Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Major General Patrick H. Brady for his relentless and selfless service to this country. Major General Brady should be remembered for his heroic display while serving in the Republic of Vietnam, where he went above and beyond his call of duty flying multiple missions into hostile territory to evacuate severely wounded soldiers as an air ambulance pilot. It is estimated that Major General Brady may have evacuated more wounded from the battlefield than anyone in American history, over 5,000.

Major General Brady's gallantry and heroism has been well documented and he is the recipient of the Distinguished Service Cross, our Nations second highest award; two Distinguished Service Medals; the Defense Superior Service Medal; the Legion of Merit; six Distinguished Flying Crosses; two Bronze Stars, one for valor; the Purple Heart; 53 Air Medals, one for valor; and the Medal of Honor, the military's highest decoration. While Major General Patrick Brady had a distinguished and honorable military career, I speak today not only to honor those achievements and his 34-year military career, but to recognize his service to our country while not wearing the uniform.

Soon Major General Brady will step down as the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Citizens Flag Alliance, after more than a decade of phenomenal service. Major General Brady's outstanding ability enabled him to organize and motivate nearly 150 organizations whose sole focus is on passing a Constitutional amendment that would return to the American people the right to protect their flag. He has testified before Congress and worked

closely with many Members of Congress to gain support for an amendment that would ban the desecration of the American flag. I commend the Major General for his work and am confident he departs knowing the mission of the Alliance will continue due in no small part to his involvement and diligence.

I extend my best wishes to Major General Brady as he turns his attention toward his family. America will be forever indebted to him for his altruistic service to this great Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill that Bill Young and I worked out.

Let me say this to the Members: We did everything we could to work this out. We worked diligently. We sent a bill to the White House. They vetoed it. We've done everything we could do to change it.

I feel a direction change in the air. I see the Iraqis are starting to talk about redeployment. I see the administration starting to talk about other countries being involved. I see them asking the U.N. to get involved, something that should have happened a long time ago. But the point is, I see a new political diplomatic effort which is beginning to take effect here that's going to make a big difference.

But, in the meantime, we have to fund the troops. They'll run out in the next few weeks. They'll run out of money. There's no question about that. We send our staff continually to find out exactly how long it'll go. There'll be tremendous problems if we weren't to fund the troops.

And let me say what's in this bill. There's $94 billion for the Department of Defense military, and $24 billion of that is for reset and re-equipment; $7.7 billion for four critical initiatives; $1.1 billion for family housing allowances; $1.6 billion for strategic reserve readiness. We're trying to change. We're trying to stabilize the military.

We've already found with some of the work that we've done a couple of billion dollars in contracting that we can use and divert, and Bill Young and I were talking about this earlier today; $1.6 billion for strategic reserve; $34 billion for MRAP. That's the new vehicle that resists the IED attacks. Almost $2 billion in additional funding for health care; we have funded the health care that was not funded last year. We put extra money in for Walter Reed. We put extra money in for care giving. We put extra money in for all kind of things.

But let me just say this: I saw the other day, to show you the kind of problem we have, I saw the other day a young fellow who got 20 percent disability when he got out of the military. And then he went to the VA, and he got 100 percent disability. But the point is, he gets no health care for his family, and he has four children. So even though he gets 100 percent disability and he's taking care of himself, and he'll probably be paralyzed at some point because he's getting worse instead of better, and these are the kinds of things we're trying to fix.

So we have several problems. First of all, we have the short-term problem; we have to take care of the funding for the military for the next 4 months. As Chairman Obey says, we need to take care for an extra 2 months from the original bill we passed.

Then we need to start to work on a nurse shortage. We're looking at paying the nurses $25,000 more. We're looking at doctor shortages. We are looking at an administrative shortage in the hospital. We, finally, Bill Young and I worked, and we got General Casey going to all the hospitals finding out what the shortages are. We've got a lot of work to do here, and this bill starts us in that direction.

But let me just end this by saying, we're now in a position where I see that, by September, we'll be able to judge. When we pass our bill, and the 2008 bill will come up as a basic defense bill, then we're going to hold the supplemental until September. By that time, we will know that the surge is working or not working. And I predict, and I've been right in every one of my predictions, that incidents are going to continue to increase; oil production will not be above pre-war level; and that electricity will not be above pre-war level. And incidents will continue to increase, and more and more people will be killed by IEDs.

So I do not wish for a bad result, but I see the administration finally changing and finally recognizing this can't be won militarily. I think we're moving in the right direction.

It's very painful because people are frustrated. They'd like to see this thing over overnight. All of us are frustrated. But we have to take what we can get, and I think here we have a good bill, as good a bill as we could put together.

The two bills put together are good bills. I hope that everybody will vote for both bills because one takes care of the troops and the funding that's necessary, and the other takes care of all the other, the change in direction that we're trying to get in the military.

I would request that all the Members vote for both amendments to the bill.

Mr. Speaker, let me say that the Iraqi Legislature is going on a 2-month vacation. A 2-month vacation they are taking. We have been there 4\1/2\ years. And the people that give us the report is not Jack Murtha. The people that give us the report is the Joint Staff. And if you read with real glasses, you see what is happening in Iraq. You see incidents erupt. You see people getting killed. You see that nine people were killed just yesterday. You see that the IEDs are killing more people. More people were killed in the last 4 months than at any other time during the war.

We are trying to help you. We are trying to change the direction. We are trying to win it politically. We are trying to win this war. That is what we are trying to do. You can't win it if you don't look at it objectively. The gentleman is looking at it with rosy glasses instead of looking at it realistically. He is not looking at it objectively.

Mr. Speaker, 3 years ago, I would not have voted for this resolution. Two years ago, I would not have voted for this resolution. One year ago, I would have voted for this resolution. But after seeing no progress in Iraq, none, zero, having misrepresentation coming from even the Pentagon, I am beginning to believe it is time that we have to send a very strong message to this administration.

The total number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq is 3,382. Killed since President Bush announced his surge is 366. We have lost more people in the last 4 months than we lost in any other period of the war, and that doesn't count the number that have been wounded, and all of us have been out there and seen the ones that have been wounded.

The foreign minister of Saudi Arabia in The New York Times last week said, ``We don't see anything happening in Iraq in implementation. Our American friends say there is improvement; improvement in violence, improvement in the level of understanding, improvement in disarming the militia. We don't see it.''

Admiral Fallon, he is the new commander in Iraq, the central commander. Admiral Fallon said last week in the Senate Armed Services Committee, ``Prime Minister Maliki's progress thus far has been disappointing. They are not moving, in my opinion, fast enough to support what we are trying to do. The number one question in my mind is the ability as well as the willingness to do this.''

Now, I said to the Iraqi National Security Adviser when he was here visiting me, I said, Look. I said, Originally we need a diplomatic effort, an international diplomatic effort. I urged him to change the Constitution. I urged him to pass a bill to spread out the oil revenues.

He said, Well, it's a slow procedure, and he started talking about how we needed to stay, and he talked about the war, he didn't call it a civil war, the insurgency and the al Qaeda.

I said, There is 2,000 al Qaeda. You don't think you can take care of 2,000 al Qaeda when you have in your country 26 million people? I said, Let me tell you a story. My great-grandfather's Civil War hat sits on that shelf there. And I took it out and I showed him that. We fought our own civil war. And then I said, My ancestors fought in the Revolutionary War. They were rag-tag. They didn't have shoes. They fought in cold weather without cold-weather gear. They fought the greatest army in the history at that time, the greatest navy in the history at that time, the greatest empire in history at that time, and we beat them. We beat them by ourselves, with a little help from the French.

You have to do this yourself, I said to the National Security Adviser for Iraq. You have to win this yourself. We can't do it for you. I said, Your Parliament takes a 2-month vacation in the middle of a time when it is crucial to the history.

The American people, three-fourths of them, are unhappy with what is going on. The Congress more and more. Even some of our Republican friends need to help us convince this President that we need to move in the right direction, we need to change the direction of this war. I see in a news release that the President is now, after all this time, considering benchmarks. After all this time, the President of the United States is saying I'll consider benchmarks. He finally is starting to compromise. He has come off the pedestal and the President is starting to begin to realize that something has to be done to change the direction of this country.

All of us want to solve this. All of us want stability in the Middle East. All of us want to do the right thing. But it is not working. Electricity production, below pre-war level. Oil production, below pre- war level. It has been that way for the last 4\1/2\ years. Incidents are up. If you look at the way the incidents have gone, every month they have gone up. They have gone down a little bit, but they have gone up the whole time. And more Americans were killed in the last 4 months than any other period during this war.

We need to change direction. We need to send a message. We need to go to conference and have some kind of a conversation with the White House so that they understand. I am glad to see some Republicans went to the White House and spoke the truth to this President and said to him, Mr. President, we need a change. You are destroying the Republican Party.

Well, that is one of those things where I won't go there.

But let me say this: we need to have a strong vote. We need to vote for this resolution, and then we need to pass the other bill and get on with our business.

Mr. Speaker, it's not working. This policy is not working. That's why we want to change direction. I mean, it is one thing to stand here and rhetorically say it's working, say there's progress to make statements. Because the White House says it? Because the Pentagon says it?

Let me tell you, the Pentagon wrote and said, ``Further, the lack of timely supplemental funds has limited the Department's ability to properly contract for the reconstitution of equipment for both the active and reserve forces.''

We put extra money in the budget, $17 billion last year. There wouldn't have been any money in the budget to reset. We have no strategic reserve. Our National Guard has only 40 percent of the equipment they need. They can't respond to a national disaster. As a matter of fact, the National Guard in this country couldn't be deployed overseas. The active duty American Armed Forces could not be deployed overseas because we have no strategic reserve.

This war has been mishandled. We need accountability. We had a hearing on contracting today, and I have been studying this contracting. Some of the accusations are that the contractors, there's 126,000 contractors in Iraq. We have approximately 140,000 troops there and 126,000 contractors. Now, imagine this. Some of them are making or being paid $600 a day, the contractors, and no accountability. It took us 2 weeks to find out who those contractors were, what they were doing. We still haven't gotten the details of what they're doing or who they are. This is unacceptable.

I saw in the book about Blackwater. It said in this book that Ambassador Bremer had 26 Praetorian Guards and those Praetorian Guards made $600 a day. Now, you can imagine them pushing through an area where the Iraqis lived, with their sunglasses on, you know, those little sunglasses that wrap around your eyes, with their khaki uniforms with their AK-47s or whatever weapons they carry. That does not make friends.

When I went to Iraq the first time, you could drive around anyplace in the city. Today, you can't drive anyplace. Matter of fact, they fly you from the airport to the Green Zone.

We are occupying Saddam Hussein's palaces. We are in the very area where Saddam Hussein occupied and there's no accountability.

We need to redeploy to stabilize this situation. We need to get our troops out of the killing zone. We have lost more people in the last 4 months than we lost any other 4 months in the entire war.

Now, let me tell you what you're voting against if you vote against this bill.

Well, first of all, let me tell you why I say it's not working. Oil production, below pre-war level; oil exports, below pre-war level; electricity production, below pre-war level. Hours of electricity in Baghdad, they had to shut down the Parliament the other day because they didn't have enough electricity. The microphones wouldn't work, and they had no air conditioning inside; and, of course, they have air conditioning in the Green Zone. Potable water, people with potable water, below pre-war level; unemployment rate between 25 and 40 percent; inflation rate in Iraq, 50 percent.

Now, here's what you're voting if you vote against this bill. There's $95.5 billion for the troops. There's $12.3 billion for military personnel pay and benefits program. $1.15 billion to cover the full cost of housing allowances, something that was left out last year.

We are adding $2 billion to address the training and equipping shortfalls in the forces not deployed. We actually have $4 billion more in this bill than was asked for.

We have $2 billion dedicated to the strategic reserve readiness fund. We recommend adding $1 billion for Afghanistan, where the real war should be fought.

We have $25.6 billion in this bill, and if you vote against it, you're voting against $25.6 billion purchases to increase the President's request by $800 million. That's the acquisition. The proposal allocates $3 billion. Let me tell you, the Pentagon asked for $1.3 billion. We added $1.2 billion for MRAPs. What are MRAPs? MRAPs are the V-shaped vehicles that resist IEDs.

Now, some of your children have been there. Some of your sons and daughters have been there. This the Pentagon says is their most important equipment, and we added twice as much money as they asked for in the budget, and if you vote against this, you are voting against that very equipment.

We passed legislation that fully funded everything at $4 billion more and the President vetoed it. He should have signed that bill.

For the Army procurement accounts, we approved a total of $15.8 billion, more for Humvees, more for Strykers. Somebody mentioned Strykers. Let me tell you something, if it hadn't been for the Subcommittee on Defense, there wouldn't have been any Strykers for the Army because they wanted them, but they weren't willing to ask for the money.

The defense health programs, somebody mentioned Walter Reed. All of us have been to Walter Reed. All of us have seen the young people who have been shattered by this war. All of us have seen the people who go to Walter Reed and are taken care of so well. None of us knew about Building 18, but we put money in the budget for three or four years in a row, and it was mishandled. It didn't go to fixing up the places that should have been fixed up.

I just went out there a week ago, and I met with the doctors. The doctors

said we don't have enough doctors. They said we don't have enough nurses, we don't have enough administrative people, at Walter Reed today. Why? Because they can't afford to pay them as much as they would on the outside. We put $2.1 billion above the budget request for Walter Reed.

$450 million for post-traumatic stress. Of all the other injuries that are suffered in Iraq, this is going to be the most damaging, the things that people will have to live with the most. I have seen young people that came back from Iraq that are having a hard time adjusting, and they were not in the heaviest contact. The psychologists that appeared before the committee said to me, 3 months in this situation is a long time, 3 months they start getting post-traumatic stress. Predictions are we will have 65,000 Americans, not Iraqis, Americans that are going to have post-traumatic stress.

You wonder why we want to bring this to an end? We want to change the direction? You wonder why we want to convince the President that it's not working? Why we have to have a diplomatic surge instead of a military surge?

We put $450 million in for brain damage to see if we can't find ways to help the people with brains that have been damaged. If you vote against this, you're voting against that.

Amputee care, $62 million for amputee care; $12 million for care givers. The care givers at Walter Reed, at Landstuhl are suffering because they see this all the time. They see these young people coming in, and they are shattered.

Let me tell you this, finally. I went down to Fort Hood, Fort Bragg, Fort Stewart; and I saw at those bases these families who inspire me, these families who I can't say enough about them. And they gathered around me and we talked about their problems. It had just been announced they are going to extend the troops for 15 months. Now, Secretary Gates made the right decision because he wasn't going to leave them at home. Because of what we have done here in the Congress, he is now leaving people at home for at least a year, and let me tell you that's essential for these people who have to go back.

Some of these troops in the 82nd Airborne will be deployed for the fourth and the fifth time. They're individuals. They're people. They're people suffering from the horrendous impact of this war, and I ask you to vote for this because we want to hold this President accountable for this war, hold him accountable and convince him we need compromises.

Mr. Speaker, let me say, I see the Vice President has gone to Iraq to urge the Iraqis not to take a 2-month vacation. I mean, we have got to put some pressure on them. It hasn't been working. I mean, I see the Vice President also said, he said they seem to be more enthused than they used to be. Let me tell you something, we have got to do something more than be enthused when the Americans are in the killing zone. That's the problem.

If this amendment were adopted, we would lose all our leverage on the Iraqis. The Iraqis could go on as they have, and one of the biggest problems

we have right now is that every time the Iraqis don't do something, the Americans are put in a killing zone.

So I would urge the Members to reject this motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, we will have appropriated in one year, $1.2 trillion. This bill that we are voting on today is called the Iraq Accountability Act.

Now, it's fine to have loyalty to the President of the United States. All of us know how important loyalty is; all of us know how important it is to be loyal to our friends, but there comes a time when this independent Congress has to stand up to the President of the United States.

We will have appropriated $95.5 billion. And if you vote against this bill, you're voting against that which is $4 billion more. You're voting for loyalty to the President, but you're voting against $4 billion more, $95.5 billion for the amount for the Department of Defense programs.

If you vote for President Bush, you're voting against $12.3 billion for military personnel pay and benefits, everything the President asked for. If you vote for loyalty to President Bush, you're voting against $1.2 billion, mostly to cover housing allowances which were left out of the last bill. The total amount provided is $13.5 billion. If you vote for President Bush and loyalty to President Bush, the conference committee has added $1.15 billion to cover the full cost of housing allowances. The committee has also added $2.3 billion to cover the full cost of 36,000 Army troops and 9,000 Marines. If you vote to be loyal to the President, you're voting against those troops.

When you talk about support the troops, I am talking about supporting the troops. Conferees recommend $50.4 billion for military operations even more than the President requested. We are adding $2 billion to address training and equipment shortfall.

The chairman of the Armed Services Committee talked about readiness. Right now, we have a tremendous shortfall of equipment. We have no strategic Active Duty Reserve in this country. And we put extra money, we put $2 billion in to start to replenish the strategic reserve.

This conference proposes to fully fund the President's request to train and equip Iraqi and Afghanistan troops. If you vote against this bill, if you vote for the President and to be loyal to the President, you're voting not to include $25.6 billion in equipment purchases, $800 million above the President's request.

If you vote against this bill, you're voting not to allocate $3 billion to purchase the mine resistant, new vehicle with the V-shape which resists the IED, one of the most important pieces of equipment that we will send to Iraq. We put $400 million for Abrams vehicles, Abrams tank, and we put $768 million for the Strykers.

Now, let me talk about defense health. Today, the Subcommittee on Defense just had a hearing on defense health. Every single year, Dr. Chu, the Defense Department shorts the health care system of $2 billion. Every year. Every year, the Congress has to make it up.

We have extra money, we have $3.3 billion for the defense health care programs; $2.1 billion above the budget request. If you vote against this bill, you're voting against those requests. $450 million for traumatic stress brain disorders; $450 million for traumatic brain injuries and post traumatic stress; $661 million to cover funding shortfalls created by the Congress in having disapproved the Department's proposed increase in health insurance premiums; fees for military beneficiaries; $62 million for amputee care; $12 million for caregivers. This is an important point. For caregivers. We heard from the Department of Health, from the Defense Department about the problem caregivers have.

All of us go to the hospitals as often as we can. I get post traumatic stress seeing these young wounded people. I am inspired by them. I see the families when I went to Fort Bragg and Fort Stewart and Fort Hood. I admire them. I admire their discipline, I admire their courage. I admire their patriotism. But let me tell you something: They're burned out. They're hurting.

If you vote against this bill, you're voting not to give them the money that they need. If you vote against this, you're voting against the provision that says no permanent bases in Iraq. If you vote against this, you're voting against 15 percent that comes out of Defense for the contractors. We have 125,000 contractors in Iraq and there has been no oversight, and we had 2 months before we could even find out about the contractors.

One of the provisions we put in this bill was a provision that said you can't deploy troops unless they are trained and equipped. You can't deploy troops unless they've had at least a year at home. Now, more and more I am seeing, they are saying that's the most important provision in this bill. They need a year at home to recuperate from their deployment; they need a year at home to retrain and to get ready to make another deployment. The Secretary of Defense made that decision, and we appreciate him making that decision. But at the same time, because of the policy of the White House, he had to make the decision, in order to sustain this deployment he had to make the decision to extend them to 15 months. I hear rumors that he is going to extend them for 18 months.

The troops that I talked to, the troops that I talked to just recently, were very frank with me. I said, ``Look, we want to help in any way we can. Tell us what the problems are.'' And they went through the myriad of problems they have with these deployments.

These are individuals. These are individual people. They've got families. They have loved ones. One first sergeant said to me, ``I hate to tell my kids I have to go overseas again. I hate to tell the kids.'' One woman in Iraq, and this is in an article in The Washington Post, she sighed and she says, ``This war is a war between the Iraqis,'' she said. Another soldier said, ``We're just interfering and letting our soldiers die.''

I have to say that when you say there is some success in Iraq, we had four of the deadliest months in the history of this 4-year war in Iraq. We had more people killed in the last 4 months than any other period of time during this war. We have had 330 killed since the surge started. And these are individuals. These are not numbers, these are individuals.

We have less electricity than we had before the war started, less oil production than we had before the war started, less potable water, higher unemployment.

We have a provision in this bill that says the Iraqis have to take over this fight themselves. The Iraqis just maybe killed one of the highest leaders. That's what we want. We want to give them the incentive to take over the security themselves.

And let me say what's important on this floor of the United States Congress and what's important to the President of the United States: It is the national security of the United States. That's what's important. It is important that Iraq take over their national security, but our own need concerns me. Our strategic reserve is depleted completely, our troops are burned out, and we need to find a way to do a diplomatic effort, to put an all-out surge in diplomatic efforts in order to bring our troops home as soon as practicable.

So I urge the Members to override this veto, and start to bring our troops home as soon as practical.

Mr. Speaker, apparently a number of people have not read this bill. I know my friend Bill Young has read it.

We have $1.5 billion to cover the full cost of housing allowances for the troops. If you vote against this, you are voting against housing allowances. We have a total of $2.3 billion in this bill to cover the full cost of fielding an additional 36,000 Army troops and 9,000 Marines. If you've read this bill, you'll realize we added $2 billion to address the training and equipment shortfalls in the forces not deployed. One billion dollars is dedicated to purchase Army National Guard equipment. If you vote against it, you're voting against $1 billion for the National Guard. You're voting against an additional $750 million for Afghanistan. You're voting against $2.4 billion with a joint IED task force. In procurement you're voting against the very thing that the military wants most, and that is the new vehicle with the V shape which is resistant to IEDs.

Now, let me talk a little bit about IEDs. In the last 4 months, we have lost more troops than any other period during this war. And I am sorry to hear from a friend of mine's wife who called me and said there was a joke on one of the shows last night by a Republican Presidential candidate who said that he brought an IED back and he put it under this guy's desk. That individual owes an apology to every troop that serves in Iraq.

When we go to the hospital, all of us, we see burn victims. We see victims that are wounded badly. And many of us don't get an opportunity to see the families.

I went to Fort Hood, Fort Bragg, and Fort Stewart. These folks are burned out. The truancy rate is up in the schools. The achievement is down in the schools where our troops' children go. One soldier said to me, a first sergeant, a woman, she says, I hate to tell my children I'm going back to Iraq.

They're going back the third and fourth time.

A general said to me, ``I can only take 9 months.'' And we're sending them back to 18; I hear rumors that they are going to extend them to 18 months.

We have an accountability bill, this is called the ``Iraq accountability bill.'' This war has been so mismanaged that we have the responsibility to force the White House to be accountable. The policy is not set by the military, the policy is set by the White House, and we have to hold the White House accountable for the mistakes that they have made.

We will have appropriated $1.2 trillion for the Defense Department in 1 year. We are spending nearly $10 billion a month in Afghanistan and Iraq. We have 126,000 contractors. And it took us 2 months, the committee that funds every cent that is spent in Iraq and Afghanistan had to spend 2 months to find out there were 126,000 contractors. And we told this to the Secretary of Defense. When one of the Members of Congress said, and one of them is making $300,000 a year, one of the contractors, he said, ``That's more than I make.'' Imagine, we've got a contractor making more than the Secretary of Defense makes. We have a contractor that I saw, when I talked to the Cavalry Division that was in Iraq, here is a guy pumping gas, this is what a soldier told me, he gets $25,000 a year, and right beside him was a guy pumping gas for $80,000 a year. This is what I call accountability.

We have to hold the White House responsible for accountability. Why do they have 126,000 contractors? Because we don't have enough troops. Why are they extending the troops to 18 months, possibly?

And finally, they realized they couldn't send them back before they had a year at home. They had to be trained and they had to be equipped. That is what we say in this bill, we say you've got to be trained and equipped.

I had General Pace come up after the last hearing. I said, General, you've got to tell me you're not sending any troops back there untrained and ill-equipped. And I don't know that this conversation made the difference, but a short time later they announced they are going to extend people, and they are not going to send anybody back unless they had a year at home. It is absolutely essential.

I talked to some of the wives at Fort Bragg. I got one story from the hospitals about how the service was there, they were able to get service anytime they wanted, within a week they were able to get service. Then I talked to the wives, the officers' wives, I said, after talking to them for a while, how many of you got service in a week? No hands went up. How many did it take over a month? Half the hands went up. We've got to take care of the people at home.

Let me tell you something, I get fatigued in going to the hospitals. The caregivers that care for them every day, think what they go through. A nurse called me and said you've got to put some money in the bill, and we did, to take care of caregivers to give them some relief. These caregivers see it every day. So we put $6 million in for Landstuhl program. We put $1 million in for Walter Reed, for Brooke's and for Bethesda. They are burned out. The troops are burned out. What we are trying to do in this bill is hold the White House accountable for the policy mistakes that they made.

We went into Iraq without weapons of mass destruction. I believed it. When I went there the first time, I saw a line drawn around Baghdad. They told me they were going to use biological weapons. I believed that. It took me 6 or 7 months to realize we had made a mistake. We went to Afghanistan, it was the right place to go.

I am inspired by these troops, I am inspired by their families; but they are burned out and they are bearing as much as they can bear. When we sit here, and one of the previous speakers said ``we.'' I hear this all the time, ``we're fighting,'' ``we're fighting terrorists.'' We are not fighting terrorism, we are sitting here in an air conditioned place while they are out there in dust.

And let me tell you about the policy in this latest deployment. I worried. I didn't say anything in public, but I worried. When you send 37 different elements out by themselves among the Iraqis, when you've got interpreters who you don't trust, you are going to expect the kind of disasters you just saw. That's the thing that worries me when you don't have enough troops. And one general said to me, he said, ``If you're there more than 9 months, you start making mistakes.'' Imagine what he's saying? He said, ``I question myself after 9 months.'' A psychologist told us, who came before the committee, he said 3 months in heavy combat, 3 months of going out every day and having IEDs, imagine a Presidential candidate making jokes about IEDs when these kids are blown apart? It's outrageous.

Let me tell you something, we owe a great deal of gratitude to these families and these young people who are doing the fighting. It's not ``we'' doing the fighting, it's ``them'' doing the fighting. They deserve accountability from the Congress of the United States, and we are going to demand that from this accountability bill.

This Appropriation Committee will have appropriated $1.2 trillion for this war and for the Defense Department in one year. When I came to Congress, we had appropriated $100 billion for defense for the whole year.

We keep talking about progress; that's what the military leaders in Iraq talk about. I wish we saw progress.

I voted for this war because I believed that our Nation was threatened. Two or three weeks later, I realized that we weren't under any threat; we were misled. There was no threat to our national security. We went in with inadequate forces. I'm the one that found the lack of body armor, 44,000 troops without body armor, without armored Humvees; and now 4 years later, we're arguing about timelines where the Iraqis ought to take over the war themselves. We're arguing about allowing the Iraqis to do what the President agreed to. And we want to set a timetable so that they are forced to agree to it. There is no question in my mind every time the Iraqis stumble, the United States steps in and puts our American troops in between the civil war.

I just visited Fort Hood, Fort Stewart and Fort Bragg. The troops are somber. The troops are going to do their job. They're valiant. I am inspired by the troops. But let me tell you, they're burned out. In the schools in Fort Bragg they say they need counseling. In the schools of Fort Bragg they say there's higher truancy. They say the students' achievement has dropped. You know who's suffering? We talk about fighting this war. We're not fighting this war. A very small segment of this population is fighting this war, and they're burned out. I've had troop commanders who were there three times say, we can only spend 10 months in combat and we start making bad decisions; and I believe that.

They say there's progress, and I've just seen over 200 killed in 2 days. We've lost more Americans in the last 4 months than any other period during this war. That's not progress. The electricity production is below prewar level. Production of oil is below prewar level. How do you measure? Rhetoric doesn't measure progress.

In my estimation, this war has been so mishandled. Congress has an obligation to set a standard, to have accountability. And this bill is called the Iraqi Accountability bill, and that's what we're trying to do. We're trying to hold this administration accountable for the mistakes that they have made.

Does anybody know we have 125,000 contractors in Iraq? 125,000. And when we pointed this out to the Secretary of Defense, do you know what he said? He said, ``They're making more money than I make.''

The Secretary of Defense said these contractors are making more money than he makes, 125,000 of them. They couldn't tell the committee for 2 months how many contractors they had.

They have got a fellow fueling a truck on one side, and he's making $25,000, and right beside him is a guy making $80,000 fueling a truck. Why is that? Are we meeting our recruiting standards when we need 125,000 people that are contractors in Iraq riding around shooting people, as I saw in the Washington Post the other day, shooting inadvertently at people? They want to kill somebody, this one guy said? That's the face of America? We've lost credibility because of some of these contractors and the actions of these contractors.

I say we need to set timelines. We need to set a benchmark. We need to say to the Iraqis, it's time for you to take over and decide your own fate, like we did in our own revolution.

I ask Members to vote for this benchmark set by the gentleman from California.

It's interesting to hear the gentleman say ``we.'' ``We fight.'' ``We aren't going to give up.'' ``We aren't going to surrender.''

Let me tell you something. We are not fighting this war. It's the troops overseas. And when I talk to the families, when I go to the hospital, I see the results of this war.

Don't tell me we're fighting this war. It's the troops in the field, a very small segment of the American population that are fighting this war. If the President thinks we should continue the war, he ought to call for a draft and spread it out and let everybody serve in this war, not this small segment making such a sacrifice.

Don't tell me we're fighting in this air-conditioned office. We're not fighting this war. They're fighting it. And I'm proud of every one of them. But don't stand here in this air-conditioned facility and say we are fighting this war.

I am proud of these troops and what they have done. They have won the war. The mission was accomplished. We cannot win it militarily. It can only be won diplomatically.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say to my good friend from California, that in the Revolutionary War they fought for 7 years against the greatest army in the history of the world at that time, ragged, with no shoes, no ammunition, and they outworked them and outfought them because they were on their homeland.

That is what I am saying the Iraqis should do. It is the Iraqis' country. The Americans should not be dying for Iraqis, caught in this civil war.

We have appropriated $1.2 trillion. We have appropriated over $140 billion more than the White House asked for, $140 billion more for the troops, to support the troops. We have given everything they asked for. In this Iraq accountability bill, we give them $4 billion more than the President asked for. We put a strategic reserve in, and we also take care of the health care, the post-traumatic stress. We take care of brain damage. We take care of the troops. We want to make sure the troops have what they need.

And to go back to the Revolutionary War, my great-grandfather's grandfather fought in the Revolutionary War on the right side and he prevailed. We don't have any letters from him, but we have letters from my great-grandfather who served in the Civil War on the right side, and he talks about how tough it was in the Civil War. But we

fought our own Civil War, and my great-grandmother lived to be 96; I was 6 years old, and she said, you are put on this Earth to make a difference.

We need to make a difference in this Congress, to change the direction of a mishandled war. We need to have oversight and accountability for the $1.2 trillion that we have spent on the Defense Department in 1 year.

Let me just say that the Revolutionary War, my great- great-grandfather fought in it. We fought our own war. In the Civil War, I have my great-grandfather's hat in my office. He fought against the South in the Civil War. We fought our own war. What we are trying to do in this legislation is force the Iraqis to fight their own war. That's what it's all about. Sixty-two Americans have died this month. We want to force the Iraqis to fight their own war.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Speaker, I keep hearing people say that we have got to give this a chance. For 4 years we have given this a chance. For 4 years we have had our troops overseas.

Here is the problem that we face. Every time that we give them a chance, they disappear. For instance, they said that the Iraqis are going to lead this surge. Let me tell you, 50 percent of the Iraqis in the units aren't showing up. So the Americans have to take over. We have to pay the bill.

The Europeans, this is just as important to the Europeans as it is to us, and the Europeans benefit from the oil that comes from Iraq, yet they are not really participating to any significant amount, versus the first war where they participated significantly. George Bush I got a coalition together.

The problem we have with what is going on, this is not General Petraeus' war, this is the administration's war. This administration has put us in a position where the military has to actually violate their own guidelines in order to get troops to Iraq.

I knew over an a year ago we didn't have the numbers of troops we needed to sustain this deployment, and the surge makes it worse. The worst thing we can do is send troops, and if you vote against this, you are going to vote for sending troops into war without being fully mission-capable, without the training and equipment they need, and that is absolutely unacceptable.

I note to the Congress and I note to the people sitting on that side who worked so hard to fund the military, we put $70 billion in last time that the administration did not even ask for.

We have 36,000 additional troops in here for the overall picture. So if you vote against this, you are voting against those 36,000 troops, for the total number of troops that need to be not deployed, but need to be available to be deployed.

Our reserves are in desperate shape. Our Strategic Reserve, when we started this war with C-1, they are now in the lowest state of readiness. They couldn't be deployed. Only two divisions would be deployed. So we have a lot of work to do.

And I say to the Members, you are voting against supporting the troops if you vote against the money that goes to the troops and the money that has already been sent or is going to be sent. They are going to run out in April, and we need to get this bill through.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the Members on both sides of the aisle to vote for this legislation.

Mr. LEWIS OF California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett).

Let me tell you what is in this bill and what you are voting against. There is $1.7 billion of this bill request for military health care. If you vote against this bill, you are denying our troops $1.7 billion.

There is $450 million for post-traumatic stress. There is $450 million for brain injury care. It is insufficient, but that is the money we put in the bill; $62 million for amputee care at Walter Reed, $20 million to fix up Walter Reed. That is what is in this bill for health care.

If you vote against this bill, the military families will be denied $17 million to help prevent child-spouse abuse.

The bill increases accountability over contractors. When I was in Iraq a month and a half ago, the contractors were falling all over each other. GAO and the inspector general of Iraq said to us, help us get this under control. I asked or one of the Members in the subcommittee asked the GAO what we could do to help. And I asked the Under Secretary of Defense: How many contractors do you have in Iraq? He couldn't tell me. He said, we will tell you within a week. We still haven't heard, and that has been over a month ago. We have had 11 hearings, and we are going to have 35 more hearings before this year is over. We are going to hold the Department of Defense accountable for the money that they are spending and the strategy that they are using.

This bill bans permanent bases in Iraq. This bill bans torture in Iraq. We have sent troops to Iraq that were not trained in their specific MOSs, and that is exactly why Abu Ghraib happened. We had people that were untrained, National Guard members who were untrained who went into that prison, didn't know how to handle it, and it caused a natural disaster, a public relations disaster.

The way the military is doing the job, and there is nobody that regards the military higher than I do. Nobody is more inspired by the troops that I have talked to and I have seen. But let me tell you something. With the type of tactics that they have to use, by knocking down doors and by using overwhelming force, it makes enemies. That is the problem we have, and we are not winning the hearts and minds of the people when we do that.

Let me talk about the readiness of our troops. Every unit in the United States, except two National Guard units, went into this war with the highest state of readiness. Now, there are only two units in the United States that are at the highest state of readiness.

This provides money to take care of that. If you vote against that, you are voting against money to take care of readiness for our strategic reserve.

Let me tell you what General Craddock says. General Craddock is the European commander, the NATO commander, American commander. Listen to what I am saying. This is what General Craddock says: ``We have very little capacity left after we source the global force pool, if you will, for these ongoing European Command missions. Our ability to do that now is limited because we don't have the forces available since they are in the rotation to the other missions.''

He is saying what I have been saying for a year and a half. This is a failed policy wrapped in illusion. We do not have the troops. We do not have a strategic reserve to be able to react to a future national threat to this great country. The troops can only do so much.

This bill includes $1.4 billion for new armored vehicles. If you vote against this, you are voting against the new armored vehicles which we need so badly. We put an extra $313 million above what the Defense Department requested for those vehicles. That is the V-shaped vehicles which resist the IEDs. If you vote against this bill, you will be denying the troops better protection and better equipment.

The bill also includes billions to reset the forces. What I have been saying is the equipment, somebody said the other day, well, they train on old equipment. Well, why does that mean anything? Those of you who have been in the military knows what it means. It means when you go into combat, you do not have the type of equipment you need. You are risking the lives of these people by training on inadequate equipment. We have two units that will not go to the desert because they have to rush them out over to Iraq.

It is not the military's fault. The administration has forced the military to break their own guidelines in order to send troops over to supply this surge and to sustain this deployment.

Finally, we are saying in this bill, you cannot send troops back into battle unless they have the appropriate training, they are fully trained, mission capable. Is there anybody that is going to vote against that? If you vote against this bill, you vote against that. If you vote against this bill, you vote against sending troops back in less than a year at home. That is unacceptable.

You can sit here and say we are fighting this war, oh, yes, you can sit here in Washington and say you are fighting this war. But let me tell you something, those young people sometimes went back three and four times; their families are suffering. These are not 140,000 people. These are each individuals with families and relatives that are bearing the brunt of this fighting that are sent back.

This bill forces the administration to live up to the guidelines they have set for their military and not to extend them. A psychologist told us in a hearing that if you spend 3 months in combat that there is a good chance you will start to develop PTSD three months in this intensive combat in Baghdad.

Now, you can sit here and talk about us fighting this war on terrorism. We put an extra billion dollars for Afghanistan in this bill so we could fight terrorism where it started in Afghanistan. That is where it started.

Let me tell you something. We set benchmarks. We set benchmarks because it has not worked. Every time something happens over there, what he says is, well, we will send American troops; we will send American troops

back before they have their time at home. We will extend American troops. The Iraqis have to start to bear this responsibility for themselves, and that is why we are putting it in the bill.

The American people in the last election sent a message. They said we want the Iraqis to solve their own problems in Iraq. The Americans have borne the brunt. We are spending $8.4 billion a month, $2 billion to get people and equipment and supplies over to Iraq, $2 billion a month, 8,000 miles away.

I will tell you what hurts the troops; I will tell you what hurts them. It hurts them when they extend it beyond 13 months or the marines, beyond 7 months. What hurts the troops, if you send the troops back before they have a year at home. That is what hurts the morale of the troops. I am the person that found the 44,000 shortage of body armor in the initial invasion of Iraq. We had troops in danger because they did not have the equipment they needed. We cannot send troops back into combat without equipment and fully being trained.

Let me just say this in the end. My grandfather's Civil War hat is in my office. He lost his arm in the Civil War fighting for the North, some of you Southerners here. My great-grandmother lived to be 96. I was 6-years-old when she died. She said you are on this Earth to make a difference. We are going to make a difference with this bill. We are going to bring those troops home. We are going to start changing the direction of this great country.

Mr. Speaker and distinguished Members of this body, the United States currently has 145,000 troops on the ground in Iraq and over half a trillion dollars has been expended in the war. More than 3,200 of our sons and daughters have lost their lives and close to 25,000 have been wounded; hundreds with amputated limbs and thousands with traumatic brain injuries.

The Pentagon reports that the Iraqi Security Forces have grown in number, reaching their goal of 325,000 trained and equipped. The Iraqis have a Constitution and have held national elections. These milestones have been met, yet lack of security and stability continues. The war in Iraq has been plagued by mischaracterization based on unrealistic optimism instead of realism. Reality dictates that conditions on the ground are simply moving in the wrong direction.

There are limits to military power. There is no U.S. military solution to Iraq's civil war. It is up to the Iraqis.

Beginning in May 2005, after two years of mischaracterizations and misrepresentations by this Administration, the Defense Appropriations subcommittee required the Department of Defense to submit quarterly reports to Congress on the facts necessary to measure stability and security in Iraq. Since July 2005, we have received these reports. They are dismal and demonstrate a clear lack of progress in vital areas of concern. Electricity, oil production, employment and potable water remain at woeful levels.

The average weekly attacks have grown from 430 in July 2005 to well over 1000 today. In fact, attacks throughout the country have increased 10 percent over the last 4 months. Iraqi casualties have increased from 63 per day in October 2005 to over 125 per day.

Recent polls show that more than six in 10 Iraqis now say their lives are going badly, double the percentage who said so in late 2005. Sixty- nine percent of the Iraqis surveyed said the presence of U.S. forces in the country makes the overall security situation worse. In January 2006, 47 percent of Iraqis approved of attacks on U.S.-led forces. When the same polling question was asked just 8 months later, 61 percent of Iraqis approved of attacks on U.S-led forces.

The support of the American public continues to erode and there is little confidence in the current strategy. Today less than 30 percent of Americans approve of the way the President is handling the war, and only 11 percent support the President's plan to increase troop levels in Iraq. A February 2006 poll showed that 72 percent of American troops serving in Iraq believed the U.S. should exit Iraq within the year and 42 percent said their mission was unclear.

Wars cannot be won with slogans. There must be a clear and reachable plan and a defined way to measure the success of that plan. The President says he has a new plan for a way forward in Iraq. General Peter Schoomaker, Chief of the United States Army, said in a recent hearing that in order for a plan to be effective we ``have to be able to measure the purpose.'' But the President sets forth a plan with no defined matrices for measuring progress and no consequences if progress is not made. This new plan is simply more of the same open ended commitment in Iraq that has not worked.

A new strategy that is based on redeployment rather than further U.S. military engagement, and one that is centered on handing Iraq back to the Iraqis, is what is needed. I do not believe that Iraq will make the political progress necessary for its security and stability until U.S. forces redeploy.

In order to achieve stability in Iraq and the Region, I recommend:

(1) The redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq

(2) The execution of a robust diplomatic effort and the restoration of our international credibility

(3) The repairing of our military readiness and the rebuilding of our strategic reserve to face future threats.

Redeployment of U.S. Forces from Iraq

To achieve stability and security in Iraq, I believe we first must have a responsible phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq. General William Odom (U.S. Army, Retired) recently testified, ``We are pursuing the wrong war.''

Stability and security in the Region should be our overarching strategy, not a ``victory in Iraq.'' I agree with General Odom and believe that Regional Stability can only be accomplished through the redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq.

Who wants us to stay in Iraq? In my opinion, Iran and Al Qaeda, because we intensify the very radical extremism we claim to be fighting against, while at the same time depleting our financial and human resources.

As long as the U.S. military continues to occupy Iraq, there will be no real security. Maintaining U.S. troop strength in Iraq or adding to the strength in specified areas, has not proven effective in the past nor do I believe it will work in the future. The Iraq war cannot be won by the U.S. military, predominantly because of the way our military operates. They use overwhelming force, which I advocate to save American lives, but it is counter to winning the hearts and minds of the people.

How to Re-deploy

I recommend the phased redeployment of U.S. forces, first from Saddam's palaces, then from the green zone. Next, from the prime real estate of Iraq's major cities, out of the factories and universities, and finally out of the country all together. We need to give communities back to the Iraqis so they can begin to self govern, begin economic recovery and return to some type of normality. I recommend the adoption of a U.S. policy that encourages and rewards reconstruction and regional investment and one that is dictated and administered not by the United States, but by the Iraqis themselves.

Restoration of International Credibility

I believe that a responsible redeployment from Iraq is the first step necessary in restoring our tarnished international credibility. Since the U.S. invasion of Iraq, our international credibility, even among allies, has plummeted. Stability in Iraq is important not only to the United States, but it is important to the Region and to the entire world. The BBC recently released a poll showing that nearly three- quarters of those polled in 25 countries disapprove of U.S. policies toward Iraq. More than two-thirds said the U.S. military presence in the Middle East does more harm than good. Just 29 percent of respondents said the United States has a general positive influence in the world, down from 40 percent two years ago.

How do we Restore our International Credibility

In order to restore international credibility, I believe it is necessary for the U.S. to completely denounce any aspirations of building permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq; I believe we should shut down the Guantanamo detention facility; and we must bulldoze the Abu Ghraib prison. We must clearly articulate and demonstrate a policy of ``no torture, no exceptions'' and directly engage countries in the region with dialogue instead of directives. This includes allies as well as our perceived adversaries.

Repairing of our Military Readiness and Rebuilding our Strategic

Reserve to Face Future Threats

Our annual Defense spending budget is currently in excess of $450 billion. Above this amount, we are spending $8.4 billion dollars a month in the war in Iraq and yet our strategic reserve is in desperate shape. While we are fighting an asymmetric threat in the short term, we have weakened our ability to respond to what I believe is a grave long term conventional and nuclear threat.

At the beginning of the Iraq war, 80 percent of ALL Army units and almost 100 percent of active combat units were rated at the highest state of readiness. Today, virtually all of our active-duty combat units at home and ALL of our guard units are at the lowest state of readiness, primarily due to equipment shortages resulting from repeated and extended deployments to Iraq. In recent testimony given by a high ranking Pentagon official it was reported that our country is threatened because we lack readiness at home.

Our Army has no strategic reserve, and while it is true that the U.S. Navy and the U.S.

Air Force can be used to project power, there is a limit to what they can achieve. Overall, our military remains capable of projecting power, but we must also be able to sustain that projection, and in this regard there is no replacement for boots on the ground.

How do we Repair Readiness and Rebuild our Strategic Reserve

We must make it a national priority to re-strengthen our military and to repair readiness. I advocate an increase in overall troop strength. The current authorized level is below what I believe is needed to maintain an optimal military. In recent testimony to the Defense Subcommittee that I chair, the Army and Marine Corps Commanders testified that they could not continue to sustain the current deployment practices without an adverse effect on the health and well- being of service members and their families.

For decades, the Army operated on a deployment policy that for every one year of deployment, two years were spent at home. This was considered optimal for re-training, re-equipping and re-constituting. Without relief, the Army will be forced to extend deployments to Iraq to over one year in country and will be forced to send troops back with less than one year at home. The Army reported that a 9-month deployment was preferable. Medical experts testified that in intensive combat, deployments of over 3 months increased the likelihood for service members to develop post traumatic stress disorders. A recent report by the Harvard University School of Government put the total cost of providing medical care and disability benefits to veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan at $350 to $700 billion.

We must invest in the health and well being of our service members by providing for the right amount of troops and for appropriate deployment and rotation cycles. Our military equipment inventories are unacceptably low. The Services report that at least $100 billion more is needed to get them back to ready state. In doing so, we must not neglect investment in military technologies of the future. While we remain bogged down in Iraq, the size and sophistication of other militaries are growing. We must not lose our capability to deter future threats.

Let me conclude by saying historically, whether it was India, Algeria or Afghanistan, foreign occupations do not work, and in fact incite civil unrest. Our military remains the greatest military in the world, but there are limits to its ability to control a population that considers them occupiers.

I have said this before and I continue to say that there are essentially only two plans. One is to continue an occupation that has not worked and that has shown no progress toward stabilization. The other, which I advocate, is to end the occupation of Iraq, redeploy and re-strengthen our military and turn Iraq over to the Iraqis.

The Waters-Boehner Coalition

(By Scott Lilly, Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress)

The U.S. House of Representatives is an unusual place and

politics makes strange bedfellows. But the coalition to block

funding for U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and improve

the deplorable state of medical care for our returning

veterans is one for the record books.

Led by House Minority Leader John Boehner on the right and

Los Angeles Congresswoman Maxine Waters on the left, the

coalition is striving to put together enough votes to block

passage of the $124 billion spending package expected to go

to the House Floor on Friday. Boehner, hoping to get nearly

all House Republicans to vote against the measure, contends:

. . . there is only one way to do the right thing: fully-

fund the troops without strings attached . . . Setting

timelines is no different than handing the enemy our war plan

itself. It serves as a road map for the terrorists to plot

maneuvers against American men and women in uniform.

Micromanaging the war from Capitol is, by any standard or

definition, a recipe for disaster.

Boehner also opposes ``incomprehensible spending'' on

``unrelated, non-emergency'' items not requested by the White

House. This includes among other things, $2.8 billion to

address the health care problems confronting returning

veterans--funds to address the problems at Walter Reed;

improve treatment of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and

Traumatic Brain Injury; speed the processing of veteran

requests for entry into the VA medical system and clean up

the $550 million maintenance backlog at VA health facilities.

Boehner also objects to more than $3 billion in unrequested

funds to cope with other military needs, primarily correcting

the shortfall in the readiness of military units being sent

into combat.

Waters reaches the same conclusion as Boehner based on an

entirely different assessment of the facts:

Not only did the American public speak loudly and clearly

last Nov. 7, but poll after poll reinforces the message that

Americans want their troops home now. The president's

supplemental request is just what the word ``supplemental''

implies--additional funds to expand and continue this war. I

believe that there is enough money available in the pipeline

to fund a planned exit. I will vote against the supplemental

unless the additional funds are used to fully fund the safe,

secure and timely withdrawal of our troops by Dec. 31

Boehner wants no strings attached and Waters not only wants

strings, but shorter and stronger strings. Boehner does not

like the pressure that the bill places on the President to

bring an end to the U.S. military presence in Iraq and Waters

does not want to end U.S. presence through pressure but

rather mandate it by law. As a result both want to defeat

money needed for fuel, ammunition, spare parts and medical

care for those presently in harms way.

Both also in my judgment misread the mood of the American

people and are wrong on the best course for the country. The

American people overwhelmingly oppose the war but they even

more overwhelmingly oppose anything that would put the brave

men and women we have called into service at greater risk. No

war in American history has ended as the result of a

legislative fiat. Even Vietnam, which is the closest

parallel, was ended because of political pressure rather than

legislative direction. The right way to end our presence in

Iraq is for the Executive and Legislative branches of our

government to reach an accommodation on Iraq policy.

The Bush Administration needs Congress to support its

military and foreign policy objectives and the language in

the Supplemental now pending sends a clear message that such

support will be contingent upon a plan for an ordered

withdrawal--a withdrawal that protects our troops and

American interests in the region.

But what Waters and her supporters seem to fail to

recognize is that the Congress needs the White House. That

may be hard for some to accept but extracting U.S. forces

from the violence now besieging much of Iraq will be a

complex and hazardous process. It will take the best planners

that the Defense Department can find; it will take strong

leadership on the part of commanders and hard choices in

terms of both military and political priorities. Equally

important it will take extensive diplomatic consultation on

both a regional and global basis. None of those things can be

accomplished by the Congress. It is not the way our

government was designed and it is not the way it works. If

the two branches cannot reach accommodation there will be

hell to pay and those who have already been asked to pay the

most will be forced to pay again.

The language contained in the supplemental demands that the

Iraqi government meet certain bench marks and provided those

benchmarks are achieved, begins redeployment of American

forces in March of next year. It also requires that if the

White House believes that it must violate long standing

Pentagon policies on the readiness of military units sent

into combat, the length of deployments into combat zones and

the length of time between deployments the President must

fully explain why he is ordering a violation of those

policies.

This is very strong pressure on a President that is very

strong willed. It is the beginning of a process which will

either bring the two powerful branches of our government

together in mutual accommodation or push the country closer

to a Constitutional crisis. It is the first step in a process

that will either fortunately or unfortunately continue all

year.

Following the Friday House vote on the Supplemental, that

legislation will come before the Senate and the final version

will be crafted in a conference committee in April and

presented to both houses for final approval by the end of

that month. Within weeks the House will begin deliberation on

the Fiscal 2008 Defense Appropriation which will remain under

various stages of consideration until September. There will

be numerous opportunities for Congress to strengthen its

demands with respect to Iraq and for the Administration to

respond. What opponents of the War cannot do at this juncture

is overplay their hand and slow the growth of public

sentiment and political pressure against the current Iraq

policy and its supporters.

Boehner is also playing a high risk game. He is putting the

Congressional wing of his party on record as opposing

measures to require that the troops are well trained and well

equipped before they are sent into deadly conflict. He is

opposing funds his own President says the troops need now and

he is opposing medical care for the troops once they return.

Simultaneously, he is saying that the Congress should not

apply pressure to the White House for a new strategy to pull

us out of Iraq. That is a position that is not only opposed

by nearly all Democrats but by an overwhelming majority of

independents and a substantial share of Republicans. It is

not a particularly smart way to redefine the Republican Party

in the wake of the drubbing his part took in last fall's

elections.

The supplemental is not perfect. There is probably no one

who supports every provision. But there is much that is good

in the bill and begins the process by which the Congress and

the White House can come together on a solution that is best

for the country. It is not as simple or straight forward as

many would like but it is the process that our founding

fathers bestowed on us and it is the only approach that can

bring an ordered end to this catastrophic engagement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will yield.

I take my time back.

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

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

Yes.

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize the accomplishments of Special Agent James G. Macfarlane, currently the Deputy Inspector General and Deputy Assistant Director for the Office of Inspections of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, NCIS. He will retire on March 1, 2007, after more than 23 years of service to our great Nation.

Jim began his career as a special agent with the then Naval Investigative Service in 1983 as a general crimes investigator at Portsmouth, VA. Special Agent Macfarlane was then selected as the Special Agent Afloat aboard the USS John F. Kennedy (CV-67) in June 1985. While serving aboard the JFK, Jim helped arrange law enforcement and force protection support required as the JFK was selected to participate in the rededication of the Statue of Liberty and the first naval ``OPSAIL'' celebration in New York City.

In 1986, Jim was selected as the Representational Resident Agent (RRA) at the Naval Investigative Service resident Unit in Misawa, Japan. In 1989, Jim was reassigned to NCIS Headquarters and worked in the Offensive Counterintelligence Operations Division, where he served with distinction for 5 years. During this time, SA Macfarlane was selected to attend Strategic Arms Reduction Training and deployed to Votkinsk, Russia, for 3 weeks in 1992 as the inspection team's CI specialist. In January 1994, Jim was selected to attend the Military Operations Training Course. In May 1994, he was reassigned as senior special agent working counterintelligence cases in Okinawa, Japan.

In 1996, Jim was selected as a Supervisory Special Agent (SSA) and began his first supervisory assignment at the NCIS Washington DC Field office where he provided Counterintelligence support to Navy special access programs. In 1997, Jim established the NCIS office at the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren, VA, where he was cited by DoD for setting the standard in providing Counterintelligence support to Navy Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RTD&E) programs. In 1999, Jim returned to the Washington DC field office, where he became the SSA for all offensive CI activities. In 2000, he was selected as the SSA for the Office of Special Projects and in August 2001, Jim was promoted to GS-14 and selected as the Assistant Special Agent-in-Charge (ASAC), NCIS Middle East Field Office, in Manama Bahrain.

Jim served as the sole ASAC during a period of great national interest and military activity, supporting both OPERATIONS ENDURING FREEDOM and IRAQI FREEDOM. Jim brought great credit upon himself and the NCIS during his tenure in the Middle East and was awarded the Superior Civilian Service Award.

In July 2003, Jim was promoted to GS-15 and assigned as the Senior NCIS Representative to Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC). For his significant efforts at HQMC, he was awarded the Marine Corps' Meritorious Civilian Service Award. In 2005, Jim was selected for his current position as the Deputy Inspector General.

I wish to express my gratitude to Special Agent MacFarlane for his many years of distinguished service to this country.

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

I hope as I see those pages fluttering over there it is not an indication that we are going to have a long debate. I hope for the record that we are not going to see that.

We worked assiduously for 6 months to get this bill together. It is the tightest, toughest bill I have ever seen in the 25 years I have been on this committee. We sure don't want a lot of rhetoric to elucidate on what happened here. So I am prepared to yield back my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 25th anniversary of a community service organization in my congressional district. Housed in Tanneryville, a suburban area near the city of Johnstown, PA, Peniel Residential Drug and Alcohol Treatment Center is a successful comprehensive treatment program that offers help to both men and women 18 years of age and older who are suffering from the effects of substance abuse.

Through the use of an individualized treatment plan, each client has his or her needs addressed on a personal level for the length of the treatment period, which is between 12 and 18 months.

The aim and driving force behind the Peniel program is to help people overcome their addictions and learn how to live effective and productive lives as contributing members of their communities.

Treating roughly 45 patients at a time on a revolving basis, Peniel has helped hundreds of people break the chains of drug and alcohol addiction through a religious, community-centered program.

One of the best and most gratifying by-products of the program is the considerable number of graduates who now call the Johnstown area their home, having successfully integrated back into society as business owners and community leaders leading a healthy life.

In addition to equipping each resident with the ability to maintain his or her sobriety, Peniel empowers clients to manage their immediate environment and to have a positive influence in their homes, churches and communities following completion of the program.

Again, I offer my congratulations to Peniel for reaching the milestone of its 25th anniversary. I am confident that, with such excellent programs, the organization will continue to be a vital asset to the region for another 25 years and beyond.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate a good friend whom most of us have the pleasure to know, Mrs. Bill Young, or as she prefers to be known to our wounded troops, simply ``Beverly.'' Beverly has been recognized by the United States Marine Corps for her extraordinary commitment to our wounded troops with The Dickey Chapelle Award.

This annual award recognizes civilians who have given extraordinary contribution to the Corps. It is named in honor of the memory of the late Dickey Chapelle, an American correspondent who was killed while covering the actions of Marine infantrymen engaged in combat against enemy forces during the Vietnam war.

Mr. Speaker, this is a well-deserved honor. Beverly and her husband, my friend and colleague, Chairman C.W. ``Bill'' Young, of Florida, have quietly shown a level of sincere, personal compassion and devotion to our fighting men and women that is not often seen in Washington. They do it without fanfare or seeking recognition in a way that reminds me of the greatness of the American spirit.

The men and women who fight for this country have an uncanny ability to overcome extraordinary odds, both on the battlefield and in life. However, when they are lying in a hospital bed in excruciating pain from terrible, debilitating injuries, there simply is no more difficult personal challenge in this world than trying to recover, physically and mentally.

To Beverly Young, each and every one of them is her child. If she could, I have no doubt she would go into battle with them. Instead, she must content herself with fighting for them in the hospital wards and the bureaucratic halls of Washington as a volunteer.

In truth, ``content'' is probably the wrong word. Beverly has never been patient when seeing to it that the troops are receiving what they need and has no qualms about making her feelings known when she sees a problem where they are concerned. She takes action in a way that immediately gets attention and results. As a former drill sergeant myself, it strikes me that she would have made a good one. Affectionately known as ``The Hurricane'' in the halls of Bethesda and Walter Reed hospitals, she says and does whatever it takes to see that the troops have their needs taken care of. This includes everything from chewing out staff to writing to the President. In neither case does she mince words.

One soldier who was slipping into a catatonic state from so much pain medication credits her with saving his life, literally. She did this by walking out on the experts who were discussing putting him in a psychiatric ward, running into his room and yelling in his ear that he must fight to get better or she and the Commandant would ``kick his ass.'' The soldier promptly ``snapped to,'' and is now back home working in Idaho.

When she got wind that the rules about soldiers receiving donations were being tightened at some bureaucratic level in the Pentagon, she shot off a letter to President Bush expressing her outrage and demanding immediate attention to correct the grievance to her beloved troops. She has impacted the lives of the troops in countless ways, from prompting major policy changes through her vocal advocacy to the generous gift of her personal time one-on-one with the wounded.

Beverly is not an occasional visitor; she is there constantly for these young men and women and their families, becoming as familiar to them as anyone else they encounter during their stay. She is fiercely protective of them. She is not formal or aloof; she insists that the troops call her Beverly. She vastly prefers spending time in the company of these wounded heroes to attending stiff official Washington functions. She will hold their hand for hours when they have no one else to be with them. She feeds them, brings them contraband, slips cash to their families from her own pocket, and hits up everyone she knows, including her own doctor, for all types of donations, whether in-kind or monetary. She LISTENS to each and every one of them to find out what they need and if they don't have it, she goes and gets it, whatever it is, from whoever she has to get it from, and brings it to them. She and Bill regularly take them out to dinner.

And perhaps most importantly of all, she sits with them and tells them how much they are loved.

This, Mr. Speaker, is no small contribution to this country. I know of no one who has given more time and energy to making sure these young men and women know that someone cares about each and every one of them and that they can make it through this horrific experience of being wounded in battle. With her intense, unique, passionate style and commitment, Beverly has earned the respect of everyone she meets, military and civilian, politician and bureaucrat. I have no doubt in my mind that Beverly Young has made a tremendous impact in the lives of our service men and women. This country is a better place for her example.

So, Mr. Speaker, today I come to the People's House to recognize and congratulate Mrs. Beverly Young for her selfless service to our brave young men and women who courageously defend this country. Congratulations, Beverly, and thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to yield back the balance of my time so we can get right to the amendment process so they can strike the last word. I am prepared to yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Chairman, I want to assure the gentlewoman from California I agree, we certainly should not overthrow a democratically elected government. I appreciate the gentlewoman's long concern and attention to raising this issue. And I want to assure her that as this bill moves forward we will be mindful to work with her and her staff to do everything we can to help.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas for a colloquy. She has an amendment, but I hope we can discuss this.

Mr. Chairman, I want to assure the gentlewoman from Texas that both the chairman and I have done everything we can to make sure that the pay is comparable with the civilian sector. In the past it was usually opposite.

And what we are concerned about in the amendment you were going to offer was where it came from. So we are going to work something out. If there is an increase in the civilian pay, you can be assured that the Defense Department will get the same increase.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to restore funding for an important national program known as PASIS, Perpetually Available and Secure Information Systems program.

I appreciate it.

Mr. Chairman, nobody has worked harder than Bill Young, his wife and myself in taking care of these troops at all the hospitals, all over the country. Just last year we put in money to start a new center for rehabilitation of people that had lost their limbs and so forth.

We appreciate your recommendation. We hope you withdraw the amendment, and we will continue to work toward full funding, as much as we think is absolutely necessary for all these hospitals.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I think that this amendment does the opposite of what he would hope. It sends a signal to the American public: we expect to spend time there forever. Permanent bases can be negotiated at any time with the government. What we are saying with this bill is that at this point in time there shouldn't be any permanent bases in Iraq. And when you strike this language, it does the opposite of the impact the gentleman wants to have.

As I travel around the country, I hear this all the time. I hear the President say no permanent bases, I hear the Secretary of Defense say no permanent bases in Iraq. I am just reiterating what the policy of this country is, that we shouldn't have permanent bases in Iraq.

Once we start down this road of permanent bases, I remember reading something where Harry Truman said we would be out of Germany in two or three years; we were there for 50 or 60 years. We are spending almost $8 billion a day, or a month, in Iraq. And I think one of the bases that we were going to build, the construction costs were almost double what they anticipated the permanent base we were looking at or at least the temporary base we were looking at would be. I can't imagine what a permanent base would cost if you are going to build it. You have got to have permanent security. There are all kinds of things that have to be built in.

This is not the time to eliminate a provision like this, and I would hope that the gentleman would withdraw this amendment because it is very disruptive to what our troops are doing. We are trying to figure out a way to solve this problem. And when the gentleman offers an amendment like this, I think it has the opposite impact of what he is trying to do.

If the gentleman would yield, is it the gentleman's understanding that such interrogation is not currently being videotaped?

I can see some merit to what the gentleman is recommending, and certainly I will bring it up to the conferees when we get to conference, and we will see what they say and get some expert opinions. I can see some merit in what the gentleman is proposing, and I will certainly do my best to work something out.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I think you are absolutely right. Matter of fact, 10 years ago, we put language in that would allow them to produce jet fuel from coal. The Air Force did not particularly like it, did not particularly agree with it, but now this particular year they said to me this could reduce the cost of their fuel substantially. So I agree with you, and we will do everything we can to work this thing out.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and ask for a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

There are a lot of ideas that Members of Congress come up with that the Department of Defense initially opposes, and then they find out all at once they work.

For instance, some years ago we came up with a research project to produce fuel for jets out of coal, and now you would think it was the Air Force's idea, and we will save as much as 50 percent of oil costs for the jet fuel. This is something where the commercial side is way ahead, and we certainly ought to be trying to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. I would ask for a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

The problem we have here is those of us who have been briefed on the program, even though admittedly we were not briefed until it became public, can't talk about the program. I was briefed for an hour and 45 minutes, and I feel comfortable that there are adequate safeguards. But we can't talk about the safeguards.

I asked NSA, what can we say about the program and not violate the security? And they said, well, you have to look at what the President said. Well, I looked at what the President said, and he didn't say very much. This is a real problem we are getting into, and the more we talk about it, the more difficult it makes it.

Now you are actually authorizing this program. If you vote for this, you authorize this program. You say you have safeguards. That is what you are going to have. If this passes, this authorizes this program. At one point we couldn't even say that this program existed. So I think this is a very difficult time for those of us who have been briefed about it.

And I know there are a lot of people in the executive branch that know about it. But the way I read this amendment, you say follow the proper procedure and you agree with the amendment. You agree with the procedures. I think that there is some real benefit if they do it right. But if this passes, I think you ought to know this is authorizing the program. And if it

fails, you are saying, in fact, let them go ahead and not pass. So we are in a catch-22 position here, Mr. Chairman. And we can't talk about it at all. And I think we have to be careful that more and more people don't talk about it so that more people don't know the value of the program. We have got a heck of a problem here. And I recommend we vote against it. But if we vote against it, then we actually are saying, well, you can go ahead with the program as it is. And yet I believe there are enough safeguards. But if we pass it, we actually are authorizing the program.

I don't even know if we can work it out, Mr. Chairman, because there are so few people that really know about the program.

I will be glad to yield.

Let me take back the time. I agree with that. I agree. And I think there are sufficient safeguards in the program already. We are in a bad situation here, Mr. Chairman. I don't know that I can say any more.

I agree.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.

I think at times we have an arrogance in the Defense Department when they ignore not the regulations, but what we are trying to do in this legislation. We expected them to talk to the people working in the Defense Department.

I have never seen a better workforce than we have in the United States when it comes to the civilians who support our troops out in the field and civilians who work for the Defense Department, and we have tried several years now to get them to do more negotiations. They have continually ignored our advice, and I am very nervous about the way they have handled things.

I have never seen so many union representatives come to me and say, we have asked them for this, and then the court, the court itself, says they are not being treated fairly.

So I would hope we could accept this amendment or at least vote this amendment. It is a little broader than I would like, but we can always adjust that if we have to at some other point.

I would advise, recommend the Members they support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will yield, we have no problem with the amendment on our side.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and ask for a ``no'' vote.

I appreciate what the gentlewoman from Texas said, and I hope we can work something out. It is always a delicate situation where one family, maybe more than one soldier or service person comes in at the same time. But I hope we can work something out in line with what she is talking about if the family is interested in doing this. I appreciate what she is saying and the statement and sentiment behind what she is trying to do.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and ask for a ``no'' vote.