Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 602 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 602 is a structured rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 2844, the Continuity in Representation Act of 2004. The rule provides 60 minutes of general debate with 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on House Administration and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill for failure to comply with clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII requiring the inclusion of general performance goals and objectives in a committee report.

The unanimous consent request just agreed to provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment which shall be considered as read.

The original text for purpose of the amendment will not include the text of part A of the Committee on Rules report. The unanimous consent agreement also makes in order the bipartisan amendment of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) in lieu of the Skeleton-Maloney amendment printed in part B of the Committee on Rules report.

The rule provides that the amendments made in order shall be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the whole House or in the Committee of the Whole.

Finally, the rule waives all points of order against the amendments printed in the report and provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, the tragic events of September 11, 2001, made clear that, as much as we might wish otherwise, at some point in the future it may be necessary to replace a large number of Members of this body killed in some type of a terrorist attack.

As my colleagues know, the Constitution has always required that the vacancies in the House, no matter how many or what their cause, be filled only by popular election of the people. The timing of such special elections is set on a state-by-state basis. Some States require that congressional vacancies be filled relatively quickly

while others it takes quite a few months before a special election is held.

Such disparities are little cause for concern when vacancies are few and far between, as has thankfully been the case throughout the long history of this body. In those cases, only the citizens of a district temporarily left without representation are adversely affected until that vacancy is filled.

However, Mr. Speaker, we face a grim new reality today. The reality is that so many vacancies might suddenly occur in the House that our ability to function and to be confident that the decisions made in this Chamber reflect the broad desires of the American people, as expressed by their ballots, could be severely impaired.

That harsh new reality must be faced squarely. This, after all, is a national government and we are the Nation's legislature exercising national responsibilities. We must be able to act in the best interest of the Nation, and never more so than following a major catastrophe. No longer, Mr. Speaker, do we have the luxury of leaving it to the 50 States to decide when it would be possible to fully reconstitute the people's House in the wake of a deadly tragedy.

My colleagues will recall that after the attacks of September 11 the House passed H. Res. 559 expressing the sense of the House that each State should examine its existing statutes, practices, and procedures governing special elections so that in the event of catastrophic vacancies in the House, those vacancies might be filled in a timely fashion. Regrettably, Mr. Speaker, only one State, the State of California, has responded to that request and changed its election laws to provide for expedited special elections in the wake of a catastrophe.

I should note also, Mr. Speaker, that the impetus for that resolution was in part work done by a bipartisan task force chaired by the House Republican Policy Committee chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), and my colleague across the aisle, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), who then served as the chairman of the Democratic Policy Committee. The Cox-Frost task force met regularly during the 107th Congress to consider a wide range of issues following under the umbrella of the ``continuity of Congress.'' Since then I am pleased that a number of Members on both sides of the aisle have continued this important dialogue, seeking neither personal gain nor partisan advantage. After all, surely no Member's election will be won or lost over this issue, nor should it.

The bill we will consider today represents but one part of a comprehensive strategy for preparing for the unthinkable. For that is what we are doing, preparing for the unthinkable. And prepare we must. H.R. 2844 is a key element of that strategy. We simply must make it possible for the people to reconstitute the people's House as quickly as possible if a large portion of this body is suddenly deceased.

To be sure, there are other equally important continuity issues still to be addressed. We must, for example, consider appropriate responses in the event that a large number of Members are incapacitated rather than killed. Certainly in a time of chemical, biological, and radiological weapons, that is a potential scenario that cannot be ignored.

In order to act, the Constitution requires the House to achieve a quorum of Members, a quorum of a majority of all Members living and sworn. When a Member dies or resigns, the Speaker under the rules adjusts the quorum. However, the Framers never contemplated and made no provision for the need to adjust the required quorum when a large number of Members are still living but unable to carry out, temporarily or otherwise, the duties of the office. Simply put, under current law, if more than half the House were to become incapacitated, yet not deceased, the House would be unable to act at a time when the need to do so could hardly be greater.

Therefore, I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, to advise my colleagues that this complex issue of incapacitation will be the subject of a hearing to be held next week by the House Committee on Rules under the chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), whose personal involvement and leadership on these issues, frankly, has gone largely unreported, but has contributed immeasurably to this important continuity in Congress effort.

Indeed, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) and the Committee on the Judiciary chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), are the principal authors of the bill which will shortly be before us, the Continuity Representation Act of 2004.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2844, which was reported favorably by both the Committee on House Administration and the Committee on the Judiciary, provides for the expedited special election of new members to fill seats left vacant due to extraordinary circumstances. Such circumstances would be deemed to exist when the Speaker announces that vacancies in the House exceed 100 Members, in other words, more than 100 Members of this body have been killed. When such extraordinary circumstances occur, a special election must be held within 45 days unless a regularly scheduled election is to occur within 75 days.

The bill provides political parties with a 10-day window in which to nominate candidates and sets forth judicial review procedures for announcements by the Speaker regarding those vacancies.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that H.R. 2844 would have no significant impact on the Federal budget. Although the bill does contain an unfunded mandate, this mandate does not exceed the threshold amount established in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, let me acknowledge that there are some Members in this Chamber who believe that we should amend the Constitution to permit the immediate appointment of replacements in the event that a tragedy as I described should occur. That is not my position, Mr. Speaker, for I share the framers' love for their ideal of a House of Representatives of the people, for the people, and elected by the people.

But I do sincerely believe that our colleagues who support the constitutional amendment deserve an opportunity for consideration of the merits of that approach. Many Members will be pleased to learn that we have been assured that such an opportunity will take place in the very near future.

At the same time, I think equally important would be to provide supporters of expedited special elections an opportunity to consider their legislation. Those who disagree should bear in mind that enacting this bill that we are going to take up today will do little or nothing to affect the odds of a constitutional amendment of continuity being adopted and eventually ratified.

And, for at least several years, neither approach precludes the other. Because let us be completely honest about this: even if successful, under the best circumstances, it takes several years to amend the Constitution. So in the meantime does it not make sense to do the work that we can within our existing constitutional framework to prepare for the worst?

Mr. Speaker, that is the question that can only be answered by the entire House. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support the rule for the consideration of H.R. 2844 so that the important debate may begin.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, a gentleman who has worked extremely hard on this continuity issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.

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

Mr. Speaker, as evidenced by the remarks, this is a very important issue. I want to remind Members, in my opening remarks I mentioned that there are several things that need to be taken up. One, obviously, is a quick way to try to get the elected representatives back here. The other is the issue of incapacitation, which will be taken up next week in the Committee on Rules, and also the issue of a constitutional amendment of the various types that are floating around. That was confirmed by the chairman. There will be more debate on the issue. This is the first step, however. We ought to pass this rule, pass this bill, and continue our discussion on the other issues.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Res. 602.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are going to have more debate on this important issue of continuity in Congress. We will have several more opportunities, and I suspect we will have plenty of time to have that debate. I certainly hope we will.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 574 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), ranking minority member of the committee, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 574 is a structured rule providing for the consideration of the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for fiscal year 2005. The rule makes in order only those amendments printed in the Rules Committee report accompanying the resolution which may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by a proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment. The rule waives all points of order against the amendments printed in the report, except that the adoption of an amendment in the nature of a substitute shall constitute the conclusion of consideration of the concurrent resolution for amendment.

The rule further provides, upon the conclusion of consideration of the concurrent resolution for amendment, for a final period of general debate not to exceed 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget. Finally, the rule permits the chairman of the Committee on the Budget to offer amendments in the House to achieve mathematical consistency and provides that the concurrent resolution shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question of its adoption.

Mr. Speaker, the Concurrent Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2005, H. Con. Res. 393, provides for $2.4 trillion in total Federal spending for the next fiscal year and sets us on course to cut the deficit in half in 4 years. The resolution provides for total discretionary spending of $818.736 billion in fiscal year 2005. Discretionary defense spending is at the President's requested level of $402 billion. The resolution also accommodates the President's requested increase in homeland security, minus a 0.5 percent efficiency savings. Non-defense, non-homeland security spending is held level for fiscal year 2005. The resolution also responsibly provides for up to $50 billion in fiscal year 2005 for additional costs related to operations in Afghanistan and in Iraq. Total veterans spending is increased by $1.2 billion for the next fiscal year, and the resolution does not include any of the fees proposed in the administration's budget.

It should be noted, also, Mr. Speaker, that no new mandatory spending is provided for in this resolution. Reconciliation instructions are included directing the Committee on Ways and Means to report a bill by October 1 that prevents a tax increase over the next 5 years. Without a change in the law, expiring provisions in the 2001 and 2003 tax relief bills would result in a tax increase on Americans beginning next year. The resolution also accommodates changes needed to write permanently into law the $1,000 child tax credit, the marriage penalty relief, and setting the lowest income tax bracket at 10 percent. Additional reconciliation instructions direct five House committees to report bills by July 15 of this year to eliminate $13.2 billion in waste, fraud, and abuse from government programs over the 5 years of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, as a member of both the Rules and Budget Committees, I would like to congratulate Chairman Dreier on a fair rule allowing for open debate and Chairman Nussle for producing a budget that is focused on defense, economic growth, and our Nation's long history as a land of opportunity. Simply put, Mr. Speaker, this budget is about securing America, creating jobs, and responsible planning. American families do not have unlimited bank accounts.

They have budgets, and they prioritize how they spend and save their money. The Federal Government must set budgets and prioritize spending as well.

This budget continues our commitment to defense and homeland security as the Federal Government's number one responsibility, just as our Founding Fathers intended. It provides for increased funding to help secure America's borders, defend against biological attacks, protect our critical infrastructure, and train and equip our first responders. And it takes a comprehensive, responsible approach to protecting our Nation, winning the war on terror and preparing our military for future security threats and challenges.

Mr. Speaker, by avoiding tax increases and protecting the child tax credit and relief from the marriage tax penalty and relief for lower- income workers, our budget continues the policies that are helping our economy to recover.

Our economy is growing, not as fast as I would like, but it is headed in the right direction, and we need to keep it on track that way. Raising taxes would stop this growth dead in its tracks.

I believe in balanced budgets, Mr. Speaker, and I am proud to have served in the House when Republicans produced the first balanced budget in 40 years. But I do not believe in balancing the budget by simply shifting the burden to American workers, families, and business owners in the form of tax increases. Our budget is focused on allowing the Committee on Appropriations to make the responsible spending choices and fund the highest priorities within the overall framework established by this resolution.

We provide for full funding of the Medicare law to provide seniors help in paying for their prescription drugs for the first time ever. We continue the yearly increases in education spending and fund the No Child Left Behind Act so that our children are better prepared for the future, and we provide an additional $1.2 billion for veterans' health care.

Mr. Speaker, I recently returned from Iraq, and that trip served as a close-up reminder of the hard work and sacrifices made by those who serve in the Armed Forces. We made our promises to veterans, and those promises must be kept. Our budget provides for these priorities, strengthens our defense, and puts us on track to cut the deficit in half in the next 4 years, with declining deficits in the future, and is accomplished without raising taxes on the American people.

Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying resolution.

Mr. Speaker I reserve the balance of my time

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

Mr. Speaker, I advise the gentleman from Texas that I have no further requests for time, and if he is prepared to yield back his time, I am certainly prepared to yield back my time. Perhaps the 6 hours of debate took all the steam out of what we have been talking about here.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the Committee on the Budget had a very extensive markup

session; I think we had roll call votes on something like 25 particular items to add to the budget in particular areas. So we had a vigorous debate on that. Yesterday, in the Committee on Rules, there was again vigorous debate on the amendments that were offered.

It has always been the tradition when we deal with the budget document, which I might add is the broad blueprint for our appropriation process that is coming up later on, but it has always been the tradition when we do the budget document that the amendments that we make in order are full substitutes.

The gentleman spoke about his concern of the pay-go issue, and one of the substitutes that we made in order, the ranking member of the Committee on the Budget substitute, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), has precisely that issue within the substitute. So we will have a vigorous debate on that. The Committee on Rules made in order 40 minutes for each of those substitutes. I might add that three of the substitutes that we made in order come from the other side of the aisle, and one of those substitutes comes from our side of the aisle.

So we will, I think, have a vigorous debate on the issue that the previous speaker just brought up, and I think it will be a healthy debate; and then we will let the will of the House make that determination.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to just remind Members that the Committee on Rules made in order three substitutes, and I erred when I said the Spratt amendment was only for 40 minutes; it is actually for 60 minutes. The other ones are for 40 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules may meet the week of March 22 to grant a rule which would limit the amendment process for the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2005.

Any Member who wishes to offer an amendment should submit 55 copies of the amendment and one copy of a brief explanation of the amendment to the Committee on Rules in Room H-312 of the Capitol, no later than 5 p.m. on Tuesday, March 23. As in past years, the Committee on Rules intends to give priority to amendments offered as complete substitutes.

Members are advised that the text of the concurrent resolution, as ordered, reported by the Committee on the Budget, should be available on the Web sites of both the Committee on the Budget and the Committee on Rules on Friday, March 19.

Mr. Speaker, Members should use the Office of Legislative Council and the Congressional Budget Office to make sure that their substitute amendments are properly drafted and scored, and should check with the Office of the Parliamentarian to be certain that their amendments comply with the Rules of the House.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 473 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending which I yield myself

such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 473 is a rule waiving all points of order against the conference report to accompany H.R. 2673, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004, and against its consideration. The rule provides that the conference report shall be considered as read.

The Consolidated Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2004 fully complies with the fiscal parameters of the budget resolution and contains $328.1 billion in discretionary spending and $820 billion in total spending including mandatory funds.

Mr. Speaker, the bill also includes an across-the-board reduction of .59 percent in all programs, projects and activities, except for Defense and Military Construction funds.

The Committee on Appropriations is to be commended for moving with dispatch to make this conference report available so that the House can complete its work on funding measures before the conclusion of the First Session. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying conference report.

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

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

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

This is a rule that provides for the consideration of the consolidated spending bill. It is something that we must do in this Congress to fund the government. That is what this rule is all about. I urge support of that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 457 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend and namesake, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 457 is a rule

providing for the consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 1904, the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003. The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and its consideration and provides that the conference report shall be considered as read.

Mr. Speaker, recent reports of catastrophic wildfires in the West have helped millions of Americans to understand what Members of western districts have known for years, that steps must be taken to improve our management of national forests in order to reduce the risk of runaway forest fires that threaten lives, property and even entire communities.

H.R. 1904, the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, contains several key measures that will enable Federal land managers to better manage potentially explosive stands of timber and underbrush. Passage of the bill would also enable local communities to play a more meaningful role in the management of lands that pose potential threats. H.R. 1904 would authorize the removal of dead, dying and diseased trees and underbrush from Federal lands. It would also strengthen the ability of land managers to pursue fire prevention strategies under an expedited system that would limit excessive court challenges to proposed changes in management plans for Federal lands.

The bill authorizes $760 million annually for fire prevention, suppression and management activities, a significant increase over current allocations.

Mr. Speaker, the conferees have done an excellent job of protecting the House position on this legislation, which passed the House by a large margin back in May 2003. The conferees should be commended for moving to complete the work on this important legislation before Congress adjourns and we in turn should pass it without further delay.

Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying conference report.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), chairman of the Committee on Agriculture.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), an individual that has had a great deal of impact on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis), who has worked extremely hard on this issue and has been working on this issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, the bill that this rule allows to be taken up is a very significant piece of legislation, and I just want to make one point that I do not think has been made in the debate on this rule regarding this underlying legislation, and that is that this legislation is geared towards what we call multiple use areas within our national system, our national forests and our BLM lands. Multiple use by definition means it should be open for recreation, commercial activity, and so forth. But, unfortunately, with policies that have been enacted de facto in the past 10 or 15 years, in fact, we have closed up these multiple use areas.

This legislation addresses these problems that have built up for a time and as a result has built up to unhealthy forests and unhealthy BLM lands. So it is a significant first start, an extremely significant first start.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and support the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) for yielding, and I congratulate her on the way she excellently laid out the main provisions of this bill in her opening remarks.

I support this bill, Mr. Speaker, and this bill includes several important improvements to Medicare in addition to making prescription drugs available and affordable for seniors. But I am particularly pleased that this bill contains the largest, most comprehensive rural health care package ever considered by Congress to ensure that seniors in rural America are able to get the care they need.

I often hear from seniors they are having a hard time finding a doctor will accept Medicare patients. Now, doctors and hospitals in rural areas provide the same quality care as in urban areas, all too often Medicare fails to pay rural health care providers enough to cover their costs. This often forces doctors to consider whether they can continue accepting Medicare patients and, therefore, causes hospitals to cut back on their services.

As a member of two rural health care caucuses, I have met repeatedly with committee leaders and Secretary Thompson to stress the importance of ensuring that rural areas receive the Medicare payments that they deserve.

Mr. Speaker, until the disparity between rural and urban reimbursement is fixed, seniors in small town America have fewer and fewer health care options. I commend the conferees for recognizing this need. I am pleased that the National Rural Health Care Association has endorsed this bill saying, quote, ``This is a strong step forward this strengthening the health care system for nearly 60 million rural Americans,'' end quote.

By passing this bill, we will permanently end the disparity in Medicare payments between urban and rural hospitals. We will provide more money to rural hospitals for the care of uninsured patients, we will increase funds for critical access hospitals and home health care agencies and raise payments to doctors to encourage them to provide services in physician-short areas.

Simply put, Mr. Speaker, after years of effort H.R. 1 will finally give doctors, hospitals, home health nurses, and other care providers the resources they need to provide seniors who live in rural areas like my district in central Washington the medical care they deserve.

Accordingly, I urge my colleague to support both the rule and the underlying bill.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 443 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 443 is a rule providing for the consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2003. The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and its consideration and provides that the conference report shall be considered as read.

Over the past several months, more and more Americans have experienced firsthand the crippling effects of America's outdated energy systems. For example, natural gas supply shortages resulting from conflicting government policies have caused home heating bills to skyrocket and forced businesses to lay off thousands of workers. In addition, this summer's great blackout exposed the vulnerability of our Nation's deteriorating electricity grids. It is absolutely critical that Congress approve a comprehensive national energy bill this year so that all Americans will have access to more efficient, affordable, and environmentally responsible energy supplies. As a Nation, we simply cannot afford to wait any longer for this important legislation.

I am pleased, therefore, that later today the House will have an opportunity to pass a conference report on H.R. 6 that clearly meets these imperatives. The conference agreement improves our Nation's electricity transmission capacity and reliability. It promotes a cleaner environment by encouraging new innovation and the use of alternative power sources.

The bill also authorizes $200 million for the Clean Cities program, which will provide grants to State and local governments to acquire alternative fueled vehicles. The agreement promotes clean coal technology and provides incentives for renewable sources such as biomass, wind, solar, geothermal and hydroelectricity. It also provides leadership in energy conservation by establishing new mandatory efficiency requirements for Federal buildings and higher standards and stricter labeling for a variety of energy-consuming commercial products.

The conference report allows for stepped up natural gas exploration and development in the Gulf of Mexico and permits construction of a natural gas pipeline from Alaska's North Slope to the Lower 48. The bill also decreases America's dangerous dependence on foreign oil by increasing domestic oil and gas exploration and development on nonpark Federal lands and by expanding the Strategic Petroleum Reserve capacity to 1 billion barrels.

The bill encourages more nuclear and hydropower production by authorizing the Department of Energy to develop accelerated programs for the production and supply of energy and sets the stage for building badly needed nuclear power plants by reauthorizing the Price-Anderson Act.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, as a Member who represents a region heavily dependent on hydroelectric power, I am pleased that the conferees included bipartisan reforms of the lengthy and costly hydrorelicensing process. These reforms will maintain environmental standards while providing utilities the flexibility to reduce their costs in achieving those standards.

Mr. Speaker, the Nation needs this energy bill, and it needs it now. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying conference report.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I want to engage in a colloquy with the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce concerning provisions of the conference report of importance to the citizens of the Pacific Northwest who receive the majority of their electricity from hydroelectric dams.

Mr. Speaker, I commend the chairman and conferees for agreeing to section 231 of the conference report, a set of long overdue reforms to the process for the relicensing of non-Federal hydroelectric projects. However, I want to ensure that these provisions are intended to apply immediately. Can the chairman provide this assurance?

I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

I thank the chairman for these clarifications and his leadership in the development of national energy legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce), a member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the subcommittee chairman handling this legislation.

(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlemen from Florida (Mr. Stearns).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).

(Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I will be closing, so I have one more speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this is an important bill and it will be a historic step when we vote on the bill after we dispose with the rule.

Let me just go through the extensive hearings that the committees involved with this have had over this year. As was mentioned by the chairman, the Committee on Energy and Commerce Committee held 28 public hearings, four markups, 43 hours in total, and considered 159 amendments. The Committee on Resources held 32 hearings, three markups, over 100 hours, and considered 38 amendments. The Committee on Science held 16 public hearings, two markups. They have considered 21 amendments. The Committee on Ways and Means held six hearings, four markups, and they had six amendments offered to their part of the bill.

It is an important bill, Mr. Speaker. I urge the Members to support the rule, defeat the previous question, and support the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor Dr. Terry Martin who has been named the Washington State Professor of the year by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and the Council for Advancement and Support of Education.

Each year outstanding professors are honored by the Carnegie Foundation and the Council for Advancement and Support of Education for their service as models of excellence in undergraduate instruction. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the 2003 Washington State award winner, Dr. Terry Martin, an English professor at Central Washington University. Clearly, Dr. Martin has demonstrated her dedication to teaching and her students.

Dr. Martin has been honored for her commitment to academic excellence in the classroom and her contribution to the education community. She has published over 35 articles in professional journals, judged numerous writing and poetry contests, served as a member of the Washington State Steering Committee for Improving Undergraduate Education, and served as a State Board member for the Washington Council of Teachers of English.

Thank you for the opportunity to recognize Dr. Martin. Her innovation and commitment to teaching has clearly had a tremendous impact on the lives of her students and colleagues, and serves as an example of excellence in education.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 421 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost); pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes of debate only.

(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, our resolution would waive clause 6(a) of rule XIII requiring a two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is reported from the Committee on Rules against certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules.

This resolution applies the waiver to any special rule reported on the legislative day of October 30, 2003, providing for the consideration or disposition of a conference report to accompany the bill, H.R. 3289, making emergency supplemental appropriations for defense and for the reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, given the urgent need to move the Iraqi supplemental to the President's desk without further delay, the Committee on Rules has acted to expedite consideration of this critically important conference agreement filed in the House just a short while ago. Members will have ample opportunity to debate the merits of that conference agreement once we move to its consideration here in the House.

Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to adopt this resolution so that we may begin this important debate.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce.)

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we have no additional speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 424 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 424 is a rule providing for the consideration of a conference report to accompany H.R. 3289, a bill making emergency supplemental appropriations for defense and for the reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan for fiscal year 2004, and for other purposes. The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and its consideration. The rule also provides that the conference report shall be considered as read.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report that in its particulars, the conference agreement is largely consistent with the House passed version of the supplemental. In the aggregate, the agreement provides a total of $87.5 billion, which is $500 million above the President's request. Of that sum, $18.6 billion is provided for Iraq relief and reconstruction, which is $1.7 billion below the President's request.

Mr. Speaker, now that the House and Senate conferees have reached agreement on this emergency supplemental, it is imperative that we move without delay to make these funds available both to our troops in the field and for the vitally important work of rebuilding Iraq.

Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the conference report.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart), a valuable member of the Committee on Rules.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for this rule so we can get on to fund the very important operation that we have in the Mideast. I just remind my colleagues that more than 75 percent of this bill goes to make sure that our troops are secure in this theater.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 418 ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 418 is a rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 2691, the Department of Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2004. The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration. The rule further provides that the conference report shall be considered as read.

Mr. Speaker, the Interior conference report that the House shall consider, following adoption of this rule, provides for $19.8 billion in budget authority for fiscal year 2004, which is $300 million above the level requested by the administration.

Specifically, the bill provides increased levels of funding for the National Park Service, for our system of National Wildlife Refuges, for the Indian Health Service, the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management, among others.

As a Member from the West, I am particularly pleased that the conference agreement provides for $227.5 million for payment in lieu of taxes, or PILT, which is greatly needed to reimburse local communities in Western States whose tax rolls are limited by extensive Federal land holdings in their areas. This bill funds PILT at a level of $7.5 million above the current year and $22.5 million above the level requested by the administration.

The bill also provides $212 million for Indian Trust reform to ensure that Indian Tribes receive full value for oil, gas and other mineral resources Federal agencies permit to be produced on their lands. By law, the Interior Department serves as trustee for Indian lands and resources, and Congress is committed to taking the steps necessary to see that the Department carries out those trust responsibilities to their fullest.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the conferees are to be commended for their efforts to fund a wide range of forest, health and wildfire safety initiatives. The tragic wildfires now raging in California have focused the public's attention on the importance of reducing the threat of massive fires that endanger both lives and property in their affected areas. This year, the Congress has provided historic levels of resources for Federal fire fighting assistance, including in this conference report a total of $2.9 billion, one of the largest one-time fire fighting allocations in our history.

The bill includes $2.5 billion for the national fire plan, as well as additional $400 million to repay wildfire suppression expenses of last year. These funds emphasize providing fire fighting resources and personnel to keep fires small, reducing wildfire risks by reducing the buildup of hazardous fuels, increasing State, volunteer and community assistance, and stepped up research and development, performance monitoring and accountability.

Specifically, the conference agreement increases wildfire suppression by $289 million over the current year, wildfire preparedness by $65 million, hazardous fuels reduction by $11 million, and forest health and rehabilitation activities by $35 million over the current year.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Taylor) and his fellow House conferees have done an excellent job under challenging circumstances. They have negotiated an agreement which protects the House positions on provisions far too numerous to mention, and they have reported a balanced bill that meets the most pressing needs of Interior Department and related agencies.

Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the conference agreement.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 401 ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 401 provides that H.R. 3289, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense and the Reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan, shall be considered as read, and that no further motion or amendment shall be in order.

Mr. Speaker, the House began debate 3 days ago on this emergency appropriations bill that provides for the needs and protection of our troops in Iraq. The unanimous consent agreement provided for 5 hours of general debate that began on Wednesday. The House resumed debate yesterday morning with discussion and consideration of amendments lasting well into last night. The House began a third day of debate this morning with consideration of 13 amendments.

After hours and days of debate, delay of a final vote on the emergency supplemental bill means a delay in getting the men and women in our military the resources and the equipment that they need. This rule, H. Res. 401, would end the delay and give our troops the funding they require and the support that they deserve.

I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the majority whip.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would advise the gentleman to use his speaker.

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

Mr. Speaker, as has been mentioned in different forms earlier in this debate, this is serious business. It is serious business. And I believe knowing that we are engaged in this war on terrorism, which we have been now for over 2 years, we have to respond in a timely manner to those Americans that we put at risk. And I would remind my colleagues that three-fourths of this bill, or slightly more, goes to support our troops. And we have focused on other parts. Probably that is good for the debate, but we should not lose sight of the fact that three-fourths of this goes directly to our troops.

Now, we have some difference of opinion between the other House with their supplemental budget. The quicker we can get this into conference, the quicker we can get a bill passed; and the quicker we can get the President to sign it to support our troops, frankly, the better off we are.

I would just make one observation that I found rather interesting, because we spent a great deal of time debating before I was here on the Gulf War resolution. I was not here. But I understand that was a debate that was inspiring for the Congress. That really, when we look at that from a historical standpoint, is why we are here today, because of whatever reasons and agreements were made following the Gulf War, Saddam remained in power.

Now we are in a situation where we have to complete that. We had a long debate when we decided to go to war in Iraq this year, properly the right thing to do. And now we have debated this supplemental to support our troops for into the third day.

From a historical standpoint, I would just like to remind Members that sometimes this body moves extremely fast on important issues. Right after December 7, 1941, when we declared war on Japan and Germany, the U.S. House of Representatives allocated 40 minutes for each of those resolutions. I think it is important for us to get this done as quickly as we possibly can. So I urge my colleagues to vote for the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose this new rule to recklessly cease debate and eliminate all opportunity for amendments on behalf of the American people. I now will speak to H.R. 3289 before us. The task of stabilizing and reconstructing Iraq may end up being one of the greatest challenges of our generation. Although we are getting rosy reports of progress in Iraq from the administration, the fact that we have 130,000 troops in the area and are now being handed an $87 billion tab paints a fully different picture. It is now obvious that the administration grossly underestimated the cost and difficulty of stabilizing Iraq, almost to the same extent that they overestimated the threat posed to the American people by Saddam Hussein. Even the so- called ``soft costs'' of the war and its aftermath are enough to cripple some nations.

This is not revisionist history; at least a hundred of us in Congress, millions of citizens who took to the streets, and even a handful of brave souls in the administration itself, tried to warn the administration of what it was getting into with its pre-emptive strike on Iraq. We were ignored, and those in the administration--the Shinseki's and the Lindsey's have been encouraged to move on. But the problems in Iraq have not gone away so gracefully. We are now at an important crossroads. We can continue to beat this dead horse with the same policies of isolation from our allies around the world and partisanship here in the

United States or, we can start working together--employing the collective wisdom of all of us here and around the Nation with the experience and expertise to be of service in this endeavor--and who are committed to our troops, and to fulfilling the promise the President made to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan and to the world.

As this debate comes to the Halls of Congress, the people who marched us into this war will try to paint this vote as a vote for or against our troops. This is absolutely a false picture. For one thing, our military is extremely well funded. As I just described, including the Iraq supplementals, the Defense budget will be approaching $500 billion. Furthermore, Iraq is not an indigent nation.

If they wanted to, they could take better care of our troops. Secretary Rumsfeld wants to spend billions of dollars on a Star Wars defense system, while we are getting reports that our soldiers risking their lives in Iraq don't have adequate body armor, or clean water supplies, or basic human necessities like feminine hygiene products for our women soldiers. Six months after this battle started, we still have soldiers without kevlar body armor and water purifiers. What did they do with the first $79 billion war supplemental? We now have a new request for money, but we still have not heard details of how they spent the first money, what progress has been made, and what challenges remain.

I visited the As-Sayliyah Central Command Base in Doha, Qatar last weekend and heard the concerns of the troops from their own mouths. I heard testimony about how a ground soldier, watched his partner and the operator of a military vehicle get tossed out as the vehicle was thrown airborne by a land mine. ``Why did you hit this mine,'' I asked. ``It was just one of those mines that was missed in the sweep . . .,'' said the soldier. Because there isn't enough personnel or specialists to assign to technical tasks, unskilled or untrained technicians frequently get asked to do jobs that they have not mastered enough to guarantee the lives of those who must traverse the sands of Baghdad. The soldier misses his wife and newborn baby dearly. Because there hasn't been a change in the personnel on the front lines in several months, many reservists and active duty servicemen and women have spent a longer time in Iraq than was promised by the Administration. May 1, 2003 was supposed to have been a day of hope and homecoming; instead, it was a sham. Some of these troops feel like ``sitting ducks'' out in the foreign terrain. They don't speak Arabic. They don't know Tikrit like they know their hometowns. When I asked them if they have seen any troops of other coalition nations, they responded, ``what coalition troops?'' They need support and they need continuous relief.

The President and his friends in Leadership in Congress did not listen to the warnings of the Congressional Black Caucus, or our international allies, or hundreds of thousands of like-minded citizens who took to the streets. Some of my Democratic colleagues voted for this war, because they believed in the institution of the Presidency, and thought they had to give this administration the benefit of the doubt. I did not. Regardless, now the President has cut open this patient, and the patient is laying on the surgical table. The President has made a promise to the people of Iraq and to the world that we will leave the patient better than we found it--and it is up to our American soldiers and the American taxpayers to fulfill that promise.

Much of the toughest burden will fall on the shoulders of the families of our troops overseas. Therefore, I have submitted amendments that speak to alleviation of this burden. (1) I firmly believe that before any further funds are sent to Iraq to rebuild that country, we need to ensure that our men and women in the armed forces--reservists as well as active servicemen and women are receiving the money and services that they deserve and in a timely fashion. Dr. Jones, who works under Lt. Col. Corbett shared this concern with me during my visit. (2) I also believe that the Pentagon needs to develop a plan to ensure that none of our troops or government employees must remain stationed in Iraq for more than 6 months at a time. (3) Furthermore, the administration must announce a definite and clear exit plan for the troops to give them real hope and a notion that an end to the fighting is truly near. (4) There should also be more trained military policemen and women stationed in Iraq to mitigate the vulnerabilities experienced by these men and women. (5) Similarly, they need proper job allocation so that lives are not lost due to erroneous assignment of duties. (6) Moreover, as to the national guard servicepersons, the scheduled end of deployment should be honored rather than making them continue fighting until their respective units are released. Despite their frustrations, I encouraged them with the following phrase, ``you are as much defenders as you are peace-keepers'' to let them know that their work truly matters the most for the people of Iraq as well as the people at home in the United States.

I sincerely wish the President had not put us in this situation, but he and his administration did. And now we have to deal with it. If we are going to deal with it, I feel at this point it is critical to take some of the control away from the people who have made horrible misjudgments at every step of the way, who misled the American people and the Congress about the need for war, and who ignored warnings from inside and outside the administration. Either they knew the truth, chose to mislead us, or they did not take the time to adequately assess and plan for the true situation. Either way, senior members of this administration were not doing their jobs.

That is why before any appropriations are sent to rebuild Iraq, the Congress and the American people need to see an independent investigation in progress, looking deeply into several questions: whether U.S. intelligence reports were manipulated in order to misrepresent the threat Saddam Hussein posed to American interests; whether the costs and dangers of invading and occupying Iraq were deliberately understated; whether American officials who offered differing views of Iraq became the victims of inappropriate or illegal retaliation; and whether one or more individuals within the administration is or are responsible for the leak of classified information regarding intelligence reports and the veracity of accounts as to the purchase of ``yellowcake'' for nuclear weapons production.

If any of these allegations are proved true, those responsible must be held accountable. I am concerned that there has been a methodical and undemocratic effort to mislead and intimidate the American people and the world in order to march us into this war. And now we are being given an $87 billion bill to pay for that effort.

As we move forward in Iraq, unfortunately, we have severely limited options. Because people like Secretary Rumsfeld have used reckless speech that has angered and exasperated our allies, many of our most staunch allies are now reluctant to get involved in stabilizing and reconstructing Iraq. While our State Department has been reaching out around the world with a hand of cooperation and partnership, Mr. Rumsfeld has proudly displayed his arrogance and disdain for anyone not walking lockstep with him.

Too much is at stake to distance ourselves from those whose help we need. People from democracies around the world are now being asked to trust this administration with the lives of their sons and daughters in the military, by sending them to fight under a U.S. command whose leaders show them blatant disrespect. They are being encouraged to send their hard-earned money to reconstruct Iraq under the authority of this administration that gives the largest contracts to its political supporters, that seems to have no credible plan for the future, and that ignores the advice of even the most trusted experts on the world stage. It is not surprising that they are not stepping up with money and troops.

I think the problem is basically a lack of trust. I can't blame them. I do not trust this administration to do the right thing in Iraq either. I do not intend to vote to send another dime to Iraq until the President takes some dramatic steps to restore credibility to his Administration:

First, I want to see new faces in top positions, starting with Donald Rumsfeld. We need people who choose integrity over politics and respect over arrogance. Second, I want to see a full accounting of how they spent the first $79 billion, and exactly how they came up with this $87 billion figure. Our sources say that the armed services were barely consulted on those numbers--that some critical needs were totally left out, and others grossly exaggerated. We need honest accounting. And third, once we have a true picture of what funds are necessary to support our troops, Congress should be able to vote on that funding alone--separate from the money needed for reconstruction of Iraq. That ``bifurcated vote'' will allow us to quickly get money to protect our brave soldiers, but will also give us the time we need to thoughtfully craft a plan for reconstruction--a plan that will include our allies, and the World Bank, nongovernment organizations (NGOs), and oil and natural resources from Iraq itself.

Those are the three things I want to see before I can consider giving any more money to this administration for the United States effort in Iraq. This does not mean that I do not want to support our troops. And this does not mean that I want to break the president's promise to the Iraqi people and to the world that he would make things better in Iraq.

Instead, it is a call for action. I want to get the appropriate amount of money to the people who deserve it--but right now I am not confident that $87 billion is the right amount or that it would be spent in a way that would help our troops, help the Iraqi people, stabilize the region, or prevent terrorism.

Mr. Speaker, there are just too many questions and not enough answers. Why do we need $950 million for recruiting and training of

police forces in Iraq, when we need more money for police and firefighters in Houston, New York, Washington, DC, and Philadelphia? Why do we need $209 million for prison and detention facilities, and $100 million for construction of a new prison in Iraq, when our Federal prisons are overcrowded and severely underfunded. Too many questions, and not enough answers, Mr. Speaker. Do we really need $100 million for a witness protection program, and $5.65 billion to repair and rehabilitate the infrastructure in Iraq, when a few months ago the whole Eastern seaboard was without power? Are we really serious?

Finally, Mr. Speaker, are we really serious about supplying Iraq with $793 million for health care programs, when we still have children without health insurance, elderly without health insurance, and our poor citizens without health insurance. There are just too many questions, and not enough answers.

There will be many thoughtful amendments offered that could ensure that the funds that we do not bankrupt our Treasury, while failing our troops and the people who need our help. I urge all of my colleagues to put politics and pride aside and consider them, so that together we can get our efforts in the Middle East back on track.

I have several amendments that I think will help get our policies back on track.

My first amendment states that none of the funds made available in this act may be obligated or expended until Government personnel policies have been implemented to ensure that no members of the Armed Forces or Government employees are being required to be stationed in Iraq continuously for a period greater than 6 months. The President has stated that the war on terror will be a long and involved one. Therefore we must pace ourselves, and we must ensure that our armed services can continue to recruit good people in the future. This amendment will help ensure that our troops and their families remain mentally fit and rested, and that military tours will remain a reasonable commitment in service to this Nation.

The second states that of the funds made available in this act may be obligated or expended until all Reserve and National Guard personnel are paid in full.

The third amendment requires that none of the funds made available in this act may be obligated or expended until the President has submitted to Congress a report setting forth in detail the strategy and projected timetable for withdrawing U.S. forces in Iraq. Without goals, I am concerned that our efforts in Iraq could drift indefinitely. Congress and the American people must know what lies ahead, so that we can plan appropriately.

The fourth is a sense of the House of Representatives that, before any appropriation under this act is obligated, a special counsel should be appointed to investigate the propriety and legality of actions by the administration in connection with the unauthorized release of classified information. We have a complex mission ahead of us in the Middle East. To succeed we will need to take advantage of every single national security asset at our disposal. Recently, one of our top CIA operatives was ``outed'' by White House employees, thus compromising her work and even the lives of her sources and acquaintances overseas. If we do not show the appropriate immediate vigorous response, we could undermine our efforts in the Middle East, by discouraging people to come to American officials with assistance or information.

Finally, I have two amendments that will help refocus some of our energy and resources on Afghanistan. The supplemental continues to shortchange Afghanistan's reconstruction and security, and it does this at the peril of jeopardizing the rights of Afghan women and girls and hopes for a peaceful, democratic Afghanistan. The proposed funding levels neither adequately make up for the small amounts of reconstruction funding thus far nor do they meet the country's needs.

In the last 2 years only 1 percent of Afghanistan's reconstruction needs have been met. The country remains in shambles from two decades of war and lack of development. Most people in the country do not have access to electricity, health care, schools, and sanitation. Not only is the lack of reconstruction depriving people of very basic services, but it is contributing to instability in the country and a lack of confidence in the central government.

The transitional government in Afghanistan estimates that between $20 to 30 billion is needed over the next five years. In other post- conflict settings, an average of $250 per person was spent per year in aid. But in Afghanistan, donors spent only $64 per person in 2002.

The proposed $800 million Afghanistan reconstruction supplemental spending request represents less than 1 percent of the total $87 billion Iraq and Afghanistan package. The $20 billion request for Iraq reconstruction funding is 25 times as large as the Afghanistan request. Yet Afghanistan has approximately the same population size as Iraq and suffered more destruction over 23 years of war.

House Chairman Young's mark to increase reconstruction funding for Afghanistan by $400 million is a step in the right direction. But still more must be done. My first Afghanistan amendment will shift $20 million from the Iraq budget toward Afghanistan to be used for developing electricity-generation and transmission infrastructure. If Afghanistan is ever going to thrive and progress, it will need consistent sources of energy, to power its factories, hospitals and homes. These funds will help.

The other amendment will improve the plight of Afghan women and girls. Women and girls continue to face severe hardship and violations of their rights in Afghanistan. Yet the Afghanistan request does not specify funds for programs to improve the status of women and to remedy the tremendous injustices they faced under the Taliban regime. My amendment proposes designating $300 million for women's programs in the area of political rights and human rights, health care, education and training, and security, protection and shelters. I also propose earmarks of $10 million of the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission and $24 million for the Ministry of Women's Affairs. We must provide direct support to help strengthen those women-led, permanent Afghan institutions whose mission it is to promote women's rights and human rights. These are funds already authorized in the Afghan Freedom Support Act of 2002, but which still for the most part have not been appropriated.

Some girls have gone back to school in Afghanistan, but the majority have not because there are not enough schools and those that do exist are in very bad shape. The Asian Development Bank estimates that an additional 13,851 primary schools need to be constructed, but the administration request is only for 275 schools. Some 40 percent of schools in Afghanistan were completely destroyed during the war, another 15 percent were heavily damaged, and in many areas of the country there were no schools for girls.

What's more, the advances in girls' education that have been made are under attack. In the past year, fundamentalist extremists have burned down, bombed, and otherwise violently attacked more than 30 girls schools. At most of the sites of these attacks, leaflets have been distributed threatening the families of girls who attend school or the teachers who teach them. Flyers distributed at the site of one of the first attacks read ``Stop sending your women to offices and daughters to schools. It spreads indecency and vulgarity. Stand ready for the consequences if you do not heed the advice.'' Some families are now afraid to send their daughters to school. Our Nation promised to help free Afghan women; we cannot allow the extremists to take back these newly won freedoms.

I hope my colleagues will support these amendments. We must look toward a brighter future in Iraq, and work together to make that vision happen.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, Washington state the largest pear and sweet cherry producing state in the nation. In recent years pear and cherry growers in Central Washington have invested time and resources into developing the market for high quality fruit.

Under federal marketing orders U.S. fruits and vegetables are held to certain grade, size and quality standards. The bill I am introducing today simply holds foreign grown pears and cherries to these same standards.

My bill would add pears and cherries to Section 8e of the Agricultural Adjustment Act. Section 8e lists certain imported fruits and vegetables that are held to the same federal requirements as domestic produce.

Agriculture is at the heart of Central Washington's economy and our farmers are working harder than ever to produce some of the world's finest products. My bill would ensure that our pear and cherry farmers are able to compete more fairly and aggressively with foreign growers in the U.S. marketplace.

Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost); pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 396 is an open rule waiving all points of order against consideration of H.R. 3289, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense and the Reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan, 2004.

The rule also waives points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI except as specified in the resolution. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate to be equally divided between, and controlled by, the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations.

In accordance with the rules of the House, the rule provides that the bill shall be read by paragraph. The rule also authorizes the Chair to accord priority recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

This supplemental appropriations bill, H.R. 3289, was approved and reported out of the Committee on Appropriations by a strong bipartisan vote, with a majority of Republicans and Democrats on the Committee on Appropriations supporting this emergency funding measure.

The Committee on Appropriations worked diligently to review the administration's request; and having personally observed a portion of the committee's work, I can attest to the seriousness with which they approached their responsibilities.

The bill provides a total of $86.9 billion in supplemental appropriations with $64.7 billion dedicated to our military personnel and national defense, $18.6 billion for Iraq relief and reconstruction, and $1.2 billion for Afghanistan relief and reconstruction.

The funding provided in this bill is vital to winning the war on terrorism, Mr. Speaker. The bill places a priority on ensuring our men and women in uniform receive the support that they need.

Funding is provided to protect our forces, including increased funds for body armor and equipment to jam radio frequencies to better protect our soldiers from explosives detonated from afar by cell phones. The bill also fully funds hazardous pay and family separation allowances.

Winning the war on terrorism requires us to ensure that the removal of Saddam Hussein from power leads to a free and secure Iraq, and not a haven and breeding ground for terrorists.

The Iraq reconstruction funds provided in this bill are not only an investment in building this safe and secure Iraq; it is an investment in protecting America and in making Americans safer from terrorists.

The bill includes a commonsense provision that prohibits the use of any of these emergency supplemental funds from being used to pay any of Iraq's foreign debts.

Mr. Speaker, as I stated, this emergency supplemental received strong bipartisan support in the Committee on Appropriations. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support both the rule, House Resolution 396, and the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller).

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce), a member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), a member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker), a member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. Speaker, I would advise my friend from Texas (Mr. Frost) that we just have one more speaker, so if he wants to close.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield the balance of our time to the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of our time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 1 o'clock and 2 minutes a.m.), the House adjourned until today, Friday, October 17, 2003, at 9 a.m.