Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I regret the congressional schedule keeps me from attending the deployment ceremony to honor members of the 41st Brigade. This ceremony marks just a portion of the honor and debt of gratitude that our state and our nation owe you for your service. We also owe a debt of gratitude to your family and friends for their understanding, support, and sacrifice.

The media talks so much of high tech and secret weapons, but the enduring strength and real secret behind the military power of the United States is men and women like you who have volunteered to serve as the new citizen soldiers, highly trained and motivated. You constitute the key to the success of our total force--a military second to none in the world. You and the other 8,000 Members of the Oregon National Guard continue a long and honored tradition of service to Oregon's citizens in times of disaster, crisis, or strife, while training and preparing to defend our nation in time of need.

The mission ahead of you will be both difficult and dangerous--to bring stability and order to a ravaged nation in the midst of one of the most volatile regions on Earth. All Americans and our allies around the world will be more safe and secure if this region can be moved toward peace, but this course is not easy or certain.

I pledge to do all I can in Congress to ensure that you have the best training and equipment necessary to accomplish your mission and return home safely. I further pledge that your service and sacrifice will not be forgotten and will be reflected in the treatment and benefits you and your family receive.

From the bottom of my heart and on behalf of all the citizens of Oregon's 4th Congressional District, thank you and Godspeed.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, the House finds itself in a bit of an awkward position here. The Federal aviation reauthorization legislation passed this body some months ago with little controversy, an excellent bill moving us forward with investment in the future of aviation air traffic control air safety. A quite similar bill passed the Senate, and it appeared we were on our way to meeting the October 1 deadline.

Unfortunately, something strange happened on the way to adopting a Federal aviation reauthorization, and that is White House ideology and politics and stupidity.

We were summoned to an emergency meeting of the conference the day before the House was to adjourn for the August recess, because the FAA bill was going to be brought to the floor the next day. There was just one little change, an unwritten amendment to privatize 71 air traffic control towers.

Well, the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) did not like that much, so, whoops, suddenly these deeply-held principles could be changed, and it was suddenly 69 towers could be privatized, because the two in Alaska did not need to be privatized anymore.

Now, when the Senator from Arizona was questioned as to how he came up with the list of 69 that presented to him by the White House, he said, oh, there were really good reasons for it. These were all just little VFR dinky airports and this would be a more efficient way to do it.

I said well, I wonder if he ever landed at Boeing Field in Seattle. I did not think Boeing was aware of the fact that that was just a VFR field, a little dinky field. I thought it was actually kind of crucial to the aviation industry of the United States of America and Boeing, our largest manufacturer, in fact, our only commercial manufacturer. Then others went on to question about others on the list. The bottom line was he was defending the indefensible.

The White House wants to say that it is not the business of the government of the United States of America, it is not the business of government employees, to control air traffic, to provide for safety and control of the national air space. That should be a private sector function. Somebody might be able to make a little bit of money doing it, despite the fact there is no successful model of privatization in the world. They are all more expensive and less efficient.

Well, what the heck, that does not matter to this White House. So what if we gouge the taxpayers for more money, if someone can make a little money, and maybe we can bust another union here. That is all this is about. It is quite simple.

Both the House and the Senate, by near unanimous majorities, voted to not privatize the air traffic control system. But the ideologues at the White House presented to their compliant lap dogs that order, and they trotted into the conference with it. They got it done by voice vote, no one signed the conference report from this side of the aisle. But they have not been able to bring the bill to the floor because, guess what? They cannot get the support in the House or the Senate for what they wanted and what they got, which is privatization of air traffic control, jeopardizing the safety and the future of the air space of the United States of America.

Now they say, well, we will just go back to conference and strike it. Now, they are going to try the bait and switch rouse here which is to say, well, we will strike out that offensive and stupid provision out of the bill, you know, the arbitrary privatization of 69 air traffic control towers against the will of the Senate and the House. We will just strike that out altogether.

But, of course, what they are conveniently omitting there is that both the Senate and House had had affirmative language to prohibit privatization, and absent that, the ideologues at the White House can actually privatize more air traffic control towers, further jeopardizing the safety of the traveling public and the control of the air space of the United States of America. So that is what they are going to try now.

But I do not think that this House, the Members of this House or the Members of the other body, are that dumb that they are going to fall for that. I do not think it gives those who are weak-kneed enough cover to go in that direction.

It is the same issue: Do you believe in privatization of air traffic control or not. Do you want to follow the failed models of other countries that are more expensive and less efficient or not? That is the bottom line when this comes back up on Thursday.

They are going to say, oh, we took that out of the bill. It is underlying the bill without a prohibition, and the ideologues at the White House will sure as heck rush forward with privatization, because someone might be able to make a little bit of money. So what if it kills people and jeopardizes the air space.

Mr. Speaker, today the House will vote to borrow $87 billion to continue the conflict in Iraq and build and revitalize the Iraqi economy. They say it is necessary to support the troops. It is not for dearth of funds that our troops lack ceramic body armor or armored Humvees and other essentials. There are ample, unspent funds, billions from the $79 billion we borrowed for this war last April, but it is bureaucratic incompetence, indifference and intransigence at the Pentagon. Secretary Rumsfeld and his advisors did not order armor because they did not think that we would need it, and they could never admit they were wrong. It did not fit their scenario.

They say it is necessary for the security of the American people that we are going to borrow $20 billion in the name of working Americans to invest and stimulate the Iraqi economy, to build their infrastructure, roads, bridges, highways, state of the art telecommunications, sewer and electric.

Well, it is not going to boost our economy here at home, and that is the security that my constituents and most Members' constituents are worried about. If we invest in the economy as the Democrats have advised, it would provide 1 million jobs for Americans.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

This amendment will not, as has previously been criticized, deduct from the funds that will be used to build Iraq or, I should say, the money we will borrow to build Iraq. It is a simple amendment. It says, none of the funds made available in this act, U.S. taxpayer dollars, may be used for the participation of Iraq in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries.

Now, why would we want to restrict that?

Well, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries is a cartel. It is an energy cartel. They flout international law, the World Trade Organization, and other agreements by artificially constraining production in violation of the World Trade Organization's precepts to drive up the price, to profit themselves; and, of course, U.S. consumers are the losers.

Now, OPEC controls about 40 percent of the world's oil production, three-quarters of the reserves, and they set these production quotas for its 11 members.

We have heard a lot about how Iraq is going to become a free market economy. It is going to have a tremendous impact on world oil prices when its production hits the free market. If they join OPEC, they will be assigned a quota; and their quota will be controlled in the interests of OPEC, not international oil supply, not the consumers of the United States of America, but solely to benefit members of a price- fixing oil cartel.

This same cartel agreed to cut oil production, they just voted a couple of weeks ago, on November 1, by 900,000 barrels a day, which is already raising the price of gasoline at the pump here in the United States, jacking up the price of home heating oil as we go into a home heating season here in the United States. And the Iraqi representative who was sent to the last meeting at the behest of Mr. Bremer and the United States, in all probability with U.S. funds, Ibrahim Bahr al- Uloum said Iraq should play an active role in achieving the objectives of this organization, which translated, means Iraq fully intends to participate in the price-fixing, the manipulation, and the cartel.

I do not believe that U.S. taxpayer dollars should participate in this activity, which is contrary to the United States, the precepts we advocate in world trade, and our own consumers and taxpayers.

Now, why do we need the amendment? Well, Mr. Bremer has supported the membership of Iraq in OPEC, the price-fixing cartel. There are ample discretionary funds in the bill in addition to the $2.1 billion that will go to rebuild the Iraq oil infrastructure and flows through the Iraqi oil ministry which could be used to facilitate the participation in this price-fixing cartel. I just do not think that the United States taxpayers should be asked to foot this bill.

Hopefully, in fact, the U.S. will try and convince the Iraqi council and others that it would not be in their best interests to participate in a price-fixing cartel, particularly if they are going to depend upon us for so many billions of dollars to fix their oil infrastructure.

I know the gentleman from Arizona believes very much in the rule of law and is a big advocate of the World Trade Organization, their dispute mechanism, resolution mechanism; and I am certain he is very well aware that the quotas of OPEC violate the precepts of the WTO. They are not based in a shortage; they create shortages. The only way we can constrain supply under the WTO in this manner is if we have a certified shortage or conservation of resources. This is neither. This is price-fixing to gouge American consumers and others in oil-importing countries, and the United States taxpayers should have none of this.

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

Madam Speaker, well, that was a quite a week's work for the United States Congress. We just managed to add $87 billion to the debt of the United States of America if this legislation stands in conference with the Senate. $87 billion will be borrowed to continue the conflict in Iraq and to build a vibrant new economy for Iraq, roads, bridges, highways, telephone systems, 9/11 ports, a lot of things that we could use here in the United States, investment that if it was made in the United States, would put more than a million people to work.

But in the wisdom of the Republican majority in the House, this will be money that will be borrowed and spent in Iraq. They would not allow us to convert it to loans. One gentleman from Indiana famously stood up with an amendment to convert it to loans last night. He knew his amendment was not going to be made in order. He got an hour to debate it and then went away like a sheep when his amendment was not allowed, did not even challenge the ruling of the Chair, did not even try to get a vote. And then when he was offered a chance to vote on a democratic amendment to turn it into a loan because they have $7 trillion of oil reserves, he voted no.

People like that are going to have to explain that to their constituents. How is it more important that the working people of America assume billions of dollars of debt, that people for three generations are going to repay over the next 30 years for the people of Iraq so they may prosper, so they may better exploit their $7 trillion of oil reserves, and we cannot ask them to contribute to that process. It is not about war damage. It is about the damage done to their economy by a brutal dictator.

Here are a few things that were not in the bill. Even though we are borrowing $87 billion, it did not include $4.6 billion transferred from rebuilding Iraq to quality-of-life enhancements for our troops so they can have potable water, health and dental screening, postdeployment health care coverage for the Guard and Reserve, prepaid phone cards, transportation home on leave, they would not allow that. It was more important to borrow the money and spend it on Iraq.

An amendment to increase imminent-danger pay for the troops, the American men and women serving over there. And family separation allowance, prepaid phone cards, and $25 million in loans to Reservists who own small businesses disrupted by this deployment. That was not in the bill because it was more important to borrow and spend the money to rebuild Iraq and to benefit the Iraqi people.

An amendment to add $1.8 billion for veterans health care was not part of this bill. An amendment to add $1.8 billion, another, a second one, by reducing the Iraqi construction account for veterans health care was not allowed.

I guess we know where the parties stand. We hear a lot about the Republicans are with the troops. They may be good at wrapping themselves in the flag, but when it comes to putting the money and their vote where the troops are, they are not there. They are AWOL. And they were AWOL on these amendments. They were AWOL on the amendment to add the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act to the bill. It would not have taken any money away from the Iraqi people, but would have given benefits to the people in the Armed Forces here.

An amendment to provide additional compensation to Guard and Reserve members, an amendment to provide Guard and Reserve members medical and dental screening upon being called to active duty, tricare coverage to certain Reserve members. An amendment to increase the basic pay of Reservists by $1,000 a month.

An amendment, this one was quite an amendment, it was a tie vote, so that means that any person who voted against it on that side of the aisle, and 99 percent of them did, to give a $1,500 bonus to those serving in Iraq or Afghanistan, and it would have come out of the foreign aid portion, the build-Iraq portion of this budget.

So the Republican majority decided it was more important to give more money to a country with $7 trillion of oil reserves than it was to give a $1,500 bonus. I guess they have not talked to their Reservists who have been called up. I have. Many of them have taken huge cuts in pay. They are putting their family businesses at risk, if they have family businesses. Yeah, they may get their jobs back when they return, but they are never going to make up for that income.

This would have just been a fraction of what many of them lost. But, no, they could not do that. It was more important to give $20 billion to the Iraqi people to build their infrastructure, their roads, their bridges, their health care, their education system, their sewer, their water systems, things that we could use across America.

An amendment to reimburse any servicemember or any family who purchases protective body armor. We voted $79 billion last April, we borrowed, the House of Representatives, the Senate, the President, borrowed $79 billion for this war last April, and it did not include the body armor. Well, the money was there, yes. But Rumsfeld did not order it because he said, oh, the troops are not going to be there long enough to need it, and people are going to greet them by waving little tiny American flags. So he just did not order the body armor. It is not that they did not have the money. They did not order it. They did not order the armored Humvees for our troops.

What they have not done is incredible, but what they have done is even worse. They have indebted the people of the United States of America for $87 billion, most of it to benefit the residents of another nation and not here in America.

Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Chairman, I have been in my office and trying to find out what was going on. My understanding is that are we are at the moment debating the Pence amendment, is that correct?

Mr. Chairman, as I understand the Pence amendment, that Mr. Kolbe from Arizona has risen to reserve a parliamentary point of order against this amendment, is that correct?

So, basically, Mr. Chairman, we are debating an amendment which is not going to be allowed so all of this debate is meaningless. Is that correct, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman, could I have a further inquiry. Do we anticipate that there is some prospect that an actual vote might be allowed on this amendment?

I thank the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot believe Members of Congress saying the American people are not generous, they are not willing to give. We borrowed $79 billion in the spring to pursue the war in Iraq. We are going to be asked to borrow $87 billion more in the name of the American people tonight.

But what we are saying here is for the money to build the infrastructure, not rebuild, this is not war damage, this is to give the Iraqis a spiffy new state-of-the-art telecommunications system, water and sewer, roads and bridges, all sorts of things the American people would like to have, good projects, public works, but to give it to them free of charge, because Saddam Hussein stole their money and neglected to do it.

Now, this is a country that has seven thousand billion dollars in oil reserves, and we cannot ask them to foot a little bit of the bill?

How about when we talk about welfare people in this country, ``have them bootstrap themselves.'' Well, how about having the Iraqis pick up half of the bill to build their country? Otherwise, we are going to obligate Americans, working Americans, for the next 30 years, to carry the entire tab for building this country, not rebuilding it, and committing the American people to pay for projects there that we need here at home that are being neglected because we do not have enough money.

We cannot borrow the money here in the United States of America to build the roads, bridges, highways, water and sewer systems, to pay extended unemployment benefits out of the trust fund, but we can borrow the money in Iraq to pay for no-show jobs, to build water systems, sewers, state-of-the-art telecommunications and all that, and we cannot ask them to obligate themselves out of a seven thousand billion dollar oil reserve to pay a tiny fraction of that?

One gentleman said it is one-fifth of one percent of our GDP and we should not care. It figures out to one-fifth of one percent of their seven thousand billion dollar oil reserves.

Fair is fair. They should at least pick up half of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take the time of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).

Mr. Speaker, I had hoped to be in the well this evening to offer an amendment to the pending legislation, the legislation under which the House of Representatives has been asked by the President of the United States to borrow $87 billion to continue to pursue the conflict in Iraq and nearly $20 billion of that will be used to build Iraq. This is not an issue of rebuilding Iraq; it is building Iraq. Many of the things that are included in this legislation will provide Iraq with infrastructure that they could not even have dreamed of before this war: wireless Internet network, a 911 cellular system, new sewer systems, combined cycle turbines for their electricity. These are not things that were destroyed in the war; they are things that were neglected through 30 years of dictatorial rule by Saddam Hussein.

And now we are being told that somehow it is the responsibility of the American people to borrow money to construct these projects generally in an exorbitant price.

I had hoped to offer an amendment to the American Parity Act that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) and I introduced early in the year, that would require that we match dollar for dollar the expenditures in Iraq with similar expenditures in the United States. For instance, under this legislation we are going to invest, the United States of America is going to borrow on behalf of the American people and send $50 million more to Iraq to further improve their port, which is already a fully functioning port in which the American people have already invested $50 million since the war. But I have ports in my district that cannot get a penny for dredging.

Under this legislation, the United States Congress is going to borrow, at the request of the President, on behalf of the American people, and send to Iraq tens of millions of dollars to pay Iraqis for no-show jobs, former members of the regime, former members of the military. They will be paid not to work. Yet the President tells us that we cannot afford to draw down the $20 billion unemployment trust fund here in the United States of America and give extended unemployment benefits to Oregonians and others who have exhausted their benefits and cannot find a job through no fault of their own.

We are going to give them a state-of-the-art energy infrastructure despite the fact that the lights blinked out here in the eastern U.S. this summer, in my part of the country two summers ago. Our whole system is underinvested in, unstable, but the Iraqis have 1960s boilers, and Mr. Bremer is appalled so we are going to purchase them brand new combined-cycle turbines at exorbitant prices to be installed by Halliburton and others to give them a state-of-the-art energy infrastructure with money borrowed from the American people.

The American people are going to borrow money and spend tens of millions of dollars to buy new AK-47s for

the police force of Iraq. We could not even have a buy America provision and give them M-16s or something made in the United States of America. These things are not going to benefit the American people. I do not believe they are going to protect our troops. Our troops need the flak vests, they needed armored Humvees. They need rides all the way home. They need some basic things they are not getting. And none of the billions in this bill are going to that either.

But this amendment that I would have offered, I went to the Committee on Rules, and I asked to have it made in order. I said just allow us a vote. All we want is a simple vote up or down, do the Members of this House think it is at least as important to invest in the economic reconstruction and stimulation of this country, putting people to work, unemployment benefits, roads, bridges, highways, hospitals, schools, health care. That would have been a statement from this Congress where we would have put more than a million people back to work by matching the investment in Iraq.

But I have been shut down by the Republican majority, the majority Committee on Rules. I am not being allowed to offer that amendment. And that is too bad because I think a majority, a large majority of the American people would support such an amendment.

There has been a lot of hypocrisy here tonight. People who said they supported loans instead of grants, but then when they were given finally an opportunity to vote for a loan instead of a grant, those who stood bravely here and said they would support a loan instead of a grant and were denied a vote by the Republican majority, their own party, when they were given a chance to vote on a Democratic amendment for loans versus grants, they voted no. And I hope they are held to account by their constituents.

I hope people are held to account by their constituents for the fact that this House, the people's House, the Republican majority, are refusing to allow us to vote on matching investments, investing in our country, in our people, in our infrastructure, in our economy, at least comparable to that which we are borrowing to invest in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, today Congress will begin the debate on borrowing $87 billion to continue the conflict in Iraq and build that country. Not rebuild it, build it. It is not for war damage; it is a vision of people in the Bush administration of the needs of the Iraqis, which apparently exceed the needs of Americans when it comes to clean water. They are appalled that they have open water systems; we have open water systems in the U.S. They are appalled that the port does not have state-of-the-art cranes. Well, we have got a lot of cranes missing from ports in the United States.

Then the most outrageous thing is somehow we have troops over there without ceramic body armor. Despite the fact, we appropriated $79 billion earlier this year, $300 million to buy $27 million worth of vests. There was a nearly $400 billion Pentagon budget; could not find the $23 million there. Now, we are told they need another $300 million to buy $23 million worth of vests. How many times are we going to buy these things? What is going on?

When are the troops going to get the equipment they need? Billions and billions for contractors, for Pentagon procurement, but the troops do not have the basics. There is something very wrong with this picture.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.

The President has requested of the United States Congress, on behalf of the American people, $87 billion to continue the conflict and build Iraq. I only have three problems with the President's request. Every penny of the $87 billion will be borrowed, obligating this generation and future generations of working Americans to foot the bill.

It could be paid for; just suspend the tax cuts for those who earn over $300,000. It is a time of war and conflict and sacrifice. Maybe there could be a little bit of sacrifice at the top.

Eighty-seven billion dollars is excessive. It is rife with the potential for sweetheart deals and war profiteering. There was a cement plant with a $15 million estimate; done for $80,000. Feed the Iraqi council, 25 people, $5,000 a day. They canceled the contract. They think we are nuts. Mr. Al-Barak on the council says, where you spend a billion dollars, we could do the job for $100 million. So maybe 10 percent of this money is justified.

And it is not to repair war damage; it is to build Iraq, not rebuild Iraq. The President is putting the needs of the Iraqi people first with borrowed funds.

Now, we are going to borrow money to pay Iraqis for no-show jobs, but we cannot get an extension of unemployment benefits out of the Unemployment Trust Fund. The President says we cannot afford it. We are going to borrow money to build a water system for Basra because, ah, we are appalled, they have an open unlined channel providing water. I have a city in my district in Albany, Oregon, that has an open unlined channel providing water for that city, but they cannot get help from the Federal Government because the President says there is no money. We are providing another $50 million for the Port of Nasra. We cannot get money to dredge ports in the western United States. The President says there is no money.

Americans at home need economic security, and the young men and women who we have sent over there need their basic needs in equipment and health care and food and shelter met, and this bill fails on all those points. It is $87 billion that is not going to meet the needs of the American people and the young men and women we have sent into harm's way.

Offered By: Mr. DeFazio

Amendment No. 8: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Sec. XX. None of the funds made available in this Act may

be used for the participation of Iraq in the Organization of

Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC).

Offered By: Mr. DeFazio

Amendment No. 9: On page 20, Line 22, under the heading

``Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund'', strike

``$18,649,000,000'' and insert ``$1,864,900,000''

Offered By: Mr. DeFazio

Amendment No. 10: At the end of title II, insert the

following new section:

Mr. Speaker, I have heard about the sweetheart deals and

the war profiteering in the rebuilding of Iraq, the billions that are being wasted, but how are the troops doing over there on the ground? Not so well, it turns out. Thirty to 40,000 of our troops cannot get $500 pieces of body armor. They are working with flak vests from the Vietnam era which will not stop an AK-47 bullet. We have Humvees with canvas side curtains. Some of our troops are being sent over there with jungle camouflage. We cannot afford that desert camouflage.

How is it with the buildup for months by this administration, a $380 Pentagon budget, $80 billion appropriated by Congress last April for this war, that the Bush administration, Secretary Rumsfeld in all of his great wisdom, could not have thought to buy our young men and women body armor, to give them armored Humvees, to get them desert fatigues, boots and sidearms that work, and other critical supplies? They said we just cannot afford it, we need more money, then maybe we will give the young men and women what they need.

Mr. Speaker, they can find that money. It is about 2 minutes' spending at the Pentagon.

Mr. Speaker, next week the Congress will consider the President's request that we borrow $87 billion and indebt the American people for the next 30 years to repay that 87 billion borrowed dollars on top of the $79 billion that Congress borrowed last April to continue the actions in Iraq and build that country. And I say ``build'' because the President has asked for $20.3 billion to build Iraq, not

rebuild. We are not talking about war damage. That is a tiny fraction of the cost. This is a guide to the gold-plated construction and war profiteering that the administration has put forward for Iraq.

There is no sum too great. Six billion dollars, not to repair the damage to their electrical grid but to update their 1950s and 1960s boilers and generators to 2003 standards and all the other disinvestments. Six billion dollars the American taxpayers will be asked to borrow to give them the state-of-the-art energy grid when lights are blinking out in this country and our rates are going up.

No idea is too tangential. The Bush Administration wishes the Iraqis to have wireless Internet. They did not have it before the war. I do not think they even had laptops. Maybe a few of the elite did. But they are going to have it after the war. They are going to have wireless Internet paid for, money borrowed, in the name of the American taxpayer.

And then, finally, nothing is too wasteful when it comes to this administration. Mr. Bremer, the pro-consul, signed a contract to feed the 25 members of the Iraqi Governing Council handpicked by Mr. Bremer and the President for a mere $5,000 per day.

Apparently the food was going to be flown in on an executive jet from some exclusive restaurant in Washington, DC or New York. I do not know how they could spend $5,000 a day for 25 people. The Iraqi Council canceled that and generally said, ``You know, when it comes to reconstruction or feeding ourselves or doing all these other things, help us do it, and we can do it for 10 cents on the dollar.'' They are aghast at what we are wasting.

The major point is when it comes to this administration, no sum is too much when it comes to war profiteering and gold-plated construction in Iraq. But it is too easy for them to neglect our troops.

We find out that 30,000 of our troops lack body armor. They have been issued flak vests from the Vietnam era. It will not stop an AK-47 bullet. It would cost $15 million to equip those troops with vests, but the Pentagon, which got $79 billion last spring to equip the troops in the war and had a budget of nearly $400 billion last year, said it could not find within that budget, $15 million to give our young men and women those vests. So now, in order to equip those young men and women with the vests they should have had before they went there, they are asking for $300 million. What is this? Yes, $15 million worth of vests are needed, and the Pentagon said they want a $300 million appropriation to do that.

But it does not stop there. Some of our troops are over there in their jungle fatigues. Many of them are driving Humvees that have either canvas side curtains or sheet metal doors, which do not do real well with AK-47 bullets or rocket-propelled grenades. Now, they finally came to the conclusion that we should buy some armored Humvees for those troops.

The boots, the substandard boots they purchased are wearing out. Some of the troops are wearing jungle fatigues. We cannot afford those desert fatigues for everybody. A $400 billion budget, $79 billion last spring, another $79 billion now. Some of those people are going to have to go over there in their jungle fatigues, wear that Vietnam era flak jacket, drive around in Humvees with canvas side curtains.

But yesterday the Bush administration decided they are going to get this all right and fix it. So they appointed Condoleezza Rice to oversee Mr. Bremer, the pro-consul in Iraq, and see if they can do these things better in the future.

I have a suggestion for Pro-Consul Bremer and his overseer, Ms. Rice: Why do not they go over there, looking like a target, wearing jungle fatigues, and wear a Vietnam era flak jacket and drive a Humvee with canvas side curtains, instead of going around in their armor-plated Suburbans, surrounded by Bradley Fighting Vehicles with helicopters overhead, and they say they have been there and are doing what the troops need.

The troops are not getting what they need, and we are wasting billions to rebuild that country.