Providing for 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.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from California yielding me time, and I want to thank him for his leadership, as well as the Chairman of the Full Committee, for his leadership on this bill.

Mr. Chairman, the total amount of this supplemental appropriation bill is over $86 billion. The foreign operations chapter totals $21.071 billion. That is $221 million less than the President's request. My remarks today will be on that part of the bill.

Mr. Chairman, let me first say that I strongly support the objectives the President seeks to achieve with this supplemental request for Iraq and Afghanistan. This supplemental bill supports our men and women in uniform and it provides reconstruction resources to stabilize and improve conditions in those countries that will enable us to bring our troops home soon. These reconstruction funds are essential to achieving our national security and our foreign policy objectives and to defeating terrorism. This portion of the supplemental is essential to providing for a more stable and a more peaceful world.

I want to applaud Ambassador Bremer and the men and women in our Coalition Provisional Authority and various Federal agencies that are part of our U.S. team for their dedicated service under the most difficult of circumstances. The task they and their counterparts in Afghanistan have before them amounts to no less than the creation of an entire nation, with all its attendant institutions and infrastructure. This is a daunting task, and they deserve our bipartisan support to complete it.

I think my colleagues recognize that our objectives will not be achieved quickly, and the financial costs will be great. Even so, the costs of reconstruction efforts may seem large, but they are small compared to the costs of failure. We cannot, we must not, fail.

Mr. Chairman, we must learn from history, as several have already said on this floor. After the First World War, we retreated as our allies required reparations and we helped to create economic chaos in Germany.

After the Second World War, the Marshall Plan and our efforts in Japan led to stability and to global economic growth, a very different outcome. The investments made then and in our defense capabilities ultimately led to our victory over communism in the Cold War.

The Greatest Generation, as it is sometimes called, understood the importance of economic and political reconstruction in Europe and Japan. It shouldered the costs of the Marshall Plan, some $13 billion, or about 5 percent of our gross domestic product at that time. In this age of terrorism, the stakes could be just as great for our security. By way of comparison, this $21 billion for reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan represents less than one-fifth of one percent of our GDP today.

Mr. Chairman, we must get this right. We cannot allow Iraq to become a failed state, to disintegrate into several states that foment terrorism and instability. We must not repeat mistakes, such as were made in the last century, when within the space of a single generation, we sent the sons and younger brothers of First World War veterans to the same battlefields in Europe.

These funds must be considered an investment, an investment in security both in the region and on American soil, and a responsibility. We must not confront, a generation in the future, with the terrible knowledge that we removed two tyrants, only to leave vacuums into which their cousins in tyranny would return.

The needs are great. But, just as John Taber, the chairman of the House Committee on Appropriations in 1947, led Congressional scrutiny of the Truman administration's Marshall Plan request, our committee, led by the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) and this House, has a responsibility to review the details of this reconstruction effort, and the Committee on Appropriations and this House also have a responsibility to ensure that taxpayer dollars are used efficiently and in a process that is transparent. I know my colleagues take that responsibility seriously.

Since the Committee on Appropriations received the President's request, we have held several hearings and numerous meetings to examine it. The bill before the House represents reductions of almost $1.7 billion in programs in Iraq, and increases in programs for Afghanistan and Pakistan of almost $600 million. We also have some $858 million to support the Coalition Provisional Authority, or CPA, as it is called, that was not included in the foreign operations portion of this request.

We have assigned the highest priority for projects that can be implemented and executed during 2004, or that are not likely to be funded by others. The resulting bill is a balanced approach to supporting a complex, crucial mission in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it provides much-needed emergency appropriations to further the fight against terror in other countries.

Let me highlight a few of the parts of the bill before us.

There is $18.65 billion for Iraq. That is a reduction of $1.7 billion from the President's request. $3.2 billion is for security and law enforcement. The sooner we build strong security and police forces that have respect for the rule of law, the sooner we can bring our men and women home. But this job cannot be left half done. These funds will add thousands of Iraqi police and security personnel to keep peace on their streets, to bring their own criminals to justify, to control their own borders.

There is nearly $10 billion to provide reliable drinking water, sanitation and electricity service. I would note with considerable joy that Iraq's electricity levels have recently exceeded prewar levels for the first time, but this accomplishment is tenuous. Many plants rely more on improvisation than on fuel to keep running. Virtually all generating facilities are in desperate need of repair or replacement.

Improperly treated solid waste threatens drinking water, and water- borne illnesses continue to plague Iraq's population. Correcting these problems will entail costly, long-term investments, but they are investments that will contribute directly to development, to peace and stability.

Finally, this recommendation includes $2.1 billion for rebuilding and improving Iraq's oil infrastructure. These funds will not only repair the damage done by saboteurs and years of underinvestment and neglect, but will improve security for pipelines, refineries and drilling stations. The Iraqi Governing Council and its ministers will rely on oil sales for salaries and operations, including the funds required for thousands of security positions added by this supplemental. As the many acts of sabotage have already demonstrated, Iraq's reliance on the United States and the international community will continue as long as its oil production is hampered. The committee includes a specific account for the operating expenses of the Coalition Provisional Authority, as I mentioned earlier.

The CPA is overseeing one of the most costly and important foreign assistance programs in U.S. history. Its operating costs should be treated in the same manner as those of any other major implementing agency of foreign assistance such as USAID. This separate account does nothing to change or reduce the authority of the Secretary of Defense with regard to the CPA.

Not included in this bill, however, is $1.7 billion for a variety of programs which were requested by the administration. These include items that, in our view, cannot possibly be completed over the next 15 months, or that are not needed to meet an emergency, or that could better be completed by an international organization or other group. For instance, we have eliminated $400 million for two high-security prisons. We have left in $100 million for one prison, and $99 million for rehabilitating existing structures.

Also not included is a $150 million down payment on a $700 million state-of-the-art children's hospital in Basra. Children's health is very important, but we have put $100 million of that into rehabilitating some of the clinics in Iraq.

Let me turn for one moment to Afghanistan. It is a country at a critical stage. We have to root out the Taliban and these other criminals from the bordering region of Pakistan, and we have to have the support of the Afghan public to succeed. In this bill we include $1.24 billion for Afghanistan. That is $400 million over the President's request. The level includes an additional $297 million to support the development and outfitting of the Afghan National Army, $191 million for roads, $95 million for electricity, and $69 million for elections and improved governance.

I know there is much discussion about whether these funds for Iraq should be direct assistance or extended as credit to be repaid later as a loan. I believe it would be a huge mistake to make these funds as a loan instead of as direct assistance as the bill provides.

The greatest burden for all of us is the knowledge that decisions we make as Congressmen and Congresswomen directly put the lives of Americans at risk. Already, men and women from many of the districts represented in this body have died in Iraq and Afghanistan. I firmly believe the supplemental bill as reported will go a long way to rebuilding a stable, free Iraq and Afghanistan and will support other initiatives to make Americans safer at home and abroad.

Mr. Chairman, I am sure we will hear from Members who say they support the military portions of this bill, but not the reconstruction. I do not agree that such a distinction can be made or should be made. During our first hearing on reconstruction, I asked our commander of CENTCOM, General John Abizaid that question, and to conclude, I would like to quote his answer. He said, ``There is no strictly military solution to the problems we face. It requires that we move together on the political front, the economic front, on the reconstruction front in a manner that is synchronized and coordinated. If we don't do that, I do not believe we can be successful. So you can pay the military to stay there, but you are only paying us to stay forever.''

Mr. Chairman, General Abizaid's remarks are right on the mark. We need to support the President in carrying out foreign policy initiatives just as firmly as we support our troops on the ground. We need to build a stable and a peaceful Iraq and Afghanistan, because it is the right thing to do and because it is in America's national security interests.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition to the Obey substitute amendment. I have the greatest respect for the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). He does very serious work not only in the full committee but also with the Foreign Operations subcommittee. His devotion to our international posture in the world and to foreign affairs is genuine. Having said that, I do disagree with the approach of this amendment.

This amendment aims to be a complete substitute. But, it really completely turns, I think, what we are trying to do in terms of our foreign policy direction in Iraq on its head. At the end of my remarks in the opening part of this general debate, I quoted General Abizaid, who made it clear in testimony before our subcommittee that the work of the reconstruction is every bit as important as what we do for the military. The Obey amendment would take and convert much of the reconstruction money and would put some of it into additional funds for the military.

Mr. Chairman, we can argue whether or not there should be additional funds there or not, whether or not we were adequate in the efforts that we made in terms of giving the right support to our troops there or not. I think that this legislation today, this supplemental bill that is before us today, does address that issue, however, on the military side of the equation. What we have attempted to do here is to balance that with roughly one-fifth of this total amount, $20 billion, going to reconstruction in Afghanistan and Iraq. I think that that amount is a relatively small amount and a very much-needed amount.

Now, let me turn to the issue of whether or not this money, or even half of it, as the gentleman's amendment suggests, whether this amount should be done in the form of a grant or whether it should be done in the form of a loan. We have heard, and we will continue to hear today, a very extensive debate on an amendment that deals with the issue of whether or not the funds that we provide under this heading should be in the form of a grant or a loan. But let me just say that for the purposes of this debate here on this substitute, in my view, the arguments against the loan are very persuasive.

We do not have a legal government that exists in Iraq now. By doing it through the World Bank, we may get around that, although the World Bank and the president of the World Bank made clear in a meeting with me that the World Bank is not in any position to loan the amount of money we are talking about here today at any time in the near future. So we would really be saying that we are not going to make this money available at all for reconstruction to Iraq. And I think it is very clear this money is needed and it is needed within the next year.

Now, will it all be spent in the next 12 months? No. But can most of it be obligated? I believe it can. And that is why our subcommittee worked hard to go through this line by line, to take out those items we did not think could be obligated in the course of the next year. I think what we have come up with is a carefully crafted bill that covers those items which are most needed and which can be used.

The second reason that we ought to oppose a loan agreement is that it sends the wrong signal to our allies as well as sending the wrong signal to Iraq and to the Middle East. It says to our allies who are going to the donors conference in Madrid next week, it says to them that while we are asking you to give cash, we are giving ours in the form of a loan. It is the wrong signal to send. To the Iraqis it says we came into this country, and now we are going to loan you money that is going to go to hire American contractors and you are going to pay them back. It is the wrong signal to send.

Mr. Chairman, I just believe this is not the right approach to dealing with what is a very complicated, complex issue. We need to give the maximum flexibility to the President of the United States to carry out the purpose of the Foreign Assistance Act and our foreign policy, consistent, I might add, with our obligations as a Congress to make sure that we provide proper oversight of the spending of these funds. The bill that we have before us today does do that. It does require reporting. It requires regular reporting. It requires there be notification of changes. It gives some flexibility to move money from one account to the other, but requires notification in order to accomplish that.

So we have, I think, balanced the needs of the President to be able to carry out the foreign policy of the United States with the need of Congress to provide the oversight that is its responsibility under article one of the Constitution.

The amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin is indeed a comprehensive amendment; and it is given, I know, with the best of ideas in mind of the gentleman from Wisconsin, but I think it is simply the wrong approach. It robs the President of his responsibility as well as the flexibility that he needs to carry out the purposes of the Foreign Assistance Act, and I think it would needlessly tie the President's hands in carrying out those responsibilities.

I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, if it is indeed voted on, though I believe a point of order lies against it. I think this is the wrong approach, and I would hope that we would not adopt this approach to this very important legislation.

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

Mr. Chairman, the amendment as I understand it here is designed to improve the quality of life for our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nobody can dispute the need to do so. However, my concern is obviously where the funds come from. The amounts that are taken here are all from various accounts that are devoted to the reconstruction in Afghanistan. One can argue it is relatively small amounts here and there, it is a couple of hundred million in this account, a couple of hundred million in that account, but when it comes to the reconstruction which is only 25 percent of the total amount of this supplemental bill, the amounts that are taken out of here are rather substantial. The amounts that are added in on the military side are not that large. But this cuts very deeply into what Ambassador Bremer and this administration and this United States and the Coalition Authority is trying very hard to do in Iraq, which is not only to make sure that the quality of life for our Armed Forces is adequate, but to improve the quality of life for the Iraqi citizens, to improve not just the material quality of life for the Iraqi citizens, but to improve the quality of governance life under which they live.

That is, to make sure that the institutions of democracy begin to take root in Iraq, that there is freedom for people to speak out, that there is freedom for those who are Shiites to practice their religion freely. That there is the ability of people to have electricity and water that is essential not only for their livelihoods but, in many cases, for their very lives. To be able to have the health care that they need. These items, where these reductions come from, would come from those accounts. It also comes out of the security. A very large part of this comes out of the security within Iraq.

Mr. Chairman, it is important to have the security for the United States military forces, but if we are going to bring our forces home as rapidly as possible, it is very important that we provide for the security within Iraq. That is, that the forces, the army and the national police forces in Iraq are able to be constituted as quickly as possible, stand on their own two feet and that they can substitute for the United States forces the security needs of Iraq. That is the only way in which we are going to be able to bring our troops home in a timely fashion.

And so this amendment, I think, is misdirected. On the one hand, it says we want to improve the quality of life for our forces in Iraq, but on the other hand, it cuts in a disproportionate way from the accounts that are necessary to get them out of there and to get them back with their families, in the United States with their families.

Mr. Chairman, I think that this is unfortunate, because on the one hand, it looks like it is a good thing to do to help the quality of life for our troops, and no one disputes that motive. But on the other hand by disproportionately taking from these categories, security, health care, electricity, the water and sanitation, the constitutional reconstruction needs in Iraq, by disproportionately taking from those accounts, we damage the ability of the Coalition Provisional Authority. We damage the ability of the United States. We damage the ability of our Armed Forces in Iraq to carry out the foreign policy objectives that we are trying to achieve and for our forces to be removed from Iraq as quickly as possible. We damage our ability to help the Iraqis take the responsibility for their own security and for running their own country.

This is the wrong approach, Mr. Chairman, and I hope that we will reject this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).

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

Mr. Chairman, as I listened to the debate and the arguments that were made by the gentleman from South Carolina and the gentleman from Virginia and the gentleman from Wisconsin, it occurs to me that the problem in this debate is it is as though it was taking place in some kind of vacuum, that the only thing we were talking about here was the amount of money that is in this bill for the reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan. It is as if the assertion is that we are not doing anything for our troops that are over there. Let us not neglect the fact that three-fourths of all the dollars that are in here, or the $67 billion, is for the military forces in Iraq and in Afghanistan. It is to replenish those accounts. It is to do exactly some of the things that the gentleman from Wisconsin just described to us a minute ago. It is not as though we were not cognizant of that, that we were not thinking about that when this bill was crafted by the administration and worked on in the Committee on Appropriations. But what the gentleman is suggesting is that more of the money should be going there. So as I said earlier, we are adding a relatively small amount to the military to help the quality of life there and taking a very large amount out of what is necessary for the reconstruction of Iraq.

Let me just give a few of the figures. Out of security and law enforcement, these are the people that we are asking to train them to replace our security forces. The amendment would take almost $900 million out of that account. For justice and public safety, the amendment would reduce about $180

million. Out of electricity, the gentleman from Wisconsin suggests that we would reduce that by $1,530,000,000.

When we were in Iraq in August and we were in Basra, we had a briefing by the commanding general, the British commanding general, who talked about how the temperature had gotten up in August to 130 degrees. The electricity system just simply collapsed under those circumstances. They were without any electricity in Basra for 4 days, and that is when the riots took place. People went out in the street and started throwing rocks out of sheer frustration. I would be doing that. You would be doing that. And that put the safety, in this case of British soldiers, and the same is true in Baghdad and elsewhere where American soldiers are located, put the safety of those soldiers at risk. We need to get that electric system up, and we need to get it running.

Let me repeat this again. General Abizaid said we cannot separate the reconstruction dollars from what we are doing for the military. They are just as important. It is just as much a part of the security of the forces that we have in Iraq as is every dime that we give for ammunition or for any weapons or for clothing or for food for our troops over there. The reconstruction dollars are part and parcel of the security of our forces over there. I am paraphrasing what General Abizaid said. I quoted it directly a few minutes ago in my general remarks.

Let me just close with this statement, Mr. Chairman: If we are concerned about the quality of life of our American forces that are in Iraq, we do no favors to the quality of life of those troops by keeping them there longer and by denying the reconstruction effort and the constitution of the security forces in Iraq that will get our troops out of Iraq. If the Members want to improve the quality of life of our troops, bring them home; and the fastest way to do that is to improve the security of the Iraqis to allow them to take back the country and allow our forces to leave.

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

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Chairman, those of us who have served in the military know the meaning of the old term ``hurry up and wait.'' Well, that is what we have got here, a hurry up and wait amendment. It says we are going to withhold 50 percent of the money that the President seeks on an urgent basis until we know how the first 50 percent worked out.

If between $18 billion and $20 billion in reconstruction aid is needed to get our troops back from Iraq, to put Iraq on its feet, to be able to get our troops out of there, and I believe that a majority of this House is prepared to provide that much money, this amendment says to our troops over there in Iraq, do not plan on coming home for a while, because we are going to see how this first half works out. We will see whether or not we get a democratically-elected government, how it gets established in Iraq. I guess if we want to be facetious, we could say what happens if they decide to have a recall election, if there are some hanging chads over there?

But the reality is, not speaking facetiously, that the return of our troops and the utilization of the urgently needed second $9 billion to $10 billion for reconstruction under this amendment would be put on hold until there is a democratically-elected government. So we are, in other words, putting ourselves in the hands of the Iraqis to decide when our forces are going to be able to come home.

The amendment gives priority consideration to various sectors of reconstruction in the first half that it allows to be spent as a grant. It says it gives priority consideration to uses for security, for power, for oil, for public works, for water, for transportation and telecommunication. Well, those items are 80 percent of what is in the $20 billion that we have got in this bill. So which of those priority items are going to be done and which ones really are not priority items, or how much of them are not really priority items? Which of these things do we decide are really not priorities until we have a democratically-elected government in Iraq?

The fact is, these are important, and we need to move these things forward now, and we need to do it on an orderly basis.

While not all of this money is going to be spent during this first year, the vast majority will be. That is what our subcommittee looked at very carefully, how much of this money can be obligated in the next 15 months, and I believe the vast majority of it can be obligated during that time. That provides for an orderly flow of the contracts.

One of the reasons we are considering this supplemental bill now is because many of us pushed with the administration to get it up here so that in January when the contracts run out of the existing funds that were in the last supplemental bill, we will not have a break in the construction process. What would happen if we were not able to go forward with the water projects, the sanitation projects, the electric projects, the projects to restore the oil production in Iraq. The worst thing we could have is to have a break in the reconstruction process. And yet this is exactly what this amendment would do. ``Once we see what happens with the first half, then we will decide how to proceed with the second half.''

The supplemental bill that you have before you, talking about the reconstruction part of this, is comprehensive. It addresses security, such as border enhancement. It is needed to get the oil industry up, to get the industry operating, and all the aspects of long-term recovery are dependent on whether or not the Iraqis are able to get their oil production up so they will have the funds they need to do these things themselves.

It fixes the transportation infrastructure in the Port of Umm Qasr. It addresses education, and helps the Iraqis deal with investigating the crimes of Saddam Hussein against humanity.

Mr. Chairman, I want to reiterate as to what the supplemental package is all about. It is about the strategic interests of the United States. It is about creating a peaceful and stable Iraq. It is about creating a more peaceful Middle East. It is very much about fighting terrorism. But, most of all, this is about winning the war, winning the war against terrorism, and it is about the safety of our troops, the men and women in uniform.

I know I have said it several times on this floor, and I have quoted him and paraphrased him several times, but I think it is worth repeating, and I am sure I will do it more times today. General Abizaid in testimony before our subcommittee said that you can pay the U.S. military, but you will be paying them to stay in Iraq forever without fully providing the direct assistance for reconstruction.

What this supplemental appropriation is designed to do is not keep our forces there forever, but to find a way to get them home, by saying to the Iraqis we are going to train your security forces, your military forces, your police forces, so that you can take over those responsibilities from us. If we say that we are not going to do those responsibilities now, we are saying to ourselves that we are going to keep our military forces there for a longer period of time, and the longer we delay

with the construction, the longer our troops will be there.

If you want to bring our troops home, let us move on with the reconstruction, and let us oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), a member of the committee.

Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the point of order and I reserve my time.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, we have had some very general discussion about this issue of loans. I just want to go through this amendment kind of piece by piece so that people understand what we are talking about were this

amendment to be adopted. And I believe we will sustain our point of order against it.

But this deals with, let us make it clear, it is dealing only with that part, and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) has made this clear, that is the reconstruction for the IRRF money, as it is called, in Iraq.

And it says that 50 percent of the total amounts of the roughly $20 billion, 50 percent of the amounts appropriated under this heading ``shall be withheld from obligation and expenditure until,'' and then there are several conditions. The first condition is the money will be withheld until the initial 50 percent of the funds appropriated has been obligated--giving priority consideration to emergency purposes of security, electric sector infrastructure, oil infrastructure, public works, water resources, transportation and telecommunications infrastructures, and other emergency needs.

Well, Mr. Chairman, 80 percent of the total amount of $20 billion is for those items. So the question legitimately raised, I think, here is which 50 percent of that is a priority and which part is not a priority?

The second condition is the money will be withheld, until the President prepares and transmits to the Committees on Appropriations of the House and of the Senate a report that describes the programs, projects, and activities that have been financed by the initial funds and includes a detail analysis of the extent to which such programs, projects, and activities are, or have been, successful.

Mr. Chairman, that means that we have to have a, basically, a completion of the project. You cannot tell us immediately when you start a project whether it has been successful. You have to have a completion of that project. Then you prepare an analysis of it. And then you can release the second half of the money.

So there is necessarily a very large gap in here. All of the 50 percent has to be done and all of it has to be analyzed before you can release the second half.

And the third condition, Mr. Chairman, is the 50 percent is withheld until the President determines and certifies to Congress that a democratically-elected government in Iraq has been established.

So, Mr. Chairman, we are going to say that our ability to finish this job in Iraq and our ability to get the security forces in place in Iraq is going to depend, and the ability therefore, to get our troops home from Iraq, is going to depend on whether or not we are successful in getting a democratically-elected government there.

Mr. Chairman, I just would suggest to you that I think this is not the right approach, that we ought to be doing everything we can as quickly as possible to get Iraqi security forces in place so that American troops can come home. And that means spending the money that is necessary to build the Iraqi Army, to build the Iraqi national police, to build the oil and the electric infrastructure, to put the security forces that guard those facilities in place. All of that has to be done as quickly as possible so that American military forces can get out of those duties that every day puts them in harm's way as they are in the inner sections of Baghdad, as they are beside these facilities around the country. That ought to be the responsibility of the Iraqi people to do that, but it cannot be done until we spend the money to train the people, to equip them, to arm them and to get them out there to do this.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), a distinguished member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt), a distinguished member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 8 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, my grandmother was a salty woman who originally came from Maine and settled in Wisconsin. She said once to my sister, ``Look, Kathy, just because you want to get married, doesn't mean you have to say yes to the first idiot who walks through the door.'' I think we all know that is true.

That is the same principle that we ought to apply when we review administration requests to spend money. Just because we want to do something, does not mean that the Congress has to just swallow willy- nilly the first slap-dash, sloppy, naive package that is sent down to us. The Congress has the right and an obligation to use its judgment and to be selective.

It was suggested a couple of moments ago by one of the speakers that, in essence, whether you vote yes or no on this package is a measure of whether or not you want to oppose terrorism or not. Absolute baloney. There is not a Member of this House who does not want to fight terrorism.

Less than a week after 9/11, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and I pushed through this House a $40 billion package to respond to terrorism, and, if I recall, that package passed virtually unanimously. We then went on to try to get the White House to increase its budget for homeland security items so we could strengthen protection in our ports, strengthen protection of the airways and strengthen protection afforded by our first responders in our local communities all across this country. The President threatened to veto that extra money. Nobody suggested he was soft on terrorism when he did that. He had a different view of how that money should be used than we did. He wanted to use it for tax cuts instead of homeland security. That is his right. I did not happen to agree with it.

We spent $60 billion on a package directed at our activities against Iraq just a few months ago, and yet, in spite of the maximum flexibility we gave the administration, we still find out today that there are 40,000 soldiers who were not given the Kevlar linings to their flak jackets. So, in other words, they did not have the body armor that they needed when they went into combat.

We also find out that the Pentagon, the civilian leadership of the Pentagon, in its infinite wisdom, did not manage affairs in such a way that would deliver all of the electronic jammers that were necessary so that our troops would stop being blown up by remotely detonated bombs.

We also discovered that, despite all of that money that we gave them, they did not provide the Kevlar blankets for the Humvees, so they were getting blown up on the roadbeds.

Now, we discover that 80 percent of American troops in Iraq still do not have access to anything but putrid water, so whole units get dysentery.

So with all due respect to one of the previous speakers, we have a right, and indeed an obligation, to exercise our judgment.

Every dollar that we spend on this request is a dollar that will not be spent on education, will not be spent on health care, will not be spent to modernize our own electrical grid, will not be spent on community development, will not be spent for any other domestic purpose. So if we are going to deny funding for those programs, we had doggone well better know that this money is going to be used for the best possible purpose, in the wisest and smartest possible way.

That is the issue here, not a measure of someone's patriotism or their judgment or their dedication to the antiterrorist fight. If someone were to suggest otherwise on this floor today, that would be demagoguery not worthy of institution. So I hope that does not happen.

What we have an obligation to do today is to ask whether this package, as presented, does as much as it should to support our troops and allow them to return home safely. I do not believe it does.

Does it do as much as it should to restore the readiness of U.S. military to respond to future crises in the Middle East, or any other part of the world? In my view, it does not.

Does it provide Iraq with the right kind of assistance, or will the principal beneficiaries be the large multinational corporations who charge an arm and a leg for services that can be delivered for a dime on the dollar in Iraq by other people? I do not think it does provide enough protections.

Does this package place a fair share of burden on American taxpayers vis-a-vis taxpayers from other countries? I do not believe it does.

Most of all, is it not gutless for this institution to refuse to pay for this package, rather than charging the bill to our kids?

Before we prattle on about ``shared sacrifice,'' I think we ought to see whether we are really willing to ask anybody to sacrifice, except the people in the military, who are stuck with discombobulated lives because of mixed up troop rotations, the Reserve and Guard being told they have to serve another year.

What is wrong with asking that at least we pay for this package, so that we can save $4 billion a year in interest payments that can be used on deserving and needy programs here at home? Nothing is wrong with that, and yet the majority will not grant us the right to even offer that amendment so we can get a vote on it.

That is what is wrong with this House, that is what is wrong with this package. And that is why I intend to vote no, until the administration does come to us and tell us two things: (1) Gives us an accounting of the $60 billion they have already spent, they have not done so; and (2) gives us a clear understanding of what their plans are for spending on this operation for the next 5 years. They have steadfastly refused to provide that, and, until they do, this Congress has a responsibility to exercise the only power that our Founding Fathers gave us that means a whit, the power of the purse.

We have an obligation to our taxpayers and our constituents to know what we are doing and to know what the government is going to be doing with their tax dollars. We do not know enough at this point to provide this money carte blanche. When we do, I will be happy to vote for it, but not until.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the minority whip.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), a member of the Subcommittee on Defense of the House Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/4\ minutes.

Mr. Chairman, once you fire the bullet, you do have an obligation to clean up the mess; and that is why I certainly agree with virtually every task in Iraq that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) just described.

I do not agree with those who believe that we should just provide a military package and not provide a reconstruction package. That would be, in my view, irresponsible. But having said that, I think the problem is that the package that is being proposed is insufficient in terms of what it does to help the troops; and it is wasteful in terms of what it does in Iraq, and badly through out to boot. That is why we have been asking questions of the administration about their future plans.

The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) says we need to finance an exit strategy. The problem is we have no exit strategy. Until we do, we are going to be floundering and we will have a tremendous number of American lives disrupted. So that is why I have come to a different conclusion on this specific package than the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young). I know that the gentleman inadvertently used some of his time, and I will be happy to yield him 1 minute so that the gentleman could add to his time for closing.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished minority leader.

Mr. Chairman, I offer a splendid amendment in the nature of a substitute.

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

Mr. Chairman, the administration has asked us to approve $87 billion in the second installment for Iraq. I understand the necessity for military appropriations and for a reconstruction package. I understand the necessity that they be tied together. But the majority has set up the debate in this House so that a single Member will be able to prevent a comprehensive amendment from being voted upon. That is the way they ensure a victory for their approach.

We are offering this amendment in hopes that the majority will not exercise its right to strike it from the floor, because we believe that if the Congress is going to spend $87 billion on this operation, that this amendment represents a better way to do it. It does more to support our troops. It does more to protect the taxpayers. It does more to restore balance between obligations on us and our allies.

First, it would scale back reconstruction funding by roughly one- third in order to force the administration to redesign its approach in Iraq so that more contracts will go to small indigenous companies and fewer to huge multinational corporations. I have already told the story about General Patreas who, when told by his own engineers that it would take $15 million to build a cement plant in Iraq, managed to get that plant built for $80,000 by using local ideas and local approaches. That is what we ought to be looking for.

Second, we convert half of the remaining funds from grants to loans by running them through the World Bank. This has three advantages. It internationalizes the burden because it will be matched with contributions from other countries on a two-to-one basis. Secondly, it insulates the contracting process from cronyism that can result if it is run by an agency that is responsive to political appointees in the executive branch. And thirdly, because of the way the World Bank can capitalize it, it will, in fact, deliver more assistance to Iraq on the ground at less cost to the taxpayers. It is patterned after a Senate amendment that has been promoted by Senator Hutchison.

We transfer $4.5 billion to support our troops. First, we add money to provide U.S. troops in Iraq with clean drinking water. Eighty percent of them now do not have it. That is a shame. It is a shameful indictment of the poor planning associated with this operation.

Secondly, we provide predeployment health and dental screening for Guard and Reserve forces. Right now, they have to pay it.

Thirdly, we extend health coverage for returning Guard and Reserve personnel from the existing 60-days that they are now entitled to, to 6 months.

Fourthly, we provide the full amount that the Services have requested to be used this year to refurbish military equipment that has been used and used up in Iraq. Without it, that equipment will be unusable for 2 years and our readiness to deal with other problems around the world will be substantially inhibited.

Fifth, we face up to General Shinseki's warning that we should not have a 12-division strategy if we only have a 10-division Army. The administration ignored that warning, and as a result, we are at least a division short. That is why Guard and Reserve forces have effectively been drafted for an extra year of service, and that is why regular Army troops have seen their rotation schedules obliterated. This amendment helps to fix that over time.

Most importantly, we try to pay for this operation. In the spirit of shared sacrifice, what we are asking is that we do not limit the sacrifice only to the troops in the field and their families. We are asking that we pay for it in the most fair way possible, by saying to the most prosperous of all Americans, the top 1 percent of the population, that we want to scale back the tax cut that they have just been given by the President and the Congress so that they will only get a $52,000 tax cut rather than $130,000 tax cut they would otherwise receive.

I would point out that if we follow that approach, we would also be able to save $4 billion a year in interest costs. That $4 billion is larger than all of the money that we will spend this year for Alzheimer's research, research on autism, breast cancer, ovarian cancer, prostate cancer, diabetes, Parkinson's, Lou Gehrig's disease and all kidney diseases combined.

It is a responsible amendment. I am amazed that, once again, the majority feels that the only way that they can win the debate is by denying us the opportunity to waive the same rules that they waived in bringing their approach to the floor.

This is an attempt to be more prudent with the taxpayers' money, more balanced in terms of responsibilities between us and our allies, and more responsive in terms of meeting the needs of the troops. It can neither be called a liberal nor a conservative amendment. It is a hard- headed approach to real problems; and I would urge the majority to, despite the fenced-in rule which they adopted, to allow us to at least have a vote on this proposition. If it does not have the merits to beat the majority party approach, then it will be defeated. If it does, it should be adopted. All we ask is for the opportunity to put this issue to a vote, Mr. Chairman.

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

Mr. Chairman, who has the right to close?

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time, and I will simply say two things.

We have heard a lot of talk about supporting the troops today. I would urge Members to simply put their vote where their mouths are. This amendment gives far more support to the troops before, during, and after their service than the committee bill or the administration plan.

Secondly, I would note the gentleman from Arizona said that he disagreed with the approach that I take in this amendment. That is his right. That is perfectly appropriate. All we are asking is at least let us vote on it.

For years, whenever spending propositions hit the floor, people would say, ``How are you going to pay for it?'' Well, we are showing you how we will pay for it. We are trying to pay for it. You are denying us the ability to pay for it if you object to our ability to bring this to a vote.

So I would ask the majority to forego the opportunity that it has given itself under the rules to wipe out this amendment without a vote, and at least let the House face this issue squarely and vote on it. This is, after all, supposed to be the greatest deliberative body in the world. This is a democracy. Let us act like it.

Point of Order

Mr. Chairman, I would simply say the minority leader said it was ironic that the rules of the House could be used in order to deny Members an opportunity to pay for whatever it was they were suggesting. I regret that. We could have faced this, if the Committee on Rules had given us the same courtesy in waiving rules that they gave to themselves. However, they did not; and so I, unfortunately, must concede the point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I would simply say that I know the chairman and Mrs. Chairman, as well, have spent considerable time focusing on this issue, and I appreciate that. We agree with the amendment and would urge support.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier, we have heard a lot of talk today about supporting the troops. This is an opportunity to do so. What this amendment does is increase by $3.6 billion funds that are not provided in the committee mark for quality-of-life items for the troops as well as other items reconstituting the force.

What we try to do, for instance, is first of all to correct the problem that we face with our troops not having clean water. Eighty percent of our troops in Iraq have to drink bad water. They get dysentery. The President's request contains only $15 million for such purposes. We try to provide an amount consistent with meeting the needs of all of the troops in that country. Secondly, we provide funding to allow Reservists to obtain medical and dental screening prior to activation. Right now, they have to pay for that themselves. Thirdly, we say that for troops returning from theater and returning to a normal, back-home life, that we will extend their coverage under the military health care program from the existing 60 days to 180 days. We also provide additional funding, $50 million, to cover the cost of increasing support for Reserve family assistance centers

to address domestic problems resulting from extended deployments. We also provide additional funds for prepaid phone cards for the troops in theater, $65 million. And we provide funds to fully cover service members' transportation while on R&R. Finally, we provide additional case managers for the VA and DOD joint Disabled Transition Assistance Program to enhance transition assistance for disabled service members.

In addition to that, as I indicated earlier, we have about a $20 billion task facing us to reconstitute and refurbish and replace the equipment that was used or used up in Iraq. We have almost half of our Army divisions with, at this point, equipment which is not up to full readiness standards. We need to correct that as soon as possible. The services asked for the full amount necessary for this year. The Department denied them a good share of the funds. We provide the full funding levels that were requested by the services.

Basically, Mr. Chairman, that is it. If you are for the troops, I, for the life of me, do not understand why people would not support this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

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

Mr. Chairman, we have been told that we cannot afford to cut back the reconstruction package, the $20 billion reconstruction package in Iraq, in order to fund these few additional services for our troops and to restore the readiness of our military units around the world.

Let me point out we are taking $3.6 billion out of the reconstruction program in order to fund these efforts. That still leaves us with $15 billion. That means that it still leaves us with a reconstruction package that will spend $650 for every Iraqi, $650. That means that we will be spending seven times as much per Iraqi as we spent on a per capita basis for the entire population of Europe in the Marshall Plan.

It is also a dead letter fact that Mr. Bremer is not going to be able to obligate $15 billion in the time frame that this bill envisages, and it is a fact that some of those contracts would not be finished for 5 years. Surely we recognize that even with this reduction, this assistance package on a per capita basis would be the most generous aid program in the history of the world.

What are we trying to use that money for? We are trying to provide water for the troops that will not make them sick. Is that too much to ask? Is there something wrong with our dedication to the war against terrorism if we are for that?

We also are trying to provide health and dental screening for Guard and Reserve personnel before they go into active service to do their duty, and what we are trying to say is just in case that when they were on active duty and got a health problem that is not going to show up for a few months, we are going to give them 6 months of coverage after they have done their duty and they are back home. Is that too much to ask? I know this Congress will not help provide health coverage for the 42 million Americans who do not have it, but can we not at least do it for these?

And then, lastly, we are asking for a little bit of money so that our soldiers can pick up a cell phone, so that they can pick up one of these, open it up, it is against the rules to use this on the House floor, but we want them to be able to pick up one of these, open up a cell phone and dial their family when they are lonely. That is what we are asking.

I think this amendment represents a far better balance of priorities than does the administration request or the committee package, and I respectfully and urgently ask for an ``aye'' vote for the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I also reserve a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today with a heavy heart. It is weighed down by the many peace and security challenges our nation faces in Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, Iran, Syria, Liberia, Colombia, Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, China and Taiwan, and India and Pakistan. It is weighed down by the humanitarian crises we face: famine, displaced persons, AIDS and other health care challenges. And it is also weighed down by the very serious challenges we face here at home: unemployment, budget deficits, the need for affordable health care, improving education for our kids, keeping our promises to our veterans, investing in our infrastructure, guaranteeing Social Security and Medicare, and protecting our homeland and our civil liberties.

I wish we had the ability to work on all of these challenges simultaneously. I wish our leaders in the executive branch and those of us here in Congress could give each of these challenges the focused attention needed to make significant progress.

I wish we had enough resources to pay for a war, rebuild two countries, fight the war on terrorism, stop nuclear proliferation, negotiate peace in the Middle East, stop the spread of AIDS, return refugees to their homes, ensure that every child in every country has food to eat and is vaccinated against preventable diseases. I wish at the same time we could get our economy growing and put people to work. I wish we could give everyone a tax cut without underfunding our health care, education, and homeland security, or borrowing from our retirement and leaving the bill for our children.

I have all of these wishes, but simply wishing will not make it so.

Our job is to listen to the American people as they talk about their needs and their desires, and then set and fund our nation's priorities. Our job is to keep our homeland safe. And our job is to protect our freedom and liberty.

Mr. Chairman, the war in Iraq is the wrong priority, conducted in the wrong way, at the wrong time.

We all were shocked and horrified by the attacks of September 11. All Americans faced a new sense of vulnerability, one that could find them here at home, out of the blue. It was natural for us to be afraid. Our reaction as Americans was to demand action. Our reaction as national leaders was to act to confront the threat and protect our homeland.

All Americans were united in the desire to seek justice by finding and punishing the perpetrators of September 11. The world came together in solidarity with our loss, working with us to find the perpetrators, to break up Al Qaeda, arrest its leaders, and to interrupt the flow of money to terrorists. It should have been crystal clear that fighting terrorism and protecting American security would require friends and allies; cooperation, not confrontation.

Yet, the Bush Administration instead engaged in a singled-minded drive to achieve its Iraq objectives at any cost, instead of developing a policy to deal with Iraq by working with our allies and the entire world community. It is particularly troubling that the very rationale used by the Bush Administration to try to win the endorsement of the United Nations Security Council--the urgent threat of Iraq's use of weapons of mass destruction--cannot now be verified. Some in the Bush Administration have even suggested that the imminent threat of WMDs was not the main reason for the war. The shifting justifications for war and the lack of WMD evidence undermines U.S. credibility around the world. If the intelligence that Colin Powell brought before the U.N. Security Council now appears inaccurate, how will future intelligence presented by the U.S. be received? Will it be believed?

Throughout our history, the United States has been viewed by the world as a beacon of freedom and a pillar of democratic principle. Following the devastation of World War II, the United States showed tremendous leadership as we created international institutions and a framework of international law to prevent war and to sustain and maintain peace. We were the leaders in promoting a world where conflicts could be resolved peacefully and cooperatively. While never perfect, this system of international institutions has been remarkably effective. The United States was seen as a constructive force in the world. Right now we are seen by many as a destructive force in the world. That is not the vision for America that I have, and it is not the vision that Americans have.

Many around the world are shocked and dismayed by the unilateral, confrontational approach that the Bush Administration has taken in the world arena. I share their concern. We must recognize the consequences in the world community of our rejection of Kyoto, of the International Criminal Court, of the treaty to ban land mines, our failure to ratify the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and the Convention to End All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and our own withdrawal from the ABM treaty. We must be mindful about how our criticism of the UN and NATO are heard throughout the world community. Calling longtime allies ``Old Europe'' is terribly counterproductive. The war in Iraq is seen against this larger backdrop.

I stand here today to urge this President and this Congress to return to our tradition of constructiveness rather than destructiveness. We should be builders rather than destroyers.

Before the war started, I wrote to President Bush asking a series of questions concerning possible U.S. military engagement in Iraq. One question asked was, ``what is the exit strategy and how do we know when the campaign has successfully concluded?'' I still have not received an answer to this critical question, nor have the American people.

In May, the President dramatically declared an end to major combat operations in Iraq. It may have made compelling television, but nearly 170,000 American troops are still in Iraq or the immediate region, facing attacks and wondering when they are coming home. No doubt, they are doing the best they can to carry out their mission. All Americans should be proud of their dedication, hard work and professionalism. We must give our troops every tool they need to protect their safety as well as provide them with every possible comfort during their incredible service in this military campaign.

The problem is that the military campaign continues with no end in sight. Since the end of ``major combat operations'' the Bush Administration has been reacting to events and improvising. It is becoming apparent that they still do not have a plan.

And they should have had a plan. Prior to the war, most experts were saying that military conquest was the easy part, rebuilding the peace was the challenge.

While I am very critical of the rosy scenarios painted by the Defense Department, purposely spread to allay the concerns of Americans about the costs and consequences of war, the real problem here is the lack of leadership. It is unacceptable to claim that events in Iraq could not have been anticipated. It is simply not true that the extent of damage to the electrical and water systems in Iraq were unknown. Prior to the war, the United Nations conducted a detailed assessment of Iraq's infrastructure which clearly delineated the problems and the requirements for repair and rebuilding. The report was unheeded.

There was planning for a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq. The State Department organized the ``Future of Iraq Project'' that brought together exiled Iraqis to develop detailed plans for Iraq's economy, security, and governance. A series of working groups completed these comprehensive plans. So what happened to the recommendations of the ``Future of Iraq Project?'' The first civilian in charge of post-war Iraq reconstruction, General Jay Garner, has said publicly that he was instructed to ignore those proposals.

It should be no surprise that so many American troops are still in Iraq attempting to maintain order and begin reconstruction of Iraqi society. Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki testified to Congress that ``several hundred thousand soldiers'' would be needed for a year or more. What did Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz say about General Shinseki's estimate? He testified that it was ``wildly off the mark.''

It should be no surprise that the costs of the war and reconstruction are running far higher than suggested by the Administration. When asked about the likely cost of a war with Iraq, then-Chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisors Lawrence Lindsay said it would cost between $100 million and $200 million. Budget Director Mitch Daniels and economic advisor Glenn Hubbard immediately said the cost would be much less. If we approve this $87 billion request, we'll be approaching $140 million so far. And with no plan, there is no end in sight.

Mr. Chairman, my heart is heavy today because the President of the United States is coming to this Congress and asking us to appropriate $87 billion to a policy without a plan and a military commitment without an exit strategy. The American people have so many questions about our mission in Iraq, but they have received so few answers.

I have no doubt that there has been progress in Iraq. Our servicemen and women are working hard to restore security in the streets. No-bid contractors are working on the electrical system and water treatment facilities. I have heard from Iraqis that progress is being made. But I have also heard their fears and concerns. Despite our best efforts, too many streets are unsafe for women to walk along. Jobs are scarce, leaving people with few options to earn a living. Gas lines are long and telecommunications are mostly inoperable. The problem in Iraq isn't that the stories of our successes are not getting out in American media. The problem is we're not making progress fast enough. No PR campaign will fix the electrical system, purify the water, make the streets safe, restore oil production, reconstitute a representative Iraqi government, create jobs, restore hope, or bring our troops home any sooner. Failure to convey a positive message is not the problem, the policy (or rather lack of policy) is the problem.

Emblematic of the policy failure is the $87 billion emergency supplemental spending request submitted by the Bush Administration. It contained essential funds to support our men and women involved in the military campaign, but even that amount was insufficient in crucial areas like bulletproof vests and spare parts for Bradley fighting vehicles and Humvees. At the same time, the Administration requested: $400 million to construct two new prisons, at a cost of $50,000 per bed; $20 million for a four-week business course at $10,000 per student; $100 million to enroll 100 five-person families in a witness protection program, at a cost of $200,000 per person; $100 million to finance 500 experts to investigate crimes against humanity, at a cost of $200,000 per person; $9 million to create zip codes and $4 million to create area codes; $100 million to build seven new model communities; and $900 million to import petroleum products like kerosene and diesel to one of the largest oil producing nations in the world.

The need to import millions of dollars of petroleum products to Iraq speaks volumes about how poorly the administration of post-war Iraq was planned. Officials did not expect oil refineries and pipelines to be sabotaged or U.S. troops to be continually ambushed. Their revenue projections for Iraqi oil production were off the mark. Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz testified that oil revenues ``could bring in between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years. Now we know that this year the revenues are only going to be a few billion dollars. Today, Defense Department Comptroller Dov Zakheim told the House Budget Committee that revenues are now projected at $31 billion for the next two years. Even if these oil revenues are achieved, it will not all be available for reconstruction since a large portion will need to be used for essential government services like police, health care, education and transportation.

I am glad that the House Appropriations Committee dropped many of the most outrageous spending items requested by the Administration. However, I still have major concerns about how much of the reconstruction funds will be used. It is impossible to evaluate whether or not, or how much, money is needed in each area.

Iraq's needs are great. It is a country that has gone years under a brutal dictatorship and subject to debilitating international sanctions. By virtue of being the occupying power, under international law, the United States is responsible for what happens in Iraq. We have no choice but to meet our legal responsibility. Beyond legal requirements, we have a moral obligation to help Iraq rebuild. As New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman has said, ``You break it, you buy it.'' By unilaterally attacking Iraq, we have assumed the task of ensuring it is reconstructed.

I hope that the Administration will succeed at the international donor's conference later this month. Iraq needs more help than the United States alone can provide. Debts owed by Iraq, taken out by Saddam Hussein, should be forgiven. Rebuilding Iraq will be hard enough without large debt payments to wealthy countries absorbing Iraq's oil revenues. In deciding to go to war in Iraq with few international allies, the Bush Administration has left the United States in a very difficult situation and with a very large financial obligation. It should be no surprise that those nations that never supported our war with Iraq remain, at this juncture, unwilling to pay for rebuilding it. Because of Iraq's great need, I hope that other countries will reconsider and provide the Iraqi people with the generosity they so desperately need.

Mr. Chairman, the Administration has come back to Congress for $87 billion, on top of the $62.3 billion we previously appropriated. It is difficult for those of us who opposed the President's decision to attack Iraq to now give the Administration a blank check, a down- payment on an occupation without an exit strategy and a rebuilding fund without a real plan. Based on the Administration's track record, this funding request is just the tip of the iceberg.

Recently, Ambassador Paul Bremer, who is the U.S. Administrator for Iraq, said the country would need $100 billion for rebuilding efforts. Only $20 billion of that is included in the President's current $87 billion request for emergency funding. Since current estimates of likely foreign contributions total a few billion dollars at best, there are huge bills coming due just a short way down the road.

The bill we have before us today is inadequate in so many ways. I think that this House could have significantly improved the bill. Many of my colleagues proposed amendments that, if considered, would have improved the bill. The bill could have been improved in many ways, but there are two changes that I believe are essential. First, the bill should require a detailed report from the President describing how funds in the previous war supplemental have been spent, how funds appropriated in this bill will be spent, and the level and types of funding needed for future years for both military and reconstruction activities.

Second, the bill should require that Congress be notified of non- competitive contracting, require a report from the General Accounting Office on accountability, and tighten public disclosure requirements. The initial Iraq reconstruction contracts were issued without a standard competitive bidding process. These contracts went to firms closely connected with the Bush Administration. One large contract went to Brown, Root & Kellogg, a subsidiary of Halliburton, the company formerly headed by the Vice President Cheney. The Halliburton, no-bid contract was worth an initial $948 million. Because of this contract, Halliburton has a competitive advantage over other businesses during future rounds of bidding. Another large contract was awarded to Bechtel, a company that is lead by former officials from the first Bush Administration. We need to make sure that every cent of the $20 billion for Iraq reconstruction is awarded fairly and openly.

What is wrong with the House voting on these and other amendments? I wish someone would tell us. Unfortunately, the Republican House leadership used procedural roadblocks to prevent debate on most of these alternatives and improvements. The Administration is going to get the bill they wanted, with few amendments, requirements or limitations. I believe it is a mistake to reward their previous poor estimates, bad planning, withholding of information, and refusal to provide cost estimates with a blank check now. It is time for some accountability.

Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier, the Iraq Supplemental must be considered within the context of our national priorities. We do not have unlimited funds to spend. With our federal budget in deficit, every dollar we spend in Iraq is money that we are borrowing from our children.

Even under the most optimistic scenario for Iraq, in which this is the last request for funding, we will add $178 billion to our nation's budget deficit. Of that $178 billion, $66 billion will be interest payments on that debt. A more realistic scenario, in which our military remains in Iraq until the end of 2006, we draw down our force over that period, and we spend an additional $5 billion for reconstruction, would add $238 billion to the debt, $84 billion just in interest.

It's almost surreal to live in a time when our budget deficit is growing by leaps and bounds, the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans get massive tax cuts in the midst of economic difficulties, and now this huge unpaid bill is being amassed in Iraq. We have very real domestic priorities that need to be addressed. We must get our people back to work. We must provide funding for ``No Child Left Behind.'' We must to take care of our veterans. We must protect our homeland. Each of their priorities requires resources. The situation in Iraq does not mean that we should not move forward at home.

This Administration spends a lot of time talking about fiscal discipline. Yet they have spent more than any Administration in our nation's history. Instead of fiscal discipline and instead of providing funding for our nation's key priorities, they squandered our budget surplus and continue to amass greater and greater debt to pay for tax cuts that we cannot afford. This does not serve our nation well.

Our funding priorities must include protecting our brave servicemen and women in Iraq and taking care of their families back home with hazard pay and other tools to make the separation easier to bear. This supplemental bill only takes modest steps to help them.

I opposed authorizing the use of force in Iraq. I urged the President to not use that authority after it was granted by Congress. This is not a war that I support. Putting tens of billions of dollars into an inadequate plan with no end in sight makes no sense. I cannot in good conscience vote for this supplemental spending bill. What I suggest is that the Administration go back to the drawing board and work to develop a real plan, with Iraqis, the United Nations and other countries. After we have a real plan, with better cost estimates, the President can come back to us with a detailed proposal.

I strongly support our troops. We must ensure they have the resources they need. It is fortunate that a vote against this bill will not harm our troops. An analysis by the Congressional Research Service estimates that already appropriated funds will last until at least early April 2004. That is plenty of time for this Administration to regroup, figure out what they are doing, and return to Congress with a better proposal.

Mr. Chairman, my vote today will be cast with a heavy heart. But I cast it with confidence that it is the best vote to serve our country.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), our ranking member on the Committee on Appropriations, for yielding me time and for his excellent work in putting together the Obey substitute, the Democratic substitute, which unfortunately cannot come to the floor today but nonetheless would be a brilliant, brilliant way for us to reconstruct Iraq, provide for our troops, and bring them home safely and soon, having stabilized Iraq.

Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the very distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations for his always reasonable approach to challenges that we have.

Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) for his great service, and I will say more on that later, as well as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), for what they have added to this package.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to say to the distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), that I am glad to hear that exit strategy means something different to him than some of our colleagues on the gentleman's side of the aisle who said exit strategy means cut and run. The gentleman and I know that that is not what that means.

We all know that we must support our troops. We respect their courage, their patriotism, the sacrifices they are willing to make for our country. We also know that for their successful completion of their mission, that we must invest in the infrastructure in Iraq; and we know that we cannot come home until that mission is accomplished. So that is not what this debate is. There is no difference about that.

The difference is how we go about doing it, and I think there is a big difference there. I would like to say something about the lack of planning on the part of the administration. It is in the spirit of that context that I rise in opposition to President Bush's request for $87 billion to bail out his failed policy in Iraq.

Mr. Chairman, as Members of Congress, we all recognize that we have no greater responsibility than that which is charged to us in the Preamble of the Constitution: to provide for the common defense. We have all take that responsibility seriously on both sides of the aisle and all over the country.

The United States military is the best-trained, best-led, best- equipped fighting force the world has ever known. This excellence is due to the dedication of our courageous military men and women and their commanders. It is also due to the commitment of this and previous Congresses over many years to provide for the common defense, by ensuring that our forces have the tools and technologies that they need to prevail on the battlefield.

Again, we respect our men and women in uniform and we should respect them when they are on the battlefield and when they come home. And out of respect for them, I would have hoped that our colleagues could join us in discharging the petition to eliminate the tax on disabilities that exist in current law on our disabled vets.

Going back to the war, whatever our position was on going to the war, once we went in, we were one team, one fight. Our military performed their duties excellently. It is painfully clear, though, that this administration had no plan to protect our men and women in Iraq against the possibility of a guerilla campaign. The war supplemental last spring is proof enough. The President asked for and the Congress provided $63 billion to ensure that our soldiers could complete their mission successfully and securely. Yet, as revealed by our esteemed colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), a decorated veteran whose defense credentials are beyond question, our military personnel are short of Kevlar inserts for their body armor, short of tracks for their Bradley fighting vehicles, short of jammers to protect them from the detonation of explosive devices, and short of spare parts generally for the equipment on which they rely. Again, our men and women in uniform deserve better.

When the President asked for this $65 billion, we gave it to him. We never got an accounting for it. When the President hit with his bombshell of asking for $87 billion more, we said we would like to see an accounting of the $63 billion that was appropriated for last summer. We want to know why our men and women in uniform do not have the protection they need to fight this war, this postwar period. We want an accounting, a justification for the $87 billion that the White House is asking for now. We want an accountability for this failed policy.

The $87 billion request did not yet even include the funding for the Kevlar and the jammers and the spare parts and the tracks. It really was not until the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) made a big issue of it, and I commend him and I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) for

putting this in the bill with the help, of course, of the chairman of the committee. But it was not in the President's request.

It was not in the President's request to protect our troops with what they needed. They had a chance to do it and they did not. I find that very, very unacceptable. As General Zinni said, and others have repeated here, the level of sacrifice has not been matched by the level of planning. What he exactly said is this: ``They should never be put on a battlefield without a strategic plan, not only for fighting, our generals will take care of that, but for the aftermath and winning that war. Where are we, the American people, if we accept this level of sacrifice without that level of planning?'' General Zinni.

America wants to know. What was that $63 billion spent on besides the gold-plated, single-source, no-bid contracts for politically connected contractors? We simply do not know. So that is why we take issue with the $87 billion request.

Don't take it from me. General Petraeus, a great general whom many of us have met in our visits to the theater, he has said that U.S. engineers called for $15 million to turn a cement factory into a state- of-the-art factory. Our troops working with the Iraqis got it up and running, not for $15 million, but for $80,000, for $80,000. We were not responsible for a $15 million state-of-the-art factory. It is up and running at $80,000. You hear this over and over again.

Again, to date there has been no accounting for that money, no accountability for the policy. As a result, American soldiers are taking virtually all the risks, and American taxpayers are paying virtually all the bills.

Our men and women in uniform deserve better. The American people deserve better. Make no mistake, the President's supplemental request is an $87 billion bailout for mistakes and miscalculations of this administration. They have miscalculated the risk. We saw and heard General Zinni's statements about that. They misunderstood the challenge, and they misrepresented the cost.

One week into the war, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz told the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and their Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations, ``We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon.''

How wrong was that? And we know that this is not the end of it. The administration has told us that they need 50 to $75 billion more for infrastructure. When we asked them why they did not put this in the President's $87 billion request, they said that they were going to get it from oil revenues and from our allies. Again, a miscalculation. That funding is obviously not happening. So let us be clear, what we were considering today is not a final payment; it is a down payment. It is an installment on more to come.

The American people look to us to ask the difficult questions, to ensure accountability and not to rubber stamp a policy that has failed in terms of its planning and, therefore, endangered our sons and daughters in uniform. We all appreciate what we need to do. We must address the needs of our forces in Iraq. We must bring stability to that country. We must invest in the infrastructure.

The administration wants us to do a gold-plated, no-bid contract version of the story. They want the gold-plated version, and they have a tin ear to what the American people are saying. They say honor our responsibilities, honor our men and women in uniform, but please do not put our children into debt, our grandchildren into debt without some idea of how this is going to be paid for and what the cost will be.

We would have been better off if we had internationalized this from the start, but we did not. So now what we need to do, again, is what the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) has said over and over. We need to energize Iraq, turn on the lights and water so we can proceed with the reconstruction.

To hear the administration tell the tale, this has all been done, but nonetheless, more is required. We must ``Iraqtize'' it by giving the Iraqis more authority and responsibility to do what they need to do for their country. And we must internationalize the effort so our troops once again are not taking all the risks and our taxpayers paying all the bills.

The question before us today is simple, what is the best way to achieve this goal. It is a complicated matter, but the question is what is the best way to go about it. The answer to me is clear, the Obey substitute. It is a more responsible approach, both fiscally and militarily. It does more for our men and women in uniform before, during and after deployments.

The Obey amendment better protects American taxpayers and their children and their grandchildren because it is paid for, and by having the World Bank administer a loan program for a portion of the reconstruction effort, it will stimulate more international financial support.

In short, the Obey amendment does more to support our troops and encourage international participation in stabilizing and rebuilding Iraq and costs the American taxpayers less. It deserves our support.

Unfortunately, the Obey amendment will not be allowed to be presented and voted on the floor, and I know why. It is brilliant. If it were presented as an alternative to the $87 billion Bush request, it would probably attract Republican support. It would have an impact on this failed policy. So, sadly, we will not have a chance to vote on it. It is really always interesting to me that it is against the rules of the House to make a proposal that is paid for, that makes it out of order.

I think that we ought to see the Obey substitute and the whole debate in the context of where we are as a country. Here we are, the greatest military power that ever was. Our economy, hopefully soon on the upturn, is the greatest engine for economic growth in the world. The power of our ideas have been a source of strength to us and to others in the world forever. So we are strong in every way, and yet never ever have we been more dependent on other countries for the security of our people.

If we are going to succeed in Iraq, we must reach out to others. President Kennedy said it best in his inaugural address. Some of us were in school at the time and heard the inaugural address, and everybody knows the statement ``Citizens of America, ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.'' Children learned that in school. Others of us heard it. It is history for some. It was our youth for others of us.

The very next line in that speech--is ``to the citizens of the world, ask not what America can do for you, but what we can do working together for the freedom of mankind.'' Let that be our clarion call, what we, working together with the people of the world, can do for the freedom of mankind. We must not find ourselves in a situation where there is a tyrant, and good riddance to him, where we have to go in with inadequate intelligence, inadequate international support and, again, have our kids take all of the risk.

Let us show the greatness of our country, as well as the strength of our country. We could do that by supporting the Obey amendment today. In the absence of that, let us hope that we can have our policy recognize once again that the security of our great country has never been more dependent on others.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I again reiterate my opposition to the $87 billion bailout of the failed Bush policy and support of the Obey amendment.

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.