolved, That the sympathy of the Democratic Party is heartily and earnestly extended to the soldiery of our Army and sailors of our Navy who are and have been in the field and on the sea under the flag of our country, and in the events of its attaining power, they will receive all the care, protection, and regard that brave soldiers and sailors of the Republic have so nobly earned.''

This previous resolution is the Democratic Party platform of 1864.

If the past is prologue, let us be firm in a fair request: If the resolution's supporters possess a victory strategy, or otherwise, for Iraq, these public servants must immediately reveal it to the sovereign citizens of the United States. If these stealth strategists refuse, they will incur the American people's inference this legislative plan assumes and will hasten our Nation's defeat in Iraq. How else could one explain these individuals' already having a legislative plan and an accompanying media plan premised upon our troop reinforcement failure, and doing so regardless of potential American victories on the ground or the advice of our military commanders? Perhaps while they demur from revealing it, these anonymous commander in chiefs will dubiously coin their legislative plan an ``exit strategy.''

It is an irrelevant distinction. Right now the enemy is actively seeking to murder more American and Iraqi soldiers and civilians. So right now and for the immediate future, an exit from Iraq is a defeat in Iraq. Whatever one pretends to the contrary, one will never convince our enemies otherwise.

Yes, it is all too human to wish the world were different; all too human to rationalize away one's misguided actions. Being composed of frail, fallible human beings, even great assemblies such as this have succumbed to the temptation. We must not.

Writing well before Churchill's magnanimous eulogy of Chamberlain and, to the contrary, warning the British people's representatives how history was pitiless, George Dangerfield coldly assessed his national leaders' mismanagement of state affairs during the pre-Great War years of 1910 to 1914: ``Along that row of distinguished and original faces there would pass from time to time, as lightly as a shadow upon the waters, an alarming, an alien spirit, a spirit dangerous and indefinite, the Spirit of Whimsy . . . In the hush of crisis, in the tumult of abuse, or when the stuffy air of the Commons seemed almost to glitter with the shining, salt ripples of sarcasm, there it played, airy, remote, and irresponsible.''

Is an inchoate angst over history's final verdict the reason some supporters of this resolution have taken to this floor, though not in this resolution itself, and verbally professed three key defenses of their decision? One defense is they were misled into supporting an Iraqi regime change because of the false claim it did or might possess weapons of mass destruction. Mercifully, let us stipulate these elected officials performed their due diligence on the matter and, especially for our Democratic colleagues so situated, they did not overly trust the some many of them had accused of stealing a Presidential election.

Again, there were numerous justifiable reasons for authorizing the President of the United States to militarily execute a regime change in Iraq. As those reasons are written in that resolution, I will not dwell upon them, for they do not constitute the crux of the matter, which is this: the war aim of regime change was a success. It is the post-war failure of Iraqi reconstruction breeding our present perils.

Thus even if a Member of Congress can be excused for authorizing force on the basis of being ``misled,'' the Member of Congress cannot be excused for failing to demand adequate post-war reconstruction planning, nor for a 3-year failure to demand constructive changes to an inadequate post-war reconstruction plan.

Dovetailing with this defense, some of the resolution's supporters now claim their initial ardor for the regime change was a mistake because this administration has botched Iraqi reconstruction beyond salvaging and the fledgling democracy is now in a state of civil war. This argument has the

merit of being partially correct, for despite the hard-learned lessons of our Nation's former successes in doing so, this administration utterly failed to comprehend and implement the fundamental principles of reconstructing a defeated, belligerent nation. Importantly, this does not preclude reconstructing Iraq now.

While rife with sectarian violence, much of it instigated and perpetuated from external elements, Iraq is not in a civil war. Relative calm exists in most of the beleaguered nation's provinces, and if one dares to look, there are the agonizingly slow but significant signs of incremental progress in the establishment of order. This progression will be expedited by the administration's new plan, which finally incorporates the two fundamental principles of Iraqi or any reconstruction plan, one, a liberal democratic society evolves upward from its traditional roots of order, not from a centralized bureaucratic government downward; and, two, a nation's transformational evolution into a liberal democracy must contemporaneously provide transactional benefits to its citizens. These fundamental principles will be implemented through critical initiatives, such as provincial reconstruction teams, an accord on oil revenue allocations, and a national reconciliation process, amongst others.

But to earn the support of terrorized Iraqis, security must first be established so they may commence securing the blessings of liberty. This is why the troop reinforcement is required and why the twin pillars of troop reinforcement and grass-roots reconstruction can achieve a joint American and Iraqi victory over the enemies of liberty.

The ineluctable fact of our victory is it must be won with the help of Iraqis, which is disconcerting to many of this resolution's supporters who believe the Iraqis are unwilling to fight for their freedom and are incapable of perpetuating once it is secured. This argument often intersects with the charge our mission in Iraq has been untenably shifted from effectuating a regime change to erecting a model democracy; and for the above reasons, they think this is impossible. This deplorable argument is antithetical to the self-evident truths written into our own Declaration of Independence, though, sadly, it is not without precedent. Once more, let us reference another resolution, this one opposing a military mission creeping toward a decidedly different goal:

``Resolved: that the emancipation proclamation of the President of the United States is as unwarranted in military as in civil law; a gigantic usurpation, at once converting the war, professedly commenced by the administration for the vindication of the authority of the Constitution, into a crusade for the sudden, unconditional and violent liberation of 3 million Negro slaves; a result which would not only be a total subversion of the Federal Union, but a revolution in the social organization of the Southern States, the immediate and remote, the present and far-reaching consequences of which to both races cannot be contemplated without the most dismal foreboding of horror and dismay. The proclamation invites servile insurrection as an element in this emancipation crusade, a means of warfare, th inhumanity and diabolism of which are without example in civilized warfare, and which we denounce, and which the civilized world will denounce as an uneffaceable disgrace to the American people.''

So much for the prognostications of the ``Peace Democrat'' controlled Illinois legislature's 1863 resolution. Thankfully, by the grace of God and the sanguine sacrifice of the American people, it was this Illinois legislature, not our African American brothers and sisters and our Nation's great emancipator, who are to be denounced by the civilized world for all eternity.

What of our legislative body? Now resurrects the specter of our own judgment, which hovers above and shadows us as we seek to ensure we are not forever weighed in the balance and found wonting. It is as it should be, as it must be, for notwithstanding its nonbinding nature, even after this resolution's disposition, our duty demands we make moral decisions affecting our Nation's victory or defeat, and our fellow citizens' lives or deaths. Is this not why, even while bearing malice towards none of them, in defending his own war plan, our own maligned President warned his opponents history is a harsh mistress:

``Is it doubted, then, that the plan I propose, if adopted, would shorten the war and thus lessen its expenditure of money and of blood? Is it doubted that it would restore the national authority and national prosperity and perpetuate both indefinitely? Is it doubted that we here, Congress and Executive, can secure its adoption? Will not the good people respond to a united and earnest appeal from us? Can we, can they, by any other means, so certainly or so speedily, assure these vital objects? We can succeed only by concert. It is not `Can any of us imagine better?' but `Can we all do better?' Objection whatsoever is possible. Still the question recurs `Can we do better?' The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty and we must rise to the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves and then we shall save our country.

``Fellow citizens, we cannot escape history. We of this Congress and this administration will be remembered in spite of ourselves. No personal significance or insignificance can spare one or another of us. The fiery trial through which we pass will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the latest generation. We say we are for the Union. The world will not forget that we say this. We know how to save the Union. The world knows we do know how to save it. We, even we here, hold the power and bear the responsibility. In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free, honorable alike in what we give and what we preserve. We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of Earth. Other means may succeed; this could not fail. The way is plain, peaceful, generous, just, a way which, if followed, the world will forever applaud, and God must forever bless.''

My friends, history harkens your honorable hearts to reconsider supporting this immoral resolution. If one believes all human beings are equally God's children, whether they be free or yearning to breathe free, one cannot, after a cruel sip of hope, condemn 20 million of God's equally beloved children to a saturnalia of slaughter. If one supports our troops, one cannot deride their cause as injurious to our country. If one seeks our victory in the war on terror, one cannot advocate a retreat and defeat in the face of our enemy.

My friends, through the fog of war, our fiery trial illumes and creeps ever nearer along the trail. Rather than curse the darkness and dread the echoes of history's verdict, let us acquit ourselves with lasting honor by leading our searching Nation through these trying, transformational times and into a transcendent, triumphal tomorrow. Let us earn the esteem of the latest and later generations of all free people by reaffirming our revolutionary Republic cherishes the self- evident truth that all human beings yearn to breathe free. Let us, in our Nation's finest traditions and truest character, remove the Iraqi people's bonds of oppression and replace them with bonds of brotherhood amongst our free, sovereign, and secure peoples.

Let us, in the face of terror, march always in the ranks of honor and courageously and selflessly secure the Iraqi people's blessings of liberty and, in so doing, secure our own blessings of liberty for unnamed generations of American children.

Mr. Speaker, fully cognizant of my moral duty to our troops, my constituents, my country, and my Creator, I cannot in good conscience support this resolution, which is injurious to the cause of our Nation's victory and in consequence is patiently immoral. Therefore, I urge this resolution's rejection and pray God graces, guards, and guides the steps of all who bear the burden of our decisions made on behalf of the majestic American people.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, I rise on behalf of the 44- member-strong, fiscally conservative Democratic Blue Dog Coalition, as we demand from this Government fiscal accountability as well as fiscal responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, as you walk the halls of Congress, it is easy to know when you are walking by the door of a fellow fiscally conservative Democratic Blue Dog Coalition member, because you will see this poster as a welcome mat to his or her office to remind Members of Congress, to remind you, Mr. Speaker, to remind me, and to remind the American people and all of those who walk the halls of Congress, that the U.S. national debt today is $8,696,414,214,377.65.

For every man, woman and child in America, their share, our share, my share of the national debt is $28,900.92. That is a big number.

A lot of people think, well, it really does not matter what the debt is, our Government can simply print more money. I wish it was that simple.

Our Nation today is spending the first half a billion dollars it collects in taxes not to improve veterans' health care, to protect our troops, to build roads, to fund health care, to protect Social Security and Medicare, to ensure the 47 million folks without health insurance have access to it. No. The first half a billion dollars that we collect every day in taxes from the hard-working people in this country go to simply pay interest, not principal but interest, on this number, the national debt.

And those which should be America's priorities will continue to go unmet until we get our Nation's fiscal house in order. This is something that affects every man, woman and child in America. We have a plan, a 12-point plan for budget reform to ensure that we can live within our means, that we can pay down this debt and restore fiscal discipline and common sense to our Government.

One of those 12 points, by the way, Mr. Speaker, is what we referred to as PAYGO rules, which means pay as you go. And I am real proud that the leadership under this Democratic Caucus in the first 24 hours, not 100 hours, but the first 24 hours, the Democratic leadership reinstituted PAYGO rules on the floor of the House. Which means, quite simply, if you want to fund a new program, you got to show us where the money is coming from.

Now the Republicans tend to think that that means that to fund new programs you raise taxes. I find it quite interesting that the Republicans think that PAYGO, pay as you go, means raise taxes to pay for new spending. It does not mean that. It means cut programs. It means make the tough choices to put an end to the waste in Government.

I got some 8,000 brand new, fully furnished mobile homes sitting at the airport in Hope, Arkansas, that were destined for Hurricane Katrina storm victims but never reached them. That is $400 million right there.

We are not talking about raising taxes to pay for a new program. But I can tell you what we are talking about, Mr. Speaker. We are talking about putting an end to the days of the Republican leadership borrowing money from China to fund a new program creating this large number, making it go up daily. It is still going up nearly a billion dollars a day under the Republican budget that was approved last year.

No more of that, Mr. Speaker. No more borrowing money from China to build a rain forest in Iowa. We are demanding that you show us how you pay for your projects and your programs. We are going to restore fiscal discipline and accountability to our Government.

This week, the President came out with his budget; and we will be visiting more about the President's budget during this hour.

But another thing that the fiscally conservative Democratic Blue Dog Coalition is doing is we have gotten together and we have written and endorsed what is referred to as House Resolution 97. And House Resolution 97, we have 39 cosponsors. It is providing for Operation Iraq Freedom cost accountability.

Put quite simply, we are demanding accountability on how your tax money, Mr. Speaker, and the tax money of the hard-working people of this country is being spent in Iraq. You ask 100 different people what they think about this Iraq policy, you will get about 100 different answers. You will find some Members of the Blue Dog Coalition that are for the surge, some are against. I am against the surge. I think the American people want us to go in a different direction in Iraq.

But one of the things that unites us as a coalition and the things that we have endorsed and that we have written and we are trying to put in place is House Resolution 97, which has four crucial points that demand fiscal responsibility in Iraq.

Point number one, a call for transparency on how Iraq war funds are spent. The American people are sending some $9 billion a month to Iraq. That is about $12 million an hour. And the American people in this country that work hard and pay taxes deserve to know how their money is being spent in Iraq.

Number two is the creation of a Truman Commission to investigate the awarding of contracts. It is time, Mr. Speaker, to put an end to war profiteering in Iraq.

Number three, a need to fund the Iraq war through the normal appropriations process. Play by the rules. No more of this so-called emergency supplemental appropriations to hide from the American people the true cost of the war.

Finally, number four, use American resources. This is America. We are the leader of the free world, and we should

be using our resources to improve Iraqi assumption of internal policing operations. In other words, it is time for the Iraqi people to step up to the plate and buy into this and take more responsibility and accountability.

I am joined this hour by a number of my Blue Dog colleagues, Mr. Speaker. At this time, I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Chandler).

I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for his valued insight into H.R. 97, which is the Blue Dog-endorsed House resolution to demand accountability and fiscal responsibility in how tax money is being spent in Iraq, some $9 billion a month; put another way, some $12 million an hour.

Let me be clear that as members of the Blue Dog Coalition, we support our troops 110, 120, 130 percent. We can't do enough for our troops. And as long as we have troops in harm's way, we are going to be there to ensure they have what they need to get the job done and to get it done as safely as possible, and hopefully get on back home to their families.

This has impacted every family in America in one way or another. My brother-in-law is in Kyrgyzstan now, which is the entry point for Afghanistan, just as Kuwait is oftentimes the entry point for Iraq. My first cousin was in Iraq when his wife gave birth to their first child.

Before coming down here today, I visited with a Ms. Watson in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, whose son, and she is so very proud of him and I am too, Lt. Colonel Watson, continues to serve us today in Baghdad. We thank him. We thank all soldiers for their dedicated service to our country.

This is about accountability. This is about having responsibility and oversight on how our tax money is being spent in Iraq.

Not only that, but this hour is dedicated to talking about this new Bush budget that was delivered to Capitol Hill yesterday. Thank goodness that, as Members of Congress, we get a vote on this budget, that we can ensure that funding is there for education and for our veterans. And, yes, we are creating a new generation of veterans in Afghanistan and Iraq today. And we have got to be there for them.

I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee, a former cochair of the Blue Dogs for policy, Mr. Cooper.

I thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper) for his valued input and insight into this budget process. The President has done the annual ceremoniously bringing of the budget, if you will, to Capitol Hill. And, in fact, Mr. Speaker, here is a copy of it. This is the budget of the United States Government for Fiscal Year 2008 from the Office of Management and Budget. And it is quite a lengthy document.

But if you read over it, you will learn that the budget submitted this week continues the same policies that helped create the fiscal mess now facing our government.

While the administration's budget claims to reach balance in 2012, unfortunately, this budget is in deficit every year under realistic Bush policy assumptions. The budget continues to make the wrong choices for the American people. It proposes substantial cuts to programs that benefits seniors, working families and children, all to help pay for an extensive tax cut for folks earning over $400,000 a year. It is about priorities, Mr. Speaker; and the priorities found in this budget, this budget as delivered this week by President Bush, are misplaced.

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

I thank the gentleman from Georgia, a very active member of the fiscally conservative Democratic Blue Dog Coalition, Mr. Scott. I hope he will stay for the remainder of this hour as we discuss the President's budget for fiscal year 2008, as well as the Blue Dog Coalition-endorsed House Resolution 97 to demand accountability on how the hardworking people of this country's tax money is being spent in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, in the 6 years of the Bush Administration, the government has posted the highest deficits in the Nation's history. The administration has squandered the budget surplus it inherited, transforming a $5.6 trillion projected 10-year surplus into a deficit of some $2.9 trillion over the same period, a swing of $8.4 trillion, based on realistic estimates of the cost of the President's policies. The President's new budget calls for a deficit of $244 billion for 2007, and $239 billion for 2008, marking 6 years in a row of deficits of more than $200 billion.

This budget that the President delivered to Capitol Hill this week includes $244 billion worth of hot checks for fiscal year 2008 and $239 billion worth of hot checks for fiscal year 2009. Unbelievable, Mr. Speaker. That means that this Nation will continue to borrow about a half a billion dollars a day every day, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday. Every day, under the Bush budget, we will borrow over a half a billion dollars, and that is before we spend a half a billion dollars each day paying interest on the debt we have already got.

America's priorities will continue to go unmet until we get our Nation's fiscal house in order. Meanwhile, this budget continues to climb the climb of decline of our Nation's debt, which has already grown by $3 trillion during this administration.

Put another way, this President, this administration has borrowed more money from foreign lenders, foreign central banks than the previous 42 Presidents combined. In fact, we had only borrowed $623.3 billion in foreign holdings in 1993. Today, foreign lenders currently hold a total of about $2.199 trillion of our public debt.

I was with the President at a meeting Saturday morning. The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) asked him about whether he believed borrowing so much money from foreign central banks and foreign investors was a security threat to our country. His response was that he didn't know how much money we had borrowed from foreigners.

So, Mr. Speaker, I hope the President is listening to us today, because, Mr. Speaker, I want to share with you, Mr. Speaker, what I refer to as the top 10 list. This is the top 10 list of the 10 countries that we have borrowed the most money from: Japan, $637.4 billion; China, $346.5 billion; the United Kingdom, $223.5 billion.

Can I go back to China for a moment? You know, we don't do business with Cuba because they are Communist, and yet we do business with Communist China out of a spirit of international relations. And while we are all focused on the Middle East and what is going on in Iraq and Afghanistan, Cuba has hired China to drill for oil on their behalf 55 miles from Key West, Florida, when the United States does not allow drilling within 100 miles of Key West. Can you imagine that? And yet we have borrowed $346.5 billion from China to give folks who live in this country who earn over $400,000 a year a tax cut and to leave our children and our grandchildren with the bill.

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

I thank the gentleman from Georgia. Point well taken. Thanks for sharing that with us.

Let me just round out the top 10 current lenders. These are the countries the United States of America is borrowing money from in order to provide

tax cuts for folks in this country earning over $400,000 a year. That is in the President's budget. That is what he is proposing to do. Here is what he has done already.

In the past 6 years, our Nation has borrowed more money from foreigners than the previous 42 Presidents combined. Again, Japan $637.4 billion; China, $346.5 billion; the United Kingdom, $223.5 billion. OPEC. And we wonder why gas was approaching 3 bucks a gallon in August. Our Nation has borrowed $97.1 billion from OPEC to give folks who live in this country a $400,000 tax cut.

That is exactly what the President is proposing to continue. Mr. Speaker, I dare say that in this new Democratic majority, we will stop that.

Korea, $67.7 billion. Taiwan, $63.2 billion. If China decides to invade Taiwan, the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Tanner, has made this point before, our country and our fiscal house is in such a mess that if China decides to invade Taiwan, we will have to borrow more money from China to be able to afford to go assist and defend Taiwan.

The Caribbean banking center, $63.6 billion. Hong Kong, $51 billion. Germany, $52.1 billion. A lot of discussion about our border, and I believe we must secure our border, but are you ready for this: the United States of America has borrowed $38.2 billion from Mexico in the past 6 years to fund tax cuts for people who live here earning over $400,000 a year, leaving our children and grandchildren with the bill, which is the very reason why our Nation today is in debt $8,696,414,214,377.

That is a big number. How do you explain it? If you divide it by everybody that lives in America, some 300 million of us, every one of us owes $28,900. I don't know about you, Mr. Speaker, but I can't afford to write a check for $28,900 to the government. It is what we call the debt tax, D-E-B-T, and it is one tax that can't go away until we get our fiscal house in order and begin to meet America's priorities again.

Today, the money is going to pay interest on the debt, and it is going to borrow more money to fund the war that is costing us $9 billion a month, again, a big number, break it down, $12 million an hour. $12 million an hour.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Wilson).

I thank the gentleman from Ohio for joining us during this Special Order to discuss the President's budget, which has been delivered to Congress this week, as well as to talk about the War Accountability Act, House Resolution 97, to demand transparency, accountability and just good government, Mr. Speaker, in how we are spending the hardworking people of this country's tax money in Iraq.

There are a lot of misplaced priorities in this enormous budget. Here is the top ten list:

Number one, it includes tax increases for middle-class families.

Number two, it has cuts in it to health care and to seniors.

Number three, while it is very cold outside right now, while much of the country is frozen, if you will, Mr. Speaker, it cuts home energy assistance for those who need help the most with finding the money to afford to heat their home in the winter months.

After 5 years following 9/11, it has devastating cuts to police and firefighters.

In direct opposition to the wishes of the people of this country, here it comes again, it has a plan to privatize Social Security.

The President's budget includes cuts to veterans health care. At a time when we are creating a new generation of veterans coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan, the President's budget includes cuts to our veterans. We need to ensure that our veterans receive the health care they so desperately need.

I don't know about you, Mr. Speaker, but I get letter after letter and call after call from veterans who have to wait in line weeks and months at a time to be able to see a doctor. That is not the kind of health care we promised America's veterans. We should honor them by properly caring for them.

It includes cuts to education and cuts to housing assistance. And with Iraq veterans returning with devastating injuries, it includes cuts to the brain trauma research that is so desperately needed by many of these returning veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan.

President Bush's budget says a lot, but it does very little. It is filled with misplaced priorities. I will challenge you, Mr. Speaker, to read it for yourself, make your own decision.

As members of the Blue Dog Coalition, we are not here to beat up the President. He can't even run again. We are here to reach out across that aisle and work with him and work with the Republican Members of Congress, because the American people have sent a message very loud and clear, they want us to work together. That is what the fiscally conservative Democratic Blue

Dog Coalition is all about. We want to work in a bipartisan manner to put this Nation on a track toward a balanced budget, to pay down the debt, and to restore some fiscal discipline and common sense to our Nation's government.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Lincoln Davis.

(Mr. LINCOLN DAVIS of Tennessee asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I thank the gentleman from Tennessee, an active member of the fiscally conservative Democratic Blue Dog Coalition.

And the gentleman is exactly right. As members of the Blue Dog Coalition, we are sick and tired of all the partisan bickering that goes on in Washington. As members of the Blue Dog Coalition, we don't care if it is a Democratic idea or a Republican idea. All we care about is, is it a commonsense idea, and does it make sense for the people who sent us here to be their voice? That is really what the fiscally conservative Democratic Blue Dog Coalition is all about: restoring fiscal discipline, accountability and common sense to our government.

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

I thank the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. Speaker, if you have any comments or questions or concerns, you can e-mail us at BlueDog@mail.house.gov.

I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.

Thank you so much. And thank you for those kind words you said about me. I appreciate it. And I would have called my mom, because she would have loved to hear those words, too.

You know, over this weekend, I did a couple of things when I was home. One was that I really got into the Constitution of the United States. I really got into that section in article I, section 8, that clearly gives us the exclusive responsibility as Congress to raise and support armies.

It is clear as a bell there. It gives it to us, it does not give it to the White House or the President or the executive branch. It gives it to Congress. And up until now we have failed the American people. The large measure of this--you touched upon it earlier, Mr. Ross, but this Republican-led Congress has just completely rolled over and allowed this President to fund this war on emergency supplementals, which means that we in Congress cannot conduct the constitutionally required oversight to do what the Constitution wanted us to do.

Now, that is why we are in this situation we are in, and I would like to talk for a moment on two points.

When I was home, the other thing I did was I got around and I had some great interaction with my constituents out in Cobb County and Douglas County and in Clayton County and in Henry County. We all had town hall meetings, we had my office open. I mean, we had Chamber of Commerce annual dinners.

That is a great opportunity for folks to just come up to you and let you know exactly how they feel. And I can tell you, Mr. Ross, they are proud to see us on this floor, offering this bill. This is not just a resolution that is nonbinding. We are going to have those that voice our opinion about this war, they are going to be voted on up or down.

Everybody knows my personal feelings about the mistake of this surge, but this resolution that we have carries a tremendous amount of weight. That is why I care about it so much. And I want to share with the American people exactly what it is in this resolution that we are doing and why it is needed and why, finally, this resolution provides a direct link and connection with what the Founding Fathers wrote in article I, section 8, of the Constitution over 200 years ago that we have the exclusive right to determine how we will manage.

Now, why do we need that?

The other thing I did over this weekend was, I read my home newspaper, the Atlanta Journal Constitution. And in there there was an extraordinary article by the Associated Press that I would like to make a part of this Record because this article points out the very need for this measure that we in the Blue Dog Coalition are pushing.

This article in the Atlanta Journal Constitution was written John Heilprin with the Associated Press. The title of it was this: Contractors Investigated After Army Fraud Alleged. Just listen to this, America. ``From high dollar fraud to conspiracy to bribery and bid- rigging, Army investigators have opened up to 50 criminal probes involving battlefield contractors in the war in Iraq and the U.S. fight against terrorism.''

What an opening sentence, what a declarative issue we have here.

It goes on to say, senior contracting officials, government employees, residents of other countries, and in some cases U.S. military personnel themselves have been implicated in millions of dollars of fraud allegations. ``All of these involve operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and Kuwait,'' Chris Grey, a spokesman for the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command, confirmed just this past Saturday. ``The agents will pursue leads into truth wherever it takes us. We take this very seriously.''

Here is the point. Battlefield contractors have been implicated in allegations of fraud and abuse since the United States invaded Iraq in the spring of 2003. Any wonder why this has happened? Because the Congress did not apply the oversight, because this Republican Congress just simply rubber-stamped everything.

The Special Inspector General's Office, focusing solely on reconstruction spending, has developed cases that have led to four criminal convictions. The problems stem in part from the Pentagon's struggle to get a handle on the unprecedented number of contractors now helping run the Nation's wars, and these contractors are used in battle zones to do nearly everything but fight. But they can war-profiteer, they can commit fraud, they can commit bribery, and they can abuse the taxpayers' money on the backs of our good, brave soldiers that are putting their lives on the line for much less than what these contractors are making.

They run the cafeterias, the laundries for the troops. They move supplies, run communication systems and repair weapons systems.

Special agents from the Army's Major Procurement Fraud Unit were recently dispatched to Iraq, Afghanistan and Kuwait where they are working closely and sharing information. One case involves an Army chief warrant officer accused of taking $50,000 in bribes to steer a contract for paper products and plastic flatware away from a government contractor to a Kuwaiti company, according to an indictment.

The Government Accountability Office reported in December that the military has been losing millions of dollars, and contractors are being investigated because it cannot monitor industry workers in far-flung locations. It summarizes this way: Commanders are often unsure how many contractors even use their bases or even require the food and housing protection, according to one report. One Army official quoted said, ``The service estimates losing $43 million each year just on free meals that are provided.'' That is why this bill is important.

Let me just mention specifically how this bill will help prevent and address this glaring situation that was reported in the Atlanta Journal Constitution by the Associated Press, John Heilprin, who I commend for doing an excellent job. Our bill will require, within 30 days of passage, that every 90 days hereafter the Department of Defense Inspector General and the Special Inspector General for Iraqi Reconstruction shall prepare and transmit to Congress an unclassified report, but with a classified annex, if necessary, that will contain the following:

One, a detailed accounting of how military and reconstruction funds in Iraq have been spent thus far;

Two, a detailed accounting of the types and terms of contracts awarded on behalf of the United States, including the methods by which such contracts were awarded and contractors selected;

Three, it will require a description of efforts to obtain support and assistance from other countries during the rehabilitation of Iraq;

Four, an assessment of what additional funding is needed to complete military operations and reconstruction efforts in Iraq, including a plan for security of Iraq, a detailed plan for how any future funds will be spent, and a statement of how those funds will advance the interests of the United States in Iraq.

If either inspector general fails to submit a quarterly report, the Government Accountability Office shall conduct an audit and report to Congress. Sanctions will be imposed against contractors who have engaged in fraud or abuse or war profiteering, and we will create the Truman Committee that Mr. Chandler spoke to earlier.

Funding requests for operations in Iraqi Freedom in fiscal year 2008 and

beyond must come through the regular appropriations process and not through these emergency supplementals that are explicitly designed to bypass oversight. That is why we have the problems we have here; and also, that is why there was not enough money put in the budget when we sent our Armed Forces over there 3 years ago, as you recall, the news reports where many of our soldiers were digging in dung heaps and landfills trying to get body armor for them.

No. No more. This Blue Dog resolution addresses that, and I would expect an extraordinarily large vote in getting it passed.

And it is so good to be on the floor with my good friend, Mr. Ross, and also my good friend, Mr. Israel from New York, who we serve together, both as cochairs on our Democratic Group on National Security. And we have been addressing these issues. So it is just a pleasure to be on the floor with you. I hope with this story and this Associated Press Atlanta Journal Constitution report, it will show the American people why we need the specific legislation and the importance in getting some accountability passed concerning our war funding.

I want to build on the point that my good friend from New York (Mr. Israel) talked about.

It was very important when James Madison wrote into the Constitution the words, ``Raise and support the Army is the exclusive domain of the Members of Congress.''

There was a reason for that. The reason was because Members of Congress, unlike the President, unlike the Senate, my good friends in the Senate, it is the Members of Congress that are closest to the people. Every other year we must run, and that is why they put it in there that if we are going to war, yes, we will spread this authority, some of that as Commander in Chief to the executive branch, but we must have a check and a balance. They put that in the bosom of the Congress, which has to go back before the people every other year and be accountable.

I am here to tell you the people of the United States are looking to this Congress. They are looking for us to bring some accountability to it. They are looking for us to be fair and understand what is at the core of this.

You know what is at the core of this is the soldier. When is somebody going to look at this war from the standpoint of that soldier that we are sending to Iraq now and placing in the cross hairs of a civil war, a questionable gambit at best?

The President of the United States does not have to run again. He can have all the surges he wants. He can do everything he wants. His concern now is building his legacy. He has his right to do whatever he wants to do, but the one thing he does not have to do, he does not have to go and face the American people again. We do. That is why Madison gave us the arbitrary decision to raise and support the military.

So when the Bush administration made the decision to use large numbers of these private contractors that were talked about on the battlefield in Iraq, it now has had somewhat of a perverse effect of incentivizing highly trained special operation force personnel to leave the Armed Forces. They are there voluntarily, in order to work as some of these contractors for much higher pay.

There is so much just built into this for war profiteering, but here is a statistic that we have got to be concerned about. We have got to look at this hardship on the soldier. These are not 21,500 other soldiers just sitting over there waiting. These soldiers are going, many of them, on their third and fourth tour of duties. We have a situation where we are running the military in the ground, and no more pointed example of that is this startling, disturbing and tragic information that has been handed to me by the National Security Advisory Group. Listen to this:

Between 2001 and 2004, divorce rates among active duty Army officers tripled and rates among Army enlisted soldiers grew, divorce rates by 50 percent, as deployments lengthened and with increased frequency as they are doing now. These divorce rates have served to underscore the severity of the strains on the active duty personnel and their families, and similarly, incidents of domestic violence increased over the same period. There is wear and tear not just on the equipment that we talked about, not just on not having the bulletproof vests or the Humvees riding around; it is wear and tear on the hearts and souls of our soldiers. It is too much of a strain, and we have got to correct this situation.

These and other warning signs have caused some commanders to fear that personnel who were willing to undertake successive deployments as part of, and they use these words, part of the surge cannot sustain this tempo of operations over the long term. If they do so, it will be at the adverse impact on their families.

How much more do we want to ask of our soldiers? I would tell you one thing, this Blue Dog resolution is dedicated to giving our soldiers the respect that they are due. We are going to make sure that the money we appropriate in here goes to them, and we are going to make doubly sure that we can end this situation in Iraq quickly and bring our soldiers home to their families.

The final analysis of what we are saying is what the American people spoke to in November. They spoke to warning this Congress to stand up and demand accountability and be good stewards of their tax dollars, and that is the core of our Blue Dog resolution. I believe that and I hope that within the next couple of months we will have this resolution passed.

Might I ask for the benefit of our audience if I could ask Mr. Ross if we could give the number of our House Resolution in the event that there might be some individuals who are in the C-SPAN audience who might want to give us a little helping hand here to help us get this bill passed.

Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank the genuine American hero from Texas, Mr. Johnson, for leading us this afternoon.

I supported the use of military force to remove Saddam Hussein's regime because it was in America's interests. Afterwards, it should have been up to the Iraqi people, and not Americans, to determine their fate and how they govern themselves. President Bush has stated: The survival of our liberty depends on its expansion throughout the world and America must actively construct those institutions. Which, to me, seems like a Wilsonian view of America's role in the world.

In 2000, Candidate Bush rejected nation-building. A view held by the Founding Fathers who believed the exceptional calling of the American people was not to shape the world in our image, but to be a light that lightens the world. I prefer Candidate Bush's position.

Having said that, I cannot support Representative Skelton's resolution. Nothing better illustrates America's democratic institutions than this body having a full and open debate about this topic.

I hope the Commander in Chief will recognize the desires and concerns of the American people as expressed today through their elected Representatives. But America has only one, and not 535 commanders in chief. We cannot micromanage the conduct of a war. Representative Skelton's resolution sends horribly mixed signals to our troops who must solely focus on carrying out their assigned and dangerous mission.

Once a decision has been made and mission assigned, this body should support the troops and their one and only Commander in Chief, as Representative Johnson's resolution, had it been heard, would have been done.

Critics of tactics who resort to a congressional resolution tell our servicemen and women and their families, intentionally or not, that their mission is futile. When we undermine hope, we undermine resolve, and we reduce the likelihood of success.

As Senator Lieberman has stated, a resolution would, in quotes, ``give the enemy some encouragement, some clear expression that the American people are divided.'' Or, as Army Sergeant Daniel Dobson expressed, ``There is no honor in retreat, and there is no honor in what the Democrats have proposed.''

Instead, the responsible thing for this Democratic-led Congress would have been to propose a new way forward, new tactics, new strategies, not just in Iraq but in the entire war on terror. Speaker Rayburn, a Democratic Speaker, once famously remarked, ``Any jackass can kick down a barn, but it takes a carpenter to build one.'' There are no carpenters at work with this resolution.

God bless our troops. God bless their Commander in Chief. God bless America.

Shortly after I entered Congress in 2003, America used military force to remove the Saddam Hussein regime. I supported that action because it was in America's interest.

The Hussein regime repeatedly defied the terms that ended the 1991 Gulf War--the transparent and verifiable dismantlement of the capability to produce weapons of mass destruction. Previously, that regime had used such weapons and wielded the potential of such weapons against its enemies. Rather than resorting to openness to demonstrate good faith compliance with its promises, the regime relied on Soviet- style deception and defiance.

In the face of such opaqueness, why are we surprised that the intelligence agencies of the United States and its Allies veered to a worst-case scenario? After all, the perceived ``missile gap'' that fueled the arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union stemmed from Soviet deception about its actual nuclear weapon capabilities. The fault lies with those who deceive and not those searching for the truth.

The perceived threat extended beyond the Middle East and raised the specter of arming terrorists dedicated to harming the United States and the West. To those who scoff at this notion, I remind them about the dangers posed by ``loose nukes'' and how the West works everyday to counter this threat.

Furthermore, this brutal regime repeatedly attacked its neighbors-- threatening the stability of America's allies and interests in this region.

So with some sturdy allies, America took action. The Hussein regime was toppled. Others took notice. Libya surrendered its weapons of mass destruction capabilities to the U.S. including materials related to its nuclear weapons program and ballistic missile capabilities.

Today's U.S. military is the finest in world history.

America can defeat any contemporary enemy by itself. But, we cannot win the peace alone. We need help--not just from loyal friends like the British, Poles, and Australians. To win a peace, we need less reliable allies like France, Germany, and Spain to help. And we need support, or at least not hostile opposition, from former adversaries we are trying to befriend, like Russia and China. In this case, we have had too little help to win the peace.

And instead of focusing on establishing a free and stable Iraq, America strayed from the wisdom of its Founding Fathers who warned us of the hazards of trying to shape the world in our image. As John Quincy Adams noted in his 1821 Fourth of July Speech:

``America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy.'' To do so would involve the United States ``beyond the power of extrication, in all wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition. . . . She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit.''

The Founding Fathers believed that the exceptional calling of the American people was not to shape the world in our image but to be a light to lighten the world. Our exercise and preservation of liberty served as an example to other peoples. In today's world, we can see how our culture and international trade influence other peoples. But a critical difference

exists between being an example and trying to impose a set of beliefs.

The historian Walter McDougall describes this original tradition as follows:

. . . the leaders . . . did not interpret [American]

Exceptionalism to mean that U.S. diplomacy ought to be

pacifist, rigidly scrupulous, or devoted to the export of

domestic ideals. Rather, they saw foreign policy as an

instrument for the preservation and expansion of American

freedom, and warned that crusades would belie our ideals,

violate our true interests, and sully our freedom.

Accordingly, I support using American military might to defend our interests as needed including preemptive strikes to those who would do us harm.

But we strayed from this tradition by undertaking a mission to hold Iraq together, build a nation based on Western liberal democracy, and then spread that way of life throughout the Middle East. This Administration labels this effort ``transformational democracy.'' But it really is what Walter McDougall calls ``Global Meliorism,'' that assumes:

The American model is universally valid, that morality

enjoins the United States to help others emulate it, and that

the success of the American experiment itself ultimately

depends on other nations escaping from dearth and oppression.

Nothing is further from the conservative tradition. Conservatives understand that free societies and peoples take centuries to evolve. America traces its roots back to the Magna Carta. If you want to illustrate the shortcomings of social engineering and the illusive goal of remaking foreign societies, take these 792 years of hard earned experience and impose it on a nation cobbled together by the British after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and on a people who identify more with a tribal than a national identity.

Conservatives take a realistic assessment of human nature--including as George Will has noted ``the limits of power to subdue an unruly world.'' This sobriety contrasts with the idealistic dream of engineering the world--a dream with roots in Woodrow Wilson's visions for a post-World War I world. As George Clemenceau remarked after Wilson's 1917 Peace Without Victory speech:

Never before has any political assembly heard so fine a

sermon on what human beings might be capable of accomplishing

if only they weren't human.

President Bush has stated that the survival of our liberty depends on its expansion throughout the world and America must actively construct those institutions. In 2000, Candidate Bush rejected nation building. I prefer Candidate Bush.

It is up to the Iraqi people--and not us--to determine their fate and how they govern themselves. That is why in 2003 I proposed that the Administration loan and not grant $20 billion for Iraqi infrastructure. We weren't rebuilding things we destroyed during the war. Rather, we were attempting to build an infrastructure degraded and neglected by the Hussein regime. I wanted the Iraqi people from oil proceeds--and not Americans--to build, fund, and protect their assets. As T.E. Lawrence noted in an earlier era:

Do not try to do too much with your own hands. Better the

Arabs do it tolerably that you do it perfectly: It is their

war, and you are to help them, not to win it for them.

Actually, also under the very odd conditions of Arabia, your

practical work will not be as good, perhaps, as you think it

is.

Having said that, I cannot support Representative Skelton's resolution. Nothing better illustrates America's democratic institutions than for this body to have a full and open debate about this war. We are a strong and outspoken people. This Chamber has witnessed similar debates at crucial times in our past. I hope the Commander in Chief will recognize the desires and concerns of the American people as expressed through their elected representatives.

But America has only one and not 535 Commanders in Chief. We cannot micromanage the conduct of a war. Representative Skelton's resolution cannot bring good. Rather, it sends horribly mixed signals to our troops who must solely focus on carrying out their assigned and dangerous mission. Once a decision has been made and a mission assigned, this body should support the troops and their one Commander in Chief as Representative Sam Johnson's resolution would. We should deny the enemy encouragement and provide resolve to our servicemen and women.

Critics of tactics who resort to a Congressional Resolution tell our servicemen and women and their families--intentionally or not--that their mission is futile. When we undermine hope, we undermine resolve and reduce the likelihood of success. As Senator Lieberman has stated: such a resolution would ``give the enemy some encouragement, some clear expression that the American people are divided.'' Or as Army Sergeant Daniel Dobson expressed:

Most service members would tell you the same thing: There

is no honor in retreat . . . and there is no honor in what

the Democrats have proposed. It stings me to the core to

think that Americans would rather sell their honor than fight

for a cause. Those of us who fight for [peace] know all too

well that peace has a very bloody price tag.

Instead, the responsible thing for this Democratic Congress would be to propose a new way forward, new tactics, and new strategies--not just in Iraq but in the war on terror. Speaker Sam Rayburn famously remarked: ``Any jackass can kick a barn down, but it takes a carpenter to build one.'' No carpenters are at work with this resolution.

God bless our troops. God bless their Commander in Chief. And God bless America.