Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Rest and Recuperation Leave program for members of the Armed Forces serving in combat zones in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom should cover all travel and transportation costs necessary to return members of the Armed Forces granted such leave to their homes located throughout the United States.

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

I rise in opposition to the amendment, and would like to point out that this is a little different amendment than we originally thought we would be looking at today.

This issue was debated twice yesterday on this floor, once with the Obey

amendment which would have cut the amount by half and put some in loans, the other time during debate on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) which would have done the same thing. We have had a lot of discussion about the idea of how much we should have and whether we should reduce it, and whether some should be in the form of a loan or not. I believe that issue has been dispensed with.

I have just heard a couple of arguments from the other side that this amendment will require more scrutiny. Where in the words here does it require any more scrutiny? It just says it will cut it by 50 percent. It says that we think that the Committee on Appropriations' work is insufficient, we are just going to cut it in half.

Where does it say that it is going to require some repayment by the Iraqis? There is nothing in here about repayment or loans. It just says we are going to take the aid and the assistance we are going to provide to the Iraqis, and we are going to slice it exactly in half because we think that they do not really need that money for reconstruction.

Mr. Chairman, what we have heard over the last several days, and I know I am sounding like a broken record by repeating this, as General Abizaid, Ambassador Bremer, and many others have told us over and over again, every dollar for reconstruction is just as important as every dollar we provide to our men and women in uniform in Iraq. It is just as important.

If we are going to get our men and women home from Iraq, we have to turn the security of the country over to the Iraqis, and that means we have to train the Iraqis. We have to train the police force and the national army. If we are going to get our men and women home, we have to restore the Iraq economy and put Iraq back on its feet. Cutting the assistance to Iraq in half is not the way to accomplish that. If we want to be sure that our men and women in uniform stay in Iraq a lot longer, this is the amendment Members want to vote for.

I have great respect for the gentlemen who have offered this amendment, they are very thoughtful people, but I must say this amendment is absolutely the wrong direction. It does not accomplish what they want. It does not accomplish the kind of scrutiny they want, which is what we will find in the general provisions of the bill. We have a lot of oversight. We have more reporting, we have more oversight requirements, we have requirements that if there are changes in the amount of the funds, if it is moved from one to the other, there has to be notification to the Congress. We are doing that oversight. That is the responsibility of Congress. But cutting the amount of assistance to Iraq in half is not the way to proceed. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his comments.

Mr. Chairman, here we go again. The last amendment cut 50 percent of the reconstruction dollars; this only cuts 1 billion of the dollars out of reconstruction. But I am still left with the question, what is it that members do not understand regarding the importance of reconstruction assistance? We have been told over and over again by our commanders, by everybody that is out there, that the dollars we are spending on reconstruction is part of national security. It is just as important as what we do for our Guard and Reserves. It is just as important as what we do in terms of providing ammunition and vehicles and all the armor and the other items that are needed by our troops that are over there.

The reconstruction is a vital part of this program; and if we short that, all we are doing is saying to the men and women in uniform who are there in Iraq that we are going to leave you there better off, with maybe more creature comforts, maybe with more vehicles, but we are going to leave you in this bleak, hostile landscape.

Where is this billion coming from? Is it coming from what we are going to do to try to create a new constitution? Is it coming from the governing council? Is it coming from the kerosene funding? Is it coming from the clean water for the children over there? Where is it coming from?

Mr. Chairman, to take this money out of the reconstruction is the wrong approach. We should not be doing that. I hope my colleagues will reject this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition. I will not take 5 minutes. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I agree with most everything the gentleman from Oregon has said. I certainly do not believe the taxpayers of the United States should be paying for Iraq when there is a newly constituted government there to be participating in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, known as OPEC. The fact is they most certainly, almost certainly, will continue to be a member of that organization; and, in fact, they have already attended meetings in kind of an observer status. But none of our funds should be used to do that, since they are generating a fair amount of oil funds now that are paying for much of their internal costs of government, although not enough to do the reconstruction, which is what we are having the discussions today about. That would be the funds that they would use to do that, but I quite agree that funds from the United States taxpayers should not be used for that.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), I move to strike the last

word, and I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I do rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, let me begin with noting my disappointment in the remarks

of the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) that Democratic amendments have not been accepted or not been listened to. We are now in our third day of debate on this bill. We have had a large number of amendments, most of which have come from the minority side, and a number of Democratic amendments have been accepted.

When the gentlewoman said it is not done in a collegial way, let me just note specifically in the area she is talking about, education in Iraq, that there is $90 million specifically set aside for education in Iraq that was not requested by the President, because the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee, came to me and talked to me about this issue. So we have these funds in there at the request of the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), at the request of the minority, not because of the President's request, but because this body, this subcommittee, has worked in a collegial fashion.

Now, what the gentlewoman is suggesting is putting more money into that and more money into Afghanistan. But our committee, again not at the President's request, but recognizing the need for us to follow through with our commitment in Afghanistan and recognizing the deteriorating security conditions in Afghanistan, our subcommittee has increased the amount of assistance for Afghanistan by almost $400 million.

I have already noted that we specifically set aside $90 million for education in Iraq that was not requested by the administration.

As far as the areas where this would come out of, $100 million out of the IRRF fund, $300 million out of restoring the oil production in Iraq which, by the way, is the only way Iraq is ever going to generate enough funds that they can do their own reconstruction, that they can stand on their own feet, to take that $300 million out of there is to not only harm the infrastructure, the effort to reconstruct the infrastructure, but harm the immediate needs of Iraqi citizens to have heating oil and kerosene for cooking, the cooking and heating oil that is absolutely vital as we go into the winter months there in Iraq. It has to do not just with comfort for the people in Iraq but in many cases the very livelihoods, the very survival, particularly when children are involved.

I think the gentlewoman's intentions are good, but that is why we discussed this issue at length in the subcommittee and that is why we discussed it at the full committee level too. I think we have come with what, I think, is a fair and a balanced division of the funds as it is going to the various accounts in Iraq.

And so, Mr. Chairman, I think that this would upset that balance. I do not think it is the right way to go, though I respect the gentlewoman's intentions.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would urge the Members to reject this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time.

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

I will not oppose this amendment. This perfects some language that was adopted in the committee offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) on requiring quarterly reports to be made and placing some additional requirements in that report which, I think, is useful information for us to have. This substitutes some language in three of the paragraphs and adds to it, tightens that up, and, for the most part, I do not have any objection to it.

I do find a problem, and I just want the gentleman to know this because that is really an issue, I think, in the conference. I do have a problem with one issue in paragraph nine where it requires that the administration give the Congress an estimate of the period of time for which such forces will be deployed. That is probably not possible for them to do, to actually tell how long the forces are going to be deployed because we do not know the circumstances of what is going to happen in Iraq either with the democracy there or with external circumstances that might require them to be there longer than we would like. But other than that, I would think the language here is helpful, and we can deal with that issue in the conference. And so, Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin) for the purposes of colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Rhode Island for bringing this issue to our attention, but most importantly for his strong leadership on this issue.

I agree with him that our foreign assistance dollars ought to be spent in a manner that is not only efficient but that is inclusive of all peoples including those with disabilities. I agree that the needs of people with disabilities ought to be a priority as we proceed with the reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan; and as we negotiate the terms of this spending bill, I certainly intend to keep the gentleman's comments today here in mind as we look at the report language and bill language. I thank the gentleman for his comments.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I do rise in opposition to this amendment. We already had a full debate on this issue last night, as a matter of fact. The bill that we have before us has provisions, rather extensive provisions, dealing with competition and providing for full and open competition. These were provisions that were worked out with the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and the staff and, I believe, ranking members as well. Those provisions were amended last night here on this floor in the House. A perfecting amendment was added to it, which struck a particular exception on the notification. If it was a sole-source contract, it struck the exceptions for that. So notification

has to be given before those contracts are awarded.

This sets up a separate procedure that has no exception at all for it, even for an urgent situation. I am not sure if the gentleman has thought about what happens if there is a break in an oil line, what happens if there is a fire. They cannot go through a long bidding process for that. They have to take the money that is available and do an immediate contract. But even under those circumstances, there are procedures for competitive bidding and for open bidding, for making sure it is done in an open manner; and that is basically what the law that the Committee on Government Reform has the responsibility for is all about. That legislation, which is quite extensive, provides for open competition, provides for the bidding process, and it provides for the exceptions which are in there. And as I said last night on this floor, this body decided to eliminate at least one of those particular exceptions.

So I think we have thoroughly debated this issue, and I might say that the language as it is drafted here is not really, it seems to me, in legislative or legal form where it says ``enter into any contract using procedures other than competitive procedures.'' That ``other than competitive procedures'' is not a term which appears in the law anyplace, so we do not know exactly what ``competitive'' means there. ``Fully competitive'' is something that does appear in the law, but ``competitive'' does not.

So it is not at all clear what really the impact of this would be. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment and urge its rejection.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and welcome back. The Chairman carried forward a very full day yesterday, and we appreciate his help.

This amendment, and amendments like it that we have seen much of the day yesterday, is a very appealing sort of amendment, for it essentially says we have money in this package, and why do we not take some of it and add additional funding for our troops one way or another. Obviously, that has appeal.

The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) is a very fine Member from Michigan and he has expressed his concern about the troops before. Yesterday I heard people who had never expressed concern for our troops and, in fact, had not even voted for our bill in the past who were suddenly very, very concerned, and that is a little disconcerting. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) and I, my colleague and partner, have made every effort in this package and packages before it to aggressively increase funding available for our troops, especially those who are serving our country overseas and those who are in harm's way.

This specific proposal adds $265 million to the military personnel accounts. It suggests that it is enough to pay for a $1,500 bonus for each serviceman who is in the region. The offset is to reduce $1 billion for the reconstruction effort in Iraq.

I must say, one of the strongest arguments regarding this, besides the fact that we have done everything we can to help our troops in the previous bills and in this one, is the reality that the experts, the generals in charge of our military effort over there, say that their number one priority is reconstruction, because it is the way to, first of all, secure our troops while they are there and, secondly, the way to make certain they get home as quickly as possible is to see the economy of Iraq move forward, get it back on track, and that is part of what this bill is about.

I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much the gentlewoman yielding, and she is in the midst of a very important statement, but I wanted to share with her, as well as my colleagues, that I believe she is highlighting a very important problem.

We do provide for $22 million within the bill, but frankly, the Department tells me that the challenges are very real, we may need more money, and rather than taking my 5 minutes, I am inclined to let the gentlewoman know that we are going to accept her amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise very reluctantly to oppose this amendment.

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

The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) is pointing to an area that the committee is very concerned about, and indeed the intelligence community has been, as has our Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence here in the House.

The amendment seems to have no real overall effect on the intelligence community's management account. It decreases the account by $5 million and then increases that same account, but the point that I would make is that this shifting of money would tend to have a direct impact upon both the FBI and the Department of Energy, as well as the broader intelligence community, in their efforts to develop our effort on the intelligence side in the war on terrorism.

In turn, in recent years, there has been sizeable adjustment in those accounts that addressed the question of linguistics, the training of people who know foreign language, et cetera, and as my colleague knows, identifying such people, first of all, takes time and takes time to train them, and so we just cannot throw money at it and cause a change like that. I mean, unlike a lot of accounts where we just put money in and something happens tomorrow, linguistic development, that kind of training is very difficult. So it is much more a regular order kind of process.

I could describe this in great detail in private between us, but some of the intelligence questions here really should not be discussed in this environment, but in turn, it is an important problem. If I thought a $5 million shift would make a difference and not affect other elements of our war on terrorism, I would support the gentleman's amendment, but I reluctantly oppose it.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have this exchange with my colleague. We are really coming from the same position. These accounts are very delicately balanced now, as the gentleman knows, and the impact that this shifting might very well have on work that is vital within the FBI, et cetera, concerns me.

In turn, I think our dialogue here, I think, is highlighting the matter. There is no doubt that the committee is reflecting the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence's concern about improving what we are doing relative to foreign language training and linguistics. There is little doubt that the Congress, the House of Representatives, has said very clearly in this bill in other sections, as well as this dialogue, that this is a priority. We expect the entire intelligence community to respond.

So, frankly, I want to be very complimentary of the gentleman's effort, but shifting the money here could make it very difficult to deal with the other body in a fashion that we hope to move forward with. So I am reserved relative to this amendment, but do very much appreciate my colleague's helping us highlight this important area.

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

We certainly will but, frankly, I will end up opposing, asking for a ``no'' vote on that vote. I frankly do not like to see us end it that way, and we could very well end it that way, and maybe that does not help with the highlighting.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, though it is my pleasure to say that I am highly inclined to support the Ramstad amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say that I am prepared to accept the amendment and to yield back.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and the gentlewoman is much too young to remember this.

During the big war, there was a word, a phrase, it is really a word, a snafu was common among all people who were in the service. The military has often screwed up, I must tell you, and it is ridiculous. Absolutely, we agree with the gentlewoman's position. We will do everything we can to improve that process. Your highlighting it here is very helpful.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

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

I do not intend at this moment to use the 5 minutes, but I must say I absolutely understand the gentlewoman's presenting this amendment for, indeed, we spent time together in Iraq, I have been saying a whole month in one weekend in Iraq together. That is not because of our wonderful charm, but because of what we experienced there together, the reality that Saddam Hussein is the worst tyrant, clearly competing with Hitler and Stalin. We learned that he was capable of almost anything. I will never forget the gentlewoman, as we were together at the killing fields, urging me and others to join together in a moment of silence, thinking about the potential of mass destruction as a part of this guy's everyday existence as long as he was ruling that country.

Indeed, I do not know exactly what we might find. I am hesitant about reducing this amount of money. I am going to be willing to talk about it as we go forward, but, indeed, the things that David Kay is about in his work are very important for us as we look at the challenges of dealing with people like this. So it is with great reluctance that I resist and ask for a ``no'' vote on the gentlewoman's amendment.

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

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

I just might mention that the gentlewoman's expression of international involvement is a very appropriate one, and I would highlight her remarks by mentioning that the U.N. voted unanimously yesterday, getting the U.N. really on board for the first time in helping us with this effort. In the meantime, moving this money around in this fashion when we have done so much as we have in O & M and the bill in general, I hesitate about it, and therefore I ask for a ``no'' vote. And I want to tell the gentlewoman I very much appreciate the work she has done with me.

I might mention, just to take the time, when we were together following our weekend, we actually sat down together for hours, our team of 17, and in the midst of it, one of our colleagues said, I am one, a liberal Democrat, who voted ``no'' to going to war, but after seeing what I see here about Saddam Hussein, I must say I have got to be ahead of my people. It is going to be unpopular at home.

It is time for us to lead, and therefore I am going to support this request of the President to carry forward this war on terrorism.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I appreciate the gentleman for bringing this very important bill to the floor, especially under suspension of the rules.

The gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) is a very dedicated supporter of our military and is an important member of the Committee on Armed Services. And as chairman of the subcommittee, he does an important job. I know of no one who is more committed to the members of our military than the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) and the gentleman from California (Chairman Hunter).

What we are talking about today has to do with soldiers wounded on the battlefield in a military hospital recovering from those wounds who are charged $8.10 a day for the food they consume while they are in the hospital recovering from wounds received on the battlefield. When I learned about that, I have to tell Members, I could not believe it. So I did a little research, and my research told me this is true. This is the case; this is in the law.

I spoke to the administrators and commanders of the military hospitals at Walter Reed Army Hospital, at the National Naval Medical Center at Bethesda, at the Hospital at Landstuhl, Germany, and they all said, yes, we have to do this, it is in the law, but it is more trouble than it is worth. They said they are actually embarrassed when they have to hand a soldier, when he left their hospital a bill for the food that he or she consumed while in that hospital recovering from wounds received on the battlefield. That is not right. That is outrageous.

So I introduced H.R. 2998 to repeal that law. Actually, while we were moving the defense appropriations bill, I was able to include that bill in the defense appropriations bill which was signed into law on September 30.

So immediately the problem was fixed but was only fixed for a year because appropriations bills only last for a year. So I asked the gentleman from California (Chairman Hunter) and the gentleman from New York (Chairman McHugh) if they would report this bill to the floor so that we could have a vote on it. I asked for a vote because so many of our colleagues, when they learned of this, were just as outraged as I was, and they asked that we have a vote. So we will ask for a vote on this bill because so many of our Members want to vote for this bill. Nearly 300 of our colleagues, Mr. Speaker, have co-sponsored this legislation.

This is something that really needs to be fixed. It was fixed for 1 year, but this fix makes it permanent. This repealed the law permanently, and we will not be embarrassed again by handing a soldier who is leaving in a wheelchair with both legs amputated or an arm amputated or vision totally destroyed or handicapped for life and we are not going to insult them by asking them to pay $8.10 a day for the food that they consumed while in that military hospital.

I thank the gentleman very much for bringing this very important bill to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2998, legislation I introduced to permanently

repeal an outrageous law that requires our combat wounded military to pay for their food while hospitalized recovering from their wounds.

I want to thank my friend and colleague, the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Mr. Hunter, and the Chairman of the Total Force Subcommittee, Mr. McHugh, and all the members of the Committee for their support of my legislation and their willingness to expedite its consideration by the House. There are no greater friends to our troops in the field then Chairmen Hunter and McHugh and the members of their Committees.

This is a law that has been on the books since 1958 for hospitalized officers and since 1981 for enlisted personnel. I only learned about it late this summer from my wife Beverly, who spends considerable time visiting with injured soldiers, sailors, Marines, airmen, and Coast Guardsmen at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center and the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda. A family member of a Marine reservist who had to have a part of his foot amputated brought it to her attention.

This law is a serious affront to those injured in battle. Upon being discharged from the hospital, our enlisted personnel and officers are actually served with a bill to pay for their ``subsistence'' while in the hospital. The current daily rate for these charges is $8.10. For those who pass through more than one hospital on their way to recovery, they are served with multiple bills.

We learned about this from our visits with Staff Sergeant William L. Murwin, who spent 26 days in the hospital recovering from injuries incurred in Iraq. Sergeant Murwin is a reservist in the Marine Corps who was injured when a 10-year-old Iraqi dropped a grenade in the HUMVEE he was driving. As a result of the explosion, Sergeant Murwin is a partial amputee, having lost a large part of his foot.

Upon his discharge July 18th to return home to Nevada and his job as a sheriff's deputy, Sergeant Murwin was handed a bill from the hospital for $210.60 to pay for his food and subsistence. Beverly and I paid this bill for Sergeant Murwin because we consider it an injustice to ask those who have served us so courageously in Afghanistan and Iraq to pay for their food while hospitalized.

Legislation I introduced on September 4th, and which is cosponsored by 256 of my colleagues, amends current law to prohibit service members injured in combat or training from being billed for the food while hospitalized. It has been endorsed by a wide range of veterans service organizations including The Air Force Sergeants Association, AMVETS, the Association of the United States Army, The Enlisted Association of the National Guard, The Fleet Reserve Association, The Military Officers Association of America, The Military Order of the Purple Heart, The Naval Reserve Association, and The Reserve Officers Association of the United States, among others.

Upon learning about these hospital charges, I researched the issue and found that Congress initiated the system of charging for subsistence costs for officers who were hospitalized in 1958 under Public Law 85-861. The 97th Congress amended this law in 1981 with Public Law 97-22 to include enlisted service members. Although I can find no one who claims responsibility for this legislation, I have found in the five weeks since introducing my legislation overwhelming support for its immediate repeal.

To end this injustice to our injured troops, I included my legislation in the conference report on the Fiscal Year 2004 Defense Appropriations Bill, which the House and Senate approved last month and President Bush signed into law on September 30th. Being that it was included in an appropriations bill, that provision only extends through Fiscal Year 2004. The legislation we consider today will make the repeal permanent.

Mr. Speaker, this is a long overdue correction to our statutes. No one wants to see these men and women have to write a check for their hospital stay, least of all the staff of our Nation's military hospitals. I have personally talked with the senior staff at our major military hospitals both here and in Germany and they all support this legislation and say that not only is the collection of these checks an insult to our troops but it is more of an administrative burden than it is worth.

We all agree that we should be honoring and thanking those in uniform for their service to the cause of peace and freedom, not billing them for their food. And we should be doing all we can to help them recover from their injuries, not ask them to write a check to the U.S. Government upon their discharge from the hospital to begin their period of convalescence.

It is my hope that my colleagues in the House will join in supporting this legislation today as a fitting tribute to all those who serve so valiantly and unfortunately have returned home injured, missing limbs, and in many cases being permanently disabled. It is the least we can do for our Nation's keepers of peace and defenders of freedom.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2998) to amend title 10, United States Code, to exempt certain members of the Armed Forces from the requirement to pay subsistence charges while hospitalized, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 2998, the bill under consideration.

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

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

Mr. McHugh. Mr. Speaker, we are here today through the attention, diligence, and concern of a single individual, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young). The very effective and very dedicated chairman of the Committee on Appropriations has brought this, I think, very not just unnecessary but distasteful provision in our laws to our attention, and we are here today under the gentleman's leadership to reverse that.

This is a great example of what we do not know can hurt us, a provision that I do not believe that many Members were aware even existed; but again through the gentleman's attention and devotion, we are about to resolve and correct it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2998, a bill introduced by the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Young, to exempt service members receiving medical treatment in military hospitals for combat wounds from being charged for the cost of their meals while hospitalized.

I would like to commend the gentleman from Florida for bringing this bill to the attention of the House. I think it is important that my colleagues understand the personal side of this story because it is so characteristic of Chairman Young.

The need for this legislation became apparent to the Chairman during a visit that he and his lovely wife Beverly made to Walter Reed Army Medical Center and Bethesda Naval Hospital to provide comfort and support to the personnel wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan, and their families. While visiting with one of the wounded, he was made aware of a legal requirement for hospitalized service members to repay their basic allowance for subsistence to compensate the government for the meals they received.

What Chairman Young immediately recognized was that the authors of the law requiring this payment did not contemplate that service members wounded in combat would be subjected to the same requirement right along with the member who had received routine treatment. He understood that America would not want its combat wounded to be confronted with a food bill when they departed the hospital.

It is the Chairman's nature to look after the welfare of our fighting men and women and to correct injustice when he encounters it. In looking out for the troops, he was also looking out for each member of this House. He knew that the right thing to do was to ensure that those wounded in combat or combat-like activities must not be bothered with a bill for their meals. For that, all the members of the House owe the Chairman a debt of gratitude.

The Chairman first took out his check book and personally paid the bill for the service member who had brought this issue to his attention. He then took action to include a provision in the Defense Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2004 to ensure that an immediate fix was put into place. I am proud to say that today we will follow Chairman Young's leadership and make that temporary fix a permanent change to the law.

Again, I commend Chairman Young for this bill and thank him for his diligence in protecting the interests of our service members.

I urge my colleagues to vote yes on H.R. 2998.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the author and the motivator behind this very worthy piece of legislation.

(Mr. Young of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member of the Total Force Subcommittee, who is always a gentleman and very cooperative.

I have a prepared statement that I will enter in its entirety into the Record, but I wanted everyone for the record to know and to reflect on the reality, and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) is far too modest and far too much of a gentleman to point it out. He said it came to his attention. It did come to his attention.

What he did not mention, and I am not surprised that he did not mention, is that this gentleman, I think in part because he is a Member of Congress but I know mostly because he is such a deep, concerned and caring individual, in tandem with his lovely wife, Beverly, who is also deeply concerned and has headed up a program that is concerned about our veterans and about our men and women in uniform, have for years now paid visits to those brave men and women who have been wounded in service to this country. In fact, I learned about some of the wounded from the 10th Mountain Division, a division that I proudly represent from northern New York, who were in treatment at Walter Reed from the gentleman from Florida's (Chairman Young) visitation there.

For years he and his wife have quietly gone there, giving aid and comfort to individuals just to let them know that others care. And how it came to his attention is that, number one, in visiting with one of these young heroes, he heard about their being wounded and then heard about the bill that this young hero was presented with.

What he also did not happen to mention either was the fact that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) was so offended and outraged, as well he might have been, that he and his wife wrote a check out of their personal funds for several hundred dollars to pay for that young man's bill for the food that he received while he was trying to recover from what was a partial amputation from his battlefield wounds.

This is a reflection of this man, who all of us have the honor and opportunity to serve with him understand so clearly is a caring, concerned individual and the kind of individual, as his partner is as well, Beverly, whom we are proud to call a colleague and honored and deeply appreciative of the fact that we can call him friend.

So this was not just something that came in a letter. It was not just something on a chance visit that he happened to hear about. This was a continuing pilgrimage by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and his wife, Beverly, to visit our wounded as they have done repeatedly year in and year out, not for pride or glory, not to put out press releases, but because they care. I think it is important for the record to show that, what an honorable man this individual is and how he and his wife brought this incredibly wrong provision to our attention.

I again thank the gentleman from Arkansas for that opportunity for me to say at this moment those comments in respect and admiration of the sponsor of this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to a gentleman from the great State of Nevada (Mr. Porter), who has the opportunity to represent the hero that I mentioned that the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) and his wife encountered, a brave young man now struggling with his recovery.

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

Once again, let me thank the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder), my partner on the Total Force Subcommittee, for his leadership and assistance but most of all again the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) for his leadership, his insight, and his continuing concern.

This is something that we need to fix; and, fortunately, because of the efforts of the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young), we have the opportunity to do it today. I certainly urge all of our colleagues to join us in supporting this very worthy measure.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California and the gentleman from California for this amendment which would provide additional equipment to our troops and still leave our U.S. inspections team with adequate resources for the search. But there is a simple way for the United States to supplement our search efforts by bringing back the highly trained U.N. troops to help in the effort. We have all said the international community should share in the burden and share in the cost. We have an opportunity right now. The U.N. has a team of over 354 inspectors on the ground, trained, ready to go on short notice. What would it cost the United States? Nothing. They are paid for through the U.N. dues. They can also supplement our effort in another way. They can bring us something that money cannot buy, which is credibility. The fact of the matter is that this administration has lost much of its credibility with respect to claims it made of weapons of mass destruction.

If we want the international community and the American people to have faith in the findings, it is important that we bring in an independent inspection team to join our efforts. Only then can we convince the international community that any findings they make are legitimate and unbiased.

So I thank the gentlewoman for offering this important amendment. It is a win-win.

Mr. Chairman, we have an opportunity to immediately obtain the help of the international community in sharing the burden and cost of some of our efforts in Iraq.

As part of his $87 billion request, President Bush has asked for an additional $600 million to pay for our team of weapons inspectors in Iraq--known as the Iraq Survey Group--so that they may continue their search for weapons of mass destruction. This team of 1,200 inspectors, led by David Kay, has searched for WMD in Iraq for many months now. The President's request would increase that team to 1,400 inspectors.

I had an amendment prepared would allow us to greatly reduce the costs to the American taxpayer of conducting that search and dramatically increase the credibility of any findings made by the inspectors. The Republican majority refused to allow that amendment to come to a vote. I am pleased that Rep. Tauscher has offered this amendment. It provides for better equipment for our troops and leaves $300 million for our inspection team. We can supplement our team by bring back the U.N. inspectors. The President should immediately invite the existing team of United Nations' inspectors--known as UNMOVIC--to participate in the search for WMD in Iraq. The U.N. has a pool of inspectors who have 12 years of experience investigating Iraq's programs and many of whom speak Arabic. According to its most recent report, UNMOVIC has a roster of 354 trained experts available to serve in Iraq at short notice. This important resource should be put to use, allowing us to reduce the size and costs of our team of inspectors.

What would it cost us to engage these trained experts? Nothing. The costs of UNMOVIC are borne by the United Nations and paid for through the dues of the member nations.

Engaging the U.N. weapons inspectors in the search for WMD would also get us something that money can't buy--credibility. With respect to the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the Bush Administration has lost its credibility with the American people and has undermined American credibility in the international community. Before the war, our Secretary of State told the United Nations that the Iraqis were attempting to import nuclear weapons material from Africa. The U.N. inspectors reviewed the evidence and determined the claims were based on forged documents. The U.S. conceded the point and, worse, it turns out that agencies within the U.S. government had already questioned the veracity of the documents. Our Secretary of Defense told the world that we knew the location of the weapons of mass destruction. We now know that was untrue. In the aftermath of the war, the President claimed that two mobile trailers found in Iraq were evidence of a biological weapons program. Our inspection team has recently had to retreat from that claim. Again and again, Administration officials from the President on down have made false claims about Iraqi WMD. Even the Economist magazine, which had been a booster of the war, has stated that the Bush Administration is seen around the world as having its own arsenal of WMD--Wielders of Mass Deception.

The only way to restore confidence in the search for WMD is to bring in an impartial team of international inspectors. David Kay, the leader of our team, is stuck in a fundamental contradiction. He wears two hats, serving as both fact finder and salesman for the Administration. No matter how high his personal integrity, this dual role undermines the credibility of any findings his team may make.

It is critical to the integrity of the process that independent U.N. weapons inspectors be invited to participate in the search and given

the opportunity to independently evaluate any claims made by David Kay and the Iraq Survey Group. The American people should not be asked to spend an additional $600 million to fund a search that is widely perceived to be an effort to provide cover for an Administration that has lost its credibility on this issue at home and abroad.