|
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Supplemental Appropriation for Iraq and other purposes
|
| October 20th, 2003 |
| |
Mr. Chairman,
It is no surprise that many Americans believe our expenditure in Iraq is unprecedented, that this supplemental is too high. Everyday, nine members of the Democratic party, vying for their party’s presidential nod, find a way to use boogie-man tactics, condemning hard-working American companies and damning the actions of our men and women in uniform as a quagmire.
In my opinion, a healthy debate on any expenditure this body approves is warranted and expected from our constituents. However, Mr. Chairman, I am deeply troubled by the rhetoric that fails to emphasize the real picture.
As we know, everyone knows, Mr. Chairman, 68 percent of this supplemental request goes directly to our US service members.
Imminent danger pay, family separation and travel allowances and two week’s R&R; . . . are included in this package. The supplemental further provides for body armor, health care support and equipment usage and replacement.
Every penny we put towards this mission is a dollar invested in our troops and the goal of bringing them home.
How easy we forget, Mr. Chairman. It is obvious that living our history is much more difficult than reading about it. America devoted 24 percent of our gross domestic product in WW I. In WW II, we spent 130 percent. To date, the price for the War on Terror, including this supplemental, is .5 percent of our GDP. This isn’t to say our efforts in Iraq are cheap. Eighty-seven billion dollars is a lot of money, no doubt. But when viewed in the perspective of other, very successful campaigns, the expenditure is not unprecedented. And, if our success is a fraction as successful as our efforts in WW II, I think the expenditure would be well worth the cost.
Mr. Chairman, we have an obligation to do what we can to stabilize the Middle East. Our national security depends upon it. But further, and most importantly, we have an absolute obligation to our troops.
The idea of a grant, as opposed to a loan, makes complete sense in this situation. Quite frankly, it makes more sense to grant this money to Iraq than the billions we granted for the HIV/AIDS initiative in Africa, the millions we give to Egypt and the millions more that go to other nations. I certainly didn’t see any of my colleagues in the minority down here calling for a loan when we debated the Millennium Challenge Program. As you know, Mr. Chairman, the Millennium Challenge Account is one of the largest increases in foreign aid spending in half a century, outpaced only by the Marshall Plan following World War II and the Latin America-focused Alliance for Progress in the early 1960s . . . and not a word was mentioned about a loan. As a matter of fact, HR 1298, the AIDS Assistance bill, which had numerous debt cancellation provisions, was passed in this house with only one Democrat voting no. Given today’s debate, one must ask: How?
Further evidence of the hypocrisy is today’s overwhelming vote on HRes 198, which calls on Russia, Germany and France to forgive their debt on Iraq. That resolution, earlier today, had 31 “no” votes. I can’t wait to compare this week’s speeches with this particular vote.
One gentleman, who came down here last night, asked how we were going to pay for the supplemental. I thought it was a silly question for a Member of Congress to ask. If you don’t know, maybe you’re in the wrong business. If the question is “should we spend the money?” OK, fair debate. But don’t come down here, pretending (I hope he was pretending) to have no idea how the money will be raised or where it will come from.
That Member has a bill, introduced for consideration by this House, to expend $25 million a year for methlab eradication. A worthy cause? Sure, although probably not a function for the Federal Government — but the issue is his proposal for $25 million. Where are you getting $25 million a year? Your bill doesn’t say.
Another critic of this supplemental has legislation that proposes $1.5 billion over five years, for a program this is already well-funded, with no off-set, no way to generate the revenue. It’s a new program, new money, that apparently appears out of thin air. Where are you getting $1.5 billion, your bill doesn’t say.
And yet another opposing Member proposes $450 million in new construction dollars for a facility in her district. Again, a worthy cause, perhaps. But where are you getting $450 million?
My intent is not to criticize the individual projects these Members pursue but rather, to point out the hypocrisy that exists in this Chamber.
Mr. Chairman, these missions must have the funding to solidify the Iraqi infrastructure, establish a democratic structure of government, and ultimately, to insure our own domestic tranquility.
I am in support of this supplemental and I am in support of the men and women in uniform. Our mission in Iraq is just, and the American people should be proud of the example we have set for the world. Tyranny is dead and the United States is committed to putting dictators on the street, or in the grave, their choice – but make no mistake, we are not going home until the job is done.
|
| |
|
|
There are no Floor Speechess to be displayed for this month.
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
