[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 54 (Thursday, April 3, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H2718-H2757]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        EMERGENCY WARTIME SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2003

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 172 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1559.
  The Chair designates the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) as 
chairman of the Committee of the Whole, and requests the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Fossella) to assume the chair temporarily.

                              {time}  1140


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 1559) making emergency wartime supplemental appropriations for 
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2003, and for other purposes, with 
Mr. Fossella (Chairman pro tempore) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is 
considered as having been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, today H.R. 1559 is before the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union to pay for the war in Iraq, the 
liberation of the people of Iraq, the destruction of a regime that 
threatens its own people, that persecutes its own people, that 
threatens its neighbors with weapons of mass destruction, that is a 
vicious, violent regime. We are at war today, and I want to say that 
American people can be, and I am sure they are, tremendously proud of 
the members of our Armed Forces.

                              {time}  1145

  I was paying tribute to the men and women who serve in our Armed 
Forces for their tremendous dedication and their courage and their 
commitment and their valor and the tremendous way in which they are 
carrying out their mission. All Americans are proud of what these young 
Americans are doing.
  The Committee on Appropriations reported the bill with a recorded 
vote and every Member in the Committee voted yes: number one, to bring 
the bill to the floor; number two, to show our complete support of our 
American Armed Forces. And I am very proud of that. I want to thank the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), and I wanted to thank the members 
of both parties, on both sides of the political aisle on the Committee 
on Appropriations who worked together to produce this product that is 
very similar, Mr. Chairman, to what the President of the United States, 
the Commander in Chief, asked us to do. The major part of the 
appropriations provided in this bill are for the Department of Defense, 
and the military services, to pay for much of the activities that have 
already taken place and to provide additional funding to complete this 
effort to rid the world of a regime as the one we have seen for the 
last 20 years headed by Saddam Hussein.
  Mr. Chairman, I am going to reserve the balance of my time at this 
point because I want the subcommittee chairmen who worked so hard to 
bring this package together to use a considerable amount of the time to 
explain the part of the bill on which they worked.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the following tabular and 
extraneous material:

[[Page H2719]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH03AP03.001



[[Page H2720]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH03AP03.002



[[Page H2721]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH03AP03.003



[[Page H2722]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH03AP03.004



[[Page H2723]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH03AP03.005



[[Page H2724]]

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 11 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, we have by the previous vote unfortunately short-
circuited the democratic process in this House, and we have prevented 
us from having any really meaningful debate on this resolution today. 
Under the rule, we are going to be free to talk about providing 
additional money for homeland security. We just are not going to be 
able to put any amendments before the House that in any substantial way 
enhance homeland security, and I find that unfortunate.
  I think that there is much in this bill that is good, and I wanted to 
congratulate the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of 
the committee, because he has done his constitutional duty and he has 
seen to it that the 200-year-long responsibility of the Congress to 
keep a tight leash on the public purse has been maintained, and I 
congratulate him for it. I know that there are a lot of people in this 
town who do not like that, but that was his responsibility. That was 
his committee's responsibility, and we lived up to it; and I think the 
House can be proud of that.
  I also think, frankly, that there are a couple of other occasions 
when Members of Congress wanted to unfairly intervene in executive 
prerogatives in this bill, and the committee correctly resisted those 
as well. So on that score I have no problem whatsoever with this bill.
  My problem is that I think it is a missed opportunity to provide 
additional protection for people at home. We are engaged in a war in 
Iraq. The idea of that war is to make the world safer for the United 
States and other democracies. And it would seem to me that if we are 
going to engage in a war against Iraq, we ought to be battening down 
the hatches to the fullest extent possible here at home to protect 
against terrorist attacks; but we have been denied the opportunity to 
offer our amendment to do so. And I want to walk through with the House 
what it is that they have rejected because I am going to try to offer 
it again anyway at a later point in the process.
  Perhaps the greatest challenge we face in dealing with terrorism is 
to monitor the more than 20,000 shipping containers that enter the 
United States each day. In our amendment, which we will seek to offer 
even though the rules sought to deny us, we tried to put $135 million 
in this bill so that we can institute at nine major ports around the 
world a system which we have now in the port of Rotterdam, which would 
enable us to install equipment so that we know that none of the 
containers in the 10 major ports in the world contain radioactive 
material which could be used to set off a dirty bomb within the United 
States. We think the House ought to support that.
  We also want to put $87 million in this bill to strengthen our 
ability to deal with nuclear material which is stored right here in the 
United States. We want to provide $150 million to strengthen the 
capacity of State laboratories and EPA laboratories to deal with the 
aftermath of a chemical attack. We are better equipped to deal with a 
biological attack in the country at this point than we are to deal with 
a chemical attack.
  We wanted to put sufficient funds into this bill so that we can take 
the vulnerability assessment that was done on Federal dams and 
waterways throughout the country and in fact act on that assessment and 
actually provide for the security upgrades that we need for those 
facilities. We need $108 million to do that.
  Only weeks ago, the General Accounting Office completed a report 
indicating that there is a serious threat posed by the possibility of 
terrorists targeting U.S. chemical plants. We wanted to provide $75 
million to initiate an assessment of that threat as recommended by the 
GAO. We have been denied the opportunity to do that. We also want to 
see to it that there is better coordination between the FDA and the 
USDA in determining what kinds of inspections have taken place and what 
inspections have not taken place with respect to a number of shipments 
of agricultural products and medical products that come into this 
country.

  The Hart-Rudman report recommended the Federal Government provide 
funding to first responders to immediately clear the backlog of 
requests for protective gear for our local first responders. This 
legislation does not begin to lay a glove on the size of that problem.
  We also have a problem in that the equipment used by our firemen and 
our policemen and our rescue workers at the local level are not 
interoperable, and so those groups cannot talk to each other.
  Twenty years ago in this town when we had the Air Florida accident, 
we had rescue workers from Virginia, from Maryland, from the District 
of Columbia. They could not talk to each other on their emergency 
equipment because they were all on different wavelengths. That was 20 
years ago. When we had that same problem at the Pentagon just about a 
year ago, we still had not improved the situation. No real progress in 
20 years. It is about time we fix it. We want to in our amendment. We 
have been denied the opportunity.
  We also wanted to provide $300 million in additional funding to the 
Office of Domestic Preparedness, which has been denied. We also wanted 
to provide sufficient funds to guarantee that every State in the Union 
has at least one National Guard Civil Support Team to back up first 
responders in case of terrorist attack emergencies. We have been denied 
the opportunity to do that. We wanted to provide $90 million to expand 
port and waterway safety systems. Right now the port of Norfolk has a 
sophisticated system and the port of San Diego is going to get that 
system later in the year; but we still have ports like Boston, 
Charleston, Philadelphia, Jacksonville, Baltimore, Honolulu, San 
Francisco, Los Angeles, Corpus Christie, San Juan, and Washington, D.C. 
where we need that equipment, but do not have it.
  The Coast Guard indicates that in addition to all of that we have at 
least $900 million in needs that we ought to be helping local port 
authorities with and over the next 10 years those needs are estimated 
to be about $4.4 billion. We wanted to add $250 million to the 440 
already in this bill to deal with that problem, and we have been denied 
that opportunity.
  And we also take note of the fact that the Pentagon has identified 
more than $1 billion of unfunded security needs at military bases here 
at home, such as providing additional protection for family housing by 
building perimeter fencing. Our amendment wanted to put at least $200 
million in here for that purpose. We have been denied the right to do 
so.
  We wanted to increase the intelligence budget for the Department of 
Energy so that they can have a better surveillance operation with 
respect to countries like Iran and North Korea. We have been denied 
that opportunity. And we wanted to do a number of other things which I 
do not have time to discuss.
  Let me simply say, despite the fact that the rule has denied us the 
opportunity to offer the amendment, I am going to attempt to offer that 
amendment anyway when we get to the 5-minute rule because I believe 
that this is so important for the security of this country. There is no 
reason for us to have a dispute on this issue. There is no reason to 
have a difference between Republicans and Democrats on a national 
security issue of this magnitude. I cannot believe that we do not have 
bipartisan support for this added money.
  We found enough room to give $3 billion and more to the airlines, but 
not enough to provide $2.5 billion for homeland security. We find 
enough room in this bill to provide $7 billion in foreign aid to other 
countries including some bribe money to countries that voted with us in 
the United Nations who are adding virtually nothing to our security 
effort; and yet we are being denied the opportunity to provide $1 
billion on the homeland security front. For that matter we know that 
our government policy is, and this is in writing, to provide health 
care, basic universal health care was the term, for 25 million people 
in Iraq.
  We know that our government intends to repair 6,000 schools and 100 
hospitals in Iraq. It would be nice if we could do the same thing here 
at home. We are not, obviously, being allowed to do that because of the 
majority party's lust for passing every tax cut known to man, but that 
is a debate for another day.

[[Page H2725]]

  Today, as far as I am concerned, the critical hole in this bill is 
lack of sufficient funds for homeland security. We are going to try to 
do everything we can to fix that problem despite the lack of 
cooperation from the majority leadership. But I do want to, at the same 
time, thank the chairman of the committee for his personal cooperation 
in trying to make sure that this House at least met its constitutional 
responsibilities with respect to the power of the purse, and I 
congratulate him for that action.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I do so to again thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for 
the cooperation that we enjoyed as we prepared this bill. And this is a 
clean bill, by the way. And I compliment the members of the House. A 
lot of Members came to us and asked for consideration to do something 
that they felt was important to do in this supplemental, and we 
explained that it was a war supplemental and explained why we were not 
going to be able to accept Member projects. There are no Member 
projects in this bill. This is a clean bill. It tracks what the 
President asked for, and I think the House can be very proud of that.
  There are several major parts of the bill: the national defense part 
dealing with the war, the very important part of the bill dealing with 
homeland security, and another part of the bill that deals with support 
for our coalition partners. So we are going to explain those sections 
of the bill separately.
  The largest part of the bill goes to the war, of course, and for 
national defense and for our troops to provide what they need to carry 
out their important mission.
  Mr. Chairman, to present that part of the bill, I yield 5 minutes to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the very distinguished 
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations' Subcommittee on Defense, 
who does a tremendous job in presenting and providing information that 
we need to put these bills together.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin my 
remarks by first expressing the deepest appreciation we have for the 
work that has been done between the gentleman from Florida (Chairman 
Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), seeing that this 
bill that really is a work in response to the needs of our military 
forces who are fighting for freedom overseas. The way in which the 
House is responding today is a reflection of the best work of the 
House, perhaps demonstrated best in recent days by our all coming 
together to celebrate the freedom now that is being experienced by 
Jessica Lynch, the prisoner of war, this young American, who our forces 
made every effort to identify by way of location and made sure that she 
once again has the opportunity to breathe free.

                              {time}  1200

  This bill would not be in the condition it is in if it were not for 
the magnificent work of staff on both sides of the aisle. The growing 
relationship between David Morrison and Kevin Roper, working with the 
Committee's staff, is somewhat magnificent to see, even though it is 
not a surprise to most who have observed often our committee work.
  In turn, however, there are others who deserve credit today, such as 
our personal staff, and all those people who spend endless hours to 
make sure that we get this work done in a timely fashion.
  The bill before us has some $74.5 billion in supplemental funding 
that is designed in large form to make sure we can carry forward the 
war in a timely fashion and make sure that our forces do not run out of 
funding at this critical moment in our history. Of that $74.5 billion, 
approximately $62.5 goes to national defense matters. Within that 
package of funding, there is approximately one-half of it, a little 
over $30 billion, which really goes to money that has already been 
obligated and essentially spent; that is, the money that was required 
to deploy the forces, to mobilize the National Guard and Reserve, to 
train and equip for battle those men and women who are the backbone of 
our successful effort in Iraq. From there, there is little doubt that 
in the months ahead we will be called upon time and time again to make 
sure that the pipeline does not run dry, and that is the work of our 
committee. Working very closely with Members on both sides of the 
aisle, it has been my experience that this House is most responsive 
when our forces need them most.
  So having said that, Mr. Chairman, the defense portion of this bill, 
which does spend as much money as I indicated, is going to be the least 
controversial of this bill. We will probably spend much of the day 
talking about other relatively smaller elements that are before us 
today. That piece of the bill that involves homeland defense will lead 
to a lot of discussion. And I would say to my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle that the challenges that we face as they relate to 
homeland defense are challenges that really have come to our attention 
because of 9/11. They are primary in our mind.
  But I would remind us also that this is not the last bill of the 
year. We are going to have more than one opportunity in the 
appropriations process to be responsive to the needs of protecting our 
homeland, and the committee will come together again when those items 
are before us, and I am sure respond in a bipartisan way.
  There will be a good deal of discussion today regarding those 
elements that relate to Turkey's role in the struggle that is ahead of 
us; and the issues that flow around the foreign operations portion of 
the bill are difficult issues, but, indeed, those too can be handled 
through regular order.
  In the months and the years ahead, we will be making decisions 
regarding the way we relate to those allies who are not nearly as 
responsive as we might have expected as we went about attempting to lay 
the foundation for freedom for the people of Iraq.
  I am most pleased with the fact that this body today will give 
dramatic illustration that we can come together in time of need, in a 
nonpartisan way, on behalf of the men and women who are fighting for 
freedom in Iraq. In the final analysis, our purpose is to make certain 
that the children of Iraq have the same chance for opportunity and 
freedom that so many of us experience in this country because, by the 
grace of God, we happen to have been born here.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).
  (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill.
  I would like to take a moment to address two different sections of 
the Supplemental--foreign assistance and support for first responders.
  The Foreign Operations section provides $7.3 billion of the $7.5 
billion requested. I think it is generally a good product, and I 
appreciate Chairman Kolbe's willingness to work with me on it.
  As many of my colleagues know, I consider foreign aid to be an 
indispensable arm of our national security strategy. No place is this 
role more evident than in today's bill, which will help strengthen many 
of our allies in the coalition of the willing. I particularly support 
the funding for Israel, a key ally in the war on terrorism and a force 
for stability in the Middle East, as well as the assistance for Jordan, 
a country which has supported our cause at great risk to its own 
stability.
  I am also pleased that this bill takes important steps to secure the 
role of the Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International 
Development in guiding spending for post-war relief and reconstruction. 
It has been clear to us for quite some time that the Department of 
Defense would like to take over the management of these funds. While 
the President requested that all Iraq relief and reconstruction dollars 
be provided in a form that would have allowed him to transfer them to 
any government agency with no Congressional input, this bill wisely 
allows the flexibility to use them only at USAID, the Department of 
State, the Department of the Treasury, and HHS--the four main agency 
implementers of our foreign assistance programs. The bill also makes 
clear the policy decisions regarding post-war relief and reconstruction 
should be made at the State Department--not anywhere else. Both of 
these provisions provide important precedents for similar situations 
that may arise in the future.
  I do have a few concerns about the Foreign Operations section of the 
bill--primarily that

[[Page H2726]]

funding is provided for Colombia and the Philippines, despite the fact 
that they have no direct or indirect role in the conflict in Iraq. 
Congress has been admonished by the administration not to attach 
extraneous provisions to this bill, and I think these are two that 
could be better dealt with in the regular Fiscal Year 2004 process.
  I strongly support the $700 million set-aside in the High-Risk Urban 
Areas category in the Office of Domestic Preparedness, an area of 
critical need. The administration requested $50 million for this 
purpose, an in the committee's mark on Tuesday the funding was raised 
to $700 million. This is excellent progress, but I still believe we 
must do more.
  We have a responsibility to protect every American, wherever they 
live and wherever they serve this Nation around the globe.
  But we know, based on experience and intelligence, that there are 
areas of higher risk than others in America. And it isn't always the 
most obvious places, like New York City, or Washington, DC, and the 
Pentagon.
  It could be Orlando, where Disney World draws millions of visitors, 
or Fort Knox in Kentucky. It could be an attraction that symbolizes 
American culture like the Rock and Roll Hall of fame in Ohio, or a 
military installation like Quantico in Virginia.
  Each of these places has political and cultural significance to our 
people and the world. We've seen that Al Qaeda has a diabolical sense 
of where to hit us--not only to take innocent life and destroy 
structures, but also to shake our confidence and our sense of America 
as a safe place.
  For those reasons, there's an urgent need to provide funding for 
high-level risk areas, especially in urban centers. The administration, 
in its request, provided $50 million in funding for these needs. But 
$50 million isn't adequate. New York City spends that in 10 weeks 
alone--$5 million a week. The State of New York spends $7 million a 
week, mostly in New York City.
  This funding is for needs nationally, and that's very important, but 
I want to mention just a few things that New York needs to do in order 
to protect the 11 million people who work in the city every day:
  The city now has its own Counterterrorism Bureau in the police 
department that costs $200 million to run. Its one thousand officers 
are deployed in New York and around the world.
  It's designing a communications system that will work from high-rise 
buildings to subways, that isn't reliant on a private carrier and has 
built-in redundancy so a failure at one point won't bring the whole 
communications systems to a halt. That will cost $120 million.
  It needs $25 million to add HazMat units because the city isn't 
adequately prepared for a major chemical and/or biological incident.
  It needs bigger and faster fireboats to help put out fires. For all 
of New York City's 575 miles of shoreline, there are 3 small fireboats. 
If, God forbid, there's an attack on a cruise ship, ferry, bridge or 
port, a large fireboat would be needed for rescue and fire control. A 
boat with large capacity is $15 million.
  It also has immense training needs--among the 343 firefighters killed 
on September 11th were many of the department's most highly trained 
officers, who had accrued 4,400 years of collective experience and 
training. To recruit and train new firefighters will cost about $40 
million.
  And that's just New York--unfortunately, cities nationwide are forced 
to carry out similar costly measures to ensure their security. The U.S. 
Conference of Mayors estimates that cities are spending about $70 
million a week, on top of their law enforcement budget, to deal with 
the increased threat level and security costs due to the war.
  I want to thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for working hard to 
address these important needs, and to fund the High Risk Urban Areas 
category at $700 million.
  We still need to do more. As a fire commissioner in my district said, 
referring to the color code alert system, ``we cannot go to color 
orange without seeing some color green.''
  I hope we can work together through conference with the Senate, to 
help all our local areas--urban and rural--become as prepared as 
possible for any terrorist attack.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this legislation. We 
all recognize the need to provide this emergency funding. It is the 
right thing to do for our troops, particularly those who are now in 
harm's way. No Member of Congress would send America's sons and 
daughters to war without providing for them the adequate resources, and 
we will pay any price to protect our troops and the American people. As 
the distinguished ranking member of the committee has said, there are 
no Democrats, there are no Republicans, there are only Americans who 
are involved in this debate.
  However, I do remain concerned that the supplemental package falls 
short in funding pressing needs like homeland security. It is not a 
small venture; it is critical to our local communities. To date, our 
cities and towns have spent nearly $3 billion to protect their 
communities from the threat of terrorism. They cannot rely on State 
governments which are in the midst of the worst fiscal crisis since 
World War II. So at a time when towns like West Haven, Connecticut are 
spending more than $4,000 per week to meet these needs, we have a 
responsibility to offer them a helping hand. They cannot afford to do 
this alone.
  While $4.2 billion for homeland security is an improvement over the 
initial proposal, there remains approximately $10 billion in unmet 
needs to adequately secure our ports, our airports, the police, fire, 
emergency medical personnel on the front lines who need this funding 
for training and for new equipment. We cannot afford to ignore those 
funding gaps.
  Congress owes it to our troops overseas, who are sacrificing so much 
to protect the American people, to pass a bill that not only gives our 
fighting men and women the resources to carry out their mission, but 
one that also complements those efforts by securing our greatest 
vulnerabilities here at home.
  Let us ensure those fighting men and women a safe homeland to return 
to.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I do so to say that on September 11, 2001, America's world changed. 
As we entered the 21st century, everything changed. Our citizens came 
under attack from cowardly terrorists who killed thousands of innocent, 
and I repeat, innocent civilians. That war against terrorism has been 
ongoing very effectively.
  Early this year, I recommended to the Committee on Appropriations a 
reorganizational structure that would create a subcommittee which would 
have the responsibility of dealing specifically with the security of 
our homeland. I asked the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) if he 
would chair that subcommittee. He is one of the outstanding leaders of 
our Committee on Appropriations, and he agreed to do that. They are 
well under way with their work.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Rogers), the chairman of that very important Subcommittee on Homeland 
Security.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time, and I want to compliment the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the full Committee on 
Appropriations who just spoke, for having the foresight and vision and 
leadership to have taken on this very difficult chore of reorganizing 
the House to deal with homeland security. It was his leadership that 
created this new subcommittee that brought together authorities from 
other subcommittees into one place, and it is the right thing to do and 
he took the leadership to make it happen; and the other body then 
followed suit, followed the leadership of the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. We are 
fortunate to have him in the position that he is in.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, this bill has plenty of money for homeland 
security. Could we spend more money? Yes, of course, we could. Are 
there fire departments and police departments and EMT departments out 
there that could use more money? Absolutely. Is there a role for the 
Federal Government in helping them meet their expenses? Yes. What is 
that role? Our role is to assist them to train and to have equipment 
and the like to help protect the Nation from threats. But of course, 
their main responsibility is to protect their hometown and their home 
State and, of course, we cannot and should not pay their entire budget.
  Yet some would have us do that. Some would have us turn the homeland 
security funding mechanisms into another revenue sharing, so that 
States and localities could get huge sums of money without any real 
policy connection to a Federal role, and we must guard against that.
  But in this bill, Mr. Chairman, there is plenty of money for homeland 
security. There is plenty of money backed

[[Page H2727]]

up in previous years that has not yet been spent that localities can 
have access to. But in this bill, there is $2.2 billion that is 
destined for our States and localities when they apply for it, for 
monies to go to their first responders; $2.2 billion to different grant 
programs that they can apply to the Secretary for, and those monies 
will be granted to the States and localities; and 80 percent of the 
money has to go to the local departments and not be funneled off by the 
States. So we think it is a substantial sum of money that will satisfy 
the need for the moment. We may see the need in short order for 
something else, but for the moment we think this is sufficient.
  There is also $1.5 billion for the Secretary to use on the Federal 
level for such things as cargo and portal radiation monitors. These are 
in our Nation's seaports and our land ports to protect us from cargo 
containers that might contain nuclear materials or biological or 
chemical weapons. There is $193 million for just that. There is $100 
million for additional staffing along the northern border with our 
neighbors in Canada. There is $35 million more for container security 
initiatives so that we can keep track of, find and keep track of 
container cargo that might be damaging. There is $235 million in this 
bill to help our local airports modify their premises to accommodate 
these huge x-ray machines that are checking our baggage. There is $85 
million to help reimburse our local law enforcement and State law 
enforcement officers and National Guardsmen who have been providing 
increased security at the airports and other critical transportation 
sites. Most of this money is going to our localities, as it should. 
There is $40 million for the Transportation Security Administration's 
port security efforts, and there is $30 million for nonaviation surface 
transportation security initiatives. There is $185 million for the 
Immigration Service for overtime, and air and marine interdiction and 
detention and removal of people who should not be here.
  Now, do the States and localities need more? Well, of course their 
budgets are tight. But I would point out to my colleagues that we still 
have $291 million of 2002 monies still available. There is $291 million 
yet unspent that we provided in fiscal year 02 that the States and 
localities have not even applied for. There is $566 million that we 
provided for State and local grants in the 03 omnibus bill. All of 
those monies are yet unspent. In the current supplemental, there is 
$2.2 billion that is destined for our localities, and in the 04 fiscal 
year that we are holding hearings on right now, and that bill will be 
passed sometime hopefully this summer, there is another several 
hundreds of millions of dollars.
  All told, that is a combined total of $19 billion-plus over the 02-04 
period, monies that are destined for localities, most of which has not 
even been applied for. So there is plenty of money in the pipeline for 
our States and localities. Sure, we would like to have more money 
perhaps one of these days, but for the moment we have plenty of money 
for our States and localities to apply for if they wish.

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to correct the impression left by the 
previous speaker. The previous speaker said in committee earlier this 
week, and he has touched on it again today, he said that we had almost 
$19 billion in so-called ``unspent'' homeland security funds. The fact 
is, that is a fictional number. I want to show the Members why.
  First, 34 percent of that number is found in a bill which we have not 
yet even enacted. We cannot expect localities to spend money we have 
not yet provided them.
  Second, 10 percent of that so-called $19 billion in unspent money 
represents money in this supplemental which we have not yet passed. We 
cannot count money that we have not yet passed as part of the money 
localities have not yet spent.
  Then, in the omnibus appropriation bill which we just passed in 
February, and we were supposed to pass it before October 1 but we did 
not get around to it until February, 30 percent of that so-called $19 
billion in unspent money is in that omnibus bill.
  It was only 2 weeks ago that the agency invited localities to apply 
for that money. The application time is not even closed yet. When we 
get down to the real, hard facts, only 26 percent of that $19 billion 
represents previously enacted money before February of this year. Of 
that 26 percent, only 4 percent is unobligated, and 22 percent of that 
is obligated.
  Mr. Chairman, so much for the idea that there is ``enough in the 
pipeline.'' There is not nearly enough in the pipeline. Ask the mayors, 
ask the firemen, ask the police chiefs, ask the Coast Guard, ask the 
Department of Defense. They know there is not enough money in the 
pipeline.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha).
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, the defense part of this bill is the 
Congress' version of shock and awe.
  The President the other day complained after only giving this to us 9 
days ago, the largest supplemental in history, or in my 30 years; maybe 
it was larger in World War II, but the largest supplemental I have ever 
known.
  We have had hearings, we have discussed it with the agencies, and we 
did our part in accountability. We want to make sure that these 
agencies are accountable to us, to the people that are elected to 
represent the people in this country.
  It is a bipartisan bill. We sat down and we looked at what was done 
in 1991, we looked at how we handled things in the past, and we have 
tried to make sure that the public is protected and that this money is 
protected and they have accountability.
  I compliment the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) in the work 
that he did; the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young); and the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). This is an accountable bill, but the defense 
portion takes care of the troops. That is what it is all about. We take 
care of the money that was spent already, and we take care of getting 
the troops back home. We hope they will be there as short a period as 
they could possibly be.
  But we have to keep in mind, here we have a bill, $70-some billion in 
supplemental, which is bigger than almost every other bill that we have 
passed. In just a little over a week we have it on the floor, and 
within 2 weeks we will have it passed. So all the grumbling that goes 
on from some of the folks outside the legislature have to realize that 
we have a responsibility, and we have accepted that responsibility. We 
have made darned sure that this bill was something we can be proud of.
  Obviously, I believe that in the end we are going to have to pass 
another supplemental, because of just the way things have gone. I am 
pleased that the troops are doing so well. Unfortunately, we will have 
casualties in any kind of a war like this. But one thing for sure, we 
have done everything we could do humanly possible in the legislative 
process to make sure that they had everything that they could possibly 
have and could get to the field. I am proud of this.
  I would hope we would have large, bipartisan support for this 
supplemental, and it will pass overwhelmingly in as short a time as 
possible.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I just want to point out that under the strong leadership of 
President Bush, we have developed a good coalition to fight this war 
against the regime of Saddam Hussein. We actually have 49 active 
members of the coalition, which is a larger group of countries 
supporting this effort than we had in Desert Storm in 1991.
  So with the leadership of President Bush and the strong support that 
he has had from Prime Minister Blair, the Prime Minister of Spain, the 
Prime Minister of Australia, providing the strongest leadership, we 
have a good, strong coalition.
  The next part of this bill has to do with financial support for some 
members of that coalition. But as I talk about the coalition, there is 
one group that has not had much recognition, and they really deserve 
it. That is Poland. Poland, a new member to NATO, an emergent country 
after the Soviet Union went away, actually was involved in one of the 
very first combat

[[Page H2728]]

missions in this action of the Iraqi freedom. That mission was the oil 
platforms in the gulf. Actually, their combat team took control of and 
are managing and defending those platforms that were sabotaged, that 
were wired for explosives.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Kolbe), the very distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign 
Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs of the Committee on 
Appropriations, to discuss that part of the bill.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  I want to publicly thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for the work they have done to 
get this supplemental bill to the floor as expeditiously as possible, 
in as good shape as it is, and with as little controversy as we have 
seen. There is certainly some disagreement.
  Mr. Chairman, the recommendations of the foreign operations chapter 
of this supplemental total $7.4 billion. That is 2 percent, $184 
million, less than was requested by the President. We have fulfilled 
the administration's funding request for Iraq and for the countries 
supporting the war on terrorism. Let me start by outlining where we do 
concur with the President's request.
  The most urgent requirement in the foreign operations chapter is 
assistance for Iraq's people. One-third of the foreign operations 
chapter is for relief and reconstruction in Iraq. We have provided 
every penny the President requested, plus an additional $40 million. 
Therefore, we are asking the House to approve $2.5 billion for a new 
Iraq relief and reconstruction fund.
  The Department of State, USAID, and the Treasury and Health and Human 
Resources Department could receive direct apportionments from the fund; 
but it does not go to the Department of Defense, which already, I think 
most of us would agree, has its hands full with winning the war and 
providing security in Iraq.
  The immediate focus of the new fund would be provision of clean 
water, food, and care for displaced and vulnerable people. Soon 
thereafter, repairs of the degraded electricity and communications, 
health, and education systems would get under way. We anticipate that 
other donors and international organizations would eventually take over 
much of that work.
  The remaining funding in this chapter is to be provided for countries 
supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom, or the broader war against 
terrorism. The committee has provided all of the funding that was 
requested for Israel, Jordan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Colombia, and the 
rest of the 22 countries that are included in this supplemental.
  While I understand there are many amendments that today will be aimed 
at cutting funds to one or more of these countries, I would like to 
emphasize that the President requested these funds to help the United 
States fight this war in Iraq. He is our Commander in Chief, and I ask 
my colleagues not to remove the tools he needs to win this war. That 
includes funding for our diplomatic efforts as well as our military 
operations.
  The foreign operations chapter includes $9 million for loan 
guarantees to Israel, which are to be issued over the next 3 years. 
This is very similar to the multiyear loan guarantee package that we 
provided to Israel in 1992. These guarantees will bolster the nation's 
credit rating and help Israel implement the critical budget and 
economic reforms. They may also support the renewed peace process after 
the end of the conflict in Iraq.
  Additionally, the foreign operations chapter includes $2.3 billion 
for the economic support fund. This total provides $700 million for 
Jordan. Jordan is particularly dependent on Iraqi oil. There is $300 
million for Egypt which may be used for loan guarantees, not to exceed 
$2 billion, and $127 million is provided for Afghanistan to continue 
efforts to support security and economic development in that Nation. 
Also, $100 million is provided for a new Islamic partnership and 
outreach program.
  Additionally, there is permissive language that allows the President 
to use up to $1 billion for Turkey that could subsidize some $8.5 
billion of loan guarantees. The language of this bill requires the 
Secretary of State to assure Congress that Turkey is cooperating with 
the United States in Operation Iraqi Freedom, including facilitation of 
humanitarian assistance to Iraq, before authorizing the loan 
guarantees.
  There is going to be a lot of discussion about this issue today, so 
let me just say now that Turkey is a longtime ally of the United 
States. It is a key front-line state in the war on terrorism. It is a 
democratic Muslim nation that is part of most of the Middle East and 
southern Europe. Obviously, it is a nation that has been significantly 
impacted by the conflict in Iraq, and it had significant economic 
problems before the conflict.
  As Deputy Secretary Armitage said in testimony before our 
subcommittee, ``It would be the greatest of ironies if we spend all 
this energy, blood, and treasure and were successful in Iraq, only to 
turn around and see a longtime ally, Turkey, go bottom up because of 
economic weakness.''
  The last part of the foreign operations chapter includes $2.1 billion 
for foreign military financing as requested, which improves defense 
capabilities of America's friends and allies. There is $406 million 
that is provided to Jordan to meet border security requirements to 
upgrade air bases, and $170 million is for training and equipping the 
new Afghan army.
  Finally, within this section the FMF account includes $1 billion to 
help Israel strengthen its military and civil defenses.
  There are programs for which we did not provide the full President's 
request. Chief among these is the U.S. Emergency Fund for Complex 
Emergencies. The President asked for $150 million for this new 
emergency fund, but we believe that this request should be considered 
within the context of the fiscal year 2004 appropriations and 
authorization processes.
  As I said in our hearing last week with Deputy Secretary of State 
Armitage, in my view it is not appropriate to use the Iraq supplemental 
as a cover to assert agency jurisdiction or to implement untried 
concepts. The amount not provided for this new emergency fund was 
distributed among the international disaster assistance and emergency 
refugee accounts and the new Iraq relief and reconstruction fund.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a brief summary of the recommendations 
contained within the foreign operations chapter of this supplemental. I 
believe the committee has developed a responsible product, and I ask 
for the support of the House.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
supplemental appropriations bill.
  I want to compliment the chairman and the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Defense, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), 
for giving specificity to this bill in terms of how the money was 
appropriated. I think that was the right decision, defending the 
constitutional prerogatives of the legislative branch.
  We are all proud of what our men and women are doing over in Iraq. 
The gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) and I had a chance to 
visit right before the war started and to see the troops. It was truly 
outstanding.
  We also had a chance to see the great work that is being done in the 
area of intelligence, the Predator, and all of the new capabilities 
that we have given our troops to know where the enemy is.
  The thing that I am most proud of are the tremendous aerial 
capabilities that we have been able to provide with the B-2 bomber, the 
B-1, the B-52, giving smart weapons to them, smart conventional weapons 
which have worked so effectively in degrading the military capabilities 
of the Iraqis. We have seen this in the last few days with the collapse 
of the Medina and Baghdad divisions of the Republican Guard.
  This is an enormously important bill because we have to replenish 
these smart weapons that we have used, because 10,000 smart weapons, 
precision weapons, have been used. We have flown over 21,000 sorties.
  The one thing that is wrong with this bill is we have not done enough 
for homeland security. I completely concur with the gentleman from 
Wisconsin

[[Page H2729]]

(Mr. Obey), who has taken the time to go out and investigate the needs 
of all of these agencies. We are underfunding the security of the 
United States of America here at home by not adequately funding 
homeland security.
  We are doing a great job in Iraq; we are doing a great job in 
Afghanistan, but we are only doing a marginal job here at home in terms 
of protecting our ports, our cities. This is us. This is our families. 
This is our children, our grandchildren. We have to get serious about 
this. This administration has to get serious about this.

                              {time}  1230

  They can not continue to not provide the resources necessary for 
homeland security. Maybe we will not correct it here today, but I 
guarantee you once the American people understand that we are not 
providing the necessary resources, they will make certain that we 
correct it and hopefully in a bipartisan fashion.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), the very distinguished 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Construction of the Committee 
on Appropriations.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this 
Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act which, as has been 
mentioned, passed on a unanimous vote of 59 to 0 in the committee.
  I wanted to extend a strong salute to the gentleman from Florida 
(Chairman Young), to the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey), and also to the staff who worked, with barely a week, on 
the very extensive bill, and they worked to produce a bill that I 
believe deserves our thanks, and this also is one that is good and 
necessary and it protects the House priorities.
  As chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Construction of the 
Committee on Appropriations, providing what our military personnel need 
to protect their lives and ensure their success is my top priority, and 
I believe this bill does that, we have made sure that our military 
personnel have all the tools necessary to ensure success.
  I would like to bring the attention of the House to two important 
provisions in this wartime supplemental bill. The first is the 
additional funding for the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, 
which will receive some 428 million. The bill sets asides 80 million of 
that amount for new inspectors and Border Patrol agents at the northern 
border ports of entry. For those whose districts and States lie on the 
northern border, this funding is critical not only to the safety of our 
constituents but also to the economic safety of our country.
  I am pleased that the administration and the House continue to place 
such an emphasis on filling the needs we have at the northern border.
  I would also like to bring to the House's attention the foreign 
assistance portion of the bill. Foreign assistance is critical to our 
overall foreign policy and the President needs these funds immediately. 
This money is necessary to support the stabilization of Iraq and also 
support our key partners in the war with Iraq and the global war on 
terrorism.
  I also support strongly the Middle East partnership initiative, or 
MEPI. This initiative is critical to our country's policy toward the 
Middle East because it strengthens our policy on economic, political, 
and educational reforms in that part of the world. The administration 
should be commended for initiating and funding this program to work 
with our Arab and Muslim allies on these issues.
  Mr. Chairman, it is clear that our men and women in the Armed Forces, 
along with our allies, will prevail in Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein 
and his regime from power. This supplemental will ensure that they have 
the resources they need to finish that job. I urge all of my colleagues 
to support this bill.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  I rise in strong support of this essential bill for military 
operations, homeland security, and foreign assistance, and I want to 
thank the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) and the ranking 
member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), for their hard work, 
especially on the gentleman from Wisconsin's anniversary of service in 
this Congress today. After three decades of service, we need that 
intelligence, especially now in this critical time in world history.
  I want to focus my remarks particularly on health care for those who 
are putting their lives on the line in America's cause as we stand here 
to provide the resources for them to do that, and that is especially 
those in our Guard and Reserve. Those in the Guard and Reserve are not 
tangential to this operation. In many units they comprise over half of 
these on the ground. I think we have to recognize with the change in 
our force structure that we have to provide the kind of benefits to 
these Guard and Reserve forces that they deserve.
  In this bill, with the leadership of the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Lewis) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Murtha), we have made an improvement in health care coverage for 
our Guard and Reserve forces. After 30 days of active duty call-up, 
they are eligible for TRICARE and their families are eligible for that 
health insurance. So it is an improvement over past situations.
  But as we move forward this year, I would hope we would recognize the 
changes that have occurred in our force structure and provide 365-day-
a-year optional health care coverage for members of the Guard and 
Reserve upon their return home. Because, truly, one-third to one-half 
of members of the Guard and Reserve have no health insurance. They do 
not work for companies that provide health insurance. And for those 
with insurance, the current system is a patchwork. It creates a lot of 
family turbulence as they are called up to active duty and then they 
find their insurance plan switching to another, and so forth. And I can 
tell you when they come home, many of them will fall off their 
benefits. The Veterans Administration has told us they will only care 
for those in active duty from the Guard and Reserve for 2 years after 
they come home, and they will not care for their families.
  So we have a situation here that has a lot of inequities. I would 
just ask the chairman and ask the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Defense of the Committee on Appropriations and the ranking member, that 
as strongly as we support this bill and the improvements for family 
coverage for those in our Guard and Reserve, that when they do return 
home, that in further bills that will come before us in the 
appropriations process and in the authorizing bill for the Department 
of Defense for 2004, that we provide optional TRICARE coverage for 
those in the Guard and Reserve and their families, 365 days a year. Let 
us give them that option. I ask my colleagues to support this important 
measure as essential under current circumstances but far from perfect 
in times of adequate support for our veterans and our homeland 
security.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the very 
distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), chairman 
of the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me time.
  I rise in strong support of this supplemental appropriations to pay 
for Operation Iraqi Freedom and to advance and expand homeland 
security.
  As those of us who have seen war know, freedom is not free. It is 
paid by the sacrifices of those who serve literally on the ground now 
in Iraq and Afghanistan as we speak and debate here on the floor today. 
Their courage is our inspiration. We wish them Godspeed, swift victory, 
and a safe return.
  Now that we are liberating the Iraqi people and better protecting the 
safety of the American people, Congress is acting decisively today to 
ensure that our soldiers, sailors, and airmen and women, that they have 
the resources they need to win the war against the regime of Saddam 
Hussein.
  This bill essentially contains over $62 million to support our 
military, to pay for the troop deployment that they are

[[Page H2730]]

presently in, to replenish essential munitions and smart munitions and 
supplies. And this bill provides critical humanitarian needs on the 
ground in this war-torn nation. And most importantly, this bill also 
recognizes the ongoing war on terror by strengthening America's first 
line of defense, our first responders, our local police and 
firefighters. This supplemental deserves our strong support.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida 
(Chairman Young) for maintaining the Committee on Appropriations' 
constitutional right to appropriate, and for oversight, both to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and to our ranking member, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and our staffs for making sure that 
our constitutional rights as appropriators is preserved under this 
supplemental.
  I rise in strong support of the supplemental, our troops, our men and 
women in the military who are fighting to support this country's and 
around the world's freedom. I rise also to support the Obey amendment 
that was not made in order. We must protect our homeland. We must 
protect our hometowns. And as was mentioned earlier in the chart 
displayed by the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey), this supplemental does not do that yet, and we will have another 
opportunity in the 2004 budget and I hope we will do that.
  I represent probably the largest body of water, of international 
waterway, in this country. The Ambassador Bridge is the busiest 
commercial border in this country, where a billion and a half 
commercial products cross that border every day; 40,000 businesses have 
trucks with hazmat materials on them. Three million people drive those 
trucks. And we must make sure that our homeland is protected, and we 
need this homeland money so that our local communities, our targeted 
communities, can have those dollars we need to protects our citizens, 
not just at the ports but around this country. And this supplemental 
does not do it. And I hope we will do it in our 2004 budget as we move 
forward to do that.
  It is so important that we speak out to let Americans know that as we 
appropriate their tax dollars, we are not only taking care of 
Afghanistan, Iraq, helping with our other foreign allies, but we are 
doing what is necessary so that their children can be safe in their own 
homes, so that the mayors can have the resources they need. It is so 
important.
  And I thank the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) and the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and our staffs for bringing it to 
the floor in such a timely manner. This is a good supplemental at this 
time, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  I rise today to support H.R. 1559, the Emergency Supplemental 
Appropriations for FY2003. As a member of the Appropriations Committee 
and the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, I am proud of the work that 
the committee was able to produce and thank Chairman Young and Ranking 
Member Obey, as well as Chairman Kolbe and Ranking Member Lowey of the 
Foreign Operations Subcommittee on Appropriations for their continued 
leadership.
  Our nation is in a time of unparalleled needs. We are waging a war 
against Saddam Hussein and his regime, we are fighting a war on 
terrorism, while at the same time needing to respond to the needs to 
protect our homeland. This supplemental reflects what is at stake.
  The supplemental includes $62.5 billion for military operations in 
Iraq and the war on terrorism. As an appropriator and a member of the 
United States Congress, let me say that I am committed to doing 
everything I can to make sure that our troops are provided with the 
equipment and resources necessary that will ensure their safety and 
their ability to mount an effective opposition in Iraq, that will 
ensure a successful and hopefully an expeditious end to military 
action. Let me state the utmost respect and admiration I have for our 
men and women in uniform and that my thoughts and prayers go out to all 
of them and their families during their difficult times.
  I am also proud that this bill does not reflect the blanket check 
that the Administration originally sought, that would have created new 
accounts and provided the Administration with programming authority, 
without congressional oversight. I do not believe in writing blanket 
checks. As a Member of Congress and a member of the appropriations 
committee, I feel our role is more important than being just a bank. If 
we are to be successful in our important missions, Congress needs to be 
involved and be assured a say in how, where and to whom our money is 
going. I am happy that Members on both sides of the aisle were able to 
work together to ensure that Members retain congressional oversight 
during these important times.
  While I support this important supplemental, it is not without 
certain reservations. First, this bill does not go far enough in 
providing the sufficient funds needed to protect our homeland. We have 
vital, unmet needs that need to be responded to effectively. We had a 
chance to do right, but the Republicans, unfortunately, have blocked an 
amendment by Congressman Obey that would have provided for $2.5 billion 
in additional funds for our homeland security needs.
  These additional funds would have allowed us to address important 
issues, such as: increasing port security; protecting federal dams and 
waterways from terrorist attacks; protecting important food and medical 
equipment; strengthening the security of nuclear materials at home and 
abroad; and strengthening U.S. laboratories' ability to cope with a 
chemical attack.
  I represent the 13th District of Michigan, which contains the largest 
international commercial border in the nation, with $1.5 billion in 
goods coming into our country every day. The City of Detroit has also 
been named as one of 10 cities likely to be targeted for a terrorist 
attack. Mr. Speaker, our security needs are immense here at home and we 
need to act responsibly. Refusing to allow Members a vote here on the 
House floor to increase funding for homeland security is an act of 
irresponsibility that could have adverse consequences.
  These additional funds would have allowed government agencies to 
respond to the unmet needs that our nation's safety requires. Refusing 
to allow Members a vote here on the House floor to increase funding for 
homeland security is an act of irresponsibility and we are 
shortchanging, plain and simple.
  Mr. Chairman, the American people look to us to do the job of the 
people and to protect and safeguard our homeland. It is time that our 
words and intentions are reflected in the amount of funds that we 
appropriate in the name of homeland security.
  Finally, I also question the amount of funding we are providing for 
reconstruction and humanitarian needs in Iraq--$2.48 billion. With the 
war that presumably could last for weeks, maybe longer, the 
humanitarian needs and reconstruction needs will be great.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the very 
distinguished member of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. Latham).
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, if I could engage the chairman in a 
colloquy.
  Mr. Chairman, as you know, the Senate version of the supplemental 
contains funding for further construction activity for the National 
Animal Disease Center facilities in Ames, Iowa. This initiative is one 
that the Agriculture Department has been planning for some time. After 
9/11 and with the potential threats to our food supply, the urgency of 
this modernization initiative has become more pronounced. In fact, the 
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service was put into the Department 
of Homeland Security because of such threats.
  We are working closely with the USDA budget office to ensure a timely 
and cost-effective construction schedule, enabling a usable first phase 
that includes the biocontainment level 3 lab. This national animal 
disease facility is important for the prevention and diagnostic 
research for animal-related disease threats, when we talk about the 
potential for contamination of our food supply.
  The longer we delay this project, the more expensive it becomes, and 
the further out the full project completion date. Without appropriate 
funding, we risk our construction costs by tens of millions of dollars. 
Will the Chairman agree to work with me on this National Animal Disease 
Center lab modernization initiative so as to complete the full project 
as soon as practical and with minimum cost increase?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LATHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I would like to respond that he is correct in 
his assessment of the situation, and I guarantee him that I would work 
as closely with him as I possibly can to accomplish what he wishes to 
accomplish.

[[Page H2731]]

  The National Animal Disease Center modernization project is an 
important initiative, both for updating these facilities and 
particularly in light of the threats of agro- and bioterrorism. And I 
thank the gentleman for calling this to our attention today.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have just a brief closing 
statement. I reserve my time until the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey) yields back his time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 5\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) has 1\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I salute the gentleman from Florida 
(Chairman Young), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and others 
who put this package together. It funds the war in Iraq, and I strongly 
support that. And it funds some important homeland defense measures, 
and I support that. But I think this bill does not go far enough in 
protecting our homeland security and we have a responsibility to do 
something about that today.
  The Obey amendment would provide $197 million for additional funding 
to protect our U.S. military installations and the families, the 
spouses of our soldiers fighting in Iraq, the children of our troops 
defending our country through their bravery and courage in Iraq. These 
projects only represented, these security upgrades, and I am talking 
about fences around our military installations, guard houses, ways in 
which we can responsibly protect those military bases and the families 
living there.
  These projects in the Obey amendment represent only the top 16 
percent of security needs requested by the Army, the Navy, the Air 
Force, and the Marines. This should be the least we should do. There is 
no reason, other than some artificial number established by the 
administration, why we should not spend just a bit more to make it 
safer for our families, our military families, living within our 
installations.
  We cannot promise everything to our troops over in combat in Iraq. 
But the one thing we have an obligation to do for them is to say, if 
you will put your life on the line for our country in Iraq today, we 
will defend your children and your spouses back at home.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. 
Out of courtesy, let me say I think that the gentleman and the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) are correct. We are going to 
need to spend more money on homeland security, protecting our ports. We 
are going to need to do that soon. But I think this is a great step in 
the right direction and this is sufficient.
  I want to say one thing to the whole House as a member of the 
homeland security subcommittee; be careful, because of what happened at 
TSA, not to overpromise to the first responders, local government, 
communities, that everything called homeland security is going to be 
funded by the Federal Government, because there is no possible way we 
can afford to fund everything that comes under the umbrella of homeland 
security.

                              {time}  1245

  We need to be careful as a Congress. The statute for TSA said they 
could not be more than 45,000 people. We created the Transportation 
Security Agency. Today it is 64,000 people. We have got to be careful 
the government does not go too far. We have got to be careful we do not 
grow these agencies beyond our ability to manage them and to exert our 
oversight. We have got to be careful. We have got to do this quick, but 
we have got to do it right.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Dicks).
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I guarantee my colleague we are being 
careful, careful almost to the extent where I think we are leaving the 
country vulnerable, and I really do disagree.
  I think we have got a responsibility to get a plan in all the States. 
We do not have all 50 States under the National Guard program, to give 
each State a unit in support of local officials in a crisis. We still 
do not have that done. There is a lot of things we need to do, and 
money is important in getting it done.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, there are several Members who wanted to 
speak, but let me yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Chairman, every Member of this House supports whatever is 
necessary to give our troops every dollar and every piece of equipment 
they need to come through this war successfully and unscathed, we hope; 
but there are other duties which this Congress has as well, and I 
believe that we are missing a huge opportunity to strengthen our 
defenses here at home.
  I really believe that the people who died in the Pentagon and in 
Pennsylvania and the Twin Towers in New York were the last casualties 
from the 1991 war against Iraq. It was that war to which bin Laden 
responded, and it was because of his anger at the West for stationing 
troops on Saudi territory that he lashed out in his vicious attack on 
this country.
  I think we have to recognize that there will be future bin Ladens, 
and if we are going to have an ultimately successful result from our 
attack on Iraq, we need to make certain that we do a much better job 
the next 10 years in battening down the hatches against terrorism than 
we did the past 10 years. That is why we wanted to offer this amendment 
today; and in my view, we will pay a price for not being able to 
provide these additional protections.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, outside groups like the Council on Foreign 
Relations, Senator Rudman, Senator Hart, the Brookings Institute, they 
have looked at these numbers, and they have said they are completely 
inadequate to do the job. That is why we are so upset that we have not 
been offered the chance to present an amendment today.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) presented it in the full 
committee. It was a close vote. This is something that worries me 
deeply.
  I think we do a great job in Iraq and in Afghanistan, but we are not 
doing the job we need to do right here at home to protect the United 
States of America; and it is not right, and we have got to do something 
better than that. I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his remarks, and I 
could not say it better myself.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the 
time.
  I want to say, to the Members of the House, today my colleagues are 
exercising one of the most basic requirements of the Constitution, and 
that is to provide for the defense of our Nation. We will appropriate 
the funds today to do just that.
  The situation is serious. Our young Americans are at risk on the 
battlefield. It is important that we provide everything that they need 
to conclude their mission and to replace whatever munitions have been 
used.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just ask all Americans to join in a prayer 
asking God's blessing on all of those men and women who are performing 
that mission today, wherever they might be in this world, and also to 
ask God's blessings on the President of the United States, President 
Bush, the Commander in Chief, as he leads our Nation through these very 
difficult times.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this War Time 
Supplemental, and I urge all of my colleagues to support it.
  The Congress has certain responsibilities in a time of war. We have 
the responsibility to authorize the use of force. We did this in the 
last Congress.
  And we have the responsibility to pay for the war. This supplemental 
is our contribution to the war effort.
  Any one who has any doubts about the justice of our cause should read 
the story of Jessica Lynch, and how a bunch of Saddam's henchmen 
mistreated her. They should read

[[Page H2732]]

the story of how the citizens of Najaf have welcomed our troops as 
liberators from the Hussein regime.
  Our troops need our help. They need our support. They need the 
bullets, the MRE's, the cruise missiles, the jet fuel, which we provide 
in this supplemental.
  There are a lot of arm-chair quarterbacks out there, people who think 
they know better how to conduct this war. In my view, our President and 
his team have been doing a very good job. We are exceeding any 
realistic expectations. And we can be proud of our soldiers, sailors, 
and Marines. They are performing as well as any group of warriors has 
ever performed.
  Mr. Chairman, our cause is just. Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator 
who has based his regime on torture and terror. He has supported 
terrorists and he has tried to produce weapons of mass destruction. His 
days are numbered, and for that, the world should be grateful.
  This supplemental also contains important resources to secure the 
Homeland.
  Our cities and states need help in this battle against terrorists.
  We want to make certain that what happened on September 11, 2001 
never happens again. We want to prevent terrorists before they strike. 
And we want to be prepared if they do succeed in launching an attack.
  We don't know where they will target. This is a big country, and the 
possible targets are as vast as the deranged imagination of an Al Qaeda 
terrorist.
  This bill achieves a critical balance. We don't want to federalize 
every police and civil service function. But we do want to help these 
localities prepare. And that is what this bill does.
  Finally, let me say a word about the airline provisions of this bill.
  Some say we have done too much for the airlines industry. Some say we 
have done way too little. I think we have the right balance to help 
airlines deal with the increased security costs brought on by war and 
terrorism.
  This is a simple proposal. It will help the airlines immediately, it 
will help them fairly, and it will help them effectively.
  Let me conclude by saying that I urge my colleagues to support this 
important war supplemental. The American people want us to support our 
troops and defend the Homeland in this time of war.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of 
this wartime supplemental appropriations bill which provides needed 
resources for our troops who are fighting so valiantly in Iraq. With a 
price tag of almost $78 billion, this bill represents the largest 
supplemental bill ever considered by Congress.
  This bill strikes the necessary balance between providing the Defense 
Department the flexibility to get resources to our troops in a timely 
manner and retaining Congress' constitutional authority over the 
nation's spending.
  While this bill addresses our military needs abroad during this time 
of war, we must remember that we're also fighting a war against 
terrorism on our homefront. To do so effectively requires significant 
resources for the security of our ports and borders, our 
counterterrorism initiatives and our first responders on the front 
lines of this war. Yet only 5 percent of the funding in this bill is 
dedicated to homeland security.
  Mr. Chairman, throughout this country, our states and localities are 
strapped for cash. They simply do not have the resources to take on the 
financial burden of homeland security. Without Federal help, there is 
no way we can implement a coordinated and comprehensive effort to 
defend our cities and states from attack.
  Without doubt, the domestic and military needs of this country are 
great. And in times of need, the American people have a proud history 
of banding together and sacrificing for the betterment of the nation as 
a whole
  It is in this tradition of shared sacrifice that we must put the 
needs of the country ahead of any personal desire for a tax cut. Our 
increasing budget deficits alone show that we can't afford it. And 
there's little evidence to suggest that this second tax cut would do 
any better than the first at stimulating the economy.
  As we consider this supplemental bill and other budget and tax 
measures, I urge my colleagues to remember the true needs of this 
nation by providing adequate funding for homeland security and 
abandoning this fiscally irresponsible tax cut proposal that will 
inevitably be paid for on the backs of future generations.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, the issue of homeland security 
affects us all, and the need for adequate homeland security funding 
must be a priority for Congress.
  Perhaps no set of installations is more important to the economic 
well-being of the nation than our nation's port--and perhaps none is 
more vulnerable to the threat of a terrorist attack.
  In California, the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach comprise the 
largest port complex in the nation, handling over 6 million cargo 
containers each year--over 15,000 each and every day. These containers 
represented more than $100 billion in goods entering the U.S. economy 
last year.
  The threat of a terrorist device entering the port through one of 
those 6 million containers is very real, and the impact of such an 
attack at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach would have far-
reaching and devastating effects on our nation's economy.
  For example, during the 10-day lock-out in July of last year by the 
pacific Maritime Association, the nation's economy lost an estimated $1 
billion per day because container cargo was not moved. Container ships 
were anchored outside the breakwater at the port for several days, 
creating a backlog in ships waiting to berth and unload. Because of 
just 10 days of inactivity, container throughputs for the year were 
down nearly 10%.
  The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach move cargo that is destined 
for businesses across the united States that have just-in-time 
inventory systems. These businesses, as far away as Michigan and Ohio, 
were affected by the port lock-out and slow-down. Some manufacturing 
lines cut back and furloughed employees during that port slow-down; 
some were forced to shut down.
  A catastrophic terrorist event that shuts down the port for a 
significant period of time would have a disastrous impact on the U.S. 
economy.
  The City of Los Angeles has responded aggressively to this threat. 
Following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, Los Angeles 
Mayor James Hahn assembled an 18-member Seaport Security Task Force 
that included the U.S. Coast Guard and federal, state and local law 
enforcement officials, to devise a plan to assess the port's 
vulnerabilities and upgrade the port's security in case of terrorist 
attack.
  Since that time, the port has invested more than $2 million to 
upgrade its security infrastructure, train additional port police, and 
acquire the necessary equipment to provide the required security at the 
container and cruise ship terminals and berths.
  However, the port's importance is clearly national in scope, and the 
federal government should contribute its fair share for the increased 
security needs at the port.
  How great is the port's need?
  During the first round of Seaport Security Grants, the Port of Los 
Angeles identified $48 million in priority security improvements. Chief 
among these was the construction of a high-risk container inspection 
facility that would permit immediate inspections to take place on-site. 
Under current procedures, questionable containers must be transported 
along city streets and regional highways to the current inspection site 
located 15 miles north of the port.
  Unfortunately, the Port of Los Angeles was awarded only $750,000 in 
federal money towards construction of a container inspection facility. 
The port has applied for $11 million under the second round of Seaport 
Security Grants. The security needs of the Port of Los Angeles and 
ports across the nation remain great. Until we make these needed 
security improvements, the Post of Los Angeles will remain just as 
vulnerable to a terrorist attack as on September 11. If a terrorist 
attack were to take place in Los Angeles or in any other of the 
nation's ports, we would be justly criticized for not having moved more 
quickly to provide the resources necessary.
  I am pleased that H.R. 1559, the Emergency Supplemental 
Appropriations bill, contains funding for port security. But I would 
contend that the $35 million for container security provided in the 
bill is inadequate for the nation's needs in light of the fact that the 
Port of Los Angeles alone has identified $48 million of necessary 
security improvements, and the Coast Guard has indicated that $1 
billion is probably a more realistic figure for what would be required 
to provide adequate port security across the U.S. this year.
  As a member of the Appropriations Committee that considered this bill 
earlier in the week, I supported the Obey Amendment to add $250 million 
in port security funding. Had Congressman Obey been permitted to offer 
his amendment today, I would have voted for it on the House floor.
  Mr. Chairman, I will support this bill today to provide our military 
leaders and our servicemen and women the tools they need to complete 
the job that has been given to them. Our military is strong, we support 
our military, and our military will prevail in the war in Iraq.
  While making sure our forces are secure abroad, we must also strive 
to protect our people at home. The funding in this bill for port 
security is inadequate for the demonstrated need, and I will continue 
to fight with my Democratic colleagues for the necessary resources so 
our people, our commerce, and our economy will continue to be strong, 
too.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I will vote for this defense 
supplemental without hesitation, but with regrets and concerns.

[[Page H2733]]

  To begin with, I regret that we have to be voting on this bill now.
  I thought the President's decision to begin military action in Iraq 
was premature. I thought it would have been better to allow more time 
for other measures, including coercive inspections, to accomplish the 
goal of disarming Saddam Hussein. However, Congress--by adopting the 
resolution authorizing the use of force--left it to the President to 
decide if and when military action would begin.
  That is another source of regret. I opposed the resolution precisely 
because I thought it gave the President too much discretion about the 
timing of that action. But the resolution was enacted. And, now that 
military action has begun, it is necessary for Congress to consider the 
Administration's requests for funds to pay for it and for related 
purposes.
  Our troops are in the field, actively engaged in operations that 
Congress has authorized. Under those circumstances, I cannot make them 
the victims of my regrets by failing to support this bill to provide 
them what they need to carry out those operations.
  So much for my regrets. I also have strong concerns about some things 
that are in this bill and some things that were left out.
  The bill does have many good features. For example, I am glad that 
the Appropriations Committee placed some important limits on the 
President's request before bringing the bill to the floor.
  Among other things, the bill bars the Pentagon from controlling the 
over $2.5 billion it provides for humanitarian relief and 
reconstruction and instead designates the money for the State 
Department and other non-military agencies. The bill also reduces the 
President's request for no-strings-attached Pentagon funding from $63 
billion to $25 billion by putting the rest of the funds into 
appropriate spending categories. Though the $25 billion still amounts 
to a signed check with the payee line left blank, it's an improvement 
over the request. Regardless of the Administration's preference, it 
remains the right and duty of Congress--not the White House--to decide 
how much money is allocated for what purpose.
  On the other hand, I am concerned that the bill does not do enough in 
other areas. In particular, I voted against ordering the previous 
question on the rule, and against the rule itself, because it did not 
allow a straightforward vote on the Obey amendment to add more funding 
for homeland security.
  The bill does include $4.25 billion for this purpose--slightly less 
than the President's request--but I think that is not nearly enough to 
meet the country's needs. Although many of our Republican colleagues 
would have you believe that states and localities are sitting on 
millions of dollars of unspent funds for first responders, my 
conversations with Colorado police chiefs, fire departments, and other 
first responders have convinced me that is not the case. Every time the 
Department of Homeland Security changes the official color-coded threat 
level, Colorado and the other States and localities are required to 
spend more money that they don't have. We are asking them to provide 
top-dollar security for our nation on a dime's worth of resources.
  So, I am very concerned that the Republican leadership has denied us 
the opportunity to vote to correct the bill's deficiencies. The Obey 
amendment would have provided $2.5 billion in additional funds for our 
local first responders, for port security grants, for protection for 
our waterways and nuclear plants, for our National Guard and Reserves 
to provide assistance with chemical and biological weapons attacks, and 
for other homeland security needs.
  I do not know how many of our colleagues would have joined me in 
supporting this amendment--and I will never know, because the 
Republican rule didn't permit a vote--but I know Colorado's first 
responders would have wanted it to be a majority. That's because 
homeland security is for Americans--it is not just for Democrats or 
Republicans. At a time when states and cities are suffering 
economically and crying out for federal assistance to meet their new 
and stepped-up homeland security obligations, I believe we must do more 
than we've done in this bill.
  Nonetheless, as I said, I am voting for this bill without hesitation 
because its prompt passage is needed--not just to support our men and 
women in uniform as they fight, but also to lay the foundation for the 
harder mission of winning the peace after they have won the war.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, this $77.9 billion supplemental 
appropriations bill is the largest ever considered by Congress. Yet, it 
still fails to address our most critical need of ``hometown'' security. 
The lack of adequate funding to protect our hometowns exposes the 
United States to greater risks than those posed by Saddam Hussein.
  This bill provides less than half of an estimated $9 billion need for 
the safety of our ports, transportation systems, water supplies, and 
first responders. It even falls short of what the administration 
requested for homeland security. Nationwide, cities are spending $70 
million a week to protect and prepare themselves from potential attacks 
at a time when state and local governments are already crippled by 
economic conditions.
  In the last two weeks since the war in Iraq began, my hometown of 
Portland, Oregon has spent nearly a million dollars to respond to the 
heightened security alert. As the State of Oregon struggles to keep 
schools open and to provide medical care for the neediest people, it is 
incomprehensible that we are not fulfilling our responsibility at the 
federal level to help fund critical homeland security needs.
  A Democratic amendment that would have added $5.5 billion for 
homeland security and $300 million specifically for metropolitan 
security needs, would have provided Oregon an additional $4 million to 
secure, protect, and prepare our ports, our hospitals, and our first 
responders against potential terrorist attacks. Appallingly, the 
Republican leadership blocked this and other Democratic amendments from 
even being voted on.
  There is no reason to rush this resolution through to fund the war on 
Iraq. It would appear to the casual observer as an attempt to hide the 
true cost of the war by breaking it up into pieces. There are already 
discussions that another supplemental will be necessary before the end 
of the year. The 2004 budget resolution, which was just debated two 
weeks ago, failed completely to deal with the expended costs of this 
war.
  I did not support this resolution, because it is not needed at this 
moment, the process by which it was brought to the floor is 
unreasonable, and it fails to fund protection for our communities.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, at a time of war Congress has no more 
important duty than to make sure that our military force have all the 
resources they need. However, Congress also has a duty to not use the 
war as cover for unnecessary and unconstitutional spending. This is 
especially true when war coincides with a period of economic downturn 
and growing federal deficits. Unfortunately, Congress today is derelict 
in its duty to the United States taxpayer. Instead of simply ensuring 
that our military has the necessary resources to accomplish its mission 
in Iraq, a mission which may very well be over before this money 
reaches the Pentagon, Congress has loaded this bill up with 
unconstitutional wasteful foreign aid and corporate welfare spending.
  For example, this bill provides a hidden subsidy to vaccine 
manufacturers by transferring liability for injuries caused by the 
smallpox vaccine from the companies to the United States Taxpayer. It 
also provides $3.2 billion dollars for yet another government bailout 
of the airline industry, as well as a hidden subsidy to the airlines in 
the form of $235 million of taxpayer money to pay for costs associated 
with enhanced baggage screening. Mr. Speaker, there is no more 
constitutional reason for the taxpayer to protect what is, after all, 
the airlines' private property, than there is for the taxpayer to 
subsidize security costs at shopping malls or factories. Furthermore, 
the airlines could do a more efficient and effective job at providing 
security if they were freed from government rules and regulations. I 
remind my colleagues that it was government bureaucrats who disarmed 
airline pilots, thus leaving the pilots of the planes used in the 
September 11 attacks defenseless against the terrorists. I would also 
remind my colleagues that anti-gun fanatics in the federal bureaucracy 
continue to prevent pilots from carrying firearms.
  Although generous to certain corporate interests, this bill actually 
contains less money than the administration requested for homeland 
security. One area of homeland security that Congress did not underfund 
is its own security; this bill provides the full amount requested to 
ensure the security of the Congress. Still, one could reasonably 
conclude from reading this bill that the security of Turkey, Pakistan, 
and Jordan are more important to Congress that the security of Houston, 
New York and other major American cities.
  On foreign spending, this bill actually provides one billion dollars 
in foreign aid to Turkey--even though that country refused the U.S. 
request for cooperation in the war on Iraq. One billion dollars to a 
country that thumbed its nose at an American request for assistance? 
How is this possibly an appropriate expenditure of taxpayer money? 
Additionally, this ``war supplemental'' has provided cover for more of 
the same unconstitutional foreign aid spending. It provides 2.5 billion 
dollar for Iraqi reconstruction when Americans have been told 
repeatedly that reconstruction costs will be funded out of Iraqi oil 
revenues. It also ensures that the American taxpayer will subsidize 
large corporations that wish to do business in Iraq by making 
transactions with Iraq eligible for support from the Export-Import 
Bank. It sends grants and loans in excess of 11.5 billion dollars to 
Jordan, Israel, Egypt, and Afghanistan--above and beyond the money we 
already send them each year.
  Incredibly, this bill sends 175 million dollars in aid to Pakistan 
even though it was reported

[[Page H2734]]

in April that Pakistan purchased ballistic missiles from North Korea! 
Furthermore, it is difficult to understand how $100 million to 
Colombia, $50 million to the Gaza Strip, and $200 million for ``Muslim 
outreach'' has anything to do with the current war in Iraq. Also, this 
bill spends $31 million to get the federal government into the 
television broadcasting business in the Middle East. With private 
American news networks like CNN available virtually everywhere on the 
globe, is there any justification to spend taxpayer money to create and 
fund competing state-run networks? Aren't state-run news networks one 
of the features of closed societies we have been most critical of in 
the past?
  In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1559 endangers America's economy by 
engaging in pork-barrel spending and corporate welfare unrelated to 
national security. This bill endangers America's economic health by 
adding almost $80 billion to the already bloated federal deficit. 
Additions to the deficit endanger our financial independence because 
America will have to increase its reliance on foreign borrowers to 
finance our debt. H.R. 1599 also shortchanges Americans by giving lower 
priority to funding homeland security than to funding unreliable allies 
and projects, like the Middle Eastern TV Network, that will do nothing 
to enhance America's security. Therefore, I must oppose this bill.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill, knowing full 
well that it will pass today.
  Like many of you here in Congress and like millions of Americans 
across the country, my hopes and prayers go out to our troops. I want 
to see them safe at home as soon as possible. I deeply admire their 
courage, mourn their losses, and honor their sacrifice and commitment.
  I cannot, however, endorse the decision to send our troops into 
harm's way by launching a first strike against Iraq. I fear we are 
witnessing the first chapter of the Doctrine of Preemption. This 
Doctrine of Preemption is taking us more deeply into uncharted waters. 
No one knows where this will end.
  There is also no end in sight to the costs of war and to the price we 
will pay here at home in the America we will not be able to build. Dr. 
Martin Luther King, Jr. taught us, ``In the wasteland of war, the 
expenditure of resources knows no restraints.''
  Thus, I cannot support the $75 billion down payment on this war that 
makes up the bulk of this supplemental while under-funding homeland 
security by $4 billion. With those facts, in mind, I must oppose this 
appropriations bill.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I am aware that many of my constituents 
hope that I vote ``no'' on this supplemental appropriations bill. Many 
of my constituents are passionate in their opposition to the Iraqi 
invasion. Last fall, I voted against the resolution that authorized the 
invasion because I believed the invasion was a mistake for our country. 
But that fact is this: The resolution passed the Congress. Whether or 
not one agreed with the actions that led up to today, America's troops 
are now in the field and the bills need to be paid. Accordingly, I will 
vote ``aye'' on this bill.
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, two years ago, I don't think 
there would be any doubt that most Americans would have felt a sense of 
safety, but in today's world that is not the case. Indeed, in today's 
world of opting to spend an estimated $9 million on security for the 
Super Bowl, Americans are looking for a greater feeling of safety and 
security in their daily lives, whether in their homes, on the street, 
or in their workplace.
  While tensions abroad are troubling, we can't overlook or underfund 
our own homeland security.
  There is a bipartisan consensus that protecting the security of our 
communities requires that we adequately equip and train our first 
responders, who form our first line of response to any terrorist 
attacks. These first responders need additional funding to match 
mandates and goals, particularly to address the need for new 
communications equipment. Fire fighters need to be able to communicate 
with police officers, and police officers need to be able to 
communicate with emergency medical personnel in order to effectively 
protect our communities.
  Recently, a group of over 80 police, fire and emergency response 
agencies in Oregon came to me requesting funding for a regional 
communications system that would allow all the agencies to communicate 
with one another. This proposal cost $59 million and would greatly 
improve the regional response capability of these first responders. 
Increasing money for first responders may allow them to build their 
communications system.
  We are in the midst of an extraordinary time, when we and our allies 
are pursuing a war on terrorism that extends across the globe. Our 
resources, troops, intelligence agents, and surveillance equipment are 
currently spread across the world, from Yemen to the Philippines, from 
Afghanistan to Colombia.
  In our own backyards, at the borders with Canada and Mexico, in the 
hundreds of seaports on our coast, indeed even in our own communities, 
I will fight to ensure that we have the proper resources or 
organization to prevent terrorist attacks.
  In the midst of this lack of resources and organization, we hear 
constant reports that new attacks on American soil are being planned. 
Members of President Bush's administration have publicly stated that 
they believe another attack on American soil is nearly inevitable.
  During a time when our nation seems its most vulnerable and under its 
greatest threat, we have the responsibility to ensure that everyday 
Americans are safe and secure. We must protect and defend our cities at 
home during these troubling times by investing in our new Department of 
Homeland Security, by providing local law enforcement and first 
responders with adequate resources to prevent or respond to any future 
attacks.
  I am disappointed that this legislation includes less spending on 
homeland security than was requested by the President, and I am 
disappointed that the rule was structured in such a way to prevent 
amendments increasing homeland security spending.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the McGovern 
Amendment. The war on drugs in Colombia should not receive funding in 
an emergency supplemental spending bill. Additional funding for 
Colombia should properly be considered as part of our regular 
appropriations process for fiscal year 2004. Muddling the important 
issues at stake in Colombia with an amorphous definition of terrorism 
and then burying the funding in a bill that is on a fast-track is not 
the way we should proceed.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  The balance of my remarks relate to the underlying issue of war in 
Iraq and this Supplemental Appropriations bill.
  I am one of the 133 Members of this body who cast a ``no'' vote on 
the resolution authorizing use of force against Iraq last October. I 
believed then as I do today that alternative means exist to deal with 
the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. I believed then as I do today that 
the world will not be a safer place because of this war. I believed 
then as I do today that the new Bush doctrine of preemptive military 
action threatens to further destabilize our world.
  For those of us who voted against war in Iraq, this is an incredibly 
painful and difficult time. Many of our constituents are feeling angry 
and frustrated, powerless and hurt, worried and disappointed. We've 
been searching for ways to take meaningful steps toward peace, having 
failed to convince this President, a majority of this Congress and a 
majority of the American people that war in Iraq is not the right path. 
When I refer to the phrase ``meaningful steps toward peace,'' I have 
three very specific goals in mind. First, I deeply believe that the 
Bush policy of preemptive war must end, here and now.
  Secondly, I believe that we must take immediate responsibility for 
rebuilding strong trusting relationships with the international 
community because too many of these relationships have been strained 
and damaged when this administration turned away from pursuit of a 
diplomatic resolution to this problem. Lastly, I believe that we must 
take immediate responsibility for rebuilding Iraq.
  Throughout our history, the United States has been viewed by the 
world as a beacon of freedom and a pillar of democratic principle. 
While never perfect, we were admired for our openness, our charity and 
our commitment to liberty. Weary of war, we created, supported and 
enhanced international institutions and agreements to encourage 
peaceful solutions to world disagreements and conflicts. The United 
States was seen as a constructive force in the world. Right now we are 
seen by many as a destructive force in the world.
  I stand here today to urge this President and this Congress to return 
to our tradition of constructiveness rather than destructiveness. We 
should be builders rather than destroyers.
  A vote against this bill would do nothing to stop this war. If a 
``no'' vote would stop the war, that is how I would vote. Rather, I 
urge Members and citizens to join me in the effort to become 
constructive as a nation, once again, to become builders, once again. 
This measure does contain resources to begin the rebuilding process. In 
light of these considerations, I expect to cast a vote to pass this 
bill.
  We must rebuild and restore our relationships with our allies and our 
friends around the world. Our long term security rests in working 
cooperatively in a world community with international standards and 
laws, seeking peaceful solutions to the many challenges we face.
  We must also rebuild Iraq. We can't back away now. American 
compassion, generosity and respect in Iraq are the essential first step 
in restoring trust between the United States and the Islamic world.
  I said that we must construct and we must build rather than destroy. 
But, I make one exception to that statement. We must destroy

[[Page H2735]]

the doctrine of preemption. In fact the policy of preemption must be 
buried deep beneath the Iraqi desert, never to appear again. It is 
illegal and wrong and it harms American security far more than it 
helps. Beyond preemption lies the American way--democracy, diplomacy, 
cooperation and compassion.
  Mr. Chairman, peace is not simply the absence of war. The seeds of 
peace must be planted and nurtured. A peaceful world must be tended. It 
is my hope that it is the rebirth of our true vision of America, in 
which we reject the ``got-it-alone'' mentality, reject preemption and 
endorse the hard work of building and growing a peaceful world.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this 
Supplemental Appropriations bill. I must admit that I opposed the war 
that this bill is funding. This war is the result of failed diplomacy. 
This war cost us valuable allies, and now it is costing us our lives. 
It will also cost us--the American taxpayer--billions of dollars.
  In the last Persian Gulf war, we relied on our allies. The war cost 
the U.S. about $61 billion, but almost all of it was reimbursed. The 
amount of money in this one Supplemental--larger than the entire cost 
of the first Persian Gulf war--is the largest Supplemental in history. 
At about $75 billion, this Supplemental is larger than the entire 
budget of the State of California.
  My opposition to the war, however, is not the principal reason for my 
opposition to this bill today. I oppose the bill for two reasons: 
First, because it leaves our first responders at home--our ``troops'' 
on the homefront--without complete protection. Second, I don't believe 
this bill addresses another emergency--repairing U.S. relations with 
the international community and its representative organizations, such 
as the United Nations and NATO.
  The Emergency that this bill supposedly addresses is American 
security. While we must remain concerned with the impact of 
international affairs on American security, first and foremost, 
American security begins at home. Our attention as Congress, must 
therefore be focused on protecting the territory of the United States 
from attack. That was the danger we faced on September 11th. That is 
the apparent reason that we intervened in Afghanistan and now Iraq, and 
in other countries across the globe.
  This bill inadequately addresses the security needs of the United 
States. We are spending $62.5 billion for military activities in this 
bill, and only $4.25 billion for ``Homeland Security''. Our troops 
overseas should be secure in the knowledge that their loved ones here 
are safe from any form of domestic terrorism.
  An amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin would have 
addressed some of these needs, but the Republican leadership did not 
allow the amendment to be debated on the floor of the House.
  This bill also purportedly addresses the future of rebuilding Iraq. 
It provides $2.4 billion for ``Relief and Reconstruction''. The sum is 
woefully inadequate to meet the needs of the Iraqi people. We, the 
United States, are in the process of bombing their country, destroying 
their infrastructure. And when the war is over (which I hope will be 
soon), we will ask them to rebuild and form their country into a 
democracy. This bill provides more money for another airline bail-out 
than it does to provide the foundations of an Iraqi democracy.
  Moreover, the money for reconstruction in Iraq--which is supposed to 
cover a huge range of activities including health, education, 
transportation, rule of law, agriculture--comes with no apparent 
structure or oversight. The post-conflict reconstruction of Iraq can 
provide the U.S. an opportunity to rebuild its frayed alliances with 
the international community, an opportunity to work with the United 
Nations and to strengthen its credibility, credibility that was 
undermined by the unilateralist approach the Administration has taken 
previously towards Iraq. This bill shows no vision of an international 
civilian administration in post-conflict Iraq, one that will be crucial 
to winning the peace. This task, as has been demonstrated in 
Afghanistan, could be far more difficult than a successful war 
campaign.
  My vote today is in no way a vote against American troops in the 
field. Their safety is foremost in my thoughts; I hope that they will 
return quickly to safety of their homes. My vote, rather, is a vote 
against the priorities of this Administration and the Republican 
majority, priorities that place an offensive war abroad above defensive 
protection at home. Priorities to place short-term, unilateral quick-
fixes over international solutions which are sustainable in the longer-
term.
  This vote is about current U.S. foreign policy and about what 
direction we are heading in. I think that we are supporting the wrong 
priorities and are heading in the wrong direction, and that is why I am 
voting against this bill.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, the bill before us provides the additional 
funds required for the ongoing war in Iraq. $62 billion will help 
provide the supplies, munitions, weapons, intelligence, and logistics 
that are critical to those in combat at this time. I support our brave 
troops, and urge my colleagues to do the same. Congress must ensure 
that our fighting men and women are provided with every resource they 
need to accomplish their mission and return home quickly and safely.
  As I cast my vote in favor of this measure, however, I note that 
there is $1 billion in foreign aid for Turkey. The Administration 
argues that we need to offer this aid because of the depressed economy 
there. I voted to strike this aid, since it makes no sense to provide a 
billion dollars to a nation that did not even allow our troops access 
to their soil for this operation. Unfortunately, the amendment was 
defeated.
  Further, as I support this measure, I would hope that Congress is 
equally generous when addressing the challenges that we face right here 
on the home front. For instance, our economy is in worse shape than 
Turkey's, having steadily declined for the last two years and with job 
losses in my district and across the nation continuing to mount. But 
somehow we have no funds to provide extended unemployment benefits for 
the 1 million in our country who have been out of work for more than 39 
weeks.
  Additionally, seniors need a prescription drug benefit for Medicare, 
and families have contacted me to ask what can be done about 
skyrocketing healthcare costs. We also must ensure that federal 
commitments in education and healthcare are met, and that our homeland 
security is strong and our first responders equipped and prepared. Here 
at home we have needs that also could use this additional funding that 
we have provided to other nations through this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I support our men and women in uniform and pray for 
their quick and safe return. We must give them everything they need to 
accomplish their mission. I just hope that later on, this Congress will 
remember what it gave for Turkey's economy when it comes time to vote 
on providing extended benefits to the many still unemployed right here 
at home. With this in mind, I urge my colleagues to support passage of 
this Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations bill.
  Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1559, the 
fiscal year 2003 Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act. I 
applaud the swift bipartisan effort that has brought this vital 
legislation to the floor so quickly. I also congratulate my colleagues 
on the Appropriations Committee for resisting the Administration's 
effort to wrest from the Congress its constitutional prerogative of 
overseeing all monies drawn from the Treasury. Our founding fathers 
rightly understood the need for accountability among the branches of 
government--even in times of crisis.
  The funding provided in this bill is critical to ensuring that the 
brave men and women in our armed services have the tools and resources 
necessary to accomplish a swift, sure and decisive victory over tyranny 
and oppression in Iraq. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues 
to vote in favor of H.R. 1559 and for the full and continuing support 
for our troops deployed in the war on terrorism.
  The best of America, and thousands of the best from my home state of 
Texas--our men and women in uniform, active duty and reserve components 
alike--are now in harm's way in Iraq, on the high seas and at the far 
corners of the world. These brave Americans now risk their lives to 
confront the oppression, tyranny, and terrorism that plague and 
threaten the world and our nation.
  One of America's finest tradition is our ability to draw together in 
support of our men and women in uniform when they are actively engaged 
in the defense of our freedom. American forces in the Iraqi theater 
fight not for narrow interests or for reasons of national pride. 
American soldiers, sailors, aviators, and Marines are engaged in combat 
today so that our people do not live in a world in which tyrants armed 
with weapons of horror hold free nations hostage, and in doing so 
threaten freedom itself.
  Accordingly, it is our solemn obligation to stand solidly behind our 
soldiers, sailors, aviators and Marines and to give our men and women 
in uniform the full and complete support they must have in order to 
prevail in this war and come safely home. This wartime supplemental 
appropriations bill is an appropriate first step in fulfilling our 
obligation.
  However, Mr. Speaker, like many of my colleagues, I am concerned that 
this bill is incomplete. It is merely a down payment on the war in Iraq 
and, more broadly, on the war on terrorism at home and abroad.
  The noble effort currently underway to liberate Iraq from a 
tyrannical regime is but one front in the global war on terrorism.
  The Department of Homeland Security has elevated the national threat 
level to ``High'' because of its belief that there is a high risk of 
terrorist attacks against U.S. targets as a consequence of the war in 
Iraq. Despite this level of alarm, the bill being considered by the 
House today does not provide adequate resources to secure our own 
communities

[[Page H2736]]

against the very real threats the government has told us we face.
  H.R. 1559 does not provide the tools and resources needed by the 
brave men and women on the front lines in the event of a terrorist 
attack against our local cities and towns. We should ensure that state 
and local civil defense teams are established and equipped to meet the 
needs of our communities in the event of such a tragedy. We should 
provide all the necessary resources so that the firefighters, police 
officers and emergency medical personnel can effectively respond to any 
and all threats to the peace and security of our citizens.
  H.R. 1559 does not provide sufficient resources to secure our 
nation's ports and infrastructure.
  In virtually every one of our towns across this country is a water-
treatment facility that ensures that each of us has safe drinking 
water. Virtually all of these water-treatment facilities are vulnerable 
to terrorist attack and so our most basic necessity of life--water--is 
not adequately secured. Despite this, the Administration did not seek 
and this bill does not provide one penny to better secure our water-
treatment facilities.
  In addition, our nation's ports are vulnerable, as are dams, bridges 
and tunnels throughout the country. Even so, this bill does not provide 
the resources needed to secure our country's critical infrastructure.
  In a time during which the threat of the horrific use of weapons of 
mass destruction is very real, we have to step up and ensure that our 
state and local governments have the tools they need to respond 
effectively to chemical or biological terrorism. We must ensure that 
our front-line defenders have adequate training and are properly 
equipped to secure the safety of our friends and family at home.
  While H.R. 1559 is a thoughtful, measured response to the needs of 
our armed forces on the field in Iraq, it does not provide tools that 
are critical to adequately secure our local communities--the places 
where Americans live and work, where we raise our children and care for 
our families.
  I support H.R. 1559 as a first step, but I believe that we have a 
solemn obligation to do more. The preamble to the Constitution spells 
it out as well as one could: We are obliged to ``insure domestic 
Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general 
Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our 
Posterity.''
  Mr. Speaker, I will vote for H.R. 1559 in full and complete support 
of the brave men and women of our armed services in harm's way so far 
from home. But, Mr. Speaker, I also urge my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle to do more--to vote to secure our cities and communities 
against the very real threats that they face every day during these 
uncertain times. Mr. Speaker, we must ``secure the Blessings of 
Liberty'' here at home with the same vigor and with the same measure of 
devotion that we have shown to bringing freedom to the people of Iraq.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 
1559, the Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act for Fiscal 
Year 2003, While I believe that it is a tragedy that the Republican 
Leadership in the House did not allow the Democrats to offer an 
amendment to include funding to support critical first responder and 
other homeland security needs, we have no choice to vote for this bill 
to support our brave men and women now engaged in hostilities in Iraq. 
My support for this bill does not mean, however, that I will not 
continue my fight with my like-minded colleagues to provide additional 
funds to enhance the security of Americans at home. We urgently need to 
address vulnerabilitites in our ports, borders, transportation system 
and other critical infrastructure, and we need to augment our first-
response by way of training, equipment and communality of 
communications, in reinforce counter-terrorism and other capabilities.
  As Ranking Member on the Committee on House Administration, I am 
pleased that this bill includes funds to address the needs of several 
Legislative Branch agencies under my Committee's jurisdiction. There is 
over $37 million for general expenses of the Capitol Police, mostly for 
additional equipment to improve the physical security of the Capitol, 
the temple of our democracy which thousands of American and foreign 
tourists visit each year. The bill provides $63.9 million for 
acquisition of a larger headquarters for the Capitol Police. Our police 
force has grown considerably since the 1998 shootings and 9/11, and 
there is a need for more space to consolidate functions and improve 
operational efficiency.
  Also under our jurisdiction, the bill funds security-related work in 
the Library of Congress and the Congressional Research Service. The 
bill funds the newly constituted House Select Committee on Homeland 
Security, which will, under the able leadership of the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Cox] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Turner], oversee 
our newest department and its enormous job of making our people as safe 
as we can be made from terrorism.
  I am particularly pleased that this bill includes $110,000 to satisfy 
an operating shortfall at the Office of Compliance. While this amount 
of money is very small in the context of the overall bill, it is 
important to ensure fairness in the Congressional Accountability Act 
complaint process by allowing the Office to employ outside, independent 
mediators. I would like to compliment the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 
Kingston] and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran], Chairman and 
Ranking Minority Member of the Legislative Branch Appropriations 
Subcommittee, respectively, for recognizing the importance of this 
program and for providing the funding needed for it to continue.
  Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Ney], Chairman of the House Administration 
Committee, our Committee colleagues, and members of the Appropriations 
Committee on these and a number of matters in coming months to ensure 
the security and other needs of the first branch of government are 
properly met.
  In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I believe we need to urgently act on 
providing additional resources to meet our country's homeland security 
needs that this bill fails to address. In the meantime, however, I rise 
in support of this bill to provide short term funding for our troops 
and security needs of the Congress and would urge my colleagues to vote 
in favor of it.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
supplemental--funding to provide for our troops and homeland security.
  This supplemental will support the men and women of our Armed Forces 
in Operation Iraqi Freedom and help provide humanitarian relief for the 
people of Iraq.
  The brutality of Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime continues to be 
revealed through the brave efforts of the men and women of our Armed 
Forces. Saddam's death squads--his enforcers--go into cities to ensure 
that the people not rise up against him. They execute civilians. They 
go door-do-door, take children from their homes, and hold them hostage 
under the threat of massacre. Saddam Hussein's regime has a documented 
record of gassing, torturing, raping and executing its own people.
  While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from this Iraqi 
regime stands alone--because, as President Bush has said, it gathers 
the most serious dangers of our age in one place under the leadership 
of a merciless dictator.
  What if we had refused to take the necessary action to stop this 
Iraqi dictator from building his weapons of mass destruction--chemical, 
biological, and nuclear? What if we had allowed him to supply these 
weapons to international terrorists?
  My friends, not long ago we came to the Floor and voted to allow 
President Bush to use every tool at his disposal to stop this threat to 
the American people and the world. We must make sure that our military 
has everything it needs to do the job that they have been asked to do.
  Under difficult circumstances, our troops continue to make good 
progress toward our objectives of ending the Iraqi regime, freeing the 
Iraqi people, and disarming the country of weapons of mass destruction. 
Our forces are fighting well, with overwhelming force, and have 
defeated every threat they have encountered.
  It is our obligation to make sure that they are fully supported in 
this endeavor. I urge my colleagues to vote for this supplemental.
  Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the supplemental bill 
before the House today.
  As a Member of the House Armed Services Committee, I have been 
anxiously awaiting this supplemental since current war operations are 
being funded out of this year's third and fourth quarter accounts. I 
thank the committee for your rapid action on this bill.
  Our young men and women are performing magnificently right now in 
Iraq, as well as in Afghanistan. It doesn't matter if you agreed with 
the first strike policy, our troops are on the ground and operating 
with great professionalism. It falls to the Congress to make sure our 
troops have what they need to prosecute this war on all fronts.
  I thank the appropriators for largely keeping the control over the 
spending in this bill with Congress, not giving away our Constitutional 
authority to the executive branch.
  While I'm glad we are addressing some homeland security needs, what 
concerns me is a lack of proper funding for our nation's first 
responders, the first line of defense for us here in the United States. 
I was surprised the committee is recommending even less for homeland 
security than the president requested.

[[Page H2737]]

  September 11--and the anthrax attack the following month--taught us 
that we are vulnerable here in the United States. We must employ the 
lessons we learned from those attacks and ensure these men and women 
are adequately funded.
  We still have every reason to believe there will be a retaliatory 
attack here in the U.S., and we are still woefully unprepared. That 
does not need to be the case, but to date we have vastly under-funded 
our first responders. I am disappointed the committee did not adopt Mr. 
Obey's amendment that would have added in more funding for this 
priority.
  I represent a border and coastal district, with needs related to 
border security, Coast Guard funding, port and container security, plus 
other priorities. The constant refrain is: we cannot afford it. Here's 
the reality: we can't afford not to fund these urgent needs.
  I will continue to work with my colleagues on the Appropriations 
Committee to find the money new agencies of the Department of Homeland 
Security need to conduct the tracking of foreign nationals from 
countries suspected of supporting terrorist activities, something we 
need to be doing better.
  Our border stations need more money for the infrastructure to 
accurately and completely use biometrics in the entry-exit system of 
our tracking programs . . . to follow both those who aren't citizens 
and cargo originating outside the country. All the money in the bill 
appears to be for the Canadian border. While it was the Canadian border 
that the Sept. 11 hijackers crossed, the cost of increased security 
level along the Mexican border is being ignored.
  I'm pleased to see money for Coast Guard operations. But our Coast 
Guard needs more funding for both infrastructure and operations. They 
are living up to their missions heroically, but their mission to 
protect every single mile of shoreline in the nation.
  We must provide complete containment security at every port in the 
nation. South Texas is home to 2 deep seaports--making us a vulnerable 
place for those who want to get weapons or people into the country.
  I appreciate our directing the authority for rebuilding Iraq to the 
Secretary of State, not the Pentagon. The Pentagon runs wars . . . 
diplomats run peace.
  This war will touch many more of us before it is over. Already, South 
Texans are bearing the painful price for the war in Iraq, including 
young Edward Anguiano from Los Fresnos, Texas, who was listed as 
missing just this past weekend.
  Our community is praying for Edward, his family, and other children 
of Texas who are serving in this war. We pray for the troops' safety, 
and for a rapid conclusion to this war.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, $74.7 billion seems sufficient to wage war 
for quite some time, but when it is broken down, there is less than 
meets the eye.
  Of the $74.7 billion, $62.6 billion goes to DoD.
  Of the $62.6 billion allocated to DoD, $30.3 billion goes to cover 
``sunk cost,'' which the supplemental calls ``coercive diplomacy.''
  Of the remaining $32.3 billion: $13.1 billion is allocated for a 
``short, extremely intense period of combat operations''; $12 billion 
is allocated for post-war ``mopping up'' and phasing the combat force 
into an occupation force; $7.2 billion is allocated for redeployment, 
replenishment of munitions, and repair of weapon systems. Of the $7.2 
billion, about $1.1 billion goes to Iraq's reconstruction.
  In addition, $7.8 billion is allocated out of the $74.7 billion for 
aid and humanitarian assistance to Israel and Jordan and other nations 
as well as post-war Iraq. Out of this $7.8 billion, some $2.4 billion 
is identified for reconstruction and humanitarian aid to Iraq. Added to 
the $1.1 billion, this makes aid to post-war Iraq equal to about $3.5 
billion.
  One must conclude, therefore, that this supplemental is probably a 
first installment on the cost of this war. The supplemental will not 
cover (1) the cost of combat lasting more than 2-3 months, (2) the cost 
of prolonged occupation by a sizeable force, or (3) our likely share of 
the post-war reconstruction and humanitarian aid.
  Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in full support of the 
Democratic amendment to the Republican Supplemental for Homeland 
Security. I strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
vote in favor of the democratic substitute.
  Regardless of the speed of our success in Iraq, regardless of how we 
personally feel about our role in Iraq, we must recognize that our 
Homeland needs to be our first priority for defense. We must provide 
appropriate funding to our first responders and our preventative 
Homeland defense. The Democratic substitute recognizes our pressing 
needs. The Democratic substitute provides additional funding for the 
protection of our ports and infrastructure, state/local first 
responders, and extremely vulnerable nuclear facilities. For example, 
in the Republican supplemental Puerto Rico would receive most needed 
resources for Homeland defense; however, the Democratic substitute 
provides additional resources to the Commonwealth. In fact, the 
Democratic substitute provides all 50 states, the District of Columbia, 
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the territories additional 
resources.
  The city of San Juan in Puerto Rico has one of the most important 
ports of any U.S. Jurisdiction--it is one of the most popular stops for 
Caribbean cruise liners and one of the most active commercial ports. We 
need those additional dollars to provide the most effective 
fortification of our vulnerable infrastructure and ports-of-entry.
  I commend all of my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, for 
bringing this important issue to the floor and to full democratic 
debate. I, also, commend them for acknowledging the importance of our 
Caribbean ports-of-entry.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). All time for general 
debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord 
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has 
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those 
amendments will be considered read.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 1559

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2003, and for other purposes, namely:

                  TITLE I--WAR-RELATED APPROPRIATIONS

                               CHAPTER 1

                       DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

                     Public Law 480 Title II Grants

       For an additional amount for ``Public Law 480 Title II 
     Grants'', $250,000,000, to remain available until expended.

                    Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust

       The Secretary of Agriculture shall utilize the funds and 
     authorities of the Commodity Credit Corporation to acquire a 
     quantity of commodities for use in administering the Bill 
     Emerson Humanitarian Trust in an amount equal to the quantity 
     utilized by the Corporation pursuant to the release of March 
     20, 2003, relating to the use of commodities for assistance 
     in Iraq: Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, monetization of stocks in the Bill Emerson 
     Humanitarian Trust to purchase different commodities for 
     humanitarian aid to Iraq is prohibited.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Obey:
       In chapter 1 of title I, insert at the end the following:

                   Food Safety and Inspection Service

       For an additional amount for ``Food Safety and Inspection 
     Service'', $13,000,000, to remain available until expended, 
     for activities authorized under section 332 of the Public 
     Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness Response Act of 
     2002 (Pub. L. 107-188).

                DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

                      Food and Drug Administration


                         salaries and expenses

       For an additional amount for ``Salaries and Expenses'', 
     $17,000,000, to remain available until expended.
       In chapter 3 of title I, under the heading ``OPERATION AND 
     MAINTENANCE'', in the item relating to ``Operation and 
     Maintenance, Army National Guard'' insert after the dollar 
     amount the following: ``(increased by $160,200,000)''.
       In chapter 3 of title I, under the heading ``OPERATION AND 
     MAINTENANCE'', insert at the end the following:

                Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Army Reserve'', $66,000,000.
       In title I, after chapter 3, insert the following new 
     chapter:

                               CHAPTER 3A

                      DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL

                         DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

                       Corps Of Engineers--Civil

                   Operation And Maintenance, General

       For an additional amount for ``Operations and Maintenance, 
     General'' for safeguards and security activities, 
     $108,000,000, to remain available until expended.

                         DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR

                         Bureau of Reclamation


                      water and related resources

       For an additional amount for ``Water and Related 
     Resources'' for safeguards and security activities, 
     $24,000,000, to remain available until expended.

[[Page H2738]]

                          DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

                            ENERGY PROGRAMS

                                Science

       For an additional amount for ``Science'' to support 
     additional safeguards and security activities, $7,500,000, to 
     remain available until expended.

                    ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

               NATIOINAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

                           Weapons Activities

       For an additional amount for ``Weapons Activities'' to 
     support additional safeguards and security activities, 
     $68,200,000, to remain available until expended.

                    Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation

       For an additional amount for ``Defense Nuclear 
     Nonproliferation'' for various domestic and international 
     nonproliferation activities, $175,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended.

               ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

         Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management

       For an additional amount for ``Defense Environmental 
     Restoration and Waste Management'' to support additional 
     safeguards and security activities, $11,300,000, to remain 
     available until expended.

                        Other Defense Activities

       For an additional amount for ``Other Defense Activities'' 
     to support increased Office of Intelligence mission 
     requirements resulting from the conflict in Iraq, $5,000,000, 
     to remain available until expended.

                    GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS CHAPTER

      international materials protection, control, and accounting

       Sec. 1351. (a) Definition.--As used in this section, 
     ``sensitive material'' means nuclear weapons or components 
     thereof, nuclear materials, radioactive materials, and 
     related technology and sources that pose a risk of 
     proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
       (b) International Materials Protection, Control, and 
     Accounting Program.--The Secretary of Energy may expand the 
     International Materials Protection, Control and Accounting 
     program outside the Russian Federation, and the independent 
     states of the former Soviet Union. The program may include, 
     but is not limited to, assisting countries to--
       (1) reduce the risk of theft of sensitive material or of 
     diversion of sensitive material to terrorists or terrorist 
     organizations;
       (2) store securely sensitive material;
       (3) establish procedures, such as inspections, audits, and 
     systematic background checks, to improve the security of the 
     use, transportation, and storage of sensitive material; and
       (4) improve their domestic export control and border 
     security programs for sensitive material.
       (c) Applicability.--This section shall only apply with 
     respect to amounts appropriated by this Act and any previous 
     appropriations Act enacted before the date of enactment of 
     this Act.
       In title I, after chapter 4, insert the following new 
     chapter:

                               CHAPTER 4A

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                         National Park Service

                              construction

       For an additional amount for ``Construction'', $18,000,000, 
     to remain available until expended.

                        Departmental Management

                         salaries and expenses


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For an additional amount for ``Salaries and Expenses'', 
     $10,000,000, to remain available until expensed, for 
     extraordinary costs to provide for the security of 
     departmental facilities; Provided, That the Secretary of the 
     Interior may transfer such funds to other accounts of the 
     Department of the Interior, as the Secretary determines to be 
     appropriate, for use by the agencies or bureaus of the 
     Department to offset such homeland security costs.
       In chapter 5 of title I, under the heading ``BORDER AND 
     TRANSPORTATION SECURITY'', in the item relating to ``Office 
     for Domestic Preparedness'', insert after the first and 
     second dollar amounts the following: ``(increased by 
     $300,000,000)''.
       In chapter 5 of title I, under the heading ``BORDER AND 
     TRANSPORTATION SECURITY'', insert at the end the following:

                     Firefighter Assistance Grants

       For an additional amount for ``Firefighter Assistance 
     Grants'' for programs as authorized by section 33 of the 
     Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 
     2201 et seq.), $150,000,000, to remain available until 
     December 31, 2003.

              Emergency Management Planning and Assistance

       For an additional amount for ``Emergency Management 
     Planning and Assistance'' for grants for interoperable 
     communications equipment, $350,000,000, to remain available 
     until December 31, 2003.

                 Transportation Security Administration

                       maritime and land security

       For an additional amount for ``Maritime and Land 
     Security'', $250,000,000, for making port security grants to 
     be distributed under the same terms and conditions as 
     provided for under Public Law 107-117, to remain available 
     until December 31, 2003.
       In chapter 5 of title I, under the heading ``COAST GUARD'', 
     in the item relating to ``Operating Expenses'', insert after 
     the dollar amount the following: ``(increased by 
     $100,000,000)''.
       In chapter 5 of title I, under the heading ``COAST GUARD'', 
     insert at the end the following:

              Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements

       For an additional amount for ``Acquisition, Construction, 
     and Improvements'', $90,000,000, to remain available until 
     December 31, 2003.
       In chapter 6 of title I, in the item relating to ``Public 
     Health and Social Services Emergency Fund'', insert at the 
     end the following:
       For an additional amount for ``Public Health and Social 
     Services Emergency Fund'', for the Centers for Disease 
     Control and Prevention, to be used to improve Federal, State, 
     and local preparedness against potential chemical terrorism, 
     $75,000,000.
       In chapter 8 of title I, under the heading ``MILITARY 
     CONSTRUCTION'', in the item relating to ``Military 
     Construction, Navy'', insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(increased by $92,579,300)''.
       In chapter 8 of title I, under the heading ``MILITARY 
     CONSTRUCTION'', in the item relating to ``Military 
     Construction, Air Force'', insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(increase by $28,160,000)''.
       In chapter 8 of title I, under the heading ``MILITARY 
     CONSTRUCTION'', insert at the end the following:

                      Military Construction, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Military Construction, 
     Army,'' $65,340,000, to remain available until expended.

               Military Construction, Air National Guard

       For an additional amount for ``Military Construction, Air 
     National Guard,'' $8,800,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

                  Military Construction, Army Reserve

       For an additional amount for ``Military Construction, Army 
     Reserve'', $2,200,000, to remain available until expended.
       In the Transportation and Treasury chapter of title I, 
     insert after the chapter heading the following:

                      DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                    FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

                National Railroad Passenger Corporation

       For necessary life/safety capital improvements of the 
     National Railroad Passenger Corporation as authorized by 49 
     U.S.C. 24104(a), $50,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended.
       In the VA-HUD chapter of title I, insert after the heading 
     for ``DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS'' the following:

                     Veterans Health Administration

                              medical care

       For an additional amount for ``Medical Care'', for 
     enhancement of emergency preparedness, $70,000,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2004.
       In the VA-HUD chapter of title I, insert at the end the 
     following:

                          INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

                    Environmental Protection Agency

                         science and technology

       For an additional amount for ``Science and Technology,'' 
     $100,000,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     $25,000,000 is for water systems vulnerability analysis and 
     $75,000,000 is for chemical plant vulnerability assessments.

                     hazardous substances superfund

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For an additional amount for the ``Hazardous Substances 
     Superfund'', $75,000,000, to remain available until expended, 
     for carrying out homeland security activities authorized by 
     law related to the agency's counter-terrorism programs 
     including radiological, biological, and chemical attacks: 
     Provided, That these activities include, but are not limited 
     to, (1) support of State and local responders to plan for 
     emergencies, (2) coordination with federal partners, (3) 
     training of first responders, and (4) providing resources 
     including federal personnel in the event of any attack: 
     Provided further, That the Administrator may transfer such 
     portion of these funds as she deems appropriate to other 
     agencies of the Federal government with expertise in 
     radiological, biological, chemical attack related counter-
     terrorism programs: Provided further, That the Administrator 
     is authorized to make grants to states for radiological, 
     biological, and chemical attack related to counter-terrorism.

  Mr. OBEY (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment attempts to add $2.5 billion 
in funding for homeland security. It seems to me that if we can 
undertake an effort that will provide basic health

[[Page H2739]]

care for Iraqis, 25 million Iraqis, if we can provide for the 
reconstruction of 6,000 schools in Iraq and 100 hospitals in Iraq, it 
seems to me that we can at least do the minimum necessary to batten 
down the hatches here at home and protect our communities, our ports, 
our first responders, our schools and our other citizens from potential 
terrorist attacks.
  This amendment seeks to add $135 million to increase the 
sophistication of our anti-nuclear detection equipment in the 10 main 
ports around the world that ship over 50 percent of the shipping 
containers into the United States. We are incredibly vulnerable to the 
use of a dirty nuclear device in our ports, and this would be a major 
step forward in correcting that vulnerability.
  We also want to spend $87 million to provide additional oversight of 
nuclear materials stored here in the United States so it is not 
reachable by terrorists.
  We want to provide $150 million to upgrade the State public health 
departments and environmental laboratories in order to strengthen our 
ability to respond to chemical weapons attacks.
  We want to provide additional funding to follow up on the site-by-
site analyses of our vulnerability or of the vulnerability of our 
Federal dams and waterways across the country.
  We want to provide $75 million to initiate assessments of the 
vulnerability of the U.S. chemical plants in the country.
  We want to provide an additional $300 million for first responders 
and $150 million of that specifically for firefighter grants to raise 
that program up to its authorized level of $900 million.
  We want to provide additional funding to our National Guard civil 
support team so that every State in the Union can have a qualified 
National Guard backup operation to supplement the actions of our first 
responders in case of terrorist attacks in our localities.
  We want to see to it that the Coast Guard is expanded by at least 
2,000 personnel beginning in October, rather than waiting until next 
April. The Coast Guard is stretched to the breaking point at this 
point.
  We want to see to it that many of the other ports in the United 
States have the same detection equipment that is now available in 
Norfolk and will soon be available in San Diego.
  We want to respond to the fact that the Coast Guard has estimated 
that we need $4.5 billion in additional funding for our local port 
authorities over the next 10 years. We want to provide an additional 
response to that.
  We want to deal with the fact that today, if there were an attack on 
our tunnels, our Amtrak tunnels, in a number of cities across the 
country, that, in fact, the ability to evacuate people from those 
tunnels right now is extremely and dangerously limited. And I would 
point out that the size of this amendment is smaller than the amendment 
that is contained in the bill to provide aid to airlines. It is very 
much smaller, about a third the size of the foreign assistance that is 
contained in this bill for other countries.
  This is the minimum that we ought to be doing. I originally submitted 
a list that would come up to almost $8 billion in what we regard as 
essential security, home front security operations that need to be 
undertaken. None of these ideas originate with us. They all originate 
with the agencies charged with the responsibility of protecting the 
security of the United States at home.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I would urge that the Members of this House not 
lodge an objection to this amendment so that we can, in fact, at least 
have a debate on this issue. We are in the minority. We understand that 
we cannot expect to win on many votes around here, but at least in the 
people's House, we ought to be able to debate these issues. You already 
have 13 votes more than we have on this side of the aisle. You will 
most assuredly win; but at least take the gag off, and let us have the 
opportunity to have an up or down vote on something that ought to be a 
totally bipartisan effort.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. The committee, 
as I said before in general debate, provided $3.5 billion for the 
Department of Homeland Security activities related to the war effort. 
This amendment would add another substantial amount of money to that 
figure, which at this moment in time is not necessary.
  This bill, this supplemental bill we are talking about is only for a 
3-month period of time. We will have plenty of time after that to look 
to the future, but for this 3-month window of time, I say to the 
Members, this money is adequate. Could we spend more? Of course, we can 
shovel money out the door, but we have tried to be reasonable and 
somewhat restrained in what we throw out the window here at this point 
in time. This is a 3-month expenditure we are talking about.
  Taking some of the gentleman from Wisconsin's (Mr. Obey) specifics, 
for the Office of Domestic Preparedness, this is money for our local 
responders. We provide $2.2 billion. His amendment would add another 
300, but I would point out to the Members that there is already almost 
$1 billion of money presently allocated that is unspent, laying there 
waiting for our communities to ask for that money.

                              {time}  1300

  And, number two, the 2004 budget request adds another $3.6 billion 
that likely will be appropriated and will be available beginning this 
October 1.
  Now, the Coast Guard: We provide $630 million. His amendment would 
add $100 million more to hire 2,000 more people. We cannot bring 2,000 
people on board that fast. The 2004 budget request includes funds for 
hiring new people and, undoubtedly, we will approve that. But for this 
3-month period of time, this is unrealistic.
  Now, for the Transportation Security Administration, we provide $390 
million. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) would add $250 million 
for port security grants. But the Coast Guard has $40 million in this 
supplemental to complete the port vulnerability assessments. We do not 
know what the ports need until we assess them, and that is what the 
Coast Guard is doing just this minute. They are going to come back and 
tell us what we will need for fiscal 2004 and we will provide it for 
them. They are going to tell us what we will need for the next 10 
years. And the estimated cost over 10 years is $4.4 billion to harden 
the ports, and we will do that over the period of time. We cannot do it 
all at once.
  The amendment provides another $150 million for firefighter 
assistance grants for which there was no request. We have already 
provided $1.1 billion in fiscal 2002 and 2003. And as I said, most of 
that money has not yet been passed out to the communities.
  Mr. Chairman, I am just saying to my colleagues that there is plenty 
of money in the first responder pipeline for this 3-month period of 
time about which this bill addresses itself.
  The amendment would provide $350 million for interoperable 
communications equipment between first responders. There was no request 
for that money. There is a need for interoperability, no doubt about 
it, but we have first got to develop regional and national standards 
before we spend zillions of dollars trying to communicate with each 
other. This has to be done on a regional basis. And the regionalization 
of that system is in the works even as we speak, but not quite yet 
ready.
  The committee, I think, has adequately funded homeland security 
activities that were war related for this 3-month period of time. There 
is only 5 months left in the fiscal year to spend additional monies. 
There is plenty of money in the pipeline for our first responders. 
There is plenty of money in the bill for port security, including 
extending our port assessment to the 20 megaports in the other parts of 
the world from which we receive most of our shipments.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve a point of 
order.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. EDWARDS. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, in response to the gentleman from Kentucky, 
let me simply say that the Coast Guard has told us very clearly that if 
we provide this money now, they can get

[[Page H2740]]

these additional 2,000 people on board by October. They have also told 
us if we wait until the 2004 budget year that they cannot bring them on 
until April. That is a fact.
  Fact number two. The gentleman talks of $1 billion in ODP money that 
is not spent. The fact is it is not spent because the application 
period is open until April 22. It cannot be spent until that 
application period is finished.
  Thirdly, the fire grants for 2002. They are virtually all out. And 
for the fiscal 2003, the applications are still open, so again that 
money cannot be expected to be out of here. The agency assures us it 
will be out of here by June once the application period is finished.
  So I think the gentleman is using a lot of interesting numbers to 
make a point that does not exist.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. EDWARDS. I would be glad to yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, let us just look at it. The 
fiscal 2002 grants, the money we appropriated a year and a half ago, 
$495 million for grants for our local communities to apply for, $291 
million of that money is still lying there unspent. Nearly 60 percent 
of the fiscal 2002 monies are still available to communities, and the 
filing deadline is still available. It has been available since 2002, 
and the money is not applied for. What does the gentleman say about 
that?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman continue to yield?
  Mr. EDWARDS. I will be glad to yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin 
for a response.
  Mr. OBEY. With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, we have answered those 
statements twice, and I also answered them earlier in the debate.
  The fact is if Members think there is enough money being provided to 
protect the homeland, vote against the amendment. If they think there 
is not enough money, vote for it. But at least let us have a vote.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. EDWARDS. I will yield briefly to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, there is $291 million available 
for first responders from fiscal 2002. Why do you not apply for it?
  Mr. OBEY. Against a defined need of $9 billion.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Well, let us spend what we have already. If 
we need more, we will get it.
  Mr. OBEY. It is your administration running the show, not ours.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me say this. There 
are some problems that we should not wait to address, and I can think 
of few more important than the potential threat of nuclear terrorism 
exercised against major American cities.
  It is frightening when one realizes the reality that a Coke can-size 
full of highly enriched uranium, put into a bomb, placed into one of 11 
million ship containers that end up in major U.S. ports, God forbid if 
that were to happen and that bomb to be exploded in a major American 
port, 2 to 3 million American citizens could be killed instantly. 
Surely, surely, we would all agree in this House that we should do 
everything we can humanly do to prevent that sort of catastrophe from 
happening. Perhaps that is why President Bush has said protecting our 
homeland against nuclear terrorism should be of the highest national 
priority.
  I think the Obey amendment does something about that potential threat 
of nuclear terrorism. By providing a little over $100 million, we can 
actually put in place at 10 megaports nuclear protection devices. So 
that if a terrorist were to try to put a nuclear bomb into a ship 
container, and keep in mind, Mr. Chairman, only 2 percent of ship 
containers are ever inspected before they come into major American 
ports, but these nuclear detection devices, funded by the Obey 
amendment, a technology developed by our Department of Energy, could be 
put in place in the next year or so, starting now, in the 10 major 
megaports that could protect our major American cities and the millions 
of people that live in them from the threat of a nuclear bomb being 
exploded in the hold of a cargo ship parked in New York harbor or New 
Orleans harbor or outside of Los Angeles or the city of Houston.
  If we can spend $100 billion to fight a war in Iraq, which I support, 
and if we can have proposed a $374 billion dividend tax cut, which I do 
not support, certainly we could afford to spend another $135 million in 
this bill today to try to protect major American cities from nuclear 
terrorism. I urge support for the Obey amendment.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 
1559, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2003, 
including $62.5 billion for military operations in Iraq and the war on 
terrorism.
  In the months and years ahead, questions will persist as to whether 
alternatives to a U.S. military invasion might have succeeded in 
removing the threat posed by Iraq's weapons program. And there are 
important debates still to come about the postwar program for 
rebuilding Iraq, the multilateral cooperation we must secure to ensure 
a postwar transition to democracy, and the efforts our nation must 
resume to bring Israelis and Palestinians back to the negotiating 
table. This Congress must hold the President and our country to these 
critical objectives.
  But today, our task is more straightforward: we are here to give our 
courageous men and women in uniform the support and the resources they 
need to carry out their mission swiftly, effectively, and decisively. I 
have no doubt that that support, in the form of this supplemental 
appropriations bill, will be provided with near unanimity later today.
  This bill also must address the protection of our citizens here at 
home. This Administration has made a total supplemental appropriation 
request of $74.7 billion. Homeland Security accounts for less than 6 
percent, or only $4.2 billion, of this total. The Republican leadership 
of the Appropriations Committee has made significant improvements in 
the Administration's request and has courageously refused to cede the 
Congress's responsibility to apportion spending to the discretion of 
the President or Secretary of Defense on any other executive officer. 
But the bill still falls short of our minimal homeland security needs, 
and unfortunately, the leadership of this body has rejected 
constructive efforts from our side of the aisle to improve it.
  Let me give two examples: port security and support for first 
responders. Although Congress and the Bush administration have taken 
important steps to improve airline safety, very little has been done to 
secure the 361 seaports around our nation that receive nearly 21,000 
containers a day from hundreds of overseas ports. Maritime shipping 
moves 95 percent of non-North American U.S. trade.
  Testifying before Congress last August, Robert Bonner, Commissioner 
of Customs and Border Protection, said, ``There is virtually no 
security for what is the primary system to transport global trade . . . 
The impact (of an attack) on global trade and the global economy could 
be immediate and devastating--all nations would be affected.'' Despite 
the vital role seaports play in linking America to the world, both 
economically and militarily, port vulnerability studies for the 
nation's 50 largest ports are not scheduled to be completed for five 
more years.
  The Coast Guard estimates the 10-year cost for port security 
improvements at $4.4 billion, and $963 million for the first year 
alone. In this time of crisis, we cannot afford to delay this effort. 
Despite no request from the Administration, Congress has appropriated 
$400 million for grants to critical ports to conduct vulnerability 
assessments and make needed security improvements. The Democratic 
amendment provides $250 million more to better meet the security 
requirements of our ports.
  Our first responders are our first line of defense--the ones who 
intercept terrorist activities and are first on the scene in the event 
of disaster, putting their life-saving skills to work.
  I have traveled throughout my district meeting with local leaders and 
first responders. They tell me that they need equipment, training, and 
funding to meet the demands of their new responsibilities. Yet, they 
still have not received the funding that they have been promised; in 
fact, they are facing funding cuts in the President's 2004 budget.
  The Democratic amendment provides critical support, first, in 
securing interoperable communications equipment. Incompatible 
communications equipment hinders the ability of our first responders to 
adequately respond to disasters and costs lives. Only 40 percent of 
fire departments can communicate with police or EMS personnel. The 
technology to obtain interoperable communication equipment exists now. 
DHS is developing national guidelines. The Democratic amendment 
provides $350 million to be directed immediately through grants to this 
effort in our effort to correct a universally accepted need.
  Fire fighter grants were authorized at a level of $900 million for 
Fiscal Year 2003, but funded $150 million below its authorized level. 
The Democratic proposal makes up this shortfall

[[Page H2741]]

by providing the additional $150 million to the grant program. This 
additional money would make up shortages in basic needs such as 
portable radios, self-contained breathing devices, and map coordinate 
systems.
  Not only major metropolitan areas but also smaller communities 
located near critical infrastructure are faced with an increased burden 
of security as a result of the ongoing high threat level. The 
Democratic proposal provides $300 million through the Office of 
Domestic Preparedness to help these communities fund the heightened 
security requirements they must address. This additional $300 million 
would provide a total of $3.5 billion to ODP for Fiscal Year 2003, 
which is equal to the Administrations original Fiscal Year 2003 budget 
request.
  Mr. Chairman, members of this House understand the importance of 
providing our troops with the resources they need. We stand united 
behind them today, and we remain steadfast in our faith in them and our 
support of their mission.
  However, it is also our duty protect all of our citizens and to 
provide funding to ensure homeland safety and security. It is in that 
respect that the bill before us falls short. Having been denied the 
opportunity to strengthen this bill today, we on the Democratic side 
will persevere in future appropriations efforts, hopefully with 
bipartisan support, to address urgent priorities in homeland defense.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against 
the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and 
constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill and therefore 
violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general 
appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''
  Mr. Chairman, I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin wish to be heard on 
the point of order?
  Mr. OBEY. I most certainly do, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, let me state what I understand the parliamentary 
situation to be. My understanding is that the rule under which we are 
operating waives section 302(c), 302(f) and section 311 of the Budget 
Act against the bill as reported, and clause 2 of rule XXI.
  My understanding is that the rule provides, with respect to section 
302(c), my understanding is that if the gentleman's interpretation of 
the rule is correct, that would mean that while the majority would get 
a waiver for its bill, even though the committee has not filed its 
302(b) suballocations, the minority would not get a corresponding 
waiver.
  My understanding with respect to section 302(f) is that if the 
gentleman's interpretation is correct, that would mean that despite the 
fact that the bill exceeds 302(a) or (b) allocations, that the 
majority's bill will still be allowed to come to the House floor but 
our amendment would not be able to, even though we are in precisely the 
same situation with respect to those allocations.
  With respect to section 311, which prohibits consideration of a bill 
or amendments that exceed total spending in the deemed fiscal year 2003 
budget resolution, if the gentleman's interpretation is to prevail, 
that would mean that the majority would be waiving requirements on this 
point for their bill but not for the minority's.
  I cannot believe that the majority would intentionally produce such 
an unfair result, and so I therefore would urge the Chair to rule that 
the amendment is in order.
  The CHAIRMAN. If no other Member wishes to be heard on the point of 
order, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair understood the point of order offered by the gentleman from 
Florida to be related to clause 2 of rule XXI. The Chair finds that the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) includes 
new language imparting direction, as, for example, section 1351 in the 
proposed amendment. The amendment, therefore, does constitute 
legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The fact that points of order under clause 2 of rule XXI were waived 
against provisions in the bill does not, under the precedents, permit 
amendments adding further legislation. The point of order is, 
therefore, sustained and the amendment is not in order.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I am most reluctant to do this, but in my 
view when the rights of the minority to offer a meaningful amendment on 
a bill of this nature, which goes to the very heart of our national 
security preparation, when the minority is denied an opportunity to 
even have such a proposal debated, I have no choice but to move to 
appeal the ruling of the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is, shall the decision of the Chair stand 
as the judgment of the Committee.
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 217, 
noes 195, not voting 22, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 104]

                               AYES--217

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Janklow
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--195

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan

[[Page H2742]]


     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--22

     Ballance
     Capuano
     Combest
     Conyers
     Cox
     Doolittle
     Gephardt
     Gingrey
     Hyde
     Jones (NC)
     Linder
     Lynch
     McCarthy (MO)
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     Oberstar
     Paul
     Royce
     Slaughter
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Walden (OR)


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there are 
approximately 2 minutes remaining to vote.

                              {time}  1331

  Mr. ROSS, Mr. WYNN and Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas changed 
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mrs. CAPITO and Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the decision of the Chair stands as the judgment of the Committee.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would first like to thank the gentleman from Florida 
(Chairman Young) and our ranking member. I think they have done the 
best job that could possibly be done, and I commend them for making 
sure the supplemental appropriation is not simply a slush fund giving 
the administration and Secretary Rumsfeld the ability to spend this 
money in any way that they wish to spend it. However, no matter how 
hard they have worked, this bill is not what it is made out to be.
  This bill provides almost $78 billion in supplemental funds, some of 
which are not related to either the war in Iraq or homeland security. 
In addition to some funds for the war in Iraq, this bill includes money 
for Turkey, Israel, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Estonia, Latvia, 
Slovakia, Romania, Slovania, Lithuania, and Bulgaria. In addition to 
the millions of dollars for all of those Eastern European countries, 
this bill includes generous sums of money for health care, 
rehabilitation, and the construction of new schools, housing, and 
transportation systems in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet many communities 
right here in the United States of America are continuing to suffer 
from the effects of prolonged economic recession and deprivation, 
including job losses and a lack of investment in our cities and our 
rural communities.
  Later on today I will be offering an amendment to encourage 
investment in our cities and in our rural communities and for economic 
development. I will also offer an amendment to encourage the Inter-
American Development Bank to release money for Haiti, one of the 
poorest countries in the whole world right here in our own hemisphere. 
Mr. Chairman, I do not begrudge these countries. We have bombed and 
invaded. I do not begrudge them assistance in rebuilding, but I do 
resent attempts to define this bill as simply support for our soldiers.
  This bill includes political money that simply rewards countries for 
voting with us in the United Nations. It includes money to subsidize 
the airlines. It includes money to the CDC and other funding that has 
nothing to do with the war in Iraq that it is supposed to be covering.
  I can tell the Members what is not in this bill. There is not money 
for homeland security or money for our own ailing and broken education 
and health systems.
  I will support this bill, but I will also speak up for the citizens 
of this country. Mr. Chairman, charity begins at home and spreads 
abroad. If I had my way, I would not only include in this language that 
would have forced the money from the Inter-American Development Bank to 
be passed on to Haiti that should have been done years ago, not only 
would I have an amendment for $5 billion that would deal with our 
ailing infrastructure systems right here in our own communities, urban 
communities and rural communities. I think I would even put $28 billion 
in here that the President is cutting from our veterans. Do not forget, 
those soldiers who are in Iraq today will be veterans some day, and 
they will need to have funds to cover all of those services that we are 
now cutting.
  Mr. Chairman, the young lady who was just rescued, who was captured 
and was a prisoner of war found in the hospital, simply went into the 
service because she could not afford to pay for her education. She went 
into the service in order to be able to pay for her education; and now 
that she has been shot, now that she has been captured and rescued, 
when she gets home she has been offered a scholarship. She should have 
had a scholarship before she ever signed up, but that is what is wrong 
with our education system. It does not provide for all of those young 
people who wish to be educated.
  Again, I respect the work that has been done; but I want this bill to 
include support for homeland security, support for our ailing 
communities, and language for Haiti.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, let me speak to the gentlewoman that just spoke. There 
are ways in which I think we can come together. One of the areas, the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) has an amendment coming up 
that gives preference to the United States in the rebuilding process 
over those nations that fought against us in the United Nations. That 
is American jobs, American construction. In California with our 
constituents, I think the gentlewoman and the caucus could support 
that.
  The second thing, I think it is even more important, as one that 
opposed going into Haiti, as one that opposed going into Somalia after 
Adid, and I would tell the gentlewoman if she has been to Haiti, the 
Halie Selassie Highway, one can drive a truck in a pothole. It is 
terrible. Many of the conditions have not been improved, and even 
though I opposed going in there, the dollars that were already 
appropriated for that should be released to help, and I again opposed 
going into Haiti and Somalia. So I think it is even more important.
  I would also inform the gentlewoman there is another way. I have an 
amendment on Turkey. Turkey stood against our troops going in from the 
north, stopped us from having a northern front, caused us to have to 
ship around all the way to the east side our troops. It cost American 
lives. We should send them a message. That is $1 billion that could be 
freed up. They did not ask for it, and Turkey gets a ton of money 
already in the foreign aid package. That is another way which I think 
we can help. I recently had it in homeland defense. Technicalities did 
not allow us to do that, but $1 billion in the general fund is a lot of 
money to work with, with us.
  As far as the scholarships, the gentlewoman and I both support, and I 
personally believe, that a child that qualifies, that works hard should 
not be denied a college education or a general education as a result of 
their economic status, and they should be provided that.
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to talk about this bill that will provide 
much-needed support for our men and women in the armed services who 
find themselves in harm's way. That aspect of this bill is very good. 
As a matter of fact, I see this bill in three parts. First, the war. We 
are doing the right thing. We are supporting our men and women through 
the supplemental. Second, the post-war. Provisions are made in this 
bill, I believe, to the tune of $8 billion that would provide for the 
reconstruction of Iraq or the beginning of the reconstruction of Iraq 
after the war as well as assistance to our allies.
  But then there is the third part, homeland security. And here I must 
say, Mr. Chairman, I am greatly distressed. We are not adequately 
supporting our homeland security needs. In this bill we have not put in 
enough money to help the local firemen, policemen, public safety 
personnel, emergency medical technicians, the people

[[Page H2743]]

on the front lines to keep our communities safe. The gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has tried to put in an additional $2.8 billion. 
That has not been accepted. That money goes into our communities to 
provide the same kinds of protections in our hometowns that we would 
want to see in communities abroad in Iraq after the war is over.
  Let me give an example of what I am speaking about. Here in the 
Capitol we have all sorts of protections. We have barriers around the 
complex. We have an emergency communication system. We have got special 
equipment in the case of a chemical or biological attack for ourselves 
but also for other Federal employees working in this complex. But when 
these same employees go home to their districts in the suburbs of 
Washington, D.C., and specifically to my district in Prince George's 
and Montgomery County, they do not have these same kinds of 
protections.
  For instance, in Prince George's County, Maryland, just outside of 
the Capitol where many of our employees live and where evacuation 
procedures may take place, we still need funding to purchase 800 
megahertz radios to seamlessly communicate with surrounding 
jurisdictions as we try to facilitate traffic and respond to emergency 
situations.
  Montgomery County, Maryland, again in the Washington, D.C. suburbs 
where many of our employees live, needs gas masks and monitoring 
equipment for first responders and schools. These counties and many 
others all across our country are working tirelessly to respond to the 
orange alerts and the red alerts and all the other kinds of exigencies 
connected with war on terrorism and what we anticipate may be increased 
problems as a result of the war in Iraq. But yet when it comes to 
funding them, we cannot find the additional $2 billion that we need to 
provide resources that they need.

                              {time}  1345

  One of my counties is actually cutting personnel because of the 
strains caused by trying to maintain homeland security. There are still 
questions. Schoolteachers come to me and say, well, what are we going 
to do about protecting the schools? We have concrete barriers, but many 
of our schools do not. We have extra police personnel, but many of our 
schools and local government facilities do not have them. We have 
reservoirs, we have water systems with other public accommodations at 
the local level where our citizens live that do not have the adequate 
resources for homeland security.
  We should include more money for homeland security in this bill. It 
is a true tragedy that we have not.
  So I urge my colleagues, as we consider this bill and as amendments 
come to the floor, to give us an opportunity to do more than just wave 
the flag or pay lip service, but that we will actually put some money, 
more money where it belongs, and that is in the protection of our local 
communities.
  The CHAIRMAN. If there are no other Members seeking recognition, the 
Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               CHAPTER 2

                         DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

                         GENERAL ADMINISTRATION

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For an additional amount for ``General Administration, 
     Salaries and Expenses'', $5,000,000, to remain available 
     until September 30, 2004.

                         Counterterrorism Fund

       For an additional amount for ``Counterterrorism Fund'', 
     $50,000,000, to remain available until December 31, 2003: 
     Provided, That funds provided under this paragraph shall be 
     available only after the Attorney General notifies the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     and the Senate in accordance with section 605 of Division B 
     of Public Law 108-7.

                           Detention Trustee

       For an additional amount for ``Detention Trustee'' for the 
     detention of Federal prisoners in the custody of the United 
     States Marshals Service, $15,000,000.

                      Office of Inspector General

       For an additional amount for ``Office of Inspector 
     General'', $2,500,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 2004.

                            Legal Activities

         Salaries and Expenses, United States Marshals Service

       For an additional amount for ``Salaries and Expenses, 
     United States Marshals Service'' for necessary expenses, 
     $26,080,000, to remain available until September 30, 2004.

                    FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For an additional amount for ``Federal Bureau of 
     Investigations, Salaries and Expenses'', $398,862,000, to 
     remain available until September 30, 2004.

                             THE JUDICIARY

                   SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For an additional amount for ``Supreme Court of the United 
     States, Salaries and Expenses'' for police enhancements, 
     $1,535,000, to remain available until September 30, 2004.

         UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For an additional amount for ``United States Court of 
     Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Salaries and Expenses'' for 
     court security officer expenses, $973,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2004.

               UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For an additional amount for ``United States Court of 
     International Trade, Salaries and Expenses'' to enhance 
     security, $50,000.

                 DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND RELATED AGENCY

                          DEPARTMENT OF STATE

                   ADMINISTRATION OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS

                    Diplomatic and Consular Programs

       For an additional amount for ``Diplomatic and Consular 
     Programs'', $106,420,000, to remain available until December 
     31, 2003.

            Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance

       For an additional amount for ``Embassy Security, 
     Construction, and Maintenance'', $71,500,000, to remain 
     available until expended.

           Emergencies in the Diplomatic and Consular Service

       For an additional amount for ``Emergencies in the 
     Diplomatic and Consular Service'', $65,708,000, to remain 
     available until expended.

                             RELATED AGENCY

                    BROADCASTING BOARD OF GOVERNORS

                 International Broadcasting Operations

       For an additional amount for ``International Broadcasting 
     Operations'' for activities related to the Middle East 
     Television Network broadcasting to the Middle East and radio 
     broadcasting to Iraq, $30,500,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2004.

                    General Provisions--This Chapter

       Sec. 1201. Funds appropriated under this Chapter for the 
     Broadcasting Board of Governors and the Department of State 
     may be obligated and expended notwithstanding section 313 of 
     the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 
     and 1995, and section 15 of the State Department Basic 
     Authorities Act of 1956, as amended.

                               CHAPTER 3

                    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--MILITARY

                       OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

                OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Defense-Wide'', $1,400,000,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2004, which may be used, notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, for payments to reimburse Pakistan, 
     Jordan, and other key cooperating nations, for logistical and 
     military support provided, or to be provided, to United 
     States military operations in connection with military action 
     in Iraq and the global war on terrorism: Provided, That such 
     payments may be made in such amounts as the Secretary of 
     Defense, with concurrence of the Secretary of State and in 
     consultation with the Director of the Office of Management 
     and Budget, may determine, in his discretion, and such 
     determination is final and conclusive upon the accounting 
     officers of the United States: Provided further, That unless 
     expressly provided for in an appropriations act enacted after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, and notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, no funds other than those additional 
     amounts provided herein shall be made available for any 
     payments intended to fulfill the purposes specified in this 
     paragraph and similar reimbursement authorities expressly 
     provided in section 304 of Public Law 107-117 and within the 
     ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'' appropriation 
     account enacted in Public Law 107-206: Provided further, That 
     the Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate 
     shall be notified in writing at least seven days prior to the 
     obligation of funds for payments to Pakistan, Jordan, or 
     other key cooperating nations: Provided further, That not 
     later than 30 days following enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary of Defense shall submit a report in writing to the 
     Committees on Appropriations that includes a financial plan 
     for the obligation and expenditure of such funds: Provided 
     further, That if such report is not provided to the 
     Committees on Appropriations by the date specified in the 
     previous proviso, unobligated balances of funds in this 
     account that are available from the amounts provided in this 
     paragraph shall be returned to the Treasury of the United 
     States: Provided further, That, beginning not later than June 
     30, 2003, and ending on September 30, 2004, the Secretary of 
     Defense shall provide quarterly reports to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House and

[[Page H2744]]

     Senate on the uses of funds made available for payments to 
     Pakistan, Jordan, and other key cooperating nations for 
     logistical and military support provided to United States 
     military operations in connection with military action in and 
     around Iraq and the global war on terrorism.

                 OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM RESPONSE FUND


                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

       For incremental costs of the Department of Defense 
     associated with the global war on terrorism and operations in 
     and around Iraq as part of operations currently known as 
     Operation Iraqi Freedom: $59,682,500,000 is appropriated to 
     the ``Operation Iraqi Freedom Response Fund'', which is 
     hereby established in the Treasury of the United States. 
     Funds appropriated or transferred to the ``Operation Iraqi 
     Freedom Response Fund'' shall remain available until 
     expended.


                   Amendments Offered by Mr. Kucinich

  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I offer two amendments and I ask 
unanimous consent they be considered en bloc.
  The Clerk read as follows:

  Amendments offered by Mr. Kucinich:
       Page 9, line 8, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $19,386,500,000)''.
       Page 10, line 2, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $19,386,500,000)''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, 
and I only do so to engage the gentleman just very briefly, the 
gentleman and I have an understanding that I will not object to his 
request; I have no problem with that, but that we have an agreement 
that I would then ask unanimous consent to limit debate on this 
amendment, these amendments, to 15 minutes, 7\1/2\ minutes on each 
side.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman's request.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of 
objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 
further debate on the pending amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) and any amendments thereto be limited to 15 minutes 
to be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself, the 
opponent.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, in the 
interchange that we were having, I was momentarily distracted. The 
agreement that we had worked out earlier I understood was 15 minutes. I 
thought it was 15 minutes a side, instead of 7\1/2\ minutes a side.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I 
thought we had amended that. But that is okay with me; if the gentleman 
wants to do it 15 and 15, I have no problem with that either.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman if that would 
be acceptable to him.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would restate my unanimous 
consent request that it be 15 minutes on each side rather than 7\1/2\ 
minutes on each side.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) will be 
recognized for 15 minutes and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) 
will be recognized for 15 minutes on the amendments.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 minutes.
  We all stand here today hoping that no more American soldiers will be 
killed in Iraq. My amendment will do the most to prevent more American 
fatalities.
  This amendment would bring the troops home immediately and safely. It 
will end this unjust and illegal war now.
  The administration has spent $30.3 billion already on current 
military operations. This amendment will give the Pentagon another $10 
billion to ensure the troops can be safely brought back home to their 
families. Out of the $59.6 billion for military operations, my 
amendment will leave $40.3 billion to pay for the war to date and to 
get the troops back home now. This amendment will save taxpayers $19.3 
billion. The savings from the adventure in Iraq can be used for 
increased homeland security, education, health care, or veterans funds.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe this war is not about defending the United 
States from the threat of Iraq, this war is not about the U.S. trying 
to save or liberate the Iraqi people, this war is not about an Iraqi 
nuclear threat. Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction that have been 
able to be detected by the U.N., and it would be most unfortunate if it 
was for our troops to find those weapons in combat when, by stepping 
back and letting the U.N. inspectors return, we could avoid that kind 
of confrontation and cataclysm.
  None of us in this Chamber holds any brief for Saddam Hussein. He is 
a dictator, yet it is not the responsibility of the United States to 
oust the leaders of sovereign nations. There are many who want to see 
this Nation become more safe, but I think a good case can be made that 
the action against Iraq will not make this country more safe, it will 
make this country less safe. It will foster terrorism and it will 
increase anti-American feelings. We will continue to see more orange 
alerts as the threats against our Nation increase, and we will continue 
to see the hatred of America grow from people around the world.
  This war is killing our troops. It is killing innocent Iraqi 
civilians. This war must end now. It was unjust when it started 2 weeks 
ago and it is still unjust today. The U.S. should get out now and try 
to save the lives of our troops and of innocent Iraqi citizens.
  This is the ultimate support-the-troops amendment. There is no better 
way to ensure their safety than to bring them home now. I support the 
troops, but I oppose the war.
  I am not the only Member of Congress to have taken such a position. 
On another war at another time with another President, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. DeLay) was quoted in The New York Times on May 7, 1999 
as saying, ``While we may not support the President's ill-advised war, 
we do support our troops.''
  My colleague from Texas, for whom I have the greatest respect, was 
referring to a different war, but he demonstrates the precedent for 
opposing the mission and supporting the troops. I believe he is a 
patriot and I believe he is a good American. In fact, I voted with him 
that year on a vote seeking to get the troops out of Kosovo.
  On December 13, 1995, the House, under the control of Speaker 
Gingrich, considered H.R. 2770. The bill, a prohibition of funds for 
the deployment of forces in Bosnia, was introduced by Representative 
Dornan. Many leading Republicans, such as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
DeLay), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thomas), the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), 
and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), voted to cut off funds for 
the military action while the troops were deployed in Bosnia. In fact, 
82 percent of the gentlemen and gentlewomen from the other side of the 
aisle voted to cut off funds while troops were deployed in Bosnia.
  I urge my colleagues to read the Congressional Record of that day. I 
would quote:
  ``Mr. Speaker, I think it is disgraceful that Members would get up in 
the well of this House and talk about cutting the knees out from under 
the troops. No one wants to hurt the troops. No one wants to hurt the 
troops. We want to get the troops there out, and we do not want to send 
any more troops.''
  That was our good friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
  Again, another quote:
  ``Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight with a troubled heart. I rise tonight 
to ask my colleagues to support our troops. Support them by bringing 
the 150 home. Bring them home now before we get into a mess like I 
personally had to live through 30 years ago.''
  That was my good friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood).

                              {time}  1400

  I believe that a ``no'' vote on this supplemental is patriotic, 
because this war is not about defending the United

[[Page H2745]]

States from a threat of Iraq. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. There 
has never been a link demonstrated of any credibility connecting Iraq 
to al Qaeda's work on 9-11. Iraq had nothing to do with the anthrax 
attack upon this country.
  Iraq did not attack this country. Iraq does not have the military 
capability to attack this country. The United Nations had not been able 
to establish before their inspectors were withdrawn that Iraq in fact 
had weapons of mass destruction. Iraq was not acquiring nuclear 
material from Niger, as had been advanced by some in the 
administration.
  This war is not about the U.S. trying to liberate the people of Iraq. 
It is not about an Iraqi nuclear threat. Ending this war now and 
resuming weapons inspections could salvage world opinion of the United 
States, which has been deteriorating since even the talk of war began. 
After all, the greatest threat to the United States at this time is 
terrorism. This war will breed terrorism.
  I agree with those in this Congress who today have taken this floor 
to express concern about meeting the challenge of terrorism. But this 
war against Iraq and our occupation of Iraq will make America less 
safe, not more safe. This war will make America a target.
  We all desire safety and security in this country. The only way that 
we can truly achieve that is to work cooperatively with the world 
community. We had the sympathies of the world after 9-11. Nation upon 
nation looked forward to cooperating with the United States after 9-11. 
This approach towards aggressive war has squandered the support of the 
world, the very support that we need to successfully meet the challenge 
of terrorism here at home.
  Every dime that we spend to advance aggressive war in Iraq, or 
anywhere else in that region, for that matter, will require later on 
spending two dimes or $2 to secure our own Nation. I believe that now 
is the time for America to take a new direction, to turn away from 
aggressive war.
  Mr. Chairman, we have been told that it is Iraq's possible possession 
of weapons of mass destruction which brings us into their borders and 
causes our troops to go throughout their cities. This country needs to 
confront the reality that there are many countries which possess or are 
pursuing or are capable of acquiring nuclear, chemical, or biological 
weapons or missile delivery systems.
  As of 2000, there were 17 such nations with respect to nuclear 
weapons, 26 such nations with respect to chemical weapons, 20 with 
biological weapons, 17 with missile systems. The administration's 
nuclear posture review and their national security strategy taken 
together would put us towards confrontation with many nations of the 
world. Now is the time for us to reassess that.
  This downpayment on this war, which is represented by this 
supplemental, is not simply a way of supporting the war; it is a way of 
supporting a policy which can only lead this Nation to disaster around 
the world. Now is the time to step back.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the very 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague 
yielding me this time. I must say that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Kucinich), I know, is very sincerely serious about his position on this 
matter. I respect his position greatly.
  I must say that I was one of those who believed deep in my heart that 
we would solve this problem by way of peace; that there was an avenue 
open for us to change the regime in Iraq, and at the same time do so 
without having to find ourselves in war.
  That opportunity for peace closed. The door closed entirely when 
friends and allies of ours in Europe took a different position. When 
France decided to take the position they did, when Germany decided to 
take the position they did, there was no opportunity to find a peaceful 
solution.
  In the meantime, this bill before us is designed to make sure that 
our troops will be fully supported as they go forward attempting to 
ensure the opportunity of freedom for the people of Iraq. It is 
absolutely certain by the time we get through this process before us 
that they will have an opportunity they have not had during all of the 
history of this brutal regime.
  Indeed, it is difficult for me to understand my colleague's position. 
I happen to think he is absolutely wrong, but I have risen in part to 
support his right to express that position. That is what this debate is 
all about.
  I hope at another day, another time, we will find a peaceful solution 
for dealing with people like Saddam Hussein. I just do not see that 
time in the near future.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), a member of the 
Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to first of all again congratulate 
the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young), the gentleman from 
California (Chairman Lewis), and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Murtha) for the way they crafted this legislation. We have made the 
Defense Department be accountable for this money.
  But I must say, cutting $19 million out of this fund, or $19 billion, 
excuse me, is not going to help the troops. We are in the middle of a 
war. This money must be replenished. We have used 10,000 precision 
weapons very effectively. We have these troops in the field, and they 
need to have the resources in order to complete this task and get this 
job done.
  I do not mind people making their speeches and exhorting their 
position on the issues; but when it is going to hurt the people in the 
field, it is unacceptable. This will hurt the troops in the field. I 
urge the House to reject overwhelmingly the Kucinich amendment, which I 
will request a record vote on.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment points out that the administration has 
spent $30 billion already on current military operations. This 
amendment will give the Pentagon another $10 billion to ensure that the 
troops can be brought safely home to their families.
  Out of the $59.6 billion for military operations, my amendment will 
leave $40 billion to pay for the war to date and to get the troops home 
now. I want to restate that $10 billion is there to ensure that the 
troops get home safely.
  This amendment is a statement that we should end the war now and that 
we should bring our troops back home safely; that we can pay the bills 
that have already been incurred, but that we should not incur any more 
bills.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the very 
distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member 
on the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I have been around this institution long enough to know 
what an amendment looks like when it does cut off and end the war 
because we voted that way to end the Vietnam War. I voted for that 
resolution, or for that amendment.
  I also voted to require the President to come back to the Congress 
for a second vote before he went to war if the Security Council did not 
agree with his decision to go to war, so I think my position is clear. 
I think there are going to be very bad, long-term results from this 
war.
  But having said that, I think it is incorrect for the gentleman to 
say that this amendment will, in effect, bring the troops home. It does 
no such thing. All it does is to say that we will not reimburse the 
Pentagon for money which has already largely been spent. It simply does 
not replenish those accounts. I do not think that that is a rational 
thing to do.
  Secondly, I would point out one of my problems with this bill is that 
this bill already, in my view, substantially understates, and therefore 
substantially hides from public view, the full cost of this war. It is 
going to cost a lot more than the $70 billion in this bill today.

[[Page H2746]]

  The effect of offering this amendment, in my view, would be to 
further mask the real cost of that war. I do not think that is a 
healthy thing to do. I think we are getting into some long-term costs 
associated with this war far in excess of what the Pentagon, the State 
Department, or the White House are admitting. I think this amendment 
simply further would play into that game.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not going to pass because, frankly, 
it does not do what it purports to do. I understand what the gentleman 
is trying to do; he is trying to find some way to express his views on 
the war, so in a sense this is a symbolic act. I respect him for that.
  The fact is, Members need to be assured they understand exactly what 
it does and what it does not do. One thing it does not do, it does not 
bring the troops home.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), a member of the 
Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not doubt my friend's concern for the troops. I 
think that is genuine. However, I do debate the gentleman's point on 
the war. I will be specific.
  First of all, there is no doubt, no doubt whatsoever that Saddam 
Hussein has contacts and is utilizing al Qaeda within Iraq. Just attend 
some of the intelligence briefings.
  Second, as a combat veteran, the troops, sure, when we flew in 
Vietnam, we wanted to come home; but we also wanted to do our job. If 
we talk to the embedded reporters and listen to our men and women 
overseas, they want to finish the job, I would tell the gentleman.
  Secondly, on the Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on 
Appropriations, the gentleman's amendment does not bring the troops 
home. We are already spending fourth-quarter dollars. What the 
gentleman wants to do is not be able to even replenish those, which 
would weaken the state of national security in the long run.
  I would tell the gentleman that Saddam Hussein today pays $5,000 to a 
family in Palestine that will take their 15-year-old child and blow 
themselves up in Israel. We have lost American citizens in that. I do 
not think we want to let that go.
  If we listen to Saddam Hussein, he says he will attack us in the air, 
the sea, and the land. I would ask the gentleman to project Saddam 
Hussein, if we pull our troops back, project someone like this 5 years 
from now with a nuclear weapon. It would be devastating, and we would 
lose American souls, many thousands.
  A lot of people say, what about Korea? Korea is a threat; but I want 
to tell the Members, they are not working every single day through 
Mujahedin, Hammas, Hezbollah, and al Qaeda to damage the United States. 
We need to finish this job, whether the gentleman agrees with it or 
not. We need to protect American citizens and those abroad for 
worldwide peace.
  If we take Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and bring them 
about with true democracies, this country is far better off than 
bringing our troops home and not dealing with this problem. If we do 
that, this problem will magnify in the Middle East, not depreciate.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my good friend, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham), for his remarks. I respect his service to 
our country, both in the military and in this Congress.
  To my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey): If I could 
have offered an amendment that would have required the President to 
bring the troops home now, I would have.

                              {time}  1415

  As my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) knows, the 
majority would not have permitted such an amendment, and that leaves me 
with two options. One, which is to do nothing. And considering the 
statements that I have made over the past year challenging this war, 
that is not going to happen. And the other is to offer the amendment 
before us now, which my colleague from Wisconsin understands does have 
a powerful symbolic impact, and, as I understand it, is limited by the 
limitations of the amendments process. But my amendment was crafted to 
ensure that the troops would have safe passage home, $10 billion to 
assure that they come home safely.
  I yield to no one in my love for this country, in my commitment to 
the men and women who serve, and I honor similarly the patriotism which 
brings every Member of this House to this floor, their honest 
differences of opinion about the policies of this United States which 
have brought this country into Baghdad today.
  This is an appropriate moment for us to stop and think whether or not 
aggressive warfare is consistent with the aspirations of this country, 
whether or not policies of preemption and unilateralism, as articulated 
in the National Security Strategy, will serve this country well in a 
complex world where so many nations possess biological, chemical, and 
nuclear weapons as well as the missile capability to deliver them.
  This amendment seeks to create this discussion in this House at this 
moment as to whether or not this is the time in world history to seek 
to reengage the world community, which certainly understands America's 
concern, but to get that same world community which has shown sympathy 
for America in the past to join with us in once again going back to 
Iraq with U.N. inspectors instead of our troops, who we would never 
want to have to find weapons of mass destruction on the battlefield in 
combat used against them. It is much more appropriate to have 
inspectors determine whether or not such weapons exist, and if they do, 
to move to destroy them.
  We need to find a way to reintegrate nations like Iraq and the 
others, which are hostile to this country at this point, back into the 
world community. We need to find a way to catch what I believe is an 
advancing tide of human unity which we see expressed all around the 
world with friends of ours who have stated their concern about the 
American position of aggressive war against Iraq.
  This is a turning point in this country's history, and it is an 
important moment for us to ask questions about the direction we are 
going in. Because we are not only talking about Iraq here. We are not 
just talking about a down payment on a war. We are not just talking 
about the safety of our troops today. We are talking about the safety 
and security of the world, America's role in the world, our ability to 
keep America safe and secure in a climate with an administration that 
is determining that aggressive war is the way to achieve that.
  I maintain that is always open to debate, and I want to thank the 
gentleman for providing me with this opportunity to raise this question 
on this floor.
  We are all patriots. We all love our country. But one of the glories 
of this country is its first amendment, which provides not only for 
freedom of speech, but which provides for a national discussion on 
issues that are of urgent importance.
  And I want to thank both the ranking member and the chair for 
ensuring that this happens on this issue, and I acknowledge that. And 
when it is appropriate, I will ask unanimous consent to withdraw the 
amendment out of respect for the heartfelt concerns expressed by my 
colleagues.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the tenor of the 
gentleman's debate. I think this debate has been great all day long, 
and at a very high level.
  For a closing statement in opposition to the amendment, I yield the 
balance of the time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate my 
colleague yielding me this time and rise simply to say that I very much 
empathize with the position of my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Kucinich).
  We happen to rather intensely disagree as to what role America is 
going to be playing in the world in the years

[[Page H2747]]

and months, perhaps decades, ahead. Our country remains, whether we 
like it or not, as the only remaining superpower in the world. We now 
spend dollars at a level, 380-plus billions of dollars to make sure 
that we are the strongest country in the world. Indeed, it is my view 
that those dollars are spent because we are the force for peace. If 
there is a country that, long term, is going to maintain the peace in 
the world, it is America. And it is the men and women of the very 
troops serving presently in the Middle East who reflect the best of the 
best, who are of course for peace.
  This bill is designed to make sure that they can carry forward their 
job at this moment to its completion and do it well. Indeed, no force 
is more capable than these men and women. Their purpose, though, is to 
ensure that freedom becomes available to the people, the men and women, 
the mothers, the children of Iraq. Without their presence, Saddam 
Hussein would take us down the pathway towards appeasement. He would be 
the voice that says ``we ought to stand still for whatever time is 
necessary for me to rebuild my position of strength.'' He will say, ``I 
will find any another way to win one more time.'' This is not a plan of 
peace.
  America is the voice for peace in the world. We need to recognize 
that. And because we need to recognize that, we must reject this 
amendment.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, out of respect for the troops and the 
concern that all of our Members have for them, whatever their position 
is on this war, I respectfully withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) asks unanimous 
consent to withdraw the amendment.
  Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I am in support of the wartime supplemental, H.R. 1559, 
and I rise today to thank the House Committee on Appropriations for 
recognizing the damage caused by Supertyphoon Pongsona to our military 
installations in the territories of Guam. As this bill before us 
states, Typhoon Pongsona struck Andersen Air Force Base on December 8, 
2002 for 9 long hours, with sustained winds of 180 miles per hour. Much 
damage was done to the family housing units at our base where our brave 
servicemen and women work around the clock to ensure our safety and 
security, and especially during this time of war when our bases should 
be in top order.
  On behalf of those servicemen and women and their families, I would 
like to thank the House Committee on Appropriations chairman, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and ranking member, the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). Because of their hard work, this bill 
provides $1.8 million to repair family housing and air-conditioning 
units damaged by Supertyphoon Pongsona.
  It also identifies the need for new aircraft hangers to bed down 
bombers, tankers, surveillance and fighter aircraft. Currently only one 
of three hangars at Andersen Air Force base is fully operational. The 
new reinforced concrete high-bay aircraft hangars will be typhoon 
proof. The state-of-the-art climate control within the hangars will 
ensure that the bombers will be able to use the hangars for repairs and 
maintenance.
  I hope that in conference on this bill, funds will be identified to 
begin the hangars' construction. And once again, I want to thank the 
leadership for recognizing the emergency damage caused by Supertyphoon 
Pongsona to our military assets on Guam and for taking action to fund 
the repair of these damages which is now so important, Mr. Chairman, 
because of increased military activity, the Iraq war, and the impending 
dangers in North Korea.
  Mr. Chairman, I support this legislation.


                  Amendment Offered by Mr. Cunningham

  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my 
amendment related to Turkey be considered at this point in the reading 
of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I 
reserve the right to object merely to inquire of the gentleman if he 
would be interested in reaching some agreement on a time limit, because 
this amendment has the potential to be very time consuming. And it is a 
very important amendment, but I would like to say to the gentleman that 
I do not want to limit any debate for those who desire to speak, but we 
need to finish this bill tonight. We have to have the weekend to 
prepare for the conference with the other body. So, would the gentleman 
be interested in discussing the possibility of a time limit?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I would 
say to my friend and my chairman that we have several speakers that are 
very passionate on this issue. To me, the debate of this issue is as 
important as its passage, and once those individuals do get allowed to 
speak, and I would encourage them not to take the 5 minutes, if the 
chairman would redress the issue then I would not object.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I appreciate that.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to considering the amendment at this 
point in the bill?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Cunningham:
       In chapter 4 of title I, in the item relating to ``Economic 
     Support Fund''--
       (1) after the aggregate dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $1,000,000,000)'';
       (2) strike paragraph (3) (relating to financial assistance 
     to Turkey); and
       (3) redesignate paragraphs (4) and (5) as paragraphs (3) 
     and (4), respectively.

  Mr. CUNNINGHAM (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) is 
recognized for 5 minutes on his amendment.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I will choose to strike the last word 
at the end to close, and I would allow the other Members that wish to 
speak on this issue, and I would go to the gentleman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Did the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) 
yield to the gentleman?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, the gentleman is going to strike the last word. 
I will strike the last word at the end so I will have time to close.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized now for 5 
minutes in support of his amendment. If the gentleman wants to be 
recognized again later, the gentleman will have to ask unanimous 
consent to do so.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Okay. Then I will be recognized for the 5 minutes, 
Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I truly believe that the United States needs the 
support of all allies. That includes Turkey. That includes France. That 
includes Germany. As many of us are upset at those countries for the 
actions that they took in the previous weeks, we need their help 
towards world peace in the future. They are aware of the damage that 
they have done to the United States and their allies and that some 
penalty is in order.
  And as I stated before, the debate on this issue is just as important 
as the passage of the amendment. There needs to be some message sent to 
any country that chooses to put in harm's way American and allied 
soldiers that there will be a penalty. The message should be, ``Do not 
tread on me.''
  Now, that does not mean that we do not want them as allies in the 
future. I would state, and I do not mean to demean Turkey by making 
this point, but merely to make a point, if my own daughters 
intentionally did something egregious, I am surely, Mr. Chairman, not 
going to raise their allowance. I love them. I want their love in the 
future. And the same goes for Turkey.
  Secretary Colin Powell at this very moment is negotiating with 
Turkey, and he has made some great strides. I

[[Page H2748]]

think all the Members in this House respect Secretary Powell. But I 
would say, Mr. Chairman, that current negotiations and even positive 
steps do not forgive what has happened in the past with Turkey denying 
our troops access.
  Turkey never asked for this money. The United States is asking to 
give them $1 billion. The United States is giving Turkey a ton of money 
in the foreign aid bill.

                              {time}  1430

  This is in the 2003 supplemental. The 2004 bill is coming up. There 
is a ton of money in there for Turkey. I am not asking to take this 
away, but should we reward a country for not only putting our men and 
women in harm's way, but actually causing the deaths of some of our 
troops?
  By Turkey not allowing us to overfly Turkey and give overfly rights, 
there was an agreement, and they have done some overflights, but that 
was based on a previous agreement, but by not allowing our troops to 
launch from the north and out of Turkey, it denied us a northern front. 
It allowed Saddam Hussein to redeploy his troops and forced us to 
parachute in with our paratroopers a very lightly armed force to 
support the north; and I think this is wrong.
  A foreign aid package should be for Turkey and our allies, but I 
would tell the gentleman that just like the gentleman from Kentucky 
(Mr. Rogers) a minute ago spoke against the Obey amendment, he used the 
analogy that this was only for 3 months, and I would use the same 
analogy here because in the 2004 budget, I do not object to the support 
for Turkey, if, if their parliament does not turn its back on the 
United States as they did in the past.
  In 3 months, Saddam Hussein will be out of power. We will be on the 
road to democracy in Iraq and a free people, but can my colleagues 
imagine giving France preferential treatment on the reconstruction of 
Iraq? No, and there is an amendment coming up by the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) that will handle that; and I would 
encourage my colleagues to vote for that.
  By the same means, do we reward Turkey? Do we give them an incentive 
for turning their backs on the United States even though they are 
opening up their borders with Colin Powell today? What they did in 
causing American lives to be lost, there needs to be a message sent and 
a penalty, Mr. Chairman. I would say the same is true with France and 
Germany as well.
  Saddam Hussein did work with al Qaeda, and where he worked in al 
Qaeda is in the northeast portions of Iraq. By not allowing our 
northern front to go forward and launch out of that area, it allowed 
many of the terrorists and al Qaeda to launch out of that area.
  I ask for the support of this amendment, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The gentleman from California is a valued member of our subcommittee, 
and on almost all defense issues we agree. Unfortunately, today, I must 
rise in opposition to this amendment.
  As everyone here knows, yesterday Secretary Powell met with the 
leadership of Turkey. Immediately following that meeting, the border 
was opened and supplies on trucks were flowing into northern Iraq for 
the U.S. forces that are there. These are supplies, not ammunition or 
weapons; but it is a significant step forward.
  Also, we were able to use the air space of Turkey in order to bring 
in forces into northern Iraq by air lift. Bombers have flown into Iraq 
using turkey's airspace.
  So I think they have made a very significant contribution, and people 
sometimes forget that 90 percent of the people in Turkey are opposed to 
this war. They are on the border with Iraq. It was much different in 
1991 when Saddam Hussein was invading another country like Kuwait, and 
therefore, they could join as a NATO ally and work with the United 
States to get Saddam out of Kuwait. This is a different circumstance.
  I think they have done almost everything they could. If 90 percent of 
the people in the United States were opposed to this war, we might not 
be there. I think we have to understand, this is a new government with 
a new parliament; and Turkey has been a reliable ally for many, many 
years.
  This was in the President's budget request. Condoleezza Rice has 
written a letter to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) expressing 
the support of the administration for keeping this money in this bill.
  We also have to look at the long term. Once we get through with this 
war, and I hope and pray it is over very quickly, we are going to have 
to rebuild our alliances, not only with NATO, but with all the 
countries in the region; and I think showing some good faith at this 
point and supporting this $1 billion to help Turkey, who has serious 
financial problems that were caused by their participation in the 
original Gulf War in 1990 and 1991. They have been hurt economically by 
this because of humanitarian problems and economic problems that they 
are facing.
  They desperately need this aid and assistance, and they are a 
democratic secular country that in my mind deserves the support of the 
United States. They have been involved with us in every military 
conflict since the Korean War and through Afghanistan; and on the floor 
of the House, to undercut the agreement that was reached just yesterday 
with Secretary Powell, I think, would be a terrible mistake.
  We should show Turkey that we understand their problem and we want 
them to recover economically and we want them to work with us through 
NATO to be a good ally and a good friend. Please vote against the 
Cunningham amendment.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. As the preceding 
speaker said, the gentleman who offers this amendment is somebody that 
I have the highest respect for. He is a true patriot, and no way would 
I impugn his motives. I just think the basis of this amendment is 
fundamentally wrong.
  As I said the other day in the committee, this is one of those tough 
votes where I think we as Members have an obligation to not let our 
emotions run away with us but to do what is the right thing in order to 
prosecute the war and to carry out our national security and diplomatic 
objectives.
  If I may I would like to provide a little bit of background. The bill 
language, as it is presented on the floor today, permits us to provide 
to Turkey, through permissive legislative language, $1 billion in 
economic support funds to Turkey which could be used by Turkey in turn 
to buy down the cost of private sector loans, that is, the credit 
subsidy that would sustain about $8.5 billion of loan guarantees.
  The committee recommends this bill language but requires that the 
Secretary of State determine and notify Congress that Turkey is 
cooperating with the United States in Operation Iraqi Freedom, 
including the facilitation of humanitarian assistance. So this money 
does not get spent until that certification is made by the President.
  The President, the administration, and the committee support the 
assistance in this bill because a strong and economically viable and a 
democratic Turkey is a model in the Middle East, and it is essential to 
U.S. strategic interests.
  Turkey has been an ally of ours for the last half century. During the 
Korean War, the Turks were with us and suffered the highest per capita 
casualties of any partner in the Korean War coalition. They were with 
us in Vietnam. They were with us in 1991 in the Gulf War. They have 
been with us in Afghanistan. They helped us in Bosnia. They have been 
very helpful in the war against terrorism.
  They have hosted Operation Northern Watch. That is the enforcement of 
the no-fly zone in the northern part of Iraq for the last 12 years. 
They are a member in good standing of the NATO alliance.
  Turkey is also a democratic nation. It is one of the few Muslim 
nations that has built economic and military ties with Israel. Ankara 
has viewed this relation as important, as does Israel. After the 
conflict with Iraq ends, we will clearly need Turkey to play an 
important role in the Middle East peace process.
  Obviously, the Turks have not done everything that we would have 
wished and may have been expected in Operation Iraqi Freedom; but we 
need to remember that they are a democracy,

[[Page H2749]]

and sometimes democracies can be messy, as we certainly know in our own 
body here.
  The Turkish parliament did not support the executive by some three 
votes. They fell short of the absolute majority they needed to have; 
but in fairness, 90 percent of the population has been opposed to this 
war, and so it was an act of some courage for this new parliament, 80 
percent of whom were new at the time they voted, to cast the votes they 
did; and as The Washington Post pointed out recently, the United States 
contributed to part of the problem with its own diplomatic errors 
leading up to the vote that took place.
  Foreign affairs is, in part I think, understanding about being 
sensitive to other nations' views. We need to remember that Turkey does 
border Iraq, as well as Syria and Iran. We need to understand that the 
Iraq conflict and Kurdish issues are extraordinarily important domestic 
issues in this multiethnic nation. The refugee flows from Iraq in 1991 
tragically led to a wave of terrorism that resulted in 30,000 Turkish 
deaths, and we can be sure that was very much on the minds of these 
people at the time they cast the votes that they did.
  While they did not allow U.S. combat troops to cross into Iraq from 
Turkish territory, they are now supporting us in a number of important 
ways with intelligence support, with overflights by combat aircraft and 
missiles, the basing of helicopters in southeastern Turkey for medical 
evacuations, by allowing resupply of our troops by opening a northern 
front, and emergency landings of U.S. combat aircraft, and with 
humanitarian assistance that is now flowing regularly across the border 
into Iraq.
  We have been firmly opposed to having Turkish military intervention 
in Iraq. The assistance in the supplemental provides an incentive for 
Turkish restraint. Should Turkey move into Iraq, the President would be 
able to withhold the funds in this bill.
  Just yesterday, Secretary of State Powell completed talks in Turkey. 
He obtained formal Turkish agreement to allow overland supply of fuel, 
water and food to our forces in northern Iraq. The Secretary worked on 
repairing relations. He secured Turkish agreement on the flow of 
humanitarian supplies.
  Mr. Chairman, for us to cast a positive vote on this amendment right 
now undercuts not only the President's diplomatic efforts but, yes, 
sadly undercuts our military forces in northern Iraq; and, Mr. 
Chairman, we should not do that. I urge my colleagues to vote against 
this amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, because she has laryngitis, I ask unanimous 
consent that the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) may be 
permitted to insert a statement in the Record at this point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  There is no question that Turkey's initial refusal to allow the use 
of its territory had made prosecution of the war more difficult for us.
  While I would characterize the vote of the Turkish Parliament as 
unfortunate and misguided, it happened. Sometimes we find the result of 
democratic deliberations inconvenient, but this was, in fact, the 
result. Despite that vote, the administration has requested $1 billion 
for Turkey. The justification, as presented by administration 
officials, is primarily economic. Turkey is in dire straits at the 
moment.
  This is partly due to the war, and partly due to past economic 
policies. But regardless of the reason, the Turkish economy is 
teetering. They owe the IMF over $17 billion at the moment, and are 
financing most of their cash needs in short-term, high-interest debt. 
They have started down the path of economic reform, but they have a 
long way to go.
  Now that the war is on, and Turkey has finally agreed to allow the 
positioning of supplies for our troops on its soil, the worst thing we 
could do is send a signal that we do not support Turkey. The 
circumstances surrounding this request may not be ideal, but our men 
and women in uniform are well into a tough battle for the future of 
Iraq, and Turkey's continued cooperation will help them.
  Economic collapse of Turkey, coupled with a further breach in United 
States-Turkish relations which would result from passage of this 
amendment, would be absolutely disastrous to the war effort--and the 
peace effort that will come after. Turkey remains one of the few 
stable, democratic countries in the region, surrounded by unstable, 
authoritarian states. As a moderate Muslim state, strategically 
situated at the gateway to the Middle East, we simply cannot allow it 
to fail.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman from California's 
amendment. I join many of my colleagues that feel anger and frustration 
over the Turkish refusal to allow some 62,000 American troops to be 
based on their soil in order to open up the northern front against 
Iraq.
  Mr. Chairman, Secretary Powell recently went to Ankara to meet with 
Turkish officials, and press reports on his mission indicate that 
Turkey has made some concessions allowing limited U.S. military and 
humanitarian resupply operations via its territory. These concessions 
are obviously vital to the safety of the Americans that are on the 
ground right now in northern Iraq and the overall success of the Iraq 
mission.
  The supplemental bill addresses some of my concerns on the use of the 
$1 billion in aid to Turkey. There are legitimate restrictions on use 
of our aid. The Secretary of State is required to determine and to 
report to Congress that Turkey has met certain obligations such as 
certain economic responsibilities that the Turkish Government must meet 
and Turkey's cooperation in Operation Iraqi Freedom. I would like to 
see the report to Congress to address more than these issues, though, 
and to set benchmarks for what the Secretary can determine as Turkey's 
cooperation in Operation Iraqi Freedom. We have not seen all the 
details.
  On the House floor last week, I called attention to several important 
issues that bear repeating and that should serve as the basis for 
additional conditional aid to Turkey. Turkey must agree to allow 
unfettered U.S. and/or international humanitarian aid transiting 
through and/or being staged in Turkish territory in support of the 
northern Iraqi Kurds. Turkey must explicitly agree not to cross into 
northern Iraq, as demanded by President Bush.
  Turkey must agree that it will provide only logistical support to the 
humanitarian effort in the northern, and Turkey must agree to economic 
and banking reforms as specified by international lending institutions.
  Finally, Turkey should agree to provide full minority rights to its 
citizens as stipulated in international and European conventions.
  I know all these conditions have not been met, and the report is not 
clear about exactly what conditions are to be set, and I think we need 
to be careful and concerned about the fact that all of these conditions 
are not set forth before we provide any aid.
  Turkey has been touted by some as a model of a Muslim, secular, 
democratic State; but it is often overlooked that Turkey's history of 
human rights abuses and aggression towards its neighbors is very long.
  Turkey appears on every major U.S. and international human rights 
violator's lists every year. This is mainly due to their treatment of 
their minority citizens. The international community has repeatedly 
warned them that the brutal treatment of their Kurdish citizens and 
others jeopardizes their chances of entering the European Union.
  Turkey also continues to join with Azerbaijan in illegally blockading 
Armenia. This is in direct violation of the U.S. Humanitarian Aid 
Corridors Act, which states the U.S. assistance may not be made 
available for any country whose government prohibits or otherwise 
restricts, directly or indirectly, the transport or delivery of U.S. 
humanitarian assistance.

                              {time}  1445

  Turkey has also flouted international law and U.S. criticism for 31 
years, illegally occupying the northern third of Cyprus. And even 
though there was an effort in the last few weeks to try to come to a 
settlement, Turkey refused to be part of that settlement and there 
still is no settlement in Cyprus.
  Now, these last few weeks have served as a wake-up call for many of 
us in the United States. We have seen the obvious contradictions I have 
spoken

[[Page H2750]]

about and have real questions about how we can afford giving American 
tax dollars to a country like Turkey that does not share our strategic 
vision and is not willing to share the burdens of dealing with the 
Iraqi regime. I understand that Secretary Powell and others on the 
Committee on Appropriations have made an effort to put some conditions 
on this aid, but I do not think it goes far enough. I think at this 
time, unless we have more restrictions put on the aid, that it is wrong 
for us to go ahead with this billion-dollar package.
  For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the 
Cunningham amendment to cut the aid to Turkey unless Turkey shoulders 
its international responsibilities more correctly. And, more 
specifically, the American taxpayer should not be footing their loan 
bill or any other of their bills.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PALLONE. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I disagree with the gentleman's position, 
and I do agree with the chair of the subcommittee's position, the 
gentleman from Arizona. I think he articulates the reasons that we 
ought to support the money allocated to Turkey. And yet I have a 
question for him, if I can attract his attention for a moment, either 
the gentleman from Arizona or the chair of the full committee.
  Again, while I applaud the democracy that we have noted in Turkey and 
the fact that they have been steadfast allies of this country, and that 
they did have a very healthy parliamentary debate and reached the 
conclusion, as democracies do, that they would not accept what I 
understand was a $30 billion package, at the same time I just recently 
read and I would like----
  The CHAIRMAN. Time of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) has 
expired.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
gentleman from New Jersey be granted an additional 30 seconds.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts?
  Mr. YOUNG OF Florida. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, 
and I will not, but if we get into a situation where we are having a 
lot of requests for a lot of time extensions, then I would have to 
object because this bill needs to get done.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts that the gentleman from New Jersey be given an additional 
30 seconds?
  Mr. STEARNS. Objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida objects.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I come here to the House floor and I rise in opposition 
to the gentleman's amendment. I understand my friend's concern, but I 
do not think we need to exacerbate the situation. Turkey has been with 
us so many times, as the gentleman from Arizona has pointed out. So 
many times Turkey has been with us, and would my colleagues hurt a 
friend because of this situation, after Turkey has now agreed, as 
reported in The New York Times, to increase its cooperation with the 
American military campaign in Iraq by permitting use of its territory 
for the overland supply of food, water, fuel, and other necessities to 
American armed forces operating in northern Iraq?
  Number two, Mr. Chairman, and another step that Colin Powell was 
successful in, Turkey has agreed to open their airfields to American 
military planes in distress or for the evacuation of American service 
personnel. Turkey has extended such help occasionally since the war 
began 2 weeks ago, but the new accord will make it more routine.
  Most importantly, my colleagues, in a separate but important part of 
the agreement, Secretary Powell said that the United States and Turkey 
would establish a monitoring group to watch northern Iraq to make sure 
no conditions arose that might compel Turkey to send its troops across 
the borders into Iraq. Turkey is a modern republic. It is a Muslim 
state. It is unique, as pointed out, in all the nations of the world. 
It is the only operating democracy in the Middle East. So it is 
essential that the United States realize and appreciate the burden, the 
special burden Turkey has, and the fact that they are the only Muslim 
member of NATO.
  Turkey remained steadfast with the United States and our allies 
through the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, NATO air strikes during the 
conflict in Kosovo, and in providing aid to Albanian refugees, as well 
as hosting Operation Northern Watch, which maintains the no-fly zone 
over northern Iraq. Turkey has been of enormous assistance in our 
global war on terrorism. And they should know. They have been fighting 
it for 30 years. Thirty thousand people have been killed by terrorists 
in Turkey.
  We have a vested interest in Turkey, and Turkey is sacrificing its 
well-being just by supporting a lot of our policies. Turkey will open 
its airfields, as I pointed out earlier, to the American military 
planes. Is this everything we have asked for from this ally? No. But I 
would like to point out that Turkey does support our efforts, unlike 
other so-called allies who have opposed us at every turn.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I believe this is an amendment that should be 
defeated. The administration, Secretary of State Colin Powell, is 
satisfied with Turkey's response and he is willing to go ahead with the 
foreign aid package, so why should we not? In the interest of 
maintaining good relationships with an ally, a solid ally, where solemn 
Muslim leadership is needed in this region, we should do this as well. 
So I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not want to get into a debate on this amendment, 
but I do want to object to something I just saw here on the House 
floor. We have been trying to work out cooperatively, between both 
sides of the aisle, arrangements on time. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Kucinich) was willing to limit his amendment, for instance, to 15 
minutes. We now have a Republican amendment on which we have not yet 
been able to obtain time limits. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) 
has been trying to manage the bill in a very fair way, and I have been 
trying to do what I can on this side as well.
  I, frankly, find it offensive when an individual Member of the House 
objects to another Member of the House simply asking for an extension 
of time for a minute or so to ask a question. I want to put the House 
on notice that if that happens once more, I will guarantee that we will 
not finish this bill tonight.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise with hesitation to oppose the amendment of my 
very dear friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), who, 
let me note, has always been one of my heroes in this body because he 
not only is an articulate champion of the things that he believes, but 
he is a man who has walked the walk as well as talked the talk. He is a 
legitimate American hero and, thus, I am hesitantly coming to oppose 
his amendment.
  Let me suggest that the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) is 
right when he says that no Nation, including Turkey, should be able to 
slap the United States in the face and walk away without paying a 
price. They are paying a price. The fact is that earlier on we were 
willing to give them a huge aid package to join us in this war. It was 
a $16 to $30 billion package, and they are not going to get that now. 
This is a very much reduced package of about a $1 billion expenditure. 
So let us say that they have paid the price for not being true when the 
time was right.
  But let us add that Turkey must also get the credit it deserves for 
being one of our most stalwart friends and allies over the years. The 
Turkish people have stood by the United States more strongly and more 
courageously than almost any other people on this planet for over five 
decades. They deserve to get a little leeway for that. We deserve for 
them to be given a little credit. We should give the Turks a little 
credit for the fact that when the Korean War was on, and our people 
were being brutally murdered and we were unprepared for that conflict, 
the Turks were the first ones to send help to our end and stand by us 
in that conflict.

[[Page H2751]]

  In Vietnam, while they did not have troops there, they did support us 
in that effort while the rest of the world heaped abuse upon us. During 
the Gulf War, a decade ago, even though it was dramatically against 
their economic interest to do so, the Turks stood with us, and their 
assistance saved the lives of many and made that operation the success 
it was. We could not have done it without them.
  Thus, we owe the Turks. Now, yes, they did not do what was right by 
us at this moment. It was a time of confusion in their history. They 
are paying for that mistake. But let us give them the credit that is 
due them for so many years of friendship, so many years of alliance, so 
many years when we could count on them. And let us look to the future. 
If we are going to have democracy develop in the Muslim world, Turkey 
will be an absolutely pivotal player. We will rely on them again to 
make this a safer and a better world. We will not succeed in the 
President's goal of bringing democracy to the Muslim world without the 
Turks there. They are giving us a good example. They are giving their 
fellow Muslims a good example. Let us stand by them.
  Yes, let us say we were disappointed, but let us not treat them in a 
way inconsistent with the way that they have treated us over these many 
decades, which is as a friend and ally.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I associate myself with the thoughtful comments just 
presented by my colleague from California and with comments made 
earlier in this debate by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) and 
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
  Turkey is a democracy, as our Secretary of Defense often points out 
approvingly, Turkey is a NATO ally, and Turkey is a courageous 
supporter of Israel. I too regret the recent action by Turkey's 
Parliament, but I am pleased to see that what has followed is more 
promising. And I applaud our Secretary of State for visiting Turkey 
these past days to mend relations.
  This is a good debate to have, Mr. Chairman, and an important vote to 
make on this floor. In that spirit, I wish the rule had permitted us to 
have a good debate on the amendment the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey) had planned to offer, and a good vote on the proper level of 
homeland security funding for our first responders.
  On that subject, I want to point out briefly that it is not just the 
level of responder funding, it is not just the top line that matters, 
it is the front line.
  It is as important that Federal funds are delivered quickly to local 
police and fire departments, public health officials and other first 
responders on the front lines of our hometowns. When an earthquake or 
other natural disaster strikes in California, first responders rush in 
to secure the scene, render medical assistance and provide a hot meal 
and a cot. FEMA has programs in place to reimburse communities promptly 
for the costs they incur.
  The point is this: The FEMA system has been thoroughly tested. We 
know it works and it serves our communities well.
  A similar kind of system should be in place in preparation for 
possible acts of domestic terrorism which can have the same or worse 
impacts than a natural disaster. It is up to the Federal Government to 
make sure emergency response programs are extremely effective and 
efficient. After all, we are obligated by the Constitution to provide 
for the common defense, and part of the war theater is our hometowns.
  Last week, Secretary Ridge put it this way in testimony before the 
Congress. ``I would like to engage both Chambers in a bipartisan way to 
see whether or not I can convince you that the formula we have used in 
the past shouldn't be the formula we use in the future.'' He continued: 
``It doesn't take into consideration some of the special needs that 
certain communities have and certain States have that are substantially 
greater than others.''
  Secretary Ridge has it right and I commend him for his willingness to 
acknowledge the problem and offer to work with Congress to fix it. The 
Secretary is saying what many of us have known for some time. It is not 
enough for Congress simply to write the check. The check needs to be 
delivered and cashed. And as of today, the dollars are not flowing.
  There is a better way to do this, and I think it is the FEMA way. 
Secretary Ridge can and should exercise his authority to streamline and 
expedite his Department's funding process the FEMA way.

                              {time}  1500

  FEMA has long used emergency funds to support communities, 
individuals, and families in the face of a natural disaster. Under 
prior leadership, FEMA streamlined its assistance to individuals and 
families, cutting checks within 3 to 7 days of a disaster.
  As a first step, Secretary Ridge should move the Department's 
Emergency Management Preparedness Grant program from the Office of 
Domestic Preparedness back to FEMA where experienced officials can 
process requests more quickly. Our emergency unpreparedness is a 
disaster waiting to happen, and we need to support our communities.
  There are other steps to consider as well. All Federal first 
responder funds that have not yet been made available should be 
released, including $100 million available to Secretary Ridge for high-
threat urban areas. He should determine where these areas are and get 
those funds out immediately. America's major metropolitan areas know 
their needs and can take steps to increase security now. We should not 
have to wait for a full-blown interagency process to tell us that a 
city like Los Angeles has critical infrastructure or a large 
population.
  I not only represent that large urban area, but many small areas, 
where small amounts of dollars can make a big difference. And those 
dollars are needed now.
  Wartime is not a time for business as usual. The war on terrorism is 
being fought on a number of fronts, including our hometowns. We would 
not send our troops to war in Iraq without the support, training, and 
equipment they deserve. We should do nothing less for those on the 
front lines here at home.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 
further debate on the pending amendment offered by the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham), and any amendments thereto be limited to 
40 minutes to be equally divided and controlled by the proponent of the 
amendment and myself as the opponent.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, that 
arrangement as stated would provide that all of the time would be 
managed on that side of the aisle. Can we work it out so that some of 
it is assured to folks on this side of the aisle, regardless of which 
side of the question they are on?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to ask unanimous 
consent that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) as an opponent 
would share the 20 minutes. So the gentleman from Wisconsin would have 
10 minutes and I would have 10 minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, that is agreeable. I withdraw my reservation 
of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, I would 
like an idea how many Members are waiting to speak on which side of the 
issue, and whether that is an adequate amount of time.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I have about six speakers for the amendment.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, on this side we have at least two or 
three.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to speak on the amendment. I 
would just like to see us finish before 4 in the morning.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, maybe a little more time is required on 
this amendment.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

[[Page H2752]]

  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman be interested 
in 25 minutes on each side? I think Members know how they are going to 
vote on this amendment right now, but we need to have the debate. I do 
not want to restrict the debate, but as the gentleman from Wisconsin 
stated, we would like to finish before we get accused of doing this in 
the wee hours of the night, and Members know that usual routine.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, the problem is the uncertainty who will 
get to speak or not get to speak. Can we proceed a little further and 
then see if we can get a unanimous consent request? Maybe 25 minutes a 
side.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent request 
that further debate on the pending amendment offered by the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Cunningham) be limited to 25 minutes on each side, 
to be equally divided and controlled by myself and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham) as the proponent.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield 
half of my 25 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) as an 
additional opponent to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) will 
control 25 minutes, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) will control 
12\1/2\ minutes, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) will 
control 12\1/2\ minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Rogers).
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the chairman of 
the committee for a fine job on a fine bill for the soldiers, sailors, 
and airmen of the United States military.
  I stand here as a friend of Turkey. I stand here as someone who looks 
to a strong relationship with Turkey in the years to come. I also stand 
here as a strong proponent of the Cunningham amendment.
  I met Mr. Erdogan the weekend before he was to be elected. We talked 
to some of his top leaders and advisers, ministerial-level officials in 
the new government. We came to a conclusion when we were getting ready 
to leave that it was probably in the best interest, and maybe in the 
next 10 or 15 or 12 days there would be a vote and they would push for 
a vote, understanding the very clear consequence that if they did not 
do this vote, we believed and we believe today there will be more 
American casualties on the battlefield and more Iraqi citizens killed.
  Instead of standing up and showing leadership in those 10 days, they 
decided to ride that wave of populism and avoid that vote. They had 
their chance to make a difference in this debate. Leadership would have 
solved this problem, and I understand they are a new government. I 
understand they have challenges with their IMF requirements, and they 
have challenges they need to meet in reforming their economy, and I 
understand that they have a struggling economy like our own.
  But it is a concern to me that this money is in this bill at this 
time. This is a wartime supplemental. Our chairman graciously stood up 
earlier and said let us keep these troops in our thoughts and our 
prayers, and I was humbled by that. This bill is for the very brave 
patriots who fight for America today, and by no means should we 
underestimate what the Turkish decision by a democracy, who are still 
friends, but let us not underestimate what that decision did; it cost 
us more money, more time, and more American lives.
  I find it offensive that we would put this money in this bill today 
on this floor. This is not the time nor is it the place to be debating 
the Turkey financial future or IMF or economic reform, or the fact that 
they helped us 50 years ago. Let us send a message to this new 
government that we are their friends, but there are consequences to 
being a part of democracy.
  I met with the Ambassador to Turkey yesterday who said this money 
``is not anything that they asked for,'' quote/unquote; that the money 
has nothing to do with any of the previous arrangements made on 
humanitarian aid supply, resupply or flyover, no bearing whatsoever. 
This has nothing, quote/unquote, to do with the war.
  A State Department senior official said yesterday that Powell's visit 
did not get any new agreements, it reinforced old agreements with 
Turkey. Let us not get confused by the things that we will hear on this 
floor or by the letters that we receive. This is about old agreements 
and old relationships that we should value as allies. This should not 
be about a new billion dollars at a time when we have soldiers dying on 
the battlefield as a result of their decision.
  Let us remind our friends in Turkey that they are allies of ours and 
they will continue to be, and even democracies can have differences; 
but sometimes there is a cost and a consequence to a decision to turn 
your back at a very critical time. This is not about a trade agreement 
or a company that got its privileges taken away in a copyright 
violation. This decision cost American lives.
  Let us stand up today and let them remember that. They are going to 
continue to be our friends, and I am going to continue to be a 
supporter from Turkey. But I want them to understand that we can never 
tie these issues together. Some of this money will be used to bring 
home our dead. The fact that we are allowing this money to be in this 
bill is wrong. I would ask Members to stand up today and support the 
Cunningham amendment and let us save Turkey economic development for 
another day.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).
  (Mr. WICKER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I join the chorus of Members who have 
commended the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), who is a 
patriot and is exactly right on so many national security issues, but I 
have to oppose this amendment. I believe it would be ill-advised to 
allow our short-term emotional feelings to affect the long-term 
security of this Nation and of the world.
  The nation of Turkey has been an ally of the United States for more 
than 50 years. During the Korean War, 717 Turkish soldiers lost their 
lives fighting on our side, and more than 2,000 were wounded. After 
September 11, 2001, Turkey voted in NATO to invoke article 5 of the 
Defense Treaty and join the coalition to fight al Qaeda and the Taliban 
regime, allowing access to airspace and providing intelligence within 
24 hours of that vote.
  The U.S. is right now working with Turkish forces in the Balkans, the 
Middle East, and the Caucasus. Currently Turkey is allowing flyover 
rights, supporting our resupply lines, allowing humanitarian aid and 
the evacuation of our wounded to cross their borders.
  Although Turkey's Parliament did not vote as we wanted, we need to 
remember that over 90 percent of their Parliament is brand new at this 
idea of governing. They were just newly elected, and more members of 
their Parliament voted in our favor than voted against us. It was only 
a parliamentary requirement that caused the issue to fail in 
Parliament.
  I think the actions of the Turkish Parliament were irresponsible and 
wrong, but two wrongs do not make a right. And certainly let's not 
compare Turkey with France and Germany on this issue. Turkey's 
leadership has supported the United States throughout. It has not been 
Turkey who has gone globe trotting all over the world, rounding up 
Security Council votes against the United States' position. It was not 
Turkey which did this.
  Further, I think it is inaccurate to make the analogy that the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) made with regard to what we 
do with our children. Turkey is not our child. Turkey is our ally, our 
partner in NATO. We can love them as a child and love them as an ally, 
but we must not

[[Page H2753]]

forget that Turkey is a sovereign nation, a nation whose friendship we 
need and whose friendship we have enjoyed.
  This appropriation issue is a matter of this House exercising its 
discretion and prerogative. We have the power of the purse. We can make 
this decision as a Congress. The Constitution gives us that right, but 
it also gives us the responsibility, I believe, to listen to the best 
minds on Earth on this issue. The Secretary of Defense yesterday told 
Congress that appropriating this money is in the national interest. 
That has also been the message of Secretary of State Powell, National 
Security Advisor Rice, and most importantly the President of the United 
States. I urge defeat of this amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Wexler).
  Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment which cuts the President's $1 billion request for wartime aid 
to Turkey. I too join in the commendation to the sponsor of the 
amendment for his patriotism and to the goodwill for those Members that 
support it. But with all due respect, and I was with the gentleman from 
Michigan in Turkey 2 weeks ago, the suggestion that Turkey, in the 
exercise of her democracy, is somehow responsible for putting American 
soldiers in harm's way I believe is a misplaced and inaccurate 
argument.
  We are not at war with Turkey. We are at war with Iraq. Do not 
transfer the atrocities of Iraq to the decisions of a longtime 
democratic ally. What is being discussed in the essence of this 
amendment, I would respectfully suggest, is a very short-term American 
memory; and if we really want to calculate what advantage the American 
men and women, the brave American men and women who are on the 
battlefield now have gotten or not gotten from Turkey, why are we not 
calculating the last 12 years where Turkey has provided the authority 
for American and British pilots to control northern Iraq and contain 
Saddam Hussein?

                              {time}  1515

  One of the principal reasons why the disparity of power is so great 
and so much in our favor in the fight right now is because Turkey 
allowed the United States for the past 12 years to diminish the 
capacity of Saddam Hussein and diminish his atrocities; but there is no 
mention of that with respect to this amendment.
  Following September 11, Turkey demonstrated a steadfast commitment to 
aiding the United States by leading the international security 
assistance force in Afghanistan. Let us not underestimate that. When we 
were attacked in New York, in Washington, in Pennsylvania, when it was 
our blood that was being spilled and when our forces left Afghanistan, 
whom did we hand it over to? We handed it over to a willing Turkey, a 
country that is almost 100 percent made up of Muslim citizens; and they 
took our battle and they took it willingly. And to suggest that because 
they exercised their democracy, even though we may be disappointed by 
the decision, that they are somehow responsible for the letting of 
American blood I do not believe is the message that the United States 
should ever suggest to an ally like Turkey.
  We are fighting in Iraq to destroy Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass 
destruction, but I also thought we were fighting to liberate the Iraqi 
people, to help them install a democracy. So what is the message? That 
the United States is their friend if they are a democracy only when 
they decide in agreement with what we believe?
  Is there no room for allies in the midst of a hot debate, in the 
midst of competing interests to have honest discussions, and do there 
have to be catastrophic consequences if a country disagrees?
  If I were an ally of the United States today, the message that I 
would get from this amendment is they are only as good as long as they 
agree 100 percent, but if they spill their blood with the United States 
for 6 decades like Turkish soldiers have done shoulder to shoulder with 
American soldiers, if they spill their blood for 6 decades, but they 
exercise their democracy and come up with a differing result, then the 
United States says all bets are off.
  We are better than that. We are better as a people, and we owe it to 
our soldiers that are fighting now to defeat this amendment.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Keller).
  Mr. KELLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Cunningham amendment to 
strike $1 billion in foreign aid to Turkey.
  Turkey is a NATO ally; and because of its location just to the north 
of Iraq, it was strategically important to the United States in our 
military plans to remove Saddam Hussein from power.
  But at a time when we needed Turkey the most, on March 1, 2003, the 
Turkish Parliament rejected a resolution to allow 62,000 U.S. troops, 
255 planes, and 62 helicopters to enter Turkey.
  Saddam Hussein is a ruthless, pathologically aggressive dictator with 
a history of attacking several countries bordering Iraq. Our country 
has incurred many casualties. We spent billions of dollars to help 
reestablish the reign of peace and stability throughout the Middle 
East. Why is Turkey not giving us $1 billion?
  And these fair-weather friends in Turkey, are they even grateful that 
the United States is giving them $1 billion in American taxpayers' 
money, money that is extracted from the paychecks of waitresses, 
secretaries, and small businessmen? The answer is no. Recently the 
Turkish Ambassador to the United States stated, ``This is not something 
Turkey has asked for. It is a unilateral action by the U.S. 
administration.''
  We are giving $1 billion to Turkey in the name of friendship when it 
is clear to anyone with common sense that friendship cannot be bought.
  One billion dollars is a lot of money. It is enough to send 250,000 
American children to college on Pell grants. Let us use our taxpayer 
dollars wisely.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Cunningham amendment and 
strike the $1 billion in foreign aid to Turkey.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member on 
our Committee on Appropriations for yielding me this time.
  I rise in opposition to this amendment, but I certainly understand 
where the distinguished Member from California is coming from. But in a 
bill that includes $7.5 billion in direct assistance and authorization 
for another $19.5 billion in guaranteed loans with the full faith and 
credit of the United States behind them, Turkey needs to be part of 
this package. They are too strategically an important ally not to be 
because they are a member of NATO, they border Iraq and Iran. They are, 
in fact, cooperating in our battle with Iraq, with Saddam Hussein more 
than with the Iraqi people. But if we are going to be successful in a 
long-term war of winning over the hearts and minds of the Islamic 
people, more than 1 billion people throughout the world, that is where 
we need Turkey the most, to move this world in the direction of 
democracy, of free enterprise, and of individual rights.
  Turkey is a secular society and a truly democratic electoral system, 
and we cannot have it both ways. We cannot urge countries throughout 
the world to in fact democratize their political system, but then when 
they do not act according to our will but rather reflect the will of 
their people, we reject it and we want to hold back money. We cannot do 
that. We cannot have it both ways in Turkey or any other country; and 
that is really what this is all about. When 90 percent of the Turkish 
people are opposed to the war in Iraq, of course 90 percent of the 
Turkish people are Islamic, it is perhaps understandable; but we ought 
to respect that and respect Turkish leaders and work with them.
  Turkey needs to be a member of the European Union. One of the reasons 
they are held back is because of corruption, which at least has been 
endemic in Turkey, and human rights abuses. We need to use this money, 
in my opinion, as leverage in advancing America's priorities, the 
priorities of the American people in terms of human rights and 
democratization.
  There is a woman by the name of Leyla Zana, for example, who goes on

[[Page H2754]]

trial today. She has been in prison for 11 years. When she was 
inaugurated a duly elected member of parliament, she made a speech 
urging that the Kurdish minority work with the Turkish majority in a 
more integrated and peaceful society. That is a tinderbox in Turkey. 
Turkey needs to work with the Kurdish minority. Many of us were 
concerned about the Turkish military going into the northern part of 
Iraq into the Kurdish zone for fear they might attempt a military 
occupation. Turkey needs to understand that we provide this money, but 
we expect them to integrate the Kurdish people within their entire 
society and, in fact, their economy.
  So that is our objective, advancing America's priorities; and 
America's priorities are more consistent with Turkey's long-term 
priorities than many of the countries that we are providing aid to 
today.
  So I urge the Members of this Congress to support the $1 billion and 
in fact the additional $8.5 billion in guaranteed loans for Turkey, but 
then not to shrug our shoulders and turn our back but to work with 
those in the Turkish society and in politics who want to modernize 
Turkey, to enable it to become a member of the European Union, a bridge 
between East and West and one of the shining examples that democracy 
can work and human rights can be observed throughout the Islamic world.
  I urge defeat of the amendment for that reason, but I congratulate 
the Member for raising the issue.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire as to how 
much time is remaining for the proponent and the opponents.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) has 19 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) has 9\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 4\1/
2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the distinguished majority whip.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  As my friend from Virginia just said, I share his admiration and 
appreciation for the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), one of 
the true heroes of this Congress, a person who has defended our 
country, who thinks about those who are in harm's way, who appreciates 
what they do only as one who has bravely stood there, appreciates what 
they do, and I appreciate his sense that this is a topic that we need 
to discuss because we do need to discuss it; and our friends in Turkey 
need to hear the discussion. We have been disappointed with their 
actions in recent days. In fact, someone just stood up a minute ago, 
another friend of mine, and said Turkey disappointed us when we needed 
them most. I think that would be hard to evaluate when we needed Turkey 
the most because we have needed Turkey often and we have needed Turkey 
for a long time, and they have been there on all previous occasions.
  If we were going to have a debate on this floor about who was the 
most valued NATO ally, certainly our friends in Great Britain today and 
in this moment would rank at the top of that list, and they would be 
widely appreciated. But if we had to look over the history of NATO, 
certainly as we had that discussion, we would have to have that 
discussion, and it would have to involve Turkey. Turkey, because of its 
location, has been at the focal point of so much of the world's chaos 
and in the last 5 decades has been at that focal point as well. Turkey, 
who during the 45 years of the Cold War stood facing the Soviet Union 
on the north, the bulwark of stopping the advance of those that we saw 
who opposed our way of life and what we did at that time, they stood so 
firmly and so strong that we prevailed in that great conflict of 
ideology. Now Turkey has had to turn and face the south as the hotbed 
of the world borders Turkey on the south, and they face the south as a 
great and dependable friend of ours. Certainly Turkey has had a change 
based on their democracy. The government has changed. The government is 
working hard, in my opinion, to continue that strong friendship with 
the United States. They do need to be part of the European Union. They 
have been discriminated against for many reasons. They need to move in 
the right direction. We need to encourage that both economically and 
socially and politically.
  This continues to move Turkey in that direction. It continues to show 
that we appreciate those who 90 percent of the time and plus in the 
last decades have stood with us.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave).
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, it was not long ago we were standing in 
this place voicing our support of the troops; and when we were voicing 
that support, I think some of the most poignant remarks came from the 
soldiers in our midst.
  It is hard to imagine what it is like being in the middle of a war 
for those that have not done it like myself. However, the sponsor of 
this amendment has been there. He has had the experience of being a 
soldier in a very perilous situation, and I think today that the 
sponsor of this amendment is putting himself in the place of the 
soldiers that are serving us in this conflict right now.
  We have not forgotten what Turkey has done for us. My brother-in-law 
is a Korean War veteran, and we appreciate their friendship and their 
support through the years. But one of the qualities of friendship is 
steadfastness, being able to call on a friend in one's time of need. 
Turkey has failed us now in this present situation. In fact, Under 
Secretary Wolfowitz told the House of Representatives on March 27, 
``There is no question if we had had a U.S. armored force in Iraq right 
now, the end of the war would have been closer.''

                              {time}  1530

  Every one of us in this Chamber, every citizen in the United States, 
wants this conflict to end as soon as possible. If Turkey had done what 
the United States had requested and needs, and given their full support 
and assistance, many lives would have been saved. The soldiers that my 
distinguished colleague identifies with that are in this conflict 
today, many of them would not have been killed.
  I find it offensive that we would say to the families of those 
soldiers that have been lost, we are going to reward Turkey's behavior 
by giving them $1 billion in aid today. I think there are consequences 
when nations take action that harm our soldiers, and I would ask that 
we support this amendment that is given by the heart of a soldier.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Turkey may need assistance, but today is not the day to approve that 
assistance. Today we send a clear signal to America and the rest of the 
world that we support our troops. Turkey has not supported our troops.
  The U.S. over the last number of months has consistently and 
frequently consulted with Turkey as to the direction of the war with 
Iraq and the role that Turkey would take. Turkey allowed us to make 
improvements to their infrastructure. We invested millions of dollars, 
contracted with Turkish companies to work, yet they would not allow us 
to deploy our troops. The Pentagon supported their economy by 
purchasing Turkish-made apparel for U.S. troops for 1 year, waiving a 
Buy America provision, sacrificing American jobs for Turkish jobs. The 
U.S. continues to promise protection to Turkey in the event of an 
attack. That is more than what we can say Turkey did for us.
  Turkey has been an ally for a long time. So maybe sometime in the 
future would be the appropriate time to come back and take a look at 
how to help a friend with tough economic times. But in this vote, where 
we are supporting our troops in our war effort, this is not the place 
to reward Turkey.
  Let us remove this from the bill. Let us make this a clean bill that 
signals to our troops that we stand with them and that we will be with 
them through the conclusion of this war effort.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the very 
distinguished gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), a leader in this 
House.
  (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

[[Page H2755]]

  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
Cunningham amendment.
  We have heard a lot about the distinguished history of Turkey as a 
NATO ally, and as an ally in Korea as well, and in Afghanistan leading 
the ISAF for 8 months, and in Operation Northern Watch over Iraq where 
they provided the air base for our flights for the last 12 years. They 
have been an incredibly faithful ally.
  Now, what happened in Turkey is really this, when it comes down to 
it. They had an election in November. It swept in a new party. Ninety 
percent of their national assembly is new. This party, the Justice and 
Development Party, had never been in power; and never had even shared 
power before. And through inexperience and incompetence they were 
surprised to have lost the vote. They got the plurality. They had too 
many absentees and too many abstentions and they were surprised that 
they did not have the absolute majority vote.
  This is not the time to punish Turkey for that inexperience.
  Their own party leader, a charismatic man, was not eligible to serve 
in the Parliament at that time. Now he is the Prime Minister.
  They have done an incredible amount of things, but the other thing I 
want my colleagues to consider is that they were the biggest loser in 
the Gulf War. Not the United States in terms of costs, no one else; the 
cost to them was somewhere between $60 billion and $80 billion, 
unreimbursed. We had our costs paid for, primarily so, by Kuwait and 
Saudi Arabia.
  Now, let us see what Condoleezza Rice said in behalf of the President 
today. She said in this letter addressed to the chairman, ``American 
and Turkish soldiers stood side by side during the Cold War and on 
battlefields from Korea to Afghanistan. The President's supplemental 
request recognizes and reflects that past, and his desire,'' that is 
the President's desire, ``to strengthen the relationship further. This 
assistance . . . can play a significant role in bolstering the U.S.-
Turkey partnership.''
  This is not the time to undercut our President. And this very moment 
is certainly not the time, because the concessions and the kind of 
agreements recently conveyed to Colin Powell says Turkey is there for 
us.
  Please defeat the amendment. The costs for passing this amendment are 
extraordinary.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding me this time.
  I rise in support of this very important amendment. I think the 
debate itself is a very important one.
  It has been said that this amendment is emotional. I am not sure 
where folks are coming from. A lot of what we do up here is certainly 
emotional, and certainly not everything we do up here is logical. But I 
will say this, in terms of the logic of this important amendment, if we 
can picture Baghdad and if we can picture the 3rd Infantry Division, 
the 3rd Infantry Division whose patch I am proudly wearing today 
because it was given to me by one of the military officer's wives back 
at Fort Stewart in Georgia, and I have the proud honor of representing 
the 3rd Infantry. Mr. Chairman, 18,000 troops right now are in the war 
theater who are my constituents.
  Now, they have gone up the Euphrates River and they are a little bit 
southwest of Baghdad. Now, in the original game plan, the war plan, the 
4th Infantry was to be on the north of Baghdad. The idea was that they 
would come over from the Turkish border and then they would be ready, 
and we would have Baghdad in kind of a pincher movement. We would have 
troops on the north, heavy armor; we would have troops on the south, 
heavy armor. Instead, what we have because of Turkey's wishy-washy 
position, because Turkey could not make up their mind, we have the 3rd 
Infantry Division fighting basically the full force of Baghdad on their 
own. Now there are folks from the 4th Infantry Division getting in 
place, but there has been anywhere from a 2-week to a 1-month delay.
  So what I am saying to my colleagues is, you know what? Maybe if you 
were from Hinesville, Georgia, maybe if you were a member of the 3rd 
Infantry Division, maybe if you are looking at the Republican Guard in 
the face, maybe you have a right to show a little bit of emotion. For 
Members here to take kind of this intellectual high ground and suggest 
that the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), who is one of our 
brave combat veterans of Vietnam, to suggest that he is not entitled to 
some emotion on a situation that regards troops in harm's way, I think 
that is somewhat of a slight.
  But I want to say this to the gentleman from California: The 
gentleman is entitled to be emotional anytime he wants, and by golly, I 
think our folks from the 3rd Infantry Division are. I want to say this. 
Back in the 1970s, when the gentleman was in Vietnam, I am glad the 
gentleman was emotional.
  But I want to address some of the logic here that people so proudly 
say they have. We have 49 countries in our coalition. I will ask 
Members, do my colleagues know how many of those are getting monetary 
support from the United States? Twenty-two of them. The reason why I 
point that out is many people are saying, this is no way to treat an 
ally. Well, wait a minute. If we are only giving money to 22, what 
about the others? Are they not entitled to it? Are they going to walk 
around saying, well, we have to question being allies of the United 
States of America because they did not give us money?
  Now, it has been suggested that this is the only money for Turkey. 
Remember, this is $1 billion. We gave Turkey money just a month ago in 
our regular fiscal year 03 budget. We will be giving Turkey more money 
in our regular fiscal year 04 budget. We have given Turkey aid money 
for the past 5, maybe even 10 years. I am not sure of the exact number 
of years, and I am not sure of the exact level. I think it is in the 
$200 million range.
  But people are coming up here acting like this is Turkey's one shot 
for money. It is not. It is a $1 billion support check. That is a lot 
of money.
  If we support the Cunningham amendment, we will get a second shot at 
Turkey, for those of us who feel that we should support them. They are 
allies and I think we should have some level of support for them, but 
we might not need to do it right here, right now. Let us wait until the 
fiscal year 04 budget and take a look again.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  The debate has been a little surreal because we have had such 
impassioned speeches about Turkey as an ally and how could we do this 
to them, how could we deprive them of this money, which they did not 
ask for? The Turkish Ambassador, Faruk Logoglo, said yesterday, ``This 
is not something Turkey has asked for. It is a unilateral action by the 
U.S. administration.''
  Mr. Chairman, this is $1 billion they did not ask for, they do not 
expect, and yet now it has become an imperative in this bill, making 
emergency wartime supplemental appropriations. Why? Why now? Why is it 
in this bill?
  As the gentleman who spoke before me said, there will be a time and 
place to debate aid to Turkey and the many other worthy nations around 
the world who need United States assistance. But should not this bill 
be more focused?
  Remember, we are borrowing every penny. Every penny of the $74 
billion in this bill will be borrowed. We do not have the money in the 
bank somewhere. It is not coming from a contingency fund. It is going 
to be borrowed. So we should borrow $1 billion to send to Turkey who 
has not asked for it, and if we do not borrow the money to send to 
Turkey who has not asked for it, we are somehow penalizing them. I do 
not think they will see it that way. It does not sound like the 
Ambassador is going there.
  There are other needs that are unmet in this bill. The gentleman from 
Wisconsin attempted to enhance homeland security, port security. I 
serve on the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation of 
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and the Committee 
on Homeland Security, and I can tell my colleagues, our ports are not 
safe. We have not done everything we need to do. We need more funds to 
make those ports safe. The most likely way of delivering a weapon of 
mass destruction

[[Page H2756]]

in the United States is not an intercontinental ballistic missile, it 
is a container on a rogue ship. That is how it will get here in all 
probability.
  So why are we not making those investments? We could spend, if we 
need to borrow this extra $1 billion, there are a lot of ways to spend 
it. We could even spend it here at home. There is $3.4 billion in this 
bill to rebuild Iraq: 6,000 new schools, universal health insurance. 
Guess what? We have 44 million Americans uninsured. We have cut 
Medicaid in my State. I have thousands of Oregonians who do not have 
health insurance, that need work. Our schools are crumbling. We cannot 
run a full school year. We could take this $1 billion and spend it here 
in the United States of America. I have to question a lot of the 
foreign aid that is in this bill and the priorities that are being set 
here.
  So therefore, I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment, and if 
this is successful, that would be good; and if not, I will offer an 
amendment later to reduce the funds to Turkey to fund National Guard 
weapons of mass destruction civil support teams which my State and 17 
other States do not have, which have been authorized by this Congress, 
but we do not have enough money to fund them; but we can send $1 
billion to a country that did not ask for it and does not want it.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Jones).
  Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I just returned from Camp 
Lejeune, went down with the President and the gentlemen from North 
Carolina (Mr. McIntyre) and (Mr. Ballance), my colleagues, to say thank 
you to the families of those who have lost loved ones fighting this war 
in Iraq.
  I just want to say I join my colleagues on both sides of the 
political aisle. I think it is time that this Congress start looking at 
what is important to this country.
  Let me give an example. Veterans. I have 61,000 veterans in my 
district. Many of my colleagues in this House have more than that, but 
I have 61,000 veterans and retired military combined. Yet every year 
when we debate concurrent receipts for those men and women who have 
served this Nation, it is also a major issue of where are we going to 
find the money? How are we going to help those who have served this 
Nation?
  I believe sincerely, and I know that through history, Turkey has been 
a friend of this Nation and maybe it is now and maybe it will be in the 
future, but I agree with my colleagues, this $1 billion is unnecessary. 
The gentleman that spoke before me just said that Turkey has not even 
asked for the $1 billion. I am saying to this Congress that this is 
going to be a tough budget year, there are going to be a lot of tight 
decisions that we have to make, and let us take this money and let us 
spend this money on the American people.

                              {time}  1545

  Let us spend the money on the people of this country who have served 
this great Nation, like the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham); 
and God bless all who are veterans and retired military.
  I hope that, as we vote on this amendment today, we will support the 
gentleman from California and that we will remember that those who have 
served this Nation, whether they be retired military or retired 
veterans, that they have a right. This government made a promise, we 
will help you if you serve this Nation. If Turkey does not want the $1 
billion, let us take it back and spend it on to those who serve this 
great Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, God bless America, and God bless our men and women in 
uniform.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), and I hope that everyone would pay 
close attention to someone who has a real-life experience on this 
issue.
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment 
and stand not so much out of concern for foreign policy, but out of 
concern for the 3,000 American men and women of the 173rd Airborne 
Brigade whose supplies are today delivered from Turkey.
  To the proponents of this amendment, what would the soldiers of the 
173rd do in northern Iraq if the diplomatic incident we cause leads to 
a cutoff in their supplies? The 173rd needs supplies in northern Iraq. 
Therefore, the United States needs Turkey.
  Prior to my election, I served as a Navy air crewman who flew out of 
Incirlik Air Base in Turkey against Iraq. For 12 years, Turkey 
supported Operation Northern Watch and the thousands of Americans like 
me who flew into Iraq to protect the Kurds in the north.
  Under the U.S.-Turkey alliance, the Kurds built two powerful armies 
in northern Iraq. It is those armies who rushed the Ansar al-Islam and 
other al Qaeda forces with U.S. special operations this week. Tonight, 
U.S. airborne and special operations forces are moving with the Kurds 
against Saddam. Their beans and bullets to fight Saddam are now rolling 
through Turkey on the way to the front.
  Look at the past. Turkey sent troops to fight alongside us in Korea. 
Turkey sent troops to stand with us in Bosnia and in Kosovo, with me. 
Turkey replaced us in Somalia and stands with us in Afghanistan. We 
should not question our Commander in Chief on the eve of victory. We 
should not cause a diplomatic incident now. Think of the Americans in 
the 173rd, think of their supply lines, and vote ``no'' as the 
President, the Commander in Chief, the Secretary of State, the 
Secretary of Defense, my chairman, and the ranking Democrat member of 
this committee have urged. Vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
Cunningham amendment. Condoleezza Rice, the Assistant to the President 
for National Security Affairs, wrote us a letter:
  ``Secretary Powell addressed important military, political, and 
economic issues when he met this week with the Turkish leadership. Both 
sides agreed to an unimpeded flow of humanitarian aid to north Iraq, 
and access by American forces to supplies sent through Turkey. Turkey 
continues to grant overflight rights, and is committed to enhance 
cooperation on terrorist threats and possible refugee flows into the 
region, without moving additional Turkish military forces into Iraq. 
These are very positive steps.''
  The President of the United States has requested this $1 billion. We 
will be acting like the Turkish Parliament acted if we cut this money 
out. It will be a mistake. This is not the way to rebuild and treat a 
NATO ally. Let us defeat the Cunningham amendment and move this bill 
forward.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, if anyone has a right to be upset at the 
Turks, it is me. I represent Fort Hood, where the 4th Infantry Division 
is located, the division that was supposed to come down through Turkey. 
I had met with 50 of the spouses several weeks ago, and have been 
watching them live under the uncertainty of not knowing what will 
happen and where their husbands will be deployed.
  But this is a well-intentioned but dangerous amendment. While not 
intended, it could put at greater risk thousands of military soldiers, 
sailors, airmen, and Marines in Iraq, including the 4th Infantry 
Division that was involved in this Turkish decision.
  Let us support the President, and let us trust the President on this 
decision in time of war. Oppose the Cunningham amendment.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Idaho (Mr. Otter).
  (Mr. OTTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, I join my colleague, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham), on the floor today, as I joined him on the 
floor not too long ago when all of us sat in this Chamber and listened 
to these words: ``If they are not with us, they are against us.''
  I think that acid test that was asked for, not too long ago, we asked 
that question of our friends in Turkey. That question was asked and 
they failed that test.
  True democracies are joined irreversibly at the heart and soul with 
one great and unyielding truth, that is, their belief in freedom. This 
surely was

[[Page H2757]]

a test of the love of our freedom for this entire world and this entire 
effort we are engaged in; freedom, I might add, that swears perpetual 
hostility over any form of tyranny.
  I believe this country should have understood, if they had lived that 
long with that close of a neighbor, that if they did not understand the 
tyranny that such a tyrant as their neighbor in Iraq was leading that 
country with, surely they understood that.
  I would just close by asking my good friend and colleague, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), what would be the price 
that would have been paid when the wingman left the gentleman's wing 
the first time?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Sherman).
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I hope this amendment passes. If it does 
not, I will be offering an amendment that goes just half as far as this 
one and still allows Turkey to obtain substantial benefits for its 
limited aid to us at this time.
  Keep in mind, Turkey will get tremendous benefits during the Iraqi 
rebuilding program. Her contractors are well positioned to obtain 
billions of dollars in contracts. Keep in mind that we are controlling 
the exuberance of the Kurds, who otherwise would be waging war against 
Saddam's forces more effectively; but we are restraining them because 
of the request of Turkey.
  Therefore, we have already done a lot for our friends in Turkey. We 
do not need to provide aid that they have not asked for.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Cunningham 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a difficult decision. As a member of the 
Committee on International Relations, and coming from a State that has 
produced not only the current chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee, but also a former chairman of the House Committee on 
International Relations, Indiana has a great tradition of engagement on 
international affairs. Hoosiers believe in economic and in cultural 
engagement.
  I am very much aware, Mr. Chairman, of the relationship that we enjoy 
with Turkey. I am also very much aware that in a matter of weeks we 
will appropriate another quarter of a billion dollars in assistance to 
Turkey. I will be first among those on this floor at that time to 
support that funding, to strengthen that relationship.
  This is, however, a different question today. The Cunningham 
amendment is all about whether or not this part of the national 
government, which is truly the heart of the national government, should 
resonate with the hearts of the American people who are disappointed in 
our friend, the nation of Turkey. It is not that they are no longer our 
friend, but it is that we are disappointed in recent decisions that 
have endangered American lives and cost us in our effectiveness in 
Operation Iraqi Freedom.
  I will vote for the Cunningham amendment to stand with the American 
people, who choose at this time to send this message to that friend.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, this is indeed a sobering day as we sit on the floor 
and debate this important issue while our young men and women in the 
military are outside the city of Baghdad as we speak.
  It is my privilege to represent the 101st Airborne Division, which is 
present in Baghdad today. When I was first elected to Congress, the 
military leaders at Fort Campbell reiterated to me the importance of 
Turkey as a military ally. As a result of those discussions repeatedly 
over many occasions, I joined with others in the Congress, and we 
established the Congressional Caucus on Turkey and Turkish Americans a 
couple of years ago.
  With the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler) and the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Rogers) I went to Turkey about 3 weeks ago. We met with 
not the Prime Minister, Mr. Erdogan, he subsequently became the Prime 
Minister; and we urged him to allow our troops to use Turkish soil to 
come into northern Iraq. The Parliament, even though they voted more to 
do it than they voted against it, they did not get the necessary votes, 
and they did not pass it. We were disappointed.
  I think it has been said repeatedly today, and everyone recognizes, 
we all agree, Turkey is a valuable military ally. But on another note, 
I would like to point out today that the real tension in the world 
today, I think all of us would agree, is between Christians and Muslims 
and the Jewish faith. Everywhere we look we see this tension.
  Turkey has been a perfect example of a Muslim country with a secular 
government that has good relationships with the United States, with 
democracies, with the State of Israel. It is the type of model that I 
think is vitally important for the long term. I think that is one of 
the reasons that we see that President Bush has requested this money. 
Therefore, I would urge the Members today to defeat this amendment.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, maybe some of us that have seen our friends killed in 
action do have a different view. I have personally witnessed the 
actions of other countries that caused the loss of many of my friends. 
Perhaps someone that is responsible for killing my friends, American 
soldiers, I just do not feel that they should be rewarded.
  I do not think anyone disputes on this floor that Turkey's action 
damaged our ability to project force into Iraq, specifically from the 
north. Turkey's action contributed to the loss of American lives when 
our paratroopers had to parachute into northern Iraq lightly armed, 
instead of with a major force.