Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

My colleague, the gentlewoman from San Diego, California (Mrs. Davis), I appreciate her helping with this very important recognition of a group of our citizens that have given everything we could ask in order to protect our community.

Many do not know that my district, which includes the San Bernardino National Forest, was as dramatically impacted by this fire as any in the country or any in California. The San Bernardino National Forest has been in desperate condition for some time, in no small part because of serious management problems we have experienced in recent years; also in no small part because of a series of years of serious drought that has allowed the ever-present bark beetle to kind of have its way with our forests. And presently there are literally millions of trees standing tall, but which are dead.

It looks like fall time here in the East, but in our forests it is not fall at all. Instead the trees are yellow because they have died. Indeed, we cannot control that piece of nature; but on Saturday I had the occasion to travel with the Under Secretary who is responsible for the Federal Emergency Management Agency. He is the Under Secretary with homeland defense responsibilities.

As we flew over the forest, there were two things that were very obvious to both of us. The first was that where fire has effectively taken place, the erosion that is bound to take place as soon as the rains start to fall will be a tremendous challenge--to see the Earth move as a result of those rainfalls in the future. It is going to have a huge effect upon our ability to rebuild the forest. But the other factor that was a stark reality was that at least three-quarters of those trees we were so worried about which were standing dead are still standing. Many of those trees were not caught up in the fire, and they are indeed a fire looking for somewhere in the future to happen.

Both the Under Secretary and I immediately saw the challenges that lie before us. Indeed, I would like to spend just a moment expressing my deep appreciation for a community that was ready, for they saw on the horizon this huge challenge that was facing the San Bernardino National Forest.

The firefighters, the law enforcement officers, citizens from the community for months came together learning more and more about the challenge that lay ahead. The Lord gave us a fire about 6 weeks before this big one, and that fire caused us to recognize that it could really happen. In that case, we actually had some 600 people leave their homes in order to protect their own lives. Very quickly it became obvious that real fire, of a nature that we had not seen for perhaps 20 years, was about to take place. And so our people got ready.

Community leaders in every city and town throughout the mountains recognized that we were in this together and

their preparations saved many a life. There is little doubt that the combination of our firefighters, law enforcement officers, and those citizens themselves made all the difference. We are grateful for their recognizing this crisis and being ready to respond.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the gentleman from Pennsylvania yielding to me.

I might mention, because the chairman certainly would not say this, that we are going through this routine, I know in large part, or maybe in small part, because for 40 years the Democrats ran the place and that gave us time to learn a lot by watching what they did. And from time to time they were even smart enough to understand that there was a need to put pressure on the other body, because that other body operates in a way that is hard for me to imagine.

Mr. Speaker, if my friend from Pennsylvania would continue to yield, I know that he is one of the smartest guys in this place, and the leadership has difficulty getting everybody to be as smart as he is. And I would note, Mr. Speaker, that the gentleman from Pennsylvania is speaking today longer than I have seen him speak in the entire time I have been in the Congress. That is how smart he is. And it is a pleasure doing business with him.

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate my colleague yielding me this time.

The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the distinguished ranking member, has referred to the fact that I am facing a rather tremendous challenge in California with the devastation that is impacting my District directly. In talking early this morning with one of my very dear friends that has great expertise in this arena of professional work, it was from him that I first heard the reality that there are two kinds of money that involve fire money. When we are talking about protecting the forest and trying to get the dollars that are necessary to clear the brushes, make sure we do not have too many trees go through, et cetera, et cetera, that kind of money is very, very difficult to come by, and then suddenly we have a disaster, a fire, and a green light goes on. The difference is red money, green money. A green light goes on, and whatever is available or required suddenly comes forth.

The deal with the challenges in my forest in recent years was we worked very hard to try to get some money to lay the foundation for a better management of the forests. Just in the last couple of years, we have finally gotten as much as $30 million. This evening, later, we will be considering the supplemental. After the fires had begun in the West, and within that package, there is a $500 million addition to the process that will help us deal with these problems in the West now, after the fire occurred.

So I have great empathy for the challenges of the people on this committee who struggle to get adequate dollars up front to make sure we are managing our forests well, and it takes the kind of challenge we are facing at this moment to really bring the point home.

I would have my colleagues know that I am very sensitive about my following remarks, and I would have the Chair be very careful with me, for it is a very unusual thing for me to do. Each of us has two U.S. Senators in each of our States. And in my case, there are two U.S. Senators and they are speaking about this general subject area, and I find great confusion here. I am going to be very careful as I refer to the other body and even Members in the other body to only use quotations from those individuals, but it makes it a very significant point as it relates to this bill.

So in an attempt to do that, I would speak of one of my Senators first. The gentlewoman speaking on the Senate floor about the healthy forest legislation currently under consideration has said, ``We have an open invitation to destroy our forests without getting anything back for it. There are no limits on old growth forest logging. Timber companies will pick the trees they want with no veto from the forest service and a complete change from what we have had before.''

My other colleague, another Senator from California, has been heard to say about this same proposal, speaking on the Senate floor and saying, ``This legislation is not a logging bill, as some would typify it, I think, falsely. This legislation would allow the brush to be cleared out, and it would also provide the first statutory protection for old growth stands and large trees ever in the history of this Nation. I want to be very clear. This is pro-environment legislation, and it seeks to reverse some of the damage we have done to our forests and restore their healthy condition.''

Two contrasting points of view that are difficult for me to understand from two Senators from the same State, but they make the point that unless we are able to recognize that there are very serious challenges here and recognize that this bill attempts to begin to deal with some of those challenges, we will never overcome the kind of tragedy that we are now experiencing in the West.

There are some 18 people who have died in southern California. Over 2,600 homes have been burned. Three-quarters of a million acres have been burned. At this very moment in regions in my District, literally thousands of families are trying to figure out what to do with the rest of their life because I think we have not in the past been able to give the kind of broadly-based support that we need to give to this subcommittee.

I think the report we have before us tonight is a reflection of very fine work between the ranking member and the chairman of our subcommittee. I very much appreciate their effort, but I want them to know from this Member's perspective, tonight's work is just another down payment. We will be making a down payment as it relates to the supplemental later. Indeed this down payment is very, very significant, and I want my colleagues to know that I appreciate the work they have done.

If the gentleman will continue to yield, I would like to respond that in the recent reorganization, we shifted FEMA from VA-HUD to the Subcommittee on Homeland Security. So there has been that change. And we have appropriated additional money there because in the middle of last year FEMA was running out of money. They were at least talking about the shortage. Suddenly we are going to add some money to that pool that they can draw from, and certainly that is a reflection of the challenges throughout the West.

Colorado, just today, has another new problem. But before another 6 months goes by, even FEMA is going to be stretched to the wall again, and that is why what the gentleman did last night was very important, and I appreciate my colleague's support.

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the gentleman yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I must say, at the beginning of my remarks I want the House to know that I deeply appreciate the comments of my colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), who is my partner on this subcommittee; and I also want to say to the House that I am rising this evening with no small amount of serious concern about the problems that are facing my constituents in my own district where literally the whole district is on fire. It is an incredible time.

But a few weeks ago, I had the opportunity to take perhaps the largest delegation that has traveled to Iraq since we have been involved there, a group of Members numbering some 17 of us, a fabulous cross-section of the House: Democrats and Republicans, liberals, conservatives, Members who had voted against the war, Members who supported the war. But we saw many things in a relatively short trip, but one thing was absolutely certain. We all became convinced that Saddam Hussein absolutely is one of the most outrageous tyrants of modern time, rivaling Hitler's Germany, certainly rivaling that which the Russian leadership was all about.

While we were there, we visited circumstances that reflect the worst of what this tyrant has done to his people, a people who have had no opportunity for freedom in their lifetime, a people who have been oppressed if they dared oppose him, and people who were killed in the tens and tens of thousands. Visiting the killing fields was an amazing experience where in one location, tens of thousands had been killed on that spot, and similar locations across the country. This person did not hesitate to wipe out huge portions of his own population, ranging between 500,000 and maybe 1.5 million people.

In turn, that delegation was amazed to see what had been done to the children of Iraq, suggesting that he was even willing to see that children were fed formula that was mixed with sewage water, caring nothing about the future of those children and those families.

So America is there to make a commitment to the future of these people in hopes that they really will experience freedom.

General Petraeus, who was one of the key commanders that we dealt with, said that the money that was most important to his success was that money that was going to reconstruction. That, the General told us, the security of his troops was very much connected to the sense that America was about creating new opportunities there and laying the foundation for freedom. And, indeed, he felt it deeply, that was the way to make sure that our people, our troops come home as soon as possible.

Let me just make one more point. That is there is no doubt that if we are successful in our efforts in Iraq, we are about to play a role in creating a model in the Middle East that could change the future of that entire region.

There is absolutely no question that this success could take us down a pathway that could lead to a new kind of peaceful opportunity, a new roadway in the entire region. I truly believe that we have a chance at this moment to make a difference about the entire future of the Middle East. And it is a Democrat and Republican effort. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) has been fundamental in helping me be successful in the military side of this, but both of us recognize just how important the reconstruction effort is as well.

Mr. Speaker, I neglected earlier to express my deep appreciation to the conferees for their responding to the challenge in our district that involved some $500 million that is now going to go through the process here to FEMA to help those people who are presently out of their homes, people who suddenly have no place to live and the like.

And, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and welcome back. The Chairman carried forward a very full day yesterday, and we appreciate his help.

This amendment, and amendments like it that we have seen much of the day yesterday, is a very appealing sort of amendment, for it essentially says we have money in this package, and why do we not take some of it and add additional funding for our troops one way or another. Obviously, that has appeal.

The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) is a very fine Member from Michigan and he has expressed his concern about the troops before. Yesterday I heard people who had never expressed concern for our troops and, in fact, had not even voted for our bill in the past who were suddenly very, very concerned, and that is a little disconcerting. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) and I, my colleague and partner, have made every effort in this package and packages before it to aggressively increase funding available for our troops, especially those who are serving our country overseas and those who are in harm's way.

This specific proposal adds $265 million to the military personnel accounts. It suggests that it is enough to pay for a $1,500 bonus for each serviceman who is in the region. The offset is to reduce $1 billion for the reconstruction effort in Iraq.

I must say, one of the strongest arguments regarding this, besides the fact that we have done everything we can to help our troops in the previous bills and in this one, is the reality that the experts, the generals in charge of our military effort over there, say that their number one priority is reconstruction, because it is the way to, first of all, secure our troops while they are there and, secondly, the way to make certain they get home as quickly as possible is to see the economy of Iraq move forward, get it back on track, and that is part of what this bill is about.

I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much the gentlewoman yielding, and she is in the midst of a very important statement, but I wanted to share with her, as well as my colleagues, that I believe she is highlighting a very important problem.

We do provide for $22 million within the bill, but frankly, the Department tells me that the challenges are very real, we may need more money, and rather than taking my 5 minutes, I am inclined to let the gentlewoman know that we are going to accept her amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise very reluctantly to oppose this amendment.

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

The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) is pointing to an area that the committee is very concerned about, and indeed the intelligence community has been, as has our Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence here in the House.

The amendment seems to have no real overall effect on the intelligence community's management account. It decreases the account by $5 million and then increases that same account, but the point that I would make is that this shifting of money would tend to have a direct impact upon both the FBI and the Department of Energy, as well as the broader intelligence community, in their efforts to develop our effort on the intelligence side in the war on terrorism.

In turn, in recent years, there has been sizeable adjustment in those accounts that addressed the question of linguistics, the training of people who know foreign language, et cetera, and as my colleague knows, identifying such people, first of all, takes time and takes time to train them, and so we just cannot throw money at it and cause a change like that. I mean, unlike a lot of accounts where we just put money in and something happens tomorrow, linguistic development, that kind of training is very difficult. So it is much more a regular order kind of process.

I could describe this in great detail in private between us, but some of the intelligence questions here really should not be discussed in this environment, but in turn, it is an important problem. If I thought a $5 million shift would make a difference and not affect other elements of our war on terrorism, I would support the gentleman's amendment, but I reluctantly oppose it.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have this exchange with my colleague. We are really coming from the same position. These accounts are very delicately balanced now, as the gentleman knows, and the impact that this shifting might very well have on work that is vital within the FBI, et cetera, concerns me.

In turn, I think our dialogue here, I think, is highlighting the matter. There is no doubt that the committee is reflecting the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence's concern about improving what we are doing relative to foreign language training and linguistics. There is little doubt that the Congress, the House of Representatives, has said very clearly in this bill in other sections, as well as this dialogue, that this is a priority. We expect the entire intelligence community to respond.

So, frankly, I want to be very complimentary of the gentleman's effort, but shifting the money here could make it very difficult to deal with the other body in a fashion that we hope to move forward with. So I am reserved relative to this amendment, but do very much appreciate my colleague's helping us highlight this important area.

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

We certainly will but, frankly, I will end up opposing, asking for a ``no'' vote on that vote. I frankly do not like to see us end it that way, and we could very well end it that way, and maybe that does not help with the highlighting.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, though it is my pleasure to say that I am highly inclined to support the Ramstad amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say that I am prepared to accept the amendment and to yield back.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and the gentlewoman is much too young to remember this.

During the big war, there was a word, a phrase, it is really a word, a snafu was common among all people who were in the service. The military has often screwed up, I must tell you, and it is ridiculous. Absolutely, we agree with the gentlewoman's position. We will do everything we can to improve that process. Your highlighting it here is very helpful.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

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

I do not intend at this moment to use the 5 minutes, but I must say I absolutely understand the gentlewoman's presenting this amendment for, indeed, we spent time together in Iraq, I have been saying a whole month in one weekend in Iraq together. That is not because of our wonderful charm, but because of what we experienced there together, the reality that Saddam Hussein is the worst tyrant, clearly competing with Hitler and Stalin. We learned that he was capable of almost anything. I will never forget the gentlewoman, as we were together at the killing fields, urging me and others to join together in a moment of silence, thinking about the potential of mass destruction as a part of this guy's everyday existence as long as he was ruling that country.

Indeed, I do not know exactly what we might find. I am hesitant about reducing this amount of money. I am going to be willing to talk about it as we go forward, but, indeed, the things that David Kay is about in his work are very important for us as we look at the challenges of dealing with people like this. So it is with great reluctance that I resist and ask for a ``no'' vote on the gentlewoman's amendment.

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

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

I just might mention that the gentlewoman's expression of international involvement is a very appropriate one, and I would highlight her remarks by mentioning that the U.N. voted unanimously yesterday, getting the U.N. really on board for the first time in helping us with this effort. In the meantime, moving this money around in this fashion when we have done so much as we have in O & M and the bill in general, I hesitate about it, and therefore I ask for a ``no'' vote. And I want to tell the gentlewoman I very much appreciate the work she has done with me.

I might mention, just to take the time, when we were together following our weekend, we actually sat down together for hours, our team of 17, and in the midst of it, one of our colleagues said, I am one, a liberal Democrat, who voted ``no'' to going to war, but after seeing what I see here about Saddam Hussein, I must say I have got to be ahead of my people. It is going to be unpopular at home.

It is time for us to lead, and therefore I am going to support this request of the President to carry forward this war on terrorism.

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague yielding me this time. I would simply rise to say that this is a very delicate foreign affairs matter. An amendment like this was presented when the Foreign Operations bill was before us and was defeated on the House floor. We have had this debate before; and, frankly, this supplemental is hardly a time and place for us to readjust very sensitive, very important foreign affairs questions.

So I would urge that the House in this case just reserve itself, vote ``no'' on the amendment, and have the gentleman know that we intend to discuss this matter in a very serious way in the months and years ahead. I appreciate the gentleman's effort.

Madam Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time.

I doubt that I will take the entire 10 minutes at this moment; but it is very important, I think, for the Members of the House to join together and recognize the long-term impact that we may be about effecting today as we consider this very important supplemental.

In anybody's book, $87 billion is a lot of money. Indeed, it was not very long ago, 2 weeks ago, the President signed into law the appropriations for the 2004 national defense funding. Those dollars pay for the fiscal year that is ahead of us, for the expenses of housing, of training, of providing food and forage for the men and women who make up our forces. The moneys also involve paying for the assets that they use whether they be airplanes, ships at sea, or arms that they must carry. Those dollars also pay for the research and development that allow us to stay on the cutting edge for the wars that we may have to fight somewhere over the horizon. All of that is a piece of national security or the national defense, a total in that package in excess of $370 billion.

There is just not any question that defending America, being the strongest country in the world, is an expensive process. To say the least, our national defense is a priority for the country. Over half of our discretionary money goes into these pools because our people have long recognized that our freedom is critical to our future, and we know very well that maintaining that freedom is a price we must and we are willing to pay.

The one thing that is not often said, peace is one thing, maintaining our freedom is very critical, but war is an entirely different thing. War is really expensive. We remain strong as a country because we are peacemakers. From time to time we find ourselves in a circumstance where war is a requirement if we are going to stabilize our future in this shrinking world. We found ourselves in this circumstance in the Middle East. And the war on terrorism, which is a direct result of 9- 11, and the President's taking head-on the challenge of terrorism throughout the world has put us on a track that suggests that America is the only remaining superpower, and we will lead the point insofar as not just maintaining the peace is concerned but also ferreting out terrorism wherever it might exist, wherever it may be harbored.

And today we find ourselves in the midst of Iraq, following a military incursion on our part that directly dealt, began to deal with the fact that in that country was one of the world's worst terrorists. Saddam Hussein and his regime absolutely will be remembered in history as one of the worst of all time. Indeed, what he has done to his people, the attitudes and view of the world that he has harbored in his country are among the worst that we have experienced. It rivals all that which Hitler was about and the Holocaust. It certainly rivals Stalin.

But to go to Iraq and see firsthand what a terrorist is all about when he runs a country, Saddam Hussein cared nothing about his people. Only those who were his closest supporters did he care about. But from there he did not shy away a moment for murdering by the thousands his own people.

To travel to Iraq and see what might happen or even be happening in other countries, to visit the killing fields where indeed we can see in some locations mounds of dirt dug up, we can see clothes sticking out of these mounds of dirt. People have gone there seeking to find the location of their loved ones who were murdered on the very spot. To be in a killing field where the farmer, the local killer designated by Saddam Hussein, chooses to bury people by the thousands under his fields where he grows his crops, it is an incredible scene, one that is impossible to believe almost unless one goes and visits Iraq today.

To look at the past, what Saddam Hussein and his regime have done to his people, and people like him threaten to do to the world, certainly is a very important awakening for those of us who have had the chance to visit.

We traveled not long ago to Iraq, 17 of us, Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, some who supported the war, some who did not; and we came back together almost hand in hand. We spent time thinking through what we had learned and seen and, indeed, thinking through what our responsibilities were. There is little doubt that that trip is made up of people who now support our effort to fight the war on terror. Indeed, the support from that group, if it is reflected in the House, would suggest we are going to have a very solid bipartisan base of support for this supplemental.

Speaking for a moment to the supplemental itself, most of the money, the $87 billion we are talking about, most of the money is going to our forces, to secure and sustain our troops. Some $65 billion of the money goes to our troops. The balance, about $18.5 billion, is for the reconstruction of Iraq.

Let me speak to that piece of it for a moment for the Members have heard me talk about finances for our troops time and time again, but to that piece of it that the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) is responsible for, the reconstruction of Iraq. It is very important for all of us to know that that money is designed simply to jump-start this economy, to begin the work that is necessary, to make sure that we can put pressure on the world to help with Iraq's circumstance.

For once we relieve it of this huge burden of debt that Saddam Hussein created, really some mix that involves over $200 billion worth of debt. We then can apply some of the funding we are talking about in this bill to reconstructing some of their basic utilities, creating circumstances where decent water systems can go forward, where an industrial base is possible, where investment for the world economy makes sense. Once Iraq gets to that point, that engine will have begun to run, and I am confident if we follow through here, if we have the patience and the hope to follow through, Iraq will progressively come in among free nations. For the first time in their history, people will have a chance for freedom, and they will see the doorway and the promise of private economic opportunity.

Indeed, what we are about to do today is history-making. If we go forward here with hope and patience, there is little doubt that the bill we pass today will change the world that is the Middle East. We have the potential of adopting a model that will put pressure on the whole system there, and it is my view that then there truly will be real hope for democratic and free change in the countries in the Middle East, and, indeed, we will be back on the roadway to peace.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).

Mr. Chairman, I welcome and applaud the gentleman's support. In the meantime, it is my privilege to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Platts), one of those Members who experienced our fabulous trip to Iraq recently.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the amount of time remaining.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) perhaps use some of his time? And I think the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) will want to close.

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

Mr. Chairman, just recently I went to Walter Reed Hospital, and there I visited Chris Knapp, a constituent of mine from Yucca Valley, California. He had been driving a Bradley not so long before that that was struck by enemy fire. He was hit by shrapnel, was proud of the fact. He showed me the Purple Heart that the President presented him with the day before, as well as the President's personal coin.

He talked most, however, about Sergeant Ramirez, who had been so kind to him when he was injured. He did not talk about the fact that the night after he had been with the President, they had taken out his right eye.

He urged me to communicate that they need our support. They are there for a purpose called freedom. It was Chris Knapp and his buddies and Sergeant Ramirez who are fighting the good fight over there. All they are asking for today is our real support and not our lip service.

Mr. Chairman, I must say it is my privilege and pleasure to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of our committee who provides the endless base of support and provides the point for the fight for our people in Iraq that are defending freedom.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I will not take that much time, but it is very important to know that within the bill, we do provide for hazardous- duty pay, for the extra funding that is required to make sure that we take care of our troops.

Indeed, over recent years, we have done a fantastic job by way of the regular order to improve the pay levels, the housing circumstances, et cetera, for our troops. We are doing everything we can to make sure there is a pattern set there that encourages our people not just to serve, but to reup when they have finished a specific tour of duty. We have made fantastic progress there. And we commit ourselves to continuing that progress.

In the meantime, I think it is instructional to mention the very important conversation we had with General Sanchez when our group was in Iraq. The General is in charge of our men and women who are representing us in that country, and he said very clearly that it is impossible to delink the relationship between the security of our troops, the job that they are doing for us in Iraq, from the reconstruction effort in Iraq. If we want to stabilize the circumstances there, he said, secure our troops as well, make sure they are as best possible protected, then we have got to move forward quickly with reconstruction. To take this amount of money out of the reconstruction process is bound to slow it down. That in turn will have an effect upon how long our troops will have to remain there. This is the wrong place to be moving money at this point in time.

So I would strongly object to this decision at this moment. I do appreciate the support long-term for improving the living condition and otherwise as well as the current hazardous-duty pay and support for the troops that we are expressing in this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I would like to take just a moment of the time given me to respond to my colleague from California about wiping the slate clean.

There is little question that is a piece of what we ought to be about here if we are sincere about playing a role in getting Iraq's economy back on track very quickly. The sooner we do that, the sooner they are going to be able to go forward on their own and further rebuild their oil tapping capabilities, the sooner they are going to be able to go further than they have already progressed with the some 85 percent of the communities within Iraq trying to establish local governments and the like, and the sooner we get their economy back on track.

One step to that involves the donors conference in Spain at the end of October. At that point in time, many of the countries that are key, involved in the lending circumstance, will be present. It is our purpose there to actively encourage others to participate in forgiveness of loans, forgiveness of reparations and the like, so that this country will have a chance to get that economy in order.

If we cannot do that, if we find ourselves by way of extending loans causing this Spain meeting to become a lenders conference, we will hold this country's opportunity to recover back years and years and years.

The people of Iraq have never in modern history had an opportunity for economic growth, private sector growth and the kind of opportunity that is part of a free economy. They have not experienced democracy, the opportunity of freedom. Indeed, a piece of it involves their fundamental economy.

What we are talking about here by way of this lending avenue that causes some people politically to feel good about it sounds great. To me it was quite appealing initially. But when you take a hard look at what it practically does to a quick recovery of the Iraq economy, and then in turn what that means in terms of quickly bringing our troops home, it complicates the problem. Our people will be there longer. It will be tougher to stabilize the country. Indeed, we could quash the hope that many of us have for freedom and democratic growth in Iraq.

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

I must say to my colleagues that I am very appreciative of the gentleman from Massachusetts' (Mr. Markey) expression of concern about making sure that we control the funds that flow from us by way of the Department of Defense to a variety of our needs. But let me say to my colleagues that none of these are new authorities. Indeed, many of them were in the supplemental that we passed in April, and many are in the annual appropriations bill that was just signed into law recently.

If I could take a moment to discuss what this provision actually does, it is a provision that would prevent us from reimbursing allies like Pakistan and Jordan as the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) suggested, but that was a rather straightforward thing that was discussed out front by the Department. It is money for reimbursement for military activities and support they gave us to our benefit. They were activities that we wanted to accomplish, and reimbursement was understood. It is the kind of activity that we have carried forward from time to time over especially the last couple of years since 9-11.

Among other things, the gentleman from Massachusetts' (Mr. Markey) provision would specifically prevent expenditure of $73 million in efforts to counter drug activities in the area, for example, specific drug activities I am

concerned about in Afghanistan. We are interested in drying up this problem, and we should be in it together; and I do not think the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) really means to dry that up, but that is the effect of part of what he is doing here.

It would also prevent DOD from being able to reprogram funds, as he suggests. Those funds provide flexibility for the Department, which they often need, especially in a circumstance like this when we are really in a war setting; but they do that reprogramming after approval from the authorizing in the Committee on Appropriations. It is not an unusual thing. It is a part of our regular activity. It does tend to deny the kind of flexibility that we need for these sorts of military activities, but essentially the gentleman's provision strips out language we carried in provisions of this bill and other bills, language which combines the need to give our forces all the flexibility that is a part of a very difficult region.

I am not sure that he is really getting a handle on what he had hoped to prevent that he thinks happens out there, but this is a relationship between the committees and the Department of Defense, similar to the ones that the gentleman has between his committee and the Energy Department. It is not always perfect, but it works pretty good so far.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) and I have been involved in this sort of providing of flexibility for a long, long time.

The gentleman from Massachusetts was not correct in suggesting that they could reprogram money out of drug control efforts. Indeed, if they want to make some reprogramming from one drug control effort to another, they have to come to us to get our permission before the fact. Indeed, I think the gentleman is chasing after windmills that do not exist in this particular provision.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha).

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

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I guess this is a parliamentary inquiry. I, frankly, would like to be able yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) a minute of my time before I express my reservation.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition and am happy to yield a minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt). I would like to hear the rest of his statement.

Mr. Chairman, beyond being charming, I agree with most of what the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) is saying.

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

Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate my colleague's expression of concern here. I must say that this Member feels very strongly about the relationship between authorizing committees and the Committee on Appropriations. He is an able member of the authorizing committee. I certainly do not want to impose appropriations' position on their work. So I encourage him to consider a lot of these things by way of the authorizing process, and then we will talk about it.

Point of Order

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and continues and constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill, thus, dealing with the authorizers' business, violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states specifically in pertinent part, an amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if it is changing existing law.

Mr. Chairman, I know it is obvious to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) that I look forward to continuing to work with him.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have never been more proud to be a Member of the House of Representatives than during a recent trip, when I had the privilege of chairing a delegation of 17 Members who traveled to Iraq, the largest delegation to travel there to this point. And, indeed, it was a delegation made up of liberals, of conservatives, of Democrats, Republicans, of people who voted against the war in the first place, of individuals who supported, very strongly, the President's position in the region. The map is different than the territory, the saying goes.

And one really has to visit this country and see firsthand what has taken place there to get an understanding as to why America has such a vital and important role in the region.

Indeed, it is my view that Iraq can become a model of developing countries within the region, where there is new opportunity for freedom, for enterprise, for democracy, for, in this case, the first time in their history.

Indeed, during our travels, we had a chance to see absolutely the worst of the most significant totalitarian regime to operate in this shrinking world in modern times. Absolutely, this regime carried forward in a fashion that treated its people worse than or just at least as bad as the experience in Nazi Germany, as well as during the reign of Stalin.

To visit the killing fields where you see mounds of dirt, clothing poking out, where relatives had come to try to dig out the bodies of their loved ones who had been murdered at such locations, several such locations, perhaps in the hundreds in Iraq where between half a million and 1.5 million Iraqis were murdered by Saddam Hussein and his henchmen, to have the experience to see firsthand what has happened over these past 35 years to their infrastructure, utility plants. We visited one location where there were four stacks, two of them operating, but inside you could see the deterioration. I mean, literally, grime everywhere, steam flowing that should not have been flowing, basic infrastructure that had been ignored.

Iraq is fundamentally a very wealthy country, a country that has agricultural potential that would cause it to rival any country in their region. A fabulous people of great intellect and educational background, an oil reserve that has huge potential, that too, for one reason or another, to my astonishment, Saddam Hussein allowed to deteriorate. So at this point, this country with potential is burdened by a huge debt, made largely by our friends like Germany and France, who we hope, sometime in the near term, will consider forgiving much of that debt so that Iraq has a chance to get back on track.

Indeed, it is critical for us to recognize that the supplemental that is before us later today involves some $65 billion to support our troops in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and elsewhere.

The balance of the $87 billion package, some $18.5 billion, is to give direct assistance for the reconstruction of this Iraq. It is the chance to provide a democratic opportunity as well as economic opportunity for these people who have been under such burden for so long.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from San Diego, California (Mrs. Davis of California).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), another member of our delegation.

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

I very much appreciate my colleague's expression of concern.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Reclaiming my time, I am struck as the gentleman is making remarks, he talked a lot with us about the fact that the funding flow that may come from this supplemental, including the reconstruction, are as much designed to help secure our troops as anything. Would my colleague react to that?

I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, we learned many a thing during our trip to Iraq, but most impressive to me is that the media has talked much about the fact that there were not people cheering in the streets when we arrived in Iraq. I can tell my colleagues that was largely true because of the fear that remained on the part of the people in Baghdad, but as we flew over hundreds of miles of Iraq, very low altitudes in helicopters, one of the great impressions was endless farmhouses, kids running out of the houses, families running out of the fields, waving at the helicopters.

I can tell my colleagues they were not waving at Congressmen. They did not know we were there. They were waving at American troops who were there providing them with an opportunity for peace and, indeed, for freedom in the years ahead.

Above and beyond that, among the horrendous actions of this terrorist, indeed Saddam Hussein, directly impacted the mortality of the children of Iraq from a time when the children of Iraq lived as long as children in the whole region. It now has one of the worst child mortality rates in the entire world.

Beyond that, one of our colleagues, one of the Democrats with us, a fellow who voted against the war in the first place, kind of crystallized it for me, he said, After all we have seen, this is going to be a very tough vote for me, and he went on to say, After seeing what we have seen, it occurs to me that sometimes we have to be just a bit ahead of where our constituents may

be. It is time for us to lead, and so I am going to vote for this package that is coming to the House.

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming the balance of my time, let me say there will be much discussion today about whether we should make a loan or whether this should be a grant, that is, the $18.5 billion piece of this.

Normally, I would have leaned in the direction of perhaps making a loan, but the difficulty with that is that there is a huge burden of almost $200 billion on the backs of the people of Iraq, largely due to Saddam Hussein, and in the latter part of this month, there is a meeting in Spain with the donor countries, and we hope to get the likes of France and Germany and others to forgive much of that obligation so we can get this country back on track. If we are in the lending business at this moment, that donor's conference will become a lender's conference and undermine that capability.

Further, it is very important for us to know that if we are successful in Iraq, it will set a tone for the entire Middle East, expanding the opportunity for freedom and for democratic growth within the region.

This has been a very, very important trip for the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) and myself and all of those colleagues who joined us. As I said in the beginning, I have never been more proud than I was on this trip than to watch Democrats and Republicans, American Congressmen, working together on behalf of freedom.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the accomplishments of Jackie Robinson, who richly deserves the award of a Congressional Gold Medal as a pioneer in opening professional sports to all Americans. Like my colleagues, I am proud to remember him as an American hero.

But as a proud graduate of the University of California at Los Angeles, I wanted to remind my colleagues that Jackie Robinson was already known to American sports fans even before he made history by joining the Brooklyn Dodgers. In fact, he is one of UCLA's most distinguished alumni and was considered one of our nation's most important athletes during his college days.

Robinson's true passion was athletics and he excelled at every sport he tried. Regarded as the finest all-around athlete in the United States during his lifetime, he was the only Bruin to earn varsity letters in four sports: football, basketball, track, and baseball.

As a football player, at UCLA Robinson led the nation in punt return average in 1939 (16.5 yards) and 1940 (21.0 yards) and his career average of 18.8 yards ranks fourth in NCAA history. During his senior year he led UCLA in rushing (383 yards), passing (444 yards), total offense (827 yards), scoring (36 points) and punt returns (21.0 yards). In his career, he rushed for 954 yards (5.9 average) and passed for 449 yards.

As a basketball player, Robinson led Pacific Coast Conference's Southern Division in scoring in both 1940 (12.4 average in 12 league games) and 1941 (11.1 average in 12 league games) and was named All-PCC Southern Division in 1940.

Robinson's UCLA track career was abbreviated because he missed most of the 1940 season while playing baseball, but he still managed to win the NCAA title in the broad jump (24' 10\1/4\") as well as the broad jump at the Pacific Coast Conference meet with a leap of 25' 0".

He did not even consider baseball his best sport, but in his first collegiate game, he totaled four hits and stole four bases, including home base.

Despite his achievements in the realm of sports, Robinson, like other black athletes, was often confronted by the harsh realities of the times. I am proud to say that race was not an issue on Bruin teams, but in those days much of the rest of the nation wasn't as accepting. Ned Mathews, a football teammate of Robinson, recalled an incident at Stanford University where black athletes were turned away from dining in a restaurant. The Bruins left. ``If they didn't fit, we didn't fit,'' Mathews told the UCLA faculty newspaper, ``and that's the way it went.''

The support of his UCLA teammates and the heroism Jackie Robinson showed in facing this early discrimination would provide the foundation for his history-making career in major-league baseball. Shortly after his time in college, Robinson signed a contract with the Brooklyn Dodgers, ending decades of discrimination against blacks in the major leagues. In spite of enduring torment and abuse through much of his professional career, he remains one of the sport's all-time athletic stars. Robinson was posthumously named a charter member of UCLA's Athletic Hall of Fame in 1984.

Robinson once said ``A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives.'' His impact on the sporting world and our nation cannot be overstated. By showing us that athletes--and indeed all Americans--should be judged by their talent and character rather than their skin color, Jackie Robinson's life has brought us closer to fulfilling our creed that ``all men are created equal.''

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the conference report to accompany H.R. 2658, making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes, and that I may include tabular and extraneous material.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of today, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2658) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes.

Madam Speaker, I want you to know we do not intend to use 30 minutes on either side, but we are very proud to bring before you today that bill that deals with appropriations for the fiscal year 2004.

The bill, in its total, involves some $368 billion in discretionary budget authority; and within those titles there is approximately $98 billion for military personnel, $116 billion for O&M, $74 billion for procurement, $65 billion for R&D, and nearly $16 billion for defense health. Within those numbers we have developed a bill that absolutely balances the needs of our military while we go forward ensuring that America will remain the strongest country in the world for the years to come.

At this point I would like to insert a summary of the conference agreement into the Record.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24SE03.224

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24SE03.225

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24SE03.226

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24SE03.227

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24SE03.228

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I must say to my colleague from Puerto Rico that there is language within the bill that would require that the Secretary of the Navy close Roosevelt Roads. And, frankly, I had designed very simple language that would make sure that happened expeditiously and beyond that that there be no complications regarding work, environment, et cetera.

I know the gentleman from Puerto Rico and I have worked very closely together; but I want him to know I am very, very concerned about the language that is in this bill that is coming out of the conference. The language essentially takes us back to the BRACC process. And I am afraid, I do not want to be apologizing for this process, but I must say there is a need to ring some bells here because the people of Puerto Rico could experience the worst of all worlds with this base closing earlier than any other base in the BRACC process, but at the same time being tied to the BRACC process.

Indeed, if that is the case, a likely experience I had in my own district was where BRACC just does not work, and we could find that base sitting fallow for years. We may find ourselves 5 and 10 years from now with an empty base with a lock on the gate.

What was done in the conference, really on the part of people who are interested in changing our simple language, has not been healthy for this process. So I say to the gentleman that while we have worked together, I am very concerned right now with the result of the conference report.

I yield to the gentleman from Puerto Rico.

Reclaiming my time, Madam Speaker, I must say that I had this experience in my own district with similar assurances. The BRACC process, legal challenges, and otherwise, this is 20 years later and that base is just beginning to get on its feet. So I am very, very concerned; and I appreciate working with the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the full Committee on Appropriations.

Madam Speaker, I want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) for all of his efforts, and in this instance on behalf of the young men and women who are wounded, lying in hospitals, who are in many ways being unfairly treated, I say congratulations to the gentleman from Florida; and congratulations to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) and all of our fine staff for their fine work.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment at the desk is an amendment that comes from the Secretary, Mr. Mineta. He essentially is urging the House to move a $2 million amount from the administrative funds to that piece of the work done in the Department of Transportation that involves intelligence and security matters.

There is willingness to accept this amendment on the part of the majority, as I understand it, and the minority. I will take no more of our time if that is the case.

Mr. Speaker, I have submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Government Reform:

Concurrent Resolution

Expressing the sense of Congress that John Wooden should be

honored for his contributions to sports and education.

Whereas John Wooden was one of the greatest basketball

coaches and players;

Whereas John Wooden nurtured and inspired many of the

greatest basketball players of all time who would go on to

fame in their own right;

Whereas John Wooden is one of only two men enshrined in the

Basketball Hall of Fame as both a player and a coach;

Whereas John Wooden coached the UCLA Bruins to 10 NCAA

Mens' Basketball Championships in 12 years;

Whereas John Wooden led the Bruins to 88 consecutive

victories;

Whereas John Wooden, during 40 years of coaching, compiled

a 885-203 (.813) record;

Whereas John Wooden developed the ``Pyramid of Success,'' a

graphic representation of the ideals that form the basis of

Wooden's outlook on life and explain much of his success on

and off the court;

Whereas John Wooden was a successful amateur basketball

player who led Martinsville High School of Martinsville,

Indiana to 1927 Indiana State Championship and led Purdue

University to the 1932 NCAA Mens' Basketball Championship;

Whereas John Wooden is a best selling author, public

servant, holder of numerous honorary degrees, and recipient

of many awards honoring his lifetime dedication to improving

the lives of others;

Whereas John Wooden has been honored with the Presidential

Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian award;

Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

concurring), That the Congress--

(1) congratulates John Wooden for receiving the

Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian

award;

(2) recognizes the achievements and contributions of John

Wooden in the fields of sports and education.