Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, the difficulty here, as the gentleman has outlined, is that we are now engaged in what can only be described as political hate speech. This is not an unusual circumstance, I am sorry to say, in this day and age.

I have had occasion to pick up a centennial edition, I believe is the designation, by the original publishers of George Orwell's ``1984.'' A new introduction by Thomas Pinchon. My colleague may recall in ``1984,'' in Orwell's conception of what was taking place, there is a whole new conception of what speech would consist of and what the language would be. Ignorance is strength, slavery is freedom, hatred is love. Everything becomes its own contradiction, its exact opposite. The confusion is there.

Let us read exactly what the advertisement said. We are now conducting political policy by virtue of advertising when issues of war and peace are concerned. Let me quote it directly: ``Some are now attacking the President for attacking the terrorists.'' Who? Some. Who?

I suppose it is possible, if you look far enough and long enough and deep enough, you can find somebody, somewhere, not necessarily even within the boundaries of the United States, if we are talking about some, who would be attacking the President for attacking the terrorists. But I do not think that those of us who are taking this issue seriously and trying to engage in a dialogue on this issue can find anyone of a serious bent in the House, any of our colleagues, to come down and name anyone.

That goes without saying. Here on the floor of the House of Representatives, anyone, find anyone, who would be able to corroborate such an accusation.

In fact, if one takes into account, and I am looking here at an article in the Wall Street Journal, in an opinion article, ``Politics and People,'' Albert Hunt, ``What Might Have Been,'' and it concerns our good friend and my good friend and fellow Hawaiian, General Eric Shinseki, former Chief of the Army, who, as you know, was vilified by people in the administration.

I am not only talking about General Shinseki as a decorated war hero but as someone who came through the ranks to become chief of the Army, and who, in response to a congressional inquiry, gave answers, as a soldier should to those who are in charge of the country by constitution, gave answers with respect to what would be required in Iraq should an attack take place in order to avoid encouraging and in fact perhaps even seeing a situation take place in which terrorism would expand, rather than be contracted or defeated. What General Shinseki indicated was that we were not engaged in a serious ``troops to task analysis.''

That is what this is about. This is not about attacking the President about his opposition to terrorism; it is whether or not his political policies have resulted in military activity which is in fact not only succeeding but increasing the terrorism that exists in the world.

If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Speaker, we are spending not $87 billion, but as the gentleman indicated, upwards of $160 billion just in excess appropriations, or rather in additional supplemental appropriations vis-a-vis Iraq. Yet, when we bring home troops for rest and recreation purposes, they are taken to only three cities, and then they are on their own and they pay their own bills. That has not been changed.

I believe the figure is $55 million approximately that the Congress has put forward for transportation in the area of recreation purposes. It is not going to be enough. We are not even prepared at this stage to have orderly transitions in terms of rest and recreation periods, let alone what will now take place with the transfer of troops.

If the gentleman will yield for a moment on his latter point, I was looking through my notes for a moment, and the gentleman indicated Mr. Perle. Would this be the same Mr. Perle, quoting from the Financial Times of December 4, that ``the Boeing Corporation has taken a $20 million stake in an investment fund run by Richard Perle, a top Pentagon adviser, underlining the close links it has built to Washington's defense establishment. Boeing said it made the investment in Trireme Partners last year as part of a broad strategy to invest in companies with promising defense-related technologies.'' The Financial Times adds, ``Boeing said it had no knowledge that Mr. Perle had advised the company on a controversial $18 billion deal to lease refueling aircraft tankers to the U.S. Air Force or other Pentagon related matters.''

As a defense adviser to the Secretary of Defense.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, the reason this has relevance is because these are the people who are formulating the policy. These are the people who are making the case for the foundations of the political policy that we find our troops having to bear the brunt of. That is the whole point here. The question is not whether we are against terror, the question is not whether there is support for the troops, the question is do we have a political policy that is worthy of their sacrifice.

Mr. Speaker, clearly this advertisement to which we are referring in which the phrase ``some are now attacking the President for attacking the terrorists,'' is meant to reestablish a link between Iraq, the attack in Iraq and 9/11. That is to say, there has been a constant drum-beat attempt by those who advocated this war in Iraq that this was somehow an extension or expansion or movement toward a more direct attack on terrorism, whereas no link has been established between the attack on the Trade Towers and the plane crashing in Pennsylvania, no link has been established between that and this attack on Iraq.

To the contrary, there is more than ample evidence to indicate that there were policymakers around the President who wanted to have this attack on Iraq well before 9/11, and 9/11 became the excuse for them to bring this back up, move it into the forefront and, in fact, displace the war on terror, the response to the attack on terror.

That is, in fact, not just what was implied in this ad, but this is clearly an attempt on a political basis to try to reestablish that in the minds of Americans across the Nation so that this becomes a defense of this failed policy in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I think we see in the dialogue that has taken place between Secretary Powell and our NATO allies, the answer to that question. The NATO allies are not going to increase to the degree they have any troops there at all, and they do have some in insignificant numbers. The Italians, for example, have police officers, and so on, but insignificant numbers. They are reluctant at best, if not outright hostile, toward the idea of increasing their presence in Iraq for a simple reason, it is the NATO forces in Afghanistan that are bearing the brunt of trying to deal with the continuing battle that is going on there against terrorism. That war on terror was not won in Afghanistan, it is ongoing. It is ongoing as we speak. We do not have sufficient forces, let alone intelligence there, right now.

The gentleman may know we now have to deal with the horrifying consequences and stories that will be going around based on what happened in Afghanistan within the last 36 hours where nine children were killed in an attempt to try to take a presumed militant, whatever the word is these days that is attached to anybody that we can presume to be an enemy.

We do not have sufficient forces, we do not have sufficient assets, we do not have sufficient concentration of intelligence efforts in Afghanistan right now because we are diverted in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, this is precisely the point that we are trying to make, and have been trying to make here in Iraq Watch, over and over again. By engaging as we are in Iraq right now, we are actually undermining our capacity to confront terror, whether in its most physically manifest form in Afghanistan or in the recruitment and the propaganda that is now sweeping the Islamic world with regard to whether or not America is now an enemy that must be fought at all costs. We are increasing the number of people who can succumb to that kind of message because of what we are doing in Iraq and what we are not doing in Afghanistan.

Mr. Speaker, we may not be financing what is necessary for either troop movements or political stability in Afghanistan, but I can assure the gentleman, I am sorry to say that financing is nonetheless taking place in Afghanistan except it is going to be for terror.

We now have more poppies being grown, more heroin being processed, and more trading in heroin than ever before in the history of Afghanistan, than ever before in the history of any nation on the face of the Earth. I should say any region on the face of the Earth, because clearly Afghanistan does not rate the name of nation now in terms of commerce and stability and political equilibrium that we associate with the term. The only thing that is stable, the only thing that is growing, the only thing that is expanding, the only thing that is a sure thing in Afghanistan is there is more heroin being traded for more money that is going to find its way into the pockets of those who are financing terrorism.

If the gentleman will yield, I think the answer is very, very clear. All of our assets, human and otherwise, are being concentrated in Iraq, or that area of the world which purports to be Iraq. As the gentleman knows, Iraq is a construct of the post-World War I colonial powers, particularly Great Britain and France. And so even the idea that there is a political construct there that can be referred to for elections or anything else is little more than fiction to begin with. The plain fact of the matter is that we cannot move forward in Afghanistan because the assets that are needed there, particularly financial, are being wasted right now in Iraq.

If the gentleman will yield, I will tell you where we do have a visible presence, where we do meet the criteria that is stated and enunciated by Representative Lewis and the good Senator. We now have barbed wire villages. Those images are going all around the world as we speak. We are now creating our own areas of concentration camps and villages complete with identification cards that have to be shown to American soldiers so that people, and I say people, I am talking women, children, men, entire villages now are being processed through barbed wire into their own villages.

The parallel, and I am not one to draw analogies to Vietnam because I think most of those kinds of comparisons tend to be inexact and then you end up in useless kinds of arguments as to exactitude, but the parallels are there. You may recall the rather infamous phrase associated with our pacification policy in Vietnam. We had to destroy the village in order to save it. Now in order to stabilize Iraq, we have to take barbed wire and surround whole villages with it. So I think the question here is, at this stage, what is to be done? How are we to regard the war on terror and what the relationship of the attack on Baghdad and the subsequent war which followed it, how is that to be handled? How is that to be addressed by the United States?

We are told, and again these cliches and bromides come fast and furious, that we should not cut and run. I am going to have to presume, I guess, that I know what cutting and running means. It means that you stop doing what you are doing and you leave. I do not know whether anybody noticed it or not, I certainly noticed, about November 15, that is precisely what Mr. Bush and Mr. Bremer concluded, that the United States was going to cut and run. That is what we are doing right now. The problem is that we are not admitting that that is what we are doing and we are sacrificing the Reserves and the Guard and the active duty military that is there now and that which will be going there to this continued failed policy without admitting what we are doing.

We are turning over supposedly conveniently, just before the election in 2004, turning over, supposedly, the present occupation to a government in Iraq. If that is not cutting and running, I do not know what is. Are we going to turn over control, such as it might be, to some governing entity in Iraq, or are we not? And if we are, what constitutes that governing entity, this farce of an advisory group that we have there? Shiite clerics? The ill-equipped and untrained police forces that we have cobbled together? Or perhaps we are going to turn it over to this new paramilitary army made up of armed members of various political parties in Iraq. A paramilitary force.

And we have the gall to turn to the American people and say, ``Well, they are preparing to defend themselves.'' They are preparing to cut each other's throats. They are preparing to fight one another, not just politically but with guns and bullets. The fact of the matter is that there is utter and complete political chaos in Iraq that is not being addressed by existing military policy of the United States.

If the gentleman will yield, I will tell you what we are going to have to do in the meantime, then, to try and protect those troops that are already there and to try and find an exit strategy worthy of the name that can allow us the opportunity to turn over some kind of political capacity in Iraq. There is a bill going forward that hopefully will be signed on a bipartisan basis to increase the end strength of the armed services, the Army and Marines in particular, and I am afraid now we are going to have to include the Air Force. At one point I think if we had handled this, we would not have had to add the Air Force. Since 1995, I for one and others on the Committee on Armed Services and other interested parties have been urging, so this goes beyond the present administration.

We are not trying to draw distinctions there. Since 1995, some of us have been urging an increase in the end strength. That is an inside baseball term in the Committee on Armed Services for increasing the number of troops in the Army and in the Marine Corps, because we could see the kinds of deployments that were taking place, whether it was in Kosovo, whether it was in Bosnia, in other words, in Eastern Europe, whether it was in the Philippines. No matter where it was and no matter what the reasons may have been, no matter how one felt about it one way or the other, the plain fact of the matter is that there was sufficient support to warrant these deployments, and we did not have the troop strength available to do it. We do not yet have a reinstitution of the draft.

When people talk about the war on terrorism, most people are watching it on television. We are depending on a volunteer force to do that. What sacrifices have we made? Some inconvenience in an airport? Somebody running, as they did for me yesterday when I flew here, running their wands over your shoes? Having you hold your arms out so that they can check your watch? Examining your baggage? What kind of sacrifice is that? At most it is an inconvenience.

The only sacrifice that we have made as a population since 9/11 is we postponed the Super Bowl one week. An inconvenience. That is the only sacrifice that has been made. This is being watched on television. This is being observed. We get the little tear in the eye and we get the flag being waved around those who are in Walter Reed or in Bethesda Hospital right now with grievous wounds. The sacrifice of the troops is not the point here. It is the sacrifice of those troops on a battlefield of corrupt political policy unworthy of the troops that are out there. And I tell you this, we cannot sustain with the existing Guard and Reserves that we have in this country the continual deployment into Iraq and still meet the necessities that we have outlined with respect to Afghanistan. That does not even begin to include questions about North Korea or any other place that United States troops may or may not

be needed in the future as a result of some activity, other kinds of terrorist activity in other places around the world. We are not prepared. We are not able to engage in deployments with respect to terror in the rest of the world because of the failure of our policies in Iraq and our failure to understand the true nature of what was necessary in Afghanistan.

Mr. Speaker, our colleague and friend from Guam has made manifest in her remarks the debt of gratitude that is owed to many individuals, some of whom are here and are represented, I think, on the whole by our colleagues who are in charge of the bill on the floor.

This is an issue of little note for many Members. It would be easy, I expect, to say that the compact for Micronesia represents an area of forgotten people, but that would be incorrect, Mr. Speaker, because in many instances this is an area of the never noticed. It is something that is difficult for many people in the United States, let alone in the rest of the world, to comprehend that we have here a colonial vestige, a post-World War II anachronism. We have a situation in which responsibility exists for the United States which is scarcely understood, let alone taken into account, not because of design but rather by the default and omission of elementary understanding.

Those of us who live in the Pacific, those of us who are aware of the human dimension that is involved here are particularly grateful to all of the individuals and committee staff members that have been noted by my good friend from Guam. I want to pay particular notice to my chairman on the Committee on Resources, the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) who has assumed these duties with this Congress. Some of the other Members mentioned are long familiar with the compact. The gentleman from California has exhibited a particular sensitivity and quest for understanding that I think has aided immeasurably in the accomplishment of dealing with what is, in fact, an unfunded mandate. The compact requires us to meet certain standards and, as has been mentioned by my good friend from Guam, Guam, Hawaii and the Marianas bear the brunt of the financial side of this as well.

Free association means that people are able to travel freely and as a result of this compact, Mr. Speaker, I think we have taken an enormous step forward, and my gratitude and aloha to all those who helped to provide it and get us to this step today. Mahalo to all.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my wholehearted support for the final passage of H.J. Res. 63, the Compact of Free Association Amendments Act of 2003. Years of negotiations and the cooperative work of many people has brought us to this point, the reauthorization of the Compact by Congress.

For the past 17 years, the United States has had a secure relationship with the Freely Associated States (FAS). The Federated States of Micronesia (FSM) and the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) have been able to transition from a United Nations trusteeship to sovereign governments. At the same time, the United States has had its security and defense interests in the Pacific fulfilled. H.J. Res. 63 will not only allow this critical economic and military relationship to continue, but will improve upon its successes and ensure that FAS citizens get the maximum benefit possible from this agreement.

H.J. Res. 63 extends our military commitments in the Pacific by retaining certain defense rights as well as providing for continued access to Kwajalein Atoll, home of the Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Defense Test Site.

This legislation also includes provisions affecting the health, education, and welfare of FAS citizens. They will continue to be eligible for funds from the Pell Grant Program and from the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, resources which are integral to their development of a competent and effective education system. They will also be eligible for funds to combat the spread of communicable diseases such as tuberculosis, cholera and Hansen's disease. FAS citizens can have complicated and severe health care needs and this grant money will go a long way toward easing these health difficulties.

The Compact also allows FAS citizens to enter the United States and its territories as nonimmigrants. These provisions are being enhanced to include security measures and more dependable passports. In addition, due to the ability to freely migrate, Compact migrants have been entering the United States in ever increasing numbers. This migration is having an enormous impact on the education, health, public safety and social service systems of the areas receiving these compact migrants. These costs have a very tangible impact and collectively, are fast approaching the $100 million per year level. For the State of Hawaii alone, more than $32 million was expended in 2002 in order to support Compact migrants and help ensure their health and well-being.

H.J. Res. 63 addresses this effect by creating a mandatory funding stream of $30 million a year in compensation for Hawaii, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa. These areas have borne the brunt of this impact since 1986 and although these funds will be divided among the four jurisdictions, it will be the largest compensation any of these jurisdictions has received to date. In addition, health care providers will also be eligible for the reimbursement of expenses arising from the treatment of Compact migrants. While these funds will surely cover only a portion of the total impact cost, its yearly distribution will undoubtedly have a great effect on the state and territorial departments and agencies that have spent untold resources and labor in providing for the Compact migrants.

The scope of this Compact assures that every FAS citizen will be affected in some way and that is why I applaud the efforts to produce a bipartisan compromise with the input of all affected parties. Chairman Pombo of the House Resources Committee has been especially willing to listen to the voices of people in the Pacific and has bent over backwards to be fair and just. Chairman Hyde, Chairman Boehner and Chairman Nussle have also accomplished tremendous work in bringing this bill to the floor. Thanks to their efforts, I have no doubt that our relationship with these Pacific nations will continue to be productive and mutually beneficial. I urge my colleagues to support this important measure.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report for the Fiscal Year 2004 National Defense Authorization Act.

I would first like to recognize our Committee leadership, Chairman Hunter and Ranking Member Skelton, for the bill they have crafted to address the immediate needs of our Armed Forces. Our Committee has a long tradition of working across party lines to ensure the readiness and well-being of our Armed Forces, and I am pleased to have participated in yet another cooperative effort with my

Armed Services colleagues. Unfortunately, this bipartisan spirit did not extend to the more controversial aspects of the Defense Authorization Act, especially the reworking of the civil service system and yet another compromise on the Disabled Veterans Tax. On the balance, however, this bill establishes good policy for our troops when they need it the most.

H.R. 1588 offers the pay and benefit measures that our Armed Forces deserve. We put together another healthy across-the-board pay raise-- 4.15 percent--as well as targeted raises of up to 6.25 percent for mid- grade and senior noncommissioned officers and select warrant officers. We have also extended special pay provisions for the men and women deployed around the world. Hostile fire and imminent danger pay will be raised from $150 per month to $225 per month through December 1, 2004, while family separation allowance (FSAA) will increase from $100 to $250 per month.

In an effort to address the issue of military readiness, H.R. 1588 also includes TRICARE health benefits for deploying Reservists. We have been undermining our own system by relying on Reservists to be ready to go when called but failing to provide them the required medical coverage to ensure deployment-level readiness. Through this new authorization, the Department of Defense can provide immediate medical and dental screening and care for selected Reservists who are assigned to a unit alerted or notified of mobilization. Non-mobilized Reservists currently without health insurance will also be able to enroll in TRICARE on a cost-share basis. With the burden on our Reserves at an all-time high, providing basic coverage is the least we can do for those called to serve.

One of the worst aspects of this legislation is the wholesale dismantling of our Department of Defense civilian workforce. Under the conference report before us, some 700,000 federal employees will be stripped of their rights and protections in the current civil service system and placed at the mercy of political appointees in DoD. The Defense Authorization Act, as written, provides no guidelines for a new civilian personnel system; rather, it gives almost unchecked power to Secretary Rumsfeld to create a system of his own design. We have heard testimony about pay for performance and pay banding, but none of this is codified in the legislation. It opens the door to political patronage and cronyism--the very abuses which the civil service system was enacted to prevent in the first place. Our committee held exactly one hearing on the civil service portions of this bill, and that hearing was held only after Committee Democrats raised an outcry. The hearing was hastily organized with one day's notice and hardly allowed for the in-depth examination due such a sweeping proposal. Let me be clear--this process has been a farce and nothing less than a slap in the face to our DoD civilian workforce. We praise these men and women in one breath, and in the next, dismiss them as expendable. In passing this provision, Congress will abdicate its constitutional responsibility and cede our authority in this matter to the Executive Branch. I am deeply disappointed that the Administration felt it necessary to interfere in this conference and prevent us from adopting the much more moderate and sensible legislation crafted in the Senate under the leadership of Senator Collins.

Likewise, I am dissatisfied with the partial rollback of the Disabled Veterans Tax. For years I have cosponsored and supported legislative efforts to allow disabled veterans to receive their full retirement annuity in conjunction with VA disability pay, and year after year, we are only able to come up with half-hearted measures. The so-called solution before us will take ten years to rectify the unfair penalty. Our veterans cannot wait until 2014 to finally see the compensation they rightfully earned, in numerous cases many years ago. It is shameful that our Republican colleagues are unwilling to budget the funding for those who have already made so many sacrifices in behalf of our Nation but yet are all too willing to send more young men and women down the same path in harm's way. I truly hope that we can reexamine this phased-in approach next year and accommodate all disabled veterans equally and immediately.

As the Ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces, I am happy to report that we have done well by the major Army and Air Force acquisition programs under our jurisdiction. The bill carefully balances current hardware needs with development and procurement of future systems. Modernization of our Bradley Fighting Vehicles and Abrams tanks will ensure the capability of our heavy armor divisions and our industrial base. I am particularly pleased that we have funded the Stryker Medium Armored Vehicles at the Administration's request for both procurement and research and development. Stryker represents the bridge between current Army legacy systems and the networked Future Combat System; through Stryker, our soldiers will hone the skills necessary for the transformation to the fast and lethal warfare of the 21st century.

I would like to thank the Committee staff for their tireless work over the past several months in putting together the best bill possible. I would especially like to thank the Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee professional staff, J.J. Gertler, Bill Natter, and Doug Roach, for their dedication, professionalism, and invaluable expertise throughout the year's work.

We have a bill that we can largely be proud of. Again, I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Madam Speaker, I would like to express my wholehearted support for this legislation being considered today. For the past 17 years, the United States has had a successful relationship with the Freely Associated States (FAS). The Federated States of Micronesia (FSM) and the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) have been able to transition from a United Nations trusteeship to sovereign governments. At the same time, the United States has had its security and defense interests in the Pacific fulfilled. H.J. Res. 63 will improve this vital economic and military relationship by allowing our nations to continue the successes in our agreement while helping to resolve some of our differences.

One of the issues which required a resolution is the impact that the Compacts of Free Association has had on U.S. areas in the Pacific. The Compacts allow FSM and RMI citizens to freely enter the U.S. and its territories to live, seek an education, obtain healthcare and find employment. For the State of Hawaii alone, more than $32 million was expended in 2002 in order to support Compact migrants and help ensure their health and well-being. These costs have been borne by Hawaii since the Compacts were first implemented in 1986. For the past seventeen years, the state has provided Compact migrants with the care and benefits that were promised to them by the first Compact, expending more than $140 million. In that time, the federal government has reimbursed a mere five percent of that amount. As a signatory to the Compacts of Free Association, I believe it is the United States, not the State of Hawaii that should bear its costs.

For the first time ever, the Administration recognized this hardship and proposed a mandatory funding stream of $15 million a year for Hawaii, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa. H.J. Res. 63 has been amended to go even further to address this vast shortcoming by increasing the mandatory appropriations to $30 million a year. Although these funds will be divided among the four jurisdictions, it will be the largest compensation any of these jurisdictions has received to date. While these funds will surely cover only a portion of the total impact cost, its yearly distribution will undoubtedly have a great effect on the state departments and agencies that have spent untold resources and labor in providing for the compact migrants.

The legislation has also been amended to include many other improvements. The inclusion of language authorizing discretionary appropriations, the extension of Pell Grant eligibility, the inclusion of a trigger for full inflation adjustment, and the restoration of language authorizing compensation for health institutions are a few of these changes. I am also gratified to see these provisions, as they will help the Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of the Marshall Islands in their quest to become fully independent countries.

At this time I would also like to thank Chairman Richard Pombo, Chairman Henry Hyde, Chairman Jim Nussle, and Chairman John Boehner for all of their hard work in bringing this bill to the floor. Thanks to their efforts, I have no doubt that our relationship with these Pacific nations will continue to be productive and mutually beneficial. I urge my colleagues to support this important measure.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate Master Sergeant Dennis Takeshita on his retirement from the Hawaii Air National Guard and thank him for 37 years of outstanding service to our Nation.

Master Sergeant Takeshita served on active duty with the Air Force from 1966 to 1972, and he served in the Hawaii Air National Guard until October 1 of this year. During that time, Master Sergeant Takeshita received many citations and awards for his high level of performance and commitment to duty. He is a veteran of Vietnam and served in Operations Allied Force, Noble Eagle, and Enduring Freedom.

Throughout his years of service Master Sergeant Dennis Takeshita demonstrated a spirit of steadfast patriotism, leadership, and professionalism. He embodies the qualities of honor, love of country, and dedication to the core values of the United States Air Force. He set a high standard of performance that challenges each and every one of us to give our very best in whatever we undertake.

We join today in saluting Master Sergeant Dennis Takeshita for 37 years of dedicated service. Mahalo, Dennis, and best wishes for the future.

Mr. Speaker, on July 17, 2003 our distinguished former colleague, Lee Hamilton, delivered an address to the U.S. Capitol Historical Society's dinner honoring the staff directors of committees of the House of Representatives.

The tribute to the directors was well deserved. They toil long hours and under great stress and pressure to ensure that the House of Representatives operates properly. Mr. Hamilton's remarks are also insightful as to the need for civility in the conduct of our often contentious business. Equally important is the need to respect and to follow the complex Congressional processes and procedures for deliberating the decisions that affect our nation.

I encourage others to read Mr. Hamilton's insightful and instructive remarks on how we conduct our nation's business, and I join him in honoring the hard work and dedication of the staff directors of the U.S. House of Representatives.

A Tribute to Committee Staff Directors

(By the Hon. Lee H. Hamilton)

The contributions of staff directors to the work of the

Congress are immeasurable. I am reasonably confident that

every committee chairman and ranking member would say they

simply could not do their work without your leadership. I

hope that gives each of you a full measure of satisfaction.

I want to talk for a few minutes about the role of the

Congress in this country, the importance of politicians, and

why your efforts are so important and worthwhile.

public attitudes toward congress

You are, of course, familiar with those who are cynical

about your work and the work of Congress. The brightest wits

in American life have had their fun at the expense of the

Congress. H.L. Mencken said that, ``with the right pressure,

Congressmen would cheerfully be in favor of polygamy,

astrology or cannibalism.'' Mark Twain said, ``suppose you

were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of Congress. But

I repeat myself.'' Will Rogers said that, ``Congress was a

never-ending source of amusement, amazement, and

discouragement.'' Even so, we honor him with that magnificent

statue just off the House floor.

We have all seen surveys like those showing that 66 percent

of Americans can name the hosts of various game shows, while

only 6 percent can name the Speaker of the House. When I was

a member, I was never particularly disturbed by such survey

results. After all, Americans are busy people with many

demands on their time, and it is not easy to put in a full

day's work and then read an article about Congress or turn on

C-Span to watch the House or Senate in session.

Nor was I bothered by the barbs--after all, we have to

appreciate that the bashing of Congress is one of America's

all time favorite indoor sports. What did bother me, though,

was the extent to which people do not understand or

appreciate some of the basic concepts that underlie the

workings of the Congress, and the role that Congress plays in

the life of our representative democracy. Even if Americans

don't know the name of their senators or representative, they

should know something about the importance of what they do to

make the country work. Even if they don't know the players or

the details of the legislative process, they should know

something about how they relate to our system of government.

If too many Americans get those concepts wrong, it does

matter to the health of our democracy.

role of the congress and committees

In my experience, far too few Americans really understand

the most important function of the Congress. It is not, in my

view, to pass any particular piece of legislation, or even a

budget--but its historic mission is to maintain freedom.

The great phrases ring through our history--``We the

people,'' ``consent of the governed,'' ``a more perfect

union.'' These aren't just technical terms of political

science. They are words that embody America's civic faith.

You and I, above all others, are expected to know them in our

bones, and to apply these grand concepts.

We rely on elected representatives to identify, sort out,

and solve the difficult issues of state. It did not have to

be this way. Our country would be vastly different if the

Founders had placed power in the hands of a single ruler, or

given much less voice to the American people.

In the Congress, Americans have a forum for debate and

deliberation in which they can feel a stake. Traditional

lawmaking is not just a nicety--it's a necessity if we're to

remain a democracy. The lawmaking process allows us to

resolve differences, and to live together peacefully,

productively and successfully.

Most Americans may be familiar with the diagram of how a

bill becomes a law. Whenever I see those charts I think to

myself how sterile they are. They do not convey the

dynamics--the frustration, the excitement, the complexity and

the necessity of the process. Very few Americans understand

that the details of this process of deliberation guarantee

that their voices are heard, and freedom is protected.

I worry that astute legislators often bypass steps in

the lawmaking process, arguing--in effect--that the ends

justify the means. This ``unconventional lawmaking'' is

increasingly applied to important legislation; but in

doing this we bypass and put at risk the very democratic

process that defines our system.

My view is that important proposals should not bypass the

traditional process, including the committee review, because

that is one important place where deliberation takes place.

That's where members and staff can ask the hard questions.

Committees provide expertise, and an opportunity to consider

the merits and smooth out the problems in proposals. This is

where we build consensus.

Some Americans feel that the legislative procedure is too

slow and deliberative--they are annoyed by what they perceive

as inside-the-Beltway scuffling, and wonder why Congress

can't get things done faster. But do we really want a speedy

system in which laws are pushed through before alternatives

are considered and consensus developed? We misunderstand

Congress's role if we demand it be a model of efficiency and

quick action.

Our Founders designed a system in which all new proposals

get careful scrutiny by going through many layers of review.

They were far less interested in moving good ideas

efficiently, than they were in preventing bad ideas from

becoming the law of the land in the heat of the moment.

People may sometimes complain about the process, but they

benefit from its legislative speed bumps when they want their

views heard, their interests protected, and their rights

safeguarded. As former Speaker Sam Rayburn

used to say: ``One of the wisest things ever said was, `Wait

a minute.' '' That, in a phrase, is the essential role played

by congressional committees.

importance of politicians

Democracy, after all, is a process, not a product, and what

our democracy really needs is more politicians. That was one

line I used to say that was sure to get a reaction. Very few

of my constituents agreed.

Showing skill as a politician has come to mean

demonstrating the ability to raise campaign funds, engaging

in the tit-for-tat of negative advertising, jockeying for

public support based on polls and focus groups, or skewering

an opponent with a one-liner during a televised debate.

People have come to view the word politician--particularly

with regard to the Congress--with disdain. Plenty of voters

feel that politicians sell-out their beliefs and promises.

``Stick to your guns,'' they urge.

Controversy and conflict are unavoidable in a nation as

large and diverse as ours--a diversity that is rightly

represented in the peoples' House. To avoid ripping apart at

the seams, our country needs people who know how to

accommodate different points of view and work for common

solutions--it needs politicians.

You are an essential part of this effort. By working behind

the scenes, knowing what Members want, proposing compromises,

addressing all the difficult details of legislation, and

dealing with all the worthy groups wanting contradictory

things, you--as well as your bosses--have to be politicians

in order to keep our democracy running.

Being a Good Politician

For the most part, people don't pay attention to how their

hopes, dreams and ambitions are turned into public policy

through the lawmaking process. Most citizens and journalists

take that very political process for granted. They shouldn't.

Constituents often asked my position on a substantive

issue. I don't think anyone inquired about my political

skills--and, in this world, political skills are essential to

get things done. The key to being an effective legislator or

staffer is respecting that system and figuring out how to

make it work. So what political skills do you need--what

skills does a member need?

First, you know how to consult, particularly with your

colleagues--talking to them, listening to them, making sure

they feel they are in the loop. Support for ideas is largely

built one-on-one, but also in larger forums. Key

individuals--inside and outside of the Congress--have their

own ideas and valid concerns, and they expect to be able to

share them. Lyndon Johnson had his own way of putting this

with a sign he had in his Senate office: ``You ain't learning

nothing when you're talking.''

Second, you calm--rather than inflame--discussions of

controversial issues. Things can get pretty heated in the

Congress, and disagreement is inevitable in a House as large

and diverse as ours. It is relatively easy to make a bad

situation worse. One thing that I'm certain of is that you

cannot produce good legislation in a bad atmosphere. You can

produce heat in such an environment, but not light.

Third, you know how to persuade. It takes an enormous

amount of persuasion to build a majority in support of an

idea. You all know how much persuasion is involved in getting

approval of even a modest piece of legislation. You have to

line up support and be in touch with sometimes hundreds of

individuals from both parties, in the Congress and outside

the Congress.

Fourth, you must be willing to share credit. I remember

former Speaker Tip O'Neill putting his arm around me and

giving me some advice as we walked down the hall. ``Neil,''

he said--he called me Neil for my first decade in Congress

because I reminded him of a Boston baseball player named Neil

Hamilton. ``Neil, you can accomplish anything in this town if

you're willing to let someone else take the credit.''

Finally, you know how to compromise. Compromise is

essential to producing law in our system. Good politicians,

both legislators and staff, are able to find points of

agreement that will allow a consensus to emerge. They will

look for solutions that allow both sides to claim, if not

victory, at least some gains.

Your skills are crucial in finding acceptable solutions.

Compromise might involve altering some key words; phasing in

a change; inserting a new provision; requiring a study;

splitting differences in funding; delaying or postponing

implementation of a section. You have to seek these

accommodations among rival interests because you know that it

is necessary to make the Congress--and country--work.

From my perspective, the ability to build consensus is

probably the most important single skill needed in the

Congress--by Members and staff. Any fool can blow a meeting

or discussion apart--it takes real political skill to bring

people together. That is why we need more politicians of your

skill these days, not fewer.

Why Is It Worthwhile?

Well, is this demanding, tedious process of passing

legislation worthwhile? You and I know well the frustrations:

As a member, I always felt it was hard to keep on the right

side of the voter. When I was in my district, I heard

complaints that I wasn't spending enough time in Washington;

when I was in Washington, people said I was ignoring the home

folks and only paid attention to them during elections. When

I drove an old car in my district, people said it looked like

something a farmer would use for hauling trash; when I got a

new car, they said the lobbyists had gotten to me. When I

wore an old suit, people said I had no class; when I wore a

new one, I was accused of going high-hat. When I missed

church, people said I was an atheist; when I attended church,

I was a pious fraud, trolling for votes in church. When

Congress passed a lot of laws, we were a meddlesome Congress;

when we weren't passing laws, we were an incompetent, do-

nothing Congress ignoring the needs of the country. When we

supported the president, people said we were a rubber-stamp;

when we opposed the president, we were disloyal and

obstructionist.

You can never please everyone when you are working in

Congress, no matter how many hours you put in, no matter how

skillful you are. You all know too well what I'm talking

about as staff directors when I talk about the frustrations,

among them:

--committee meetings go on without end;

--the work is tedious, requiring that you go over

legislation comma by comma;

--you are constantly running from one meeting or

appointment to another

--your daily schedule is always being interrupted, revised,

of simply scrapped.

--if you have a family, you're going to miss many important

family events;

--and you cannot plan ahead, whether for an evening off or

for a vacation, because some event or emergency

always demands that Congress stay in session longer than

planned.

All the political posturing, sniping and scrambles to claim

credit for good things--or avoid blame for bad--sometimes

becomes disheartening, as does the constant maneuvering for

partisan advantage. And for putting up with all of this, you

get paid less than you could make in the private sector,

while facing harsh and frequent criticism.

Yet, despite it all, most members run for reelection and

remain in Congress as long as they can. Most of you worked

long and hard to become a committee staff director.

Is it all worthwhile? Yes, of course it is. Why? Let's be

frank--some of it satisfies the ego. Some like the power and

the trappings of power--when you speak, people listen, and

that is very satisfying; but most of you, I think, are truly

motivated by the belief that, as hard as it is, you can make

a difference and enhance the lives of ordinary Americans.

Then, too, it is all pretty exciting--and interesting. The

sheer challenge of public policy issues attracts us. There is

a pervasive sense on Capitol Hill that it is where the issues

of greatest importance to the nation are being sorted out.

This is where the action is. Sometimes this is misplaced, but

often it is not.

You struggle over the issues that aroused the passions of

this country's founding generation. How much power should the

federal government be given? How should powers be separated

among the branches? How do we resolve the tension between

encouraging individual liberty and security? What role should

our country play in the world?

These great issues are subject to debate every time a new

federal budget comes to a vote, or a major presidential

initiative gets introduced on Capitol Hill. When you start

working in Congress, you get a chance to take part in this

ongoing debate--our great experiment with democracy.

Your public service gives you a stimulating, proud and

lively career. So I salute each of you for the vital role

that you play within this institution, and in your service to

your fellow Americans. You are contributing to the success

and direction of this country. I hope you feel that by

working in the Congress you are given the unique opportunity

to make a difference in the lives of people and the great

affairs of this nation. I would wager that no matter where

your career takes you from Capitol Hill, you will look back

on your public service as the most rewarding of your career.

The work is hard, the recognition rare, the monetary reward

modest; but your reward is a deeply fulfilling life in public

service and a key role in American democracy. What more could

you want?

Is it not interesting in the context just established by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and that which the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) just recounted to us, that there is some mention made today about a Marshall Plan for Iraq, as if there was some analogy or some parallel to what is happening today, from what is happening today to the time of the Marshall Plan under Harry Truman.

Harry Truman made his reputation as a Senator of the United States by rooting out corruption and favoritism and cronyism and profiteering out of defense spending. That is how Harry Truman made his reputation. And when he was President of the United States, the Marshall Plan was free of that kind of corruption, free of that kind of cronyism, free of that kind of direction.

I have a suggestion for the gentleman from Oregon: We now have Ms. Rice in charge of stabilization. I am not quite sure what she knows about construction. She constructs sentences very well. By the time she gets finished, a house of cards is still standing. I do not know how long that house of cards is going to stand, but she does her best to construct it.

Now, perhaps she can do the same for reconstruction in Iraq. I do not know. But if she is in charge of that, presumably she will be in charge of the $600 million that is going to be borrowed and spent to find the nonexistent weapons of mass destruction.

Perhaps some of the folks in the gentleman's district or State that are out of work can apply for a job over there. Not that they could do real work in Oregon on roads and bridges and schools, something of substance, but they can chase their shadows over in Iraq looking for nonexistent weapons of mass destruction for $600 million.

I do not want you to be discouraged because help is on the way. Where did I hear that phrase before? Help is on the way. I think back around 2000 help was on the way. Well, help is on the way. My understanding is that the Turkish Parliament has voted to send troops to Iraq. Why, that is wonderful. We are going to have assistance at long last.

There is only one little problem and perhaps Condoleezza Rice can stabilize this while she is at it. The Iraqi Governing Council, our governing council, our appointees, the people we have chosen as the foundation of stabilization, political stabilization in Iraq do not want them. They told them to stay out. These people, ungrateful wretches that they are, apparently have a sense of suspicion that the Turks might have more than one agenda in mind. That if they cross over into Iraq, that perhaps the Turks might have something to do with what benefits Turkey.

Now, where would they get that idea? Does the phrase Ottoman Empire ring a bell with anybody? It is all history that has been lost. The Iraqis have had some experience with Turkish soldiers before. I keep calling on the ghost of T.E. Lawrence. Where are you when we need you?

I understand they show movies down at the White House. Maybe they ought to get Lawrence of Arabia and get that down there and show it to them.

Wake up. Help is not on the way. Three more dead today, others injured. The media is reduced to saying, but nobody has been killed since last Friday. This is the kind of marginal gain, apparently, that we are making. This is the kind of measurement that is taking place now. The news hour in the evening on PBS, at the end of it, broadcasts in silence the names, pictures and fundamental data of the latest deaths. Is this the kind of ritual that we are going to assume in this country? We are going to watch this war on television. This is the kind of sacrifice supposedly being made. This is the kind of

confrontation that needs to take place. And the reason we have Iraq Watch, the reason we are down here every week, the reason that we are speaking out now is that the American public has to know that not everybody has been buffaloed, not everyone is silent, not everyone is going to step back from speaking the truth.

They are willing to take the money.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield on that point, I know we are near the end of our time. I just want to indicate and perhaps we can take this up at another time.

Just so the American people understand, our colleagues understand, the suggestion was made to Mr. Bremer by myself when we were in the first group to actually be able to leave the airport and get into Baghdad and subsequently up to Kirkuk in the north, I think really the first conference that was held after Mr. Bremer's appointment in Baghdad, we suggested and I for one suggested that the Iraqi Army not be disbanded; that it be utilized as a workforce, turned into a kind of CCC operation; that it was going to be very dangerous for us to simply take these folks who after all were conscripted into the army anyway. It is not as if these guys were eager volunteers. Then I said we can pay them if there are going to be any payments made. Let us let them do the rebuilding of Iraq. Let them set the standard for it. Let Iraqis do the rebuilding. Of course we can assist them. That way we can get them on our side and not cause a huge fissure in Iraqi society; and, of course, that suggestion was ignored.

I just want it on the record that the administration knew full well that there were Members who had reservations about the war but who, of course, wanted to have the best possible outcome once the attack was over, who made a suggestion that it was very, very important not to dismember Iraqi society in order to accommodate profiteering on the part of companies in the United States.

Madam Speaker, what we have attempted to do over these weeks is to bring the hammer of truth down on the anvil of inquiry, and that is the object of these discussions. People have sometimes asked me, and I know they have asked other Members, why is it that we have these sessions late at night during what is called Special Orders. And because we are used to it, we may take it for granted that everyone knows what that is. The people who may be perusing through the various channels on their television set may come upon C-SPAN, and they see the regular order of business is concluded for the day, and now we are in Special Orders.

What that means is in this people's House, membership of which is restricted, restricted to those who have been elected, not appointed, elected by their constituents across this country, the faith and trust of their constituents have put all of us on this floor.

We are here under Special Orders because this is our opportunity to speak to our colleagues and to the Nation about those matters which we consider most important and which we may not have had the opportunity during the regular course of business to discuss at length or in-depth. Unfortunately, as I have mentioned over and over again, we are dependent on the people of this country, on the people of our Nation, to pay attention to what may be said here, not because we necessarily know more than others, but because we have been privileged to occupy these positions and accept this responsibility and meet the obligations of carrying forward an inquiry for the Nation at large, so that we can determine what the best course of action is. Over and over, we reach out to the country here on this most important of issues, our Iraq Watch, because the media, and you see my arm reaching back to those who cannot see it, the galleries are here for a free press to join us, to observe us and they are never here. They are never here because they are occupied with those matters which they consider most important. They are chasing after a circus out in California, they are trying to determine whether or not they can start a fight, a verbal fight, some verbal fisticuffs between politicians, they are preoccupied with process and politics is entertainment. But that is not what our charge is, and that is why we are here at 11 o'clock at night on the east coast, not because we have nothing else to do in terms of our responsibilities and our commitment, but meeting our most important responsibility, which is to reach out to the citizens of this country to let them know that their Members here in the People's House are focusing in on those items not just of interest, but of most immediate concern to their welfare and to the welfare of peace throughout the world. And so we meet here tonight, and we meet here every week, determined to bring forward from our inquiry not just a measure of truth, but hopefully a sense of insight and to bring forward the facts, as best we know them, to let people draw their judgments.

And so the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) has here this evening a chart. Maybe we cannot all see it on the television screen, so he is going to explicate for us what is on that chart, and what it means. The reason that we are doing it is because we have a deep and abiding desire to share with the entire citizenry of the country our profound concern that we are moving in the wrong direction. The fact is that there is no higher degree of patriotism, especially when you think your country is moving in the wrong direction and the price of that moving in the wrong direction is the blood and grievous wounding of our young people. We have to speak out under those circumstances, and that is why we are here this evening. I am particularly pleased to be joined as the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) indicated by his colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), and a former president of the Connecticut State Senate and now the ranking member, the senior Democrat on our Committee on House Administration, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson), joining with us tonight. They are here, I think, at this stage to back up the issue, the issue at hand which is can we put forward a policy and analyze the circumstances under which these policies are presently being put forward by the administration, can we put forward an analysis and analyze these policies in such a manner as to give some direction that will see that this comes to an early end?

Now that everyone understands what the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) was referring to in terms of what is called an adverse reaction, an adverse recommendation, I want to make sure that everybody understands what is going to come to the floor, and I think the Committee on International Relations had to deal with this issue the same way.

What is coming out of the Committee on Armed Services and what is coming out of the Committee on International Relations, if I understand correctly, is the recommendation to all the Members when it comes to the floor to vote down, vote down a request for information that is vital to our understanding the direction that we should take with respect to Iraq and the post-war activities therein.

Madam Speaker, more than that, there is going to be a recommendation to vote down. That is the recommendation. To me it seems that it would have been a far more straight-up approach to simply say, no, we are not going to do it and take it from there. But I know this is going to strike the American people as an awfully strange way of doing business, but I hope that the media will pay some attention, that we will be able to bring attention hopefully through Iraq Watch tonight to say tune in, listen in, pay close attention when this vote comes up in the House because for the first time in my memory, and, in fact, next year I will be 30 years in public service and I cannot ever recall an instance in which a legislative body which is bound to determine what the policy of the Nation should be or what the State should be or whatever legislative jurisdiction that it has actually is asked to turn down the opportunity to receive information that can help it make a judgment.

I think our time has concluded, but it is clear to me this evening that we perhaps are going to have to have more time. I am pleased that so many are joining us, and I hope we can take up that issue in the future.

I came in just at the moment when I could say to our good friend from Chicago, maybe we ought to talk a little turkey tonight.

I just find it extraordinarily interesting that people continue to come to our offices, and I want to emphasize that all of us are here working today, and we find ourselves, do we not, meeting with constituents who come to our offices with concerns, and among them, and perhaps Members here can verify today, they probably saw, if they have any military dependents in their districts, representatives of the Impact Aid Coalition.

For those in our listening audience and for those Members who may not be thoroughly familiar with what Impact Aid means, you will find that when a child is in a school district as a result of his or her parents being assigned there by the United States military, that district is generally eligible for what is called Impact Aid, because that child has an impact on the finances of that school system. That child's parents may or may not be paying the same kinds of taxes, contributing the same kind of financial support, that would be there if that parent was in fact living in that district as a matter of course in their life. So in areas where we have a high number of military dependents, the United States and Congress in its wisdom has evolved a system called Impact Aid.

Now, the astounding thing that is taking place today is here are our constituents on behalf of military-dependent children appearing in our offices asking for funding, full funding of Impact Aid, inside the boundaries of the

United States. We will pay foreign nations 100 cents on the dollar with respect to those children and their education, but within the boundaries of the United States, tonight as I speak, those children and their parents have to beg the United States Government for financial assistance for the children of our own military that are serving.

Some of the same military that is serving tonight in Iraq have children in this country whose education is not being paid for by the Impact Aid to which they are entitled. This is the kind of disconnect that is taking place with the prosecution of this war and its aftermath that the people of this country have to come to grips with and come to terms with.

If the gentleman would yield on that point, all of that is true, but my emphasis here is these are military dependents. These are the dependent children of people who are now fighting in Iraq, and those children and the school districts within which they are now living are not funded under the Impact Aid program that we ourselves have authorized in the Congress.

If this is taken as the basis for our conversation in the immediate, I would point out that is one of the reasons why some of us are insisting that before any of this money be voted, that it be authorized; that the requisite subject matter committees, perhaps the Committee on Education and the Workforce or most certainly the Committee on Armed Services, have hearings on this to determine what in fact should be authorized, how much unexpended funds there are, where funds have been allocated, and have an audit of what has been spent to this point, what is expected to be spent, before we simply go to the Committee on Appropriations and in effect block the entire legislative process that has been established for every other item.

The fact is that an appropriation, an emergency appropriation, a supplemental appropriation, should be handled only under emergency circumstances. These are not emergency circumstances. This is the result of what has taken place up to this point and needs a sober, serious consideration and analysis before we take one step forward.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield on that point, we have tried to emphasize, and our chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) would agree, that we have tried to emphasize in our remarks in the Iraq Watch, as we have proceeded from week to week, that this is not a partisan attack; this is not meant to be a Democratic Party discussion and analysis. Obviously, anybody can come and join us who wishes to do so. But nonetheless, the plain fact is that the House, as the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) points out, is going to have to act, the Congress is going to have to act.

The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), for example, the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, is aware of what has taken place at the hospital because I know that the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations and his wife and family visit regularly, and this did not just start with the war in Iraq; this is something that has been a lifelong commitment of the Youngs. They have, that is to say, upon the discovery of that, I know that in at least one instance the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) has paid that bill himself, and he has a bill in the Congress now which we should pass instantly. We should have that on the floor.

Mr. Speaker, it should just come right down on a suspension vote and be passed. But the fact that it has to be passed, the fact that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) has to take the lead as the appropriations chair to right this wrong is indicative of the fact that the administration has failed to understand what is at stake here. Surely something like this could be rescinded by an Executive Order. We are apparently able to go to war without the slightest recourse to the Congress for approval; one would think that the administration could rescind this tax on food for wounded veterans in our Nation's military hospitals.

So I think the Congress has the obligation to get involved in this oversight in a way beyond that which is the ordinary passage of bills and the ordinary scope of legislation that we go through in the quotidian details of legislative life here in Washington. This is a perfect example of it. In some respects, it is almost shameful that the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations has to resort to a legislative bill to right this wrong, which is obvious to anyone who would objectively look at the situation.

There is no doubt in my mind that the good offices of the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations is utterly and totally sincere and straightforward. The question is not the motivation of a Republican Member or a Democratic Member; it is that the Congress has to bring any administration, Democrat or Republican, to account with respect to how we fund things, where we fund things, why we fund things, and what the rationale is behind it. This is our obligation as Members, regardless of party.

Mr. Speaker, I think in conclusion it is important for us to reiterate that what we must avoid is equating support for a political agenda with support for our troops.

To the degree or extent that that is deliberately confused in people's minds by politicians who are attempting to associate their political policies with support for the troops that has to be resisted. That has to be pointed out. That has to be applied and dissected, and so I think that it is important for us to continue to meet, to continue to urge the media to do more than simply take press releases and speeches at face value and to perhaps follow a little bit more analytically what is taking place and most certainly for all of us to stand up and make sure that everyone in this country understands that political agendas and support from the troops and for the troops are two different things.

I do not think anybody recognizes the full degree of anger that is building in this country as a result of trying to confuse those two points.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Well, that is because we are bringing the hammer of inquiry down on the anvil of truth here, or the anvil of inquiry for sure.

The anvil of inquiry for sure. Part of what we are being asked to do and what you have been discussing tonight has to do with the new payment, the latest, I should say, the latest payment. But think about what happens when the Secretary of Defense says, oh, we are making progress, when the delegation from the Congress of which I

was a part was the first to enter, actually enter Baghdad after the attack on Baghdad was over.

Remember, they had a group went in and stayed at the Baghdad airport. They came in. We drove in. We came down that long road from the airport into Baghdad. The last delegation that just went had to be flown from the airport into the compound where Mr. Bremer is and where the troops are because they cannot go on that road any more. I remember coming in this road. I said, We are going to have to have 10,000 troops just to guard the road in from the Baghdad airport because you have the road and you have desert and that means you can come in. Remember, I called upon Thomas Edwards Lawrence, T.E. Lawrence, where is your spirit? Where are you now that we need you? Because you cannot guard that road. All it takes is a cell phone and a trigger mechanism to be able to attack these vehicles.

So when you talk $66 billion or however you want to break this down, and I hope that we are going to break this down before we vote any money for this, we have to take into account you will need thousands and thousands of troops, longer and longer time at greater expense than even has been mentioned here tonight just to guard the road.

I think our time is probably at an end.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill to reinstate the Native American Veteran Housing Loan program.

I would like to thank the Chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Mr. Smith, the Ranking Member, Mr. Evans, and the staff of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs for their work in crafting this much- needed remedy to the present situation. I would also like to thank Senator Akaka for his leadership over the years on this issue. He and his staff have been tireless in their efforts to rectify this problem since it arose in May.

In 1992, the Native American Veterans Home Loan Equity Act was enacted to establish and implement a pilot program to make direct housing loans to aid Native American (Indian, Alaska or Hawaii native, or Pacific Islander) veterans in purchasing, constructing, or improving, dwellings on trust land. Almost 11 years later, the VA has closed several hundred loans, and the program is a resounding success.

Native Hawaiian veterans have greatly benefited from the loan program. Through the end of Fiscal Year 2002, 300 loans were closed throughout the Pacific. Of the 300 loans, about 215 were new construction loans, with the balance consisting of Interest Rate Reduction Loans. Although Hawaii has the highest loan volume, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and Guam have significant levels of activity. About 100 of the 300 loans have been paid in full and the other 200 are active and performing. Only one loan termination has occurred to date since 1992.

This year's dramatic increase in use of the program mirrors the national upswing in financing new construction and refinancing existing loans. Home ownership has long been a hallmark of financial growth and community stability, and it's encouraging to see so many vets in my own state enjoying this benefit. However, I deeply regret that more of our Native American veterans were unable to take advantage of the 40-year historic low financing rates available a mere two and a half months ago. The untimely halt to this past May cut off deserving veterans from this financial tool. Mr. Speaker, I hope that we can do better in the future to correct such problems before they cause inadvertent harm.

In the end, this measure is about equity. The Native American Veterans Direct Loan program exists to afford our Native American, Native Hawaiian, Alaskan Native, and Pacific Islander veterans on trust lands the same benefits available to the rest of our veterans community. We need to sustain this program--it's a matter of fairness.

I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

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

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield on that point, precisely on that question, we need an answer as to whether or not reports today in the Los Angeles Times are correct that the $87 billion figure is some $55 billion short of what the administration in anonymous leaks are indicating is actually needed, and that the $87 billion is to take us up until the election; and then somehow, we are to magically find $55 billion from supposed allies. The exact quote, as a matter of fact, is that according to the Los Angeles Times, they said they would ``pressure other countries to come up with the additional funds needed to restore security in Iraq and repair its ravaged infrastructure.'' And I think everything that has been said tonight is indicative of the proposition that has just been made over these past few minutes that before we vote on this $87 billion, we have to ask the question: Is this actually the number that you are using, even internally?

And that is why we have to have this money authorized. That is why we have to have hearings in the Committee on Armed Services, the authorization committee. This is not just a supplemental bill to be taken to the Committee on Appropriations; this Congress needs to authorize the money that is involved in reconstruction and security in Iraq, or we are failing in our congressional duties.

Very quickly, yes. Good point. Just as it is in our State legislatures, we have to authorize, that is to say, a committee must authorize the expenditure of money before it can be appropriated. The subject matter committee, in this instance the Committee on Armed Services, must take up the question: Will we authorize the expenditure of funds? The Committee on Appropriations may, if they have an authorization, appropriate up to or, in some instances, even exceed the amount of money that is there, if they can gain the approval of the legislature; but that is the object, to have a hearing as to what, in fact, should be done. That is to say what is the policy, and then attach a money figure to it.

What we are doing is saying we are going to put money out there and then figure out a policy afterwards. What I am saying and I think all of us are saying tonight is, let us get the policy down first, and then figure out what it costs and then determine whether there is a cost- benefit ratio to that policy.

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take the 5 minutes. I would like to defer to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) for such concluding remarks as he might like to make.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 40 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, September 10, 2003, at 10 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, September 4, I was unable to cast my vote on two recorded votes. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: Rollcall vote No. 474--``yes,'' and rollcall vote No. 475--``yes.''