Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, since the United States Air Force was established as an independent branch of the U.S. Armed Forces in 1947, it has played a major role in our national defense. Throughout its 60 years of valiant service, from Operation Rolling Thunder over the skies of Southeast Asia, to Operations Northern and Southern Watch in Iraq, the men and women of the United States Air Force and Air National Guard have defended the United States and our allies around the world.

Since 1947, the men and women stationed at McChord Air Force Base in Washington state have played a key role in supporting the mission of the Air Force, and I want to acknowledge their outstanding service.

``Team McChord,'' which includes the 62nd Airlift Wing, and its Air Force Reserve components in the 446th Airlift Wing, has flown continuous combat airlift operations every day since October 2001. These operations provide vital airlift and medical evacuation support to our forces as they fight to stop the spread of terrorism and as they respond to other contingencies. In addition to being the home of combat airlift, ``Team McChord'' includes the Western Air Defense Sector, the 22nd Special Tactics Squadron, and the 262nd Information Warfare Aggressor Squadron. Together, day in and day out, these brave men and women actively support vital military operations around the world.

Today, we recognize the continued dedication of the United States Air Force. I congratulate them on 60 years of invaluable service to our county.

Madam Speaker, for the record, during consideration of H.R. 3093 on rollcall 733, I voted ``no'', and meant to vote ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, in listening to this debate, I think the biggest problem is the proponents of the stay-the-course plan in Iraq continually and completely equate the battle in Iraq with the battle against al Qaeda and the terrorists who struck us. The two are not the same. In fact, we heard from Ms. Ros-Lehtinen that Iraq is but one of the battlefields that we are fighting against al Qaeda. That is absolutely true. Yet we have 80 percent of our assets in Iraq. Meanwhile, report after report come out that al Qaeda is strengthening themselves in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where we don't have enough resources.

Our argument is not for retreat. Our argument is that there is a better way to fight al Qaeda and those who threaten us than to put all of our assets in Iraq while not paying enough attention to where al Qaeda is really strengthening itself. In Iraq, it is primarily a power struggle in which al Qaeda is a player. It is not primarily about al Qaeda's threat against the U.S. In Afghanistan, with the Taliban and al Qaeda, it is a very different story.

Our troops, our assets, the lives and the talents of the people of this country are tied down in Iraq fighting what is primarily a civil war instead of better fighting al Qaeda. In fact, our presence, in many ways, has strengthened al Qaeda. Syria would never be an ally of al Qaeda in any sort of real-world scenario, because al Qaeda wants to topple their regime. Yet to defeat us in Iraq, they have come up with an alliance of convenience.

There is a better way to fight al Qaeda. We are here today to change course in Iraq because it is a better way to protect this country. Timing isn't the issue. Six months ago, these facts were basically the same as they are today. In September, these facts will be basically the same as they are today. We cannot wait if we are going to have the best possible strategy for defeating al Qaeda, the group that threatens us most, instead of getting bogged down in the civil war and in the tribal differences that are present in Iraq. We want to win, not to quit. This is the better way to do it.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the leadership in both the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the House Armed Services Committee for their efforts to make Afghanistan a top priority and to focus on our challenges there. They've done a fabulous job.

I recently returned, during the last break, from a visit to Afghanistan. I am very optimistic about what's going on there but at the same time mindful of the effort that it's going to require in the years ahead to continue to succeed, and I believe this bill reflects an understanding of that required effort.

The Afghan people are on our side. They support the presence of the NATO troops to support the Karzai government. They do not want the Taliban to return, and they will fight them and appreciate our help in doing this.

I'm also very impressed with the job our military and the military of the NATO alliance is doing there. We have some of the most talented folks in our military there doing a fabulous job of fighting the Taliban. But as we go forward, there are remaining challenges, significant challenges.

Number one, we have to maintain the military presence. In fact, I believe we need more troops and further support to train the Afghan army and to fight off the Taliban as they try to resurge

in the south and throughout the country.

But overarching all of this is the economic challenge. That is the enormous challenge in Afghanistan. It is a country that has never had the best economy, and it has also faced 30 years of civil war. Their infrastructure is destroyed and needs to be rebuilt. Their ability to govern has also been significantly reduced and needs to be rebuilt.

The Karzai government has the support of the people, but the people also want infrastructure. They want electricity, and they want jobs. They want alternatives to the poppies, alternatives to that as a way of making their living, and we have to give them a long-term commitment to show them that we will help. We need that long-term financial commitment that is contained in this bill to get them to believe that their economy will be strong again. We need to reward their faith in the Karzai government, their faith in our ability to defeat the Taliban and to build a better future for Afghanistan; and this bill does that.

So, again, I thank the chairman. I want to thank the ranking member as well for putting together this piece of legislation and ask all Members of Congress to understand this is a long-term commitment in Afghanistan.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

First of all, I want to thank the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Ike Skelton, for the fantastic job he has done on this mark. He has done it in a bipartisan fashion. And also, of greatest importance, this mark funds the war that we are fighting.

We have troops in the field in harm's way. We fund the priorities that they need right now. And given all of the demands on the Armed Services Committee, that is no easy feat. The chairman and all members of the committee have made that a priority, and I want to thank him for that.

I also believe that we have well-funded the broader war on terrorism that my subcommittee has a significant part of, Subcommittee on Terrorism.

The fight against al Qaeda and the ideology they espouse and those who would support al Qaeda or that ideology is not just in one place. It is in many places in the world. It is in Africa, Southeast Asia, certainly in the Middle East and elsewhere. To combat that ideology, we need a force that is trained in unconventional warfare, that is trained in asymmetric warfare, and we need the Special Operations Forces who are trained to go into parts of the world, to understand the culture and work with the local communities and stop al Qaeda-like insurgencies before they start. That training is critical.

It is much easier to fight that type of battle than to get dragged into a larger war. We have had incredible success in places like the Philippines and Chad and Kenya and elsewhere because our Special Operations Forces understand irregular warfare, get in there and work with the local communities to stop insurgencies before they start. I believe this mark reflects that priority. It is certainly one of the highest priorities for our subcommittee.

I want to thank the ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), for his leadership on this issue as well. We have put language, money and report language in the bill that will prioritize irregular warfare, unconventional fights, so that we can defeat al Qaeda globally and understand all of the different challenges that go into that.

Again, I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for his outstanding leadership of this committee. It is a privilege and honor to serve with him, and to thank him for this mark and this bill that I think adequately prepares our military to fight the battles we face.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this measure before us today because it provides a clearly needed change in course in Iraq. The President has placed roughly 160,000 of our troops in a highly vulnerable position--refereeing a civil war--while the various factions in Iraq have not made adequate progress toward reconciliation. The needed political reconciliation among these groups will not happen until we make it clear to the Iraqis that our occupation is coming to an end.

But our open-ended occupation of Iraq is not only not working; it's working against us. It undermines our fight against al-Qaeda and provides extremists a rallying point. We have every indication that al- Qaeda is resurgent in Pakistan, that bin Laden finds himself stronger

than ever, and that al-Qaeda-linked groups are growing in number and audacity. We need to responsibly redeploy our troops from Iraq so we can better fight this growing threat.

I initially had concerns with some of the language in this measure regarding funds for troops deployed to Iraq since January of this year. But after examining the bill more closely, I do not believe any provision in this bill would alter funding in a way that would put troops currently in the field at risk. The bottom line is that we must send a clear message to the President that we must change direction in Iraq and redeploy our troops.

Madam Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise today to offer my condolences to the families of 1st Lt. Kevin Gaspers, of Hastings, and Burwell native Staff Sgt. Kenneth Locker, who were laid to rest last week with honor. They lost their lives, along with seven other soldiers of the Army's 82nd Airborne Division, in a terrorist attack in Iraq.

These young men represented some of the best qualities of Nebraskans, and our State mourns their loss.

Locker has been described as compassionate, caring, thoughtful, and generous. Before he died, he told his father he was fighting in Iraq for the children, that they might have a safer world to live in. His sacrifice for that idea should be inspiring for us all.

Gaspers also had a reputation of generosity, sincerity, and dedication. He touched so many lives during his time with us, and the outpouring of support from the community has been nothing short of inspiring.

These young men led lives rich in meaning, and it is tragic to see those lives cut short. They were sons, friends, and role models. They were filled with kindness, selflessness, and humor. My heart and thoughts go out to their families during this difficult period.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 305) honoring the 53,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and civilians that comprise the Nation's special operations forces community.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the resolution under consideration.

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

This resolution is to honor our special forces on their 20th anniversary. I will have much more to say about this, but at this point I want to reserve the balance of my time and thank Congresswoman Drake for her leadership on this issue as the prime sponsor of the bill and allow her to speak first.

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

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

As Mrs. Drake pointed out, we are honoring the 20th anniversary of the forming of the command on special forces, and I think it is important to remember why Special Operations Command was set up. It was in reaction to the failure of the Desert One rescue attempt of the Iranian hostages, and there were a lot of lessons learned from that and a lot of studies that went into it.

Two of the biggest ones were, one, we needed a better joint structure. The military was too divided in its various service components, and they did not work together. We had large numbers of assets that could function a lot better if they could be brought together in a coordinated fashion, and this is something that was embodied in the Goldwater-Nichols changes throughout the services and especially on the Special Ops Command to try to bring those forces together.

Secondly, we didn't really have groups that were trained for that type of mission, for the ability to go in and rescue hostages, to do the direct action missions that required very specialized training. So the command was formed to help address those two issues and has been a fabulous success.

As Mrs. Drake pointed out, we now have over 53,000 people who are part of Special Operations Command performing some of the most important tasks in our military and performing them very, very well. Our capabilities have been enormously enhanced because of the Special Operations Command. There are many of them stationed throughout the U.S. and throughout the world. I am very proud at Fort Lewis and in McCord to have the first special forces group at Fort Lewis and the 22nd Special Tactics Aviation Command at McCord. And I have also had the opportunity to visit many of these units in various places throughout the country and throughout the world, and they are serving us very, very well.

As we move forward, I think the important thing we are trying to develop on the Terrorism Subcommittee on Armed Services is to bring into play another important piece of what the special operations forces do. There is a tendency to think of them as the direct action guys. They find bad guys and take them out. If we have hostages that need to be rescued, they go get them. But there is another very important task that they perform, and this is in the unconventional warfare, indirect action piece.

We are now active in well over a dozen countries throughout the world where our special forces folks go into the community, work very closely with local communities to help stop insurgencies before they take root. We are doing this in the Philippines, and we are doing this in Central Africa. And it is having enormous benefits.

It is far, far better to get in early, help train the locals in terms of how to protect themselves and then to help them with their local population on the issues that are most important.

We had testimony yesterday from a former special operations person who said when they first went into Northern Africa, the best thing they did was they brought a dentist with them. The locals so desperately needed that help; when we gave it to them, they then helped us deal with the insurgency problem.

Whether it is bad schools or bad water supply, our special forces people are getting engaged with the local community, understanding the culture and learning the language and becoming helpful. That, I believe, is the future of our battle against al Qaeda and many, many other insurgent movements, is to get the population on our side, hearts and minds before we have to engage in the type of military action that is by definition messy and not always as focused as we would like it to be. Let's get the insurgency stopped before it starts, and that is what our special forces can do and are very well trained to do.

To move forward with this, to continue moving forward on the mission, I think we need to do two things: One, we need to grow the force, never sacrificing quality for the sake of quantity, but to grow the force and to set up the training system necessary and the recruitment system necessary. We are going to need more special operations forces in the wars we are now fighting.

The second thing is to get that emphasis on indirect action. We will, I believe, need to make some restructuring within the Special Operations Command to get that emphasis on indirect action because for so long the emphasis has primarily been on direct action.

So those are issues that we want to work on. I am very pleased to join with Congresswoman Drake in honoring our Special Operations Command on the 20th anniversary of their existence.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume just to say one quick thing.

The bipartisan agreement on our support for the Special Operations Command and the support for the mission I think is something that would surprise a great many people and something we need to focus on.

And I want to thank Mr. Thornberry, Mr. Saxton, Mrs. Drake, Mr. Kline, the subcommittee that is focused on this issue. We are very much in the same place on what we need to do to be ready to combat the threat we face from al Qaeda and other insurgent groups, and I think it speaks very well of the committee, both the subcommittee and the broader committee, that there is such bipartisan agreement on how to approach this fight. I think a lot of times the national focus is on where we disagree as parties when, in fact, there is an enormous amount of agreement on critical pieces of how we need to proceed with this. So I appreciate Mrs. Drake's bringing this resolution to the floor so we can talk about that, and I look forward to working with her and all the members of the committee in a bipartisan fashion to move forward on these issues.

Mr. Speaker, I'm proud to work with Representative Drake to mark the 20th anniversary of founding of the Special Operations Command.

Congress established SOCOM on April 16, 1987 in response to the failure of the Desert One mission to rescue American hostages in Iran. We learned two main lessons from Desert One. First, we needed a better joint command structure; our military was too divided and did not work well together, due to a lack of interoperable equipment and a lack of familiarity and joint training among the various branches. Second, we lacked forces trained for these kinds of missions. The establishment of SOCOM was meant to address these shortcomings.

SOCOM has been a fabulous success. We have roughly 53,000 special operations personnel operating in more than 50 countries around the world, taking direct action to counter terrorists and working with local populations to prevent terrorists from taking root.

I am especially proud of the three special operations force components housed in the 9th District of Washington: the Army 1st Special Forces Group (Airborne) and the Army 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (SOAR)--4th Batallion at Fort Lewis and the Air Force 22nd Special Tactics Squadron at McChord Air Force Base. I've also been able to visit several other components of our special operations forces across the country and around the world, and they are doing a fantastic job.

Going forward, we need more special operations forces to fight the spread of the totalitarian ideology pushed by al-Qaeda and related groups. Consistent with the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review, we will seek to grow SOCOM forces by 15 percent. We will not sacrifice quality for quantity, but we must have the capability to train more special operations forces to face complex national security challenges.

And, we must ensure proper emphasis on indirect action. Often when people think of special operations, they think of direct action against terrorists. But much of SOCOM's mission involves less dramatic but essential work. Special operations forces are currently working in well over a dozen countries to prevent al-Qaeda and other organizations from taking root. They train locals to defend themselves and help local populations improve their living situations so that they are less susceptible to terrorist recruitment.

Getting to know local populations, learning the languages, becoming helpful to them--these steps are vital to preventing insurgencies and terrorist groups from taking hold. We recently heard from a special operations veteran who told us that the most helpful counter-terrorism tool his force brought with them in North Africa was a dentist. The population needed this service so badly that our providing it led to them working with us to root out terrorists in the area. This kind of work to win the hearts ana minds of local populations is essential if we are to defeat the spread of al-Qaeda's message across the globe. That's why we in Congress must ensure that SOCOM is resourced and structured properly to sufficiently emphasize and effectively carry out this critical indirect work.

I want to thank the members from both parties on the terrorism subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee for their work to make sure our special operations forces have the tools they need to protect our country. I want to especially thank Ranking Member Mac Thornberry and Representative Thelma Drake for their hard work on this important resolution.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano).

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Madam Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Madam Speaker, I would just first observe that none of these soldiers who died in Iraq, no matter what happens from this point forward, died in vain. No soldier who dies fighting for his country and his comrades dies in vain, regardless of the politics. I hope we would all understand that.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), a senior member of the House Armed Services Committee.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Madam Speaker, I would just argue, first of all, I respect the gentleman from Texas, but I have only been here for an hour and 15 minutes and I have heard countless alternatives from many Democratic speakers. May not like those alternatives, may not think they are the best course, but it is wrong to say that the Democrats have not offered alternative courses of action in Iraq. They have offered a good many.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Madam Speaker, I now yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson).

(Mr. JACKSON of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez).

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

I guess the first thing I want to point out, and there are other arguments I want to make, but during Mr. Lewis' comments, and I have a great deal of respect for the gentleman from California, he mentioned that, you know, George Washington never retreated. Well, as it happens, I just read a biography of Mr. Washington, and not to go puncturing holes in the midst of our great Nation, he retreated a fair amount, actually.

In fact, I don't know where we got this idea that the great leaders of our time only went forward. We have heard about President Kennedy and President Truman. At one time or another, they retreated from a fair number of battles. Now, sometimes that was a wise and tactical maneuver to win the larger war. Sometimes it was a mistake.

History judges, but I think it does sort of portray the thinking of the President that the only way is forward, regardless of the details. A little more thought, I think, might help us. I will return to that point at the end of my remarks.

But the first thing I want to say, I think this is by and large a very good debate on a very important issue facing our Nation. The only time I become troubled in this debate is when speakers on the other side say that this is just political, and that this resolution is irrelevant. What they are saying is that the opinion of the United States House of Representatives on the most important public policy issue facing our Nation today is irrelevant. The opinion of the people's House doesn't matter.

Now, that explains a lot for the last 4 years while the minority party was in the majority, when they did not question this President, when they did not express their opinion in a way that would move us in a more positive direction.

I feel very strongly that it is absolutely the responsibility of those of us in Congress who represent people, our constituents, to express our opinion. In a way we are expressing their opinion. That is what we are supposed to be here in the House, the most directly reflective voice of the people of this country.

So to say that this is irrelevant is just an absolute attack on the Constitution and the way this country is supposed to be set up. We must express our opinion on the most important issues of the day.

Then we come to the next issue, which is, you cannot question the Commander in Chief. He is the guy in charge, he knows more than the rest of us. You cannot question him. It undermines everything.

Let me say I express a certain amount of sympathy for the view that we should place faith in the Commander in Chief. That is a good part of the reason why I voted for this resolution 4 years ago. A little more than a year after 9/11, our President was saying to us, To prosecute the broader war on terror I need this authority. And I had my doubts, but, by and large, I want to be supportive of the Commander in Chief, recognizing the power he has.

But the question I have for the minority is for how long? How many mistakes does this President have to make before we don't have an obligation, not just a right, but an obligation to express our disapproval and try to get him to move in a different direction? Books have been written, more than I can count, about all of mistakes that this President has made in Iraq; books not written just by opponents of the war, many of them written by proponents, outraged that they took their idea, the President took their idea and made such a hash of it.

We have an obligation at some point to stand up and say, enough. Mr. Commander in Chief, I am sorry, but based on 4 years, we do not trust you enough to give you a blank check anymore. We have to express our opinion, and that is what this resolution does.

Let me also assure you, we want to win. We, on this side of the aisle, recognize everything that has been said on that side about the threat that al Qaeda and their followers present. We

will fight them anywhere, anytime, because we recognize that threat.

In fact, I believe that there is al Qaeda in Iraq, and we should fight them.

But what we are talking about specifically today, and Mr. Buyer mentioned the 21,000 troops, that is the aspect of the plan that we focused on, precisely because that is the aspect of the plan that is most wrong, that does the exact wrong thing, sending 21,000 U.S. troops to fight in a civil war that has been better described by some of my colleagues, so I won't go into it any further, that they cannot possibly sort out the bad gays from the good guys is the exact wrong thing to do.

Given that feeling, and I have personally thought about this a great deal, I met with the President on a couple of occasions as he outlined this plan. I talked with many soldiers who served, gotten many opinions on this, and have come to the honest conclusion that it is a mistake, that it undermines our ability to win that larger war against al Qaeda, which is the war we are fighting.

Given the fact that I feel that way, I would be betraying everything that I said I was going to do when I got elected if I didn't on the Record express that opinion. That is what this resolution does.

So I know this hope will go unfulfilled, but I would hope at a minimum that the minority can stop saying that the opinion of this House is irrelevant. If they feel that way, they should all just go home. All right, it matters. You may disagree with the opinion we are expressing. I urge you to vote ``no'' if you feel that way, but I don't feel that way.

I feel we need to tell the Commander in Chief that he has led us down one too many blind alleys. We disagree with him. We want him to change course, and that is the will of the people's House, being expressed by us. That is not just our right. It is our duty as Members of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, it has been nearly four years since the war in Iraq began--four-and-a-half since President Bush and his team in the White House started the effort to launch our nation on the path to this war. We learned a lot during that time frame, but two things stand out. First, the war effort has failed to achieve the outcome the President hoped for, instead creating problems he clearly felt would not come to pass. Even he admitted that he is dissatisfied with the way the war has gone. Second, at every step along the way, beginning with the way the President got us into the war, right up to the President's latest plan to once again increase the number of U.S. troops in Baghdad, President Bush and his administration made mistake after mistake--failing to an almost incomprehensible level to learn from past errors or to demonstrate even a modest level of competence in prosecuting this war. Countless books from all points on the political spectrum lay out in painful detail all the mistakes this administration made in Iraq.

It is way past time for this Congress to stand up and say enough. We disapprove of what President Bush is doing in Iraq.

But our friends on the other side of the aisle claim that such a statement is meaningless. This is an astounding assertion. The United States House of Representatives--the elected voice of the people of our Nation--stating clearly and on the record how they feel about the single most important policy issue of our time is meaningless? This opinion, expressed by the minority party, perhaps explains the utter lack of oversight and accountability that they employed when they were in charge--standing by and acting as mere cheerleaders for the President's actions in Iraq as he made mistake after mistake. The other side of the aisle at least has a consistent record of believing that the opinion of Congress, a body our Constitution set up as a coequal branch of government with the Executive, is meaningless.

As much as I disagree with this conclusion as to the proper role of Congress in expressing its opinion on the Iraq War, I do understand this initial reluctance to pressure President Bush to change course. In a time of war we all want to stand behind our Commander-in-Chief as a first option, and the powers of the presidency make it difficult for Congress to, in a clear-cut straightforward manner, direct the President in the conduct of war. But the President's record of mistakes in Iraq makes it clear we can no longer cling to this first option, and, difficulties notwithstanding, the cost of continuing down the same path the President has been pursuing in Iraq has reached the point where Congress must at least try to force a change in direction.

This effort should logically begin with a clear statement from the House that we disapprove of the way the President is conducting the war in Iraq. That is what this resolution does. With this vote members can no longer hide behind, ``on the one hand, but then again on the other'' statements. We can all mutter about things we don't like in Iraq, but an official on the record vote is required to make that disapproval clear. Do you support the way President Bush is conducting the war in Iraq? Yes or no.

And make no mistake about it the President's plan to increase the number of U.S troops in Baghdad represents no change in policy. It is stay the course, more of the same. In the last year we made large increases in the number of our troops in Baghdad twice already. Both times violence went up in the city, and as we have begun the current increase in troops that violence has once again increased. The lesson should be clear at this point--United States military might will not stop or even reduce the violence in that city.

Listening to the arguments against this resolution helps to understand why our President insists on making some of the same mistakes over and over again in Iraq. We are told that our fight in Iraq is a clear-cut battle against the same type of al Qaeda-backed extremists who attacked our Nation on 9/11 and that we are defending a worthy Iraqi government against these evil forces. If this were true, I would support whatever increase in troops was necessary to defeat that evil force.

But it is not even close to true--it is instead a dangerous attempt to paint a black and white picture on a situation that is far, far more complex. Baghdad is caught in a sectarian civil war. Both Shia and Sunni militias are battling each other as well as United States forces and the Iraqi government. It is a complex web of frequently changing alliances and interests that makes it impossible for our troops to separate good guys from bad guys. This is why our troops cannot stop or even reduce the violence. And the Maliki government we are being asked to support spends as much time acting like they are supporting the Shia side of the civil war as they do acting like they want to bring Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds together to form a stable Iraq.

Al Qaeda is in Iraq and we should continue to target them, but that effort will require a far, far smaller U.S. military presence than we have there today. Currently we are expending an enormous amount of resources in Iraq, most of which is going towards putting our forces in the middle of a chaotic civil war where our efforts do not advance and may even retard our fight against al Qaeda. That massive military commitment reduces our ability to pursue al Qaeda in the dozens of other nations where they have influence--most glaringly in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

This larger, more important fight is not solely or even primarily military. Diplomacy and other efforts to move disaffected Muslim populations away from joining al Qaeda are a huge part of our battle, and we need to enhance those efforts. But we can't, because we're hamstrung both by a lack of resources--financial and strategic--that are tied down in Iraq, and because our open-ended occupation of Iraq continues to undermine America's standing in the world.

Instead of sending more troops to Baghdad the United States policy in Iraq should be to instruct our military leaders there to put together plans to as quickly and responsibly as possible reduce the number of U.S. troops in Iraq. We need our troops to focus on al Qaeda and its supporters, not to be bogged down in a sectarian civil war that is only tangentially related to the larger fight against al Qaeda.

The first, critical step in this process of changing our policy in Iraq is this resolution. Congress must make its disapproval of the President's policy in Iraq clear and on the record.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).

Thank you, I just want to add, before reserving the balance of my time, I want to thank Mr. Allen for offering a very specific plan and to once again remind all of you who are watching the debate that to charge the Democrats don't have a plan simply isn't true. We have a large number of them. We are just trying to get the Commander in Chief to start paying attention to them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support the Conference Report on H.R. 4954, the SAFE Port Act. This bipartisan legislation makes critical improvements to strengthen our domestic and international security efforts and provides the resources necessary to detect tampered cargo before it enters our ports. Passage of the SAFE Port Act today is vital to our national security.

For Washington state, the SAFE Port Act will bring greater regional coordination, new security grants, increased Customs personnel for Puget Sound and radiation detection equipment that is both modern and appropriate for the Port of Tacoma's increased rail capacity.

The SAFE Port Act also takes important steps to plan for and immediately recover from any incidents on our docks. With the increased role of western ports like the Port of

Tacoma and the Port of Seattle in our global economy, we must ensure the free flow of commerce.

Passage of the SAFE Port Act will help protect our communities, our critical infrastructure and our homeland. The SAFE Port Act will move America in the right direction.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight and commend the service of Ray L. Peretti of the Ninth Congressional District of Washington, for his service to his community and the Nation as a member of the National Association of Professional Insurance Agents.

Mr. Peretti recently completed his term as the president of the National Association of Professional Insurance Agents, and has also served in many positions of responsibility in the association. Mr. Peretti has been a member of the board of directors of PIA National since 1995. He was also a member of the board of directors of PIA of Washington/Alaska, which is now part of the PIA Western Alliance, serving as vice president, president-elect and president and on various committees.

Mr. Peretti has served on the State of Washington Property and Casualty Advisory Committee. He was named Agent of the Year by PIA of Washington/Alaska in 1995, received the Hartford/Jonathan Trumball Council's Chairman's Award. Mr. Peretti was also honored by the Insurance Fire Mark Society of the Pacific Northwest with its Presidential Award, and is the recipient of a public relations award from the Insurance Women of South King County.

Active in his community, Mr. Peretti is the owner of the Hub Insurance Agency of Renton, Washington. A lifelong member of the Renton Lions Club, he is also a member of the Renton Chamber of Commerce, serving 6 years as a member of its board of directors, and has been a member of the Renton Arts Commission and the Renton Ethics Board.

As a professional insurance agent, Mr. Peretti's dedication to the highest standards of his profession has earned him the respect of his friends, associates, business colleagues and of the insurance industry as a whole.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise today to recognize the good work that Ray L. Peretti has done throughout his career as a member of the insurance community, and to again congratulate him on the completion of his term as the president of the National Association of Professional Insurance Agents.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight and commend the service of Ray L. Peretti of the Ninth Congressional District of Washington, for his service to his community and the Nation as a member of the National Association of Insurance Agents.

Mr. Peretti recently completed his term as the president of the National Association of Professional Insurance Agents, and has also served in many positions of responsibility in the association. Mr. Peretti has been a member of the board of directors of PIA National since 1995. He was also a member of the board of directors of PIA of Washington/Alaska, which is now part of the PIA Western Alliance, serving as vice president, president-elect and president and on various committees.

Mr. Peretti has served on the State of Washington Property and Casualty Advisory Committee. He was named Agent of the Year by PIA of Washington/Alaska in 1995, received the Hartford/Jonathan Trumball Council's Chairman's Award. Mr. Peretti was also honored by the Insurance Fire Mark Society of the Pacific Northwest with its Presidential Award, and is the recipient of a public relations award from the Insurance Women of South King County.

Active in his community, Mr. Peretti is the owner of the Hub Insurance Agency of Renton, Washington. A lifelong member of the Renton Lions Club, he is also a member of the Renton Chamber of Commerce, serving 6 years as a member of its board of directors, and has been a member of the Renton Arts Commission and the Renton Ethics Board.

As a professional insurance agent, Mr. Peretti's dedication to the highest standards of his profession has earned him the respect of his friends, associates, business colleagues, and of the insurance industry as a whole.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise today to recognize the good work that Ray L. Peretti has done throughout his career as a member of the insurance community, and to again congratulate him on the completion of his term as the president of the National Association of Professional Insurance Agents.

Mr. Chairman, I am not in opposition to the amendment, but I would claim the time unless somebody is.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to myself as much time as I may consume.

I want to thank Representative McMorris for her leadership on this bipartisan issue.

This amendment really gets at the heart of why health care information technology is important in the first place, and there are really two big reasons. Number one, it can significantly improve the quality of care for patients; and, number two, it can significantly reduce health care inflation. Right now, if you want to do anything to improve the quality of health care in this country getting inflation under control is job one so that people can access that.

That is what health care information technology has the promise to do; and this amendment, in particular, focuses on one aspect of it where it could really reduce the costs and improve the quality of care, helping a specific class of patients get the best information possible for the best disease management possible.

All across the world, information is being developed even as we sit here on how to better deal with all kinds of different diseases. But how do we make sure that both patients and providers have real-time access to that best information and employ it? That is what this amendment aims to do. For diabetes patients with Medicaid, it can give us a real case example of how we can save money and improve the quality of care for these patients.

I think there is unbelievable potential if we have the best information possible. Too often now patients do not know what the best care is. Too often providers do not even know at the moment what the best care is; and as a consequence, they do not get it and the patients do not receive it. Health care quality goes down and costs go up, as procedures are either repeated or the wrong procedures are done.

This amendment gives us a great opportunity to do an isolated case study on how to make this work in disease management to improve the quality of care and get costs under control.

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

Miss McMORRIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy), my friend.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Bean).

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have left.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to close and to once again thank Representative McMorris and to point out how important chronic disease management is in saving money. This is an outstanding opportunity for us to use technology to do that, and I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to Representative McMorris.

Miss McMORRIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield my good friend from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson) 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to honor an extraordinary individual from my district who is a true American hero, Jack Michaels. He is an ordinary man with an extraordinary story. Unless you are a friend or a family member you may not recognize his face, or have ever heard his name. Indeed, there are millions of Americans like him--Americans who have sacrificed so much for our country and do not receive nearly enough recognition in return for their service. Let me introduce you to one of many forgotten warriors.

Jack Michaels flew an assault helicopter in Vietnam that was shot down in 1970. His copilot was killed and Jack was left in a wheelchair for life. For his sacrifice he received a Distinguished Flying Cross, Bronze Star, and a Purple Heart.

From that point on, he became determined to advocate for the rights of disabled veterans. His own experiences inspired him to help launch the Northwest Chapter of the Paralyzed Vets of America. Though it began with only 10 members, it has grown into a strong organization with over 400 members. The national PVA director calls him the backbone and guiding light of the chapter. Through his support, the Northwest Chapter has evolved into a strong advocate for veterans.

To illustrate his commitment, before the Northwest Chapter was even a part of the national PVA, he was instrumental in lobbying with the Washington Coalition of Citizens with Disabilities to get the King County Metro bus system to buy buses that would allow people in wheelchairs to ride. Before his work on this issue, no bus in King County was equipped to take a person in a wheelchair. This change has dramatically improved the lives of many by giving them the power of mobility. Impressively, Washington State's version of the Americans with Disabilities Act is actually stronger than the Federal version as a result of Jack's efforts. Jack has also worked tirelessly on a range of other issues affecting disabled veterans.

Now, 30 years after Jack Michaels helped launch the Northwest Chapter of the PVA, Jack is retiring as the chapter's executive director. Despite his upcoming retirement, he still plans to continue his battle for disabled veterans and will continue his work as a volunteer for the chapter he has served for so many years. Jack Michaels made a sacrifice for his country, and in the following years has continued to give still more. Over the years he has made his local and national community a better place by fighting for the rights of his fellow veterans. He deserves our utmost respect, admiration, and commendation for his achievements. I thank him for continuing to fight for liberty at home, and for volunteering to improve daily life for his fellow veterans, knowing all too well the sacrifices they have made.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to take a moment to discuss the important work being done at the National Defense University to help ensure that our military continues to harness innovation in Information Technologies (IT) to improve our national defense capabilities. During the past decade, the Department of Defense (DoD) has taken enormous strides in harnessing IT to support major combat operations. We've seen this in the development and fielding of key systems to support precise position location and timing, such as Global Position Systems, as well as precise weapons delivery and communications systems. The effect of these systems on our major combat operations has been profound, increasing the speed, efficiency, and precision of our operations, while minimizing loss of life and resources, as we have seen in coalition operations in Afghanistan and the invasion of Iraq. These IT-enabled military capabilities are extraordinary, and the U.S. needs to maintain them, explore ways to expand them, and ensure our future ability to benefit from such innovations.

It is important to appreciate that the information technology that underlies these extraordinary capabilities is largely commercially driven. Thus, although the U.S. has so far been able to exploit this capability effectively, it is an advantage that may be easily lost and regained only with great difficulty. If The U.S. is to continue to exploit commercial IT effectively, it must implement processes to identify promising technologies early in their lifecycle to ensure that they include the features required by the DoD. In addition, mechanisms must be instituted that facilitate the introduction of these key technologies into DoD systems.

Over the last several years, Congress has supplied a critical activity at the National Defense University (NDU) to ensure that the DoD retains and enhances the ability to identify and exploit innovative commercial IT. A small group at the Center for Technology and National Security Policy (CTNSP) has performed in excess of forty analyses, workshops, and conferences that have characterized the nature of the problem, identified key shortfalls, and proposed innovative recommendations. At the request of Congress, CTNSP has recently prepared and submitted a report that documents the key findings and recommendations of their work.

It is particularly notable that the efforts of this program have had significant visibility and impact in the DoD. As an example, the IT program at NDU has provided various studies and recommendations to the highest levels of the military, including the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and combatant commanders at the U.S. European Command and Joint Forces Command. These NDU products have had a very positive impact on efforts to enhance the early injection of commercial IT into key DoD policies and procedures.

Currently this NDU program is extending this work into additional critical areas. For example, they are exploring options to enhance the injection of IT into stabilization and reconstruction operations. One member of the NDU IT program has just returned from Afghanistan where he was conducting a detailed study of the impact that communications technology can have on our Nation's success there. The program has also been pursuing ways to adapt technologies currently used by the Chicago Police Department to make them relevant to our counterinsurgency efforts in Iraq. In yet another critical area, the group is in the process of developing a framework to assess the impact of enhancements in cyberspace on America's cyberpower. And finally, the group is reviewing defense spending in the area of computer science to see if it is adequate. These constitute some of the most critical issues that DoD must confront as it proceeds further into the information age.

During the past few years, the Congress and the House Appropriations Committee has

been extremely supportive of this initiative. Although the investment in the effort has been modest, I believe it has had extraordinary payoff for DoD and the Nation at large. If we can retain our strong technological lead, we can save billions in defense dollars later that would otherwise need to be spent on catch-up activities. Therefore, I hope, as we look toward conference on this bill, that the Congress is able to continue to fund the NDU Technology Pilot Program's important work by setting aside $1,000,000 for the program in account PE 65104D8Z for fiscal year 2007.