[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