John Shadegg

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I do want to conclude with this point, and I want to get it across. As a nonmember of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, as someone not privy to that information, I certainly would agree with the gentleman that perhaps this whole episode does not merit acknowledgment and debate here on the floor of the House except that I have long believed and indeed kind of grew up with the notion that the unrefuted lie becomes the truth. And in this case, I want to make this point very clear. Today in sworn testimony before the 9-11 Committee, Richard Clarke said, ``The briefing I gave actively misled the press because I told the press there was a fivefold increase in funding, and now I am telling you some 2 years later that that was not correct.'' If Mr. Clarke was willing to actively mislead the press 2 years ago and lead the press to believe that there had been a fivefold increase in funding when he knew darn good and well that no such fivefold increase existed, then I would suggest that his willingness to mislead the press then and admit it today, acknowledge ``I made this claim, I was trying to explain the Bush administration's position,'' it absolutely was not true because it was only in discussion or in, as he called it, authorization, not spending, an acknowledgment that he was willing to actively and aggressively mislead the American press and the American people 2 years ago, and what does that say about the validity of the claims he is making today? And I think that is a question that the American people unfortunately in this kind of tawdry discussion that is going on deserves to know about, be aware of. And unfortunately buried in that hearing today, not many people might have picked up the fact that what Richard Clarke said was, yes, I said to the press and the American people we had increased funding fivefold, but technically I was really lying because I needed to to keep my job. And I think that is shocking conduct on his part. I hope the press will comment on it in tomorrow's papers, and I certainly think the American people need to be aware that Mr. Clarke made a pretty startling admission today when he acknowledged, if his claim today is in fact true, that what he was saying 2 years ago or in February of 2000, now 4 years ago, was misleading the American people about what was going on.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I am sure the gentleman has a fascinating perspective on these issues which many of us do not, and I think he makes an excellent point with regard to the ability of someone who has had access to that information and knows what can and cannot be used to refute or rebut any arguments they make now. And I certainly empathize with and would share the gentleman from Michigan's concern about somebody who speaks out under those circumstances knowing that the information that might set the record straight is classified and cannot be brought out.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to take the conversation forward to some of the events of today. We are at war, and it is a war against terror. And of course the news of the day is the investigative work of the 9-11 commission and the question of whether or not either the Clinton administration or the Bush administration appropriately has responded to the war on terror, that the kind of overarching news on that is the criticism which has surfaced in the last few days by this Richard Clarke of the Bush administration, a rather scathing book that he has written saying that the Bush administration did not take the war on terror seriously enough before 9-11. And he testified today before the 9-11 commission. I happened to be in a position to watch his testimony, at least a substantial part of it, and I thought it absolutely fascinating because it was brought out in his testimony today that while he was accusing and is accusing the Bush administration of not having been sufficiently aggressive in the war on terror before 9-11 and in his testimony he detailed his frustration in not being able to get the Bush administration to do as much as he wanted, one of the members of the commission brought forward the text of a briefing that he, Richard Clarke, had given to the press in February of 2000 and again, I believe, in June of 2000. And the text of this briefing by Mr. Clarke said the exact opposite of what he is saying today. The text said, and this was a briefing by Mr. Clarke to the American press on the Bush administration's efforts on the war on terror, and he said the Bush administration is going far beyond what the Clinton administration had done. And at one point, he said, for example, in this particular aspect of the war on terror, the Bush administration has increased funding fivefold. That is a direct quote from Richard Clarke to the American media in a briefing he presented at the White House to our media about the efforts of the Bush administration. In the course of the questioning, the questioner said, Mr. Clarke, that statement that the Bush administration was being much more aggressive in its efforts to go after the war on terror seems to stand at odds with the premise of your current book. And he went on and said, Specifically you told the press that there was a fivefold increase in the amount of money dedicated by the Bush administration to the war on terror than had been dedicated by the Clinton administration. Mr. Clarke was then asked, How do you justify that, how do you rationalize that, how do you explain that in the light of your book? And Clarke made an interesting statement. He said, Number one, with regard to the statement that the Bush administration was being far more aggressive, it turns out that I was wrong; that is just what I believed they were going to do, and they did not do it. And then the questioner said, What about this claim that they had increased funding by fivefold? If they increased funding by fivefold over what the Clinton administration had been doing, certainly that is inconsistent with your claim that they did not take the war on terror seriously. And I thought Mr. Clarke's response was fascinating. His response was, Well, I was then a spokesman for the White House and my job was to put the best face on it I could, and so I highlighted the strong things or the positive things, not the negative things. The questioner said, This is not a matter of opinion. This is a matter of fact. Did the Bush administration increase spending fivefold? Clarke said, Well, they did in authorization. They did not in actual spending or in actual appropriations. The questioner said, Wait a minute. Appropriations are done by the Congress. Clarke said, No. There is also a twofold process in the administration. They initially propose a number, and then they actually spend the number or put a number in their budget. And Clarke said, In point of fact, the fivefold increase that I was talking about is what they wanted to spend. They ultimately did not actually put that number in their budget. The questioner did not follow up with the question I would have followed up with, which is I think the $64,000 or in this case maybe the $3 million or $3 billion question, which is, Let me understand this, Mr. Clarke. You told the press that they had increased funding fivefold. You did not clarify this detail; so you were misleading the press back then. And I think that begs the question of if he was willing to mislead the press back then, is he willing to mislead the press today.

Mr. SHADEGG. It seems to me as I listened to you each speak about this, it has got to be hard for the average American citizen to appreciate all that we have done, because we in America take our freedoms so much for granted. We cannot even imagine the kind of repression that they suffered. The gentleman refers to commerce in the streets. One day, I believe when you were getting a classified briefing, I was up in a helicopter in our trip not eligible to get that classified briefing and we flew over a market. This bustling market with hundreds of people there buying and engaging in commerce was just a tremendous display. Also, thinking about the perspective of the average American out there, it seems to me that we have heard so much about this issue of weapons of mass destruction and I think we are as a nation kind of second-guessing, well, was it appropriate to go, did we do the right thing given that David Kay and the others that we sent were not able to document huge stockpiles of WMDs?

Mr. SHADEGG. I thank the gentleman very much for yielding. I want to compliment both my colleague from Michigan and my colleague from New Mexico for their leadership on this issue and for helping carry the message to the American people that what we have done in Iraq is working and that it has been a struggle that has been well worthwhile. As my colleague from Michigan well knows, I went with him to Iraq in August, and we were there largely before any Members got in. We spent 3 days. As my colleague from New Mexico mentioned, he went to Kirkuk. We also went to Kirkuk and Tikrit and Mozul in addition, of course, to going to Baghdad. For anyone who has been there, it is a tremendous education to go and to meet the people and to see the progress that is being made. We were there early on. It was interesting to me, you were discussing the threat that is posed to anyone who goes to Iraq right now. When we went, we were freely allowed to travel by helicopter and did indeed travel by helicopter from the Baghdad International Airport to downtown Baghdad and around downtown Baghdad and then to each of the other places that we visited. We spent a lot of time in helicopters. My colleague from New Mexico mentioned having taken about 5 hours of video. I think I took about 20 hours of video, in part because that is what we were allowed to do. We had a fair amount of time in helicopters. It does show you a great deal about the country. My first and probably most striking recollection of it, and this was in August, so the climate was different than it is now, was of taking off from Baghdad International Airport, and I had a TV news camera with me, and of shooting the neighborhoods surrounding the outskirts of Baghdad as we flew into downtown, and the young kids rushing out into the streets and out into the parks and waving up to us and giving us the thumbs-up and expressing their joy and their appreciation for what we as Americans have done for them.

Mr. SHADEGG. Bill Clinton?

Mr. SHADEGG. I think that is a great transition for a point I wanted to make about the whole issue of WMD. Some now, in hindsight, would say, Well, the entire rationale for going to war was WMD. They try to make the argument that only now are we justifying our effort in part on liberating Iraq from the awesome and repressive rule of Saddam Hussein. What they forget is that the technical, legal reason for going to war in Iraq was, in fact, fully satisfied. They do not want people to think about that anymore. Even some people on this floor do not want you to think about that. But David Kay, the weapons inspector with whom you and I met in Iraq, who in fact was not able to demonstrate or establish beyond a question of a doubt now that there are stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, told me a week ago here in this Capitol building pointblank that there was absolutely no doubt but that Saddam Hussein was in violation of U.N. resolution 1441 and of the earlier U.N. resolution, I believe the number is 468, maybe you can recall the number, but, and this is David Kay, said there is absolutely no question but that Saddam Hussein was in clear violation as of when the war started of both U.N. resolutions. That was the legal premise for going to war in Iraq.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I think the point is precisely made. I think it is exactly right. It shows that this administration was willing to take action. The kind of fine point I want to put on it was in addition to all of those things, the legal rationale for the war was their violation of the U.N. resolutions. And in point of fact, those resolutions said that if Saddam Hussein and Iraq did not comply with the U.N. resolutions, then the United Nations and the world would be justified in taking whatever steps were necessary, including force, to enforce the resolutions. And that was the legal basis for the war, and I think that is an important point to understand. But the gentleman has raised a wider issue, and that is the war on terror. And it seems to me that today of all days we ought to talk a little bit about the war on terror

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise reluctantly to oppose the legislation, in admiration for the committee chairman and the ranking member, but I think it is important for our colleagues to know that this legislation, while it does many good things and is certainly well-intended, is opposed by the National District Attorney's Association. They wrote the Speaker of the U.S. House very recently to express their concern. They talked about the good aspects of the bill, but they expressed concern on two topics, both the funding in the bill, in terms of what it would do to death penalty cases, but also and most importantly, the standard of proof that the bill sets for a new trial. Specifically, the National District Attorney's Association wrote that the standard of evidence is set dangerously low. What they mean by that is under this legislation, convicted felons will have the ability to make a demand for a retrial under circumstances which are far lower than any other circumstances similar in other situations, and they expressed grave concern about that. Convicted criminals will be allowed to make consecutive, multiple requests for DNA testing under this bill. They would have an ability to tie up the courts over and over again by submitting separate requests. I reluctantly urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and join the National District Attorneys' Association in opposing the bill so we can improve it and pass it in an improved fashion.

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

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, my amendment shifts $245 million from U.N. peacekeeping activities in Liberia to the Iraqi reconstruction account. I want to make it clear at the outset that following a discussion between myself and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), along with the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), it is my intention to both offer this amendment and, at the end of my remarks, to withdraw it out of deference to their concerns. Let me make it first very clear that I am not opposed to peacekeeping efforts in Liberia. What I do believe, however, Mr. Chairman, is that this legislation, the legislation we are here to debate tonight, should be about Iraq and our efforts to secure a free, democratic, stable, and prosperous Iraq. The funds for Liberia that are in the legislation as it cleared committee were not sought by the President and were not a part of his effort. Indeed, he made it very clear that his legislation was seeking funding for Iraq and Afghanistan, and those two only. Those funds could be sought elsewhere. They could and should be a part of the normal 2004 appropriations process. They could be a part of the CJS appropriations bill, the foreign operations bill, or one of the omnibus bills that we will deal with in the future. Moreover, the U.N. mission in Liberia has yet to even request these funds or to proffer a budget for that effort. But I want to make it clear again, this is not about Liberia. This issue tonight that we are debating is about Iraq. For that reason, I will withdraw my amendment at the end of this discussion. I want to make the point, Mr. Chairman, that I was in Iraq in August. I spent 3 days in that country. I am convinced of this, and I urge my colleagues to pay attention. I am convinced that, if anything, if we fund our effort in Iraq at the request level that the President sought, we are underfunding our military effort in Iraq, and we are underfunding our effort to reconstruct that country. Mr. Chairman, let me make it clear. For 3 days in Iraq, in multiple cities in Iraq, I met with the troops there, and I met with the leaders of those troops. And they made it clear to me that these funds are essential to rebuild that country and to put the Iraqi people on our side in this struggle. Whether one supported this war at the outset or opposed it, and I understand there is a legitimate debate on that issue, we should all be in agreement now that we must win, that failure is not an option, that we owe it to the world to establish a free, democratic, stable, and prosperous country in Iraq, both for the Iraqi people and, as well, for all of the people of the Middle East, for all of the good that it will do to end the threat that other nations had in that region of the world as a result of the Iraqi regime. We can only do that, Mr. Chairman, if we have the Iraqi people on our side. And again, I fear we are underfunding our military effort and underfunding our reconstruction effort. I am convinced in the post-Vietnam world, Mr. Chairman, that it is dangerous to engage in half measures. If we as a Nation are committed to the war against terror, then we must win in Iraq; and if we are to win in Iraq, then we must spare no effort. I would argue, Mr. Chairman, that it is regrettable that the committee decided to reduce the President's funding request level in this legislation by $1.7 billion. I believe that money could have protected our troops. I believe that money could have made our servicewomen and our servicemen on the ground in Iraq tonight, as we speak, safer. And I believe that because they told me when I was there that they believe this money would make their efforts safer. Now, we can quibble about whether we should be funding a children's hospital or whether we should be funding their electricity infrastructure or whether or not we should be funding housing needs or prison beds. But let me make it clear. The authorities on the ground there, the commander of the 101st Airborne, with whom I met, the commander of the 4th Infantry Division, with whom I met, and Ambassador Bremer, with whom I met, made it clear that this money is needed so that our troops can win the battle, can win the battle for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, and can defeat international terrorism as we confront it in Iraq. Yes, terrorists are coming into that country from around the world to take us on; and, yes, we better not underfund that fight. Now, Mr. Chairman, I would have preferred to offer an amendment restoring the entire 1.7, or a little bit less than that, billion dollars that was reduced in this bill. I would note that the Senate legislation does not reduce that. But that amendment would not have been in order. The amendment I did offer to restore $245 million was in order. But again, I do not oppose funding for Liberia, and I understand that the President made a commitment to assist with Liberia. But this money is needed. I urge my colleagues and I urge our conferees to accede to the President's request and fully support our fight for freedom and democracy in Iraq. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I rise in strong support of the base legislation and in passionate opposition to the Pence amendment. There is no one on this floor who has fought harder for the American taxpayer than I have, and I defy anyone who makes a claim to the contrary. And there is no one on this floor who has been to Iraq and seen more than I have seen because I spent 3 days in Iraq in August. But I think those who posit this as a taxpayer issue miss the point. There is no one in this debate who is saying that out of concern for our taxpayers we should not give aid to our military. What they are saying is, rather, out of concern for the taxpayer, we should make the nonmilitary side of this, the reconstruction side of this, a loan. That makes a fundamental error. There is no nonmilitary sides of this. If you go to Iraq as I went to Iraq, if you talk to the troops on the ground, if you talk to their commanders, they will tell you that they must rebuild that country in order to obtain the cooperation of the people there. The reconstruction money is to ensure the safety of our soldiers. It is that essential, and it is that critical. And no one less than our colleague, the Democrat from the opposite side, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Marshall), who regrettably cannot be with us in this debate tonight because he has suffered a health problem, makes the point clear. When he went to Vietnam and he fought in a similar war, he said the most important ally in a war like this are the local people. You need them because they know where the bombs are. They know where the improvised explosive devices are. And if they are on your side, they will come to you and they will tell you. And then you can go find those IEDs, and you can destroy them before they kill an American soldier. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Marshall), the Democrat from Georgia, has made that point on this floor and across this Nation. Let me make it clear. There is no nonmilitary portion of this funding effort. It is absolutely critical that we aid our soldiers by helping to rebuild Iraq. And if we do not do that, make no mistake about it, we are hurting our soldiers. Do not rely on my word; trust the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Marshall) who was on the ground in Vietnam and who said, and it is working in Iraq today; our soldiers are being helped by the Iraqi people because they believe in this cause. Now, let us talk about the other issues that have been discussed here, and that is, well, we should make it a loan because other countries have debts owed to them and we will then be in a better position to negotiate those debts away. That again misses the point. The reality is if we make this a loan, if America who initiated this effort to get rid of a brutal dictator now says we do not believe enough in the cause of protecting our own soldiers and we do not believe enough in the cause of the Iraqi people and of being a friend to an ally in the Middle East to make a grant, to help them rebuild this country so we will make it a loan, I have a flash for you: no country in the world will make a grant of their own. They will instead say, we want to be repaid our loan, and we will only go forward on a loan basis. We will cripple the Iraqi economy. We will fail in Iraq. I urge my colleagues in the strongest possible terms, if they care about national defense, if they care about the safety of our soldiers, oppose the Pence amendment and support the base bill.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of this supplemental and in opposition to any effort to turn it into a loan. On January 20, 1961, President John F. Kennedy in his inaugural address said these words: ``Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty. This much we pledge, and more.'' I would urge my colleagues that John F. Kennedy's words were true and right then, and they are true and right today; and they should guide this debate. When he spoke those words, we were engaged in a struggle with worldwide communism. Today, make no mistake about it: we are engaged in every bit as serious a struggle with those who would seek to destroy us: worldwide terrorism. And we must step up to the plate and finish this job. Now, I know there is a debate of some whether we should have begun this war or not. But whether one supported the war from the outset or opposed it, and however one feels about those issues today, we have an obligation to finish what we have started. National defense is indeed the first obligation of our government; and as has been said on the floor here tonight, failure is simply not an option. It is critically important that we establish a stable, free, and democrat Iraq; and we cannot do that without this supplemental. Now, some would divide it. Some would say, well, I will support the military side of these funds, but I will not support the funds for reconstruction. As also was said here earlier tonight, not only is that a dangerous distinction; it is a distinction which could cripple us. I was in Iraq in August of this year. I spent 3 days in three different cities in that country; and I heard firsthand from our troops on the ground and their commanders that the reconstruction of Iraq, that the money to help the people of Iraq is critically important to our mission there and that without it, we cannot succeed. But, more importantly, our colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Marshall), a Democrat, said it more eloquently in a debate we had here on the floor earlier this year when he said that he was in Vietnam when there was an effort by the locals to kill our troops, and he said, the best ally we can have in any war of that type are the locals, the people there. And he said, it is absolutely essential for our troops in Iraq today to have the support of the Iraqi people. So that when an improvised explosive device is planted by our enemies there, the terrorists who seek to kill us and to oppose us there get help from the local public. Now, some also would say we should make this a loan, and I strongly oppose that idea. The reality is to make this a loan would send the exact wrong message. America must prove today that we are a strong and stable ally and that having committed to the people of Iraq to get rid of Saddam Hussein, we will remain until there is a strong and stable nation there. To make this into a loan now would prove what the world has said, and that is that we went there solely for our own purposes. But there is a more important reason not to make it a loan. We will go to a donors conference in Spain in just a few days. If the United States is not willing to grant its funds without requesting repayment, no nation in the world will grant their funds, and we will burden the Iraqi economy and it will fail. We have learned this history in the past. At the end of World War I, we failed to rebuild Europe and we paid the price for it. At the end of World War II, we agreed to rebuild Europe, and we had a long and stable ally. At the end of the struggle in Afghanistan to throw the Soviets out, we abandoned the people of Afghanistan. This lesson repeats itself through history. I urge my colleagues, we owe it to the Iraqi people, we owe it to our friends in the Muslim world, we owe it to our grandchildren and their grandchildren to oppose terrorism in this world by proving that we are a strong and stable ally, that we are not there for just our interests. We are there to help the people of Iraq and the people of the Middle East, and we will not leave and we will not fall short of our commitment until a stable and strong government has been established in Iraq with a free and democratic people. And then the world will understand that America keeps its word. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the supplemental and to strongly oppose any amendment to make it a loan.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to open an important discussion before the Congress on the topic of securing the peace in Iraq. I am going to be brief in my opening remarks, Mr. Speaker, because we have some colleagues here who want to participate in this debate and who have other obligations. But let me simply start by saying that I believe it is absolutely essential for this Nation, now that we have deposed Saddam Hussein, to rebuild that country and to secure for them the peace. And what I mean by that is that it is simply not adequate in this world we live in today to get rid of a dictator like Saddam Hussein and then walk away. Tragically, America has done that all too often in its foreign policy, with disastrous consequences. There will be discussion on the floor here tonight in the course of this debate of how we did that after World War I. We not only walked away, but we demanded reparations. The result was the rise of an atrocious dictatorship in Germany and another world war. I want to point to another example just briefly here at the outset of this debate. When we helped the people of Afghanistan fight off the Russian invaders, the Soviet invaders in their country, we did the right thing. But sadly, tragically, when that effort ended, and the Soviet Union retreated from Afghanistan and turned it back over to the people of Afghanistan, we simply walked away and we did not help them rebuild their nation. We did not help them set up an economy. The result was absolutely disastrous. It was the Taliban regime that we have now deposed. I know firsthand the situation in Afghanistan today. I was there a year ago August. I know firsthand the situation in Iraq, because I spent 3 days inside Iraq just this last August, and I learned a great deal. I went to several different parts of the country. And it is absolutely critical that we not just depose Saddam Hussein but that we help the people of Iraq to structure a functioning government. That will pay dividends for years to come. I want to not only talk in this hour about the importance of having deposed Saddam Hussein and now securing the peace by aiding the people of Iraq, but why it is a bad idea to demand that this be repaid out of oil proceeds or to demand that this be a loan from the American Government. There may be times when we need to make loans. I think right now the aid that the President has asked for should be given as a grant, because I think it is critical for us to demonstrate not just to the people of Iraq, but to all of the people of the Middle East, indeed the Muslim world, that when the United States injects itself as we did in Iraq and deposes a terrible leader like Saddam Hussein, the United States then follows through with its commitment and keeps its word. Mr. Speaker, with that as kind of an introduction, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Schrock).

Mr. SHADEGG. Absolutely.

Mr. SHADEGG. And this reconstruction aid is a way for us to illustrate that we are on their side, and for them to come to realize we are on their side, and for them to decide they need to be on our side and not on the side of the terrorists who want to destroy that country and bring Saddam back or some other regime that would be anti- American and be in line with the rest of the countries in that part of the world where terrorism is brewing against it. So I think the gentleman's comments are eloquent, and I thank him for his participation and for all of his remarks on the topic. I now yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake). I think he feels passionately about this issue as well.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his participation, and I want to express my appreciation for his thoughtful analysis of this issue. We do have to prioritize, and the suggestion he makes is a good one. As was mentioned earlier, today was the first day of school in Iraq; and in my visit there, we learned that America has done a great deal to rebuild the schools, although Americans will say, well, why are we rebuilding their schools and not ours. As I explained earlier, what we are doing is going in and painting existing school buildings. But helping the people of Iraq educate their children is a critically important role for America. Again, it helps us to win over their hearts and minds and to do what our colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Marshall), said, and that is have the Iraqi people side with us in this struggle. For example, for them to help our troops find an explosive device that is planted and intended to kill an American, they are the best ones who can do that. Education is a big part of that effort; and to discuss education in Iraq further, I yield to our colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman illustrates how exactly we are going about winning the hearts and minds of the people of Iraq, and I thank him. I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his input. In the light of the fact that I want to get all of the remaining Members here who want to speak, a chance to speak, let me yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

Mr. SHADEGG. I thank the gentleman who brings a great perspective. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. It is clear to me that we need to win over the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. As our colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Marshall), said from the other side of the aisle here tonight, we absolutely must have them on our side. This is the way to do it. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting the President's full request.

Mr. SHADEGG. Not just their quality, their enthusiasm. They are committed to this task. They can see in the faces of the Iraqi people that they are trying to help every day what it is doing for that country and for their people. Quite frankly, I think if every Member of Congress were to go to Iraq, and for that matter, I urge the administration to take business leaders, take average Americans over there, let them see when we help the Iraqis by fixing a well that is no longer working or by opening a school that is no longer functioning, and we will discuss education later in this Special Order, when we do that, the faces of those people light up. And these are people embracing the concept of freedom and democracy for the first time. When we look into the eyes of our troops and soldiers, they know we are enabling these people to be free for the first time and to understand prosperity for the first time. I could not agree more with the gentleman's comments.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his thoughtful comments and I appreciate the gentleman participating in this discussion tonight. I know that the gentleman has family obligations, but his attendance here speaks to how important he thinks this topic is. I also thank the gentleman for pointing out that only $20.3 billion, not the entire $87 billion, is dedicated to reconstructing Iraq. And I also think it is important that we listen to his comments about the Interim Governing Council and the fact that they are making progress, but this money is going to be spent by Americans right now, and I think to assert that although Americans are spending this money, the Iraqis ought to repay it seems unfair. I also commend the gentleman about Iraqi involvement and responsibility. At the end of the day, this is an Iraqi responsibility and ultimately we have to get those people involved in recreating their nation, and I very much appreciate the gentleman's comments. I also appreciate him pointing out that this is a bipartisan discussion; and our colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Marshall) has written and spoken on this topic, and I think he will join us in this discussion. Mr. Speaker, I went to Iraq this August and spent time there. Interesting in this debate, people who have been to Iraq and seen what is on the ground tend to support the President's position. Those who are critical tend to be those who have not been there. Ambassador Bremer, I think, laid the groundwork by these remarks in a hearing just last month. He said the $20.3 billion in grants to Iraq the President is seeking as part of this $57 billion supplemental speed the grandeur of vision equal to the one which created the free world at the end of World War II. What he is referring to is the Marshall Plan, and I think for Americans to understand this discussion, they need to understand this aid, put in perspective. As I mentioned earlier, at the end of World War I, we walked away. Indeed, we demanded reparations. We did not help Europe rebuild. That resulted in Hitler and another world war following that. But following World War II, we changed our policy rather dramatically, and we understood that rebuilding Europe was critically important. That was the Marshall Plan. This second graph shows in current dollars that the Marshall Plan was dramatically more expensive than we are talking about in the President's request here. I think it is vitally important for the people of America to understand that if we are being asked to put up this money to rebuild Iraq, how does that compare to our prior experiences. And with that, Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).