Floor Statements

I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge) for a unanimous consent request.

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

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

I want to go over a couple of things here that some of it was talked about yesterday and I said we need a plan. We also need a change of direction.

Now, why do I say we need a change of direction? A number of people brought up Beirut. I remember being on the floor, and the Speaker of the House asked me to go to Beirut after the President had deployed 1,400 troops to Beirut. Go over to Beirut, see what is going on. I did.

A friend of mine who had been in Vietnam with me was there, the commanding officer, and the rules we engaged in were very loose. Only had 1,400 people, did not even have people on the high ground to protect themselves. They were shooting down at the Marines down in the valley.

I came back and I told the President, I told Weinberger, I told Tip O'Neill, you have got to get them out of there. They did not, 241 Marines were killed.

The President saw it was a mistake; he changed direction. One thing about President Reagan, he understood when to change. He understood when you change direction. He had one of the biggest tax cuts in the history of Congress, and then he had one of the biggest tax increases. People forget he had a tax increase because he wanted to change direction.

He changed directions in Central America. I supported him. They burned me in effigy back at home because I supported Reagan all through the Central American thing, but we came to compromise in the end, and he saw we had to change direction and he did.

What I am saying today, Somalia, I told President Bush I, do not go into Somalia because if you go into Somalia you will not be able to get out. He said to me, I will have them out by inauguration day. He had lost the election by that time. He went in after the election was over, and he said, I will have them out by inauguration day. Well, he did not get them all out by inauguration day, and we changed direction there. We changed direction in the wrong direction. We went after Adide, who was a tribal leader. We sent in special forces. They bungled the thing. They fired the Secretary of Defense. They had accountability, and President Clinton changed direction. We redeployed.

So these are not times to criticize Presidents. This is something that needed to be done.

Now, we are in the same position here. Iraqi civilian deaths, 2003, 250; Iraqi civilian deaths in 2006, 1,500 a month. Went from we are there, we are not someplace else, we are there, and that is how many deaths. Iraqi kidnappings per day, 2003, two; today, there is 35 a day, 35 a day. U.S. troop fatalities, there were 37 in May of 2003; in May of 2006, 68. We are there. We are there as occupiers in Iraq. Iraqi Army police fatalities were 10 in 2003; 149 in May of this year.

Now, this is not progress. We are on the ground with 138,000 troops. The number of estimated insurgents, and I do not know how they find out who they are, but he said there is 3,000, Mr. Speaker, in May of 2003. There is now 20,000 insurgents. Now why did that come about? Because they look at us as occupiers.

Only the Iraqis can solve this problem. The United States cannot solve the problem as a foreign occupier, and our troops are caught in between a civil war.

Daily attacks by insurgents, 2003, there were five per day; today, there is 90. Monthly incidents of sectarian violence, you want to know what sectarian violence is? Sectarian violence is civil war. May 2003, 5; May of 2006, 250. We are there. We are there in the country, and it has increased from 5 to 250.

So do not tell me stay the course is the answer. We need a change in direction. We need to assess this situation and change. All of us want the same solution. We want a stable Middle East. It is important not only to the United States; it is important to the international community.

Bush I worked with the international community, and he got a coalition together, and it was successful, and he knew the limitations of what he could do. He did not go into Iraq, even though there were some zealots who wanted to go into Iraq. He knew, and he said in his book, If I go into Iraq, I will have to occupy it, I will have to reconstruct it, and I will lose the coalition. So he did not go into Iraq, and he was absolutely right. I supported him at the time, even though a lot of people had said they did not support what he was doing.

Somebody yesterday said, oh, you cannot measure the amount of water they have per day, that does not mean anything, the amount of electricity. Let me tell you something. I was without electricity for 8 hours last winter. It is not pleasant. I was cold. Now, it does not get that cold in Iraq, but I was without it for 8 hours and the house got cold. I thought to myself, in Iraq, they only have sometimes 8 to 10 hours of electricity a day. Water, they have 1 hour of water.

There is less oil production than before. Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz said we are going to pay for this with the oil production. Well, it has fallen far short of that. I think the OMB chairman, I think he at the time predicted this war would cost maybe $50 billion, and Wolfowitz said it would cost nothing because they would pay for it. Well, right now we have spent $450 billion. The longer we stay, the more we pay, in lives, in hurt to the families, the more we pay in financial resources.

It took us 15 years to get over the Vietnam War. We had 18 percent interest rates. We had 13 percent unemployment. Through the Reagan administration the Federal Reserve had to increase rates to 21 percent. I remember because at the time I was trying to buy a house. I remember trying to buy it at first, and I said 7 percent, I am not going to pay 7 percent. It went up to 21 percent. So we suffered because it was guns and butter. Here it is the tax cuts and troops in the field paying for the war.

So stay and pay is not a solution. I say redeploy and be ready. Get our troops out of harm's way and put them on the periphery and let the Iraqis settle this themselves. Only the Iraqis can settle this, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Vietnam is the same thing. I believed in my mission in Vietnam. All of us believed in it, but in 1967 when I came back from Vietnam, they had an election. President Lyndon Johnson said everything's all right. Matter of fact, I have a bullet that they gave me, that the first Marines gave to us when we left there that said everything's all right. We all believed in our mission. That did not mean we were going to win the war. That is the problem.

At times we have to change direction. When we look at the Vietnam War, there was an election right after I came back in 1967, and President Lyndon Johnson said, now it is all over, they will be able to do this themselves. 37,000 Americans killed after that, and you know the results. It was not because of the public. It was because the enemy kept forcing us into the type of war they were fighting. It was the kind of war we cannot fight. We could have gone all out and obviously destroyed Hanoi, but we had to worry about the Russians and the Chinese.

This is a real problem. It is guerrilla-type war, and when we fight, we have to use overwhelming force. When we use overwhelming force, you make enemies, and when you make enemies, you lose the hearts and minds.

I am saying the same thing you are. We want to win some kind of, I do not say victory. We want to win stability in the Middle East. That is the key because it is important to the free world. That is what is so important.

So we all are saying the same thing. One of the top generals said to me, that part cannot be won militarily all the time they will say. General Pace said it cannot be won militarily. So how do we do it? Diplomatically, politically and when the Iraqis say we are going to give amnesty to people that kill Americans, I mean, they fired the guy, okay, but that is a signal to them. We have 47 percent of the Iraqis say that they want to kill Americans. They think that is patriotic for them to kill Americans. That is disturbing to me.

The reason I started speaking out, one of the reasons, I remember I was in the hospital. One young woman said to me, with her husband lying there on the bed, wounded after a second trip, she said, you know, he did not enlist, this woman said, to fight for the Iraqis. He enlisted to fight for America.

It has got to be in the national security interest of America.

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

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

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Democratic leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), who, on her first trip overseas went with me to Iraq to talk to the troops and tell them how much she supported the troops.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to make a couple of the comments, and then I will reserve my time.

The gentleman just before I spoke talked about how long it took America to get its independence. Actually, it is more than just 6 or 7 years, it went on through the Civil War, but they were all Americans. It was not an occupying force that was trying to force democracy on the United States. Can you imagine what we would have done if we had an occupying force here trying to force democracy on the United States? It would not have worked. But of course they were not democracies in most cases anyway.

So I just want to point out that in Iraq we have become the occupiers, and 47 percent of the people in Iraq, and this is a poll only 3 months old, says it is okay to kill Americans. One of the officials in the Iraqi government offered amnesty.

Since I spoke out on November 17, things have gotten worse. We have 130,000 troops in Iraq. Every day it gets worse. From May to May, it gets worse and worse. It is not a matter of stay the course. It is a matter of change direction.

I said a little earlier, Ronald Reagan understood when it was time to change direction. He did one of the biggest tax cuts in history. He turned around a little bit later and adjusted that. This didn't call it a tax increase, it was an adjustment.

In Beirut he decided we have to make a change, it won't work. In Somalia, President Clinton did the same thing. And over that mistake, and it was a substantial mistake, the Secretary of Defense resigned because he had lost the confidence of the military in the way he handled the situation in Somalia. We changed direction there. We went in the wrong direction. We went after a tribal leader named Aideed.

In Iraq, unfortunately, the way we operate as a military, and there is no one who understands better than the gentleman with the 173rd in California, understands what the military does when it goes into a place. You have to use overwhelming force. I promote that. I am in favor of that. I do everything I can to make sure that the military has what they need to prevail and protect American lives.

But when you do that, you inadvertently kill people and you make enemies. Abu Ghraib was another example of the enemies that we made, and the public relations battle has been lost worldwide. People have discredited the United States and have little confidence in our ability.

Somebody brought up Spain yesterday. They said ask Spain about terrorism. Well, 56 percent of the people in Spain think the United States is more of a threat in Iraq than Iran is in the world. So we have got a lot of things we can talk about as rhetoric. The facts are the situation is not getting better. We have 130,000 troops on the ground and only Iraqis can handle this.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to me, we stand here and fight in the air-conditioned Chambers of the United States Congress where these fellows are walking around in Iraq, men and women, with 70 pounds every day facing IEDs, never knowing when they may go off with tremendous stress. They are being deployed three and four times. It is easy to stay in an air-conditioned office and say I'm going to stay the course.

But let me tell you something, those troops, I hope they believe in what they are doing. That's what America is all about. But standing here and talking about policy and criticizing people just because they disagree with a policy is absolutely absurd. All of us support the troops and want them to come home as soon as they can.

What we need is a change in direction so we will be able to work this out. All of us want stability in the Middle East. That is what this whole thing is all about. We just disagree on how you do it. We disagree. Ever since the troops have been there, everything has gotten worse.

Electricity production is below pre-war levels; water only 1 hour a day in some parts. In Anbar Province no water. 90 percent unemployment. Not one project in Anbar Province. So it is not a matter of whether it is good or not. It is a matter only that the Iraqi's should solve this thing.

And when I hear somebody standing here sanctimoniously saying we are going to fight this out, we are not fighting at all. It is the troops that are doing the fighting, the families that are doing the sacrificing, a very small proportion of families in this country are doing the sacrificing. And that is why I get so upset when they stand here sanctimoniously saying we are fighting this thing. It is the troops that are doing the fighting, not the Members of Congress that are doing the fighting.

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

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

I didn't mean to imply that the gentleman from California is sanctimonious. It is just some of the speakers have been sanctimonious. But that is not the point. We want the same thing. We want stability in the Middle East. It is important. We use more oil than any other country in the world, 20.6 million barrels of oil a day. The closest to us is China with 6 million barrels of oil a day. The whole free world wants stability in the Middle East. It is how we get it.

What I am saying is there is more instability in Iraq because of us, because of our troops. They have become occupiers. This is the thing that worries me. That is why I think we have to change direction.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I would just point out to the Speaker that Franklin Roosevelt might have said that, but he waited till they attacked us at Pearl Harbor before he took any action. He tried to build up the forces, but certainly didn't take any military action until we were attacked at Pearl Harbor.

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

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

The problem is, 42 percent of the people don't know what the mission is. When I talk to the young folks in the hospitals, they tell me their mission is to go out and find IEDs. That is explosive devices. Their mission is to be a target.

Hey, we all agree with everything that the gentleman from California said, Mr. Speaker. We agree. We support the troops. We have done everything we can do. It is the policy we disagree with. It is a change in direction we want. We are staying and we are paying and we are paying with troops' lives. We are paying with financial resources.

The first gulf war the United States paid $5 billion. We had 500,000 American troops. We had 160,000 coalition troops. President Bush I did a marvelous job, one of the finest international coalitions in the history of the United States. They paid and they produced and they supported. But he knew how far he could go. He understood the enemy and he understood what could be done. And he was willing to change direction. When they thought they had enough troops, General Schwartzkopf said he needed more troops, he put more troops on the ground.

So I am convinced all of us agree we want a solution. But the American troops, unfortunately, have become occupiers. And 80 percent of the Iraqis want us out of there. And I have a piece of paper here that the Vice President of Iraq, here, Tuesday night on the way home on Air Force One, President Bush said there are concerns about commitment in keeping our troops there. They are worried about it to a person. They said they will leave before capable.

Then the Associated Press reports, yesterday morning Iraqi's Vice President has asked President Bush for a timetable for withdrawal of foreign forces from Iraq. And Iraq's Vice President's office said Vice President of Iraq made the request during his meeting with Bush on Tuesday when the U.S. President made a surprise visit. I supported him, the President said. Eighty percent of the Iraqi people want us out. They want to solve these problems themselves. The Americans cannot force democracy on Iraq.

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

Mr. Daniel E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller).

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

Mr. Speaker, I have three unanimous consent requests.

I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous-consent request to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

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

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

Let me go over what I said before.

All of us applaud the elections. All of us applaud the fact that Zarqawi was caught and the way he was caught, using Iraqis, giving information to Iraqis, and the United States operating and going in and eliminating Zarqawi.

The problem is because of the way we handled this at first, it got out of hand, and United States forces had to use overwhelming force in many cases. Fallujah, for instance, they went in and put 300,000 people outside their homes. Only 100,000 have come back.

Now, in Anbar Province they have no electricity at all. They have 2 million people there. They have zero projects in Anbar Province. That is the province where we had the most trouble. And then as I go through the liturgy of things that have happened with 130,000 troops there, this is the point: in May of 2003, we had 3,000 insurgents. In May of 2006, we have 20,000 insurgents. Now, we are there. The United States forces are occupying Iraq. The estimated number of foreign fighters in 2003 was 100. This comes from our intelligence people. And today there is an estimated 1,500. I think it is a little less than that, but it is estimated at 1,500.

Now, think. We have got 130,000 troops. They supposedly have 265,000, police and army trained. They have more confidence in their army than they have in the United States forces; yet there are only 1,000 foreign fighters. We have sectarian violence which is, in my estimation, a civil war and we are caught in between. Our troops have become the targets in a civil war.

All of us want this thing to be resolved. This is absolutely essential to stability in the free world because of the energy that comes from the Middle East. But how we do it is what we disagree with. As long as American troops are there, we actually are attracting terrorism.

Do you know who wants us in Iraq? al Qaeda wants us in Iraq. Iran wants us in Iraq. North Korea wants us in Iraq. Russia wants us in Iraq, and China wants us in Iraq. Why? Because we are depleting our financial resources and our human resources. Because we are destroying the future viability of the Army. We have $50 billion in backlog right now for the Army, equipment that needs to be repaired. We have had to lower the standards for the Army, taking category 4s, which we did not take for a long time. We have had Air Force people and Navy people we transferred over to the Army because they do not have enough people. And we can talk about reenlistment, but they had no reeinlistment bonuses that I know of during the old days. They now have up to $150,000 that they pay people in reenlistment bonuses. So we are having real problems. I agree the troops are doing everything they can. Their mission is actually accomplished.

But let me go on. Monthly attacks on oil and gas assets: there were five in 2003, and it has gotten worse in 2006. Oil production is less than the prewar level. Oil production. Somebody complained not long ago that electricity doesn't make any difference. Let me tell you something. If you have ever gone without electricity in your house, you know that it makes a difference.

I am just saying that we have 130,000 troops there, and it is not going well. That is what I am saying. I am saying we have a problem, and our troops are not able to solve the problem. We have become the enemy. It has got to be won on the ground.

We are giving a microphone to be people like Zarqawi. We talk about Zarqawi. We talk about all these foreign leaders and what they say. Why should we pay attention to what they say? Why should we pay attention when Zarqawi says they are going to drive us out of there? That is just rhetoric. That is only rhetoric.

The only way it is going to be won is a change of direction. I gave some examples before. When President Reagan went into Beirut, he went in with 1,400 people, and he decided he needed to change direction. When he had the biggest tax cut in history at that time, he decided he had to make some adjustments later on. He changed direction.

When President Bush went into Somalia, President Clinton changed direction in Somalia because we made a mistake and we went after Adid. There are times in our history when we have to be big enough as a country to change direction.

All of us want the same thing: stability in the Middle East. All of us want to find a way to stabilize the Middle East. If we stay, we are going to pay; and we are going to pay long term. After the Vietnam War, it cost us through the Reagan administration to pay for it. Now, I voted against every tax cut because I felt very strongly that we couldn't fight a war and cut taxes. Now, there is an argument about that and you can argue about the benefit of the tax cut. But you cannot fight a war and have tax cuts. And we will have spent $450 billion by the end of this fiscal year.

My proposal, if anybody has read, is to redeploy and be ready. Redeploy to the periphery. Now, we went after Zarqawi. What happened when we went after Zarqawi? The Iraqis reported to the Iraqis, and then the Iraqis reported to the United States forces and they worked together. This did not come from inside Iraq. This came from outside Iraq. This was the periphery. The F-16s came from outside of the country to go after him. And this was not something that just happened overnight. This was a long-term thing that they had been working on for a long time.

So in my estimation, the only way we can change things in Iraq is to change direction. It has to be changed on the ground. What we say here today, as President Abraham Lincoln said in the Gettysburg Address, is going to mean very little. It will get lost in the rhetoric. What means something is what happens on the ground. All of us support the troops. If you vote for the appropriation bill, the defense appropriation bill, you vote to support the troops. If you voted for the Armed Services bill, you voted to support the troops.

I believe this resolution, if you vote for it, you are voting to support a failed policy wrapped in illusion. And I would recommend to the Members they vote against this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the time allocated by House Resolution 868 to the ranking minority members of four committees instead be controlled by the minority leader or her designees.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 minutes.

All of us know, all of us understand stability in Iraq is important, not only to the United States but to the world.

It is no secret that Iraq is of particular importance because of its oil. The United States consumes 20.6 billion barrels of oil per day. Yet we produce only 5.1 billion barrels of oil a day. China is the second largest consumer, with 6.9 million barrels per day, and they produce 3.6 million barrels per day. Iraq has the fourth largest oil reserve in the world. Saudi Arabia is number one, Canada number two and Iran number three. So all of us agree Iraq is important. But how do we get to a conclusion?

Let me compare Gulf War I with Gulf War II. In Gulf War I, Kuwait was attacked by Saddam Hussein. It was a brutal attack. President Bush I immediately reacted. He sent his emissary, Secretary Cheney, to Saudi Arabia. They got an agreement from Saudi Arabia to use their land to put troops in. He immediately sent in the Airborne Division, and he immediately sent in F-16 fighters to deter Saddam Hussein. All of us knew that there was a possibility at that time that he would have complete control of the oil in the Middle East. So we knew how important it was.

Then President Bush started calling up the Reserves. He called a number of Members of Congress over to the White House, and he consulted and talked to them. I do not remember if the gentleman from Illinois was there, but there were seven or eight of us went to the White House. We talked to him about calling up the Reserves and having other people pay.

This is important not only to the United States. This is important internationally. This oil supply, this stability in the Middle East is important to the whole world, and he went to work. He called every major nation. He called Egypt, and this was no easy task for these countries to come around to decide to support the United States.

Matter of fact, President Mubarak said to me that King Hussein came to him and said if you support the United States, you will cut the throat of Saddam Hussein, and yet Egypt decided that they were going to go along with us.

Then he talked about that we needed to have a U.N. resolution, which we did have. Then we had to have a resolution in the Congress of the United States. But the big thing that he promoted was he got a coalition together, and this coalition ended up with 400,000 American troops and 160,000 coalition troops.

And I remember during this debate, I remember calling Secretary Cheney, calling General Scowcroft saying, you have got 250,000 troops over there, you don't need any more. Let's get this war going. And General Scowcroft said something I have never forgotten. He said, we are going to give General Schwarzkopf whatever he wants. He wants more troops, we are going to give him more troops. And Secretary Cheney called me and said we are going to have to send another 180,000 troops. We are going to have overwhelming force when we go into Kuwait.

And they did have overwhelming force. It went on for 6 months. The troops were out in the field, they trained, and when they went in they did a magnificent thing. It was overwhelming. And it was paid for by other countries. Sixty billion dollars came from other countries. President Bush I convinced other countries that they had to help pay for this because it was not only important to the United States, it was important to them, the stability in the Middle East.

Now, let me talk about the second Gulf War. The second Gulf War we had intelligence that said there were weapons of mass destruction; there was an al Qaeda connection. I believed that. As a matter of fact, I listened to the reports, and I was hesitant about the al Qaeda connection, but I believed that they had biological weapons. Matter of fact, a week or so before the war started, Ms. Pelosi, as the new minority leader, wanted to go overseas on her first trip. She wanted to visit the troops. Even though she had been against the resolution to go to war, she wanted to tell the troops she supported the troops. And anybody that votes for the Defense Subcommittee appropriations, anybody that belongs to the Armed Services Committee shows their support of the troops.

So we went over, and on our way over we stopped in Turkey. Imagine, the 4th Division was sitting outside Turkey. It was supposed to outflank the Iraqis. And the State Department asked me, okay, talk to the Turkish government about letting us go through. Now, we had the most modern division, the most technologically advanced division in the whole world sitting there off Turkey. I talked to them and I became convinced they weren't going to let us go through, even though they had voted the very day I was there, and they voted by a majority, but not the supermajority they needed to allow the United States to go through.

I went then to Kuwait and we listened to the commanders. The commanders told us that there is a red line drawn around Baghdad and if we cross the red line they are going to use biological weapons. And I believed that. I believed. As a matter of fact, they said if you cross this red line, we have already verified this by monitoring their telephones, by monitoring their cell phones. When we monitored cell phones of Saddam Hussein's headquarters they said use biological weapons. The troops believed it. They were prepared. They felt like they could go in there with protective gear, they could go in there with what they needed and the hot air, the winds, would dissipate the weapons. And, of course, they crossed the red line and nothing happened.

But I still thought there were weapons of mass destruction. I still thought there were biological weapons. I came back and we sent a team over there.

And the team went over and the team looked for those weapons of mass destruction. Matter of fact, at first a fella named Kay, that was so strong about it, former CIA, said, we will find them. And he looked for months and couldn't find anything at all. Absolutely no evidence of any kind of weapons of mass destruction. No biological weapon, no capability, no nuclear capability, no al Qaeda connection.

When we go to war, we should go to war, first of all, if it is a threat to our national security. It was a threat to our national security when you talk about the first war, because it destabilized and he would have controlled all the oil in the Middle East, which is so important to the free world. The second time was no threat to our national security. Now, we didn't find that out, those of us who voted for it, didn't find this out until after we had gone to war.

The second thing is you go with overwhelming force. I talked to one of the commanders who was in a meeting with five officials; there was him, there was Secretary Rumsfeld, there was Secretary Wolfowitz, General Pace, and General Myers. And he said we recommended 350,000 troops. And as you know, they gave him a lot less troops than that. The coalition troops at the most were up to 30,000 and now they are down to 20,000.

The first war, 160,000. And the first war was all paid for. It cost us $5 billion. The reason I remember this so vividly is I was chairman of the committee at the time the money came through our committee, and we then sent it over, reprogrammed it over to the Defense Department itself. But the discrepancy that we have seen, the mischaracterization, the optimistic predictions are the problems that I have had.

Now, I sent a letter, with Duncan Hunter and a number of other people, and I said to the President, we need 100,000 more troops. Well, the President decided he didn't need 100,000 more troops. Now, imagine this, we are on the ground and we have won the war. The troops did a magnificent job, as we knew they would, but they completely miscalculated the problems that we were going to have afterwards.

Now, I talked to a tribal leader the other day in Anbar Province. He told me that, as far as he saw, the first 6 months we had occupied Anbar. Now, Anbar is the province we are having the most trouble right now. It is where Ramadi and Fallujah are. Those are the areas where there is the most contention. In the first 6 months there wasn't a shot fired. Not a shot fired. I said, let me ask you right now, what kind of progress have we made economically? No water, no electricity, no jobs in Anbar Province. Two million people.

And we talk about Saddam Hussein. Almost 900,000 people left when Saddam Hussein was there. They left the country as refugees. The time we have been there 900,000 people have left the country. They voted with their feet. The President went in the other day, he says he was glad to see democracy in action. You know where he went? The same place I go, in the fortress. In the Green Zone. That is where he went. They are afraid to go outside the Green Zone.

When I first went there, the first two or three trips I went, I could go anyplace. I drove around all over Iraq. The last time I landed at Baghdad Airport, they flew me to Anbar Province down in Haditha, and we flew so low because of the threat we had to come up over the wires in order to get down, and I didn't see a person the whole time. There were 2 million people in Anbar Province. Not one project. Not one.

I said on the floor of the House the most important thing in that first supplemental, in the $87 billion, was the $18 billion that went for reconstruction. And of course there are so many projects that haven't been finished. Now, after we sent the letter about the 100,000, and during that period of time, we asked a fella named Hamre, who was the former Under Secretary of Defense, who went over to Iraq and he did a study for the Defense Department. He came back and said, you have got 3 to 6 months to get this straightened out.

And what did he suggest had to be done? They weren't big projects. He suggested we had to have trash picked up, sewage taken care of, electricity, and jobs. Those are the kinds of things he talked about, and securing the border. Those are the things he said had to be done in 3 to 6 months, and if it is not done, it will go the other way. And all of us know what has happened. All of us know what has happened with the insurgency.

Now, let me go through why I get so distressed by the reports that I get about how well it is going. First of all, the number of daily attacks in Iraq have gone from in 2004, daily, 53 attacks in 2004, 70 attacks in 2005, and in 2006, 90 attacks a day.

Estimated size of the insurgency. Now, we are supposed to be making progress. That is what we hear. The estimated size of the insurgency in 2004 was 15,000. In May of 2005 it was 16,000. In May of 2006 it was 20,000.

This is the way I measure whether there is progress or not progress.

The amount of cash paid to families, this is an important point, to Iraqi civilians killed or maimed by the operation involving American troops went from in 2004, $5 million to $20 million.

Now, what does that mean? The problem is that all of us want to solve the problem, all of us want to have a satisfactory answer in Iraq. The problem is the way we have to operate as a military. The reason we won the first Gulf War is we were fighting a conventional force and we wiped them out. Nobody can match our military. They are the best in the world. But now we are fighting a guerilla war, and that is the type of problem that we have.

For instance, we went into Fallujah, we put 300,000 people outside their homes and only 100,000 have come back now. And when we put 300,000 people outside their home, every one of those are an enemy.

Abu Ghraib. Why did Abu Ghraib happen? Abu Ghraib happened because we had insufficient forces and untrained people and unsupervised people in that prison.

Now, what do I mean by untrained? We had one fella, who happened to be from my district, that had a court order against him because he had abused his family, and he couldn't carry a gun in Pennsylvania. And he said, I can't do this. This is against my nature. I don't know anything about taking care of prisoners. He is now in jail. But the point is he was untrained in that particular job, and even though he told them, they put him in the job. And of course we know the tremendous consequence, at the very time we went into Fallujah, at the very time we put 300,000 people outside their home.

And listen, I endorse this. I know we have to have, when we go into an area, we have to use overwhelming force. That is the way the military has to operate. But, you see, these payments from $5 million in 2004 to $20 million last year, that is because when we go into a place we kill them inadvertently. And when we kill people inadvertently we make enemies, and Abu Ghraib was the biggest public relations disaster we had since My Lai during the Vietnam War.

The number of complete or reconstructed projects, as I said, in al Anbar Province, imagine now, this is one-third of the geography of Iraq, and they have 2 million people, zero. Zero. Number of civilians who died in Baghdad last month, 1,400, in sectarian violence. What is the definition of sectarian violence? A civil war.

All of us want to end this thing. All of us want to find a way to prevail in Iraq. This is a civil war and we are caught in a civil war. There is less than a thousand al Qaeda in Iraq. They have diminished al Qaeda. But we are caught in this civil war between 100,000 Shiias and 20,000 Sunnis fighting with each other.

The average monthly U.S. war expenditure in Iraq: $4.4 billion in 2003, $5 billion in 2004, $6.1 billion in 2005, and $8 billion. The average monthly expenditure, $8 billion. Now, think what I am saying. The first Gulf War, and Duncan Hunter remembers this, they paid internationally. We paid $5 billion. He was on the Armed Services Committee. He knows what I am talking about. We paid $5 billion and they paid $60 billion. They had 160,000 troops in the first Gulf War.

Now, let me talk about the sentiment and talk about the polls taken. We all look at the polls to see what is going on. Now, the only poll taken of U.S. forces in Iraq, about 3\1/2\ months ago: 72 percent of the American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within a year.

Now, I can understand that. Let me tell you, it is hot, they are wearing 70 pounds every day when they are out there in the field, and I can certainly understand that. Forty-two percent say they do not know what the mission is. And that is devastating when they do not understand the mission.

A public opinion Iraqi poll, a segment of 18 provinces, all 18 provinces: More than half the Iraqis say they are headed in the wrong direction, and 82 percent say the economic situation is either poor or fair. Now, these are the Iraqis. Ninety percent say the security situation is poor or fair.

And who do they trust? Who do they trust for personal security? Forty-three percent trust the Iraqi police, 35 percent trust the Iraqi army, 6 percent trust the insurgents, 6 percent trust the insurgents, 4 percent trust the armed militia, and 1 percent, 1 percent trust the multinational force. In another poll taken at the beginning of this year, 47 percent approve the attacks on the United States forces, and 87 percent of the Iraqis endorse a timetable for withdrawal.

Our global image couldn't have been higher after the first Gulf War, with 80 to 90 percent of the people in the world thinking the United States did a marvelous job. We had recovered from Vietnam, finally, in the first Gulf War.

Ten of 14 countries polled said the war in Iraq has made the world more dangerous, and most of the countries rated the U.S. troops in Iraq a bigger danger to world peace than the threat posed by Iran. Britain, France, Germany, Spain, Russia, Egypt, Indonesia, Pakistan, Jordan, and Turkey all have more favorable ratings of China than the U.S.

Now, this resolution is a restatement of the failed policy of this administration, and it is no surprise that that is what this is.

We can't win this. This cannot be won rhetorically. We cannot sit here, stand here in an air-conditioned office and say we support the troops, say we support the policy.

I visit the hospitals every week, and the only person to visit them more than I do is Bill Young and his wife. I see these young people. I am so impressed by their determination, and I am so hopeful we can end this terrible tragedy.

When I got into this 6 months ago, I got into it because of the troops and because of the fact that I felt we couldn't do anything more militarily. We had done everything we could do militarily, and, second, because of the future of the military.

The bill we are going to pass next week, and very few people are going to vote against it, if you want to really support the troops, that is what you vote for. You vote for that legislation. That will say we will run out of money for personnel for the troops because we cut $4 billion out of the base bill by September. We will take care of that. We will find a way to do it. But the point is the base bill was cut by $4 billion.

Now let me tell you the difference in what I believe is the answer. I believe we redeploy and be ready; that is what I say. I say redeploy and be ready.

We are the targets. We are causing the problem. You know who wants us to stay in Iraq right now, the al Qaeda wants us there because it recruits people for them. China wants us there. North Korea wants us there. Russia wants us there. We are depleting our resources, just like Russia depleted their resources in Afghanistan. The same thing is happening with the United States. We will have spent $450 billion by the end of this fiscal year. Now think, the first gulf war we spent $5 billion. We have spent $450 billion.

Stay and we will pay, not only pay in dollars, in money; we are going to pay long term.

I figure it took us through the Reagan administration to pay for the Vietnam War. We had 18 to 21 percent interest rates during the Reagan administration, and the reason we did was because Lyndon Johnson, the President of the United States, said we can have butter and we can have guns, and he didn't raise the taxes he should have raised when we had the war going on.

So we continue to pay with lives lost in terms of financial treasure and more than $8 billion a month. We pay in terms of international reputation. We pay in terms of the future of our military. We stay and pay. I say redeploy and be ready.

Let me tell this one last story.

When I came out of Vietnam, they gave me this small bullet. It is a 45 caliber without any powder in it. It says: ``First Marines, everything is going to be all right.''

A month after I came out of Vietnam in 1967, Lyndon Johnson said, and I believed in the Vietnam War. I thought we were fighting communism. But Lyndon Johnson said, and they had an election, one month after I came out of Vietnam, everything was going to be all right. Do you know how many people we lost from 1967 until we pulled out? 37,000.

Rhetoric does not answer the problem. Only the Iraqis can solve the problem in Iraq. They are fighting with each other, and our troops are caught in between. I say it is time to redeploy and be ready.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Let me comment on a couple of things the distinguished gentleman from Illinois said.

He talks about early exit. This war has gone on, Mr. Chairman, this war has gone on longer than the Korean War. It has gone on longer than World War I, and it has gone almost as long as the European War.

If I believed we were making progress, we can't win this militarily. What I am saying is to redeploy, to get our troops out of harm's way is the key. I see no progress at all in this operation. I see the opposite.

When I see, you talk about al Qaeda being encouraged by what we say. Al Qaeda has gone from 15,000 to 20,000. Incidents have gone from 50 a day to 90 a day. That is the thing that worries me. And we are not making progress. We are losing progress.

I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I believe we send them a message when we vote on the armed services bill. Very few people voted against it. I believe we voted, in the defense subcommittee of appropriations, only 15 or 16 people voted against it. But Theodore Roosevelt said, ``If you disagree with a policy and you do not say anything, you are actually treasonous.''

I disagree with the policy. I do not disagree with supporting the troops. There is no one that supports the troops better than the Members of this Congress. And that is shown by the few people that vote against the bill.

One other thing: I think the gentleman made a mistake when he said we are for the war, against the war on terror. We are actually fighting for the war on terror is what we are doing. But I appreciate what the gentleman is saying.

I appreciate the fact that he and I both asked for more troops at one point. He was the lead sponsor at that particular time.

I recognize the gentleman from California for 13 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

This all sounds good. It is all rhetoric. It is rhetoric. The number of daily attacks in Iraq have gone from 2004, 53 attacks per day; May 2005, 70 attacks per day; May 2006, 90 attacks per day. Electricity is less than prewar level. No water available to all, only 1 hour a day, Mr. Speaker, and the oil production which was supposed to pay for the war is less than prewar production.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield myself 1 minute.

One of the Members said, ask Spain about the threat. Fifty-six percent of the population of Spain believes the U.S. in Iraq is the most dangerous threat to world peace. They rank Iran lesser of a threat than the United States.

And one other thing. When we look back at the intelligence cuts, President Bush I felt it was a peace dividend and started to cut the intelligence budget years ago. So we have to make sure we don't let our rhetoric get ahead of the facts.

I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

This is rhetoric. It is not getting better. I spoke out November 17, and things have gotten worse than it was 6 months ago. They are worse today than they were then.

When I left Vietnam in August of 1967, they gave me this bullet, and they said in this bullet that everything is going to be all right. The President of the United States said we just had an election, and we have a new election in Vietnam, and this was a month after I got out of Vietnam, and everything is going to be all right. We lost 37,000 people.

It is not a matter of whether we want to prevail in this operation, it is a matter of how we are going to do it, and I disagree with the way we do it. I disagree with the policy. That is what I disagree with. I think our troops have become the targets. Incidents have increased every day, and more Americans are being killed every day. And we are going to pay a heavy price in people being killed and also we are going to pay a heavy price for the individuals in the future with the debt increasing at $8 billion a month.

I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. I was in Beirut the day after the attack, and I recommended to President Reagan, I recommended to the President of the United States, get out of Beirut because we didn't have enough troops; 2 months later he got out of Beirut because he didn't have enough troops.

I know what rhetoric is, and I know what fighting on the front lines are. I know the difference between them. I know that standing here does not solve the problem, and it has gotten better, it has gotten worse. That's the problem. And you are not talking about Iraq. The gentleman up there was talking about the war on terror. I am talking about Iraq. That's what I am talking about.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn) for 4 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

The problem is that the opposite is happening. That is the problem we have. We can stand here and say we want to fight the terrorists in Iraq. Actually, al Qaeda we think is less than 1,000.

We think we are caught in a civil war. It is the way that we are doing it. The military cannot win this war. The military commanders, even General Pace admits we cannot win this militarily.

What we are caught in, we have become the target of the insurgency of the sectarian violence. It is the way that we are doing it is what I disagree with.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson).

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) for 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentlewoman from California control the 30 minutes and yield to people.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 60 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) from the Out of Iraq Caucus, and I ask unanimous consent she control the time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control the time and yield the time.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) for 30 seconds.

(Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and ask unanimous consent that he control the time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the combat veteran from the 173rd who preceded the gentleman from California in the 173rd, 15\1/2\ minutes, and ask unanimous consent that he may yield time to other Members of the Veterans Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

I yield myself 1 minute.

I ask the Speaker, was the gentleman at any of those locations? Was the gentleman at either Normandy or any of those locations?

Yes.

I said were you there?

Were you in Vietnam?

Were you in Iraq?

Boots on the ground?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

(Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Let me ask the gentleman, my good friend, how many more speakers he has?

I will be the last speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

I was just out to a hospital a week or so ago, and a young woman whose husband was in the bed right next to her, and she said, I didn't join the Army to fight for Iraq. He joined to fight for the United States.

We don't send people to fight for other countries. We send them to fight for the United States' national security. That is the first lesson we learn, and then we send them with overwhelm force and then we have an exit strategy.

What we are looking for is all the same thing. All of us want the same thing. We want a resolution. We want a positive resolution to what is going on in Iraq. We want a plan. We want a plan that we can live with. It is not enough to say stay the course. We need somebody to tell us exactly how we are going to do this.

When you talk about the amount of money this is costing us per month, and I think about $8 billion, which almost as long as I have been on the Defense Subcommittee, and all of the money that I have seen in the Defense Subcommittee, and I can't recognize what $1 billion is, $450 billion at the end of this year.

Then I think how long did it take us to pay for the Vietnam War? It took us almost 18 years at 18 percent interest rates to pay for the Vietnam War. There were a lot more people, a lot more of a cross- section of people fighting in the Vietnam War, and yet a plurality of people still supported the Vietnam War to the very end.

Let me read something. People say they don't want a time schedule. Nobody has said they don't want a time. Let me read these comments from some of the people that traveled back from the President from Iraq recently. She says in her news release, here is Bush Tuesday night on the way home on Air Force One discussing his conversation with Iraqi leaders. There are concerns about our commitment and keeping our troops there. They are worried almost to a person that we will leave before they are capable of defending themselves. I assured them they didn't need to worry.

That is what we hear back here all the time. But apparently what he says almost to a person, not including the President and the Vice President, the President and Vice President of Iraq.

The Associated Press reports this morning, Iraq's Vice President has asked President Bush for a timeline for the withdrawal of foreign forces from Iraq. The Iraqi President's office said, the Vice President, a Sunni, made the request during his meeting with Bush on Tuesday when the U.S. President made a surprise visit to Iraq.

I supported him in this. This is the President of Iraq. I supported them, said the President, in a statement released Wednesday. Now, 80 percent of the Iraqis want us out of there, 62 percent of the people in the United States want us out of there.

It is not surprising to me that they are going to offer amnesty to some of the Iraqis who are killing Americans, because 47 percent of the Iraqis think it is all right to kill Americans.

We have diverted ourselves away from the war of terrorism. All of us agree about the war on terrorism. All of us have the same goals in the war on terrorism. What we are concerned about is we are caught in a civil war in Iraq. There is only 1,000 al Qaeda or less in Iraq. We destroyed the leader of al Qaeda.

What we are worried about is the Sunnis and the Shiias. The Shiias are 100,000, and there are 2,000 Sunnis fighting with each other. The way we have to do it is one of the biggest problems we have. When you fight a military operation, you have to destroy everything. Fallujah, for instance. We put 300,000 people outside their homes and only 100,000 came back. That is nation building. Yet we are trying to make friends in that country. You can't make friends if you operate the way the military does.

And I agree with the military. To protect American lives, we have to go in with overwhelming force. When you go in with overwhelming force, you are going to inadvertently kill civilians.

Then when you send in people who are untrained and they go into a country, into a job like a prison and they don't know what they are doing, they don't know how to handle it, untrained people that caused us a terrible public relations disaster.

So you have this combination of untrained troops, inadequate forces, and then on top of that, you have no plan to remove the military. Every military leader I have talked to has said the same thing to me. They have said, we can't win this militarily.

All of us want the same thing. We want a resolution to this thing. We want to not only bring our troops home. Internationally it is important we have stability in the Middle East. There is no question. All of us want the same thing. It is how we get it. And we have to have international cooperation.

As I had mentioned, and I will end with this, in the first war we had international cooperation. We had 160,000 international troops and 400,000 American troops. And $60 billion came from the international community and we paid between 4 and $5 billion.

In this particular war so far, we have spent $450 billion and not only the financial treasure but the human treasure that we have lost in the United States.

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

Mr. Speaker, I submit the following letter for the Record.

May 31, 2006.

Representative John P. Murtha,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congressman Murtha: I am a Florida Democrat who feels

deeply in your debt for the campaign you are pursuing to get

our troops out of Iraq ASAP. When a new Democratic Congress

convenes early next year I hope its first order of business

will be to present you with a well-deserved Congressional

Gold Medal.

I share your heartfelt concern over the situation in Iraq.

It is a national disaster that is robbing our nation of the

best of our youth and billions of our national treasure. In

this regard I stand squarely behind you and your views of the

war. In support of those views I have prepared a piece called

Iraq: We Need a Strategy, Not Empty Slogans. It is based on

your irrefutable arguments. Its thrust is to demolish the

President's position that we must stay the course. (How I

hate that phrase!)

I believe I have made a cohesive, persuasive argument.

Please take a few minutes to read this paper and hopefully

have it inserted in The Congressional Record. In my judgment,

it warrants the attention of every Member of Congress.

Accomplishing this is my main purpose in life at the moment.

Earlier I sent a copy of the enclosed piece to Senator Bill

Nelson, my home-state senator, but subsequently learned he

does not favor early departure.

Here are my bonafides: I am an 85 year-old retired Army

lieutenant colonel with 22 years of active service as an

Infantry officer. I saw combat in World War II as a rifle

platoon leader in the Pacific. I received the following

decorations in the course of my military career:

Distinguished Service Cross, Silver Star, Legion of Merit,

Bronze Star Medal with oak leaf cluster, Purple Heart with

oak leaf cluster, Army Commendation Medal, and the Combat

Infantryman Badge. So you don't have to accept these claims

at face value alone, I enclose a copy of my DD 214.

I am confident that God will grant you the strength to

carry on your fight. But all Americans should rise to your

support. They need to cast aside complacency and lassitude.

They need to stand up to an Administration hellbent on

destroying the underpinnings of our democracy. In short, we

must sound off.

With admiration and respect,

Sanford H. Winston,

LTC, USARet.

Mr. Chairman, I am nervous about the amendment. I am nervous because I am not sure, when we have got people out there making contracts for the troops out in the field, there is no question all of us want to take care of the fraud and abuse, all of us. Nobody's done more of a job than you have, the gentleman from California; but I get nervous when we are doing something prospectively. We are not sure of the impact.

I think we would have to change this in conference anyway because we just do not know enough about the impact. You assure us. They are worried about it. So I am very worried about this amendment. I think we would be better off letting the system take care of it. I think when you have fraud and abuse, it has got to be taken care of.

The Congress has the oversight responsibility, but I am not sure legislating for the future is going to solve the problem. That is the thing that worries me.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I just worry when we do something like this prospectively, we might affect what is going on in the field. None of us want to stop a contract for services to the troops in the field right now, and I think you agree with that.

I know you believe that, but I would err on the side of trying to prevent it. So at this point I would be against the amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

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

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.

The words ``torture,'' ``cruelty'' and ``abuse'' elicit images of draconian and brutal dictatorship. These words are reserved for the worst of human rights offenders. It should never include the United States of America.

The United States of America and the values we reflect abhor human rights violators and uphold human rights. No circumstance whatsoever justifies torture. No emergencies, no state of war, no level of political instability.

According to Secretary Powell, in his letter to Senator McCain in support of the Senator's amendment, ``The troops need to hear from Congress, which has an obligation to speak to such matters under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.''

We have irrefutable evidence of widespread use of unlawful interrogation techniques by American interrogators at Abu Ghraib and other locations. This has been absolutely disastrous to our credibility and our reputation as a Nation that was built on the sanctity of individual rights.

We have a legal and moral and ethical obligation to uphold the values of the Geneva Convention and the United Nations Convention Against Torture.

Furthermore, torture, cruelty and abuse are not effective methods of interrogation. Torture may not yield reliable actionable information and can lead to false confessions. And we have an example of that not long ago, prior to the war.

Torture may not yield information quickly. Torture does not advance our goals. It does not help us win the hearts and minds of people it is used against. It did not aid the cause of the Soviets in Afghanistan and the French in Algeria.

Torture has a corrupting effect on the perpetrators. It has rarely been confined to narrow conditions. Once used and condoned, it easily becomes widespread. The same practices found their way from Guantanamo to Afghanistan to Iraq.

Torture is not only used against the guilty; it often leads to unintentional abuse of the innocent. We cannot torture and still retain the moral high ground.

Torture endangers U.S. service members who might be captured by the enemy. Torture brings discredit upon the United States.

There can be no waiver for the use of torture. No torture and no exceptions.

Gray areas in rules, lack of direction, training and supervision from superiors, lack of standards and clear guidelines from leaders are dangerous and led to the abuse at Abu Ghraib and other locations. During times of war, clear guidelines governing the treatment of prisoners is imperative, especially when due to the lack of manpower, people are put in jobs with little or no experience or people are put in jobs that are not appropriate. The alleged ring leader at Abu Ghraib had a history of domestic abuse and therefore, by law, could not carry a firearm in the United States. Yet, he was a prison guard at Abu Ghraib, and he was not suited for handling prisoners.

It is now evident that abuse of prisoners took place because of lack of supervision, that our troops were given ambiguous instructions which, in some cases, authorized treatment that went beyond what was allowed in the Army Field Manual.

The definition of abusive treatment cannot be a matter of subjectivity and ambiguity.

The administration confused matters further by declaring that U.S. personnel are not bound by the Geneva Convention when interrogating non-U.S. citizens on foreign soil.

Gross inconsistencies resulted: We followed the spirit of the Geneva Convention in Afghanistan, the letter of the Geneva Convention in Iraq. We had one set of rules for the prisoners of war, another for the enemy combatants; one set for Guantanamo, another for Iraq; one for the military, one for the CIA who were at times operating under the same roof.

America does have clear guidelines as set forth in the Army Field Manual. A number of those who were involved told me they would ask their superiors and lawyers, do you think this was torture? Do you think we violated the Geneva Convention? The answers they got differed, as if something this important was a matter of opinion.

In the case of one of these people, Captain Fishback, I believe he thought some of the troops clearly violated the Geneva Convention but that the administration and Congress knew, ``as if there was a special hand shake.'' In other words, when he came to see me, he thought we had something to do with this. He said they were not clear, and they thought that we were just winking at the regulations. And this is dangerous. We cannot tolerate a practice of saying one thing and doing another.

Using the argument terrorists do much worse, that al Qaeda does much worse is a horrifying rationale. As Captain Fishback argues, ``since when did al Qaeda become any type of standard by which we measure the morality of the United States?'' And that is a quote from Captain Fishback.

Captain Fishback wrote to Senator McCain, ``If we abandon our ideals in the face of adversity and aggression, then those ideals were never really in our possession. I would rather die fighting than give up even the smallest part of that idea that is America.'' And Captain Fishback was in Afghanistan for 18 months and in Iraq.

We cannot protect freedom abroad or at home while degrading our society and its political and legal systems. We cannot do it while trampling all over the values which have made this country strong, which define us all as Americans. These values do not belong to any party. They are not Democrat or Republican. They are American values.

We cannot allow our Nation's moral and ethical standards to drift away from the Constitution. Congress is obligated to speak out. Congress cannot give its power to the Executive Branch. Congress is the people's branch.

Thomas Jefferson said in 1814, ``How necessary was the care of the Creator in making the moral principle so much a part of our constitution so that no errors of reasoning or speculation might lead us astray from its observance in practice.''

He also said, ``Moral duties [are] as obligatory on nations as on individuals.''

And I have to say this. War is about killing. For those sent to fight an enemy, that killing will stay with them for the rest of their lives. It is in

the faces of friends lost, in the shadows the soldiers feel on their souls for having killed. This is the nature of war.

But when torture becomes a part of war, when torture is condoned, if we allow torture in any form, we abandon our honor and the last shred of humanity. Visions of abuse and torture chill our conscience and sear our souls. Torture scars not only its subject; it scars those who perpetrate it and those who are witnesses to it.

Most military leaders know that allowing torture subjects our servicemembers to similar acts if captured. We in Congress must never forget this because we are charged with sending our sons and daughters into battle. This responsibility is doubly heavy today when America is living in a time of great uncertainty and two wars.

In the case of Iraq, we are unsure of the war's rationale and where it will lead us. In the war against terror, we are still struggling to fathom our enemy and are troubled by his tactics.

It is all that more important now that we remember that America stands for the honor of those we have sent to fight this war.

This amendment would restore our credibility, honors our war fighters and affirms the value of this great country, the values that belong to the United States of America.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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

Somebody walked by not long ago, and they said, I do not have to go to your funeral because I paid my dues today with all these people giving these accolades.

I have to tell you this story. When you start getting all these accolades, you think you are a big shot. I remember one time President Carter asked me to go to the seventh game of the World Series with him. Tip O'Neill and I went down, and there were only 4 of us and 15 Secret Service people in the plane.

We got in this helicopter and, of course, flew over all these other people going to the ballgame. Well, Carter was not the most pleasant guy to be with. He wanted to talk all business, and Tip O'Neill wanted to talk nothing but baseball.

So we get about halfway there, and it is not a very long trip to Baltimore. Tip finally got him warmed up. We land, and we only land a block away from the stadium, but we had to have an armored car drive us in. So the President said, you sit in the middle there, Murtha, and Tip sat on the left side, and the President sat on the right side. Some guy yelled out some obscenities. He said, My God, they must have recognized Murtha in the car.

Let me say, this resolution today is not what I envisioned, not what I introduced, and let me read what I introduced on November 17.

``Whereas Congress and the American people have not been shown clear, measurable progress toward establishment of stable and improving security in Iraq or of a stable and improving economy in Iraq, both of which are essential to `promote the emergence of a democratic government';

``Whereas additional stabilization in Iraq by U.S. military forces cannot be achieved without the deployment of hundreds of thousands of additional U.S. troops, which in turn cannot be achieved without a military draft.''

Now, let me say this. There were two of us who voted for a military draft, so I do not think that is an option. When you go to the high schools, they say, you are for a draft. I said, yes, but there is not too many of us, and I do not think you have to worry about it.

``Whereas more than $277 billion has been appropriated by the United States Congress to prosecute U.S. military action in Iraq and Afghanistan;

``Whereas, as of the drafting of this resolution, 2,079 U.S. troops have been killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom;

``Whereas U.S. forces become the target of the insurgency;

``Whereas, according to recent polls, over 80 percent of the Iraqi people want the U.S. forces out of Iraq;

``Whereas polls also indicate that 45 percent,'' this is a British poll, but the Defense Department support this British poll or confirm this British poll, ``of the Iraqi people feel that the attacks on U.S. forces are justified.''

Hear what I am saying. Forty-five percent of the Iraqi people feel it is justified to attack Americans.

``Whereas, due to the foregoing, Congress finds it evident that continuing U.S. military action in Iraq is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the people of Iraq, or the Persian Gulf Region, which were cited in Public Law 107-243 as justification for undertaking such action.''

I did not say anything about intelligence. I did not say anything about the President. All these statements that have been made vilifying me today did not say anything like that.

``Therefore be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.

``Section 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S. Marines shall be deployed in the region.

``The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy.''

That is what I said. I have never had in the 32 years that I have been in Congress such an outpouring from this country, four to one in my office. You cannot even call my office if you tried, an outpouring of people crying. People are thirsting for some direction. They are thirsting for a solution to this problem. They want to support the President. I want to support the President. Everybody does.

We put into place in the Appropriations Committee a criteria for success because we were so unhappy. This was in May. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and I put a criteria for success in the bill, it was a Moran amendment, because we were not happy with the results. Nobody was talking to us. Nobody would tell us what was going on, and we felt it was absolutely necessary that we put this into writing.

I went to Iraq about 2 months ago, and I talked to the commanders, and all of you know the commanders are very hesitant to say anything that is not in the policy of the White House, and I agree, that is the way it is run by the civilians. That is the way it should be, but I could tell how discouraged the commanders were.

The one Marine commander said, I do not have troops to put on the border, the Syrian border. Now, why did they not have enough troops? Because of the deployment, because of the small number of people that are serving in our Armed Forces today.

We told them, the Armed Services Committee, under Duncan Hunter's leadership, said you can take 30,000 more people. They cannot recruit to that. They have fallen 10,000 short; and not only have they fallen 10,000 short, they are now taking 20 percent category 4s, which they said in the voluntary Army would never happen.

The war's not going as advertised. The American public is way ahead of us. If you heard the World War II veterans, if you heard the Vietnam veterans, the wives and the widows on the phone crying to my staff and myself when I am talking to them, if you heard them reaching out and asking for a policy, a bipartisan policy. When I introduced this resolution, I did not introduce this as a partisan resolution.

I go by Arlington Cemetery every day, and the Vice President, he criticizes Democrats. Let me tell you, those gravestones do not say Democrat or Republican. They say American, and Dick Cheney's a good friend of mine. He was a good Secretary of Defense.

Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We cannot continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the Iraqi people and the Persian Gulf region. That is my opinion.

General Casey said in a September 2005 hearing, the perception of occupation in Iraq is a major driving force behind the insurgency. Hear what I am saying. General Abizaid said on the same date, reducing the size of visibility of the coalition forces in Iraq is part of our counterinsurgency strategy.

For 2\1/2\ years I have been concerned about our policy and the plan in Iraq. I have addressed my concerns to the administration and the Pentagon.

I have spoken out in public about my concerns in going to war.

A few days before the start of the war, I was in Kuwait. They drew a red line around Baghdad; and they said when the American forces cross the red line, they will attack us with weapons of mass destruction, meaning biological and chemical weapons. I believed that. They believed it. The military commanders believed it. And when they went in, though, they felt they had sufficient protective gear that they could overcome it. The heat would dissipate some of the gas and so forth, and it would be no problem for our forces, they felt. They even thought they had cell phones monitored so they could tell that it was there. It turned out not to be true.

Let me tell the Members this: Bill Young and I have been on the Defense

Subcommittee for 25 years. We spend more money on intelligence than all the countries in the world put together and more on intelligence than most countries' GDP. But the intelligence concerning Iraq was wrong. It is not a world intelligence failure. It is a U.S. intelligence failure.

I have been visiting our wounded troops at Bethesda, and only two people, I think, visit any more than I do, and that is Bill Young's wife and Bill Young. They go there as often as I do, and Beverly goes more often.

Now, let me tell the Members what demoralizes the troops. Going to war with not enough troops and equipment to make the transition to peace, the devastation caused by IEDs, being deployed to Iraq when their homes have been ravaged by hurricanes, being under second and third deployment and leaving their families behind without a network of support.

The threat posed by terrorism is real, but we have other threats that cannot be ignored. We must be prepared to meet all these threats. The future of our military is at risk. Our military and their families are stretched thin. A very small percentage of people in this country are serving this country at this stage in this war. Many say the Army is broken. Some of our troops are on their third deployment. Recruitment is down. Defense budgets are being cut, $5 billion this year, $5 billion cut from the defense budget; and the chairman and I are concerned they are going to cut another percentage point, which is $4 billion more, from the defense budget.

Personnel costs are skyrocketing, particularly in health care. And choices have to be made. We cannot allow a promise that we have made to our military families in terms of service benefits, in terms of their health care to be negotiated away. Procurement programs that ensure our military dominance cannot be negotiated away. We must be prepared.

The war in Iraq has caused huge shortfalls in our bases in the United States. I visited four bases, four Southern bases, premier bases. Every one of them was short, short radios, short mortars, short ammunition even. Our troops were C-4, which means the lowest state of readiness, because they did not have the equipment to train right before they are deployed to Iraq. And much of our ground equipment is worn out and in need of serious overhaul.

I have said to all these CEOs that come to see me, Folks, do not think about procurement. We about bought, what, five or six ships this year, something like that. They said they are going to build 12 next year. Do not believe that. But I will tell the Members one thing we have to do is rehabilitate this equipment. A $50 billion bill, in my estimation, and I do not know where the money is going to come from.

George Washington said: ``To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace.'' I do not know what the threat is, but I will tell you it takes 18 years to get a weapons system out there, and we had better well get those systems put together now. We had better start them right now because we do not have them. They have a system right now they are thinking of cutting back. The Europeans invested a lot of money in it. Billions of dollars have been invested in this weapon system, JSF. If they cut back the buy, the cost to increase, the Europeans will cut back on their buy, and it will skyrocket the price; and we will have to reduce the number of airplanes that we buy. We must rebuild our Army.

Our deficit is growing out of control. The Director of the Congressional Budget Office recently admitted to being ``terrified'' about the budget deficit in the coming decades. This is the first prolonged war we have fought with 3 years of tax cuts, without full mobilization of American industry, and without a draft. The burden of war has not been shared equally, and the military and their families are shouldering this burden.

Our military has been fighting a war in Iraq for over 2\1/2\ years. Our military has accomplished its mission and done its duty. Our military captured Saddam Hussein, captured or killed his closest associates. But the war continues to intensify. And you know the deaths and you know they estimate that not only do we have 15,500 that have been wounded, but we have 50,000 that we think may suffer from what I call battle fatigue.

I just recently visited Anbar Province, as I said, and I became convinced that we had to take some action. I became convinced that I needed to say something about what was going on. I needed to introduce a resolution which would bring this to a head so we could come to a bipartisan resolution to fight this war together, to show our troops how we support them, and that resolution calls for a redeployment of our troops. I said over a year ago now, the military and the administration agree, Iraq cannot be won militarily.

We can say it here in these air conditioned offices, but let me tell you something. It cannot be won militarily. It has got to be won politically, and we have to turn it over to the Iraqis and give them the incentive to take back their own country.

Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency. They are united against U.S. forces. We have become the catalyst for violence. U.S. troops are the common enemy of the Sunnis, the Saddamists, and the foreign jihadists. I believe with U.S. troop redeployment, the Iraqi security forces will be incentivized to take control. A poll recently conducted shows 80 percent of the Iraqis oppose the presence of coalition troops. I believe we need to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis. I believe the Iraqi election scheduled for mid-December, the Iraqi people in the emerging government must be put on notice: the United States will immediately redeploy. All of Iraq must know that Iraq is free, free from United States occupation. I believe this will send a signal to the Sunnis to join the political process for a good and free Iraq.

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

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

Normally the soldiers cannot speak for themselves. I do not believe we are making the progress that is articulated in many cases. Everything I see, oil production is below prewar level; electricity production is below prewar level; incidents have increased from 150 a week to 770 a week in Iraq.

But let me read a letter from a young soldier at Walter Reed. Everybody says when you go to Walter Reed, they all want to go right back, and they usually do not complain. Let me read this letter.

``I am sure you are extremely busy today with the announcement of your support for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. We have been trying unsuccessfully to reach you by phone.

``My husband is an injured Iraq soldier who so highly commends you for speaking out about this disastrous war and its aftermath on U.S. troops. Though we are now living in Washington, D.C., on the Walter Reed campus, we are originally from your 12th District in Pennsylvania.

``Congressman Murtha actually pinned my husband's Purple Heart. We are so proud that he was the man to honor my husband for what he did in Iraq. It may serve Mr. Murtha more to remind him that my husband is the 24-year-old guardsman who lost part of a leg in a suicide car bomb attack in April of this year.

``We were shocked and overjoyed that Murtha spoke out against the Bush administration's handling of the war. Unlike what many say is a blow to troop morale by questioning the war, his frank call for attention to the subject brought nods and applause from the injured soldiers at Walter Reed's Mologne House. It is the first that my husband and I feel that a politician has truly stuck up for the soldiers most personally affected by the war in Iraq.''

We send the soldiers to the war. We are the ones that make that decision. We also have to speak out when we do not think the war is going in the right direction.

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

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

Let me read another letter.

``We are Gold Star parents. Our son was killed October 18, 2003, south of Kirkuk with the 173rd Airborne Brigade. You and I talked for about 90 minutes on the phone in early 2004. I

have spent the better part of 2 years lobbying for improved body armor.''

Do Members remember, we sent the troops to war without body armor? We found the body armor. We found the shortage and up-armored the Humvees. Congress found it, and we put the money in the bill.

``We believe the best way to support the troops is through a responsible and well-thought-out foreign policy.''

Not stay the course, but a thought out, and this is from a woman whose son was killed.

``We do not have that policy today in Iraq. By staying in Iraq, we have become occupiers instead of liberators.'' And 80 percent of the Iraqis think that.

``Today we are called un-American because we are obligated to disagree with the President. We want better for our son's comrades. It is our obligation to stand up and be counted to support the troops, to speak for those that are not free to speak for themselves, to use their bravery and sacrifice wisely. You, sir, are a man of our heart. God knows why the rest of the Democratic Party is not rallying around you, but we are. Even as we stand alone, it is the right thing to do. Our support is unequivocal for you on matter in this dangerous and lonely time.''

I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).

Let me read another letter.

``In 2004, my youngest son graduated from college and was already enrolled in the Marines. He was ready to help our country and others in whatever was asked of him. It was with great distress that we have watched the administration mishandle this war. There was no plan.''

What the gentleman from Indiana said about World War II, there was a plan. There was a plan when we went into Normandy. We landed 150,000 people in 24 hours. There is the conception at home that there is no plan. I hear this over and over again. That is why there was such an outpouring when I offered a plan, when people called me and said they wanted a plan.

``It was with great distress that we have watched the administration mishandle this war. There was no plan, no push to go in and win the war in total. Mission Accomplished was a joke, and even we the uniformed knew then that it was a misnomer. Losing Colin Powell from the administration was a deep blow to us. We respected his honor and his professionalism. His soldier inside. Our son has had one deployment to Iraq. He came home safely this time, and awaits his second deployment in July. Congressman Murtha, we are a patriotic family, but I cannot abide by sending my son back into a war where there is no goal, no plan, and a war being planned by Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Cheney. We would feel differently if we felt our son was being used in the proper manner, and for a valiant effort. But we feel that they are clay pigeons in a carnival, just waiting for the next suicide bomber or IED. My husband and I did not feel this way 6 months ago. We thought the administration had realized their inadequacy and were making changes, and that we should stay the course. That has not happened. Things continue in disarray. This is not the best use of our military, nor respectful of the values and ideals of the servicemen and women within it. We support your views and we feel that there is a need for change.''

That is what I am saying. We need to change direction in Iraq.

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

Who has the right to close?

This is his resolution.

The first encounter with the casualties in this war, I had two young widows come to my office. They wanted to go to Walter Reed because they had lost their husband and they wanted to talk to the soldiers and tell them how lucky they were that they were still alive. One was 23 with two children. One was 19 without any children. I thought how proud I was of them. Another young man from my district was blinded and lost his foot. They did everything they could do for him in Walter Reed. And then he went home and his father was in jail. His mother had not seen him. There was no one at home and he was by himself. The VA has done everything they could to help him. They sent him to Johns Hopkins to see if there is a possibility for him to see and found out that he could not see. And then they started sending bills. Collection agencies sent him bills. Imagine. He is by himself in his own home and a collection agency from Johns Hopkins sends him a bill. Obviously we straightened it out, but that is the kind of thing that happens when you forget about the veteran.

I had a soldier that lost both legs and an arm. Bill has seen the young fellow from Micronesia. We visited a mental health ward. You know what they said to me? Fifty thousand of them are going to have some kind of battle fatigue. They said that we don't get Purple Hearts. We don't get any recognition at all. We get shunned aside as if we were cowards.

A young woman from Notre Dame lost her arm and she was worried about her husband losing weight. She was the one that lost her arm. It makes me so proud. A Seabee was lying in intensive care with his three children and his mother and his wife in tears because he was paralyzed from the neck down. This young Marine, his father had been a Marine. His father was there. His father was rubbing his hand. He says, please get my son's brother home. He wants to see his brother. I called the Marine Corps. The Marine Corps said, he doesn't want to come home. So I went back and told his father. He said, please get him home. So I told the Marine Corps and they got him home. I said, you get him out of that country blank-blank right now, and they did.

Another Marine lost both his hands, blinded. I went to the hospital. After I talked to him, I said how proud, as I do to all of them, how proud I was of them. Is there anything you can do for them, I said? He said, yeah, get him a Purple Heart. Why wouldn't he get a Purple Heart? Because he was demobilizing from the friendly bomblets that had been dropped and hadn't exploded, thousands of them. Finally one of them blew up, blew his hands off and killed the guy behind him and blinded him. The Marine Corps said, we have regulations about Purple Hearts. It was friendly fire so he can't get a Purple Heart.

I told the commandant, If you don't give him the Purple Heart, I'm going to give him one of mine. I was going to go out on Thursday, the commandant went out on Wednesday and he got his Purple Heart. Our troops have become the enemy.

Folks, it is easy to sit here in your air-conditioned offices and say, send them into battle. It is easy to sit here in the Capitol of the United States and say, stay the course. But when there is not a plan, when the families write to me and say there is not a plan, when they don't understand, when they believe that Captain Fishback came to see me, he says, You're complicit with the administration in torture, Congress is, because you're looking the other way. I said, We didn't know a thing about it.

And one of the things that turned the Iraqis against us was the tragedy that happened at Abu Ghraib. Because we in Congress are charged with sending our sons and daughters into battle, it is our responsibility, our obligation to speak out for them and that is why I am speaking out.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend Governor Ed Rendell and Congressman Bob Brady of Pennsylvania for their key roles in facilitating successful contract negotiations between the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) and the labor union.

The following article, ``The Pair Who Powered the SEPTA Deal,'' illustrates Governor Rendell's and Congressman Brady's skillful and active leadership in resolving the issues between the parties. They saw a large problem facing the region and without hesitation waded in, rolled up their sleeves, and brought everyone together. I believe their hands-on approach and the confidence that both sides placed in their ability to handle the issues fairly serves as an excellent reminder of the kind of dedicated public service everyone looks for in their elected leaders.

[From the Philadelphia Inquirer, Nov. 8, 2005]

The Pair Who Powered the SEPTA Deal

(By Larry King and Marcia Gelbart)

At 3:45 a.m. yesterday, he paced alone on an empty,

shadowed sidewalk at Broad and Walnut Streets.

He was not part of the SEPTA contract negotiations taking

place above him on the 11th floor of the Bellevue in Center

City. But like an anxious mother hen, neither was he ever far

from them.

A passerby recognized the barrel-chested figure in the

dark-blue warm-up suit, a thatch of gray curls atop his head.

Congressman Brady?

``Yeah, how you doin'?'' came the familiar gruff voice.

Any news? ``They're done.''

Done? When? ``About 10 minutes ago.''

Two hours passed before Gov. Rendell emerged with union and

SEPTA leaders to announce the deal that ended the region's

transit strike. Together, the governor and U.S. Rep. Robert

A. Brady (D., Phila.) were called prime catalysts in events

leading to the proposed settlement.

The duo worked like this: Rendell relied on his power over

the state-created agency, and Brady relied on his patience to

deal with the personalities of its managers and union

leaders.

As for other officials, State Sen. Vincent J. Fumo (D.,

Phila.) was around but talking mostly through the ear of

Brady. House Speaker John M. Perzel (R., Phila.) was set to

jump in today, at a scheduled meeting at the Holiday Inn City

Line, with SEPTA board chairman Pasquale T. ``Pat'' Dean.

And Mayor Street played a low-key role. He met with union

leaders for five hours on Friday, phoned Deon later that day,

and then made at least two calls to the governor late Sunday.

While Street was limited by strained ties with Harrisburg

lawmakers, Rendell had ``no choice'' but to wade in, said J.

Whyatt Mondesire, president of the Philadelphia chapter of

the NAACP.

Rendell ``could not have an election campaign gearing up

after the holidays, and a bitter public-transit strike in his

backyard,'' he said.

And Brady, Mondesire said, was ``a natural bridge . . . .

He talks a straight workingman's kind of language . . . and

because he has political connections, the SEPTA people listen

to him.''

All involved with the negotiations said Brady--a labor

leader from the carpenters' union and a peacemaker with a

long record of settling feuds as a longtime head of the

city's Democratic Party--cajoled them to talk, to keep

talking, to talk until their minds could meet.

Brady ``was very instrumental in this,'' said Jeffrey

Brooks, president of Transport Workers Union Local 234.

Brady, of course, demurred--just as he did seven years ago

at the end of the last SEPTA strike when he stood three rows

deep at a news conference to announce a deal he helped

broker to end that 40-day walkout.

``I just keep 'em talking, that's all,'' he said in

yesterday's early hours. ``They didn't talk for what--two,

three days? This morning I met with the governor and Jeff at

8. They agreed to try and kick-start this thing back again. I

told them, `If you do, please don't stop until it's over.

It's got to be done sooner or later, so why not do it sooner

instead of later?' ''

Brady was the first politician to visibly inject himself

into the negotiations, turning up late Tuesday as the

contract negotiations briefly resumed at the Crowne Plaza

hotel.

Rendell, meanwhile, was the hands-on deal maker. He spoke

out first from Harrisburg on Thursday, warning both sides

that the strike was ``killing'' chances of getting the

dedicated source of state funding that the perennially

strapped SEPTA so sorely needs,

And once in town, he said, he made a point of sitting down

with Brooks and assuring him that SEPTA's pot of money for

crafting a deal was finite--that it was all a matter of

slicing it fairly.

That was the point made at a noon meeting on Sunday, where

Brooks made his case to 50 or so mostly elected officials

whom Brady assembled at the Democratic City Committee

headquarters.

``That's one thing we made clear to both sides,'' Rendell

said. ``If the strike goes on too much longer, or if the

settlement is not seen as affordable, then that seriously

decreases our chances of getting dedicated funding.''

City Councilman Michael A. Nutter said, ``That meeting was

certainly a part of what led to the contract.''

All week long, Brady had been calling Brooks two or three

times a day. Now, in what would be the final moments, Rendell

and his staff stuck side by side with SEPTA's chief labor

negotiator, Patrick Battel, from ``basically 9 a.m. Sunday

until we signed the memorandum of agreement at 5:30 a.m.,''

according to Battel. The governor, he said, ``is a skilled

mediator and a skilled politician.''

To be sure, there were other factors.

``Looming in people's minds was the 40-day strike,'' said

State Rep. Dwight Evans (D., Phila.). ``People knew they

could not afford to do that.''

There was also, he said, the uncertain fate of SEPTA's

financial future.

``Rendell's message was `there is not going to be any new

money,' and that is the same message Perzel and I were

putting together as legislative leaders,'' Evans said.

As it turned out, that message was no longer needed.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize Penn State Fayette, The Eberly Campus as it celebrates its 40th anniversary in 2005-2006. From its humble beginnings to its present status, Penn State Fayette had played a key role in the social, cultural, and economic development of Fayette County.

Penn State first came to scenic Southwestern Pennsylvania following the establishment of the Pennsylvania Cooperative Extension Service and its county agricultural agents in 1907. In 1934, Penn State established an Undergraduate Center in Uniontown that provided the first two years of a college education to area residents ``location bound'' and/or unable to afford studies at the University Park campus. This Center closed in 1940 as the nation turned its attention to the approaching war. However, Penn State returned to Southwestern Pennsylvania with undergraduate educational programming on June 1, 1965, when it opened the Fayette campus to serve the residents of Fayette, Greene, Somerset, Washington, and Westmoreland Counties. Penn State Fayette began by first offering classes in several buildings in downtown Uniontown. Then, in 1968 the Fayette Campus Advisory Board acquired 27 acres of the Garner Farm, located between Uniontown and Connellsville.

Since that time, the campus has grown to about 100 acres and 10 buildings: the renovated Eberly Building (named for Orville S. Eberly), the University House (once the Garner home), the Williams Building (the redesigned student center named for J. Lewis Williams), a state-of-the- art library, a gymnasium, an engineering building, the Biomedical Technology Building, and several other farm and maintenance buildings.

Penn State Fayette now has five baccalaureate degrees in Administration of Justice; Nursing; Human Development and Family Studies; Letters, Arts, and Sciences; and Business Administration. Penn State Fayette also offers nine associate degrees: Architectural Engineering Technology; Electrical Engineering Technology; Business Administration; Human Development and Family Studies; Letters, Arts, and Sciences; Information, Sciences, and Technology; Nanofabrication Manufacturing Technology, Science, and Nursing.

Responding to urgent statewide needs in 1987, Penn State Fayette established a training and certification program for emergency medical technicians. Today the Continuing Education Department offers credit, non-credit, and management development courses both on campus and off campus at the Uniontown Mall, United Parcel Services in New Stanton, and Somerset Hospital, Uniontown Hospital and Frick Hospital.

The faculty at Penn State Fayette fulfill two roles for the student body with their commitment not only to teaching but also to advising. The faculty have received national and University awards for teaching, research, community outreach, and performance in English, art, philosophy, history, physics, chemistry, administration of justice, and engineering technology. The size of the student population allows for personal interaction between instructors and students, and the dedication of the faculty makes this interaction a tremendous aid to learning.

The many campus activities and events contribute to an atmosphere of unity. Over twenty-five clubs and organizations match the interests of almost every student. The intramural organizations include eight different sports occurring year round. Students have access to a large, well-equipped library, a

state-of-the-art engineering building with a CAD lab, new computer labs, a student activity and cafeteria facility, multimedia rooms, and a fully equipped gymnasium. For various activities and events, the campus possesses video-conferencing capabilities, Internet connectivity, and satellite communications. In addition, the campus' Coal and Coke Heritage Center preserves coal-mining related artifacts, interviews and other memorabilia from the area.

Many campus enhancements have marked the last few years at Fayette. Fayette opened the BioMedical Technology Building, housing the science and nursing programs, in July of 1999. During the fall of 2001, the University reopened Eberly Building, which had been shut down for one year to transform it into one of the most technological state-of-the- art learning environments in the world. The renovations have proven to be a great success and feature many new technologically advanced facilities, including a Corporate Training Center, a new Information, Sciences and Technology (IST) lab, a technology center, a new Administration of Justice (ADMJ) crime lab, art facilities and a child- care center, the Cub's Den. In the fall of 2002, the theater in the Williams Building was remodeled and renamed Swimmer Hall.

In August 2005, a new community center was opened. This 52,000 sq. ft. addition to the campus includes a 1,500-seat NCAA gymnasium, racquetball courts in the center and an auxiliary gym. In addition, a 450-seat auditorium and the new cafeteria are housed in the community center. This center promises to provide top facilities for athletic, cultural and civic events. The 2004-2005 school year saw the dedication of our new Cultural Center as well as the new Student Center.

Again I offer my congratulations to Penn State Fayette for reaching the milestone of its 40th anniversary and I am confident that with such excellent programs the campus will continue to be a vital asset to the region for another 40 years and beyond.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Cambria City Mission as it celebrates its 75th year of serving the Johnstown community physically, mentally, materially, and spiritually. The non- denominational mission is entirely financed by contributions from local churches, community service groups and generous individuals; operating without government assistance and following its Mission purpose for the last 75 years:

``To promote the Christian way of life and build character by teaching the gospel of Jesus Christ. To provide spiritual inspiration through worship services and educational activities. To improve the home life of the community through boys' and girls' clubs and camps. To mold a greater love for country through an understanding of its opportunities and challenges.''

Through the years, the Mission has experienced many growing pains and undergone many changes, but the commitment to its purpose stands firm.

The Mission was founded in 1930 by the First Presbyterian Church of Johnstown as a Home Mission project. Bertha Bell, a member of the church, was asked to be the first executive director. She rented a storeroom at 602 Board Street, and began her work in December of 1930. When the Great Depression affected all communities, including Johnstown, the Mission ministered to all who came for help. Food was prepared and served daily for hungry children who came after school, and clothing was distributed to families who were in need.

Today, in addition to Sunday school classes for children and adults, the mission also provides Sunday worship Bible study, craft, sewing and knitting classes and meeting facilities. Mother-daughter and father-son banquets are held annually, as well as vacation Bible school. Camp Harmony and Camp Allegheny remain the high points for the children of the Mission.

As the programs and attendance at the Mission expanded, the need for larger facilities fulfilled with the 1958 purchase of a double house at 906-908 Broad Street. However, the building burned in 1970. A new building was completed in 1972, and although it was severely damaged by the Johnstown flood of 1977, the building was restored and reopened in 1984.

Again I offer my congratulations to the Cambria City Mission and its interdenominational board of directors representing many churches in the Johnstown area.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share with you and my Colleagues a tribute to a man who has contributed to the economic development and community development of the 12th Congressional District of Pennsylvania, Mr. William C. Polacek, who has over twenty years of knowledge working in the steel fabrication industry. Mr. Polacek is not only a business man, but a civic minded individual who gives back to his community.

Born and raised in Daisytown, Pennsylvania, Mr. Polacek started out working in the family business, Johnny's Welding. In 1987, he purchased the business from his father; and through a great work ethic and superior workforce, the company has thrived and grown over the years to over seven hundred employees in two states. As well, he owns other businesses in the area. Mr. Polacek has always focused on ``treating employees the way he would want to be treated.''

Mr. Polacek has received numerous awards and honors for his success in business. His many awards are: 1994 Who's Who in Business; 1995 Dale Carnegie Highest Achievement; 1996 Western Pennsylvania Entrepreneur of the Year; 1997 Featured in ``Follow That Dream,'' a Public Broadcasting Station national documentary; 1997 Cambria/Somerset County Entrepreneur of the Year; 1998 Arthur Anderson award for ``Motivating and Retaining Employees in Western Pennsylvania; 2002 Chapel of the 4 Chaplains Award; 2004 ``Forbes Magazine'' story about his Entrepreneur character and for creating and keeping jobs in Johnstown.

Community service will be a legacy he will leave with our area for generations. Mr. Polacek and his family founded a non-profit organization, The Polacek Family Human Needs Foundation, which is devoted to assisting the community. Besides his foundation, other civic groups benefit from his involvement, such as the Junior Achievement, Mom's House, Johnstown Area Heritage Association, The Chamber of Commerce Advisory Board, Johnstown Area Regional Industries, Geistown- Richland Pee Wee Football League, and Venture Quest (a local entrepreneur group).

Currently, Mr. Polacek, his wife Sherry and their four children live in Richland Township. Johnstown Welding and Fabrication Industries was founded on a commitment to family and family values and continues to flourish in the Johnstown area. These values will be a lasting tribute to Mr. Polacek and his family.

Here in the 12th Congressional District, we are grateful to Mr. Polacek not only for his economic investment in the community, but his civic legacy to the future. I wish to congratulate Mr. William C. Polacek on receiving The Inter-Service Club Council of Greater Johnstown Achievement Award, and I wish him continued success.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an outstanding naval officer, Rear Admiral Dennis Dwyer, who hails from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Admiral Dwyer has served with considerable distinction and dedication for the past 32 years, and I would like to thank him for his service and many contributions to the defense of our great Nation.

On July 29th, RADM Dwyer will retire from the Navy after 32 years of active duty, and will leave command of the Navy's Program Executive Office for Aircraft Carriers here in Washington, DC.

During his tenure as Commander of the Navy's Aircraft Carrier Programs, Admiral

Dwyer was responsible for the delivery of the USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76), the complex nuclear refueling overhaul on USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69) and the development of the ``6 plus 2'' aircraft carrier surge plan now considered the centerpiece and backbone of the U.S. Navy's Strike Warfare Operations Plan.

As Life Cycle Manager for the entire Carrier Fleet, Rear Admiral Dwyer significantly increased the material readiness of the Force. In 2003, as a result of this increased posture, the United States was able to surge eight aircraft carriers, on short notice, to conduct combat operations in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. In 2004, the Fleet was again able to simultaneously surge seven aircraft carriers world- wide for Exercise Summer Pulse, once again demonstrating the Navy's ability to execute the new Fleet Response Plan engagement strategy. This high state of combat readiness would not have been possible without Rear Admiral Dwyer's improvization of a brillant Class Action Maintenance Plan.

However, his most enduring legacy will certainly be the strategic vision and hands-on leadership he provided throughout the concept and detailed design process of the CVN-21 Class of Future Aircraft Carriers. This new class of ships was developed utilizing revolutionary aircraft carrier designs and advanced computer modeling techniques. He relentlessly drove future technologies forward, established and led the largest government and industry ship design team ever assembled, and created a world class modeling environment that significantly reduced design costs throughout the life cycle of this next generation of Aircraft Carriers.

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely proud to offer my personal gratitude to Admiral Dwyer and his wife Eva for their honorable and faithful service to our Nation, and I urge my fellow Colleagues to wish them continued success and the traditional Naval blessing of ``Fair Winds and Following Seas'' as he closes out a very distinguished military career.

Madam Speaker, the Intelligence Authorization Bill provides resources vital to the continuing effort to improve our nation's intelligence capabilities and to transform the intelligence community to ensure that we do everything possible to prevent another event like September 11, 2001. As such, I support this legislation.

In particular, I am gratified that this bill provides resources above the President's request to increase our human intelligence capabilities. This is an issue that has concerned me for many years and one that I have worked to correct. The House-passed FY 2006 Defense Appropriations bill includes substantial, new HUMINT resources, which I will make every effort to protect as we go into conference with the Senate later this year.

Additionally, the authorization bill includes provisions to strengthen Ambassador Negroponte's hand as he undertakes the tremendous responsibility of defining the role of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and transforming the intelligence community. I am hopeful that the authorizers and the appropriators can work together to support the DNI in this critical first year.

Certainly, there are areas of the bill, particularly some of the technical programs, where I am a little disappointed in the resource levels recommended by the Intelligence Committee. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the committee to find a mutually acceptable approach to meet the nation's space platform requirements. However, overall, I believe that this is a good bill that goes a long way to meeting the needs of the intelligence community.

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

I say that I agree with the chairman completely. It is the best we could do with the amount of money they gave us. It is completely bipartisan. It takes care of the troops. It has been distributed to everybody. We will go right to the 5-minute rule.

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

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

I would hope that the gentlewoman would withdraw this amendment. We have worked so hard to balance this out. And I understand her sentiments, and we appreciate that, but I would hope that we could take a look at this in conference.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

Mr. Speaker, when I went down to Austin after the election, but before the inauguration, I said to President Bush, President-elect Bush, we should worry more about terrorism and nuclear nonproliferation than worry about missile defense.

But we worked out the best we can work out. I mean, we know they have not spent nearly the money they have, and I think the gentleman just stated that, I do not remember an exact amount, but I think it is only 1 or 2 percent of what we have already appropriated for nonproliferation.

So I would appreciate it if the gentleman would consider letting us work on it and seeing what we can do. But we are just about to the point where I do not think we can put any more money in that they will spend. If it looks like we can work out a deal where they are going to spend more money, then it would be well worth considering what the gentleman has in mind. But, as it is, I feel the same way; but we tried to work out a balance where we knew we could get a bill signed, and I think we have come pretty well where it is. But I still think we would be quite willing to work with him.

I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, what I said when I went down to Austin is exactly what I am repeating now. We have to worry about nonproliferation and terrorism and not as much about missile defense. But I am saying, and the gentleman knows the bill we put together, we have to be realistic. So I am asking the gentleman to just desist and let us see what we can work out.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, we have said for the last year and a half, if you remember I said a year ago, we are not going to be able to prevail unless we get the Iraqis to take over the fighting themselves.

Now, we put $5.7 billion in. I think we are going to consider a little bit later lifting the cap on the $500 million so it can be spent. So if the gentlewoman would withdraw this amendment, we will try to work this thing out. Because it is such a delicately balanced bill, if we go through a long harangue about something we are already trying to do; in other words, we put $5.7 billion in. We have $500 million in this bill. We just remove the limitation if the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) prevails. I think that will solve your problem.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson- Lee).

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I appreciate what the gentleman from Oregon is doing, and I know what he has in mind. I know in 1991, President Bush had a number of us at the White House. He did not think he needed to come to Congress, but he did.

I know that this last war, a number of people from the former administration called me, from the former Bush administration, called me and asked me to talk to the President about making sure he came to Congress and came to the U.N. before they went. So I understand what the gentleman is trying to do. I cannot imagine a President going into an independent country, and we have been trying to keep as close ties as we can in this bill on the President or the administration when they try to go into these other countries. I know that they thought they could go before, and they did not.

And so I would say to the gentleman, I would hope that he would believe that Congress would have a role and we certainly have to fund it, so at any time we could just not fund it. Our role is a big role, and I know to stop the Vietnam War, the funding was reduced substantially. I can remember the exact incident on this floor when that happened. The public was for it up to a point. The public has turned against this war, as all of us know, in Iraq. But we still have some problems.

I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I understand that, but what I am saying is under the Constitution we have a responsibility. I do not think any of us want to cede that responsibility to any President, no matter if he is Democrat or Republican. The only time it happens is when we may be misled or something like that, but as a whole the Congress wants to do what is right. I would be very concerned if we passed something that might limit us here.

I appreciate the passion of the gentleman. I feel the same way. I feel just as strongly as he does, that the Congress has the ultimate say about whether we go to war. I would urge the Members to vote against this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I want to assure the gentlewoman from California that I agree, we certainly should not overthrow a democratically elected government. I appreciate the gentlewoman's intention in 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 move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I have seen a lot of chairmen presiding over the House in the many years that I have been on one side or the other of this bill. And I want to tell you, you do as good as job as anybody. And my compliments to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) for the way you handled this bill.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, you think he is kind of giving us a little business here, Mr. Chairman, on this thing here? We did the best we could do under the circumstances. Right?

Mr. Speaker, in regards to what the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) just said, I am surprised at the new chairman. He is so lenient about getting time out of him. Usually our bill moves much faster than this. I thought he learned.

Let me say the defense part of this and maybe the rest of it is probably the most bipartisan bill one could ever find. The gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young), the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis), and I have been traveling to these various bases. We found shortages every place we went, all kinds of problems that they brought to our attention that needed to be rectified. We found problems so severe that many of the units that were on their way to Iraq were C-4. The gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), my good friend, the hero from Vietnam, knows what I am talking about when I say C-4. I am talking about they are not ready to go to combat because the equipment is so bad.

As a matter of fact, the equipment was so bad at one base, and I think it was Fort Stewart where the troops did not have radios to train with, did not have small arms ammunition, did not have mortar ammunition to train with, and that means that when they get there, they are not at the cutting edge of where they should be. Now they get equipment when they get there, and that overcomes the C-4.

So the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) and I, what we did was put $2.3 billion into the budget. We first checked, the staff checked, with the Army to make sure that that is where it ought to be put. The Army came back and supported us. Usually, they beat around the bush. The gentleman from California (Chairman

Lewis) knows what I mean. We talk to them, and because of other people over there, they do not want to admit that they need the money. This time they were very emphatic that they needed every cent and they needed it as soon as they could get it. So we added money for the types of things that they need.

Having said that, what I have said to the services because we are having such a problem, we see the recruiting problem, we are looking into that right now. The subcommittee I serve on, we realize and we have said for a long time, they are going to have a recruiting problem as this war gets unpopular; and we were trying to figure out how do we overcome that.

Most times I disagree with those bonuses because I feel so strongly that people ought to join the Armed Forces for the good of the country, but we have to give bonuses to send them over there. We put money in for those kinds of things. We increased the amount of money somebody gets when they are killed in action. We expanded it so that when they are killed in action, they are taken care of retroactively as well as prospectively. We take care of somebody who is wounded. We added money to it. Some veterans group called me and said they were not happy with the way we added that money. They felt like there ought to be more study, and I cannot disagree with that.

But when the four of us sat down, the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) and Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens, we came to the conclusion that we just did not think we could wait. So we put money in to take care of people who were injured so severely as well as the ones that were killed. And I got so many letters from the people at home, and I have had 12 killed in my district, how pleased they were about what we are doing because it helped them get through a very difficult time.

What we have tried to do over the years is make sure that the people that were in the Armed Forces had what they needed, that the people in Iraq have what they need. Our subcommittee brought to the attention of the country that they were without a lot of equipment in Iraq. We are working right now. New trucks, we are trying to figure out how to put new trucks in that are encapsulated because we have taken care of the Humvees, but we need to take care of the trucks now. So we got some commercial trucks which were recommended which were $100,000 less, but it was so late, we could not get it in the bill. We are going to ask for reprogramming for that amount of money.

So this bill is taking care of equipment shortages, not all of them, but it is taking care of as many as we could possibly squeeze in. It is taking care of Reset. We forced the military to ask for Reset. The minute that this war is over and the money starts to dry up, Reset will be the first thing they do not do; so we have to do it now. And I have said to many of the industrial leaders in this country, the minute the war is over, there will not be any supplementals, there will be a lot less money to be spent, and we have got to spend this money now in the supplementals to make sure that that gets done. Armor modularity, there is some argument about that; but we think it ought to be done, and we have pushed this.

Many of the programs that the Army has today have come about because of the Defense Subcommittee, chaired by the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and chaired by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young). Many of the things that have happened have happened because we see it out in the field. We go out in the field, talk to the people, make sure that we are doing the right thing, and then we try to send defense in the right direction.

So I urge the Members to vote for this. The troops need it, and it helps dramatically for the amount of money that is needed by the Armed Forces.

Objection, Mr. Speaker.