Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany 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. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished ranking member on the Committee on Appropriations, for yielding and for his leadership. I appreciate the Obey alternative that was not able to be offered but that he put forth. And I will speak to that in just a moment.

I rise in opposition to the supplemental. And, in doing so, I want to acknowledge the extraordinary commitment of our distinguished chairman to

our troops. For him it is a family matter. His wife has been, as all have said over and over, an angel to the young men and women that have come back from combat and are at the Bethesda Naval Medical Center and the Walter Reed Hospital. And all of us who have visited them salute their courage, their patriotism, the sacrifice they are willing to make for our country. I had the privilege of doing that on a number of occasions with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), as well as visiting the troops in Kuwait.

Mr. Speaker, it is not a question as to whether we support the troops. Of, course, we all do. So I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your extraordinary commitment there, and, as well, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey.) In fact, in the Obey substitute there was $4.6 billion more for the troops. Unfortunately, the rules prevented us from taking up the alternative simply because it was paid for. Funny rules, but there they are.

I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) for working with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), where we finally were able to get some of the equipment that the troops need to protect themselves as they fight this fight in Iraq. They are precious to us. Again, we salute them. But we cannot send them into battle unless they are adequately equipped.

May I offer my condolences and sympathy to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) for the losses in his district and that of many in our great State of California. I salute the firefighters who also are taking risks for us in our Golden State. Because, quite frankly, one of my dismays with the administration on their proposals are that with the $63 billion that we gave them last spring and the summer with a practically unanimous vote, it was not even an issue, of course, the money would be sent. When the President asked for the $87 billion, we later learned that the troops still did not have the kevlar lining in their vests, in their flak jackets, at least 44,000 of them did not. They still did not have jammers to prevent the improvised explosive devices from taking their lives. They still did not have the tracks for the Bradleys. They still did not have the spare parts for nearly half of their equipment.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) visited there, raised a ruckus, but still they did not have it in the $63 billion package in the summer; they still do not have it, this the $87 billion request from the President. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) for his extraordinary leadership on behalf of the troops. We salute them here on this floor; he works for them every day. And without his raising the ruckus, they still would not have it in this bill, but he and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) made that possible. And we are all in their debt, all of us who care about the troops. And I know that that includes every single person here.

As respectful as I am of our distinguished chairman, I beg to differ on the exit strategy. What he stated is something that we all share: A goal that we will successfully accomplish our mission in restoring stability to Iraq. We all agree that that must be done. That is a goal. It is an exit strategy. The administration did not have one, nor did they have a plan. That is a very sad thing. They did not have a plan for postwar Iraq.

Whatever one's view was going into the war, that is history. That was then. Now, we know we have to accomplish the mission, we have to support our troops, and we have to have them come home safely and hopefully soon.

General Zinni's words just resonate with me. They challenge the conscience of our country. General Zinni, retired Marine Corps General Anthony Zinni said, and I quote, ``America's men and women in uniform should never be put on the battlefield without a strategic plan not only for the 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?''

So not only does the administration not have an exit strategy, they do not have a plan. The level of sacrifice has not been met with the level of planning. Because President Bush lacked an adequate plan for postwar Iraq, American soldiers are taking virtually all of the risks and American taxpayers are paying virtually all of the bills.

As I said, Democrats offered an alternative that would have spent an additional $4.6 billion to protect U.S. forces and converted half of the reconstruction loans to loans through the World Bank, thereby costing U.S. taxpayers less, avoiding an increase in the deficit, and encouraging greater international participation. Unfortunately, House Republicans prevented a vote on that proposal. And last week 84 Republicans joined Democrats in favoring loans showing that this is not a partisan issue.

Threats of a Presidential veto if the loans were included in the final bill ignore, really, bipartisan majorities in both Houses of Congress and the opinion of most Americans.

Last night the conferees turned a deaf ear to the American people and the will of both Houses by stripping the loan provision from the conference report. And so tonight we are being asked to vote on a conference report that hands the President another blank check for postwar Iraq.

This conference report reflects no change in the administration's failing postwar Iraq policy. The $63 billion for Iraq approved last spring has not been adequately accounted for. We do not have any accountability for the policy and, yet, here we are poised to approve $87 billion for more.

I certainly agree with what has been said on both sides of the aisle; the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) said it most recently when he talked about the need for the reconstruction, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) referenced it too. Certainly, we know that reconstruction funds are necessary in Iraq. We know that that is important to the safety and the security of our troops. And I think we are blessed in this body to have the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Lowey) as the Chair and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations subcommittee that will deal with that. They are internationalists, they understand the importance of that. But I do not think we should have a gold-plated, no-bid- contract kind of a way to approach these.

And that was the beauty of the proposal of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). It gave them $7 billion to use immediately, which was what the World Bank said their absorptive capacity was now, and sends the rest of the money on to the World Bank to be capitalized 4 to 1, $28 billion for this important reconstruction.

The gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) referenced General Petraeus. Anyone who has visited the theater knows what a hero he is, 101st Airborne, great, great, great troops that we are very proud of. General Petraeus pointed out an incident where the U.S. engineers called for $15 million to turn a cement factory into a state-of-the-art cement factory. Our troops working with the Iraqis, this is one of General Petraeus's projects, our troops working with the Iraqis got it up and running not for $15 million, but for $80,000. For $80,000.

So that is why when we are not having loans but we are having grants, and our grandchildren and children have to pay for all of this without any thought of getting any reduction of our deficit from the gushing oil fields of Iraq, should they ever gush forth, it just does not seem right.

Mr. Speaker, what is really sad about all of this in terms of the cost, when the administration came to the Congress and to the Committee on Appropriations, Secretary Wolfowitz said we are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon. He said that shortly after we went into full combat with Iraq. Mr. Wolfowitz said we are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon. He miscalculated the cost, that is for sure. Ignoring the advice of our own State Department, indeed the Bush administration's own State Department about what to expect in postwar Iraq, and that is a matter of record, it has been published in the assessment that was made after the war, Center for Army's Lessons Learned at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, we know that we did not really even supply our troops with the intelligence, the actionable intelligence they needed to protect themselves and to accomplish the mission.

So we miscalculated the cost, we misunderstood the risks, we do not have the intelligence. And the administration, again, ignored its own report from the State Department about what some of the challenges would be.

Miscalculation, misrepresentation of the cost, misunderstanding of the challenge. Where is the accountability? We need to get that intelligence for our troops just as surely we need to get the kevlar lining for their flak jackets. They are not going to be protected, unless we have the intelligence that is needed to protect them.

So that is why when this blank check of $87 billion comes to the floor, it begs some questions about what we really are doing for our troops. Our intentions are all very, very positive. We know that. But the military is telling us they do not have the intelligence to protect the troops. The military is telling us that.

The State Department told the administration what to expect and that was ignored.

So in any event, I think I have made my point about I think there was a better way. Let us do this right. We know this is not the last request we are going to receive. The administration told us the day the President made the request for $87 billion. They called my chief of staff and said it is going to cost $50 to $75 billion more. So this is just an installment, an installment that is going to be paid for by our grandchildren. I think there is a better way to do it. I am sorry we do not have that opportunity tonight. And that is why I will be voting against the supplemental.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Defense.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished minority leader.

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey),

the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

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

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman needs it, I will be happy to yield him 1\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. YOUNG OF Florida. That would be very appreciated.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read the following words from a very distinguished American statesman written 5 years ago: ``Trying to eliminate Saddam would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. There was no viable exit strategy we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we had hoped to achieve. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land.''

The man who said that was George Herbert Walker Bush 5 years ago. Now, his advice was not taken, and we now are facing the question of what to do next.

Frankly, how we voted on going to war in the first place is, in my view, in considering this legislation, irrelevant. The question, to me, is not whether we are going to vote for or against this package tonight. I think in many ways how we cast our individual votes on this package is secondary.

The issue is whether the policy which is now being followed in the war's aftermath is the right policy, whether it is wired together well enough in the details in order to achieve the success that every single Member of this body wants to see the President achieve. After all, he is our President, regardless of party. And after all, these are our sons and daughters and brothers and sisters and cousins and uncles and aunts wearing our uniform and representing our country in that very difficult circumstance tonight.

But the policy is the issue. If the policy is the right policy, then it probably will not matter whether we appropriate $20 billion more or less than we are appropriating tonight. We will have a good chance of succeeding. And if the policy is not wired together right, then all the money that we can provide will not produce a happy ending.

I want to explain why under these circumstances I will be voting ``no'' tonight. As the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) said earlier, we have previously appropriated well over $60 billion, and we provided maximum flexibility to the Defense Department in spending that money. Yet with that flexibility we saw the shortages of inserts in the Kevlar vests, we saw the shortage of jammers, we saw the shortage of adequate protection for the unarmored Humvees, all of which have put our troops at risk. We have seen inadequate supplies of drinking water for our troops. And the very general in charge of the operation has told us in our hearings that he still does not know how it happened. And now we are being asked to provide $87 billion more.

The question is not whether the administration will get this money. They will get this money, and they will get a whole lot more because this is just the downpayment. The question is whether or not in the providing of this money we will use our leverage and use our power of the purse to force the agencies and the administration to think through more clearly how it is that they are going to accomplish the goals which they have stated. That, to me, is the detailed question.

Now, we do not have any idea, and the administration has given us no idea, of what their range of expectation is in terms of cost over the next 5 years. We should have some idea so that we can prepare our own constituents to support this over the long haul. We do not have that information. But we do know, at least I am convinced of the unpleasant truth, and I very much agree with Senator McCain on this, I am convinced that if we are to accomplish this job, we do not have enough troops on the ground in Iraq right now. We either need more troops from our allies, or we need more help from the Iraqi remnants that can be reasonably relied upon; or we are going to need more U.S. troops, or our troops will unnecessarily suffer higher casualties than they would otherwise suffer.

Now, it is not pleasant to tell the American people that we may need more troops rather than less before this is over; but talking to the experts whom I trust, that is what I believe.

We also do know that the agencies involved in running this policy so far have managed to find the single most

expensive way to deliver this aid, because they are following a high- tech strategy that involves deep involvement by these huge multinational corporations, like Bechtel and Halliburton and a dozen others, instead of relying on a more indigenous low-tech approach that can put more Iraqis to work so they have something more productive to do than shoot Americans.

I also think that we do know that at this point the administration has given us not a clue about how or how soon they expect to repair the Army. We have equipment from over five divisions that at this point needs reconstitution; it needs refurbishing. We have been told by the Army that that alone is going to cost above $17 billion, and the administration has asked for less than $2 billion.

The American public needs to know the facts, and they need to know the costs; and they do not need to have it revealed to them on the installment plan. It should be provided up front so that we can take the case to our public.

We also have the other problem, that this package does not pay for itself. We borrow it all. And so that means that just the interest payments alone will amount to about $4 billion more than we would be paying if we paid for this cash on the barrel head. And that is $4 billion on interest payments that will shove out money that would otherwise be available for education, for health care, and for other needed domestic efforts, including infrastructure.

I will be offering a motion to recommit. It will not allow us, because of the restraint of the rules, to get at the basic problems in the policy; but it will allow us to at least try to improve it around the edges. First, we will try to restore the funding for veterans health care that was taken out of the bill. Because while we have been told that that will be taken care of in the VA HUD bill, we have been given no idea of how. So that has yet to become a reality.

Second, the recommittal motion would ask that we accept the Senate provision which would convert $10 billion of this reconstruction program to loans, with the proviso that if our allies in fact forgive prior loans to Iraq, then we will forgive this loan as well.

Now, there are those who say Iraq cannot afford that. Let me point out Iraq is a country of 23 million people. They are getting $20 billion in reconstruction. That is $872 per capita, 10 times as much as the annual per capita aid under the Marshall Plan to all of Europe.

Mr. Speaker, let me simply ask for an ``aye'' vote on the recommittal motion.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Yes, I am, in its present form.

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

Mr. Speaker, 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 rise today as a supporter of our efforts to replace Saddam Hussein's dangerous dictatorship with a stable and democratic Iraq. But I am deeply concerned that the Bush administration's stubborn refusal to be honest about Iraq has made the reconstruction process more difficult, more expensive and more dangerous.

Mr. Speaker, President Bush said it best earlier this week at a press conference in the Rose Garden. In talking about the United Nations, he said, ``Credibility comes when you say something is going to happen and then it does happen. You are not credible if you issue resolutions and then nothing happens.''

Well, that is exactly the situation President Bush has created for himself, a growing credibility gap that could threaten our ability to win the peace in Iraq.

Before the war, the Bush administration refused to prepare the American people for the costly and deadly reconstruction effort they are now witnessing. And whenever people like General Eric Shinseki let slip the truth, that it would be very expensive and require lots of troops, the administration publicly rebuked them, and then relieved them of duty.

On May 1 of this year, President Bush dressed up in a flight suit and had a pilot land him on an aircraft carrier so that he could declare victory in Iraq. Since then, nearly 120 American troops have been killed in action, more than before the President's May 1 victory speech, and nearly 1,200 have been wounded.

In recent days, however, the Bush administration has reached a new low in its well-documented PR campaign to spin Americans into believing that the bad news coming out of Iraq these days is actually good news.

On Tuesday, President Bush defended his May 1 ``victory'' pep rally by blaming the whole affair on the sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, as if he had somehow been the victim of the Navy's public relations stunt. That is not only an outrageous charge, especially coming from the man who runs the slickest White house PR machine ever, it is utterly unbelievable. After all, back in

May, the Bush White House bragged to reporters that the President himself helped devise the event, and the New York Times reported that his aides ``had choreographed every aspect of the event.''

Perhaps most disturbing, however, was the President's response to the series of sophisticated and deadly attacks against U.S. soldiers and our allies earlier this week. Sitting in the White House with Ambassador Bremer on Monday, President Bush tried to convince Americans that this was actually a sign of progress, that it proved how ``desperate'' these Iraqi insurgents have become.

This is what he told reporters who asked about the bombings, ``Again, I will repeat myself, that the more progress we make on the ground, the more desperate these killers become.''

That statement, Mr. Speaker, was literally incredible. When terrorists can coordinate multiple, separate attacks to kill 35 people and wound more than 230 people in just 45 minutes, it is a horrible tragedy, one that indicates a very real security problem on the ground in Iraq. And trying to spin it as good news simply undermines the President's credibility and harms our effort to win the peace in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, President Bush's credibility problem is such a serious concern because America cannot afford to fail in Iraq. That is why so many people took notice earlier this week, when Senator John McCain, a Republican, who supports our efforts in Iraq and who knows as well as anyone the lessons of Vietnam, said, ``This is the first time that I have seen a parallel to Vietnam in terms of information that the administration is putting out versus the actual situation on the ground.'' It makes it harder to convince our allies around the world to shoulder some of the burden for rebuilding Iraq. That forces American taxpayers and American soldiers to bear the lion's share of the cost. And that makes it harder to maintain public support for this expensive and dangerous effort.

Mr. Speaker, that is why Democrats, and a few conscientious Republicans, have tried to force the Bush administration to account for the hundreds of billions of dollars it is spending in Iraq. And it is why we have tried to force the Bush administration to stop making American taxpayers pay the entire tab for this latest foreign aid package. After all, before war, the American people were told that Iraq was an oil-rich country that could fund its own reconstruction. Obviously, Iraq's proven oil reserves have not disappeared and America still has its own unmet priorities, like homeland security, education and health care. But now the Bush administration insists that Iraqi oil money can only be used to repay the debts that Saddam Hussein ran up to build his war machine and that U.S. taxpayers have to foot the bill for rebuilding Iraq. So Republican leaders have stripped out of this conference report the Senate's loan language.

Mr. Speaker, U.S. taxpayers are already struggling under the mountain of debt the Bush administration has run up. And there is no good reason to force U.S. taxpayers to pay for President Bush's failure to convince our allies to help. That is why majorities in both Houses of Congress voted in favor of turning about half of the reconstruction grants into loans. But sometimes, Mr. Speaker, it seems like President Bush does not understand how seriously his credibility on Iraq has been damaged. Unfortunately, as long as the Bush administration refuses to treat the American people with more respect, it will become increasingly difficult to achieve a goal we all share, winning the peace in Iraq.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

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

Mr. Speaker, as I have mentioned previously, I have been a supporter of our action against Iraq, I voted for the supplemental, and I will vote for this conference report. I will tell you that there are serious questions that have been raised by Members on this side of the aisle, and even some Members on the other side of the aisle, particularly on the issue of whether all of this money, all of this $20 billion, should be a grant, or whether at least a portion of it should be a loan.

These are serious questions. The House went on record and the Senate went on record in favor of some of this money being a loan, but, unfortunately, the conference committee did not see the wisdom in taking that position.

Members have indicated and have served notice, and I believe Members on the other side of the aisle should listen carefully, Members have served notice that it will be much more difficult for the administration next time they come to this body seeking more funds for reconstruction.

Members have been willing to give the administration the benefit of the doubt, even though they have very serious reservations, but I would hope that this administration and the Members on the other side of the aisle, before they return to this Congress asking for additional billions of dollars, will take a long and hard look at this issue of loans versus grants and take a long and hard look at the opinions of the American people who are very concerned about unmet needs here in the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman).

Mr. Speaker, we have no additional requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 424, I call up the conference report on 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. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this is the conference report on the supplemental to pay for our military forces, equipment, their salaries, and their medical care. A speaker who just left the well a few minutes ago said that nobody knows where the money is going, and I want to tell my colleagues that we do know where it is going. It is going to take me a little bit more time than I had anticipated using, but let me tell my colleagues this: $65 billion of this money goes to the American troops, the American forces in Afghanistan and in Iraq. I will take the time to provide details of that funding:

Military personnel expenses: $17,800,000; The operation and maintenance for our services involved in Iraq and Afghanistan, $39,231,000; for procurement for the Army, for missiles, and WTCV for the Army, other procurement Army, aircraft procurement Army and Navy, other procurement Navy, procurement for the Marine Corps, Air Force procurement defense-wide $5,534,000. These pages that I will provide for the record are full of details on spending in this bill. And for someone to stand here and say no one knows where the money is going, is just not accurate. I really do not mind the political comments that are made here, but do not distort the facts.

We know where this money is going. Do we know where every penny is going? No. And for some of the programs that my colleagues support, we do not know where all that money is going, either. But we do the best we can. We know this money is going for our troops. In fact, all of this money is going for our troops.

Why did I say that? Because clearly $20 billion is for construction and recovery in Afghanistan and Iraq. But our troops are there. And this House overwhelmingly voted to send them there, and so did the other body. And so they are there. And they are not coming home until they have created a secure Afghanistan and a secure Iraq.

Now, another speaker said, it is not working. The heck it is not. You talk to anybody who has gone from this Congress to Iraq and they will tell you that it is working. Is it working overnight? No. Of course not. It took 30 years for Saddam Hussein to destroy the lifestyle of people in Iraq. And our President decided to fix that. He was tired of Iraq threatening his neighbors. He was tired of Iraq supporting terrorists. And we voted to support him. Our troops are going to come home after we have been able to help the Iraqis create their own government and create their own security forces, so that they can have some quality of life in Iraq.

So this money is going for our troops, and $65 billion of it is going directly to our troops.

There are other things in this bill. We had a good conference with the Senate. It took us a couple of days after pre-working this conference for a couple of weeks, and we have done some good things in this bill.

Remember the outrage that we all expressed when we found out that soldiers, wounded in battle, in a military hospital, were charged $8.10 a day for the food that they consumed while in the hospital? This bill fixed that. We had fixed it temporarily in an appropriations bill. This bill fixes it permanently. And it not only fixes it permanently, but it makes it retroactive, so anybody who was billed for their food while recovering from battle wounds will get their money back if they paid those charges. This bill does that.

We provide additional benefits for our National Guardsmen and our Reservists who are serving in our Nation's military in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mr. Speaker, it has been said that there is no exit strategy, and that there is no plan. The fact is, there is an exit strategy, and that is to stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan so that our troops can exit and exit safely, and so that the people of Iraq can have a quality of life. They did not have a quality of life prior to the United States liberating that nation from the tentacles of Saddam Hussein, who had destroyed millions of his own people in one way or another, who had gone to war with his neighbor in Iran, who has invaded Kuwait, and who threatened Saudi Arabia. This was a bad guy.

I had the opportunity at the request of the Administration to attend the donors conference in Madrid last week, and I listened to speakers from many countries saying how bad Saddam Hussein was and how important it was to liberate the people of Iraq. They did not give the United States any credit for having made this happen, but at least they acknowledged that it had to happen, and that the United States, led by the President of the United States, George Bush, had the courage and the gumption to do something about it. I think we will find in the long range that this is going to be beneficial to the world. And this House obviously believed that, because we voted overwhelmingly to send those forces to Afghanistan and to Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of other things that I want to bring to the discussion this evening; but at this point I am going to reserve the balance of my time, and then we will have our exchanges and then have a final vote here very shortly.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30OC03.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30OC03.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30OC03.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30OC03.009

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the chairman of our Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), the chairman of our Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) who as a Naval fighter pilot became the first Ace in the war in Vietnam.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), who actually flew extremely important missions over Iraq as part of Northern Watch.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), a member of the committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time I have remaining.

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

Mr. Speaker, it has been said that this bill is a blank check. I wish to provide for the Record at this point a table that shows that it is not a blank check, and that it is very specific in the money that it appropriates.

Highlights of the War Supplemental Conference Report

President's Request: $87 billion.

Conference report: $87.5 billion.

Iraq Relief and Reconstruction

President's Request: $20.3 billion.

Conference report: $18.6 billion.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Supplemental Conference

Category and Description Request Agreement ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Security and law enforcement:

Police training and technical assistance 950 950

Traffic police.......................... 50 -

Border Enforcement...................... 150 150

Facilities Protection Services.......... 67 67

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by commending the work of our chairman and ranking member and all the other subcommittee chairmen that worked so hard to bring this bill together. I think it has been truly a work that has brought about an outstanding piece of legislation.

I am going to describe some of the elements of the legislation in just its bare outline, so people do know what is actually in this bill. The amount as we have already heard is the total amount of the appropriation bill, $87\1/2\ billion. The foreign operations chapter is $21.21 billion, which is just a bit less than the President had requested.

Let me begin, Mr. Speaker, by saying that I strongly support the objectives President Bush and our leadership seek to achieve with this supplemental request for Iraq and Afghanistan. The supplemental bill supports our men and women in uniform, and it provides the reconstruction resources to stabilize and improve conditions in those countries.

These resources are essential to achieving victory and to enabling our troops to come home. Let me cover a few of those highlights.

First, there is $18.6 billion for the Iraq relief and reconstruction account. That is $1.7 billion below the request, but $200 million more than the Senate-passed bill. It includes $3.24 billion for security and law enforcement, $1.32 billion for justice and civil society, $5.5 billion for the electric sector, almost $1.9 billion for the oil infrastructure, $4.3 billion for water resources and sanitation, and $793 million for health care, among many of the other things that are included in there.

The point is that I think these, Mr. Speaker, are the right types of investments. They comprehensively support both the Iraqi people and the physical infrastructure to modernize that country and put it on the path to economic development, security, and stability. These funds are essential investments in the welfare of our troops.

The conference agreement does not provide funds for trash trucks, for $50,000-per-bed prisons, or for ZIP code systems and what we regard as other low projects. The House took the lead on these issues, and we were pleased to see the Senate's support for this approach. On the other hand, we have added funding for a few programs where we saw gaps in the strategy. For example, there is $100 million included for the development of an Iraqi constitution, building democratic institutions and to prepare for holding free and open elections. It is important to note that this conference agreement also makes a number of management improvements, including the submission of financial plans projecting project by project details on this Iraq reconstruction account.

The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished minority leader, talked about where is the plan. We have a plan and we specifically require a spending plan to be submitted by the administrator and OMB so that we have an opportunity to see that and have that updated every 3 months.

The conferees agreed with the House position to create a new appropriation account entitled ``Operating Expenses of the Coalition Provisional Authority'' rather than leave this activity buried within the Army's $24 billion operation maintenance appropriations account. The CPA will have an operating budget of some $983 million, and we have agreed with the Senate to provide an Inspector General for this organization.

Further, we have included language requiring the Office of Management and Budget to transmit to Congress real financial budget and personnel data on the CPA.

I am pleased we were able to work out an agreement on competition and contracting. The agreement strongly supports full and open competition. We require Ambassador Bremer and the head of any Federal agency providing contracting service for Iraq reconstruction to jointly certify to Congress if other than full and open competition is being pursued.

Mr. Speaker, this agreement is not about Iraq alone. The conference agreement does provide almost $1.2 billion for our reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan, and that is $350 million above the President's request.

The agreement provides an additional $287 million to support the training, equipping, and operations of the new Afghan Army. Also included is $60 million to improve economic opportunity and the standard of living of women in Afghanistan. These resources support technical and vocational education and will fight against abuse of women. They support education for young women who have been denied all of these decades the opportunity to even learn to read.

The conference report includes $181 million to repair and reconstruct roads in Afghanistan and to provide that nation with transportation infrastructure linking its cities as well as its rural areas.

Mr. Speaker, I have sought to briefly provide a few of the highlights of this conference agreement. Any conference means compromise, and there are clearly issues which we would have wanted to come out differently; but on the whole, this conference agreement resembles closely the bill that was overwhelmingly supported here in the House a couple of weeks ago. Let me say that this bill supports our President, our men and women in uniform, and our Nation. This agreement is about American foreign policy objectives, and it is about our leadership in the world.

This conference agreement is about completing the job, not just destroying the tyrannical regime of Saddam Hussein, but also building a stable Iraq at peace with its neighbors in the Middle East. This conference is about remembering that much needs to be done to build a new Afghanistan, one secure and free from the Taliban.

This conference agreement is about continuing the war on terrorism and not giving in to the vicious and cowardly attacks against not only our Armed Forces but against the Iraqi, the Afghan and, yes, the American people. This conference agreement is about maintaining our national security. It is a good conference agreement. I urge its adoption.