Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this motion to instruct conferees. Let me note I support our President in his military requests for Iraq, and I applaud his leadership and the great job that our military has done in Iraq.

The question is not the $66 billion that we are providing in the supplemental for our military, but the $18.6 billion in reconstruction money. And the question is should we just give this as a grant or should half of that $18.6 billion, at least half of it, be in the form of a loan that will be repaid after 20 years.

Well, I do not see any reason why after bearing such a heavy burden, it is not like the $66 billion, but so many other billions of dollars, why the American people have to carry the whole burden. Why do we not permit half of this, $10 billion of this, to go in the form of a loan that can be repaid? After all, we are in debt $400 billion a year. That is our level of deficit spending. We have to borrow that $10 billion to give it to Iraq as a gift. Why do we not let them repay it after 20 years, put it in the form of a loan? That way our children will not have to repay this $10 billion 20 years from now. Instead, Iraqi children, who will have benefited from all of our investment and will probably be the richest kids in the world because Iraq is one of the richest oil producing country's in the world, let them pay it back.

Mr. Speaker, I would support this motion to instruct. Let us give the American people a little break.

Mr. Speaker, today we will be discussing a supplemental which provides $87 billion for Iraq, $18.6 billion of that going as a reconstruction package.

The gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) was right when he suggested this is the pivotal decision that will be made today. The American people should pay close attention to what their Representatives are doing and should contact their Representatives if they believe that if we are going to give $18.6 billion away, it should be in the form of a loan which will be repaid once Iraq, which could be one of the richest oil producing countries in the world, gets back on its feet. It should repay that $18.6 billion. We should not just be giving it as a gift.

The Rohrabacher amendment insists that it be given as a loan instead of a gift and that it be repaid. And if the Rohrabacher amendment is not permitted, if it is ruled out of order, I will move the next Rohrabacher amendment, which would be to cut that $18.6 billion from the request. And within a matter of days, the administration will

come back with it in the form of a loan.

If you do not want to give away this money, if you want your children not to have to repay this money that we are borrowing in deficit spending, vote for the Rohrabacher amendment.

Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, let me note that I support H. Res. 198, and I commend the author for trying to do something.

I would note to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) that a fig leaf is better than no leaf at all, and this is a step, a very small step in the right direction that focuses on the debt forgiveness and how important that is that we do not keep a mill stone around Iraq's neck, and the people of Iraq, they are going to be democratic.

If they are going to have the stable society, they cannot have this massive debt hanging around their neck that was left them by Saddam Hussein. These are debts that were given to Saddam Hussein, loans that were given to him by these major financial international partners, for example, the Saudis and certainly German and French banks. We should not be saying that they have to repay these loans because no matter how much money we give them or how much is in the donor's conference, they will never prosper with these loans around their neck.

We tried this with Russia and we tried this with Eastern Europe. We insisted that they repay the debts of the Communist-era debts, and it created chaos and undercut progress in that part of the world for 10 years. We cannot afford that with Iraq.

So I support H. Res. 198, but the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) was absolutely correct when he said this is only part of the major debate which is should the $18.6 billion that we are going to provide as reconstruction money go to Iraq as loans or go to Iraq as a gift. The reason why they are saying it must be a gift is because of these loans that these big bankers made to Saddam Hussein when he was in power. That is no excuse at all. We should not be protecting the validity of $100 billion for the loans to Saddam Hussein from these heavy international financial institutions by giving our money away. We are borrowing this money, this reconstruction money, $18.6 billion because we are in deficit spending, and we are expecting our children to pay it back rather than to have the Iraqi children pay it back when they are on their feet 10 or 20 years from now, when they are the biggest oil producer in the world. We are going to end up paying it back rather than them paying it back. It makes no sense at all.

So I would ask my colleagues to make sure that they pay close attention to the Rohrabacher amendment which makes sure that this will be a loan to Iraq and not a grant and a gift or a giveaway. With that, I support H. Res. 198.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Pence amendment. We are talking about $18.6 billion of reconstruction funds. Should it be a loan? Should it be a gift?

I have legislation, an amendment that I have submitted and have been pushing for the last week, suggesting that all of that money should be in the form of loans. We should not, when we have to borrow this money, and we are already $400 billion in deficit spending this year, we have got to borrow this money in order to give it to Iraq, which is going to be rich with oil 10 years from now.

And our children are going to have to pay that back and their children will not? That is ridiculous. It is obscene.

The Pence amendment goes half way. If it passes, I will be supportive of this amendment and withdraw my amendment. But if the Pence amendment is struck down by a point of order, I would suggest my Republican colleagues join me in supporting the Obey-Lantos amendment which accomplishes the same goal of a 50/50 loan versus grant of the reconstruction money, and I understand that that will not be struck down by a point of order.

Let us get something done here today. The American people bear too much of the burden. Let us think of them for a change.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Obey- Lantos amendment, and very few times has anyone ever heard me say those words. And let me note that I will be voting for the $87 billion supplemental bill, whichever form the $18.6 billion reconstruction part of the package takes. However, the fairest way to the American people is to make sure that we do not just give away money that could be repaid to us once Iraq gets back on its feet.

Again, the former speaker said it right. This is whether it is going to be

a loan from our children and repaid by our children or repaid by the Iraqi children once Iraq is on its feet and the wealthiest oil producing country in the world. There is no reason to burden Americans any further. They have paid their debt and met their responsibility with treasure and blood. For Pete's sake, let us think about them and not just think about what is best for the world. Lending the money will get the job done, and they can repay it. That is what it is all about. Anyone who spoke for the Pence amendment should be supporting the Obey- Lantos amendment.

I will be withdrawing my amendment in favor of the Obey-Lantos amendment.

Mr. Speaker, today we will be considering the $87 billion supplemental that was just referred to. Sixty-six billion dollars of that will go for military aid, and I have no opposition to that at all. I am very supportive of making sure our troops have what they need to come home safely and get their job done. But $18.6 billion of this supplemental is going for a reconstruction plan that will be in the form of grants, of gifts that will never be repaid to the people of the United States.

I will be offering an amendment that will make this $18.6 billion in reconstruction come in the form of loans that will be repaid. That will be ruled out of order. And when it is, I will offer a second amendment, immediately, which will cut $18.6 billion from the supplemental package. This $18.6 billion will be cut specifically from reconstruction.

If my second amendment passes, the administration will quickly return to us with a proposal for $18.6 billion to be in the form of a loan. I would ask my colleagues to join me in saying if we are going to give $18.6 billion to oil rich Iraq, let us get a repayment. Let us make sure our people do not have to bear this burden and our children repay that debt.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of holding Syria accountable for aiding and abetting terrorists and for helping those who are killing Americans in Iraq, also to suggest to the Syrians that it is time for them to leave Lebanon.

Terrorism, we hear that word a lot. What is it? A terrorist is an individual or an organization or a nation that uses violence against noncombatants in order to achieve its goals. Syria needs not face this type of punitive legislation. First of all, let me note that before the Syrian Army went into Lebanon, the Lebanese were engaged in slaughter among themselves and that the Syrian troops played a positive role at that time. That has long since passed. They should be out of there by now.

But also the fact is that the Syrian Government fully understands that it is offering its country as a base of operations for organizations that target women and children in Israel. They are based there. They announce their attacks and the results of their attacks from there. There is no doubt that terrorists, people who are slaughtering innocent people, are there in their country; yet they refuse to change the policy that permits those terrorists to operate out of that country.

Now, when you talk to them about it, which I have, they always use what they perceive as the evils of Israel as an excuse. Well, I will tell you this, I am opposed to anyone who targets noncombatants to achieve their military or political ends. It is sinful. And today I wholeheartedly support this because what Syria does by providing safe haven to terrorists is an affront to civilization. Also, they are now engaged in helping those who are pulling the trigger in killing Americans as we do our job in Iraq. And I do not have to condemn all evil in the world in order to wholeheartedly condemn this evil. Today it is even more incumbent upon us to take a strong stand with Syria's wrong doing because every day our soldiers are being killed by people who are sneaking through Syria to get into Iraq. I would plead with Syria, please change your ways. You need not be our enemy. You need not have the policies you do.

Finally, let me note that while I wholeheartedly support this legislation condemning Syria's wrongdoing, I also condemn when other countries are engaged in wrongdoing in that part of the world. I would suggest that as a body we do not forcefully condemn Israel when it is apparent to us that Israel is engaged in wrongdoing. I believe that undermines our credibility with these Arab countries and these Arabs when we plead with them on issues like this. If we could be more balanced, I think we could be a greater force for the good and moral standards that we talk about today.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3289 and I will be voting, however it comes out in final form, for this very much needed legislation and commend our President and commend, of course, Chairman Young for the great job he has done on this.

I firmly support the $66 billion appropriated in this bill which covers our military costs in Iraq. It is vitally important that we pass this. That is why I will support the bill no matter how it comes out at the end.

However, I will be opposing the $18.6 billion of reconstruction money in the bill as it is being presented to us today. Helping Iraq rebuild is certainly an important part of our winning in Iraq, but they should be based on loans, rather than based on gifts from the American people. Instead, we are being told today that this $18.6 billion reconstruction package must be in the form not of a loan that will be repaid to us when Iraq gets back on its feet but instead as a giveaway, as a grant.

The American people are already carrying a heavy burden for peace in the region and the Federal level of deficit spending is almost $400 billion. And Iraq someday very shortly is going to be one of the wealthiest countries of the world, if not the wealthiest, because they produce more oil and will be producing more oil than just about anybody. So we should be asking for a payback for this $18 billion.

But why are we being told it has to be a grant instead of a loan? Because Iraq supposedly already owes $120 billion to foreign banks. Give me a break. What is being said here? We have got to spend $20 billion in a grant form, a giveaway, to protect the loans, the billions of dollars of loans that German and French banks gave to Saddam Hussein? That makes no sense. I will be offering an amendment to make sure to secure wording which will suggest that this reconstruction package of $18.6 billion is in the form of a loan, not a gift.

If this is ruled not germane or out of order, I will immediately offer another amendment which will strike $18.6 billion from the bill, and specifically reconstruction funds, which means a vote ``yes'' on the Rohrabacher amendment is a vote for the loans because if my amendment passes, the administration will quickly come back with providing this $18.6 billion reconstruction program in the form of a loan, rather than as a giveaway and a gift to the people of Iraq.

So I would ask my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 3289 and voting for it in final passage no matter what happens to my amendment, but I would suggest that they support the Rohrabacher amendment which will guarantee that the reconstruction funds in this bill be paid back after a while when Iraq gets back on its feet. The American people carry too heavy a burden. Let us give them a break.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3289. And what we are doing in Iraq is a noble endeavor. It is in our interest to stand tall and, yes, even to fight and to promote freedom throughout the world. It is especially important for us to promote freedom in those dictatorships that threaten our country or are run by tyrants who hate our country.

Our military has done a magnificent job, and we need to give them what they say they need to do their job and to come home safely. Thus, there should not be any debate on the $66 billion that is being requested. They say they need it. Their lives are in danger. We must step forward. They have stepped forward for us.

Our President is taking care of business. He has made the tough decisions to do what is necessary to secure our country and to make sure that we are safe in the years ahead. I wish that was the case in the past administration. I think many of the challenges we face today were left to us by jobs that should have been done in the past.

Saddam Hussein hated America for what it did to kick him out of Kuwait over 10 years ago. And when I just said the previous administrations, I hope you just do not think I mean Democrats, because George Bush's father, George Bush, Sr., did not do the job right and left us with Saddam Hussein in power.

So let us reflect that we did not do the job then, but let us just not place blame and say that means we should not be doing it today. No. The mistakes of the past should mean that we need to make sure we do what is right today so that America is safe in the future and that our children 10 years down the road will not have to face this same kind of problem because we cut and run, because we nit-picked our President at a time when he made the decision that should have been done 10 years ago.

Saddam Hussein was a man who hated us. He hated us. He was an enemy to the United States of America. He was a murderer to his own people. He pillaged and destroyed his own economy, and that economy should have been very prosperous; but instead he pillaged and stole from it. And now that country is very poor and needs our help.

America is safer. The people of Iraq are better off because of America's courage, our commitment, and, yes, our leadership.

I support this bill, $66 billion in the supplemental that will help rebuild our military or bolster them at this pivotal moment. I will be voting for this bill, for the supplemental, H.R. 3289, even if my amendments are not made in order. But I have some serious problems with that part of the bill that provides $18.6 billion in reconstruction for Iraq, and

it has taken the form, as the administration is giving us, as a grant, a gift, a giveaway to the people of Iraq.

Now, let me note Iraq is probably in essence one of the richest countries in the world. They have the third largest oil reserves now that we know. And, in fact, in the future we may find they are the most plentiful in oil of any country in the world. Why should we be borrowing money when we are in debt by $400 billion a year, almost $500 billion in deficit spending right now, why should we borrow and then give a grant to the Iraqis, which when they get back on their feet they will not have to repay, but our children will then have to repay? That is ridiculous. That is an absolute absurdity.

And I will present an amendment tomorrow that makes the reconstruction effort belong to the Iraqi Government, or the Iraqi people, of $18.6 billion. And if I am ruled out of order, I will offer another amendment to cut that funding from the budget.

If that is ruled out of order, I will offer another amendment which will just cut from the budget $18.6 billion in the reconstruction part of the bill. And believe me, if we vote for that, within a few days the administration will come back with a loan package because the Senate will probably vote for that anyway.

Let us keep faith with the American people in the long run. Let us make sure that everybody does their part, not just the American people having to bear this burden by themselves. And I would ask my Democratic colleagues as well as my Republican colleagues to please join me on the Rohrabacher amendment.

Madam Speaker, today we have heard a great debate on H.R. 3289, the supplemental concerning Iraq and Afghanistan. This $87 billion supplemental is the largest supplemental in American history, and we should look at it very closely; and we should be considering all portions of this supplemental.

I support the supplemental basically, and I will be voting for it even if my perfecting amendments are rejected. However, I have several suggestions that I will be making tomorrow that I believe are vital to the well-being of the American people.

So tonight I thought I would speak a little bit about the supplemental and about several of the changes that need to be made in order to ensure that the interests of the American people are being met.

First of all, of the $87 billion we are being asked for in this supplemental, $66 billion of it is for our military. And this portion of the supplemental I support. And I will have to suggest that, even as we have heard today, if someone is complaining that there was a lack of body armor, one does not suggest that the way to solve that is not to give them the money that they believe is necessary to complete their mission in Iraq. In fact, being someone who respects our Armed Forces and their leaders and respects the job and the courage it takes to do this job and knowing that I am not an expert on military matters, I would lean towards granting the requests from our military when they claim they need a certain amount of money in order to get their job done and to come home safely.

Certainly, a great deal of our defense resources have been expended in Afghanistan and Iraq; and many of these resources need to be replaced, whether it is fuel or ammunition, whether it is repairing equipment or whatever. We are going to need to spend a certain amount of money just to bring ourselves up to the point where we are not vulnerable because of the commitments that we have made overseas in these last 2 years. If we do not do this, if we do not pay heed to what our military says they need in order to finish their mission successfully and come home safely, either they will not succeed in their mission, more people will be killed, or we will be left vulnerable in years ahead. This makes no sense. So I will give the benefit of the doubt to the military, to Mr. Rumsfeld to try to do his best job and get this operation over in Iraq and bring our troops home safely.

But, fundamentally, many people are talking about and challenging whether or not our military should have been in Iraq in the first place. Let me note that taking care of Saddam Hussein was necessary for America's security, and we should applaud our President for making the tough decisions and taking the heat and putting up with all the backbiting and nit-picking that he has had to go through in order to make sure that our operation, the democratic offensive there in Iraq, to make sure it kept going and was successful. The President has his detractors, and I am not saying he has not made mistakes, but by and large this has been a great President, a historic President who stepped up to the plate and did what was necessary and met the challenge of his day. And let us note that almost very few of the people who are now attacking our President and are attacking the supplemental would advocate that we permit Saddam Hussein to get back into power, and earlier we even heard the proposals that we give this to the United Nations so that Saddam Hussein will not come back into power. Unless we are going to provide leadership, the United Nations is useless, as we know. It is a debating society, and unless America provides the leadership, it will do nothing. So we can be very proud that our President said, I am going to take care of America's security.

Saddam Hussein was a monster. He is a monster. And he was a monstrous threat when he was in power. He was a mass murderer to his own people. He was a torturer, and he was not only a scourge to his own people in his right, but he was a threat when he was in power to the United States of America. He was a threat to our safety because Saddam Hussein hated America, hated every one of us, and would have done us harm had he had the chance because America humiliated him by driving his forces out of Kuwait a decade ago. There is no getting around it.

He had a blood grudge against us. What that means in that part of the world with a man who murders hundreds of thousands of his own people, that means he would not think twice if he had the opportunity to kill Americans in great numbers; and I am very pleased that our President took this tyrant out, eliminated this threat to America, and promoted democracy in Iraq at the same time.

Unfortunately, the reason we had to do that now was because a decade ago President Bush One did not do his job. He did not finish the job he set out to do, and now we have been paying for it. Let us make sure that the decisions we make now with this supplemental and other decisions that we will be making ensure that we will not have to go back to that region. Let us finish the job,

get it done right. Let us not shortchange our people when they ask for their needs in the military, but let us make sure we get the job done so we do not have to go back again.

How do we do that? First and foremost, yes, we back our military because Saddam Hussein was one of the most powerful military forces in that part of the world. In fact, he was the most powerful military force in that part of the world. So we had to use that tool to get him out. But succeeding also requires having the people of Iraq on our side. We need to help them build a democratic society. And I was in the forefront along with the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) in passing the Iraq Liberation Act 5 years ago, and I might note that the State Department under the last administration and under this administration until after September 11 did not expend the funds that were given to them in order to help the people of Iraq provide the democratic alternative to Saddam Hussein that they needed. That was a failure for the last 5 years of our government.

We need now to work with the people of Iraq and build their democratic institutions, and we are succeeding in that. And, yes, there are people who will kill an American soldier, and we are drawing in the al Qaeda and the terrorists from around the world to attack Americans there. But overwhelmingly the people of Iraq are very gleeful that Saddam Hussein is gone and grateful to America for this. And I suggest that in years ahead that once the situation is stabilized and Iraq becomes part of the family of nations, the civilized family of nations, instead of headed by a rogue general like Saddam Hussein, that we will find that the people of Iraq are our best friends. They will be so grateful to us that they will stand beside us in the challenges that we face in the future, and they will tell us how grateful they are and the suffering that they went through under Saddam Hussein.

And already our stand in the Middle East has done so much to increase our prestige. Already, for example, in Iran we see changes, movement for change in Iran, one of the most hardened anti-Western of Islamic societies, and we see that throughout the Islamic world that there is a possibility now because of America's increase in prestige that we can actually step in and do some good and we can be proud that with only a minor loss of civilian life we actually achieved our goal of eliminating Saddam Hussein's monstrous regime.

In fact, more civilians would be dead, Iraqi civilians would be dead today, had we left Saddam Hussein in power and he killed the number of civilians that he was killing, that his rate of massacre of his own people would have continued unabated by American troops. Also, there were limited casualties on our side; and, yes, there are still a few casualties. Every day we hear about that. It is a tragedy. It is part of the price we are paying, but it does not reflect the Iraqi people, but instead is the last gasp of a tyrant and of a dictator of a monstrous regime that we have driven into oblivion and put on the ash heap of history.

So our soldiers can be proud, and we are proud of them. They are risking their lives, and we are going to make sure they can do their job. So I want to make it very clear that I support those elements in the bill that will assist our military in that job; and as I say, America is safer because of what we have done. America will always be safer when we are championing the cause of liberty and justice.

All too long in the Cold War, we found ourselves supporting dictators and tyrants, and there has been talk about what we did for Saddam Hussein himself at a time when he was in a conflict with Iranians. And, yes, people did help. I might add that the guaranteed loans that my friend referred to earlier happened in 1989 after Ronald Reagan had left the White House. I know that because it was my first year here, and one of the first things I did on the floor of this House was to pass out leaflets to Members as they came in through that door asking them not to vote for the loan guarantees to Saddam Hussein. These were loan guarantees that were going to permit him to buy American grain, which meant we were paying for his food while he used his money to pay for his army. It was a horrible mistake. It was a horrible thing to do. Anytime we give credit to dictators, it is wrong. When we helped support people like Samosa and these other dictators around the world, it was wrong. What we need to do now to be secure is to promote freedom.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

If I could reclaim my time, let me just note that at times during World War II, we were known to send weapons to Joseph Stalin in order to fight Adolph Hitler, and during the Cold War we at times backed dictators like Samoza and some nefarious characters. And, I might add, we did not start winning the Cold War until Ronald Reagan said, and let me stress this, when he came to power he said, We are not just against communism anymore, we are for democracy. That is a very important part of how we won the Cold War.

During that time period, Iran was considered a terrible threat, engaged with terrorist activities, murdering Americans, et cetera. We all remember that. I will admit probably the Reagan Administration, trying to balance off that Iranian threat, did some of these things that the gentleman is referring to.

That is absolutely correct, and I am very proud that in the United States history we have been pragmatic at times, but all of our pragmatism has been balanced with a love of liberty and justice. And there have been debates on this floor, unlike in other countries where they are backing dictators, that it does not make the debate on the floor. And we can be very proud of our country, that we did save the world from the Nazis and the Japanese militarists.

I am very proud of my father's generation. My father has passed away now. He was in the Pacific war. So many of these people did so much back in those days. The Japanese militarists and Nazis would have dominated this planet without them stepping forward.

I am also very proud of what we did during the Cold War. It was a very perilous moment for humankind. We stepped forward. It was Americans that stepped into the breach. I might add, our allies nitpicked and backbit us every moment, the French and Germans, every time we tried to make a stand against the communists during that time period.

But, today, who would have guessed after the Cold War that we would face a new major threat, a massive threat? On September 11, that threat became evident to all of us. That threat, where terrorists overseas, in a faraway country, their little tyranny, the Taliban

tyranny in Afghanistan, was able to be used as a base of operations, their country was used as a base of operations to slaughter 3,000 Americans in the worst terrorist attack in the history of our country. This was the greatest slaughter of American civilians in the history of our country.

This brought us to the reality of another great threat that we face. I would like to say that I believe President Bush has stepped up to this challenge. In Afghanistan, I think we did a terrific job. This bill does put another $1.5 billion in for reconstruction, which I believe should have happened immediately after the Taliban were thrown out, so we have not been exactly quick on this. We should have been quicker, no doubt.

But we have got the terrorists on the run. Their home base has been eliminated. The Taliban regime, the ones that are not dead are running, along with bin Laden and their gang, looking over their shoulders. Otherwise, we would have had very many more terrorist acts in the United States.

We arrested this guy in Thailand. He is the one who conducted the bombing of this discotheque in Indonesia, murdering a couple of hundred people, mostly surfers, one from my district, a guy named Webby Webster, who went down there to go surfing.

These terrorists, radical Islamists, hate America's way of life. We must do our best to reach out to the Muslim world, to the moderate Muslims, to those people who would believe in democracy and want to be part of the Western family of nations. We must do so, and we must start right here in Iraq. This is the best place to turn around the entire Muslim world. Congress is being asked now.

So I am supporting what we have done. But there is something in this bill which I find myself in opposition to, and I think the American people need to pay attention, and I would like to call this to the attention of my colleagues. I believe it is a vitally important issue which will be decided tomorrow.

Of this $87 billion supplemental, Congress is being asked to approve $18.6 billion of it as a reconstruction package for Iraq. This American aid will be used, to some degree, to rebuild what was damaged or destroyed in our military operations, but, to a greater degree, it will be used to upgrade, refurbish and to make operational an Iraqi infrastructure that was neglected and allowed to degenerate under decades of Saddam Hussein's tyrannical dictatorship.

The reconstruction package includes billions of dollars to be taken from the pockets of the American people to upgrade and refurbish Iraq's electric and water systems, as well as repairing and upgrading Iraq's oil industry, among many other projects, I might add.

Well, these costly improvements, for example, there are clinics, and there are cranes that we are going to buy, and airports and things that will help Iraq in the future prosper, these costly improvements are necessary just to keep that society functioning, because it is so low at this point. But it will also lay the foundation for the future, a future of stability, and, yes, we can predict a future of prosperity in Iraq.

Should we help now? The answer is yes. We bought onto that role when we sent our troops into that country. The administration is asking, again, for $66 billion for our military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. I have no problem with that, because we do need to finish the job and see our troops come home safely. Again, I will not second- guess or undercut our military about what form the military spending will take.

The question facing us, however, is what form the $18.6 billion reconstruction program will take. Should it be in the form of a grant, a giveaway, something that will never be repaid, or should it be in the form of loans and investments in Iraq?

Iraq's infrastructure challenges can be fixed and paid for by Iraqi consumers and producers through the sale of oil and through fees on the purchase of electricity and water and oil and gas. So the Iraqi people can pay for these things over a 20-year period, just as any similar effort to upgrade or refurbish systems in our country, whatever systems they are, you have the capital costs, and they are made part of the bill that the consumer pays, and then that is paid off over a 20-year period.

Well, why can that same thing not work for the Iraqi people, especially when considering the Iraqi people in the future may be very prosperous?

Our level of Federal Government deficit spending this year will be at least $400 billion. How can we borrow, which is being proposed to us, that we take $18 billion and give it as loans? We are borrowing that because we are in deficit. How can we borrow $18.6 billion and give it to the people of Iraq? We are being told we want to give it to them because we cannot expect them to accept more debt.

Well, our people will have to pay it back. Our people, in time, will have to pay back that debt. What we are doing is borrowing money to give to the people of Iraq so that our children can pay back that debt.

Well, the Iraqi people should pay that back. Iraq has the third largest oil reserves in the world. That is what we know today. They are just behind Saudi Arabia and Canada. But, guess what? Once a full and honest assessment is made, we may find that Iraq is the world's number one oil producer. That is it. It may end up that 10 years from now Iraq is the biggest oil producer in the world.

Iraq today has 112 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, but only 10 percent of the country has been explored. Only 17 percent of the country's 80 oil fields have been developed. We are talking about what may well be the richest country in the world.

The only reason it is poor today is because it has been exploited and its people have been beaten down and its economy robbed by this monster, Saddam Hussein. But if they are potentially one of the richest countries in the world, why must we give away our limited resources, and give it away just as a grant, as a giveaway, never to be repaid? Why must our people pay for everything and never expect to get paid back? Why must the American people have to shell out another $18.6 billion, to be taken from their pockets or to be taken from the money needed to run our schools or our hospitals or our transportation systems? Why? Why must we bear the burden, the whole burden?

The answer we are being given by global planners over at the State Department suggests they are not watching out for the interests of the American people when they propose this plan, but, instead, they are watching out for what is best for the world. Well, who is supposed to watch out for the American people, if our government does not watch out for them?

Unfortunately, the motive behind the strategy we have been presented of grants instead of loans does not appear to be based on a humanitarian concern for the long-suffering people of Iraq. That might be a little understandable, if the planners over at the State Department were basing it on that, because their hearts were touched. No, that would be admirable. It might be wrong-headed, but it would be admirable. It might be, for example, misguided charity.

But, no, this is not a rational benevolence. That is not the driving force behind this $18.6 billion. The Americans are being told that we must give that as a gift, rather than expect any payback. Of course, the country we are giving it to is potentially a very, very wealthy country.

No, what is motivating this demand, and we have heard it in the debate tonight, that it be a gift instead of a loan, this $18 billion reconstruction plan, is concern for the powerful international banking and financial interests. They are the driving force behind the demand that Americans give the gift of $18 billion for Iraqi reconstruction, rather than loan it to them. What is happening here is that a loan would increase the level of debt in Iraq.

We are told that Iraq already owes about $120 billion in foreign debt; and if we add another $18.6 billion to that, it just might be the straw that breaks the camel's back. And on this floor tonight we have heard that argued: oh, this is what happened to Germany in World War I, and this is what leads to further conflict, in that we put this debt, we give them such a burden of debt that the society breaks down; and then they say, nobody is going to get paid back

because the economy will fail, along with any hopes of recovery or any hopes of stability because of too much debt on Iraq. Well, that is what we are being told. All I have to say is, that is total, absolute nonsense. That is limiting our options and building a straw man and destroying a straw man.

The American people have already carried a far too heavy burden. They have carried the load, the full load for peace and stability for almost the entire planet. Now we are being asked to cough up another $18.6 billion, never to be repaid back. And why are we being asked? We have to give it away? Why is that? Because if we make it a loan, then it might threaten the viability of the loans that huge German, French, and Belgian banks have made to Saddam Hussein's regime. That is it. Got it?

Now, do we know why everybody is saying the American people should not be paid back? Because if we make it a loan, those $120 billion that were loaned to Saddam Hussein might, in some way, be put in jeopardy. We are asking the American people to put out $20 billion to protect loans made by international bankers in Germany and France to Saddam Hussein's dictatorship? No. And Saddam Hussein, of course, was given credit lines by people like the Saudis and others in the Persian Gulf; and when he got these loans and this credit that we are talking about, he did not build bridges; he did not feed babies. He bought sophisticated weapons and opulent palaces that were complete with jacuzzis and torture chambers. That is what he did with those loans. The people of Iraq never benefited from those loans. He let his own country's infrastructure rot even though these loans were providing him billions of dollars along with Iraq's oil money.

Now the American people are told we must donate $18.6 billion because to loan it, coupled with Saddam Hussein's debt, it would be too heavy a burden for the Iraqi people to climb out from under, and it would hurt the pillars of international finance.

Well, the solution, I might add, again, there is another solution. We are not just talking about either a loan in and of itself and not changing anything else, or a gift. No, if we make a loan, it has to be coupled with a change in policy. The solution is not another $18.6 billion to be taken from the hides of the American people. The solution is a repudiation of the Iraqi dictator's $120 billion debt.

The Europeans, who loaned Saddam Hussein billions which he used for weapons and palaces, should try to find Saddam Hussein and collect from him if they want their money back. We are not the world's repo man or collection officer. The American position on the debt left by Saddam Hussein should be based on the principle that no people who rid themselves of a tyrant should be expected to pay the debts incurred by that dictator. Any financial institution or country that loans money or provides credit to a gangster regime like that of Saddam Hussein's should do so at their own risk, and they should certainly not expect America's taxpayers to guarantee their amoral transactions.

Now, we have heard on this floor that none of this money is going to go to repay those loans. Yes, none of that money in particular. But by not making this a loan, by never getting it back, by just giving away $20 billion which our children will have to repay, because we are borrowing that, what that means is we are doing that in order to secure those loans so those big German and French and Saudi moneyed interests get paid the loans they made to Saddam Hussein.

In summary, the insistence that we give, rather than loan, Iraq this $18.6 billion is really aimed at protecting these financial institutions that back Saddam Hussein's bloody regime. The debt left by Saddam Hussein's dictatorship should be repudiated. It should be wiped away. We have heard earlier today talk about the Marshall Plan. We have heard about, oh, we have to pass this as a gift, because other donor countries will not help in the weeks ahead.

Well, first of all, look at the Marshall Plan argument. What did we do to make sure that Germany was able to prosper? The first thing we said in the Marshall Plan was that the German Government is not going to be responsible for the debts of the Hitler regime. Now, the reparations, yes. That is when the Nazis did things and that government had to pay reparations, but not the debts, not the people who just loaned money to the Hitler regime. All of those debts were forgiven.

So here we have the Marshall Plan argument, and it just does not work here.

The institutions, the institutions and the governments that hold the debt from Saddam's regime cannot be permitted to profit from these loans to this gangster. And when we go to that conference and we are asking, the President is saying, oh, we have to make it a grant instead of a loan because these other people then will not donate when we go to the donors conference. Look, my colleagues just noted, I worked in the White House for 7 years. This is ridiculous.

First of all, how much money are we expecting to get from those people? I will guesstimate that it will be a very small amount. If there is $10 billion, I will be shocked, and shocked if the $10 billion is ever donated. But there is nothing that we can do at that donors conference; there is no amount of money that they can give that will be more beneficial to the economy of the Iraqi people than the repudiation of the debt that Saddam Hussein accumulated to those very same countries' banks.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Really high.

No. What is that?

Madam Speaker, I think the gentleman's information puts to bed the idea that we have to spend $18.6 billion and give it as a gift in order to make sure that the Europeans at this donors conference cough up the money. Well, there is very little chance that they will. But again, no matter how much money they give, in no way would it be as beneficial as if we had a policy that the debt owed or the debt accumulated by Saddam Hussein and spent by Saddam Hussein is no longer the responsibility of the Iraqi people. That would free the Iraqi people from a burden that will bend them over and break their economy.

Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, we will be paying the interest on that for 20 years and then our children, our young children today will have to pay those debts off in the future.

Again, this comes back to a basic argument we will have on the floor tomorrow, and this is one of the center

core debates we will have tomorrow, about fiscal responsibility and what is going on.

I support the President's war efforts. I have been a point person on them. No one can doubt that in this body. I support the Iraqi war efforts, supported what we did in Afghanistan. I am proud of our President. But we must stand up for fiscal responsibility, especially when it comes to this part of the package I think it is one-eighth of the package or something, one-sixth of the package, which deals specifically with Iraqi reconstruction. Should it be a loan? Should we expect that when Iraq gets back on its feet, starts producing its oil, which it may be the word's biggest oil producer in years to come, should we expect them to pay it back as we continue to prosper or should our children pay for that money because we had to borrow, make a greater debt to get the money there in the first place?

Well, let me tell you what happened in the past when we followed the same course. We pressured the democratic governments that replaced the communist dictatorships in Russia and Eastern Europe to pay their debts of oppressors of the preceding communist regimes. What did that do when we forced them to pay for that? What happened was a decade of chaos, a decade of uncertainty, a decade where there was very little growth, and there was actual decline instead of what we could have had in Eastern Europe and Russia which could have been an era of progress, of freeing, of uplifting. But instead we wanted those people to pay for the debts.

Well, all of this was done. Why? Here we were risking the democratic development of Russia itself and bringing us out of the Cold War and into a new world in order to protect powerful financial interests who had done business with these bloody dictatorships. Mainly, yes, huge European banks who had loaned money to Russia and to Eastern European countries. And we risked instability and we risked the whole future of development of the post-Cold War world in order to make sure that their loans to the dictatorships were honored. We cannot do that now. We cannot base our policy on keeping the loans to Saddam Hussein's loans viable for these nutty financiers from Saudi Arabia and from French and German banks.

We are here to do right by the people of Iraq. And we can do that. What is right is for us to let them wipe the slate clean. Let them repudiate these debts. As I say, no amount of money is going to be donated at this conference that will make up, that could be anywhere as beneficial as just repudiating the Saddam Hussein debt.

And let us renew, let us start anew, let them start anew as well. Let us offer money for reconstruction as a loan. If they can or cannot repay it in the future if something happens, we have not lost anything if we put it as a loan. Because if we give it as a grant, we are certainly not going to get anything back.

Now, tomorrow I am going to offer two amendments on the Iraqi reconstruction. And my first amendment will suggest that the $18.6 billion in Iraqi reconstruction, that part of the supplemental should be made only as a loan. Now, it may well be ruled out of order. It may be said that it is not germane because you cannot legislate on an appropriations bill. And we are talking about an appropriations bill.

If my amendment there is ruled out of order, I will then offer another amendment. And that amendment will be to cut the $18.6 billion in reconstruction money from that bill. And I can assure my Democratic colleagues and my Republican colleagues, my friends on both sides of the aisle, that if we stand up and do what is right and insist that they not spend the money unless it is a loan, I can guarantee them the next day the administration will be here, will be here with a loan proposal.

And, so, the vote on the Rohrabacher amendment tomorrow, and that is not a cutting amendment but it is an insistence that it be a loan instead of a give-away, the people of the United States need to know how we are voting, they need to contact their Member of Congress to say to vote for the Rohrabacher amendment making it a loan, and cutting it if it is not. Because it will come back within a few days as a loan.

And I would hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will be able to support that. We can stand by the people of Iraq, but we do not have to stand on the face of the American taxpayer to do it.

Madam Speaker, would the gentleman yield for a moment? I appreciate the expressions of support. And if we can help improve this even a little bit by that portion of the bill dealing with reconstruction, I think that it will at least make these a little bit better.

I would hope that those people who are listening or reading this in the newspaper would be calling their Congressman and let the people know that the Rohrabacher amendment is something that we know is in the deep interest of the American people and that we need to stand up for the American people sometimes.

Madam Speaker, in the next few weeks Congress will be shaping and hopefully passing legislation aimed at jump-starting the Iraqi economy, hopefully laying the foundation for prosperity and democracy in that troubled land. The administration is proposing a $23 billion package out of an $87 billion program; and the question now is, what form will our support take in this first $23 billion assistance package to Iraq? Will it be given to Iraq in the form of a loan or will it be given in the form of an investment or will it be given in the form of a grant?

We are being told in Congress that it must be given in the form of a grant. We are being told that the people of the United States must give to Iraq $23 billion because if we try to give it in the form of a loan instead of a grant that it will hurt the Iraqi economy and they will not be able to prosper.

This is so much nonsense, State Department nonsense which is not taking into consideration the well-being of the people of the United States of America and taking the easy way out. Yes, let us just shovel money over there. That would not be good for the people of Iraq or the people of the United States.

The objection the State Department has is based on the idea that if we have any more debt accumulated on the people of Iraq, they will not prosper because they already have so much debt. In fact, their debt is estimated at $120 billion. That is no reason for us to just give away $23 billion of the money of the people of the United States. No. What we should be doing is saying, who loaned that money to Iraq? And, in fact, what we are talking about here is $120 billion given not to the people of Iraq but to Saddam Hussein, to Saddam Hussein's regime by our supposed allies, by big international banks.

Our position should not be that the Iraqi people have to repay that debt. We should be encouraging the new democracy in Iraq to repudiate the debt of countries that gave money to Saddam Hussein which he then used to buy weapons to repress and oppress his own people. Repudiation of that debt will permit the Iraqi people to prosper and permit us rather than to penalize our own people in order to repay, yes, the money is not going directly back to those big international banks, but it will be going back to them if we simply shovel our money into Iraq right now.

No, we should help Iraq establish the foundation for prosperity by insisting that the loans that were given to Saddam Hussein are not the responsibility of the people of Iraq who want a democratic government. If those big bankers in France and Germany want their loans back which they gave to Saddam Hussein, let them find Saddam Hussein and collect those loans from Saddam Hussein, not the people of Iraq. Our assistance should be based not on giving money to the people of Iraq because we have no choice because Iraq already owes so much money. What we should do is help them get out of that debt situation by repudiating that illegal debt and, instead, structure our support as loans when we can, or even investments.

Much of what is being suggested for Iraq is upgrading their post office, their water system, their oil production, their electric system. All of those things are based on services that are provided to the Iraqi people which they will pay for. Let us structure the $23 billion we give to Iraq as an investment in those things rather than just giving them the money and expecting no repayment for the American people in return. This would be actually more efficient in the end because it would put a profit-type of incentive into the mix when people are setting up the post office and the water system and the oil production and the electric system in Iraq. No, let us reconfirm to the world by supporting the repudiation of Saddam Hussein's debt; let us reconfirm the principle that anyone who loans money or does business with dictators does so at their own risk and the American people should never bail them out if that dictatorship is overthrown. We should be on the side of the democratic forces and give them an incentive to get rid of the dictator and by doing so, get rid of their debt rather than have to bear the burden of their own oppressor.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Republic of China on Taiwan's re-admission to the United Nations. For the last 32 years, Taiwan's people have had no representation in the United Nations. It is incongruous that a world body founded on the principle of universality and self-determination excludes a free, democratic and independent nation of 23 million people--a population larger than three quarters of the U.N.'s current member states.

Let's be clear. Taiwan does not seek the expulsion of the People's Republic of China from the United Nations, but asks only that it be given a voice at the U.N. There are well-established precedents for parallel representation of divided nations at the U.N. East and West Germany, now unified, and the still divided Republic of Korea and Democratic People's Republic of Korea are the outstanding examples.

Taiwan's participation in international bodies is well documented as shown by its membership in the Asian Development Bank, its admission to the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation group as a full member, and its membership in the World Trade Organization.

Taiwan possesses ample resources to contribute to the work and funding of the U.N. as shown in its many contributions of humanitarian aid. Such projects by Taiwan include relief supplies for Iraq and Afghanistan, AIDS prevention in Africa, the dispatch of rescue teams following natural disasters in El Salvador, Nicaragua and Turkey and assistance to victims of the 9/11 disaster here in the United States.

Taiwan's accession to the United Nations is long overdue. Its 23 million people deserve this important vehicle to full participation in the global community.

As Taiwan bids to return to the United Nations, I wish to say that 1 totally support Taiwan's aspirations to be a member of this global body. Taiwan has all the qualifications: a

sound political system, a much-admired economy and a genuine desire to maintain peace and prosperity in East Asia and the world.

With membership in the United Nations, Taiwan will become a truly useful international player, contributing its finances and ideas to combat nuclear proliferation, environmental abuses, and the spread of infectious diseases such as AIDS and SARS. As of now, Taiwan has not been invited to any of the various U.N.-sponsored conferences and programs on HIV/AIDS. Moreover, no U.N. bodies are willing to accept Taiwan's aid for Afghanistan and Iraq. This is not in the interests of the Afghan and Iraqi people.

Also, with membership in the United Nations, Taiwan will be able to incorporate itself into the international system of human rights protection, abide by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Vienna Declaration and Program of Action. It is heartening to know Taiwan's commitment to human rights is very serious. It is establishing a National Human Rights Commission in accordance with the principles outlined by the United Nations.

Being the world's 17th largest economy, Taiwan will most certainly be able to carry out all United Nations Charter obligations. Taiwan's efforts to help other countries would be much more effective if they could be coordinated with international efforts sponsored by the U.N. and its specialized agencies.

Perhaps one of the best reasons for supporting Taiwan's membership in the United Nations is that Taiwan is willing and anxious to be a full contributing member of the United Nations. So, let's speak up for our friend and ally, the Republic of China on Taiwan. Let's tell the world how unfair it has been to deny the 23 million people of Taiwan their voice and representation in the United Nations and especially their willingness to other nations in need.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this well- crafted, bipartisan legislation, and congratulate the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Ranking Member Sabo) for a job well done.

During this debate it should be evident to everyone that the cost of securing our country is going to be astronomical. Later today I will propose an amendment to H.R. 2557, the Water Resources Development Act, which will help us raise some money for our own security needs from outside, from foreign sources. My amendment will permit us to establish a container fee on containers coming into our ports, which, of course, those fees will be paid by the overseas manufacturers, that will then be part of a fund that we can use for our own security, for some of the costs that this legislation is appropriating money for.

We need to make sure that the American people are not the only ones who bear the burden of having secure ports in our country when overseas manufacturers use them as well.

So I rise in strong support of this legislation and would ask my colleagues to consider my amendment in the upcoming legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and support of the legislation as well, and I would hope, first of all, to congratulate all of those in leadership who have been involved in this. Water issues are so important, and they are also hard to work out at times, and I know the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) has put a lot of time and effort into this, as well as all of those on the committee.

I especially am, of course, supportive of this rule because it makes in order an amendment that I have to this bill that I believe is vitally important to the security of our country and to the American taxpayers. The amendment

that I will be offering, and I would hope that my fellow colleagues would consider this very deeply when it comes to the floor, it permits the ports around the United States, does not mandate them, but permits them to put a fee on containers coming in or out of the port, up to $100 per container.

As we move forward with an incredibly expensive goal of modernizing our ports so they will be secure and safe, there is going to be this astronomical cost to accomplishing this goal. The ports themselves do not have the revenue resources necessary to do their part unless we give them a source of revenue. Many of the ports are going to complain, and I understand that some of the ports have actually complained that they do not want the power to even ask for a fee from those people who are using the port facilities, the manufacturers overseas who are using the port facilities to send their containers in and out of the port.

The American people should not have to pick up the entire burden that is required to make our ports safe and to keep our ports functioning in a way. My bill would make sure the people overseas pay their part as well and are able to do so through a fee on the containers coming through the ports.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment will see to it that the massive costs in making our ports and harbors more secure are shared by those foreign manufacturers who use these facilities. The American people should not be stuck with the entire costs of the expensive infrastructure and security upgrades now necessary for the sake of homeland security.

What happens under the current system is that Americans are taxed to pay for improvements to our ports, which are then used by foreign manufacturers to move more efficiently in their exporting of products into our market. Yes, we end up taxing our own manufacturers in order to help their foreign competitors put them out of business. Something is wrong with this formula.

My amendment will permit local port authorities the right to levy a fee on containers traversing through their ports. This fee will be fed into a fund controlled by the authority to meet the new and rising cost of security and infrastructure.

Why should all the tens of billions of dollars needed for this upgrading come out of the hide of our own taxpayers? Should the manufacturers in Shanghai not pay a share of the cost through a fee on the containers they use? After all, are these foreign manufacturers not making huge profits by using an infrastructure provided for them by our own taxpayers?

Surprisingly, some of our ports are opposed to this amendment. You can hear lobbyists around the Hill talking about it. They like the status quo. They come to Washington and expect us to provide them more and more money by just simply taking it right out of the hide of the American working people. They want us, whenever there is an upgrade necessary, especially as we look into the future where it is not just regular upgrades and regular structural operations in their ports, now that we are looking at a huge expense because of homeland security needs, they just expect us to hand it to them and take it right out of the pockets of the American people.

Well, I am sorry, but that is not the fair way to do things, and that is not the best way to do things. We should be expecting foreign businesses through a container fee to pay their fair share.

If the ports do not want to ask them for that, but would rather come here and have us take that money out of the pockets of our own people, well, I am sorry, they are going to be disappointed. But the American people will not be disappointed. The American people will be disappointed if we continue to provide people overseas who manufacture products that put our own people out of work, that we continue to provide them these services free of charge, of course, at the expense of the American taxpayer.

Mr. Chairman, lobbyists have been around. Some of the people who vote on this bill will have heard from their lobbyists saying they have to be against the container fee, I am suggesting, because it is going to go to a

non-Federal interest. That is right, it is not going to go into the Federal pool of money here. It is going to be kept locally by the port authorities to be used for infrastructure and security matters in those local areas, or it could perhaps, for example, be used for matching funds. If the Federal Government is going to provide something, they could use that for matching funds. This is fair to the American taxpayer.

If there is any problem with wording, a little bit of wording here, little tweaks that need to happen to make this a perfect bill, I am happy to work with the chairman and work with the people on this committee as this bill moves forward. But if this bill loses today, if my amendment loses today, it will mean the American taxpayer is going to get stuck with all of this cost, and we are basically letting these foreign manufacturers off the hook; and we all know that. This is our chance to start this process down the road so we will have container fees and a more fair system of providing resources to our ports and our harbors.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, let me just suggest, we do not represent the ports here. By the way, if anybody represents the ports in this room today, it is me. I represent, in my district, the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach; and if there is anything I understand now about being a Congressman from an area that represents ports is the ports are looking for leadership. The American people, surprise, surprise, are looking for leadership from us.

Our job is not to make our decisions by, well, let us call up the people who want Federal money and see if they want us to give them Federal money. That is not our job. Our job is to try to structure a system that works for the benefit of the American people.

I would suggest this: that even though I represent both the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, who I really represent are the American people. I do not know if any of my colleagues have had the experience that I have with the small manufacturers in their areas. I have gone to small manufacturers in my area, and what have I found? They are going out of business. And they are going out of business because we have set up a structure that has permitted foreign manufacturers to slip into our market at almost no expense to those foreign manufacturers and undercut our own manufacturers. Why is it so wrong that we would expect that those foreign manufacturers pay a little fee, a little fee on the containers they are using so they can help build the infrastructure, rather than tax those companies that I visited in my district who are going under because of this, really, actually, American tax-supported competition that they are having to face? This is not right.

I can see why our ports and harbors do not want this. They do not want to have to ask for that fee. Well, the fact is, it is good for America, it is good for the American manufacturer, and it will be good for our ports in the end if we give them this right.

This idea that they may not get the money, we can tweak this language; we all know that. If this amendment passes, we can tweak the language to make sure it goes exactly where we want it, into security and infrastructure for these ports. But if we do not pass this amendment, this idea is dead, this idea is dead; and what is going to happen is, the tens of billions of dollars, right now, that we are making a stand on, will be paid by the American

people, rather than through a container tax paid for by foreign manufacturers.

I say it is time for this body to stand up and provide some leadership. Who cares what the ports say right now. If they are operating in their self interests, we have to operate in America's interests, and it is in America's interests to have foreign manufacturers contribute to infrastructure costs here.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, let me just note that this creates a new revenue flow. This amendment will create new revenue, a new source of revenue that begins perhaps in Shanghai or some other foreign country, and that revenue then can be used to our benefit. Now, the only other option we have, of course, is to fight over limited revenue, all of which is taken out of the pockets of the American people.

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

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the time be extended by 1 minute on each side to allow the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) to speak.

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

Mr. Chairman, I certainly respect those people, especially the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) for the very hard work they have put into this legislation.

It has always been my intent to support this legislation. So this is not

done with the spirit of anything except trying to do something for the American people because this is an opportunity that we have today to start working on a very positive idea.

There is no reason for us to put this off. If we put this on this legislation today, this idea will move forward, and a lot of work will be done on this, and we will move toward this goal.

If this amendment fails, what we have done is condemn the American people to tens of billions of dollars of expense that could have been taken up by foreign manufacturers who are importing their goods into our ports and putting their goods onto our market and undercutting our domestic manufacturers.

Earlier the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) suggested that perhaps the ports already have this authority, thus this amendment is redundant. Let me say if that is the analysis, why not pass it then? There is no reason then, if the ports already have this authority, why are we so hesitant about passing this? The reason we are so hesitant is that there are powerful interests at play. We should be interested in what is the effect on the American people.

We face, in these next 12 months, a horrendous, an astronomic expense in our ports, making them safe, making them more secure and more efficient. We should start working right now, and this is how we can do it, finding a new revenue source, a source for manufacturers overseas that will help us accomplish this mission. OMB will go along. The ports will go along. The American people will applaud us if we provide the leadership today, and that is what I am suggesting.

I would ask my colleagues who are listening to this debate to join me, siding with the American people, the American manufacturer and let us not tax billions of dollars from them when we could have a fee paid by foreign manufacturers that would provide us the revenues necessary to make our ports secure and to upgrade their infrastructure.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the good work that those people who have worked on this legislation have done, and I intend to support this one way or the other.

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