Congressional Record, Volume 149 Issue 146 (Friday, October 17, 2003)

[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 146 (Friday, October 17, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H9620-H9634]
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 further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 3289.

{time} 0913

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

[[Page H9621]]

further 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 Mr. LaTourette in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Thursday,
October 16, 2003, the bill had been read through page 2, line 2, and
amendments considered under a previous order of the House had been
disposed of.
Pursuant to the order of the House of that day, before consideration
of any other amendment, except pro forma amendments by the chairman or
ranking minority of the Committee on Appropriations or their designees
for the purpose of debate, it shall be in order to consider the
following amendments: An amendment by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Kind) or the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin); an amendment by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald); an amendment by
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel); an amendment by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee); an amendment by the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad) or the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore);
an amendment by the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher); an
amendment by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak); an amendment by
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes); an amendment by the gentleman
from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio); an amendment by the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Weiner); an amendment by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch);
an amendment by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez); and an
amendment by the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).
Each such amendment may be offered only by a Member designated or a
designee, shall be debatable for 10 minutes, 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.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Kind

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Kind:
Page 48, after line 21, insert the following:
Sec. 2213. The dollar amounts otherwise provided in this
chapter under the heading ``iraq relief and reconstruction
fund'', are each reduced by 50 percent.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, October
16, 2003, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) and the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Chairman, last week I had the opportunity to travel to Iraq
visiting our troops in the field, and they are doing an incredible job
under difficult and dangerous circumstances. Clearly, our Nation is
paying a very high price in both lives and money due to the unilateral
action that was taken in Iraq. Their high level of sacrifice, quite
frankly, has not been met by the high level of planning that is
required for this mission. I believe we have been derelict in our duty
in Congress in demanding more accountability and more justification in
regards to the expenditure and the use of the funds that are before us
today and have been appropriated earlier this year.
That is why the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) and I are
offering this amendment which could be titled The Enhanced
Accountability and Detailed Accounting Amendment, which would slash the
reconstruction funds by one-half, not because we do not believe in the
mission, but because we believe the administration should come before
Congress to justify in a detailed fashion what current funds are being
used for and what future funds are being requested and for what
purpose.
The World Bank and IMF released a report last week that indicated
that for the next year in Iraq, we cannot spend, more than $5 billion
without running into difficulty, and yet we have a $20 billion
reconstruction request before us today.
As a member of the Committee on the Budget, it has been very
frustrating trying to get detailed listings of the amount of money
being spent and for what purpose. Mr. Zakheim, Comptroller for Defense,
indicated yesterday before us that it was the administration's intent
to keep coming to Congress for future supplemental requests which do
not have to be offset, which will result in more deficit financing,
instead of budgeting it in the normal budget process.
We think it should be budgeted with future requests. I also believe
by slashing funds by one-half, we would encourage greater savings and
cost efficiencies.
I met with Kuwaiti officials last week who indicated that they did
not understand what the administration was doing in Iraq. They were
sitting on multiple 3,000 megawatt generators not being used and not
being requested by the United States for use in Iraq. They are also
sitting on multiple desalinization machines that could be used in Iraq
to help with clean water difficulties; but again, they were not being
asked to contribute.
General Petraeus of the 101st Airborne, when he discovered from U.S.
engineers that it was going to cost somewhere between $15-$20 million
to restore a cement factory in northern Iraq went out and talked to
local Iraqi officials and was able to get the job done for $80,000.
I believe this Congress has an obligation to the American taxpayer,
an obligation to our children and to our grandchildren to ask questions
and to demand accountability in regards to the use of these
reconstruction funds, and I would encourage support for my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Cardin), one of the most fiscally responsible Members of
this Congress.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Kind) for offering this amendment. The gentleman has brought forward an
important amendment that I hope we will consider and pass.
Regardless of how one may feel in support of the supplemental
appropriation, I hope we all agree that reconstruction aid requires a
higher level of scrutiny. That is exactly what this amendment does. It
provides 50 percent of the money now. That is consistent with the
analysis of the World Bank, the United Nations, and the International
Monetary Fund as to how much funds can effectively be used by Iraq in
the next year. It is consistent with our initiative to get our allies
to pay a larger share of the reconstruction act.
The vote in the United Nations Security Council yesterday was
encouraging. If Members believe our allies should be paying more of
these reconstruction funds, Members should support the Kind amendment.
It is also consistent with our desire to have the Iraqis repay some
of this money. We know that the other body has already taken action in
that regard. If Members believe that we should be considering whether
the Iraqis have the resources to repay some of these funds later, then
Members should support the Kind amendment.
It is consistent with our responsibility for oversight. It is our
responsibility to make sure these monies are properly spent, to monitor
the use and get more accounting. If Members believe we should exercise
that responsibility, they should support the Kind amendment.
It also allows us to get a plan from the administration to transfer
authority to the Iraqis and bring our troops home. We should have that
information. This amendment is consistent with that request.
Then if more funds are needed, this body can take it up with the
condition, and in the form, that is consistent with the goals that we
are trying to achieve. At that time, the Congress can take up
additional resources and act on that request. I urge my colleagues to
support this amendment. It is the right thing for us to do in order to
successfully complete our mission in Iraq.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in opposition to the amendment, and would like to point out
that this is a little different amendment than we originally thought we
would be looking at today.
This issue was debated twice yesterday on this floor, once with the
Obey

[[Page H9622]]

amendment which would have cut the amount by half and put some in
loans, the other time during debate on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) which would have done the same
thing. We have had a lot of discussion about the idea of how much we
should have and whether we should reduce it, and whether some should be
in the form of a loan or not. I believe that issue has been dispensed
with.
I have just heard a couple of arguments from the other side that this
amendment will require more scrutiny. Where in the words here does it
require any more scrutiny? It just says it will cut it by 50 percent.
It says that we think that the Committee on Appropriations' work is
insufficient, we are just going to cut it in half.
Where does it say that it is going to require some repayment by the
Iraqis? There is nothing in here about repayment or loans. It just says
we are going to take the aid and the assistance we are going to provide
to the Iraqis, and we are going to slice it exactly in half because we
think that they do not really need that money for reconstruction.
Mr. Chairman, what we have heard over the last several days, and I
know I am sounding like a broken record by repeating this, as General
Abizaid, Ambassador Bremer, and many others have told us over and over
again, every dollar for reconstruction is just as important as every
dollar we provide to our men and women in uniform in Iraq. It is just
as important.
If we are going to get our men and women home from Iraq, we have to
turn the security of the country over to the Iraqis, and that means we
have to train the Iraqis. We have to train the police force and the
national army. If we are going to get our men and women home, we have
to restore the Iraq economy and put Iraq back on its feet. Cutting the
assistance to Iraq in half is not the way to accomplish that. If we
want to be sure that our men and women in uniform stay in Iraq a lot
longer, this is the amendment Members want to vote for.
I have great respect for the gentlemen who have offered this
amendment, they are very thoughtful people, but I must say this
amendment is absolutely the wrong direction. It does not accomplish
what they want. It does not accomplish the kind of scrutiny they want,
which is what we will find in the general provisions of the bill. We
have a lot of oversight. We have more reporting, we have more oversight
requirements, we have requirements that if there are changes in the
amount of the funds, if it is moved from one to the other, there has to
be notification to the Congress. We are doing that oversight. That is
the responsibility of Congress. But cutting the amount of assistance to
Iraq in half is not the way to proceed. I urge my colleagues to reject
this amendment.
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. Kind).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. KIND. 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. Kind)
will be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Stupak

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Stupak:
In the paragraph in chapter 1 of title I under the heading
``Military Personnel, Army'', insert after the dollar amount
the following: ``(increased by $188,420,000)''.
In the paragraph in chapter 1 of title I under the heading
``Military Personnel, Navy'', insert after the dollar amount
the following: ``(increased by $12,616,000)''.
In the paragraph in chapter 1 of title I under the heading
``Military Personnel, Marine Corps'', insert after the dollar
amount the following: ``(increased by $11,643,000)''.
In the paragraph in chapter 1 of title I under the heading
``Military Personnel, Air Force'', insert after the dollar
amount the following: ``(increased by $52,322,000)''.
In the paragraph in chapter 2 of title II under the heading
``Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund'', insert after the
aggregate dollar amount the following: ``(reduced by
$1,007,000,000)''.

yMr. STUPAK (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Michigan?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, October
17, 2003, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I ask that my amendment to provide a $1,500 bonus to the men and
women who have served in Iraq be joined by the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle), the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee),
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson), the gentleman from California
(Mr. Cardoza), and the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), and
all those who have cosponsored my base bill, H.R. 3051. They have all
asked to join with me in providing this bonus to the men and women who
have served in Iraq and Afghanistan during fiscal year 2004.
This amendment provides a $265 million increase in the base pay for
all of our military services' troops. This is the amount that is needed
to provide a $1,500 bonus to each person serving, including our
National Guard and Reserve units serving in Iraq or Afghanistan.
This $1,500 bonus is paid for by cutting the appropriate sum from the
bill, from the amount set aside to import petroleum products into Iraq.
In this $87 billion supplemental appropriation for Iraq, we surely can
afford to boost the pay of the service men and women by $1,500.
What this amounts to when we look at the total bill, for every
$328.30, we are giving our troops $1. Certainly, we can afford $1 for
every $328 we spend in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our troops are really
carrying the true burden of our commitment to Iraq and Afghanistan, and
at least we can give them $1 compared to $328 which we are pouring into
Iraq and Afghanistan.
Our soldiers have lived basically in nearly primitive conditions. We
had an amendment yesterday on the floor, the Obey amendment, which
would increase the quality of life for our Armed Services while there,
and when they come home. Unfortunately, that amendment was defeated.
This is an opportunity to show our troops that this Congress is united
behind them in the service they are providing.
These deployments that we are now undertaking of our troops, our
Guard and our Reserve units, is the longest deployment we have had of
military personnel since Vietnam. They have now been deployed for up to
a year in Afghanistan and Iraq. Recently, the Pentagon provided a 2-
week leave for our troops after they serve 12 months. We know some 700
soldiers a day come back to the United States. They are only paid to
fly into BWI, Baltimore-Washington International Airport, and then they
are stuck. If their family is in Michigan, Iowa, Tennessee, they have
no way of getting home. They do not even get a government rate to
finish the trip home. The military does not provide a ticket for them
to see their families.
And how about our National Guard and Reserve units over in Iraq and
Afghanistan, first they were only going to be called up for a few
months, then 6 months, and now it is a year. While our National Guard
and Reserve units are proud to serve, and are willing to leave their
civilian jobs to serve, how do they support their families back home,
when they leave their civilian jobs?
In my district, National Guard Unit 1437 from Slt. St. Marie,
Michigan, just came back. They told me about the financial hardship it
is to make ends meet at home while they are over in Iraq.

{time} 0930

Right now the U.S. Army Reserve Unit 652, a bridge-building unit, is
in Iraq. It is from the Harvey and Marquette, Michigan area. What about
their financial burdens? What about the financial burdens we place on
the families? Well, this $1,500 bonus is not going to solve all of
these financial burdens for these people, and I do not believe that
asking for $1 out of every $328 we are going to pour into Iraq and
Afghanistan, to give our troops $1 is asking too much.

[[Page H9623]]

Again, to pay for this, in the amendment we propose to cut the oil
import into Iraq. Iraq possesses the second largest oil reserves in the
world. I did not know why we even have to import into Iraq, but I think
we should at least be able to cut that and provide this bonus to these
people.
I know some may argue that Iraq may not have enough diesel fuel or
kerosene to see them through the winter. Therefore, we somehow ask the
American taxpayers to make sure that they will have the diesel and
kerosene to get through this winter to heat their homes. But what about
our own energy needs here in this country? What about this winter?
Heating oil, natural gas, and propane is expected to go sky high, and
we will be in short supply here at home. Americans will be scraping and
sacrificing to get through the winter. The Iraqis should at least share
in this sacrifice when it comes to their oil needs.
Mr. Chairman, it still does not make much sense to me to have oil
imported into Iraq which, again, possesses the second largest oil
reserves in the world.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to
the amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, on the first amendment offered today, the amendment
offered actually was different than the one that we had agreed to last
night in the unanimous consent request, and that is okay; we have no
problem with that. But I would just ask my colleagues that in the event
that any amendment that they would offer, if it is different than the
one that we agreed to last night, please let us know that when they
actually offer the amendment, so that we are prepared to deal with the
proper amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the balance of the time be
controlled by the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) of the
Subcommittee on Defense.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and welcome back. The Chairman
carried forward a very full day yesterday, and we appreciate his help.
This amendment, and amendments like it that we have seen much of the
day yesterday, is a very appealing sort of amendment, for it
essentially says we have money in this package, and why do we not take
some of it and add additional funding for our troops one way or
another. Obviously, that has appeal.
The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) is a very fine Member from
Michigan and he has expressed his concern about the troops before.
Yesterday I heard people who had never expressed concern for our troops
and, in fact, had not even voted for our bill in the past who were
suddenly very, very concerned, and that is a little disconcerting. The
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) and I, my colleague and
partner, have made every effort in this package and packages before it
to aggressively increase funding available for our troops, especially
those who are serving our country overseas and those who are in harm's
way.
This specific proposal adds $265 million to the military personnel
accounts. It suggests that it is enough to pay for a $1,500 bonus for
each serviceman who is in the region. The offset is to reduce $1
billion for the reconstruction effort in Iraq.
I must say, one of the strongest arguments regarding this, besides
the fact that we have done everything we can to help our troops in the
previous bills and in this one, is the reality that the experts, the
generals in charge of our military effort over there, say that their
number one priority is reconstruction, because it is the way to, first
of all, secure our troops while they are there and, secondly, the way
to make certain they get home as quickly as possible is to see the
economy of Iraq move forward, get it back on track, and that is part of
what this bill is about.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I know that there is no one in this Chamber
who has more concern about the Reserve and Guard than the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Stupak). He has units that have been deployed, as
all of us have. I am getting questions and concerns from the families
in my district, and all over the country they are writing to me. I had
a 67-year-old say that he was retired for 10 years and they were trying
to call him back.
But I do not think, as hard as we work for pay, I do not think an
amendment like this helps us. I think we really have a problem. I know
we all want to help the troops, but we struggle all the time trying to
make sure we balance out the money they make. I just do not think this
is the right way to do it. I think what we have to do is certainly take
a look at it, working with the services themselves.
Mr. Chairman, 65 percent of our money right now goes to personnel. We
put a big health care package in. Our subcommittee works helping the
troops; that is what we concentrate on. I think it is just something we
cannot accept. I would ask the Members to vote against this amendment,
no matter how all of us would like to see the troops get more money.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for
his comments.
Mr. Chairman, here we go again. The last amendment cut 50 percent of
the reconstruction dollars; this only cuts 1 billion of the dollars out
of reconstruction. But I am still left with the question, what is it
that members do not understand regarding the importance of
reconstruction assistance? We have been told over and over again by our
commanders, by everybody that is out there, that the dollars we are
spending on reconstruction is part of national security. It is just as
important as what we do for our Guard and Reserves. It is just as
important as what we do in terms of providing ammunition and vehicles
and all the armor and the other items that are needed by our troops
that are over there.
The reconstruction is a vital part of this program; and if we short
that, all we are doing is saying to the men and women in uniform who
are there in Iraq that we are going to leave you there better off, with
maybe more creature comforts, maybe with more vehicles, but we are
going to leave you in this bleak, hostile landscape.
Where is this billion coming from? Is it coming from what we are
going to do to try to create a new constitution? Is it coming from the
governing council? Is it coming from the kerosene funding? Is it coming
from the clean water for the children over there? Where is it coming
from?
Mr. Chairman, to take this money out of the reconstruction is the
wrong approach. We should not be doing that. I hope my colleagues will
reject this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. STUPAK. 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 Michigan (Mr. Stupak)
will be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. DeFazio

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

Amendment offered by Mr. DeFazio:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. . None of the funds made available in this Act may be
used for the participation of Iraq in the Organization of
Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC).

Mr. DeFAZIO (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Oregon?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, October
16, 2003, the gentleman from Oregon

[[Page H9624]]

(Mr. DeFazio) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This amendment will not, as has previously been criticized, deduct
from the funds that will be used to build Iraq or, I should say, the
money we will borrow to build Iraq. It is a simple amendment. It says,
none of the funds made available in this act, U.S. taxpayer dollars,
may be used for the participation of Iraq in the Organization of
Petroleum Exporting Countries.
Now, why would we want to restrict that?
Well, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries is a cartel.
It is an energy cartel. They flout international law, the World Trade
Organization, and other agreements by artificially constraining
production in violation of the World Trade Organization's precepts to
drive up the price, to profit themselves; and, of course, U.S.
consumers are the losers.
Now, OPEC controls about 40 percent of the world's oil production,
three-quarters of the reserves, and they set these production quotas
for its 11 members.
We have heard a lot about how Iraq is going to become a free market
economy. It is going to have a tremendous impact on world oil prices
when its production hits the free market. If they join OPEC, they will
be assigned a quota; and their quota will be controlled in the
interests of OPEC, not international oil supply, not the consumers of
the United States of America, but solely to benefit members of a price-
fixing oil cartel.
This same cartel agreed to cut oil production, they just voted a
couple of weeks ago, on November 1, by 900,000 barrels a day, which is
already raising the price of gasoline at the pump here in the United
States, jacking up the price of home heating oil as we go into a home
heating season here in the United States. And the Iraqi representative
who was sent to the last meeting at the behest of Mr. Bremer and the
United States, in all probability with U.S. funds, Ibrahim Bahr al-
Uloum said Iraq should play an active role in achieving the objectives
of this organization, which translated, means Iraq fully intends to
participate in the price-fixing, the manipulation, and the cartel.
I do not believe that U.S. taxpayer dollars should participate in
this activity, which is contrary to the United States, the precepts we
advocate in world trade, and our own consumers and taxpayers.
Now, why do we need the amendment? Well, Mr. Bremer has supported the
membership of Iraq in OPEC, the price-fixing cartel. There are ample
discretionary funds in the bill in addition to the $2.1 billion that
will go to rebuild the Iraq oil infrastructure and flows through the
Iraqi oil ministry which could be used to facilitate the participation
in this price-fixing cartel. I just do not think that the United States
taxpayers should be asked to foot this bill.
Hopefully, in fact, the U.S. will try and convince the Iraqi council
and others that it would not be in their best interests to participate
in a price-fixing cartel, particularly if they are going to depend upon
us for so many billions of dollars to fix their oil infrastructure.
I know the gentleman from Arizona believes very much in the rule of
law and is a big advocate of the World Trade Organization, their
dispute mechanism, resolution mechanism; and I am certain he is very
well aware that the quotas of OPEC violate the precepts of the WTO.
They are not based in a shortage; they create shortages. The only way
we can constrain supply under the WTO in this manner is if we have a
certified shortage or conservation of resources. This is neither. This
is price-fixing to gouge American consumers and others in oil-importing
countries, and the United States taxpayers should have none of this.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition. I
will not take 5 minutes. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I agree with most everything the gentleman from Oregon has said. I
certainly do not believe the taxpayers of the United States should be
paying for Iraq when there is a newly constituted government there to
be participating in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries,
known as OPEC. The fact is they most certainly, almost certainly, will
continue to be a member of that organization; and, in fact, they have
already attended meetings in kind of an observer status. But none of
our funds should be used to do that, since they are generating a fair
amount of oil funds now that are paying for much of their internal
costs of government, although not enough to do the reconstruction,
which is what we are having the discussions today about. That would be
the funds that they would use to do that, but I quite agree that funds
from the United States taxpayers should not be used for that.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Ms. Millender-McDonald

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Ms. Millender-McDonald:
In the paragraph in chapter 1 of title I under the heading
``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'', insert after the
aggregate dollar amount preceding paragraph (1) the
following: ``(reduced by $50,000,000) (increased by
$50,000,000)''.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of October 16, 2003,
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) and a Member
opposed each will control 5 minutes on the amendment.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-
McDonald).
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Today I am offering an amendment that directs $50 million from the
Operation and Maintenance Defense-Wide account to the Family Advocacy
program that is administered by the Defense Department. This amendment
addresses the fundamental needs that will be facing our returning
military personnel and their families when they return home from
Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom.
The Family Advocacy program provides support services to families
that are transitioning from the frontline to the home front. This
additional $50 million in funding will enable military families to get
personal and marriage counseling which will work to reduce the
incidence of domestic violence and suicide among our military
personnel.

{time} 0945

As we are all aware, Mr. Chairman, domestic violence occurs within
all groups and levels of society. However, the military presents
families with particular challenges not normally found in civilian
society.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much the
gentlewoman yielding, and she is in the midst of a very important
statement, but I wanted to share with her, as well as my colleagues,
that I believe she is highlighting a very important problem.
We do provide for $22 million within the bill, but frankly, the
Department tells me that the challenges are very real, we may need more
money, and rather than taking my 5 minutes, I am inclined to let the
gentlewoman know that we are going to accept her amendment.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman so much.
Mr. Chairman, I need not say anymore. I appreciate the other side
accepting this.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Young), I move to strike the last

[[Page H9625]]

word, and I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I was prepared to introduce an amendment.
There will be a better time under the rules to do that, but I will just
take a couple of minutes to explain what that amendment would have
done, if that is okay with the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
The amendment that we had been prepared to introduce, and which,
actually, we will execute in another way as the chairman of the
Committee on Small Business regards the reporting requires of H.R.
3289, and, essentially, what we are trying to do here is two things.
The first thing is to have the reporting requirement so that every 60
days the Federal Government will have to file a written report with the
United States Congress stating the nature of these contracts that are
being used for the reconstruction of Iraq, the country of origin of
incorporation or entity getting the contract and the country of origin
of the services or manufactured items. There is a very rich opportunity
in this country to help restore the crumbling manufacturing base by
taking the $21 billion in money to rebuild Iraq and to target that at
United States' manufacturing companies which have lost nearly 3 million
workers in the past 2\1/2\ years.
The present reporting requirements of H.R. 3289 are not adequate for
Congress to perform the oversight functions. The present bill requires
no reporting to Congress where a foreign company wins a contract to
assist Iraq in a free and open competition. The bill, however, does
require a report to Congress where a contract is awarded on the basis
of restricted competition such as a small business set aside awarded to
U.S. small business.
The issue here is accountability and, essentially, the issue is under
Article I of the Constitution, section 9, where it says, No money shall
be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by
law, and a regular statement and account of the receipts and
expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.
We simply would have asked in the amendment, had it been ruled in
order, for the United States Congress to follow the constitutional
mandate of reporting. So we will find another time to do that.
Meanwhile, Mr. Chairman, what we have going on in this country is
93,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost in the past 60 days in
America. The slide has continued for over 3 years at the rate of about
57- to 60,000 manufacturing jobs per month, and this Congress should
step up to the bat and say if we are going to spend $21 billion in
taxpayers' dollars, let us at least use it to help keep the jobs of the
hard-hit manufacturing sector in this country.
I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) for the
opportunity to speak, look forward to working with him. I will be
writing to the people in charge of the conference to ask them to
consider this extremely important amendment.
Another amendment that we would have introduced, had it been in
order, would have been at least to request the people buying supplies
in Iraq with American taxpayers' dollars to prefer American
manufacturers and American suppliers of services. We need to find a way
to help create jobs, to help stop the ebb of service sector jobs and
manufacturing jobs in this country. We should be using this process to
rebuild Iraq for that opportunity.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Reyes

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Reyes:
In chapter 1 of title I, in the item relating to
``Intelligence Community Management Account'', after the
first dollar amount, insert the following: ``(reduced by
$5,000,000) (increased by $5,000,000)''.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, October
16, 2003, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This amendment is designed to address serious shortfalls in two
critical areas to our national security, foreign language proficiency
and diversity in their workforce.
Specifically, my amendment will cut $5 million from the general
intelligence community management account and add $5 million for
programs designed to increase language proficiency and workforce
diversity in the intelligence community.
Success in the global war on terrorism and in Iraq demands that our
Nation have the best intelligence collection and analysis possible.
Officers with only a marginal understanding of the language and the
culture of intelligence targets will only be marginally effective for
this country.
The report of the joint inquiry into the events of 9/11 reflects my
long-standing concerns about the lack of progress that has been made by
the intelligence community in enhancing language proficiency and
diversifying its workforce.
Specifically, it recommended that the intelligence community
implement, expeditiously, measures to identify and recruit linguists
outside the community whose abilities are relevant to the needs of
counterterrorism.
The joint inquiry further recommended that the intelligence community
should enhance recruitment of a more ethnically and culturally diverse
workforce and devise a strategy to capitalize upon the unique cultural
and linguistic capabilities of first-generation Americans.
To address these critical needs, my amendment will provide funds for
training in critical foreign languages and language maintenance and
award programs. It will also fund scholarship programs, recruitment
efforts and other nontraditional programs that are designed to enhance
the recruitment and the retention of a diverse workforce.
The intelligence community must have a diverse set of people that
have the cultural awareness, the language familiarity and the skill
sets that will allow our Nation to succeed against an increasing number
of formidable foes around the globe. My amendment will provide funds
for increasing diversity of the workforce and language proficiency, two
vital and important national security imperatives.
I hope that I can get the support of all my colleagues on this very
critical amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise very reluctantly to
oppose this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) is pointing to an area that the
committee is very concerned about, and indeed the intelligence
community has been, as has our Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence here in the House.
The amendment seems to have no real overall effect on the
intelligence community's management account. It decreases the account
by $5 million and then increases that same account, but the point that
I would make is that this shifting of money would tend to have a direct
impact upon both the FBI and the Department of Energy, as well as the
broader intelligence community, in their efforts to develop our effort
on the intelligence side in the war on terrorism.
In turn, in recent years, there has been sizeable adjustment in those
accounts that addressed the question of linguistics, the training of
people who know foreign language, et cetera, and as my colleague knows,
identifying such people, first of all, takes time and takes time to
train them, and so we just cannot throw money at it and cause a change
like that. I mean, unlike a lot of accounts where we just put money in
and something happens tomorrow, linguistic development, that kind of
training is very difficult. So it is much more a regular order kind of
process.
I could describe this in great detail in private between us, but some
of the intelligence questions here really should not be discussed in
this environment, but in turn, it is an important problem. If I thought
a $5 million shift would make a difference and not affect other
elements of our war on terrorism, I would support the gentleman's
amendment, but I reluctantly oppose it.

[[Page H9626]]

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I have a high degree of respect for my colleague. I have been on the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence finishing up my third year,
and the bottom line is that we have not seen a strategic plan to, in
fact, diversify the workforce or specifically address issues dealing
with language.
My purpose in offering this amendment is to continue to highlight the
critical nature and the imperative challenge that we face when we do
not have this as a priority for our country. That is really why I left
this at $5 million because I did not want to try to hurt any one
program or this account in particular, but I specifically wanted to
highlight the critical need and the lack of a strategic plan by our
intelligence community to work in this particular area.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. REYES. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have this
exchange with my colleague. We are really coming from the same
position. These accounts are very delicately balanced now, as the
gentleman knows, and the impact that this shifting might very well have
on work that is vital within the FBI, et cetera, concerns me.
In turn, I think our dialogue here, I think, is highlighting the
matter. There is no doubt that the committee is reflecting the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence's concern about improving
what we are doing relative to foreign language training and
linguistics. There is little doubt that the Congress, the House of
Representatives, has said very clearly in this bill in other sections,
as well as this dialogue, that this is a priority. We expect the entire
intelligence community to respond.
So, frankly, I want to be very complimentary of the gentleman's
effort, but shifting the money here could make it very difficult to
deal with the other body in a fashion that we hope to move forward
with. So I am reserved relative to this amendment, but do very much
appreciate my colleague's helping us highlight this important area.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, in deference to my colleague, I would close
by saying I hope we can have a recorded vote, so that we can understand
the importance of the issue. I hope the gentleman is in agreement.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
We certainly will but, frankly, I will end up opposing, asking for a
``no'' vote on that vote. I frankly do not like to see us end it that
way, and we could very well end it that way, and maybe that does not
help with the highlighting.
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, and I
commend my colleague on the Subcommittee on Human Intelligence,
Analysis, and Counterintelligence for his work on this issue.
Today, our Nation is fortunate to have General Abizaid leading our
troops in Central Command. General Abizaid is an expert on Middle
Eastern affairs, and fluent in Arabic. He is the perfect man to have
leading our troops in this region.
Unfortunately, people like General Abizaid are rare in the United
States. Our Nation has neglected programs that build proficiency in
those languages, and we are struggling to catch up. Last year, the GAO
reported that the FBI had thousands of hours of audio tapes and pages
of written material that have not been reviewed or translated due to
the lack of qualified translators.
The GAO also noted that the State Department suffers from a language
proficiency shortfall whereby Foreign Service officers are put in
positions with lower-than-desired levels of proficiency. These
shortfalls have not existed without cost. These shortfalls have
weakened the fight against international terrorism and drug
trafficking; and resulted in less effective representation of U.S.
interests overseas.
The lack of trusted interpreters and human intelligence sources is
slowing down the work to expose Saddam Hussein's weapons programs.
Most critically, the lack of skilled interpreters has slowed our
efforts in the war on terrorism. This amendment will help alleviate
these problems by focusing on the critical need to address the
shortfall.
We cannot ignore this shortfall--the need for improved HUMINT is an
emergency that I urge my colleagues to support with this amendment.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. REYES. 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 Texas (Mr. Reyes) will
be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Ramstad

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Ramstad:
Page 3, line 13, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(decreased by 98,000,000)''.
Page 7, line 7, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(increased by 98,000,000)''.

{time} 1000

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, October
16, 2003, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad) and a Member
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad).
Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to the supplemental
appropriations bill to provide travel and transportation costs for our
brave troops to return home during R&R breaks. I want to thank my
friend, the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore), for his work on this
important legislation. I would also like to thank the chairman and
ranking member for their tireless work on the underlying legislation,
which is so critical to our mission in Iraq.
Mr. Chairman, our military recently began employing its first Rest
and Recuperation program during the Vietnam War. This means that
soldiers who have served 12 straight months in Iraq qualify for R&R,
and some 700 troops per day are currently returning to the United
States to see their families. Unfortunately, once the troops reach our
shores, they are too often stranded at the airport. That is because the
airports to which they are flown are nowhere near their homes or
families, and same-day airline fares are far too expensive for most of
our troops to afford. Being stranded at the Baltimore Washington
Airport will not provide much rest or relaxation to those who are
making such great sacrifices to defend our freedom.
Anyone, Mr. Chairman, who has served in the military knows how
important it is to get home, especially those serving in combat. The
Ramstad-Moore amendment simply shifts $98 million in funds from the
Iraq Freedom Fund to the Army's personnel account.
Mr. Chairman, an amendment stating Congress' intent to expand the R&R
program to cover domestic travel costs was agreed to by unanimous
consent during the other body's consideration of the Iraq supplemental.
This amendment today would provide the funding necessary to pay for
these costs and would put this body on record in support of this
important initiative for our brave troops.
The Federal Government should clearly cover all travel and
transportation costs necessary to return our brave troops to their
homes, briefly reuniting wives and husbands, parents and children,
friends and loved ones. Getting our brave troops home for rest and
recuperation is the very least we can do to show our troops and their
families that we appreciate their service and their great sacrifice,
and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in
opposition, though it is my pleasure to say that I am highly inclined
to support the Ramstad amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H9627]]

Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to thank the distinguished chairman for accepting this important
amendment to show our troops that we truly do appreciate their
important service to our country and their great sacrifice.
Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore).
Mr. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my good friend, the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad), for his great work on this
bill. This is a worthy bill that should be considered and adopted by
this body, and I urge all of my colleagues to vote for the Ramstad-
Moore amendment.
Mr. Chairman, back on October 1, I introduced House Resolution 387, a
bipartisan resolution that now has 127 cosponsors, and basically it did
exactly what the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad) has written
into this amendment, and that is pay for the rest and recuperation
travel, full travel cost, for all of our military personnel serving in
Iraq and Afghanistan.
I heard a story on NPR about 3 weeks ago and was frankly stunned to
hear that young people who had been serving in Afghanistan and Iraq
were being brought home for R&R after serving their several months in
Afghanistan or Iraq, and then being deposited in Baltimore or some
other port city, and said, you are here, you have to pay for your own
travel home and back.
I was stunned. In fact, I did not believe that was really true. I
asked my staff to check, and found out in fact it was true, that they
were required to pay their travel costs home and back. This is not the
way we show honor and respect for the young people who serve our
military and protect our country.
So I applaud again the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad) for his
work on this, and I ask all of our colleagues to join with us in
supporting this. Again, 127 have signed on a similar bill. There is
broad bipartisan support in this body. And as the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad) said, the other body has already passed a
similar amendment by voice vote.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume to say that I am prepared to accept the amendment and to
yield back.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I simply would say that we certainly have no
objection to this amendment on this side. We have had several other
amendments, so it is about time it is accepted.
Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to voice my support to the
Ramstad-Moore amendment, which would allow troops on rest and
recreation leave to return from Iraq to their home of record. This
amendment benefits every member of the military serving in Operation
Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom from across the United
States, its territories and possessions. I am pleased that this
amendment will enable servicemen and women from Guam to return home,
even if only for a few days. This amendment will make a great
improvement in the morale of our troops because they will be re-united
with friends and family who are hoping and praying for their safe
return. On behalf of the children that will be reunited with a parent
and the couples that will see each other for the first time in months,
I strongly urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
Page 30, line 1, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $100,000,000)''.
Page 30, line 5, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $300,000,000)''.
Page 30, line 10, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $300,000,000)''.
Page 33, lines 19 and 20, after each dollar amount insert
``(increased by $70,000,000)''.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, October
16, 2003, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and a Member
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is important as we proceed with this debate
for the framework to be established that this is the largest
supplemental in the history of our country. If we were to follow the
instructions of the Federalist Papers, where this body was the place of
speech and discourse and debate, our Members would be engaged in this
very serious debate for an extended period of time.
Our Founding Fathers established this place of democracy so that we
could represent our constituents. In a town hall meeting just a few
days ago, my constituents asked about issues such as accountability and
issues as to how this money will impact both the peace and harmony of
the world we have come to know and come to love. They were concerned
about some very important issues: their children, the 19- and 20-year-
olds that we have on the front lines.
Over this past weekend, I had the opportunity to meet with many of
our troops that are experiencing an R&R from the Mideast. Mr. Chairman,
I was aghast at some of the issues that they were concerned about. And
I respect the appropriators, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), and I know the gentleman from
California (Mr. Lewis) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha)
have worked very hard, as has the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe)
and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey); but it disturbs me not
having the ability to offer important amendments. I hope I can work
with both the authorizers and the appropriators so that we would have
the opportunity to address the questions that I heard out of the mouths
of these young men and women.
This young man, Mr. Chairman, is playing the song ``Amazing Grace.''
These young people are saying that it is important to understand what
they are dealing with. Carpenters and electricians are being used as
police officers without any training. Reservists and National Guard are
not getting their pay on time. And they asked me the simple question of
why they cannot rotate in a period of 7 to 8 months, as opposed to not
knowing when they would leave. So I was going to offer an amendment
that would ensure that if this is passed that no monies are expended
until the Reservists and the National Guard monies are back on track
and are being paid.
Secretary Wolfowitz said that we had enough money in Iraq so that we
should not have had to have this supplemental of $20 billion; so the
least we can do, if we are not using the Iraqi oil money, is to at
least make sure our young troops are paid on time; that our young
troops as well are able to come home in an orderly time. And I am going
to engage the authorizers. I do not want their commentary to me, their
plea for help to go on deaf ears. I hope there is someone on the other
side of the aisle paying attention. Of course, Mr. Chairman, whenever a
Democrat says anything, it is of no value. Most of our amendments have
been voted down, and there is not a collegial and collaborative method
of looking at this.
The amendment I intend to offer this morning is very simple. It
responds to the concerns about Afghanistan, Iraq and human rights and
the rights of women. And it simply asks that we move money out of the
Iraqi oil, which is $2.1 billion. And, Mr. Chairman, if we want to put
a new face on America and Iraq, if we want people to understand our
values and the importance of protecting human rights, we want to move
beyond the graves of bones and not have those who move into positions
of power disrespect the diversity that is in Iraq, then we must invest
in human rights.
If we are going to make sure that the Taliban stays out, then we must
invest in the teachers of Afghanistan. Those

[[Page H9628]]

are the women. We must enhance human rights. We know recently that in
the human rights area in Afghanistan, we have found that there have
been 2,000 complaints. It is imperative that we have this money.
Mr. Chairman, we continue to shortchange Afghanistan's reconstruction
and security, and at the peril of jeopardizing the rights of Afghan
women and girls and hopes for a peaceful, democratic Afghanistan. The
funding levels in H.R. 3289 neither adequately make up for the small
amounts of reconstruction funding thus far nor do they meet the
country's needs. In particular I am concerned about the rights of women
and girls in Afghanistan. I am also concerned about human rights
efforts in Iraq.
This amendment increases the funds for Afghanistan Relief and
Reconstruction by $70 million in order to adequately support the human
rights needs of Afghan women and girls. This amendment also addresses
the human rights needs in Iraq by shifting $300 million within the
funds for Iraq Reconstruction to the areas of human rights, education,
refugees and democracy and governance.
My visit to Afghanistan in March 2002 demonstrated that we cannot
abandon Afghanistan and must take necessary steps to help the women and
children of that nation. In 1989 America turned its back on Afghanistan
after Soviet withdrawal. The events of September 11th have proven that
we cannot afford to turn a blind eye on a country that is still
susceptible to deterioration, yet that is what we have done.
After the military intervention by a US-led coalition that led to the
end of the Taliban regime in November 2001 Colin Powell, US Secretary
of State, declared that, ``The recovery of Afghanistan must entail the
restoration of the rights of Afghan women. Indeed, it will not be
possible without them. The rights of the women of Afghanistan will not
be negotiable.''
We must honor our promises to the women of Afghanistan, that is why a
significant portion of the $70 million my amendment designates to
Afghanistan relief and reconstruction must go directly to the Afghan
Independent Human Rights Commission. The Independent Human Rights
Commission was established by the Bonn Agreement and is chaired by the
courageous Dr. Sima Samar, the first Minister of Women's Affairs who
was then forced from that position by fundamentalist forces. While
there have been improvements since the fall of the Taliban, human
rights violations continue to be rampant and the human right situation
in Afghanistan has actually deteriorated over the past few months due
to the lack of security. Since the Human Rights Commission was
established in June 2002, it has received over 2,000 complaints of
human rights violations, over 900 of these complaints have been since
June 2003.
Under Dr. Samar's leadership, the Commission has established regional
offices which create public awareness about women's rights and human
rights and monitors rights violations, led human rights education
programs, provided leadership for the inclusion of women's rights in
the Afghan constitution, has established human rights training programs
for police, and has intervened directly in numerous cases of human
rights violations. As an independent agency, the Human Rights
Commission is able to act on behalf of those whose rights are most
vulnerable. We must strengthen the Human Rights Commission as a
permanent institution within Afghanistan so that it can safeguard
women's rights and human rights into the future. I urge that at least
$10 million of the funds from this amendment be devoted to the Afghan
Independent Human Rights Commission to carryout their brave work.

Girls' schools are under attack by fundamentalist extremists. In the
past year, more than 30 girls schools have been burned down or
violently attacked. At most of the sites of these attacks, leaflets
have been distributed threatening the families of girls who attend
school or the teachers who teach them. Flyers distributed at the site
of one of the first attacks read ``Stop sending your women to offices
and daughters to schools. It spreads indecency and vulgarity. Stand
ready for the consequences if you do not heed the advice.'' Some
families are now afraid to send their daughters to school.
Recently, mosques in Kabul warned that if women did not quit their
work with NGOs that jihad would be waged. Women who do not wear burqas
routinely face harassment and threats. Trafficking of young women is a
major problem in Afghanistan. Warlords in some areas continue to impose
Taliban-like restrictions on women. In Herat, women are still forced to
wear the burqa, are sometimes pulled off of the street for forced
chastity tests, and are not allowed to attend classes taught by men.
Even if the constitution adopted by the Loya Jirga in December
contains women's rights provisions, the work for women's rights will be
far from over. Security in the country must be dramatically improved
and rule of law established for the constitution to be enforced.
Massive human rights and women's rights public education programs are
necessary to make people aware of their rights, to deter human rights
violations, and to bring the violators of these rights to justice,
which is one of the reasons that the work of the Afghan Independent
Human Rights Commission is so essential.
Forced marriages are a major form of human rights violation faced by
women. Under Taliban and also today, women routinely taken from their
homes into forced marriages that are imposed against their will. Often
these are underage marriages as well, with girls as young as 8 forced
to marry old men. Some are cases where commanders force marriages on
women in order to take control of land that the women have inherited.
Warring factions continue to fight, and in these areas of the country
military commanders routinely rape women. In one case, women fled into
a river and drowned father than suffer sexual violence at the hands of
the commanders.
In the last two years only 1 percent of Afghanistan's reconstruction
needs have been met. The country remains in shambles from two decades
of war and lack of development. Most people in the country do not have
access to electricity, health care, schools, and sanitation. Not only
is the lack of reconstruction depriving people of very basic services,
but it is contributing to instability in the country and a lack of
confidence in the central government.
The transitional government in Afghanistan estimates that between
$20-30 billion is needed over the next five years. In other post-
conflict settings, an average of $250 per person was spent per year in
aid. But in Afghanistan, donors spent only $64 per person in 2002.

The proposed $800 million Afghanistan reconstruction supplemental
spending request represents less than 1 percent of the total $87
billion Iraq and Afghanistan package. The $20 billion request for Iraq
reconstruction funding is 25 times as large as the Afghanistan request.
Yet Afghanistan has approximately the same population size as Iraq and
suffered more destruction over 23 year of war.
The administration has talked about modeling reconstruction efforts
on the Marshall Plan. Yet funding proposed for Afghanistan in crucial
areas is low or nonexistent--$49 million for health care, $191 million,
for road construction and nothing specifically for human rights.
The mark to increase reconstruction funding for Afghanistan by $400
million is a step in the right direction. But still more must be done,
especially for women and girls.
Women and girls continue to face severe hardship and violations of
their rights in Afghanistan. Yet the Afghanistan request does not
specify funds for programs to improve the status of women and to remedy
the tremendous injustices they faced under the Taliban regime. My
amendment proposes designating $70 million for women's programs in the
area of political rights and human rights, education and training, and
security, protection and shelters.
Some girls have gone back to school in Afghanistan, but the majority
have not because there are not enough schools and those that do exist
are in very bad shape. The Asian Development Bank estimates that an
additional 13,851 primary schools need to be constructed, but the
Administration request is only for 275 schools. Some 40% of schools in
Afghanistan were completely destroyed during the war, another 15% were
heavily damaged, and in many areas of the country there were no schools
for girls.
We must provide direct support to help strengthen those women-led,
permanent Afghan institutions whose mission it is to promote women's
rights and human rights. That is why the Afghan Independent Human
Rights Commission and the Ministry of Women's Affairs should get
support from this bill. These are funds already authorized in the
Afghan Freedom Support Act of 2002, but which still for the most part
have not been appropriated. We must take bold and meaningful steps to
keep our promise to the women and girls of Afghanistan.
Mr. Chairman, In addition to my desire to express vehement opposition
to the supplemental appropriation request for $87 billion of H.R. 3289
and the need for better accounting of this request, I rise at this time
in support of amendment number JACKSO.150 that I offered to the Rules
Committee for this bill. The amendment reads as follows:

Effective as of the end of the 45-day period beginning on
the date of the enactment of this Act, none of the funds made
available in this Act for the Department of Defense may be
obligated or expended unless the backlog, as of the date of
the enactment of this Act, in the payment to members of the
reserve components of pay and allowances accrued by reason of
active-duty service has been eliminated so that such payments
are current and in accordance with regular disbursement
cycles.

This language will give the Department of Defense a reasonable amount
of time to make timely payment of compensation funds to reservist and
National Guard personnel and

[[Page H9629]]

eliminate the backlog that causes these men and women financial
hardship.
During my visit to the As-Sayliyah Central Command Base in Doha,
Qatar last weekend, I heard first-hand accounts as to the extent of the
delay in receiving pay experience by these ladies and gentlemen who
protect our lives each day in the Middle East. These troops, many of
who rely on military compensation to provide the lion's share of
support for spouses and children. When the compensation is untimely or
nonexistent, the troops suffer the compound effect of stress over
delayed payment of personal bills and the problems that stem from the
misallocation of duties, namely, ineffective directives and increased
vulnerability to potential attacks.
Army reservists and National Guard members are fielding threatening
phone calls from bill collectors because the federal government is not
promptly reimbursing them for lodging costs and other expenses.
Military officials have repeatedly confirmed that there are delays
affecting thousands of reservists and Guard members, including those
stationed at the U.S. Central Command in Tampa, FL. They said the scope
of the war on terror has overwhelmed the Pentagon's check-writing
office.
Our reservists receive repeated telephone calls demanding payment for
overdue bills from the Bank of America, ironically the administrator of
government-issued credit cards. A reservist at MacDill Air Force Base
complained that bank representatives called at all hours--at home, at
work and on a cell phone. A Pentagon official said that the backlog in
compensation affects 23,000 reservists, both Army Reserve and members
of the Army National Guard. The Pentagon is considering creating the
Reserve Pay Center of Excellence in Cleveland to help resolve pay
issues. Another official familiar with the back-pay issue at CentCom,
the nerve center of the Iraq war said hundreds of Army reservists and
members of the Army National Guard were having trouble getting
reimbursed for travel pay.

A commander of the Army Reserve Forces learned of the problem in
recent weeks during town hall meetings with reservists. Our soldiers
surely do not need that kind of pressure.
An Army Reserve spokesman at Fort McPherson in Atlanta, Steve
Stromball, blamed the money problem on the Defense Finance and
Accounting Service, the accounting arm of the Defense Department. He
said the accounting service's workload has tripled because of the
number of reservists who have been mobilized to help fight the war on
terror.
Since 9/11, 80,000 Army reservists have been mobilized. Over 78,238
members of the Army National Guard also have been deployed. At MacDill
Air Force Base, where there are about 1,400 reservists from the various
services, the problem appears to be especially acute for soldiers who
live off base. The problem often boils down to rent payments. When
reservists arrive at MacDill for assignments that range from six months
to a year, they can get lodging on base at the MacDill Inn, which has
300 quarters assigned to military personnel. Often there is no room
available, so reservists are assigned off-base housing. MacDill has
contracts with 35 hotels and 10 to 15 apartment complexes.
Moreover, Reservists can choose to cover the rent themselves, but
many charge it on government-issued Bank of America credit cards. The
credit cards, used to cover business expenses, including rent, food and
car rental, are issued depending upon how often reservists travel.
However, the delay in compensation frequently leads to diminishing
creditworthiness for these heroes. Each credit card has a limit of
several thousand dollars and the entire balance must be paid off each
month.
To cover the rent, reservists file a voucher for reimbursement and
pay off the credit card balance when they get reimbursed. A transaction
that used to take federal officials eight days to process, however, now
takes as much as 23 days, according to a spokesman for the Defense
Finance and Accounting Service. Some reservists have been unable to pay
their credit card bills on time, triggering telephone calls from the
bank and diminished creditworthiness. If payment is more than a month
late, the bank freezes the credit card account. People who fight on the
front line for our freedom and safety shouldn't experience this
hardship.
Instead of creating hardship and compounded stress for our war
heroes, we need to adequately and timely compensate them. It is bad
enough that they must fight under extremely vulnerable conditions and
with no known exit plan. The least we can do is pay them for their
services.
Mr. Chairman, although the War in Iraq will cost all American
taxpayers dearly, the toughest burden will fall on the shoulders of our
troops serving overseas and their families here at home. This amendment
states that none of the funds made available in this Act may be
obligated or expended until personnel policies have been implemented to
ensure that none of our troops or employees are being required to
remain in Iraq for more than six months at a time. This amendment will
help ensure that our troops and their families remain mentally fit and
rested, and that military tours will remain a reasonable commitment in
service to this nation.
I would like to commend your attention to an article in today's
Washington Post, titled ``Many Troops Dissatisfied, Iraq Poll Finds.''
I know that a lot of you do not believe our nation's biggest
newspapers, and feel that they are painting an unfairly gloomy picture
of the situation in Iraq. But this article is just reporting on a study
conducted in Iraq by the Stars and Stripes newspaper funded by the
Defense Department. That study questioned 1,935 U.S. Service members
serving in Iraq on their attitudes toward the war, and the jobs they
are doing.
Of those, half responded that their unit's morale is low. In a
statistic with ominous implications for the future of our military, 49
percent reported that they did not plan to reenlist. The most troubled
of our soldiers were reservists, who used to be known as ``weekend
warriors''--many of whom have families and careers put on hold almost
indefinitely, as this War continues without a clear exit strategy.
The president has stated that the War on Terror will be a long and
involved one. Therefore, must pace ourselves and our troops, and we
must ensure that our armed services can continue to recruit good people
in the future. This amendment will help do just that. As the Stars and
Stripes confirmed, life in Iraq is extremely stressful for our soldiers
risking their lives trying to make the best of a difficult situation.
Keeping our soldiers on six-month rotations will give them time to
decompress and unwind--to see friends and family, or just to get a
change of scenery.
If we plan to continue to have a voluntary service military, we must
make every reasonable effort to retain the soldiers we have and to make
service more palatable to potential recruits. There are many brave
American men and women who would be willing to commit to protecting
this nation and its interest. However, we cannot expect them to make
unreasonable sacrifices. A six-month tour in Iraq is a great
commitment, and it is reasonable.
I hope my colleagues will support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yields 10 seconds to the distinguished gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) in support of the amendment.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from
Texas for yielding me this time, and I stand in accord with what the
gentlewoman from Texas has said.
It is critical, Mr. Chairman, that we recognize the importance or the
violation of human rights in Iraq and the women's rights in
Afghanistan. For years, I have worked with a lot of Members of the
House in working on women's rights in Afghanistan and ensuring that
they have more of a governance, more education, and the same as in
Iraq. So I urge everyone to support the gentlewoman's amendment.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of
my time, and I plead with my colleagues to understand that this is a
monumental decision that we are making. We need to change the face of
America and Iraq and Afghanistan. We need to engage by ensuring that
they understand the true values of Americans, our love for democracy,
equality, and our love and respect for women's rights, our respect for
human rights. It is important that we overcome the undermining of our
world status after 9-11 by a preemptive attack against Iraq.
It is important as well that we respond to the needs of our young
troops who have been willing to give the ultimate sacrifice and who
have lost their lives on the front lines in Iraq, by ensuring that we
pay them on time and that we have an exit strategy to bring our troops
home. With that, Mr. Chairman, I ask that my colleagues vote for the
Jackson-Lee amendment that invests in human rights and women's rights
in Afghanistan and Iraq and further I ask that my amendment regarding
troop pay for Reservists and the National Guard adjusted so their pay
is received by them promptly and my amendment regarding a date certain
for the troops to return home to the U.S. be immediately addressed.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield I yield myself such time as I may
consume, and I do rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, let me begin with noting my disappointment in the
remarks

[[Page H9630]]

of the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) that Democratic
amendments have not been accepted or not been listened to. We are now
in our third day of debate on this bill. We have had a large number of
amendments, most of which have come from the minority side, and a
number of Democratic amendments have been accepted.
When the gentlewoman said it is not done in a collegial way, let me
just note specifically in the area she is talking about, education in
Iraq, that there is $90 million specifically set aside for education in
Iraq that was not requested by the President, because the gentlewoman
from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee,
came to me and talked to me about this issue. So we have these funds in
there at the request of the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), at
the request of the minority, not because of the President's request,
but because this body, this subcommittee, has worked in a collegial
fashion.
Now, what the gentlewoman is suggesting is putting more money into
that and more money into Afghanistan. But our committee, again not at
the President's request, but recognizing the need for us to follow
through with our commitment in Afghanistan and recognizing the
deteriorating security conditions in Afghanistan, our subcommittee has
increased the amount of assistance for Afghanistan by almost $400
million.

{time} 1015

I have already noted that we specifically set aside $90 million for
education in Iraq that was not requested by the administration.
As far as the areas where this would come out of, $100 million out of
the IRRF fund, $300 million out of restoring the oil production in Iraq
which, by the way, is the only way Iraq is ever going to generate
enough funds that they can do their own reconstruction, that they can
stand on their own feet, to take that $300 million out of there is to
not only harm the infrastructure, the effort to reconstruct the
infrastructure, but harm the immediate needs of Iraqi citizens to have
heating oil and kerosene for cooking, the cooking and heating oil that
is absolutely vital as we go into the winter months there in Iraq. It
has to do not just with comfort for the people in Iraq but in many
cases the very livelihoods, the very survival, particularly when
children are involved.
I think the gentlewoman's intentions are good, but that is why we
discussed this issue at length in the subcommittee and that is why we
discussed it at the full committee level too. I think we have come with
what, I think, is a fair and a balanced division of the funds as it is
going to the various accounts in Iraq.
And so, Mr. Chairman, I think that this would upset that balance. I
do not think it is the right way to go, though I respect the
gentlewoman's intentions.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman for his very
thoughtful explanation. This is the kind of debate I would like to see
continue in this House. I respectfully, if you will, acknowledge our
difference of opinion, but what my point was is that there were many,
many amendments that we had on issues that were very important on this
very historic and important vote and those were not allowed. But what I
would like to simply ask the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) is
on the amendments that I did not ask on the payment of the National
Guard, and all of us have had certainly constituents in our district
who have been on the front lines and who are Reservists and National
Guards. One of the issues they raise, and it may be a logistical issue,
is getting their pay on time. I did not get a chance to offer an
amendment that said, let us ensure that we put procedures in place so
that our National Guards and Reservists get their pay on time. Can we
work together or can we just ensure that the logistics will ensure,
since it is authorized pay, that they will be able to get those
payments?
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and the
gentlewoman is much too young to remember this.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman for his compliment.
Mr. LEWIS of California. During the big war, there was a word, a
phrase, it is really a word, a snafu was common among all people who
were in the service. The military has often screwed up, I must tell
you, and it is ridiculous. Absolutely, we agree with the gentlewoman's
position. We will do everything we can to improve that process. Your
highlighting it here is very helpful.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would urge the Members
to reject this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-
Lee) will be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Hoeffel

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Hoeffel:
In section 2212(b) (relating to report on military
operations and reconstruction efforts), strike paragraphs (7)
through (9) and insert the following:
(7) A description of progress made toward the establishment
of an independent, sovereign, and democratic government for
Iraq, including an estimated schedule for the drafting of a
constitution and the holding of free and fair elections.
(8) A description of the extent of international
participation in the stabilization and reconstruction of
Iraq, including the amount and schedule for the provision of
financial assistance by other countries and international
organizations.
(9) The number of members of the Armed Forces (including
national guard and reserve troops) deployed in connection
with Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom,
an estimate of the period of time for which such forces will
be deployed, and a description of progress made in replacing
such forces with international or foreign peacekeeping units.

Mr. HOEFFEL (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, October
16, 2003, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) and a Member
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel).
Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I believe we need more information about our situation
in Iraq. I would like to offer an amendment to add additional requests
for information to a section of the bill that the Appropriations
Committee added, appropriately so, an amendment offered by the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) that requires the President to
submit quarterly reports to Congress on military operations and
reconstruction efforts in Iraq. I think the committee did the right
thing. I think we should ask for more information. And so my amendment
would add additional requirements to three sections of the reporting
provision already in the bill.
One provision in the bill asks for a description of progress made
toward the holding of free and fair elections. My amendment would add
to that section a schedule for the transfer of power to the Iraqi
people, including the drafting of an Iraqi constitution.
A second section already in the bill asks for a description of the
extent of international participation in the stabilization and
reconstruction of Iraq, including the amount of provision for financial
assistance. I would add a schedule for the provision of financial
assistance from other nations and from the United Nations be added as a
requirement.
And, finally, a section of the bill asks for the number of Armed
Forces deployed in connection with Operation Iraqi Freedom and
Operation Enduring Freedom be reported quarterly. I would

[[Page H9631]]

add to that section an estimate on how long our troops, including the
National Guard and Reserves, will remain in Iraq and the progress being
made in replacing them with troops from other nations or from U.N.
peacekeepers.
I think these reports on a quarterly basis would help us understand
the situation in Iraq, would help this Congress fulfill our
constitutional duties of oversight and would help us better exercise
our power of the purse. I am concerned that we have not had an adequate
and a concrete plan to win the peace in Iraq. Our soldiers performed
brilliantly and bravely and the military victory was a rousing success.
I am concerned that we are not winning the peace. And we have a number
of national goals in Iraq. We need to stabilize the country; we need to
support and better protect our troops; we need to establish a
pluralistic society and a representative self-government; we need to
internationalize the construction and the security in Iraq; we need to
put Iraqis quickly back in charge of Iraq. For us to do our job
appropriately and to exercise our oversight and exercise our power of
the purse, we need more information. I would ask the House to approve
this amendment that would give on a quarterly basis more information to
the Congress.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member seek time in opposition to the
amendment?
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I will not oppose this amendment. This perfects some language that
was adopted in the committee offered by the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Hinchey) on requiring quarterly reports to be made and placing
some additional requirements in that report which, I think, is useful
information for us to have. This substitutes some language in three of
the paragraphs and adds to it, tightens that up, and, for the most
part, I do not have any objection to it.
I do find a problem, and I just want the gentleman to know this
because that is really an issue, I think, in the conference. I do have
a problem with one issue in paragraph nine where it requires that the
administration give the Congress an estimate of the period of time for
which such forces will be deployed. That is probably not possible for
them to do, to actually tell how long the forces are going to be
deployed because we do not know the circumstances of what is going to
happen in Iraq either with the democracy there or with external
circumstances that might require them to be there longer than we would
like. But other than that, I would think the language here is helpful,
and we can deal with that issue in the conference. And so, Mr.
Chairman, I am prepared to accept the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank the gentleman for his comments. Just two quick comments. I
gave credit to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for this
amendment in committee. The gentleman gave credit to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Hinchey). Whoever deserves the credit should get it,
because the Committee on Appropriations did a good job with that.
Regarding the requirement of an estimate of the period of time, I am
asking for an estimate, not an ironclad statement of future
requirements because I know that is difficult. And as part of my
language also, a description of the progress of bringing other troops
in, I think that is all part of trying to get quarterly reports to the
Congress so we can better understand what is happening. I thank the
gentleman for his cooperation and his leadership.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mrs. Tauscher

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

Amendment offered by Mrs. Tauscher:
Page 3, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $300,000,000)''.
Page 19, after line 20, insert the following new section:
Sec. . XX. The total amount appropriated by this chapter is
hereby reduced by $300,000,000.

Mrs. TAUSCHER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from California?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, October
16, 2003, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher) and a Member
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher).
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I am offering an amendment with my friend and colleague from
California (Mr. George Miller) to transfer $300 million from the
weapons inspectors in Iraq to pay for lifesaving equipment for the Army
National Guard and Reserve troops currently serving there. Our
amendment would leave the remaining $300 million to focus on finding
weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, if there are any. Some 300,000 of
our Guard and Reserve personnel have been called to active duty to
fight terrorists in Africa and Asia and secure the peace in
Afghanistan, the Balkans and Iraq. They are being called on to serve
multiple tours and will continue to serve until we either stabilize
Iraq or get international troops in there to share the burden. Yet our
Guard and Reserve forces are working in Iraq without bulletproof
jackets, armored vehicles and other basic lifesaving equipment. I am
deeply concerned that if the demands of the Guard and Reserve do not
ease up in the coming months, we will severely undermine our ability to
attract new Reservists and keep ones that we have, which will prevent
those who are currently serving in Iraq from returning to civilian
life. If we are to depend on our brave citizen-soldiers to secure the
peace in Iraq and prosecute the war on terrorism elsewhere, it is
critical that they have the same equipment as everyone else.
I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment to increase funds to
protect the lives of our troops currently serving in Iraq.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California
(Mr. George Miller).
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague
from California for introducing this amendment and making sure that it
was in order. It raises a very important question. It is a matter of
life and death for the members of our National Guard.
Currently we have a policy in place which makes a lot of sense in
ordinary circumstances for the taxpayer and for the use of our
equipment and, that is, that the Guard gets essentially hand-me-down
equipment as we buy new equipment for the active forces to engage in
combat. But now what we find out is because of our manpower problems
and the longer deployments of the Guard and a deeper reaching into the
Guard structure in this country to deploy people in Iraq, in
Afghanistan, we are in the situation where we now have the Guard
entering the field of combat with old and, in some cases, obsolete
equipment, equipment that is not compatible, communications equipment
that is not compatible, Humvees that are from the first generation that
do not provide the kind of protection to the occupants of that vehicle
that the newer Humvees do. Yet, now we find, as I have been told by
Guard members on the phone from Baghdad, in letters from Baghdad, they
are seeing modern equipment being rotated back to the United States as
those units are rotated out and the Guard is still left with old,
obsolete, unsafe equipment.
The National Guard must not be put into the theater of combat with
less than the same equipment that the active Army is put into the field
of combat with. We cannot treat them as second-class citizens. This is
a policy that

[[Page H9632]]

makes sense in peacetime, but this is a policy that is now lethal to
our Guard members. I would hope that the committee, in its
deliberations, would be able to address this problem.
I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California
and the gentleman from California for this amendment which would
provide additional equipment to our troops and still leave our U.S.
inspections team with adequate resources for the search. But there is a
simple way for the United States to supplement our search efforts by
bringing back the highly trained U.N. troops to help in the effort. We
have all said the international community should share in the burden
and share in the cost. We have an opportunity right now. The U.N. has a
team of over 354 inspectors on the ground, trained, ready to go on
short notice. What would it cost the United States? Nothing. They are
paid for through the U.N. dues. They can also supplement our effort in
another way. They can bring us something that money cannot buy, which
is credibility. The fact of the matter is that this administration has
lost much of its credibility with respect to claims it made of weapons
of mass destruction.

{time} 1030

If we want the international community and the American people to
have faith in the findings, it is important that we bring in an
independent inspection team to join our efforts. Only then can we
convince the international community that any findings they make are
legitimate and unbiased.
So I thank the gentlewoman for offering this important amendment. It
is a win-win.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in
opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I do not intend at this moment to use the 5 minutes, but I must say I
absolutely understand the gentlewoman's presenting this amendment for,
indeed, we spent time together in Iraq, I have been saying a whole
month in one weekend in Iraq together. That is not because of our
wonderful charm, but because of what we experienced there together, the
reality that Saddam Hussein is the worst tyrant, clearly competing with
Hitler and Stalin. We learned that he was capable of almost anything. I
will never forget the gentlewoman, as we were together at the killing
fields, urging me and others to join together in a moment of silence,
thinking about the potential of mass destruction as a part of this
guy's everyday existence as long as he was ruling that country.
Indeed, I do not know exactly what we might find. I am hesitant about
reducing this amount of money. I am going to be willing to talk about
it as we go forward, but, indeed, the things that David Kay is about in
his work are very important for us as we look at the challenges of
dealing with people like this. So it is with great reluctance that I
resist and ask for a ``no'' vote on the gentlewoman's amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I want to thank the chairman of the Defense Subcommittee of the
Committee on Appropriations for not only including me on the trip but
for his eloquence and his leadership. I appreciate the fact that he
recognizes the urgent needs of our Guard and Reserve. I know that he
intends to work diligently to provide them with the money to get this
new equipment. I do think that it would be wiser for us to have U.N.
inspectors in there not only to have more credibility but also to share
the burden. And I urge my colleagues to vote ``aye'' on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I just might mention that the gentlewoman's expression of
international involvement is a very appropriate one, and I would
highlight her remarks by mentioning that the U.N. voted unanimously
yesterday, getting the U.N. really on board for the first time in
helping us with this effort. In the meantime, moving this money around
in this fashion when we have done so much as we have in O & M and the
bill in general, I hesitate about it, and therefore I ask for a ``no''
vote. And I want to tell the gentlewoman I very much appreciate the
work she has done with me.
I might mention, just to take the time, when we were together
following our weekend, we actually sat down together for hours, our
team of 17, and in the midst of it, one of our colleagues said, I am
one, a liberal Democrat, who voted ``no'' to going to war, but after
seeing what I see here about Saddam Hussein, I must say I have got to
be ahead of my people. It is going to be unpopular at home.
It is time for us to lead, and therefore I am going to support this
request of the President to carry forward this war on terrorism.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, we have an opportunity to immediately
obtain the help of the international community in sharing the burden
and cost of some of our efforts in Iraq.
As part of his $87 billion request, President Bush has asked for an
additional $600 million to pay for our team of weapons inspectors in
Iraq--known as the Iraq Survey Group--so that they may continue their
search for weapons of mass destruction. This team of 1,200 inspectors,
led by David Kay, has searched for WMD in Iraq for many months now. The
President's request would increase that team to 1,400 inspectors.
I had an amendment prepared would allow us to greatly reduce the
costs to the American taxpayer of conducting that search and
dramatically increase the credibility of any findings made by the
inspectors. The Republican majority refused to allow that amendment to
come to a vote. I am pleased that Rep. Tauscher has offered this
amendment. It provides for better equipment for our troops and leaves
$300 million for our inspection team. We can supplement our team by
bring back the U.N. inspectors. The President should immediately invite
the existing team of United Nations' inspectors--known as UNMOVIC--to
participate in the search for WMD in Iraq. The U.N. has a pool of
inspectors who have 12 years of experience investigating Iraq's
programs and many of whom speak Arabic. According to its most recent
report, UNMOVIC has a roster of 354 trained experts available to serve
in Iraq at short notice. This important resource should be put to use,
allowing us to reduce the size and costs of our team of inspectors.
What would it cost us to engage these trained experts? Nothing. The
costs of UNMOVIC are borne by the United Nations and paid for through
the dues of the member nations.
Engaging the U.N. weapons inspectors in the search for WMD would also
get us something that money can't buy--credibility. With respect to the
existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the Bush
Administration has lost its credibility with the American people and
has undermined American credibility in the international community.
Before the war, our Secretary of State told the United Nations that the
Iraqis were attempting to import nuclear weapons material from Africa.
The U.N. inspectors reviewed the evidence and determined the claims
were based on forged documents. The U.S. conceded the point and, worse,
it turns out that agencies within the U.S. government had already
questioned the veracity of the documents. Our Secretary of Defense told
the world that we knew the location of the weapons of mass destruction.
We now know that was untrue. In the aftermath of the war, the President
claimed that two mobile trailers found in Iraq were evidence of a
biological weapons program. Our inspection team has recently had to
retreat from that claim. Again and again, Administration officials from
the President on down have made false claims about Iraqi WMD. Even the
Economist magazine, which had been a booster of the war, has stated
that the Bush Administration is seen around the world as having its own
arsenal of WMD--Wielders of Mass Deception.
The only way to restore confidence in the search for WMD is to bring
in an impartial team of international inspectors. David Kay, the leader
of our team, is stuck in a fundamental contradiction. He wears two
hats, serving as both fact finder and salesman for the Administration.
No matter how high his personal integrity, this dual role undermines
the credibility of any findings his team may make.
It is critical to the integrity of the process that independent U.N.
weapons inspectors be invited to participate in the search and given

[[Page H9633]]

the opportunity to independently evaluate any claims made by David Kay
and the Iraq Survey Group. The American people should not be asked to
spend an additional $600 million to fund a search that is widely
perceived to be an effort to provide cover for an Administration that
has lost its credibility on this issue at home and abroad.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Tauscher).
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr.
Langevin) for the purposes of colloquy.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding and
the opportunity to address this critical issue on the floor today.
Mr. Chairman, as we are poised to invest billions of dollars in the
reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan, I believe that it is imperative
that we address the infrastructure needs of people with disabilities in
the rebuilding process. Conflicts in other countries result in higher-
than-average rates of disabilities for people, and the need for their
consideration in the planning and design stages of new construction
simply cannot be understated. Furthermore, given the history of
discrimination and abuse of people with disabilities in Iraq, targeted
programs through multi-inclusion of Iraqis with disabilities in public
life and education will be necessary and, in fact, imperative.
Including these matters, I believe, as a forethought will result in
little up-front cost and save significant time and expense down the
road. It is always more difficult and more costly to retrofit than it
is to plan it in the earlier stages when construction is just being
planned.
Finally, I believe that it is time to align our foreign policies with
our national priorities, and currently foreign assistance funding is
not required to be used in a manner that ensures access to people with
disabilities. And this is inconsistent with our own civil rights laws,
most notably the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Mr. Chairman, I was hoping and wanted to ask as this bill moves
forward and goes to conference that the gentleman would be willing to
work with me to perhaps ensure that those things are considered.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Rhode Island for
bringing this issue to our attention, but most importantly for his
strong leadership on this issue.
I agree with him that our foreign assistance dollars ought to be
spent in a manner that is not only efficient but that is inclusive of
all peoples including those with disabilities. I agree that the needs
of people with disabilities ought to be a priority as we proceed with
the reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan; and as we negotiate the
terms of this spending bill, I certainly intend to keep the gentleman's
comments today here in mind as we look at the report language and bill
language. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman and look forward to
working with him.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Sherman

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Sherman:
At the end of the bill (preceding the short title), add the
following:
Sec. . None of the amounts made available and allocated
for oil infrastructure under the heading ``Iraq Relief and
Reconstruction Fund'' may be used to enter into any contract
using procedures other than competitive procedures.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of October 16, 2003,
the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes of time on the amendment.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The supplemental proposal before us today provides $2.1 billion for
oil infrastructure improvements and reconstruction in Iraq. The public
and the world are a bit skeptical as to how that money will be spent.
The answer to that skepticism is in government contract law which
provides for procedures for competitive bidding. However, there are on
many occasions exceptions to the competitive bidding rules that have
been employed by this administration.
The purpose of this amendment is to say that, with regard to the oil
work, there will be no further exceptions at least for the money being
spent under this bill.
This amendment does not affect our military procurement or our
troops. It does not affect any emergency acquisitions of food or
medicine or other humanitarian assistance. It deals only with the
lucrative construction projects for the Iraqi oil system. And as to
those projects, we should say no sole-source contracts.
Last night we debated a part of this issue. Congress demanded
notification whenever there was sole-source contracting, and that is
important as far as it goes. But with regard to these highly sensitive
oil contracts, we need to go further and say no sole-sourcing at all.
It is not just a matter of notification. There is no exigency, no
national security justification for secrecy and sole-source contracting
when we are talking about building oil wells in Iraq.
I am particularly concerned with the one company, Halliburton. This
administration seems unable to contain its affection for this one
corporation. Before the war, Halliburton won $1.4 billion for Iraq on a
no-bid basis--before the hostilities even began and at a time when the
administration was saying that hostilities were our last resort. The
Halliburton Company greatly overcharged the American Government for its
work in Kosovo. Recently, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman)
and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) brought to the attention
of this House the fact that Halliburton was charging a $1.70 a gallon
for gasoline in Iraq at a time and a place where others were selling it
for only 70 cents. American taxpayers are being ripped off for over
half the price. This amendment will make sure that the building of the
Iraqi oil infrastructure is done legitimately, that American taxpayers
and the entire world know that fair processes are being pursued.
Given the incredible justification for skepticism as to how oil
contracts have been let by this administration, it is appropriate for
us to impose ``regular order'' in dealing with these oil contracts.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me use this 1 minute to address another issue, and that is to
commend the United States Senate for adopting an amendment yesterday
similar to one debated here on this floor. That amendment says that
half the money being used to rebuild Iraq will be in the form of loans.
That is an important decision by the United States Senate. The Senate
version of that amendment was, I think, crafted in a more sophisticated
manner than we were able to offer here on this floor given the House
rules. I think that amendment might have passed this House, and in any
case I urge our conferees to recede to the Senate on the issue of a $9
billion loan, $9 billion gift to rebuild Iraq.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I do rise in opposition to this amendment. We already had a full
debate on this issue last night, as a matter of fact. The bill that we
have before us has provisions, rather extensive provisions, dealing
with competition and providing for full and open competition. These
were provisions that were worked out with the chairman of the Committee
on Government Reform and the staff and, I believe, ranking members as
well. Those provisions were amended last night here on this floor in
the House. A perfecting amendment was added to it, which struck a
particular exception on the notification. If it was a sole-source
contract, it struck the exceptions for that. So notification

[[Page H9634]]

has to be given before those contracts are awarded.
This sets up a separate procedure that has no exception at all for
it, even for an urgent situation. I am not sure if the gentleman has
thought about what happens if there is a break in an oil line, what
happens if there is a fire. They cannot go through a long bidding
process for that. They have to take the money that is available and do
an immediate contract. But even under those circumstances, there are
procedures for competitive bidding and for open bidding, for making
sure it is done in an open manner; and that is basically what the law
that the Committee on Government Reform has the responsibility for is
all about. That legislation, which is quite extensive, provides for
open competition, provides for the bidding process, and it provides for
the exceptions which are in there. And as I said last night on this
floor, this body decided to eliminate at least one of those particular
exceptions.
So I think we have thoroughly debated this issue, and I might say
that the language as it is drafted here is not really, it seems to me,
in legislative or legal form where it says ``enter into any contract
using procedures other than competitive procedures.'' That ``other than
competitive procedures'' is not a term which appears in the law
anyplace, so we do not know exactly what ``competitive'' means there.
``Fully competitive'' is something that does appear in the law, but
``competitive'' does not.

{time} 1045

So it is not at all clear what really the impact of this would be.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment and urge its rejection.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
California (Mr. Sherman).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SHERMAN. 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 California (Mr. Sherman)
will be postponed.
The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will rise informally.
The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Lewis of California) assumed the Chair.

____________________