Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that France, Germany, Russia, and other nations can contribute to Iraq's reconstruction by forgiving debts owed by Iraq to those nations and by making generous pledges for Iraq's reconstruction at the International Conference on Reconstruction in Iraq to be held in Madrid.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I voted to authorize the war to remove Saddam Hussein from power, and I believe we must provide the resources to finally finish this war and to ensure Iraq transitions to a stable democratic nation. So I anticipate supporting this bill, despite the fact that it still asks for too much from U.S. taxpayers while also doing too little for U.S. troops.

President Bush and his administration have created a very difficult situation for themselves, for Iraq, and for the United States. So while they will likely get the $87 billion they have requested, I personally doubt that they will get more for reconstruction in the future, even from this fiscally irresponsible Republican Congress, if they continue to force American taxpayers to shoulder this burden alone.

I hope that the Bush administration is finally able to convince our allies to share this burden by providing significant financial and military help, like the first President Bush did in the first Gulf War, and I am frankly mystified that they have failed to get it done so far. There is no good reason to force Americans to pay for this reconstruction alone or to shift the burden to our children and grandchildren by adding its cost to our already monstrous national debt.

Mr. Speaker, the American people are generous, but the United States has needs of its own. The Republican Congress refuses to fix our crumbling schools or help with sky-high prescription drug prices, and too many military families still live in sub-standard housing. If the Republicans who control this government can find money to take care of Iraq, why will they not take care of our needs here at home?

Moreover, the Bush administration did not prepare the American people for the costly and deadly reconstruction efforts they are now witnessing. Many Democrats in Congress repeatedly urged the President to be completely forthright with the public and to share his post-war plan. Needless to say, the administration did no such thing. Instead, they told us not to worry about the post-war plan. And whenever people like General Shinseki and Larry Lindsey let slip the truth, that it would be very expensive and require lots of troops, they were publicly rebuked and then relieved of duty.

Well, Mr. Speaker, ever since President Bush landed on an aircraft carrier and declared the war officially over, the American people have seen for themselves the post-war plan he told us not to worry about, and the public is worried because they have seen over 180 Americans killed in Iraq since President Bush declared victory. And they have seen reconstruction costs explode while certain big corporations are making massive profits at the expense of the public.

Mr. Speaker, before the war, the American people were told Iraq was an oil-rich country that could fund its own reconstruction. So the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the ranking member of the Committee on International Relations, will offer an amendment to turn this reconstruction gift into a loan so that Iraqis can use their future oil wealth to help Americans pay to rebuild the Iraq that Saddam Hussein destroyed.

Now, for some reason, the Bush administration insists that American taxpayers should shoulder this burden alone, so they oppose the Lantos amendment. President Bush has even personally lobbied Republicans against such a measure.

Like the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), I cannot imagine that Iraq's proven oil reserves have disappeared since the war began, and I do not understand the administration's opposition to protecting American taxpayers. Because the Bush administration is basically saying that Iraq oil revenue cannot be used to pay for rebuilding Iraq and instead must be used to repay the debts that Saddam Hussein ran up to rebuild his war machine.

The administration is saying that paying off Iraq's debts to countries like France and Germany, which opposed our efforts against Saddam Hussein, is a better use of American taxpayers' money than paying off America's own national debt or investing in priorities like education, health care, and the economy. To my mind, Mr. Speaker, this is simply wrong.

But if the Bush administration insists on forcing American taxpayers to foot the entire bill for rebuilding Iraq, they should at least pay the tab, instead of passing the buck on to our children and grandchildren by adding it to our massive national debt.

Make no mistake, there is a simple way to pay for it. Since President Bush took office, he has given massive tax breaks to the very wealthiest in this country. If you simply ask those wealthiest few, individuals making over $350,000 a year, to take a smaller tax break, then you can pay for this entire bill and have some left over for the next bill for Iraq.

That is why the substitute legislation, written by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, is so important. The Obey amendment provides more resources for U.S. troops, $4.6 billion more for priorities like 20,000 additional U.S. Army soldiers, better health care, and increased military family support services. The Obey amendment forces the administration to share the financial burdens for rebuilding Iraq by working through the World Bank. And instead of passing on the cost to our children, the Obey amendment pays for itself by asking the wealthiest few individuals, those making over $350,000 a year, to take a smaller tax break than the one Republicans have already given them.

Mr. Speaker, for reasons I cannot explain, the Bush administration opposes this reasonable, fiscally-responsible, and pro-defense plan. They would force all Americans to sacrifice in the future because President Bush will not ask the wealthiest few to take a smaller tax break now. They would raise taxes on our children in future years because they refuse to ask people making over $350,000 to take a smaller tax break.

Last night in the Committee on Rules, Mr. Speaker, the Republicans blocked the Obey amendment, preventing it from even being considered on the House floor. As a result, Members of this House have only one way to increase help to U.S. troops and relieve the burden on U.S. taxpayers, by voting ``no'' on the important parliamentary vote known as the previous question.

If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule to allow the House to consider the Obey amendment. But if Members vote ``yes'' on the previous question, they will be voting to deny the House the opportunity to vote on the Obey amendment, and they will be preventing the House from helping the taxpayers and the troops today.

That should not be a difficult decision, Mr. Speaker. So I hope my friends on the Republican side of the aisle will not allow blind party loyalty to keep them from doing what is right for the country and for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).

(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.

I would like to make a clarification for the record. In the report to accompany this rule, I am recorded as having voted ``aye'' to report the resolution. However, the fact is that I was recorded as having voted ``no'' on the motion to report.

The report submitted by the majority to the Government Printing Office makes clear that I did indeed vote ``no'' on that motion. But because GPO made an error and recorded me as an ``aye'' vote, the Committee on Rules majority has asked for a star print of the committee report which will correct the record. However, since this report is now available publicly, I wanted to state for the record that I voted ``no'' on the motion to report.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to oppose the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule. The amendment will give Members an opportunity to vote on the Obey substitute which will help the troops, would require accountability, and will pay for that bill.

Last night, the Republican leadership instructed Republicans on the Committee on Rules to vote against allowing the House to consider this substantive alternative to the committee bill. Voting for the previous question will deny the whole House the opportunity to debate important questions that the Republican leadership in the House do not want to air.

Mr. Speaker, the Obey amendment provides desperately needed funding for the many overlooked and severely underfunded areas that threaten our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. The amendment will reduce total reconstruction funds by $4.6 billion and use it instead to provide desperately needed protection for our soldiers in the field and to help ease the difficulties these brave men and women face every day.

It will provide funds to repair and replace military equipment. It will allow the Army to increase the number of active duty troops to ease the burden on those currently deployed. It will provide funds for water purification, predeployment health and dental screening, and extension of Guard and Reserve health benefits.

That is not all this amendment will do. It will also pay for this bill so our children will not be burdened with its staggering costs for years to come. We can pay off this enormous IOU simply by eliminating the Bush tax break for the wealthy 1 percent of Americans with annual incomes in excess of $350,000. Our troops make huge sacrifices every day; I think the wealthy can do their part too.

It is very disturbing that the Republican leadership of the House would deny Members an opportunity to vote on an amendment to improve the conditions faced daily by our troops.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make something very clear. A ``no'' vote will not, I repeat will not, prevent us from voting on this supplemental. But a ``no'' vote will allow Members to vote to better protect our troops who are risking their lives every day in Iraq and Afghanistan. A ``no'' vote on the previous question is a vote for our troops, and I urge each and every Member of this body to stand up and do the right thing by these men and women who are on the front lines.

At this point, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and a description of the amendment immediately prior to the vote.

Vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can have an opportunity to vote on the Obey substitute.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, we have previously appropriated almost $80 billion to deal with the problems in Iraq and now we are being asked to provide $87 billion more. We have had no real accounting of how that previously appropriated money has been spent, and we certainly have no line item information about how the next $87 billion is going to be spent. If that is not a blank check, it is certainly a malleable one.

It seems to me that if the administration wants us to consider their aid package today, that we have a right to see to it that we can offer on the House floor a responsible, comprehensive alternative. But under this rule before us, we are being denied that opportunity. The majority Members of this House will say the rule gives us an open rule. That is a meaningless comment. Because the key to understanding our problem is to understand that the rule waives several of the House rules to enable the committee to bring its bill to the floor but then when we want to bring a parallel substitute to the floor, they say, ``oh, no, no, no, you can't waive those same rules to allow your package to come to the floor.'' So that is the way that the majority leadership funnels us into a situation where it is either their way or no way. That is not the way to unite people in fighting a war.

What we are asking is to give the minority the same right to offer a comprehensive amendment that was given to the minority in the Senate. Here is what the amendment would say. The amendment would essentially say if this House is hellbent on providing $87 billion, then there is a better way to do it.

If any Member of this House votes for the previous question without allowing our amendment to be made in order, that Member will be voting to block our efforts to transfer about $4.5 billion of badly-thought- out reconstruction plans to categories in the budget that would do us a whole lot more good.

Example. We want to do something about the fact that 80 percent of American troops in Iraq right now are drinking putrid water, getting dysentary. There is absolutely no reason that we should not provide clean water to 100 percent of American troops in Iraq. If you vote for the previous question, you will be denying us the opportunity to correct that. If you vote for the previous question, you will denying us the opportunity to provide predeployment health and dental services to Guard and Reserve forces who right now have to pay those expenses on their own. If you vote for the previous question, you will be blocking us from extending postduty health care coverage from the 60 days which Guard and Reserve people now have when they are coming off duty to 6 months. That is what you will be doing. You will also be preventing us from providing the money that the Army and the other services asked for to refurbish equipment which was worn out or used up in Iraq.

The Services asked for the full amount that they could spend on that over the rest of the year, but the Department slashed those recommendations, in my view, in order to hide from the public the full cost of reconstituting that equipment which will approach $20 billion by the time it is done rather than about the $2 billion asked for by the administration.

If Members vote for the previous question, they will be voting against our efforts to relieve pressure on Guard and Reserve forces, many of whom have now been told they are going to have to serve an extra year. You will prevent us from correcting the mess that we now have in our troop rotation schedules. What we try to do to correct those items is to recognize the validity of General Shinseki's warning when he warned us that we should not follow a 12-division strategy if we only had a 10-division Army. So what we do is face up to the need to create another division so that you can restore order to the lives of Guard and Reserve forces and restore order to the rotation schedule for our regular troops.

If Members vote for the previous question, they will also be swallowing, swallowing whole, the administration plans to rely on huge contracts with politically well-connected multinational corporations rather than relying on more appropriate low-technology contracts with indigenous groups within Iraq so that we can put Iraqis to work doing something constructive besides shooting Americans.

If you vote for the previous question, you will be blocking our efforts to convert one-half of the reconstruction funds in our package to loans by running that portion through the World Bank and having it matched by other international contributors. You will also be preventing us from insulating those contracts against cronyism if you have an agency administering these contracts that is responsive to the political appointees at the White House. And, most importantly, if you vote for the previous question, you will be blocking our efforts to meet our responsibilities to our taxpayers by paying for this adventure rather than putting it on the cuff.

We have got two choices on that score. We can either charge this bill to our kids or we can pay for it now.

There is a whole lot of talk about shared sacrifice on this floor. We heard a lot of it last night. I would like to ask who on earth in this country is being asked to share the sacrifice except the troops and their families? The Guard and Reserve forces right now face a total discombobulation of their life. Our regular troops face the same thing. They are sacrificing in spades. Yet, if you vote for this previous question motion, you will be denying our effort to say there is a better way to achieve self-sacrifice.

What is wrong with asking a millionaire to settle for a $53,000 tax cut rather than the $130,000 tax cut they will get absent our amendment? Persons in the $50,000 to $75,000 range will get on average from all sources perhaps $1,000 if they are lucky under the tax cuts now in effect. Persons in the $200,000 to $500,000 range will get $2,200. Why shouldn't millionaires be happy with 25 times that amount?

I ask Members to vote against the previous question to give us a chance to offer an amendment that is a truly balanced, comprehensive alternative.

Mr. Speaker, I just said that I am not planning to use the 9\1/2\ minutes.

First of all, let me thank my friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) for ably managing this measure; and I am glad we were able to correct the record for the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) on his vote last night. But I am proud of the fact that he did indicate and he does plan at the end of the day to vote in support of this measure.

The reason is because it struck me, a friend of mine the other day stopped me and said, how in the world can you be supportive of our troops and not be supportive of this package, which my friend from Mississippi and my friend from Georgia earlier both said is very important to defend and protect our troops. So at the end of the day, it is my hope that we will be able to continue this strong bipartisan spirit in passing this measure, which is so, so critical, not only for the protection of our troops, but for the stabilization of the region.

The President has, I think, made a very strong and effective case that if we look at neighboring countries in that very troubled region of the world, bringing about a free, democratically elected leadership in Iraq will go a long way towards encouraging the kind of positive moves that we need throughout that part of the world and, frankly, in other parts of the world. The President, the other night, reminded a group of us to look at Kim Jong-il in North Korea and realize that he poses a great threat. But the fact that he now knows

that behind diplomatic words from the United States of America stands strength is an important signal to him and any others who are not considered to be friendly towards the United States.

I urge strong support of this rule and, of course, before that, passage of the previous question.

My good friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, has, on a regular basis, come before the Committee on Rules on appropriations measures; and, in fact, on seven of the 10 measures which we have reported out of the Committee on Rules on appropriations, he has made a request similar to the one that he is making on this supplemental appropriations bill. I respect him for proceeding with it, and I admire his tenacity; but I think that he understands that it would require a waiver which would move into the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means, and so this is nongermane.

The structure around which we will be considering this is an open rule. It is an open amendment process; and it is what the Democrats, when they were in the majority, used as the normal consideration for appropriations, the structure for consideration on appropriations bills; and it is what we have done, Mr. Speaker. I believe that it is proper for us to do that.

Any amendment that any Member wants to offer that complies with the rules of the House will be in order, and that is why we are going to have a very full day ahead of us with, I am sure, a lot of different amendments offered. So we have provided protection for the bill and not made in order these other amendments which do, as I say, violate the rules of the House.

The proposal that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has, while an interesting one, as I said, would, I believe, have a very deleterious effect on the small business sector of our economy.

Mr. Speaker, we are very, very gratified that the tax and economic growth package that we worked so hard on and passed out of this House was a bipartisan measure and passed the other body, and we got the President's signature on it; and we are already beginning to see the benefits of that. We have seen improvements take place in markets. We have seen a lot of very, very clear benefits. One of my colleagues earlier today was talking about increased earning reports from a number of large companies; and if we look at the proposal that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has that he would like to have made in order, if we were to, in fact, defeat the previous question, it would have a very negative effect on that important small business sector of our economy. I know we talk about people in upper income levels, but we have to realize the tremendous numbers of those who are small business men and women, the backbone of our economy, where 95 percent of the creativity emanates from.

So that is why I believe it is important for us to make sure that we pass the previous question, pass this rule, and then move ahead with what will be a very interesting debate; and at the end of the day, at the end of the day, I hope and pray that we will have strong bipartisan support, so that we can stand behind our troops, so that we will be able to do the kinds of things that can bring about the goals that we all, in a bipartisan way, share for the people of Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to object. This is a good bill if it came up at any other time, but today, it serves a unique purpose, and that is, to deal with the great debate that is the big issue that will come up today as the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) pointed out. That issue is whether the $18 billion, not to rebuild Iraq but to build Iraq as it has never been built before, whether that money will go in the form of a loan or some other collateralized instrument, perhaps an advance payment on the purchase of oil, or whether, instead, it will go as a gift.

What are we told? We are told that we cannot make it a loan because the Iraqi balance sheet is already in such terrible shape. I would first point out that the American balance sheet is not in great shape either, and we will be adding $500 billion to the debt side of that just this year.

But why is the Iraqi balance sheet in bad shape? It is in bad shape because Saddam borrowed $100 billion, and the people who hold the promissory notes signed by Saddam want to be paid, and for reasons I cannot figure out, the administration feels it is a critical national priority that those who lent money to Saddam get repaid. Promissory notes were signed by Adolf Hitler; they were not repaid. Promissory notes were signed by the Imperial Government of Japan; they were not repaid. Why is it that this administration believes that we cannot burden Iraq with $18 billion in debt because we must preserve their ability to pay the $100 billion of debt that Saddam Hussein borrowed?

Follow the money. Because in 2008 and 2010 and 2012, Iraq, a country with the second largest oil reserves in the world, will be exporting more oil than it needs, the revenue to finance its ongoing operations. It will be able to pay debt service. It has collateral. That is why these folks lent Saddam $100 billion. It will have that money.

Where will that money go? If none of it comes to us, the first claimant for $25 billion is Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are not content with the revenue from their own oil. They want $25 billion to be paid by the new Iraq because they have a loan made to the old Iraq. Who is second? Kuwait is in for only $17 billion, except they claim that they are also owed reparations for the invasion. Okay. That is interesting. The new Iraq should pay for the invasion of Kuwait by Saddam.

So we are told by the Kuwaitis that not only, not only did we have to spend our treasure and our blood to liberate them, not only do they have more oil than one can imagine per capita, but that they should have a high claim on Iraqi oil and that the American taxpayer should be at the back of the line.

I would say that we must do more today than give $18 billion to Iraq and then have this resolution saying, oh, please, pretty please, these other creditors should forgive their debts. First of all, the resolution identifies as the main creditors France and Germany and Russia when, in fact, the major creditors of Saddam are Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

Second, they do not have to forgive the loan. What incentive do they have? It is not like we are saying forgive your loan and this will happen or we will make our efforts contingent upon yours, but rather, today, we are going to be asked to give $18 billion to Iraq to eliminate any possibility of adding an incentive for others to forgive their debt to enshrine the debt signed by Saddam while denigrating the American taxpayer.

We will be talking about more of this in the rest of today, but no one should believe that the passage of H. Res. 198, a mere plea to the wrong people that they forgive debt that they have no intention of forgiving so that we can give away American taxpayer dollars, that we do not have to give away, this is the smallest fig leaf for the biggest problem.

I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

(Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I am going to yield to my colleague from Texas, but let me point out one use of this $18 billion.

Two billion dollars of it is going to go to build new oil wells and oil facilities in Iraq. This will be the first time in history that we invest $2 billion in oil drilling, hit oil and get nothing. Why do we need these $2 billion of additional oil wells and oil facilities? So that Iraq can produce more oil, so they can sell that oil, so it can give the money to Saudi Arabia. What a great deal for the American taxpayer.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection, noting that another gentleman from California may also wish to object.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, last spring we appropriated $79 billion, it was just this past spring, to fund the war on the reconstruction efforts in Iraq. And again the administration is asking us to open up the Federal purse and hand over billions more. The Federal Government is already facing record deficits, the highest deficits the country has ever faced. But the President now wants our permission to charge $18 billion more, which would have to be charged, by the way. We have no money to pay for that, pay for Iraqi reconstruction on the American credit card. What happened to the $79 billion that Congress handed to the administration? One might well ask. Why are American soldiers being sent into life-threatening situations without the body armor or adequate training?

We do not know the answers to these questions, but we do know the conditions in Iraq for our military is shameful. I have received volumes of calls and letters from the families of soldiers serving in Iraq. They are concerned about their children, their brothers, sisters, husbands, and wives suffering from heat exhaustion and dehydration. We just heard that they are just now beginning to study the possible 12 suicides of our service people since they have been in Iraq. Some soldiers are rationed only two bottles of water a day despite the 120 degree weather, and we have been told that they have often had to survive on one meal a day.

I was flying back to D.C. this week to go to work on this appropriation. At the airport a TSA official told me of her recent assignment at the airport in Baghdad. She, a civilian employee, was housed in an air-conditioned trailer; but the U.S. soldiers had no relief. She felt so bad for the Army that she would let them sleep on the floor of the trailer just to get a little nap and escape the sweltering heat.

Just this morning, The Washington Post reports that many soldiers have very low morale. In fact, a poll was done by ``Stars and Stripes'' that says that only half the people in Iraq now think that the morale is any good at all; 48, 49 percent say the morale is very low; and the same number, about 50 percent of those who are there now, say they will not reenlist. They claim that their mission lacks clear definition and they characterized the war in Iraq as of little or no value. These are the people who are there fighting it. Fully 40 percent said the jobs they were doing had little or nothing to do with the training that they had received.

The largest proportion of this appropriation that has been asked for, some $60 billion, is for the troops; and they desperately need more. They need more water, more food, more adequate shelter, more body armor to save their lives, and other essentials. We were also told this week that ammunition dumps are all over the country of Iraq where we know where they are, but we do not have sufficient troops to guard them. These are supporting the ammunition which is being used to shoot at our soldiers. These men and women have to be our top priority.

Congress must demand and receive a full accounting of the reporting on the Federal dollars appropriated for our brave troops and for rebuilding Iraq. No one has been able to tell us that they know where the $79 billion has gone. Congress must demand to receive a full and thorough accounting and justification for any Federal taxpayer dollars spent anywhere, but it is as part of a contract that did not go through a proper competitive bidding process that is particularly egregious. I intend to offer an amendment to ensure that Congress receives the specific information on no-bid contracts that our oversight duties and obligations to our constituents demand.

Mr. Speaker, I find it odd we cannot find the funds to pay for the mandates of No Child Left Behind or fully fund Medicaid or upgrade America's electrical grid, but somehow there is money to build schools and hospitals and an electrical grid for Iraq. The people of New York will pay $1.26 billion of the $18.6 billion to rebuild Iraq. That could be used to place almost 150,000 children in Head Start programs.

This money could also be used to fund healthcare for over 150,000 New Yorkers. We cannot forget the great needs at home. If State and local governments received matching funds for the $18.6 billion to rebuild Iraq, New York State would receive approximately $2 billion in State and local government budget relief. That is why I am cosponsoring the American Parity amendment.