[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 18]
[House]
[Pages 24959-24980]
[From the U.S. 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}  2037


                     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 Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) had been disposed 
of.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, before consideration of 
any other amendment, except pro forma amendments by the chairman and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their 
designees for the purpose of debate, it shall be in order to consider 
the following amendments:
  Number 1, an amendment by Mr. Shadegg;
  Number 2, an amendment by Mr. Goode;
  Number 3, an amendment by Mr. Kirk;
  Number 4, an amendment by Mr. Filner;
  Number 5, an amendment by Mr. Spratt;
  Number 6, an amendment by Mr. Markey;
  Number 7, an amendment by Mr. Holt;
  Number 8, an amendment by Mr. Waxman;
  Number 9, an amendment by Ms. Slaughter;
  Number 10, an amendment by Mrs. Maloney;
  Number 11, an amendment by Mr. Blumenauer; and
  Number 12, an amendment by Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California.
  Each such amendment may be offered only by a Member designated or a 
designee, shall be considered read, shall be debatable for 10 minutes, 
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall 
not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for 
division of the question.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Waxman

  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
  Amendment offered by Mr. Waxman:

       In chapter 2 of title II, under the heading ``Iraq Relief 
     and Reconstruction Fund''--
       (1) after the first dollar amount (page 30, line 1) insert 
     ``(reduced by $250,000,000)''; and
       (2) after the fifth dollar amount (page 30, line 5) insert 
     ``(reduced by $250,000,000)''.

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
amendment. Like the Chair, we have not seen copies of the amendments, 
and so I would be reserving a point of order on each one of them until 
I see copies.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This supplemental includes a request by the Bush administration for 
an additional $2.1 billion in oil reconstruction funds for Iraq. This 
request nearly

[[Page 24960]]

triples the administration's previous estimate for Iraqi oil 
reconstruction costs.

                              {time}  2045

  On September 12, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and I 
wrote to the Office of Management and Budget asking for basic details 
about this request and for an explanation of the enormous increase. We 
received no response. More than a month now has passed and the 
administration has provided absolutely no information to explain this 
vast increase.
  I contacted the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the agency in charge of 
oil reconstruction, to ask how this request for $2.1 billion was 
developed. They told me they could not provide any information because 
they were not involved in preparing this request; it was done by the 
Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq.
  So I contacted the CPA to ask for some basic details about how much 
the taxpayer has been paying Halliburton for work under the oil 
reconstruction contract. They said they did not know and told me to 
talk to the Army Corps, which had already told me they were not 
involved with the administration's request.
  In this morning's New York Times, OMB officials said they do not know 
about this either. They said they would try to talk to the CPA, but 
that this was difficult because Baghdad is so many time zones away.
  It is an Abbot and Costello ``Who's on First'' routine, and it might 
even be funny if it were not going to cost the taxpayers $250 million 
in wasted money. The fact is, Halliburton, the company importing 
gasoline into Iraq, is overcharging U.S. taxpayers. Although gasoline, 
and you can see this from this chart, costs 71 cents per gallon in the 
gulf, Halliburton is charging the taxpayers more than twice as much, 
$1.62 to $1.70 per gallon. This costly gasoline is then sold inside 
Iraq for as little as a nickel per gallon. As a result, the U.S. 
taxpayer loses $1.50 or more every time a gallon of gas is sold in 
Iraq.
  Independent experts have looked at this and have been stunned by the 
Halliburton inflated prices, calling them outrageously high, a huge 
ripoff, and highway robbery; but no committee in the House is 
investigating, no committee is asking Halliburton or the CPA or the 
Corps or OMB to justify this gouging; and it seems no one in the 
administration is exercising any oversight.
  Enough is enough. Millions of Americans are willing to help the 
Iraqis, but they do not want to be fleeced. We have to stop turning a 
blind eye when Halliburton overcharges the taxpayers by millions of 
dollars. Now, I realize Halliburton is a big campaign contributor and 
has a special relationship with the Bush administration. I realize it 
would be easier to look the other way. But this has to end. We owe that 
to the taxpayer. And at some point everyone in this House is going to 
have to explain why we are making the taxpayer pay for gasoline at 
$1.70 per gallon and then selling the gasoline to Iraqis for a nickel.
  Our amendment is a small, but important, step in restoring some 
sanity to this process. It reduces the amount that will be paid to 
Halliburton to purchase gasoline by $250 million. This is a 
conservative estimate of the amount the taxpayer will be overcharged. I 
urge my colleagues to end the fleecing of taxpayers and support this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the cosponsor of this amendment and the 
distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I commend my good friend and colleague. I 
urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.
  Listen to what is at stake here. Halliburton buys gas over there at 
71 cents a gallon. It sells it to the Federal Government at $1.62 to 
$1.70 a gallon. They make huge sums of money at the expense of the 
taxpayer. This was done on a very quiet, secret no-bid contract, 
without anything else other than a GAO audit triggered by my good 
friend, and which I am happy to have assisted with, which brought this 
whole sorry mess to light.
  In a nutshell, they are buying 190 million gallons of gasoline from 
Kuwait that is going to be moved into Iraq. Imagine that, the second 
biggest oil pool in the world is going to be getting gas and gasoline 
from the United States. It is going to cost something like $1.59 per 
gallon. It is going to also be marked up to $1.62. It goes for 71 cents 
a gallon in the market over there in the Middle East. That shows what a 
fat deal they have gotten. Support the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment to reduce the 
appropriation to pay Halliburton to supply gasoline to Iraq.
  From the moment Representative Waxman and I learned about secret no-
bid contracts given to large companies like Halliburton and Bechtel for 
activities in Iraq we have tried to get the facts on the matter. As a 
result of our letter to GAO on April 8, the General Accounting Office 
is looking into the process of those bids.
  Among those contracts was a no-bid contract to Halliburton that 
provided for a variety of activities dealing with oil. At first, the 
Administration tried to portray the contract as dealing solely with 
putting out oil fires. We now know it is far more extensive.
  When the President sent up his supplemental request before us today, 
we spotted a request for an additional 2.1 billion dollars for 
Halliburton under its oil contract. On September 12, we wrote to OMB 
Director Joshua Bolten to explain the request. To date, we have not 
received the courtesy of a response.
  What we learned is that included in the request is $900 million to 
import petroleum products into Iraq. We subsequently learned some 
interesting facts:
  As of September 18, 2003, the United States has paid Halliburton $300 
million to import 190 million gallons of gasoline. That is an average 
price of $1.59 per gallon. On top of that Halliburton receives an 
additional fee, increasing the cost to the taxpayers to $1.62 to $1.70 
per gallon. This gasoline is being imported from Kuwait.
  According to the Congressional Research Service, the average price 
for gasoline in the Middle East was about 71 cents per gallon. In other 
words, Halliburton was collecting an additional 91 to 99 cents a gallon 
from the U.S. government for every gallon of gasoline. When our staffs 
contacted independent oil experts about such a markup, they said that 
if those were the prices being charged the government, it was a ``huge 
ripoff'' to the taxpayers.
  According to interviews conducted by the Minority staff of the 
Committee on Government Reform, the gasoline is then resold to Iraqis 
for just 4 to 15 cents a gallon.
  This oil contract is just one example of the potential ripoff of the 
American taxpayer through the granting of no-bid deals to companies 
like Halliburton. It is also an example of the attitude of this 
Administration that it owes absolutely no explanation of how these 
funds are being spent. And it is an example of the lax oversight being 
conducted by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle in examining 
these deals.
  The amendment simply cuts $250 million from the oil purchase account, 
in order to provide for the reasonable cost of importing the oil while 
preventing Halliburton from price gouging the American people.
  Whether price gouging occurs here in the United States or in Iraq, we 
should not allow it. But it is particularly disturbing in this bill, 
where this gouging comes at the expense of the safety and well-being of 
our troops in Iraq.
  Perhaps in the future when Members of Congress have legitimate 
questions about the Administration's requests for money, we will 
receive answers. For now, we must send a signal that we will not pay 
outrageous and unjustified prices to a no-bid contractor like 
Halliburton, while failing to meet the needs of our troops.
  Vote ``yes'' on this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Does the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) continue to reserve his 
point of order?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I do.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) is recognized in 
opposition to the amendment for 5 minutes.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, under reservation of a point of order, let 
me, if I might, rise in opposition to this amendment.

[[Page 24961]]

  Mr. Chairman, the amendment would seek to strike, as has been 
explained by the gentleman from California, would seek to strike $256 
million from the provision that allows Iraq to import petroleum 
products. Now that, on the surface, seems very odd. This is an oil-
exporting country, and a lot of people are going to say why in the 
world would we be importing oil at all. That is the first question, 
regardless of the price that is being charged by Halliburton or any of 
the other contractors there. So the first issue that has to be dealt 
with is why are we importing oil, and the second question is why is the 
cost as high as it is once it is delivered at the gas pump, so to 
speak, in Iraq.
  The reason that we have a petroleum shortage in Iraq and that we are 
importing oil is fourfold: one, Saddam Hussein had completely neglected 
the infrastructure with chronic underinvestment over the last 30 years, 
and this has resulted in a tremendous amount of underproduction, which 
leaves the infrastructure even more susceptible to sabotage and to 
devastation.
  And that is the second point. There is criminal sabotage which is 
taking place. Some of us remember the pictures of Saddam Hussein 
releasing 100,000 prisoners last October; kind of our first hint that 
something big was changing in Iraq. He released 100,000 criminals, and 
they have been engaged, systematically, for the last several months in 
sabotage.
  Third, there is the political sabotage by the remnants of the 
Baathist Party and Saddam Hussein's cronies there who continue to 
sabotage the oil fields in Iraq.
  The fourth reason is that Saddam Hussein used the Food for Oil 
program for his own benefit. He established a comprehensive smuggling 
ring, which meant a lot of the money that was supposed to be coming and 
the oil that was supposed to be coming out of that were siphoned off 
and went elsewhere. We have clamped down on most of this smuggling 
activity, but it continues to be a problem.
  Since the liberation, we have been working to restore the oil 
production, and we are now back up to about 1.9 million barrels of oil 
per day. The Coalition Provisional Authority's goal is to increase that 
to 3 million barrels a day by December 2004. Meanwhile, the people have 
urgent needs for petroleum resources. They use it for cooking food, 
their power plants are completely dependent on oil, and of course all 
the vehicles in the country depend on it, as well as diesel trucks and 
most of the industry within Iraq.
  The second question, of course, is why is this cost per gallon as 
expensive as it is. Well, I would challenge anybody that has not been 
over there to go and see what it is like to get oil in, refined 
products into Iraq. The main source of that is from Kuwait, refineries 
in Kuwait producing and shipping this into Iraq. There is a tremendous 
amount of sabotage and vandalism along the highways with the trucks. 
There is a premium that is charged for this coming in there. It is an 
expensive process to bring it into the country.
  When we are talking about Americans firms that are doing this, there 
is a tremendous cost for security to these American firms that are 
bringing this oil in, these refined products in, by truck there.
  If you go to neighboring countries, you will find, and this is of 
course largely because, or partly because of tax structures, but you 
will find in neighboring countries prices for petroleum countries that 
are as high or higher than we are talking about here in Iraq where it 
is very, very expensive. So it is not an unusual thing, even in the 
Middle East, with all of its capacity for crude petroleum products, to 
find that when you get the refined products, such as cooking oil, oil 
for gasoline for automobiles and for industry, that you will find that 
there is a much higher price for this.
  Mr. Chairman, because of these reasons, I would suggest that this 
amendment is not a wise amendment. In fact, it goes exactly counter to 
what we want to do. If we want to get the oil production up in a way 
that Iraq can produce as much of its oil as necessary and refine 
products, then we better put as much investment as possible into that 
as quickly as possible, rather than doing the opposite, which is to 
take the money out of it, as this amendment suggests that we do.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the previous order of the House of today, 
there are 10 minutes on this amendment. When the amendment is disposed 
of, the gentleman may move to strike the last word before we begin the 
next amendment.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. When this amendment is disposed of then you can 
strike?
  The CHAIRMAN. As a designee of the managers of the bill.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order on 
this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is withdrawn.
  All time for debate on this amendment has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Waxman).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote on the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) 
will be postponed.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. McDERMOTT. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, would you clarify for the House what the 
rules are under which someone can get an additional amount of time to 
speak on these amendments? You have to be designated by whom?
  The CHAIRMAN. When no amendment is pending, Members may rise for pro 
forma amendments only as the designee of the managers of the bill. In 
this instance, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), as the designee of the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Young)
  Mr. McDERMOTT. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) is the only one 
who can give that recognition?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) as well.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey)?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
  Mr. McDERMOTT. I thank the Chairman.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Kirk

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Kirk:
       In section 2202(2), in the matter preceding subparagraph 
     (A), strike ``(other than paragraph (2))''.
       In section 2202(2), strike subparagraph (B).

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, sole-source contracting should be part of our country's 
past and not its future. While sole-source contracting has had some 
limited utility, it more often leads to questions of integrity that 
discredit our Federal Government. I believe that this bill should have 
no sole-source contracting allowed, but the base text says differently.
  The text of this bill requires competitive contracting procedures to 
be used. But under section 2201 it provides an exception, and that 
exception says that sole-source contracting can be used, but only if 
the Congress is notified 7 days in advance.

                              {time}  2100

  But the bill goes on to then include a second exception which would 
allow

[[Page 24962]]

sole-source contracting with 7 days notice following the award of a 
contract. Our experience has been that if a contract award is made, it 
is too late for effective oversight by the Congress. For me, I would 
hope that we would take up Ambassador Paul Bremer's commitment that 
none of the funds under this act be used for sole-source contracting. I 
recognize that in certain, very limited, circumstances we may need 
that, but only with 7 days prior notice to the Congress.
  Let me speak as someone who used to work for the State Department. 
That prior notification provision will intimidate the bureaucracy so 
that only true emergency situations are brought for a sole-source 
contract. But if, on the other hand, we are allowing Congress to be out 
of the loop and only notified after the award of a sole-source 
contract, then hundreds of contract authorities now stationed in 
Baghdad will be able to do a noncompetitive contract.
  Let me say very bluntly, I do not think that any of these sole-source 
contract opportunities will be misused by the Oval Office or the State 
Department or the Defense Department or the leadership of AID. But I am 
not so sure of the hundreds of other procurement officials that will be 
running this program. I fear that sometime next year one of them will 
embarrass the President, and I do not want our President to be 
embarrassed. That is why I hope that the House will adopt this 
amendment, and if it is adopted, we will allow a limited set of sole-
source contracting but only after the Congress is notified in advance.
  I would urge that the House adopt this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Let me say to my friend that this amendment strikes a very critical 
provision in this supplemental that provides for congressional 
notification 7 days before a determination is made under the 
procurement laws. Understand that we are dealing with a situation in 
Iraq where there is no electronic inventory system for supplies. We are 
basically dealing with carbon paper inventory. Consequently, there is 
often no warning when supplies are depleted, where we need to act in a 
very fast manner.
  Under the gentleman's amendment, we would not be able to go out and 
procure something that is needed without going out and finding 
additional bidders or waiting 7 days. Sometimes the situation does not 
allow for that.
  Recently, it was discovered that the stock of baby formula in the 
country was gone, and it was not available anywhere in the country. 
Under the gentleman's provision, we would have had to wait 7 days 
before we could go out sole source, or we would have had to source it 
which could take up to a week or an even longer time than that.
  In this particular case under the exemption, they would have been 
allowed to move ahead as they did, a contract was awarded using the 
exemption to the supplier who could provide immediate delivery. In the 
meantime, you would go out and source this and compete it for any 
longer period of time. This would be only for an emergency situation.
  We had another situation where 2 days before the scheduled 
distribution of the new currency was to take effect, it was found there 
were not enough trucks or security to accomplish the distribution. You 
ask, how were we faced with that? Again, we are dealing not with an 
electronic inventory system in the country, but a carbon copy 
inventory. A contract was awarded very quickly using the urgency 
exemption to a company that could supply immediately the needed trucks 
and security guards for a limited, finite period. Only in those most 
exceptional cases should we allow sole sourcing. That is why we have 
agreed in our committee to a 7-day preaward notification for Congress 
in all but the most exceptional circumstances. But I think we are 
dealing with a wartime situation. There are times when you have to act 
and do not have time to go out and competitively compete for all the 
necessities you may need to fight a war. It is only in the most dire 
situations that we would allow this. The gentleman's amendment strikes 
even our ability to do that. That is why I oppose the gentleman's 
amendment, although, in principle, I think we are in agreement.
  I think it is critical that the unusual and compelling urgency 
exemption in current law operate as intended in Iraq of all places 
where the situation is fraught with danger, and circumstances seem to 
change by the minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank the gentleman for his comments. I hold in my hand a letter 
from Citizens Against Government Waste. While they had a number of 
negative opinions on several amendments here, the one amendment that 
Citizens Against Government Waste endorsed on this bill is my 
amendment, which would prevent no notice sole-source contracting.
  I want to thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the 
ranking member of our committee, for giving her support to this 
amendment, and I would say to the very distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Government Reform that this amendment would send a message 
that the administration should use innovative techniques like 
indefinite quantity contracts to cover unforeseen circumstances. But it 
would know that in the overwhelming case, it would have to have 
competitive contracts and would have to go to the scrutiny of the 
Congress before it did any sole-source contracting.
  I think to defend this President and to defend the vital work of our 
government in Iraq, we should send a message that all contracts should 
be competed and that the integrity of the process should be defended.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) will 
be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Filner

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Filner:
       After the appropriating clause (preceding title I), insert 
     the following:

                     TITLE IA--DOMESTIC EMERGENCIES

       Sec. 101. For an additional amount for elimination of the 
     disabled veterans tax (the prohibition on concurrent receipt 
     of military retired pay and veterans disability 
     compensation), $4,500,000,000: Provided, That such amount is 
     designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 502 of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress), 
     the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004.

  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on this 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. A point of order has been reserved.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Filner) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Tonight, Mr. Chairman, we have talked about the lack of 
accountability of this administration, the poor wisdom of unilateral 
action, and the lack of a plan on the part of this administration, but 
I want to spend the few minutes that is allotted to me on priorities.

[[Page 24963]]

  Looking at this chart, we have requested $87 billion this evening for 
Iraq for a total of $201 billion. What we spend on veterans benefits 
this year is less than $62 billion; on food and nutrition 46; on 
education 34; on the environment 30; on housing 30. Where are our 
priorities? We are spending an obscene amount of money on an unwise 
action. But what about the troops that are coming home after they have 
been in Iraq? Are we going to provide for them? We have not provided 
sufficient money for their health care as veterans. We have not 
provided money for what we call concurrent receipt. My amendment says 
that there shall be full funding for those military retirees, for their 
pension and for their disability if they are so disabled. It provides 
the money for full funding of concurrent receipt.
  Why must we do this? Why must we work for our veterans? Why must we 
make sure that when our young men and women come home, they are 
provided for? In our budget resolution of this House, we make sure that 
over 150,000 veterans are still waiting 6 months for their first 
appointment. Thousands, tens of thousands of veterans are waiting for 
their disability claims to be adjudicated. We have not provided enough 
money for their care. And we have levied a tax on our military retirees 
for their disability. Yes, we have a disability, a veterans disability 
tax on those retirees. On the one hand, they earned their pension 
through their service to our Nation. And we have talked a lot about 
support of our troops tonight, but we are not supporting them when they 
come home because they have to choose between getting their pension 
and, if they are disabled, getting their disability. They are actually 
having to pay for their own disability. We are making them pay for 
their food in the hospitals right now, except for an amendment by the 
chair of the Committee on Appropriations, so we are taxing them on 
their disability.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not the priorities for this Nation. This is not 
the way a grateful Nation treats its young men and women who are so 
brave in their service whether to our Nation in Korea or Vietnam or in 
the Persian Gulf.
  Mr. Chairman, there is rumor today that the Republicans will say they 
have taken care of concurrent receipt. They have made a deal to cover 
this. What the Republicans have done, and which I urge all veterans 
groups to oppose, is to say those veterans with over 50 percent 
disability, only those will get some money, and we will phase that in 
over 10 years. So in the first year, they will get one-tenth of one-
half of what they deserve. That is not a way to treat the folks who we 
are supposed to be supporting with our supplemental today.
  Let me tell you under the Republican proposal for concurrent receipt 
what occurs. A Vietnam retiree who is disabled by an amputation below 
the knee is not covered by the Republican plan for concurrent receipt. 
He gets no disability. He continues to pay his veterans disability tax. 
The Korean vet who has numbness and tissue loss in both feet because he 
had a cold weather injury in Korea, he gets zero disability under the 
Republican plan. This is not a way to treat our troops. And if you were 
in the Persian Gulf and have Persian Gulf War illness, and you can work 
with less than 50 percent of the efficiency you had before you went to 
war, you get no disability. The Republican plan gives very little 
support to those retirees who are on disability. My amendment gives 
full funding for disability of the retirees. Let us fund concurrent 
receipt. Let us vote for the Filner amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California has expired.
  Does the gentleman from Arizona still reserve his point of order?


                             Point of Order

  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I will make my point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes 
legislation on an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of 
rule XXI. That rule states, in its pertinent part, ``an amendment to a 
general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing 
law.'' This amendment includes an emergency designation under section 
502 of House Concurrent Resolution 95 of the 108th Congress and as such 
constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
  I would ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  Mr. FILNER. I would, Mr. Chairman.
  We have just heard some very arcane rules that are never followed by 
the other side. They make waivers to legislation on an appropriations 
bill every day. There must be dozens in this bill today. Yet, you do 
not want to make the exception for a bill for our military retirees for 
their disability, their disability payments.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, point of order. The gentleman is not 
speaking to the point of order.
  Mr. FILNER. Let the Nation know that on a technicality, the 
Republicans refused to fund concurrent receipt for our veterans.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California will suspend.
  Mr. FILNER. * * *
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California will suspend.
  Mr. FILNER. * * *
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would ask the gentleman to heed the gavel and 
cease his conversation.
  Mr. FILNER. * * *
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will suspend.
  The Chair would ask the courtesy of all Members to address their 
remarks only to the point of order and also to heed the gavel.
  Mr. FILNER. * * *
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is not in order.
  The Chair is prepared to rule.
  As the Chair ruled on June 19, 2000, with regard to an amendment 
offered by the gentleman from California to the Department of Veterans 
Affairs and Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act for fiscal 
year 2001, the amendment proposes to designate an appropriation as an 
emergency for purposes of budget enforcement procedures. As such, it 
constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2(c) of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Goode

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Goode:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are 
     revised by reducing the aggregate amounts made available for 
     ``International Disaster and Famine Assistance'' and for 
     ``International Organizations-Contributions for International 
     Peacekeeping Activities'' to $0.

                              {time}  2115

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House today, the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Goode) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode).
  Mr. GOODE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My amendment would eliminate funding for reimbursement to the United 
Nations for peacekeeping in Liberia and the United States foreign 
assistance to Liberia and Sudan. Neither account was included in the 
President's original request; nor, would I submit, are they relevant to 
Iraq and Afghanistan.
  Let me be clear. The main purpose of this supplemental is Iraq, not 
Liberia; $245 million for U.N. peacekeeping in Liberia is an item on 
the State Department's wish list. It should be considered in the course 
of normal appropriations in fiscal year 2005. It should not be 
considered here as part of an emergency to the Iraq supplemental.
  I also fear that the $100 million for Sudan and Liberia will not be 
utilized

[[Page 24964]]

in a way that will be to the best interest of the United States. I am 
fearful that in the end that will not bring the peace and the hope for 
a good Liberia and good Sudan. So I hope it would be the pleasure of 
this body to adopt my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment. There is 
a peace agreement ready to be signed in Sudan. Osama bin Laden lived in 
Sudan from 1991 to 1996. The terrorists who attempted to kill Mubarak 
came out of Sudan. Probably the weapons for Adid that killed our 
American soldiers in Somalia came out of Sudan. To take this money out 
of the administration's hands now would be a mistake. There is a civil 
war going on: 18 years, 2 million people killed. So that part of the 
amendment would just devastate what the administration is trying to do, 
and Members on both sides have worked very hard on this for years.
  With regard to Liberia, over 250,000 persons have lost their lives in 
the Liberian conflict. Mass graves, 1.3 million people uprooted, women 
raped, atrocities under Charles Taylor. The decision to create the 
peacekeeping force has already been made. The administration decided 
that using the United Nations would allow us to bring peace and good 
governance to Liberia. Also, we did not want American soldiers to serve 
therein, and this was the substitute; so none of the 15,000 will be 
Americans. The U.S. voted to establish the peacekeeping mission. This 
is really our idea. It rests with the unanimous Security Council vote. 
The $245 million is our share. If the funding in this supplemental is 
stricken, we will not be able to pay these bills, and we will be in 
arrears; and it will be a disaster for the people of Sudan and a 
disaster for the people of Liberia.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, if I thought $345 million would bring peace for some 
time to Liberia and Sudan, I would be for it. We poured millions into 
Iran when the Shah was there, and we said we would have peace forever 
in Iran. Such did not work out. In Afghanistan we poured in tens of 
millions of dollars for a number of years, and what resulted? The 
Taliban. Then back in the 1950s and the 1960s, we poured multimillions 
of dollars into South Vietnam, propping up Diem, and we said that would 
bring peace inside Vietnam. All of that money went down the drain. If 
the Members want to pour more money down the drain, vote against my 
amendment; and they can pour $345 million down the drain.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's yielding, and 
I appreciate what the gentleman just said about our need to oppose this 
amendment.
  I was baffled, a little bit stunned by the gentleman's amendment and 
cannot understand why he would single out Liberia and Sudan to be 
excluded. I think it is unwise. I think his motives are questionable, 
and I would hope that the gentleman from Virginia's (Mr. Wolf) caucus 
would follow his wise leadership and guidance and not allow an issue 
like this to create any kind of suspicion about anyone's motives. I 
know that on this floor we are not supposed to question our colleagues' 
motives, but this is kind of an unusual amendment that just jumps out 
at one; and, again, I do not understand why the gentleman is doing it, 
but I would like to say to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) 
thanks for opposing it.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode) is a 
good friend of mine, and we have been friends for a long time. I think 
we just see differences here. I would strongly urge a ``no'' vote on 
the amendment.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I stand tonight in absolute opposition to the 
Goode amendment.
  Peacekeeping forces in Liberia are critical and we should be 
increasing funds for these forces, not cutting vital funds.
  Mr. Chairman, we watched the bodies mount at the U.S. embassy, the 
child soldiers take up arms, and water and food become scarce; the 
United States dragged its feet and produced a short, lackluster 
peacekeeping effort.
  Today, Liberia needs more than temporary military assistance; they 
need a significant peacekeeping force which will allow the transitional 
government to take control in an environment of security and 
opportunity.
  The United States must play a role in helping create the conditions 
for peace, prosperity, and long-term democracy. The Bush administration 
has pulled out U.S. peacekeeping troops and now is the time to commit 
financially to the U.N. and Ecomil effort.
  Today we have an opportunity and obligation to Liberia.
  To foster peace and ensure freedom, we must develop a comprehensive 
strategy that includes security and peace throughout all of Liberia 
(not just the capital of Monrovia), support the transitional government 
and democratic elections in 2005, and finally we must revive our 
commitment to Africa financially and diplomatically.
  Diplomacy is the mechanism to bring about a peace, and playing our 
part to finance the U.N. peacekeeping mission is the way to preserve 
it.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the Goode amendment and yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode).
  The amendment was rejected.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Markey

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Markey:
       In chapter 1 of title I of the bill, strike paragraph (2) 
     in the text under the heading ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Defense-Wide.''
       In chapter 1 of title I of the bill, strike the first 
     through sixth provisos in the text under the heading ``Iraq 
     Freedom Fund''.
       In chapter 1 of title I of the bill, strike the second 
     through forth provisos in the text under the heading ``Drug 
     Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense''.
       Strike section 1101.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lewis) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Let me begin by saying that if we pass this bill with the type of 
blank check transfer authority that it currently contains, we will live 
to regret it in this House. We will only be furthering the restoration 
of an unaccountable imperial Presidency, a phenomenon that many of us 
saw emerge during the Vietnam era, much to our Nation's regret; and we 
will have handed over one of the principal powers of the Constitution 
that is granted to this body, the power of the purse.
  While there is lots of debate and discussion about President Bush's 
$87 billion supplemental request for military operations, there is no 
discussion about how Secretary Rumsfeld and President Bush can use most 
of this as a slush fund pretty much any way they want.
  Most of the supplemental is pretty straightforward: $87 billion in 
total funding, $64.7 billion in military spending. But buried in the 
supplemental, there are also a number of provisions which would grant 
the Bush administration broad authority to transfer billions in funding 
appropriated in the bill for one purpose to be instead used for a 
completely different purpose with only minimal congressional oversight. 
Nearly, listen to this, $53 billion of the $87 billion appropriation is 
subject to one or more of these retransfer or reallocation provisions.

[[Page 24965]]

  What exactly do these blank check provisions do? Essentially they 
allow Secretary Rumsfeld and President Bush to create their very own 
slush funds that they can use for virtually whatever they want to do. 
Number one, there is $1.3 billion in defense-wide operations and 
maintenance funds that can be transferred over for use ``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.''
  So here we are essentially letting Secretary Rumsfeld take money 
appropriated for operations and maintenance and the military and 
instead using it as walking-around money to pay off countries that he 
thinks may be helpful to us. He decides who gets the money. He decides 
how much they get, and he decides whether or not those expenditures are 
really justified. All we are going to get back here in Congress are 
quarterly reports as he will tell us who he gave the money to.
  Second, there is $1.98 billion appropriated for the Iraq Freedom Fund 
that can be transferred over to appropriations for military personnel 
operations and maintenance; overseas humanitarian, disaster, and civic 
aid. So if the Secretary does not like how the Congress has 
appropriated for these accounts, he can increase them by $2 billion. 
Congress just gets notified about what the Secretary has done, but we 
have no ability to stop him.
  Third, there is $73 million in drug interdiction and counter-drug 
activity funds for Afghanistan which can be transferred by Secretary 
Rumsfeld to appropriations for military personnel; operation and 
maintenance; procurement; and research, development. In this section 
there is not even any requirement for congressional notification. The 
money just gets shifted out of drug interdiction.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I must say to my colleagues that I am very appreciative of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts' (Mr. Markey) expression of concern about 
making sure that we control the funds that flow from us by way of the 
Department of Defense to a variety of our needs. But let me say to my 
colleagues that none of these are new authorities. Indeed, many of them 
were in the supplemental that we passed in April, and many are in the 
annual appropriations bill that was just signed into law recently.
  If I could take a moment to discuss what this provision actually 
does, it is a provision that would prevent us from reimbursing allies 
like Pakistan and Jordan as the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Markey) suggested, but that was a rather straightforward thing that was 
discussed out front by the Department. It is money for reimbursement 
for military activities and support they gave us to our benefit. They 
were activities that we wanted to accomplish, and reimbursement was 
understood. It is the kind of activity that we have carried forward 
from time to time over especially the last couple of years since 9-11.
  Among other things, the gentleman from Massachusetts' (Mr. Markey) 
provision would specifically prevent expenditure of $73 million in 
efforts to counter drug activities in the area, for example, specific 
drug activities I am concerned about in Afghanistan. We are interested 
in drying up this problem, and we should be in it together; and I do 
not think the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) really means to 
dry that up, but that is the effect of part of what he is doing here.
  It would also prevent DOD from being able to reprogram funds, as he 
suggests. Those funds provide flexibility for the Department, which 
they often need, especially in a circumstance like this when we are 
really in a war setting; but they do that reprogramming after approval 
from the authorizing in the Committee on Appropriations. It is not an 
unusual thing. It is a part of our regular activity. It does tend to 
deny the kind of flexibility that we need for these sorts of military 
activities, but essentially the gentleman's provision strips out 
language we carried in provisions of this bill and other bills, 
language which combines the need to give our forces all the flexibility 
that is a part of a very difficult region.
  I am not sure that he is really getting a handle on what he had hoped 
to prevent that he thinks happens out there, but this is a relationship 
between the committees and the Department of Defense, similar to the 
ones that the gentleman has between his committee and the Energy 
Department. It is not always perfect, but it works pretty good so far.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The problem with the bill the way it is written is that, for example, 
the $73 million, which we all agree should be put in for drug 
interdiction, could just get shifted out of drug interdiction over to a 
Defense Department R&D program, a procurement program. We will not have 
any say over that. We agree on the drug interdiction, but Rumsfeld can 
put it anywhere he wants.
  My amendment does not cut a single nickel out of this entire budget. 
What it says, though, is if they want to reprogram it, they have got to 
come back to us. If they have changed their mind on drug interdiction, 
if they want $1.3 billion in walking-around money to give to Jordan or 
any other country, they come back to us. They ask for our permission. 
This is a war in which we are the elected people of our country. This 
is where ``no taxation without representation'' started as a revolution 
in my district. It was about a war. It was about taxation. It was about 
proper representation.
  I do not believe the American people want to hand over to Donald 
Rumsfeld and over to Condoleezza Rice and over to Wolfowitz and all of 
them the authority to make decisions which we, as their elected 
representatives greeting the body bags coming back to our district, are 
expected to make on behalf of our constituents.

                              {time}  2130

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Murtha) and I have been involved in this sort of providing of 
flexibility for a long, long time.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts was not correct in suggesting that 
they could reprogram money out of drug control efforts. Indeed, if they 
want to make some reprogramming from one drug control effort to 
another, they have to come to us to get our permission before the fact. 
Indeed, I think the gentleman is chasing after windmills that do not 
exist in this particular provision.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha).
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I think because the Red Sox are ahead, the 
gentleman has gotten really vigorous here in his opposition. He thinks 
he is on a roll here.
  No, we have tight control over the Pentagon. They do not do anything 
without coming to us. They ask us for permission for everything. They 
come to this committee, your Committee on Appropriations, and make sure 
that they get what they wanted.
  Mr. Chairman, we have limited them substantially from what they 
originally asked, and I would hope Members would oppose this amendment.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Markey) will be postponed.

[[Page 24966]]


  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that under the unanimous 
consent request, pro forma amendments by the managers on each side are 
still allowed, is that correct?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I just must respond to the comments made about the 
necessity to leave maximum flexibility with the Pentagon. I would 
simply observe that we did that with the last $60 billion that we gave 
them, and that is, I guess, how we came up with 40,000 troops that 
still did not have the Kevlar linings for their body armor; that 
flexibility is how we came up with an inadequate number of jammers so 
that our soldiers are still dying and being maimed by remotely 
detonated bombs; I guess that is why some of the Humvees over there 
still are not protected with Kevlar blankets; and I guess that is how 
we came up with the recommendation from the Pentagon that still leaves 
80 percent of our troops in Iraq without drinkable water.
  So I think we ought to keep that in mind when we hear these general 
discussions about the need for ``flexibility.'' Flexibility for people 
whose judgment has earned that flexibility is one thing; flexibility 
for people who have demonstrated an interest in keeping as much 
information away from the Congress as possible and who have a track 
record of making as many miscalculations as possible is not something 
that thrills me very much.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Holt

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Holt:
       Page 30, lines 1 and 5, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(reduced by $900,000,000)''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House today, the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) will be recognized for 5 minutes and a 
Member opposed will be recognized for 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, there are a number of problems with this legislation; 
the lack of planning to turn the rebuilding over to Iraqis, the lack of 
planning to involve other countries, the lack of attention to domestic 
concerns, such as the health care for our veterans, and the flexibility 
that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) just spoke about that certainly betray a lack 
of planning in the sense that the Pentagon has to ask for total 
flexibility in how they might use the money in the future. But I would 
like to talk about one specific thing that is wrong with this bill.
  When I was growing up, we had a phrase called ``taking coals to 
Newcastle.'' It meant pointless activity, redundant activity.
  The chairman might call it taking oranges to Florida, or the 
gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson) might call it taking potatoes to 
Idaho, or the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) might call it taking 
snow to Alaska.
  This legislation before us today creates a new unbelievable 
expression for America, taking oil to Iraq. My amendment would 
eliminate the $900 million of taxpayer money, American taxpayer money, 
that would be used to import petroleum to Iraq. Think about it. 
Petroleum to Iraq.
  Mr. Chairman, why are we dunning our taxpayers for hundreds of 
millions of dollars to import petroleum products into the country which 
has the second greatest oil reserves in the world?
  Yes, I know the gentleman from Arizona or others will say, well, the 
pipelines break or the refineries are not highly efficient, and others, 
like the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Dingell) will point out that this is gouging, that 
Halliburton Corporation is engaged in blatant price gouging. But I want 
to put all that aside and just ask, as my constituents have been asking 
me, does it pass the smell test for us to spend taxpayer money to 
import oil to Iraq?
  I ask for support of my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Who seeks time in opposition to the amendment?
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey has said this is like 
carrying coals to Newcastle, but it is not coals to Newcastle at all. 
We are talking about refined petroleum products. We are talking about 
kerosene and liquefied natural gas, the very things that will get the 
Iraqi people through this next winter when it gets cold over there. It 
seems hard to believe, having been there in August, that it gets cold, 
but it gets cold in the winter.
  To say it is carrying coals to Newcastle is saying that a country 
like Guinea or Chile would never import any copper. But of course they 
import copper products, because they may have a lot of raw copper, but 
they do not necessarily make the refined copper products that may be 
needed, so the copper goes out and comes back as a refined product.
  In this case we are talking about refined petroleum products that are 
absolutely vital to not just the reconstruction, but to the very lives 
and the very well-being of the Iraqi citizens.
  This is needed by the Coalition Provisional Authority in the same way 
we provide food and other stocks in other nations. We have all seen 
examples of countries where there are vast amounts of food, but through 
a breakdown in communications, through a hurricane, through another 
natural disaster, there may be a temporary shortage.
  That is exactly what we have in Iraq today, a shortage; a shortage 
that is brought about by a complete neglect of the system, the oil 
system, the entire oil infrastructure over the last several years; a 
breakdown that is brought about by the sabotage, the criminal sabotage 
and the political sabotage that is going on. The result is there are 
simply not the refined oil products that these people need to cook this 
winter, in order to keep themselves warm this winter, in order to be 
able to keep their children and their infants warm.
  What the gentleman is suggesting is that we cut off these stocks, 
this money that goes for these stocks that provide for the very 
existence of these people, the very chance for them to survive; not to 
be comfortable, but to survive during the course of this coming winter.
  This is humanitarian assistance that we are talking about. If we want 
to assure that we are going to have trouble for our forces, if we want 
to assure there will continue to be attacks on our military men and 
women in Iraq, this is the way to do it, Mr. Chairman. This is the way 
to do it. Cut off the kinds of things that are absolutely vital to 
their very survival, and then we will have attacks on our military 
forces.
  This is a wrong-headed, wrong idea, and we ought not to approve this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman over dramatizes. It is not as if there 
are no refineries operating at all. It is not as if there is no 
opportunity to transport refined products around the country. Sure, 
there are shortages. Of course, the country is disrupted. But ask the 
American people if they think it is appropriate to take $900 million, 
when we are struggling each year to fund the LIHEAP program here, when 
we are struggling each year to fund the food programs for Americans, 
when we are struggling each year to provide basics for Americans, to, 
yes, take coals to Newcastle. It just seems to me that oil to Iraq says 
it all.
  I challenge the gentleman to go home to his constituents and say, 
among

[[Page 24967]]

other things that I did last week in Congress, I voted $900 million of 
your money to purchase oil, petroleum products, to take to the country 
that has the second largest oil reserves in the world. I challenge the 
gentleman to do that, and I will be interested to hear the reports from 
back home.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, in closing, I would simply say the gentleman has made 
my point with his last comments. He concedes there are shortages. He 
concedes there is not the oil, the refined products, necessary to heat 
homes. He concedes that it is not there for them to cook, to provide 
for their families. He concedes that this problem exists. So he reverts 
instead to the argument that we should go home to our constituents and 
find out what they think about this.
  Mr. Chairman, we are elected to be leaders here, and we have led in 
this body by allowing the President to implement our foreign policy and 
take the action he did in Iraq. We have an obligation to follow 
through. We have an obligation to see this thing through to the end.
  I would say that this is one of the tough ones. Yes, I will go home 
happily, as a matter of fact, to my constituents and say that I 
supported what was necessary in order to make sure that reconstruction 
could go forward, so that we can move as rapidly as possible to turn 
Iraq back to the Iraqi people and that we can have the Iraqi people 
provide the security for themselves so that our military forces can 
come home.
  That is what this amendment is about, Mr. Chairman, and this 
amendment ought to be defeated.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) 
will be postponed.


                   Amendment Offered by Mrs. Maloney

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

       Amendment offered by Mrs. Maloney:
       Page 34, line 5, insert after the colon the following: 
     ``Provided further, That $60,000,000 shall be available for 
     assistance to Afghan women and girls as authorized by section 
     103(a)(7) of the Afghanistan Freedom Support Act of 2002 
     (Public Law 107-327) and $5,000,000 shall be available for 
     the National Human Rights Commission of Afghanistan as 
     authorized by section 103(a)(7)(B)(ii) of such Act:''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House today, the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment which I am offering with the gentlewoman 
from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) designates $60 million of the $672 million 
in the supplemental bill before us for accelerated assistance to 
Afghanistan to help women and girls.
  The amendment also directs $5 million to the National Human Rights 
Commission of Afghanistan, established by the Bond Agreement, which is 
doing critical work to monitor, remedy and create public awareness 
about rights abuses against women and others.
  Without human rights, the Afghan project and the efforts to create a 
constitution are seriously threatened.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. MALONEY. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept the amendment and 
take the issues involved to the conference.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would like to thank 
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) for their 
support.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Shadegg

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

       Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Shadegg:
       Page 28, line 5, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $245,000,000)''.
       Page 30, line 1, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $245,000,000)''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant of the order of the House today, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) and a Member opposed each will be recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment shifts $245 million from U.N. peacekeeping 
activities in Liberia to the Iraqi reconstruction account.

                              {time}  2145

  I want to make it clear at the outset that following a discussion 
between myself and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), along with 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), it is my intention to both 
offer this amendment and, at the end of my remarks, to withdraw it out 
of deference to their concerns.
  Let me make it first very clear that I am not opposed to peacekeeping 
efforts in Liberia. What I do believe, however, Mr. Chairman, is that 
this legislation, the legislation we are here to debate tonight, should 
be about Iraq and our efforts to secure a free, democratic, stable, and 
prosperous Iraq.
  The funds for Liberia that are in the legislation as it cleared 
committee were not sought by the President and were not a part of his 
effort. Indeed, he made it very clear that his legislation was seeking 
funding for Iraq and Afghanistan, and those two only. Those funds could 
be sought elsewhere. They could and should be a part of the normal 2004 
appropriations process. They could be a part of the CJS appropriations 
bill, the foreign operations bill, or one of the omnibus bills that we 
will deal with in the future. Moreover, the U.N. mission in Liberia has 
yet to even request these funds or to proffer a budget for that effort.
  But I want to make it clear again, this is not about Liberia. This 
issue tonight that we are debating is about Iraq. For that reason, I 
will withdraw my amendment at the end of this discussion.
  I want to make the point, Mr. Chairman, that I was in Iraq in August. 
I spent 3 days in that country. I am convinced of this, and I urge my 
colleagues to pay attention. I am convinced that, if anything, if we 
fund our effort in Iraq at the request level that the President sought, 
we are underfunding our military effort in Iraq, and we are 
underfunding our effort to reconstruct that country.
  Mr. Chairman, let me make it clear. For 3 days in Iraq, in multiple 
cities in Iraq, I met with the troops there, and I met with the leaders 
of those troops. And they made it clear to me that these funds are 
essential to rebuild that country and to put the Iraqi people on our 
side in this struggle.
  Whether one supported this war at the outset or opposed it, and I 
understand there is a legitimate debate on that issue, we should all be 
in agreement now that we must win, that failure is not an option, that 
we owe it to

[[Page 24968]]

the world to establish a free, democratic, stable, and prosperous 
country in Iraq, both for the Iraqi people and, as well, for all of the 
people of the Middle East, for all of the good that it will do to end 
the threat that other nations had in that region of the world as a 
result of the Iraqi regime. We can only do that, Mr. Chairman, if we 
have the Iraqi people on our side. And again, I fear we are 
underfunding our military effort and underfunding our reconstruction 
effort. I am convinced in the post-Vietnam world, Mr. Chairman, that it 
is dangerous to engage in half measures. If we as a Nation are 
committed to the war against terror, then we must win in Iraq; and if 
we are to win in Iraq, then we must spare no effort.
  I would argue, Mr. Chairman, that it is regrettable that the 
committee decided to reduce the President's funding request level in 
this legislation by $1.7 billion. I believe that money could have 
protected our troops. I believe that money could have made our 
servicewomen and our servicemen on the ground in Iraq tonight, as we 
speak, safer. And I believe that because they told me when I was there 
that they believe this money would make their efforts safer.
  Now, we can quibble about whether we should be funding a children's 
hospital or whether we should be funding their electricity 
infrastructure or whether or not we should be funding housing needs or 
prison beds. But let me make it clear. The authorities on the ground 
there, the commander of the 101st Airborne, with whom I met, the 
commander of the 4th Infantry Division, with whom I met, and Ambassador 
Bremer, with whom I met, made it clear that this money is needed so 
that our troops can win the battle, can win the battle for the hearts 
and minds of the Iraqi people, and can defeat international terrorism 
as we confront it in Iraq.
  Yes, terrorists are coming into that country from around the world to 
take us on; and, yes, we better not underfund that fight.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, I would have preferred to offer an amendment 
restoring the entire 1.7, or a little bit less than that, billion 
dollars that was reduced in this bill. I would note that the Senate 
legislation does not reduce that. But that amendment would not have 
been in order. The amendment I did offer to restore $245 million was in 
order. But again, I do not oppose funding for Liberia, and I understand 
that the President made a commitment to assist with Liberia. But this 
money is needed. I urge my colleagues and I urge our conferees to 
accede to the President's request and fully support our fight for 
freedom and democracy in Iraq.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Arizona?
  There was no objection.


                   Amendment Offered by Ms. Slaughter

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

       Amendment offered by Ms. Slaughter:
       In section 2202(2)(A)(ii), before the semicolon insert ``, 
     including the amount of the contract and a brief description 
     of its scope, a discussion of how the executive agency 
     identified and solicited offers from contractors, a list of 
     the contractors solicited, and 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. 
     2534(f)(1)) on which was based the determination to use 
     procedures other than competitive procedures''.
       In section 2202(2)(B)(ii), before the period insert ``, 
     including the amount of the contract and a brief description 
     of its scope, a discussion of how the executive agency 
     identified and solicited offers from contractors, a list of 
     the contractors solicited, and 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. 
     2534(f)(1)) on which was based the determination to use 
     procedures other than competitive procedures''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  We are seeing a trend where the Pentagon is contracting out services 
at a higher rate than we have ever seen before. A recent study by the 
Brookings Institute found that there is one contractor for every 10 
soldiers in Iraq. In fact, it has been widely reported that the USA 
began secretly soliciting bids from a limited pool of contractors even 
before the war started. Let me say that again. They were secretly 
soliciting bids from a limited pool of contractors before the war 
started.
  Whether one agrees or disagrees, as I do, with this trend, we should 
all be troubled that many of these contracts are being awarded on a no-
bid or sole-source basis. Contracts to repair and rebuild Iraq should 
not be the spoils of war. The awarding of no-bid or sole-source 
contracts to companies with known ties to prominent executive branch 
officials certainly gives that impression.
  We should all be concerned that the pool of engineering and 
construction firms considered for the $680 million contract to rebuild 
Iraq's power grid and the water system and airport were limited to 
seven companies. These contractors collectively contributed $306 
million to Federal election campaigns.
  I am pleased that the Committee on Appropriations recognized that 
there needs to be more transparency. They adopted a provision that 
would require congressional and public notification on future Iraqi 
reconstruction contracts awarded on a no-bid basis, if there are any 
more to be awarded. But more needs to be done, and it falls on this 
body to keep the administration honest. Congress, who should control 
the purse strings, must be the check on whether the administration 
abuses its capacity to enter into sole-source, no-bid contracts.
  With the cost of rebuilding Iraq estimated at over $100 billion, we 
need to ensure that lucrative contracts are not viewed as political 
favors. The selection of contractors with close ties to the members of 
the executive branch risks creating that very impression.
  Specifically, the fact that the two most prominent beneficiaries who 
stand to profit from USAID sole-source or limited-source contracts are 
Halliburton and the Bechtel Group has not gone unnoticed. We should all 
be concerned about the costs associated with the no-bid contract that 
USAID entered into with the Houston-based Halliburton in March of 2003. 
As of September 25, the contract was valued at $1.2 billion. It is 
steadily climbing and is projected to reach $2 billion by the end of 
the contract term.
  Now, why is the cost of this contract exploding? A report released 
today by my colleagues, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), sheds some troubling light 
on Halliburton's practices. I would note that the General Accounting 
Office has found that contracts entered into in secret, outside the 
framework of standard Federal contracting processes, rarely are the 
best buy.
  Now, let us look at the Bechtel Group, which was USAID's choice for 
overseeing Iraq's entire electrical infrastructure. Recent reports 
suggest that Bechtel may not be up to the job. In a recent New York 
Times column, Paul Krugman attributes the frequent blackouts in Iraq to 
the fact that Bechtel has excluded local experts and institutions from 
their repair business. In August, Iraqi officials told The Washington 
Post that Bechtel has not only been slow to undertake repairs, but 
continues to ignore the pleas by Iraqi engineers for essential spare 
parts.
  What is to become of the contract for the wireless telephone service? 
The announcement of a sole-source contract recipient was scheduled for 
September 5, but it keeps being delayed. Recognizing a vacuum in cell 
service for the Iraqi people, two Middle Eastern firms filled the void 
to set up a wireless system in July. However, the Coalition, led by the 
United States Government,

[[Page 24969]]

promptly shut down the service, waiting for a contractor of their own 
choosing. I hope the fact that MCI was selected to provide cell service 
to Paul Bremer does not mean they will have the inside track on the 
Iraqi contract. Should we really be rewarding a company that 
perpetrated one of the largest accounting frauds in history?
  As good stewards of tax dollars, we, the House of Representatives, 
have a responsibility to ensure an open, competitive bidding process is 
utilized on Iraqi reconstruction and, in those rare instances where no 
big contracts are entered into, a full and timely justification is made 
to the Congress. We must take concrete steps to reject the no-bid model 
and bring an end to real or perceived cronyism and war profiteering.
  My amendment is a technical correction to the committee's action. It 
spells out that the administration must disclose to Congress prior to 
awarding a no-bid contract.
  Under this amendment, the administration must notify Congress about 
the amount of the contract and a brief description of its scope. The 
justification would have to set forth how the executive agency 
identified and solicited offers from contractors. A list of the 
contractors solicited must also be provided.
  I hope that this important amendment will pass, Mr. Chairman. I think 
it will greatly enhance our ability to contain no-bid contracts.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This amendment, as the gentlewoman from New York has described, 
modifies our competition and contracting provisions and adds some 
additional reporting items. This one, unlike the one we debated 
earlier, is not opposed by the Committee on Government Reform.
  Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept this amendment, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Spratt

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Spratt:
       In chapter 1 of title I of the bill--
       (1) after the heading ``GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS CHAPTER'', 
     insert the following heading:

                              ``Part A'';

       (2) strike section 1104; and
       (3) add at the end of the chapter the following:

                                 Part B

     SEC. 1121. INCREASED RATES FOR HOSTILE FIRE AND IMMINENT 
                   DANGER SPECIAL PAY AND FOR FAMILY SEPARATION 
                   ALLOWANCE.

       (a) Hostile Fire and Imminent Danger Pay.--Section 310(a) 
     of title 37, United States Code, is amended by striking 
     ``$150'' and inserting ``$250''.
       (b) Family Separation Allowance.--Section 427(a)(1) of such 
     title is amended by striking ``$100'' and inserting ``$250''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsections (a) 
     and (b) shall take effect on November 1, 2003.
       (d) Funding.--In addition to other amounts provided in this 
     chapter, there is hereby appropriated $40,000,000 to carry 
     out the amendments made by subsections (a) and (b) during the 
     current fiscal year, of which --
       (1) $34,000,000 is for ``Military Personnel, Army'';
       (2) $4,000,000 is for ``Military Personnel, Marine Corps''; 
     and
       (3) $2,000,000 is for ``Military Personnel, Air Force''.

     SEC. 1122. INCREASE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004 IN RATE FOR HARDSHIP 
                   DUTY PAY.

       (a) Increase.--For duty performed during the period 
     beginning on the first day of the first month beginning after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act and ending on September 
     30, 2004, section 305(a) of title 37, United States Code, 
     shall be applied by substituting ``$600'' for ``$300''.
       (b) Funding.--In addition to other amounts provided in this 
     chapter, there is hereby appropriated $275,000,000 to carry 
     out subsection (a), of which --
       (1) $233,800,000 is for ``Military Personnel, Army'';
       (2) $27,500,000 is for ``Military Personnel, Marine 
     Corps''; and
       (3) $13,800,000 is for ``Military Personnel, Air Force''.

     SEC. 1123. USE OF BASIC ALLOWANCE FOR HOUSING TO ELIMINATE 
                   OUT-OF-POCKET HOUSING COSTS FOR MEMBERS.

       (a) Policy.--Section 403(b)(1) of title 37, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     sentence: ``In prescribing the rates of the basic allowance 
     for housing under this subsection, the Secretary of Defense 
     shall ensure that the rates are sufficient to eliminate, not 
     later than January 1, 2004, out-of-pocket housing costs for 
     members entitled to the allowance to obtain adequate housing 
     in that military housing area.''.
       (b) Funding.--In addition to other amounts provided in this 
     chapter, there is hereby appropriated $190,000,000 to carry 
     out the amendment made by subsection (a) during the current 
     fiscal year, of which --
       (1) $55,100,000 is for ``Military Personnel, Army'';
       (2) $57,000,000 is for ``Military Personnel, Navy'';
       (3) $17,100,000 is for ``Military Personnel, Marine 
     Corps''; and
       (4) $60,800,000 is for ``Military Personnel, Air Force''.

     SEC. 1124. INCREASE IN SUPPORT FOR RESERVE AND NATIONAL GUARD 
                   FAMILY ASSISTANCE CENTERS.

       (a) Funding.--In addition to other amounts provided in this 
     chapter, there is hereby appropriated--
       (1) for ``Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve'', 
     $3,900,000;
       (2) for ``Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard'', 
     $42,000,000; and
       (3) for ``Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard'', 
     $2,000,000.
       (b) Purpose.--Amounts appropriated by subsection (a) are 
     available only for Department of Defense family assistance 
     centers.

     SEC. 1125. PERMANENT ELIMINATION OF SUBSISTENCE FEE FOR 
                   MEMBERS HOSPITALIZED FOR WOUNDS RECEIVED WHILE 
                   IN COMBAT OR TRAINING.

       Subsection (c) of section 1075 of title 10, United States 
     Code (as added by section 8146(a)(2) of the Department of 
     Defense Appropriations Act, 2004 (Public Law 108-87)), is 
     repealed.

     SEC. 1126. FREE TELEPHONE AND INTERNET SERVICE FOR MEMBERS 
                   DEPLOYED TO A COMBAT ZONE.

       (a) Prepaid Phone Cards.--Beginning on the first day of the 
     first month following the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     the Secretary of Defense shall establish and carry out a 
     program to provide prepaid phone cards to members of the 
     Armed Forces stationed outside the United States who are 
     directly supporting military operations in a combat zone. The 
     value of the benefit shall be at least $50 per month per 
     person.
       (b) Telephone and Internet Service.--To the maximum extent 
     practicable, the Secretary should seek to provide free 
     telephone and internet access to members of the Armed Forces 
     stationed outside the United States who are directly 
     supporting military operations in a combat zone
       (c) Funding.--In addition to other amounts provided in this 
     chapter, there is hereby appropriated for fiscal year 2004 an 
     additional amount of $63,800,000 to be available for the 
     purposes of this section, of which--
       (1) $54,200,000 is for ``Operation and Maintenance, Army'';
       (2) $6,400,000 is for ``Operation and Maintenance, Marine 
     Corps''; and
       (3) $3,200,000 is for ``Operation and Maintenance, Air 
     Force''.

     SEC. 1127. GOVERNMENT-PAID TRAVEL UNDER REST AND RECUPERATION 
                   LEAVE PROGRAM FOR MEMBERS SERVING ONE YEAR OR 
                   MORE IN-THEATRE.

       (a) Travel Allowances Authorized.--In the case of a member 
     of the Armed Forces serving outside of the United States for 
     a period of one year or more who is granted rest and 
     recuperative leave, and provided the travel and 
     transportation allowances authorized by section 411c(a) of 
     title 37, United States Code, in connection with that leave, 
     the Secretary of Defense shall also pay the member for 
     transportation, or provide transportation for the member, 
     between--
       (1) the locations specified in paragraph (1) or (2) of such 
     section; and
       (2) the permanent duty station of the member, the home of 
     record of the member, or other location in the United States 
     or overseas approved by the Secretary.
       (b) Effective Date.--Subsection (a) shall apply with 
     respect travel commenced on or after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act in connection with rest and 
     recuperative leave described in subsection (a).
       (c) Funding.--In addition to other amounts provided in this 
     chapter, there is hereby appropriated for fiscal year 2004 an 
     additional amount of $50,000,000 to be available for the 
     purposes of this section, of which--
       (1) $42,500,000 is for ``Operation and Maintenance, Army'';
       (2) $5,000,000 is for ``Operation and Maintenance, Marine 
     Corps''; and
       (3) $2,500,000 is for ``Operation and Maintenance, Air 
     Force''.

     SEC. 1128. MILITARY CAMPAIGN MEDALS TO RECOGNIZE SERVICE IN 
                   OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM AND OPERATION IRAQI 
                   FREEDOM.

       (a) Requirement.--The President shall establish a campaign 
     medal specifically to recognize service by members of the 
     Armed

[[Page 24970]]

     Forces in Operation Enduring Freedom and a separate campaign 
     medal specifically to recognize service by members of the 
     Armed Forces in Operation Iraqi Freedom.
       (b) Eligibility.--Subject to such limitations as may be 
     prescribed by the President, eligibility for a campaign medal 
     established pursuant to subsection (a) shall be set forth in 
     uniform regulations to be prescribed by the Secretaries of 
     the military departments and approved by the Secretary of 
     Defense or in regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary 
     of Homeland Security with respect to the Coast Guard when it 
     is not operating as a service in the Navy.

     SEC. 1129. ENHANCED TRANSITION ASSISTANCE FOR DISABLED 
                   SERVICEMEMBERS RETURNING TO CIVILIAN LIFE.

       (a) Appropriations.--In addition to other amounts provided 
     in this chapter, there is hereby appropriated for fiscal year 
     2004 an additional amount of $50,000,000 for ``Defense Health 
     Program'' to be available for transition assistance for 
     disabled members of the Armed Forces, as provided in 
     subsection (b).
       (b) Purpose.--The amount appropriated by subsection (a) 
     shall be used
       (1) to increase the number of personnel within the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Defense 
     assigned as case managers and discharge planners with 
     responsibility for managing the case of a member of the Armed 
     Forces who is considered to be very seriously ill, seriously 
     ill, or in a Special Category; and
       (2) to provide additional funds to assist service members 
     who are in transition.

     SEC. 1130. POLICY ON NOTIFICATION OF UPCOMING MOBILIZATION TO 
                   BE PROVIDED TO RESERVE COMPONENT MEMBERS.

       (a) Policy Required.--The Secretary of Defense shall 
     establish a policy and process that provides the maximum 
     amount of notice for members of the reserve components who 
     are being mobilized. The Secretary shall ensure that such 
     notification of mobilization provided to a reserve component 
     member include information on the timing and duration of the 
     mobilization of that member.
       (b) Notification to Congress.--The Secretary shall submit 
     to the congressional defense committees a copy of the policy 
     established pursuant to subsection (a).

     SEC. 1131. ABOVE-THE-LINE INCOME TAX DEDUCTION FOR OVERNIGHT 
                   TRAVEL EXPENSES OF NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE 
                   MEMBERS.

       (a) Deduction Allowed.--Section 162 of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 (relating to certain trade or business expenses) 
     is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (p) as subsection (q); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (o) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(p) Treatment of Expenses of Members of Reserve Component 
     of Armed Forces of the United States.--For purposes of 
     subsection (a)(2), in the case of an individual who performs 
     services as a member of a reserve component of the Armed 
     Forces of the United States at any time during the taxable 
     year, such individual shall be deemed to be away from home in 
     the pursuit of a trade or business for any period during 
     which such individual is away from home in connection with 
     such service.''.
       (b) Deduction Allowed Whether or not Taxpayer Elects to 
     Itemize.--Section 62(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 (relating to certain trade and business deductions of 
     employees) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(E) Certain expenses of members of reserve components of 
     the armed forces of the united states.--The deductions 
     allowed by section 162 which consist of expenses, determined 
     at a rate not in excess of the rates for travel expenses 
     (including per diem in lieu of subsistence) authorized for 
     employees of agencies under subchapter I of chapter 57 of 
     title 5, United States Code, paid or incurred by the taxpayer 
     in connection with the performance of services by such 
     taxpayer as a member of a reserve component of the Armed 
     Forces of the United States for any period during which such 
     individual is more than 100 miles away from home in 
     connection with such services.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to amounts paid or incurred in taxable years 
     beginning after December 31, 2002.

     SEC. 1132. EXCLUSION FROM GROSS INCOME OF CERTAIN DEATH 
                   GRATUITY PAYMENTS TO MEMBERS OF UNIFORMED 
                   SERVICES.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (3) of section 134(b) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to certain military 
     benefits) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(C) Exception for death gratuity increase.--Subparagraph 
     (A) shall be applied by substituting `December 31, 1991' for 
     `September 9, 1986' in the case of a death gratuity payable 
     under chapter 75 of title 10, United States Code, with 
     respect to a death occurring after September 10, 2001.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Subparagraph (A) of section 
     134(b)(3) of such Code is amended by striking ``subparagraph 
     (B)'' and inserting ``subparagraphs (B) and (C)''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to amounts paid with respect to deaths occurring 
     after September 10, 2001.

     SEC. 1133. LOANS FOR SMALL BUSINESS CONCERNS OWNED AND 
                   CONTROLLED BY QUALIFIED RESERVISTS.

       (a) In General.--The Administrator of the Small Business 
     Administration may make loans under section 7(a) of the Small 
     Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(a)) to small business concerns 
     owned and controlled by qualified reservists.
       (b) Special Rules.--Notwithstanding the requirements of 
     section 7 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636), the 
     following special rules apply to loans described in 
     subsection (a):
       (1) Purpose of loans.--The Administrator may make such 
     loans for any business purpose, including the refinancing of 
     any outstanding business debt.
       (2) Deferral of payments without interest.--No payment of 
     principal on any such loan shall be due or payable before 
     December 31, 2004. Any interest payable with respect to such 
     loan for any period ending before January 1, 2005, shall be 
     paid by the Administration.
       (3) Amount of loans.--Any such loan may be made if the 
     total amount outstanding and committed to the borrower under 
     section 7(a) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(a)) 
     would not exceed $3,000,000.
       (4) Guaranteed loans.--In the case of an agreement to 
     participate on a deferred basis in any such loan--
       (A) Participation.--Such participation by the 
     Administration shall be equal to 50 percent of the balance of 
     the financing outstanding at the time of disbursement of the 
     loan.
       (B) Guarantee fees.--The Administrator shall collect 
     (except in the case of a loan that is repayable in 1 year or 
     less) a guarantee fee, which shall be payable by the 
     participating lender, and may be charged to the borrower as 
     follows:
       (i) A guarantee fee equal to 0.5 percent of the deferred 
     participation share of a total loan amount that is not more 
     than $150,000.
       (ii) A guarantee fee equal to 1.5 percent of the deferred 
     participation share of a total loan amount that is more than 
     $150,000, but not more than $700,000.
       (iii) A guarantee fee equal to 2 percent of the deferred 
     participation share of a total loan amount that is more than 
     $700,000.
       (C) Annual fees.--The annual fee assessed and collected on 
     any such loan shall not exceed an amount equal to 0.15 
     percent of the outstanding balance of the deferred 
     participation share of the loan.
       (5) Credit elsewhere.--The Administrator may make such 
     loans without regard to the ability of a small business 
     concern to obtain credit elsewhere.
       (6) Collateral.--The Administrator may make such loans 
     without regard to the adequacy or availability of collateral 
     to secure such loans.
       (7) Loan forgiveness.--Upon application by a borrower 
     suffering severe economic hardship, the Administrator may 
     undertake all or part of the small business concern's 
     obligation to make the required payments under such loan, or 
     may forgive all or part of such obligation if the loan was a 
     direct loan made by the Administrator, if, and to the extent 
     that, the Administrator finds that the inability of the 
     qualified reservist to repay such loan is due to his service 
     on active duty.
       (c) Small Business Concerns Owned and Controlled by 
     Qualified Reservists.--For purposes of this section:
       (1) In general.--The term ``small business concern owned 
     and controlled by qualified reservists'' means any small 
     business concern if--
       (A) at least 51 percent of the concern is owned by one or 
     more qualified reservists or, in the case of any publicly 
     owned business, at least 51 percent of the stock of which is 
     owned by one or more qualified reservists; and
       (B) the management and daily business operations of the 
     business are controlled by one or more qualified reservists.
       (2) Qualified reservist.--The term ``qualified reservist'' 
     means any member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces 
     who has, at any time, been ordered to report for a period of 
     active duty which is 179 days or longer.
       (3) Small business concern.--The term ``small business 
     concern'' has the meaning given such term under section 3 of 
     the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632) and relevant 
     regulations promulgated thereunder, except that if the 
     Administrator determines it to be necessary or appropriate, 
     the Administrator may waive any size standard established 
     under such section with respect to a business concern that 
     does not exceed 150 percent of each size standard applicable 
     to such concern.
       (d) Other Definitions.--For purpose of this section, the 
     terms ``Administrator'', ``Administration'', and ``credit 
     elsewhere'' have the meanings given such terms in section 3 
     of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632).
       (e) Funding.--There is hereby appropriated to carry out 
     this section $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2004.

     SEC. 1134. VOCATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR QUALIFIED 
                   RESERVISTS.

       (a) Establishment.--In accordance with this section, the 
     Administrator of the Small Business Administration shall make 
     grants

[[Page 24971]]

     to small business development centers to enable such centers 
     to provide to qualified reservists a program of assistance 
     that includes training in a vocational or technical trade and 
     entrepreneurial assistance in establishing and operating a 
     small business concern that provides services in such trade.
       (b) Minimum Grant.--The Administrator shall not make a 
     grant under this section for an amount less than $500,000.
       (c) Application and Award.--Each small business development 
     center seeking a grant under this section shall submit to the 
     Administrator an application in such form as the 
     Administrator may require. The application shall include 
     information regarding the applicant's goals and objectives 
     for the program of assistance described in subsection (a). In 
     awarding the grants, the Administrator shall consider the 
     needs of the area served by the small business development 
     center, including whether the small business development 
     center is located in the proximity of a United States 
     military installation.
       (d) Qualified Reservist.--For purposes of this section, the 
     term ``qualified reservist'' means any member of a reserve 
     component of the Armed Forces who has, at any time, been 
     ordered to report for a period of active duty which is 179 
     days or longer.
       (e) Coordination With Small Business Act.--Grants made 
     under this section shall not be taken into account for 
     purposes of section 21 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
     648).
       (f) Other Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
       (1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the 
     Administrator of the Small Business Administration.
       (2) Small business development center.--The term ``small 
     business development center'' means a small business 
     development center described in section 21 of the Small 
     Business Act (15 U.S.C. 648).
       (g) Funding.--There is hereby appropriated to carry out 
     this section $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2004, to remain 
     available until expended.
       In chapter 2 of title II, in the text under the heading 
     ``Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund'', insert ``(reduced by 
     $820,000,000)'' after the aggregate dollar amount and after 
     the dollar amount specifying funds for the electric sector.

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) reserves a 
point of order.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spratt) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This amendment actually consists of a number of different provisions, 
all designed to enhance the quality of life of our troops, the men and 
women in the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan. I do not believe that 
these brave Americans should be left out of this supplemental.
  Read this $87 billion bill, however, and we will find there is very 
little in it for them. We will find every conceivable benefit for Iraq 
and Iraqis; but we will find very, very little for our own troops, and 
these are the ones who won the war in 3 weeks. These are the ones who 
saved Iraq from catastrophe in postwar chaos. These are the ones who 
right now are carrying out the reconstruction of Iraq, a thankless job 
in which they take casualties almost every day.
  These provisions that I offer in this amendment would lighten their 
burdens just a bit, both in Iraq and in Afghanistan, and, to some 
extent, ease their families' burdens back home. These provisions would 
say thank you. They have not been able to savor victory because of the 
chaos that followed the war. It would say to them, we appreciate and 
understand and are grateful for what you are doing.
  The cost, the cost is less than 1 percent of this entire package. 
Surely we can scrub this package down and provide 1 percent as a way of 
saying thank you to our troops.
  What is in it? Hostile fire pay, imminent danger pay, combat pay. The 
chairman of this subcommittee, the Subcommittee on Defense, last year 
raised imminent danger pay and raised family separation pay, to his 
great credit. Let us make it permanent. Let us take imminent danger pay 
and raise it up to $250. Add that to family separation pay, and it 
means every time a father or a mother goes into a field of combat and 
is faced with shots fired at them every day, if they are in imminent 
danger, they will get $500. I do not think that is too much to ask.
  The Pentagon wanted the increase in imminent danger pay and family 
separation pay to revert to its prior level. Once again, the 
Subcommittee on Defense did not stand for that. The Pentagon then said, 
let us, instead of paying imminent danger pay, have hardship pay, and 
requested that it be increased up to $600 a month. It is discretionary 
with the commanders; it has to be approved by the Department of 
Defense. It would have provided this in lieu of family separation pay 
or at least in lieu of imminent danger pay. It is a bad idea. But I 
picked up on the basic idea, if the Pentagon thinks that discretionary 
pay like this for living in abysmal, miserable conditions ought to be 
raised to $600 so that the division commander will have at his disposal 
and use at his discretion with Pentagon approval, then let us do it, 
and that is what this particular amendment would provide.
  Several years ago, provision number three, we set out to say to those 
enlisted personnel who have families and live off base, we want you to 
be able to live off base with your base housing allowance and not have 
to dig into your own pocket to pay some of the costs. We have 
gradually, step by step every year, implemented this plan. We simply 
say here, to ease the burden on the families back home, we are going to 
implement it all together next year instead of making you wait 2 years.

                              {time}  2200

  Family assistance centers. There are lots of Reservists and Guard 
personnel. You have had them call you. They have called me. They have 
got problems. They are stressed out. They have businesses they owned 
and they are finding it hard to operate because a family member has 
been deployed.
  This would provide the family assistance centers who help these folks 
with money that it is acknowledged they are short of, $48 million 
short. This would give them $48 million to meet the needs of the Guard 
and Reserve who call on them frequently.
  If you have been to Iraq, you know that the troops, when you meet 
with them, all tell you that the telephone service is pretty spotty. 
Some feel that they are being scalped. Some feel that they cannot get 
to telephone or Internet, not nearly easy enough, in any event. We say 
to this we want DOD to correct that, and we want to give the troops 
access to a discounted telephone card, at least up to $50 a month.
  Here is one that is really popular. And I think it will probably 
emerge as part of this bill. But let us say tonight, we give it some 
recognition on the House floor. I went to Bosnia several years ago, and 
the biggest complaint I found amongst troops there who had been 
deployed for longer than they expected was that even though they got 
R&R in some cases, they would go back to Fort Bragg or somewhere like 
that, and they would get dropped in and it was on them, it was up to 
them to get home to El Paso or Fresno, California, wherever it might 
be.
  The proposal is very simple. When we give troops R&R, let us give 
them a ticket to go all the way and come all the way back. It costs a 
little money, but it is the least we can do.
  We had very affecting testimony before our committee by General Jack 
Keane, very affecting testimony. He told of going out to Walter Reed 
and seeing a soldier who was blind and lost one arm. He said we want to 
provide transition assistance to these soldiers. We provide that 
transition assistance.
  This is a package full of things that have been whittled down. They 
are good provisions. I know what the gentleman is about to say. I wish 
I could talk him into accepting this, but if he does not accept it on a 
point of order, a technicality, I hope he will remember some of these 
things in conference.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I guess this is a 
parliamentary inquiry. I, frankly, would like to be able yield to the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) a minute of my time before I 
express my reservation.
  The CHAIRMAN. If the gentlemen claims the time in opposition to the 
amendment, the gentleman will be recognized for 5 minutes.

[[Page 24972]]


  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition 
and am happy to yield a minute to the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Spratt). I would like to hear the rest of his statement.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I am flattered. I hope this means we are 
about to close the deal.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, beyond being charming, I agree 
with most of what the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) is 
saying.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I will take a minute or two, if I could.
  As I was saying, General Keane came before our committee and said 
that he had been to Walter Reed and he met there a young soldier who 
had lost his eyesight and lost a limb, badly injured. You may have 
heard this story. He said, ``We cannot put that soldier back in the 
Army. We would love to do it, and he would love to come back because he 
has been a good troop. But I tell you what we can do,'' he said, ``we 
can give him a mentor to help him every step of the way. We can see 
that he can learn to read braille. We can help him get a college 
education. We can reintegrate him into civil society again, into the 
civilian society again.''
  But it will cost money to do all of those things. That money is not 
in this bill. We put $50 million in there so that Jack Keane's vision 
can become a reality. Good provision.
  There are a number of other provisions in there. There is one in 
particular that I would like to mention, Mr. Chairman, and that is 
small business loans for Reservists. I am reacting to problems I am 
hearing from Guard and Reserve people who have left behind small 
businesses, a dry cleaner in one instance, their wife is trying to run 
it. They will probably going to need to borrow some money before it is 
all over with.
  Surely, we could put something in the bill somewhere for the SBA to 
help these folks obtain a loan to keep their business going.
  Finally, there is a bill here at the desk which would provide a 
deduction for Reservists and Guard personnel who travel more than a 
certain distance to get to their point of duty or for deployment. It is 
right here at the desk. We ought to take that bill and make those 
expenses deductible.
  Exempts the $6,000 death gratuity from income taxes. This is another 
idea with bipartisan support. The death gratuity, modest as it is, 
should not be subject to federal income taxes. My amendment would 
ensure that it is not.
  This amendment provides $50 million to enhance DOD-VA transition 
programs for disabled service members. At an Armed Services Committee 
hearing a couple of months ago, General Jack Keane, Vice Chief of Staff 
of the Army, talked of a serviceman blinded and badly injured in Iraq. 
He told our committee that the Army was going to take care of the young 
man, but he was more specific than that. He spoke of mentoring him, of 
helping him go to college, and providing him with training so that he 
could reintegrate into civilian life. This is the right thing to do, 
but it will not be easy or free. My amendment provides resources to 
help make General Keane's vision a reality for our disabled veterans.
  My amendment contains several other provisions, also designed to 
provide a lift to our troops and their families. Some of these 
provisions may be subject to points of order, but they are all moves 
that would directly benefit America's fighting men and women and their 
families.
  My amendment would take the increases (to $250/month) in committee 
bill and make that higher level permanent. In so doing, the Congress 
can address an area of real uncertainty that has brought anxiety to 
many troops; just ask your state's Adjutant General.
  This provision would permanently eliminate the $8.10 daily 
subsistence charge imposed on wounded servicemembers who are 
hospitalized. I want to take Chairman Bill Young's praiseworthy idea to 
eliminate the daily subsistence fee and make it the law, rather than a 
temporary, FY 2004-only, fix.
  Requires separate campaign medals for service in Operation Enduring 
Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. I believe the men and women who 
risked their lives to depose Saddam's regime deserve recognition that 
is distinct from the recognition we rightly award to those who 
successfully fought the Taliban in Afghanistan.
  Directs DOD to provide maximum advance notice to mobilized Guard and 
Reserve personnel on the timing and duration of their duty.

                           *   *   *   *   *

  Provides $25 million for SBA grants for vocational or technical 
training for reserve-owned small businesses. For the same reason I 
believe we should offer low-interest loans to distressed Guardsmen and 
Reservists, my amendment would also fund a modest program of grants to 
reservists who need them.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate my colleague's expression of 
concern here. I must say that this Member feels very strongly about the 
relationship between authorizing committees and the Committee on 
Appropriations. He is an able member of the authorizing committee. I 
certainly do not want to impose appropriations' position on their work. 
So I encourage him to consider a lot of these things by way of the 
authorizing process, and then we will talk about it.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order 
against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and 
continues and constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill, thus, 
dealing with the authorizers' business, violates clause 2 of rule XXI. 
The rule states specifically in pertinent part, an amendment to a 
general appropriations bill shall not be in order if it is changing 
existing law.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) 
wish to be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, some parts of this clearly are germane and 
applicable, even under the rule that prohibits us from legislating on 
an appropriations bill. I would say to the chairman, who I have great 
respect for, this bill should have gone, the $87 billion bill has 
enough policy in it, enough money in it that it should have gone 
through the typical two-step process. The authorizing committee should 
have had a hand in it and we did not. We asked for it and did not have 
that opportunity.
  In light of that, I would ask him to take a broader view of what 
happens here on the House floor in the appropriations process to 
acknowledge the fact that we did not get a chance to put it through 
committee and, therefore, give us a chance to make a little bit of law, 
which is not very complicated law. Most of this stuff has been around a 
long time. We whittled down a package of old ideas to deal with 
inequities and deficiencies and shortcomings in personnel policy. This 
stuff has been around a long time. It is not complicated. There is no 
reason we should not be able to add it to an appropriations bill. As my 
colleague knows from writing many appropriations bills, there are often 
a lot more complicated authorizations in it than this particular one.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I know it is obvious to the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) that I look forward to 
continuing to work with him.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I hope we can accomplish some of this 
before that bill comes out of committee.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule. The Chair finds that this 
amendment directly amends existing law. The amendment, therefore, 
constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2, rule XXI. The point 
of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order.


                  Amendment Offered by Mr. Blumenauer

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Blumenauer:
       Page 29, line 14, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $20,000,000)''.
       Page 30, line 1, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $500,000,000)''.
       Page 33, line 19, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $192,000,000)''.
       Page 33, line 20, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $174,750,000)''.
       Page 34, line 6, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $17,250,000)''.
       Page 36, line 22, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $35,000,000)''.


[[Page 24973]]


  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House today, the gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, 2 years ago the United States went back to Afghanistan, 
a troubled nation we had largely abandoned after the collapse of the 
former Soviet Union. The conflict in Afghanistan including the war with 
the Soviet Union has left about 2 million people dead, created 700,000 
widows and orphans. While we must help both Iraq and Afghanistan, 
Afghanistan, in fact, is larger, it has more people, it is poorer, and 
has been more devastated under decades of unrest and war.
  For example, the United Nations estimates that 5 to 7 million 
unexploded land mines are scattered throughout the country. An 
estimated 400,000 Afghans have been killed or wounded by land mines 
producing the highest per capita number of amputees in the world.
  One in 12 Afghan women die during childbirth, the highest maternal 
mortality rate in the world. Over a quarter of these children die 
before reaching age five. And Afghanistan has the lowest per person 
caloric intake in the world. I could go on and on.
  The fact is that we have a serious problem that remains in 
Afghanistan. The NATO troops have little control outside the areas of 
Kabul. Suicide bombings and assassination attempts by the Taliban and 
al Qaeda remnants have persisted. Even President Karzai's life is in 
danger every day. The drug and crime rate are on the rise. After the 
fall of the Taliban, Afghanistan, once again, has become the world's 
top opium producer.
  The Committee on Appropriations, I commend them for recognizing these 
burdens. I commend my colleagues for adding an additional $400 million 
above the administration's request. But it is not enough to meet these 
huge unmet needs, which could total as high as $30 billion over the 
next decade and are wildly disproportionate to what we are putting in 
Iraq.
  There is no shortage of need and the bottom line is that we can do 
more. Even after the $500 million that this amendment would remove from 
Iraqi reconstruction, that nation will still be receiving the most 
generous aid package in history. We can spend more money this next 
year. Our efforts in Afghanistan have been largely self-limited, not 
just by a lack of money in the budget, but we have had a determination 
to keep a small footprint on the ground for security reasons.
  My amendment addresses this issue by doubling to over $34 million the 
funding available for security requirements that would directly support 
personnel who would be implementing the assistance. The amendment would 
increase administrative capacity by $20 million. Simple little things 
like giving these people a fixed-wing aircraft that could have six to 
12 people flying around Afghanistan could dramatically increase their 
productivity. It is an outrage that we do not do it.
  This amendment would address the land mine and unexploded ordnance 
issue by doubling to $70 million funding for demining operations.
  Overall, this amendment increases aid to Afghanistan by $247 million, 
provides the security and operating expense needed for assistance to be 
granted more efficiently. This is a country still in agony and things 
can get worse. Our progress is simply too slow after 2 years, and we 
can do something about it tonight.
  Afghanistan is this country where the al Qaeda threat was real and 
remains. We need to make sure that Afghanistan does not once again 
spiral out of control.
  This amendment increases security, increases our capacity, 
accelerates process, and saves the taxpayer one-quarter of a billion 
dollars.
  I urge my colleagues to vote to increase aid to perhaps the most 
damaged nation in the world and vote for this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment, but as I have 
privately said to my friend from Oregon, we do believe that we are on 
the same philosophical page. We are just arguing about different dollar 
amounts.
  I am opposed to it, though, for two different reasons, really. Number 
one, we have increased these accounts, and we have increased it in 
opposition of what the administration originally requested. So the 
House did take into account the need, and we did bump things up. For 
example, USAID, we are increasing it $40 million. The gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) is at $60 million.
  In terms of the economic support fund, we have increased it $272 
million; he is at $864. For diplomatic security, we are at $17 million; 
he is at $34 million. As far as the demining account, we have increased 
it to $35 million, and I believe the gentleman is at $70 million.
  But we have already taken money out of Iraq and out of the 
administration's request, and that is in the report outlined on page 
22. And we also recognize the need for so many of these projects that 
the gentleman from Oregon in his amendment is supporting.
  For example, we have a major, a major push to finish the road from 
Kabul to Kandahar. And the gentleman, I think, has been to Afghanistan, 
as has this committee. And I hope that that road goes all the way to 
Bagram, eventually. But the road is a top priority of this committee.
  Also, we are pushing for private sector development and power 
generation is a top priority of the committee. We are also asking for 
help with infrastructure in Afghanistan and schools and myriad of other 
things.
  The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) had mentioned also about 
the need for an airplane. We actually in a different portion of this to 
instruct USAID to get that aircraft that the gentleman mentioned. That 
is on page 15 of the report, where we require the use of dedicated, 
contract air service within Afghanistan.
  So many of the things that this amendment supports, the committee is 
supporting. And also, we have taken the money out of Iraq. We have 
taken the lower-lying fruit and lower-hanging fruit out of the account.
  And that leads me to the second reason why I oppose this amendment. 
And that is that what we are doing, if we accept this amendment, is we 
are reducing the money by $500 million that would go to Iraq's 
reconstruction. We do not know where that money is coming from, Mr. 
Chairman. Will it come out of electricity, will it come out of schools, 
will it come out of roads? Where it will come from? Because what we 
have already done when we have taken the money out of what the 
subcommittee recommended is we identified certain areas in Iraq that we 
thought the money could be shifted to Afghanistan.
  But this amendment, while it is very specific on where it should be 
spent in Afghanistan, it is not specific on where it should not be 
spent in Iraq.
  And because of that, we believe, the subcommittee and the full 
committee, the bill is already scrubbed fairly well and that, at this 
point, it would be unwise to accept this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  2215

  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman 
from New York (Mrs. Lowey).
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I will take 15 seconds. I will quickly 
thank the gentleman for bringing these important issues to our 
attention, and I know that the chairman of the committee shares the 
gentleman's views of the importance of the funding for Afghanistan. I 
hope that we can work with the gentleman as we approach the 2004 
conference bill and work together to increase funding and investment in 
Afghanistan.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I appreciate what my friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Kingston),

[[Page 24974]]

has said and the work that the subcommittee and the full committee have 
done. But the fact remains we are investing more than 15 times as much 
in Iraq as in Afghanistan. We cannot spend all that money in Iraq in 
the next year. We can put more money on the ground to help this 
troubled nation. And I look forward to working with the committee to 
see if we can advance a little more progress in that troubled country.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me conclude by saying we will continue to work with 
the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer). As the gentleman knows, the 
subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), has a 
particular passion about reconstruction in Afghanistan, and this 
subcommittee will remain committed to it.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to conclude, though, by saying the urgency in 
Iraq right now to try to get the reconstruction efforts jump-started 
for the world community, we think, is very important; and we do not 
want to take money out of it that is not being identified as to where 
the money will come from. For that reason, we will oppose the 
amendment, but again want to say to my friend that we will work with 
him.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  The amendment was rejected.


         Amendment Offered by Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California

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

       Amendment offered by Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California:
       Page 23, beginning on line 13, strike ``or the Global War 
     on Terrorism''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House today, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez) and a Member opposed 
each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta 
Sanchez).
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a very straightforward amendment. It would 
simply strike the ``Global War on Terrorism'' segment of section 1301, 
hence prohibiting the Secretary of Defense the ability to carry out 
military construction projects in excess of $1.5 million outside Iraq 
without the prior notification to Congress.
  This emergency supplemental was not intended to broadly fund the 
global war on terrorism, but to finance emergency defense and 
reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. And I am deeply 
concerned with section 1301 of the bill which grants the Secretary of 
Defense broad authority to carry out up to $500 million in military 
construction projects outside the United States without the prior 
approval of Congress.
  The supplemental appropriations bill we are discussing today is not 
intended to be a slush fund for the Secretary of Defense. And if my 
amendment is approved, the Secretary of Defense would still, would 
still be able to use the new temporary authority to make temporary 
constructions in Iraq for up to $500 million. The Secretary would also 
maintain his ability to use the operations and maintenance budget to 
construct temporary military installations overseas with a cost of up 
to $1.5 million.
  Let us keep in mind that these are supposed to be temporary 
structures, according to the bill, ``the minimum necessary to meet the 
temporary operational requirements.''
  It is my understanding that most of the construction projects we are 
talking about cost $250,000 or less. So $1.5 million is more than a 
generous ceiling for projects without congressional approval.
  So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and to support 
responsible congressional oversight over our military construction 
spending overseas.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's concern about this 
provision. But I must urge everybody in this Chamber to vote against 
this amendment. This amendment causes very serious strategic 
consequences for our military personnel in the field fighting the war 
on terrorism.
  The war on terrorism is not confined to just one area. It could be 
most anywhere. In essence, the Sanchez amendment prohibits our troops 
from constructing strategically important projects necessary to fight 
the war on terrorism until Congress agreed that they were necessary. 
This level of micromanagement is inappropriate, especially in wartime 
conditions, when real-time decisions must be made quickly and troops 
cannot wait for the committee in Congress to agree. Our troops in the 
field need this flexibility.
  Though the amendment excludes Iraq from its effects, it precludes 
construction projects in Afghanistan and in other areas, that might 
become part of the global war on terrorism, from moving forward 
expeditiously. This level of micromanagement is especially awkward if 
the war on terrorism expands in an unexpected fashion.
  In addition, the bill already includes a requirement that DOD notify 
the Congress four times a year about any projects constructed under 
this limited authority. I can assure my colleagues in the Chamber that 
my subcommittee, the MILCON committee, the Subcommittee on Defense, the 
House Committee on Armed Services will watch very carefully in a very 
careful manner how DOD uses this authority. And like the gentlewoman 
points out, authorizing military construction projects should not be 
bypassed without extremely good reasons. However, in this case I 
believe the oversight I have just mentioned gives the oversight over 
this provision included in the bill to be sufficient to ensure that DOD 
does not misuse its authority.
  I urge Members to vote against the Sanchez amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just remind my colleague that the first $60 
billion we spent on this has been unaccounted for. In fact, we had the 
Department of Defense before us, and even one of the chairmen from 
appropriations said he could not tell us where all that $60 billion, or 
even some of it really, had been spent.
  So we are really talking here about reasonable oversight and 
accountability, especially notice alone. Notice. That merely gives 
Congress the prerogative to maintain oversight while funds are being 
executed. To say that field commanders should not be accountable runs 
contrary to common sense and historic practice.
  Can opponents cite one example of how a notice provision cost lives 
or undermined a mission? The answer is no. This is about 
accountability. And the Secretary of Defense still has other funds 
available, other abilities. We are talking about temporary structures, 
most of which are under $250,000.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to say in response to the gentlewoman's 
comments, I can assure the gentlewoman that we know about every penny 
that is spent in the MILCON bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Once again, Mr. Chairman, I urge 
my colleagues to support this amendment and to support responsible 
congressional oversight on our military construction spending overseas.

[[Page 24975]]

  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded 
vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Loretta Sanchez) will be postponed.


        Sequential Votes Postponed in the Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House today, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were 
postponed in the following order:
  An amendment by the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), an 
amendment by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), an amendment by 
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), an amendment by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), and an amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Waxman

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 15-minute vote followed by four 5-minute 
votes.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 197, 
noes 224, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 548]

                               AYES--197

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Otter
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rodriguez
     Rohrabacher
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Solis
     Spratt
     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--224

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     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
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Janklow
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     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
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     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 (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Clay
     Culberson
     Gephardt
     Greenwood
     Jones (OH)
     Majette
     Marshall
     McKeon
     Meek (FL)
     Putnam
     Souder
     Stark
     Young (AK)


                      Announcement by the Chairman

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

                              {time}  2245

  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan and Mr. CASTLE changed their vote from ``aye'' 
to ``no.''
  Mr. DICKS and Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland changed their vote from ``no'' 
to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, let the Record show that 
although I voted ``no'' on rollcall 548, my intention was to vote 
``aye.''


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Kirk

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 405, 
noes 20, not voting 9, as follows:

[[Page 24976]]



                             [Roll No. 549]

                               AYES--405

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Bell
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Janklow
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kline
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--20

     Blunt
     Cantor
     Carter
     Cox
     Cubin
     Davis, Tom
     DeLay
     Houghton
     Johnson, Sam
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     McCrery
     Osborne
     Otter
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Sessions
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Waxman

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Clay
     Gephardt
     Jones (OH)
     Marshall
     McKeon
     Putnam
     Souder
     Stark
     Young (AK)


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining in this 
vote.

                              {time}  2253

  Mr. LaTOURETTE changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Markey

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 146, 
noes 279, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 550]

                               AYES--146

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Case
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Crowley
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Emanuel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Slaughter
     Solis
     Spratt
     Strickland
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--279

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dooley (CA)
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Evans
     Everett
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood

[[Page 24977]]


     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley (OR)
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Janklow
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Majette
     Manzullo
     Matheson
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McNulty
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Scott (GA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Clay
     Gephardt
     Jones (OH)
     Marshall
     McKeon
     Putnam
     Souder
     Stark
     Young (AK)


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining in this 
vote.

                              {time}  2301

  Mr. BAIRD changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Holt

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 169, 
noes 256, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 551]

                               AYES--169

     Abercrombie
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Bartlett (MD)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berry
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Otter
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Rohrabacher
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Solis
     Spratt
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--256

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

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Clay
     Gephardt
     Jones (OH)
     Marshall
     McKeon
     Putnam
     Souder
     Stark
     Young (AK)


                      Announcement by the Chairman

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

                              {time}  2309

  Mr. BALLANCE changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


         Amendment Offered by Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Loretta Sanchez) on which further proceedings were postponed and on 
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.

[[Page 24978]]

  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 128, 
noes 295, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 552]

                               AYES--128

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Bartlett (MD)
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berry
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boucher
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Case
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Doggett
     Duncan
     Emanuel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Kaptur
     Kilpatrick
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Otter
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Solis
     Strickland
     Tauscher
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--295

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Andrews
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dooley (CA)
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Janklow
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Manzullo
     Matheson
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neal (MA)
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Oxley
     Pascrell
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     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
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Scott (GA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Clay
     Fattah
     Gephardt
     Johnson (CT)
     Jones (OH)
     Marshall
     McKeon
     Putnam
     Souder
     Stark
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  2323

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, last spring Congress approved a $673 
billion supplemental appropriation for our troops in Iraq. I voted for 
that appropriation because I felt that, regardless of whether or not we 
should have invaded Iraq, the fact is that we are there now, and we 
cannot afford to allow Iraq to slide into civil war and disorder. That 
is what happened in Afghanistan after the defeat of the Soviet Union. 
The failure of the world community to rebuild that country allowed it 
to become an extremist theocracy and a haven for al Qaeda with 
catastrophic results.
  But we have not received an accounting of the use of those funds. We 
have discovered that American soldiers have died because, despite the 
funds we voted, the administration did not supply all our troops with 
Kevlar plates for their body armor or armor plates for their Humvees. 
We have learned of no-bid contracts for Halliburton and a $15 million 
contract for cement factories that the Iraqis can build for $80,000. We 
have not learned of realistic plans to share the costs and the burdens 
with other countries and to prevent the nationalist guerrilla war 
against us by demonstrating to the Iraqi people that we are running an 
international reconstruction, not an American occupation.
  Last October, I voted against authorizing the use of military force 
in Iraq. I believed that the resolution was far too broad a blank check 
to the President and that it would send us down a perilous course. We 
know now, as some suspected then, that the administration misled us 
when it asserted that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, that it was 
developing nuclear weapons, that it had cooperated with al Qaeda in the 
9/11 attacks, and that it posed an imminent threat to this country.
  I believed then, as I believe now, that the war in Iraq has diverted 
resources and attention away from the deadly, serious war waged against 
the United States by al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorist groups, a war 
which poses a very real threat to our safety and security, and to which 
I do not believe we are giving sufficient resources or attention.
  This bill is another blank check to the President. I cannot support 
it, given the administration's obvious failure to plan for the 
realities of postwar Iraq and its refusal to make good faith adequate 
proposals to share the power and the burden of the reconstruction of 
Iraq so that our soldiers do not continue to do almost all the dying 
and our taxpayers almost all the paying for the cost of cleaning up the 
mess in Iraq.
  I cannot support it, given the administration's insistence on 
increasing the deficit and the debt burden on our children and 
grandchildren by refusing even to let us vote on paying for this bill 
by reducing the tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans.
  Mr. Chairman, we need not approve this bill in order to support our 
troops. The $63 billion we approved last spring will fund the military 
personnel and

[[Page 24979]]

operations through at least next April and May.
  We should defeat this bill and insist that the President and the 
Republican leadership of the House come back to us with a proposal that 
accounts for the public's money, protects our troops and shares the 
burden with other nations. We have the time and the ability to do this 
job right.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, today the United Nations passed a resolution. This is 
another fig leaf. It changes nothing. It does not create a timetable, 
it does not give up any power by the United States. The situation in 
Iraq with respect to the United Nations is exactly as it was before.
  This is like a sense of the congress resolution that went through the 
United Nations, offering the opportunity for people to contribute money 
or offering people the opportunity to contribute soldiers. It does not 
change the fact that this war is in violation of the United Nations 
charter, and it does not change that situation.
  Now, we have created a situation over there where there is no 
frontline. Another Vietnam person and myself were sitting in the back, 
and the worst thing about Vietnam was there was no frontline.

                              {time}  2330

  You were never sure. You were never safe. You did not know where they 
were coming from. And we have that situation going on today.
  Mr. Chairman, I will enter into the Record an article from The 
Telegraph, a British newspaper. We would not find it in an American 
newspaper: ``U.S. Army suicides in Iraq three times the usual rate.'' 
Our people are killing themselves at three times the rate of any other 
war we have ever been in.
  Now, as a psychiatrist who dealt in Vietnam, I know what some of this 
is about. I saw this. And if we do not pay attention to this, we simply 
are ignoring it. We can stand out here and argue about the price of 
gasoline, whether it is 71 cents or $1.14, or whatever it is in Iraq. 
That misses the point of what is going on in that country. We are 
sending troops over there on a regular basis.
  Mr. Chairman, I will enter into the Record an article from the Oregon 
Live which talks about the fact that 700 soldiers from Oregon's second 
battalion, 162nd Infantry, left their homes on Sunday for training and 
duty in Iraq. These soldiers have the old-style body armor, not the new 
Kevlar, but the old stuff; and they have hope, they say, because they 
are relieving a Florida unit which is fully outfitted in modern armor. 
The arriving Oregon troops hope they can swap vests with the departing 
Floridians. When asked about why the Floridians have the vests and the 
Oregonians do not, they said, oh, it is politics. Look where the money 
comes from.
  Mr. Chairman, we are putting people over there on a daily basis in 
real trouble. And I know we have had delegations go over there and they 
ride around in Humvees; they never get out in the street. They are not 
allowed. They do not allow them to get into danger. We cannot have a 
Congressman shot in Baghdad or in a Humvee that blows up. What kind of 
a story would that be in the newspaper? We can believe that no 
Congressman is going to get anywhere near anything close to being bad.
  But our kids are. There is a kid I saw up at Walter Reed Hospital 
this week. I go up there every week. And this kid's name is PFC 
Kushnow. He said I could use his name, so I am going to name him. He is 
from Baltimore. PFC Kushnow said, ``You know what I can't understand? I 
had to pay $1.75 a minute to make a phone call home to my wife, and you 
are spending millions of dollars putting in a cell phone system for the 
Iraqis. What is going on? Doesn't anybody care about me talking to my 
family?''
  This is what is going through the minds of our kids, because they can 
see. They see it on the ground.
  Another kid was riding in a Humvee; he is a civil affairs officer 
from South Dakota. He was a clerk in a store. He gets called up on 
National Guard duty. So he goes over there, he is riding out in this 
car to go and talk about setting up a school. The machine blows up and 
he has no leg.
  Now, this is what we are dealing with here, and it is not going to be 
dealt with by us talking about this. If the military, if the Defense 
Department, or the war department, really, if they really cared about 
these kids, there would not be 44,000 of them over there without the 
Kevlar vests. They could have done something about it. They refused to 
do it. They were making 3,000 a month, and now they are making 25,000 a 
month. Where were they when the war started?

                  [From the Telegraph, Oct. 14, 2003]

         U.S. Army Suicides in Iraq Three Times the Usual Rate

                           (By Oliver Poole)

       Los Angeles.--Suicides among American servicemen in Iraq 
     are running at up to three times the usual rate, the army has 
     revealed.
       Since the start of the war 11 have been confirmed and a 
     dozen more deaths are being investigated as suspected 
     suicides. If all are confirmed it would mean an annualised 
     rate of 34 per 100,000 servicemen.
       Most have happened after May 1 when ``major combat 
     operations'' were declared over. Since then troops have had 
     to cope with increasing paramilitary attacks with less 
     opportunity to defend themselves.
       The usual army suicide rate is 10 to 13 per 100,000, 
     mirroring the figure for the same age group in the general 
     population.
       Officials say the unsettled situation in Iraq, combined 
     with long deployments away from home and spartan barrack 
     conditions, can make any symptoms of depression worse.
       Accessibility of weapons in a war zone can also quickly 
     turn a passing thought into action. ``It just takes a second 
     to put it to your head and pull the trigger,'' said Lt Col 
     Elspeth Ritchie, a psychiatrist at the army's Uniformed 
     Services University.
       The army said it would send doctors to Iraq to try to 
     reduce the problems and improve the identification of 
     soldiers at risk. It has sent 478 home with mental health 
     issues.
       One of the latest victims was buried yesterday in the 
     village of East Berlin, Pennsylvania. Corey Small, 20, killed 
     himself after calling home, in front of other troops waiting 
     to use the telephone.
       There are no official figures for the number of GI suicides 
     in Vietnam. But when the U.S. pulled out in 1975 it had lost 
     60,000 troops and according to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, 
     the American equivalent of the British Legion, 180,000 
     Vietnam veterans have since committed suicide.
       In Britain, more than 260 Falklands veterans have since 
     committed suicide, greater than the number killed in the 
     conflict.
                                  ____


                   [From Oregon Live, Oct. 15, 2003]

                        Hand-Me-Down Body Armor

       The safety of U.S. troops should not rest on their parents, 
     their congressman or their military status.
       The best-equipped military in the world should not depend 
     on worried parents to outfit U.S. soldiers in Iraq with body 
     armor strong enough to stop bullets fired by modern assault 
     rifles.
       Yet that's what's happening now.
       Members of Congress estimate that at least 44,000 U.S. 
     troops are still wearing Vietnam-era vests that will not 
     stand up to the high-velocity weaponry the soldiers are 
     facing on the mean streets of Iraq. So, anxious parents in 
     this country are frantically shopping for modern body armor 
     to send to their sons and daughters in Iraq.
       Most of the thinly protected troops are National Guard 
     units. In replies to e-mails, Oregon guardsmen serving in 
     Iraq reported Monday they were still wearing old-style body 
     armor. They said they hope new vests arrive soon.
       They shouldn't hold their breath. The Pentagon admits it 
     will be months before all troops have modern ``Interceptor'' 
     vests with tough ceramic plates.
       Another 700 soldiers from Oregon's 2nd Battalion, 162nd 
     Infantry, left their homes Sunday for training and duty in 
     Iraq. These soldiers have the old-style body armor, but they 
     may get lucky. They are to relieve a Florida unit fully 
     outfitted in modern armor. The arriving Oregon troops hope to 
     swap vests with the departing Floridians.
       Why do all of the Florida guardsmen have the modern vests, 
     and the Oregon soldiers do not? The answer is political 
     clout: Rep. C.W. Bill Young, R-Fla., is the powerful chairman 
     of the House Appropriations Committee.
       The safety of U.S. troops should not depend on who 
     represents them in Congress or how quickly their parents can 
     acquire hard-to-find body armor. It also should make no 
     difference whether the soldier is on active duty or a year 
     long National Guard commitment.
       Only the ceramic body armor can stop bullets such as the 
     7.62mm rounds fired by Kalashnikov rifles found everywhere in 
     Iraq and Afghanistan. The vests work: Army Sgt. Chris Smith, 
     24, was shot in the chest during

[[Page 24980]]

     an ambush in Iraq in August. Smith's armor shattered as it 
     was designed to do and he suffered only a bruised chest. He 
     returned fire and killed his attacker.
       The Interceptor vests have been in production since 1999, 
     but only now, with Congress and soldiers' parents criticizing 
     the Pentagon, has the pace of manufacturing rapidly 
     increased.
       The Pentagon is trying to lay the blame on manufacturers, 
     but that won't wash. A year ago, when the military was 
     preparing for war with Iraq, it was content to hire just 
     three manufacturers producing about 3,000 ceramic plates for 
     Interceptor vests per month. Now that U.S. soldiers are being 
     shot down and the political pressure is on, the Pentagon has 
     scrambled to hire more manufacturers, which are churning out 
     more than 25,000 plates a month.
       There should have been a sense of urgency about this long 
     before now. The shortage of body armor among U.S. troops in 
     Iraq is not a matter of money; it is a matter of priorities.
       The Bush administration promises that all the U.S. troops 
     in Iraq will have Interceptor vests by December--a ``Merry 
     Christmas'' from the Pentagon. We're guessing a National 
     Guard unit will be the last to get the body armor, and with 
     it the measure of safety the Pentagon should have provided 
     long ago.

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now 
rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Linder) 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, had come to no resolution 
thereon.

                          ____________________