Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1591) making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 261, I call up the bill (H.R. 1591) making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 12 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, why are we here? We are here because 4 years ago the President plunged us into a preemptive war in Iraq, a country that had not attacked the United States, and we took that action on the basis of bad information, manipulated intelligence, with no visible plans for governing after the war was over.

Mr. Speaker, that attack diverted us from the hunt for bin Laden, the person who did attack us.

The war has now gone on for 4 years and, as a result, we have seen chaos and carnage. We have seen over 3,000 American service men and women die, many times more wounded and maimed. We have seen our influence decimated throughout the Middle East. We have seen our reputation as the democratic hope of the world tarnished by stories about torture and rendition.

I voted against that war. There were 215 Republicans who voted for it and 6 that voted against it. There were 81 Democrats who voted for it and 126 Democrats who voted against it. We had 132 votes, in total, against going to war. And ever since that time, we have been trying to get to 218 votes so we can turn this country and this war around.

Over the last 4 years, this war has been fought with virtually no sense of shared sacrifice. Military families have done double and triple duty, while the rest of America has had to accept the sacrifice of a tax cut. That is about all that has been asked of most Americans.

We have spent a huge amount of our national treasure, and now the President is asking for another almost $100 billion for this war and asking for an additional $3.5 billion for his own domestic priorities.

This bill is our response. It says to the President: ``Okay, you can have that money, but only under certain terms and conditions.'' And we try to do three things: number one, to redirect a greater effort to the right war in Afghanistan, rather than the wrong war in Iraq. Secondly, we try to protect our troops to the maximum extent possible and correct the neglect that they have suffered as they have returned from the battlefield. And, thirdly, we are trying to send a message to Iraq politicians that they need to change direction; that we will no longer tolerate an open-ended, interminable babysitting job; that they must get together and begin to resolve their own differences.

This bill sets a timetable for repositioning our troops out of Iraq. The exact timetable will be determined by the performance of the Iraqis and whether or not they meet important political and military benchmarks.

And this bill establishes a target for finishing our redeployment in any circumstance. It recognizes that our troops won the war, but it also recognizes that the President's plan calls upon troops to do something that they do not have the power to do, namely, to convince Iraqi factions to reach reasonable compromises on their own turf.

It sets reasonable conditions for moving our troops into a different posture. It holds Iraqis accountable to standards that the President himself has laid out. And it puts us on a new direction with respect to the war in Iraq.

And it does some other things, too. It completes action on a number of leftover pieces of business that the previous Congress left to this new incoming Congress.

The President himself asked for $3.4 billion to deal with the needs of FEMA. We are also finishing action on the BRAC action which requires $3.1 billion in additional funding. We are finishing action on the need to improve family military housing to the tune of $3.4 billion. We are finishing action on rebuilding the lives and providing other assistance to the Katrina victims after the most devastating natural disaster in the history of our country.

We are finishing the action on the agriculture disaster problem that Congress wrestled with for well over a year in the previous Congress without coming to resolution. And we are providing the final $1 billion in funds to combat a potential pandemic flu, funds which the President himself requested in an emergency appropriation in the year 2005.

And we are also finishing action on the action begun last year by the Congress in trying to deal with the fact that 14 States are going to run out of child health money; and we need, therefore, to provide $750 million to see to it that low-income families and children in low- income families are not pushed off those State health care rolls. This is a request that has come in from Republican and Democratic Governors alike.

And we have also provided some additional funding, above what the President asked for, items which are not

last year's business, but which we think are important in terms of this year's business.

We are increasing funding for veterans health and defense health by $3.4 billion. We are, on the homeland security front, increasing funding substantially. The President, since days after 9/11, has been resisting virtually every congressional effort to add funding for homeland security, for border security, for cargo security and the like.

We are continuing the effort to provide significantly more money than the President has asked for. If anybody wants to argue with that, I would suggest they take it up with the 9/11 Commission. I would suggest they take it up with the Hart-Rudman Commission. I would suggest they take it up with the 9/11 families. Everybody but Anne Coulter, I think, would be responsive to what those families think.

And then we are also providing $1.2 billion in additional funding for our war in Afghanistan. Mr. Speaker, I sat at CIA headquarters and watched, right after 9/11, as our predator aircraft were searching Afghanistan for bin Laden. And I know what the people at that agency were saying when they expressed their frustration that the President was diverting a huge share of our resources in the hunt for bin Laden to prepare for the unilateral attack on Iraq.

What this bill is trying to do is to correct that by, again, refocusing additional attention on the war against Afghanistan. And I make absolutely no apology for the funds that we have in here.

Now, some will say this is not a perfect instrument. They will differ with the time line that we have for the repositioning of troops, and they will differ with the benchmarks. But what I would say to them is that what is important in this document today is not the exact wording. What is important is not the exact timetable. What is important is not the exact enumeration of benchmarks. What is important is that, for the first time, this Congress will be exercising its constitutional responsibilities to provide real oversight on the executive branch of government, and we will be trying to set this country on a new direction.

Someone in this House said last week that we are similar in our position to a board of directors for a corporation. He said the President is the CEO. The President's Cabinet represents his management team, and we are the board of directors. And when a board of directors of a corporation sees that the management of the corporation is leading it down a disastrous path, it has a fiduciary responsibility to its stockholders to step in and correct the problem. That is what we are trying to do in this legislation. In this case, we have a fiduciary responsibility and a representational responsibility to the taxpayers and to our constituents, and we are trying to meet that responsibility today.

Now, there are some who have criticized us for doing so, some in newspapers and some on this floor. Very frankly, I am getting a bit tired of those who were consistently wrong from the beginning on the issue of Iraq, I am getting tired of them lecturing those of us who were consistently right from the beginning in our opposition to this war.

And when people ask me why we don't have a better solution, I tell them of the old story about Eddie Stanky, who used to play second base for the New York Giants many years ago. And one day, Leo Durocher, the manager, was hitting ground balls to the infield, and Stanky dropped two in a row. And so Durocher grabbed a glove and said, ``Here, kid, I'm going to show you how it's done.'' And he went out to second base, and the very first ball Durocher dropped. And he turned to Stanky, and said, ``Kid, you got second base so screwed up, nobody can play it.''

The fact is, if you substitute George Bush for Eddie Stanky and Iraq for second base, you have got the picture of what the problem is today.

Now, this Congress cannot run foreign policy, but it has an obligation to try to influence the policy and influence the conduct of that policy when we see it headed down the wrong path. Mr. Murtha has tried to lead the way in seeing to it that we face up to those responsibilities, and this legislation will give us an opportunity to do that.

I would hope it would be supported on a bipartisan basis.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 12 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, Mr. Murtha.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), the chairman of the Financial Services Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations.

(Mr. SERRANO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall).

(Mr. UDALL of New Mexico asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

The gentleman talks about how we need to support General Petraeus. Let me quote from Thomas Friedman, who has had years of experience in understanding the Middle East. He said: I hope the Democrats under Speaker Nancy Pelosi keep pushing to set a deadline for withdrawal from Iraq because they are providing two patriotic services that the Republicans failed to offer in the previous 4 years. The first is policy discipline. The other useful function Speaker Pelosi and her colleagues are performing is to give the President and General David Petraeus, our Commander in Iraq, the leverage of a deadline without a formal deadline. How so? The surge cannot work without political reconciliation among Iraqi factions, which means Sunni-Shiite negotiations, and such negotiations are unlikely to work without America having the leverage of telling the parties that if they do not compromise, we will leave. Deadlines matter. At some point Iraqis have to figure this out themselves. Since Mr. Bush refuses to set a deadline, Speaker Pelosi is the next best thing. Do not underestimate how useful it is for General Petraeus to be.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), chairman of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman can have charts, but the charts don't change facts. I would also observe that the important thing is not what happened 7 or 8 years ago. The important thing is what we are going to do today and tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Again, we can debate yesterday until the cows come home. What Mr. Murtha and I are trying to focus on is what we do in this bill today to make tomorrow better for our servicemen and our country. That is the issue, and that is the issue that this bill tries to address.

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from California (Mrs. Capps).

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).

(Ms. KILPATRICK asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

I yield myself 1 minute.

I would say to the gentleman who just spoke, for the last 4 years we have tried it your way. For the last 4 years we have had a Congress that did whatever George Bush wanted it to do, rubber-stamp, lock-step all the way.

Today is different. Today we have a Congress that is responding to what the public asked for in the last election. What you are seeing today is the new world of checks and balances. Get used to it. It is what the public asked for, and it is what they are going to get out of this Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson), the caucus vice chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), a distinguished graduate of the University of Wisconsin and featured in the Wisconsin alumni magazine.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Speaker, I demand the gentleman's words be taken down.

The gentleman referred to us as producing ``bribe-as-you- go'' legislation.

Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, let me simply congratulate the gentleman for withdrawing those words.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hare).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek).

(Mr. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn).

(Mr. WYNN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished caucus chairman, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn).

Mr. Speaker, let me explain what is in this bill for the Members.

We have $4 billion over the amount requested by the President. The President requested a total of $12.1 billion for military personnel pay and benefits. The committee recommends increasing the funds for those programs by $1.4 billion. The committee adds $1.4 billion to cover the full cost of housing allowance for military members in fiscal year 2007; $2.3 billion to cover the full cost of fielding an additional 36,000 Army troops.

If everybody here remembers, we added 30,000 troops in the supplemental, which the White House did not ask for, argued about, and which the Defense Department did not want. And yet now we are short of troops, and they are trying to blame the Congress for being short of troops.

We also added money for 9,000 additional marines. The committee recommends $52.5 billion for military operations, $2.2 billion over the President's request.

In addition to fully funding the request for military operations, the committee proposes an additional $2.5 billion to address training and equipping shortfalls in forces not deployed. We will set up a Reserve Readiness fund.

The committee recommends adding funds for the war in Afghanistan, $1 billion. That is where the original war started, and that is what you vote against if you vote against this bill.

$5.9 billion for the Afghanistan Security Forces fund, $3.8 billion for the Iraq Security Forces fund, and a total of $2.4 billion is recommended for the joint IED task force.

The recommendations propose an increase of $17 million for DOD's Family Advocacy program. In other words, all of us hear, when we go talk with the families, the problems that they have. We add $17 million for that particular fund.

We have three significant reductions. We reduce some of the buys of hardware which we think ought to be in the base bill.

The committee bill recommends a total of $24.8 billion for equipment purchases, a slight decrease to the President's request of $86 million. The committees proposed an allocation of $1.4 billion to purchase what they call MRAP vehicles, that is, the vehicles with the V shape, which we need so badly. And that is what you are voting against if you vote against this bill: $311 million above the request of the White House.

For Army procurement accounts the committee approves a total of $15 billion: $994 million for tactical radios, $2.2 billion for tactical trucks, $867 million for up-armored Humvees, $636 million for Bradley fighting vehicle upgrades. And that is what you are voting against if you vote against this bill.

The committee bill includes $192 million not requested for three additional F/A-18s. We take care of the SEABEEs, something they have talked about that have been decimated by this war, and we put equipment in for the SEABEEs.

The committee is recommending reductions to several high-profile programs requested by the President. We deny funding for two Joint Strike Fighter airplanes because they ought to be in the base bill, and we will talk about that depending on what they authorize.

The President requested a total of $1.4 billion for research and development. The committee recommends a total of $1 billion.

Working capital funds: the committee bill provides a total of $1.3 billion for working capital.

Now let me talk about defense health programs. We just saw what we went through with Walter Reed. Bill Young, who was chairman of the committee, and I went out to Walter Reed all the time. I had no idea, as most Members didn't, about what was going on at Walter Reed. And it really gets to me that every time we went out there, we asked them if you needed any help and they always told us everything is all right. We put more money in any way because we knew there would be some problems come about because of the fact that they were under BRAC. The committee decided unanimously to eliminate the closing of Walter Reed, especially during the time of war. We put $1.7 billion above the budget request.

The additional funding is for $450 million for post-traumatic stress. And that is not near enough, folks. That is not near enough. We figure there are going to be 65,000 military people who come back that are going to have post-traumatic stress. And that is what you are voting against if you vote against this bill.

We put $450 million in for traumatic brain injury care and research; $730 million to cover the funding shortfall created by Congress' having disapproved the Department's proposal to increase the health insurance premiums. And I am for that, but we didn't fund it. But we fund it in this bill, and that is what you vote against if you vote against this bill.

We put $62 million in for amputee care. Let me tell you something about amputee care. I went out to the amputee center in Brooks. Private industry put up a place in 18 months; $58 million they raised to put an amputee center up. We have been working on an amputee center at Walter Reed. It took us 3 years and it is still not built. Jerry Lewis, Bill Young, and myself, and it is still not done yet.

We are putting in $12 million for caregivers. The nurses called. They said, We have got a real problem here. We see these wounded. We see the people coming home all the time. It affects us mentally. It affects us emotionally. It affects us psychologically. We need help. So we put $12 million in; $6 million for Landstuhl, where they get the worst casualties; $2 million for Walter Reed; $2 million for Brooks; and $2 million for the hospital in California.

We put in $14.8 million for burn care. I want to tell you something, Members. You can go to all the hospitals. When you go to the burn care centers, you see the results of this war. We go to the hospitals. All of us go to the hospitals quite often. And let me tell you the burn centers are the worst when you go.

Now, we also took out 5 percent on contracting. Now, why did we do that? We did that because contractors are falling all over themselves and we asked the GAO and we asked the Inspector General of Iraq, How many contractors do you have? They couldn't tell us. They said, Help us find out how many contractors we have.

So we asked the Under Secretary of Defense. He couldn't tell us. He said, I will let you know in a week.

He still hasn't told us. So we took 5 percent out. They will tell us now how many contractors they have.

And we fenced 10 percent. So that is $800 million for the 5 percent and then $1.6 billion for the contractors to come out. So that is $2.1 billion we have taken out for the contractors.

We put in for CERP, which is a program in which there is $456 million provided under operations and maintenance for the commanders.

No permanent bases we said over and over again. We put in no torture, which has caused us so much problem when they didn't have the people trained when they were in Abu Ghraib.

Contracting oversight. We have a death gratuity amendment. Military attorneys, we put some money in for military attorneys.

Meeting readiness guidelines: let me tell you what we do to meet readiness guidelines. When you talk to these families, they need a year at home before they are redeployed. Is there anybody that thinks we should send these folks back before they have a year at home? Is there anybody that thinks we should extend them when they have 13 months in country? Is there anybody who thinks we should send troops into combat who aren't trained and ready? Is there anybody here?

We put benchmarks in for the Iraqi Government, as the chairman of the committee explained, because we need to give them the incentive. We need them to have some benchmarks so they understand that they have to get this done.

Every time something happens, and this is a problem we have, every time something happens, we step in. They started out, they said, with 80 percent of the people in the Iraqi units deployed in Iraq. Now it is 50 percent. Where are they? They are on leave. They deserted. They are not there. So who makes up the difference? Our troops are the ones making up the difference. We have to force the Iraqis to make up the difference.

Why are we even thinking about forcing the military to break their own guidelines because of this surge? Because of the fact they can't sustain the deployment. So the administration has decided, we are going to have to send people back with less than a year at home.

We are going to send people back that aren't trained and ready? That is unacceptable. That is unacceptable to every single Member of Congress. We have an obligation to the taxpayer under the Constitution to take care of defense.

We have an obligation to have oversight and auditing and accountability. We have had 14 hearings so far. We will have at least 40 more hearings before we have the base bill. I am going to put you on notice right now, the supplemental, the 2008 supplemental, is not going to come up with the base bill. The 2008 supplemental is going to be held, because we are going to see if there is going to be progress in this country before we bring up the 2008 supplemental. We are going to see if what they say is true. We are going to find out if this administration is giving us the facts.

We have said to them under the Moran amendment, you have to tell us how much oil production there is. Oil production is below prewar level. Electricity production is below prewar level. Unemployment is 60 percent.

Incidents have doubled since I spoke out here a year-and-a-half ago. Doubled. There are now 1,200 a week. And when I say ``incidents,'' I am talking about 140,000 troops deployed to Iraq, individually. I heard Elizabeth Edwards the other day talk about breast cancer, before she knew it had come back, and she said to me, there is 40,000 people that have breast cancer every year, but it is one at a time.

What we are talking about are troops, 140,000 troops, one at a time; 140,000 troops with families; 140,000 troops that have wives and husbands and mothers and fathers that have to suffer during these deployments.

When you go to the hospital, you see figures. Don't think when you say you see 2,500 people who have been killed, 3,000 have been killed or 25,000 have been wounded. It is individuals that have been wounded, individuals that have been killed, and those families are suffering.

We have to put some benchmarks so the Iraqis, they have civil war, we have to put benchmarks in this bill so the Iraqis start to do it themselves, and the Americans aren't forced to make up the difference, but they do it themselves.

Mr. Speaker, let me say to the Members what hurts our troops.

I found our troops, 44,000, without body armor. I found our troops with a shortage of jammers. I found our troops with a shortage of up- armored Humvees. I find our troops now, because of the policy, having to go back to Iraq before they have a year at home. I find our troops now because of the policy of this White House having to extend troops that have been there 13 months, and I find our troops having to go into combat untrained or not trained as well as they should, not going to the desert where they have this tremendous training area, going right into Iraq.

That is what hurts our troops. That is what hurts the morale of the troops when you send them without training, without the additional training they need, without the equipment they need and without the resources they need.

We are putting in the resources. If you vote against this bill, you are voting against the resources they need to go into combat.

One of the Members said, how many less Iraqis have been killed? I don't know how many less Iraqis we killed. I know 62 individual American soldiers or marines have been killed this last month.

I want to say about equipment, I have got a chart here with the Army National Guard. Every single National Guard unit in this Nation, all 50 States, doesn't have the Humvees they need.

Every State, they don't have the 7-ton trucks they need. Every State, they don't have other equipment, the equipment they need for jammers and so forth.

When you say they are training on equipment and are not fully trained, they don't have the equipment to train on. This bill provides that. When you vote against this bill, you are voting against the extra money to fix that problem.

Mr. Speaker, in Kosovo we had 30,000 sorties. We never lost one person to combat in Kosovo. Let me read the figures for you in 2001. All active duty Army divisions were rated highest readiness level. Do you know what they are today? Almost all are rated lowest level. Every National Guard unit today is rated the lowest level.

Mr. Speaker, we could not deploy our ground forces overseas for any threat. Our national security has been significantly increased because the depletion of our strategic reserve, our national strategic reserve. We got a problem here. We are trying to fix the problem. If you vote against this, you are voting against helping us to restore the equipment that we have lost in this country.

I will yield.

I take my time back.

Let me just say to the gentleman from California, when President Clinton was President, Bush as a candidate was running against him. He said, look, you are not ready to go to war. He said, two entire divisions of the Army would not have had to report until they are ready.

Let me tell you what it would be today. Almost no division in the United States is ready to report for duty if we had to send them out someplace else to a national threat. That is the difference today. Today we are trying to fix this. Today we put money in the bill to fix this.

Yes.

The gentleman has to realize, we put it in. They didn't ask for much of this. I found the 44,000 shortage of body armor. I found the shortage of Humvees. We came back, and we put it in. Bill Young, Jerry Lewis and I put it in. The Armed Services is the one that is causing the problem.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from New York, the distinguished Chair on the Committee of Rules for yielding me the time, and I yield myself such time as I might consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the strongest possible opposition to this rule and the underlying legislation. I could start this debate by quoting my Democratic colleagues on the Rules Committee when they decried Republican tactics over the last few years, how they railed against closed rules and chided me personally. I am a big guy, I can handle it. But they attacked me personally constantly for denying amendments that were offered by both Democrats and Republicans. I could quote every instance that they promised to do better, to have the most open and fair Congress in the history of this country, and to not have late- night meetings. But today, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to do that. I am going to recognize that that would simply distract from this very, very important issue. Instead, I

am going to simply provide the House, Mr. Speaker, and you witnessed much of this last night, with a factual account of what took place in the wee hours of this morning.

Shortly before 1 a.m., the Rules Committee on party-line votes reported out two self-executing closed rules, and denied the consideration of some 70 amendments submitted to the Rules Committee from both Republicans and Democrats as well. That is what happened. There is no denying it. You, Mr. Speaker, witnessed it yourself when you were upstairs in the Rules Committee.

So regardless of the process, this supplemental appropriations bill is a constitutionally dubious attempt at micromanaging the Iraq war into what I believe would be inevitable defeat if it succeeds. It enjoys such limited support on the other side of the aisle that it had to be ladened with unrelated pork in order to win enough votes to have any hope of passing. It is a cynical ploy that will leave dire consequences for the region, and for our own security, in its wake.

The Constitution lays out a very clear system of checks and balances derived from the ideas of the Framers of our Constitution. By giving the three branches of government distinct roles, we guard ourselves against tyranny; we guard ourselves as individuals against tyranny in each branch.

The President cannot wage war without authorization or funding from Congress. But if authorization and funding are granted, the President serves as the Commander in Chief with the authority to execute the war.

Mr. Speaker, this bill ignores the intentions of those Framers, and it attempts to turn the Constitution on its head. James Madison, Father of the Constitution, the author of the Constitution in Federalist No. 51, wrote, and I quote, ``In framing a government that is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed, and in the next place oblige it to control itself.''

Mr. Speaker, Madison recognized the inherent challenges in designing a government that is both effective and limited. He knew that, without checks and balances, tyranny would, in fact, ensue.

This bill attempts to diminish these checks and balances. It tries to turn Congress into a collection of 535 Commanders in Chief. This legislation of micromanagement is based on a disastrous strategy. Its authors fund the war, and then mandate its failure. They seek to tie the hands of our military commanders, and then force them to retreat when they are unable to meet impossible timetables. They mandate the withdrawal with no regard for the situation on the ground, and then they sweeten the deal with $15 billion in money that is unrelated spending that has got a little something in there for practically everyone: $283 million for the milk income lost contract program; $74 million for peanut storage costs; $1.3 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers. Billions and billions of dollars for these projects, some worthy, some not.

But none of them related to the troops, and what this is, this is a war funding supplemental. None of these are emergency items.

Their only connection to emergency supplemental appropriations for the war, Mr. Speaker, in Iraq, is that they are necessary to build support for this bill, a bill that trades victory for electoral gains. Make no mistake, this legislation is a political solution for Democrats, not a strategy for winning in Iraq.

And what would the consequences of defeat be? The National Intelligence Estimate, the 9/11 Commission, and our people on the ground have all made it very clear that a precipitous withdrawal would have catastrophic consequences. The carnage of the battle of Baghdad that we are witnessing today will be just the beginning. Violence will spill out across the country and spread to the entire region.

In our absence, Iran and Syria will be utterly unfettered in their ability to incite a regional war that threatens global security, with enormous casualties suffered by the people of the region.

Proponents of a policy of defeat often point to our diminished standing in the international community. But what about our standing with the Iraqi people? Terrorist attacks on our own soil have demonstrated that our security and their security are directly linked.

And, Mr. Speaker, Operation Iraqi Freedom has bound us even more closely. We have a commitment to help the Iraqi people establish lasting security through democracy. We have a commitment not to abandon them to be slaughtered by terrorists.

And if we retreat, we not only abandon the Iraqi people, we draw terrorism back to our own doorstep. Have we so soon forgotten the tragedy of attacks on our homeland?

We took the war on terror to the terrorists and have suffered not one attack since September 11 of 2001.

With this bill, we would bring the war on terror back home. Only this time we will have strengthened the terrorists ourselves with a road map for success. We will have demonstrated precisely what it takes to defeat the United States of America. We will have clearly signaled to them that they must simply bide their time until the mandated retreat, at which time they will be able to terrorize with impunity.

I, like many Americans, Mr. Speaker, have been discouraged by this war. We all feel the toll that it has taken. And we are keenly aware of the price that we are paying, especially in a human sense. Every one of my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, has, as I have, looked in the faces of constituents whose family and friends have made the ultimate sacrifice in this war. Their pain is very real, and their loss is profound.

I regularly talk to a man called Ed Blecksmith whose son J.P. was tragically killed 2 years ago this past November in the very famous battle of Fallujah. And he has, time and time again, said to me, if we don't complete this mission, my son J.P. will have died in vain.

But we do not honor those who have sacrificed by abandoning their mission. We do not honor those in the field who are fighting, as we speak, by tying their hands and depriving them of the means to succeed. We will honor them by winning the war in Iraq so that our men and women come home having completed their mission.

We know that their mission will not be complete in the immediate future. As President Bush and General David Petraeus have both acknowledged, success will take months, not days or weeks. But there are signs of hope that the President's new plans, under General Petraeus, are working.

As Brian Williams of NBC reported from the field in Iraq, he said, ``This change in policy, getting out, decentralizing, going into the neighborhoods, grabbing a toehold, telling the enemy we are here, talking to the locals, that is having an obvious and palpable effect. There are hopeful signs.'' That was said by the NBC news anchor, Brian Williams.

Mr. Speaker, to abandon our mission now would be disastrous. I urge my colleagues to reject the policy of defeat, reject the return of terrorism to our homeland, and reject this unconstitutional power grab whose sole purpose is to cede victory to our enemies.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a very hardworking member of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Pasco, Washington (Mr. Hastings).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes to another hardworking member of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Miami (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes to

another hardworking member of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Dallas (Mr. Sessions).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend, member of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Goddard, Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Marietta, Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), a former member of the Committee on Rules, who works hard on the Armed Services Committee now.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the ranking Republican on the Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from Janesville, Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Bridgeport, Connecticut (Mr. Shays), the former chairman of the National Security Subcommittee, who has made 15 trips to Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Lafayette, Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield 2 minutes to the former attorney general of California, my friend from Folsom, a hardworking member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Lungren.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the very distinguished gentleman from Indianapolis, Mr. Burton.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy at this time to yield 1 minute to my friend from Cherryville, North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of the gentlewoman if there are any further speakers on her side.

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

Mr. Speaker, in 1859 that great philosopher and religious leader John Stuart Mill wrote: ``War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse.''

We have yet to hear from the other side of the aisle about how we are going to win the global war on terror. We haven't heard, as my friend, Mr. Lungren, just said to me, the ``V'' word. How are we going to be victorious in this war?

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule. This is the largest supplemental spending bill in the history of this planet; and it is being brought up under a closed rule.

Our colleagues in the other body will have an opportunity to amend and discuss and debate this. Only a few Members of the Democratic leadership fashioned this measure, Mr. Speaker. It is unfair. It sends the wrong message to our troops. We must be victorious in this war.

With that, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and if they pass this rule, a ``no'' vote on the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

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

Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I rise today to express my opposition to this emergency supplemental. My colleagues know that I have the highest level of respect for my chairman, Mr. Obey. Together we worked as partners in the 109th Congress, passing appropriations bills through the committee and through the House. Indeed, the Appropriations Committee is at its best when each of us works together across party lines and rises above purely partisan politics.

During the last Congress I was privileged to serve as chairman of this great committee, and Mr. Obey was our distinguished ranking member. Today, our roles are reversed, and Mr. Obey is now our chairman.

There is no question that if my friend from Wisconsin were permitted to write this bill on his own, this would be a much better product. Instead, the House is being asked to consider a spending bill that reflects the priorities of Speaker Pelosi and a deeply divided Democratic Caucus. It attempts to bridge these widening divisions over the war in Iraq by delivering billions of dollars in unrelated and unauthorized spending under an emergency designation.

This legislation ought to focus on our troops. It ought to focus on providing those in harm's way with the resources they need to complete their mission successfully. It ought to respect, not micromanage, our combatant commanders in whom we place the ultimate responsibility of prosecuting military actions.

Instead, this legislation ties the hands of our Commander in Chief during a time of war, places military decisions in the hands of politicians, and attempts to buy votes for its passage on the left and on the right by literally promising something to everyone.

If the majority's goal is to end the war or withdraw our troops, then that should be addressed in a separate piece of legislation. The majority cannot have it both ways, pretending, on the one hand, to support our troops, while on the other undercutting their ability to prosecute their mission.

Men and women of good conscience can disagree about the war in Iraq. But on one thing we must all agree, our men and women in uniform must continue to receive our unqualified support and the resources they need to complete their mission successfully.

My colleagues, consider carefully the consequences of our actions here today. Passage of this measure in its present form will signal to insurgents and terrorists that the United States doesn't have the political will to continue supporting this fledgling Iraqi democracy.

Al Qaeda and other enemies of freedom will simply lay in wait until our troops are withdrawn. And with the collapse of this fragile democracy, our efforts, and the sacrifices of our troops, will have been for nothing.

The fight in Iraq is also critical to the future of Israel. A failure in Iraq will further destabilize the region, posing a direct threat to Israel. We must not let that occur to our friend and ally.

There should be no carrot big enough to force Members into choosing between their principled support for our troops in the field and funding for the many unrelated and parochial items sprinkled throughout this bill.

Republican Members in the House are simply not going to abandon our principles, and troops in the field, for the promise of pork back in our districts. To their credit, many Democrats also continue to express grave reservations about this approach and about this legislation.

Last year Congress sent the President a clean supplemental bill for our troops. This Congress, and our country, would be better served by producing a clean bill free of extraneous spending and unrelated legislative provisions.

There is no question that the President will veto this bill. In the meantime our troops will face the uncertainty resulting from the majority's mixed signals and lack of a clear commitment.

I am also deeply concerned that the Democrat leadership has brought this emergency supplemental to the House floor under a closed rule without opportunity for Members on both sides of the aisle to offer amendments.

During my tenure as chairman, the House considered six emergency supplemental appropriations bills. Of these six bills, the two largest bills, H.R. 1268, was $81.2 billion; the other was a $91.8 billion supplemental. Those two bills primarily focused on the global war on terror. In both instances I worked closely with my leadership and the Rules Committee in seeking rules that permitted open debate, including amendments, on the House floor. And in both instances, these supplemental bills were considered under an open rule. The remaining four bills were noncontroversial and bipartisan in nature and were considered by unanimous consent on the Suspension Calendar.

I assumed that Chairman Obey would continue in the longstanding tradition and practice of the committee to advocate open rules on all appropriations bills. Members on both sides of the aisle benefit by a process that supports a fair, honest, open, and transparent debate on the House floor. I was disappointed that Mr. Obey's first bill as chairman, the fiscal year 2007 continuing resolution, was considered under a closed rule, with only 1 hour of debate and no opportunity for amendments.

Consideration of this supplemental under a closed rule is unprecedented and leaves the minority little choice but to walk away from the tradition of comity that has marked our longstanding work on this committee.

By denying Members, both Democrats and Republicans, their right to offer amendments to this legislation, I can assure you that all bets are off on getting our committee work done this year. It simply will not happen. There will be no unanimous consent agreements on the fiscal year 2008 bills. I spoke personally with Mr. Obey about this and asked him to carry that message directly to the Speaker.

This legislation is simply too important to have it rushed through the House with no debate and no opportunity for the body to consider amendments. Consideration of this legislation under a closed rule signals to the House, and to the public, that the Speaker has imposed martial law on the people's House.

Lastly, I would be remiss not to highlight my reservations about the budgetary aspects of this bill that proposes more than $22 billion in emergency spending items that are completely unrelated to the global war on terror or legitimate emergencies in the Gulf Coast region.

I ask my colleagues what does a $25 million bailout for spinach producers, $60 million for the salmon fishing industry, or $5 million for fish breeding have to do with the global war on terror?

This legislation also includes authorization language to increase the minimum wage. Again, I ask my friends why can't the committees of jurisdiction in the House and the Senate meet in open conference to resolve the differences between these bills? What place has this provision in a wartime supplemental?

In short, much of what is included in this bill is completely unrelated to the global war on terror and has no place in the bill. Sadly, many items are being designated as emergencies for no other reason than to make more room for additional spending on the part of the Democrats under the fiscal 2008 caps.

I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to consider thoughtfully the precedent set by this legislation. Weigh in your conscience the effects of undermining the authority of the President, and future Presidents, and putting at further risk our men and women in uniform.

Our Congress, and our country, would be better served by sending the President a clean supplemental free of extraneous spending and unrelated legislative provisions.

While I respect Chairman Obey, I cannot support this legislation as it is presently written. I strongly urge a ``no'' vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), our leader on the Homeland Security Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), a member of our committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker), a member of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, can I inquire how much time we have on each side.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Illinois, the ranking member of the subcommittee of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Ray LaHood.

(Mr. LaHOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize for 2\1/2\ minutes the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Hunter of California.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to Mr. Hoekstra, the ranking member of the Intel Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) for 2\1/4\ minutes.

(Mr. REYNOLDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to yield 2 minutes to the marine from the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Kline of Minnesota.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to call upon the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for 2 minutes.

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

(Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, could I ask how much time we have remaining on both sides.

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

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. Speaker, I yield my colleague, Bob Inglis from South Carolina, 2 minutes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), a member of our committee and the ranking member of the Financial Services Subcommittee.

(Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and rise in opposition to the bill.

I want to say this: We have had a lot of good, sincere debates in the Defense Subcommittee of Appropriations, but one of the things that, in our honest disagreement about, that we have not talked about as much is the effects that the surge has already had. I wanted to bring up some statistics.

The 4 weeks prior to the surge which began on February 15, we had 1,440 civilian deaths; since that time, 265. That is a reduction of about 500 percent.

In terms of bombings, prior to the surge, we had 163. Then from February to March, it is down to 102.

Similar with car bombings, down 35 percent from 56 to 36.

The surge is already showing a significant impact. Two-thirds of the Iraqis polled by a British polling firm, 5,000 people which were sampled, the largest poll in the history of Iraq, two-thirds of the people say they are better off now than they were under Saddam Hussein. Seventy-three percent say they are not in a civil war. Al-Maliki, the Prime Minister's approval rating has gone from 29 percent in September to 49 percent now.

We are making progress. We are not defending the status quo. We are changing the course, and the Petraeus plan needs to be given time to work, and that is very, very important.

The second point that I want to make is there are so many extracurricular things in the $23 billion in spending that have nothing to do with the war in Iraq. Now, I serve on the Ag Committee, and I want to mention some of those.

There is a $100 million increase in the PL-480 program, but there is not a single word of it in the report as to why this is justified, why this is considered an emergency, $100 million.

Secondly, we have $25 million in there for spinach recall. The USDA did what they were supposed to do, but I want you to know you are setting a precedent for recall. We are not in the product compensation business on recalls.

Finally, we have $5 million in the bill because of a Canadian fish import issue.

All of these things are good, debatable topics, but they do not belong in an emergency appropriation bill. I think they should come back through the committee process on regular order where we can have a good debate and look at them on a separate piece of legislation.

While some of the provisions I support, such as the peanut storage and handling provision and some type of agriculture disaster assistance, this bill is not the appropriate place for them to be considered.

Title II-P.L. 480 Grants--The bill contains $100,000,000 above the President's request for Title II-P.L. 480 Grants.

There is not a single word of explanation in the report as to what or where the additional funds are to be used for.

The President's request included $350,000,000 of which approximately $150,000,000 would go to Sudan and for populations in Chad affected by the violence in Darfur; $30,000,000 for Afghanistan; $95,000,000 for Southern Africa; and $75,000,000 for the Horn of Africa.

Just last month the Congress included $1,215 billion for this program in the Joint Resolution to fund this program for the remainder of fiscal year 2007.

The bill provides $140,000,000 in additional relief for loses related to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita of which $25,000,000 would go to provide additional compensation to livestock producers and $100,000,000 would go to provide additional compensation for citrus producers--it appears that these additional funds are included in the bill only for the reason of doubling the $80,000 payment that livestock and citrus producers have already received, taking their payments up to $160,000.

The need for agriculture disaster assistance has been debated for the last several months.

While disaster assistance is clearly needed in some areas of the country, this bill provides $25 million for spinach producers who had losses due to a nationwide spinach recall last fall.

The FDA did what is was supposed to do, and initiated the recall to protect consumers.

This assistance is unprecedented, and there will be pressure put on this Committee to compensate producers whenever other food products are recalled.

Can you imagine the cost if we get in the business of compensating producers for losses that they incur because of food recalls? The latest list of some of the food recalls from FDA and USDA include: bread; peanut butter; corn chips; olives; oysters; milk; fresh cut fruit; summer sausage; ground beef; and the list goes on.

The reason foods were recalled is because they presented a health risk to the public, and the FDA or the USDA did what they were supposed to do.

The bill includes $5,000,000 for compensation to aquaculture operations who may have incurred a loss due to a restriction on imports from certain fish from Canada.

The emergency order, put on by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, on these fish from Canada was due to outbreaks or potential outbreaks of a destructive pathogen responsible for several large-scale fish deaths in the Great Lakes region--the reason APHIS put the order in place was to protect aquaculture in the Great Lakes states, and somehow $5,000,000 makes it into this bill to compensate for possible losses without any justification. Where did this number come from?

Finally, there are no funds for USDA to administer any of the disaster assistance provisions in the bill that total nearly $4,500,000,000. Members are already reacting to proposed FSA office closures that are occurring all over the country. This will only exacerbate the problem.

iraqi government progress

According to the U.S. Embassy in Iraq, over the last 30

days they have seen important developments in the history of

Iraq. The Iraqi government has taken steps to improve

security, governance, economic development and economic

opportunities.

Iraq's Prime Minister is actively leading the latest plan

in Baghdad.

Prime Minister Maliki created six committees to oversee the

non-security pieces of the Baghdad plan, with oversight of

economic development, essential services, communications,

community outreach and related functions.

Prime Minister Maliki's first trip to Anbar Province was a

clear gesture and attempt to involve Sunni tribal sheiks into

the government.

Anbar's tribal sheiks are switching allegiances away from

the insurgents and towards the government of Iraq.

The tribal sheikhs have started providing police and army

recruits to support stability in the region.

At the end of February, the Iraqi parliament's Council of

Ministers passed a hydrocarbon law that outlines the

equitable sharing of Iraq's oil wealth.

The Iraqi government hosted the Neighbors' Conference, the

first international conference in Baghdad since 1990. The

conference ended with regional and international partners

pledging to fight terrorism and to enhance security in

support of the goal of peace and security for the people of

Iraq.

Iran and Syria along with Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan,

Turkey and the five permanent members of the U.N. Security

Council attended the conference.

military progress

SecDef stated (Mar 21) the deployment of Iraqi troops into

Baghdad is right on schedule--10 brigades total.

Operational strength of the Iraqi Brigades in Baghdad has

vastly improved.

First Brigade reported at 61 percent; Second came in at 65

percent; and the third came in at 85 percent. Other brigades

on their way are reporting in the high 90s to more than 100

percent strength.

The problem was not related to fighting, but rather an

issue with getting pay to families. Iraq does not have a

financial system that provides for electronic transfer of

monies--it is a cash transaction society. The Iraqi

Government found that troops were trying to take money to

their families and that is the reason they were absent.

They fixed the problem by paying deploying forces a bonus

upfront so they could leave money with their families and not

have to worry about them.

Overall, violence directed against Iraqi Civilians is down

about one-third and murders/assassinations are down 50

percent.

Civilian deaths down more than 500 percent: mid-Feb to mid-

March, 265; previous four weeks, 1,440.

Bombings down nearly 40 percent: mid-Feb to mid-March, 102;

previous 4 weeks, 163.

Car bombs down nearly 35 percent: mid-Feb to mid-March, 36;

previous 4 weeks, 56.

notes from secdef's talk at army caucus--mar 22

Active Army has met every retention and recruiting goal

since 9/11

Need to grow Army and we're doing so by 7,000 a year

Vital to meet Active Army's goal of 1 year deployed and 2

years home; Guard/Reserve goal is 1 year deployed and 5 years

home

Need to include Guard and Reserve in all of our plans

Modernization and putting them in Joint billets

We have programmed $46.4B for reset in FY 07/08

Modernization is also required--started $56B short

Need the FY07 Sup by April or we will have to take

Draconian measures and begin to reprogram money, impacting

all facets of the Army

Need $2B for BRAC this year and stated that we need to

expedite the construction of the medical facility on Ft

Belvoir and make Bethesda the premier medical facility

commonly asked question iraq

Q: What is your view of the timetables and provisions that

have been attached to the FY07 Supplemental?

A: It's important to elevate the level of debate. . . .

question is how we incentiveize the Iraqi government. But,

specific dates and strict conditionally would make it

impossible for commanders to complete the mission.

Q: Do you think the operations in Iraq will be over on

October 1?

A: Decisions need to be based by conditions on the ground.

Setting a date tells your adversary all he has to do is wait.

I think debate on the hill has been helpful; there is no

military solution, it has to be a political solution and we

are providing them the time they need.

Q: How is the deployment of Iraqi troops going? We have

heard they are reporting at low strength rates?

A: In Afghanistan, there are about 12 financial centers

that enable movement of money. Iraq has no such system yet,

so troops have to take cash home to their families. First

Brigades came in around 60 percent but other brigades are

reporting in the high 90s to more than 100 percent strength.

The problem was not related to fighting, but rather an issue

with getting pay to families--troops were trying to take

money to their families and that is the reason they were

absent. They fixed the problem by paying deploying forces a

bonus upfront so they could leave money with their families

and not have to worry about them.

Q: Are we neglecting Afghanistan?

A: After I visited Afghanistan, I made the decision to

extend the deployment of one Brigade and move the other

Brigade in. We will be adding 3,400 trainers and overall

about 6-7,000 soldiers. Britain and Australia are also

providing more troops as we prepare for a Taliban offensive

this spring. We think they may make a run at Khandahar and we

want to hit them hard.