There is so much at stake in our effort to stabilize Iraq and promote democracy in the Arab world. This past week I had to stop and look myself in the mirror and make difficult decisions as a federal legislator on how far to push my views if they differ with the President of the United States.

More than three weeks ago, we heard that President Bush would request $87 billion in the form of an emergency supplemental spending bill to fund our military and peace keeping missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.  At the first policy briefing, I asked Vice President Cheney why the $20 billion portion for "reconstruction in Iraq" could not be, in part or in whole, a loan instead of a gift.  With this idea in mind, I began meeting with the House Legislative Counsel and the Congressional Research Service to write an amendment that I would present to the full Appropriations Committee, on which I serve.  I found out quickly that the only "workable" way to offer this alternative was to propose that one half of the reconstruction investment be paid immediately in the form of emergency aid and the other half to be delivered as a loan under the terms and conditions negotiated by the President, but not made available until there is a permanent, viable government in place in Iraq. 

By early this week, my proposed amendment was being circulated to Members of the Appropriations Committee.  On Wednesday morning, Iraq's Civil Administrator, former U.S. Ambassador Paul Bremer, called me from Iraq to express his concerns that my amendment might have an adverse effect on their efforts in region.

My justifications for the amendment included improving accountability for the money being spent, securing the American taxpayer's investment, strengthening the President's hand in negotiations with other counties and above all ensuring that countries such as France, Germany and Russia are not paid back on their loans to Saddam Hussein if the U.S. taxpayers are not paid back first.

By late afternoon, I was sitting in the Roosevelt Room in the White House presenting these priorities to Secretary of State Colin Powell, Office of Management and Budget Director Josh Bolton and President George W. Bush.

The President and I agree the money is necessary to "win the peace" and to "win the war."  We both desire a debt free Iraq and passionately agree that we cannot afford to fail and must finish what we have started.  Our single disagreement was on HOW we would appropriate the money.  He clearly told me that all of the money needed to be a grant and that if any of the appropriation was in the form of a loan it would be problematic to our efforts to build global support.

After everyone made their presentations at the White House, I asked the President directly, "Do you believe in your heart that if my amendment was adopted it would jeopardize our chances for success in Iraq?"  He looked me square in the eye and said, "I am afraid that I do!"

After I left the White House I called my wife Kim and repeated the entire story to her and asked for her usual wise counsel.  We agreed that since the President has been in negotiations with the G-7 nations and in constant communication with the Arab countries as well, I should give him and his Administration the benefit of the doubt and defer to his judgment on this critical decision.

So when the $87 billion package came before the Appropriations Committee on Thursday, I offered my amendment, made my best presentation, asked the tough questions and then respectfully withdrew the amendment from consideration for two reasons:

First, I did not have the votes to pass it and secondly, because the President of the United States looked me in the eye and advised me that it was NOT in our best national interest to press for a vote. 

The stakes are high in Iraq.  We cannot afford to fail.  Our troops and our President deserve our support and consideration.  It is a high honor and a great privilege to serve in the United States Congress and as a Member of the House Appropriations Committee.