Martin Frost

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a supporter of our efforts to replace Saddam Hussein's dangerous dictatorship with a stable and democratic Iraq. But I am deeply concerned that the Bush administration's stubborn refusal to be honest about Iraq has made the reconstruction process more difficult, more expensive and more dangerous. Mr. Speaker, President Bush said it best earlier this week at a press conference in the Rose Garden. In talking about the United Nations, he said, ``Credibility comes when you say something is going to happen and then it does happen. You are not credible if you issue resolutions and then nothing happens.'' Well, that is exactly the situation President Bush has created for himself, a growing credibility gap that could threaten our ability to win the peace in Iraq. Before the war, the Bush administration refused to prepare the American people for the costly and deadly reconstruction effort they are now witnessing. And whenever people like General Eric Shinseki let slip the truth, that it would be very expensive and require lots of troops, the administration publicly rebuked them, and then relieved them of duty. On May 1 of this year, President Bush dressed up in a flight suit and had a pilot land him on an aircraft carrier so that he could declare victory in Iraq. Since then, nearly 120 American troops have been killed in action, more than before the President's May 1 victory speech, and nearly 1,200 have been wounded. In recent days, however, the Bush administration has reached a new low in its well-documented PR campaign to spin Americans into believing that the bad news coming out of Iraq these days is actually good news. On Tuesday, President Bush defended his May 1 ``victory'' pep rally by blaming the whole affair on the sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, as if he had somehow been the victim of the Navy's public relations stunt. That is not only an outrageous charge, especially coming from the man who runs the slickest White house PR machine ever, it is utterly unbelievable. After all, back in May, the Bush White House bragged to reporters that the President himself helped devise the event, and the New York Times reported that his aides ``had choreographed every aspect of the event.'' Perhaps most disturbing, however, was the President's response to the series of sophisticated and deadly attacks against U.S. soldiers and our allies earlier this week. Sitting in the White House with Ambassador Bremer on Monday, President Bush tried to convince Americans that this was actually a sign of progress, that it proved how ``desperate'' these Iraqi insurgents have become. This is what he told reporters who asked about the bombings, ``Again, I will repeat myself, that the more progress we make on the ground, the more desperate these killers become.'' That statement, Mr. Speaker, was literally incredible. When terrorists can coordinate multiple, separate attacks to kill 35 people and wound more than 230 people in just 45 minutes, it is a horrible tragedy, one that indicates a very real security problem on the ground in Iraq. And trying to spin it as good news simply undermines the President's credibility and harms our effort to win the peace in Iraq. Mr. Speaker, President Bush's credibility problem is such a serious concern because America cannot afford to fail in Iraq. That is why so many people took notice earlier this week, when Senator John McCain, a Republican, who supports our efforts in Iraq and who knows as well as anyone the lessons of Vietnam, said, ``This is the first time that I have seen a parallel to Vietnam in terms of information that the administration is putting out versus the actual situation on the ground.'' It makes it harder to convince our allies around the world to shoulder some of the burden for rebuilding Iraq. That forces American taxpayers and American soldiers to bear the lion's share of the cost. And that makes it harder to maintain public support for this expensive and dangerous effort. Mr. Speaker, that is why Democrats, and a few conscientious Republicans, have tried to force the Bush administration to account for the hundreds of billions of dollars it is spending in Iraq. And it is why we have tried to force the Bush administration to stop making American taxpayers pay the entire tab for this latest foreign aid package. After all, before war, the American people were told that Iraq was an oil-rich country that could fund its own reconstruction. Obviously, Iraq's proven oil reserves have not disappeared and America still has its own unmet priorities, like homeland security, education and health care. But now the Bush administration insists that Iraqi oil money can only be used to repay the debts that Saddam Hussein ran up to build his war machine and that U.S. taxpayers have to foot the bill for rebuilding Iraq. So Republican leaders have stripped out of this conference report the Senate's loan language. Mr. Speaker, U.S. taxpayers are already struggling under the mountain of debt the Bush administration has run up. And there is no good reason to force U.S. taxpayers to pay for President Bush's failure to convince our allies to help. That is why majorities in both Houses of Congress voted in favor of turning about half of the reconstruction grants into loans. But sometimes, Mr. Speaker, it seems like President Bush does not understand how seriously his credibility on Iraq has been damaged. Unfortunately, as long as the Bush administration refuses to treat the American people with more respect, it will become increasingly difficult to achieve a goal we all share, winning the peace in Iraq. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez). (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as I have mentioned previously, I have been a supporter of our action against Iraq, I voted for the supplemental, and I will vote for this conference report. I will tell you that there are serious questions that have been raised by Members on this side of the aisle, and even some Members on the other side of the aisle, particularly on the issue of whether all of this money, all of this $20 billion, should be a grant, or whether at least a portion of it should be a loan. These are serious questions. The House went on record and the Senate went on record in favor of some of this money being a loan, but, unfortunately, the conference committee did not see the wisdom in taking that position. Members have indicated and have served notice, and I believe Members on the other side of the aisle should listen carefully, Members have served notice that it will be much more difficult for the administration next time they come to this body seeking more funds for reconstruction. Members have been willing to give the administration the benefit of the doubt, even though they have very serious reservations, but I would hope that this administration and the Members on the other side of the aisle, before they return to this Congress asking for additional billions of dollars, will take a long and hard look at this issue of loans versus grants and take a long and hard look at the opinions of the American people who are very concerned about unmet needs here in the United States. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, we have no additional requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, the new deficit numbers came out yesterday, and they confirm what we already know: this Republican government has given America the biggest government deficit in our history, nearly $400 billion in fiscal year 2003, the year just concluded, plus an additional $500 billion deficit in fiscal year 2004, the year we just started, according to the Bush administration. Mark my words, these Republican deficits will end up raising taxes, and worse, raising our children's taxes. The Republican leaders are going to do everything in their power to hide their abominable record of fiscal mismanagement. Just listen to the Bush administration's Treasury Secretary in today's New York Times. He predicts that this jobless recovery will somehow magically add 2 million new jobs before next year's elections. He is saying this economy, which has lost nearly 3 million jobs since President Bush took office, the worse job records since Herbert Hoover and the Great Depression, is now going to create 200,000 new jobs a month. Perhaps the Bush administration still believes in Santa Claus, and perhaps they really believe that 2 million jobs will magically appear under the election Christmas tree next year; but the American people know a snow job when they see one. And make no mistake, they are seeing one today on the House floor. Mr. Speaker, this so-called continuing resolution is a procedural shell game to hide Republican mismanagement of the government. This is not trick or treat, Mr. Speaker, just tricks. This entire process today makes clear that this is a Republican government that refuses to do its job, at the same time that too many hard-working Americans are still suffering from the Republican recession. While millions cannot find any jobs, Republicans refuse to do the job that they have and that taxpayers pay them to do. As my Republican friend on the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), once said about another continuing resolution, ``Congress is failing to fulfill its obligations in a timely and responsible way, choosing to fall back on one CR after another instead of putting in the time to do our jobs.'' Or as he said another time, ``a continuing resolution erodes the credibility of the Congress.'' After misleading the American people for too long, neither this Republican Congress nor this Republican administration has much credibility to erode anymore. And as for ``putting in the time to do our jobs,'' this Republican Congress hardly even bothers anymore. This House has not put in a full week's worth of work in months. And this week we are not even going to be here for 24 hours. It has gotten so bad that this resolution is the only so-called substantive legislation before the House this week, and everyone knows that it will not actually do anything. It is just a procedural shell which they will use to hide from the taxpayers the massive omnibus spending bill that they are going to sneak through this House later this year. And mark my words, when this resolution comes back to the House in its massive and bloated form, you will not even recognize it. My friends in the majority will tell you that the House did its work. They will tell you that the other body caused the problem they are addressing today with this shell game. Mr. Speaker, they want Americans to forget one simple truth. The Republican Party controls the Senate just like it controls the House, just like it controls the White House and the entire executive branch. And Republicans refuse to use that power for the people still suffering from the second Bush recession and the third Republican recession in the past 20 years. For example, some 1.4 million Americans have been unemployed so long in this economy that they have exhausted their unemployment insurance. After the end of this year, Americans who lose their jobs, people like the nearly 3 million jobs lost since President Bush took office, will not be able to enroll in unemployment insurance. But Republicans refuse to help them before this Congress closes up shop for the year. Some will say that Republicans are simply incompetent, that they cannot figure out how to run the government. That would be bad enough. But I do not think it gives the Republican Party the credit it deserves, because this Republican government can be ruthlessly effective when its priorities are involved. Unfortunately for the American people, the priorities of this Republican government are largely limited to the political priorities of the Republican Party. Mr. Speaker, time and again Republican leaders have proven their willingness to use their power over the government to get more power for the Republican Party. As the Washington Post suggested last week, Republicans are creating an almost Soviet-style system. They treat the people's government as just another arm of the Republican Party. Republican leaders have moved heaven and earth to protect big corporate tax dodgers, but they will not give military and working families the same tax credit that they gave to the wealthiest. Just last week, House Republican leaders twisted enough arms to block a Democratic pay raise for the military which would have given soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan a $1,500 bonus, but they cannot be bothered to do anything about high health care costs. And earlier this year Tom DeLay's office used Federal resources to track down his legislative opposition in Texas, and even urged the FBI to arrest the Democratic State legislators who dared to stand up to him. But now House Republican leaders will not use the Federal resources of the Congress to help the millions of Americans who need unemployment insurance in the midst of President Bush's jobless recovery. Mr. Speaker, this is not a government of the people, by the people and for the people. It is a government of the Republican Party, by the Republican Party and for the Republican Party. And if the Republican Party wants this Republican government to raise the debt tax on Americans, while at the same time shortchanging education and veterans' health care, then they should at least have the courage to be honest with the public about it. So I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule. Do not help the Republican leaders keep Americans in the dark this year. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I gather in this time of the World Series that my friend on the other side is the designated ``sitter.'' Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker I would inquire as to the time remaining.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I gather the other side is not intending to use any time at this point. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, this rule is a travesty, but certainly no surprise. In the years since the Republican Party took control of this body, their leadership has made a concerted effort to strip away the rights of Members of the House of Representatives, bit by bit by bit. This rule is just more of the same, and every Member of this House who believes in the small ``d'' democratic process should vote to defeat it. The Republican Party's leadership has been nothing short of disingenuous about the debate on this supplemental. Mr. Speaker, this has been anything but an open process. There have been some very important discussions on the floor, but those discussions have been truncated. Over 120 amendments were noticed to this bill, yet, despite the fact that there is obviously so much interest on the part of Members of the House in this $87 billion bill, the Republican leadership is now cutting off the last opportunity to bring over half of those amendments to the floor. Mr. Speaker, I voted in favor of the resolution authorizing the President's action in Iraq. I still believe my vote was the right vote to take. But, if I recall correctly, one of the many reasons the President and the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State gave the American people about why we should take military action against the regime of Saddam Hussein was to bring democracy to the Iraqi people. Quite frankly, I think it is time we bring democracy back to the United States House of Representatives. The way the Republican Party runs this House makes a mockery of the President's laudable goal of bringing democracy to Iraq and its people. Mr. Speaker, in September the President requested $87.5 billion in emergency funding for the continuing military operations in Iraq as well as to fund reconstruction projects in that country. He made the request and expected the Congress to rush it back to him ready to be signed into law. We have no authorization for legislation for these funds. In fact, the committees with jurisdiction over the programs funded here have not even been given the chance to add their views to the bill. On Wednesday, the Committee on Rules reported a so-called open rule, but I have to point out that the Republican Party's version of an open rule is one that does not allow Members the right to amend this bill in a way that affects the policies it moves forward. In fact, the chairman of the Committee on Rules told the committee that an open rule could and should waive all points of order against the committee bill, but not against Member amendments. And why? Why can legislative language offered by other Members be made in order? Because, Mr. Speaker, as the chairman said, ``We are considering this in the same manner which the Democrats did before 1995.'' Mr. Speaker, that is not the case. In fact, if we just take the emergency supplemental for fiscal year 1994, the Committee on Rules, controlled by the Democrats, reported a rule for that supplemental that waived all points of order against two Republican amendments. The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) expressed his opposition to the rule at that time because two other Republican amendments were not allowed to be considered under the rule. We may have cut off those two amendments during the consideration of that supplemental, but we did waive points of order against other Republican amendments because, as my chairman so ably pointed out on Wednesday evening, ``We are the Committee on Rules. We do have the authority to do that.'' So I have to ask, why did the Republican Party's leadership not grant waivers to at least some of the thoughtful and constructive policy amendments brought to the Committee on Rules on Wednesday? As reported by the Committee on Appropriations, the funds for reconstruction in Iraq are $1.4 billion more than were contained in the entire foreign operations appropriation passed by the House and $500 million more than the Senate's foreign operations bill. That represents every single foreign assistance program this country participates in for the entire fiscal year. Yet the Committee on International Relations was not given an opportunity to consider the President's request in a legislative forum and amendments that sought to impose policy in this bill were denied the opportunity to be voted on during this debate. The Committee on Appropriations has reported funds for the military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan that amount to 56 percent of the funds for all operations and maintenance in the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2004. I strongly support this funding, but certainly the Committee on Armed Services should have been given an opportunity to fully examine the request and report legislation that would set some policy about how this money is to be spent. Perhaps amendments offered by the members of that committee who have great expertise in these matters might have added substantive policy limits to ensure that these funds are going to be used in the best interests of the men and women in uniform who are on the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan right now. Yesterday I heard far too many Members on the other side of the aisle come to the floor and impugn the motives and perhaps the patriotism of Members who sought to reprioritize the funds in this bill. Mr. Speaker, those kinds of remarks are a shameful blemish on this institution. Every Member of this body is entitled to hold his own opinions. We are not elected to march in lockstep with the dictates of the Republican Party's leadership. No, indeed, Mr. Speaker. We are all here to do what we think is best for the United States of America and its citizens. I hold a different view on going to war in Iraq than do many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle. I cannot and I do not hold them in any less regard for holding views that differ from mine. I believe that a vibrant and vital democracy requires that all of these views be heard, not hidden or muffled to escape the withering attacks of ideologues. I also believe that these views should be brought to this floor and discussed in a civil atmosphere, not subjected to the partisan pot shots that have been lobbed by the other side of the Chamber during this debate. This rule shuts off debate, pure and simple. This rule cuts Members out of the discussion. By denying Members waivers to bring up amendments that address policy in addition to money, Members were shut out of the process in the first rule. But at least there was a chance for Members to bring up those issues before a point of order would be lodged against them. Now, the autocratic Republican Party leadership, for whatever reason, be it to go home for the weekend or to leave on a CODEL, or perhaps even to cut off debate so that the American people could not find out what the Congress is up to, has brought to the floor a rule that says, That's all, folks. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is just wrong. In one last attempt to try to give the House an opportunity to set policy, it is my intention to oppose the previous question in order to give the House one last chance to discuss a matter that is of grave concern to millions of Americans who are deeply alarmed about using so many American tax dollars to rebuild Iraq. If the previous question is defeated, I would amend this rule to allow the House to vote on an amendment adopted by the Senate, by the other body, yesterday. That amendment, which is similar to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) yesterday in his substitute, is identical to the amendment offered by the senior Senator from Texas, a Republican, and would require half of the reconstruction funds of this bill to be funded through the World Bank. That passed in the United States Senate yesterday on a vote of 51 to 47. Under this rule, we will not even be permitted to vote on that measure on the floor today. The House should go on record on this language; and if the previous question is defeated, it will have the opportunity to do so. Otherwise, it is, That's all, folks. What a mockery we will make of ourselves. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).