Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, well, we heard some amusing speeches earlier about the new Washington Waste Watchers, the gentleman from Texas and some other Republican over there. I guess that their vision does not extend too far.

First of all, the Republicans control the White House, every agency of the Federal Government, the House and the Senate. If there is waste, fraud and abuse, well then, they should take care of it. But they are too busy asking the American people to borrow $87 billion to build Iraq in the vision of the neoconservatives in the White House that put this failed policy on us and pursuing this adventure.

Right here, here it is. The gold-plated guide to war profiteering in Iraq, otherwise known as the Coalition Provisional Authority Request to Rehabilitate and Reconstruct Iraq. Most of it has nothing to do with reconstructing Iraq or war damage that we caused.

Now, there is an argument that could be made that we should repair war damage. But these are things that the Iraqis never had, they have not had ever. We are talking about, well, they have 50-year-old steam boilers, so we have got to spend $6 billion on their electric grid. Guess what? The lights are blinking out here in the eastern United States and on my coast a couple of summers ago, the West Coast, because we are underinvesting here.

The President can ask to borrow $6 billion not only to rebuild the little bit of damage we did, but to give them a state-of-the-art system. The American people will pay for that for 30 years. How much is he asking to invest in the United States of America? A big goose egg.

Yeah, I guess the eye on Waste Watchers on Washington does not go to waste watchers in the war profiteering and the rebuilding of Iraq.

Let us take up a couple of other subjects. $1 billion will be borrowed by the American people at the request of the President and Republican Congress to train the police in Iraq. Certainly and arguably, we should have a trained police force. But it is extraordinarily expensive because they say, Well, first off, they have to build a facility to train them outside the country. They cannot train them in Iraq.

The French, they offered to train the Iraqi police in Iraq for free. But, God forbid, those French, we should accept anything from them. They are a lot

better at policing, military policing in these sorts of situations, have a lot more experience than we do, but we are going to hire consultants and pay $1 billion, borrow $1 billion to take the Iraqis out of their country to train them.

Then we have got to arm them. Of course, the U.S. military has confiscated hundreds of thousands of weapons, many in the original grease and wrappers. But, no, that is not good enough for the Iraqi police force. We are going to spend $200 million to buy them brand-new weapons. I thought, well, maybe this is good. Maybe it has got a Buy America component to it. Maybe we are going to buy from American arms manufacturers. No, AK-47s, that is what the Iraqi police want. We have confiscated tens of thousands of them, but instead of reissuing the ones we have confiscated, we are going to buy them brand-new ones at more than list price from our friends, the Chinese.

This is not waste, fraud, and abuse. No, the Washington Waste Watchers over there do not have their eyes set on Iraq and this kind of stuff, they are talking about the $100,000 missing over there at the Department of Education that might have fed some hungry kids. But, no, if it is a huge contract, wasting billions of dollars in Iraq; that is just fine. The President asked for it. We have to do this.

Let us talk about the cement plant in northern Iraq. Our estimators looked at it and said $15 million to rebuild that plant. So the Bush administration put out a request for proposal for $15 million. The Iraqis didn't want to wait. They rebuilt it themselves. Cost: $80,000.

Now, there is Mr. al-Barak, who is a member of the Ruling Council which we named. You would think he would be beholden to us since we put him in place. But he has been a little critical of our spending. He says, ``You know what? We can do it for 10 cents on the dollar. The Americans are wasting incredible amounts of money.''

We are going to be asked to borrow nearly $20 billion, indebt Americans for the next 30 years for waste, fraud, and abuse and war profiteering, and the Iraqis say they can do it for 10 cents on the dollar.

There was a contract to feed the Iraqi Ruling Council, which we named, which Mr. Bremer put out, no bid, of course. I guess it was from Sardi's in New York because to feed 25 people a day, $5,000 a day. The Iraqi council was aghast, and Mr. al-Barak said, No, thanks, we can feed ourselves for a lot less than $5,000 a day. They think we are nuts. They really do.

Waste, fraud, and abuse, apparently is only when it might benefit Americans. But when it can benefit war profiteers and no-bid contractors overseas in the gold-plated building, not rebuilding, of Iraq, there is a blind eye being turned here.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to just restate briefly from what I have heard from the three gentlemen who have gone before me, because I think it is very important for the American people. I mean, it would be one issue if there was misjudgment that was costing the American people tens of billions of dollars. The President is asking us to borrow $87 billion and put into debt future generations of Americans to pay it back. We do not have the money. It is going to be borrowed. Thirty years, people will work for the next 30 years to pay it back. But really not wealthy people, because they do not pay taxes anymore, but working people.

So there is a question, if someone in my administration made a mistake that was causing the American people 30, 50, 100, 200 billion dollars, maybe there would be a consequence. Then we go to the issue of lies. There was an extraordinary article in the press today which said the President said our troops have the best equipment possible; they have everything they need.

And we find out the young men and women over there have Vietnam-era flak jackets that will not stop bullets from AK-47s. $400 billion budget at the Pentagon, $80 billion from Congress last spring, and they are just now placing the orders.

Individual families have been buying these kids state-of-the-art flak jackets, available for $500 in the private sector in the United States, and mailing them to the kids who are serving the United States of America.

So you get to the next level which is beyond someone simply made a mistake to extraordinary incompetence, extraordinary incompetence that is costing the American people tens of billions, hundreds of billions of dollars over the next 30 years. It is costing young American men and women their lives today as we speak. And yet no one has lost their job. No one who planned this, no one who made this case, no one has been involved. In fact, they are being promoted.

As you said, Condoleezza Rice has been promoted now to be Pro-Consul over Afghanistan and Iraq because she has been doing such a great job. What has she been doing a great job on?

Mr. Speaker, we will bring down in the actual quotes and not have to characterize it.

Following in this vein, you know, arguably the architect of this policy man who has been advocating a war with Iraq since the last war in Iraq ended, Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Defense Secretary, when talking about misjudgments, and this is a direct quote, not a characterization, ``There is lots of money to pay for this that does not have to be U.S. taxpayer money and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people. The oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and a $100 billion over the course of the next 2 or 3 years. We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon.'' That is a direct quote.

Mr. Wolfowitz, held in high regard by this administration, said Iraq would rebuild itself, no cost to the American people. So thus far, if we just add up the first reconstruction bill and the second reconstruction bill, he is wrong by $20 billion, $20 billion that this President is asking this Congress to borrow on behalf of the American people, indebting future generations of Americans, to build, not rebuild. Remember, much of this is not rebuilding war damage. This is building Iraq in the vision of Halliburton and all the gold-plated defense contractors.

We might get into that later. There is a wonderful little piece here I have from the administration on that.

But that is what the money is. It is going to be borrowed and spent in Iraq, not providing jobs here, infrastructure here, but building infrastructure in Iraq in the vision of Paul Wolfowitz who is wrong by a magnitude of $20 to $100 billion at least in addition to the lives that have been lost. But has he been held to account? No, he has been held in high regard.

Well, in fact, the intelligence information, which was available to Mr. Wolfowitz, to Mr. Cheney, to President Bush, and all the others who formulated this policy, Ms. Rice who has been promoted to Pro-Consul now, that intelligence information which said that, in fact, the Iraqi oil infrastructure was in miserable shape, not capable of producing large amounts of oil, not capable of paying for its own reconstruction, was either not read by all of these esteemed people in this administration, or ignored, or deliberately distorted. Because they told us, the American people, do not worry; they are going to pay for it themselves.

But now they are handed a very big bill, not just to this generation. I talked to a bunch of high school kids in my district yesterday. I said, ``We are giving you the bill.'' There is a joke going around, why do politicians smile at babies? It is because they are being given the bill to rebuild Iraq. They are the next generation.

If we took the $20.3 billion the President is proposing that the American people borrow and spend and invest in Iraq, and we spent and invested that money here in the United States of America, in the same things, in sewer, water, bridges, roads, airports, stable electricity, we would create a million jobs, a million jobs here in the United States of America. But instead we are going to create obscene profits for a few contractors, maybe do a little bit on the ground for the Iraqi people. But the bottom line is, we are borrowing money and ignoring the needs here.

Yes, I know more than anybody. My district, my State has the highest unemployment rate in the Union. My State has led the country for more than a year having the highest unemployment rate in the Union. We have a $4 billion highway bridge problem on the interstate highway system, and the President says there is no money to repair it. Well, there is $16 billion sitting in the highway trust fund. He would not even have to borrow it. He is borrowing money to invest in Iraq, but he will not even spend money we have paid in taxes here in the United States of America to invest in our highways.

He says we do not have money to invest in the airports. There is $4 billion in that fund. He says we do not have money for extended unemployment benefits. There is $16 billion in the unemployment trust fund paid by taxes of employers and workers, and the President will not draw it down.

We are paying hundreds of thousands of Iraqis for no-show jobs or for the fact that they used to be part of the military over there, but we do not have money to extend unemployment benefits in this country. There is something very wrong with the priorities of this picture.

Not only do they need flak jackets; they could use desert camouflage. They are not in forests. But I talked to one dad at the early part of the war. I thought this had been corrected, but I find out now it has not; we are still sending National Guard over there without even desert camouflage. We cannot afford it. We can afford all these other things, gold-plated contracts, but we cannot afford to give these young men and women, selflessly putting their lives on the line, not only flak jackets but desert camouflage so they can blend in a little better.

But we did find in a refrigerator of an Iraqi scientist purportedly one vial of botulin toxin, which, of course, you can find basically at any ag school or any research lab anywhere in the United States, but for only $300 million we did find that and that apparently presented, according to this administration, a real and present danger to the United States of America, that one vial of toxin, which, of course, is readily available. In fact, I think you can still buy them and have them shipped in the United States of America.

Yesterday I was in Cottage Grove, Oregon, in a National Guard dispatchment from Cottage Grove, Oregon, 600 men and women are about to be deployed to Iraq for a year. And yet I hear, and I understand, that despite the protestations of this administration and the tens and hundreds of billions of dollars at their disposal, that they may not have the proper equipment, that they may not have the flak vests that will stop an AK047 bullet. They may not have the armored HUM-V's that they may need. They may not even have the desert camouflage.

So I suggest that maybe those members of this administration who are waxing so eloquent about how things are going, maybe they should go over there and wear forest green camouflage instead of desert camouflage, wear a Vietnam-era flak vest and ride in a HUM-V with canvas windows and plexiglas around the country, not in their super- armored Suburbans, air conditioned, state-of-the-art, surrounded by helicopters and everything else and then come back and say how great things are.

Go over there and experience what our young men and women are experiencing over there, and maybe they will come back a little bit humbled, and maybe they will want to do a little bit more to resolve this, to safeguard our men and women and to resolve this situation, honestly, as opposed to spinning and spinning and spinning.

These people are never wrong, never wrong, no matter what. You can go back and find 15 misstatements. They can be off by $100 billion and a couple of hundred American lives, but they were not wrong. They are never wrong.

That is not connected.

Briefly, I do not want to sour that because it certainly was a much better international effort, but there was an $11 billion payoff to Egypt where we forgave their debt.

If I could document that for a second. Ahmad al-Barak, who is a member of the Governing Council named by the United States of America, said that ``Savings could be a factor of ten. Where they spend $1 billion, we could spend $100 million.''

He said that on the day that they canceled the $5,000-a-day contract to feed the 25 members of the Iraqi Governing Council entered into by Mr. Bremer, the former Chief Pro-Counsel before Ms. Rice. Apparently, they were flying the food in from Sardi's from New York on 747s. I do not know how they got the price up that high, but ten cents on the dollar.

M.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, and every penny of those billions will be borrowed, not only hitting hard at the needs today and causing cuts in the budget today and giving the President an excuse to say we do not have the money to rebuild our bridges and highways and waste water systems or do adequate homeland security and port security and we do not have enough money for education and we do not even have enough money for flak jackets for the young men and women over there, but every penny of those billions will be borrowed, indebting future generations of working Americans to pay for this misadventure, with no consequences.

The people who were so wrong. Mr. Wolfowitz, who I quoted earlier, who said Iraq would pay for itself, they are still making policy and spinning out fantasies at the White House. There are no consequences for making mistakes that cost the American people $20 billion in this White House.

Madam Speaker, I brought something here tonight to show to the American people. This document, which has become publicly available, is the coalition provisional authority request to rehabilitate and reconstruct Baghdad, Iraq. Published accordingly, Baghdad, Iraq, is a gold-plated guide to war profiteering. I urge each and every tax-paying American citizen to get a copy to see where the $20.3 billion that President Bush wants to borrow in their name to send to Iraq will be spent.

We have already had some examples of just incredible waste. There was a cement plant in northern Iraq needed repair. Mr. Bremer sent in his experts. They said it would cost $15 million. The Iraqis could not wait, and they went ahead and repaired it for $80,000.

There was the $25 million spent to rebuild police stations in Basra. The Iraqis estimate they could have done it for $5 million or less.

Then there was the $5,000-per-day contract Mr. Bremer signed to feed the Iraqi governing council, all 25 of them. I guess we were going to fly over catered meals from the United States of America. The governing council was so appalled at that waste of money, even though it was being spent by the United States of America, borrowed by the President on behalf of the American people, they cancelled the contract, got some local food for a fraction of the cost.

Then, of course, on the governing council, we have Mr. Ahmad Al- Barak, and he estimates that in cases the savings could be a factor of 10. Where they spend $1 billion, we would spend $100 billion. If we carry that formula through, instead of borrowing $20.3 billion on behalf of the American people and spending it to rebuild Iraq, as the President wants to do, we could do it for $2.3 billion or less.

There are other things in this new proposal that are a bit strange. There is the proposal of $33,000 per pickup truck delivered in Iraq. I went online just to kind of check out a pretty nice 2003 new Ford F- 150, two door regular cab, XL, two-wheel drive, style side, with the AC and the automatic transmission and of course destination charge, $17,817. Does not have armor plating, but then again neither do the Humvees that this administration gave to our troops who are being killed on a daily basis.

There are other things that I would question here, $20 million to develop and train a cadre of business people in Iraq. That is a 4-week course, $10,000 each. By equivalent it would cost $4,000 to send them to Harvard, or if we send them to a continuing-education course at a community college in my district, we could put them through a good course, one term, with credits, for $400. But the Bush administration wants to spend $10,000 per Iraqi, $20 million borrowed from the American people, spent to give these $10,000 4-week courses to Iraqis.

Then, of course, there is a lot of, like, well, we have an obligation to all the damage we did to the country. I guess we blew up their wireless Internet network. Whoops, wait a minute. They did not have wireless Internet network, did they? No, they did not, but an essential part of this reconstruction effort is that we provide a wireless Internet network for all the Iraqis and their laptop computers. I do not know how many Iraqis have laptop computers, but I think that is somewhere else in the request perhaps. Although we cannot equip our kids, our schools with laptop computers, we are going to give them to Iraqis.

There are other things that have more merit arguably, $5.8 billion to rebuild their power grid and electrical system. I thought, well, maybe we did that. I found out it was not necessarily for damage we caused. In fact, Mr. Bremer was quoted saying, well, I have been into the plants, they have got these boilers from the 1950s and 1960s; they are holding them together with duct tape. What does that have to do with the war? What obligation does that put on the American people? Why should we borrow money on behalf of the American people, though it will be repaid and there is a lot of talk about children and grandchildren, by tax paying Americans today, children and grandchildren of tax paying Americans, to give the Iraqis state-of-the-art cycled turbines to generate electricity in Iraq? They cannot use the old system; we cannot just put that back together for a fraction of cost. No, they have got to have a brand new system. Of course, here in the United States of America where lights blinked out in the West a few years ago, blinked out in the East this year, the President cannot find any money to invest in our system and keep our lights on, but we can give them a state-of-the-art system there in Iraq.

If we spent this $20.3 billion on infrastructure and critical needs in the United States of America. Even if we borrowed it on behalf of the American people and spent it on behalf of the American people, we could provide 1 million jobs in this country. This provides for nothing but war profiteering to generous contributors to the Bush administration.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to replace the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) and proceed at this time.

Madam Speaker, the President has asked the United States Congress to borrow another $87 billion to finance ongoing action in Iraq, and of that, the President is asking the United States Congress to borrow on behalf of the American people $20.3 billion to engage in an extensive reconstruction of Iraq. There has already been discussion on the floor of the no-bid contracts and the favoritism and extortion prices to Halliburton and other companies, war profiteering, but now there is also, now that we have seen the list, questions about the priorities in a couple of ways.

There are questions about what they are going to spend the money on. On the list is Wifi. A lot of people do not even know what Wifi is. Iraq is a country where I do not think the average Iraqi or even the elite Iraqis own laptop computers. We are going to give emergency spending money, which the American people are going to borrow, to give them Wifi capability in Iraq, when the people in the rural parts of my district do not even have broadband. They have hardly decent telephone service, but we are going to do Wifi in Iraq.

We are going to give them Zip codes in Iraq, an American invention. We are going to give them a national 911. Is that not nice? The American people are going to borrow money to install 911 in Iraq. Why would we do that? Why is that necessary? They did not have 911 before the war. We did not destroy it with bombing. Why they are going to have it now?

Then there is the executive training. We are going to provide $10,000 for a 4-week course for Iraqi executives that exceeds the cost of sending them to Harvard University for the same period of time, let alone a community college in my district that could do a fine job for a quarter the price, but no, it is not just that. It is the fact that this is gold-plated and out of control.

Here are a couple of examples. Major General David Petraeus, in charge of North Iraq, told a congressional delegation, his engineers said and we priced rebuilding a cement plant for $15 million. Well, the Iraqis were in kind of a hurry. So they decided to do it on their own and not wait for the $15 million and the U.S. contract. They did it for $80,000, a tiny fraction of the price. So at least the American taxpayers did not get gouged for that and did not have to borrow $15 million to do an $80,000 job on a cement plant. Maybe that was isolated. Well, unfortunately, no.

We also have another instance, $25 million to refurbish 20 police stations in Basra and a member of Iraq's governing council kind of laughed at that and said, we could do it for five and still make a bunch of money.

So the American people are going to be asked to borrow $25 million for a gold-plated contract to do something that would cost something less than five. The American people are being asked to borrow money to build houses in Iraq at a price that is 10 times the value of the average Iraqi house. Maybe it would be better if we give them a little of the wherewithal, some materials and nails and cement, and let them go at it themselves. They have 60 percent unemployment. I think they would be happy to build their own houses.

But that is not the way the Bush administration wants to do this. They want to gold-plate it. They want to make the American people borrow $20 billion and pay for it the next 30 years, the gold-plate and war profiteer, for the reconstruction of Iraq.

Then, finally, there is Ahmed al-Barak, a member of the Ruling Council, very prominent, who became unpopular with this administration, although previously had been very favored by them, when he said the savings could be a factor of 10 if the Iraqis did their own work. Basically, where they spend $1 billion, we would spend a hundred million.

So I offer the 10 percent solution to this administration. Two point three billion dollars is still a lot of money where I come from, but it is a lot better than $20.3 billion, and the Iraqis could do it for that price. We could do the reconstruction, whatever we are really obligated to because of the destruction of the war, but we do not need to give them exotic things they never had before.

I have heard we have to rebuild the electrical infrastructure. We have kind of got a failing one here, and the reason was they have got boilers from the 1950s and 1960s. Guess what? Our war did not install boilers from the 1950s and 1960s, so why is it the American people have to borrow the money to give them brand new boilers or new high- efficiency turbines to generate electricity when we could use that money here at home to put Americans to work? If we spent $20.3 billion on real infrastructure projects that are underfunded by this administration in the United States of America, we could put one million Americans to work.

So, no, to the gold-plating, maybe a 10 percent solution if that is justified, but we should not be borrowing in the name of the American people $20.3 billion and indebting generations of Americans to pay for the gold-plated war profiteering in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, during the lead-up to the war in Iraq, we had great assurances from the President and his staff that in the aftermath the United States would not be tagged with the bill.

Press Secretary Ari Fleischer: ``It is a rather wealthy country. Iraq has to be able to shoulder much of the burden of their own reconstruction.''

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, arguably the godfather of this policy: ``There is a lot of money to pay for this that doesn't have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people. The oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 billion and $100 billion over the course of the next 2 or 3 years. We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.''

Then, of course, the wonderful Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld: ``I do not believe the United States has responsibility for reconstruction. In a sense, funds can come from those various sources I mentioned: frozen assets, oil revenues and a variety of others things, including the Oil for Food program.''

Well, what a difference a few months makes. The President has presented the second bill for Iraq, $70 billion last April, and now another $87 billion that he wants this Congress to borrow on behalf of the American people to spend for the ongoing conflict and to rebuild that country.

That is right, borrow. We are going to obligate Americans for the next 30 years to pay for the rebuilding of Iraq. Apparently, it is necessary when creating a democratic and civil society that there be massive investment in public works, public infrastructure, schools, hospitals, universal health care, telecommunications, ports, rail, water, all those things; and the American people should borrow the money, according to the President, to do those things so that the Iraqi people can move toward a democratic and civil society.

But, unfortunately, according to the President, it is not necessary to do those things and pay for those things and not advisable to borrow the money to do those things to pay for the continuance of a democratic and civil society here in the United States of America.

Yes, he says we can borrow $20.3 billion to do all those things in Iraq, but we cannot afford it here. We are borrowing money to pay tens of thousands of Iraqis to have no-show, no-work jobs, to provide stability, but the President says we cannot draw on the Unemployment Trust Fund, the $16 billion balance on taxes we have paid, to give extended unemployment benefits to Americans.

On a per capita basis, the United States is going to spend ten times as much per citizen in Iraq on drinking water as it will in the United States, despite the D-minus grade that our water infrastructure has, despite the unfunded mandates on rural communities that cannot afford to meet those Federal requirements. Two times as much for water resource projects, ten times as much for sewer and drinking water.

Iraqis will receive 300 times as much to put together a reliable electricity system in their country. Did the President not notice, I guess they have generators at the White House and Camp David, he did not notice that the lights went out in the eastern United States, but they did because of a crumbling and underinvested infrastructure. We are going to spend 300 times as much per citizen in Iraq. Thirteen times as much for medical infrastructure.

In the little port of Umm Qasr over there, we are about to borrow from the American people another $45 million to further upgrade that port, at the same time that the President cannot find $8 million to dredge ports in Southern Oregon. We just do not have the money to keep those ports open, he says, but we can borrow $45 million to further improve Umm Qasr, into which we have already dumped $50 million.

Then there is the Mawizeh marsh. The President wants to borrow on behalf of the American people $50 million to restore a marsh. Well, we have big huge controversy over the Klamath marsh and that area in Oregon, and we need $25 million to move toward resolving that controversy. But the President says that money is not here in the United States of America, but he will borrow $50 million to restore a marsh in Iraq.

Then there is the horrible problem of Basra and Umm Qasr. Their water supply comes through an open ditch, only half of which is lined. Of course, my city of Albany gets its water through an open ditch, none of which is lined. So it is an emergency that the American people borrow $200 million for Umm Qasr and Basra so they can have a modern water supply system, but, sorry, there is no money for Albany, Oregon, and hundreds of other communities across this country.

Apparently it is necessary, the President says, to borrow these funds on behalf of this generation and future generations of Americans so that Iraqis can live a better life, but we cannot afford to do similar projects here in the United States of America, to put Americans to work. If that money were spent here in the United States of America, it would put 1 million people to work, but that is not on the President's radar screen.

Mr. Speaker, last fall the President's economic adviser, Larry Lindsey, said the war in Iraq could cause $100 billion to $200 billion. Well, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, said, ``That is absurd. Those are crazy numbers.'' In fact, Wolfowitz said, ``Don't worry, they can pay for their own reconstruction.''

Now, the President is asking Congress to borrow $87 billion in the name of the American people, $20 billion of that to rebuild the infrastructure of Iraq.

Now, it is nice that we want to build a $150 million children's hospital in Iraq, but American kids lack basic health care. Where is the money for that?

It is nice that they want to rebuild the Port of Umm Qasr, $80 million. The President has zeroed out dredging ports in my district.

Billions for the electric grid; not a penny for the faltering electric grid in the United States of America.

$20 billion invested here would create 1 million U.S. jobs. $20 billion in Iraq is a drop in the bucket of what it is really going to cost, but it will produce some nice profits for Halliburton.

Mr. Speaker, well, the President has asked the United States Congress in the name of the American people to borrow $87 billion to continue the actions in Iraq and to rebuild the nation of Iraq. That is going to be paid for by a couple of generations of working Americans, and there are an awful lot of questions about the request by the President.

Now, let us look at some of the details here: $20.3 billion to rebuild Iraq borrowed by the American people and sent to Iraq, perhaps utilizing some U.S. contractors such as Halliburton. Here are some of the things we are going to pay for: $20 million for executive job training, a 4-week class at the cost of $10,000. I have community colleges in my district that would provide that same class for a tiny fraction of that cost whose budgets are underfunded because of the cuts in the Federal Government's spending on education. $10,000 a person for a 4-week class, send them to my community college. We can house them and educate them for a lot less.

Then we have the $100 million for the witness protection program. What witnesses? Well, the witnesses that might come forward to tell us something about the nonexistent weapons of mass destruction, among other things. That will be to pay for 100 Iraqi families at $1 million each. In the United States of America when we put people in the witness protection program, it generally costs $120,000 per family. So it is going to cost us roughly eight times more per family, but I guess that is because of the high cost of living in Iraq, or the life-style to which they would like to become accustomed. Again, the American people will borrow this money, or the President is asking Congress to borrow it on behalf of the American people.

It is going to cost $255 per person in Iraq to rebuild the electricity infrastructure. They said we are not just rebuilding the bomb damage; they have this horribly outdated system, and we have to rebuild it.

Mr. Speaker, guess who else has a horribly outdated electricity infrastructure system? The United States of America. Did the President notice that the lights went off in one-third of the country? Also, we had a big blackout in the West a few years ago. Our system is operating on the edge. What is the President proposing here, $255 will be borrowed for each Iraqi by the American people, sent to Iraq to rebuild their electricity infrastructure, and the President is asking for 71 cents on behalf of every American here in the United States.

It will cost $45 million to further improve the already fully functioning port of Umm Qasr while the President is proposing zero dollars to dredge ports in my district and elsewhere in the United States because he says we cannot afford it. He is asking to borrow $45 million and send it to Iraq to further improve their ports, but he cannot find a penny for ports in the Pacific Northwest and other parts of the United States.

It is going to cost $150 million for a national 911 system in Iraq. Mr. Speaker, is that so they can call the next time a rogue regime uprises? What does this have to do with the war? The American people are going to borrow $150 million because the President wants it, send it to Iraq to give them a 911 system.

Job centers, 22 centers, $350,000 each. If we took the $20.3 billion the President wants this Congress to borrow and spend on behalf of rebuilding the nation of Iraq, if we matched that dollar per dollar in the United States of America, if we borrowed $20.3 billion to rebuild the infrastructure system in the United States, we could put 1 million Americans to work in the very near future, in addition to investing in our future, our economic productivity, our ports, our highways, our water systems, our electricity grid.

It is one thing to borrow money to invest in the United States of America; it is another thing to indebt the next two generations of Americans to borrow money to spend rebuilding Iraq. Mr. Wolfowitz told us they can pay for their own reconstruction. I guess that guy made about a $50 billion mistake that is going to cost the American taxpayers, but he is still held in highest esteem by the Bush administration. He is still working there. He is still pumping out the same mistakes. How many more billions will he cost us before the President demands his resignation. This is outrageous that the American people are being asked to borrow this money. Instead of borrowing money, investing in infrastructure and putting a million Americans to work here, he is proposing more tax cuts. His last tax cut, the dividend tax cut, returned 5 cents on the dollar to the United States economy. If it is spent on infrastructure, we get $7 for every dollar borrowed.

Mr. Speaker, let us get our priorities straight: America first.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello) for yielding me this time.

I would like to congratulate the chairman and the ranking member for their excellent work. This is a piece of legislation that is overdue, and we can only hope that the Senate will not be the usual dead weight on this issue and will actually move this needed bill through.

This bill would go a long way toward helping many communities across the United States meet Federal mandates. There is a lot of talk around here in Washington, D.C. about unfunded mandates. The law is replete with unfunded mandates.

Announcement by the Chairman

Mr. Chairman, I thought that we were able to talk about the reality that there are people on the other side of the Capitol.

I understand, Mr. Chairman. I certainly meant not to impugn the other body with that statement, just to talk about the reality of what has happened to the Water Resources Development Act in the past.

But to continue, there are a number of Federal mandates that would be helpful to our local communities and our States if the Water Resources Development Act becomes law. But even more importantly, today in the United States of America, I think, is the fact that this bill represents a real jobs program. We can cut taxes for the wealthy people until the cows come home, and it is not going to put people back to work in the United States of America. But if we invest in infrastructure, it will. We know that the return on the dividend tax cut was 5 cents on the dollar. For every dollar we borrowed to cut dividend taxes, and we borrowed all that money, we are going to get 5 cents of stimulus to the economy; not a great investment. But for every dollar we borrow, and again we would have to borrow, to invest in water infrastructure, we are going to get $7, seven times over the impact on the economy. If we spend $1 billion under the Water Resources Development Act, we get about 45,000 jobs, real jobs, putting Americans back to work. This is an economic stimulus bill.

It is also a bill, as the gentleman who preceded me from Maryland discussed, that helps to deal with environmental problems, and also I want to recognize further that the Corps of Engineers often is subject to criticism, but there is an awful lot of good work that the Corps of Engineers does. I was just up in the mountains of my district last weekend seeing a project they are doing on a reservoir which is to help with fish runs, but also the dam itself was originally built to stop the annual flooding. So there are many good things that the Corps has done and many more that they will do if this legislation becomes law, if whoever else it is who is responsible for passing this somewhere else on Capitol Hill gets their act together.

Mr. Speaker, congratulation to President Bush on a perfect record: 32 straight months of job loss; 32 straight months of industrial manufacturing job loss and yet another record trade deficit. This is something that will be hard for anybody to match, the disastrous trade policies of this Nation.

We are hemorrhaging $1.5 billion a day of wealth from the United States overseas, $1 million a minute, more than 1,000 jobs a day are being exported. The President likes to talk about the wealth and benefits of exporting. Yes, there are tremendous wealth and benefits in exporting, particularly exporting jobs at the bidding of multi-national corporations who are so generous when campaign time comes around.

Yes, they are feigning concern down there at the White House because they know there is an election coming and the money cannot take care of all the problems. So they are pretending they do not know where these jobs have gone and they have decided to change the flow chart at the Commerce Department and make one politically appointed bureaucrat responsible for finding out where they went and rectifying the situation.

All we need now is a new trade policy.

Mr. Speaker, the way Congress and the President could best commemorate the terrorist attack, the tragedy of 9/11, and the loss of thousands of innocent lives would be to ensure that we have done all in our power both here and abroad, that Americans are as safe as possible against another assault.

Unfortunately, as a member of the Committee on Homeland Security and a senior member of the Subcommittee on Aviation, I can say with confidence that we have fallen far short of that mark. Significant portions of the Aviation Security Act have not been implemented. Our first responders, those who responded so selflessly on that tragic day, still lack basic resources and help from the Federal Government, even as Congress is considering the President's request for another $87 billion for Iraq.

On this day, Congress should resolve to remember by redoubling its efforts, avoiding dangerous distractions, and providing all the funds necessary so we can say with confidence, never again.

Mr. Speaker, the President gave quite a speech Sunday night. More of the same failing policy with a new face and a new breathtaking price tag, $87 billion he wants to borrow now. And he wants to borrow $20.5 billion from the American people to rebuild the roads, bridges, ports, water and electric systems in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, what about here at home? We have to say maybe we could use some investment here in the United States on our bridges, roads, ports, water and electric systems.

So the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) and I have introduced the American Parity Act, and I urge my colleagues to support it. The President would have to match dollar for dollar every dollar that he borrows from the American people to invest in Iraq, he has to invest a dollar here for the same purposes here in the United States of America. $20.5 billion for infrastructure in the United States could put a million people to work in this country and

begin to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure with our tax dollars as opposed to a nation far across the sea. I urge my colleagues to support the American Parity Act.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to replace Mr. Menendez on his time.

Mr. Speaker, the President announced to the American people yesterday that he intends in their name to borrow $87 billion on top of the $79 billion he borrowed earlier this year to rebuild Iraq, Afghanistan, and continue the struggle in that area.

Now, I would hope that the Congress this time will choose to scrutinize this request. The last time the President just breezed through here and the Congress said, $79 billion, no problem. So I would hope every penny will be reviewed.

I would hope that this Congress would choose to pay for this instead of borrowing $87 billion, indebting our children and grandchildren, by freezing tax cuts for the wealthiest people in the country. We could pay for it if we just stop cutting taxes.

But I really want to focus on a part of that which the President proposed, $20.3 billion on top of $2\1/2\ billion he requested earlier, to rebuild the infrastructure of Iraq, to build schools, electric grid, water and sewage, oil infrastructure, transportation, communications, housing, public buildings, roads and bridges, and money for the police, fire, the first responders.

Now, we are going to borrow $20.3 billion in the name of the American people, and we are going to send it to Iraq to rebuild their country. Now, it has not been long since we heard from the Bush administration that this would be free, the architecture of the war in Iraq.

Secretary Paul Wolfowitz told a House subcommittee in March that Iraq would generate $50 to $100 billion of oil revenue over the next 2 to 3 years. We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon. Mr. Wolfowitz is somehow still in good standing with this administration despite the fact that he was wrong by about $100 or $200 billion here. And the American people are going to be asked to pay for it.

Now, it is time for a little fairness and equity here. I have introduced with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) a bill, the American Parity Act, which says that if the President is going to request $20.3 billion to provide jobs and rebuild the infrastructure of Iraq, schools bridges, roads, highways, water systems and dredge the ports, all things which he is not funding here in the United States, then we should have dollar for dollar matching for that under the American Parity Act and put people to work here in the United States, invest in our infrastructure, roads and bridges.

Now, I had someone say to me, well, wait a minute, you are proposing to make the bill bigger here to borrow. Yeah, that is right. We would borrow $20.3 billion to invest in our Nation in long-term projects, putting people to work today but also investing in roads, bridges, highways, water systems, things that will last us for decades.

Now, I do not object to borrowing money to invest in America and to put people into work in America, but I have a real problem with borrowing $20.3 billion to invest in the infrastructure in Iraq while ours is crumbling here at home.

The President has proposed a zero fund, no funding of the dredging of ports in my district and elsewhere around the country, yet he is proposing to dredge ports in Iraq.

The President has not proposed a penny for the Federal Government to partner in waste water systems, yet it is estimated we have a $16 billion annual deficit under Federal mandates in water systems that were being put in our communities from the party that said they were not going to send unfunded mandates.

Mr. Speaker, where is the money to help the communities meet those Federal requirements?

On Interstate 5 just in the State of Oregon, I know this goes on around the entire United States, we have a $4.5 billion bridge replacement problem. That would put a lot of people to work. But the President is telling the Congress that there just is not money to put into the roads and bridges and highways here in the United States, and he is trying to reduce the spending. We are at a stalemate over a new transportation bill because the President says there is no money to pay for it. But somehow we can borrow $20.3 billion to do those same projects in Iraq. When is the President going to propose to either fund or borrow the money to fund similar projects here in the United States of America? With the American Parity Act, if it were adopted as part of his proposal, we would fund, dollar for dollar, comparable projects in the United States, putting tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of Americans to work and provide some fairness and equity and at least some return to the American taxpayers for their borrowing.

But I fear that this administration and the leadership of this House is not that interested in funding infrastructure work here in this country, but they are perfectly willing to borrow the money in the name of the American people to rebuild it in Iraq. It is a sad day for the United States Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that I was forced to vote against the fiscal year 2004 VA-HUD spending bill today.

However, I could not, in good conscience, vote in favor of a bill that so clearly fails to meet the needs of our nation's veterans.

A vote in favor of this bill is a vote to maintain the status quo, a status quo that has resulted in six month waiting lists, increased out- of-pocket expenses, and limited coverage for many veterans. My vote against this bill is a signal that the status quo is totally unacceptable.

I am not alone in condemning the VA-HUD appropriations bill for its failure to meet the needs of those who selflessly served our country in the armed forces. As top officials of national veterans organizations, including AMVETS, PVA, DAV, and VFW, wrote to Congress regarding H.R. 2861, the legislation is ``wholly inadequate'' and ``represents a flagrant disregard to promises made to veterans by this Congress.''

H.R. 2861 is $2.1 billion below the level set for veterans programs in the House Republican budget resolution. While I thought the House budget resolution was itself inadequate, a lower funding level is a slap in the face to veterans. H.R. 2861 is also $3.3 billion below the levels requested by national veterans organizations. The bill includes shortfalls for medical care, medical research and construction, among other areas.

Mr. Speaker, the federal budget is about priorities. The lack of support for veterans programs in H.R. 2861 shows what happens when the President and his allies in Congress prioritize tax cuts for millionaires over adequately meeting our commitment to veterans.

I reject that prioritization, which is why I voted against this bill. My vote was in favor of

fully funding the benefits our veterans were promised, have earned and deserve.