Congressional Record, Volume 149 Issue 145 (Thursday, October 16, 2003)

[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 145 (Thursday, October 16, 2003)]
[House]
[Page H9583]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR DEFENSE AND FOR THE
RECONSTRUCTION OF IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN, 2004

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 396 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. 3289.
The Chair designates the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) as
chairman of the Committee of the Whole, and requests the gentlewoman
from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) to assume the chair temporarily.

{time} 1519

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. 3289) making emergency supplemental appropriations for defense
and for the reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes, with Mrs. Biggert
(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. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
I do so to point out that we have debated this bill for a long time
now, 6 hours on the general debate, 1 hour under the rule; and now we
will have another hour's debate plus the amending process. The largest
amount of dollars in this bill will go for our troops, for our national
defense, for our soldiers and all of our military forces who are
involved in the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. The second largest portion
of the bill has to do with construction in Iraq, the development of
creating a constitutional system where the Iraqis can control their own
destiny and our troops can come home. And I want our troops to come
home, and that is why I want to get this money appropriated so that we
stabilize the country of Iraq to the point that our troops can come
home.
Madam Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished gentleman
from California (Mr. Lewis), who is the chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations' Defense Subcommittee, who has led a large delegation to
Iraq and has covered the country very well, has returned with just a
tremendous report on what is actually happening there without regard to
any spin control by the media. He has done a really good job as
chairman of this subcommittee. He did an outstanding job in leading his
delegation to Iraq.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Chairman, I thank the chairman for
yielding me this time.
I doubt that I will take the entire 10 minutes at this moment; but it
is very important, I think, for the Members of the House to join
together and recognize the long-term impact that we may be about
effecting today as we consider this very important supplemental.
In anybody's book, $87 billion is a lot of money. Indeed, it was not
very long ago, 2 weeks ago, the President signed into law the
appropriations for the 2004 national defense funding. Those dollars pay
for the fiscal year that is ahead of us, for the expenses of housing,
of training, of providing food and forage for the men and women who
make up our forces. The moneys also involve paying for the assets that
they use whether they be airplanes, ships at sea, or arms that they
must carry. Those dollars also pay for the research and development
that allow us to stay on the cutting edge for the wars that we may have
to fight somewhere over the horizon. All of that is a piece of national
security or the national defense, a total in that package in excess of
$370 billion.
There is just not any question that defending America, being the
strongest country in the world, is an expensive process. To say the
least, our national defense is a priority for the country. Over half of
our discretionary money goes into these pools because our people have
long recognized that our freedom is critical to our future, and we know
very well that maintaining that freedom is a price we must and we are
willing to pay.
The one thing that is not often said, peace is one thing, maintaining
our freedom is very critical, but war is an entirely different thing.
War is really expensive. We remain strong as a country because we are
peacemakers. From time to time we find ourselves in a circumstance
where war is a requirement if we are going to stabilize our future in
this shrinking world. We found ourselves in this circumstance in the
Middle East. And the war on terrorism, which is a direct result of 9-
11, and the President's taking head-on the challenge of terrorism
throughout the world has put us on a track that suggests that America
is the only remaining superpower, and we will lead the point insofar as
not just maintaining the peace is concerned but also ferreting out
terrorism wherever it might exist, wherever it may be harbored.

[[Page H9531]]

And today we find ourselves in the midst of Iraq, following a
military incursion on our part that directly dealt, began to deal with
the fact that in that country was one of the world's worst terrorists.
Saddam Hussein and his regime absolutely will be remembered in history
as one of the worst of all time. Indeed, what he has done to his
people, the attitudes and view of the world that he has harbored in his
country are among the worst that we have experienced. It rivals all
that which Hitler was about and the Holocaust. It certainly rivals
Stalin.
But to go to Iraq and see firsthand what a terrorist is all about
when he runs a country, Saddam Hussein cared nothing about his people.
Only those who were his closest supporters did he care about. But from
there he did not shy away a moment for murdering by the thousands his
own people.
To travel to Iraq and see what might happen or even be happening in
other countries, to visit the killing fields where indeed we can see in
some locations mounds of dirt dug up, we can see clothes sticking out
of these mounds of dirt. People have gone there seeking to find the
location of their loved ones who were murdered on the very spot. To be
in a killing field where the farmer, the local killer designated by
Saddam Hussein, chooses to bury people by the thousands under his
fields where he grows his crops, it is an incredible scene, one that is
impossible to believe almost unless one goes and visits Iraq today.
To look at the past, what Saddam Hussein and his regime have done to
his people, and people like him threaten to do to the world, certainly
is a very important awakening for those of us who have had the chance
to visit.
We traveled not long ago to Iraq, 17 of us, Democrats and
Republicans, liberals and conservatives, some who supported the war,
some who did not; and we came back together almost hand in hand. We
spent time thinking through what we had learned and seen and, indeed,
thinking through what our responsibilities were. There is little doubt
that that trip is made up of people who now support our effort to fight
the war on terror. Indeed, the support from that group, if it is
reflected in the House, would suggest we are going to have a very solid
bipartisan base of support for this supplemental.
Speaking for a moment to the supplemental itself, most of the money,
the $87 billion we are talking about, most of the money is going to our
forces, to secure and sustain our troops. Some $65 billion of the money
goes to our troops. The balance, about $18.5 billion, is for the
reconstruction of Iraq.
Let me speak to that piece of it for a moment for the Members have
heard me talk about finances for our troops time and time again, but to
that piece of it that the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) is
responsible for, the reconstruction of Iraq. It is very important for
all of us to know that that money is designed simply to jump-start this
economy, to begin the work that is necessary, to make sure that we can
put pressure on the world to help with Iraq's circumstance.
For once we relieve it of this huge burden of debt that Saddam
Hussein created, really some mix that involves over $200 billion worth
of debt. We then can apply some of the funding we are talking about in
this bill to reconstructing some of their basic utilities, creating
circumstances where decent water systems can go forward, where an
industrial base is possible, where investment for the world economy
makes sense. Once Iraq gets to that point, that engine will have begun
to run, and I am confident if we follow through here, if we have the
patience and the hope to follow through, Iraq will progressively come
in among free nations. For the first time in their history, people will
have a chance for freedom, and they will see the doorway and the
promise of private economic opportunity.
Indeed, what we are about to do today is history-making. If we go
forward here with hope and patience, there is little doubt that the
bill we pass today will change the world that is the Middle East. We
have the potential of adopting a model that will put pressure on the
whole system there, and it is my view that then there truly will be
real hope for democratic and free change in the countries in the Middle
East, and, indeed, we will be back on the roadway to peace.

{time} 1530

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 8 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, my grandmother was a salty woman who originally came
from Maine and settled in Wisconsin. She said once to my sister,
``Look, Kathy, just because you want to get married, doesn't mean you
have to say yes to the first idiot who walks through the door.'' I
think we all know that is true.
That is the same principle that we ought to apply when we review
administration requests to spend money. Just because we want to do
something, does not mean that the Congress has to just swallow willy-
nilly the first slap-dash, sloppy, naive package that is sent down to
us. The Congress has the right and an obligation to use its judgment
and to be selective.
It was suggested a couple of moments ago by one of the speakers that,
in essence, whether you vote yes or no on this package is a measure of
whether or not you want to oppose terrorism or not. Absolute baloney.
There is not a Member of this House who does not want to fight
terrorism.
Less than a week after 9/11, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young)
and I pushed through this House a $40 billion package to respond to
terrorism, and, if I recall, that package passed virtually unanimously.
We then went on to try to get the White House to increase its budget
for homeland security items so we could strengthen protection in our
ports, strengthen protection of the airways and strengthen protection
afforded by our first responders in our local communities all across
this country. The President threatened to veto that extra money. Nobody
suggested he was soft on terrorism when he did that. He had a different
view of how that money should be used than we did. He wanted to use it
for tax cuts instead of homeland security. That is his right. I did not
happen to agree with it.
We spent $60 billion on a package directed at our activities against
Iraq just a few months ago, and yet, in spite of the maximum
flexibility we gave the administration, we still find out today that
there are 40,000 soldiers who were not given the Kevlar linings to
their flak jackets. So, in other words, they did not have the body
armor that they needed when they went into combat.
We also find out that the Pentagon, the civilian leadership of the
Pentagon, in its infinite wisdom, did not manage affairs in such a way
that would deliver all of the electronic jammers that were necessary so
that our troops would stop being blown up by remotely detonated bombs.
We also discovered that, despite all of that money that we gave them,
they did not provide the Kevlar blankets for the Humvees, so they were
getting blown up on the roadbeds.
Now, we discover that 80 percent of American troops in Iraq still do
not have access to anything but putrid water, so whole units get
dysentery.
So with all due respect to one of the previous speakers, we have a
right, and indeed an obligation, to exercise our judgment.
Every dollar that we spend on this request is a dollar that will not
be spent on education, will not be spent on health care, will not be
spent to modernize our own electrical grid, will not be spent on
community development, will not be spent for any other domestic
purpose. So if we are going to deny funding for those programs, we had
doggone well better know that this money is going to be used for the
best possible purpose, in the wisest and smartest possible way.
That is the issue here, not a measure of someone's patriotism or
their judgment or their dedication to the antiterrorist fight. If
someone were to suggest otherwise on this floor today, that would be
demagoguery not worthy of institution. So I hope that does not happen.
What we have an obligation to do today is to ask whether this
package, as presented, does as much as it should to support our troops
and allow them to return home safely. I do not believe it does.
Does it do as much as it should to restore the readiness of U.S.
military to respond to future crises in the Middle East, or any other
part of the world? In my view, it does not.

[[Page H9532]]

Does it provide Iraq with the right kind of assistance, or will the
principal beneficiaries be the large multinational corporations who
charge an arm and a leg for services that can be delivered for a dime
on the dollar in Iraq by other people? I do not think it does provide
enough protections.
Does this package place a fair share of burden on American taxpayers
vis-a-vis taxpayers from other countries? I do not believe it does.
Most of all, is it not gutless for this institution to refuse to pay
for this package, rather than charging the bill to our kids?
Before we prattle on about ``shared sacrifice,'' I think we ought to
see whether we are really willing to ask anybody to sacrifice, except
the people in the military, who are stuck with discombobulated lives
because of mixed up troop rotations, the Reserve and Guard being told
they have to serve another year.
What is wrong with asking that at least we pay for this package, so
that we can save $4 billion a year in interest payments that can be
used on deserving and needy programs here at home? Nothing is wrong
with that, and yet the majority will not grant us the right to even
offer that amendment so we can get a vote on it.
That is what is wrong with this House, that is what is wrong with
this package. And that is why I intend to vote no, until the
administration does come to us and tell us two things: (1) Gives us an
accounting of the $60 billion they have already spent, they have not
done so; and (2) gives us a clear understanding of what their plans are
for spending on this operation for the next 5 years. They have
steadfastly refused to provide that, and, until they do, this Congress
has a responsibility to exercise the only power that our Founding
Fathers gave us that means a whit, the power of the purse.
We have an obligation to our taxpayers and our constituents to know
what we are doing and to know what the government is going to be doing
with their tax dollars. We do not know enough at this point to provide
this money carte blanche. When we do, I will be happy to vote for it,
but not until.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from California
yielding me time, and I want to thank him for his leadership, as well
as the Chairman of the Full Committee, for his leadership on this bill.
Mr. Chairman, the total amount of this supplemental appropriation
bill is over $86 billion. The foreign operations chapter totals $21.071
billion. That is $221 million less than the President's request. My
remarks today will be on that part of the bill.
Mr. Chairman, let me first say that I strongly support the objectives
the President seeks to achieve with this supplemental request for Iraq
and Afghanistan. This supplemental bill supports our men and women in
uniform and it provides reconstruction resources to stabilize and
improve conditions in those countries that will enable us to bring our
troops home soon. These reconstruction funds are essential to achieving
our national security and our foreign policy objectives and to
defeating terrorism. This portion of the supplemental is essential to
providing for a more stable and a more peaceful world.
I want to applaud Ambassador Bremer and the men and women in our
Coalition Provisional Authority and various Federal agencies that are
part of our U.S. team for their dedicated service under the most
difficult of circumstances. The task they and their counterparts in
Afghanistan have before them amounts to no less than the creation of an
entire nation, with all its attendant institutions and infrastructure.
This is a daunting task, and they deserve our bipartisan support to
complete it.
I think my colleagues recognize that our objectives will not be
achieved quickly, and the financial costs will be great. Even so, the
costs of reconstruction efforts may seem large, but they are small
compared to the costs of failure. We cannot, we must not, fail.
Mr. Chairman, we must learn from history, as several have already
said on this floor. After the First World War, we retreated as our
allies required reparations and we helped to create economic chaos in
Germany.
After the Second World War, the Marshall Plan and our efforts in
Japan led to stability and to global economic growth, a very different
outcome. The investments made then and in our defense capabilities
ultimately led to our victory over communism in the Cold War.
The Greatest Generation, as it is sometimes called, understood the
importance of economic and political reconstruction in Europe and
Japan. It shouldered the costs of the Marshall Plan, some $13 billion,
or about 5 percent of our gross domestic product at that time. In this
age of terrorism, the stakes could be just as great for our security.
By way of comparison, this $21 billion for reconstruction of Iraq and
Afghanistan represents less than one-fifth of one percent of our GDP
today.
Mr. Chairman, we must get this right. We cannot allow Iraq to become
a failed state, to disintegrate into several states that foment
terrorism and instability. We must not repeat mistakes, such as were
made in the last century, when within the space of a single generation,
we sent the sons and younger brothers of First World War veterans to
the same battlefields in Europe.
These funds must be considered an investment, an investment in
security both in the region and on American soil, and a responsibility.
We must not confront, a generation in the future, with the terrible
knowledge that we removed two tyrants, only to leave vacuums into which
their cousins in tyranny would return.
The needs are great. But, just as John Taber, the chairman of the
House Committee on Appropriations in 1947, led Congressional scrutiny
of the Truman administration's Marshall Plan request, our committee,
led by the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) and this House, has
a responsibility to review the details of this reconstruction effort,
and the Committee on Appropriations and this House also have a
responsibility to ensure that taxpayer dollars are used efficiently and
in a process that is transparent. I know my colleagues take that
responsibility seriously.
Since the Committee on Appropriations received the President's
request, we have held several hearings and numerous meetings to examine
it. The bill before the House represents reductions of almost $1.7
billion in programs in Iraq, and increases in programs for Afghanistan
and Pakistan of almost $600 million. We also have some $858 million to
support the Coalition Provisional Authority, or CPA, as it is called,
that was not included in the foreign operations portion of this
request.
We have assigned the highest priority for projects that can be
implemented and executed during 2004, or that are not likely to be
funded by others. The resulting bill is a balanced approach to
supporting a complex, crucial mission in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it
provides much-needed emergency appropriations to further the fight
against terror in other countries.
Let me highlight a few of the parts of the bill before us.
There is $18.65 billion for Iraq. That is a reduction of $1.7 billion
from the President's request. $3.2 billion is for security and law
enforcement. The sooner we build strong security and police forces that
have respect for the rule of law, the sooner we can bring our men and
women home. But this job cannot be left half done. These funds will add
thousands of Iraqi police and security personnel to keep peace on their
streets, to bring their own criminals to justify, to control their own
borders.
There is nearly $10 billion to provide reliable drinking water,
sanitation and electricity service. I would note with considerable joy
that Iraq's electricity levels have recently exceeded prewar levels for
the first time, but this accomplishment is tenuous. Many plants rely
more on improvisation than on fuel to keep running. Virtually all
generating facilities are in desperate need of repair or replacement.
Improperly treated solid waste threatens drinking water, and water-
borne illnesses continue to plague Iraq's population. Correcting these
problems will entail costly, long-term investments, but they are
investments that will contribute directly to development, to peace and
stability.

[[Page H9533]]

Finally, this recommendation includes $2.1 billion for rebuilding and
improving Iraq's oil infrastructure. These funds will not only repair
the damage done by saboteurs and years of underinvestment and neglect,
but will improve security for pipelines, refineries and drilling
stations. The Iraqi Governing Council and its ministers will rely on
oil sales for salaries and operations, including the funds required for
thousands of security positions added by this supplemental. As the many
acts of sabotage have already demonstrated, Iraq's reliance on the
United States and the international community will continue as long as
its oil production is hampered. The committee includes a specific
account for the operating expenses of the Coalition Provisional
Authority, as I mentioned earlier.
The CPA is overseeing one of the most costly and important foreign
assistance programs in U.S. history. Its operating costs should be
treated in the same manner as those of any other major implementing
agency of foreign assistance such as USAID. This separate account does
nothing to change or reduce the authority of the Secretary of Defense
with regard to the CPA.
Not included in this bill, however, is $1.7 billion for a variety of
programs which were requested by the administration. These include
items that, in our view, cannot possibly be completed over the next 15
months, or that are not needed to meet an emergency, or that could
better be completed by an international organization or other group.
For instance, we have eliminated $400 million for two high-security
prisons. We have left in $100 million for one prison, and $99 million
for rehabilitating existing structures.
Also not included is a $150 million down payment on a $700 million
state-of-the-art children's hospital in Basra. Children's health is
very important, but we have put $100 million of that into
rehabilitating some of the clinics in Iraq.
Let me turn for one moment to Afghanistan. It is a country at a
critical stage. We have to root out the Taliban and these other
criminals from the bordering region of Pakistan, and we have to have
the support of the Afghan public to succeed. In this bill we include
$1.24 billion for Afghanistan. That is $400 million over the
President's request. The level includes an additional $297 million to
support the development and outfitting of the Afghan National Army,
$191 million for roads, $95 million for electricity, and $69 million
for elections and improved governance.
I know there is much discussion about whether these funds for Iraq
should be direct assistance or extended as credit to be repaid later as
a loan. I believe it would be a huge mistake to make these funds as a
loan instead of as direct assistance as the bill provides.
The greatest burden for all of us is the knowledge that decisions we
make as Congressmen and Congresswomen directly put the lives of
Americans at risk. Already, men and women from many of the districts
represented in this body have died in Iraq and Afghanistan. I firmly
believe the supplemental bill as reported will go a long way to
rebuilding a stable, free Iraq and Afghanistan and will support other
initiatives to make Americans safer at home and abroad.
Mr. Chairman, I am sure we will hear from Members who say they
support the military portions of this bill, but not the reconstruction.
I do not agree that such a distinction can be made or should be made.
During our first hearing on reconstruction, I asked our commander of
CENTCOM, General John Abizaid that question, and to conclude, I would
like to quote his answer. He said, ``There is no strictly military
solution to the problems we face. It requires that we move together on
the political front, the economic front, on the reconstruction front in
a manner that is synchronized and coordinated. If we don't do that, I
do not believe we can be successful. So you can pay the military to
stay there, but you are only paying us to stay forever.''
Mr. Chairman, General Abizaid's remarks are right on the mark. We
need to support the President in carrying out foreign policy
initiatives just as firmly as we support our troops on the ground. We
need to build a stable and a peaceful Iraq and Afghanistan, because it
is the right thing to do and because it is in America's national
security interests.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the minority whip.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I rise in support of this supplemental. We must give our troops in
the field who have performed brilliantly in deposing the despotic
Taliban and Hussein regimes the equipment and materiel they need to
succeed in their mission. That tragically was not done with our
previous appropriation. It must be done with this one. Failure in Iraq
is not an option, and additional funding is vital to our efforts.
I also believe that the reconstruction grants in this bill are
inextricably linked to our opportunity to achieve success. As The
Washington Post stated yesterday, ``Rebuilding the electricity grid,
fixing the water supply, getting the oil flowing, maintaining public
safety, all of this is central to hopes for stability and
representative government.''
However, Mr. Chairman, my support today does not come without
reservations or deep concern about administration failures to date.
American troops and American taxpayers are bearing a disproportionate
share of the burden, and I believe the responsibility for that falls
directly on the Bush administration and its failed diplomacy.
Virtually every assumption that the administration made going into
Iraq has either been wrong or has yet to be proved correct.
Administration officials disputed General Shinseki's prediction that we
would need several hundred thousand troops to succeed in Iraq. He was
right. Today, we do not have enough military personnel to secure Iraqi
weapons caches. Assistant Defense Secretary Wolfowitz prior to the war
assured us that ``we are dealing with a country that can really finance
its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.'' Consideration of this
bill today demonstrates the falsity of that claim.
Furthermore, the administration's postwar planning has been abysmal.
As Senator Hagel, a Republican of Nebraska, stated in September, ``I
think the Bush administration did a miserable job of planning for post-
Saddam Iraq. They treated many in the Congress, most in the Congress,
like a nuisance. To that extent our allies are treated like the
people's elected representatives here. This Congress has a
constitutional duty to hold the executive branch accountable.''
I am pleased that the Committee on Appropriations and the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis),
as well as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), have scrutinized this legislation last
week and made modifications and adopted amendments I offered requiring
the administration to provide quarterly reports on a range of issues
and advanced review of no-bid contracts raising justifiable concerns of
war profiteering.
Finally, I believe the international community must recognize that
the interests of the civilized world coalesce in Iraq; and thus the
law-supporting nations of the world have an obligation, yes, a duty, to
assist in securing and reconstructing Iraq. I urge the international
community to step up and meet its responsibility at the donor
conference next week.
Mr. Chairman, I supported our policy to remove the Hussein regime
from power. It was a dangerous, genocidal regime that threatened the
security of the region and the world. Having undertaken this task, we
must succeed. The American people expect it, and our security demands
it. We must, therefore, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the brave young men
and women who are bearing the risks and burdens of this endeavor, and
our taxpayers who are bearing its costs, carefully and with conviction
review the policies, plans, and actions being proposed and taken to
accomplish this critical mission. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey) is correct in that.
The war on terrorism is a very different kind of war. There are no
defined battlefields and no easily identifiable enemy. It is a global
war, and it is, like all wars, dangerous and costly. But it is a war we
must win if freedom and security are to be achieved in this

[[Page H9534]]

21st century. I will, therefore, support this effort to accomplish that
victory.
Mr. Chairman, I will vote for this emergency supplemental
appropriations bill providing $87 billion for our continuing efforts in
Iraq and Afghanistan.
We must give our troops in the field, who have performed brilliantly
in deposing the despotic Taliban and Hussein regimes, the equipment and
materiel that they need to succeed in their missions. That tragically
was not done with our previous appropriation. It must be done with this
one.
Failure in Iraq is not an option. And additional funding is vital to
our efforts.
I also believe the reconstruction grants in this bill are
inextricably linked to our opportunity to achieve success.
As the Washington Post stated yesterday: ``Rebuilding the electricity
grid, fixing the water supply, getting the oil flowing, maintaining
public safety--all this is central to hopes for stability and
representative government.''
However, Mr. Chairman, my support today does not come without
reservation or deep concern about administration failures to date.
American troops and American taxpayers are bearing a disproportionate
share of the burden, and I believe the responsibility for that falls
directly on the Bush administration and its failed diplomacy.
Virtually every assumption that this administration made going into
Iraq has either been wrong or yet to be proved correct.
Administration officials disputed General Shinseki's prediction that
we would need several hundred thousand troops to secure Iraq.
Today, we do not have enough military personnel to secure Iraqi
weapons caches.
Assistant Defense Secretary Wolfowitz assured us that: ``We're
dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction
and relatively soon.''
Consideration of this bill today demonstrates the falsity of that
claim.
Furthermore, the administration's post-war planning has been abysmal.
As Senator Hagel stated in September: ``I think [the Bush
administration] did a miserable job of planning for a post-Saddam Iraq.
They treated many in the Congress, most in the Congress, like a
nuisance.''
To that extent, our allies are treated like the people's elected
representatives here.
This Congress has a constitutional duty to hold the executive branch
accountable.
I am pleased that the appropriations committee scrutinized this
legislation last week, and made modifications and adopted amendments I
offered requiring the administration to provide quarterly reports on a
range of issues and advanced review of no-bid contracts, raising
justifiable concern and outrage about war profiteering.
Finally, I believe the international community must recognize that
the interests of the civilized world coalesce in Iraq.
And thus the law-supporting nations have an obligation to assist in
securing and reconstructing Iraq.
I urge the international community to step up and meet its
responsibility at the donor conference next week.
Mr. Chairman, I supported our policy to remove the Hussein regime
from power. It was a dangerous, genocidal regime that threatened the
security of the region and the world.
Having undertaken this task we must succeed. The American people
expect it and our security demands it.
We must, therefore, on behalf of the brave young men and women who
are bearing the risks and burdens of this endeavor and our taxpayers
who are bearing its costs, carefully and with conviction review the
policies, plans and actions being proposed and taken to accomplish this
critical objective.
The war on terrorism is a very different kind of war. There are no
defined battlefields and no easily identifiable enemy. It is a global
war. And, it is, like all wars, dangerous and costly. But, it is a war
we must win if freedom and security are to be achieved in this 21st
century. I will support this further effort to accomplish that victory.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I welcome and applaud the
gentleman's support. In the meantime, it is my privilege to yield 4
minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague yielding me this
time. I want to congratulate the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young),
the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Obey), and others who have put together, I think, a very good
resolution to help ensure that we are successful in our efforts in
Iraq.
But as I listened to the discussion over the last several weeks and
to the debate over the last 24 hours on this specific resolution, I
think many of my colleagues are losing the perspective of just how big
an issue this is. I think we need to remember what happened over the
last several decades as the Middle East grew increasingly unstable:
Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait in 1991, the Taliban movement
during the 1990s in Afghanistan, the weapons of mass destruction that
were being proliferated throughout the region and, certainly, the
effects of 9-11 and our effort to rid the world of terrorism. All of
this instability in the Middle East was threatening the world economy,
and let us not kid ourselves.
I think President Bush did the right thing when he led the effort for
us to go into Iraq. He could have done what Presidents have done over
the decades, and that is gone to the U.N., trying to persuade the U.N.,
which he did, but they never really quite had the gall and the nerve or
the courage to do what needed to be done in Iraq. So the President
decided on his own, with his administration and the support of this
Congress, to go to Iraq and do what needed to be done.
The American people ought to applaud his actions. It is the most
dramatic shift in U.S. foreign policy in our 200-year history, to go in
and preemptively take out a foreign leader and to try to bring some
sort of democracy to a region of the world that has never known any
type of democracy. All of this was made possible because of the men and
women in uniform willing to go in and fight on our behalf and now
willing to be there to try to secure the peace.
The President made his point very clear early on that peace was going
to be more difficult than war, and certainly it has. But I would argue
to all of my colleagues that we have no choice but to succeed. Our
grandchildren and their children are the ones who will know whether
decisions we have made over the last year were right or not, not us in
our lifetime. And the $87 billion that we have on the table to help
ensure success ought to be supported.
For those who want to make these loans rather than grants, just let
me suggest there is not a Member of this body who does not know that
none of this money is ever going to be repaid. We can call it what we
want; but the fact is, these are grants, they are going to be grants,
and we can play with the folks back home, we can make politics out of
this. The people of Iraq cannot afford to pay this back. And if we are
going to be successful and if we are going to help our troops get home
as quickly as possible, let us play no games. Let us stand tall, let us
stand proud, let us support the resolution and bring our troops home as
soon as we can.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, before I comment on the supplemental, I
would like to thank the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) and the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Ranking Member Obey) for their very important
work on the bill. I would like to recognize the gentleman from Arizona
(Chairman Kolbe), my very good friend and colleague on the Subcommittee
on Foreign Operation, Export Financing and Related Programs. For 3
years, the gentleman and I have worked together to craft a foreign aid
bill, always mindful that our work abroad has a direct impact on the
stability and prosperity of those nations that we seek to assist and a
direct impact on the national security of the United States. The
gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) is as open to ideas and
suggestions, as intelligent in his reasoning and responses, and as
gracious in his manner as any Member of Congress that I have known. It
has been a true pleasure to work with him, and I look forward to more
years of partnership, trust, and accomplishment.
Mr. Chairman, this Iraq supplemental is enormous and complex and has
provoked passionate and very different opinions among us and the
public. Everyone has their own ideas about how it could be done. In my
judgment, the request made by the President and the CPA was shaped by a
series of miscalculations, miscalculations about how the international
community would react to United States operations in Iraq, how we would
be received by Iraqis, what would be required to rebuild, how generous
other nations would be with donations. That is why this debate is so
very important; and everyone should be heard for the sake of our
constituents, our heroic

[[Page H9535]]

Armed Forces, and our democracy. We should not just rubber stamp the
executive branch's request.
As I said, everyone might have their own ideas about how it could be
done, but I think it is crucial that we remember why it should be done.
At stake, in my judgment, is the reconstruction of Iraq, a country
whose stability and growth is critical for our own national security.
Failure in Iraq would create a dangerous vacuum in the heart of the
Middle East, a vacuum with no order. It would be a place where hatred
of the United States would thrive and where those who seek to plot
against us would find another safe haven. That is why this supplemental
is necessary and important, and I urge my colleagues to consider that
as we debate today.
However, it is important to stress again that while the goal is
clear, the execution has been, frankly, mediocre. We do not have a
plan. We do not have clear priorities, strong safeguards, or a
sustained diplomatic effort.

{time} 1600

Taken separately, each is a serious shortcoming. Taken together, they
have led to a reconstruction effort that appears haphazard and
irresponsible.
However Members vote on this supplemental, we have a dual
responsibility to national security and to fiscal stability. The effort
in Iraq is crucial for our security, but we must be honest about the
cost and about the tough choices we face.
I did hope that we would have a full and open debate that would allow
us to consider the package drafted by the Ranking Member, the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). I strongly supported the Obey amendment
because it spoke to the needs in Iraq, the concerns of our military and
their families, and the constraints of our Federal budget. It was a
responsible approach that took much of the burden off the United States
taxpayer. And I am truly disappointed that we were not able to vote on
it.
If this were a true democratic House, we would have the opportunity
not only to have a full debate, but to be able to take a position on an
alternative that I think is really constructive and would be supported
by a good deal, maybe even the majority, of the Members of this House.
I look forward to hearing from my colleagues as debate on amendments
begin.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Platts), one of those Members who
experienced our fabulous trip to Iraq recently.
Mr. PLATTS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this very important
legislation.
I was honored to join the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis)
and 16 other Members of the House on our trip to Iraq just a few short
weeks ago. I was honored to convey the sincere gratitude of my
constituents and all Americans to our troops for the devoted service
and immeasurable contributions to the safety and security of our
Nation.
Our brave soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines have exhibited
remarkable courage, skill, and ingenuity in defeating Saddam's
Hussein's military. They are now exhibiting an equal level of courage,
skill, and ingenuity in rooting out the remnants of regime loyalist,
foreign terrorists, and common criminals who are determined to obstruct
Iraq's transformation into a peaceful, democratic nation.
Much of our time in Iraq focused on getting a firsthand understanding
of the status of stabilization and normalization efforts. Our
delegation met extensively with United States Army General Ricardo
Sanchez and Major General Raymond Odierno and other senior American and
coalition nation military and civilian leaders. These individuals
presented compelling arguments, emphasizing the importance of funding
electrical, water, and security infrastructure improvements throughout
Iraq to ensure that we win the peace just as we won the war.
Generals Sanchez and Odierno emphasized that infrastructure
improvements will not only improve the quality of life for Iraqi
citizens, but also the security of American troops in Iraq. General
Sanchez stated that sustaining the existing level of troops in Iraq for
the foreseeable future is critical for achieving and maintaining a safe
and secure environment in all corners of Iraq.
The General emphasized, however, that we are not going to win the
peace militarily. Rather, the peace will be won through Iraq's economic
revitalization, political transformation, and the establishment of
Iraq's own security forces.
Our delegation's visit to a mass grave site just outside of Al
Hillah, in southern Iraq, and the newborn intensive care unit at Al
Yarmuk Hospital in Baghdad were two of our more emotional and somber
visits. What these visits told us, though, is we must finish the job
and do right by our soldiers in Iraq.
The remains of approximately 3,000 men, women, and children were
found in the Al Hillah grave site, one of countless mass grave sites
throughout Iraq. These individuals, including infant children, were
executed by Saddam Hussein's regime in the spring of 1991 as part of
the regime's mass execution of at least 30,000 Iraqi Shiites.
The chief administrator at Al Yarmuk Hospital, an Iraqi physician,
described Saddam Hussein's refusal to invest in Iraq's healthcare
system over many years. The tragic death of one of the newborns in the
intensive care unit during our visit emphasized Iraq's healthcare
challenges, including a staggering infant mortality rate of over 100
infant deaths per 1,000 births.
While there is much work to be done and many challenges to be
overcame, there were many signs that peace has gained a strong foothold
throughout Iraq. Children cheering on the Coalition forces escorting
our convoy, grateful and hopeful words of Iraqi civic leaders, civilian
traffic congestion on the streets, children playing soccer, the return
of power generation to pre-war levels, the training and deployment of
40,000 Iraqi police officers, and the existence of more than 150 free
and independent newspapers in Iraq.
With the continued support and assistance of the United States and
our allies, the people of Iraq are on the path to transforming their
country into a peaceful, thriving democratic nation. The funds for
civilian infrastructure projects contained in this legislation will
help ensure that the years of despair, fear, and torture under Saddam
Hussein's regime are successfully replaced with freedom, justice, and
hope for a bright and promising future for all Iraqi citizens.
Finally, and more importantly, as Generals Sanchez and Odierno
emphasized, these supplemental funds will help to ensure that our
courageous men and women in uniform have the resources they need to
fulfill their challenging mission in Iraq and in the broader War on
Terrorism. I urge all members to support this legislation.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend and colleague, the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for yielding me this time.
Last week I had the opportunity and the privilege to travel to Iraq.
We met with troops on the ground, military command, the civilian
administration with CPA. And nothing has made me more proud to be an
American than the opportunity to visit our troops in the field, whether
it has been in Bosnia, Kosovo or now in Iraq. They are doing a
tremendously good job under very difficult and dangerous circumstances.
And I believe General Zinni was right when he said that the high
level of sacrifice that our troops and their families have made for
this mission has not been met by the high level of planning that was
required for this mission.
But whether one agrees with the merits on the methodology of going
into Iraq, now that we are there, I believe that we must succeed.
Failure is not an option. We do not have the luxury of cutting and
running right now. But what we do from this point on can make all the
difference.
That is why I stand in support of the Obey substitute, which I think
is a commonsense, practical approach of leveraging the limited funds
that we have available to put in Iraq through the World Bank, but also
diversifying the many resources for our troops and enhancing the
quality of life issues that are so important to them in their
performance, and also by asking another segment of our country to
contribute something as well, the upper 1 percent of the wealthy in
this Nation, who if they were to postpone or freeze their tax cut would
pay for this entire supplemental along with additional

[[Page H9536]]

funds in the future which will be needed. It's the right thing to do
for the sake of our children.
I believe we need to internationalize this. And, hopefully, the U.N.
unanimous vote today will help bring us closer to sharing the burden
and bringing legitimacy to the process with other lay nations who can
contribute troops and resources in a meaningful way. Thus far, we are
paying a very high price in both lives and money due to the unilateral
action in Iraq.
But I also believe we must work simultaneously on empowering the
Iraqi people themselves to take control of their own destiny and have
control of their own fate. Because, at the end of the day, it is going
to be the attitude of the Iraqi people themselves that will determine
the future of their country.
So I beseech my colleagues to give it due consideration and to
support the Obey substitute which addresses so many of these issues in
a practical and commonsense fashion. We can support our troops and the
goals in Iraq, but we can do it in a fiscally responsible manner or we
will build upon the legacy of debt that our children and grandchildren
will inherent.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the amount
of time remaining.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) has 6 minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 11 minutes
remaining.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) perhaps use some of his time? And I think the
gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) will want to close.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), a member of the Subcommittee on
Defense of the House Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, we have said it many times, we
need to restate it, though, apparently, again, there is no question
between the debating sides here whether Saddam Hussein was a tyrant.
The world is far better off without him. And we are glad he is gone. We
certainly hope he is gone. There is no debate as to the priority that
we want to place on our troops. Obviously, that is our highest
priority. And we will do what we see as necessary to protect their
lives and provide for their families.
But, Mr. Chairman, there is something else involved here that goes
beyond the issue of Iraq. This is about the integrity of this
institution, the role it has to play vis-a-vis the executive branch. It
is about the precedent that we establish with such important votes.
We had a hearing today with the comptroller of the Department of
Defense, the Committee on the Budget did. It was similar to the hearing
we had last week with Secretary Rumsfeld. We were told again that there
is no time frame for when we might be moving our troops out of Iraq.
Remember when the time frame was imposed on President Clinton with
regard to Bosnia? Pretty tight time frame, as I recall. Today, were
told that there was no estimate as to how many troops might be required
or what the composition might be between National Guard and Reserve
versus enlisted personnel.
I remember when we put pretty tight controls in Bosnia and Kosovo,
even though it was a multilateral effort, led by NATO. We were told
today that there was no estimate as to the ultimate cost of this
conflict or of the reconstruction.
Now, how many times do we have to be told that we are being taken for
granted, that the power of the purse that we hold, which is really all
that our constituents expect us to use as leverage, is not there if we
continue to give a blank check? And that basically is what the
administration is asking for in this supplemental.
I support the Obey amendment because, in fact, it does provide for
the troops. Even more specifically, it will not let the administration
get away again with getting $60 billion and not spending it on the most
basic necessities of individual and collective protection for our
troops on the battlefield. And Iraq still is a battlefield.
But it also requires some burden sharing, not as much as the first
President Bush required, where he got most of the war paid for by other
countries because we had taken the time to build a coalition. It is
time we used our leverage to require that there be some burden sharing
of this conflict, some considerations for the other needs of the
American taxpayer.
The Obey amendment makes sure that we use the World Bank. Seven
billion will collateralize another 35 billion. It will quadruple the
amount of money that we put in, that the taxpayers put in. Because it
is not our money, as we are continually reminded, it is the taxpayers
we are talking about.
But, most importantly, we have to acknowledge that it is not
acceptable to engage in conflict, putting our troops at risk with the
use of a pattern of deception. I know we do not like to hear this, but
how many times were we told there was a connection between 9/11 and
Saddam Hussein? President Bush admitted just a short while ago, no,
there was no connection. We were told by the Vice President that they
had nuclear capability. Now, he admits he misspoke. That is not
acceptable. This is a bad precedent.
I have tremendous respect for my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle, for the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Young). Their commitment to our troops, to our
military superiority and to our military doing the right thing is
unparalleled. No question. But, we have a responsibility. It is an
institutional responsibility and a moral responsibility not just to do
right by the taxpayer, but, to also do right by the troops, to do right
by this institution, to demand answers to legitimate questions: How
long? How many troops? What will be the cost? What is the commitment?
We have not been given answers to those questions. And we should not
approve this supplemental until we are given answers, straight answers.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, just recently I went to Walter Reed Hospital, and there
I visited Chris Knapp, a constituent of mine from Yucca Valley,
California. He had been driving a Bradley not so long before that that
was struck by enemy fire. He was hit by shrapnel, was proud of the
fact. He showed me the Purple Heart that the President presented him
with the day before, as well as the President's personal coin.
He talked most, however, about Sergeant Ramirez, who had been so kind
to him when he was injured. He did not talk about the fact that the
night after he had been with the President, they had taken out his
right eye.
He urged me to communicate that they need our support. They are there
for a purpose called freedom. It was Chris Knapp and his buddies and
Sergeant Ramirez who are fighting the good fight over there. All they
are asking for today is our real support and not our lip service.
Mr. Chairman, I must say it is my privilege and pleasure to yield the
balance of my time to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the
chairman of our committee who provides the endless base of support and
provides the point for the fight for our people in Iraq that are
defending freedom.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the debate
yesterday, and today, and probably will listen late into the evening
tonight. And I must say that while I have some strong disagreements
with some of these statements made and some very strong support and
endorsement of some of the speeches and statements that have been made,
I believe that the Congress does itself proud today. I think the level
of debate is very high, and I think the Congress should get good marks.
At the end of the day, I am satisfied that we are going to pass this
bill because it is important. And this bill is designed to help fix
many of the things that have been complained about in the Iraqi
operation.
We want an exit strategy. Everyone wants an exit strategy. I remember
asking President Clinton years ago, what is our exit strategy for
Bosnia?

{time} 1615

Well, he said, it is not that easy to make that decision. It depends
on how long it takes to stabilize the country.
Well, we are still in Bosnia. However, I will state that the United
States Armed Forces have done a really good job there. Bosnia has been
stabilized.

[[Page H9537]]

Bosnia is really coming back economically. It was worth the investment
to stop the murder that was taking place in Bosnia.
What we are doing today is appropriating the money to provide the
exit strategy for our American troops plus the equipment that they need
in order to carry out their mission and in order to protect themselves
to the best extent possible.
The large amount of the money, that is for our own Armed Forces, does
not seem to have developed any controversy. I think we are all for
that.
Where the controversy has developed is over the money to help to
establish a government in Iraq and to support a government in
Afghanistan. What we are talking about here is bringing our troops home
as soon as we can. I want them out of there tomorrow, if possible. I do
not want to go visit any more wounded soldiers and Marines in the
hospitals. I want the killing to stop.
One of our colleagues on the other side said, stop the war; stop the
killing. I agree. We did not start the war. We did not start the war.
We did our very best as we prosecuted this war to make sure that we did
it without targeting any nonmilitary targets and without attacking
those who were not involved in Saddam's regime. By stabilizing this
country, by helping to build a school system, by helping to build a
monetary system, by helping to build a judicial system, by helping to
build a police force, and by helping to build a security force, we can
prevent any more tyrants like Saddam Hussein from taking control in
Iraq. That is our exit strategy, to make those things happen; and that
is what this money is for, to make those things happen.
Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) has 1 minute
remaining.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 6 minutes
remaining.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/4\ minutes.
Mr. Chairman, once you fire the bullet, you do have an obligation to
clean up the mess; and that is why I certainly agree with virtually
every task in Iraq that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) just
described.
I do not agree with those who believe that we should just provide a
military package and not provide a reconstruction package. That would
be, in my view, irresponsible. But having said that, I think the
problem is that the package that is being proposed is insufficient in
terms of what it does to help the troops; and it is wasteful in terms
of what it does in Iraq, and badly through out to boot. That is why we
have been asking questions of the administration about their future
plans.
The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) says we need to finance an
exit strategy. The problem is we have no exit strategy. Until we do, we
are going to be floundering and we will have a tremendous number of
American lives disrupted. So that is why I have come to a different
conclusion on this specific package than the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Young).
Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 5 minutes
remaining.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Young). I know that the gentleman inadvertently used some
of his time, and I will be happy to yield him 1 minute so that the
gentleman could add to his time for closing.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished minority leader.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), our ranking member on the Committee on
Appropriations, for yielding me time and for his excellent work in
putting together the Obey substitute, the Democratic substitute, which
unfortunately cannot come to the floor today but nonetheless would be a
brilliant, brilliant way for us to reconstruct Iraq, provide for our
troops, and bring them home safely and soon, having stabilized Iraq.
Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the very distinguished chairman of
the Committee on Appropriations for his always reasonable approach to
challenges that we have.
Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) for
his great service, and I will say more on that later, as well as the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), for what they have added to
this package.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to say to the distinguished chairman, the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), that I am glad to hear that exit
strategy means something different to him than some of our colleagues
on the gentleman's side of the aisle who said exit strategy means cut
and run. The gentleman and I know that that is not what that means.
We all know that we must support our troops. We respect their
courage, their patriotism, the sacrifices they are willing to make for
our country. We also know that for their successful completion of their
mission, that we must invest in the infrastructure in Iraq; and we know
that we cannot come home until that mission is accomplished. So that is
not what this debate is. There is no difference about that.
The difference is how we go about doing it, and I think there is a
big difference there. I would like to say something about the lack of
planning on the part of the administration. It is in the spirit of that
context that I rise in opposition to President Bush's request for $87
billion to bail out his failed policy in Iraq.
Mr. Chairman, as Members of Congress, we all recognize that we have
no greater responsibility than that which is charged to us in the
Preamble of the Constitution: to provide for the common defense. We
have all take that responsibility seriously on both sides of the aisle
and all over the country.
The United States military is the best-trained, best-led, best-
equipped fighting force the world has ever known. This excellence is
due to the dedication of our courageous military men and women and
their commanders. It is also due to the commitment of this and previous
Congresses over many years to provide for the common defense, by
ensuring that our forces have the tools and technologies that they need
to prevail on the battlefield.
Again, we respect our men and women in uniform and we should respect
them when they are on the battlefield and when they come home. And out
of respect for them, I would have hoped that our colleagues could join
us in discharging the petition to eliminate the tax on disabilities
that exist in current law on our disabled vets.
Going back to the war, whatever our position was on going to the war,
once we went in, we were one team, one fight. Our military performed
their duties excellently. It is painfully clear, though, that this
administration had no plan to protect our men and women in Iraq against
the possibility of a guerilla campaign. The war supplemental last
spring is proof enough. The President asked for and the Congress
provided $63 billion to ensure that our soldiers could complete their
mission successfully and securely. Yet, as revealed by our esteemed
colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), a decorated
veteran whose defense credentials are beyond question, our military
personnel are short of Kevlar inserts for their body armor, short of
tracks for their Bradley fighting vehicles, short of jammers to protect
them from the detonation of explosive devices, and short of spare parts
generally for the equipment on which they rely. Again, our men and
women in uniform deserve better.
When the President asked for this $65 billion, we gave it to him. We
never got an accounting for it. When the President hit with his
bombshell of asking for $87 billion more, we said we would like to see
an accounting of the $63 billion that was appropriated for last summer.
We want to know why our men and women in uniform do not have the
protection they need to fight this war, this postwar period. We want an
accounting, a justification for the $87 billion that the White House is
asking for now. We want an accountability for this failed policy.
The $87 billion request did not yet even include the funding for the
Kevlar and the jammers and the spare parts and the tracks. It really
was not until the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) made a big
issue of it, and I commend him and I commend the gentleman from
California (Mr. Lewis) for

[[Page H9538]]

putting this in the bill with the help, of course, of the chairman of
the committee. But it was not in the President's request.

It was not in the President's request to protect our troops with what
they needed. They had a chance to do it and they did not. I find that
very, very unacceptable. As General Zinni said, and others have
repeated here, the level of sacrifice has not been matched by the level
of planning. What he exactly said is this: ``They should never be put
on a battlefield without a strategic plan, not only for fighting, our
generals will take care of that, but for the aftermath and winning that
war. Where are we, the American people, if we accept this level of
sacrifice without that level of planning?'' General Zinni.
America wants to know. What was that $63 billion spent on besides the
gold-plated, single-source, no-bid contracts for politically connected
contractors? We simply do not know. So that is why we take issue with
the $87 billion request.
Don't take it from me. General Petraeus, a great general whom many of
us have met in our visits to the theater, he has said that U.S.
engineers called for $15 million to turn a cement factory into a state-
of-the-art factory. Our troops working with the Iraqis got it up and
running, not for $15 million, but for $80,000, for $80,000. We were not
responsible for a $15 million state-of-the-art factory. It is up and
running at $80,000. You hear this over and over again.
Again, to date there has been no accounting for that money, no
accountability for the policy. As a result, American soldiers are
taking virtually all the risks, and American taxpayers are paying
virtually all the bills.
Our men and women in uniform deserve better. The American people
deserve better. Make no mistake, the President's supplemental request
is an $87 billion bailout for mistakes and miscalculations of this
administration. They have miscalculated the risk. We saw and heard
General Zinni's statements about that. They misunderstood the
challenge, and they misrepresented the cost.
One week into the war, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz
told the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) and the gentleman
from California (Mr. Lewis) and their Subcommittee on Defense of the
Committee on Appropriations, ``We are dealing with a country that can
really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon.''
How wrong was that? And we know that this is not the end of it. The
administration has told us that they need 50 to $75 billion more for
infrastructure. When we asked them why they did not put this in the
President's $87 billion request, they said that they were going to get
it from oil revenues and from our allies. Again, a miscalculation. That
funding is obviously not happening. So let us be clear, what we were
considering today is not a final payment; it is a down payment. It is
an installment on more to come.
The American people look to us to ask the difficult questions, to
ensure accountability and not to rubber stamp a policy that has failed
in terms of its planning and, therefore, endangered our sons and
daughters in uniform. We all appreciate what we need to do. We must
address the needs of our forces in Iraq. We must bring stability to
that country. We must invest in the infrastructure.

{time} 1630

The administration wants us to do a gold-plated, no-bid contract
version of the story. They want the gold-plated version, and they have
a tin ear to what the American people are saying. They say honor our
responsibilities, honor our men and women in uniform, but please do not
put our children into debt, our grandchildren into debt without some
idea of how this is going to be paid for and what the cost will be.
We would have been better off if we had internationalized this from
the start, but we did not. So now what we need to do, again, is what
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) has said over and over. We
need to energize Iraq, turn on the lights and water so we can proceed
with the reconstruction.
To hear the administration tell the tale, this has all been done, but
nonetheless, more is required. We must ``Iraqtize'' it by giving the
Iraqis more authority and responsibility to do what they need to do for
their country. And we must internationalize the effort so our troops
once again are not taking all the risks and our taxpayers paying all
the bills.
The question before us today is simple, what is the best way to
achieve this goal. It is a complicated matter, but the question is what
is the best way to go about it. The answer to me is clear, the Obey
substitute. It is a more responsible approach, both fiscally and
militarily. It does more for our men and women in uniform before,
during and after deployments.
The Obey amendment better protects American taxpayers and their
children and their grandchildren because it is paid for, and by having
the World Bank administer a loan program for a portion of the
reconstruction effort, it will stimulate more international financial
support.
In short, the Obey amendment does more to support our troops and
encourage international participation in stabilizing and rebuilding
Iraq and costs the American taxpayers less. It deserves our support.
Unfortunately, the Obey amendment will not be allowed to be presented
and voted on the floor, and I know why. It is brilliant. If it were
presented as an alternative to the $87 billion Bush request, it would
probably attract Republican support. It would have an impact on this
failed policy. So, sadly, we will not have a chance to vote on it. It
is really always interesting to me that it is against the rules of the
House to make a proposal that is paid for, that makes it out of order.
I think that we ought to see the Obey substitute and the whole debate
in the context of where we are as a country. Here we are, the greatest
military power that ever was. Our economy, hopefully soon on the
upturn, is the greatest engine for economic growth in the world. The
power of our ideas have been a source of strength to us and to others
in the world forever. So we are strong in every way, and yet never ever
have we been more dependent on other countries for the security of our
people.
If we are going to succeed in Iraq, we must reach out to others.
President Kennedy said it best in his inaugural address. Some of us
were in school at the time and heard the inaugural address, and
everybody knows the statement ``Citizens of America, ask not what your
country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.''
Children learned that in school. Others of us heard it. It is history
for some. It was our youth for others of us.
The very next line in that speech--is ``to the citizens of the world,
ask not what America can do for you, but what we can do working
together for the freedom of mankind.'' Let that be our clarion call,
what we, working together with the people of the world, can do for the
freedom of mankind. We must not find ourselves in a situation where
there is a tyrant, and good riddance to him, where we have to go in
with inadequate intelligence, inadequate international support and,
again, have our kids take all of the risk.
Let us show the greatness of our country, as well as the strength of
our country. We could do that by supporting the Obey amendment today.
In the absence of that, let us hope that we can have our policy
recognize once again that the security of our great country has never
been more dependent on others.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I again reiterate my opposition to the $87
billion bailout of the failed Bush policy and support of the Obey
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the gentleman from Wisconsin's (Mr. Obey's)
transfer of 1 minute, the majority has 2 minutes to close.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining
time. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for giving me the
additional minute, and I am very happy that the gentlewoman who made a
very persuasive speech ended up talking about freedom of mankind, and
she is exactly right.
But what does an Iraq or any other nation controlled by a dictator, a
tyrannical dictator like Saddam Hussein, contribute to the freedom of
mankind? I do not think it contributes anything.
I said earlier we did not start this war. This war started on
February 26,

[[Page H9539]]

1993, when the World Trade Center was bombed by terrorists, six lives
lost.
This was further exacerbated on June 25, 1996, when the Khobar Towers
in Saudi Arabia was bombed. Nineteen American airmen living in the
towers lost their lives.
August 7, 1998, American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed.
Two hundred and fifty-nine lives were lost, bombed by terrorists.
October 12, 2000, the USS Cole, an American destroyer off the coast
of Yemen, bombed, 17 sailors killed and many others injured.
Our responses were rather tepid, some investigations, some strong
words and threats, but not much action.
Then, on September 11, 2002, hijacked airplanes crashed into the
World Trade Center, 3,000 lives were lost. A hijacked plane crashed
into the Pentagon, 189 lives lost. A hijacked plane crashed in rural
Pennsylvania, 45 lives lost.
After September 11, the United States of America moved strongly and
aggressively with the strong leadership of President George W. Bush to
do something about it, more than just talk, more than just words, but
action, to eliminate the threat of terrorism so that the freedom of
mankind can be enjoyed by everybody, not just of those who live here in
America.
I would say, Mr. Chairman, what we do today is an investment in our
future, a future free from the threat of terrorism, from the fear of
terrorists. We are making an investment in a future for our kids and
our grandkids and our great grandkids and future generations for time
to come, as we eliminate that terrible scourge of terrorism throughout
the world.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, last night I testified
before the Rules Committee as they were preparing to draft the rule
governing debate on this Supplemental Appropriation bill, and I made a
sincere plea that just as we are fighting to provide freedom for the
Iraqi people, I hoped that we in Congress would be allowed the same
kind of democratic freedoms to debate and vote on the many issues
related to this bill.
Once again I was disappointed by the decision of the Rules Committee
to not act and protect my amendments and dozens of others put forward
by my colleagues so that they might be considered during debate on this
bill. So I find it very difficult to support this request from the
President, which would address none of the outstanding concerns I have
raised about providing for accountability on the cost of the war, about
developing a plan for the reconstruction of Iraq and for troop
deployments, and finally about not placing the burden of the cost of
the reconstruction entirely on a future generation of American
taxpayers.
Last year I voted against the Resolution on this floor that sent us
to war against Iraq, opposed to the policies of preemption and
unilateralism and of giving an open ended and undefined mandate to wage
war in Iraq. I coauthored an alternative at that time that would have
required the President to work through the United Nations to build
international support culminating in a new U.N. resolution authorizing
military action in Iraq and providing for an expedited consideration of
a use of force resolution by the Congress at that time. The Bush
Administration and the Republican Majority in Congress strenuously
opposed this proposal, and it was ultimately voted down.
It was voted down because we were told by President Bush and his
supporters that there was an imminent threat from Saddam Hussein, who
was planning on a moment's notice to attack the United States with
weapons of mass destruction. We were told that Saddam Hussein was
linked with al-Qaeda and the September 11th terrorist attack on the
United States. We were told that we had a strong international
coalition of allies poised to take action and share the burden of war
and peace with us. We were told that we had a plan for post-war
reconstruction and finally, that Iraq had the financial resources and
infrastructure to pay for its own reconstruction.
Yet here we are today, almost a year later, debating an $87 billion
supplemental appropriation bill for ongoing military action and
reconstruction in Iraq. This is in addition to the roughly $79 billion
supplemental that Congress appropriated for this war last April.
We have yet to find Saddam Hussein or any weapons of mass destruction
in Iraq. There is no viable international support for this policy.
There remains no plan for reconstruction, and President Bush's father
knew full well about these potential problems in pursuing this type of
policy in Iraq. In his book, ``A World Transformed,'' which was
published before his son took office, he wrote: ``Trying to eliminate
Saddam Hussein, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq,
would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives
midstream, engaging in `mission creep,' and would have incurred
incalculable human and political costs . . . Apprehending [Saddam
Hussein] was probably impossible. We had not been able to find Noriega
in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to
occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would
immediately have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other
allies pulling out as well.''
While the Administration continues to be unable to provide any
details about what the last $79 billion Congress appropriated for this
war was spent on or what the costs of a continued U.S. presence in Iraq
might be, an analysis conducted by Congressman Spratt, Ranking Member
of the House Budget Committee, concludes that if Congress approves the
2004 supplemental the President has submitted, and does not spend any
new money on Iraq after 2004, the cost to the United States, including
interest on the public debt, will reach $178 billion over the next
decade. This includes only the cost of operations in Iraq, and excludes
all estimated costs from 2003 and 2004 supplementals related to
Afghanistan.
The point has been made repeatedly about the need to sacrifice. Yet
the only people sacrificing for this country currently are the men and
women who wear the uniform. Further burdens shouldn't be placed upon
them and their children, both incurring more deficit and having this
nation pay for this by increasing the already burdensome national debt.
I have drafted amendments to address many of my concerns with this
bill, and my first amendment proposes that we pay for the President's
$87 billion supplemental appropriation request for ongoing military
operations and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan by suspending a
portion of the reductions in the highest income tax rate for individual
taxpayers.
It would reduce the total tax cut of the wealthiest top .7 percent of
Americans from $690 billion to $600 billion over the term of the tax
cut by reducing the top tax rate to 38.2 for the 6-year period between
2005 and 2010. The top rate for wealthiest .7 percent of Americans has
dropped this year from above 39 percent down to 35 percent. This
amendment would affect less than 5 percent of the $1.8 trillion tax cut
enacted during the last 3 years.
I would like to stress that it does not take away the tax cut. The
tax rate for the top .7 percent of Americans would still be lower than
it was last year. Instead of receiving 100 times the tax cut that
middle-class America received, at $600 billion the top .7 percent of
Americans would still get 60 times what the middle-class American gets.
They would still receive $1 billion more than every other American
combined will get from the tax cut.

The average income of the top .7 percent of Americans is $1 million
per year. This amendment would affect, at a minimum, people who have an
income before standard deductions and exemptions of over $400,00 in
gross income. It would also affect those with a net taxable income of
over $312,000 after deductions and exemptions. It does not impact or
change individuals' capital gains tax rates or dividend exemptions.
My second amendment seeks to provide accountability to the American
people on the President's Iraq foreign policy. Specifically, it would
provide the full request to the Department of Defense to meet the needs
and re-supply American service men and women deployed around the world.
It also would provide $4.5 billion for security, law enforcement,
justice, public safety and public safety infrastructures, Iraqi boarder
enforcement, enhanced security communications, and the establishment of
the Iraq Defense Corps. However, it would limit to $5 billion the
funding for other discretionary Iraq reconstruction efforts of the
administration until April 2004 unless the Congress enacts specific
legislation authorizing additional funding requested by the President
for reconstruction in Iraq.
It requires the President to submit a detailed report to Congress by
March 2004 estimating the total cost of U.S. operations, setting out a
strategy for securing international support, a schedule, including
costs and timetables for an establishment of Iraqi armed forces and a
security force, an estimated schedule of the establishment of an Iraqi
constitution and an estimated schedule of U.S. deployments and ultimate
withdrawal from Iraq.
Finally, this amendment would require the President to certify in a
report to Congress that the U.N. Security Council has authorized a
multi-national force under U.S. leadership and provides a central role
for the U.N. in the political and economic development and
reconstruction. The report must also certify that U.S. reconstruction
efforts are being implemented according to a detailed plan that
includes fixed timetables and costs, with a significant financial
contribution from other nations.
The third amendment I am proposing calls for the General Accounting
Office to conduct a detailed study of the policy of preemption and
unilateralism and its effect on the military deployment capabilities,
readiness, recruiting and

[[Page H9540]]

retention rates, morale, total force structure, and end strength of the
Armed Forces, including the Reserve components.
Finally, when I held a town hall meeting on Monday night, October 13,
about this supplemental appropriation request, I heard the story of
Pene Palifka of East Hartford. Her son, Bill, is serving in the 248th
Engineer Company in Iraq. She came forward and provided the money
herself to get a Kevlar vest for her son over there, because as it has
been reported and as I heard directly from soldiers serving in Iraq
when I visited there in August, there is a shortage of roughly 40,000
of these vests. That's simply wrong. Congress appropriated funding in
the last supplemental to procure and distribute these vests last April,
but this still has not been done.
So, my fourth amendment provides for the direct reimbursement from
the United States Treasury to service members or their families who
purchase protective body armor for deployments as part of the global
war on terrorism.
However, I understand that because the Rules Committee did not act to
protect these amendments that they would be subject to a point of order
and that I will be blocked from getting a vote on them. We should be
able to debate these issues. We should be able to vote on these issues.
I will continue to pursue these efforts and seek answers to the many
questions we all still have about this policy, but I cannot support
this bill if it does not address or make progress on these fundamental
issues.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment
which would reimburse air fare costs incurred by members of the United
States Armed Forces in connection with travel within the United States
while on leave from deployment overseas in support of Operation Iraqi
Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. This amendment is the same as
what has been offered and passed by the U.S. Senate but specifically
defines United States to include each territory and commonwealth of the
United States.
As a Vietnam veteran, I am fully supportive of the military's Rest
and Relaxation program which allows soldiers who have served 12
straight months to qualify for R&R and allows them to return home and
see their families. However, at present this program only provides
travel to hubs such as BWI and requires soldiers to make their own way
home. Oftentimes, airfare costs are prohibitive and leave soldiers
stranded far from home.
Thankfully, the Senate passed an amendment to its supplemental
appropriations bill which would extend the R&R program to include
domestic travel and I believe it is time for the House to now
demonstrate its commitment to our soldiers. Our soldiers serving in
Iraq and Afghanistan should not be burdened with the costs of travel to
return to their home of residence to briefly reunite with family,
friends, and loved ones. Moreover, soldiers whose home of residence is
American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands should not be
excluded from any R&R program that may be offered.
Although other amendments may be offered in support of R&R for our
soldiers, it is unclear as to whether language proposed by other
members for this same type of funding would extend to soldiers whose
home of residence is American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, or the Virgin
Islands. While I am confident that it is not the intent of Congress to
exclude soldiers from the Insular Areas from the benefits of a
reimbursement program, I want to make sure that soldiers serving from
American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands are afforded
the same rights and privileges as every other man and woman serving in
the U.S. Armed Forces.
Again, as a Vietnam veteran, I am painfully aware of the sacrifices
that our soldiers are making in defense of this nation. Only last
month, one of American Samoa's young sons was killed in Iraq and I
accompanied his body home to American Samoa. Like others before him,
like more to come, he gave his life so that you and I may live in
freedom.
While we can never repay the sacrifices being made in our behalf, I
do believe we can agree to do right by our soldiers. We can begin by
reimbursing service members for the cost of their airfare home to be
reunited with their families under the terms of the R&R program. We can
also make sure that travel reimbursements are made available to all
members of the U.S. Armed Forces, including those from the insular
areas.
I would like to point out that American Samoans have a long and proud
history of supporting the United States. Tutuila's harbor is the
deepest in the South Pacific and the port village of Pago Pago was used
as a coaling station for U.S. naval ships in the early part of the
century and as a support base for U.S. soldiers during WWII. To this
day, American Samoa serves as a refueling point for U.S. naval ships
and military aircraft.
American Samoa also has a per capita enlistment rate in the U.S.
military which is as high as any State or U.S. Territory. Our sons and
daughters have served in record numbers in every U.S. military
engagement from WWII to present operations in our war against
terrorists. We have stood by the United States in good times and bad
and it is time for the U.S. Congress to now stand with us.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman, sometimes great nations are called on to
assume great responsibilities.
As the greatest nation on earth, and the target of fundamentalist
terror on 9/11, we have been obliged to assume the mantle of leadership
in a global war on terrorism. That conflict, for better or for worse,
has brought us and our allies into Iraq and Afghanistan.
We now have an obligation to support the aspiration of those peoples
for a free society and a free economy. Unfortunately, the regimes that
have been removed in both countries have left their people in such a
wretched position that it requires an active intervention by the U.S.
to restore their economic potential. It is our responsibility to help
these peoples as much as we helped Western Europe after World War II in
the hope they will join us in the community of free nations.
The part of this appropriation measure that I wish to speak on is not
the military expenditures. There are many of my colleagues who are
better qualified to speak on such matters. Today, I rise in support of
the social investments and economic assistance which we are offering
Iraq and Afghanistan--$20 billion for two countries devastated by
decades of dictatorship.
This appropriation finances the improvement of water resources and
sanitation including drinking water for millions of Iraqis with funds
to provide these services to both rural and urban Iraq.
This appropriation measure would allow Iraq to restore much of their
budget for the critical transportation infrastructure destroyed by war
and allowed to deteriorate by a rogue regime.
This measure would also provide for the critical investments in civil
society necessary to allow Iraqis to restore order, including funds to
adequately recruit, train and equip police, border security, civil
defense and traffic police.
This measure will rebuild Iraq's oil infrastructure and put its oil
economy back on course. For the record, America did not go to Iraq for
oil. But Iraq's vast oil reserves are key to its economic resurrection
and a keystone to stability in the region.
If these countries are to become bulwarks of freedom, resistant to
the influence of Islamic fundamentalism, we need to give the peoples of
Iraq and Afghanistan the tools they need to put themselves on a sound
footing. Iraq in particular has been devastated by decades of
dictatorship and U.N. sanctions.
I would have preferred to be in the position of a lender, extending
to Iraq credits rather than direct investments in order to allow the
use of their natural economic strengths and huge mineral resources and
put themselves on a sound footing. Yet, so large are the dictator's
debts against the limited revenues available, I believe what Iraq needs
now is our direct assistance, not the weight of additional IOU's.
I hope that the French, Russians and others will also see their way
to write down those Iraqi debts that they hold. Until then, we should
accept the obligation that springs from being a great nation, a good
neighbor, and global defender of freedom to support a prostrate people
and give them an opportunity to revive their nation's fortunes.
This vote will be one of the most important that I cast. It may be
one of the most controversial. But, if America is to truly lead by
example, adhere to its principles and assume the responsibility that
comes with national greatness while serving our national interests in
every corner of the world, then we must make this contribution now, for
their sake, for ours and for the sake of future generations.
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, tonight I will cast a vote in support of
the Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY 2004--to provide $87 billion
in supplemental funding for military operations (making up roughly $66
billion) and reconstruction efforts (accounting for an approximate $21
billion) in Iraq.
I believe giving our troops in the field the financial support they
need to finish the job in Iraq and providing this critically strategic
nation with the resources needed to rebuild its infrastructure and
establish a free government is the absolute right thing to do.
However, Mr. Chairman, while I will ultimately support this
legislation, I do not believe providing the approximately $21 billion
for Iraq to complete its reconstruction efforts should be carried out
completely by way of a grant--as the legislation states. Instead, I
believe 50 percent of this funding should be made through a grant and
the other 50 percent through a loan to Iraq. This, I believe, would
still accomplish the same goal, and also help ensure that Iraq will
remain a financial stake-holder in helping bear the costs for its
reconstruction.
Sadly, Mr. Chairman, it's true that Saddam Hussein has already left
Iraq with $200 billion

[[Page H9541]]

in debt. And I agree with those who have pointed out that saddling
Iraq's infant government with more debt so soon in the reconstruction
process could put their young government in serious peril and endanger
the work that has been done to free the Iraqi people, create an
important ally in an unstable region of the world, and fend off
terrorist thugs before they have an opportunity to ``set up shop'' on
this fertile ground.
Yet Mr. Chairman, I believe this can be adequately addressed by
following the recommendations contained in the Pence Amendment that was
offered earlier tonight. In short, by providing the first 50 percent of
this funding through a grant to be made available immediately--the more
critical needs in these reconstruction efforts can be met. Then, once a
democratically elected government is in place and has been given time
to take root, the additional 50 percent in funding could be made
available through a loan.
Additionally, I believe that if France, Germany, Russia, and other
creditors to Iraq would forgive that nation's debt owed to them, then
our President should have the ability to then convert the 50 percent in
funding represented by a loan into a grant.
Unfortunately Mr. Chairman, the Pence Amendment was ruled ``out of
order'' and not offered as an alternative on the floor for a vote. If
it had been, I would have supported it and continue to believe its
premise presents the best solution to accomplishing our goals in Iraq,
bringing our troops home as soon as possible, and doing both in a more
financially responsible manner.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise, reluctantly, in support of this
supplemental appropriations bill.
I do so not because the President has called us to this task, but in
spite of that fact.
I do so not because of my sympathy for the people of Baghdad,
although I am sympathetic, but because failure is not an option.
The Middle East was, before the war, it remains today, and it will be
tomorrow, a region of critical importance to our Nation. We have close
allies who depend on America for their freedom; we have vital economic
interests; we have ongoing challenges from regimes like Iran and Syria
that continue to sponsor terrorism and pursue weapons of mass
destruction. We can not walk away.
I rise in support of this massive $87 billion expenditure not because
it is the final step in securing Iraq, but with the knowledge that it
is in fact just the one more step on a long and hard road this Congress
agreed to embark upon in October of last year.
If anyone here thinks we just have to swallow this one bitter pill,
they are sadly deluded.
Mr. Chairman, there should be no mistake: over the next few years,
Iraq is going to cost this Nation billions upon billions of dollars.
And because of the majority's tax-cutting fanaticism, these billions
are going to come in the form of debt--to be paid by our children and
our children's children. And this, because the majority party has
squandered our surplus by their tax pay off to their wealthiest
contributors.
Nonetheless, I believe this is money that must be spent. Despite the
administration's lies. Despite the President's massaging of the facts.
Despite the shameful manipulation and distortion of intelligence that
was used to justify the war. Despite the inept and pathetic failure of
our diplomacy before the war. Despite the astonishing incompetence of
our planning for after the war. Despite the stupid fantasies about an
exile takeover and a speedy exit. Despite the incomprehensible pig-
headedness that characterized our initial reconstruction efforts.
Despite our arrogance toward the international community and so many of
our allies.
Despite all these appalling failures and breaches of public trust,
there is still the necessity of protecting our Nation. There are still
American men and women struggling to accomplish our Nation's tasks in
Iraq; they need and are entitled to our support. There are still
Islamist terrorists pouring into Iraq to pursue their crusade of
terrorism against our Nation; they need to be stopped, they need to be
destroyed. There are still millions of Iraqis who are counting on us
not to abandon them to mercies of Saddam's loyalists and the invading
jihadis, they need to be reassured we will not betray them. These vital
tasks cannot continue without the money in this bill.

In the context of September 11th can anyone really believe that
abandoning Iraq would not produce a greater haven for terrorists there
then the Taliban produced in Afghanistan?
There is no easy way out of this. Pursuit of a quick or cheap
solution is as fanciful as a mirage in the desert.
The rest of the world is not going to clean up this mess. While we
should aggressively pursue every avenue to involve the international
community in this tremendous and critical project, we cannot expect the
world to come to our rescue. The Bush Administration did our Nation a
terrible disservice in conducting our international relations in such
an arrogant and high-handed way. We have alienated much of the world
and repairing this error, I fear, will take far longer than resolving
the debts we will accumulate from rebuilding Iraq.
Since 1776, our choice as Americans has always been to act, to take
our fate in our own hands. We may appeal to heaven, but we should not
depend on divine assistance. We may solicit the aid of allies, but we
must not place our national destiny in the hands of others. We may
fervently hope for success, but we cannot allow hope to be the keystone
of our policies. Our Nation has been built and sustained by action, by
deeds, and by hard choices.
Today we are called upon to make just such a hard choice: to open the
American treasury to rebuild a defeated nation, and to pile up debt
upon ourselves and our children (having yesterday given away our
``rainy-day funds'' to Republican rain-makers) so that we might pursue
a more secure world tomorrow.
Mr. Chairman, we don't have to like it, and I can tell you, I don't.
I am bitter and fighting mad about the sly deceit and mendacity that
has characterized this Administration's Iraq policy and that is
continuing to this day.
But we have a job to do and it costs money. It costs a lot of money.
And it will cost even more money in the future.
The alternative, however, is not just ruins left in Baghdad, the
alternative is a failed state, a new home for terrorists and their
plans. The choice is fighting terrorism by cleaning up the squalor in
which terrorism thrives, or taking our chances, and hoping everything
turns out OK.
I can not--I will not--vote to put our Nation's future into the
unthinking hands of fate, or worse, into the hands of the people we are
fighting at this very moment in Iraq.
We must succeed. I urge all Members to support the bill.
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, today, I am pleased to rise in support of
a plan of action that will help fulfill the hopes we have for our
Nation's security.
For twelve years, the United States spent over ten billion dollars to
enforce No-Fly-Zones and sanctions in Iraq that did little to diminish
the threat that Saddam Hussein posed to his neighbors and the world.
From 1996 until 2001, the Taliban pillaged a nation and overtly
supported terrorists with little effective opposition from the
international community.
This inaction did not deter or prevent terrorists from attacking the
Khobar Towers, our embassies overseas, the USS Cole, the World Trade
Center, and Washington, DC.
Our limited action in Iraq did not prevent Saddam Hussein from
deceiving weapons inspectors, evading sanctions to enhance his personal
wealth, and attacking coalition aircraft almost daily prior to
Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Mr. Chairman, today, we are at a fork in the road in the war on
terrorism--do we take aggressive action to win the war, or do we do
something less and hope that somehow things will be different in the
future?
This supplemental personifies a strategy to enhance our Nation's
security for future generations.
This plan will help rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan so that these
nations will become nations that enhance security rather than threaten
security.
We can act, and provide our troops with the tools they need to win
this war. Or, we can hope that these brave people can somehow do
something with nothing.
We can act, and provide Iraq and Afghanistan with the means to
rebuild shattered societies. Or, we can hope that these people will
prosper without basic necessities and with more crippling foreign debt.
We can act, and give these nations the best possible chance at
democracy. Or, we can hope that the Taliban and Ba'ath party will no
longer be interested in returning to power through terror and
intimidation.
We can act, and pay the cost for security. Or, we can hope that
security will come at no cost.
Mr. Chairman, I hope that these nations will soon be free
democracies . . . I hope our troops are home soon . . . I hope that
other nations will join these efforts . . . but we must act first for
the hope for the security of the United States.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to discuss the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Pence. This is a well-
intentioned amendment that would strike a balance between one of the
most deeply debated issues involved in H.R. 3289, the Supplemental
Appropriations Act for FY 2004.
Mr. Pence's amendment would have made the first 50 percent of Iraq
Reconstruction funding available immediately as a grant. This $9.3
billion amount would have given priority consideration to the emergency
purposes of security, electric sector infrastructure, oil
infrastructure, public works, water resources, transportation and
telecommunication infrastructures, and other emergency needs. It would

[[Page H9542]]

have withheld the final 50 percent of the reconstruction funding until
a democratically elected government in Iraq has been established. Once
the Bush Administration informs Congress that such a government exists,
the balance of the funding would have been made available in the form
of loans from the United States Government, under terms determined by
the President.
Mr. Chairman, for several weeks I have internally debated the
question of whether this reconstruction funding for Iraq ought to be in
the form of a direct grant or a loan repayable at a future date. I have
listened to my constituents, asked questions at committee hearings, and
thought through all of the arguments on both sides of this debate. I
did so because this issue is so important to both the people of Iraq
and the people of the United States.
Mr. Chairman, after much deliberation, I saw the validity and
accuracy of some of the arguments in favor of a directly granting these
reconstruction funds. I believe that debt repayments could become a
destabilizing political issue in postwar Iraq and could easily be
exploited by anti-American factions. Furthermore, a loan burden also
could likely stifle any significant economic development in Iraq.
However, I also believe that we have a responsibility to be
conscientious stewards of the American taxpayers' money. We currently
have a significant national debt at the federal level, and have several
important priorities that are going unmet. Finally, Iraq is not a poor
nation. In fact, it has natural resources that are unmatched in that
region of the world.
Mr. Chairman, in light of these realities, I would have supported the
thoughtful amendment by my colleague, Mr. Pence. I believe that it
would have provided adequate reconstruction funds that are needed in
the near term. This is money that would have been used for emergency
and immediate purposes fro the most important needs of security,
electric and oil infrastructure, public works, and transportation. This
$9.3 billion would have built on and expanded the successful work that
the Coalition Provisional Authority has already done in a few short
months in Iraq. It would have provided the CPA with the resources it
needs to make the quality of life in Iraq better than it ever was under
the terrible regime of Saddam Hussein.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, the Pence amendment would have permitted the
American taxpayers to be partially refunded once a democratically
elected government is established in Iraq. Once this governing
authority is present in Baghdad, which is expected to occur within a
year, Iraq would have been able to use its considerable natural oil
reserves to repay a portion of the money we are debating today. To me,
this appeared to be a fiscally responsible manner by which to approach
the subject.
Mr. Chairman, again let me reiterate my support for the Pence
amendment. I believe that it was a responsible compromise solution for
both the people of Iraq and the people of America. Because I believe
Congress has a responsibility to both of them, I would have supported
the Pence amendment as a sensible, middle ground approach to this
difficult question.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my support for the
Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2004. This is a critical decision--
too important to be colored by partisan political agendas. At stake is
the future of the Iraqi people, the lives of 150,000 American soldiers,
and our status as the leader of the free world.
Our intervention into Iraq has the potential to be the greatest
foreign policy success since the rebuilding of Germany following World
War II. We have the chance to help the Iraqi people transform a country
torn apart by totalitarian rule into a beacon of freedom, opportunity
and democracy. We have the chance to put to rest the misguided belief
that Muslim countries are not capable of living in democracy. We have
the chance to demonstrate to the rest of the world that America
embraces its role as defender of the oppressed, and leader of the free
world.
We have rejected the contradictions of colonialism. We did not send
our troops to Iraq to take their oil or force the Iraqi people to pay
tribute. We came to give a people who were crushed and oppressed a
chance to change their destiny. To finish this effort, we must be
willing to make sacrifices.
Already, Iraqi children are going to new schools that have been
refurbished, where there are no longer pictures of Saddam Hussein on
the wall, and where curriculums teach math and science rather than
loyalty to the Baath Party. Men and women are able to build businesses,
develop new ideas, and express their political views freely.
We must enable this to continue by investing in Iraq's future. We
must also guarantee that our troops will have the resources they need
to maintain order throughout the country. There can be no substitute
for success in Iraq.
I urge my colleagues to support our continued efforts in Iraq and to
vote in favor of this legislation.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I will support passage of this Iraq
Supplemental Appropriations bills for our troops and their families.
I will support this bill because we must support our troops and we
must continue to engage the effort in Iraq to its successful
conclusion. I have the honor of representing the Army's Fort Bragg,
Pope Air Force Base and many Guard and Reserve units in North Carolina.
Many of them are serving in Iraq while their families here at home pray
for their safety and speedy return. This bill increases funds to
purchase body armor for our troops and to contract for the clearing of
unexploded ordnance. The bill provides funding for the contracting of
security guards to replace reservists currently performing these
duties. The Army has indicated this provision would permit the
demobilization of 7,000 to 10,000 reserve component soldiers. The bill
also includes a provision to continue the increased monthly rate of
hazardous duty pay and Family Separation Allowances through September
30, 2004. These provisions are very important to the military families
in my district because they have a very real impact in relieving some
of their financial burden. I am proud my Democratic colleagues in the
House and I have successfully led the fight to secure these needed
funds.
I will support this bill because America must heed history's lessons
from the previous century. After the Allied victory in the First World
War, war-weary America turned its back on the European countries that
had been ravaged by the war. Postwar Europe's chaotic power vacuum gave
rise to Benito Mussolini and Adolph Hitler and led to great destruction
and human suffering before they could be defeated. Constructive
engagement in postwar Iraq is critically important to America's long-
term interests. As the world's sole remaining Superpower, America
simply cannot afford to fail to lead.
I have serious reservations about this vote because despite the
brilliant and valiant action of our soldiers to defeat the evil regime
of Saddam Hussein, this administration has failed to implement an
adequate plan to win the peace. This administration has failed to level
with the American people and the Congress about the true costs and
duration of the ongoing war in Iraq. I voted to authorize the use of
force to overthrow Saddam Hussein, had the world is undoubtedly a
better place with him out of power. But the Administration's evasions
and misrepresentations of the truth represent a deeply troubling lack
of honesty. The American people and their Representatives in Congress
deserve true and honest presentation of the facts, especially on such
weighty matters of war and peace.
I am also concerned that the Administration has failed to work
cooperatively with our friends and allies abroad to secure
international support to share the burden for rebuilding Iraq. It is
not only in America's interest that Iraq emerge from Saddam's grip as a
stable, peaceful nation; it is also in the world's interest. The
Administration's diplomatic failures have forced the American taxpayers
to bear too much of the burden for an effort that should draw a great
international coalition. This Administration must redouble diplomatic
efforts to bring all the nations of the world on board the efforts to
rebuild Iraq and secure relief from Iraq's international debt incurred
by the deposed regime.
Finally, I am reluctant to support this bill because this
Administration has failed to provide effective leadership on real
problems we have right here at home in America. The Administration is
shortchanging education by $20 billion under the new No Child Left
Behind law. Despite more than $300 billion in unmet school construction
needs, this Administration has provided no leadership to upgrade
educational infrastructure in America. And as rural North Carolina begs
for a tobacco buyout, this Administration refuses to act to give our
struggling farmers some hope for economic security for their families.
These are just a few examples of the failure of leadership of this
Administration.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, despite my reservations, I will support
this bill because failure to lead is not an option. I will support this
bill because it is the best option we have before us to win the peace
in Iraq. I will support this bill on behalf of the people of North
Carolina's Second Congressional District and the men and women in our
armed forces.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, the question is not whether
people support the war; it is whether people will support our troops.
That is why I rise in support of the Iraq supplemental bill. I may not
agree with the Administration's current strategy in Iraq, but I will
always support the dedicated men and women of our Armed Forces.
Of the $87 billion, over $65 billion is for the men and women
sacrificing their lives. It is extremely important for our troops to
know they have the support from their government. The supplemental will
provide the necessary safety our men and women need by purchasing

[[Page H9543]]

more flak jackets and more Humvees. This will hopefully decrease the
amount of soldiers being killed in Iraq. The bill allows for the hire
of more civilian security guards to replace 10,000 reservists, allowing
them to do the job that they were brought there for. The measure will
assist the families of our troops, who are also sacrificing for our
country. The cost family members must pay to see their injured family
member will be subsidized and it increases the Family Separation
Allowance.
The rest of the money will be used to aide with the reconstruction of
Iraq and Afghanistan. We should help Iraq and Afghanistan rebuild. Our
assistance will also play a key role in the War on Terrorism. Whether
or not we should provide these funds in the form of grants or loans has
been debated. Though we will not be able to have separate votes on
these segments, I believe we should loan Iraq the funds to rebuild
their tattered nation, rather than sending ``no-strings attached''
grants from American taxpayers. The idea of making the reconstruction
activities a loan has had bipartisan support until he Administration
strong-armed those Republicans who felt a loan was appropriate. Now, at
this time, we should not be putting more of a burden on the taxpayers.
We are facing a deficit of almost $500 billion; we do not need to add
to it.
I, along with seven of my female colleagues, am traveling to Iraq
later this month. I look forward to seeing for myself the progress
we've made and the challenges that still lie ahead in Iraq. This trip
should cut through the spin and the filters, giving us a first-hand
look at the rebuilding effort in Iraq. While there I want the
opportunity to look our troops in their eyes and tell them that I and
my colleagues, are doing all we can to fully equip them and safely
bring them home.
Mr. Chairman, I am hopeful our soldiers will return home soon and I
will continue working to achieve that goal.
Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I understand the need to support Iraq in
its quest to become a free democracy. I still believe we did the right
thing. But I also recognize that there must be greater attention for
those who need help in the United States.
In no way does the Pence Amendment alter or change funding for our
troops. That money is set aside and will be given with full faith and
assurance. However, families in my district are reeling from the
manufacturing recession. As a result, I believe we need a more balanced
approach to the Iraq reconstruction funding. I support Congressman
Pence's approach to giving the first 50 percent as a grant for those
projects in greatest need of repair and the remaining 50 percent as a
loan to the new Iraqi government. This savings of 10 billion dollars
could be well spent on economic development and retraining funds for
unemployed workers in my district as well as many others. I applaud
Congressman Pence for his efforts to craft a compromise on this
important issue.
Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R.
3289. I call upon the President and his Administration to make clear to
the Congress and the American people how long we will be in Iraq, how
much it will cost, and when we can expect certain outcomes. I continue
to support a multilateral approach to the war effort, and recognize the
tremendous sacrifices of the men and women in our armed services. I
want them to know we fully support them. My heart goes out to the
soldiers in Iraq and their loved ones at home as well as to the Iraqi
people to whom we have promised democracy and economic freedom. I have
held listening sessions in my district with the wives and families of
the servicemen and women. Their message is clear: ``We want them home;
in the meantime we want them safe.''
In my conversations with families of our troops, I learned of the
ongoing needs of the brave individuals who serve our country in Iraq. I
support the efforts of Ranking Member Obey, the gentleman from
Wisconsin, to improve this legislation with an amendment that would
include the following provisions: significant water purification
equipment for our troops; adequate medical and dental screening for
activated reservists prior to deployment, and extended coverage
following their duty in Iraq; sufficient prepaid telephone cards to
enable soldiers to communicate with loved ones in the States without
incurring exorbitant phone bills; reconditioning equipment that is
insufficiently armored and in need of repair; and covering domestic
travel costs when our soldiers return home for short periods during
deployment.
By denying Mr. Obey the opportunity to offer his amendment, this
measure fails to guarantee the basic needs and thus the reliability of
our troops in Iraq, and undermines the future of our Reserve and
National Guard programs.
I'm not interested in talking about the existence or lack thereof of
weapons of mass destruction or the urgency which compelled the
President to get America into this effort unilaterally. I am interested
in going forward, offering the necessary support to ensure our troops
success and safety and keeping the promises we've made to rebuild Iraq.
As a student of history, I see strong parallels between the post
World War II period when America launched the Marshall Plan and the
current situation we have in Iraq. When America launched the Marshall
Plan; however, it was with full disclosure of the multiyear costs and
the ultimate benefits of that plan.
The Administration's approach to date is similar to a house builder
who says to the owners, ``I'm building your foundation. The first brick
will cost you $87 Billion. Period. Trust me on the rest.'' That's no
way to build a house and no way to rebuild a crumbling and troubled
nation. We the American people have to know: how much? how long? by
when can we expect certain outcomes?
Let us reflect on and learn from past war efforts, and model our
current action to avoid failure and yet one more ``forgotten war.'' As
George Santayana wisely noted: ``Those who cannot remember the past are
condemned to repeat it.''
I urge my colleagues to support a reasonable and responsible approach
to our efforts to stabilize and rebuild Iraq and address the needs of
our military. Reject H.R. 3289. Provide real support for our troops, a
real plan for rebuilding Iraq, and restore stability to the region.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, there are moments
in history where we are aware that decisions we are making will affect
the world in the future. Today we stand at such a moment, charged with
the enormous task of helping to rebuild Iraq. We must be up to the
challenge.
Our own history offers us guidance about how to best rebuild a
wartime adversary.
After World War I, Germany was soundly defeated and the parties
gathered in Versailles to negotiate the terms of surrender. The talks
came to a question of who was responsible for the aftermath. Was
Germany responsible? Should a country with a new government be burdened
by the debts of a defeated regime? Should they be responsible for
reconstruction and reparations?
We all realize how the reparations inflicted upon Germany at that
time created an atmosphere of despair. We are also aware of how this
atmosphere was exploited by the evil monster Adolf Hitler.
Mr. Chairman, we know how this story ended in Germany and it could
end up that way in Iraq: a leader, or a sect, seeks to rebuild a
fractured national pride with acts of violence committed in the name of
a downtrodden people.
The assistance we are voting for today will significantly contribute
to preventing an ending such as that. This assistance is for the
defense of our troops abroad and our citizens at home, as we make the
world safer for all of our friends and allies.
A free and democratic Iraq will be a beacon for hope in the Middle
East. It will show to the people of the region that democracy is
possible, that the United States does not impose its will, only the
ability for peoples to decide their own destiny.
Great challenges require courageous decision. The easy road has
sometimes been taken in the past and we know its disastrous
consequences.
The long and fiscally difficult road has also been tried by the
United States of America. An alliance scarred by battle once again sat
across from debt heavy and defeated nations and the alliance did not
make the same mistake of 1918. The U.S. eventually formulated a
systematic recovery program that became known as the Marshall Plan.
The Marshall Plan was not entirely made up of U.S. aid, it also
called on the devastated European nations to eventually contribute to
their own recovery. Yet the first installment of $4 billion in aid
required great political will. At the time $4 billion represented 13
percent of the entire budget. That act of Congressional courage helped
to remake Western Europe into a subcontinent of strong economies,
strong democracies, and thus strong allies. Again, we all know how the
success of that plan contributed to the creation of a stable, free and
democratic Western Europe.
We all acknowledge there are many domestic issues that we must
address as a Congress. Protecting our Homeland is perhaps the greatest
mission before us. It is my belief that working for stability in Iraq
and the Middle East is essential in order to protect our citizens at
home. We do not set the correct example if we only support freedom and
safety at home. That is why I applaud President Bush for setting the
course of reconstruction in Iraq. Encouraging progress is already
happening, schools are opening, electricity is turning on, new currency
is being distributed today, but we have the ability to do so much more.
As Iraqi people see continued progress in rebuilding, we help keep
Americans safe at home.
Mr. Chairman, the great American poet Robert Frost once wrote, ``Two
roads diverged in a yellow wood.'' We know that one road today leads to
debt and internal strife. We

[[Page H9544]]

know the harder road leads to reconstruction and reconciliation.
In a section of the world that has already imperiled too many lives,
in a country whose previous, savage regime caused too much suffering
and too many deaths, we in Congress are obligated by the lessons of our
history to support an emerging Iraqi democracy with our wisdom, our
experience and our resources.
The vote we are about to cast will have enormous repercussions. If
this assistance has the same effect that the Marshall Plan funding had
in Western Europe, it will help create a stable, democratic Iraqi
government and a lifelong ally of the United States.
My colleagues, today we must act with the same vision as our
forebearers in this House. We must support our troops in the field and
the reconstruction of Iraq.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, October of last year, I voted against the
Authorization for Military Force Against Iraq. Leading up to that vote,
the Administration supplied a wide array of reasons justifying an
immediate invasion, reasons that they had to revise, change, and pull
back. Some examples are: the Administration initially claimed, when
they first started advocating the use of military force, there was a
link between Saddam Hussein and the September 11th attacks, however,
British and U.S. intelligence revealed that was not true; around the
same time, the Administration claimed they had the authority to remove
Saddam Hussein under a 1998 resolution, however, the authorization of
military forces was later brought before Congress at the President's
request; the Administration said it was prepared to go it alone, and
then decided to ask for the support of as many allies as possible,
including the United Nations; the Administration claimed Iraq has
weapons of mass destruction and delivery systems capable of reaching
beyond their borders, yet this assertion has since been proven false by
the intelligence community and coalition forces. These are some
examples of the mixed message from the Administration. One final
concern I had was the failure of the Administration to answer the
question as to the timing of abandoning the containment policy that had
been working for the past decade.
In March, with over one hundred thousand Coalition forces in and
around Iraq, I stated we could not turn back. The fact remained that
Saddam Hussein was a vicious and brutal dictator and the Iraqi people,
Middle East security and the security of the entire world would be
better off without him. To not liberate Iraq at that point would be
detrimental to American leadership in the world. As I predicted at the
start of the war, the troops' actions resulted in a quick resolution of
the war but led to prolonged occupation involving guerrilla operations.
With each week that goes by, we continue to lose more American lives
in Iraq. Recently, President Bush requested an additional $87 billion
to pay for the occupation and rebuilding of Iraq. While I am not
against increasing funds to stabilize Iraq, the Administration must
provide more than a mere spending request. A clear and workable plan is
necessary.

Furthermore, I believe a broader post-war contingency is needed
consisting not only of American and other coalition soldiers but also
military police, civilian advisors, and international troops. In
addition, I support continued efforts to return control back to the
Iraqi people. By training Iraqi police forces, government employees,
and civilian personnel, we will be leading the nation and the Iraqi
people toward a more stable and efficient democracy. This is an
approach top State Department and Pentagon officials have recently
stated is necessary as part of the post-war strategy.
Now, more than ever, America needs the monetary and manpower support
of our allies to rebuild Iraq. We should diligently re-establish
relations with the international community so peace and stability can
be brought to the region. The United States should begin working
immediately with the United Nations and our friends around the world to
share in all aspects of the post-war reconsideration efforts. More
flexibility is needed in allowing other nations to share in the
rebuilding process. Securing Iraq unilaterally has the potential for
failure; therefore, involving other countries in the nation-building
efforts should be a core objective.
Some have argued we have already invested too much in Iraq and we
need to pull all of our troops out immediately. However, abandoning
post-war operations in Iraq now is simply not an option. Leaving now
not only would be damaging to the Iraqi people, but would also weaken
America's position on the world stage. The consequences for the United
States in the Middle East would be severe. Larger efforts by the
Administration to help bring the international community into the fold
are necessary, but so are our continued Iraq rebuilding efforts. Even
if other countries refuse to participate, the United States cannot
afford to have this job left unfinished now, and we must continue to
strongly support efforts to provide Iraq with stability.
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I will cast my vote on the $87 billion
supplemental appropriation for Iraq based on two conflicting
influences.
First, this central premise: we simply cannot invade a country,
destroy its infrastructure, leave it without lights, water, or jobs,
and then walk away from it. We made a commitment to rebuild Iraq, and
voting against this bill is effectively canceling the check.
Conversely, Mr. Chairman, is my belief that this bill, and
particularly the political process that brought it to the Floor, is
deeply flawed. There is no doubt in my mind that the Administration is
essentially holding the safety of our troops hostage to the passage of
this bill without any of the commonsense compromises sought by the
Democratic Caucus.
The issue for me, Mr. Chairman, is whether flaws should override
final passage of the appropriation. I have come to the conclusion that
the Administration's irresponsible handling of Iraq and this
supplemental bill cannot allow us to irresponsibly defeat it. But, I
cast my vote with the demand that the Administration use these
resources to make immediate and dramatic improvements in several areas
of engagement in Iraq.
We used force in Iraq based on the view that we could create a
transformative model in the Middle East of democracy, prosperity, human
rights, education and empowerment. Defeating this appropriation would
be the equivalent of saying we are canceling the check for those vital
goals. It is the equivalent of saying, ``We broke the merchandise, and
now we are returning it.''
And to what are we returning it? Waging war on Iraq and refusing to
pay for the peace would not create a transformative model of peace and
prosperity, but of violence and poverty. It would bolster the calls for
jihad against the West. It would fuel permanent resentments against our
country and the West. It would be handing terrorists a long-term
victory after we supposedly won a short-term war. It would create a
rubble-strewn stage on which Baathists could stand, holding Iraq as an
example to the world: ``What have the Americans brought: no jobs, no
lights, no roads.'' They would exploit the instability and proselytize
an ideology that places suicide bombings ahead of ballots as the agent
of change in society. They would make Afghanistan under the Taliban
look like a summer camp.
Additionally, Mr. Chairman, there is the issue of our troops. Last
week, I met in my Long Island office with two soldiers who are serving
in Iraq. They were home on rest and recreation. I believe the
Administration's horrible planning of post-war activities has already
left our troops exposed and fatigued. The Pentagon's own Stars and
Stripes newspaper has surveyed our troops and found widespread
dissatisfaction, low morale, weak sense of mission, and potentially
serious reenlistment problems. Our soldiers need flak jackets, they
need armored vehicles, they need communications equipment, they need a
much more serious program of military police and civil affairs
training.
When things go wrong, as they have in Iraq up to this point, there
are two ways to respond. We can say, ``What went wrong and who do we
blame? or we can say, ``What went wrong and how do we fix it?''
Refusing to fund our troops and the construction of Iraq is not the way
to fix the Administration's current failures there. The way to fix
those failures is to fund improvements and require accountability and
responsibility.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I use this vote today to put the
Administration on notice that it must use these resources to improve
the following specific areas: create broader alliances; crack down on
cronyism and war profiteering; hasten the supply of flak jackets and
armored vehicles needed by our troops, end the strain and fatigue on
our Guard and Reserve and provide them with a realistic return date,
and account for every penny that is being spent. If the Administration
fails basic tests of responsibility and accountability, then they
cannot and should not ask for my vote again.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I also wish to express my outrage at the
leadership of this House for putting politics over the military, for
putting partisanship over the very lives of our troops. The Republican
leadership has steadfastly refused to even consider Democratic
amendments that would have made this bill more palatable by releasing
funds in increments on an as-needed basis. The Republican leadership
refused to move forward like statesman President Harry Truman working
with a responsible Republican Senate to create and implement a
transparent Marshall Plan. Instead, they have forsworn consensus for
cronyism and have basically said, ``It is our way or the highway.''
They have essentially held our troops as political hostages to a
cynical legislative strategy: either vote for the bill as we demand it,
or leave our troops behind.
I will not play that cynical game, Mr. Chairman. To protect our
troops and bring them back to Long Island safe, I will vote for this

[[Page H9545]]

bill. But let everyone understand that this Administration and the
leadership of this Congress has compounded bad planning with bad
politics, and is shamefully exploiting the vulnerability of our troops
to advance a legislative strategy.
It is for the future of a safer world, a stable Middle East, and the
lives and well-being of our troops that I support this bill. It is not
for the present policies and politics of those who drafted it and
sullied it with partisanship. I rise to vote ``aye'' because I am proud
to stand with our troops during these dark days. But I am not proud to
stand with those who exacerbated the problems and manipulated the
process. The future will judge them. The present requires me to support
this bill with the improvements I have stipulated.
Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chairman, I stand today to state my continued
opposition to the funding of our invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Some of my colleagues have mourned the apparent death of U.S.
domestic policy. They have detailed what this $87 billion could provide
in this country. If we pass this bill, every person in this country
will lose services in education, healthcare, housing, veterans
programs, homeland security and social security. This is a fact.
Other colleagues have come to this floor to question our entry into
the war, our standing in the world community, our ability to govern an
occupied nation and our exit strategy. The Administration has never
revealed plans which indicate when we will have done enough, committed
enough resources, or restored enough of the infrastructure to leave
Iraq. It is strange that a country like America, born out of a desire
to shake off British colonialism may now be engaging in a new era of
imperialism. I align myself with those who have expressed doubts about
the short-term consequence and the long-term wisdom of such a policy.
And while I share those concerns, I am most concerned about the lack
of accountability throughout this Iraqi adventure. We have already
passed a $79 billion spending bill for the current conflict in Iraq.
However, no one here knows how that money was spent. We do not have any
accounting of the no-bid contracts, but we do know that the majority of
our soldiers are wearing Vietnam era flak jackets. And while we talk
about building an Iraqi democracy, we refuse to allow the Iraqis the
ability to directly participate in the rebuilding of their own nation.
We do know that the money is not getting to the soldiers and it is
not getting to the people of Iraq. So we are obligated as good stewards
of the hard-earned dollars of the American people to ask where is the
money? Where has it gone and where will it go? No one from this
Administration has bothered to answer and if they cannot answer this
basic question of accountability, this body--which controls the purse
strings--must keep the purse closed. Under the Constitution we have a
duty to be responsible for governmental spending. Because this
Administration has spent the budgetary surplus left by the Clinton
Administration by providing $387 billion in tax cuts which primarily
benefitted the wealthy, it is clear that the cost of this war can only
be paid by borrowing money. My children's grandchildren will end up
bearing the cost of this war. It would be irresponsible to saddle them
with a $166 billion burden.
I will not support this resolution. I cannot uphold my constitutional
duties as a Member of this House while signing over a blank check to
this Administration. It is wrong and your vote should reflect it. Vote
no on this supplemental.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill.
Last year I voted against the war in Iraq because I believed this
administration had overstated its case for this preemptive war, rushed
us unilaterally into this conflict, and ultimately had no real plan for
the postwar reconstruction. Despite the President's protests, these
concerns have proved legitimate.
Iraq is still in chaos. American soldiers, international diplomats,
and Iraqi civilians are being killed every day. And the administration
is still a long way from pacifying Iraq or setting up a stable
government.
Mr. Chairman, when U.S. soldiers are in harm's way, the first concern
of Americans is how to best support our troops. We want to be sure they
have the material and equipment they need to protect themselves and
complete their mission. And we want to know that our troops are being
used appropriately and that the administration is doing everything
feasible to keep them as safe as possible.
Mr. Chairman, the American people have their doubts about the
progress in Iraq and the administration's wisdom in handling this
situation. So do I.
The administration clearly did little or no planning for postwar
Iraq. It has proven to be unprepared for the complexities and dangers
of restoring Iraqi stability. And we have not yet realized the success
in Iraq that the administration claimed it delivered when it declared
the mission accomplished five months ago. In their rush to get public
support for the war administration officials scoffed at experts who
predicted that more troops and more money would be needed.
Now the President has requested a staggering $87 billion in taxpayer
money to fund his efforts in Iraq. I am amazed at the audacity of the
President's request.
While I do believe we will have to make a substantial financial
commitment to the rebuilding of Iraq, I am concerned that this
administration is starving efforts to solve problems here at home. The
size of this package, on top of the trillions of dollars in tax cuts
mostly for the wealthiest Americans, will significantly add to the
budget deficit, already the largest in history. And yet
the Administration has said over and over again that there is not
enough money for Medicare, for education, for housing, or for any of
our domestic priorities.

And Americans seem to be bearing this burden in Iraq alone. The
President has failed to get international support or give the UN a
prominent role in this mission. And the Administration has not shown
the Congress or the American people a plan for completing the
reconstruction. Nor does it show any signs of having a plan that will
reduce the threat to our soldiers in the near future. In fact, the
Administration seems to be in denial that anything is wrong in Iraq.
I support giving our troops the funding they need. And I understand
and agree with our responsibility to rebuild Iraq. I firmly believe
that after dismantling the Iraqi government we cannot pull out until we
have restored stability. But sometimes the best way to achieve our
goals and support our troops is to send a strong message that the
current policy is not working.
This Administration needs a wake-up call on its Iraq policy.
Defeating this supplemental would be that wake-up call.
The proposal I support would be much better for the troops than the
President's request. It allocates more resources to improve the quality
of life for the men and women serving in Iraq. It would have provided
for much more accountability for the Administration's efforts in Iraq.
And it would have paid for this huge amount of spending so it would not
increase the budget deficit.
It is time for the Administration to reexamine its policy in Iraq. It
is time for the US to make changes to assure success. And it is time
for the President to swallow his pride, admit that things are not going
well in Iraq and ask for international support.
Let's send him this message by defeating this bill.
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong support of our
troops in Iraq. Thousands of young men and women, my neighbors and
yours, remain in harm's way. They are suffering casualties daily and
fatalities every week.
We must do all we can to provide for their protection and safe
return. We are indebted to our troops for their service and sacrifice.
The men and women of our Armed Forces make all Americans proud.
My vote for this bill is for one reason only: to give our troops the
resources they need to carry out their mission. But my vote should not
be interpreted as supporting this Administration's post-war policy in
Iraq or the lack of one.
The only way my vote should be interpreted is of one opposing this
administration's post-war policy in Iraq or the lack of one.
As I cast my ``yes'' vote, I will supply the troops with the
resources they need. My hope is that the President will finally supply
a policy the Nation deserves. Because the absence of a policy has never
measured up to the valor and patriotism of our troops.
As we will do our part in Congress, now it is long overdue for the
administration to do theirs--enunciating a policy.
Our troops will get the Humvees and the Kevlar vests they need. But
the policy is as important for their protection as this equipment, and
this administration has failed in that endeavor.
Just over 2 years have passed since the September 11 attacks when the
world reached out and expressed sympathy and solidarity to America and
all Americans. Because of our arrogance we have turned the world's
sympathy into antipathy.
This administration lacks a coherent policy that spells out a clear
vision for the Iraq mission, invites the support of our allies, and
provides an exist strategy that will bring our troops home.
I supported the war, and I still believe that getting rid of Saddam
Hussein was the right thing to do.
But the administration has made a legitimate war illegitimate through
its actions. While it sold the war on a set of claims that were not
true, the administration never leveled with the American people.
As we fought the war nearly alone, so we are left to go it alone in
the reconstruction.
The irony is that this administration is committing American families
to pay for investments in Iraq that it is unwilling to provide for here
at home. We are paying for basic health care for half of Iraq's
population, but will not provide coverage for any of the almost 44
million uninsured Americans.

[[Page H9546]]

We are footing the bill for world-class police and security forces in
both Iraq and Afghanistan, but American communities are imperiled by
deep funding cuts to their police and firefighters. With taxpayers
spending nearly $6 billion to completely overhaul Iraq's electricity
system, not one single dollar is provided in the Energy bill for
overhauling our own electrical grid.
Because the administration's reconstruction budget for Iraq is so
flawed and filled with cronyism, it has insisted on attaching it to the
military budget--in effect, holding our own troops hostage.
I will not cast a vote that might endanger our troops in any way. But
I will not continue to support indefinitely a failing and flailing
policy in Iraq, and neither should the American people.
When this administration comes back to Congress again for more
funding, as it surely will, it must accompany that request with a real
plan, which to date it has not--or it must bring our troops home.
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, Congress today will vote on an issue of
great importance to the Nation.
This week, Congress will vote on the President's request for $86.7
billion in supplemental spending to fund ongoing military operations in
Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the reconstruction effort in Iraq.
Like many, I have grave concerns about this administration's failure
to forward a plan on the reconstruction of Iraq that will lead to Iraqi
self-rule, lessen the financial burden of the reconstruction effort on
American taxpayers, and successfully conclude our military efforts in
that nation. And I believe this failure has unnecessarily put our
troops in harm's way and made our nation less secure. Yet while I have
significant reservations about this administration's prosecution of the
aftermath of the war in Iraq, I will support this request because I
believe supporting our troops in the field and providing them with the
necessary resources to successfully complete their mission is the right
thing to do.
While some may attempt to characterize my support for the
supplemental legislation as an endorsement of the Administration's
failed policy, nothing could be farther from the truth. I met with
President Bush and congressional leaders following the terrorist
attacks of September 11, 2001. I told him that we would have to trust
each other and put politics aside if we hoped to successfully address
the new threats confronting our Nation. My paramount objective has
always been to keep our people safe, and that objective has motivated
my every action without fail since September 11.
To that end, I worked with the President in an honest, good-faith
effort last year to develop legislation that would provide a
responsible policy framework to address the threat posed by Saddam
Hussein's leadership of Iraq. At my insistence, this legislation
included provisions that: Called on President Bush to work with our
allies and others through the UN to build a consensus for action;
demanded that the President's actions against Iraq not undermine our
nation's broader efforts to prevent terrorism; and required the
President to develop a plan to promote stability and democracy in post-
war Iraq.
Congress adopted this legislation with wide majorities in both the
House and the Senate, and President Bush signed it into law.
Unfortunately, he subsequently failed to implement any of these
guidelines, which I believed were necessary to ensure the success of
our effort. In my view, it is undeniable that this failure has led to
the situation we find ourselves in today in Iraq and across the globe.
First, by not working with other nations and building a broad
international consensus, America is now much more isolated. Even our
closest allies are reluctant to join a U.S.-led peacekeeping force in
Iraq and contribute the necessary resources to the reconstruction
effort. This administration's posture has also made it extremely
difficult to obtain support for a meaningful United Nations role in
Iraq, needlessly delaying tangible support that is critical to reducing
the burden on the U.S. with respect to the restoration of Iraq's civil
authorities and provision of ongoing humanitarian assistance. In
addition, without broader international support, our goal to turn
authority back to the Iraqi people and their new democratic
institutions will take much longer to accomplish. Our goal must be the
tangible support of our allies in the form of a meaningful financial
contributions and additional troops on the ground, not just their
unanimous consent on a piece of paper at the U.N. Security Council.

Second, in many ways we are now more vulnerable to terrorist threats,
especially our troops in Iraq who are subject to attack on a daily
basis. Saddam Hussein has assumed a role similar to that of Osama bin
Laden, encouraging terrorism against the United States by disgruntled
Iraqis and other extremists. Furthermore, the President's continued
articulation of the so-called ``preemption doctrine'' and his lack of a
coherent diplomatic strategy has inspired other nations not to stop
their pursuit of dangerous materials, but to accelerate their efforts
in order to avoid being ``preempted.'' North Korea--which today appears
to be ramping up for full-scale production of nuclear weapons--is a
very troubling case in point.
Third, with a unique opportunity to help the Iraqi people establish a
stable, democratic government and society--and serve as a model in a
critical area of the world--the President failed to plan ahead for many
predictable post-war challenges. As a result, today we are spending
more time--and money--trying to protect our troops and prevent chaos
than we are helping the Iraqi people build democratic and fee-market
institutions that will provide a foundation for long-term stability.
Let me make one thing clear to our president: I believe Congress will
support our troops and the Iraq reconstruction effort by approving the
supplemental request currently under consideration, and I will cast my
vote reluctantly in favor. It is my hope that he will take this
opportunity to come to terms with the significant challenges before us
and reorient his policies accordingly. In my view, failure is not an
option in Iraq, we must see this hard work through with the support of
the international community and the Iraqi people. I only ask that the
President use this supplemental funding in a manner that ensure our men
and women in uniform can come home soon, having completed a mission
that we all can be proud of.
Mr. SERRANO, Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my intention to vote
against the Iraq supplemental. This is a vote that can only be
explained if taken in the context of an earlier vote--my vote last year
against the war with Iraq.
At the time of that earlier vote, the administration was arguing that
we had to invade Iraq because of the imminent threat posed by Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction. The situation was so desperate that we
couldn't wait for the weapons inspectors to finish their work or for
the diplomacy to gain the support of the international community. Our
President argued that action needed to be taken preemptively and
quickly.
Now, with the passage of time, and with the issuance of subsequent
reports, it has become more and more unlikely that those threatening
weapons of mass destruction existed. So now the administration is
engaging in revisionist history as to why we went to war in the first
place.
Today, Congress is again facing a vote on Iraq. This time the vote is
on whether or not to continue funding for our misguided policy in Iraq.
Again the administration is arguing that we don't have a choice--we
must quickly and immediately pass this important war spending bill.
Again, the patriotism of those who oppose this effort is being
questioned.
I think it is time for us to pause. Our troops stationed in Iraq are
brave but suffering. They are experiencing hardships that are the
direct result of this flawed policy. It is time for Congress to
challenge the administration's policy with respect to Iraq.
My vote today is a vote of protest. I was opposed to the war and I am
opposed to funding the results of this unjustified war. I do not
believe that when the needs of our own country are so great, we should
be asked to fund this war spending bill. When I look around the South
Bronx, I see man wants. I see housing, education and health
requirements that have been put on hold by this administration, because
it claims it does not have the resources. If we don't fund this war
spending, we could change so much in the South Bronx. I want may
constituents' tax dollars spent to make positive changes that can
impact the lives of many.
Since I voted against this war, I do not believe I now have an
obligation to fund the results of a unjustified action that I so
strongly opposed. Some might say we have a responsibility--and we do
have a responsibility, to end this funding. We should no longer pretend
that what we did in Iraq was right. It is time to stop this charade.
If I were to support this war spending, it would serve to legitimize
the war against Iraq. The war was fought based on intelligence
manipulated for political ends and with a total disregard for
international conventions, coalitions, and public opinion. We need to
revise our foreign policy with respect to Iraq. We need to work
cooperatively with the international community and truly listen to
their concerns. We can no longer afford the cost or lost of life that
is accompanying our unilateral approach to Iraq. The only way to end
this terrible loss of life in Iraq is to end the funding, and so as an
appropriator, I must vote my conscience and vote against supporting
this war spending bill.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, a great challenge lies before
this Congress as we debate a supplemental spending package for the
reconstruction of Iraq. American forces bravely liberated an oppressed
population from decades of terror and the evil rule of Saddam Hussein's
regime. While freedom

[[Page H9547]]

may have been born on the streets of Iraq after the fall of the regime,
its long-term survival clearly depends on our commitment to help the
Iraqi people establish a government and infrastructure that will allow
freedom and democracy to grow.
History highlights situations where wars may have been won, but long-
term peace and security clearly was not. In the 1980's, for example,
the United States helped Afghanistan defeat the Soviets, but failed to
follow through to ensure long-term security and stability. Just 20
years later, Afghanistan's governing body--the Taliban--protected and
housed Osama Bin Laden and the Al Qaeda terrorist network.
Abandoning Iraq without ensuring stability will only provide
opportunities for terrorists and extremists to eliminate Iraq's hopes
for freedom and democracy. This will ultimately bring a greater threat
to the United States and our allies.
America's commitment to freedom and democracy is unwavering. The
soldiers that bravely liberated the Iraqi people and brought an end to
an evil regime, demonstrated this commitment to freedom and democracy
that America has fought for throughout its history. We must not turn
our backs on the very principles this nation fought for. We must not
return the Iraqi people to a state that sponsors terrorism, lacks all
regard for human rights and poses an international threat to peace.
As Members of Congress we must support measures that will ultimately
protect America and the American people. Along with President Bush's
support, this body has passed major initiatives to protect Americans
since September 11. The authorization to use force against Saddam
Hussein's regime was one such initiative. However, those efforts--and
the successes since the fall of the regime--will be meaningless if we
abandon Iraq and allow for similar regimes to emerge.
Initiatives to protect Americans must exist far beyond our borders.
Threats to our security are developed far from our borders and should
be addressed long before they have a chance to reach one of our major
cities. We must not allow Iraq to become another breeding ground for
anti-American terrorist dictators that will not only abuse its people,
but also seek to destroy the United States.
Some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have expressed
concerns with this reconstruction package. Such hesitation is
reminiscent of similar hesitation on this very floor in 1947, while the
House and Senate were debating the Marshall Plan after the conclusion
of World War II. At that time, some Members had concerns that the
Marshall Plan was expensive, poor policy and would ultimately fail.

One Senator claimed that the American people ``are thoroughly
disgusted with the whole program, when they know anything about it, or
when it is explained to them, and when they understand that it may lead
to the destruction of the United States.'' Another Senator stated that
``the Truman-Marshall Plan will be no more successful than our previous
adventures in foreign policy.'' One Member of the House even referred
to the plan as a ``campaign of propaganda.''
As history recorded, the Marshall Plan became one of the most
successful foreign policies in American history. We were able to secure
an unstable region of the world, build long-term international
relations and ensure the security of America and our allies. A
comprehensive assistance program was essential in securing the
stability of Europe, especially Germany. Had America and our allies
walked away from Europe after we fought to liberate it, destabilization
would have certainly been a consequence.
Like the Marshall Plan, our reconstruction package seeks to ensure
the long-term stability of a region that plays a major role in the
security of America. We must ensure that future generations are not
faced with the same threatening regimes we have faced. The only way to
make that assurance, however, is to help rebuild a nation that has been
significantly damaged by a government which had no regard for its own
citizens.
I proudly stand in support of this initiative, which will create
long-term stability in Iraq and will ensure that a terrorist regime
will never re-emerge. We own this to the people of Iraq and to all
Americans--here and abroad--that must be protected from every threat to
their security and safety.
I encourage my colleagues to join me in voting for this legislation,
which will protect our troops, the principles of freedom and democracy,
and will ultimately eliminate a major threat to the United States that
has existed for decades.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose President Bush's
request of $87 billion for the rebuilding of Iraq.
Mr. Chairman, these are the most troubling days this country has gone
through in my lifetime, not just because we are at war, or even because
of the terrorist attacks on 9/11, as horrific as that event and its
aftermath has been, but because we are living in a time when we cannot
rely on government to protect our civil liberties, and we cannot rely
on the word and the stated intent of the administration in power.
Moreover, it is a time when those sworn to uphold the Constitution
undermine it at every opportunity.
For the President to ask then for $87 billion after having sent this
country into the largest deficit in year with tax cuts for the wealthy
and an ill conceived economic policy, without being accountable for the
prior $65 billion, or even trying to justify this new request, is
unbecoming of the high office he holds and a slap in the face of
Members of Congress and the people we represent.
Mr. Chairman, I want our men and women protected, well equipped and
with their needs addressed. I want us to restore basic stability and
services to Iraq. I want troop support in Iraq from our allies, and I
want the bulk of our soldiers home and out of harm's way.
More than anything, I want us to become a better nation and to regain
the respect and the moral leadership that the current administration
has squandered away.
Reliable reports such as one done recently by the Congressional
Research Service has shown that this funding is not needed immediately.
Other reports open questions on the efficiency and efficacy of what has
already been spent. Just about every American has questions about why
Bechtel and Halliburton have sole and uncontested claim to so much of
the millions spent and proposed.
Mr. Chairman, there are too many questions which we have not only a
right but a constitutional obligation to ask and have answered.
We do not help our soldiers, Iraq or our country by giving the
President this blank check.
I urge my colleagues to vote no, and to insist that the President
respect the Constitution, this body and the American people, and
respond to our request for the important and accurate information
needed to vote responsibly on this request.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this bill
spending $87 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan.
We have a responsibility to finish what the President started in
Iraq. We must honor our commitment to help the Iraqi people rebuild.
Our troops must have the resources to safely complete their mission.
But, what is the President's strategy for Iraq? Where is the
Administration's plan other than this bloated spending bill that
continues to throw good money after bad. The American people deserve
more accountability for the billions we continue to spend.
In Iraq, we're still witnessing chaos and violence in the streets.
There's been little improvement in basic living standards as many
Iraqis continue to suffer without water or electricity. It is unclear
how and when authority will be transferred to a new, unified Iraqi
government.
In the meantime, our young men and women in uniform are walking
targets--daily casualties continue to rise. Terrorist groups have found
safe haven in Iraq and now pose a threat far greater to our security
than any previously posed by Saddam Hussein. And not one shred of
evidence has been recovered showing Iraq possessed weapons of mass
destruction as the President falsely claimed.
In the midst of it all our commander-in-chief has not shown the
vision and leadership to right the course. His Administration is
divided and confused. And the world refuses to aid our nation with our
President having been so arrogant as to shun their full participation,
foolishly believing we can win the peace alone.
In fact, the Administration is trying so hard to keep a lid on this
daily disaster and keeping information from getting out, that they even
have the Army on the ground in Iraq doing spin control.
As reported in yesterday's Washington Post, an officer with the
Combined Joint Task Force in Mosul inadvertently distributed an
internal email to the media giving strict orders to the 101st Airborne
not to ``highlight killing the enemy'' in their press releases. ``The
intent to show that we are taking the fight to the enemy etc. is well
understood,'' wrote the captain. ``However, we don't want to get into
an enemy body count,'' he concluded.
I guess the Administration thinks making a good impression is better
than presenting the facts when lives are on the line. This deception
must not be tolerated.
It is time for Congress to hold this President accountable. I will
not support writing a blank check to fund this disaster without a
strategy for ending it. There are billions in borrowed money for this
failed policy that'll shoot the deficit farther through the roof while
burying our children in debt. And this won't be the last time this
Administration comes begging at the trough.
Make no mistake, we will continue to pay the price for this
misadventure. According to the National Priorities Project, the cost to
California so far for overall Iraq spending is over $18 billion. This
is money being taken away from important priorities for Californians,
like expanded unemployment benefits for those

[[Page H9548]]

out of work, teacher training and smaller class sizes in our schools,
improved access to health care for families, and investments in our
infrastructure and security.
In fact, while Iraq is plush with billions in new funding for roads
and infrastructure, housing, schools, hospitals and medical care, these
same investments have been cut by Republicans here at home.
Today, there are 9 million Americans out of work. America has lost
3.2 million private sector jobs since this President took office. Yet,
this same President wants us to pay for the creation of 3 million new
jobs in Iraq.
There is no question the Iraqi people need and deserve our help to
rebuild. But, we have our own reconstruction needs at home amidst the
war the Bush Administration has been waging on working Americans and
middle class families.
It is this majority of Americans who are being forced to bear the
cost of this war. They are making the sacrifices. Yet the richest
Americans get to keep the lush tax breaks they don't need as big
defense contractors grow fat on wasteful budget pork they don't
deserve.
If we were to suspend President Bush's tax cuts to the richest 1% of
Americans--the top income tax bracket--it is estimated that we could
save $125 to $150 billion that could be used to fund ongoing operations
in Iraq.
We could also save billions by suspending funds that have been
appropriated in the Pentagon's 2004 budget for unneeded and wasteful
programs. We could take away $9 billion appropriated for the pie-in-
the-sky Star Wars program; $1.1 billion being paid to Northrop Grumman
for design of the Navy's DDX Land Attack Destroyer the Congressional
Budget Office says ought to be scrapped; $2.3 billion to General
Dynamics for one Virginia Class submarine, just one of 18 the Pentagon
plans to build; $3 billion to Boeing for the F-18 E/F that according to
the General Accounting Office hasn't met performance goals justifying
its development; $3.7 billion to Lockheed Martin for the controversial
F-22, the most expensive plane ever built that was designed to combat
Soviet aircraft that no longer exist; and $4.3 billion to Lockheed
Martin for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, a program CBO argues could
save $17 billion between now and 2013 if Congress just slowed down its
development. In suspending these Fiscal Year 2004 appropriations alone,
we would save nearly $24 billion that could be applied to operations in
Iraq.
Congress has a clear message to send to the President: winning the
peace in Iraq cannot be won on the backs of working Americans.
Investments made abroad must be made at home and the sacrifices being
made for Iraq must be shared. I urge my colleagues to hold this
President accountable to the American people. Demand a clear strategy
from this Administration, rip up this blank check, and vote down this
bill.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my
grave concerns with the Administration's additional $87 billion
supplemental request for Iraq. Earlier this year, Congress gave a good
faith approval of $78.5 billion in Iraq and other related costs as part
of the Administration's FY2003 supplemental request. At that time,
those of us concerned with the long-term budgetary impact of the
operation were repeatedly assured that any additional funding needed
would be negligible, and that Iraq's own resources would go a long way
towards financing the reconstruction. In spite of repeated pleas for an
honest accounting of future plans, we were frustrated by the
Administration's refusal to be straightforward with the American people
about the long-term costs necessary to secure on the ground the
stability that fosters peace.
Our frustration continues today, as the Administration now asks us to
pass along to the American taxpayers the burden of funding an
additional $87 billion for Iraq. And we know now--as many of us
suspected then--that the $165.5 billion in spending from the two
supplemental requests thus far is only the tip of the iceberg. The
American people deserve real answers and accountability with their
hard-earned dollars, and I believe they are already doubting the
Administration's insistence that our financial house is in order and
all is ok: the Administration would like us to think that we can afford
to pour billions into Iraq, give greater tax cuts to millionaires, and
still meet the needs of working families. We can't.
It doesn't take a mathematician to notice that someone loses out in
this unbalanced equation, and I believe the losers will be working-
class families. Working families know a lot about getting by on tight
budgets, and they know that you cannot balance your checkbooks if you
refuse to sacrifice. It is simply wrong to continue to impose an
American taxpayers the results of a failed economic policy that
promises to burden future generations with the costs of today's
failures.
This is why I joined with Congressman Tom Lantos in offering an
amendment before the Rules Committee that would offset the cost of the
$87 billion supplemental by reducing the size of the tax cut for the
wealthiest one percent of Americans. This is a commonsense amendment
that allows us to follow through with the responsibilities we've
assumed in Iraq without abandoning our responsibilities to the American
people. Unfortunately, the Rules Committee blocked our amendment.
Throughout history, when our troops have been in harms way abroad, the
American people have been asked to sacrifice at home. However, this
Administration seems to think it is perfectly fine to pad the pockets
of the millionaires and billionaires, while ballooning deficit to the
detriment of most American taxpayers, and taxpayers of generations to
come.
At a time when so many Americans are out of work and down on their
luck, we find ourselves shouldering the significant costs of rebuilding
Iraq. We find ourselves in this conundrum because of a conscious
decision by the current Administration to abandon diplomacy in order to
launch a preemptive war, due to a threat that now appears to have been
far less than imminent. In a world threatened by the clear and present
danger of Al Oaeda and other terrorist groups, we decide to divert our
resources to pursue a threat that was not at all clear and, the
evidence seems to indicate, was not at all a present danger.
In the months after 9/11 the entire world was behind us, people from
nations far and wide opened their arms to us, as did their governments.
It defies reason that our government could have squandered this almost
unprecedented international goodwill, pursued a course of
unilateralism, and treated our allies in a dismissive if not
contemptuous manner. Consequently, we are essentially single-handedly
assuming the lion's-share of costs associated with maintaining security
and rebuilding Iraq. An even more profound consequence of this
unilateralist approach is that it is overwhelmingly our men and women
in uniform who are bearing this burden, who are away from their
families, suffering casualties, and giving their lives.
Despite all of my objections to the supplemental request under
consideration today, I believe that we are basically left with no
choice but to complete our mission. I urge Congress to offset the costs
of Iraq by reducing the tax cut for millionaires. This is why I offered
an amendment before the Rules Committee, and this is why I voted
against the previous question in an effort to make the Obey substitute
in order. The Administration sent us down this path, and now we cannot
afford to create greater regional instability by wiping our hands of
our unfinished business in Iraq. However, in order to assure that we
are doing everything possible to restore fiscal order to these immense
funding requests, I believe we must at minimum make wise choices about
the long-term costs of our mission, hold the Administration accountable
for the funding in this Supplemental, and insist upon the imposition of
real benchmarks.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, one of the most difficult challenges of
this job is to balance the responsibilities of being an elected
official with those of one's family. Too often, the family is
sacrificed.
On Monday, my mother-in-law, Helen Zimmer, passed away. At 91 she
lived a full life as a wife and mother, serving her family, friends,
and God. Today she is in paradise with the Lord, her husband George,
her brothers and sisters, her parents, my dad, and others who died
before her.
She has no more pain or periods of loneliness, because there are no
tears in heaven. She is celebrating with our Lord and Saviour. It is
her family who is left behind that grieves.
Edmund Burke referred to family as our ``Little Platoons.'' Weddings,
funerals, and the occasional reunions are the times we pass our values
to our children and to one another.
Our time together reminds us all of the comparative brevity of our
lives. How do we redeem the time God has given us? Did we use it
selfishly? Did we spend our life serving others or serving ourselves?
Did we stand up and be counted? Were we ``strong and courageous'' or
did we crave popularity? Were we fearful of being looked down upon or
laughed at for standing for what is right and just?
I wanted to be with my family as we spend these rare days together
from far and near. Thus, I will miss these critical votes. I personally
prepared this statement because I didn't want my absence to be
misunderstood as any sign of weakening of my support for President Bush
and his policies.
And, if my vote is needed--which my understanding is that it is not--
I will fly back to vote in favor of this supplemental. But I will not
abandon my family at this time for a vote that is not needed.
I have been disappointed in some of my colleagues who have been
expressing ``surprise'' and ``frustration'' at the difficulty of the
reconstruction of Iraq.
Where were you the last few years? Did you meet with any Iraqis
before you voted?
In Fort Wayne we have Iraqi Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds, all with
substantially different experiences. If there are Iraqis in Fort Wayne,
they

[[Page H9549]]

are probably in the home districts of many, if not most, Members.
Are you leading us to believe you were uninformed when you voted to
send our troops to war? Are you learning just now that there are no
other democracies among Arab nations in the region? If no such examples
exist, it only makes sense that trying to establish one is a massive
challenge. Those of us who voted for the war, like me, have no excuse
for not knowing that this would be expensive, hard, and potentially
lengthy.
President Bush came before this body and clearly laid out his goals
and the work necessary to achieve them. Members in this Chamber
applauded and cheered. Now, some of the same Members whine: ``$87
billion is too much.''
Sixty-seven billion of this emergency funding request is for our
soldiers. It seems to me that many of the critics want these same
troops to do even more--be museum curators, traffic cops, and water
system managers--but without casualties. How do they propose to do this
without spending the dollars?
The $20 billion for reconstruction will go largely to American
companies employing American workers. We are, for the most part, paying
ourselves.
As for loan repayments, can you imagine the outcome if we were to
take revenue from the limited current Iraqi oil as payment for a
staggering long-term debt that no elected Iraqi chose to obligate?
We will face additional funding requests to rebuild Iraq, and I
support the Administration in trying to develop some variation of the
idea put forth by Congressman Charles Taylor of North Carolina.
Congressman Taylor proposes a blended cost recovery--as oil revenues
rise, a proportion of previous debt and American taxpayer contributions
are retired, but at a level that gives the free Iraq room to grow and
breathe. If in the future, Iraq enjoys massive oil revenue increases,
the American taxpayer should be repaid accordingly. More repayment than
France ever received.
At the end of World War II, the United States invested billions of
dollars in Western Europe. The United States believed rebuilding war
torn Western Europe would keep Communism from spreading. The Marshall
Plan, perhaps some of my colleagues have heard of it, is often
considered one of America's most successful foreign policy initiatives.
From the amount of reconstruction necessary to the existence of a
functioning government, Western Europe and Iraq are worlds apart, but
there is one unifying goal that transcends any differences between the
two situations--stability and democracy.
What alternative do we actually have? If we pull out now, we probably
will have to return to Iraq yet again when terrorists regain government
control.
An investment of billions of dollars is painful but less than large
human losses in combat or thousands of deaths from weapons of mass
destruction.
We--the United States, President Bush, and Congress--may fail to give
the Iraqi people the chance for peace and freedom but we will have
exhausted every effort in doing so because it is the right thing to do.
The alternatives seem to guarantee more death and destruction in the
future. And of course, greater financial costs over the long run.
To my Republican colleagues especially, let's not be ``summertime
soldiers'' and ``sunshine patriots'' who pose with President Bush when
he's at 75 percent in the polls, and criticize him and whine when he is
not as popular.
We need to do this. We need to do it because it is the right thing to
do, not because it is popular or unpopular.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the
President's $87 billion request which represents a combination of
funding for the reconstruction of Iraq and funding for our troops.
This extraordinary request of Congress should be bifurcated, with 2
individual bills, one for our troops, and the other vote on the
reconstruction package. However, the House Leadership refuses to allow
a bifurcated vote, knowing one would pass, support for the troops, and
one would fail, reconstruction.
I will vote against the President's request because it furthers a
failed policy; because the Administration continues to operate without
a plan; and because the President has yet to account to the Congress
and the American people exactly how the $65 billion appropriated in
April, 2003, for Iraq has been spent.
I firmly believe that the policies of unilateralism and preemption
are wrong but the reality today is that our troops are in Iraq and
cutting and running is not an American option. We need transparency, we
need a plan and we need the truth.
Supporting our troops is essential and that's why I voted for the $65
billion appropriation in April. But now we find out that our troops
don't even have Kevlar flak jacket inserts or portable jammers that
block radio signals used to detonate remote control bombs that have
been used repeatedly to kill and injure our troops.
The Administration is still incapable or unwilling to articulate a
coherent and workable strategy to accomplish our mission in Iraq and
bring our troops home. The power of the purse remains the only
effective means that the Congress has to ensure for the American people
that such a strategy exists and that it has a reasonable chance for
success.
To support this huge request for funds prior to evidence of such a
strategy would be an abdication of my responsibility.
For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote against this measure.
Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today with a heavy heart. It is
weighed down by the many peace and security challenges our nation faces
in Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, Iran, Syria, Liberia, Colombia,
Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, China and Taiwan, and India and
Pakistan. It is weighed down by the humanitarian crises we face:
famine, displaced persons, AIDS and other health care challenges. And
it is also weighed down by the very serious challenges we face here at
home: unemployment, budget deficits, the need for affordable health
care, improving education for our kids, keeping our promises to our
veterans, investing in our infrastructure, guaranteeing Social Security
and Medicare, and protecting our homeland and our civil liberties.
I wish we had the ability to work on all of these challenges
simultaneously. I wish our leaders in the executive branch and those of
us here in Congress could give each of these challenges the focused
attention needed to make significant progress.
I wish we had enough resources to pay for a war, rebuild two
countries, fight the war on terrorism, stop nuclear proliferation,
negotiate peace in the Middle East, stop the spread of AIDS, return
refugees to their homes, ensure that every child in every country has
food to eat and is vaccinated against preventable diseases. I wish at
the same time we could get our economy growing and put people to work.
I wish we could give everyone a tax cut without underfunding our health
care, education, and homeland security, or borrowing from our
retirement and leaving the bill for our children.
I have all of these wishes, but simply wishing will not make it so.
Our job is to listen to the American people as they talk about their
needs and their desires, and then set and fund our nation's priorities.
Our job is to keep our homeland safe. And our job is to protect our
freedom and liberty.
Mr. Chairman, the war in Iraq is the wrong priority, conducted in the
wrong way, at the wrong time.
We all were shocked and horrified by the attacks of September 11. All
Americans faced a new sense of vulnerability, one that could find them
here at home, out of the blue. It was natural for us to be afraid. Our
reaction as Americans was to demand action. Our reaction as national
leaders was to act to confront the threat and protect our homeland.
All Americans were united in the desire to seek justice by finding
and punishing the perpetrators of September 11. The world came together
in solidarity with our loss, working with us to find the perpetrators,
to break up Al Qaeda, arrest its leaders, and to interrupt the flow of
money to terrorists. It should have been crystal clear that fighting
terrorism and protecting American security would require friends and
allies; cooperation, not confrontation.
Yet, the Bush Administration instead engaged in a singled-minded
drive to achieve its Iraq objectives at any cost, instead of developing
a policy to deal with Iraq by working with our allies and the entire
world community. It is particularly troubling that the very rationale
used by the Bush Administration to try to win the endorsement of the
United Nations Security Council--the urgent threat of Iraq's use of
weapons of mass destruction--cannot now be verified. Some in the Bush
Administration have even suggested that the imminent threat of WMDs was
not the main reason for the war. The shifting justifications for war
and the lack of WMD evidence undermines U.S. credibility around the
world. If the intelligence that Colin Powell brought before the U.N.
Security Council now appears inaccurate, how will future intelligence
presented by the U.S. be received? Will it be believed?
Throughout our history, the United States has been viewed by the
world as a beacon of freedom and a pillar of democratic principle.
Following the devastation of World War II, the United States showed
tremendous leadership as we created international institutions and a
framework of international law to prevent war and to sustain and
maintain peace. We were the leaders in promoting a world where
conflicts could be resolved peacefully and cooperatively. While never
perfect, this system of international institutions has been remarkably
effective. 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. That is not the vision for America that I have, and it is not
the vision that Americans have.

[[Page H9550]]

Many around the world are shocked and dismayed by the unilateral,
confrontational approach that the Bush Administration has taken in the
world arena. I share their concern. We must recognize the consequences
in the world community of our rejection of Kyoto, of the International
Criminal Court, of the treaty to ban land mines, our failure to ratify
the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and the Convention to End All Forms of
Discrimination Against Women, and our own withdrawal from the ABM
treaty. We must be mindful about how our criticism of the UN and NATO
are heard throughout the world community. Calling longtime allies ``Old
Europe'' is terribly counterproductive. The war in Iraq is seen against
this larger backdrop.
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.
Before the war started, I wrote to President Bush asking a series of
questions concerning possible U.S. military engagement in Iraq. One
question asked was, ``what is the exit strategy and how do we know when
the campaign has successfully concluded?'' I still have not received an
answer to this critical question, nor have the American people.
In May, the President dramatically declared an end to major combat
operations in Iraq. It may have made compelling television, but nearly
170,000 American troops are still in Iraq or the immediate region,
facing attacks and wondering when they are coming home. No doubt, they
are doing the best they can to carry out their mission. All Americans
should be proud of their dedication, hard work and professionalism. We
must give our troops every tool they need to protect their safety as
well as provide them with every possible comfort during their
incredible service in this military campaign.
The problem is that the military campaign continues with no end in
sight. Since the end of ``major combat operations'' the Bush
Administration has been reacting to events and improvising. It is
becoming apparent that they still do not have a plan.
And they should have had a plan. Prior to the war, most experts were
saying that military conquest was the easy part, rebuilding the peace
was the challenge.
While I am very critical of the rosy scenarios painted by the Defense
Department, purposely spread to allay the concerns of Americans about
the costs and consequences of war, the real problem here is the lack of
leadership. It is unacceptable to claim that events in Iraq could not
have been anticipated. It is simply not true that the extent of damage
to the electrical and water systems in Iraq were unknown. Prior to the
war, the United Nations conducted a detailed assessment of Iraq's
infrastructure which clearly delineated the problems and the
requirements for repair and rebuilding. The report was unheeded.
There was planning for a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq. The State
Department organized the ``Future of Iraq Project'' that brought
together exiled Iraqis to develop detailed plans for Iraq's economy,
security, and governance. A series of working groups completed these
comprehensive plans. So what happened to the recommendations of the
``Future of Iraq Project?'' The first civilian in charge of post-war
Iraq reconstruction, General Jay Garner, has said publicly that he was
instructed to ignore those proposals.
It should be no surprise that so many American troops are still in
Iraq attempting to maintain order and begin reconstruction of Iraqi
society. Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki testified to Congress that
``several hundred thousand soldiers'' would be needed for a year or
more. What did Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz say about
General Shinseki's estimate? He testified that it was ``wildly off the
mark.''
It should be no surprise that the costs of the war and reconstruction
are running far higher than suggested by the Administration. When asked
about the likely cost of a war with Iraq, then-Chairman of the White
House Council of Economic Advisors Lawrence Lindsay said it would cost
between $100 million and $200 million. Budget Director Mitch Daniels
and economic advisor Glenn Hubbard immediately said the cost would be
much less. If we approve this $87 billion request, we'll be approaching
$140 million so far. And with no plan, there is no end in sight.
Mr. Chairman, my heart is heavy today because the President of the
United States is coming to this Congress and asking us to appropriate
$87 billion to a policy without a plan and a military commitment
without an exit strategy. The American people have so many questions
about our mission in Iraq, but they have received so few answers.
I have no doubt that there has been progress in Iraq. Our servicemen
and women are working hard to restore security in the streets. No-bid
contractors are working on the electrical system and water treatment
facilities. I have heard from Iraqis that progress is being made. But I
have also heard their fears and concerns. Despite our best efforts, too
many streets are unsafe for women to walk along. Jobs are scarce,
leaving people with few options to earn a living. Gas lines are long
and telecommunications are mostly inoperable. The problem in Iraq isn't
that the stories of our successes are not getting out in American
media. The problem is we're not making progress fast enough. No PR
campaign will fix the electrical system, purify the water, make the
streets safe, restore oil production, reconstitute a representative
Iraqi government, create jobs, restore hope, or bring our troops home
any sooner. Failure to convey a positive message is not the problem,
the policy (or rather lack of policy) is the problem.

Emblematic of the policy failure is the $87 billion emergency
supplemental spending request submitted by the Bush Administration. It
contained essential funds to support our men and women involved in the
military campaign, but even that amount was insufficient in crucial
areas like bulletproof vests and spare parts for Bradley fighting
vehicles and Humvees. At the same time, the Administration requested:
$400 million to construct two new prisons, at a cost of $50,000 per
bed; $20 million for a four-week business course at $10,000 per
student; $100 million to enroll 100 five-person families in a witness
protection program, at a cost of $200,000 per person; $100 million to
finance 500 experts to investigate crimes against humanity, at a cost
of $200,000 per person; $9 million to create zip codes and $4 million
to create area codes; $100 million to build seven new model
communities; and $900 million to import petroleum products like
kerosene and diesel to one of the largest oil producing nations in the
world.
The need to import millions of dollars of petroleum products to Iraq
speaks volumes about how poorly the administration of post-war Iraq was
planned. Officials did not expect oil refineries and pipelines to be
sabotaged or U.S. troops to be continually ambushed. Their revenue
projections for Iraqi oil production were off the mark. Deputy
Secretary Wolfowitz testified that oil revenues ``could bring in
between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three
years. Now we know that this year the revenues are only going to be a
few billion dollars. Today, Defense Department Comptroller Dov Zakheim
told the House Budget Committee that revenues are now projected at $31
billion for the next two years. Even if these oil revenues are
achieved, it will not all be available for reconstruction since a large
portion will need to be used for essential government services like
police, health care, education and transportation.
I am glad that the House Appropriations Committee dropped many of the
most outrageous spending items requested by the Administration.
However, I still have major concerns about how much of the
reconstruction funds will be used. It is impossible to evaluate whether
or not, or how much, money is needed in each area.
Iraq's needs are great. It is a country that has gone years under a
brutal dictatorship and subject to debilitating international
sanctions. By virtue of being the occupying power, under international
law, the United States is responsible for what happens in Iraq. We have
no choice but to meet our legal responsibility. Beyond legal
requirements, we have a moral obligation to help Iraq rebuild. As New
York Times columnist Thomas Friedman has said, ``You break it, you buy
it.'' By unilaterally attacking Iraq, we have assumed the task of
ensuring it is reconstructed.
I hope that the Administration will succeed at the international
donor's conference later this month. Iraq needs more help than the
United States alone can provide. Debts owed by Iraq, taken out by
Saddam Hussein, should be forgiven. Rebuilding Iraq will be hard enough
without large debt payments to wealthy countries absorbing Iraq's oil
revenues. In deciding to go to war in Iraq with few international
allies, the Bush Administration has left the United States in a very
difficult situation and with a very large financial obligation. It
should be no surprise that those nations that never supported our war
with Iraq remain, at this juncture, unwilling to pay for rebuilding it.
Because of Iraq's great need, I hope that other countries will
reconsider and provide the Iraqi people with the generosity they so
desperately need.
Mr. Chairman, the Administration has come back to Congress for $87
billion, on top of the $62.3 billion we previously appropriated. It is
difficult for those of us who opposed the President's decision to
attack Iraq to now give the Administration a blank check, a down-
payment on an occupation without an exit strategy and a rebuilding fund
without a real plan. Based on the Administration's track record, this
funding request is just the tip of the iceberg.
Recently, Ambassador Paul Bremer, who is the U.S. Administrator for
Iraq, said the country would need $100 billion for rebuilding efforts.
Only $20 billion of that is included in the President's current $87
billion request for emergency funding. Since current estimates of
likely foreign contributions total a few billion dollars at best, there
are huge bills coming due just a short way down the road.

[[Page H9551]]

The bill we have before us today is inadequate in so many ways. I
think that this House could have significantly improved the bill. Many
of my colleagues proposed amendments that, if considered, would have
improved the bill. The bill could have been improved in many ways, but
there are two changes that I believe are essential. First, the bill
should require a detailed report from the President describing how
funds in the previous war supplemental have been spent, how funds
appropriated in this bill will be spent, and the level and types of
funding needed for future years for both military and reconstruction
activities.
Second, the bill should require that Congress be notified of non-
competitive contracting, require a report from the General Accounting
Office on accountability, and tighten public disclosure requirements.
The initial Iraq reconstruction contracts were issued without a
standard competitive bidding process. These contracts went to firms
closely connected with the Bush Administration. One large contract went
to Brown, Root & Kellogg, a subsidiary of Halliburton, the company
formerly headed by the Vice President Cheney. The Halliburton, no-bid
contract was worth an initial $948 million. Because of this contract,
Halliburton has a competitive advantage over other businesses during
future rounds of bidding. Another large contract was awarded to
Bechtel, a company that is lead by former officials from the first Bush
Administration. We need to make sure that every cent of the $20 billion
for Iraq reconstruction is awarded fairly and openly.

What is wrong with the House voting on these and other amendments? I
wish someone would tell us. Unfortunately, the Republican House
leadership used procedural roadblocks to prevent debate on most of
these alternatives and improvements. The Administration is going to get
the bill they wanted, with few amendments, requirements or limitations.
I believe it is a mistake to reward their previous poor estimates, bad
planning, withholding of information, and refusal to provide cost
estimates with a blank check now. It is time for some accountability.
Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier, the Iraq Supplemental must be
considered within the context of our national priorities. We do not
have unlimited funds to spend. With our federal budget in deficit,
every dollar we spend in Iraq is money that we are borrowing from our
children.
Even under the most optimistic scenario for Iraq, in which this is
the last request for funding, we will add $178 billion to our nation's
budget deficit. Of that $178 billion, $66 billion will be interest
payments on that debt. A more realistic scenario, in which our military
remains in Iraq until the end of 2006, we draw down our force over that
period, and we spend an additional $5 billion for reconstruction, would
add $238 billion to the debt, $84 billion just in interest.
It's almost surreal to live in a time when our budget deficit is
growing by leaps and bounds, the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans get
massive tax cuts in the midst of economic difficulties, and now this
huge unpaid bill is being amassed in Iraq. We have very real domestic
priorities that need to be addressed. We must get our people back to
work. We must provide funding for ``No Child Left Behind.'' We must to
take care of our veterans. We must protect our homeland. Each of their
priorities requires resources. The situation in Iraq does not mean that
we should not move forward at home.
This Administration spends a lot of time talking about fiscal
discipline. Yet they have spent more than any Administration in our
nation's history. Instead of fiscal discipline and instead of providing
funding for our nation's key priorities, they squandered our budget
surplus and continue to amass greater and greater debt to pay for tax
cuts that we cannot afford. This does not serve our nation well.
Our funding priorities must include protecting our brave servicemen
and women in Iraq and taking care of their families back home with
hazard pay and other tools to make the separation easier to bear. This
supplemental bill only takes modest steps to help them.
I opposed authorizing the use of force in Iraq. I urged the President
to not use that authority after it was granted by Congress. This is not
a war that I support. Putting tens of billions of dollars into an
inadequate plan with no end in sight makes no sense. I cannot in good
conscience vote for this supplemental spending bill. What I suggest is
that the Administration go back to the drawing board and work to
develop a real plan, with Iraqis, the United Nations and other
countries. After we have a real plan, with better cost estimates, the
President can come back to us with a detailed proposal.
I strongly support our troops. We must ensure they have the resources
they need. It is fortunate that a vote against this bill will not harm
our troops. An analysis by the Congressional Research Service estimates
that already appropriated funds will last until at least early April
2004. That is plenty of time for this Administration to regroup, figure
out what they are doing, and return to Congress with a better proposal.
Mr. Chairman, my vote today will be cast with a heavy heart. But I
cast it with confidence that it is the best vote to serve our country.
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, protecting and securing America's homeland
remains a top priority within out national borders and abroad.
Global stability or instability directly affects the United States in
all areas, rural or suburban.
Investing money now to defeat terrorists overseas where they plot
evil schemes is unquestionably better than spending money later to
rebuild New York City or Los Angeles, after thousands of innocent lives
are potentially lost.
The war on terrorism is one America cannot afford to lose. Our way of
life is at stake as we defend freedom, democracy and peace around the
world. I support this approach.
One necessary campaign in the war against terror was in Iraq.
We went to war to dispose of a brutal dictator guilty of the most
atrocious human rights violations in the modern world.
I voted to support the use of force against Iraq for many reasons: a
litany of ruthless atrocities by Saddam Hussein against his own people;
decades of deception and violation of United Nations resolutions;
invading neighboring countries; and, links to al Qaeda and other
terrorist training camps.
David Kay recently issued a statement that his team has indeed found
substantial evidence that Iraq had many programs hidden from view to
produce nuclear, biological and chemical weapons and had active illegal
programs to deliver them using ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and
unmanned aerial vehicles.
I believe this is 95 percent of a smoking gun.
I remain convinced these are solid justifications for war and asking
our brave men and women in uniform to potentially sacrifice their lives
so we can live in freedom.
The rebuilding of Iraq will take considerable time, effort and
resources.
It requires the support and will of the American people.
The country is devastated after being neglected for years by an evil
leader that spent money on palaces and weapons instead of
infrastructure.
America has no desire to be an occupying power in Iraq but instead
wants to transfer power and accountability to the Iraqi people as soon
as realistically possible.
The $18.6 billion portion as part of the President's supplemental
request for Iraq reconstruction funds is an important part of the
overall effort to win the war on terrorism by helping to rebuild Iraq.
The President recently told the country that Iraq has become the
central front in the war on terrorism.
Without this money, there is a real risk Iraq will become a breeding
ground for terrorism.
This request will pay for essential needs, not Iraqi foreign debt or
frivolous desires.
The President's request includes funding to enable this progress to
continue.
It will help create and train the New Iraqi Army to enable Iraqi
forces to work with Coalition forces to eliminate remaining remnants of
the Saddam Hussein regime.
The request also include money to equip and train an Iraqi police
service, civil defense force, and border patrols--all of which will
increase the security of and reduce the need for U.S. troops performing
these missions.
Finally, the supplemental request includes funds for U.S. force
protection through additional body armor and quality of life funding
for extended hazardous duty pay and travel assistance for military
families.
After achieving military victory, we must now ensure a peaceful and
prosperous Iraq emerges.
The CHAIRMAN. 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.
Pursuant to the order of the House of today, before consideration of
any other amendment, except pro forma amendments by the chairman or
ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their
designees for the purpose of debate, it shall be in order to consider
the following amendments:
Number 1, an amendment in the nature of a substitute by Mr. Obey,
which shall be debatable for 15 minutes;
Number 2, an amendment by Mr. Young of Florida regarding sustenance,
which will be debatable for 10 minutes;

[[Page H9552]]

Number 3, an amendment by Mr. Obey regarding quality of life, which
shall be debatable for 30 minutes;
Number 4, an amendment by Mr. Pence regarding loans, which shall be
debatable for 1 hour; and
Number 5, an amendment by Mr. Obey and Mr. Lantos regarding loans,
which also shall be debatable for 1 hour.
Each such amendment may be offered only in the order specified, may
be offered only by a Member designated or a designee, shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified, equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division
of the question.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

H.R. 3289

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, 2004, and for other purposes, namely:

The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider the amendment by the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Obey

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer a splendid amendment in the nature of
a substitute.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment in the nature of
a substitute.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:

Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute offered by Mr.
Obey:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:

That the following sums are appropriated, out of any money in
the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes, namely:

TITLE I--NATIONAL SECURITY

CHAPTER 1

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--MILITARY

MILITARY PERSONNEL

Military Personnel, Army

For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Army'',
$12,188,870,000: Provided, That such amount is designated by
the Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section
502 of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress), the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004.

Military Personnel, Navy

For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Navy'',
$816,100,000: Provided, That such amount is designated by the
Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 502
of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress), the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004.

Military Personnel, Marine Corps

For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Marine
Corps'', $753,190,000: Provided, That such amount is
designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement
pursuant to section 502 of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress),
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004.

Military Personnel, Air Force

For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Air
Force'', $3,384,700,000: Provided, That such amount is
designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement
pursuant to section 502 of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress),
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

Operation and Maintenance, Army

For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Army'', $24,355,664,000: Provided, That such amount is
designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement
pursuant to section 502 of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress),
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004.

Operation and Maintenance, Navy

(including transfer of funds)

For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Navy'', $1,934,058,000, of which up to $80,000,000 may be
transferred to the Department of Homeland Security for Coast
Guard Operations: Provided, That the entire amount is
designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement
pursuant to section 502 of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress),
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004.

Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps

For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Marine Corps'', $1,198,981,000: Provided, That such amount is
designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement
pursuant to section 502 of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress),
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004.

Operation and Maintenance, Air Force

For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Air Force'', $5,598,368,000: Provided, That such amount is
designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement
pursuant to section 502 of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress),
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004.

Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide

For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Defense-Wide'', $4,485,452,000, of which--
(1) not to exceed $15,000,000 may be used for the CINC
Initiative Fund account, to be used primarily in Iraq and
Afghanistan; and
(2) not to exceed $1,300,000,000, to remain available until
expended, 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 the
concurrence of the Secretary of State, and in consultation
with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, may
determine, in his discretion, based on documentation
determined by the Secretary of Defense to adequately account
for the support provided, and such determination is final and
conclusive upon the accounting officers of the United States,
and 15 days following notification to the appropriate
congressional committees: Provided further, That the
Secretary of Defense shall provide quarterly reports to the
Committees on Appropriations on the use of these funds:
Provided further, That the entire amount is designated by the
Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 502
of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress), the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004.

Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve

For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Marine Corps Reserve'', $16,000,000: Provided, That such
amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency
requirement pursuant to section 502 of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th
Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal
year 2004.

Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve

For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Air Force Reserve'', $53,000,000: Provided, That such amount
is designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement
pursuant to section 502 of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress),
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004.

Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard

For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Air National Guard'', $214,000,000: Provided, That such
amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency
requirement pursuant to section 502 of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th
Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal
year 2004.

Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid

For an additional amount for ``Overseas Humanitarian,
Disaster, and Civic Aid'', $35,500,000: Provided, That such
amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency
requirement pursuant to section 502 of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th
Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal
year 2004.

Iraq Freedom Fund

(including transfer of funds)

For ``Iraq Freedom Fund'', $1,988,600,000, to remain
available for transfer until September 30, 2005, for the
purposes authorized under this heading in Public Law 108-11:
Provided, That the Secretary of Defense may transfer the
funds provided herein to appropriations for military
personnel; operation and maintenance; Overseas Humanitarian,
Disaster, and Civic Aid; procurement; military construction;
the Defense Health Program; and working capital funds:
Provided further, That funds transferred shall be merged with
and be available for the same purposes and for the same time
period as the appropriation or fund to which transferred:
Provided further, That this transfer authority is in addition
to any other transfer authority available to the Department
of Defense: Provided further, That upon a determination that
all or part of the funds transferred from this appropriation
are not necessary for the purposes provided herein, such
amounts may be transferred back to this appropriation:
Provided further, That the Secretary of Defense shall, not
fewer than 5 days prior to making transfers from this
appropriation, notify the congressional defense committees of
any such transfer: Provided further, That the Secretary shall
submit a report no later than 30 days after the end of each
fiscal quarter to the congressional defense committees
summarizing the details of the transfer of funds from this
appropriation: Provided further, That the entire amount is
designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement
pursuant to section 502 of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress),
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004.

PROCUREMENT

Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army

For an additional amount for ``Procurement of Weapons and
Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army'', $101,600,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2006: Provided, That such
amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency
requirement pursuant to section 502 of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th
Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal
year 2004.

[[Page H9553]]

Other Procurement, Army

For an additional amount for ``Other Procurement, Army'',
$1,250,287,000, to remain available until September 30, 2006:
Provided, That such amount is designated by the Congress as
an emergency requirement pursuant to section 502 of H. Con.
Res. 95 (108th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the
budget for fiscal year 2004.

Aircraft Procurement, Navy

For an additional amount for ``Aircraft Procurement,
Navy'', $158,600,000, to remain available until September 30,
2006: Provided, That such amount is designated by the
Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 502
of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress), the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004.

Other Procurement, Navy

For an additional amount for ``Other Procurement, Navy'',
$76,357,000, to remain available until September 30, 2006:
Provided, That such amount is designated by the Congress as
an emergency requirement pursuant to section 502 of H. Con.
Res. 95 (108th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the
budget for fiscal year 2004.

Procurement, Marine Corps

For an additional amount for ``Procurement, Marine Corps'',
$123,397,000, to remain available until September 30, 2006:
Provided, That such amount is designated by the Congress as
an emergency requirement pursuant to section 502 of H. Con.
Res. 95 (108th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the
budget for fiscal year 2004.

Aircraft Procurement, Air Force

For an additional amount for ``Aircraft Procurement, Air
Force'', $53,972,000, to remain available until September 30,
2006: Provided, That such amount is designated by the
Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 502
of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress), the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004.

Missile Procurement, Air Force

For an additional amount for ``Missile Procurement, Air
Force'', $20,450,000, to remain available until September 30,
2006: Provided, That such amount is designated by the
Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 502
of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress), the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004.

Other Procurement, Air Force

For an additional amount for ``Other Procurement, Air
Force'', $3,418,006,000, to remain available until September
30, 2006: Provided, That such amount is designated by the
Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 502
of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress), the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004.

Procurement, Defense-Wide

For an additional amount for ``Procurement, Defense-Wide'',
$418,635,000, to remain available until September 30, 2006:
Provided, That such amount is designated by the Congress as
an emergency requirement pursuant to section 502 of H. Con.
Res. 95 (108th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the
budget for fiscal year 2004.

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy

For an additional amount for ``Research, Development, Test
and Evaluation, Navy'', $34,000,000, to remain available
until September 30, 2005: Provided, That such amount is
designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement
pursuant to section 502 of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress),
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004.

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force

For an additional amount for ``Research, Development, Test
and Evaluation, Air Force'', $39,070,000, to remain available
until September 30, 2005: Provided, That such amount is
designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement
pursuant to section 502 of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress),
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004.

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide

For an additional amount for ``Research, Development, Test
and Evaluation, Defense-Wide'', $195,817,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2005: Provided, That such
amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency
requirement pursuant to section 502 of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th
Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal
year 2004.

REVOLVING AND MANAGEMENT FUNDS

Defense Working Capital Funds

For an additional amount for ``Defense Working Capital
Funds'', $600,000,000: Provided, That such amount is
designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement
pursuant to section 502 of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress),
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004.

National Defense Sealift Fund

For an additional amount for ``National Defense Sealift
Fund'', $24,000,000, to remain available until expended:
Provided, That such amount is designated by the Congress as
an emergency requirement pursuant to section 502 of H. Con.
Res. 95 (108th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the
budget for fiscal year 2004.

OTHER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAMS

Defense Health Program

For an additional amount for ``Defense Health Program'',
$658,380,000 for Operation and maintenance: Provided, That
such amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency
requirement pursuant to section 502 of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th
Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal
year 2004.

Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense

(including transfer of funds)

For an additional amount for ``Drug Interdiction and
Counter-Drug Activities, Defense'', $73,000,000: Provided,
That these funds may be used for such activities related to
Afghanistan: Provided further, That the Secretary of Defense
may transfer the funds provided herein only to appropriations
for military personnel; operation and maintenance;
procurement; and research, development, test and evaluation:
Provided further, That the funds transferred shall be merged
with and be available for the same purposes and for the same
time period, as the appropriation to which transferred:
Provided further, That the transfer authority provided in
this paragraph is in addition to any other transfer authority
available to the Department of Defense: Provided further,
That the entire amount is designated by the Congress as an
emergency requirement pursuant to section 502 of H. Con. Res.
95 (108th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget
for fiscal year 2004.

RELATED AGENCIES

Intelligence Community Management Account

(including transfer of funds)

For an additional amount for ``Intelligence Community
Management Account'', $21,500,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2005; of which $3,000,000 may be transferred to
and merged with the Department of Energy, ``Other Defense
Activities'', and $15,500,000 may be transferred to and
merged with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, ``Salaries
and Expenses'': Provided, That such amount is designated by
the Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section
502 of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress), the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004.

GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS CHAPTER

(transfer of funds)

Sec. 1101. Upon his determination that such action is
necessary in the national interest, the Secretary of Defense
may transfer between appropriations up to $3,000,000,000 of
the funds made available to the Department of Defense in this
chapter: Provided, That the Secretary shall notify the
Congress promptly of each transfer made pursuant to this
authority: Provided further, That the transfer authority
provided in this section is in addition to any other transfer
authority available to the Department of Defense: Provided
further, That the authority in this section is subject to the
same terms and conditions as the authority provided in
section 8005 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act,
2004, except for the fourth proviso: Provided further, That
the entire amount is designated by the Congress as an
emergency requirement pursuant to section 502 of H. Con. Res.
95 (108th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget
for fiscal year 2004.
Sec. 1102. Funds appropriated in this Act, or made
available by the transfer of funds in or pursuant to this
Act, for intelligence activities are deemed to be
specifically authorized by the Congress for purposes of
section 504 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C.
414).
Sec. 1103. Sections 1318 and 1319 of the Emergency Wartime
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2003 (Public Law 108-11; 117
Stat. 571), shall remain in effect during fiscal year 2004.-
Sec. 1104. From October 1, 2003, through September 30,
2004, (a) the rates of pay authorized by section 310(a) of
title 37, United States Code, shall be $225; and (b) the
rates of pay authorized by section 427(a)(1) of title 37,
United States Code, shall be $250.
Sec. 1105. (a) Defense Emergency Response Fund Close-Out
Authority.--Section 1313 of the Emergency Wartime
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2003 (Public Law 108-11; 117
Stat. 569), is amended by inserting ``unobligated'' before
``balances''.
(b) Accounts Chargeable.--Effective November 1, 2003,
adjustments to obligations that before such date would have
been properly chargeable to the Defense Emergency Response
Fund shall be charged to any current appropriation account of
the Department of Defense available for the same purpose.
Sec. 1106. During the current year, funds made available in
this Act to the Department of Defense for operation and
maintenance may be used, notwithstanding any other provision
of law, to provide supplies, services, transportation,
including airlift and sealift, and other logistical support
to coalition forces supporting military and stability
operations in Iraq: Provided, That the Secretary of Defense
shall provide quarterly reports to the congressional defense
committees regarding support provided under this section.
Sec. 1107. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, from
funds made available in this Act to the Department of Defense
under ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'', not to
exceed $100,000,000 may be used by the Secretary of Defense,
with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, to provide
assistance only to the New Iraqi Army

[[Page H9554]]

and the Afghan National Army to enhance their capability to
combat terrorism and to support U.S. military operations in
Iraq and Afghanistan: Provided, That such assistance may
include the provision of equipment, supplies, services,
training and funding: Provided further, That the authority to
provide assistance under this section is in addition to any
other authority to provide assistance to foreign nations:
Provided further, That the Secretary of Defense shall notify
the congressional defense committees not less than 15 days
before providing assistance under the authority of this
section: Provided further, That the entire amount is
designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement
pursuant to section 502 of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress),
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004.
Sec. 1108. None of the funds provided in this chapter may
be used to finance programs or activities denied by Congress
in fiscal year 2004 appropriations to the Department of
Defense or to initiate a procurement or research,
development, test and evaluation new start program without
prior notification to the congressional defense committees.
Sec. 1109. In addition to amounts made available elsewhere
in this Act, there is hereby appropriated to the Department
of Defense $413,300,000, to be used only for recovery and
repair of damage due to natural disasters including Hurricane
Isabel, to be distributed as follows:
``Operation and Maintenance, Army'', $73,600,000;
``Operation and Maintenance, Navy'', $126,400,000;
``Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps'', $9,200,000;
``Operation and Maintenance, Air Force'', $201,900,000; and
``Other Procurement, Air Force'', $2,200,000:
Provided, That the entire amount is designated by the
Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 502
of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress), the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004.
Sec. 1110. During the current fiscal year, from funds made
available in this Act to the Department of Defense for
operation and maintenance, not to exceed $180,000,000 may be
used, notwithstanding any other provision of law, to fund the
Commander's Emergency Response Program, established by the
Administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority for the
purpose of enabling military commanders in Iraq to respond to
urgent humanitarian relief and reconstruction requirements
within their areas of responsibility by carrying our programs
that will immediately assist the Iraqi people, and to
establish and fund a similar program to assist the people of
Afghanistan: Provided, That the Secretary of Defense shall
provide quarterly reports, beginning on January 15, 2004, to
the congressional defense committees regarding the source of
funds and the allocation and use of funds made available
pursuant to the authority provided in this section.
Sec. 1111. Not later than 30 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit
to the congressional defense committees a report describing
an Analysis of Alternatives for replacing the capabilities of
the existing Air Force fleet of KC-135 tanker aircraft.
Sec. 1112. (a) Providing Medical and Dental Screening for
Reservists Called to Active Duty.--Section 1074a of title 10,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(f)(1) At any time after the Secretary concerned notifies
members of the Ready Reserve that the members are to be
called or ordered to active duty, the administering
Secretaries may provide to each such member any medical and
dental screening and care that is necessary to ensure that
the member meets the applicable medical and dental standards
for deployment.
``(2) The Secretary concerned shall promptly transmit to
each member of the Ready Reserve eligible for screening and
care under this subsection a notification of eligibility for
such screening and care.
``(3) A member provided medical or dental screening or care
under paragraph (1) may not be charged for the screening or
care.
``(4) Screening and care may not be provided under this
section after September 30, 2004.''.
(b) Appropriation.--In addition to amounts appropriated or
otherwise made available in this or any other Act,
$40,000,000 is hereby appropriated to the Department of
Defense under the heading ``Defense Health Program'' only for
covering the costs of reservists medical and dental screening
and care. Such amount is designated by the Congress as an
emergency requirement pursuant to section 502 of H. Con. Res.
95 (108th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget
for fiscal year 2004.
Sec. 1113. (a) Extending Transitional Health Care Benefits
for Reservists.--Subject to subsection (b), during the period
beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act and ending
on September 30, 2004, section 1145(a) of title 10, United
States Code, shall be administered by substituting for
paragraph (3) the following:
``(3) Transitional health care for a member under
subsection (a) shall be available for 180 days beginning on
the date on which the member is separated from active
duty.''.
(b) Applicability.--(1) Subsection (a) shall apply with
respect to separations from active duty that take effect on
or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(2) Beginning on October 1, 2004, the period for which a
member is provided transitional health care benefits under
section 1145(a) of title 10, United States Code, shall be
adjusted as necessary to comply with the limits provided
under paragraph (3) of such section.
(c) Appropriation.--In addition to amounts appropriated or
otherwise made available in this or any other Act,
$60,000,000 is hereby appropriated to the Department of
Defense under the heading ``Defense Health Program'' only for
covering the costs of extending transitional health care
benefits for reservists. Such amount is designated by the
Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 502
of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress), the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004.
Sec. 1114. (a) Increase in Support for Reserve and National
Guard Family Assistance Centers.--In addition to any other
amounts appropriated in this or any other Act for fiscal year
2004, $50,000,000 is hereby appropriated to the Department of
Defense for operation and maintenance for fiscal year 2004,
as follows:
(1) For the Army Reserve, $4,000,000.
(2) For the Army National Guard, $42,000,000.
(3) For the Air National Guard, $2,000,000.
The the entire amount is designated by the Congress as an
emergency requirement pursuant to section 502 of H. Con. Res.
95 (108th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget
for fiscal year 2004.
(b) Availability.--Amounts appropriated pursuant to
subsection (a) shall be available only for family assistance
centers.
Sec. 1115. Permanent Elimination of Subsistence Fee for
Members Hospitalized for Wounds Received While in Combat or
Training.--Subsection (c) of section 1075 of title 10, United
States Code (as added by section 8146(a)(2) of the Department
of Defense Appropriations Act, 2004 (Public Law 108-87)), is
repealed.
Sec. 1116. (a) Prepaid Phone Cards for Members Deployed in
Combat Zone.--Beginning on the first day of the first month
following the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Secretary of Defense shall establish and implement a program
to provide prepaid phone cards to members of the Armed Forces
stationed outside the United States who are directly
supporting military operations in a combat zone. The value of
the benefit shall be at least $50 per month per person.
(b) Telephone and Internet Service for Members Deployed in
Combat Zone.--To the maximum extent practicable, the
Secretary should seek to provide free telephone and Internet
access to members of the Armed Forces stationed outside the
United States who are directly supporting military operations
in a combat zone.
(c) Appropriation.--In addition to amounts appropriated or
otherwise made available in this or any other Act,
$65,000,000 is hereby appropriated to the Department of
Defense only for covering the costs of providing telephone
and Internet service to members of the United States Armed
Services in Iraq and Afghanistan. Such amount is designated
by the Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to
section 502 of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress), the
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004.
Sec. 1117. (a) Government-Paid Travel Under Rest and
Recuperation Leave Program for Members Serving One Year or
More In-Theatre.--In the case of a member of the Armed Forces
serving outside of the United States for a period of one year
or more who is granted rest and recuperative leave, and
provided the travel and transportation allowances authorized
by section 411c(a) of title 37, United States Code, in
connection with that leave, the Secretary of Defense shall
also pay the member for transportation, or provide
transportation for the member, between--
(1) the locations specified in paragraph (1) or (2) of such
section; and
(2) the permanent duty station of the member, the home of
record of the member, or other location in the United States
or overseas approved by the Secretary.
(b) Applicability.--Subsection (a) shall apply with respect
to travel beginning on or after the date of the enactment of
this Act in connection with rest and recuperative leave
described in subsection (a).
(c) Appropriation.--In addition to amounts appropriated or
otherwise made available in this or any other Act,
$50,000,000 is hereby appropriated to the Department of
Defense only for covering the costs of providing
transportation for service to members of the United States
Armed Services in Iraq and Afghanistan on rest and
recuperation leave. Such amount is designated by the Congress
as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 502 of H.
Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress), the concurrent resolution on
the budget for fiscal year 2004.
Sec. 1118. Providing Essential Goods and Services for
Troops.--Of amounts appropriated under the heading
``Operation and Maintenance, Army'' in this Act, $40,500,000
shall be made available only for providing essential goods
and services to the military exchange services.
Sec. 1119. (a) Military Campaign Medals To Recognize
Service in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi
Freedom.--The President shall establish a campaign medal
specifically to recognize service by members of the Armed
Forces in Operation Enduring Freedom and a separate campaign
medal specifically to recognize service by members of the
Armed Forces in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

[[Page H9555]]

(b) Eligibility.--Subject to such limitations as may be
prescribed by the President, eligibility for a campaign medal
established pursuant to subsection (a) shall be set forth in
uniform regulations to be prescribed by the Secretaries of
the military departments and approved by the Secretary of
Defense or in regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary
of Homeland Security with respect to the Coast Guard when it
is not operating as a service in the Navy.
Sec. 1120. (a) Enhanced Transition Assistance for Disabled
Servicemembers Returning to Civilian Life.--In addition to
amounts appropriated in this or any other Act, $50,000,000 is
appropriated for the Disabled Transition Assistance Program,
in addition to any other amounts available for that program.
Such amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency
requirement pursuant to section 502 of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th
Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal
year 2004.
(b) Use of Appropriated Amounts.--Amounts appropriated
pursuant to subsection (a) shall be used to increase the
number of personnel within the Department of Veterans Affairs
and the Department of Defense assigned as case managers and
discharge planners with responsibility for managing the case
of a member of the Armed Forces who is very seriously ill, or
seriously ill.
Sec. 1121. Increase for Reconstituting the Military
Forces.--In addition to amounts appropriated in this or any
other Act, the sum of $3,126,400,000 is appropriated only for
the maintenance, repair, replacement, or reconstitution of
weapon systems and equipment used in Operation Iraqi Freedom
and Operation Enduring Freedom, to be distributed to the
following accounts and in the following amounts:
(1) ``Operation and Maintenance, Army'', $323,700,000;
(2) ``Operation and Maintenance, Navy'', $861,000,000;
(3) ``Aircraft Procurement, Army'', $467,100,000;
(4) ``Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles,
Army'', $129,200,000;
(5) ``Other Procurement, Army'', $329,700,000;
(6) ``Aircraft Procurement, Navy'', $61,000,000;
(7) ``Procurement, Marine Corps'', $220,400,000;
(8) ``Aircraft Procurement, Air Force'', $146,300,000;
(9) ``Missile Procurement, Air Force'', $33,000,000; and
(10) ``Other Procurement, Air Force'', $555,000,000:
Provided, That the entire amount is designated by the
Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 502
of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress), the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004.
Sec. 1122. Increase in Army Manpower End-Strength Level.--
Notwithstanding the limitations set forth in Section 691 of
title 10 United States Code, as amended by Public Law 107-314
(116 Stat. 2524), the number of members of the Army on active
duty at the end of fiscal year 2004 shall not be less than
500,000: Provided, That in addition to amounts appropriated
in this or any other Act, $1,000,000,000 is hereby
appropriated to the Department of Defense, to be allocated as
follows:
(1) ``Military Personnel, Army'', $600,000,000; and
(2) ``Operation and Maintenance, Army'', $400,000,000:
Provided further, That the entire amount is designated by the
Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 502
of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress), the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004

CHAPTER 2

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

Military Construction, Army

For an additional amount for ``Military Construction,
Army'', $364,100,000, to remain available until September 30,
2008: Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of
law, such funds may be obligated or expended to carry out
planning and design and military construction projects not
otherwise authorized by law: Provided further, That such
amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency
requirement pursuant to section 502 of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th
Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal
year 2004.

Military Construction, Navy

For an additional amount for ``Military Construction,
Navy'', $45,530,000, to remain available until September 30,
2008: Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of
law, such funds may be obligated or expended to carry out
military construction projects not otherwise authorized by
law: Provided further, That such amount is designated by the
Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 502
of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress), the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004.

Military Construction, Air Force

For an additional amount for ``Military Construction, Air
Force'', $292,550,000, to remain available until September
30, 2008: Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision
of law, such funds may be obligated or expended to carry out
planning and design and military construction projects not
otherwise authorized by law: Provided further, That such
amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency
requirement pursuant to section 502 of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th
Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal
year 2004.

Family Housing Operation and Maintenance, Army

For an additional amount for ``Family Housing Operation and
Maintenance, Army'', $8,151,000: Provided, That such amount
is designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement
pursuant to section 502 of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress),
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004.

Family Housing Operation and Maintenance, Navy and Marine Corps

For an additional amount for ``Family Housing Operation and
Maintenance, Navy and Marine Corps'', $6,280,000: Provided,
That such amount is designated by the Congress as an
emergency requirement pursuant to section 502 of H. Con. Res.
95 (108th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget
for fiscal year 2004.

Family Housing Operation and Maintenance, Air Force

For an additional amount for ``Family Housing Operation and
Maintenance, Air Force'', $6,981,000: Provided, That such
amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency
requirement pursuant to section 502 of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th
Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal
year 2004.

GENERAL PROVISION--THIS CHAPTER

Sec. 1201. (a) Temporary Authority To Use Operation and
Maintenance Funds for Military Construction Projects.--During
fiscal year 2004, the Secretary of Defense may use this
section as authority to obligate appropriated funds available
for operation and maintenance to carry out a construction
project outside the United States that the Secretary
determines meets each of the following conditions:
(1) The construction is necessary to meet urgent military
operational requirements of a temporary nature involving the
use of the Armed Forces in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom
or the Global War on Terrorism.
(2) The construction is not carried out at a military
installation where the United States is reasonably expected
to have a long-term presence.
(3) The United States has no intention of using the
construction after the operational requirements have been
satisfied.
(4) The level of construction is the minimum necessary to
meet the temporary operational requirements.
(b) Limitation on Use of Authority.--The total cost of the
construction projects carried out under the authority of this
section using, in whole or in part, appropriated funds
available for operation and maintenance shall not exceed
$500,000,000 in fiscal year 2004.
(c) Quarterly Report.--(1) Not later than 30 days after the
end of each fiscal-year quarter of fiscal year 2004, the
Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional
committees specified in subsection (e) a report on the
worldwide obligation and expenditure during that quarter of
appropriated funds available for operation and maintenance
for construction projects.
(2) The report shall include with regard to each project
the following:
(A) Certification that the conditions specified in
subsection (a) are satisfied with regard to the construction
project.
(B) A description of the purpose for which appropriated
funds available for operation and maintenance are being
obligated.
(C) Relevant documentation detailing the construction
project.
(D) An estimate of the total cost of the construction
project.
(E) The total amount obligated for the construction project
as of the date of the submission of the report.
(d) Relation to Other Authorities.--The temporary authority
provided by this section, and the limited authority provided
by section 2805(c) of title 10, United States Code, to use
appropriated funds available for operation and maintenance to
carry out a construction project are the only authorities
available to the Secretary of Defense and the Secretaries of
the military departments to use appropriated funds available
for operation and maintenance to carry out construction
projects.
(e) Congressional Committees.--The congressional committees
referred to in this section are the following:
(1) The Committee on Armed Services and the Subcommittees
on Defense and Military Construction of the Committee on
Appropriations of the Senate.
(2) The Committee on Armed Services and the Subcommittees
on Defense and Military Construction of the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives.

CHAPTER 3

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

SECURITY, ENFORCEMENT, AND INVESTIGATIONS

United States Coast Guard

Operating Expenses

For an additional amount for ``Operating Expenses'',
$23,183,000 for costs related to Hurricane Isabel damage:
Provided, That such amount is designated by the Congress as
an emergency requirement pursuant to section 502 of H. Con.
Res. 95 (108th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the
budget for fiscal year 2004.

[[Page H9556]]

TITLE II--IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN RECONSTRUCTION AND INTERNATIONAL
ASSISTANCE

CHAPTER 1

Department of Justice

Legal Activities

General Legal Activities

For necessary expenses for ``Salaries and Expenses, General
Legal Activities'', $15,000,000: Provided, That such amount
is designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement
pursuant to section 502 of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress),
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004.

Department of State and Related Agency

Department of State

Administration of Foreign Affairs

Diplomatic and Consular Programs

(including rescission)

For necessary expenses for ``Diplomatic and Consular
Programs'', $156,300,000, of which $35,800,000 shall remain
available until expended. Of the funds appropriated under
this heading in the Emergency Wartime Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 2003, $35,800,000 are rescinded. Each
such amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency
requirement pursuant to section 502 of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th
Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal
year 2004.

Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance

For necessary expenses for ``Embassy Security,
Construction, and Maintenance'', $43,900,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That such amount is
designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement
pursuant to section 502 of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress),
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004.

Emergencies in the Diplomatic and Consular Service

(including transfer of funds)

For necessary expenses for ``Emergencies in the Diplomatic
and Consular Service'', $50,000,000, to remain available
until expended, which may be transferred to, and merged with,
the appropriations for ``Diplomatic and Consular Programs'':
Provided, That such amount is designated by the Congress as
an emergency requirement pursuant to section 502 of H. Con.
Res. 95 (108th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the
budget for fiscal year 2004.

International Organizations

Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities

For necessary expenses for ``Contributions for
International Peacekeeping Activities'', $245,000,000, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That such amount
is designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement
pursuant to section 502 of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress),
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004.

Related Agency

Broadcasting Board of Governors

International Broadcasting Operations

For necessary expenses for ``International Broadcasting
Operations'', for activities related to the Middle East
Television Network broadcasting to Iraq, $40,000,000:
Provided, That such amount is designated by the Congress as
an emergency requirement pursuant to section 502 of H. Con.
Res. 95 (108th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the
budget for fiscal year 2004.

GENERAL PROVISION--THIS CHAPTER

Sec. 2101. 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 2

BILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE

Funds Appropriated to the President

United States Agency for International Development

Operating Expenses of the United States Agency for International
Development

For necessary expenses for ``Operating Expenses of the
United States Agency for International Development'',
$40,000,000, for direct support of operations in Afghanistan,
to remain available until September 30, 2005: Provided, That
such amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency
requirement pursuant to section 502 of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th
Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal
year 2004.

Other Bilateral Economic Assistance

Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund

(including transfers of funds)

For necessary expenses to carry out the purposes of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, for security, relief,
rehabilitation and reconstruction in Iraq, $14,031,000,000,
to remain available until September 30, 2005, to be allocated
as follows: $2,104,000,000 for security and law enforcement;
$1,081,000,000 for justice, public safety infrastructure, and
civil society; $3,735,000,000 for the electric sector;
$1,800,000,000 for oil infrastructure; $3,507,000,000 for
water resources and sanitation; $500,000,000 for
transportation and telecommunications; $185,000,000 for
roads, bridges, and construction; $793,000,000 for health
care; $73,000,000 for private sector development; and
$253,000,000 for education, refugees, human rights,
democracy, and governance: Provided, That the President may
reallocate up to 10 percent of any of the preceding
allocations, except that the total for the allocation
receiving such funds may not be increased by more than 20
percent: Provided further, That such reallocations shall be
subject to the regular notification procedures of the
Committees on Appropriations and section 634A of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 and notifications shall be transmitted
at least 15 days in advance of the obligation of funds:
Provided further, That an annual spending plan for
reconstruction programs under the preceding allocations,
including project-by-project detail, shall be submitted by
the President to the Committees on Appropriations not later
than January 1, 2004, and shall be updated and submitted
every 180 days thereafter: Provided further, That funds
appropriated under this heading shall be apportioned only to
the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, the Department
of State, the Department of Health and Human Services, the
Department of Treasury, the Department of Defense, and the
United States Agency for International Development: Provided
further, That upon a determination that all or part of the
funds so transferred from this appropriation are not
necessary for the purposes provided herein, such amounts may
be transferred back to this appropriation: Provided further,
That of the amount appropriated in this paragraph, not less
than $35,000,000 shall be made available for administrative
expenses of the Department of State Bureau of International
Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs and the United States
Agency for International Development for support of the
reconstruction activities in Iraq: Provided further, That up
to 1 percent of the amount appropriated in this paragraph may
be transferred to ``Operating Expenses of the Coalition
Provisional Authority'', and that any such transfer shall be
in accordance with the regular notification procedures of the
Committees on Appropriations and section 634A of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961: Provided further, That contributions
of funds for the purposes provided herein from any person,
foreign government, or international organization, may be
credited to this Fund and used for such purposes: Provided
further, That the Committees on Appropriations shall be
notified quarterly of any collections pursuant to the
previous proviso: Provided further, That the Coalition
Provisional Authority shall work, in conjunction with
relevant Iraqi officials, to ensure that a new Iraqi
constitution preserves full rights to religious freedom:
Provided further, That, notwithstanding any other provision
of law, 10 percent of the total amount of funds apportioned
to the United States Agency for International Development
under this heading that are made available on a subcontract
basis shall be reserved for contracts with small business
concerns, including small business concerns owned and
controlled by veterans, small business concerns owned and
controlled by service-disabled veterans, HUBZone small
business concerns, small business concerns owned and
controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged
individuals, and small business concerns owned and controlled
by women (as such terms are defined for purposes of the Small
Business Act): Provided further, That the entire amount is
designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement
pursuant to section 502 of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress),
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004.

Operating Expenses of the Coalition Provisional Authority

For necessary expenses of the Coalition Provisional
Authority in Iraq, established pursuant to United Nations
Security Council resolutions including Resolution 1483, for
personnel costs, transportation, supply, equipment,
facilities, communications, logistics requirements, studies,
physical security, media support, promulgation and
enforcement of regulations, and other activities needed to
oversee and manage the relief and reconstruction of Iraq and
the transition to democracy, $858,000,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2005: Provided, That such
amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency
requirement pursuant to section 502 of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th
Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal
year 2004.

Economic Support Fund

For necessary expenses for ``Economic Support Fund'',
$872,000,000, to remain available until December 31, 2004:
Provided, That not less than $672,000,000 is available only
for accelerated assistance for Afghanistan: Provided further,
That not to exceed $30,000,000 may be used for activities
related to disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration of
militia combatants, including registration of such
combatants, notwithstanding section 531(e) of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961: Provided further, That not to exceed
$2,000,000 may be used to provide additional policy experts
in Afghan ministries and that not more than five senior
advisors to the United States Ambassador may be deployed in
Afghanistan: Provided further, That not less than $17,250,000
is available only for security requirements that directly
support United States and Coalition personnel who are
implementing assistance programs in Afghanistan, including
the provision of adequate dedicated air transport and support
for civilian personnel at provincial reconstruction team
sites: Provided further, That upon the receipt by the Speaker
of the House of Representatives and the President of the
Senate

[[Page H9557]]

of a determination by the President that the Government of
Pakistan is fully cooperating with the United States in the
global war on terrorism, not to exceed $200,000,000
appropriated under this heading may be used for the costs, as
defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974, of modifying direct loans and guarantees for Pakistan:
Provided further, That amounts that are made available under
the previous proviso for the cost of modifying direct loans
and guarantees shall not be considered ``assistance'' for the
purposes of provisions of law limiting assistance to a
country: Provided further, That the entire amount is
designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement
pursuant to section 502 of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress),
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004.

International Disaster and Famine Assistance

(including transfers of funds)

For necessary expenses for International Disaster and
Famine Assistance utilizing the general authorities of
section 491 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, to respond
to or prevent unforeseen complex foreign crises, especially
in Sudan and Liberia, $100,000,000, and by transfer not to
exceed 1 percent of the funds appropriated under any other
heading in this chapter, to remain available to the Secretary
of State until September 30, 2005: Provided, That funds
appropriated under this heading may be made available only
pursuant to a determination by the President, after
consultation with the appropriate congressional committees,
that it is in the national interest and essential to efforts
to reduce international terrorism to furnish assistance on
such terms and conditions as he may determine for such
purposes, including support for peace and humanitarian
intervention operations: Provided further, That none of these
funds shall be available to respond to natural disasters:
Provided further, That funds made available under this
heading to respond to or prevent unforeseen complex foreign
crises shall be subject to the regular notification
procedures of the Committees on Appropriations: Provided
further, That the entire amount is designated by the Congress
as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 502 of H.
Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress), the concurrent resolution on
the budget for fiscal year 2004.

Department of State

International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement

For necessary expenses for ``International Narcotics
Control and Law Enforcement'', $170,000,000, to remain
available until December 31, 2004, for accelerated assistance
for Afghanistan: Provided, That such amount is designated by
the Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section
502 of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress), the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004.

Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining and Related Programs

For necessary expenses for ``Nonproliferation, Anti-
Terrorism, Demining and Related Programs'', $35,000,000, for
accelerated assistance for Afghanistan: Provided, That such
amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency
requirement pursuant to section 502 of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th
Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal
year 2004.

MILITARY ASSISTANCE

Funds Appropriated to the President

Foreign Military Financing Program

For necessary expenses for the ``Foreign Military Financing
Program'', $297,000,000, for accelerated assistance for
Afghanistan: Provided, That such amount is designated by the
Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 502
of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress), the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004.

Peacekeeping Operations

For necessary expenses for ``Peacekeeping Operations'',
$50,000,000, to support the global war on terrorism:
Provided, That such amount is designated by the Congress as
an emergency requirement pursuant to section 502 of H. Con.
Res. 95 (108th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the
budget for fiscal year 2004.

GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS CHAPTER

Sec. 2201. None of the funds appropriated by this Act or
any unexpended funds provided in Public Law 108-11 may be
used to repay, in whole or in part, principal or interest on
any loan or guarantee agreement entered into by the
Government of Iraq with any private or public sector entity
including with the government of any country (including any
agency of such government or any entity owned in whole or in
part by the government of such country) or with any
international financial institution, prior to May 1, 2003:
Provided, That for the purpose of this section, the term
``international financial institution'' shall mean those
institutions contained in section 530(b) of division E of
Public Law 108-7.
Sec. 2202. (a) Competition in Contracting for the
Reconstruction of Infrastructure in Iraq.--Notwithstanding
any other provision of law, none of the funds appropriated by
this Act under the heading ``Iraq Relief and Reconstruction
Fund'' and made available under the same heading in Public
Law 108-11 may be used to enter into any Federal contract
(including any follow-on contract) unless--
(1) the contract is entered into in accordance with title
III of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act
(41 U.S.C. 251 et seq.); and
(2) in any case in which procedures other than competitive
procedures are to be used to enter into such a contract--
(A) if such procedures are to be used by reason of the
application of a paragraph (other than paragraph (2)) under
section 303(c) of such Act (41 U.S.C. 253(c)), the head of
the executive agency entering into the contract shall submit
to the committees described in subsection (b), not later than
7 calendar days before award of the contract--
(i) notification of the use of such other procedures; and
(ii) the justification for such use; and
(B) if such procedures are to be used by reason of the
application of paragraph (2) of section 303(c) of such Act
(41 U.S.C. 253(c)(2)), the head of the executive agency
entering into the contract shall submit to the committees
described in subsection (b), not later than 7 calendar days
after approval of the justification for the use of such other
procedures under section 303(f)(1)(B) of the Federal Property
and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C.
253(f)(1)(B))--
(i) notification of the use of such other procedures; and
(ii) the justification for such use
(b) Committees.--The committees referred to in subsection
(a)(2) are--
(1) the Committees on Government Reform, on International
Relations, and on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives; and
(2) the Committees on Governmental Affairs, on Foreign
Relations, and on Appropriations of the Senate.
(c) Applicability.--This section shall not apply to
contracts entered into before the date of the enactment of
this Act or after September 30, 2010.
(d) GAO Report on Noncompetitive Contracting.--The
Comptroller General shall submit a report to the appropriate
committees on a quarterly basis on the contracts awarded
under procedures other than competitive procedures that were
subject to the notification requirements of paragraph (a).
Such review shall include an evaluation of the reasons for
using other than competitive procedures and an evaluation of
the selection procedures used to make final contract awards.
Sec. 2203. (a) Public Disclosure of Noncompetitive
Contracting for the Reconstruction of Infrastructure in
Iraq.--
(1) Publication and public availability.--The head of an
executive agency of the United States that enters into a
contract for assistance for Iraq, using funds described in
paragraph (3), through the use of procedures other than
competitive procedures shall publish in the Federal Register
or Commerce Business Daily and otherwise make available to
the public, not later than 5 days before the date on which
the contract is entered into, except in the case of urgent
and compelling contracts issued pursuant to paragraph (2) of
section 303(c) of the Federal Property and Administrative
Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 253(c)(2)), the following
information:
(A) The amount of the contract.
(B) A brief description of the scope of the contract.
(C) A discussion of how the executive agency identified,
and solicited offers from, potential contractors to perform
the contract, together with a list of the potential
contractors that were issued solicitations for the offers.
(D) The justification and approval documents (as required
under section 303(f)(1) of the Federal Property and
Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 253(f)(1)) on
which was based the determination to use procedures other
than competitive procedures.
(2) Funds.--The funds referred to in paragraph (1) are--
(A) any funds available to carry out sections 103 through
106 and chapter 4 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151b-2151d; 2346 et seq.); and
(B) any funds appropriated by Public Law 108-11 under the
heading ``Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund'' (in chapter 5
of title I; 117 Stat. 573).
(3) Applicability.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to
contracts entered into before the date of the enactment of
this Act or after September 30, 2010.
(b) Classified Information.--
(1) Authority to withhold.--The head of an executive agency
may--
(A) withhold from publication and disclosure under
subsection (a) any document that is classified for restricted
access in accordance with an Executive order in the interest
of national defense or foreign policy; and
(B) redact any part so classified that is in a document not
so classified before publication and disclosure of the
document under subsection (a).
(2) Availability to congress.--In any case in which the
head of an executive agency withholds information under
paragraph (1), the head of such executive agency shall make
available an unredacted version of the document containing
that information to the chairman and ranking member of each
of the following committees of Congress:
(A) The Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate and
the Committee on Government Reform of the House of
Representatives.
(B) The Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and
House of Representatives.
(C) Each committee that the head of the executive agency
determines has legislative

[[Page H9558]]

jurisdiction for the operations of such department or agency
to which the information relates.
(c) Relationship to Other Disclosure Laws.--Nothing in this
section shall be construed as affecting obligations to
disclose United States Government information under any other
provision of law.
(d) Definitions.--In this section, the terms ``competitive
procedures'' and ``executive agency'' have the meanings given
such terms in section 4 of the Office of Federal Procurement
Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 403).
Sec. 2204. Section 1503 of Public Law 108-11 is amended--
(1) by striking ``equipment'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``equipment, including equipment''; and
(2) by striking ``2004'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``2005''.
Sec. 2205. Section 1504 of Public Law 108-11 is amended by
striking ``controlled'' and inserting ``or small arms
controlled''.
Sec. 2206. Section 202(b) of the Afghanistan Freedom
Support Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-327) is amended by
striking ``$300,000,000'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``$450,000,000''.
Sec. 2207. (a) Until January 2005, the Coalition
Provisional Authority (CPA) shall, on a monthly basis, submit
a report to the Committees on Appropriations and
International Relations of the House of Representatives and
the Committees on Appropriations and Foreign Relations of the
Senate that details, for the preceding month, Iraqi oil
production and oil revenues, and uses of such revenues.
(b) The first report required by subsection (a) shall be
submitted not later than 30 days after enactment of this Act.
(c) The reports required by this section shall also be made
publicly available, including through the CPA's Internet
website.
Sec. 2208. Any reference in this chapter to the ``Coalition
Provisional Authority in Iraq'' shall be deemed to include
any successor United States Government entity with the same
or substantially the same authorities and responsibilities as
the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq.
Sec. 2209. Assistance or other financing under chapter 2 of
this title may be provided for Iraq and Afghanistan
notwithstanding any other provision of law not contained in
this Act that restricts assistance to foreign countries and
section 660 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961: Provided,
That funds made available for Iraq pursuant to this section
shall be subject to the regular reprogramming notification
procedures of the Committees on Appropriations and section
634A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, except that
notification shall be transmitted at least 5 days in advance
of obligation.
Sec. 2210. Funds made available in chapter 2 of this title
are made available notwithstanding section 10 of Public Law
91-672 and section 15 of the State Department Basic
Authorities Act of 1956, as amended.
Sec. 2211. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Overseas Private Investment Corporation is authorized to
undertake any program authorized by title IV of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 in Iraq: Provided, That funds made
available pursuant to the authority of this section shall be
subject to the regular reprogramming notification procedures
of the Committees on Appropriations.
Sec. 2212. (a) Report on Military Operations and
Reconstruction Efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.--The
President shall prepare and transmit to Congress on a
quarterly basis, beginning January 15, 2004, a report on
United States military operations and reconstruction efforts
in Iraq and Afghanistan.
(b) Contents.--The report shall, at a minimum, contain the
following information:
(1) A detailed and complete accounting of amounts
appropriated under any previous Acts used to support military
or reconstruction activities in and around Iraq and
Afghanistan; a detailed and complete accounting of funds
appropriated in this Act that were expended during the
preceding quarter for military operations and reconstruction
efforts in and around Iraq and Afghanistan; and, an estimate
of the remaining total cost to the United States of military
operations and reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan
for fiscal year 2004 and subsequent fiscal years.
(2) A description of activities undertaken and findings
made in the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
(3) A description of progress made in reconstruction
efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, particularly efforts
relating to public safety, defense and law enforcement,
energy infrastructure, water, sewage systems, road
construction and other public works, transportation and
telecommunications infrastructure, medical and hospital
services, and private sector development.
(4) A description of progress made to reduce attacks
against members of the United States Armed Forces in Iraq; a
detailed listing of the casualties suffered by United States
Armed Forces personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan during the
preceding quarter and cumulatively; a listing of equipment,
weapons, and spare parts shortfalls (compared to stated
military service requirements) and a description of the
actions taken to address the shortfalls; and a timeframe for
the withdrawal of all United States Armed Forces from Iraq.
(5) An analysis of the impact that military operations in
Iraq and Afghanistan have had on overall readiness of the
Armed Forces.
(6) An analysis of the impact the deployment of members of
the Armed Forces in connection with Operation Iraqi Freedom
and Operation Enduring Freedom is having on recruiting and
retention efforts in the active and reserve components.
(7) An estimate of the remaining cost of repairing or
replacing the combat vehicles, aircraft, and other equipment
damaged or destroyed by combat, by prolonged use in Iraq and
Afghanistan, or by exposure to the extreme climatic and
terrain conditions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
(8) A description of progress made toward holding of free
and fair elections in Iraq.
(9) A description of the extent of international
participation (including financial and other) in the
stabilization and reconstruction of Iraq.
(10) A detailed accounting of the number of United States
Armed Forces currently deployed in connection with Operation
Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.
(11) A detailed accounting on the use of private
contractors for contracts over $10,000,000, including the
costs of salaries, insurance payments, oversight plans, costs
of security provided by coalition troops to contractors,
performance schedules, plans to train Iraqi national to
assume functions of the contract, and the extent of the use
of local procurement and local management.
(c) Limitation.--Beginning on January 15, 2004, none of the
funds made available by this Act that remain for obligation
may be obligated unless and until the President has submitted
to Congress the report described in subsections (a) and (b)
of this provision.
Sec. 2213. (a) Review of Contracting Procedures.--The
Comptroller General shall review each covered contract and
task or delivery order entered into during a review period to
determine whether the procedures used to enter into the
contracts and orders were in compliance with the requirements
of this Act and other applicable laws and regulations.
(b) Report.--At the end of each review period, the
Comptroller General shall submit to Congress a report on the
results of the review.
(c) Review Period.--A review under subsection (a) shall be
carried each quarter of a fiscal year, beginning with the
first quarter beginning after the date of the enactment of
this Act.
(d) Covered Contracts and Orders.--This section applies to
any contract or task or delivery order entered into using
funds appropriated by this Act for foreign assistance if--
(1) in the case of a contract, the contract is in an amount
in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold (as defined
in section 4 of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act
(41 U.S.C. 403), and
(2) in the case of a task or delivery order, the order is
in an amount in excess of $1,000,000.
Sec. 2214. (a) Transparency in Contracting: Notification to
Congress.--(1) The head of an executive agency that enters
into a contract, or task or delivery order under a task or
delivery order contract, in excess of $5,000,000 relating to
activities in Iraq shall, within 7 days after entering into
the contract or order, notify the chairman and ranking member
of the committees described in subsection (b) that the
contract or order has been entered into.
(2) Upon request of the chairman or ranking member of a
committee described in subsection (b), the head of an
executive agency shall provide, within 14 days after receipt
of the request, unredacted copies of any documents required
to be maintained in the contracting office contract file, the
contract administration office contract file, and the paying
office contract file pursuant to subpart 4.8 of the Federal
Acquisition Regulation, including--
(A) copies of the contract and all modifications;
(B) orders issued under the contract;
(C) justifications and approvals;
(D) any government estimate of contract price;
(E) source selection documentation;
(F) cost or price analysis;
(G) audit reports;
(H) justification for type of contract;
(I) authority for deviations from regulations, statutory
requirements, or other restrictions;
(J) bills, invoices, vouchers, and supporting documents;
and
(K) records of payments or receipts.
(b) Committees.--The committees referred to in subsection
(a) are the following:
(1) The Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate and
the Committee on Government Reform of the House of
Representatives.
(2) The Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and
House of Representatives.
(3) Each committee that the head of the executive agency
determines has legislative jurisdiction for the operations of
the department or agency to which the contract, task or
delivery order, or documents referred to in paragraph (1) or
(2) of subsection (a) relates.
Sec. 2215. (a) Iraqi Involvement Plan.--The head of each
executive agency entering into a contract relating to
activities in Iraq shall develop a plan for minimizing costs
to the Federal Government through the use of Iraqi firms.
(b) Components of Plan.--(1) The plan shall require the
head of each executive agency to assess, before entering into
a contract relating to activities in Iraq, whether the use of
Iraqi firms to carry out the contract could reduce the costs
of such contract to the Federal Government.
(2) The plan may provide for the waiver of otherwise
applicable Federal procurement

[[Page H9559]]

laws or regulations with respect to the contract if the head
of the executive agency determines that such laws or
regulations impede the ability of the executive agency to
reduce the costs of such contract to the Federal Government
through the use of Iraqi firms.
(3) The plan shall ensure that all contracts with respect
to which laws or regulations are waived pursuant to paragraph
(2) are entered into using contracting procedures that are
open, fair, accountable, and, to the maximum extent
practicable, competitive.
Sec. 2216. (a) Legal Status of Coalition Provisional
Authority for Iraq.--For purposes of the following provisions
of law, the Coalition Provisional Authority for Iraq shall be
considered to be an executive agency within the meaning of
the term in section 105 of title 5, United States Code:
(1) Procurement statutes, including chapters 137 and 141 of
title 10, United States Code, title III of the Federal
Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C.
251 et seq.), and the Office of Federal Procurement Policy
Act (41 U.S.C. 403 et seq.).
(2) Section 552 of title 5, United States Code (known as
the Freedom of Information Act).
(3) Financial management statutes requiring the preparation
of audited financial statements, including section 3535 of
title 31, United States Code.
(b) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
``Coalition Provisional Authority for Iraq'' means the entity
charged by the President with directing reconstruction
efforts in Iraq.

TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS ACT

Sec. 3001. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current
fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
Sec. 3002. None of the funds made available in this or any
other Act for fiscal year 2004 may be used for any defense or
reconstruction activities in Iraq or Afghanistan coordinated
by any officer of the United States Government whose office
is not subject to appointment by the President by and with
the advice and consent of the Senate.
Sec. 3003. For purposes of computing the amount of a
payment for an eligible local educational agency under
section 8003(a) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(20 U.S.C. 7703(a)), children enrolled in a school of such
agency that would otherwise be eligible for payment under
section 8003(a)(1)(B) of such Act, but due to the deployment
of both parents or legal guardians, or due to the death of a
military parent or legal guardian while on active duty, are
no longer eligible under such section, shall be considered as
eligible students under such section, provided such students
remain in average daily attendance at the same school that
they attended prior to their change in eligibility status.
Sec. 3004. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be provided to any unit of the security forces of a foreign
country participating with coalition forces in Afghanistan or
Iraq if the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Defense
has credible evidence that such unit has committed gross
violations of human rights, unless the appropriate Secretary
determines and reports to the Committees on Appropriations
that the government of such country is taking effective
measures to bring the responsible members of the security
forces unit to justice: Provided, That nothing in this
section shall be construed to withhold funds made available
by this Act from any unit of the security forces of a foreign
country not credibly alleged to be involved in gross
violations of human rights: Provided further, That in the
event that funds are withheld from any unit pursuant to this
section, the appropriate Secretary shall promptly inform the
foreign government of the basis for such action and shall, to
the maximum extent practicable, assist the foreign government
in taking effective measures to bring the responsible members
of the security forces to justice.
Sec. 3005. None of the funds in this Act, or any other
appropriations Act, may be used to execute the Lateral
Repatriation Program, or any other program under which
citizens or nationals of Mexico are removed by land from the
United States by returning them to a location other than the
United States port of entry closest to the location where
they were apprehended or last imprisoned, or, in the case of
an alien who is removed upon being acquitted of a criminal
charge, the port of entry closest to the courthouse where the
acquittal occurs. If the Secretary of Homeland Security
determines that compliance with the preceding sentence is not
feasible, the Secretary shall notify the Committees on the
Judiciary and on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and of the Senate.
Sec. 3006. None of the funds in this Act, or any other
appropriations Act, may be used for the issuance of Form I-
20A by the San Antonio Office of Detention and Removal of the
Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border
Patrol sectors served by said office.

TITLE IV--IRAQ RECONSTRUCTION TRUST FUND

SEC. 4001. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Iraq Reconstruction Trust
Fund Act''.

SEC. 4002. DEFINITIONS.

In this title:
(1) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term
``appropriate congressional committees'' means the Committee
on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Appropriations of
the Senate and the Committee on International Relations and
the Committee on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives.
(2) Coalition provisional authority.--The term ``Coalition
Provisional Authority'' means the entity charged by the
President with directing reconstruction efforts in Iraq.
(3) Governing council in iraq.--The term ``Governing
Council in Iraq'' means the Governing Council established in
Iraq on July 13, 2003, or any successor governing authority
in Iraq.
(4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of State.
(5) Trust fund.--The term ``Trust Fund'' means the Iraq
Reconstruction Fund .
(6) World bank.--The term ``World Bank'' means the
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development.

SEC. 4003. LIMITATION OF USE OF FUNDS.

Of the funds appropriated in title II under the subheading
``Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund'' under the heading
``Other Bilateral Economic Assistance Funds Appropriated to
the President'' other than amounts appropriated under such
subheading for security and. for refugees, human rights,
democracy, and civil society, $7,000,000,000 may not be
obligated or expended before the Secretary negotiates with
the World Bank, in consultation with the Coalition
Provisional Authority, the member nations of the World Bank,
and other interested parties, for the establishment within
the World Bank of the Iraq Reconstruction Trust Fund in
accordance with the provisions of this title.

SEC. 4004. DESCRIPTION OF THE TRUST FUND.

(a) Purposes.--The purposes of the Trust Fund shall be to
use contribute funds to--
(1) assist in restoration of infrastructure and essential
services in Iraq;
(2) assist in the creation of civil society in Iraq; and
(3) ensure a secure environment for the people of Iraq.
(b) In General.--As part of the negotiations required by
section 4003, the Secretary shall negotiate with the World
Bank to establish conditions under which the Trust Fund will
be terminated.
(c) Repayment of Contributions.--If the Trust Fund is
terminated, any amounts contributed, to the Fund that have
not been expended shall be returned to the countries that
contributed funds to the Trust Fund, on basis proportionate
to their contribution.

SEC. 4005. USE OF FUNDS.

(a) Loans and Loan Guarantees.--In carrying out the
purposes set out in section 4004(a), the Trust Fund shall be
used to provide loans and loan guarantees under terms that
will facilitate economic development in Iraq.
(b) Activities Supported.--The funds in the Trust Fund
shall be used to provide loans and loan guarantees that carry
out the purposes of the Trust Fund, including projects to--
(1) create or repair infrastructure to--
(A) produce and distribute electricity;
(B) extract, refine, and distribute oil;
(C) provide drinking water;
(D) treat and dispose of wastewater;
(E) provide transportation; and
(F) facilitate communications;
(2) promote public health;
(3) provide housing;
(4) ensure public safety; and
(5) develop a private sector economy.

SEC. 4006. CONTRIBUTIONS AND ACCOUNTABILITY.

(a) Authority To Solicit and Accept Contributions.--The
Trust Fund shall be authorized to solicit and accept
contributions from governments, the private sector, and
nongovernmental entities of all kinds.
(b) Accountability of Funds and Criteria for Programs.--The
Secretary shall, consistent with subsection (c)--
(1) take such actions as are necessary to ensure that
adequate procedures and standards are in place to account for
and monitor the use of funds contributed to the Trust Fund,
including the cost of administering the Trust Fund; and
(2) seek agreement with the World Bank on the criteria to
be used to determine the programs and activities to be
assisted by the Trust Fund.
(c) Selection of Projects and Recipients.--The Trust Fund
and its contributors shall establish--
(1) criteria for the selection of projects to receive
support from the Trust Fund;
(2) standards and criteria regarding qualifications of
recipients of such support;
(3) such rules and procedures as may be necessary for cost-
effective management of the Trust Fund; and
(4) such rules and procedures as may be necessary to ensure
transparency and accountability in the making of loans and
loan guarantees.
(d) Transparency of Operations.--The Trust Fund shall
establish procedures to ensure full and prompt public
disclosure of the proposed objectives, financial
organization, and operations of the Trust Fund.
(e) Access to Records.--The Comptroller or any duly
authorized representatives of the Comptroller shall have
access to any books, documents, papers, and. records of the
Trust Fund for the purpose of preparing the reports required
in section 4007(b).

SEC. 4007. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
the enactment of this Act,

[[Page H9560]]

and annually thereafter for the duration of the Trust Fund,
the Secretary shall submit to the appropriate congressional
committees a report on the Trust Fund.
(b) Report Elements.--Each report required by paragraph (1)
shall include a description of--
(1) the goals of the Trust Fund;
(2) the programs, projects, and activities supported by the
Trust Fund;
(3) private and governmental, contributions to the Trust
Fund; and
(4) the criteria that have been established that would be
used to determine the programs and activities to be assisted
by the Trust Fund.

SEC. 4008. AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS.

(a) In General.--In addition to any other funds available
for multilateral or bilateral programs related to the
purposes of the Trust Fund, of the amounts appropriated in
title II under the subheading ``Iraq Relief and
Reconstruction Fund'' under the heading ``Other Bilateral
Economic Assistance Funds Appropriated to the President'',
other than amounts appropriated under such subheading for
security, and for refugees, human rights, democracy, and
civil society, $7,000,000,000 shall be made available for the
fiscal year 2004 for contribution to the Trust Fund. Such
amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency
requirement pursuant to section 502 of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th
Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal
year 2004.
(b) Matching Contributions.--Subject to the maximum amount
available for contributions to the Trust Fund under this Act,
the United States shall contribute to the Trust Fund out of
the additional amount made available under subsection (a),
the amount that equals the total amount contributed by
foreign countries to the Trust Fund during the 180-day period
that begins on the date of the enactment of this Act.
(c) Transfer of Funds.--On the date that is 180 days after
the date of the enactment of this Act, any amount made
available for the Trust Fund under subsection (a) that
exceeds the amount required to be contributed to the Trust
Fund under subsection (b) shall cease to be available for
transfer to the Trust Fund and shall be transferred to an
account to be available to the Coalition Provisional
Authority for use as loans to, or to guarantee loans made by
the Governing Council in Iraq.

SEC. 4009. NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT.

Not later than 15 days prior to the initial obligation or
expenditure of funds appropriated pursuant to section 4009,
the Secretary shall certify to the appropriate congressional
committees that--
(1) the Trust Fund has been created in accordance with the
provisions of this title; and
(2) adequate procedures and standards have been established
to ensure accountability for and monitoring of the use of
funds contributed to the Trust Fund, including the cost of
administering the Trust Fund.

TITLE V--REVENUE PROVISION

SEC. 5001. TOP MARGINAL RATE INCREASED TO 39.6 PERCENT
BEGINNING IN 2005.

(a) In General.--The table contained in paragraph (2) of
section 1(i) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating
to reductions in rates after June 30, 2001) is amended to
read as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
The corresponding percentages shall
``In the case of be substituted for the following
taxable years percentages:
beginning during --------------------------------------
calendar year: 28% 31% 36% 39.6%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001................ 27.5% 30.5% 35.5% 39.1%
2002................ 27.0% 30.0% 35.0% 38.6%
2003 or 2004........ 25.0% 28.0% 33.0% 35.0%
2005 and thereafter. 25.0% 28.0% 33.0% 39.6%.''
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2004.
This Act may be cited as the ``Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act for Defense and for the Reconstruction of
Iraq and Afghanistan, 2004''.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and a Member opposed each will
control 7\1/2\ minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the administration has asked us to approve $87 billion
in the second installment for Iraq. I understand the necessity for
military appropriations and for a reconstruction package. I understand
the necessity that they be tied together. But the majority has set up
the debate in this House so that a single Member will be able to
prevent a comprehensive amendment from being voted upon. That is the
way they ensure a victory for their approach.
We are offering this amendment in hopes that the majority will not
exercise its right to strike it from the floor, because we believe that
if the Congress is going to spend $87 billion on this operation, that
this amendment represents a better way to do it. It does more to
support our troops. It does more to protect the taxpayers. It does more
to restore balance between obligations on us and our allies.
First, it would scale back reconstruction funding by roughly one-
third in order to force the administration to redesign its approach in
Iraq so that more contracts will go to small indigenous companies and
fewer to huge multinational corporations. I have already told the story
about General Patreas who, when told by his own engineers that it would
take $15 million to build a cement plant in Iraq, managed to get that
plant built for $80,000 by using local ideas and local approaches. That
is what we ought to be looking for.
Second, we convert half of the remaining funds from grants to loans
by running them through the World Bank. This has three advantages. It
internationalizes the burden because it will be matched with
contributions from other countries on a two-to-one basis. Secondly, it
insulates the contracting process from cronyism that can result if it
is run by an agency that is responsive to political appointees in the
executive branch. And thirdly, because of the way the World Bank can
capitalize it, it will, in fact, deliver more assistance to Iraq on the
ground at less cost to the taxpayers. It is patterned after a Senate
amendment that has been promoted by Senator Hutchison.
We transfer $4.5 billion to support our troops. First, we add money
to provide U.S. troops in Iraq with clean drinking water. Eighty
percent of them now do not have it. That is a shame. It is a shameful
indictment of the poor planning associated with this operation.
Secondly, we provide predeployment health and dental screening for
Guard and Reserve forces. Right now, they have to pay it.
Thirdly, we extend health coverage for returning Guard and Reserve
personnel from the existing 60-days that they are now entitled to, to 6
months.
Fourthly, we provide the full amount that the Services have requested
to be used this year to refurbish military equipment that has been used
and used up in Iraq. Without it, that equipment will be unusable for 2
years and our readiness to deal with other problems around the world
will be substantially inhibited.
Fifth, we face up to General Shinseki's warning that we should not
have a 12-division strategy if we only have a 10-division Army. The
administration ignored that warning, and as a result, we are at least a
division short. That is why Guard and Reserve forces have effectively
been drafted for an extra year of service, and that is why regular Army
troops have seen their rotation schedules obliterated. This amendment
helps to fix that over time.
Most importantly, we try to pay for this operation. In the spirit of
shared sacrifice, what we are asking is that we do not limit the
sacrifice only to the troops in the field and their families. We are
asking that we pay for it in the most fair way possible, by saying to
the most prosperous of all Americans, the top 1 percent of the
population, that we want to scale back the tax cut that they have just
been given by the President and the Congress so that they will only get
a $52,000 tax cut rather than $130,000 tax cut they would otherwise
receive.

[[Page H9561]]

I would point out that if we follow that approach, we would also be
able to save $4 billion a year in interest costs. That $4 billion is
larger than all of the money that we will spend this year for
Alzheimer's research, research on autism, breast cancer, ovarian
cancer, prostate cancer, diabetes, Parkinson's, Lou Gehrig's disease
and all kidney diseases combined.

{time} 1645

It is a responsible amendment. I am amazed that, once again, the
majority feels that the only way that they can win the debate is by
denying us the opportunity to waive the same rules that they waived in
bringing their approach to the floor.
This is an attempt to be more prudent with the taxpayers' money, more
balanced in terms of responsibilities between us and our allies, and
more responsive in terms of meeting the needs of the troops. It can
neither be called a liberal nor a conservative amendment. It is a hard-
headed approach to real problems; and I would urge the majority to,
despite the fenced-in rule which they adopted, to allow us to at least
have a vote on this proposition. If it does not have the merits to beat
the majority party approach, then it will be defeated. If it does, it
should be adopted. All we ask is for the opportunity to put this issue
to a vote, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), the distinguished
chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing
and Related Programs.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I rise in opposition to the Obey substitute amendment. I have
the greatest respect for the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). He
does very serious work not only in the full committee but also with the
Foreign Operations subcommittee. His devotion to our international
posture in the world and to foreign affairs is genuine. Having said
that, I do disagree with the approach of this amendment.
This amendment aims to be a complete substitute. But, it really
completely turns, I think, what we are trying to do in terms of our
foreign policy direction in Iraq on its head. At the end of my remarks
in the opening part of this general debate, I quoted General Abizaid,
who made it clear in testimony before our subcommittee that the work of
the reconstruction is every bit as important as what we do for the
military. The Obey amendment would take and convert much of the
reconstruction money and would put some of it into additional funds for
the military.
Mr. Chairman, we can argue whether or not there should be additional
funds there or not, whether or not we were adequate in the efforts that
we made in terms of giving the right support to our troops there or
not. I think that this legislation today, this supplemental bill that
is before us today, does address that issue, however, on the military
side of the equation. What we have attempted to do here is to balance
that with roughly one-fifth of this total amount, $20 billion, going to
reconstruction in Afghanistan and Iraq. I think that that amount is a
relatively small amount and a very much-needed amount.
Now, let me turn to the issue of whether or not this money, or even
half of it, as the gentleman's amendment suggests, whether this amount
should be done in the form of a grant or whether it should be done in
the form of a loan. We have heard, and we will continue to hear today,
a very extensive debate on an amendment that deals with the issue of
whether or not the funds that we provide under this heading should be
in the form of a grant or a loan. But let me just say that for the
purposes of this debate here on this substitute, in my view, the
arguments against the loan are very persuasive.
We do not have a legal government that exists in Iraq now. By doing
it through the World Bank, we may get around that, although the World
Bank and the president of the World Bank made clear in a meeting with
me that the World Bank is not in any position to loan the amount of
money we are talking about here today at any time in the near future.
So we would really be saying that we are not going to make this money
available at all for reconstruction to Iraq. And I think it is very
clear this money is needed and it is needed within the next year.
Now, will it all be spent in the next 12 months? No. But can most of
it be obligated? I believe it can. And that is why our subcommittee
worked hard to go through this line by line, to take out those items we
did not think could be obligated in the course of the next year. I
think what we have come up with is a carefully crafted bill that covers
those items which are most needed and which can be used.
The second reason that we ought to oppose a loan agreement is that it
sends the wrong signal to our allies as well as sending the wrong
signal to Iraq and to the Middle East. It says to our allies who are
going to the donors conference in Madrid next week, it says to them
that while we are asking you to give cash, we are giving ours in the
form of a loan. It is the wrong signal to send. To the Iraqis it says
we came into this country, and now we are going to loan you money that
is going to go to hire American contractors and you are going to pay
them back. It is the wrong signal to send.
Mr. Chairman, I just believe this is not the right approach to
dealing with what is a very complicated, complex issue. We need to give
the maximum flexibility to the President of the United States to carry
out the purpose of the Foreign Assistance Act and our foreign policy,
consistent, I might add, with our obligations as a Congress to make
sure that we provide proper oversight of the spending of these funds.
The bill that we have before us today does do that. It does require
reporting. It requires regular reporting. It requires there be
notification of changes. It gives some flexibility to move money from
one account to the other, but requires notification in order to
accomplish that.
So we have, I think, balanced the needs of the President to be able
to carry out the foreign policy of the United States with the need of
Congress to provide the oversight that is its responsibility under
article one of the Constitution.
The amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin is indeed a
comprehensive amendment; and it is given, I know, with the best of
ideas in mind of the gentleman from Wisconsin, but I think it is simply
the wrong approach. It robs the President of his responsibility as well
as the flexibility that he needs to carry out the purposes of the
Foreign Assistance Act, and I think it would needlessly tie the
President's hands in carrying out those responsibilities.
I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, if it is indeed voted
on, though I believe a point of order lies against it. I think this is
the wrong approach, and I would hope that we would not adopt this
approach to this very important legislation.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, who has the right to close?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time, and I
will simply say two things.
We have heard a lot of talk about supporting the troops today. I
would urge Members to simply put their vote where their mouths are.
This amendment gives far more support to the troops before, during, and
after their service than the committee bill or the administration plan.
Secondly, I would note the gentleman from Arizona said that he
disagreed with the approach that I take in this amendment. That is his
right. That is perfectly appropriate. All we are asking is at least let
us vote on it.
For years, whenever spending propositions hit the floor, people would
say, ``How are you going to pay for it?'' Well, we are showing you how
we will pay for it. We are trying to pay for it. You are denying us the
ability to pay for it if you object to our ability to bring this to a
vote.
So I would ask the majority to forego the opportunity that it has
given itself under the rules to wipe out this amendment without a vote,
and at least let the House face this issue squarely and vote on it.
This is, after all, supposed to be the greatest deliberative body in
the world. This is a democracy. Let us act like it.

[[Page H9562]]

Point of Order

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have no further debate on this
amendment, but I do make a point of order against the amendment because
it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an
appropriation 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.''
The amendment directly amends existing law, and I ask for a ruling from
the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of
order of the gentleman from Florida?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply say the minority leader said
it was ironic that the rules of the House could be used in order to
deny Members an opportunity to pay for whatever it was they were
suggesting. I regret that. We could have faced this, if the Committee
on Rules had given us the same courtesy in waiving rules that they gave
to themselves. However, they did not; and so I, unfortunately, must
concede the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has conceded the point of order. The
point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order. It is
now in order to consider the amendment by the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Young).

Amendment Offered by Mr. Young of Florida

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Young of Florida:
Page 19, after line 20, insert the following new section:

enhancements to exemption for members with combat-related injuries from
requirement for payment of subsistence charges while hospitalized

Sec. XX. (a) Exemption Made Permanent.--Subsection (c) of
section 1075 of title 10, United States Code (as added by
section 8146(a)(2) of the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, 2004 (Public Law 108-87)), is repealed.
(b) Retroactivity.--Subsection (b) of section 8146 of the
Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2004 (Public Law
108-87), is amended to read as follows:
``(b) Effective Date.--(1) Subsection (b)(2) of section
1075 of title 10, United States Code, as added by subsection
(a), shall apply with respect to any period of
hospitalization on or after September 11, 2001, because of an
injury covered by that subsection that is incurred on or
after that date.
``(2) The Secretary concerned (as defined in section 101 of
title 37, United States Code) shall take such action as
necessary to implement paragraph (1), including--
``(A) refunding any amount previously paid under section
1075 of title 10, United States Code, by a person who, by
reason of paragraph (1), is not required to make such
payment; and
``(B) waiving recovery of any unpaid amount for which a
person has previously been charged under that section and
which that person, by reason of paragraph (1), is not
required to pay.''.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Obey) each will control 5 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 in order to offer this amendment for myself and for my friend,
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), who has been part of this
effort from the very beginning.
Members of the House were astonished when we learned that military
members of our Armed Forces injured on the battlefield and recuperating
in military hospitals were charged $8.10 a day for the food they
consumed during that hospital stay. So this is stage three and the
final stage of the congressional effort to correct that problem.
The first stage was including in the defense appropriations bill,
that became law on October 1, a repeal of that act that made that
requirement. However, because it was an appropriations bill, it could
only be effective for 1 year. So the second phase was when the House
passed by a unanimous vote H.R. 2998 to make the repeal permanent. And
that passed, as I said, on a unanimous vote in the House.
Now, this third and final phase makes it retroactive to September 11
of 2001 and provides for repayment to those members of the armed
services who actually did pay that charge. So it provides for refunding
of the amounts previously paid, and it waives recovery of any unpaid
amount for which a person was charged because of that law.
This, I think, this was an insult to the men and women who serve in
our military and who are injured on the battlefield and who recuperate
in our military hospitals. So I am very happy that we are going to fix
this permanently and that we are going to make it retroactive to
September 11, 2001. I appreciate the fine support all of this Congress
have given and especially the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) as we
move through the three stages.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I would simply say that I know the chairman and Mrs. Chairman, as
well, have spent considerable time focusing on this issue, and I
appreciate that. We agree with the amendment and would urge support.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I hope that we can expeditiously
approve this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider the amendment by the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Amendment Offered by Mr. Obey

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Obey:
On page 2, line 9 of the bill, strike the dollar amount
``$12,188,870,000'' and insert the dollar amount
``$12,238,870,000''.
On page 4, line 19 of the bill, strike the dollar amount
``$4,485,452,000'' and insert the dollar amount
``$4,600,452,000''.
On page 7, line 7 of the bill, strike the dollar amount
``$1,988,600,000'' and insert the dollar amount
``$5,294,000,000''.
On page 13, line 8 of the bill, strike the dollar amount
``$658,380,000'' and insert the dollar amount
``$808,380,000''.
On page 30, line 1, strike ``$18,649,000,000'' and insert
``$15,028,000,000''.
On page 30, line 2, strike ``$3,243,000,000'' and insert
``$2,355,000,000''.
On page 30, line 3, strike ``$1,318,000,000'' and insert
``$1,133,000,000''.
On page 30, line 4, strike ``$5,650,000,000'' and insert
``$4,118,000,000''.
On page 30, line 5, strike ``$2,100,000,000'' and insert
``$1,866,000,000''.
On page 30, line 6, strike ``$4,332,000,000'' and insert
``$3,688,000,000''.
On page 30, line 8, strike ``$370,000,000'' and insert
``$225,000,000''.
On page 30, line 9, strike ``$153,000,000'' and insert
``$91,000,000''.
On page 30, line 10, strike ``$280,000,000'' and insert
``$259,000,000''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Kolbe) each will control 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

{time} 1700

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier, we have heard a lot of talk today
about supporting the troops. This is an opportunity to do so. What this
amendment does is increase by $3.6 billion funds that are not provided
in the committee mark for quality-of-life items for the troops as well
as other items reconstituting the force.
What we try to do, for instance, is first of all to correct the
problem that we face with our troops not having clean water. Eighty
percent of our troops in Iraq have to drink bad water. They get
dysentery. The President's request contains only $15 million for such
purposes. We try to provide an amount consistent with meeting the needs
of all of the troops in that country. Secondly, we provide funding to
allow Reservists to obtain medical and dental screening prior to
activation. Right now, they have to pay for that themselves. Thirdly,
we say that for troops returning from theater and returning to a
normal, back-home life, that we will extend their coverage under the
military health care program from the existing 60 days to 180 days. We
also provide additional funding, $50 million, to cover the cost of
increasing support for Reserve family assistance centers

[[Page H9563]]

to address domestic problems resulting from extended deployments. We
also provide additional funds for prepaid phone cards for the troops in
theater, $65 million. And we provide funds to fully cover service
members' transportation while on R&R. Finally, we provide additional
case managers for the VA and DOD joint Disabled Transition Assistance
Program to enhance transition assistance for disabled service members.
In addition to that, as I indicated earlier, we have about a $20
billion task facing us to reconstitute and refurbish and replace the
equipment that was used or used up in Iraq. We have almost half of our
Army divisions with, at this point, equipment which is not up to full
readiness standards. We need to correct that as soon as possible. The
services asked for the full amount necessary for this year. The
Department denied them a good share of the funds. We provide the full
funding levels that were requested by the services.
Basically, Mr. Chairman, that is it. If you are for the troops, I,
for the life of me, do not understand why people would not support this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment as I understand it here is designed to
improve the quality of life for our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Nobody can dispute the need to do so. However, my concern is obviously
where the funds come from. The amounts that are taken here are all from
various accounts that are devoted to the reconstruction in Afghanistan.
One can argue it is relatively small amounts here and there, it is a
couple of hundred million in this account, a couple of hundred million
in that account, but when it comes to the reconstruction which is only
25 percent of the total amount of this supplemental bill, the amounts
that are taken out of here are rather substantial. The amounts that are
added in on the military side are not that large. But this cuts very
deeply into what Ambassador Bremer and this administration and this
United States and the Coalition Authority is trying very hard to do in
Iraq, which is not only to make sure that the quality of life for our
Armed Forces is adequate, but to improve the quality of life for the
Iraqi citizens, to improve not just the material quality of life for
the Iraqi citizens, but to improve the quality of governance life under
which they live.
That is, to make sure that the institutions of democracy begin to
take root in Iraq, that there is freedom for people to speak out, that
there is freedom for those who are Shiites to practice their religion
freely. That there is the ability of people to have electricity and
water that is essential not only for their livelihoods but, in many
cases, for their very lives. To be able to have the health care that
they need. These items, where these reductions come from, would come
from those accounts. It also comes out of the security. A very large
part of this comes out of the security within Iraq.
Mr. Chairman, it is important to have the security for the United
States military forces, but if we are going to bring our forces home as
rapidly as possible, it is very important that we provide for the
security within Iraq. That is, that the forces, the army and the
national police forces in Iraq are able to be constituted as quickly as
possible, stand on their own two feet and that they can substitute for
the United States forces the security needs of Iraq. That is the only
way in which we are going to be able to bring our troops home in a
timely fashion.
And so this amendment, I think, is misdirected. On the one hand, it
says we want to improve the quality of life for our forces in Iraq, but
on the other hand, it cuts in a disproportionate way from the accounts
that are necessary to get them out of there and to get them back with
their families, in the United States with their families.
Mr. Chairman, I think that this is unfortunate, because on the one
hand, it looks like it is a good thing to do to help the quality of
life for our troops, and no one disputes that motive. But on the other
hand by disproportionately taking from these categories, security,
health care, electricity, the water and sanitation, the constitutional
reconstruction needs in Iraq, by disproportionately taking from those
accounts, we damage the ability of the Coalition Provisional Authority.
We damage the ability of the United States. We damage the ability of
our Armed Forces in Iraq to carry out the foreign policy objectives
that we are trying to achieve and for our forces to be removed from
Iraq as quickly as possible. We damage our ability to help the Iraqis
take the responsibility for their own security and for running their
own country.
This is the wrong approach, Mr. Chairman, and I hope that we will
reject this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
(Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SPRATT. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to vigorously support the quality-of-life
provisions, the very modest quality-of-life provisions, but important
provisions that my good friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin, has
included in this bill. I would say that we have worked together to
develop many of these proposals. We have winnowed them through several
different processes, the personnel subcommittee, the Democratic side of
the personnel subcommittee, the House Armed Services Committee.
Go through this bill, $87 billion. It does all manner of things for
Iraq and the Iraqi people, the Iraqi army, the Iraqi police force, and
ask what it does for our troops. They are the ones who not only won the
war, but in the aftermath of the war when there was a real vacuum,
through improvisation saved the day. They are the ones who, right now,
are the foot troops who are putting Iraq back together. They have been
called for hard duty, they have been asked to extend their tours, and
the least we can do for them and their families is to show some concern
and say thank you, and that is what these provisions do.
First of all, we know that family assistance centers which help
Reservists, many of whom have had their tours extended, help their
families deal with problems, are underfunded by $50 million. This
corrects that deficiency. Secondly, we know, if we have been there,
that one of the chief complaints is the inability just to call home and
talk to your family. In this era of telecommunications, it is the least
we can give our troops, and this bill provides $50 million to help our
troops call home and stay in touch with their families. Transportation
costs. The biggest complaint in Bosnia, the biggest complaint, you have
been to Bosnia, all of you have been to Bosnia, all of you have been to
Iraq. The biggest complaint was R&R is great, but if you are at Fort
Bragg and happen to live in El Paso, it can cost you an arm and a leg
if you are an E-6 or an E-7 to get home. And so this bill provides the
money to fly all the way home and get back to your duty station.
Finally, funds are provided for transition assistance for disabled
service members. Many of us have been out to Walter Reed. A very
affecting piece of testimony was given by General Jack Keane, where he
recounted the case of a blind GI who had lost one limb, who cannot be
reintegrated back into the Army, but he said, let me tell you
something, we're going to see that this GI, wounded as he is, gets
reintegrated into society. We're going to help him get to school, we're
going to give him a mentor, help him every step of the way. The
problem, and I take General Keane at his word, there is no money to
provide for that. This bill would provide for that.
These are four modest provisions. The least we can do for our troops
is to support this package and help our troops.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Lewis).
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time. I will not take that much time, but it is very
important to know that within the bill, we do provide for hazardous-
duty pay, for the extra funding that is required to make sure that we
take care of our troops.

[[Page H9564]]

Indeed, over recent years, we have done a fantastic job by way of the
regular order to improve the pay levels, the housing circumstances, et
cetera, for our troops. We are doing everything we can to make sure
there is a pattern set there that encourages our people not just to
serve, but to reup when they have finished a specific tour of duty. We
have made fantastic progress there. And we commit ourselves to
continuing that progress.
In the meantime, I think it is instructional to mention the very
important conversation we had with General Sanchez when our group was
in Iraq. The General is in charge of our men and women who are
representing us in that country, and he said very clearly that it is
impossible to delink the relationship between the security of our
troops, the job that they are doing for us in Iraq, from the
reconstruction effort in Iraq. If we want to stabilize the
circumstances there, he said, secure our troops as well, make sure they
are as best possible protected, then we have got to move forward
quickly with reconstruction. To take this amount of money out of the
reconstruction process is bound to slow it down. That in turn will have
an effect upon how long our troops will have to remain there. This is
the wrong place to be moving money at this point in time.
So I would strongly object to this decision at this moment. I do
appreciate the support long-term for improving the living condition and
otherwise as well as the current hazardous-duty pay and support for the
troops that we are expressing in this bill.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I thank my friend the distinguished ranking
member of the Committee on Appropriations for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I do not know, but I do not think that any Member of
Congress has a son or a daughter actually serving in Iraq. If they do,
I hope we hear about it. But if we did, I trust that our fatherly love
would trump our political loyalties. But even though we may not have
children, it is we who are responsible for sending the children of our
constituents, the young men and women of America, to fight our wars.
And we have to determine how much we spend on their protection and on
their fighting capability.
In a recent trip by the members of the Subcommittee on Defense of the
House Committee on Appropriations, they found that there was a
shortfall of protective body armor for 40,000 troops in theater. That
has been reduced subsequently, but there are still tens of thousands.
The supplies of portable jammers used to defeat land mines and other
radio-detonated bombs are woefully short. The division patrolling the
most dangerous area in the Sunni Triangle had only nine where 86 were
required. In the First Armored Division which is responsible for that
most dangerous area, a third of the division's Bradley vehicles had
been sidelined due to a lack of spare track. In that same division, 40
percent of the Humvee vehicles were out of commission due to a lack of
spare parts. And overall, 46 percent, almost half of all the Army's
spare parts needed in the country were not available.
All this amendment does is to take the word of the Armed Services,
not of the politicians, but of the people in uniform as to what they
need.

{time} 1715

We are told that 80 percent of our troops are drinking dirty water.
In a recent survey, 30 percent had dysentery. And we will not provide
this relatively small amount of money specifically targeted to correct
those deficiencies?
This is our responsibility, we in the Congress, whether or not the
executive branch acknowledges it. This is an opportunity to accept that
responsibility, to do the right thing. It is easy to talk the talk
about how much we support the troops. This is one amendment that is
only designed to do what we would do for our own children fighting in
Iraq. This is absolutely essential. There are no excuses to vote down
this amendment. It is the right thing to do. I urge the Congress to do
the right thing.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, we have been told that we cannot afford to cut back the
reconstruction package, the $20 billion reconstruction package in Iraq,
in order to fund these few additional services for our troops and to
restore the readiness of our military units around the world.
Let me point out we are taking $3.6 billion out of the reconstruction
program in order to fund these efforts. That still leaves us with $15
billion. That means that it still leaves us with a reconstruction
package that will spend $650 for every Iraqi, $650. That means that we
will be spending seven times as much per Iraqi as we spent on a per
capita basis for the entire population of Europe in the Marshall Plan.
It is also a dead letter fact that Mr. Bremer is not going to be able
to obligate $15 billion in the time frame that this bill envisages, and
it is a fact that some of those contracts would not be finished for 5
years. Surely we recognize that even with this reduction, this
assistance package on a per capita basis would be the most generous aid
program in the history of the world.
What are we trying to use that money for? We are trying to provide
water for the troops that will not make them sick. Is that too much to
ask? Is there something wrong with our dedication to the war against
terrorism if we are for that?
We also are trying to provide health and dental screening for Guard
and Reserve personnel before they go into active service to do their
duty, and what we are trying to say is just in case that when they were
on active duty and got a health problem that is not going to show up
for a few months, we are going to give them 6 months of coverage after
they have done their duty and they are back home. Is that too much to
ask? I know this Congress will not help provide health coverage for the
42 million Americans who do not have it, but can we not at least do it
for these?
And then, lastly, we are asking for a little bit of money so that our
soldiers can pick up a cell phone, so that they can pick up one of
these, open it up, it is against the rules to use this on the House
floor, but we want them to be able to pick up one of these, open up a
cell phone and dial their family when they are lonely. That is what we
are asking.
I think this amendment represents a far better balance of priorities
than does the administration request or the committee package, and I
respectfully and urgently ask for an ``aye'' vote for the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, as I listened to the debate and the arguments that were
made by the gentleman from South Carolina and the gentleman from
Virginia and the gentleman from Wisconsin, it occurs to me that the
problem in this debate is it is as though it was taking place in some
kind of vacuum, that the only thing we were talking about here was the
amount of money that is in this bill for the reconstruction of Iraq and
Afghanistan. It is as if the assertion is that we are not doing
anything for our troops that are over there. Let us not neglect the
fact that three-fourths of all the dollars that are in here, or the $67
billion, is for the military forces in Iraq and in Afghanistan. It is
to replenish those accounts. It is to do exactly some of the things
that the gentleman from Wisconsin just described to us a minute ago. It
is not as though we were not cognizant of that, that we were not
thinking about that when this bill was crafted by the administration
and worked on in the Committee on Appropriations. But what the
gentleman is suggesting is that more of the money should be going
there. So as I said earlier, we are adding a relatively small amount to
the military to help the quality of life there and taking a very large
amount out of what is necessary for the reconstruction of Iraq.
Let me just give a few of the figures. Out of security and law
enforcement, these are the people that we are asking to train them to
replace our security forces. The amendment would take almost $900
million out of that account. For justice and public safety, the
amendment would reduce about $180

[[Page H9565]]

million. Out of electricity, the gentleman from Wisconsin suggests that
we would reduce that by $1,530,000,000.
When we were in Iraq in August and we were in Basra, we had a
briefing by the commanding general, the British commanding general, who
talked about how the temperature had gotten up in August to 130
degrees. The electricity system just simply collapsed under those
circumstances. They were without any electricity in Basra for 4 days,
and that is when the riots took place. People went out in the street
and started throwing rocks out of sheer frustration. I would be doing
that. You would be doing that. And that put the safety, in this case of
British soldiers, and the same is true in Baghdad and elsewhere where
American soldiers are located, put the safety of those soldiers at
risk. We need to get that electric system up, and we need to get it
running.
Let me repeat this again. General Abizaid said we cannot separate the
reconstruction dollars from what we are doing for the military. They
are just as important. It is just as much a part of the security of the
forces that we have in Iraq as is every dime that we give for
ammunition or for any weapons or for clothing or for food for our
troops over there. The reconstruction dollars are part and parcel of
the security of our forces over there. I am paraphrasing what General
Abizaid said. I quoted it directly a few minutes ago in my general
remarks.
Let me just close with this statement, Mr. Chairman: If we are
concerned about the quality of life of our American forces that are in
Iraq, we do no favors to the quality of life of those troops by keeping
them there longer and by denying the reconstruction effort and the
constitution of the security forces in Iraq that will get our troops
out of Iraq. If the Members want to improve the quality of life of our
troops, bring them home; and the fastest way to do that is to improve
the security of the Iraqis to allow them to take back the country and
allow our forces to leave.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey)
will be postponed.
It is now in order to consider the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

Amendment No. 33 Offered by Mr. Pence

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 33 offered by Mr. Pence:
In the item relating to ``Other Bilateral Economic
Assistance--Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund--(Including
Transfers of Funds)'', add at the end before the period the
following: ``: Provided further, That 50 percent of the total
amount of funds appropriated under this heading shall be
withheld from obligation and expenditure until (1) the
initial 50 percent of funds appropriated under this heading
have been obligated giving priority consideration to the
emergency purposes of security, electric sector
infrastructure, oil infrastructure, public works, water
resources, transportation and telecommunication
infrastructures, and other emergency needs, (2) the President
prepares and transmits to the Committees on Appropriations of
the House of Representatives and the Senate a report in
writing that describes the programs, projects, and activities
that are or have been financed by such initial funds and
includes a detailed analysis of the extent to which such
programs, projects, and activities are or have been
successful, and (3) the President determines and certifies to
Congress that a democratically elected government in Iraq has
been established: Provided further, That the remaining 50
percent of the total amount of funds appropriated under this
heading shall be made available in the form of loans subject
to repayment to the United States Government, on terms and
conditions determined by the President''.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the
amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I also reserve a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House today, the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Pence) and a Member opposed each will control 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I come before this Chamber in support of the Pence
amendment tonight, but I do so with a great sense of gratitude for the
strong leadership that the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young), the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), and other members of the Committee
on Appropriations have provided in preparing this important legislation
in the life of our Nation, and I strongly support the measure in every
respect save one. And it is on the question of whether reconstruction
costs in Iraq should take the form of a grant or a loan.
I have considered the arguments of the administration, the opinions
of my constituents with much deliberation and prayer, and on this
question I have decided that it is appropriate for me to stand firm in
my belief that a portion of the reconstruction costs should be
eventually repaid by the Iraqi people to the people of the United
States. The gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) before the
Committee on Rules yesterday said, memorably, a difficulty with a loan
is that ``there is no authority in Iraq to whom we may make a loan,''
and that is a legitimate and significant point as we consider other
loan proposals before this Chamber. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey), ranking member, also made, in my view, a compelling point in
saying that the debate between pure grant and pure loan was not
constructive, that what we needed was a rational balance of the short-
term and long-term needs of the people of Iraq and the people of the
United States of America. And I would humbly offer that the Pence
amendment is precisely that middle ground which addresses the lack of a
governing authority present in Iraq against the needs of the American
people who see this oil-rich nation as needing to bear some of the cost
at some point in the future of the creation of their own civil society.
As the administration has argued and the chairman noted, it is simply
impossible to extend a loan from the United States to a nation not yet
formed. In recognition of this reality, the Pence amendment makes the
first 50 percent of the funding available immediately as a grant,
giving priority consideration to the emergency purposes of security,
electricity, oil infrastructure, public works, and the like. And then,
Mr. Chairman, once the administration informs Congress that a
democratically elected government in Iraq has been established, the
balance of the funding would be made available in the form of a loan
from the United States Government under terms and conditions to be
negotiated by the President of the United States.
Having addressed the logistical issues raised by the chairman and by
the administration, I believe it is appropriate that Congress defer to
the consent of the governed, especially in matters of foreign aid. Many
Americans, even in my conservative district, overwhelmingly support
some repayment of reconstruction costs. Most Americans know Iraq is an
oil-rich nation, possessing by some estimates some $7 trillion, the
second largest oil reserve of any nation on the planet.

{time} 1730

Most Americans know Iraq will eventually be able to bear the burden
of repaying some of the costs of rebuilding its infrastructure. In
fact, it was Iraq's interim trade minister, Ali Alawa, who said, in
Australia just yesterday, that Iraq was announcing plans in the middle
of 2004 to increase their oil production from the current 2 million
barrels a day to 3.5 million barrels a day. The American people know
this, and they desire earnestly to partner with the people of Iraq when
it comes to the bricks and mortar of building their own civil society.
At a time of mounting deficits, also making a portion of the
reconstruction costs a loan reassures the American people that there is
a financial end-game strategy. In my district, very few Americans, it
seems, Mr. Chairman,

[[Page H9566]]

worry about a military quagmire. We have won the war decisively and
humanely. But even in my rural district in Indiana, many Americans
worry about a financial quagmire. By partnering in a loan for a portion
of these reconstruction costs, we allow for an end-game strategy to
begin to emerge.
Finally, by making a portion of the infrastructure reconstruction a
loan, Congress will set an important precedent as we partner with the
Iraqi people in establishing a free society. This is especially
important since most anticipate this request for reconstruction will
likely not be the last.
In the end, I am grateful for the opportunity agreed upon by both
parties to bring the Pence amendment to the floor with such thorough
opportunity for debate. As I have said before, I will support the final
version of the Iraq supplemental as the Congress works its will,
because I fully support the President and am anxious to continue to
support the courageous work of our military-civilian personnel and the
members of the committee. Nonetheless, I am offering the Pence
amendment humbly today, with the firm belief that the United States
should provide for the liberty and security of Iraq, but improvements
in the civil society in Iraq should ultimately be borne by the Iraqi
people.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North
Carolina (Mrs. Myrick).
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time, and I thank the chairman for bringing this bill forward in good
form.
I supported going into Iraq. In fact, I served on the President's
working group for Iraq, and I think it was the right thing to do. I
believe it was still the right thing to do, and I support our troops,
the men and women in uniform over there giving their all for us. There
is no question about that. I want them to see that they have all the
resources that they need at this difficult time in their lives to
protect themselves and to protect us. And we need to remember, we are
over there fighting so we do not have to be fighting here on our own
shores.
But I come from a district where there has been a great deal of
hardship lately, a lot of job loss, and my people, frankly, do not
understand why this cannot be a loan instead of a grant. A lot of them
say to me that this just does not make any sense. Iraq has all that
oil. I think it has the second largest oil reserves in the world. They
are going to be running a surplus in their oil reserves very soon, I
think by the end of next year. So if they would pay for part of their
reconstruction, they buy into the process, and literally they have a
commitment there to help with their own freedom.
I work for the people of the Ninth District of North Carolina, and
they feel very strongly about that, and I feel very strongly that I
would like to see this be a loan as well. That is why I support the
Pence amendment. I would like to have a vote on this amendment, so we
could express our opinions and the thoughts of our people at home. I do
support the underlying bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Arizona claim the time in
opposition to the amendment?
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 30 minutes in
opposition to the amendment.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Chairman, those of us who have served in the military know the
meaning of the old term ``hurry up and wait.'' Well, that is what we
have got here, a hurry up and wait amendment. It says we are going to
withhold 50 percent of the money that the President seeks on an urgent
basis until we know how the first 50 percent worked out.
If between $18 billion and $20 billion in reconstruction aid is
needed to get our troops back from Iraq, to put Iraq on its feet, to be
able to get our troops out of there, and I believe that a majority of
this House is prepared to provide that much money, this amendment says
to our troops over there in Iraq, do not plan on coming home for a
while, because we are going to see how this first half works out. We
will see whether or not we get a democratically-elected government, how
it gets established in Iraq. I guess if we want to be facetious, we
could say what happens if they decide to have a recall election, if
there are some hanging chads over there?
But the reality is, not speaking facetiously, that the return of our
troops and the utilization of the urgently needed second $9 billion to
$10 billion for reconstruction under this amendment would be put on
hold until there is a democratically-elected government. So we are, in
other words, putting ourselves in the hands of the Iraqis to decide
when our forces are going to be able to come home.
The amendment gives priority consideration to various sectors of
reconstruction in the first half that it allows to be spent as a grant.
It says it gives priority consideration to uses for security, for
power, for oil, for public works, for water, for transportation and
telecommunication. Well, those items are 80 percent of what is in the
$20 billion that we have got in this bill. So which of those priority
items are going to be done and which ones really are not priority
items, or how much of them are not really priority items? Which of
these things do we decide are really not priorities until we have a
democratically-elected government in Iraq?
The fact is, these are important, and we need to move these things
forward now, and we need to do it on an orderly basis.
While not all of this money is going to be spent during this first
year, the vast majority will be. That is what our subcommittee looked
at very carefully, how much of this money can be obligated in the next
15 months, and I believe the vast majority of it can be obligated
during that time. That provides for an orderly flow of the contracts.
One of the reasons we are considering this supplemental bill now is
because many of us pushed with the administration to get it up here so
that in January when the contracts run out of the existing funds that
were in the last supplemental bill, we will not have a break in the
construction process. What would happen if we were not able to go
forward with the water projects, the sanitation projects, the electric
projects, the projects to restore the oil production in Iraq. The worst
thing we could have is to have a break in the reconstruction process.
And yet this is exactly what this amendment would do. ``Once we see
what happens with the first half, then we will decide how to proceed
with the second half.''
The supplemental bill that you have before you, talking about the
reconstruction part of this, is comprehensive. It addresses security,
such as border enhancement. It is needed to get the oil industry up, to
get the industry operating, and all the aspects of long-term recovery
are dependent on whether or not the Iraqis are able to get their oil
production up so they will have the funds they need to do these things
themselves.
It fixes the transportation infrastructure in the Port of Umm Qasr.
It addresses education, and helps the Iraqis deal with investigating
the crimes of Saddam Hussein against humanity.
Mr. Chairman, I want to reiterate as to what the supplemental package
is all about. It is about the strategic interests of the United States.
It is about creating a peaceful and stable Iraq. It is about creating a
more peaceful Middle East. It is very much about fighting terrorism.
But, most of all, this is about winning the war, winning the war
against terrorism, and it is about the safety of our troops, the men
and women in uniform.
I know I have said it several times on this floor, and I have quoted
him and paraphrased him several times, but I think it is worth
repeating, and I am sure I will do it more times today. General Abizaid
in testimony before our subcommittee said that you can pay the U.S.
military, but you will be paying them to stay in Iraq forever without
fully providing the direct assistance for reconstruction.
What this supplemental appropriation is designed to do is not keep
our forces there forever, but to find a way to get them home, by saying
to the Iraqis we are going to train your security forces, your military
forces, your police forces, so that you can take over those
responsibilities from us. If we say that we are not going to do those
responsibilities now, we are saying to ourselves that we are going to
keep our military forces there for a longer period of time, and the
longer we delay

[[Page H9567]]

with the construction, the longer our troops will be there.
If you want to bring our troops home, let us move on with the
reconstruction, and let us oppose this amendment.
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Feeney), who has been from virtually day one an outspoken
and unapologetic advocate of a loan partnership between the people of
America and the people of Iraq in the reconstruction of their nation.
Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Chairman, first I want to thank the chairman and his
committee for the wonderful job they have done in empowering the White
House, and the President's team and our military for the wonderful
prosecution of this very difficult war.
Second, I want to thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) for
the courage he has shown to stand up and do the right thing for the
American taxpayer, and yet continue to help the White House and our
military successfully prosecute the aftermath of the war.
Third, I want to thank God. I want to thank God for President Bush's
team that has done such a terribly important job in the aftermath of
September 11 in Iraq. In particular Vice President Cheney, Secretary
Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell, just to name a few.
I remember in Washington's first farewell address, he warned all of
us about entering into ``entangling alliances'' oversees. The second
President of the United States, John Adams, said ``America does not go
abroad in search of monsters to destroy.''
But on September 11, all of us recognized that this is a much smaller
world, because monsters found America and tried to destroy us, and they
are going to do it again. The next attack could be from a vial of nerve
gas, a nuclear weapon, a chemical or other biological weapon that may
be built in the hills of Afghanistan or the deserts of Iraq. We
understand that. We recognize that, and we fully support the
prosecution of the war.
I will tell you that for some 220 years, my view is that America has
been the moral conscience of the world. I will tell you that at times
in this very difficult global-terrorist-threat environment, we will
have to be the world's policeman in certain regions.
We will never be able to be the world's nanny. When it comes to
building a nation's infrastructure, when that nation has the type of
oil availability and resources that Iraq does, we ought to do the right
thing by the American taxpayer.
I believe that President Bush is 100 percent right. The oil fields
belong to the Iraqi people. But I also believe that the infrastructure,
the roads, the bridges, the hospitals, the schools that we will build,
the electric grids, also belong to the Iraqi people, and it is fitting
that America lead the way and that we help the Iraqi people establish,
for the first time, a real, serious infrastructure that can help their
people survive and thrive, and that we help them with our moral
leadership, teaching them about democracy, teaching them how to be
prosperous and peaceful, things like free trade, low tax rates, respect
for private property and individual freedoms, from the right to speak
or choose your own religion.
But ultimately, Mr. Chairman, I believe that the American taxpayer is
owed nothing less than to say with respect to building infrastructure
or nation-building, that it is only right that our children not bear
the brunt of the cost of building schools, hospitals and roads
ultimately in Iraq.
The proposal of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), I think, does
a marvelous job in balancing the needs that the administration has to
successfully prosecute the aftermath of the war to make our troops
successful so we can bring them home. But it also respects the
challenges that face America's taxpayers.
Finally, we should help Iraq build for the future. We should adopt
principles of prosperity and freedom, but, ultimately, we should never
be their nanny or be the only people spending money to build their
country.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), a member of the
committee.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding
me time.
I rise in opposition to the Pence amendment.
Mr. Chairman, some feel that we should give loans to Iraq rather than
provide direct assistance. I believe that this is the wrong approach.
As the Washington Post asserted in its lead editorial yesterday, ``To
make a loan in these circumstances is like swimming out to a drowning
man and handing him a 10 pound weight.''
I could not agree more. For two decades, Saddam Hussein spent
billions of dollars building his elaborate palaces and war machine and
neglecting his oil infrastructure, while the people of Iraq were forced
to bear the burden of his neglect of basic health and educational
services. Now, Saddam has left Iraq $225 billion in debt, including
approximately $100 billion owed to France, Germany, Russia and other
nations, and an additional $125 billion in reparations owed to Kuwait
and Saudi Arabia for damage done by his invasion of Kuwait in 1990.

{time} 1745

At this point, why should the Iraqi people bear the brunt of debt
incurred by their former dictator?
There is an underlying premise that we must never forget: support for
reconstruction and stabilization in Iraq is inextricably linked to the
security of our soldiers on the ground. With success, a free Iraq will
send a clear message to the people of the Middle East and beyond that
freedom and democracy, not violence and terrorism, are the best paths
for the future.
A larger crushing debt burden will lead to greater discontent and
instability, and again make Iraq an incubator for terrorists who will
stop at nothing to hinder our mission.
To lessen this risk, this supplemental request will provide the
resources necessary to help ensure stability, peace, and democracy in
Iraq. This will create a safer environment for our troops and a safer
world for our children and grandchildren and, indeed, our strategic
interests.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the rejection of this amendment.
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Ney), who has been an outspoken advocate of this junior Member's
efforts to bring this issue to the floor.
Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from Florida
(Chairman Young) for his good bill and diligence on this bill, and also
President Bush for his standing up for America in both Afghanistan and
Iraq, and standing up for the Iraqi people and a better stability in
the world. I also want to thank my good friend, the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Pence), for his leadership on this issue. He has been a
leader in fiscal responsibility throughout his time in Congress.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is the right policy for our Nation. It
takes the fiscally responsible approach for rebuilding Iraq and
protecting our troops at the same time.
I think we can all agree that money is needed now to help Iraq lift
itself up into a stable country. This is in the best interests of all
nations. We also recognize that rebuilding Iraq is necessary to protect
our troops. The truth is that the more quickly we can rebuild Iraq and
alleviate critical shortages, the more quickly we can bring about peace
and stability so that our brave men and women in uniform are no longer
the targets of Iraqi hostilities.
However, there is no reason that the money needed to carry out this
rebuilding must be free of charge. I think it is fair and reasonable
that some of the money we are providing today be a loan.
Iraq is a very resource-rich nation. They will soon have the
capability to provide for their own rebuilding and will not need U.S.
money. The funds we are providing today provide a bridge to take Iraq
from the shambles Saddam Hussein left to a country capable of providing
for itself. Once the Iraqi people are on their feet and are able to
produce oil, they will have plenty of income and will be able to repay
us for loans.
In my district there are people who are losing their jobs because we
cannot even see fit to provide domestic steel companies with loans to
modernize and compete with foreign producers; yet, somehow, we are
going to find the money to give, not loan, but to give Iraq $19
billion.

[[Page H9568]]

In closing, this amendment is at the core of how we believe the
United States should carry out its foreign policy. We need to ask
ourselves if the United States is a charity or a partner for Iraq.
Some countries, by the way, are demanding to be repaid for loans that
they gave to help prop up Saddam Hussein's dictatorship. The least we
can do is ask to be repaid for part of the money that will be used to
rebuild the ruins Saddam Hussein left.
With our help, Iraq can quickly rebuild and become prosperous and
productive with enough resources to make it one of the wealthiest
nations.
Again, it is a very sensible amendment by the gentleman from Indiana,
and I urge support of the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) continue to
reserve his point of order?
Mr. KOLBE. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
McDermott).
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
I think perhaps not for the same reasons that some may; but, from my
view, this is simply a fig leaf for those people who were in favor of
the war but do not want to pay for it.
The Geneva Convention says that when you occupy a country, you are
responsible for putting that country back on its feet.
Now, the idea that we are going to go in there and sock them with how
many billions of dollars' worth of debt, I do not know, half the debt?
Half of $87 billion? It makes absolutely no sense, especially when we
read the papers. If we read the al Ahram Weekly out of Egypt and they
talk about the privatization that our viceroy has announced, the
viceroy said that every state-owned company will be sold to private
investors. This is the equivalent of pillaging. My colleagues know:
rape and pillage that comes after war. This is pillage, and the war
profiteers are gathering around the White House and around Mr. Bremer
waiting to buy these companies on 10 cents on the dollar. And we are
going to say to the Iraqi people, wherever this money comes from, you
people are going to be responsible for it.
Now, I do not know how many times I have heard people come in here
and talk about the Third World and they say, the way we are going to
help the Third World is to lift the debt. And here we are sitting right
here, looking at it, knowing the oil industry is not functioning; and
we are saying, we are going to stick you with the debt. We are going to
put this debt on their children. We do not like putting it on our
children; I agree with you. That is why I am going to vote ``no.'' But
this puts the debt on their children. That is certainly fair, is it
not? I mean, these kids over there that we bombed and kept from medical
care and everything else with our sanctions, now we are going to give
them some debt to worry about for the rest of their lives.
This is simply a bad amendment so that some people can say, well, I
voted to make a loan, but the House turned me down, and so I had to go
for the full boat out of your pocket to their own taxpayers. I
understand why you are a little anxious about going home and defending
this bill, since you know there is no plan. I mean, who has decided
they are going to privatize Iraq's economy? One man, the viceroy, Mr.
Bremer. He got some guy in the council who says the new policy will
create a free and market-oriented economy, without any precedent in the
Arab world. He claims the reforms would promote economic growth and
raise the living standards of all Iraqis.
Every time you privatize, you put people out of work.
We have hundreds of thousands of people out of work in that country,
and you are planning to put more out.
This is a bad amendment.
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) has 17 minutes
remaining; the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) has 19 minutes
remaining.
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
As a point of clarification, I would say to the gentleman from
Washington that the Pence amendment does not call for a 50 percent loan
of the entire Iraq supplemental; it specifically applies to the section
of other bilateral economic assistance, Iraq relief, and reconstruction
funds. The debate today on the floor with respect to the gentleman from
Washington is about the reconstruction funds in the legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Burton), my colleague and friend.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time.
If this amendment were put to a vote tonight, it would pass
overwhelmingly; I am just confident of that. But the Committee on Rules
chose not to make this amendment in order. Yet we are allowing the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) and those who oppose this amendment
to debate this for an hour. And I would just say to my colleagues, this
is nothing more than a facade. It is something that we should not be
doing, because this amendment is going to be ruled nongermane.
The American people overwhelmingly would support this as a loan to
Iraq, a noninterest loan that could be paid back in 20 or 30 years; but
at least when the oil comes in and they start making money over there,
it could be repaid.
So the only thing I wanted to say tonight is that I am very
disappointed that this was not made in order, number one; and, number
two, I am disappointed that we are debating this for an hour when
everybody knows we are not going to have a chance to vote on it. It is
just not right to do business that way.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for
yielding me this time, and I thank the gentleman from Indiana for
bringing up the amendment which he and his followers feel is balanced
as far as the loan versus grant issue that we are now debating. I think
if it were a year from now and we were debating further supplementals
for Iraq, it would be very appropriate; but it is not a year from now.
We have tens of thousands of American soldiers in Iraq. Many of us
have visited them. There is, when we look into their eyes, a deep sense
of courage; but there is also, as anybody that has ever been in combat
can see, there is a deep sense of fear. Coupled with that, there is
urgency. There is not a sense of urgency; there is urgency.
There is urgency that we get the supplemental out tonight so the 60-
some billion dollars reinforces what our soldiers have, and there is an
urgency that we heard from every military person we met at every base
we went to that money is ammunition. What that means is, if we can get
the electric turned back on, that puts Iraqis back to work. If we can
get 80,000 Iraqi police within the next year, that will relieve our MPs
from guarding the city streets and guarding the prisons. If we can get
27 battalion Iraqi units on the road, on the borders, in the
hinterlands, in this famous peninsula area that is very, very
dangerous, 27 Iraqi battalions, that will bring our troops home. There
is real urgency in this supplemental, not as a loan, but as money that
will go to secure the troops in Iraq to ensure their safety and to
ensure their quick and speedy return.
Mr. Chairman, we did not debate loans or grants at the height of
World War II. There is a critical juncture that we must realize. We are
at that fork in the road. We do it with a sense of urgency, with a
sense of responsibility. We will succeed. If we falter, it makes it
much more difficult. Our troops will be in Iraq a great deal longer.
So I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), a great leader of
the House on this issue.
(Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I am glad to see that the gentleman from
Maryland will vote for a loan in the next supplemental that is going to
come, and I rise in support of the Pence amendment.
Despite the arguments that we have heard against the use of these
loans, we

[[Page H9569]]

need to reinforce the point that the taxpayers of this country should
not be required to foot the entire bill for Iraq reconstruction
indefinitely. So maybe not this time, but maybe next.
I think many of my colleagues know I have an amendment also; it is a
sense of the Congress that, once Iraq is on their feet again, that they
will help pay back some of these loans. We do not want to tie the hands
of the administration or the Iraqi Government, but we want to allow
some type of flexibility. So I may offer my sense of the Congress on
this same matter.
The people of Iraq should not be burdened, of course, with the lavish
spending of the Saddam Hussein regime which borrowed heavily to oppress
his people and to enrich its own leaders.
Mr. Chairman, I also believe that it is unfair to compare the
proposed U.S. loan idea in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom to the
debts amassed under Saddam Hussein and his evil regime. We and the
American taxpayers want to rebuild hospitals, schools, and prisons.
Saddam's debt went to gilded toilet paper holders, a backyard zoo for
his delinquent children, and, of course, a weapons of mass destruction
program.
We will give the President the funds our country needs to protect and
sustain our troops and rebuild a country whose people want to live
proud and free again. All we are seeking is some measure to ensure that
the American people are not permanently footing this bill.
I rise in support of the Pence amendment. I believe, despite some of
the arguments that we have heard against the use of loans, that we need
to reinforce the point that the taxpayers of this country should not be
required to foot the entire bill for Iraqi reconstruction indefinitely.
At recent town hall meetings in my district, constituents voiced
concerns on this very subject. Why can Iraq not begin to provide
funding for reconstruction and security themselves? I think all of my
colleagues would agree this is a valid question. Late into last night,
my staff fielded call after call from constituents who were proud of
America's efforts to rebuild Iraq, yet they wanted to see Iraq begin to
shoulder the burden of reconstruction once a sovereign and viable
government is in place.
I also have an amendment a sense of the Congress that once Iraqis are
on their feet again they can help pay us back these loans, but felt
compelled to speak on this amendment. We don't want to tie the hands of
the Administration or the Iraqi government. What we want to do is allow
for flexibility. I may offer the sense of the Congress later on.
At the center of this debate over loans vs. grants is the massive
outstanding debt that European and Arab powers are holding over the
recently freed heads of the Iraqi people. Last night we debated a
resolution that would ask that these countries no longer saddle the war
torn nation with what is at best a dubious debt.
Forgiving these debts would constitute both an historic contribution
to the economic development of post-Saddam Iraq and a major gesture of
support for the Iraqi people. Estimates of Iraq's indebtedness vary
greatly, from 60 billion to several hundred billion dollars. The most
comprehensive study of Iraqi debts, by the Center for Strategic and
International Studies (CSIS), calculates Iraq's total debt to be $127
billion, of which $47 billion is accrued interest. Iraq owes a further
$199 billion in Gulf War compensation and $57 billion in pending
contracts signed between the Saddam Hussein regime and foreign
companies and governments. Iraq's overall financial burden, according
to the CSIS figures, is $383 billion.
Based on these figures, Iraq's financial obligations are 14 times its
estimated annual gross domestic product (GDP) of $27 billion--a
staggering $16,000 per person.
Arguably, the people of Iraq should not be burdened with the lavish
spending of a tyrannical regime, which borrowed heavily to oppress its
people and enrich its own leaders. I also believe that it is unfair to
compare the proposed US loan idea in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom
to the debts amassed under Saddam and his evil regime. We, and the
American taxpayer, want to rebuild hospitals, schools, and prisons.
Saddam's debt went to gilded toilet paper holders, a backyard zoo for
his delinquent children, and, of course, a weapons of mass destruction
program.
Mr. Chairman, we will give the President the funds our country needs
to protect and sustain our troops and rebuild a country whose people
want to live proud and free again. All we are seeking is some measure
to ensure that the American people aren't permanently footing this
bill.
The American people are generous people. They understand that it is
for the greater good to help another help themselves. But the American
people also recognize we cannot continue to provide open-ended monetary
assistance if we do not receive something in return. It is a meet-us-
halfway approach.
Are we asking too much for the administration to provide
opportunities for American generosity, persistence, patience and
sacrifice to be acknowledged, appreciated and repaid? I think not.
Americans will not shy away from the mission it has been tasked to
complete. We are making progress every day, and our troops, while
facing danger, are at the same time offering their time, money, and
supplies to assist the local Iraqi people.
I hope that my colleagues will consider supporting this amendment. It
strikes the right balance between grants and loans and shows the
American people that we are approaching the use of their taxpayer
dollars in as a responsible manner as possible as we help rebuild a
newly freed country.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Arizona continue to reserve his
point of order?
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the point of order and I reserve
my time.

{time} 1800

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I asked for 1 minute because I
have got three simple reasons that I think the Pence amendment is good.
First I would like to suggest, after serving 5 years in the Nixon
administration, the wisdom and common sense in this body is just as
good as it is in the Department of State that made this recommendation
to the President of not having any loan. That is probably the biggest
reason we are pursuing a no-loan provision.
The second is what is the implication on our kids? Let me remind
everybody we are borrowing this money which means our kids and our
grandkids are going to have to pay it back. It is reasonable to have
half of this money in a loan.
The third reason that we want to pursue it is to try to encourage
other countries to forgive part of their loan. And the language in the
Pence amendment gives the administration the authority to bargain, to
move ahead, to encourage other countries to forgive their loan.
I say let us vote on the Pence amendment. I suggest the leadership
make it in order.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I would inquire about the amount of time we
have remaining.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) has 13 minutes
remaining.
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, since September 11, 2001, the American
people, in fact, people throughout the world have lived in particularly
tumultuous times. As a result of that, our Nation finds itself in
deficit spending for the first time in 4 years.
There is no question that the American people are a compassionate and
generous people and they want to help the people of Iraq. But we also
have needs in America today, transportation needs, health care needs,
educational needs.
So at this time of deficit spending I want to commend the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Pence) for his commonsense and practical approach to
solve the funding needs in Iraq. His amendment simply says that we will
give 50 percent of the $20 billion, approximately, as a grant to the
Iraqi people that would not need to be repaid. But the other 50 percent
would be a loan, once the President of the United States, President
Bush, determines and certifies to the Congress that a democratically-
elected government in Iraq has been established.
I want to commend the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) for his
amendment and urge Members to support it.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, we have had some very general discussion about this
issue of loans. I just want to go through this amendment kind of piece
by piece so that people understand what we are talking about were this

[[Page H9570]]

amendment to be adopted. And I believe we will sustain our point of
order against it.
But this deals with, let us make it clear, it is dealing only with
that part, and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) has made this
clear, that is the reconstruction for the IRRF money, as it is called,
in Iraq.
And it says that 50 percent of the total amounts of the roughly $20
billion, 50 percent of the amounts appropriated under this heading
``shall be withheld from obligation and expenditure until,'' and then
there are several conditions. The first condition is the money will be
withheld until the initial 50 percent of the funds appropriated has
been obligated--giving priority consideration to emergency purposes of
security, electric sector infrastructure, oil infrastructure, public
works, water resources, transportation and telecommunications
infrastructures, and other emergency needs.
Well, Mr. Chairman, 80 percent of the total amount of $20 billion is
for those items. So the question legitimately raised, I think, here is
which 50 percent of that is a priority and which part is not a
priority?
The second condition is the money will be withheld, until the
President prepares and transmits to the Committees on Appropriations of
the House and of the Senate a report that describes the programs,
projects, and activities that have been financed by the initial funds
and includes a detail analysis of the extent to which such programs,
projects, and activities are, or have been, successful.
Mr. Chairman, that means that we have to have a, basically, a
completion of the project. You cannot tell us immediately when you
start a project whether it has been successful. You have to have a
completion of that project. Then you prepare an analysis of it. And
then you can release the second half of the money.
So there is necessarily a very large gap in here. All of the 50
percent has to be done and all of it has to be analyzed before you can
release the second half.
And the third condition, Mr. Chairman, is the 50 percent is withheld
until the President determines and certifies to Congress that a
democratically-elected government in Iraq has been established.
So, Mr. Chairman, we are going to say that our ability to finish this
job in Iraq and our ability to get the security forces in place in Iraq
is going to depend, and the ability therefore, to get our troops home
from Iraq, is going to depend on whether or not we are successful in
getting a democratically-elected government there.
Mr. Chairman, I just would suggest to you that I think this is not
the right approach, that we ought to be doing everything we can as
quickly as possible to get Iraqi security forces in place so that
American troops can come home. And that means spending the money that
is necessary to build the Iraqi Army, to build the Iraqi national
police, to build the oil and the electric infrastructure, to put the
security forces that guard those facilities in place. All of that has
to be done as quickly as possible so that American military forces can
get out of those duties that every day puts them in harm's way as they
are in the inner sections of Baghdad, as they are beside these
facilities around the country. That ought to be the responsibility of
the Iraqi people to do that, but it cannot be done until we spend the
money to train the people, to equip them, to arm them and to get them
out there to do this.
Mr. Chairman, I retain the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves the balance of his time and also
his point of order.
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, as I prepare to introduce our next speaker on the Pence
amendment, I would express my deep respect for the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), but to say of the Pence amendment that, with
regard to the language of the amendment, it says that the funds
appropriated under this heading would simply give priority
consideration to the emergency purposes of security electric structure
infrastructure.
It was very much my intention in drafting this amendment, Mr.
Chairman, to defer to the authorities on the ground and to the
President of the United States to set the priorities in the
disbursement of funds on an as-needed basis.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Garrett), a courageous voice for taxpayers.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Mr.
Pence's amendment which will provide the funding necessary through 50
percent of the funding for the emergency funds that are needed today.
The question has been raised if those funds are 80 percent and this is
just 50 percent, I would ask this administration do what all families
have to do, and that is prioritize. So when it comes to issues like
water resources, perhaps we do not have to spend the money right now on
marsh restoration. When it comes to transportation, perhaps we do not
have to spend the money right now on escalators, parking lots, and
esthetic improvements at airports as far as transportation needs.
So we must prioritize these issues and put the rest of the money into
a loan. The American public and my constituents know that this is an
oil rich nation and they will be able to bear the burden of paying this
money back, if not today, then at least some time in the future.
My constituents also realize that this is a nation that we want to
stand behind and stand with to provide for liberty and security, but we
know, as well, that liberty and security is not free and the price of
freedom is not free. Some of this burden must be borne by the people of
Iraq.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Walsh), a distinguished member of the Committee on
Appropriations.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his hard work in
support of this appropriation. I rise in opposition to the gentleman
from Indiana's amendment.
Our former great President Ronald Reagan was proud of saying America
is great because America is good. I think that is what this debate is
about. I just returned from Iraq and met many of the people, including
some of the ministers, the council of ministers. Put yourself in Iraqi
shoes for just a minute. Think of the leap of faith it would take you
to conclude that America, first of all, these people for the last 30
years have had the boot of tyranny on their throats. Americans come
through and they liberate, or concur, however you want to interpret it,
this is the Iraqi thinking, what are they going to do next? The
Americans are saying we are going to help you rebuild your country and
give it back to you. It takes a real leap of faith.
I suggest to Members if we give them this money, help them to invest
it, build their country back as opposed to putting more loans on them,
the leap of faith will be aided. The goodness of America will be noted.
We were also briefed by the coalition provisional authority. The
estimates of oil-derived revenue for Iraq after 2 or 3 years when
production increases roughly estimates the cost of running this country
of managing the systems, of teaching its kids, of providing its health
care and for the welfare of the people. But if we put additional
burdens on them, they will not be able to payment to manage the country
in addition to the debt service.
We also, by the way, lose tremendous credibility with this donor's
conference that is coming up in just a week. If we put additional debt
upon the Iraqi people how can we go to the French, the Germans, the
Russians, and the Kuwaitis who are owed reparations of $100 billion and
say to them you have to forgive your debt, but we are not going to
forgive ours, we are going to put additional debt on this poor country.
This country has tremendous potential, but we have to help them to
reach it. And they cannot get there without us. No one has helped the
Iraqi people in the last 30 years. We believe that we have come to do
that, and I believe that we will.
The Marshall Plan model that you have heard about really did work in
Western Europe. It prevented the third world war. As my good friend and
colleague, the gentleman from Illinois, has said over and over, the
best way to prevent the third Iraqi war or sending American soldiers
back to the Middle East, is by investing in the future of

[[Page H9571]]

this country, in this really accomplished and thoughtful and
resourceful people who have not had the ability to express themselves
or their potential for the past 30 years.
So, in conclusion, I would just argue very strongly that we help
them. The American public with a good explanation will support us on
this. If we do not sell it, the American people will not support us. We
need to sell it to them, but it is a good investment in our future and
in the future of democracy in the world.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I have been in my office and trying to
find out what was going on. My understanding is that are we are at the
moment debating the Pence amendment, is that correct?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, as I understand the Pence amendment, that
Mr. Kolbe from Arizona has risen to reserve a parliamentary point of
order against this amendment, is that correct?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. DeFAZIO. So, basically, Mr. Chairman, we are debating an
amendment which is not going to be allowed so all of this debate is
meaningless. Is that correct, Mr. Chairman?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is not stating a parliamentary inquiry.
And at this moment in time the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) has
reserved a point of order. No one has yet made the point of order. So
the gentleman is incorrect.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, could I have a further inquiry. Do we
anticipate that there is some prospect that an actual vote might be
allowed on this amendment?
Mr. PENCE. Regular order.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is not clairvoyant, and the Chair will wait
for the points of order to be made.
Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the Chair.
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, might I inquire about the time remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) has 10\1/2\
minutes. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) has 9\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Rohrabacher), a long-time advocate of taxpayers'
interests on Capitol Hill.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Pence
amendment. We are talking about $18.6 billion of reconstruction funds.
Should it be a loan? Should it be a gift?
I have legislation, an amendment that I have submitted and have been
pushing for the last week, suggesting that all of that money should be
in the form of loans. We should not, when we have to borrow this money,
and we are already $400 billion in deficit spending this year, we have
got to borrow this money in order to give it to Iraq, which is going to
be rich with oil 10 years from now.

{time} 1815

And our children are going to have to pay that back and their
children will not? That is ridiculous. It is obscene.
The Pence amendment goes half way. If it passes, I will be supportive
of this amendment and withdraw my amendment. But if the Pence amendment
is struck down by a point of order, I would suggest my Republican
colleagues join me in supporting the Obey-Lantos amendment which
accomplishes the same goal of a 50/50 loan versus grant of the
reconstruction money, and I understand that that will not be struck
down by a point of order.
Let us get something done here today. The American people bear too
much of the burden. Let us think of them for a change.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola).
Mr. CHOCOLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise with great reluctance in opposition to this
amendment from my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Pence); but I feel it is important that I must speak out about what I
view is the right thing to do.
I am joined by many of my colleagues who have been to Iraq. Certainly
I cannot speak for every Member who has been to Iraq, but everyone that
I have spoken with has seen the hope and seen the optimism, seen the
possibilities that our support of the Iraqi people can bring, not only
to Iraq but to all Americans here at home.
We realize this is not only an investment in the Iraqi people; this
is an investment in the future generations of America. Because if we
can help the Iraqi people build a secular, strong, free government and
a viable economy, the ripple effects of freedom and democracy and
stability will reach our shores in great waves.
Mr. Chairman, I will say that we will be paid back, that we must make
this a grant; but we will be paid back in the dividends of freedom and
hope and stability and more security right here in our country. And I
think that is the most valuable dividend we could ever receive.
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Buyer), a veteran of the Persian Gulf War and a senior
member of the Indiana delegation of Congress.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, in response to all these monies should be in
the form of a loan, I disagree. Of the $87 billion, those monies which
go to pay for our military and our equipment, our military are not
mercenaries. The only cause for which they fight is that of freedom.
They do not fight for any bounty of their own. And that should not be.
With regard to reconstruction, I think many of my constituents in
Indiana supported the military ouster of Saddam Hussein. These very
same Hoosiers recognize that if you are willing to invest in the
success of the war, you also have to be willing to invest in the peace.
Our Hoosiers also know that we are in the middle of a jobless
recovery with growing domestic needs combined with a growing budget
deficit. This amendment attempts to recognize two very important
concerns: investment in the success of a new Iraq, a country with the
potential of great wealth, along with the concerns of our budget
deficits and growing domestic needs of our citizens. I believe the
Pence amendment reflects our culture and our heritage.
In an emergency over the years we were there, whether it was a
hurricane, fire, flood or even war. Just like the Red Cross or
Salvation Army we were always there to respond. And that is exactly
what this amendment tries to reflect. In the state of an emergency we
are there to help develop the new nation-state and as soon as they are
on their feet, then they have the ability to repay.
I think this is only another tool which we can use, our negotiators
can use with other countries at the donors conference with regard to
getting other countries to forgive these debts that were incurred
during Saddam Hussein's reign.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt), a distinguished member of the Committee on
Appropriations.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, the ``Book on Terror'' has a chapter in it
labeled ``Iraq.'' You cannot close the Book on Terror without closing
the chapter on Iraq.
We are there to make America safe. On September 11 we were thrust
into this war on terrorism. We realized then we cannot make every
airport, every water tower, every bus line, every shopping center in
America safe. We decided we had to find the root cause of terrorism and
sever the root. That is why we are in Iraq. We are finding the root
cause of terrorism and severing the root.
What we found 3 weeks ago when I went to Iraq and when we met with
the commander of the Marine Fourth Infantry Division, General Odeniero,
that in areas where we have rebuilt the community, where we have opened
the playgrounds, where we have opened the schools, where we have made
sure the hospitals were open, the water was running, the lights were
on, where they had a community, those are the areas where people of
Iraq have come forward and showed us where the bad guys were.
He told a story about two young kids who came up to a Humvee and
pointed

[[Page H9572]]

out a position where an ambush site was set up. They went and
investigated, and sure enough it was true. They learned a lot about
making our troops safe by seeing how the terrorist try to ambush our
troops.
Well, these kids did that because their playground was opened by
United States servicemen and -women. Their school was opened because of
our military; and they liked that idea and they wanted to preserve
that, so they came forward.
Up to this point we have been funding the opening of schools and
playgrounds and communities with money confiscated from the old regime.
Well, that money has run out, and now it is time for us to step
forward. And the reason we are doing this is because this is how we are
going to make our troops safe in Iraq. This is how we are going to
encourage the Iraqi people to come forward and point out the bad guys.
This is how we are going to have the ability to find the root causes
for terrorism in Iraq and sever the root.
I think it is important for the safety of our troops that we move
forward with this and do it as a grant instead of a loan. With all
respect for the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), the best thing to
do is to do the grants. We can get it done effectively without throwing
their economy into chaos. And the sooner we do that, the sooner we
bring our troops home.
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), one of the most tenacious Members of the
Congress.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
I asked to speak because I had to respond to so many things that I
have heard, especially those that suggest that this attempt, that this
amendment has to be defeated because it would send the wrong message if
we were to make a loan, that message being that we were losing the
moral high ground, that, in fact, we would not be showing the best side
of America.
Let me state, I believe we have the highest moral high ground
possible. And it was not bought even with the hundreds of billions of
dollars already spent on our military and on that war. It was built on
the over-300 dead that were a result of our desire to free that nation.
That is the high ground we stand on. It is high enough. We do not need
any more. And to suggest for a moment that asking them to pay just a
tiny bit of this cost in some way diminishes that moral high ground is
ridiculous.
We stand on the highest possible ground: the dead Americans that have
died and that are still dying and that probably will die. That is high
enough for me.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) has 6\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) has 7 minutes
remaining.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time. I rise in strong support of the base legislation and in
passionate opposition to the Pence amendment.
There is no one on this floor who has fought harder for the American
taxpayer than I have, and I defy anyone who makes a claim to the
contrary. And there is no one on this floor who has been to Iraq and
seen more than I have seen because I spent 3 days in Iraq in August.
But I think those who posit this as a taxpayer issue miss the point.
There is no one in this debate who is saying that out of concern for
our taxpayers we should not give aid to our military.
What they are saying is, rather, out of concern for the taxpayer, we
should make the nonmilitary side of this, the reconstruction side of
this, a loan. That makes a fundamental error. There is no nonmilitary
sides of this.
If you go to Iraq as I went to Iraq, if you talk to the troops on the
ground, if you talk to their commanders, they will tell you that they
must rebuild that country in order to obtain the cooperation of the
people there. The reconstruction money is to ensure the safety of our
soldiers. It is that essential, and it is that critical. And no one
less than our colleague, the Democrat from the opposite side, the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Marshall), who regrettably cannot be with
us in this debate tonight because he has suffered a health problem,
makes the point clear. When he went to Vietnam and he fought in a
similar war, he said the most important ally in a war like this are the
local people. You need them because they know where the bombs are. They
know where the improvised explosive devices are. And if they are on
your side, they will come to you and they will tell you. And then you
can go find those IEDs, and you can destroy them before they kill an
American soldier.
The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Marshall), the Democrat from Georgia,
has made that point on this floor and across this Nation. Let me make
it clear. There is no nonmilitary portion of this funding effort.
It is absolutely critical that we aid our soldiers by helping to
rebuild Iraq. And if we do not do that, make no mistake about it, we
are hurting our soldiers. Do not rely on my word; trust the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Marshall) who was on the ground in Vietnam and who
said, and it is working in Iraq today; our soldiers are being helped by
the Iraqi people because they believe in this cause.
Now, let us talk about the other issues that have been discussed
here, and that is, well, we should make it a loan because other
countries have debts owed to them and we will then be in a better
position to negotiate those debts away. That again misses the point.
The reality is if we make this a loan, if America who initiated this
effort to get rid of a brutal dictator now says we do not believe
enough in the cause of protecting our own soldiers and we do not
believe enough in the cause of the Iraqi people and of being a friend
to an ally in the Middle East to make a grant, to help them rebuild
this country so we will make it a loan, I have a flash for you: no
country in the world will make a grant of their own. They will instead
say, we want to be repaid our loan, and we will only go forward on a
loan basis. We will cripple the Iraqi economy. We will fail in Iraq.
I urge my colleagues in the strongest possible terms, if they care
about national defense, if they care about the safety of our soldiers,
oppose the Pence amendment and support the base bill.
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) has 7 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) has 3\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would be the first in line to say that the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) has a record unparalleled in the Congress of
defending taxpayers' interests. And I am a great admirer of his for
that reason. But the remarks of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Shadegg) seem to suggest that those of us who support the Pence
amendment would in some way refuse to rebuild and withhold funds. There
is no withholding.
The first 50 percent is a direct grant which secures the nation of
Iraq; the balance is a loan to this nation which possesses nearly $7
trillion in oil beneath its sand, its surface.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr.
Wamp), a distinguished member of the Committee on Appropriations,
without whose conceptual leadership and outspoken advocacy of this
concept early on, the Pence amendment would not have come into
existence.
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
The reason the Pence amendment was given an hour of debate by the
leadership is because this is the most important amendment I think
considered on the loan proposal because it is really the only one that
works. Even the amendment that is being considered in the other body
today has got problems in the technicalities of whether it could even
be done or carried out. And certainly we do not want to put U.S. tax
dollars in the World Bank where we do not even have control of our own
resources.
There is a workable proposal. I will say that the developments that
happened with the administration in the United Nations today certainly
show

[[Page H9573]]

me and prove to me that what the President told me last week when I
deferred to him and withdrew this amendment at the full Committee on
Appropriations is coming true, and that is we are convincing other
countries and the United Nations to engage in Iraq. There is great
agreement here among conservatives, among patriots and principled
people that we have to finish what we started.

{time} 1830

The only debate is whether or not we can secure the taxpayers,
interest.
Let me just say this. I think we will be back here in a few months
for more money. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) may be ahead of
his time, but we have got to secure this funding over time for the U.S.
taxpayers, and for that reason alone, this is an important debate to
speak out to secure the U.S. taxpayers in the future.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) as evidence that support for the
Pence amendment is truly bipartisan, my colleague and friend.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Indiana for bringing
this amendment and discussing a very important issue in tonight's
debate.
This was an amendment that I intended to offer myself because it made
sense, one-half grant, one-half loan. Grant money can go out the door
right away to keep continuity of the reconstruction effort which is
important, but the loan aspect is a fundamental recognition that the
Iraqis are sitting on a $7 trillion oil reserve, the second largest in
the world, but also, it may leverage our negotiator's position going
into Madrid next week that they have $10 billion to put on the table to
get other countries to give up the loans that they currently have. It
also addresses an issue in regard to whether fiscal responsibility is
going to seep into this debate.
We can continue the gifts and the grants to the Iraqi people but
continue leaving this tremendous legacy of debt for our children and
grandchildren to inherit, or we can try making a statement that it is
this generation's obligation to pay the ongoing obligations that we
have incurred, not our children and not our grandchildren. That is why
this amendment makes sense, and I commend my friend from Indiana for
raising this issue this evening.
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).
Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Pence) bringing this to the floor. All of us here support our troops.
To not ultimately vote for these dollars is, first of all, I think a
slap in the face to all of the families who have lost a loved one in
this battle for independence for Iraq, and it would do a disservice to
our principles of freedom for this country. And certainly for the $70
billion for our troops, all of us, I would think, stand united in
support.
But there is one fundamental question here as we strive to make Iraq
an independent and strong country and we help them out. Why not make
that $16 billion a loan to that country like many other countries in
the past have loaned?
I would also suggest, I would like to add something to the
gentleman's amendment and say, well, maybe more of this should be made
a grant, based on the condition that France, Germany, Russia, Saudi
Arabia, those countries that will stand first in line for repayment,
that when they forgive their loans to Iraq, then this loan can be
forgiven. That is what I think this is about.
Americans do not want to stand behind in line from an oil rich
country while they pay off other countries while we hold the bag.
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire about the time remaining?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Pence) has 3 minutes remaining. The gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, with an abundance of riches of speakers for
the Pence amendment today, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, if we go out and we
go back to our Districts and talk to the constituents, what they are
saying is while our school districts have to apply for loans to build
schools, it is only fair that the people of Iraq will eventually pay
back to the American public part of this as a loan. The Pence amendment
says grant first, loan next.
We have to remember that this is a very oil rich country, and they
will someday be able to repay us. I think we owe it to our taxpayers to
show some responsibility and some accountability here and to support
the Pence amendment. Remember, loan second, grant first.
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, it is a privilege for me to yield for the
purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Hulshof).
(Mr. HULSHOF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, it has often been said that freedom is never free.
Deposing the tyrannical regime of Saddam Hussein has indeed proved
costly to America in terms of both lives and treasure. While we have
joined with the Iraqi people to win their freedom, much remains to be
done in order to secure that freedom for generations to come.
This debate is of similar gravity as that of last October, when this
Congress authorized the use of force to enforce all relevant U.N.
resolutions on Iraq. Today, we debate not the future war, but the
future peace of a region.
After much deliberation, I find that the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Indiana achieves the best balance between our
obligations in Iraq as well as the obligation of the Iraqi people to
play a prominent role in securing their own future. The parallel system
of grants and loans would first build the foundations for a
democratically elected government in Iraq. This new government would
then find a willing partner in the United States to help finance needed
investments in infrastructure and security. Democracy is not a
spectator sport, and the Iraqi people must take the leading role to
secure the peace for the long-term.
While I am well aware that this amendment might be ruled out of order
on parliamentary grounds, it represents the best policy for our nation
and for the Iraqi people. That said, failure in Iraq is simply not an
option. It is with serious reservations that I will support this
supplemental without the inclusion of the Pence amendment. As such, I
urge the Administration to re-examine loans as a means of financing the
reconstruction of Iraq.
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler), a colleague and friend and
stalwart conservative.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana, my
colleague, for yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, in short, we are talking a lot today about values, a
very ambiguous time, from time to time, but in fact, Mr. Chairman, with
the blood, sweat and tears of our men and women in uniform, they have
bought the freedom of the Iraqi people.
If the Iraqi people do not learn that one invaluable lesson of our
American values, then we can throw hundreds of billions of dollars into
the restructuring of their country. That is why I think the Pence
amendment is a very logical, reasonable, rational approach to the
funding of the reconstruction of that country.
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I am honored to yield 30 seconds to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), demonstrating the bipartisan
support for this concept.
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from Indiana for
this amendment. It may be ruled out of order, but then the real debate
will start on the Obey-Lantos amendment which will achieve the same
effect. I echo the words of my colleague from California (Mr.
Rohrabacher) that that is the key debate for us, to say at least half
loan, half gift. As a matter of fact, it is a $9 billion loan on an $87
billion bill. Only 10 percent of the money would be a loan, half of the
$18 billion that is going to rebuild Iraq.
Secondly, let us remember that Iraqi school children will help our
troops, whether there is a promissory note in the American Treasury or
not. The schools will be open either way.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Beauprez).

[[Page H9574]]

Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Chairman, with some reluctance I rise in opposition
to my friend the gentleman from Indiana's (Mr. Pence) amendment. The
gentleman knows that. We spoke about this. I considered it very
heavily, but here is where I come down in opposition.
I think we have to go back to thinking about why we got here, how we
got here. We got here for the sake of freedom, for the sake of the
freedom of our own people. I go back to the morning of September 11 in
my own memory, and we have to remind ourselves that we were attacked.
This was an act of war, and we went to war for the sake of freedom.
Those that attacked us are in multiple places around the world,
certainly not the nation of Iraq, but the people in power in Iraq were
part of those, as the President put it, supporting terror, you are
either with us or you are against us.
I used to be a banker. I was never able to walk up and down the
streets of my communities and force people to sign loan documents: This
is the amount that I force you to borrow, and these are the terms and
conditions that I am going to force you to repay me on. It does not
work that way.
What we are about in this is about freedom, and in this very building
that we have the privilege of serving in, there were people once that
served here for the sake of freedom who said they would pledge their
lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor for the sake of freedom.
We have the same obligation. They did not say this is the price tag,
these are the terms and I expect a check back. We cannot force this
upon the people of Iraq. We have to be willing to stand up and pay the
price, the price of freedom.
I would love to go home for political reasons and say, oh, we loaned
the money, we are going to get a check back. That is not the way it
works when the obligation is freedom, an ideal that we pledge our
lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor for.
So with great reluctance, I am in opposition to the gentleman from
Indiana's (Mr. Pence) amendment, but I know that we are together in
spirit in the overall objective to win this war on terror.
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.
I am deeply humbled by the level of support and utterances of respect
even from those who disagree with the Pence amendment tonight, and I
close tonight urging my colleagues to give due consideration to the
Pence amendment. As the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) said so
eloquently, it is the only solution that will work, that will balance
the needs of the American taxpayers and the needs of a nation, nation
of Iraq, and it does not trouble itself, Mr. Chairman, with the choice
between should we make the reconstruction dollars a grant or should we
make them a loan.
The Pence amendment is the reasonable middle ground that says that we
will speed the first 50 percent of resources urgently to the needs on
the ground in Iraq, securing that nation for the blessings of liberty
for themselves and their posterity, but in the balance we will
recognize, as millions of Americans do, that this is an oil rich
nation, producing 2 million barrels of oil a day, Mr. Chairman, and by
the middle of next year their own foreign minister projects 3.5 million
barrels a day with revenues in the tens of billions of dollars, a truly
creditworthy nation and a nation with whom we should enter into a
creditor and debtor relationship.
A partnership is the very core of the Pence amendment between the
American people and the people of Iraq, a partnership in their civil
society and future.
I urge its consideration. I urge its passage.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by thanking the gentleman from Indiana
(Mr. Pence) for bringing this amendment because I think the debate here
has been an important debate and a very worthy debate of this House.
I also want to commend him and many others who have spoken for their
attention to the fiscal responsibility of this body. I think all of us
feel very strongly about the need for us to exercise fiscal caution,
fiscal prudence when American taxpayer dollars are at stake here. I
certainly feel very strongly that way myself.
I have never said that I did not believe that in the future that
loans could be made available in Iraq, that indeed, in fact, that I
believe in the year 2005 in the fiscal year 2005 that moneys there
probably should be made available as loans. By then I expect we will
have a constituted legal government in the country, but I think, at
this moment, it would be the wrong approach, it would be the wrong
thing to do. So I would say, Mr. Chairman, this is simply premature to
be talking about loans at this very moment.
The last point, Mr. Chairman, I would like to make is in response to
what many have said: Listen to what people are telling you back in your
districts. I think we should listen to what people are telling us back
in our districts, but this is also about leadership. It was about
leadership when we said yes to the President when we gave him the
authority to take action, military action in Iraq. We stood up and took
that kind of action even though there was opposition at home.
So, Mr. Chairman, this is about leadership, and I think we, as
Members of this body, have a responsibility to exercise leadership.
With that, Mr. Chairman, under my reservation, I would make a point of
order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law
and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill, and, therefore,
violates clause two 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.''
The amendment, in item four, imposes additional duties. I ask for a
ruling.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my support for the
Pence amendment to the supplemental appropriations bill.
Representative Pence has offered a reasonable amendment with a
balanced approach to financing post-war operations in Iraq. This
approach is fiscally responsible, as it withholds fifty percent of
funding until certain conditions are met. It encourages Iraq to
establish a democratically-elected government. It requires that fifty
percent of funds be depleted before the remaining fifty percent may be
tapped. And it requires the administration to report to the House and
Senate on the use and success of funding dispersed of the initial fifty
percent.
I support the President and his initiative in the rebuilding of Iraq,
and I also believe that we must do it in a balanced manner. A
combination of loans and grants is in the best interest of the American
taxpayer, and also in bringing other nations to the table in the
rebuilding efforts of Iraq.
Mr. Chairman, I support the supplemental appropriations bill because
it is an investment. We must build on the accomplishments we have made
in Iraq and help bring forth a democratic way of life for the Iraqi
people.
Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I fully support the
supplemental for the conflict in Iraq and would wholeheartedly have
voted in favor of the Pence amendment to grant half the funds for
reconstruction and loan the balance once an Iraqi government was in
place next year. Unfortunately this amendment was ruled out of order. I
thank the gentleman from Indiana for his efforts.
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my support for the
Pence amendment to H.R. 3289, the Supplemental Appropriations Act for
FY 2004. Representative Pence's amendment would make the first 50
percent of Iraq Reconstruction funding available immediately as a
grant, and would prioritize that money for the emergency purposes of
security, electric sector infrastructure, oil infrastructure, public
works, water resources, and transportation and telecommunication
infrastructures. The balance of the funding would be made available in
the form of loans from the United States Government, under terms
determined by the President, once a democratically elected government
has been established in Iraq and certified by the Administration. I
support the goals of Mr. Pence's amendment, and am disappointed that it
will not be ruled in order.

Point of Order

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe)
make a point of order on the amendment?
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I think I have made my point of order. I
believe that this does impose additional duties.

[[Page H9575]]

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does any other Member wish to be heard on
the point of order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that this amendment includes language imparting
direction. The amendment, therefore, constitutes legislation in
violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not in order.
It is now in order to consider an amendment by the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Amendment Offered by Mr. Obey

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Obey:
Page 51, after line 11, insert the following new section:
Sec. 3007. (a) Limitation.--None of the funds made
available in this Act under the heading ``Iraq Relief and
Reconstruction Fund'' may be provided in a form other than
loans.
(b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply with respect
to the obligation of the initial 50 percent of the funds
referred to in such subsection.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
today, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and a Member opposed
each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

{time} 1845

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 6 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me say that I have a great deal of
respect for the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe). He is standing here
tonight doing his duty. That is what we are supposed to do. And even
though I disagree with his position, we ought to be able to debate
these issues. I think the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) should
have been able to debate and get a vote on his amendment, and I am
happy that we have figured out a way to accomplish the same thing. I
would invite the support of those gentlemen who supported the previous
amendment.
I think often we have in this place what I would call compulsive
statesmanship, a tendency for people to want to do the right thing so
badly that they sometimes lean overboard in taking into consideration
the interests of other countries and in the process miss opportunities
to take into account the interests of our own. I am not so afflicted,
at least not on this issue.
I want to make clear I am an internationalist. I believe that it
would be irresponsible for us to convert this entire package to loans.
I believe that the administration is going to need some money available
immediately in order to transact the business associated with trying to
restart the Iraqi economy and rebuild the Iraqi society. But I think we
have to get past the cliches and past the stereotypes and get into the
actual details, into the specifics in assessing our obligation.
What this amendment does, very simply, is to, within the rules of the
House, provide that, of the $18.6 billion in the bill available for
reconstruction purposes in Iraq, that half of that be provided as a
loan. We wanted to also provide that that half would run through the
World Bank so that we could specifically require matching by other
countries and then use the bank's ability to capitalize in order to
expand the amount of aid available in Iraq by a factor of four. We
cannot, under the House rules, do that directly; but this amount would
still allow the administration to do that. They could still negotiate
an international fund. Second, they could still run it through the
World Bank with that matching requirement.
Now, I would simply like to say that I know that there are some
people who will look at this in stereotypical fashion and assume that
because the United States is a wealthy country and Iraq is not, (they
are not poor, they are a middle income country) but I think that they
will assume that because we are wealthy and Iraq is not, that somehow
it is unfair for us to require any portion of this to come back as
loans. The reason that people say that we cannot do this to Iraq is
because they say Iraq has huge foreign debts. I want to point out that
foreign debts cannot be paid off with domestic production. So it is
misleading to assume that because the United States is a rich country
and Iraq is a somewhat poorer country that we are in a better position
to pay off foreign debts than they are. We are not.
This country has run such large trade deficits for so long, and we
are going to be running such huge trade deficits in the future, that
our country has no realistic possibility anytime in the next decade to
be paying off any significant portion of our own foreign debt. And the
only way foreign debt can be paid off is by running trade surpluses. So
what that means is that the United States' foreign debt on a per capita
basis roughly equals Iraq's, and next year Iraq's will probably be
somewhat smaller than ours.
The fact is that because Iraq has a long-term prospect of multi-
billion dollar benefits from the oil they have in the ground, it in
fact means that the United States has less of an ability to pay off
foreign debt in the future than Iraq does. And that is why I think it
is absolutely legitimate to consider requiring 50 percent of the money
that we spend in this reconstruction operation to be provided in the
form of loans.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and I are offering this
amendment. There are a lot of other Members who I know wanted to do it.
I know the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick) also has
demonstrated a great deal of leadership in this. But what we are trying
to do is to provide a way to deliver more assistance on the ground for
Iraq at less burden to our taxpayers.
For all the reasons cited by all of the gentlemen who supported the
previous amendment, Mr. Chairman, I would urge an ``aye'' vote on this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to
the amendment, and I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Weldon), who has been a leader in national security issues and
knows the issues in Iraq very well.
(Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished
chairman of the subcommittee for his leadership, and I look forward to
this debate.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to make one simple point. From the period of
time in the 1990s, starting with President Bush, Sr., and continuing
through President Clinton, our troops were deployed 149 times around
the world. Many of these deployments were considered minor deployments.
But of the 149 deployments that President Clinton and President Bush
got us into, President Bush, Sr., 38 were considered major deployments.
One of those deployments, which President Bush, Sr. got us into, was
Desert Storm. And he went out, with no requirement legislatively by
this body, and was able to bring in over $50 billion of reimbursements
from our allies after Desert Storm was over. There was no mandate.
There was no loan. He did it.
The other 37 deployments, Mr. Chairman, which President Clinton got
us into, which includes Macedonia, East Timor, Somalia, Haiti,
Colombia, Kosovo, Bosnia, all of those were paid for after the fact.
The President inserted the troops in harm's way, and we were left to
foot the bill.
Now, what was the cost of that? Mr. Chairman, those deployments cost
well in excess of what we are talking about today. In fact, we passed,
under the Republican leadership, 11 emergency supplementals funding
President Clinton's deployments after the fact. Eleven. Eleven
emergency supplementals. And we cut the defense budget by $43 billion
to put that money into those deployments.
All of those supplementals and those cuts in defense spending, which
in a bipartisan way we replaced, were to fund what kinds of activities,
Mr. Chairman? Well, let us see. We subsidized the troops for other
countries, we paid for OSCE observers, we built hundreds of new
schools, we trained police departments in these countries, we bought
fire engines and sent the fire engines overseas, and we started small
businesses. All of those expenditures were funded by the Republican
Congress in support of a Democrat President who had gotten us into 37
major deployments.
There was no loan. There was no situation where my colleagues on the
other side or this side stood up and said, well, Macedonia should pay
us back, Colombia should pay us back, or East Timor

[[Page H9576]]

should pay us back, or Bosnia, where we have spent $25 billion and
where we were told we would be out of by Christmas of 1996. None of
that money was offered in the form of a loan. All of that came out of
the taxpayers' pockets.
So, Mr. Chairman, I do not understand how all of a sudden, because
the President does a legitimate thing, the honorable thing, and tells
us up front how much it is going to cost to do the same things we
funded in the entire period of the 1990s, how we can say that somehow
this is different.
Do I hope that President Bush will negotiate our allies reimbursing
us? Absolutely. I hope he will do what his father did in 1991 and what
President Clinton did not do in those other 37 deployments. It should
not be a mandate. We should fund the President's request and it should
be bipartisan, and the Democrats and Republicans in this body and the
other body should come together and do what we did time and again in
paying for President Clinton's deployments. We should fund this
provision, we should support the base bill, and we should oppose the
Obey amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), who is a cosponsor of the
amendment.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my distinguished friend for
yielding me this time. I am very pleased that he and I are jointly
sponsoring this amendment.
I would like all of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to note
that the Obey-Lantos amendment is one amendment on which we will get a
vote, and all of our colleagues who supported the Pence amendment just
a few minutes ago should be supporting this amendment and will be able
to vote on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues know, I have been a strong supporter
of regime change in Iraq. I am convinced that the removal of Saddam
Hussein is in the interest of the people of Iraq, the people of the
region, and the people of the United States. And I believe the day when
a civilized regime is in place, in a stable Iraq, is not far off.
This supplemental comes in two parts. I am, of course, totally
committed to all of the funds in this bill for the safety and security
of the brave men and women of our armed services. Since the
reconstruction component of this bill is indispensable to achieving our
goal of seeing Iraq become a functioning and independent society, I
also support the reconstruction portion of the supplemental, with one
key modification. Let me explain.
Iraq is potentially one of the wealthiest nations on this planet. The
oil wealth of Iraq is estimated at $7 trillion. My colleagues, that is
seven thousand billion dollars. I find it absurd, Mr. Chairman, and so
do my constituents, that our taxpayers should fund as a grant necessary
infrastructure improvements in Iraq. The stream of Iraq's oil revenue
is limited at the moment, but in a few years it will be abundant. I
find no reason on Earth why the American people should grant this soon-
to-be wealthy nation some $18.6 billion for improvements of its
infrastructure.
I want to address, Mr. Chairman, the argument that Iraq's debt burden
precludes further loans. Let me deal with this phony argument head on.
Iraq's debt is of two types: some $50 billion is owed to Saudi Arabia
and Kuwait. Neither of these countries would be in existence today if
we and our allies had not waged the first Gulf War. Their security has
been immeasurably increased as a result of our recent military actions
against Saddam Hussein. I fully expect that both of those countries
will cancel Iraq's debt to them.
Mr. Chairman, the balance of Iraq's debt was incurred for a vast
armament procurement program and a nauseating chain of Saddam's
presidential palaces which dot the landscape along the Tigris and
Euphrates rivers like gaudy and ostentatious and conspicuous versions
of Las Vegas hotels.

{time} 1900

The countries and companies which were pumping billions to build up
Saddam Hussein's military might and his ego should now show humility
and remorse and eagerly cancel Iraq's debts. Today, Mr. Chairman, the
United Nations Security Council adopted a resolution which explodes the
flimsy argument that there is no Iraqi Government that can commit to
loans. The Security Council adopted a resolution which declares that
the Iraqi Governing Council, and I quote, embodies the sovereignty of
the State of Iraq.
This U.N. Security Council resolution urges the World Bank and other
international institutions, and I quote again, to take immediate steps
to provide their full range of loans and other financial assistance to
Iraq working with the Governing Council and appropriate Iraqi
ministries.
If the Security Council believes that the World Bank can make loans
to Iraq, then I believe this administration will find a way to do so as
well.
Mr. Chairman, it would be a mistake, particularly at a time when our
own economic recovery is still so feeble, to ask the American people to
shoulder the financial obligations that, by right, should devolve to
the people of Iraq who, in the foreseeable future, will be more than
capable of bearing it. It is obvious, Mr. Chairman, that we have made a
national commitment to building a stable and civilized Middle East. I
support such a goal. But let us not foist the cost of this struggle
entirely onto the backs of the next generation of Americans. That is
the result if we adopt the administration's all-grants approach.
For the sake of fairness, good sense and for the sake of the American
taxpayer, I urge all of our colleagues to support the Obey-Lantos
amendment.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker), vice chairman of
the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related
Programs.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, let me say at the outset that I have the
utmost respect for the previous speaker on the floor this evening. He
has been a champion throughout his career for freedom and for regime
change in this particular instance, and I salute him for that, although
I disagree with the amendment that he has offered.
The gentleman from California stated that the issue concerning
whether there is a government which can indeed enter into a loan
agreement, he considered to be flimsy. I would submit to Members of the
House, Mr. Chairman, that that issue has certainly been called into
question and is far from settled at this point. The fact remains that a
loan can be made only with a binding agreement between an agency of the
U.S. Government and a willing borrower with the authority to commit the
Iraqi people to repayment. I question whether a binding commitment can
be undertaken by the Iraqi Governing Council or by Ambassador Bremer on
Iraq's behalf. Certainly members of the administration who have brought
this to our attention are not at all convinced that a loan can even be
effected in a binding way.
But, Mr. Chairman, beside this technical point, let me make a couple
of policy arguments as to why I oppose the amendment and why I support
the President in his effort to keep this a grant package. Iraq already
has well over $100 billion in outstanding debt. Obviously, we are
working to get this debt restructured. But still, the nation will be
left with enormous obligations for past borrowing. Creating a new U.S.
debt will dampen our efforts to get others to forgive debt. We have
seen what has happened in the past few days, Mr. Chairman. Secretary
Powell and others are going to Madrid to get donors to contribute to
the reconstructing of Iraq. Japan is talking about contributing a
substantial amount of money, it may be $1.5 billion, in grants. We are
hoping that it will more closely approach the figure of $5 billion in
grants. If we were to enter into a policy of loans even for a portion
of this, then the Madrid conference would be changed to a loaners
conference rather than a donors conference, and we would lose a great
opportunity.
Why is Japan considering doing this? They are considering doing this
in their national interest. It is in their interest just as it is in
the interest of the United States taxpayers to have a stable, peaceful,
democratic and economically viable Iraq. I think we are going to
approve this money, Mr. Chairman, and I think we will get our
repayment. We are going to be repaid in an invaluable way. By getting
water, power and infrastructure reestablished in Iraq, we

[[Page H9577]]

will help to create a peaceful, stable and democratic Iraq government
and a more secure America, and it is hard, Mr. Chairman, to put a price
tag on that.
The cost of the Marshall Plan was $13 billion in 1948, or some 5
percent of our gross domestic product. This entire package in front of
us, reconstruction for Iraq and Afghanistan, represents only one-fifth
of 1 percent of our GDP. The reality is that we are trying to rebuild
an Iraq and an Iraqi economy that has suffered from decades of a
corrupt Saddam Hussein regime. We must achieve peace in Iraq. We cannot
allow Iraq to become a failed state or to disintegrate into several
states that foment terrorism and instability.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
Mr. MENENDEZ. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for
his work and also the gentleman from California and rise to support
their amendment.
Mr. Chairman, the question before us is whether we give the President
a blank check for $86 billion or whether we fashion a bill that
promotes the best interests both of our troops and the American people.
I for one do not intend to write a blank check for a plan that just
came here yesterday with no exit strategy, no clear link to this
supplemental and no detailed plan after January of this coming year. I
do not intend to send $18.6 billion in grants to a country that has the
second largest oil reserve in the world valued at over $7 trillion.
Why should we not expect Iraq to pay back some of this money? It is
not a poor country, and it will not be a poor country. And for all of
my friends who have been deficit hawks, you are just going to add
another $18.6 billion to this year's deficit, estimated at over $480
billion. We have a responsibility to the American people to demand an
Iraq package that will not in essence bankrupt future generations. That
is why the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), his package along
with my colleague the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations
is the appropriate vehicle, a loan package. They can and should pay
back reconstruction costs with future oil revenues. Period.
Finally, this administration has failed to present us with a
financially responsible plan for reconstruction in Iraq. Their Iraq
request would have invested over $255 per person on electricity in
Iraq, when we only spend 71 cents per person in the United States on
our own failing electricity grid. Their request would have spent over
$38 per person in Iraq for medical infrastructure while we spend about
$3.30 per person in the United States. The administration's total
request of $87 billion is more than all 50 States combined would need
to make up for budget shortfalls in 2004. Their total request is more
than the Federal Government hopes to spend next year on elementary and
secondary education and on homeland security combined. Combined.
This is clearly not the way that the American people want to see us
proceed. They understand that maybe that there are those things that we
have to make investments in, but that should be paid back. Our troops
should not be held hostage to an outright grant for Iraq's
reconstruction, and that is why this amendment should pass. Let us loan
the money to Iraq, let us help rebuild it, but let us not mortgage the
future of the next generation of Americans.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).
Ms. HART. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for giving
me the opportunity to state my position on this issue. In fact, it is
the position of a large number of people in the United States. I have
heard positive reinforcement from my constituency. I stand in support
of the supplemental and opposed to the amendment. $67 billion for our
troops, $19 billion for reconstruction should be a grant. This is
simply the right thing for us to do.
This Congress voted to support the President and our military action
in Iraq. The United States does as it usually does and took the lead in
freeing the Iraqi people from a tyrannical dictator, and we have
succeeded. The job is not complete. We cannot say we did half the job
that we decided to do and then ask someone else to pay us to finish the
job. We removed Iraq from the list of countries supporting terrorism.
We are currently in a struggle to rebuild that country, to help the
good people of Iraq to take back their country. Our military, together
with our State Department, together with dedicated Iraqis are working
together to defeat the remnants of Hussein's regime and to move toward
a better future. Already, schools have opened, businesses are opening.
People are going back to their lives. They have a hopeful future. They
are making great progress.
Last Saturday in Butler County, Pennsylvania, I was the speaker at a
dinner. I spoke of this issue. I spoke of the controversy that we have
regarding whether or not that $19 billion should be a loan. I explained
that it is our responsibility as we have taken the lead, and we here in
Congress are leaders. It is our responsibility to talk to our
constituents, to discuss with them why we went in, how we have
succeeded and what we need to do to finish the job. This $19 billion is
what we need to do that. I knew that the talk shows and some of my
colleagues were opposed to this. Yet, I stood in front of this group
and asked them what they thought. They support this. This is the right
thing to do. Sure they are concerned, but their feedback was positive.
This is an investment in peace. This is an investment in the defeat of
terror. This is an investment in the independence of a too-long
terrorized nation and a very strong and proud people. And it is an
investment in the return of our troops, and that is key. This is part
of the whole project.
If we offer this only as a loan, then we are failing our own
military. I stand here in support of the grant. We should help Iraq to
rebuild as we have in history, as the United States has chosen to be
involved and support freedom. We need to stand strong and support the
grant for the rebuilding of Iraq.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Without
objection, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker) will control the
time in opposition.
There was no objection.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), a subcommittee
chairman.
(Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, those who do not learn from the mistakes of
history are doomed to repeat these mistakes. After World War I, we had
the Versailles Treaty. It was punitive. It spawned resentment in
Germany. The result was World War II. You need only to read William
Shirer's book ``The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich'' to realize that
the punitive approach to a vanquished foe breeds the poverty and
resentment that make people easily led by a demagogue.

{time} 1915

Fifty million people died throughout the world because of the mistake
of the Versailles treaty at the end of World War I. President Truman
and Secretary of State George Marshall had the wisdom and the foresight
to not repeat the tragedy of Versailles, and the result was a rebuilt
Europe that has given us 50 years of peace.
President Bush, in his policy on this, recognizes that if we want to
build a stable, peaceful world where people can enjoy the fruits of
freedom that we too have to be a generous people. We too have to follow
the pattern of the Marshall Plan that was so effective at the end of
World War II. The Iraqi people are already burdened with $200 billion
worth of debt. Let us not try to add to that and only spawn the same
resentments that generated World War II.
I think we have an opportunity, and President Bush recognizes that,
to build a stable Middle East that can be our legacy to the generations
that follow us just as we had the legacy of President Truman and
Secretary of State George Marshall that gave us the peace in Europe and
avoided the mistake of Versailles.
I urge the rejection of this amendment. I urge the support of the
President's position. I think it serves not

[[Page H9578]]

only the people of Iraq, but it serves the best interests of the people
of the United States of America.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me this
time.
I come out to speak against this amendment. In the global war on
terror, Iraq is a major theater of conflict. We chose to take the war
to the terrorists, where they live, where they seek refuge, and not
allow them to again gather strength and the resources to attack us in
the United States. We removed Saddam Hussein's regime. But the job is
only partially complete. We must finish our duty by securing and
stabilizing Iraq. This rebuilding effort cannot be done on the cheap.
It is an investment in the safety and the security of the United States
and its allies. It is a long-term investment. Our troops must have the
resources necessary to win the war on terror.
This supplemental will enable the American-led coalition the
opportunity to leave Iraq under the stable and secure control of the
Iraqi people. It will also assist the Iraqi people in rebuilding their
country. While Saddam Hussein built dozens of palaces for himself and
his family and funded the accumulation of weapons and a massive
military buildup, he allowed the infrastructure such as the water and
sewer systems and electrical grid to crumble. As a result, Iraq is more
than $100 billion in debt and unable to tap the full potential of its
resources. As Iraq rebuilds its economy and infrastructure, it will
assume more of the costs on its own. The supplemental will provide an
important bridge, a bridge that provides the resources necessary to
continue rebuilding Iraq and the opportunity to create jobs for Iraqis.
The funding cannot be a loan to be paid back with oil revenue, or it
will send the message to the world that we removed Saddam Hussein's
regime for Iraq's oil. That is not why we did it. We did it to build a
model of representative government and freedom and democracy for the
rest of the Middle East and the rest of the world to see.
It is important that the United States demonstrate its commitment by
passing the supplemental before a donor conference next week. The
Coalition is making great progress and has avoided many pitfalls, and
it needs funding to complete its job. To date, most major Iraqi cities
and most towns have municipal councils and the Iraqi Governing Council
has appointed a cabinet. An independent Iraqi Central Bank has been
established and a new currency announced. Five thousand small
businesses have been opened since the liberation, and foreign banks are
competing to get into Iraq. Virtually all major hospitals and
universities have been reopened and hundreds of schools, until a few
months ago used as weapons caches, have been rebuilt and are ready for
the fall semester.
This does not mean that all is well in Iraq. I have been to Iraq
twice during the last 2\1/2\ months. We know the dangers that our
troops face there each and every day. It is a dangerous place. We are
making progress. We need to pass this supplemental and continue the
good work that is going on.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Without
objection, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) will control the
time.
There was no objection.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
(Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, over the last few weeks, the issue of loans
versus grants has dominated the debate on this supplemental. On the one
side we see the administration and some Members of Congress arguing
that increasing Iraq's loan burden would hobble its recovery and delay
its transformation to a stable democracy. They also look to next week's
donor conference in Madrid and worry that the United States move to
assist Iraq using loans rather than grants would lead to similar
approaches from other international donors, thus hindering Iraqi
recovery further.
On the other side, I have talked to many of my colleagues who feel,
and they feel on behalf of their districts, that their districts would
benefit tremendously from even a small portion of that $87 billion.
They believe that we are prepared to give a bonanza to a country with
the second largest oil reserve in the world, and they say, should this
resource-rich country not pay us back? We need this money as much as
they do, for our hospitals, our schools, our neighborhoods.
The Obey-Lantos amendment is an attempt to compromise by providing
half of the fund through grants and the other half through loans.
The reason I strongly support this concept is we have seen reports in
the last few weeks that only approximately $6 billion can be spent this
year. We know because we have gotten all kinds of reports, some from
the World Bank, some from others, that the total bill could be upwards
of $25 billion, $50 billion in the long run; but this year we have been
told by the World Bank that they estimate we cannot spend more than $6
billion.
I want to make it clear that in committee I supported an approach
that would provide the loans through the World Bank; and I continue to
believe that this is the best approach, allowing the United States to
ask for matching funds from other countries and enabling the bank to
leverage as much as four times the current funds available for Iraq
reconstruction. Unfortunately, this amendment does not use the bank. It
does not do so because it was disallowed in the rules process from
constructing the amendment in that way. The Obey-Lantos proposal to
give half of the reconstruction money in grants and the other half in
loans, in my judgment, is still a good approach, even though I would
have preferred the World Bank as the vehicle.
I believe this will help Iraq, we will be able to provide the money
that is needed for reconstruction, and it will also save the United
States taxpayers from the entire burden of reconstruction.
The Obey-Lantos approach, in my judgment, is the right one. I am
going to support it, and I urge my colleagues to support it as well.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for
yielding me this time.
I rise in strong support of the Obey-Lantos amendment. The issue here
is bringing these young men and women home from Iraq when their mission
is done as quickly as possible, as safely as possible, as many of them
as possible. And that requires the job of reconstructing Iraq to get
done.
But the issue of whether there will be reconstruction is not a grant
versus a loan. It is who is going to borrow the money to finish the
reconstruction. The choice before us is whether the Iraqi people borrow
the money and at the right time repay that money out of the proceeds
from their $7 trillion worth of oil assets or whether the children of
the United States repay the loan. The question is not a grant versus a
loan. It is a loan owed by the citizens of Iraq or a loan owed by the
citizens of the United States.
This proposal takes the right approach. It says when the time is
right, when the reconstruction will justify such an expenditure, this
reconstruction should be in a loan taken out by the Iraqi people. It is
the right way to bring the young men and women home safely from Iraq.
I urge my colleagues, most especially those who spoke in favor of the
earlier amendment by the gentleman from Indiana, to vote ``yes'' on the
Obey-Lantos amendment.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Obey-
Lantos amendment, and very few times has anyone ever heard me say those
words. And let me note that I will be voting for the $87 billion
supplemental bill, whichever form the $18.6 billion reconstruction part
of the package takes. However, the fairest way to the American people
is to make sure that we do not just give away money that could be
repaid to us once Iraq gets back on its feet.
Again, the former speaker said it right. This is whether it is going
to be

[[Page H9579]]

a loan from our children and repaid by our children or repaid by the
Iraqi children once Iraq is on its feet and the wealthiest oil
producing country in the world. There is no reason to burden Americans
any further. They have paid their debt and met their responsibility
with treasure and blood. For Pete's sake, let us think about them and
not just think about what is best for the world. Lending the money will
get the job done, and they can repay it. That is what it is all about.
Anyone who spoke for the Pence amendment should be supporting the Obey-
Lantos amendment.
I will be withdrawing my amendment in favor of the Obey-Lantos
amendment.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick), a member of our committee.
(Ms. KILPATRICK asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from New York
for yielding me this time.
I too rise to support the Obey-Lantos amendment. It is a good
amendment. We do need to make sure that we do what is necessary here,
and I believe this amendment is a step in the right direction.
If we do the 50/50 separation now, it gives us a chance to take a
look at it and also allows Iraq, which must become a sovereign nation,
time so that they can use that $2 trillion worth of oil reserves they
have to pay back some of the money that we are now lending and giving
to them. It is the proper way to go.
I too have an amendment that I will withdraw and support this Obey-
Lantos amendment. We had a good amendment in committee. It did not seem
to make its way to the House floor, but this is a good amendment, and I
hope that our colleagues would support it.
Iraq is not a poor country. They do have the wherewithal to pay the
resources back. We right now need our own schools built better. We need
our own roads. We need our judiciary system better financed and funded.
So the very same things that we are helping Iraq with, we have got to
do it for our own country. This will allow us to do some of that and to
recoup some of the moneys that we are giving to Iraq.
As the Members know, this $87 billion builds Iraq better than Iraq
was built before. We do have some responsibility there. We must take
care of our troops. We must see that they get what they need.
So, Mr. Chairman, this is a good amendment. I rise to withdraw my own
amendment and to support the Obey-Lantos amendment and ask that the
entire Congress follow.

{time} 1930

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach).
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, this spring I voted against the war in Iraq
for a number of reasons. Principally I was concerned that intervention
would prove counterproductive. But all of us must recognize that both
Houses of Congress by majority vote authorized this action. Now we,
collectively, have to bear the consequences of a constitutionally-
sanctioned decision. We have no choice but to work together to get out
of the predicament in which we have put ourselves.
It may have been wrong to initiate war, but once American Armed
Forces defeated Saddam's army and occupied Iraq, we became obligated to
ensure that a more progressive kind of Iraqi society is created.
Prior to the war, the cost of conflict was grossly underestimated by
the administration. While, implicitly, cost implications were part and
parcel of the decision some of us made against the war in the first
place, they are no longer as credible a basis for denying American
responsibility today. Great power, when it is unleashed, entails
responsibility for actions contemplated and uncontemplated.
I have grave concern about our inability to get Security Council
sanction for the original intervention; also for a reluctance to allow
greater internationalization of responsibility today.
Nevertheless, the endorsement by the Security Council this afternoon
of a resolution legitimizing the Coalition Provisional Authority and
calling for a timetable for the drafting of a new Iraqi constitution
has to be recognized as a positive step. The administration would be
well-advised to build on this new international consensus, so
reluctantly arrived at, to expedite the timetable for turning over the
powers of government to the Iraqi people, and, in the meantime, to
press for greater international responsibility and burden-sharing.
Nothing could be worse for world order and for our budget than a
long-term, largely solo American entanglement in Iraq. Hence, votes
tonight should not be considered a preview of support next year.
Given the thinness of the patience of the American people and the
world community, the case for significant acceleration in the
rebuilding of Iraq's political society and domestic economy, which the
resources in this bill make possible, is compelling.
While the administration may have been wrong to go to war this past
spring, Congress grievously errs if we allow Iraq to disintegrate into
chaos today.
The issue is not principally Presidential credibility, although it,
frankly, has been damaged. At issue is the American national interest
as it now exists. If we refuse to rebuild a society we tore down,
Muslims and others around the world will conclude we are a bullying
power, uninterested in anybody else's fate but our own.
If we are to deter terrorism in an increasingly anarchistic world,
the vocabulary of war must be replaced by a commitment to
reconstruction. The sooner we commit to this task, the sooner our
troops can come home.
The approach contained in this amendment, which I found quite
attractive when it was first broached in the other body last week,
appears less persuasive upon thoughtful review. It should be defeated.
The right thing to do is to invest in peace today.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes
to the very distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I voted for the Iraq resolution last
October. I support our troops. This amendment is the key vote of the
evening. If everyone who spoke for the Pence amendment, everyone who
spoke in their district about how we should be making loans to Iraq
(rather than gifts), if they have the courage to actually vote for this
amendment, it will pass.
We are told that somehow this amendment makes us seem to be cheap,
ungrateful, unwilling. I say that we have paid in blood and treasure
for the freedom of the Iraqi people, and, if this bill passes, we will
be spending another $76 billion toward that end. If we need to prove to
the world that we are the good guys, another $9 billion is not going to
do it.
Look at this bill if we pass this amendment: $87 billion to help the
Iraqi people; $9 billion of it is loans. Looked at another way, $18
billion for reconstruction; half loans, half gift.
The money will still be spent. Every school in Iraq that would have
been rebuilt, will be rebuilt just as quickly. The only question will
be whether there will be a promissory note in the U.S. Treasury so that
we get repaid next decade.
Two plans for the Iraqi balance sheet: One is to leave them indebted
$100 billion and more to these creditors, chiefly Saudi Arabia and
Kuwait, and another $100 billion to Kuwait for reparations, a $200
billion debt load. But some say, oh, we cannot inflict them with
another $9 billion in debt to the United States.
Plan two, have them renounce the $200 billion allegedly owed for
Saddam's sins and start anew, and then they can pay us $9 billion, and
maybe the Europeans will loan them another $1 billion. West Germany
never paid Hitler's debts. It is time to wipe the Iraqi balance sheet
clean.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the very
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the chairman of
the Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations and
certainly a gentleman who just recently led a large delegation to Iraq.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me time. I would like to take just a moment of the time given
me to respond to my colleague from California about wiping the slate
clean.

[[Page H9580]]

There is little question that is a piece of what we ought to be about
here if we are sincere about playing a role in getting Iraq's economy
back on track very quickly. The sooner we do that, the sooner they are
going to be able to go forward on their own and further rebuild their
oil tapping capabilities, the sooner they are going to be able to go
further than they have already progressed with the some 85 percent of
the communities within Iraq trying to establish local governments and
the like, and the sooner we get their economy back on track.
One step to that involves the donors conference in Spain at the end
of October. At that point in time, many of the countries that are key,
involved in the lending circumstance, will be present. It is our
purpose there to actively encourage others to participate in
forgiveness of loans, forgiveness of reparations and the like, so that
this country will have a chance to get that economy in order.
If we cannot do that, if we find ourselves by way of extending loans
causing this Spain meeting to become a lenders conference, we will hold
this country's opportunity to recover back years and years and years.
The people of Iraq have never in modern history had an opportunity
for economic growth, private sector growth and the kind of opportunity
that is part of a free economy. They have not experienced democracy,
the opportunity of freedom. Indeed, a piece of it involves their
fundamental economy.
What we are talking about here by way of this lending avenue that
causes some people politically to feel good about it sounds great. To
me it was quite appealing initially. But when you take a hard look at
what it practically does to a quick recovery of the Iraq economy, and
then in turn what that means in terms of quickly bringing our troops
home, it complicates the problem. Our people will be there longer. It
will be tougher to stabilize the country. Indeed, we could quash the
hope that many of us have for freedom and democratic growth in Iraq.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes
to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I cannot believe Members of Congress
saying the American people are not generous, they are not willing to
give. We borrowed $79 billion in the spring to pursue the war in Iraq.
We are going to be asked to borrow $87 billion more in the name of the
American people tonight.
But what we are saying here is for the money to build the
infrastructure, not rebuild, this is not war damage, this is to give
the Iraqis a spiffy new state-of-the-art telecommunications system,
water and sewer, roads and bridges, all sorts of things the American
people would like to have, good projects, public works, but to give it
to them free of charge, because Saddam Hussein stole their money and
neglected to do it.
Now, this is a country that has seven thousand billion dollars in oil
reserves, and we cannot ask them to foot a little bit of the bill?
How about when we talk about welfare people in this country, ``have
them bootstrap themselves.'' Well, how about having the Iraqis pick up
half of the bill to build their country? Otherwise, we are going to
obligate Americans, working Americans, for the next 30 years, to carry
the entire tab for building this country, not rebuilding it, and
committing the American people to pay for projects there that we need
here at home that are being neglected because we do not have enough
money.
We cannot borrow the money here in the United States of America to
build the roads, bridges, highways, water and sewer systems, to pay
extended unemployment benefits out of the trust fund, but we can borrow
the money in Iraq to pay for no-show jobs, to build water systems,
sewers, state-of-the-art telecommunications and all that, and we cannot
ask them to obligate themselves out of a seven thousand billion dollar
oil reserve to pay a tiny fraction of that?
One gentleman said it is one-fifth of one percent of our GDP and we
should not care. It figures out to one-fifth of one percent of their
seven thousand billion dollar oil reserves.
Fair is fair. They should at least pick up half of the bill.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute here to respond to
the previous speaker who alleged barrels of cash were going to be
rolling into Iraq at the American taxpayers' expense.
Obviously, he has not taken the time or just does not understand how
this process works. But there is not cash that goes to Iraq with this
money. This money is appropriated for purposes of the Foreign
Assistance Act to be carried out by agencies, organizations of the
Federal Government, that are qualified to enter into contracts. That
would be the USAID, the Agency for International Development; it would
be the Corps of Engineers; it could be the Centers for Disease Control
or other Federal agencies that might enter into these kinds of
contracts. But there is not cash that is going to be paid by the United
States to Iraq.
So it is simply a misunderstanding to assume that this is going to be
cash being paid to Iraq. There is not a government to pay the cash to.
It is projects that are needed to get the Iraqis on their feet,
projects needed to create democracy in that country.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).
Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Lantos-Obey
amendment and in opposition to the underlying bill.
When my mother brought me across the vastness of the Pacific Ocean to
America, she did so with the hope that I would become a good citizen, a
good American citizen. I doubt that she ever dreamed that I would
become a U.S. Congressman as well. Whether as citizen or as
Congressman, however, we learn certain fundamental values from parents,
from teachers and mentors. Some of the most crucial of those values are
responsibility, accountability and having a plan for the future.
By all three of these standards, the administration's request for $87
billion for Iraq fails, and I must reluctantly vote against it.
Responsibility, accountability and a plan for the future.
Responsibility: A year ago I stood in this well and expressed my
grave concern that we were embarking upon an unnecessary war, and, by
so doing, that we were going to lower the barriers to future wars.
We were told that Iraq was an imminent threat to our national
security. Well, here we are enmeshed in a quagmire in Iraq, and we have
lowered the international threshold for war with this new doctrine of
preemption, or first strike. The administration architects for these
policies must be held responsible. We need responsibility.
Accountability: We have been asked for over $400 billion in regular
appropriations and in supplemental appropriations. We have spent a lot
of money on defense and on Iraq. However, we find that our troops are
going without the best bulletproof vests. We find that troops are
traveling in Humvees with soft canvas backs rather than armored
vehicles, because their armored vehicles do not have tracks to take
them around.

{time} 1945

Where is the accountability? Where has the money gone? Where is the
accountability for our troops? Where is the accountability to their
spouses, to their parents, and to their children? And where is the
accountability to my fellow Oregonians who have been told that there is
not enough money to keep their schools open or to pay for their
unemployment?
We need accountability. We need a plan for the future. Approving this
funding without a plan for the future is nothing less than writing a
blank check. We need a plan for proceeding on two fronts. At the one
end on the international front, we need to bring the international
community into Iraq to share the burden, both in terms of blood and
treasure; and at the other end, at the local end, we need as rapidly as
possible to restore self-government to the Iraqi people. The
administration resists both of these efforts.
There is no cogent plan. Mr. Chairman, we have no responsibility, no
accountability, and no plan, because this administration is not
listening to either Congress or the American people. Congress has very
few tools to influence foreign policy; and today, we only have the
power of the purse to make this administration open its ears and listen
to this Congress and to the American people. If we fail to use our

[[Page H9581]]

limited powers to make this administration listen, then we are nothing
more than a rubber stamp. My mother did not bring me across the ocean
to be a rubber stamp citizen, and Oregonians did not send me across
this continent to be a rubber stamp Congressman.
Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to vote for this amendment and
against the underlying bill.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), a distinguished member of
the subcommittee.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this
amendment, and I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) for
yielding me this time.
Iraq is in the central front in the war on terrorism. We are not
going to get a second chance at doing this right. We face some strong
challenges, so we have to be determined and remain focused on
establishing a new Iraq.
I might say, incidentally, that in my district back in Michigan, I
have some 35,000 Iraqis who have immigrated to America, and they have
become solid citizens. They communicate, obviously, very well with the
community; and, in fact, they have improved the quality of life in that
community. Many are entrepreneurs, and I think they have been a
tremendous addition to my own district.
The same thing would be true, I believe, in Iraq. As we work to
stabilize this country and strengthen a new Iraqi government, we cannot
afford to make our job any harder than it already is.
Yesterday's Washington Post editorial nails the point: ``To make a
loan in these circumstances is like swimming out to a drowning man and
handing him a 10-pound weight.''
If we turn our assistance into loans, we will be cutting our legs out
from under ourselves. Our mission in Iraq is critical to the security
of our country, and we cannot afford to undermine ourselves.
Right now the administration is working hard to get foreign
governments to contribute to the rebuilding of Iraq. Turning our
assistance into loans turns the upcoming donors conference into a
loaners conference. We simply cannot afford to make this mistake.
Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to vote against this unwise
amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.
Mr. Chairman, it is very simple. This aid package is the largest aid
package this country will have ever given to any country with whom it
was at war. It is the largest aid package we have provided in the
history of the world. I think that is doing something. All we are
saying is that we should recognize that because of the oil reserves in
the ground, that Iraq, by next year, is expected to have a better
ability to pay back its foreign debt on a per capita basis than the
United States does; and in 5 years, they will have a substantially
better opportunity to pay that debt back than we do.
We face no prospects of trade surpluses over the next 10 years, so we
are not going to be paying back our foreign debt. Iraq, with that oil
in the ground, if we have any management ability at all in this
situation, Iraq will wind up being able to pay back a significant
portion of their debt as soon as that oil starts being pumped again.
We are simply asking for a decent balance between long-term burdens
placed on their taxpayers and long-term burdens placed on ours. The
House would not put the troops first today on the previous amendment,
at least a lot of folks do not appear to be comfortable doing that;
they would prefer to stay with the committee position. I would ask at
least to put the taxpayers first.
This is a balanced amendment. It is fair. It is not in any way
punitive. It does not in any way inhibit Mr. Bremer's ability to get
the job done. It simply indicates that we are sensitive to the needs of
our taxpayers as well as our need to provide leadership in the world in
restoring the Iraqi society and the Iraqi country.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield the balance of our
time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the distinguished
majority leader.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time; and, actually, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos)
for offering this amendment and in prompting this debate. The gentleman
from California (Mr. Lantos) is a brave and thoughtful leader, and
every time he steps on the floor of this House, he brings honesty,
courage, and dignity with him. He is a true mensch, and I am proud to
call him my friend.
But, Mr. Chairman, I must oppose, strongly oppose this amendment for
it flies in the face of our mission in Iraq and everything the war on
terror stands for. Of course we want our money back. But the
reconstruction of Iraq is not about $20 billion in roads and sewers
halfway around the world. It is about freedom: ours, the Iraqis', and
all of humanity's.
The moment our Coalition crossed into Iraqi airspace to remove Saddam
Hussein from power, we sent a message to the world, friends and foes
alike, that the nexus of outlaw regimes, weapons of mass destruction,
and international terrorism would no longer be tolerated. We will pay
any price and bear any burden to advance the cause of human liberty.
And after the shock and awe of major combat, the price and burden of
human hope shift from the battlefield to the town hall and the town
market. That hope, Mr. Chairman, cannot come in the form of a
promissory note. It is our fight, and now it is our job.
Putting aside the practical shortcomings of this specific proposal,
it neither stipulates who would receive the loans nor suggests who
might be responsible for paying them back. This is a vote about the
broader question of the United States' moral responsibility, moral
authority in the war on terror. Choking off economic development in
Iraq will not foster democracy, prosperity, or security. It will only
serve to benefit those who have sought to undermine the very idea of a
free Iraq all along.
We did not start this war, but history and providence have called
upon us to finish it. And before September 11, if we had debated $20
billion to build a free and independent democracy in Iraq, I would have
asked, Given the cost, how could we possibly afford to do it?
But, Mr. Chairman, today, 2 years after 3,000 of our countrymen were
lost, as we debate that very thing, I ask all of my colleagues, Given
the cost, how could we possibly afford not to?
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate on this amendment has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, the Chair announces
that this 15-minute vote on the Obey loans amendment will be followed
by a 5-minute vote on the Obey quality-of-life amendment.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 200,
noes 226, not voting 9, as follows:

[Roll No. 546]

AYES--200

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Burton (IN)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Chabot
Clyburn
Coble
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duncan
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hulshof
Inslee
Israel
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)

[[Page H9582]]

Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Rohrabacher
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sherman
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Solis
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOES--226

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

NOT VOTING--9

Clay
Gephardt
Jones (OH)
Marshall
McKeon
Moran (VA)
Oberstar
Putnam
Souder

Announcement by the Chairman

The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there are 2
minutes remaining in this vote.

{time} 2017

Mrs. MUSGRAVE, Mr. DAVIS of Florida, Mr. MOLLOHAN, and Mr. SMITH of
Washington changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. TIBERI changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 546, I was
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Amendment Offered by Mr. Obey

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 209,
noes 216, not voting 10, as follows:

[Roll No. 547]

AYES--209

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gonzalez
Goode
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Rohrabacher
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
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOES--216

Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Berman
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, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Harris
Hart
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
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
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney

[[Page H9583]]

Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--10

Clay
Cox
Gephardt
Jones (OH)
Marshall
McKeon
Moran (VA)
Oberstar
Putnam
Souder

Announcement by the Chairman

The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised that 2 minutes
remain in this vote.

{time} 2027

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 547, I was
unavoidably detained from voting. Had I been present, I would have
voted ``aye.''

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD

United States of America
American eagle (seal)

PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 108th CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

This ``bullet'' symbol identifies statements or insertions which are not
spoken by the Member of the Senate on the floor.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

(seal) recycle
Printed on recycled paper.

Vol. 149 WASHINGTON, THURSDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2003 No. 145