Floor Statements

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to lay some groundwork for some comments I will make later. I am concerned in the first place, as I said before, that no one on this side was consulted about this resolution. I am embarrassed, I am indignant that they did not consult me.

This looks like an innocuous resolution, but when it says it is safer today than before Saddam Hussein was captured, I believe we are putting on paper something that is not true. It is like some of the things that were said, and I said, before this war started. I said there were weapons of mass destruction. I said that Saddam Hussein was a danger to the world. We do not go to war unless there is a core national security interest, and now we are trying to justify why we went to war by some of the things that are in this resolution.

There is no question that a number of people were killed. Thousands of people were killed. There is no question that Saddam Hussein was a despot. There is no question about a brutal regime. But in this one list, they say that in 1988, 5,000 people were killed, Kurdish citizens were killed. Well, we went to war in 1991. President Bush once said, and he was one of the best foreign policy Presidents we have ever had, he said, I am not going into Iraq because I do not want to occupy Iraq because that would be a problem. He said that in his book, and he said, I do not want to reconstruct Iraq.

We have spent $150 billion in Iraq today. We had testimony before our committee right before the war started by the Under Secretary of Defense who said it will not cost us a penny, the oil revenues from Iraq will pay for this war. Well, $150 billion later we are still paying for it. When Members say it is safer, it makes me nervous because we are exaggerating, as we have during this whole thing. And I blame myself as much as anyone else.

A constituent of mine said to me, he said, never in history have so many been misled by so few, and he was talking to me. He was saying I misled him. I believed there were weapons of mass destruction. I believed there was an imminent danger, but it turns out that I was wrong.

What we have to look at now is we need bipartisanship now to win long term. This is a long-term problem. I have voted for every appropriation, I have supported every President when it comes to foreign policy, but this resolution, just because it says on paper it is safer, does not mean it is safer throughout the world.

Today we had an incident where there was a bombing in Baghdad where the bomb took out as wide as a street, 30 or 40 feet wide and 30 or 40 feet deep. We had the Spanish problem where they killed a couple hundred people and wounded 2,000. So worldwide, and it says here the world is safer. The world is not safer today than it was before they captured Saddam Hussein.

I have a list of countries where they do not think it is safer. Those countries, Canada, France, Italy, Germany, Spain, all of them believe there is an increased terrorism threat in the world. The reason I am saying this is we have to depend on those countries. We have to be honest and upfront, and when we say it is safer today, we are not being upfront. It is not safer. It may be down the road. This is not the time, in my estimation, for us to make statements like that. There will come a time if we persist, and I am going to be there the whole way, but I am just concerned that we are making a statement which just exacerbates the very problem that we have.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

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

The President of the United States has said there is no connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. The director of intelligence has said there is no connection. Secretary of State Colin Powell has said there is no connection. You may think there is a connection. We are revisiting history when we start to talk about all the things the gentleman is talking about. We went to war because there were weapons of mass destruction. We went to war because there was connection with al Qaeda. We did not go to war because of this. Many of these incidents happened when George Bush I was President and he said, ``I'm not going to go into Iraq because I don't want to rebuild Iraq.'' The cost to this Nation, the Under Secretary of Defense said, will be nothing. He said, ``We'll pay for it with their oil.'' $150 billion later we are still paying, and we will pay for a long time.

I am in this for the long haul, but when I see a partisan resolution which was brought up without any input from me or any other Democrat, and you call us partisan? This does not make any sense. Why did anybody not come to us and say, change a few words, change some in the preamble and we will have a resolution we can support.

I appreciate what the gentleman is saying. There is nobody that has supported Presidents more than I have, but I just get upset when something comes across this way.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), a Korean War veteran.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York.

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

We did not go to war in World War II because of Dachau. We went to war because they attacked us, because our national security was in danger. And we went to war in Iraq because there

were weapons of mass destruction, I thought. There were al Qaeda connections, I thought. We did not go to war because these people were killed.

George Bush one, the first George Bush, knew there were mass graves. And he did not go into Iraq and he said, I do not want to rebuild Iraq; I do not want to occupy Iraq. And one Under Secretary of Defense said to our subcommittee it will not cost us a cent. It has cost us $150 billion to fight in Iraq and to rebuild Iraq.

So we are trying to revisit history. I mean, we cannot change it. We went to war because we thought we were threatened. These things were terrible things. We are glad to get rid of Saddam Hussein. That is not the point. We cannot revisit and change history. So I feel very strongly.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) for a unanimous consent request.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) for a unanimous consent request.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished Democratic leader.

(Ms. PELOSI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks and include extraneous material.)

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

(Mrs. DAVIS of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

I went to Austin with the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) after the President was elected but before he was inaugurated, and I sat at his table, and I said to him, Mr. President, you do not have to worry about missile defense, you have got to worry about terrorism and you have got to worry about nuclear proliferation.

Then I came back, we went to committee, and under the leadership of the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) we moved $1.4 billion out of missile defense and put it into counterterrorism on September 11, 2001. We could not finish our markup that day because of what happened. One of the planes went down in my district. That was the start of the war against terrorism because those passengers in that plane took a stand. They got up and fought that plane to the ground. The plane was probably coming towards the Capitol of the United States.

The reason that I am so upset about this resolution, not only because they did not consult any of us, but because the terrorists worked with a calendar and we work with a clock. This is going to be a long war. We have been discredited worldwide with our intelligence.

I told the story before. When Dean Acheson, former Secretary of State at the time, went to meet with President de Gaulle to show him the evidence of the Cuban missiles in Cuba, and he offered to show him photographs, he said, I do not need to see the photographs, I will take the word of the President of the United States.

We have been discredited because our intelligence was faulty. I believed there was weapons of mass destruction. I believed that there was an al Qaeda connection. None of this has turned out to be true.

A constituent of mine said in pointing to me, he said, Never in history have so many been misled by so few. I said, You mean me? He said, I mean you, Mr. Murtha. He said to me, Before I voted on the resolution and before we went to war, he told me, I have confidence in your vote; I have confidence we should go to war and put our soldiers in harm's way because I know you have the inside and you know the truth.

Well, let me tell my colleagues, the preamble to this paper is what makes me so upset. We are trying to justify what we did. Look, no question about Saddam Hussein being a bad guy, but that is not why we went to war. If we

took the preamble and we put that as a resolution, there would not have been a resolution. When they ask me if you would have voted for this resolution if you know what you know, I said there would not have been a resolution because the resolution would not have come up because there was no threat to our national course, national security.

This is going to be a long war, and I am going to be right there. I am going to be voting for something that means something. I am going to be voting for the money, for the troops, for all the things they need. The gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and I stand shoulder to shoulder. Only 16 people voted against our defense bill. I do not think that many voted against the authorization bill of the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).

So we are for the defense of this country, but we should not mislead the people. I have said over and over again, do not be overly optimistic. This is going to be a long haul. And if we are overly optimistic and we tell the American public and the international community and they lose faiths in us, we cannot win this war on terrorism. We have to have the support of the American public, which has dropped dramatically. And if you tell them the cost, it drops below 50 percent. Internationally they do not support us because they do not believe many of the things that we say now, and we have to have them if we are going to win this war on terrorism.

So I would ask the Members to be careful with the charges that they are making in this resolution. And I would hope the Members understand that all of us support the troops. All of us want to do everything we can; and when it comes to the money, we will be there. So I would ask all the Members to vote for the recommital motion and let us make a slight change in this resolution so that we can pass it overwhelmingly.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share with you and my colleagues a tribute to a lady from southwestern Pennsylvania who has made a difference in the lives of countless veterans.

When Linda West was in junior high school in Uniontown, in Pennsylvania's 12th Congressional District, she began visiting the homes of housebound veterans as part of a community-service project. This effort marked the beginning of a mission that would lead a coalition of veterans and community organizations in Las Vegas, NV, to honor her with a Lifetime Achievement Award last December.

As a student at the University of Cincinnati, Linda worked with veterans in Uniontown during semester and summer breaks. After graduation, she relocated to Las Vegas and formed new relationships with veterans there to match those she had found so rewarding in Uniontown. She visited veterans in hospitals, delivered food to their homes, assisted with burials and arranged honor guards. In recognition of her efforts, the Chapel of Four Chaplains more than 20 years ago confirmed her as an assistant Nevada State chaplain, the first female lay clergy in the organization. She receives no pay or reimbursement for expenses.

She is a national service officer of Veterans of the Vietnam War, where she has helped veterans with their medical, spiritual and health- care benefits needs for more than 15 years. When necessary, she has practiced suicide intervention with these veterans, especially those suffering from the effects of Agent Orange.

She worked with a Vietnam veteran to ensure passage of the first increase in Nevada's veterans' property tax exemption in the 48 years since the bill was passed in 1953. The legislation, including added benefits for veterans who were more than 60 percent disabled as a result of their service, was intended as a thank-you to the State's veterans but had become nearly meaningless over the years.

She also worked with a veteran to derail legislation that would have ended the teaching of American Government and history in Nevada's public schools, instead adding a mandate for the teaching of the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence.

Here in the 12th Congressional District, we're grateful to Uniontown native Linda West Myers for the generous contributions she has made to our Nation's veterans.

Mr. Speaker, it is with both pleasure and sadness that I rise today to recognize Jay S. Pifer, who is planning his retirement on December 1st after more than 40 years with Allegheny Energy. Jay has been a good friend to Pennsylvania and an outstanding corporate leader. I am pleased to recognize some of his achievements here today, but I must say that he will be greatly missed.

Jay is a native of Pennsylvania, graduated from Ridgway Area High School, and has degrees from both Penn State University and Clarion State University. He has received numerous awards including Penn State's Outstanding Engineering Alumni and the University's Alumni Fellow Award. He began his career at Allegheny as a college student.

He was named interim President and CEO at Allegheny Energy before being named Chief Operating Officer in June. He has worked in almost every department in the company including sales, marketing, engineering, customer service, accounting and management. In fact, Jay has performed admirably at almost every job in the company. He has held a number of leadership positions, including President of its Allegheny Power energy delivery subsidiary--which supplies power throughout Western Pennsylvania, and in Maryland, West Virginia, Virginia, and Ohio. During a time of recent financial challenges for Allegheny, Jay played a leading role in preserving the company. Through it all--and some very difficult weather from ice storms to Hurricane Isabel-- Allegheny Power was recognized by J.D. Power and Associates as the second best company in customer satisfaction in the East and 10th best in the Nation. This is an honor of which Jay is justifiably proud.

Jay also has been involved in many civic and community activities, dedicating himself to education, economic development, and conservation efforts in Western Pennsylvania and her neighboring states. He serves on the boards of the United Way and the Business Roundtables of Pennsylvania and West Virginia. His many other honors include membership on the Advisory Board of Penn State University and the University of Pittsburgh at Greensburg, honorary chair of the NAACP, director of the Westmoreland Trust, and membership in the Western Pennsylvania Conservancy. He is an ordained Lay Pastor in the United Methodist Church and has long been associated with the Boy Scouts of America. He currently serves on the Advisory Board of the Northeast Region of the Boy Scouts.

His accomplishments are really too numerous to mention, but I wish Jay well in his retirement and thank him for his tireless commitment to Allegheny Energy and Pennsylvania.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the chairman a question. Why are we only doing this for a week? We are going to have to do this whole thing in another week? We get up here with all this debate, but could the gentleman tell me why? He knows we are not going to get done in a week; he knows it will take until Thanksgiving. Why are we only doing this for a week? Can the gentleman tell me?

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I just do not understand. We know it is going to take longer. I do not understand why we would be forced to go through this same administrative procedure every week. We know we are going to pass the CR. I just do not understand. Are we controlling this from the appropriation side, or is this above our pay grade?

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, if the gentleman would not mind, let me just respond that I always went for the longest possible CR. I did not want ever to bring up a CR where we had to go through this every week, every 7 days, every 10 days. It is always easier to get it done in a reasonable time. But I understand what the gentleman is saying.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time once again, I know the chairman wanted to extend this, but I just wanted to needle him a bit about doing this every week.

Mr. Speaker, the first trip I took to Kuwait, it was right before the war started and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) had asked me to accompany her, because for her first foreign trip she wanted to go, even though she was not for the war resolution, she wanted to make sure that the troops understood she supported them wholeheartedly. The next trip I went on was to Iraq, and I found a number of shortages which a lot of people have talked about. But the shortages were not because the Committee on Appropriations did not put the money in; the shortages were because the bureaucrats back here saved the money for some other purpose. They did not want to spend this money. In the meantime, we had troops without inserts for their battle gear, we had troops without jammers, we had Bradleys without tracks, a lot of different problems. We called back from there, and we got the Defense Department moving. And this supplemental has every one of the shortages, the money for every one of the shortages in this bill.

I am pleased to say that we have the companies working 24 hours a day to make sure that the troops have the type of equipment they need to protect their lives. I am hopeful that the President shifts some of these intelligence people, because what I have always learned is intelligence is probably the most important element in fighting a war; shifts the intelligence people from trying to find these weapons of mass destruction to trying to protect our troops.

I get a lot of complaints from the Reserves. I hear all kinds of optimistic talk about this war. But let me say this. The Iraqis supposedly were for us when we went in. I see polls that say 60 percent of the people are for what we are doing.

Well, when they fire our PGs into our troops and they take their legs off; we went out to the hospital, a number of us have been out there, the chairman has been out there, his wife has been out there over and over again, and we see them with their legs blown off and their arms blown off, and then they disappear after they have been firing these weapons into the crowd, that means the Iraqis are not with us. I do not care what the polls show; they are not with us. Now, they may be with us in heart, but they are afraid to talk about it and when they are afraid to talk about it, we have to win the hearts and minds of the people. That is what this reconstruction money is all about.

We took care of the money for the troops, but if you do not get the electricity back, if you do not get the water running right, if you do not get the people who are unemployed; there is 60 percent unemployment, I just got a briefing yesterday and they told me there is still 60 percent unemployment. If we have 60 percent unemployment in this country, we are not going to be able to solve the problem.

So we have to get the Iraqis back to work, and the reconstruction money is as important as anything that we can do in order to help solve this problem. I said when I came back, we have to get Iraqis out in the field and we have to get the international community involved in this, and we have to energize Iraq. If we do not do that, we are going to lose this war.

I believe the key to winning this war is to win the hearts and minds of the people, and we have to overcome the X factor of the enemy. If we do not overcome the X factor of the enemy, we will lose this war. I think it is on the edge now. I am not as optimistic as a lot of people are. I know an awful lot of people who were optimistic initially are much more realistic than they used to be. But I tell my colleagues one thing, if we were to let this legislation not pass, we sure would not win this war.

So I would urge the Members of this House to vote for this $65 billion for the troops and the $20 billion for the reconstruction effort in order to get our troops back home as quickly as we can.

Mr. Chairman, I want to respond to the concerns shared by the gentle lady from Michigan, Ms. Kilpatrick, and assure her that we do share her concerns. We agree that the AAFES and the other exchanges should be reimbursed for extraordinary costs serving in forward deployed areas. As the gentlelady knows, the Exchange Service is a nonappropriated fund activity. But there have been times when Congress has had to appropriate funds to help the exchange services with extraordinary costs for supporting our troops in immediate combat areas. This is one of those times. We agree that we need to do more to help the Exchange Services so our troops can have access to items we consider basic necessities here at home. We think we can take a look at this issue when we begin serious negotiations on an Onmibus Appropriations bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise before my colleagues today to honor a very special lady from the 12th Congressional District of Pennsylvania, Frankie Bock. With her visionary ideas and tireless work, she has touched the lives of countless people with her compassion and dedicated service to the terminally ill and their families in Southwestern Pennsylvania.

Caring for others is not just a concept to Frankie Bock; it has been a way of life for over 60 years. With three younger siblings and fragile parents who depended on her, 10-year-old Frankie was indoctrinated into care giving as a means of family survival. Eventually, as a young mother of six children of her own, Frankie somehow found time to become involved with Cub Scouts and also began teaching Sunday School at the First Lutheran Church. She would continue teaching for 35 years, while also serving in the Church's Bereavement Ministry. Volunteerism not only became a way of life for her, but would lead her to her true calling, hospice care.

In 1977, Frankie Bock saw a need and set out to fill it. She joined forces with Dr. Earl Shope, who had been providing hospice care on his own, visiting patients at their homes to comfort them. Together, they established Laurel Highland Hospice of Pennsylvania. The hospice movement worldwide was in its infancy at the time, but it was a natural transition for Frankie. Laurel Highland Hospice was the first rural hospice in the United States and the first formal hospice in Pennsylvania. Its name was changed to Windber Hospice after it was given a home by the Windber Hospital.

Frankie's calling was helping people when they most needed it--at the end of their lives, when they were suffering from pain and the knowledge that there was no hope for a cure for their illness. Their only hope was that someone would care; that someone could somehow ease the pain; that someone would understand.

Many of us, too many of us, know the anguish of losing a friend or a loved one to a fatal illness. To us, but moreover to those who are ill and suffering, people like Frankie are truly angels of mercy sent by God. From kindness, compassion and companionship to managing pain and sickness with needed medicines, to helping families prepare both emotionally and financially for what was to come, Frankie saw the enormous need and made all these things possible.

From its humble beginnings a generation ago, the Windber Hospice Program has reached impressive milestones. It has grown enormously and now serves a large portion of Southwestern Pennsylvania, to include six counties. Its impact reaches much farther, however. Because it inspired the establishment of numerous similar programs, it serves as a powerful example of just how much one person can truly make a difference in the lives of so many.

In 1981, the Windber Palliative Care Unit was opened, a direct result of the establishment of the hospice program Frankie and Earl started. Its newest facility was just dedicated in 2000. Presently, the program boasts 90 volunteers serving in the Palliative Care Unit, Home Care, Bereavement, and Pastoral Care. No one is denied services due to the lack of insurance or the inability to pay.

After more than 25 years and the recent passing of her dear friend and hospice co-founder Dr. Shope, Frankie continues to train hospice volunteers and touch the lives of hundreds of terminally ill patients, providing personal care to the dying and loving comfort to their families. She also volunteers her ``spare'' time to help further the cause of Children's Hospice International. Frankie and the volunteers at Windber Hospice hosted CHI's 14th World Congress in Johnstown recently. It was attended by 150 health care providers from around the world.

Few would argue that Frankie sets the standard for volunteerism and community service. Her name is familiar to many families in the area because so many of them at one time or another have had a loved one in the program. I felt her name should be heard here in Congress as well, because she embodies the best the American spirit has to offer.

Frankie, I cannot think of twenty-eight years better spent. Thank you, Frankie, for your amazing work on behalf of dying patients and their families.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I know that there is no one in this Chamber who has more concern about the Reserve and Guard than the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak). He has units that have been deployed, as all of us have. I am getting questions and concerns from the families in my district, and all over the country they are writing to me. I had a 67-year-old say that he was retired for 10 years and they were trying to call him back.

But I do not think, as hard as we work for pay, I do not think an amendment like this helps us. I think we really have a problem. I know we all want to help the troops, but we struggle all the time trying to make sure we balance out the money they make. I just do not think this is the right way to do it. I think what we have to do is certainly take a look at it, working with the services themselves.

Mr. Chairman, 65 percent of our money right now goes to personnel. We put a big health care package in. Our subcommittee works helping the troops; that is what we concentrate on. I think it is just something we cannot accept. I would ask the Members to vote against this amendment, no matter how all of us would like to see the troops get more money.

Mr. Chairman, I just heard somebody mention Halliburton. This $87 billion is not about loans or grants; it is not about Halliburton or Bechtel. This is about a war that we are committed to. We voted for this war. Whether individuals voted for it or not, the Congress committed ourselves to this war.

This is about a commitment to our troops thousands of miles away and a mission that we have had trouble getting them trained for, that they are not used to, about the lack of MOSes, people in specialties that are not in the jobs they should be in. This is about finishing a war as quickly as possible and allowing our men and women of the Armed Forces to come home victorious; to, indeed, march into the sunlight. This is about keeping our troops safe and not coming home in body bags so that they can again be with their mothers, fathers, wives, husbands, and children. In order to do that, they not only need the money for the military side, they need the reconstruction money.

The administration sometimes refers to this significant effort of our troops in Iraq as a low-intensity conflict. This minimizes the effort of our 150,000 troops still in the theater and around Iraq. This is not a low-intensity conflict when you cannot tell the activated Reserves and Guards, who have been active duty for 2 out of 6 years, what time they are coming home. This is not a low-intensity conflict when we are wearing out our equipment, when we have a third of our Bradleys that are deadlined because of lack of tracks or when we have people short of body armor. This is not a low-intensity conflict when I find a 67-year- old Reservist calling the office because the Army called him and said we would like you to volunteer to come back because your specialty is short, and if you do not volunteer, we are liable to call you back.

I called the Army, and it turns out they said, no, we are not going to call anybody back involuntary. But it shows the shortages. We have a shortage of MOSes. Those are the specialties, important military specialties. We have 6,300 that are not in the jobs that they should be in. We have the number of people there, but we do not have the trained personnel because the shortages are starting to come up in the replacement area.

Now, I have been to the hospitals, and I have talked to the troops in Iraq. They are not complaining about incidentals. They are complaining about what would save their lives, things that are essential to their lives. They complain about the lack of potable water. They complain about equipment that will save them, if they run over a land mine; equipment that will stop bombs from detonating in their path; equipment that will save them from shrapnel and fragments that penetrate the body armor or penetrate their bodies.

I saw a poll in ``Stars and Stripes,'' and the general said, well, these polls, we always have people complain. The military always complains. But these are not the same kind of complaints I have heard in the past. These are serious complaints. These are complaints which are life-saving, essential to their life. This is about giving the resources needed to stabilize and secure Iraq as quickly as possible to bring our troops home as whole human beings to live out their lives in the sunlight.

Every time I go to the hospitals, every time I talk to them, and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) has been there, his wife has been there, and many of my colleagues have been there to the hospitals, and they appreciate us coming, and they talk about how the body armor saved their lives. The inserts in the body armor were the key. When our subcommittee, and most of us have been on that subcommittee 15 to 20 years, for most of us our entire career, and everything we do is to try to protect the troops, try to make sure they have what they need, and when bureaucrats stop the money from getting out to them, that is almost criminal.

Let me say this. The reconstruction money is just as important as the money that we are putting in for the combat. We have to win what I call the ``X factor.'' The X factor is winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. We have seen polls that show they are in favor of us. We have sent people over there, and they say they are all happy with us. Well, let me tell you this. If they were happy with us, if they were for us, they would not allow people to fire RPGs, which are missile- guided weapons, at our Humvees and then disappear into the crowd. We have a lot of work to do.

I urge the people to vote for this entire supplemental. It is absolutely essential to the troops' security.

Mr. Chairman, I think because the Red Sox are ahead, the gentleman has gotten really vigorous here in his opposition. He thinks he is on a roll here.

No, we have tight control over the Pentagon. They do not do anything without coming to us. They ask us for permission for everything. They come to this committee, your Committee on Appropriations, and make sure that they get what they wanted.

Mr. Chairman, we have limited them substantially from what they originally asked, and I would hope Members would oppose this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, this bill will authorize the expansion of the Johnstown Flood National Memorial, a National Park Service site in South Fork, Pennsylvania.

Specifically, the bill will enable the National Park Service (NPS) to acquire adjacent properties and historically significant structures that are an integral part of the story of the Johnstown Flood.

The Great Johnstown Flood, which occurred on May 31, 1889, was the largest news story in the era next to the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. It swept away an entire city, causing the loss of over 2,209 people. Though members of the South Fork Fishing and Hunting Club, which owned the earthen dam and

was situated above it, worked feverishly during the storm to prevent the dam from bursting, their efforts were futile.

The Johnstown Flood Memorial was dedicated in 1964. Today the park consists of 165 acres and receives over 126,000 visitors annually. It preserves the remains of the old South Fork Dam which was breached in the flood, as well as portions of the former Conemaugh Lake bed.

This bill would authorize the purchase or acquisition by NPS, from willing sellers, an additional approximately 14\1/2\ acres. This property holds certain related historic structures such as the ``Moorhead Cottage'' and the ``Clubhouse.'' Both of these are significant to the story of the Johnstown Flood as they represent the life and role of club members both before and after the flood. The property offers a unique opportunity to use tangible resources to interpret the events that led to the Johnstown Flood, and the club members' response to the Flood.

These structures were built near the shore of Conemaugh Lake, by the South Fork Fishing and Hunting Club. In 1889, the Club had 61 members who were wealthy industrialists, bankers and merchants from Pittsburgh, including Andrew Carnegie, Henry Clay Frick and Andrew W. Mellon. The Clubhouse contained 47 rooms, where the majority of members stayed. The cottages did not have kitchens, so the Clubhouse was the focal point of the Club.

The Clubhouse is clearly among the most significant historical structures not only in the Johnstown Flood story but in our entire region. The 1889 South Fork Fishing & Hunting Club National Historical Society has done a tremendous job over the years in preserving this vital piece of history, but these dedicated volunteers can't be expected to finance the cost of needed repairs, maintenance and interpretive features. Our best alternative to preserve this vital history is to add these structures to the National Park Service.

The Johnstown Flood story continues to fascinate people even though the tragedy happened more than 100 years ago. There is such drama in the story of wealthy Pittsburgh industrialists who owned the poorly- maintained dam that collapsed, causing the worst man-made disaster in history by claiming 2,209 lives. Adding the Clubhouse and these other structures to the National Park will greatly enrich the interpretive potential of this site.

I would like to thank my Colleagues for their consideration of this bill. Thank you for your time.

Mr. Chairman, let me talk about a couple of different things. We have all talked about the shortages. I think we have taken care of most of the shortages. I am a little concerned about the jammers, although General Myers said he personally took an interest in them; but the inserts for the body armor, the tracks, and I have talked to the companies, I wanted to make sure that they were going all out. A couple of companies said 90 percent of their production was going to be getting this equipment out to the troops, and finally we are getting to the people in the field who are making the decisions rather than the bureaucrats.

But one of the things that worries me now is I have got a letter in my pocket from a young person, and here is what the young sergeant says: he said he is in the 307th MP Company. He has been on active duty since the summer of 2001: ``We have served proudly in peacekeeping in Bosnia, stateside on homeland defense, and finally as warfighters in Iraq, and I think we have done our job.'' This young man is in the 307th MP in the National Guard, and he wants to come home. He has been on active duty 2 out of 6 years that he has been in the National Guard. And one of the things I have talked about over the years is we cannot sustain these deployments. We need either more active-duty troops or we need to find a way to have foreign troops, Coalition forces, to replace our troops.

I know that I am starting to get letters from people saying that the Reserve and Guard are having such a difficult time sustaining themselves in the period of time that they are overseas, and I agree with that. I understand that. I met a couple of Reservists not long ago who had been in Bosnia; and one of their friends had been killed accidentally with a 50 caliber, and they were talking about how often they have been called up during this period of time. We can say they volunteered, but this is not the normal procedure. When we talk about a low-intensity war, we are talking about the type of war we are in now.

I have always said when somebody asks me how much money does the million military need, I have said it depends on the tempo of operations, and our tempo of operations and throughout the world where we have got 48 percent of the Army deployed, we have got 25 to 30 percent of the Guard and/or Reserve deployed, and what we have to look at is how do we replace these people. The other day the budget director of the Army said to a group at the AUS dinner, he said we are running out of gas. What he means is he does not have troops to replace the ones that are overseas. Some of the equipment needs to be reconstituted. We need to find a way to support this.

I am for the $87 billion. I think that is absolutely essential. There is no question in my mind that the reconstruction money is just as important as the military security money. I feel very strongly about that. If we want security, we have got to put people back to work. We have got between 50 and 60 percent unemployment. We have got all kinds of electricity problems. We have got water problems and everything else. And in order to provide a secure atmosphere, in order to get our people home, we have to reconstruct or spend money on reconstruction in Iraq itself.

I know that every time I go to the field, I get troops that complain; but that is the normal thing that we see with troops. But on the other hand, we have got Reserve and Guards that have been deployed for such a long period of time. And the employers are starting to write to me saying I cannot keep these guys on any longer, small business people. Very few of them get paid the difference. We have got bankers and people who are in the Reserve and Guard, and those folks are not getting any kind of extra pay. So we have got some real problems here in sustaining this force.

Hopefully, we will be able to get people from the Coalition force to replace our forces. Hopefully, in the near future we will have our people with all the equipment they need. We will get the security situation under control. We will Iraqitize. We will internationalize, and we will energize this operation.

So I fully support the presentation by the President. I feel very strongly about it. But on the other hand, we have got an awful lot of work to do before we get our troops home.

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Acevedo-Vila).

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

Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Madam Speaker, I just want to say that the wife of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) was instrumental in pointing out to me that one young man did not get a Purple Heart, so the Commandant is going to present him with a Purple Heart on Thursday, I believe. She is out there all the time, and all of us are indebted to the work that she does at the hospitals.

Madam Chairman, let me talk a little bit about some of the programs that I am so concerned about.

ALS is one program that has affected my office. I know that this disease is familiar to many, many people because of Lou Gehrig. It is a rare disease; but when you see it firsthand, you begin to recognize what research could do. A person becomes completely debilitated with this disease; and depending upon the severity of it, it happens either very quickly or it happens over a long period of time.

Now, the mind remains completely clear, but physically they deteriorate substantially and finally die after a period of either 1 to 5 years. So any increase in this program would be a real benefit to the people that have this dreaded disease.

Also, let me talk about diabetes, because in my district I have the highest rate of diabetes in the country. Now, we put $10 million in the defense budget for research for one part of my district because Brownsville, Pennsylvania, has the highest rate in the district so it is the highest rate in the country itself. And, of course, diabetes has so many ramifications that are directly related to it, and this research is so important.

Education, in my estimation, is the key. We have to spend some money convincing people that once they eat right and they do exercises they are going to limit their opportunity to

have diabetes. And I am talking about Type 2 diabetes. I am not talking about Type 1 diabetes. Matter of fact, we have a young woman that was Miss America, of I think 1999, from the district, who had Type 1 diabetes. She has been out talking about it, and she convinced me that we needed to do something about this.

Alzheimer's disease and of course Parkinson's disease are two more of great concern to me. Joe McDade, who served in this House for 35 years, developed Parkinson's disease, and I sat beside him and saw him. His mind was completely clear, but it debilitated his body. Now, he has worked his way through it with drugs, and improvements in drugs made a tremendous difference.

I appreciate what this committee has done over the years in the research facilities and the work they have done in order to make sure there is as much money available as possible. I would hope that when we go to conference with this bill, we will be able to make sure that these research projects, which are so important, and which we have tried to supplement what you do in the defense bill with money for breast cancer, for ovarian cancer, for research in those areas, but I am hopeful you will be able to do even more in your bill this year. Because it has such a dramatic impact on preventing these diseases and, of course, actually saves us money in the long run.

So I would urge the committee when they go to conference to make every effort to increase the amount of research for these very debilitating diseases.

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

Mr. Chairman, this is a completely bipartisan bill, as the Chairman mentioned. Staff has worked diligently on working the details. We have worked with all the Members. We spent a lot of time asking Members for their input. We got a lot more input than we could afford, but we have done the best we could do with the amount that we had.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and I have both talked to the gentleman about this issue. We understand the seriousness of it, and the importance to both the gentleman and to the country; and we are certainly going to work with the gentleman in trying to increase the amount of money in the unexploded ordnance area. We think it is a very important area, and we feel very strongly that the gentleman is right about it. We do not agree with the amendment, and we hope it will be withdrawn; but we do think money needs to be increased in that area.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman talked to me, and I have talked to the chairman, and we are certainly going to work something out. We were disappointed we did not have more requests for more teams. As a matter of fact, as the gentleman mentioned, we started this 12 to 13 years. The National Guard fought it initially, but now they see the importance. We think every State should have these, and we hope we can work out four or five more times in this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has talked to me, and I have talked to the chairman about this issue. This is a very delicate issue. We had the same situation in Philadelphia a couple years ago when they closed down the Navy yard there. The Navy insists it needs the personnel. They are very short. They are overly committed all over the world, and they need these 3,000 people in other places.

I have to say to the gentleman he is actually better off with it going with the appropriation process where we could work with him trying to help solve some of the problems that they have in Puerto Rico when they close down a base. For instance, we have done it in San Francisco. We have done it in other parts of California. We did it in Philadelphia. We did it in Texas. And we are very aware of the economic disruption, and if the gentleman would withdraw his amendment, we will certainly work with him. And it is going to take some time because we probably have to make a visit to Puerto Rico and see exactly what we are talking about.

One of the big problems we have, some of this equipment, when they knew they were going to close down, do not take care of it. So we need to see what really needs to be done.

But the gentleman can be assured we will do everything we can to help him. If this works its way through the entire Congress and the conference, we will do everything we can to help him.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, one of the problems we have with this amendment is it should be in the authorization bill rather than our bill. But at any rate, it would really be very difficult for us to apply something like this.

I understand what the gentlewoman is trying to do, but I would hope that the gentlewoman would withdraw this amendment and let us see what we can work out, because we have a lot of ``buy American'' provisions. This is kind of a new wrinkle to it. But we have an awful lot of operational problems that we might run into if we prohibited some of these things from being done.

For instance, I remember the Roberts was first taken into a port in Dubai, I think it was, and then we finally shipped it back to the United States. But I think we need some more time to look at this. I appreciate your

thoughts, and I know we will work with you trying to come up with something.