Neil Abercrombie

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. 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.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. 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.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. 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.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. 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?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. 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.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. 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.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. 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?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. 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.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. 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.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. 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. ABERCROMBIE. 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. ABERCROMBIE. 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. ABERCROMBIE. 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. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. 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.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I think our time is probably at an end.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. 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. ABERCROMBIE

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

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. 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.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. 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?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. 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. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. 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. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. 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.''

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say, and I want this on the Record, he is the man. He is the man on this. He and I have had these discussions in the past; and if there is anybody who understands the issue, anybody who has been more devoted on this issue, I do not know who it is. I have enormous respect for him not only for the depth of research that he has done on it but the passion he brings to the discussion. And it is something, in the context especially of the tragic circumstances we were just outlining, that definitely needs to be put forward because the financial stability of this country is at stake; and if there is anybody who is a leader in trying to confront that issue in a positive way, it is him.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I do not wish to dispute who is ready and who is not. All we can account for is ourselves. We were not ready, and now these poor people have to bear the brunt of our failure to be ready. I understand that. But the question here that I have raised here is what in fact is the role of the United States and these troops? How do we make it work? Let me put it this way, that is not an argument. In my dreams I keep thinking Thomas Edward Lawrence, where are you, come back. Lawrence, come back and tell us what it is we are forgetting. What do we think we can do when people made an argument back in World War I that the Arabs were not ready. This was a Western concept. This is people coming in from the outside telling somebody else that they were not ready. They were not ready to have the French divide up and the English divide up Iraq for their political purposes, but they were certainly ready to do whatever it was that they felt was necessary. I am sure that the colonial armies under George Washington were not ready. Cornwallis was wandering all over, wandering through Maryland and New Jersey, wandering through upstate New York; and back in England they said, We have got to get out. It does not matter whether they are ready or not. We are going to be adrift with our people being picked off one by one in the American Revolutionary War. We are facing the same kind of situation in terms of the material prospect for the military of the United States in Iraq today. It is not up to us to decide whether or not they are ready. Let me tell what one of the members of the governing council said yesterday. Abdel Aziz Hakim, the brother of Ayatollah Hakim who was killed in the car bomb, a member of the United States appointed governing council to which I have referred this evening told mourners, and I quote, and this is from The Washington Post of yesterday, ``The occupation force is primarily responsible for the pure blood that was spilled in holy Najaf, the blood of Hakim and the faithful group that was present near the mosque. Iraq must not remain occupied and the occupation must leave so we can build Iraq as God wants us to do.'' My point is we are dealing with a situation in which we do not have the prerogative of decisionmaking other than what we do about ourselves and for ourselves. We cannot decide for others. If the argument was, and again I do not want to dispute that because we have Members on this floor who voted for the resolution, who did not vote for the resolution who had different ideas what that resolution meant or did not mean, that is not an issue. I have no intention of pointing fingers and extracting some kind of admissions about what might have been the true faith at the time. What I am saying is we now face a situation in which we have to make a determination whether our continued presence is a positive or negative force and what should constitute our continued presence.