[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 146 (Friday, October 17, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H9652-H9677]
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} 1355
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 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 earlier today, the
amendment by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) had been disposed
of and the bill had been read through page 2, line 2.
Pursuant to House Resolution 401, the bill is considered read for
amendment and no further motion or amendment is in order.
The text of the remainder of the bill is as follows:
TITLE I--NATIONAL SECURITY
CHAPTER 1
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--MILITARY
MILITARY PERSONNEL
Military Personnel, Army
For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Army'',
$12,188,870,000: Provided,
[[Page H9653]]
That the entire amount is designated by the Congress as an
emergency requirement pursuant to section 502 of H. Con. Res.
95 (108th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget
for fiscal year 2004.
Military Personnel, Navy
For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Navy'',
$816,100,000: Provided, That the entire amount is designated
by the Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to
section 502 of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress), the
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004.
Military Personnel, Marine Corps
For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Marine
Corps'', $753,190,000: Provided, That the entire amount is
designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement
pursuant to section 502 of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress),
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004.
Military Personnel, Air Force
For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Air
Force'', $3,384,700,000: Provided, That the entire amount is
designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement
pursuant to section 502 of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress),
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Operation and Maintenance, Army
For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Army'', $24,355,664,000: Provided, That the entire amount is
designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement
pursuant to section 502 of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress),
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004.
Operation and Maintenance, Navy
(including transfer of funds)
For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Navy'', $1,934,058,000, of which up to $80,000,000 may be
transferred to the Department of Homeland Security for Coast
Guard Operations: Provided, That the entire amount is
designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement
pursuant to section 502 of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress),
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004.
Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps
For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Marine Corps'', $1,198,981,000: Provided, That the entire
amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency
requirement pursuant to section 502 of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th
Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal
year 2004.
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force
For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Air Force'', $5,598,368,000: Provided, That the entire amount
is designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement
pursuant to section 502 of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress),
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004.
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide
For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Defense-Wide'', $4,485,452,000, of which--
(1) not to exceed $15,000,000 may be used for the CINC
Initiative Fund account, to be used primarily in Iraq and
Afghanistan; and
(2) not to exceed $1,300,000,000, to remain available until
expended, may be used, notwithstanding any other provision of
law, for payments to reimburse Pakistan, Jordan, and other
key cooperating nations, for logistical and military support
provided, or to be provided, to United States military
operations in connection with military action in Iraq and the
global war on terrorism: Provided, That such payments may be
made in such amounts as the Secretary of Defense, with the
concurrence of the Secretary of State, and in consultation
with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, may
determine, in his discretion, based on documentation
determined by the Secretary of Defense to adequately account
for the support provided, and such determination is final and
conclusive upon the accounting officers of the United States,
and 15 days following notification to the appropriate
congressional committees: Provided further, That the
Secretary of Defense shall provide quarterly reports to the
Committees on Appropriations on the use of these funds:
Provided further, That the entire amount is designated by the
Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 502
of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress), the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004.
Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve
For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Marine Corps Reserve'', $16,000,000: Provided, That the
entire amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency
requirement pursuant to section 502 of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th
Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal
year 2004.
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve
For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Air Force Reserve'', $53,000,000: Provided, That the entire
amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency
requirement pursuant to section 502 of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th
Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal
year 2004.
Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard
For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Air National Guard'', $214,000,000: Provided, That the entire
amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency
requirement pursuant to section 502 of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th
Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal
year 2004.
Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid
For an additional amount for ``Overseas Humanitarian,
Disaster, and Civic Aid'', $35,500,000: Provided, That the
entire amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency
requirement pursuant to section 502 of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th
Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal
year 2004.
Iraq Freedom Fund
(including transfer of funds)
For ``Iraq Freedom Fund'', $1,988,600,000, to remain
available for transfer until September 30, 2005, for the
purposes authorized under this heading in Public Law 108-11:
Provided, That the Secretary of Defense may transfer the
funds provided herein to appropriations for military
personnel; operation and maintenance; Overseas Humanitarian,
Disaster, and Civic Aid; procurement; military construction;
the Defense Health Program; and working capital funds:
Provided further, That funds transferred shall be merged with
and be available for the same purposes and for the same time
period as the appropriation or fund to which transferred:
Provided further, That this transfer authority is in addition
to any other transfer authority available to the Department
of Defense: Provided further, That upon a determination that
all or part of the funds transferred from this appropriation
are not necessary for the purposes provided herein, such
amounts may be transferred back to this appropriation:
Provided further, That the Secretary of Defense shall, not
fewer than 5 days prior to making transfers from this
appropriation, notify the congressional defense committees of
any such transfer: Provided further, That the Secretary shall
submit a report no later than 30 days after the end of each
fiscal quarter to the congressional defense committees
summarizing the details of the transfer of funds from this
appropriation: Provided further, That the entire amount is
designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement
pursuant to section 502 of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress),
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004.
PROCUREMENT
Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army
For an additional amount for ``Procurement of Weapons and
Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army'', $101,600,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2006: Provided, That the entire
amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency
requirement pursuant to section 502 of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th
Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal
year 2004.
Other Procurement, Army
For an additional amount for ``Other Procurement, Army'',
$1,250,287,000, to remain available until September 30, 2006:
Provided, That the entire amount is designated by the
Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 502
of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress), the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004.
Aircraft Procurement, Navy
For an additional amount for ``Aircraft Procurement,
Navy'', $158,600,000, to remain available until September 30,
2006: Provided, That the entire amount is designated by the
Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 502
of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress), the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004.
Other Procurement, Navy
For an additional amount for ``Other Procurement, Navy'',
$76,357,000, to remain available until September 30, 2006:
Provided, That the entire amount is designated by the
Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 502
of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress), the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004.
Procurement, Marine Corps
For an additional amount for ``Procurement, Marine Corps'',
$123,397,000, to remain available until September 30, 2006:
Provided, That the entire amount is designated by the
Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 502
of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress), the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004.
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force
For an additional amount for ``Aircraft Procurement, Air
Force'', $53,972,000, to remain available until September 30,
2006: Provided, That the entire amount is designated by the
Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 502
of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress), the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004.
Missile Procurement, Air Force
For an additional amount for ``Missile Procurement, Air
Force'', $20,450,000, to remain available until September 30,
2006: Provided, That the entire amount is designated by the
Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 502
of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress), the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004.
[[Page H9654]]
Other Procurement, Air Force
For an additional amount for ``Other Procurement, Air
Force'', $3,418,006,000, to remain available until September
30, 2006: Provided, That the entire amount is designated by
the Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section
502 of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress), the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004.
Procurement, Defense-Wide
For an additional amount for ``Procurement, Defense-Wide'',
$418,635,000, to remain available until September 30, 2006:
Provided, That the entire amount is designated by the
Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 502
of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress), the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004.
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy
For an additional amount for ``Research, Development, Test
and Evaluation, Navy'', $34,000,000, to remain available
until September 30, 2005: Provided, That the entire amount is
designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement
pursuant to section 502 of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress),
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004.
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force
For an additional amount for ``Research, Development, Test
and Evaluation, Air Force'', $39,070,000, to remain available
until September 30, 2005: Provided, That the entire amount is
designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement
pursuant to section 502 of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress),
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004.
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide
For an additional amount for ``Research, Development, Test
and Evaluation, Defense-Wide'', $195,817,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2005: Provided, That the entire
amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency
requirement pursuant to section 502 of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th
Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal
year 2004.
REVOLVING AND MANAGEMENT FUNDS
Defense Working Capital Funds
For an additional amount for ``Defense Working Capital
Funds'', $600,000,000: Provided, That the entire amount is
designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement
pursuant to section 502 of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress),
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004.
National Defense Sealift Fund
For an additional amount for ``National Defense Sealift
Fund'', $24,000,000, to remain available until expended:
Provided, That the entire amount is designated by the
Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 502
of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress), the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004.
OTHER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAMS
Defense Health Program
For an additional amount for ``Defense Health Program'',
$658,380,000 for Operation and maintenance: Provided, That
the entire amount is designated by the Congress as an
emergency requirement pursuant to section 502 of H. Con. Res.
95 (108th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget
for fiscal year 2004.
Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense
(including transfer of funds)
For an additional amount for ``Drug Interdiction and
Counter-Drug Activities, Defense'', $73,000,000: Provided,
That these funds may be used for such activities related to
Afghanistan: Provided further, That the Secretary of Defense
may transfer the funds provided herein only to appropriations
for military personnel; operation and maintenance;
procurement; and research, development, test and evaluation:
Provided further, That the funds transferred shall be merged
with and be available for the same purposes and for the same
time period, as the appropriation to which transferred:
Provided further, That the transfer authority provided in
this paragraph is in addition to any other transfer authority
available to the Department of Defense: Provided further,
That the entire amount is designated by the Congress as an
emergency requirement pursuant to section 502 of H. Con. Res.
95 (108th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget
for fiscal year 2004.
RELATED AGENCIES
Intelligence Community Management Account
(including transfer of funds)
For an additional amount for ``Intelligence Community
Management Account'', $21,500,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2005; of which $3,000,000 may be transferred to
and merged with the Department of Energy, ``Other Defense
Activities'', and $15,500,000 may be transferred to and
merged with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, ``Salaries
and Expenses'': Provided, That all such amounts are
designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement
pursuant to section 502 of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress),
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004.
GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS CHAPTER
(transfer of funds)
Sec. 1101. Upon his determination that such action is
necessary in the national interest, the Secretary of Defense
may transfer between appropriations up to $3,000,000,000 of
the funds made available to the Department of Defense in this
chapter: Provided, That the Secretary shall notify the
Congress promptly of each transfer made pursuant to this
authority: Provided further, That the transfer authority
provided in this section is in addition to any other transfer
authority available to the Department of Defense: Provided
further, That the authority in this section is subject to the
same terms and conditions as the authority provided in
section 8005 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act,
2004, except for the fourth proviso: Provided further, That
the entire amount is designated by the Congress as an
emergency requirement pursuant to section 502 of H. Con. Res.
95 (108th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget
for fiscal year 2004.
Sec. 1102. Funds appropriated in this Act, or made
available by the transfer of funds in or pursuant to this
Act, for intelligence activities are deemed to be
specifically authorized by the Congress for purposes of
section 504 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C.
414).
Sec. 1103. Sections 1318 and 1319 of the Emergency Wartime
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2003 (Public Law 108-11; 117
Stat. 571), shall remain in effect during fiscal year 2004.-
Sec. 1104. From October 1, 2003, through September 30,
2004, (a) the rates of pay authorized by section 310(a) of
title 37, United States Code, shall be $225; and (b) the
rates of pay authorized by section 427(a)(1) of title 37,
United States Code, shall be $250.
Sec. 1105. Defense Emergency Response Fund Close-Out
Authority.--(a) Section 1313 of the Emergency Wartime
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2003 (Public Law 108-11; 117
Stat. 569), is amended by inserting ``unobligated'' before
``balances''.
(b) Effective November 1, 2003, adjustments to obligations
that before such date would have been properly chargeable to
the Defense Emergency Response Fund shall be charged to any
current appropriations account of the Department of Defense
available for the same purpose.
Sec. 1106. During the current year, funds made available in
this Act to the Department of Defense for operation and
maintenance may be used, notwithstanding any other provision
of law, to provide supplies, services, transportation,
including airlift and sealift, and other logistical support
to coalition forces supporting military and stability
operations in Iraq: Provided, That the Secretary of Defense
shall provide quarterly reports to the congressional defense
committees regarding support provided under this section.
Sec. 1107. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, from
funds made available in this Act to the Department of Defense
under ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'', not to
exceed $100,000,000 may be used by the Secretary of Defense,
with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, to provide
assistance only to the New Iraqi Army and the Afghan National
Army to enhance their capability to combat terrorism and to
support U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan:
Provided, That such assistance may include the provision of
equipment, supplies, services, training and funding: Provided
further, That the authority to provide assistance under this
section is in addition to any other authority to provide
assistance to foreign nations: Provided further, That the
Secretary of Defense shall notify the congressional defense
committees not less than 15 days before providing assistance
under the authority of this section.
Sec. 1108. None of the funds provided in this chapter may
be used to finance programs or activities denied by Congress
in fiscal year 2004 appropriations to the Department of
Defense or to initiate a procurement or research,
development, test and evaluation new start program without
prior notification to the congressional defense committees.
Sec. 1109. In addition to amounts made available elsewhere
in this Act, there is hereby appropriated to the Department
of Defense $413,300,000, to be used only for recovery and
repair of damage due to natural disasters including Hurricane
Isabel, to be distributed as follows:
``Operation and Maintenance, Army'', $73,600,000;
``Operation and Maintenance, Navy'', $126,400,000;
``Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps'', $9,200,000;
``Operation and Maintenance, Air Force'', $201,900,000; and
``Other Procurement, Air Force'', $2,200,000:
Provided, That the entire amount is designated by the
Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 502
of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress), the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004.
Sec. 1110. During the current fiscal year, from funds made
available in this Act to the Department of Defense for
operation and maintenance, not to exceed $180,000,000 may be
used, notwithstanding any other provision of law, to fund the
Commander's Emergency Response Program, established by the
Administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority for the
purpose of enabling military
[[Page H9655]]
commanders in Iraq to respond to urgent humanitarian relief
and reconstruction requirements within their areas of
responsibility by carrying out programs that will immediately
assist the Iraqi people, and to establish and fund a similar
program to assist the people of Afghanistan: Provided, That
the Secretary of Defense shall provide quarterly reports,
beginning on January 15, 2004, to the congressional defense
committees regarding the source of funds and the allocation
and use of funds made available pursuant to the authority
provided in this section.
Sec. 1111. Not later than 30 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit
to the congressional defense committees a report describing
an Analysis of Alternatives for replacing the capabilities of
the existing Air Force fleet of KC-135 tanker aircraft.
CHAPTER 2
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
UNITED STATES COAST GUARD
Operating Expenses
For an additional amount for ``Operating Expenses'',
$23,183,000, for costs related to Hurricane Isabel damage:
Provided, That the entire amount is designated by the
Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 502
of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress), the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004.
CHAPTER 3
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
Military Construction, Army
For an additional amount for ``Military Construction,
Army'', $185,100,000, to remain available until September 30,
2008: Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of
law, such funds may be obligated or expended to carry out
planning and design and military construction projects not
otherwise authorized by law: Provided further, That the
entire amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency
requirement pursuant to section 502 of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th
Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal
year 2004.
Military Construction, Navy
For an additional amount for ``Military Construction,
Navy'', $45,530,000, to remain available until September 30,
2008: Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of
law, such funds may be obligated or expended to carry out
military construction projects not otherwise authorized by
law: Provided further, That the entire amount is designated
by the Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to
section 502 of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress), the
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004.
Military Construction, Air Force
For an additional amount for ``Military Construction, Air
Force'', $292,550,000, to remain available until September
30, 2008: Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision
of law, such funds may be obligated or expended to carry out
planning and design and military construction projects not
otherwise authorized by law: Provided further, That the
entire amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency
requirement pursuant to section 502 of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th
Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal
year 2004.
Family Housing Operation and Maintenance, Army
For an additional amount for ``Family Housing Operation and
Maintenance, Army'', $8,151,000: Provided, That the entire
amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency
requirement pursuant to section 502 of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th
Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal
year 2004.
Family Housing Operation and Maintenance, Navy and Marine Corps
For an additional amount for ``Family Housing Operation and
Maintenance, Navy and Marine Corps'', $6,280,000: Provided,
That the entire amount is designated by the Congress as an
emergency requirement pursuant to section 502 of H. Con. Res.
95 (108th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget
for fiscal year 2004.
Family Housing Operation and Maintenance, Air Force
For an additional amount for ``Family Housing Operation and
Maintenance, Air Force'', $6,981,000: Provided, That the
entire amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency
requirement pursuant to section 502 of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th
Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal
year 2004.
GENERAL PROVISION--THIS CHAPTER
Sec. 1301. (a) Temporary Authority To Use Operation and
Maintenance Funds for Military Construction Projects.--During
fiscal year 2004, the Secretary of Defense may use this
section as authority to obligate appropriated funds available
for operation and maintenance to carry out a construction
project outside the United States that the Secretary
determines meets each of the following conditions:
(1) The construction is necessary to meet urgent military
operational requirements of a temporary nature involving the
use of the Armed Forces in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom
or the Global War on Terrorism.
(2) The construction is not carried out at a military
installation where the United States is reasonably expected
to have a long-term presence.
(3) The United States has no intention of using the
construction after the operational requirements have been
satisfied.
(4) The level of construction is the minimum necessary to
meet the temporary operational requirements.
(b) Limitation on Use of Authority.--The total cost of the
construction projects carried out under the authority of this
section using, in whole or in part, appropriated funds
available for operation and maintenance shall not exceed
$500,000,000 in fiscal year 2004.
(c) Quarterly Report.--(1) Not later than 30 days after the
end of each fiscal-year quarter of fiscal year 2004, the
Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional
committees specified in subsection (e) a report on the
worldwide obligation and expenditure during that quarter of
appropriated funds available for operation and maintenance
for construction projects.
(2) The report shall include with regard to each project
the following:
(A) Certification that the conditions specified in
subsection (a) are satisfied with regard to the construction
project.
(B) A description of the purpose for which appropriated
funds available for operation and maintenance are being
obligated.
(C) Relevant documentation detailing the construction
project.
(D) An estimate of the total cost of the construction
project.
(E) The total amount obligated for the construction project
as of the date of the submission of the report.
(d) Relation to Other Authorities.--The temporary authority
provided by this section, and the limited authority provided
by section 2805(c) of title 10, United States Code, to use
appropriated funds available for operation and maintenance to
carry out a construction project are the only authorities
available to the Secretary of Defense and the Secretaries of
the military departments to use appropriated funds available
for operation and maintenance to carry out construction
projects.
(e) Congressional Committees.--The congressional committees
referred to in this section are the following:
(1) The Committee on Armed Services and the Subcommittees
on Defense and Military Construction of the Committee on
Appropriations of the Senate.
(2) The Committee on Armed Services and the Subcommittees
on Defense and Military Construction of the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives.
TITLE II--IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN RECONSTRUCTION AND INTERNATIONAL
ASSISTANCE
CHAPTER 1
Department of Justice
Legal Activities
General Legal Activities
For necessary expenses for ``Salaries and Expenses, General
Legal Activities'', $15,000,000: Provided, That the entire
amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency
requirement pursuant to section 502 of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th
Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal
year 2004.
Department of State and Related Agency
Department of State
Administration of Foreign Affairs
Diplomatic and Consular Programs
(including rescission)
For necessary expenses for ``Diplomatic and Consular
Programs'', $156,300,000, of which $35,800,000 shall remain
available until expended. Of the funds appropriated under
this heading in the Emergency Wartime Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 2003, $35,800,000 are rescinded. All such
amounts are designated by the Congress as an emergency
requirement pursuant to section 502 of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th
Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal
year 2004.
Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance
For necessary expenses for ``Embassy Security,
Construction, and Maintenance'', $43,900,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That the entire amount is
designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement
pursuant to section 502 of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress),
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004.
Emergencies in the Diplomatic and Consular Service
(including transfer of funds)
For necessary expenses for ``Emergencies in the Diplomatic
and Consular Service'', $50,000,000, to remain available
until expended, which may be transferred to, and merged with,
the appropriations for ``Diplomatic and Consular Programs'':
Provided, That the entire amount is designated by the
Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 502
of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress), the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004.
International Organizations
Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities
For necessary expenses for ``Contributions for
International Peacekeeping Activities'', $245,000,000, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That the entire
amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency
requirement pursuant to section 502 of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th
Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal
year 2004.
[[Page H9656]]
Related Agency
Broadcasting Board of Governors
International Broadcasting Operations
For necessary expenses for ``International Broadcasting
Operations'', for activities related to the Middle East
Television Network broadcasting to Iraq, $40,000,000:
Provided, That the entire amount is designated by the
Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 502
of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress), the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004.
GENERAL PROVISION--THIS CHAPTER
Sec. 2101. Funds appropriated under this chapter for the
Broadcasting Board of Governors and the Department of State
may be obligated and expended notwithstanding section 313 of
the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994
and 1995, and section 15 of the State Department Basic
Authorities Act of 1956, as amended.
CHAPTER 2
BILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE
Funds Appropriated to the President
United States Agency for International Development
Operating Expenses of the United States Agency for International
Development
For necessary expenses for ``Operating Expenses of the
United States Agency for International Development'',
$40,000,000, for direct support of operations in Afghanistan,
to remain available until September 30, 2005: Provided, That
the entire amount is designated by the Congress as an
emergency requirement pursuant to section 502 of H. Con. Res.
95 (108th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget
for fiscal year 2004.
Other Bilateral Economic Assistance
Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund
(including transfers of funds)
For necessary expenses to carry out the purposes of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, for security, relief,
rehabilitation and reconstruction in Iraq, $18,649,000,000,
to remain available until September 30, 2005, to be allocated
as follows: $3,243,000,000 for security and law enforcement;
$1,318,000,000 for justice, public safety infrastructure, and
civil society; $5,560,000,000 for the electric sector;
$2,100,000,000 for oil infrastructure; $4,332,000,000 for
water resources and sanitation; $500,000,000 for
transportation and telecommunications; $370,000,000 for
roads, bridges, and construction; $793,000,000 for health
care; $153,000,000 for private sector development; and
$280,000,000 for education, refugees, human rights,
democracy, and governance: Provided, That the President may
reallocate up to 10 percent of any of the preceding
allocations, except that the total for the allocation
receiving such funds may not be increased by more than 20
percent: Provided further, That such reallocations shall be
subject to the regular notification procedures of the
Committees on Appropriations and section 634A of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 and notifications shall be transmitted
at least 15 days in advance of the obligation of funds:
Provided further, That an annual spending plan for
reconstruction programs under the preceding allocations,
including project-by-project detail, shall be submitted by
the President to the Committees on Appropriations not later
than January 1, 2004, and shall be updated and submitted
every 180 days thereafter: Provided further, That funds
appropriated under this heading shall be apportioned only to
the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, the Department
of State, the Department of Health and Human Services, the
Department of Treasury, the Department of Defense, and the
United States Agency for International Development: Provided
further, That upon a determination that all or part of the
funds so transferred from this appropriation are not
necessary for the purposes provided herein, such amounts may
be transferred back to this appropriation: Provided further,
That of the amount appropriated in this paragraph, not less
than $35,000,000 shall be made available for administrative
expenses of the Department of State Bureau of International
Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs and the United States
Agency for International Development for support of the
reconstruction activities in Iraq: Provided further, That up
to 1 percent of the amount appropriated in this paragraph may
be transferred to ``Operating Expenses of the Coalition
Provisional Authority'', and that any such transfer shall be
in accordance with the regular notification procedures of the
Committees on Appropriations and section 634A of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961: Provided further, That contributions
of funds for the purposes provided herein from any person,
foreign government, or international organization, may be
credited to this Fund and used for such purposes: Provided
further, That the Committees on Appropriations shall be
notified quarterly of any collections pursuant to the
previous proviso: Provided further, That the Coalition
Provisional Authority shall work, in conjunction with
relevant Iraqi officials, to ensure that a new Iraqi
constitution preserves full rights to religious freedom:
Provided further, That, notwithstanding any other provision
of law, 10 percent of the total amount of funds apportioned
to the United States Agency for International Development
under this heading that are made available on a subcontract
basis shall be reserved for contracts with small business
concerns, including small business concerns owned and
controlled by veterans, small business concerns owned and
controlled by service-disabled veterans, HUBZone small
business concerns, small business concerns owned and
controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged
individuals, and small business concerns owned and controlled
by women (as such terms are defined for purposes of the Small
Business Act): Provided further, That the entire amount is
designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement
pursuant to section 502 of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress),
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004.
Operating Expenses of the Coalition Provisional Authority
For necessary expenses of the Coalition Provisional
Authority in Iraq, established pursuant to United Nations
Security Council resolutions including Resolution 1483, for
personnel costs, transportation, supply, equipment,
facilities, communications, logistics requirements, studies,
physical security, media support, promulgation and
enforcement of regulations, and other activities needed to
oversee and manage the relief and reconstruction of Iraq and
the transition to democracy, $858,000,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2005: Provided, That the entire
amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency
requirement pursuant to section 502 of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th
Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal
year 2004.
Economic Support Fund
For necessary expenses for ``Economic Support Fund'',
$872,000,000, to remain available until December 31, 2004:
Provided, That not less than $672,000,000 is available only
for accelerated assistance for Afghanistan: Provided further,
That not to exceed $30,000,000 may be used for activities
related to disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration of
militia combatants, including registration of such
combatants, notwithstanding section 531(e) of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961: Provided further, That not to exceed
$2,000,000 may be used to provide additional policy experts
in Afghan ministries and that not more than five senior
advisors to the United States Ambassador may be deployed in
Afghanistan: Provided further, That not less than $17,250,000
is available only for security requirements that directly
support United States and Coalition personnel who are
implementing assistance programs in Afghanistan, including
the provision of adequate dedicated air transport and support
for civilian personnel at provincial reconstruction team
sites: Provided further, That upon the receipt by the Speaker
of the House of Representatives and the President of the
Senate of a determination by the President that the
Government of Pakistan is fully cooperating with the United
States in the global war on terrorism, not to exceed
$200,000,000 appropriated under this heading may be used for
the costs, as defined in section 502 of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974, of modifying direct loans and guarantees
for Pakistan: Provided further, That amounts that are made
available under the previous proviso for the cost of
modifying direct loans and guarantees shall not be considered
``assistance'' for the purposes of provisions of law limiting
assistance to a country: Provided further, That the entire
amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency
requirement pursuant to section 502 of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th
Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal
year 2004.
International Disaster and Famine Assistance
(including transfers of funds)
For necessary expenses for International Disaster and
Famine Assistance utilizing the general authorities of
section 491 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, to respond
to or prevent unforeseen complex foreign crises, especially
in Sudan and Liberia, $100,000,000, and by transfer not to
exceed 1 percent of the funds appropriated under any other
heading in this chapter, to remain available to the Secretary
of State until September 30, 2005: Provided, That funds
appropriated under this heading may be made available only
pursuant to a determination by the President, after
consultation with the appropriate congressional committees,
that it is in the national interest and essential to efforts
to reduce international terrorism to furnish assistance on
such terms and conditions as he may determine for such
purposes, including support for peace and humanitarian
intervention operations: Provided further, That none of these
funds shall be available to respond to natural disasters:
Provided further, That funds made available under this
heading to respond to or prevent unforeseen complex foreign
crises shall be subject to the regular notification
procedures of the Committees on Appropriations: Provided
further, That the entire amount is designated by the Congress
as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 502 of H.
Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress), the concurrent resolution on
the budget for fiscal year 2004.
Department of State
International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement
For necessary expenses for ``International Narcotics
Control and Law Enforcement'', $170,000,000, to remain
available until December 31, 2004, for accelerated assistance
for Afghanistan: Provided, That the entire amount is
designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement
pursuant to section 502 of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress),
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004.
[[Page H9657]]
Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining and Related Programs
For necessary expenses for ``Nonproliferation, Anti-
Terrorism, Demining and Related Programs'', $35,000,000, for
accelerated assistance for Afghanistan: Provided, That the
entire amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency
requirement pursuant to section 502 of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th
Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal
year 2004.
MILITARY ASSISTANCE
Funds Appropriated to the President
Foreign Military Financing Program
For necessary expenses for the ``Foreign Military Financing
Program'', $297,000,000, for accelerated assistance for
Afghanistan: Provided, That the entire amount is designated
by the Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to
section 502 of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress), the
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004.
Peacekeeping Operations
For necessary expenses for ``Peacekeeping Operations'',
$50,000,000, to support the global war on terrorism:
Provided, That the entire amount is designated by the
Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 502
of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress), the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004.
GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS CHAPTER
Sec. 2201. None of the funds appropriated by this Act or
any unexpended funds provided in Public Law 108-11 may be
used to repay, in whole or in part, principal or interest
on any loan or guarantee agreement entered into by the
Government of Iraq with any private or public sector
entity including with the government of any country
(including any agency of such government or any entity
owned in whole or in part by the government of such
country) or with any international financial institution,
prior to May 1, 2003: Provided, That for the purpose of
this section, the term ``international financial
institution'' shall mean those institutions contained in
section 530(b) of division E of Public Law 108-7.
Sec. 2202. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none
of the funds appropriated by this Act under the heading
``Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund'' and made available
under the same heading in Public Law 108-11 may be used to
enter into any Federal contract (including any follow-on
contract) unless--
(1) the contract is entered into in accordance with title
III of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act
(41 U.S.C. 251 et seq.); and
(2) in any case in which procedures other than competitive
procedures are to be used to enter into such a contract--
(A) if such procedures are to be used by reason of the
application of a paragraph (other than paragraph (2)) under
section 303(c) of such Act (41 U.S.C. 253(c)), the head of
the executive agency entering into the contract shall submit
to the committees described in subsection (b), not later than
7 calendar days before award of the contract--
(i) notification of the use of such other procedures; and
(ii) the justification for such use; and
(B) if such procedures are to be used by reason of the
application of paragraph (2) of section 303(c) of such Act
(41 U.S.C. 253(c)(2)), the head of the executive agency
entering into the contract shall submit to the committees
described in subsection (b), not later than 7 calendar days
after approval of the justification for the use of such other
procedures under section 303(f)(1)(B) of the Federal Property
and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C.
253(f)(1)(B))--
(i) notification of the use of such other procedures; and
(ii) the justification for such use.
(b) Committees.--The committees referred to in subsection
(a)(2) are--
(1) the Committees on Government Reform, on International
Relations, and on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives; and
(2) the Committees on Governmental Affairs, on Foreign
Relations, and on Appropriations of the Senate.
(c) Applicability.--This section shall not apply to
contracts entered into before the date of the enactment of
this Act or after September 30, 2010.
SEC. 2203. PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF NONCOMPETITIVE CONTRACTING
FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF INFRASTRUCTURE IN
IRAQ.
(a) Disclosure Required.--
(1) Publication and public availability.--The head of an
executive agency of the United States that enters into a
contract for assistance for Iraq, using funds described in
paragraph (3), through the use of procedures other than
competitive procedures shall publish in the Federal Register
or Commerce Business Daily and otherwise make available to
the public, not later than 7 days before the date on which
the contract is entered into, except in the case of urgent
and compelling contracts issued pursuant to paragraph (2) of
section 303(c) of the Federal Property and Administrative
Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 253(c)(2)), the following
information:
(A) The amount of the contract.
(B) A brief description of the scope of the contract.
(C) A discussion of how the executive agency identified,
and solicited offers from, potential contractors to perform
the contract, together with a list of the potential
contractors that were issued solicitations for the offers.
(D) The justification and approval documents (as required
under section 303(f)(1) of the Federal Property and
Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 253(f)(1)) on
which was based the determination to use procedures other
than competitive procedures.
(2) Funds.--The funds referred to in paragraph (1) are--
(A) any funds available to carry out sections 103 through
106 and chapter 4 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151b-2151d; 2346 et seq.); and
(B) any funds appropriated by Public Law 108-11 under the
heading ``Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund'' (in chapter 5
of title I; 117 Stat. 573).
(3) Applicability.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to
contracts entered into before the date of the enactment of
this Act or after September 30, 2010.
(b) Classified Information.--
(1) Authority to withhold.--The head of an executive agency
may--
(A) withhold from publication and disclosure under
subsection (a) any document that is classified for restricted
access in accordance with a Executive order in the interest
of national defense or foreign policy; and
(B) redact any part so classified that is in a document not
so classified before publication and disclosure of the
document under subsection (a).
(2) Availability to congress.--In any case in which the
head of an executive agency withholds information under
paragraph (1), the head of such executive agency shall make
available an unredacted version of the document containing
that information to the chairman and ranking member of each
of the following committees of Congress:
(A) The Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate and
the Committee on Government Reform of the House of
Representatives.
(B) The Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and
House of Representatives.
(C) Each committee that the head of the executive agency
determines has legislative jurisdiction for the operations of
such department or agency to which the information related.
(c) Relationship to Other Disclosure Laws.--Nothing in this
section shall be construed as affecting obligations to
disclose United States Government information under any other
provision of law.
(d) Definitions.--In this section, the terms ``competitive
procedures'' and ``executive agency'' have the meanings given
such terms in section 4 of the Office of Federal Procurement
Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 403).
Sec. 2204. Section 1503 of Public Law 108-11 is amended--
(1) by striking ``equipment'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``equipment, including equipment''; and
(2) by striking ``2004'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``2005''.
Sec. 2205. Section 1504 of Public Law 108-11 is amended by
striking ``controlled'' and inserting ``or small arms
controlled''.
Sec. 2206. Section 202(b) of the Afghanistan Freedom
Support Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-327) is amended by
striking ``$300,000,000'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``$450,000,000''.
Sec. 2207. (a) Until January 2005, the Coalition
Provisional Authority (CPA) shall, on a monthly basis, submit
a report to the Committees on Appropriations and
International Relations of the House of Representatives and
the Committees on Appropriations and Foreign Relations of the
Senate that details, for the preceding month, Iraqi oil
production and oil revenues, and uses of such revenues.
(b) The first report required by subsection (a) shall be
submitted not later than 30 days after enactment of this Act.
(c) The reports required by this section shall also be made
publicly available, including through the CPA's Internet
website.
Sec. 2208. Any reference in this chapter to the ``Coalition
Provisional Authority in Iraq'' shall be deemed to include
any successor United States Government entity with the same
or substantially the same authorities and responsibilities as
the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq.
Sec. 2209. Assistance or other financing under chapter 2 of
this title may be provided for Iraq and Afghanistan
notwithstanding any other provision of law not contained in
this Act that restricts assistance to foreign countries and
section 660 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961: Provided,
That funds made available for Iraq pursuant to this section
shall be subject to the regular reprogramming notification
procedures of the Committees on Appropriations and section
634A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, except that
notification shall be transmitted at least 5 days in advance
of obligation.
Sec. 2210. Funds made available in chapter 2 of this title
are made available notwithstanding section 10 of Public Law
91-672 and section 15 of the State Department Basic
Authorities Act of 1956, as amended.
Sec. 2211. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Overseas Private Investment Corporation is authorized to
undertake any program authorized by title IV of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 in Iraq: Provided, That funds made
available pursuant to the authority of this section shall be
subject to the regular reprogramming notification procedures
of the Committees on Appropriations.
[[Page H9658]]
report on military operations and reconstruction efforts in iraq and
afghanistan
Sec. 2212. (a) Report.--The President shall prepare and
transmit to Congress on a quarterly basis a report on United
States military operations and reconstruction efforts in Iraq
and Afghanistan.
(b) Contents.--The report shall, at a minimum, contain the
following information:
(1) A full accounting of amounts appropriated under this
Act or any other Act that were expended during the preceding
quarter for military operations and reconstruction efforts in
Iraq and Afghanistan.
(2) A description of progress made in reconstruction
efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, particularly efforts
relating to public safety, defense and law enforcement,
energy infrastructure, water, sewer, roads, and other public
works, transportation and telecommunications infrastructure,
medical and hospital services, and private sector
development.
(3) A description of progress made to reduce attacks
against members of the United States Armed Forces in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
(4) An analysis of the impact that military operations in
Iraq and Afghanistan have had on overall readiness of the
Armed Forces.
(5) An analysis of the impact that the extended deployment
of members of the Armed Forces in connection with Operation
Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom is having on
recruiting and retention efforts in the active and reserve
components.
(6) An estimate of the cost of repairing or replacing the
combat vehicles, aircraft, and other equipment damaged or
destroyed by combat, by prolonged use in Iraq and
Afghanistan, or by exposure to the extreme climatic and
terrain conditions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
(7) A description of progress made toward holding of free
and fair elections in Iraq.
(8) A description of the extent of international
participation in the stabilization and reconstruction of Iraq
and the amount of financial assistance that the United States
has secured from the international community during the
preceding quarter.
(9) The number of members of the Armed Forces deployed in
connection with Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation
Enduring Freedom.
Sec. 2213. (a) Review of Contracting Procedures.--The
Comptroller General shall review each covered contract and
task or delivery order entered into during a review period to
determine whether the procedures used to enter into the
contracts and orders were in compliance with the requirements
of this Act and other applicable laws and regulations.
(b) Report.--At the end of each review period, the
Comptroller General shall submit to Congress a report on the
results of the review.
(c) Review Period.--A review under subsection (a) shall be
carried each quarter of a fiscal year, beginning with the
first quarter beginning after the date of the enactment of
this Act.
(d) Covered Contracts and Orders.--This section applies to
any contract or task or delivery order entered into using
funds appropriated by this Act for foreign assistance if--
(1) in the case of a contract, the contract is in an amount
in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold (as defined
in section 4 of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act
(41 U.S.C. 403), and
(2) in the case of a task or delivery order, the order is
in an amount in excess of $1,000,000.
TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS ACT
Sec. 3001. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current
fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
Sec. 3002. None of the funds made available in this or any
other Act for fiscal year 2004 may be used for any defense or
reconstruction activities in Iraq or Afghanistan coordinated
by any officer of the United States Government whose office
is not subject to appointment by the President by and with
the advice and consent of the Senate.
Sec. 3003. For purposes of computing the amount of a
payment for an eligible local educational agency under
section 8003(a) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(20 U.S.C. 7703(a)), children enrolled in a school of such
agency that would otherwise be eligible for payment under
section 8003(a)(1)(B) of such Act, but due to the deployment
of both parents or legal guardians, or due to the death of a
military parent or legal guardian while on active duty, are
no longer eligible under such section, shall be considered as
eligible students under such section, provided such students
remain in average daily attendance at the same school that
they attended prior to their change in eligibility status.
Sec. 3004. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be provided to any unit of the security forces of a foreign
country participating with coalition forces in Afghanistan or
Iraq if the Secretary of State or the Secretary Defense has
credible evidence that such unit has committed gross
violations of human rights, unless the appropriate Secretary
determines and reports to the Committees on Appropriations
that the government of such country is taking effective
measures to bring the responsible members of the security
forces unit to justice: Provided, That nothing in this
section shall be construed to withhold funds made available
by this Act from any unit of the security forces of a foreign
country not credibly alleged to be involved in gross
violations of human rights: Provided further, That in the
event that funds are withheld from any unit pursuant to this
section, the appropriate Secretary shall promptly inform the
foreign government of the basis for such action and shall, to
the maximum extent practicable, assist the foreign government
in taking effective measures to bring the responsible members
of the security forces to justice.
Sec. 3005. None of the funds in this Act, or any other
appropriations Act, may be used to execute the Lateral
Repatriation Program, or any other program under which
citizens or nationals of Mexico are removed by land from the
United States by returning them to a location other than the
United States port of entry closest to the location where
they were apprehended or last imprisoned, or, in the case of
an alien who is removed upon being acquitted of a criminal
charge, the port of entry closest to the courthouse where the
acquittal occurs. If the Secretary of Homeland Security
determines that compliance with the preceding sentence is not
feasible, the Secretary shall notify the Committees on the
Judiciary and on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and of the Senate.
Sec. 3006. None of the funds in this Act, or any other
appropriations Act, may be used for the issuance of Form I-
20A by the San Antonio Office of Detention and Removal of the
Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border
Patrol sectors served by said office.
This Act may be cited as the ``Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act for Defense and for the Reconstruction of
Iraq and Afghanistan, 2004''.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any points of order?
Point of Order
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order that section
3005 fails to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI. By addressing funds in
all appropriations acts, it implicates funds other than those in the
pending bill and therefore constitutes legislation on an appropriations
bill in violation of the rule.
I ask for a ruling by the Chair on the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, we concede the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded and sustained. The
section is stricken from the bill.
Point of Order
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order that section
3006 fails to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI. By addressing funds in
all appropriations acts, it implicates funds other than those in the
pending bill and therefore constitutes legislation on an appropriations
bill in violation of the rule.
I ask the Chair for a ruling on the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) wish to be
heard on the point of order?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly concede the point
of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded and sustained. The
section is stricken from the bill.
Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, as I did a year ago this month, I rise
to address this chamber with a heavy heart. Over the past several days,
we have engaged in a debate worthy of this institution's history. These
deliberations have focused on providing additional funding for the
Administration's Iraqi policy. Specifically, the resolution we are
considering today would provide approximately $86.9 billion in
emergency funding for U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan,
$18.6 billion of which would be used for ongoing reconstruction efforts
in Iraq.
The debate over the President's policy in Iraq runs deeper than the
discussions over the monetary size of this bill. At this moment, before
us is the question of how we, as Members of Congress charged with the
responsibility to represent our diverse constituencies, should fulfill
our constitutional responsibilities. This is an obligation that I take
very seriously.
After careful consideration of all sides of today's debate, I have
decided to vote against the House's initial supplementary
appropriations bill. I do so for three primary reasons. First, this
proposal would continue to support a foreign policy that lacks a clear
objective and fails to identify a well-reasoned plan for removing our
troops from the region. Second, it would unfairly burden American
taxpayers and future generations. Third, I look forward to a second
opportunity to address this issue and vote on an improved bill based on
negotiations with the Senate. I further believe that the Congress can,
and should, take this time to reevaluate the Administration's approach
to Iraq and recommit itself to our constitutional duties.
[[Page H9659]]
During these debates, many have stressed the importance of supporting
our troops who find themselves in harm's way. I share these concerns.
The fact of the matter is that Members of Congress on both sides of
this debate recognize our responsibility to support our troops in Iraq
and Afghanistan. These brave American men and women are serving their
country with great distinction and this Congress must ensure that they
have the equipment, training, resources and amenities necessary to
carry out their duties. I therefore very strongly support the more than
$60 billion contained in this bill designated for supporting our
troops.
Moreover, a vote on this bill is not about whether one political
party or one individual Member of Congress supports our armed services.
Instead, this debate is a question about how we can most effectively
support our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, encourage regional
stability over the long term, and ensure the appropriate use of
taxpayer dollars. In a larger context, we must also seek whether this
Congress will continue to unquestionable accept the Bush
Administration's foreign policy approach to Iraq.
Given the chain of events of the past year, I believe that during
this debate we should carefully review and studiously scrutinize the
Administration's policy on Iraq. Last fall, President Bush and
officials within his Administration made the argument to the Congress,
to the American people, and to the world community that the threat to
the United States posed by Iraq was imminent. They went to great
lengths to present information to Members of this House, including
personal presentations to me, about Iraq's imminent capabilities to use
weapons of mass destruction against our citizens. Based on the evidence
presented at that time, particularly pertaining to Iraq's use of mobile
facilities to hide its biological weapons research and especially
relating to Iraq's ability to use unmanned aerial vehicles to deliver
these weapons to specific targets within the United States, I voted to
grant the President the specific powers laid out in the congressional
resolution authorizing the use of military force in Iraq.
Following the failure of the Administration to reach consensus on a
unified course of action in the United Nations, the onset of
hostilities authorized under that resolution, and the President's
subsequent declaration of the end of the major combat operations, the
Administration has thus far failed to locate any specified weapons of
mass destruction in Iraq and the means to deliver them. Moreover, it
has uncovered no conclusive evidence of mobile facilities to the best
of my knowledge. At this point, the evidence to support the
Administration's fundamental premise for going to war--that Iraq posed
an imminent threat to our country's national security--has not emerged.
Given these facts and circumstances, my vote today signals my
unwillingness at this time to blindly accept the Administration's
policy position on proceeding in Iraq. Until this point, I have given
the President the benefit of the doubt. I supported the resolution
passed by this House authorizing the use of force. When the President
came before this Congress last spring requesting $63 billion in
emergency funding for operations in Iraq, I joined an overwhelming
number of my colleagues in supporting his request. At this time, I must
demand accountability from this President in his management of the
Iraqi effort and the use of U.S. taxpayer dollars that underwrite it.
One potential approach for promoting fiscal accountability and
ensuring that the Iraqis and Americans support our rebuilding effort
over the long term is to demand that American taxpayers have the
opportunity to recover their investments in Iraq's reconstruction. Iraq
is a country with considerable financial and natural resources. It
could harness this capital to pay for the rebuilding of its
infrastructure and the completion of new projects. In light of this
reality, I presently believe that we should provide the reconstruction
funds contained in this emergency spending measure in the form of a
loan, not an outright grant.
Additionally, before proposing this emergency spending legislation
Bush Administration officials had repeatedly heretofore stated that
Iraq possessed the financial capability to self-finance its
reconstruction efforts. For instance, in February then-White House
Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said, ``Iraq has tremendous resources
that belong to the Iraqi people. And so there are a variety of means
that Iraq has to be able to shoulder much of the burden for their own
reconstruction.'' Additionally, when speaking about Iraq's
reconstruction before the Senate Appropriations Committee in March
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld stated, ``I don't believe that the
United States has the responsibility for reconstruction, in a sense.
[Reconstruction] funds can come from those various sources I mentioned:
frozen assets, oil revenues and a variety of other things, including
the Oil for Food, which has a very substantial number of billions of
dollars in it.''
In contrast to these statements, Administration officials in recent
weeks have now argued that Iraq cannot incur additional debt and that
the only way to promote stability in Iraq is through the issuance of an
outright grant. For example, during his testimony before the House
Appropriations Committee just last month, Secretary Rumsfeld averred,
``Iraq is in no position to pay its current debt service, let alone
take on more additional debt. If we want to encourage Iraqi self
reliance, so that Iraqis can fund their own reconstruction and so that
American troops can go home, it would not be helpful to saddle Iraq
with more debt it could not be reasonably expected to pay.'' The
rhetorical about-face regarding this element of the Bush
Administration's policy toward Iraq has been unmistakable and
undisputed.
Yet these same Administration officials have been remiss in
explaining why reality in postwar Iraq has not conformed to their
original rhetoric. Is this a question of miscalculation, insufficient
planning, or arrogance? Is this perhaps a question of a fundamental
misunderstanding of the level of sacrifice required to implement a
policy? The Congress has a responsibility to ask these questions and to
probe the assumptions underlying the Administration's approach to Iraq
in light of this significant, and as yet unexplained, foreign policy
turnaround.
While I fully recognize the potential logistical difficulties in
accessing Iraq's resources to pay for reconstruction efforts, I remain
confident that Iraq ultimately will overcome these problems and have
the financial capacity to repay these loans to the American people. In
the unlikely event that Iraq's financial potential does not emerge,
this Congress also can revisit this issue and forgive the loans at a
later moment in time. It is, moreover, my understanding that our
counterparts in the Senate are actively considering this issue as well,
and they have already included a provision in their bill converting at
least a portion of the funds appropriated from a grant to a forgivable
loan, an approach which I consider fitting.
A vote in favor of this emergency spending legislation at this time
would essentially send a message that I am satisfied with its content
and the policies it supports. Simply stated: I am not. I, therefore,
must fulfill my constitutional obligations to discharge the duties of
my office, which include oversight of the executive branch, to the best
of my abilities. As a result, I will vote against this bill.
Just one example of the need to scrutinize this Administration's
implementation of reconstruction efforts is the repairs made to an
Iraqi cement factory. Rather than spending the $15 million U.S.
engineers estimated it would cost to transform the factory into a
state-of-the-art facility, our troops worked with Iraqis to make the
factory operational at a cost of just $80,000.
Moreover, voting against the initial House proposal at this time
will, in my view, strengthen the Senate's position as we move into
negotiations between the House and Senate on this important legislation
and, hopefully, develop a realistic consensus for future action in
Iraq. Furthermore, our vote today constitutes just the first step in
the legislative process, and it is my strong hope that the coming
deliberations on this bill will incorporate a forgivable loan provision
or some similar stipulation. Observers should consequently construe my
vote following the initial debate in the House over this matter as both
evidence of my deep skepticism of the President's current Iraqi policy
as well as my position that reconstruction funding should be allocated
in the form of a loan to the Iraqi people.
The completion of today's proceedings brings to a close the initial
debate over this legislation. It, however, should not end congressional
evaluation of the President's Iraqi policy. Moving forward, this
Congress must demand accountability from the President and officials in
his Administration on these matters. Specifically, we should require
the President to outline his objectives in Iraq, detail a logical plan
and timetable for achieving those goals, and present long-term
estimates of the costs of his proposed policies. We must accomplish
these tasks while supporting the needs of our troops and their
families.
The American commitment in Iraq has been thus far an open-ended
affair, characterized by daily reports of troops under siege. Now my
good friend and colleague from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) has brought to
the attention of this House evidence that our troops are, in some
cases, lacking the equipment they need and the amenities they deserve
while selected favored corporations receive contract awards without
participating in a competitive bidding process. In the face of all of
these inconsistencies, the Administration additionally has to date
failed to locate the imminent threats that served as the basis for war.
The Congress consequently should take this opportunity to question
these developments and ensure that this legislation and any subsequent
allocation of federal funds include appropriate accountability
measures.
The Constitution vests all legislative powers in us. As Members of
this great institution, we
[[Page H9660]]
should take that responsibility seriously. While the President can, and
does, submit legislative proposals for consideration, we have an
obligation to our nation's founders, ourselves, and, most importantly,
our constituents to deliberate on these matters, make necessary
adjustments to them, and enact laws. I have worked with the President
in an effort to remove the perceived threat in Iraq and bring greater
stability to the region and the world. The developments of the past few
months, however, should serve as evidence of the Administration's
ineffective planning effort and misunderstanding of the challenges
facing our troops. As this Congress works to support our troops, we
must now hold the Bush Administration to account and demand that it
provide a justification for its further use of taxpayer dollars to
support these endeavors. Anything less would represent a failure of
this Congress to meet its constitutional responsibilities and its
leaders to provide clear direction for the future.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, in October 2002, I voted against the war in
Iraq because there were other viable options the Bush Administration
should have pursued before sending our troops into harm's way. The
Administration then moved too hastily in invading Iraq without a clear
vision for how to bring our troops home. We were prepared to win the
war, but we were not prepared to keep the peace.
In April of this year, we approved $60 billion the Administration
requested for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Now, just five months later, the President is asking for an
additional $87 billion without accounting for how the original funds
were spent.
I cannot in good conscience vote for this request. The Bush
Administration has not presented a coherent, credible plan to the
American people to address any of the challenges facing our soldiers in
Iraq.
I supported an alternative plan offered by Representative David Obey
(D-WI), which was voted on yesterday. His proposal gives our troops the
equipment they need to conduct their mission in Iraq, requires the
Administration to account for how they are spending the supplemental
funds, and ensures international funding and cooperation.
The Obey proposal requires the Administration to account for the
funds from the previous war supplemental and for how additional funding
will be used to support both the military and reconstruction efforts.
Congress should not agree to provide the Administration additional
funds without knowing how they will be spent.
In addition, by internationalizing reconstruction efforts in Iraq,
the Obey proposal ensures American taxpayers do not shoulder this
burden alone.
We have all heard about the deplorable conditions our soldiers are
operating in as they carry out their important mission in Iraq. Our
troops lack even the most basic equipment, such as bullet-proof Kevlar
vests, to keep themselves safe. The drinking water is impure at nine
out of the ten American bases in Iraq, because the Bush Administration
did not provide needed water purification equipment. When they are
given much-needed leave for a visit back to the United States, they
have to buy their own tickets from their point of entry to their homes,
creating a significant financial burden on the troops and their
families.
This is how the Bush Administration treats our soldiers in combat and
their $87 billion proposal does nothing to fix this. Our troops deserve
better.
Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my full ongoing
support for the brave men and women engaged in the war on terrorism. In
this great nation, we made a solemn commitment to strike from the face
of this earth those fanatics who threaten our freedom and our
civilization with acts of unrestrained barbarity. It is our firm
resolve to achieve a stable and lasting peace, and, accordingly, we
must devote the necessary resources to achieve that noble aim.
Since the tragic events of September 11, 2001, we as a nation along
with our allies have been engaged in a broad and violent battle against
terror--against radicals who target and kill innocent men, women and
children in a misguided struggle with the West, with freedom, with
equality, with democracy. This battle continues today on many fronts,
including, most prominently, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, we are called upon today to fulfill our
constitutional responsibility to appropriate monies for our national
defense. In reviewing the President's $87 billion request, I believe
our first priority must be to provide our forces in Iraq the resources
they need in order to complete their security mission throughout the
country, prevent militias from taking hold, and enhance troop safety
and security while they are performing their vitally important mission.
Mr. Chairman, I want to make clear at the outset that, while I have
grave concerns about the lack of accountability provided for in this
legislation, I plan to support the legislation, because it is
critically important that we do not leave the war on terror unfinished
and our troops on the ground in Iraq less than safe and secure.
On that point, I want to commend the members of the Appropriations
Committee for making two critically important improvements to the
President's request. The parents and families of the brave men and
women who are now in harm's way in defense of our freedom will
doubtless be relieved that this bill requires the Department of Defense
to provide Kevlar flak jacket inserts--basic body armor--to our troops.
In addition, I am pleased that the Appropriations Committee included
specific direction requiring the provision of portable jammers to block
the radio signals used to detonate the remote-controlled bombs that
have been repeatedly used to kill and wound our troops.
For reasons that defy comprehension, the current civilian leaders at
the Pentagon failed to provide adequate supplies of these two types of
equipment even after it became terribly apparent this summer that
shortages were costing American lives. I was recently appalled to read
multiple press reports describing how parents and spouses of our troops
found it necessary to purchase body armor to protect their loved ones
whom we placed in peril. How is it that we can spend tens of billions
of dollars to fight a war on terror while not providing for the basic
safety and security of the brave men and women that we have placed in
harm's way? I just don't understand. I doubt those families do either.
In addition to perpetuating an unaccounted for and unexplained
policy, this bill is also inadequate to meet the needs of our nation's
armed services. The Administration failed to consult with the uniformed
leadership of the Pentagon in preparing its request. As a consequence,
this bill only provides a tenth--10 percent--of the Army's stated needs
for spare parts, reconditioning and depot maintenance for critically
important heavy machinery. As a result, thousands of pieces of
equipment, such as Bradley fighting vehicles and M1 tanks, equipment
that the uniformed leadership of our armed services designate as vital
to our military success, will sit idle in unusable condition throughout
this year and well into the next. In my district, despite the ongoing
war effort and the Army's need, my constituents--men and women who have
devoted most of their working lives to maintaining our military's
equipment needs--at Red River Army Depot are still not working at full
capacity.
To allow some of our military's most effective equipment to lay
fallow is foolish and short-sighted. The men and women working for our
national security at the Red River Army Depot and other depot
facilities across the country stand ready--as they have for decades--to
ensure that our military has all its heavy equipment needs met, and we
should do no less. Let us resolve to give our military all that its
uniformed leadership says it needs, not less.
Mr. Chairman, the Republican leadership of this House frequently
comes to the floor of this great body to denounce waste, fraud and
abuse. Yet it has acted with a single-minded passion to thwart every
effort by members of this House to seek an accounting of our nation's
ongoing operations in Iraq.
I understand as well as any members of this House the dangers that we
confront in the war on terror. There is no question that the United
States faces daunting and unprecedented challenges in combating an
enemy unlike any other we have ever confronted before. Nevertheless,
the Congress of the United States has a sacred and constitutional
obligation to ensure that the American taxpayers' money is spend wisely
and well. The United States Congress is not the President's personal
ATM and should not be treated that way.
Mr. Chairman, this bill does not provide the necessary
accountability. The taxpayers of this nation sent us here to deliberate
and debate, to discuss and dissect so that we can arrive at policies
and practices that produce the best return on our nation's investment--
at home or abroad. However, Mr. Chairman, the Republican leadership of
this House is determined to quell any debate or discussion.
The Republican leadership of this House insists that to question the
wisdom of this legislation or of this Administration's policy is to
commit acts bordering on traitorous. Such accusations are mean-spirited
and disingenuous. We have no less than a constitutional obligation to
carefully consider each and every component part of this legislation
and of this Administration's policy in Iraq. It is our responsibility.
The founding fathers of this great nation gave us an important power,
the power of the purse. To fail to exercise that power, including the
necessary oversight, is to fail the people who elected us. There is
nothing unpatriotic about questioning his legislation or the
Administration's policy. As a matter of fact, it would be unpatriotic
not to do so.
As members of this House, we are obliged to ensure that the
legislation that we pass,
[[Page H9661]]
that becomes law, does what it purports to do and does it effectively
and efficiently. Unfortunately, the leadership of this House seems to
have a different view of our obligations as members of Congress than
the Constitution contemplates.
Accordingly, one has to ask, Why? Why does the leadership of this
House refuse to permit a full-throated debate of both the monies being
spent on our ongoing operations in Iraq and the policy underlying the
provision of those resources? Why are we in Congress not entitled to
have the Administration's plans and proposals explained to us in
detail--not the broad brush explanations that this Administration
insists we must accept?
The legislation we debate today allocates $87 billion to our
operations in Iraq. Yet the Administration has not offered--and the
Republican leadership of this House has not allowed--a full and
complete explanation of how these dollars will be spent. That is not
acceptable. I have every confidence that if we called upon each
taxpaying family in this country to write a check directly to the
government to pay for our efforts in Iraq, they would demand to know
exactly where their money was going. Our constituents would not sign a
blank check, and neither should we.
Moreover, Mr. Chairman, the supplemental appropriations provided in
this bill are borrowed money. This legislation, however, noble its
purpose, piles another $87 billion on to our already crippling national
debt--a debt that will be paid by our children and grandchildren, by
the brave men and women now serving in Iraq and their children and
grandchildren. Personally, I am certain that the taxpaying families in
my district will demand to know exactly how their money and that of
their children and grandchildren is used, and I demand to know the
details for them.
Mr. Chairman, I cannot understand why there is an $18.6 billion gift
in this bill devoted to building Iraq's infrastructure, when the
Administration cannot even find the monies to fully and appropriately
equip our own military personnel. I cannot understand why the taxpayers
of the United States need to provide $18.6 billion in grants to Iraq, a
country with the world's second largest oil reserves. Nevertheless, the
President insists that loans are out of the question.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I ask, Why? The Administration says that loans
to Iraq are not workable, because Iraq has an unbearable debt load
already. The Administration believes we should borrow $18.6 billion
from the American taxpayer to build highways, hospitals, schools,
houses, and community centers in Iraq, because Iraq has too much debt.
Is this the same Iraq that the Administration said could pay for its
own reconstruction six months ago? It certainly makes you wonder.
I object to borrowing $18.6 billion from the American taxpayer to
build infrastructure in Iraq, when we neglect our own citizens here at
home.
The Administration expresses considerable concern about the debt
burden of the Iraqis but ignores the continuing fiscal crisis that
confronts our own government. It is reported that Iraq has $100 billion
in outstanding debts from the Saddam era, which is less than one
quarter of the amount the Administration has piled onto our national
debt in this year alone. The vast majority--at least 75 percent--of
Iraq's debts are owed to its oil-rich neighbors--poor struggling
nations such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Mr. Chairman, it is farcical
for this House to accept the proposition that Iraq is unable to bear
any additional debt--despite being the world's second most oil-rich
nation--because it owes approximately $75 billion to its oil-rich
neighbors.
Mr. Chairman, I am firmly committed to fighting through to victory
over terror. The American people are resolved to secure themselves
against the threat to our freedom and democracy represented by a few
violent fanatics. I support and share that resolve. Nevertheless, I
continue to question the wisdom of this Administration's plan to
conduct the war on terror. Our troops are in the field. They are in
harm's way. This Congress must not do anything to compromise the safety
and security of these brave men and women.
Mr. Chairman, I will support the bill before the House today, but not
without serious concerns. As we continue the war on terror, I would
hope that the members of this House from both sides of the aisle will
insist on true and complete accountability from this Administration for
the expenditure of these funds. It is our right and obligation to do
so. Failure to do that is failing the American people.
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, last year, during debate on the resolution
granting the President the authorization he sought to commence a war
against Iraq, I was concerned that the Administration was ignoring the
fact that actions and words have consequences. The consequences of our
actions then are exactly what we are trying to address through H.R.
3289 today. We took the burden of a notoriously ill-advised, preemptive
war and placed it on the shoulders of our young men and women in the
military to carry virtually alone. Now we are asking the American
taxpayers to take on the burden almost exclusively of rebuilding an
entire nation, while our own nation finds its schools in disrepair,
forty-four million Americans without health care, and our homeland
security needs under-funded.
If this were a spending package focused on supporting and protecting
our troops, this would be an easy vote for me. Nearly 5 months after
the Commander-in-Chief declared, ``mission accomplished,'' too many of
our troops are dying daily. I do not think these young men and women in
the armed forces, National Guard, and Reserves expected to still be
there so long after our President's proud and premature declaration of
success in Iraq. Our soldiers are sacrificing too much: some their
lives, and others their valued role as a parent, breadwinner, or
caregiver to their families and their communities.
I would support whatever it takes to bring these young men and women
home as quickly as possible, and to ensure their success and safety in
their mission while they are away.
But even the portion of the bill that would support our military's
``post-war'' efforts in Iraq is deficient. We know from reports that
weapons caches are poorly secured and that our troops are lacking
absolutely vital equipment such as body armor. The bill also would
leave 80 percent of our troops in Iraq without the ability to ensure a
clean water supply for themselves. We should also be paying for our
soldiers' rare calls home and for the full cost of traveling home while
on leave. Equally disturbing are reports that our troops in Iraq are
fatigued and suffering from low morale, the direct consequence of the
Administration's failure to secure extensive international cooperation
and compose a comprehensive exist strategy.
A significant portion of this bill's $87 billion is for rebuilding
Iraq, and like it or not we now have a moral responsibility to carry
much of this burden. When scrutinized in the light of day, however,
many of the items for which the Administration is asking us to sign
away precious tax dollars simply do not make sense. I was appalled by
findings reported in the New York times that Halliburton has been
exploiting the American taxpayer with a 140 percent mark-up for a
gallon of gas in Iraq. Despite our best efforts today to include some
Congressional oversight to the contracting process, I am afraid that
the Administration and its representatives in Iraq will continue to
oppose sensible oversight even while they have compiled a very poor
track record of ensuring that the largesse of the American taxpayer
will not further be abused. As an example of what is already occurring
on the ground, I would reiterate what the Democratic members of the
Appropriations Committee reported about the reconstruction of a cement
factory in Northern Iraq. In that instance, after the American
contractor estimated that it would take $15 million to upgrade the
factory, local Iraqis got the job done for $80,000. Something is wrong
here, and I do not believe we have done enough to make sure the
Administration does not continue to make these mistakes.
I understand the overwhelming pressure to rebuild as quickly as
possible, but we cannot afford to do this at any cost and without
greater discipline.
The American people know that this will not be the only request on
their tax dollars--some have characterized the President's $87 billion
request as a mere down-payment in a rebuilding effort that I expect to
be long and very expensive. I am heartened that our international
allies are starting to offer help, but these agreements should have
been taken care of long ago through a collaborative international
partnership. Again, the consequence of acting alone and without
credible evidence has come back to haunt not just the President, but
America's soldiers and taxpayers.
Having said all of this, the most troubling aspect of this bill
before us today is that it is not paid for at all; the full amount is
added to this year's already alarming $500 billion deficit. Why? We
have been told that the funds are simply not available. Why not? In
large part it is because of the cost of the excessive tax cuts
benefiting the wealthiest among us that this Administration decided
were its first priority. The 2001 repeal of the estate tax alone--which
benefits 30,000 of America's wealthiest individuals and only them, at
the expense of more than 140,000,000 other taxpayers--costs more in two
years than this entire appropriations package.
Mr. Chairman, this is a policy with no fiscal discipline that stands
in stark contrast to the discipline and sacrifices our young men and
women are demonstrating every day in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I sincerely wish I could have voted for the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) that would have met the burden that
we have assumed in Iraq in a responsible way. I do not understand why
the leadership denied us the ability to vote on that
[[Page H9662]]
amendment, which would have reset our priorities in a very sensible
manner, asking Americans to heed the call of shared sacrifice and
asking the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans to give up just a little
bit of their tax cut to help bring our troops home and rebuild Iraq.
What the Administration has asked us to do here today--approve
deficit spending in the amount of $87 billion--will place the cost of
rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan squarely on the shoulders of our
children and grandchildren and those of our soldiers, too many of whom
have already made the ultimate sacrifice. We should be more responsible
than that. I will vote against H.R. 3289.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the FY '04 Supplemental
bill.
In April 2003, President Bush asked the American people to provide
$77.9 billion for military and reconstruction spending in Iraq. At the
time, his administration repeatedly assured Congress that they would
not need additional money for Iraq. We now see that this was either
poor planning or a calculated and gross underestimation of the cost.
Today, congress is being asked to vote on $87 billion in additional
spending for our military actions in Iraq and the reconstruction of
both Iraq and Afghanistan for 2004.
Congress needs to start acting in a fiscally responsible manner. In
this bill's current form there are no corresponding spending cuts or
revenue generators to pay for the nearly $87 billion cost. President
Bush is asking for $20.3 billion in reconstruction funds with no
strings attached. This proposal has no accountability and, equally as
disturbing, there has been no effort made to provide an offset to cover
the cost. As a result, the proposal would add significantly to the
already massive $500 billion federal budget deficit.
I have attempted to inject some fiscal responsibility into this
process by offering an amendment that would eliminate the Bush tax
giveaway for taxpayers in the top federal income bracket. My proposal
would only impact the top 0.7 percent of all taxpayers with annual
incomes of more than $312,000 and would restore approximately $90
billion to the federal budget. Unfortunately my amendment was not
allowed and we are left with a bill that we are utterly unable to
afford.
We have an obligation to protect our troops in Iraq and to help
rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan so that they are no longer havens for the
tyranny and misery that spawn violence. This must be done responsibly
and within the context of a clear plan for the U.S. to accomplish its
goals and turn over both the governance and security of Iraq to the
Iraqi people.
Unfortunately, the bill before us today encapsulates all of the
problems with the Administration's Iraq policy. President Bush has not
explained how the $87 billion in spending helps us meet our goals of
protecting our troops and restoring order in Iraq. The President has
failed to make clear how many more American tax dollars will be spent
on Iraq or the duration of our occupation. The President has no plan
for how to pay for the $87 billion without adding dramatically to an
already record federal deficit.
The spending for our troops is vital. However, the President's plan
needs to include guarantees that the $67 billion in military spending
will go to getting critical supplies to our troops in a timely fashion.
This is particularly important in the wake of a report this week that
more than 40,000 G.I.s in Iraq still do not have the protective body
armor for their Kevlar vests that stops rounds from AK-47s, the assault
weapon favored by Iraqi guerrillas.
The most troubling portion of this proposal is the $20 billion
allocated for the rebuilding of Iraq. To this point, many of the
reconstruction contracts have been awarded without competition to
companies with close ties to the White House. These no-bid contracts
preclude the accountability that is critical to ensuring that our tax
dollars are not wasted and that every contract is implemented to meet
the goal of a quick restoration of order and self-governance in Iraq.
The question of cost points to the other major concern I have with
this request. The President did not provide any way for us to pay for
it. Instead of cutting spending or finding another revenue source, he
is borrowing on our children's future by adding to the federal deficit.
This is the continuation of a reckless economic policy that has already
turned a budget surplus in 2000 into a projected $500 billion deficit
for 2004.
There is also the question of whether this plan makes our nation more
secure. Last year, I voted against the Iraqi war resolution because I
believed that there was no clear evidence showing Iraq was an imminent
threat or that there were ties between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. I
was extremely concerned that the Bush Administration's unilateralist
approach would seriously harm our international standing, our ability
to wage the War on Terror and our ability to rebuild Iraq after the
fall of Saddam Hussein.
These concerns have been borne out. Weapons of mass destruction have
yet to be found and the Bush Administration has recently admitted that
there is very little evidence to tie Iraq to al Qaeda. There is a
growing consensus that the Bush Administration did not have the solid
evidence they once claimed to have in order to justify invading Iraq.
Congress has an obligation to pass a bill that contains a clear and
coherent plan for our troops and the reconstruction of Iraq and does
not balloon the deficit. This proposal does not meet these standards.
I urge a no vote on the Supplemental.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, today Congress again considers the
important issue of providing additional funding for military and
reconstruction activities in Iraq and Afghanistan. As a member of the
House Armed Service Committee, I appreciate the valiant service of our
men and women in uniform, and we must not hesitate to provide them with
the appropriate resources to continue their success in the global war
on terrorism. However, I have serious concerns with this measure--not
because I believe the U.S. should not contribute to rebuilding
Afghanistan and Iraq, but because so much of the burden is falling upon
American taxpayers. I am frustrated that we are paying for this request
through increased deficit spending--thereby shifting the cost to future
generations--without considering the options of international loans
through the World Bank, as Congressman Obey has recommended, or other
revenue sources that would spread the burden to those who can most
afford it. Nonetheless, I believe that the United States ultimately has
a responsibility to follow through on our international commitments.
While much discussion about the supplemental will focus on the
reconstruction request, we must not forget that the majority of its
funding goes toward ensuring the safety and success of our troops. For
example, the bill will increase the number of protective body suits,
flak jackets and armored vehicles available to our military's men and
women serving in hostile areas. Just last week, I visited Walter Reed
Army Medical Center and spoke with soldiers whose injuries might have
been prevented if they had been driving the armored vehicles included
in this bill. Additionally, the measure recognizes that the difficult
terrain and often inhospitable climate of Iraq have necessitated
frequent maintenance of military equipment, and therefore provides
funding for parts replacement and much-needed upgrades.
A far more controversial aspect of the bill is the $18.6 billion for
reconstruction activities in Iraq and $1.2 billion for Afghanistan. I
was concerned with some of the items in the President's original
request--including the establishment of postal codes and the purchase
of a fleet of pricey garbage trucks--and am pleased that the
Appropriations Committee deemed them unworthy of emergency funding. The
remaining items, such as utility infrastructure projects, health care
improvement and security upgrades, are important building blocks that
will help improve the safety of the Iraqi people while allowing them to
develop self-sufficiency and independence. While some regions in Iraq
are still hostile to U.S. presence, we must build on the progress that
we have made in other areas of the nation. Insufficient investment now
in Iraq could lead to the spread of religious extremism, an increase in
illegal arms trading, and an explosion in anti-American sentiment. To
fall short in our reconstruction efforts could have a devastating
effect on the stability of the region, causing it to descend into chaos
and become a breeding ground for terrorists.
However, I am disappointed that the reconstruction portion of the
request was not considered separately from the military component so
that Congress could have provided immediate assistance to our troops
while having greater opportunity for deliberation and consideration of
the longer-term reconstruction proposals and the larger issues of U.S.
involvement in Iraq.
Unfortunately, the military improvement and reconstruction efforts
come at a high cost, and no one in this chamber should have any
question about the impact of this measure on our nation's financial
situation. To an already historic deficit projected at $480 billion in
fiscal year 2004, we are adding $87 billion. This combination
translates into larger interest payments on the national debt and less
funding for important domestic priorities such as health care,
education, and homeland security. My constituents are fully aware of
the impact on our budget; I recently met with a man who has been
unemployed for two years who questioned why we are not focusing our
spending efforts on job training and other programs to address the
nation's unemployment problem. I believe that the costs of this package
fall unfairly on American taxpayers, and we must rectify this problem.
Consequently, I sent a letter to President Bush asking that he
aggressively pursue international cooperation to help defray the costs
of reconstruction. Absent a major influx of foreign aid, I requested
that he
[[Page H9663]]
consider options that would require small sacrifices from those
Americans who can most afford them. One possibility would be to reduce
a portion of the recent tax cut for the top income tax bracket to
generate enough revenue to cover the $87 billion request. This
reduction would slightly impact fewer than one million taxpayers, while
maintaining the tax cuts for the middle class. Our men and women in
uniform have served heroically to safeguard our nation's security, and
we must now endure other sacrifices to keep from endangering the
economic security of future generations.
What frustrates me most about the current situation is that it was
not unforeseen. Many of my colleagues and I cautioned the Bush
Administration about the consequences of pursuing military intervention
in Iraq without a broad coalition of support. Almost exactly a year
ago, I cam to the floor to speak on the resolution authorizing the use
of force against Iraq. At that time, I said that I could not vote for
it because it lacked a clear mandate that the President seek U.N.
Security Council support for military operations in Iraq. I
specifically noted that an international coalition would broaden
regional support for military intervention and would be essential in
promoting a new government in Iraq and undertaking reconstruction
efforts. Unfortunately, those words were not heeded, and the onus of
reconstruction now falls heavily on our Nation.
The bill before us is a flawed bill, not because of the provisions it
contains or the programs that it funds, but because the circumstances
that brought us to its consideration could have been different.
However, we must not judge this bill based on its history, but on what
it can do to shape the future. As Shakespeare wrote, ``What's past is
prologue,'' and we cannot allow finger-pointing to obscure the task at
hand. Our Nation successfully toppled two oppressive regimes and freed
the Afghan and Iraqi people from cruelty, abuse and torture. We bear
responsibility in assisting their nations as they transform themselves
into successful democratic entities. In so doing, we can also prevent
the dire conditions of poverty and political and religious extremism
that have led to terrorism and tyrannical regimes throughout the region
and the world.
While I will support this measure because our nation must complete
what we have started, my vote is by no means an endorsement of the
Administration's policies in Iraq, which are severely deficient in
accountability, clarity and vision. I know that many of my colleagues
share my reservations, and I look forward to the upcoming amendment
process as an opportunity to address some of these concerns. I urge the
Administration to pay close attention to our debate and recognize that
a serious shift in strategy and attitude is needed immediately if we
are to avoid having this same discussion again in the near future.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, when President Bush's $87 billion
supplemental request was presented to the Appropriations Committee,
Chairman Young, Chairman Lewis and Chairman Kolbe had corrected a
number of serious deficiencies in the President's budget request. For
that reason, I reluctantly voted to support the committee bill with the
hope that the serious weaknesses that still remained would be
strengthened as the bill moved through the process.
Unfortunately, that has not happened. Therefore, I will not support
the supplemental bill before us today, because the majority has chosen
to prevent the House from addressing the concerns many of my colleagues
and I still have on the critical questions American taxpayers are
asking. Questions such as: Are we doing all we can for our troops? How
are we going to engage the international community for financial
support? How are we going to pay for the $87 billion price tag and
where is the accountability for this enormous and unprecedented
request?
The Obey amendment is the very amendment that best addresses these
critical questions. Yet the House will not be allowed to vote on it.
And for good reason, because if given the opportunity, the majority
knows it would pass. The Obey amendment strengthens the quality of life
provisions of our troops, provides accountability to the taxpayers and
to Congress, and pays for the $87 billion request instead of adding it
to the already enormous debt created by the misguided policies of this
Administration--a debt that will be passed on to our children and our
children's children.
Let me briefly highlight some of the key provisions of the Obey
amendment. First, the Obey amendment addresses quality of life issues
for our troops by helping to correct some of the alarming conditions
our troops have found themselves. For example, as reported by our
colleagues who have visited Iraq, not all our fighting men and women in
Iraq have purified drinking water, and many of our troops are getting
sick and suffering from dysentery as a result. The Obey amendment, had
we been allowed to vote on it, would have provided enough funding for
purified drinking water plants so that all our troops have clean water,
not just one of nine U.S. bases in Iraq as proposed by the
Administration, which would leave 80 percent of the troops unprotected.
The Obey amendment also shows respect and appreciation for the
sacrifices made by our troops by providing reservists with pre-
deployment medical and dental screening, which they now pay for
themselves. The amendment also extends their health care coverage from
60 days to six months following deployments and provides for an
adequate supply of prepaid phone cards so all U.S. soldiers can call
home. Finally, because troops are currently required to pay their own
transportation home once they have reached the U.S., the Obey amendment
pays for the R&R transportation costs for troops on a 12-month
deployment. Unfortunately, these important quality of life issues for
our troops will not be permitted to be a part of the bill before us.
Second, the Obey amendment engages the international community
financially by devoting $7 billion to a trust fund at the World Bank.
The advantage of the World Bank is that these funds would be
conditioned on contributions of at least $3.5 billion from other
nations. The accumulated $10.5 billion could then be used as security
for an additional $42 billion in World Bank bonds for the
reconstruction in Iraq. This would help to eliminate the drain on our
own U.S. Treasury by generating the vast majority of the estimated $54
billion needed for Iraq reconstruction. Equally as important is the
fact that using the World Bank would eliminate the cronyism and no-bid
contracts that have been awarded to Haliburton and Bechtel with funds
from the first supplemental bill. As we all know, there is still little
disclosure about these no-bid contracts and their resultant long-term
costs. Again, the majority has denied us a vote on this important
issue.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, the Obey amendment would fully pay for the $87
billion supplemental appropriation by returning the tax rate for
individuals with incomes in excess of $350,000 to the level that
existed in January 2001. That means that although they will not get the
bonus tax cut, the richest one percent will still get the largest tax
cut provided to any American. Given the sacrifices that are being made
by our servicemen and women and their families, having the richest
Americans do their fair share to pay for this appropriation with a
smaller tax cut honors the American spirit of ``shared sacrifice.'' Yet
again, the majority will prevent this House from voting on the Obey
proposal that would pay for this costly appropriation.
And finally, Mr. Chairman, is the issue of accountability, another
key issue the House will be unable to adequately address on behalf of
the American people, who have a right to know how their tax money is
being spent. What makes the lack of transparency and accountability for
this $87 billion even more incredible is the fact that the
Administration has failed to account for the $63 billion Congress
already allocated for the safety of our troops. This is critical
especially when we know that the full $63 billion that should have gone
for Kevlar flak jacket ``body armor'' and jammers to block the radio
signals used to detonate the remote controlled bombs never reached all
our troops. Why the current civilian leaders in the Pentagon failed to
provide these life-saving supplies to our troops prior to the U.S.
invasion of Iraq and even after it became apparent that these shortages
were costing American lives must be answered. And it must be answered
before we give Secretary Rumsfeld discretion to spend over an estimated
$9 billion of taxpayer dollars without being accountable to Congress
and the American people for how the money will be spent.
For those who say we cannot afford to wait--that this is an emergency
and our troops need these funds right away--I would direct them to the
report by the Congressional Research Service on this very question. CRS
states that based on the available sums provided through the regular FY
'04 Defense Appropriations Bill that military operations can be
sustained until early May of next year, and that the billions of
dollars of unobligated funds remaining in the last supplemental
appropriations also can be used to address the immediate needs of our
troops. That means that we can protect our troops and Congress can take
the time to get this right and have our questions answered. We do not
have to hastily pass $87 billion of taxpayers' dollars in order to meet
the Administration's arbitrary deadline.
Since the bill before the House today leaves too many unanswered
questions and because the majority has prevented this House from voting
on the key policy issues that responsibly should be considered before
giving away $87 billion of taxpayers' money, I believe my vote against
this appropriation is a responsible vote. Hopefully, it will send a
clear message to the Bush Administration that we must pass a bill
giving real protection to our troops and improving their quality of
life while at the same time requiring a clearly defined plan with
transparency and accountability that does not saddle future generations
with a huge debt that prevents us from addressing the needs of
Americans in our own country.
[[Page H9664]]
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, the Congress has a responsibility to work
with the President to protect the national security of our nation. When
our soldiers are sent in to war, it is the Congress' responsibility to
make sure that all resources necessary are provided to carry out their
missions. Although I disagreed with President Bush's request for
unrestricted use of force against Iraq, such a resolution was approved
by Congress. It was clear to me from the outset that although we would
win the war, the Administration did not have an adequate plan to win
the peace; that is, to rebuild Iraq, and to establish democratic
institutions in that abused country. To succeed after the war it was
critical to engage the international community. Yet the Administration
refused to seek international support early or to share responsibility
with the international community for the governing of Iraq.
Because of these failures, Americans have paid a heavy price. It is
primarily American troops stationed in Iraq that face continuing
attacks. It is our taxpayers that are being asked to almost exclusively
pay the cost to rebuild Iraq.
I stand behind our brave men and women who have performed admirably
in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have made tremendous sacrifices on behalf
of their country and have served longer deployments than expected. We
should provide our troops with all the resources necessary to carry out
their mission. Therefore it is necessary to support the supplemental
appropriations bill. Most of the funds in this bill will go directly to
support our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. The funding of the
reconstruction efforts are also fundamental to the successful
completion of our missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
However, I believe that the Administration's request of $18 billion
for reconstruction requires a higher level of scrutiny. There were a
series of amendments considered by Congress during the consideration of
the supplemental appropriations bill that I supported. These amendments
included:
(1) An amendment to transfer some of the Iraqi reconstruction funds
to repair and replace military equipment used in current operations, as
well as improve the quality of life for the families of active and
reserve forces. The amendment failed by a vote of 209 to 216.
(2) An amendment which would have converted half of the Iraqi
reconstruction grants into loans. This amendment was similar to an
amendment that was adopted by the Senate yesterday. Although the
amendment failed in the House by a vote of 200 to 226, I hope in
conference the House will agree with the Senate action.
(3) An amendment which I authored with Congressman Kind of Wisconsin,
which would have reduced the reconstruction funds to Iraq by 50
percent. I sponsored that amendment because I thought it was important
for the administration to obtain more help from the international
community, use loans rather than grants, provide more details to
Congress and the American people on the use of these funds, have a plan
to transfer authority to Iraqis, and have a plan to bring home our
troops stationed in Iraq within a reasonable period of time. The
Administration could then seek Congressional approval of additional
resources if needed once these conditions have been met. Unfortunately,
the amendment failed by a vote of 156 to 267.
The Administration has relied almost exclusively on U.S. troops to
take most of the risks in Iraq. The Administration's ``go-it-alone''
strategy must end. I am pleased that on Thursday the United Nations
unanimously adopted a resolution, initiated by the Secretary of State
Colin Powell, which will strengthen the role of the United Nations and
the international community in the reconstruction of Iraq. Iraq must
make a transition to a nation that adopts a constitution, holds
elections, and creates a democratic government that respects minority
rights and operates under the rule of law. The U.S. must show enough
flexibility in working with our allies to effectively implement this
U.N. resolution, so that other countries will pledge both troops and
funds to alleviate the burden on our American soldiers and taxpayers.
Ultimately, the quickest way to bring our troops back home is to reach
out more aggressively to the international community, establish order
and security in Iraq, and transfer authority to the Iraqis.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, from the outset I have opposed the Bush
administration's approach to Iraq. It embraced the notion of pre-
emptive strike where the U.S. could act alone when it determined that
there was a threat, even if that threat did not pose imminent danger to
the United States. Within this misguided doctrine of the
Administration, other nations and the United Nations would merely be
notified of an American decision with little emphasis on the United
States using our unique leadership position in the world community to
obtain support for collective action; strengthening the international
role rather than the U.S. going it alone.
As the administration was moving to implement their doctrine, I
joined others in actively opposing it. When the President asked for the
authority to undertake unilateral military action against Iraq, I
worked with others to draft an alternative that required the President
to come back to the Congress for its approval before taking unilateral
military action in the absence of authorization by the U.N. Security
Council.
Unfortunately, our resolution did not pass. The rest is history--the
use of false arguments to justify unilateral action, the failure to
find weapons of mass destruction that were reasons given for taking
unilateral military action, the inadequate planning for the aftermath
in Iraq, the lack of accountability by the administration on spending
to date, and the irresponsibility of not providing our troops the
ceramic body armor strong enough to stop bullets fired from assault
rifles.
Once again, domestic public and international pressures have forced
the administration to consult in recent days with the international
community through the U.N. We need to be clear that ensuring the U.N.
and the international community a meaningful role in rebuilding Iraq
isn't just a matter of approving a new U.N. resolution. The
Administration's words must be backed by action and a change in its
approach in Iraq.
So today the question for Congress remains--now that the U.S. is
where it is, what should happen next?
I totally reject the propagandistic framing of the issue yesterday by
Majority Leader Tom DeLay. The issue is not whether or not one supports
the battle against terrorism. Mr. DeLay mistakenly describes that if
you are for the battle, you are for the supplemental appropriation, and
if against that battle, against the supplemental. During this debate we
have heard a strong bi-partisan commitment to supporting our troops and
to the reconstruction of Iraq. Whether one voted for or--as I did--
against the resolution authorizing the President to unilaterally
undertake a war with Iraq, we all take seriously the responsibility to
protect our troops and stabilize Iraq now.
The Administration and the Republican majority have resisted dividing
the issue before us into two parts: the $65 billion for military
equipment and services to support of our armed forces, and $20 billion
for reconstruction efforts in Iraq. I think it is useful to consider
each of the two components on their own as well as their connections.
As to the $65 billion, there seem only two realistic alternatives.
One is to pull out American armed forces quickly and thus oppose the
$65 billion. The other is to conclude that such a withdrawal would only
add to the chaos and take a chance on what would result. No one has
seriously suggested a third alternative--to say but to reduce
significantly the $65 billion in military assistance.
Going beyond the rhetoric that the U.S. should not ``cut and run,'' I
believe that an abrupt withdrawal of American troops, once the
Administration positioned them in Iraq, would lead to chaos that could
result in turmoil and potentially dangerous results in Iraq as well as
the entire region.
Then, how about the $20 billion for reconstruction? No matter how
strongly one opposed the unilateral, pre-emptive military action by the
Bush Administration, it is hard to conclude that the U.S. should not
bear any responsibility for reconstruction efforts. No matter how
vehemently one rejected the Administration's misguided notion that
everything would easily fall in place after the military captured Iraq,
and how frightful was the lack of effective planning by the
administration for its aftermath, it seems inescapable that our Nation
must now assist substantially in reconstruction efforts.
But this does not mean that we should bear all the costs and
basically control the decisions in this period of reconstruction. As
usual, the Administration has dug in its heels, and said it is their
way and nothing else. I regret that the Majority Leadership in the
House would not even allow a vote on the Obey amendment, which would
have offset the entire $87 billion cost of the Iraq package by rolling
back a small portion of the 2001 tax cuts for the top 1 percent of
income earners in this country. Instead, every dollar of this package
will be added to the already huge Federal deficit.
We tried in the House to build into American assistance a mixture of
grants and loans. I voted for this approach and was disappointed that
it lost by a narrow margin because there were more Republicans who
supported the idea than voted for it as a result of pressure from their
leadership and the White House. One reason to support this approach is
that it is likely to further the Iraqi engagement and investment in the
decision making process and results of reconstruction.
The Senate last night passed an amendment that provides for a mixture
of grants and loans. The way it is worded, it might well lead to a
greater financial responsibility on the part of other nations.
The action of the Senate provides a real hope that the final package
will have a mixture
[[Page H9665]]
of financing and spread the cost of reconstruction with other nations
and Iraq, which possesses the second largest reserves of oil in the
world. I believe, therefore, there is now more, not less, reason to
support the $20 billion for reconstruction.
Therefore, if one does not oppose the $65 billion for the Armed
Forces and one does not believe that we can avoid substantial
involvement in the reconstruction of Iraq, my conclusion is that a yes
vote is warranted today. I will withhold a decision on the conference
bill that is now necessitated by the Senate action last night because
an effort to strip out the Senate provision on a loan would again call
into question this administration's commitment to internationalizing
the reconstruction of Iraq. A major reason to vote no on this bill
would be to protest further the mistaken path followed by the
Administration from the very start. I respect that approach, through I
have chosen otherwise on this bill and I will continue to urge that the
mind set and the perspectives of this administration that led them to
their go-it-alone actions in Iraq are more than adequate cause for
their defeat at the ballot box in 2004.
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I was horrified to learn
that tens of thousands of our troops were sent out to battle without
proper armor. And to this day, they still lack many necessary items. I
spoke with several soldiers who suffered injuries to their legs, and
many who totally lost their legs when bullets crashed through their
vehicles because the cars were not fortified with armored plates. I met
with soldiers who suffered chest injuries because they did not have
bulletproof vests.
This is a very important issue, and I want the American public to
clearly understand this point. Even though we have 44,000 soldiers in
Iraq today without proper bulletproof vests, the President asked for
absolutely nothing to protect these troops. Let me repeat that. We have
44,000 soldiers in Iraq without body armor, and the President didn't
ask for a single cent to protect these soldiers. I guess these brave
men and women will have to wait until Halliburton starts making body
armor before they can get the protection they need and deserve.
Congress approved $310 million in April to buy 300,000 bulletproof
vests for our troops. But sadly, only $75 million of that money has
gone to the Army office that is responsible for purchasing these vests.
Where is the accountability that this Administration promised this
nation?
The Republicans keep telling us this bill is all about the soldiers,
and everyone in this Congress supports our soldiers. but how can a bill
for our soldiers not include money for basic protections like Body
Armor, Boots, Camouflage, Rucksacks, Armored Vehicles, Tank Tracks,
Humvee Tires, Signal Jammers, and Chemical Suits. We can't even provide
these brave men and women with simple necessities like drinking water,
showers, tennis shoes, and even toothpaste.
Just six months ago, we appropriated $79 billion dollars for the war
effort, and yet relatives have resorted to buying body armor in the
U.S. and shipping it to troops in Iraq. What happened to this money,
Mr. President? These families and this Congress want and deserve to
know.
Yesterday I was shocked to find out that the Services did not fully
meet immunization and other predeployment requirements. Based on GAO
review of deployments from four installations, between 14 and 46
percent of servicemembers were missing at least one of their required
immunizations prior to deployment. As many as 36 percent of the
servicemembers were missing two or more of their required
immunizations, such as influenza and hepatitis. We cannot send our
servicemembers to war without first making certain that they are
protected from in-theater disease threats. We need to take care of the
basics for our troops!
The American people who are writing the check for Iraq do not want a
grant program. Like anyone who lends money in the real world, they want
their money back. I would encourage every citizen to call their
Senators and Congressperson to let them know that you do not support
another Blank Check slush fund for this Administration.
Vote no on this bill, and no on another blank check for the
President and his campaign contributors. Mr. President, this account is
already overdrawn.
Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I come before you today to urge your
continued support for the War on Terror. While there has been spirited
debate in this Chamber during the past two days, the stakes are too
high for us not to meet the obligations and responsibilities at hand.
Make no mistake about it: by passing this War on Terror Bill, we are
investing in the future safety and security of the American people.
None of us will ever forget September 11th, 2001, when terrorists
attacked our freedom, our peacefulness, our American way of life. I
still remember looking out my office window and seeing the smoke from
the Pentagon attack rolling across the Washington Mall, at that moment,
I knew this Congress--Republicans and Democrats--would stand shoulder-
to-shoulder with our President to say ``Never Again.'' The very next
day, this House moved swiftly.
We approved emergency funding to rebuild what the terrorists
destroyed, and to buttress our homeland security and our intelligence
efforts. We enacted new, stringent laws giving our judicial system and
law enforcement the tools necessary to fight this new war on terrorism.
We embarked on the most ambitious reorganization of our federal
government in more than 50 years, establishing a Department of Homeland
Security, whose core mission is to prevent terrorist attacks against
America.
Now, we must approach the reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan with
the same vigor with which we undertook the defense of our homeland. The
pending legislation does just that. It is estimated that the Terrorists
of 9/11 spent less than $500,000 to undertake an operation whose
economic toll far exceeds $150 Billion. There is no question as to the
significant economic consequences that terrorism holds for the global
economy. Yet, there are those who question the need for this War on
Terror Bill. Worse yet, they also question our overall mission--
Why are we in Iraq?
Why are we in Afghanistan?
Why spend this money in this way?
Let me be clear; to protect America: Terrorism cannot stand;
Terrorism must be rooted out and destroyed.
My colleagues, we have taken the battle to the enemy. Iraq and
Afghanistan are now the central fronts in the War on Terror. Our brave
men and women in uniform are stamping out terrorists in Baghdad, Iraq
and Kandahar, Afghanistan before these methodical killers strike
Brooklyn, New York, or Batavia, Illinois.
And while much remains to be achieved, the Commander in Chief and is
National Security Team are having remarkable success. We liberated the
people of Afghanistan from the Taliban's cruel grip; We rid Iraq of the
evil of Saddam Hussein; We have taken into custody hundreds of al-Qaida
operatives and benefactors, reducing the likelihood of future attacks
on all countries. And, we have begun to sever the financial ties that
bank roll these evil acts. Terrorist training camps in Iraq and
Afghanistan have been uncovered and destroyed; Forty-three of the
fifty-five most wanted former Iraqi leaders are dead or in custody;
and, thousands of other Baath Party loyalists and terrorists have met
their ultimate fate.
This is an investment in our future. The President is calling on us
to provide our courageous troops the tools they need to fight terrorism
abroad, finish the job, and return home safely. Our President needs our
continued support to help the emerging, democratic government take hold
in Baghdad and Kabul. This cause is worthy of our assistance. While I
have heard some say we should use this money to rebuild our roads,
bridges, and schools here at home, I must remind my colleagues that
peace and stability in Iraq and Afghanistan is very much an investment
in America's safety and security--both now and in the future.
We all know that until democracy firmly takes root in these two
nations, Americans, joined by troops from Poland, Australia, Britain,
and thirty allied countries will remain on the ground, risking their
lives on our behalf. To date, some sixty nations from around the globe
have already pledged their support. Why? Because they understand keenly
that what happens in Iraq and Afghanistan affects the Persian Gulf and
beyond.
Running water, functioning electricity, an impartial judicial system,
and properly trained law enforcement are basic, and essential elements
of a government infrastructure that must be in place before we should
leave. When it comes to our commitment of resources, let's do it right
from the outset so our American military can finish these missions and
return home as soon as possible--safe and sound.
Let me be clear: this is much more than a vote on dollars and cents;
this is a vote to protect Americans from future attacks both at home
and abroad.
We pledged on September 11th, 2001, we would ``Never Again'' fail to
do what's necessary. Let us not fail today.
Vote ``yes'' on this War on Terror Spending Bill.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to talk about the brave men
and women who are fighting in Iraq at this very moment; the hundreds
who lost their lives; and the thousands who have been wounded.
Despite the fact that Congress appropriated $310,000 in April for
bulletproof vests, nearly one-third of the 130,000 U.S. troops in Iraq
still have not been issued these vests, which are strong enough to stop
bullets from assault rifles. Nor have most of our troops been issued
CamelBak hydration systems to protect them from the scorching desert
heat. In fact,
[[Page H9666]]
many families have resorted to sending protective bulletproof vests and
CamelBak hydration systems to their sons and daughters stationed in
Iraq. No family should be paying extra to help keep their loved ones
safe; the federal government has this responsibility. After all, who
sent these young people to war in the first place? Certainly not their
families.
In August of this year, I stayed in Bethesda Naval Hospital where I
visited with wounded men and women and their families who will never
again experience the world in the same way as a result of this war. We
don't talk about the impact of this war. In fact, we don't talk about
the impact of any war on the wounded and their loved ones. I met with
individuals who had lost limbs, their sight, their hearing, parts of
their beautiful faces, and we are still not providing our troops with
the best equipment available!
Mr. Chairman, we must do the right thing for our troops and give them
the support they deserve, in the way they deserve it. Now is the time
to make permanent the increases to the Imminent Danger Pay and Family
Separation Allowance, which Congress approved for our soldiers only
through next year. We must make the commitment to our troops, right
now, that we will take care of them after this war is over. That means
ensuring the permanent end to the Disabled Veterans Tax by providing
full concurrent receipt for all veterans. And it means not denying, but
treating, the illnesses they will face ten, twenty, and thirty years
down the road.
It is pretty simple, really. If we are willing to spend another $65
billion to keep our troops in danger, then we must care enough to bring
them home, bring them home safely, bring them home soon, and support
them after the war. Since I see no real commitment to doing this from
the Administration, and I see no real reason for being in Iraq in the
first place, I will be voting no on the supplemental.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I cannot support a bailout for poor
preparation and bad foreign policy. The President squandered the $79
billion that Congress appropriated in April. He is now requesting an
$87 billion blank check, and I will not vote to sign it.
This year, America will run the largest deficit in our history--more
than $475 billion, excluding the President's request for Iraq. The $87
billion would be better used to create jobs and improve health care and
education for Americans.
The substitute to the President's request offered by Congressman
David Obey in the Appropriations Committee is a far better alternative.
The Obey substitute insists on accountability and transparency for the
expenditure of reconstruction dollars and encourages support from other
nations thereby reducing the burden on American taxpayers.
Unfortunately, the Obey substitute was rejected in the Appropriations
Committee and Republican leadership has blocked it from consideration
by the full House. But the Obey substitute offered the best plan for
fixing the chaos in post-war Iraq.
I voted against the original bill authorizing the President to use
force against Iraq, but once our troops were put in harms way I, like
all members of Congress, have done everything necessary to support our
troops. Despite many reservations about going to war, my colleagues and
I overwhelmingly supported the President's $79 billion supplemental to
cover the cost of deploying and operating troops in Iraq. At that time,
it was the largest supplemental bill ever considered by Congress.
These funds were to cover our troops' basic necessities such as
water, body armor and the correct equipment needed for a desert
conflict. I thought the necessary funds had been provided to achieve
victory and bring our troops home swiftly and safely, and I assumed the
President had a plan.
Yet, six months later, 80 percent of U.S. troops have been drinking
putrid water and whole units have come down with dysentery. As many as
40,000 troops do not have the standard issue body armor and, in fact,
are using outdated body armor from the Vietnam era.
Our Guard and Reserve Forces are caught in a hidden draft. They are
being required to serve far longer in Iraq than they had been told
because the troop rotation schedule is in chaos.
Sadly, this could have been avoided because the war on Iraq was a war
of choice, not of necessity.
The administration's two primary reasons for the war--Saddam
Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction and his alleged links to
Al-Qaeda--were both intentionally exaggerated to build support for that
war. No weapons of mass destruction have been found and the President
has now downplayed the alleged link between Saddam Hussein and Al-
Qaeda.
If the aftermath of the war were going well, Americans would probably
overlook the deliberately misrepresented intelligence on Iraq's weapons
of mass destruction and its ties to Al-Qaeda. Now, as Americans are
killed almost every day and it is clear that winning the peace will be
a long, difficult and expensive process, people are questioning how we
got to where we are today.
The swell of opposition to the President's request should surprise no
one.
The American people are learning that the President's insistence on a
unilateral war means that we will pay for a unilateral peace.
Even our closest allies are reluctant to pay for the aftermath of our
war. International donors scheduled to meet in Madrid next month are
expected to contribute no more than $2 billion to the reconstruction
effort, while most recent estimates to rebuild Iraq over the next four
years call for $55 billion above the President's current request.
By channeling $7 billion of reconstruction funds through the World
Bank, the Obey substitute would reduce the burden on American
taxpayers. This is an effective way to prevent cronyism in
reconstruction contracts and to encourage international donors to
contribute to the redevelopment of Iraq. The World Bank is much more
likely to rely on indigenous workers and companies to carry out
construction projects than is an organization that is tied to political
appointees in the White House.
The President's request allows for sole-source, no bid contracts to
be awarded without the notification of Congress. This is a thinly
disguised appropriation for Halliburton, Bechtel and the President's
other fundraisers. The Obey substitute includes mechanisms that limit
these contracts and directs funding to cost-effective projects, rather
than the large, capital-intensive, expensive contracts the President
favors.
Mr. Chairman, the Obey substitute is an excellent proposal that will
provide for much more effective reconstruction in Iraq.
The Obey substitute also provides the body armor, adequate purified
drinking water, portable jammers and 20,000 additional troops to relive
Guard and Reserve Forces. It allows our troops to finish their jobs and
return home quickly and safely. It prepares for the return of our Guard
and Reserve Forces by extending their healthcare coverage from 60 days
to 6 months. The Obey substitute will force the President to fess up to
the actual long-term costs of our military action, relieve pressure on
the Guard and Reserve over time and make our troops safer.
Mr. Chairman, I opposed the President's war on Iraq, but I support
the Obey substitute amendment. It makes better use of our limited
resources to fix a horrible and dangerous situation.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, Congress will provide the necessary
support for our troops and we will make a significant investment in
stabilizing and rebuilding Iraq. The question before Congress is how
best to provide that troop support and how to make the appropriate
investment in both Iraq and Afghanistan--two troubled nations that the
United States now ``owns'' as a result of the Bush administration's
policies. This $87 billion supplemental appropriation is not the best
answer.
We have already provided huge sums that have not been well spent. The
costs of Iraq policy are approaching $200 billion dollars of borrowed
money with no end in sight. Our troops continue to have unmet needs
that were entirely foreseen, like the flat jacket liners and armoring
of vehicles. Tales abound of questionable expenditures and contracts,
yet proposals were included in this request that simply don't meet the
laugh test; millions of dollars for garbage trucks, zip codes, and a
witness protection program (at $1,000,000 a person). It was wrong to
give this administration a blank check to wage unilateral war and it is
wrong to give them a blank check for reconstruction.
During debate, I offered an amendment that would save American
taxpayers a quarter of a billion dollars and would have transferred
money from Iraq reconstruction efforts to provide $247 million in
additional funding for Afghanistan--a country with the same population
as Iraq, an even larger land area, and that is still harboring
terrorists.
Decades of conflict of Afghanistan, including the war against the
Soviet Union, have left about 2 million dead and created 700,000 widows
and orphans. Afghanistan remains a hot bed and safe haven for Al
Qaeda--responsible for the launching of murderous attacks against the
U.S. The UN estimates that 5-7 million unexploded landmines are
scattered throughout the country. An estimated 400,000 Afghans have
been killed or wounded by mines, leading to the highest per capita
number of amputees in the world.
Estimates for reconstruction in Afghanistan range as high as $30
billion over the next decade. There is no shortage of need and the
bottom line is we can do much more. Even after the $500 million this
amendment removes from Iraq reconstruction, that country is still
receiving the most generous aid package in history. Afghanistan was a
real threat. We need to do more to make sure Afghanistan does not again
spin out of control.
While my amendment did not pass, I was encouraged by the reaction of
my colleagues
[[Page H9667]]
from both sides of the aisle who recognize the importance of additional
funding in Afghanistan. I will continue to fight to ensure that the
administration's discredited program for Iraq does not leave other
Middle East priorities under-funded and ineffective.
Even though the administration was wrong to claim that this Iraq
reconstruction could be financed by Iraq's own oil revenues, and even
though it will be ill advised to hopelessly burden the future Iraqi
government, the American public should not bare the burden of vast sums
of borrowed money because the administration had neither the foresight
nor the patience to develop realistic plans and partnerships. We should
be working with creditors like the Russians and the French as well as
international organizations like The World Bank to soften the impact on
American tax payers.
While this proposal has been improved by the Appropriations
Committee, it still falls short. There is still too much spent on the
wrong things and administered by the wrong people. Congress does no
favors to our troops, our citizens, or the Iraqi people, to continue to
fund the administration's ill-advised plans.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, it is with a heavy heart that I vote for
this bill. While I am deeply troubled at the prospect of adding even
more to our rapidly spiraling debt, poor planning and severe
mismanagement by the White House have left 113,000 American troops in a
deadly situation in Iraq without the training or equipment they need.
We cannot make this bill a retroactive referendum on all the mistakes
President Bush has made about this war. Nearly $65 billion in this bill
is for our troops who are still in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they
desperately need it. When I went to Iraq last month, I learned that
there are literally thousands of American troops there who lack basic
life-saving equipment like bullet-proof vests. How can we tell them
their lives are not worth the price tag?
If we don't send the money our troops need, we leave them stranded in
an incredibly dangerous environment. If we pull out our troops now, we
will leave innocent Iraqis in a security and economic situation worse
than before the war began and our own country more vulnerable.
I attempted to amend this bill to hold the administration more
accountable for the $20 billion they are requesting for reconstruction.
I believe that part, but not all, of the responsibility for
reconstructing Iraq lies with the United States, and I call on the
administration to increase its efforts to seek international support to
pay for the reconstruction of Iraq. Until it is stabilized and self-
governing, Iraq will remain a potential breeding ground for terrorism
in a volatile region.
Mr. Chairman, I urge you to put good public policy over politics and
ensure bills as distasteful as these cease to be the norm in the House
of Representatives.
Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3289,
President Bush's $87 billion funding request for Iraq. This
supplemental appropriations bill is not about showing support for our
troops. We are all united behind their courageous efforts. This is
about where the United States goes from here.
I think most Americans realized that our commitment overseas would
be lengthy and it would be costly. However, the Administration has been
unwilling or unable to state its plans for the creation of stable
representative governments, able to police and defend themselves, in
Iraq or in Afghanistan. We have absolutely no idea how long troops will
be stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan and we have no idea how much money
will be required to complete this mission. When pressed by the
Appropriations Committee for answers on these points, the
Administration declined to give any answers. That is not good enough.
It is time for the President to provide us all with answers to those
questions.
I understand that the President cannot set out a precise timetable
for troop withdrawal and he may not be able to provide a guaranteed
final budget figure. I am not expecting that level of detail. However,
I do expect, and this great country deserves, basic information about
the future of this mission. That information is not forthcoming, and
yet we are being asked to provide an additional $87 billion for an
effort that has already cost billions of dollars and hundreds of
American lives--without an end in sight to costing more of both.
I opposed the initial decision to invade Iraq because I did not
believe that we had given the international inspectors sufficient time
to confirm the President's allegations. Furthermore, I do not agree
that the United States can or should impose democracy by force. I
believe that my vote was correct at the time and every passing day
confirms my conviction that I judged rightly. I did not approve of the
initial invasion, and until I hear a responsible and realistic plan for
dealing with the consequences of the invasion, I cannot in good
conscience vote to approve these funds.
I fear that we are lacking more than an exit strategy. We need a
foreign policy. This Administration has failed to meet the challenges
of the post Cold War, post 9/11 world. Today, I insist on a plan for
Iraq. Further, I would respectfully ask for clarification on our plans
relative to other countries--notably North Korea, Iran and Syria. I
understand that these countries differ from Iraq, and from each other,
in their domestic politics and geopolitical importance. Nonetheless,
the President has singled out these countries as he did Iraq. How does
he plan on addressing his stated concerns relative to each of these?
Does he plan another military campaign? Will he rely on diplomacy? Will
he engage the international community?
Finally, I would certainly approve the replacement of armaments used
in Iraq--we need a well-equipped military. I would approve funds to
rebuild Iraq--we have an obligation to leave that country on its feet
when we depart and the world expects no less. I would approve funding
to increase the size of our military so that Congress would not have to
resort to the use of private security to protect our military bases as
this proposal allows. If necessary, I would approve funds to provide
basic necessities for our troops--such as Kevlar, adequately armored
vehicles, necessary communications equipment and comfortable living
accommodations. However, I believe that these latter items should have
been funded in the annual Defense appropriation; they are foreseeable
and should have been available prior to engagement.
I have supported similar appropriations requests in the past, for
Iraq and for Afghanistan. I would support similar funding if it were
accompanied by a plausible plan for the phased withdrawal of our troops
from Iraq. However, absent such information, I cannot, and will not,
support this request for funding at this time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, the most solemn and weighty power
conferred by our Constitution upon the Congress is the power to declare
war and the power of the purse.
Last year, Congress abdicated its constitutional responsibility by
approving a deeply-flawed resolution that gave the President the power
to initiate a preemptive war against Iraq, which, in my judgment,
expressed at that time, did not pose a clear and present danger to the
United States. I opposed that resolution in the strong belief that
Congress should have required the President to seek a formal
declaration of war because the President had failed to demonstrate a
link between Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist attacks of September 11,
failure to prove the presence in Iraq of chemical, biological weapons
of mass destruction, a nuclear capability, or the capacity to deliver
such weapons against the United States.
After September 11, our Nation was united in common purpose to combat
terrorism, and the United States enjoyed near universal support among
the community of nations for our actions to destroy the al Qaeda
terrorist bases and their Taliban protectors in Afghanistan. While this
Administration has not yet been able to achieve many of the goals for
Afghanistan, I support the funding in this legislation for continued
support to complete our mission there.
Our military campaign against al Qaeda and the Taliban enjoyed strong
bipartisan support, and Congress moved quickly to appropriate the
necessary funds to carry out this important mission. In the aftermath
of the U.S. lightening military strike that toppled the Taliban in
Afghanistan, the President maneuvered fervently to muster support at
home and abroad for a preemptive war against Iraq. Even though these
efforts failed to mobilize the support of many of our key allies, the
Administration launched this unilateral war against Iraq, with the
result that, we squandered the moral high ground and the support of the
international community.
The Administration finds itself in this uncomfortable position, and
also has retreated from presidential candidate Bush's pledge not to
engage the United States in nation-building during his presidency. Now
staring in the face of the reality of a long-term, debilitating
military occupation of Iraq, the President has asked Congress to
approve a second supplemental payment for the ongoing military
operations and reconstruction efforts in Iraq, without providing to
Congress and the American people a full accounting of how the previous
billions of taxpayer dollars were used, nor a detailed plan for how
this money will be utilized. On that point, Congress must assert its
constitutional responsibilities to ensure that this spending request is
consistent with our national and international budget priorities.
Because of the President's misguided economic and foreign policies,
this $87 billion request represents money that we will have to borrow,
which will increase the national debt, and this spending also
represents dollars that could have been utilized to meet urgent needs
at home.
It is very troubling that this Administration has expended
considerable time and energy
[[Page H9668]]
to advance a divisive agenda at home and abroad that has not improved
our national security. Recently, Congress approved the first
appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland Security, which
provides $30 billion for that agency to fulfill its critical
responsibilities. The money in this supplemental package that we will
spend in Iraq over the next several months is roughly equal to funding
the Office of Homeland Security for three years--which raises the
question, which is the more appropriate use of $87 billion to promote
our national security.
The policy option the President and his team have set before the
Congress and the American people will add $87 billion to our already
exploding national debt while refusing to ask the wealthiest of the
wealthy to forego a portion of their tax breaks in order to help
finance this war. At a time when our brave men and women in the armed
forces have made significant sacrifices for their nation, and some have
made the ultimate sacrifice, it is unthinkable that the President has
not asked wealthy Americans to make a modest sacrifice to pay for this
war. It is further shameful that the Administration has failed to
deliver on its pledge to restore Iraq's oil exports to pay for its own
reconstruction.
Because the President failed to win broad international support for
this war, the U.S. taxpayer must shoulder the costs of this ill-advised
military campaign. It is quite clear, as well, that this $87 billion
spending package will not be the final payment, as Congress will be
asked to approve billions of additional dollars for Iraq, for many
years to come, if this Administration remains in office and on its
chosen course.
This supplemental request for Iraq, like all spending bills, reflects
our national priorities. In the current budget environment, we must be
ever mindful that every dollar that we borrow and spend in Iraq is a
dollar that is added to the national debt and denies funds that we need
to educate our children, heal the sick, and improve our infrastructure
in this country. With this spending request, the President has made
clear that he supports massive deficit-spending that will burden
working families in this country, and opposes shard sacrifice for the
rich or international burden sharing.
In short, this $87 billion spending bill is fiscally irresponsible,
fundamentally unfair, and ignores our urgent domestic needs to finance
a failed foreign policy. Congress has already provided a blank check
for the President to initiate war; Congress must now reassert its
constitutional responsibility and deny President Bush a blank check to
continue this misguided mission. I cannot vote for this policy of ever-
spiraling failure.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I cannot vote for this
supplemental appropriations bill.
I voted against the resolution that authorized the President to begin
military actions in Iraq at a time and under conditions of his own
choosing, regardless of the likely costs and sacrifices that would be
required. I was concerned that the Bush administration had a plan only
for invasion, not for the subsequent ``peace'' and occupation, and was
too ready to go it alone.
But Congress unwisely authorized the President to make Iraq the
center of our war on terrorism, even without broad-based international
support, and did so without a responsible debate that fully weighed the
pros and cons of this strategic choice.
In short, I did not think Congress should give the President such a
blank check--but we did, and the bills are coming due.
The people of Iraq are freer with Saddam Hussein out of power--at
least for now--but our go-it-alone policies have left us with few
friends willing to help cover the costs of his removal or Iraq's
reconstruction. And with both the stories Iraqi weapons of mass
destruction and Saddam himself among the missing, it remains an open
question whether the major result of our invasion and occupation of
Iraq will be to make America safer or to fuel anti-American sentiment
and support for terrorism in the Islamic world. It would be a terrible
irony if the way we have waged this war means a critical loss of
precious momentum against al-Qaeda and the creation of conditions for
more attacks on our country.
So now, President Bush, having gotten us into one hell of a mess, is
asking Congress for an emergency appropriation of $87 billion--the
largest supplemental appropriations in history.
He is requesting this enormous sum at a time when our economy is weak
and when domestic programs are being shortchanged. With 2.7 million
jobs lost since 2001, we are on track to see a net loss of jobs over a
presidential term for the first time since the Great Depression. New
estimates project $5 trillion in Federal deficits over the next decade.
And the president wants more tax cuts primarily benefiting the wealthy,
despite escalating needs for national defense, homeland security,
health care and education.
With the bills coming due, there are several questions to consider.
First, should they be paid? I think the answer is yes. I support
equipping our troops. And I support the concept of helping Iraq
rebuild. I think a stable Iraq is in our national interest. A stable
Iraq means a secure Iraq, which leads to a safer environment for our
troops and eventually their ticket home.
But I don't support the idea that American taxpayers should pay for
the entire $87 billion package.
And that leads me to the second question--who should pay the bills
for Iraq? The bill we are voting on today puts the responsibility for
rebuilding Iraq squarely on the shoulders of the American people, who
didn't ask for this burden. It puts the responsibility on the shoulders
of our children, as they will inherit the debt this $87 billion package
will incur. And they didn't have a say in selecting the administration
that has led us into this quagmire. Still, we ask them to sacrifice.
The Administration says its reconstruction proposal is like the
Marshall plan for Europe after World War II. But the Marshall plan was
not a $20 billion handout: It provided loans as well as grants. One way
to offset reconstruction costs could be to provide loans to Iraq,
conditioned on being matched by funds from other donors. Another way is
to persuade our allies to forgive part of Iraq's $200 billion debt. The
House voted yesterday on a resolution urging Germany, Russia, and
France to do just that.
But the best way to offset reconstruction costs is to roll back the
President's tax cuts for the wealthiest taxpayers. That's why I would
have preferred the Obey substitute. Under this plan, the entire $87
billion bill would be paid for by canceling the tax rate cut for
individuals with incomes in the top 1 percent. The substitute would
take funds from the reconstruction portion of the bill and add them to
programs that help our active and reserve forces and their families
with their health care. It would also add funds to repair and replace
equipment used in operations and construct water treatment facilities
for our troops in Iraq. It would create accountability by requiring a
detailed report from the President describing how funds in the previous
supplemental have been spent, how funds appropriated in this bill will
be spent, and the level and types of funding needed for the future. The
substitute would also convert $7 billion of the reconstruction package
to loans at a trust fund at the World Bank to leverage additional World
Bank loans.
But we weren't allowed to vote on this substitute. Nor were we
allowed to change the terms of the debate. For weeks now we have been
debating where money should be spent. We should have been debating who
should pay--because so long as we refuse to discuss that, we will not
be facing all the realities.
We should also have been debating about the priorities on the war on
terrorism. I have always believed that Iraq was not the imminent threat
this administration made it out to be. While we have been preoccupied
with Iraq, we've deprived Afghanistan of the funding it needs--and now
that country threatens to revert to the lawless haven for terrorism it
was before 9-11. The bill includes some funding for Afghanistan, but
not enough.
And we should have been debating more broadly about this country's
priorities, period. Sending $87 billion to Iraq undermines our ability
to address unmet domestic priorities. The amount the President has
requested is more than twice the amount of the Homeland Security
Department's entire budget for FY2004--and yet we will still haven't
provided our States and local governments with the assistance they need
to improve the security of American citizens.
The leadership has refused to allow the House to even consider
changing the tax cuts--in the same way that they are insisting on
combining the reconstruction costs with the funds necessary to support
and supply the troops. This is not the way we should do our work.
So I cannot vote for this bill today.
Rejecting this flawed bill will not immediately cut off funds for our
troops. CRS has confirmed that they have enough money to continue
operations at least for the rest of this year.
It seems clear that the Senate will pass a different version of this
bill. If the House considers a revised version of the bill, I hope it
is one I can vote for.
But today I must vote to send the bill back to the President, with
this message: I will not vote to spend billions in Iraq unless the
administration does what it should already have done--that is, to
provide detailed plans for Iraq's reconstruction and security; make
concerted efforts to secure increased international participation under
a U.N. resolution; demonstrate greater flexibility and openness toward
questions of control over reconstruction and democratization; and craft
a fiscally responsible plan to provide for the billions of dollars
necessary.
[[Page H9669]]
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, last spring many of us warned that
unilateral military action against Iraq would open a Pandora's Box;
that the President had not prepared the American people for the
sacrifices that would be entailed by such an action; and that to act
without the support of the international community would seriously
jeopardize our ability to win the post-war peace in Iraq. Regretfully,
I fear that we were right. And there is little satisfaction in that
realization--because the implications for our Nation and the American
people are very serious indeed. Our President and his advisors have
backed this country into a corner from which there is no easy escape.
Now the President has asked this Congress--asked the American
people--for an additional $87 billion for the upcoming year to pay
primarily for our efforts in Iraq. This request comes on top of the $79
billion already appropriated for these purposes this fiscal year and we
can be sure that this will not be the President's last request for
funds for Iraq. Iraq's stabilization and reconstruction needs over the
next five years have been estimated at over $50 billion--without taking
into the account the costs of continued troops deployment there.
In deciding whether or not to support this request, I believe we must
consider three fundamental questions:
How did we get to the situation we are in today?
In light of the current state of affairs in Iraq, is the kind of
investment the President has requested necessary to enhance our
security and protect our national interests? and,
If this investment is necessary, has the Administration presented us
with a responsible plan that will achieve our key national objectives,
both in Iraq and at home?
how did we get here?
Six months ago, the President informed the American people that
Saddam Hussein posed such a dangerous threat to the Untied States that
we had to wage war in Iraq to protect our national security. The
President and his advisors sold the Iraq war to the American people
primarily based on the argument that Saddam Hussein was a ticking time
bomb; that he posed a serious and growing danger to America; and that
the only way to eliminate the threat was to eliminate Saddam Hussein.
The Administration's argument was based on the marriage of two
claims. The first was the claim that Iraq possessed an arsenal of
chemical and biological weapons and would soon obtain a nuclear weapons
capability. The second was the claim that Saddam Hussein was in league
with Al Qaeda. Taken together, these claims painted a very ominous
picture. While many in the international community--and here at home--
had strong doubts about the nature, magnitude and imminence of the
threat posed by Saddam, in its rush to war, the Administration
exploited the fears of a post 9/11 America. They portrayed the United
Nations Security Council, the U.N. weapons inspectors, most of the
international community, and critics here at home as a bunch of
spineless procrastinators who wanted to look the other way in the face
of a growing Iraqi threat.
It now appears that the Administration's two most fundamental
arguments for war were false. After interviewing hundreds of former
Iraqi military personnel and allowing more than 1,200 of our own
inspectors to roam across Iraq over the last six months, we have failed
to uncover any actual weapons of mass destruction. The interim report
submitted by Dr. David Kay, the Administration's own arms inspector,
provides no hard evidence to support the kind of danger President Bush
depicted when he made the case for immediate military action. In the
absence of evidence of actual weapons, U.S. officials have shifted
their rhetoric to focus on ``weapons programs'' and ``the intent'' of
the pre-war Iraqi regime. And while it may be true that Iraq was not in
full compliance with U.N. Security Council resolutions, it also appears
that the sanctions regime, coupled with the inspectors deployed under
Resolution 1441, was successful at containing Iraq's ambitions to
develop weapons of mass destruction.
Time has also not borne out the Administration's claim that Al Qaeda
was in league with Saddam Hussein. There is no credible evidence of any
collaboration between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. This argument, made
over the objections of many in the intelligence community and most
regional experts in this town, was a calculated effort to establish a
false link in the minds of the American people between the terrible
terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and the need to go to war in
Iraq. This strategy of fear was not based on the facts, but on a desire
to do whatever it would take to win public support for the war.
It is undeniable that Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator. However,
the security threat he posed to the United States was grossly
exaggerated by the President and his public relations gurus. The
question now looms--Having eliminated the regime of Saddam Hussein, are
Americans safer today than they were six months ago?
situation on the ground
By almost every measure, the U.S. post-war mission in Iraq is not
going well and the Administration remains deeply divided over the best
way to proceed. While it is true that we have removed Saddam Hussein
from power, it is far from clear that we have made the American people
more secure as a result. The jury is still out on the implications of
our actions for the Middle East region, the fight against terrorism and
efforts to control the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
The Iraq of today does not reflect the rosy pre-war predictions made
by the Bush Administration. The situation on the ground is far from
secure. Since the President declared the end of major combat
operations, 198 brave Americans have died--sixty more than died during
the war itself. Hundreds more have been severely wounded. Every week
more Americans are killed, more car bombs go off and more international
aid workers leave the country.
Our military forces are stretched thin and our troops are prime
targets for former Baasthists and other extremists in a country
overflowing with supplies of arms and munitions. The senior American
commander in the Persian Gulf region has told us that we are engaged in
a ``guerrilla war'' in Iraq. At the same time, the political process in
Baghdad is bogged down over security issues, the friction of the
occupation and increasingly bitter Iraqi-American arguments over the
pace of turning over control and responsibility to Iraq's Governing
Council. Increasingly, we find ourselves in a shooting gallery with no
real exit strategy.
Terrorist Threat. In one of the terrible ironies of the war, in the
name of fighting terrorism, we have increased the level of terrorist
activity in Iraq. Administration officials report that Baghdad has
become a new magnet and breeding ground for extremists and terrorists
from around the region. Even worse, our actions in Iraq appear to have
forged a link for the first time between the fanatical Islamic
extremists of Al Qaeda and the traditionally secular remnants of
Saddam's Baathist regime. These two groups, ideological antagonists
before the war, have now been driven together in an unholy alliance to
wage war on Americans. While the terrorist attacks attributed to this
newly forged partnership have so far been confined to Iraq, this
virulent combination could begin to extend their activities elsewhere.
International Community. The Bush Administration's contempt for the
international community in the lead-up to the war has seriously
complicated our ability to gain the cooperation and assistance of the
rest of the world in support of common objectives. In the immediate
aftermath of September 11, 2001, the entire world stood with us in the
war on terrorism. The United Nations and NATO unanimously pledged their
support in our fight and multinational involvement in our mission
against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan was the highest ever.
However, today this situation has greatly changed. Our friends and
allies have been unwilling to participate in a substantial way in the
reconstruction effort in Iraq. Even under the auspices of a new U.N.
Security Council Resolution establishing a United Nations role along
side the U.S. in Iraq, very little is expected in new troops and
financial pledges for the Iraqi mission.
U.S. Credibility. The Administration's misleading statements about
the nature and magnitude of the Iraqi threat have undermined our
credibility around the world. Secretary of State Powell's report to the
United Nations prior to the war relied on forged documents and
information we later admitted to be unreliable. The nuclear specter
that Administration officials pointed to has been discredited. Even
more recently, Administration Inspector David Kay has been forced to
back down from post-war claims that two mobile trailers found in Iraq
were used for making biological weapons. The huge credibility gap that
now exists for the Administration undermines our future ability to
sound the alarm based on sensitive intelligence matters. Future claims
about Iran, North Korea and others will be viewed with deep suspicion
by a more skeptical public and an international community that, as the
Economist described, sees the Bush Administration as having its own
arsenal of WMD--``Wielders of Mass Deception.''
Regional Stability in the Middle East. The Bush Administration's
predictions that the fall of Saddam Hussein would put extremists in
retreat throughout the Middle East and spur progress in the Arab-
Israeli conflict have not be realized. The Arab-Israeli conflict has
gone from bad to worse in the six months since the end of the Iraq war.
And while it is premature to reach any conclusions about the long term
effects, the Administration's prediction that the fall of Saddam
Hussein would trigger a kind of democratic domino effect, spreading
democracy throughout the Middle East, looks unlikely in the foreseeable
future. The trend is toward more violence and polarization in that
troubled region.
[[Page H9670]]
Conflict Management. The new ``preventive war doctrine,'' articulated
by the Bush Administration to justify our action in Iraq, has set a
dangerous precedent in international relations. The Administration's
assertion that America has the right to attack another nation based on
the perception of a future threat has--especially in light of what we
know now to be faulty and hyped intelligence--undermined many of the
long existing norms for international engagement. The world will become
much less secure if nations with long histories of bitter differences,
such as India and Pakistan, should choose to follow our example.
By almost every measure, our virtually unilateral attack on Iraq has,
at least in the short term, made American less--not more--secure. The
difficult question we must now face is: Where do we go from here?
Where do we go from here?
The President's request for this $87 billion marks the culmination of
his repeated failures--his gross exaggeration of the threats posed by
Iraq in order to justify the war; his contempt for the international
community before the war; his inability to gain significant
international backing to share the military burden and the financial
costs of rebuilding Iraq; his failure to level with the American people
about the cost and challenges of ``winning the peace''; and, the list
goes on. The Bush Administration deserves to suffer the political
consequences of these miscalculations, misrepresentations, and
missteps. But that decision will--and should--be left to the American
people at the ballot box.
In the meantime, we here in the 108th Congress have an obligation and
a responsibility to limit the extent to which the American people will
suffer the consequences of the President's bad decisions. These
decisons have placed not just the Bush Administration--but our entire
county--in a difficult predicament. The terrible irony of the war in
Iraq is that, in the name of making America more secure, it has--at
least for now--made us less secure.
We cannot turn back the clock. The stablization and reconstruction of
Iraq is now a critical interest of the United States, Iraq and the
international community. I believe that we must help in the
reconstruction of Iraq for two reasons. The first is based on the
simple principle: ``If you break it, you fix it.'' The second is based
on our security interests in preventing another rogue state from
emerging in Iraq or the outbreak of a violent crime conflict that will
further destablize the volatile Middle East region and further enflame
Muslim and world public opinion against the United States. Unless we
invest in maintaining and protecting our troops, and in helping to
rebuild Iraq, we will make a bad situation worse; we will compound the
damage done by the reckless actions of this Administration--and make
the challenges facing our Nation in the years to come even more
difficult.
American Troops Are Still Necessary
Over two thirds of the request before us--$67 billion of the $87
billion--is allocated to cover the costs of maintaining and protecting
the U.S. troop presence on the ground in Iraq. These troops are
providing the security framework necessary to maintain some semblance
of law and order as efforts are made to create a mechanism for writing
a new constitution, holding elections and returning sovereignty to an
internationally recognized and legitimate Iraqi authority. The
immediate withdrawal of American troops would produce tremendous
instability and would likely lead to civil war between the three major
communities in Iraq--the Shia, the Sunnis and the Kurds. Just as the
precipitous U.S. disengagement from Afghan affairs following the Soviet
withdrawal from that country opened the door to the Taliban regime,
premature U.S. withdrawal from Iraq would benefit extremists and
terrorist groups. If we don't fill the power vacuum that exists, groups
like Al Qaeda and Ansar Al Islam will help fill it.
In addition, the immediate withdrawal of American troops would
undermine the status of our country around the world. The President
engaged our military in Iraq with strong rhetoric about the type of
Iraq Americans wished to enable Iraqis to create for themselves. He
made pledges to the Iraqi people in our name. We must do what we can to
make good on those pledges. Our hasty withdrawal would likely embolden
our enemies in the region and around the world. It would be a setback
to our common effort to expand representative government and combat
terrorism.
The Administration has been forced to recognize that we cannot
achieve our post-war goals in Iraq alone. We must do everything we can
to replace our troops with international forces and a new Iraqi police
force. However, we must be realistic. We face time and resource
constraints. For now, it appears that we will be able to attract only a
limited number of foreign troops. Our allies and other nations, still
seething from the Bush Administration's pre-war treatment are not yet
prepared to provide substantial troops and financial support for the
current mission. The Security Council resolution passed on October 16th
is unlikely to significantly change this situation. In addition, it
will take time to train an Iraqi force that can assume day-to-day
responsibility for security. Until that Iraqi force is trained,
American forces will be needed to prevent chaos and anarchy.
Iraqi Reconstruction is a critical U.S. interest
About twenty billion of the President's $87 billion request is slated
for reconstruction efforts in Iraq. This large investment is
particularly difficult to stomach given both the mounting deficits
caused by the Bush tax cuts weighted toward the super rich and the
Administration's gross neglect of pressing needs here at home. However,
I strongly believe that it would be short-sighted--and even dangerous--
for our country not to do what is necessary to attempt to win--or at
least not lose--the battle for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi
people. This will not be easy and the outcome is not guaranteed. Our
chances of defeating the remnants of the Hussein regime and various
extremists elements will be based in large part on our ability to show
that the standard of living is better in the post-Saddam era. If we
fail to create an environment in which the great majority of Iraqis see
themselves as better off, we will open the door to ethnic, religious
and regional strife. This could endanger our troops and undermine our
efforts to build a new Iraq at peace with itself and its neighbors and
on the course to representative government.
In the long run, our only chance of salvaging the situation is to
make a substantial investment. The cost of not making a substantial
investment today will be much greater sums tomorrow. We have opened a
pandora's box. Significant funds are now needed to try to extricate
ourselves from this difficult situation and try to ensure that over the
long term the American people will not have been made less secure as a
result of this war. The immediate withdrawal of our troops now is not a
viable option. Handing the shattered Iraqi infrastructure, economy and
body politic over to a makeshift government prematurely, is only a
recipe for disaster. We must now all pay the price of the President's
misrepresentations, miscalculations, and missteps.
Responsible Leadership
The key question facing Members of Congress today, however, is
whether the supplemental request before us reflects an effective and
sustainable plan for U.S. engagement in Iraq--and one that meets the
test, both at home and abroad, of responsible leadership.
The task before us is enormous. To succeed in Iraq we need a coherent
and international plan for moving forward. The Administration's record
has been poor and they have given us little reason to believe that they
understand the mistakes they have made and will make much needed
adjustments to the course they are taking.
Experience with other nation-building efforts tells us that the
mission before us is difficult and costly. It will require an extended
commitment over a long period of time. And, unlike the military
campaign, winning the peace will require the help of our friends and
others in the international community. The American people are only
beginning to realize the enormous implications of our involvement.
The World Bank has estimated Iraq's reconstruction needs at an
additional $55 billion over the next four years--not including the
costs of the continued military presence in that country. In Bosnia, a
country one-eighth the size of Iraq, the international community has
spent close to $50 billion over the last 8 years in nation-building and
reconstruction--troop deployments have cost an additional tens of
billions for individual countries--and the end is not in sight. Let
there be no doubt that the request before us today is just the tip of
the iceberg.
Given the record of the last six months it is frankly stunning how
unwilling the Administration has been to meet its critics even halfway,
to address the problems that exist, to provide a coherent roadmap for
moving forward together with the international community, and to ensure
that the bill for this mission will not be borne by America's children
and grandchildren.
First, the Administration has stubbornly failed to admit the serious
mistakes that it has made and to address the serious credibility
problem that they have created for themselves among the American
people, the U.S. Congress and the international community. This was
evident most recently in the President's handling of the report on
weapons of mass destruction submitted by former U.N. inspector David
Kay, now working for the Bush Administration. The Kay report findings
seriously undermined key elements of the Administration's pre-war
claims. Yet, the President stubbornly sighted them as proof of his
case. In a recent interview, Vice President Cheney suggested a link
between Saddam Hussein and the attacks of September 11th, a claim the
Administration had never previously made, and a link which the
President himself rejected in statements a short time earlier. Unless
the Administration is willing to address the serious credibility issue
[[Page H9671]]
that exists--or at least not compound it--it will be difficult for the
American people to have any confidence in its statement about the
situation in Iraq and its assessment of what needs to be done.
In addition, the Administration continues to act as though it has no
responsibility or legal obligation to inform the Congress and the
people of this country about how they plan to use the money that we
approve in this chamber. In recent hearings Administration officials
have refused to answer questions regarding the expenditure of funds
previously authorized by this institution and to give little or no
information on future projected costs. In my own committee I asked
Administration representatives about U.S. commitments, financial and
other, to the Turkish government in return for deployment of Turkish
troops in Iraq and I was not able to get any satisfactory answers. If
the American taxpayer is going to foot the bill for Turkish troops--by
grant or by loan--they have the right to know. And if we are planning
to send U.S. troops to fight--and maybe die--pacifying Turkish-Kurds
opposing the Turkish government, then I believe the American people
deserve the right to know about that deal.
Second, it has been true from the very start that the President's
Iraq policy has suffered from deep divisions within the Administration
on the most fundamental issues--dealing with the international
community, organizing for reconstruction and interpreting the threat
itself. These divisions have been the subject of recent public
discussion over the announcement of a new task force headed by National
Security Advisor, Condeleeza Rice, with the task of coordinating the
stabilization and reconstruction efforts in Iraq. This announcement
notwithstanding, there is considerable evidence to suggest that little
real progress has been made in this area. Recent statements attributed
to senior Administration officials are highly critical of the Bremer
mission in Iraq and raise serious questions about who is calling the
shots, even today, on U.S. policy.
Without a coherent plan that is implemented by a united
Administration we cannot succeed. This plan does not exist today.
Third, it has long been clear that we cannot succeed in the post-war
mission in Iraq alone. We must engage the international community for
both political and material reasons. The Administration badly
miscalculated the extent to which Iraqi suffering under Saddam Hussein
would translate into goodwill toward America's role in Iraq. We must
understand the complex situation we face today in our new role as an
occupying force in Iraq.
Fourth, the Administration's actions must match its rhetoric about
supporting Iraqi democracy. The $20.3 billion reconstruction budget
presented by the Administration was drawn up without meaningful
consultations with Iraqis. In addition, we watch as Administration
officials arm twist the Iraqi Governing Council to accept the
deployment of Turkish troops in Iraq over the strong objections of all
three major Iraqi communities--the Kurds, the Shia and the Sunnis. It
appears that the Administration has not grasped the first tenet of
nation-building--that the Iraqi people must believe that they are
rebuilding their own country.
Fifth, the Administration has ignored the importance of its role in
accounting for the funds that we approve and preventing corporate
profiteering and abuse of taxpayer money. It must take serious steps to
allay fears that appropriated funds will be wasted on large favored
corporations. In light of the many stories of abuse we have heard in
recent weeks, the ``prudent'' transparency mentioned in Mr. Bremer's
testimony before members of Congress does not go far enough. The
Administration must provide a satisfactory accounting of how funds have
been spent to date and how additional funds are being planned for.
Finally, and most importantly, the President is asking us to ignore
the enormous budget implications of this request. Let's not fool
ourselves or the American people. It won't be just this $87 billion. It
will also require billions more in the months and years ahead.
While we have a responsibility to maintain security on the ground in
Iraq and assist with the reconstruction of that country, we also have
an obligation to level with the American people. The President totally
failed to prepare the American people for the true costs of the war and
of ``winning the peace.'' Now he seeks to escape responsibility for
those costs by putting them on our national credit card and running up
huge deficits. Every penny of the $87 billion requested by the
President is borrowed money. But we all know there is no free lunch.
His ``out-of-sight, out-of-mind'' approach to such important issues
will wind up costing our children down the road.
We should not be waging war and peace by credit card. If we are
willing to pay any price to defeat the scourge of terrorism, we must
pay for it in an honest way. While the President has asked our troops
and their families to make the ultimate sacrifice, he has given the
wealthiest Americans a huge tax cut. That is wrong. It is wrong to pass
the buck to the next generation; it is wrong to ask the younger
generation, including our troops and their children, to bear the burden
alone; and it is wrong to shield the wealthiest Americans from paying
their fair share.
We have a huge responsibility gap in our government. It is the gap
between those who understand that we have a responsibility to establish
stability and help rebuild Iraq--and who are prepared to pay for it
now, and those who call upon the country to pay any price in Iraq, but
run from responsibility paying that price.
I had an amendment to fill that responsibility gap. It was an
amendment to scale back the tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 percent of
Americans to pay their share of the costs of this bill. Incredibly, the
House leadership prohibited that amendment from coming to a vote.
This is a difficult time to be asking the American people to invest
billions of dollars of their money to build schools, hospitals, roads,
electric grids and communications systems. Here at home, our Federal,
State and local governments are experiencing huge revenue shortfalls.
The President's budget request for this year falls $9 billion short of
what was promised by the Federal Government to meet our obligations to
America's school children under the No Child Left Behind legislation.
Three our of five children eligible for Head Start cannot receive help
because of lack of funds. Years ago the Federal Government pledged to
cover 40 percent of the costs of ensuring that children with
disabilities received a good education, but today we are meeting only
18 percent of that cost. The same shortfalls occur in health programs,
our national transportation infrastructure, and a range of other
important domestic needs.
We must meet our needs at home at the same time we meet our
international responsibilities in Iraq, Afghanistan and other places
around the globe. We as a nation have enormous resources. We can meet
both our domestic needs and our international responsibilities. We can
help the Iraqis rebuild their country while we construct new hospitals
and schools here at home. But we must be prepared to pay for them. If
we refuse to pay now for our efforts in Iraq by reducing portions of
the tax cut, it will make it impossible to make the investments we must
make in education, health, transportation and other needs here at home.
Already this year, when many of us called for full funding for No Child
Left Behind and meeting our national obligations for special education
we were told that we didn't have resources because of the large tax
cuts. Adding this $87 billion to the deficit will make it even more
difficult to meet those pressing needs. That is why we must pay now for
the costs of our efforts in Iraq. We cannot put everything on our
national credit card.
The President has totally abdicated his leadership responsibilities.
His job is to level with the American people--to inform them that our
international responsibilities require us to pay the price of
leadership. Leadership is about setting priorities. The war in Iraq was
a war of choice. Regardless of what each of us may think about how that
choice was made, we now have a responsibility to pay for the
consequences of that choice. The President--by refusing to pay for the
war and its aftermath--refuses to acknowledge the real costs of those
choices.
There are those who argue that, because the President has refused to
scale back his tax cuts to pay for the war and its aftermath, those of
us who believe we have a responsibility to provide security and aid in
the reconstruction in Iraq have no alternative but to support the
President's request for $87 billion without condition; that we have to
go along with the President's plan to wage war and peace by credit
card. That is an irresponsible position and a false choice. If paying
for security and reconstruction is that important--and I believe that
it is--when we should insist that we pay for it the right way. To do
any less is to abdicate our responsibility to the American people.
the false choice
Money alone is not the answer to the problems we face in Iraq. The
stakes are high and the mission is difficult. For those of us who
support making this enormous investment I believe that we have a duty
to ask if the money will be spent wisely and where it will come from.
The Bush Administration has treated our concerns, and those of
others, with contempt and arrogance--the same way they treated the
international community prior to the war. I fear that if we buckle-in
to the Administration's demand to do it ``our way or the highway,'' we
will simply be acquiescing in the continuation of a fundamentally
failed approach to a very sensitive and vital mission. We cannot allow
ourselves to be caught in the false choice that we must engage the
Administration's way or no way at all.
For weeks I have struggled with this vote. As the son of a U.S.
foreign service officer, I have always had a strong personal commitment
to our country's international role. It is with great difficulty that I
cast a vote against
[[Page H9672]]
funds requested by a President in pursuit of U.S. policies abroad.
However, the Administration's arrogant refusal to consider alternative
approaches and, most of all, its refusal to pay now for the
consequences of its choices has convinced me that they will not address
these issues in a responsible manner until we demand a higher standard
of leadership. If the President believes, as I do, that we have an
obligation to provide security and help rebuild Iraq, he should have
the simple courage to pay for it. Despite all my other reservations, if
the President were to present a plan to pay now for the costs of our
efforts in Iraq, or if my amendment to reduce the tax cuts to cover our
costs were adopted, I would support this bill. The choice is not
between doing nothing and doing it the President's way. We have a
responsibility to the American people to do it the right way.
Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Iraqi
supplemental spending request.
I strongly believe that both portions of the supplemental request are
necessary. We have won the war in Iraq, now we must win the peace. The
investment we make in Iraq today will help to ensure our safety and
security against terrorism here at home in the future. We cannot leave
the job of reconstruction unfinished in Iraq and leave open the very
real possibility that another dictator or a terrorist regime will take
over Iraq by winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people.
As a strong fiscal conservative, my first instinct was to provide the
$21 billion for reconstruction as a loan--not a grant as requested.
However, after a great deal of thought and research, I believe that the
loan proposal is not the right approach. With a debt of $350-$600
billion, the likelihood that Iraq could pay off another loan is remote
at best. It is important that America takes the lead and convinces
Iraq's largest creditors, Russia, France and Germany, to forgive Iraq's
burdensome debt. We must therefore not be hypocritical and contribute
an additional financial burden.
Additionally, the $21 billion in reconstruction funding is just a
portion of the $50-$75 billion overall cost of Iraqi reconstruction.
Clearly, Iraqi oil revenues will be used to fund reconstruction and
ongoing government operations in Iraq. Now that the United Nations has
passed a resolution that will pave the way for greater international
involvement, the remaining funds will hopefully come from international
contributions. If the United States provided its reconstruction portion
as a loan, we would find it very difficult to convince the rest of the
world to contribute.
Although the $87 billion price tag is indeed a great sum of money, it
is important to put the cost in perspective. The total Iraqi war is
going to cost about 0.5 percent of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP),
while the Vietnam War cost 12 percent and World War II cost 130% of
GDP.
This supplemental spending request will give our troops the tools and
support they need to further secure Iraq from the foreign terrorists
trying to disrupt our reconstruction efforts while giving the Iraqi
people a hope for a free and democratic country for years to come.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I'm proud to represent the
Second Congressional District of Georgia, which is home to several
major military installations and where military retirees and veterans
make up a big percentage of the population. At last count, 11,248
active duty, Reserve and National Guard personnel from Georgia bases
are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. A total of 149 Georgia-based
soldiers have been wounded in Operation Enduring Freedom, and Operation
Iraqi Freedom, and 49 have been killed in action--49 brave Americans.
Like virtually everyone who lives in my area of southwest Georgia, I
believe it would be an unconscionable dereliction of duty if we failed
to provide for the essential needs of our troops we have sent into
harms way. In spite of the strong objections many of us have about the
bill's flaws, we cannot deny funding for such things as safe drinking
water, which many soldiers lack; body armor and other equipment
essential to the safety and success of our troops; and housing and
other basic living needs.
We've learned many of the troops serving in Iraq have never been
issued the Kevlar flak jacket inserts, or body armor, and some have
spent up to $650 out of their own pockets to purchase this updated
protective gear. We're told our troops have gone without other critical
equipment, such as portable jammers to block the radio signals used to
detonate remote control bombs--the same bombs we continually hear
about, day in and day out, in attacks that are wounding and killing our
soldiers.
Today, we have an opportunity to correct these troubling
deficiencies. And we must not fail.
At the same time, people in the Second District are also concerned
about the extreme federal deficit, the shortcomings in our own
infrastructure, and the burden this added spending imposes on
taxpayers. I, too, am concerned when Congress could avoid a bigger
deficit by deferring tax cuts just for the wealthiest 1 percent of our
citizens, and when U.S. taxpayers are stuck with the entire cost of
Iraqi reconstruction even though Iraq is capable of eventually paying
for its infrastructure upgrades from its vast oil reserves, the second
largest in the world.
It's an affront to the people I represent to spend millions of
dollars for roads, schools, hospitals and economic development
initiatives in Iraq while these same needs are drastically under funded
in the U.S.; to provide high-speed internet access to the people of
Iraq while widespread areas of the U.S. including areas of the Second
District, are denied the same access; to provide millions of dollars to
train unemployed Iraqi workers while U.S. job training programs are
cut.
I'm not against helping Iraq rebuild. I support efforts to secure
Iraq's borders, to train Iraq's security forces, to restore Iraq's
water sanitation, electricity and other utility services, to restore
Iraq's transportation and oil production capability, and to help
provide the Iraqi people educational and employment opportunities.
But I'm concerned when we unnecessarily pay for these needs with
borrowed money, when we fund non-essential reconstruction projects as
well as essential ones, which we shortchange the needs of our own
communities, and when our international partners have not stepped up to
the plate to contribute their fair share of the reconstruction costs.
Mr. Chairman, I support our troops and the funding they must have,
while I continue to look to the Administration to present a clear and
fiscally responsible plan that makes it possible for our service men
and women to carry out their mission as safely and effectively as
possible and to bring stability and democracy to the suffering people
of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, the entire Persian Gulf war 12
years ago cost the United States much less than $8 billion. The total
cost of that war was $61 billion, but because allies were
participating, our share was only 12 percent of the total cost. We have
already spent $79 billion on the present war on Iraq, and now we are
asked to appropriate another $87 billion for a total of $166 billion,
so far.
To put the $166 billion into perspective, the total appropriation for
this fiscal year (FY 2003) for the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security, the U.S. Department of Transportation, the U.S. Department of
Education, the U.S. Department of Labor, and the U.S. Department of
State was less than $166 billion.
And on a per person basis, $166 billion is more for each person in
Iraq than the total annual U.S. Government spending for each American
citizen for everything other than Social Security and Defense.
Although this is a huge expenditure, the administration fails to even
give lip service to explain how the bill will be paid. No outline of
spending cuts or increased taxes has been presented. The Administration
has opposed lending any portion of the funds to Iraq because the
Administration claims that Iraq is too far in debt already, even though
the national debt in Iraq is approximately $4,000 per person while the
national debt in the United States is approximately $20,000 per person.
It therefore has to be assumed that all of the money will be borrowed
by the United States government. At 5-percent interest, the annual
interest on this $166 billion of additional debt will be $8.3 billion
or $160 million per week. A yes vote on the bill commits this country
to additional annual interest payments that are more than the annual
cost of the entire Head Start program.
The vote on this bill represents the only opportunity Congress has
had to consider the President's policies in Iraq since October of last
year. The President's decision to invade unilaterally, without allies,
has meant that we are paying 100 percent of the costs of the war, in
cash and in casualties. In the Persian Gulf war, allies paid more than
85 percent of the costs; if they were paying only 50 percent of the
costs of this war, we would save $80 billion and countless lives.
Unfortunately, a yes cot on the bill will mean that no significant
attempt will be made to engage the international community's
participation.
There have been widespread reports of financial waste in Iraq. A few
weeks ago, ``60 Minutes'' chronicled the profitable no-bid contracts
enjoyed by Halliburton and others and pointed out that there were firms
who could do much of the work for half of the price paid to Halliburton
under those contracts. Last week, National Public Radio's ``Morning
Edition'' described sweetheart deals and corruption. Questions have
also been raised about the extravagance of the reconstruction of Iraq
and whether more modest construction might accomplish the same goals. A
yes vote on this bill will mean that no change in contracting
procedures will be made.
During his campaign, President Bush frequently insisted that no
troops should ever be
[[Page H9673]]
deployed without an ``exit strategy''. Not only do we have no apparent
exit strategy, we also have no apparent entry strategy: the President
recently admitted that Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th; no
weapons of mass destruction have been located; Iraq was never an
imminent threat to the United States. We cannot develop an exit
strategy, if we cannot articulate what the entry strategy was. A yes
vote on the bill forfeits a Congressional opportunity to require the
administration to clearly establish an exit strategy.
Notwithstanding all of the reasons to vote ``no'', if the passage of
the bill would result in a safer America, it would be worth the cost.
Unfortunately, even before the war, the CIA concluded that Iraq posed
very little threat to the United States at the time, but would pose an
increased threat if we attacked them. A letter form CIA Director George
Tenet to the Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence,
dated October 7, 2002, and printed in the Congressional Record stated
that: ``Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of
conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW (chemical and
biological weapons) against the United States. Should Saddam conclude
that a United States-led attack could no longer be deterred, he would
probably become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions.''
Certainly we cannot be any safer than the CIA said we were before we
attacked; but, most recent reports describe more terrorists now
gathering in Iraq than before the war. So, the policy which includes
the expenditure of $166 billion and the loss of many courageous lives
has failed to make us safer.
Because the appropriations in the bill represent more than the United
States last year for the United States Department of Homeland Security,
the U.S. Department of Transportation, the U.S. Department of
Education, the U.S. Department of Labor, and the U.S. Department of
State; because there is no plan for paying the bill; because failed
policies will be validated by the passage of the bill; and because we
are in fact more at risk, not safer as result of those polices, I urge
my colleagues to oppose the bill.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this request for
nearly $87 billion to continue the occupation and rebuilding of Iraq
and Afghanistan. This is money we do not have for a foreign welfare
program. The burden on our already weakened economy could well be
crippling.
Those who argue that we must vote for this appropriation because
``we must succeed'' in Iraq are misguided. Those who say this, have yet
to define what it means--in concrete terms--to have ``success'' in
Iraq. What is success in Iraq? How will we achieve success in Iraq? How
will we know when we have succeeded in Iraq? About how long will
``success'' take to achieve and about how much will it cost? These are
reasonable questions to have when we are asked to spend billions of
taxpayers' dollars, but thus far we have heard little more than nice-
sounding platitudes.
We have established a troubling precedent that no matter how ill-
conceived an intervention, we must continue to become more deeply
involved because ``we must succeed.'' That is one reason we see
unrelated funding in this supplemental for places like Liberia and
Sudan.
Mr. Chairman this reconstruction of Iraq--that we are making but a
down-payment on today--is at its core just another foreign policy
boondoggle. The $20 billion plan to ``rebuild'' Iraq tilts heavily
toward creating a statist economy and is filled with very liberal
social-engineering programs. Much of the money in this reconstruction
plan will be wasted--as foreign aid most often is. Much will be wasted
as corporate welfare to politically-connected corporations; much will
be thrown away at all the various ``non-government organizations'' that
aim to teach the Iraqis everything from the latest American political
correctness to the ``right'' way to vote. The bill includes $900
million to import petroleum products into Iraq (a country with the
second largest oil reserves in the world); $793 million for healthcare
in Iraq when we're in the midst of our own crisis and about to raise
Medicare premiums of our seniors; $10 million for ``women's leadership
programs'' (more social engineering); $200 million in loan guarantees
to Pakistan (a military dictatorship that likely is the home of Osama
bin Laden); $245 million for the ``U.S. share'' of U.N. peacekeeping in
Liberia and Sudan; $95 million for education in Afghanistan; $600
million for repair and modernization of roads and bridges in Iraq
(while our own infrastructure crumbles).
There has been some discontent among conservatives about the $20
billion reconstruction price tag. They fail to realize that this is
just the other side of the coin of military interventionism. It is the
same coin, which is why I have consistently opposed foreign
interventionism. There is a lesson here that those who call themselves
fiscal conservatives seem to not have learned. There is no separation
between the military intervention and the post-military intervention,
otherwise known as ``nation-building.'' Fiscal conservatives are uneasy
about nation-building and foreign aid. The president himself swore off
nation-building as a candidate. But anyone concerned about sending
American tax dollars to foreign countries must look directly at
military interventionism abroad. If there is one thing the history of
our interventionism teaches, it is that the best way for a foreign
country to become a financial dependent of the United States is to
first be attacked by the United States.
This request--which was not the first and will not be the last--
demonstrates in the most concrete terms that there is a real and
concrete cost of our policy of interventionism. The American taxpayer
paid to bomb Baghdad and now will pay to rebuild Iraq--its schools,
hospitals, prisons, roads, and more. Many Americans cannot afford to
send their own children to college, but with the money in this bill
they will be sending Iraqi kids to college. Is this really what the
American people want?
The real point is that the billions we are told we must spend to
rebuild Iraq is indeed the natural outcome of our policy of pre-emptive
military intervention. All those who voted for the resolution
authorizing the president to attack Iraq have really already voted for
this supplemental. There is no military intervention without a
``Marshall Plan'' afterward, regardless of our ability to pay. And the
American people will be expected to pay for far more. This current
request is only perhaps step four in what will likely be a 10 or more
step program to remake Iraq and the rest of the Middle East in the
image of Washington, D.C. social engineers and ``global planners.''
What will be steps five, six, seven, eight? Long-term occupation,
micro-managing Iraq's economy, organizing and managing elections,
writing an Iraqi constitution. And so on. When will it end?
There is also much said about how we must support this supplemental
because to do otherwise would mean not supporting the troops. I resent
this dishonest accusation. It is nothing but a red herring. I wonder if
an American currently serving an open-ended occupation in Iraq would
think that bringing him home next week would be a good show of support
for our troops. Maintaining an increasingly deadly occupation of Iraq
and bankrupting many of our reservists and national guard troops by
unilaterally extending their contracts to serve in an active deployment
is hardly ``supporting the troops.'' Perhaps that is why a Stars and
Stripes newspaper survey of the troops in Iraq this week found that a
majority had very low morale. And according to the same Stars and
Stripes survey, an increasing number are not planning to re-enlist.
Conservatives often proclaim that they are opposed to providing
American welfare to the rest of the world. I agree. The only way to do
that, however, is to stop supporting a policy of military
interventionism. You cannot have one without the other. If a military
intervention against Syria and Iran are next, it will be the same
thing: we will pay to bomb the country and we will pay even more to
rebuild it--and as we see with the plan for Iraq, this rebuilding will
not be done on the cheap. The key fallacy in the argument of the
militarists is that there is some way to fight a war without associated
costs--the costs of occupation, reconstruction, ``institution-
building,'' ``democracy programs.''
I opposed our action against Iraq for two main reasons. I sincerely
believed that our national security was not threatened and I did not
believe that Saddam Hussein's regime was involved in the attack on the
United States on 9/11. I believe what we have learned since the
intervention has supported my view. Meanwhile, while our troops are
trying to police the border between Syria and Iraq our own borders
remain as porous as ever. Terrorists who entered our country could
easily do so again through our largely un-patrolled borders. While we
expend American blood and treasure occupying a country that was not
involved in the attack on the U.S., those were responsible for the
attack most likely are hiding out in Pakistan--a military dictatorship
we are now allied with and to which this supplemental sends some $200
million in loan guarantees.
Our continued occupation of Iraq is not producing the promised
results, despite efforts paint a brighter picture of the current
situation. What once was a secular dictatorship appears to be moving
toward being a fundamentalist Islamic regime--not the democracy we were
promised. As repulsive as Saddam's regime was, the prospect of an Iraq
run by Islamic clerics, aligned with Iranian radicals and hostile to
the United States, is no more palatable. There are signs that this is
the trend. The press reports regularly on attacks against Iraq's one
million Christians. Those hand-picked by the United States to run Iraq
have found themselves targets for assassination. Clerics are forming
their own militias. The thousands of non-combatants killed in the U.S.
intervention are seeking revenge against the unwanted American
occupiers.
Mr. Chairman, throwing billions of dollars after a failed policy will
not produce favorable
[[Page H9674]]
results. We are heading full-speed toward bankruptcy, yet we continue
to spend like there is no tomorrow. There will be a tomorrow, however.
The money we are spending today is real. The bill will be paid, whether
through raising taxes or printing more money. Either way, the American
people will become poorer in pursuit of a policy that cannot and will
not work. We cannot re-make the world in our own image. The stated aim
was to remove Saddam Hussein. That mission is accomplished. The best
policy now for Iraq is to declare victory and bring our troops home. We
should let the people of Iraq rebuild their own country. I urge my
colleagues to vote against this supplemental request.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Chairman, first and foremost, I want to say that I
fully support our troops. I am so proud of the job they are doing in
Iraq and Afghanistan. They are sacrificing greatly overseas so we don't
have to fight the war on terror here on our shores. To bring this
conflict to a successful conclusion, $65.2 billion of this supplemental
request is essential to help provide every resource our men and women
need.
That being said, I work for the people of the 9th District of North
Carolina and they cannot understand why the remaining $21.6 billion of
the Iraq Supplemental may not be given in the form of a loan. Iraq
contains the second largest oil reserve in the world and will have an
astonishing $5 billion surplus at the end of this year--all this, while
we have record deficits in our own country. For decades to come,
America's children will be paying for this reconstruction grant on
behalf of the Iraqi children. That is unconscionable! Again, that
country has the great wealth of oil. They can pay us back.
The majority of this bill will provide for our troops and that is
good. It was my strong desire to have the opportunity to debate and
vote on the defense money and the Iraq reconstruction money of this
supplemental in separate bills. However, we don't have clean bills in
this House; so we don't have that opportunity.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I will vote for the legislation to
approve the administration's request for $87 billion in additional
funding for operations in Iraq. We must provide our men and women in
uniform in Iraq with the resources they need to complete their mission,
as safely and securely as possible. They have performed brilliantly--
protecting civilians, maintaining order and promoting democracy while
facing the threat of attacks each and every day. We are proud of them
and we need to continue supporting them. I will vote to provide
whatever resources our troops need to complete their mission.
Unfortunately, the administration and leadership have brought this
request before us under a process which forces us to approve $20
billion in spending for an ill-advised plan for Iraq reconstruction.
Many of the items in the reconstruction are more appropriately the
responsibility of the Iraqi provisional government or have extremely
inflated costs. I commend the work of Chairman Young, Ranking Member
Obey and the rest of the Appropriations Committee to scrub the
administration's request and remove many questionable or low-priority
items.
Even with these improvements, many questions remain about how these
funds will be used. Our constituents deserve to know that their tax
dollars are being used in the most effective manner possible. The
missteps of the past must not be compounded by wasteful spending now.
The President must be willing to report to Congress--and the American
people--on how the money is spent. That is what this amendment would
require. A detailed accounting is needed.
The American people also deserve to know what our plan is for
successfully completing our mission in Iraq to improve the security and
political situation and reducing our presence. While the battle to oust
Saddam Hussein was well-planned and well-executed, we did not plan well
for winning the peace and rebuilding the nation of Iraq. Our troops
have been taking almost all the risks, and American taxpayers have been
paying all the bills.
Our ``go-it-alone'' strategy must end. This amendment will require
the President to present a detailed plan for improving the situation in
postwar Iraq and report on our progress in achieving the goals of
improving the political and security conditions in Iraq.
Congress and the American public need to know the impact our
operations in Iraq will have on a federal budget that is nearly a half
trillion dollars in deficit already. It is now abundantly clear that
the costs of operations in Iraq will be much greater than was
anticipated when the budget was approved just six months ago. Already,
we have spent $63 billion in Iraq this year, and we are being asked to
provide an additional $87 billion in this bill.
That would bring the total spending on operations in Iraq to $150
billion in the year 2003--a staggering figure for one year--with more
to come. There is no question that we will be in Iraq for a long time,
at great expense to the American taxpayers.
We have a responsibility to reevaluate our budgetary priorities to
reflect that reality so that these additional expenses are not simply
added to the national debt. It would be irresponsible to completely
ignore those costs. We need to budget honestly for the costs of
continued operations in Iraq so that Congress can consider the
tradeoffs necessary to provide the needed funding without adding to the
national debt. Paying for our operations in Iraq will require
sacrifices. It would be extremely irresponsible for us to refuse to
make any sacrifices ourselves and expect our troops to also pay the
financial debts once they return home. The cause of freedom and justice
is great, but it demands great commitment and sacrifice by all of us
who enjoy its benefits, not simply by the men and women in uniform.
Like all of my colleagues, I pray for the successful completion of
our mission in Iraq and the safe return of our men and women in
uniform. This amendment will help ensure that we have a plan to
accomplish this goal as quickly as possible.
There being no further amendments in order, pursuant to House
Resolution 396, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Hastings of Washington) having assumed the chair, Mr. LaTourette,
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union,
reported that that Committee, having had under consideration 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, pursuant to House
Resolution 396, he reported the bill back to the House with sundry
amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
Under the rule, the previous question is ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will
put them en gros.
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit Offered by Ms. Kilpatrick
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
Ms. KILPATRICK. Yes, in its present form, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Ms. Kilpatrick of Michigan moves to recommit the bill,
H.R. 3289, to the Committee on Appropriations with
instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith
with the following amendment:
Page 51, after line 11, insert the following new section:
Sec. 3007. (a) Limitation.--None of the funds made
available in this Act under the heading ``Iraq Relief and
Reconstruction Fund'' may be provided in a form other than
loans.
(b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply with
respect to the obligation of the initial 50 percent of the
funds referred to in such subsection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California is
recognized for 5 minutes in support of her motion to recommit.
{time} 1400
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recommit the bill and ask that
the Members please look at this closely. Here we have an amendment
before you to recommit that would require that 50 percent of the
funding for reconstruction be given in a loan, and we have had much
discussion over that, although we did not finish the discussion.
Because Iraq has at least $2 trillion of oil reserves in the ground it
is anticipated that they will be able to cultivate over the next year,
because Iraq will have the wherewithal over the next 5 years to repay
much of their debt, the question before us is should we require 50
percent of our reconstruction funds be repaid back?
It is very disturbing to this Member that we are worried about Iraq's
debt and not worried about our grandchildren's debt. This is a very
straightforward amendment that would ask that 50 percent of our
reconstruction dollars be in the form of a loan to Iraq. We have talked
about it quite a bit, and it is because the long-term tax burden will
be great on our own United
[[Page H9675]]
States citizens that we do this at this time so that we will see, in
our own efforts, that half of the money for reconstruction be given
back to the American taxpayers to lighten their burden over the next
several years. There are no surpluses projected for our own country
over the next 10 years, and the least we can do is ask that half of the
reconstruction money be in the form of a loan.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr.
Gordon).
Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, the reason that I keep hearing over and over
as to why the American taxpayer needs to give an additional $10 billion
to Iraq in foreign aid cash is that when Saddam Hussein was in power,
he accumulated approximately $130 billion in debt primarily owed to
France and Germany. So if we put that additional $10 billion in loans
on top of the $130 billion, then it is going to make it more difficult
to pay back France and Germany. In other words, the American taxpayer
needs to give cash in its foreign aid so that Iraq can save its oil
revenue to pay back France and Germany. If you agree with that
rationale, you should vote ``no'' on this motion to recommit. But if
you think this $10 billion should be paid back to America to build
schools, roads and bridges in this country, then vote ``yes'' on the
motion to recommit.
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, $87 billion is a lot of money to add to
our already exploding debt. There is no question we will be in Iraq for
a long time at great additional expense to American taxpayers. Many of
us are willing to make tough choices to pay for these costs. The cost
of freedom and justice is great, but it demands great commitment and
sacrifice by all of us who enjoy its benefits. Since the leadership of
this body will not even allow us to consider options to pay for these
costs, the least we can do is require a portion of the spending on
rebuilding Iraq to be repaid by those who will benefit most from that
spending. Every dime we spend in Iraq will come from borrowed money
added to our national debt. It is extremely irresponsible for us to
expect the young men and women who are making great sacrifices in Iraq
today to also bear the burden of the financial debts for rebuilding
Iraq once they return home.
I urge a vote for this motion to recommit.
Ms. KILPATRICK. And so, Mr. Speaker, we ask Members to support the
motion to recommit. Are we going to take care of the taxpayers of
America and our children and our health centers and our roads and
bridges? Are we going to allow a country who has $2 trillion in oil
reserves in the ground not to pay us back at a time when our country
sees no surpluses and will, in fact, be in debt over the next 10 years?
I urge a vote of ``aye'' on the motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion
to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Young) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I plan to use about 30 seconds for
myself and to say that we have debated this issue over and over and
over again. During the debate on the rule, we have heard that we did
not give you enough debate. We just spent 3 days, almost, on this one
subject alone. The House dealt with this issue already. The House
rejected this proposal, and we are going to reject it again today.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Weldon).
(Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, 37 times in the 1990s
President Clinton put our troops in harm's way. Thirty-seven times. In
none of those cases were we asked to pay the money up-front. Eleven
times the Congress, led by the Republican side, gave the money that
President Clinton wanted to pay for those 37 deployments after the
fact. Eleven emergency supplementals. Eleven times. We also cut the
Defense budget by $43 billion to pay for those deployments. Where is
the consistency? None of those deployment costs, none of them, were
made in the form of loans. All of them were allocations directly from
the appropriations by this body.
I say to our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, we did it 37
times for President Clinton. Thirty-seven times we voted for those
supplementals to support those deployments. This time we need to fund
the support for President Bush and to solve the problem in Iraq.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), distinguished chairman of the
Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related
Programs of the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, as we come to the end of this debate, as the
gentleman from Florida pointed out, we have debated this issue many
times. Let me, once more, reiterate why this is a bad idea to do this
through a motion to recommit.
First of all, there are, of course, the technical reasons. The
amendment states that 50 percent of the obligations from the Iraq
reconstruction funds must go in the form of loans, but there is no
authority to provide those loans. There is an implication, but there is
no actual authority provided in this recommittal motion. It is not
clear whether the amendment intends the loans to be guaranteed, whether
it is mixed financing, what form of loans they would be in. The terms
of the loans are not at all clear. Are we talking about no interest for
50 years? Are we talking about repayment over 25 years? How would they
be repaid? There are a lot of the questions that remain on the
technical issues. It puts a lot of faith, frankly, Mr. Speaker, in the
Office of Management and Budget and the President to interpret what the
Congress would do here with this very simple, very broad loan authority
and to make a determination as to what that actually means.
But there are the substantive arguments that I think are more
important, and I know my colleagues have listened to me say this
several times here in the last 3 days on the floor, but, again, let me
point out, in testimony before the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations,
Export Financing and Related Programs, General Abizaid, the Central
Command commander, when asked how important are the dollars for the
troops as opposed to the dollars for reconstruction, he said in very
clear terms, every dollar that we spend on reconstruction is just as
important as what we spend on our troops, that if we really want to
have our troops come home, if we really want to protect them, if we
really want to have them carry out their mission, then the dollars for
reconstruction are an absolute, vital part of it.
Mr. Speaker, you cannot separate what we are doing militarily in Iraq
in that region, you cannot separate it from the dollars that we are
spending on reconstruction. They are both a part of our national
security objectives. They must go together.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, let me say there is only one thing we really
ask from Iraq in terms of repayment. We ask for them to give us a
stable, a free, a democratic government, a people committed to peace
and security in the region that will help to bring about peace and
security for all the peoples of that region and for the United States.
What more repayment could we wish than that? And how can we achieve
that better than by helping to speed the reconstruction process
forward?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to
recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of passage.
[[Page H9676]]
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 191,
noes 235, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 561]
AYES--191
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Chabot
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Slaughter
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOES--235
Aderholt
Akin
Allen
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capuano
Carter
Case
Castle
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeGette
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Janklow
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaHood
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--8
Capps
Clay
Greenwood
Jones (OH)
Marshall
McKeon
Putnam
Souder
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington) (during the
vote). Members are advised 2 minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 1428
Mr. PETRI changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I was not able to be present for the
following rollcall votes and would like the Record to reflect that I
would have voted as follows: Rollcall Nos. 553--``yes''; 554--``yes'';
555--``yes''; 556--``yes''; 557--``yes''; 558--``no''; 559--``no'';
560--``yes''; 561--``no.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the bill.
Under clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
This will be a 5 minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 303,
nays 125, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 562]
YEAS--303
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (OK)
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cooper
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English
Etheridge
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gephardt
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Janklow
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Latham
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Maloney
Manzullo
Matheson
McCarthy (NY)
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McNulty
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Neal (MA)
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Oxley
Pascrell
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez, Loretta
Sandlin
Saxton
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
[[Page H9677]]
Upton
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--125
Abercrombie
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
Bell
Berry
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capuano
Carson (IN)
Clyburn
Conyers
Costello
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duncan
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Hoeffel
Holt
Honda
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Kucinich
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Majette
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Otter
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Petri
Rahall
Rangel
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tancredo
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--7
Capps
Clay
Jones (OH)
Marshall
McKeon
Putnam
Souder
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised 2
minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 1436
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________