Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I am glad to see that the gentleman from Maryland will vote for a loan in the next supplemental that is going to come, and I rise in support of the Pence amendment.

Despite the arguments that we have heard against the use of these loans, we

need to reinforce the point that the taxpayers of this country should not be required to foot the entire bill for Iraq reconstruction indefinitely. So maybe not this time, but maybe next.

I think many of my colleagues know I have an amendment also; it is a sense of the Congress that, once Iraq is on their feet again, that they will help pay back some of these loans. We do not want to tie the hands of the administration or the Iraqi Government, but we want to allow some type of flexibility. So I may offer my sense of the Congress on this same matter.

The people of Iraq should not be burdened, of course, with the lavish spending of the Saddam Hussein regime which borrowed heavily to oppress his people and to enrich its own leaders.

Mr. Chairman, I also believe that it is unfair to compare the proposed U.S. loan idea in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom to the debts amassed under Saddam Hussein and his evil regime. We and the American taxpayers want to rebuild hospitals, schools, and prisons. Saddam's debt went to gilded toilet paper holders, a backyard zoo for his delinquent children, and, of course, a weapons of mass destruction program.

We will give the President the funds our country needs to protect and sustain our troops and rebuild a country whose people want to live proud and free again. All we are seeking is some measure to ensure that the American people are not permanently footing this bill.

I rise in support of the Pence amendment. I believe, despite some of the arguments that we have heard against the use of loans, that we need to reinforce the point that the taxpayers of this country should not be required to foot the entire bill for Iraqi reconstruction indefinitely.

At recent town hall meetings in my district, constituents voiced concerns on this very subject. Why can Iraq not begin to provide funding for reconstruction and security themselves? I think all of my colleagues would agree this is a valid question. Late into last night, my staff fielded call after call from constituents who were proud of America's efforts to rebuild Iraq, yet they wanted to see Iraq begin to shoulder the burden of reconstruction once a sovereign and viable government is in place.

I also have an amendment a sense of the Congress that once Iraqis are on their feet again they can help pay us back these loans, but felt compelled to speak on this amendment. We don't want to tie the hands of the Administration or the Iraqi government. What we want to do is allow for flexibility. I may offer the sense of the Congress later on.

At the center of this debate over loans vs. grants is the massive outstanding debt that European and Arab powers are holding over the recently freed heads of the Iraqi people. Last night we debated a resolution that would ask that these countries no longer saddle the war torn nation with what is at best a dubious debt.

Forgiving these debts would constitute both an historic contribution to the economic development of post-Saddam Iraq and a major gesture of support for the Iraqi people. Estimates of Iraq's indebtedness vary greatly, from 60 billion to several hundred billion dollars. The most comprehensive study of Iraqi debts, by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), calculates Iraq's total debt to be $127 billion, of which $47 billion is accrued interest. Iraq owes a further $199 billion in Gulf War compensation and $57 billion in pending contracts signed between the Saddam Hussein regime and foreign companies and governments. Iraq's overall financial burden, according to the CSIS figures, is $383 billion.

Based on these figures, Iraq's financial obligations are 14 times its estimated annual gross domestic product (GDP) of $27 billion--a staggering $16,000 per person.

Arguably, the people of Iraq should not be burdened with the lavish spending of a tyrannical regime, which borrowed heavily to oppress its people and enrich its own leaders. I also believe that it is unfair to compare the proposed US loan idea in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom to the debts amassed under Saddam and his evil regime. We, and the American taxpayer, want to rebuild hospitals, schools, and prisons. Saddam's debt went to gilded toilet paper holders, a backyard zoo for his delinquent children, and, of course, a weapons of mass destruction program.

Mr. Chairman, we will give the President the funds our country needs to protect and sustain our troops and rebuild a country whose people want to live proud and free again. All we are seeking is some measure to ensure that the American people aren't permanently footing this bill.

The American people are generous people. They understand that it is for the greater good to help another help themselves. But the American people also recognize we cannot continue to provide open-ended monetary assistance if we do not receive something in return. It is a meet-us- halfway approach.

Are we asking too much for the administration to provide opportunities for American generosity, persistence, patience and sacrifice to be acknowledged, appreciated and repaid? I think not. Americans will not shy away from the mission it has been tasked to complete. We are making progress every day, and our troops, while facing danger, are at the same time offering their time, money, and supplies to assist the local Iraqi people.

I hope that my colleagues will consider supporting this amendment. It strikes the right balance between grants and loans and shows the American people that we are approaching the use of their taxpayer dollars in as a responsible manner as possible as we help rebuild a newly freed country.

Offered By: Mr. Stearns

Amendment No. 4: At the end of title II of the bill, add

the following:

Sec. XX. (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:

(1) The United states has contributed thousands of troops

in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

(2) The American taxpayer has incurred the majority of

costs associated with Operation Iraqi Freedom.

(3) A number of countries to which Iraq is heavily indebted

refused to provide assistance to liberate the Iraqi people.

(4) The American taxpayer will not tolerate allowing a

reconstructed Iraq to first repay those same countries that

refused to help its oppressed population.

(5) The American taxpayer deserves some measure of

repayment for United States servicemen and women having

risked and sacrificed their lives for the people of Iraq.

(6) A reconstructed Iraqi economy, holding the second

largest oil reserve in the world, can provide substantial

revenue in the future.

(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that

amounts made available in this Act under the heading ``Iraq

Relief and Reconstruction Fund'' should be in the form of

loans subject to repayment to the United States Government by

a future sovereign government in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honor for me to join my colleagues on the Hill in wishing the Republic of China a happy National Day, which occurred last Friday. Despite Taiwan's small size and lack of natural resources, in recent years Taiwan has emerged as an economic powerhouse. It is the world's 17th largest economy, with the world's 15th largest trade volume. This economic performance has contributed to both regional and global prosperity. At a time of economic interdependence among nations, Taiwan has a lot to offer to the world. On Taiwan's National Day, I would like to see Taiwan continue to play a major economic role in the world and further strengthen its economic ties to the United States. Indeed, bilateral trade between Taiwan and the U.S. topped $66 billion last year and will continue to grow--to the benefit of both nations. Congratulations, President Chen. We wish you and your people the best of luck as you seek readmission to the United Nations and the World Health Organization. You deserve a prominent place on the world stage. I also wish to add that President Chen has pledged Taiwan's resources in helping us fight worldwide terrorism. President Chen believes any attack on America is tantamount to an attack on Taiwan and all the other peace-loving countries in the world. Terrorism must be stopped and Taiwan has done its best to help eliminate terrorism worldwide. We appreciate Taiwan's support.

Mr. Speaker, I stand today to recognize and welcome the return of the last group of the 202nd RED HORSE Squadron, Florida's Air National Guard engineer unit. They are headquartered at Camp Blanding, which is in my congressional district. The remaining members arrived on Friday, October 3, completing a deployment that began with its activation in January and subsequent deployment the following February.

RED HORSE stands for Rapid Engineer Deployable Heavy Operational Repair Squadron Engineers; and, as the name suggests, these members are the workhorses for the military's heavy construction and engineering. The 202nd was relied upon as part of the first Expeditionary RED HORSE group to complete the myriad of construction projects needed to ensure Central Command and its forces accomplished its underlying mission. One of the more notable projects was the repair of the Baghdad International Airport.

I had the opportunity to meet a number of these individuals and have in my congressional office the red hard hat that was signed by members of this unit. So I am thankful and proud of their service. Mr. Speaker, I welcome them home.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Hunter) and the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass) for what they are doing here. It is a long time in coming. I do not quite understand why it took this long. I and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) started the Air Force Caucus here in Congress. It involves both Senate and House Members; and it has been very successful in its advocating air power, what Billy Mitchell was talking about in the very beginning.

When we look at his career and what he did, we can understand the flak that he would run into. We can understand the sort of moral courage that he had to go up against, the infrastructure of the existing services, and try to point out that this new bombing method would not only take out ships, but would have a huge ramification in future wars.

I would say if Billy Mitchell was alive today, he would advocate Star Wars. I think the same kind of logic he thought for air power, he would say we can someday have the ability to stop ballistic missiles from getting out of their sights and causing damage through Star Wars. I bring that in tangentially just because Billy Mitchell had that kind of moral courage to say what he felt.

Today, we are recognizing his superior nature to advocate something that nobody else saw on the horizon. We have had others advocate air power before; but none as specifically and dramatically, and putting himself and his career and his reputation into jeopardy. I am very pleased to be on the floor here to advocate and support this bill and to also point out to my colleagues that sometimes all of us will hear about a new technology and new ways of advocating things to help the United States, and we should keep an open mind because, who knows, maybe another Billy Mitchell is advocating the right thing for this country.

Mr. Speaker, as we debate the Presidential supplemental request for Iraq, one point I do want to address is the idea of placing some of the requested funds for reconstruction to Iraq in the form of a loan. I believe it is possible to do this considering the enormous assets of this country. I am not persuaded by the argument that we do not want to add to Iraq's current debt of $200 billion, which is largely owed to France, Germany, and Russia. I find it difficult to believe that if these countries truly want to contribute to the stability of the region, they would not seek to forgive a substantial portion of their debt.

The American families sacrificed much to win the freedom in Iraq. However, we cannot expect Iraq to pay back funds first to those very countries that sat back and let our men and women undertake the risks to win the freedom in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague, who is chairman of the Telecommunications and the Internet Subcommittee and has been very active in this, for yielding me this time.

I obviously rise in support of H.R. 1260, the Animal Drug User Fee Act. By funding more FDA drug reviewers, Mr. Speaker, this act will help accelerate approval of important veterinarian drugs, resulting in the comfort and treatment of countless companions, pets, zoo animals and livestock.

This is very important. I am proud of the major veterinary school in my congressional district. The College of Veterinary Medicine in the University of Florida, Florida's only veterinary college, offers comprehensive service to the public through a fourfold mission: teaching, research, extension to the community, and patient care. And I am proud, Mr. Speaker, to be wearing a University of Florida tie in honor of their efforts and their leadership this morning. In fact, at this school, no creature is too small, too large, too pesky, or too dangerous for these fine veterinarians to treat, such as the endangered Florida panthers or even some exotic tropical birds. They have a Performance Animal Physiology Clinic, a Pharmacology and Disease Division, which, in fact, studies humane treatment of equine and greyhound species, athletes among pets. All of these animals, all of them, will benefit from innovative pharmaceuticals that are brought to the market in a more expedited manner.

In addition, one of the Nation's foremost thoroughbred horse industries is located in my hometown of Ocala, Florida. We are actually known as the horse capital of the world. We have 460 horse farms located in Ocala and in Marion County. The Florida Thoroughbred Breeders' and Owners' Association, Florida Thoroughbred Charities, and other equine-related concerns all serve a tremendously important part of our economy and this Nation's entertainment.

Do they demand the best medicines available in the world, available as quickly as possible for their pets and their assets? Absolutely. This bill will help, and that is why I am pleased to support this, and I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) for his very energetic work on behalf of this, and, of course, for my vet school and horse- owning friends in Florida's 6th Congressional District.

Mr. Speaker, the President has issued a supplemental appropriation request for $87 billion to go towards our continuing efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Wall Street Journal recently tallied the cost to our country and the economy from the 9-11 attacks. Another similar attack will surely happen if terrorists are left to their own devices.

The terrorist attacks 2 years ago cost this country a lot of money. Here is just a sample: $78 billion lost in income for families of the victims, $21 billion to New York City for direct damage costs, $4 billion for the Victims Fund, $18 billion to clean up Ground Zero, $6.4 billion in reduced or lost wages for workers in New York City industries, $11 billion in lost business to the airline industry, and $15 billion Federal bailout of the airline industry.

Mr. Speaker, these are just a sample. The total cost, if we add all the ones that were included in the article, is $355 billion to the American people. Now we are debating this question. This would cost Americans a lot more money if we do not pass this supplemental.

Mr. Speaker, the President has issued a supplemental appropriations request for $87 billion to go towards our continuing efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Wall Street Journal recently tallied the costs to our country and economy from the 9/11 attacks. Another similar attack will surely happen if terrorists are left to their own devices. The terrorist attacks 2 years ago cost much. Here is just a sample: $78 billion in lost income for families of the victims; $21 billion to New York City for direct damage costs; $4 billion for the Victims' Fund; $18 billion to clean up Ground Zero; $700 million to repair the Pentagon; $6.4 billion in reduced or lost wages for workers in NYC industries; $150 billion in reduced GDP; $50 billion in costs to the insurance industry; $11 billion in lost business to the airline industry; $15 billion Federal bailout of the airline industry; $38 billion in costs for new border security, protection against biological threats, and emergency preparedness; $1.3 billion in costs to State governments for homeland security; and $33 billion in spending by the private sector for new protective services.

Total cost of these and others is over $355 billion to the American people. Now we are debating spending $87 billion to prevent terrorists from taking over a weak nation? If we left Iraq in the condition as it was before, or is now after, the end of the Saddam regime, we would be guilty of allowing terrorists and their power and pocketbooks to fester. This would cost Americans a lot more money, not to mention lives.

Mr. Speaker, we will soon be asked to provide an additional $87 billion in order to continue our efforts abroad in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Now, many, as you just heard, are complaining about the costs in Iraq and the billions that will be needed to maintain a stable Iraq into the future. One question I ask for my colleagues and the American people to consider is, what is the cost if we do not act? In reality, very few Members of Congress will vote against the President's supplemental request, but we do not need to blindly cast our vote without providing options on how to at least partially offset the cost for this reconstruction.

I recently had town meetings in my Congressional District. Some of the questions that some of the constituents asked centered on why the American taxpayer has to foot the entire bill for Iraq reconstruction? Why can Iraq not provide funding for reconstruction and security themselves? I think all of my colleagues would agree this is a valid question.

However, with the decrepit state of Iraq's infrastructure and economy, such a contribution from a people just emerging from decades of oppression and neglect, it is impossible to expect Iraq to provide much in the way of reconstruction funding in the near future.

The American people are generous people. They understand that it is for the greater good to help someone help themselves. But they also recognize we cannot continue to provide open-ended monetary assistance if we do not receive something in return. It is a meet-us-halfway approach, if you will.

Why not provide loans for reconstruction, or at least for rebuilding some of the infrastructure, to include electric and water, et cetera? I think that we should consider this as an alternative to the grantmaking that the administration is requesting.

Specifically, these loans should be linked to potential future Iraqi oil revenues. As we know, Iraq has the world's second largest oil reserve, 11 percent of the world's total. However, only 17 of 80 oil fields have been developed. In addition, Iraq has a sizable amount of natural gas reserves that have yet to be

developed. Given the substantial amount of revenues that Iraq could generate into the future, there exists a means to repay some of the costs of this reconstruction.

Now, the Coalition Provisional Authority is working on an Oil Trust Fund, a plan hoping to begin operation in early 2004. It would appear sensible to use such a fund in concert with a loan program to allow Iraq to repay some of these construction costs.

Of course, Iraq has already been saddled with billions in debt. However, Mr. Speaker, as we have learned in recent hearings on Iraq's future, much of the debt is owed to countries that refused to lift a finger to help the Iraqi people free themselves from oppression and a destitute existence. Instead, these countries thought it better to put Americans at risk to bring freedom to these oppressed people. So why should the United States and those countries that have allied with us remain concerned with those countries, that they get repaid first?

The American people have been asked to sacrifice much. Three thousand innocent lives were lost in 2001. We have lost more Americans in the ensuing war on terrorism, and families continue to endure the separation of loved ones and the economic hardships of Guard and Reserve members leaving their civilian jobs to serve in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Are we asking too much for the administration to provide an opportunities for American generosity, persistence, patience and sacrifice to be acknowledged, appreciated and repaid? I think not. Americans will not shy away from the mission it has been tasked to complete. We are making progress every day, and our troops, while facing danger, are at the same time offering their time, money, and supplies to assist the local Iraqi people.

Once this supplemental is passed, we must support the seven necessary steps towards a new Iraq.

One, the appointment of the Iraqi Governing Council in July.

Two, in August the Governing Council named a Preparatory Committee for writing Iraq's new, permanent constitution.

Three, this month, the Governing Council appointed ministers to run the day-to-day affairs of Iraq.

Four, writing the Constitution.

Five, popular vote on ratifying Iraq's Constitution.

Six, finally electing a new government.

Seven, transferring sovereignty from the coalition to the new government.

Mr. Speaker, we will give the President the funds our country needs to protect and sustain our troops and rebuild a country whose people want to live proud and free again. All we are seeking is some measure to ensure that the American people aren't permanently footing this bill.

Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday, September 17, the U.S. Constitution turned 216 years old, and we celebrated Democracy Day, commemorating its signing. Our National Archives held an unveiling ceremony, where the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights are now presented in a new, clearer display in the rotunda. There, President Bush, U.S. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Senate and

House Leaders reminded us that the ideals spelled out in these documents--collectively called our ``Charters of Freedom''--are spreading unstoppably beyond United States borders.

I couldn't agree more. On the same day, I delivered a speech to the Center for Democracy and Technology's Democracy Day reception. To the audience of young people just starting to get involved in national affairs, I made similar points as heard down at the National Archives. The Constitution, a remarkable document, is the result of numerous forces, among them the Age of Enlightenment and the doctrine of natural law. In the 18th century, despotism provided the rule of the day throughout much of Europe. In challenging the goals and powers of Europe's institutions, the men of the Enlightenment advocated the liberty of the individual, the right to property, and the freedom of expression.

Rousseau and others outlined the legal equality of man and the sovereignty of the governed. Those who met in Philadelphia were well acquainted with these thoughts and incorporated them in the American Enlightenment. These concepts are clearly reflected in the Declaration of Independence and in our Constitution. Several of the amendments to the Constitution expand political participation to those who had been shut out of the process. The 15th amendment adopted in 1870 recognizes the voting rights of former slaves; the 19th extends the franchise to women, and the 26th reduced the voting age to 18. These were all steps to open the political process to the powerless.

With our freedom comes responsibility--an obligation to participate. People in this Nation have fought, bled, and died to preserve our freedom; and they have fought, bled, and died for the right to vote and to hold office. Although we are free to not participate, it is an insult to these men and women, the martyrs for freedom, if apathy replaces activism. I believe that we have a duty to share our freedom, to extend the benefits of freedoms to others.

Technology provides us many powerful tools, including the means to advocate for liberty. The repressive regimes of the world share a fear of information, and take great strides to control what their people are told. We saw in Iraq, and in Yugoslavia, and we still see in China and elsewhere, a repression of the Internet. Nearly one in 10 persons in the world has the ability to go on line. The Internet poses a significant threat to the forces of tyranny and provides a strong medium for advocating freedom. New ideas are a tyrant's worst nightmare, and through the Internet we can give them many sleepless nights.

On the day after Democracy Day, three former presidents of Eastern European nations, who know tyranny, wrote a joint OpEd in the Washington Post entitled ``Building a Free Cuba''. Vaclav Havel, former president of the Czech Republic, Arpad Gonez, former president of Hungary, and Lech Walesa, former president of Poland, resoundingly rebuked the Castro regime for imprisoning 75 representatives of the Cuban opposition, including coordinators of the Varela Project, journalists, and other pro-democracy leaders. They were subject to mock trials and jokes of prison terms. At the same time, the free-thinking Cubans are making more noise, and Castro and his regime know that their days are numbered.

Finally, the 3 former Presidents eloquently presented what we, the free, can all do to help the Cuban freedom-fighters. While the U.S. has chosen an economic embargo, our European friends have taken different, more lenient approaches. But, Havel, Goncz, and Walesa point out that while we disagree on this policy, we can agree on this: vocally support the dissidents. Provide encouragement and comfort for Cuban dissidents, prisoners of conscience, and their families. Use technology, like the powerful Internet, to spread words of freedom like our Constitutional amendments did to fellow Americans. Let's make it clear to Cuba that a dictator is not welcome to join free countries at the international. table. I am grateful and proud of the heritage of the United States, and encourage my fellow Americans and fellow liberty-enjoying citizens of the world in continuing the flourishing of the flower of democracy.

Mr. Speaker, I missed the following votes due to personal family reasons, Rollcall vote No. 506 (To H.R. 7, Charitable Giving Act of 2003)--Had I been present I would have voted ``no.'' Rollcall vote No. 507 (To H.R. 7)--Had I been present I would have voted ``no.'' Rollcall vote No. 508 (H.R. 7)--Had I been present I would have voted ``yes,'' and given the following statement which I now include in my extension of remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support H.R. 7, and am glad to especially support the flattening of the excise tax on the net investment income for private foundations from a two-tiered tax to a single tier of 1 percent. This could be one of the most effective steps Congress could take to spur charitable giving.

Currently, private foundations generally are subject to a 2 percent excise tax on their net investment income.

The tax was originally enacted in the Tax Reform Act of 1969 as a way to offset the cost of government audits of these organizations, in the wake of some unfortunate--and clearly wrong--mismanagement of foundation income. However, excise tax revenues have steadily climbed and IRS audits of private foundations have steadily dropped over the past decade. Specifically, in 1990, the excise tax raised $204 million and the IRS conducted 1,200 audits of private foundations. In 1999, the last year for which figures are available, the excise tax raised $499.6 million with the IRS conducting only 191 audits.

Congress reduced this tax in 1978 and 1984. In both instances it was noted that the adjustments were necessary because the revenues collected from the tax exceeded IRS auditing needs. Accordingly, the Joint Committee on Taxation recognized in its April 2001 recommendations the need to repeal this tax. Finally, the tax is inequitable, as other tax-exempt organizations are also audited, however, private foundations are the only tax-exempt organizations that have to fund their own policing.

Repeal of the excise tax would result in dollar for dollar increase in qualifying distributions of hundreds of millions of dollars every year, boosting the ability of charitable organizations to address national priorities across the range of fields that are the focus of some 58,000 private foundations. President Bush has proposed a reduction in this excise tax in his FY2004 budget to 1 percent, and for that I am quite appreciative. If we went further, though, the elimination of this tax would spur additional charitable giving. One of the most compelling arguments I've received comes from foundations pointing out that the money they would save from a repeal won't benefit the foundation officers, trustees, or even any employees. Who will benefit from a repeal of the excise tax? The causes for which each foundation was created. For example, the William Caspar Graustein Memorial Fund in Hamden, Connecticut writes me: ``Congressman (Stearns), the William Caspar Graustein Memorial Fund would gain nothing from the flattening of this tax. The check we write to the United States Treasury we would instead write to our grantees. Our 2002 excise tax payment was $22,176. We would prefer to put that money to work where we know it would help--the children and families in Connecticut.'' Signed, David M. Nee, Executive Director.

Foundations often spring from a corporate beginning. Take Robert W. Woodruff, the President of The Coca-Cola Company from 1923 until his death in 1985. He transformed the fledgling soft drink enterprise and its bottler franchise system into a corporate giant with the world's most widely known trademark. But this was not enough. Mr. Woodruff established a remarkable record as a businessman and philanthropist. Mr. Woodruff gave anonymously to many institutions, a number of which owe their very existence to his generosity. Prominent on Mr. Woodruff's desk was his personal creed: ``There is no limit to what

a man can do or where he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit.'' Last year, the Robert W. Woodruff Foundation, Inc. in Atlanta, Georgia, donated more than $106 million to aid schools, health care, art and cultural activities and the conservation of natural resources.

In my state, The Blue Foundation for a Healthy Florida, the philanthropic arm of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, serves to positively impact Florida's many different health care challenges. This includes a focus on the uninsured and underserved. The Blue Foundation provides aid to charities across the state that provide outreach and care to the underserved and uninsured population, as well as address other pressing health care needs.

This nation was founded on a principle of helping hands, charity, volunteerism, and the free flow of aid and comfort to fellow Americans. The grace of giving where one wants to is one of our precious liberties. Foundations touch the lives of every American--from access to public libraries, development of the polio vaccine, and even leading in the creation of Emergency 911. Let us encourage this and let charitable works thrive.

Mr. Speaker, I have some good news after that speech. As we talk about Iraq and how to fund our efforts over there, I do not think we should forget the amazing deeds that our troops are doing every day. Major combat has ended, and there are still terrorists at work in the country, but a powerful tyrannical regime has fallen, and, of course, it will take time and concerted efforts before democracy can grow from the ash and rubble of 35 years of Saddam Hussein.

Far from the headlines about the United States' military mission in Iraq, American GIs are daily making contributions to help mend Iraq both from the ravages of combat, but also from a decade of neglect, as I say, under Saddam Hussein. From the rebuilding of the hospitals to the delivery of school supplies and care packages, our troops have personally organized over 5,000 different humanitarian projects while, also, at the same time, trying to secure the security for Iraq. Slowly but surely change is coming to the people of Iraq, and it is the United States who is delivering that change, and someday, I believe, the world will realize this.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to detail a sampling, just a small sampling, but a few examples of projects carried out by our U.S. troops recently. For example, a battalion of the Army's 101st Airborne Division is hooking up the folks back home in America with Iraqi villages, organizing, in typical American style, an ``adopt- a-village'' campaign for sending care packages of school supplies, sports equipment, canned food, and toiletry items. So far, the 426th Forward Support Battalion has signed up the city of Salem, Utah, several Minnesota residents, and a Tennessee car dealership to help two villages. Perhaps others want to help today.

An Army reservist with the 432nd Civil Affairs Battalion from Green Bay, Wisconsin, dreamed up the ``Backpacks for Iraq'' project which aims to ship 2,000 donated packs filled with school supplies given by people in Wisconsin and elsewhere. So far the soldier has distributed 120 packs with another semitrailer truckload on the way.

The Combined Joint Task Force-Seven started a ``Beanies for Baghdad'' program which is delivering more than 7,000 stuffed animals and 1,000 classroom school supplies packages to Baghdad neighborhoods and children's hospital wards.

The Army Reserves 171st Area Support Group in Nasiriyah in southern Iraq collected money from the soldiers to buy stoves, refrigerators, fans, televisions, and kitchen tables and chairs for three orphanages which the troops have taken under their wing, in a city where, at the same time, fierce fighting rages daily in that location.

Soldiers from the Army's 490th Civil Affairs Battalion from Abilene, along with others from the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, have rebuilt a school from the ground up in a village outside Ar Ramadi, adding a new roof, a bathroom, water tanks, fans, windows, and chalkboards.

The Naval Coastal Warfare sailors delivered over 200 packages of school supplies after a San Diego church donated $800 to ship them to poor children in a southern Iraq port city. On their own time, sailors with the Inshore Boat Unit 15 from Corpus Christi, Texas, constructed 16 children-sized picnic tables using just scrap lumber as materials to do this.

Mr. Speaker, Seabees from the Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 4 based in California supervised a wholesale renovation of a girls' high school in southern central Iraq. The school now has freshly painted rooms and new electrical wiring, lighting, ceiling fans, and bathrooms. The $72,000 needed for the project came from funds that were confiscated from Saddam's Baath Party.

U.S. reservists from a Denver-based combat engineer battalion have adopted a small village in northern Iraq

where, on their own time, they are building a playground and equipment and restoring the irrigation well system.

Army engineers from Fort Lewis, Washington, have resurrected a water treatment plant in Iraq, freeing Iraqis there from the scourge of dysentery. And elsewhere, Mr. Speaker, American troops are volunteering to pick up and fix up orphanages, schools and hospitals, and even kicking in cash from their own pockets to buy refrigerators, stoves, and beds for needy Iraqis.

So it is clear that our troops are doing more for the Iraqi people than was ever asked of them. Out of compassion, character, and a will to do what is right, our men and women abroad will make sure that the job gets done and that change comes finally to these long-forgotten people.

Mr. Speaker, just as freedom and liberty are interwoven into the very fabric of our Nation, so too is the American pastime of volunteering. Recently, AmeriCorps' backers have been seeking an additional $100 million in supplemental funding, but I believe we should look carefully at their request.

AmeriCorps was not able to place anywhere from 20,000 to 37,000 employees, volunteers, and this is based upon a statement from them, the Save AmeriCorps Coalition, on September 4, because of its own muddy accounting records and overenrollment. Basically, what they did was overhire 20,000 plus volunteers without authorization.

Of further interest, during the August recess we learned of the distribution of cash bonuses to 265 senior staff at the parent agency, which is the Corporation for National Community Service, CNCS. While the amounts are nominal to their overall budget, what is disturbing is the apparent lack of judgment from CNCS officials. This Congress has been engaged in over a year's worth of hearings and legislation on corporate misbehavior and disproportionate executive compensation in ailing companies. The public expresses outrage over such private sector firm actions and demands that Congress investigate and would probably refer to emergency funding, in the example of such firms as we have been examining, as a bailout. CNCS should be subject to no less scrutiny and adhere to no lower standards.

Some of us question Federal funding of community service in the first place. AmeriCorps pays people to volunteer. Remuneration in exchange for choosing to contribute one's time, energy and/or money would seem to belie the very definition of the word ``volunteerism.''

This country does indeed have many needs. Thankfully, through the work of volunteers, many of those needs are met and fulfilled every day. Americans share their hearts, weekends, muscles and wallets in a multitude of activities.

To this end, a recent exhortation by the Save AmeriCorps Coalition should be mentioned here. This is what they say, ``Our generation is volunteering at unprecedented rates, making vital contributions to communities across the country through AmeriCorps. This opportunity, however, is at risk. Drastic cuts in Federal funding will result in the reduction of critical services for children, the elderly and hundreds of organizations that rely on AmeriCorps volunteers.''

If AmeriCorps is suggesting volunteerism might collapse in the United States, one might forgive our skepticism. Reflect that America has relied on the contribution of volunteers for centuries. AmeriCorps has existed for all but a decade, whereas our Nation's charitable sector thrived since before its creation.

After visiting America for the first time, the French social commentator Alexis de Tocqueville said, ``I have often admired the extreme skill with which the inhabitants of the United States succeed in proposing a common object to the exertions of a great many men, and in getting them voluntarily to pursue it.'' He wrote this in his book Democracy in America.

Further, analysis published in October 2003 in the Reason magazine article on AmeriCorps quantifies that according to AmeriCorps' and Bureau of Labor Statistics' numbers on volunteers both as members of AmeriCorps and as Americans on their own, ``AmeriCorps cuts then represent about four-tenths of 1 percent of total American volunteer hours.''

Even those of us who see the benefit in some Federal role in civic service question some of the endeavors in which AmeriCorps volunteers over the years have participated. While some of the activities undertaken by AmeriCorps members may be meritorious, AmeriCorps also has a history of participating in some activities of questionable value.

That these programs may be described as worthy to some, while questionable to others, might be a needless debate at all were not the taxpayers who are being charged in the first place for this volunteer work. For a decade now, members on both sides of our aisle have sought to legislate whether AmeriCorps members could spend time with political activities, campaigns, faith-based initiatives or unions. If the Federal Government were not involved in what should be a personal preference in the first place, we would not have to have these discussions in the first place. Any American, go volunteer where he or she wants, end of message.

Let us celebrate the pure volunteerism that occurs in our communities every day. Let us encourage it to flourish just as it was 200 years ago, selflessly and generously, from the heart.

Mr. Speaker, hours before President Bush's speech Sunday night, the top U.S. commander in Iraq summed up in a single sentence the importance of creating a free and democratic Iraq. Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez said, ``The only way we will fail in this country is if we decide to walk away in Iraq and fight the next battle in the war on terrorism in the United States of America.'' That is a stark assessment.

The President said the United Nations not only has an opportunity but a responsibility to assume a broader role in assuring that Iraq becomes a free and democratic nation. Nations that enjoy the richness of freedom have a moral obligation, when possible, to share their political and spiritual assets with countries that suffer from the poverty of totalitarianism.

Mr. Speaker, that has been the creed of this country. The American people must have the resolve to see this through.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the House floor to talk about my bill H.R. 195, which is the Informed Choice Act. The results of a recent survey commissioned by Care Net of 802 female registered voters nationwide unequivocally demonstrate that women coast to coast, and from all walks of life, agree that providing ultrasound technology for women's health centers is an important and worthwhile cause. It is clear that these women view ultrasound as an essential resource for women who are faced with unplanned pregnancies and the related decision to either terminate or to continue that pregnancy.

Nearly nine in 10, 87 percent of women, said it is important for nonprofit women's health centers to provide ultrasound services, including a considerable majority, 64 percent, who believe this is a very important priority.

A majority of female registered voters believe that women facing crisis pregnancies would benefit from having access to ultrasound. Over half, 51 percent of those surveyed, said that women who are considering abortions should have access to ultrasound consistent with the rest of the prior to finalizing their decisions. In contrast, just 31 percent claim that seeing an image of what is inside would make such a decision more difficult.

Mr. Speaker, it is clearly the belief of these women that ultrasound provides understanding, not uncertainty. It is with this new information in mind that I remind my colleagues about my bill, H.R. 195, ``The Informed Choice Act.'' I have introduced this legislation authorizing HHS to establish grants for which nonprofit health clinics could apply and, if awarded, purchase the needed ultrasound equipment. Many uninsured women are prohibited from finding the health care they need because the free health clinics to which they have access are unable to provide medical services because of the lack of funds to purchase such medical equipment. The mother is, therefore, forced to wander from one clinic to another in search of the services that she so desperately needs. Enabling these health clinics to purchase ultrasound equipment would be a persuasive push in the direction of transitioning from a health clinic to a medical facility.

The advantages of ultrasound are many. It is fast and relatively cheap, costing about $50 per exam. Ultrasound exams are performed at about 10 to 14 weeks of the pregnancy and are considered the best way to gauge growth before birth. Ultrasound can diagnose heart problems in the unborn child, find neural tube defects including spina bifida, and determine the position of the placenta. There is even now an ultrasound piece of equipment that can provide a 3-D image that can rotate 360 degrees to see all sides of the baby.

My legislation will ensure that doctors can provide critical information to mothers in the decision-making process regarding their pregnancies. Nothing in my bill makes ideology regarding abortion a condition for the grant. Whether a center offers abortion or abortion alternatives, the clinic is eligible so long as it meets the criteria set forth in the bill.

In the controversy today over abortion in America, emotionally charged rhetoric clouds the issue and does damage, I think, to the efforts made on behalf of mother and child. No matter one's conviction concerning abortion, we can all agree that the mother deserves as much information as is available in making this solemn decision. Information is the best weapon in diffusing the volatile discussion and returning us to our first concern, which is the health of the mother and child. The ultrasound equipment is a valuable tool in expanding the debate beyond traditional platitudes on both sides of the argument.

Modern medicine has provided us with a window into the womb. These advances in technology empower women with as much information as possible regarding their pregnancy. The goal of my legislation is to provide women who find themselves with an unplanned pregnancy with the full scope of information such that they may finally make an informed choice.

This bill is about the dissemination of information. The bill is about extending more free services to women

and about making available this vital technology to the very poor women as well as to the rich.

So in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, there are times when people of good faith who differ on an issue can come together and find a place to agree. I believe my legislation, H.R. 195, brings us beyond the shrill arguments regarding abortion and makes a meaningful effort to care for the mother and the child.