[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.

                          ____________________