Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, in my estimation, the Pope was instrumental in helping to bring down communism. His words in Poland, ``Don't be afraid,'' resonated throughout the world against tyranny, despotism and injustice.

Mr. Chairman, this is truly a bipartisan bill, the defense part of it in particular. Chairman Young and I have worked very closely together. He visited some places; I visited three bases. We found shortages. We found problems. We tried to rectify those problems. We tried to put in what the people in the field asked us and what needed to be done.

We realized that insurance payments needed to be changed. We realized that the death benefits needed to be changed. We also realized there is a jurisdictional problem, but we felt like it could not wait. I have had 12 people killed in my district, and there is no question in my mind for the need for that to be changed.

But the thing that is the most important in my estimation is accountability. Chairman Young and I sat in his office not long ago and talked about the bill, and he got his copy of the Constitution out and it talked about accountability. It talked about congressional accountability. And I thought how unaccountable the Defense Department seems to be at this stage. They do not seem to realize we are not here to hurt them, we are here to help them. We believe that if you do not have the confidence of the people, if you do not have confidence in the way the money is being spent, you are going to lose confidence in the overall project, the overall philosophy, the overall direction we are trying to go.

We put language in the bill last year, and we said, you have got to give us a report. That report is 3 or 4 months late. No reason for that to happen. They had plenty of notice. And it should have been on our desk before this bill was up so that if there was something that needed to be rectified, we could rectify it. There are two reports. I do not know if the second one is late yet or not.

Of course that takes us to the next step and that is the thing with the intelligence which we have read in the newspaper and which I can neither confirm nor not confirm has happened. But I worry that things are getting out of control that we do not know about. We sit and try to help them every way we can. Many of the things we put in this bill they did not ask for because they did not know about it. We found out about it, and we made sure that was part of the presentation, part of this bill.

I have to say that when I meet with the Secretary of Defense, when we listen to his presentation, we always say to him, chairman of the full committee, Chairman Lewis, chairman of the defense subcommittee the last time, Chairman Young, we always say, Look, we're here to help you. Give us these reports. Tell us how you're spending this money. When I saw there was a $9 billion fund that was not accounted for according to the auditors, and, of course, this is not appropriated money, this is money provided for the oil, but still we should know where it goes because it can replace some of the money that we are appropriating for these resources.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

I would just conclude by saying this is our responsibility under the Constitution, and I am hopeful that the Defense Department gets the message. I support the bill and will do everything I can to get it passed. Of course, any problems we have in conference I am sure we will work them out.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise to oppose the amendment. I have to say what I say about the administration, about the Defense Department many times. Just because you say it, does not mean it is so. Just because we say we are going to put $5 million in does not mean it is going to be a Truman Commission. We have bill language which says they have to report to us at a certain date, and they did not do it. So there is no doubt in my mind this is not something that is going to happen. I do not say we are wasting time because there is no question accountability is our responsibility. But we are not going to get any responsibility this way. As far as I am concerned, what we are saying, this language is not bill language. It does not mean that they are going to do it. And so I oppose the amendment. And I think we ought to get rid of this amendment and get on with the rest of the business on the floor.

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

I would hope that the gentlewoman would withdraw this amendment. This is a very important amendment. I see what she is trying to do here. But the regular forces are just as short. As a matter of fact, this bill actually does not provide enough money for the regular forces. I understand the technicalities of it, that it should not be in a supplemental, it should be in a regular bill; but to put all the O&M money in the National Guard would do a disservice to the regular forces.

I just visited three bases. All three bases were short in O&M money. They were short in almost every category. So I wish the gentlewoman would withdraw her amendment. We will take a look in the conference to see if the National Guard needs more O&M money, and we will see what we can do.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman has good criteria for success, and the chairman and I have talked about this, and I think he has got a good idea here.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) and I discussed this amendment. We last year talked about it, but we have gotten serious this year about it because he brought to our attention a real problem, not on this individual but of these folks coming out of Iraq

who are losing this money at a critical time in their lives. We are going to look at it and try to figure out what we can do. With the chairman's cooperation, hopefully we will be able to figure something out to take care of these people, the ones who are severely wounded because financially they are really hurting when they come out of there. He and I have both seen them at the hospitals. We know how hurt they are, but when they lose their financial resources, it hurts the families. So if the gentleman will withdraw his amendment, we will do everything we can to work this thing out.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to talk about how good the Defense portion of this bill is, and I was disappointed we lost the embassy vote, and hopefully we will be able to repair that. But let me say that the members of the Defense Subcommittee went out to bases all over the country. We have all kinds of shortages. We added $1.8 billion to this bill to take care of things like spare parts, small arms, mortars, things that one would expect that they would have. We not only have shortages overseas and equipment that is worn out overseas, we have Reserve and National Guard units that are actually going to the major bases like Fort Bragg and having to rehabilitate that equipment.

One of the reasons we put in $7 billion for rehabilitation of equipment was because of what we found out in the field. We think it is absolutely essential to get the Army back in shape so that when these units are called up they have the right equipment when they train, and when they go overseas they have the right equipment.

So I would hope everybody would vote for this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a great American, patriot, Naval Officer, and fellow Pennsylvanian, Rear Admiral Kathleen Martin. This spring, Admiral Martin will retire from the United States Navy after thirty-one years of distinguished leadership, selfless service, and tireless commitment to our Navy and nation.

Admiral Martin became the Deputy Surgeon General of the Navy and Vice Chief, Bureau of Medicine and Surgery on October 3, 2002. A native of Arnold, Pennsylvania, she is a graduate of Boston University School of Nursing and received her Master of Science degree in both Nursing Administration and Family Health Nursing from the University of San Diego. She is a member of the American College of Healthcare Executives, the American Society for Public Administration, the Association of Military Surgeons of the United States and Sigma Theta Tau.

Admiral Martin was commissioned an Ensign in the Navy Nurse Corps in May 1973, and was promoted to flag rank while serving as the Medical Inspector General in 1998. She has held a wide variety of clinical, staff and leadership positions, including Commanding Officer of Naval Medical Clinic, Port Hueneme, California; Commanding Officer, Naval Hospital Charleston, South Carolina; and Commander, National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland.

A visionary naval officer and a decisive and inspirational leader throughout her career, Admiral Martin possesses an infectious enthusiasm to ensure that world-class health care is delivered throughout the military health care system. Her oversight of diverse areas of responsibility affecting the Medical Department and the Navy has resulted in bold initiatives and innovative programs that will support our sailors, Marines, and military beneficiaries well into the twenty-first century. Illustrative of her dynamic and visionary leadership is ``Family Centered Care.'' Her breakthrough approach, shifting the fundamental approach of patient care from a traditional inpatient model based on disease-state and specialty services, to a patient-centered model that integrates related customer services around patients has become the standard of care throughout military medicine. Navy Medicine is applying these Family Centered Care principles to its unique capability to influence healthy habits and lifestyles during the building of a Navy family.

Her unquestionable integrity, passionate commitment in service to others and strong relationship-building skills mark her every contribution to the Navy and the nation. Admiral Martin leaves a legacy of distinction and accomplishments in which she should take great pride and satisfaction. During her tenure as the Deputy Navy Surgeon General, she has met every challenge posed including those of Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and the Global War on Terror.

Mr. Speaker, I ask to extend best wishes on behalf of the Congress of the United States for continued happiness and success to Admiral Martin and her family as they begin the next

chapter of their lives, with the thanks and gratitude of a grateful nation for Admiral Martin's loyal and dedicated service.

Mr. Speaker, I hate to rise in opposition to both leaderships on both sides of the aisle. I am probably the only one that is going to vote for a draft. I believe we have to start looking at this right now. And I will tell you why it is a serious problem. We have 135,000 troops in Iraq right now. We are going to have to have 135,000 there for at least 2 years. We are training people, the Iraqis about 4,000 a month, and a lot of them are deserting. So there is no way that we have had cooperation with the international community. There is no way we are going to be able to do the fourth round of replacement without some kind of a draft.

Now, I remember the President of the United States asking to extend the National Guard in 1941, just a few months before the attack on Pearl Harbor. He extended it by one vote, and this is serious business here. We can get up and talk politics, we can get up and blame each other for what we are involved in here, but we have to have the personnel to do this job.

I go out to the hospitals every week, and I see these young people who are in their second and third tours in Iraq. I see them without legs and without arms, and I know how hard this is.

Now, let me tell you, on the street that I lived on when I was a kid, four people in my family, my father and three of his brothers, were involved in World War II. Some of them were drafted, and some of them were volunteers. And in the next house, there were seven from the same family. In the next house from that, there were six from the same family that went into World War II. Now, they went; some drafted, and some not drafted. We had 15 million people. We are in a war. And not only a small segment of the population should fight in that war.

I voted against the volunteer army in the first place because I said that I did not believe that, if we got into a crucial situation, we would be able to sustain our national security. This is a national security problem. This is something we have to face now.

I remember standing right over here when Jack Kemp was a Member, and he did not want to vote to extend registration because he believed it was not necessary. I said, Jack, we have to be prepared here. We have to be prepared in case something happens.

They have advertisements for the volunteer army, and they say, we want you to come in. We want you to get an education. We want you to better yourselves. We want you to come in, and you will have a steady job, and an

awful lot of people joined the military with that in mind.

I was talking to a father the other day. He said his father was in World War II. His uncle was in the Battle of the Bulge, and another uncle served in the Pacific. And he was in the Reserves, and his boy was just killed in Iraq. And he was so worried because they were sending people back for the second and third time.

I mean, we have got people in the National Guard who they have stopped letting out. His son was supposed to come home in August, and he was killed.

Now, that is the kind of thing we are facing. This should not only be borne by people who are volunteering because they could not find a job. This is something that every one of us across the board, rich and poor, everyone should be willing to serve in the armed services of the United States.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that we would take this seriously. I would hope that we would not get into a political debate about whether this is politics or not. I would hope we would look ahead.

What I said before, my colleagues have got to remember we have got 135,000 troops on the ground. We have sent some of these people back a couple of times. The Army is looking at the possibility of having a 6- month tour, and that will not help the situation because they are going to have to send them back sooner. Some of the people who are supposed to be home for a year are unable to stay home for a year.

I remember being in Europe talking to General Jones, and they extended the 1st Infantry Division. He was worried that the families, because they extended them, how many people would be killed and what a pressure that would put on the families. All of us worry about that. All of us have to worry about that. That is our job, and we have to look ahead.

We cannot just look ahead to the election. We have got to look ahead after the election at what it is going to mean to our troops.

I think that we make a mistake when we get up here and accuse each other when we are in a war. When we were in a war in World War II, we were attacked here, and everybody ought to be willing to serve. I mean, a draft is a fair way to cut, no deferments for anybody. We pick it by lottery; we take the number of people we need and send it down to the Armed Forces.

Let me tell my colleagues something. They are already taking category fours, and I think that is good for the country. I think it is good because the best training people will get in the world today is the military training. They will take category fours, and they will make those people into good citizens. They will work them, and the Army does not like it. The military does not like category fours because it is too much time to train those people.

Let me tell my colleagues something. All of us need everybody to go into the Armed Forces. From every level, from the rich and the poor, from the middle class, everybody needs to go, and we have to, and there is no question about it. If we are going to be there, if what the leaders on both sides are saying, both candidates are saying, we are going to be there. We are not going to leave there until the Iraqis can take over. They cannot take over overnight. It is going to take time to train those people; and if we are going to train those people, we have got to have somebody in the United States who can replace them.

It takes us a year to train. The gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the chairman, and I put in the money for the extra 30,000 people because we knew they needed 30,000 people this year. I asked the personnel guy, are you going to ask for this in the budget this year? He said, no, sir, we are going to expect a supplemental to take care of it.

The point is, we needed an extra 30,000 people. We have got to face that we are in a war, and we have got to face that everybody should be bearing the burden of this war, not just the few volunteers that are time after time sacrificing and the young people are being so mangled by this war. Their spirit aside, they are doing a marvelous job and are so proud.

When I go out to the hospital every week, Bethesda one week and Walter Reed the next week, and I see these young people, and even then the fighting is so intense that they are saying to me, this is a tough war, Congressman, and we need help, we need support; and we are giving them support. In this Congress, we are giving them everything they need except we are not looking ahead to the very thing that we are going to need down the road and that is additional troops, and we are not meeting the requirement of the National Guard, and that is the first step.

So I would ask Members to reconsider this, and I would hope that a number of us would vote for a draft as a serious business rather than talking of politics and the whole thing.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to put some very laudatory comments about the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) in the record, because this is his last time as a chairman maybe.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to my good friend from California, the Chairman of the Defense Appropriations Committee, Congressman Jerry Lewis. Since joining the Defense Subcommittee, Congressman Lewis has been one of the strongest supporters of our men and women in uniform that this Congress has ever known. As Chairman, he has guided the Subcommittee without partisanship or political agenda to ensure that our military remains the best military in the world. The Defense Department and the people of our great Nation owe Jerry Lewis a debt of gratitude for his unyielding support and hard work. And for that, I salute him.

Mr. Speaker, on July 15, 2004, on rollcall No. 378 regarding H. Res. 713, I inadvertently voted ``yea'' but meant to vote ``nay.''

Similarly, on rollcall No. 379 regarding H. Con. Res. 462, I inadvertently voted ``yea'' but meant to vote ``nay.''

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the students, alumni, faculty and administration of The Pennsylvania State University, known more familiarly as Penn State, as the school turns 150 this year.

Established in 1855 as a land grant college, it began modestly as a one-building agriculture school in the center of Pennsylvania. Because there was not even a town there at the time, the town that grew up around the school eventually became incorporated as State College. In testimony to the grit and hardworking tradition of Pennsylvanians, Penn State grew quickly in size as well as academic stature among institutions of higher learning.

Penn State can be proud of its academic tradition. The university boasts a wide array of academic achievements in countless disciplines, from agriculture to engineering, from mathematics to meteorology, from the arts to applied research. Penn State is well-known and respected in national collegiate athletics for the strict academic standards it applies to its athletes. Penn State intercollegiate athletes graduate at a rate significantly above the national average. This sets a national example not only to other collegiate athletes but to college and high school students as well.

I am proud to join my Pennsylvania Colleagues in paying tribute to an institution that has so enriched Pennsylvania and our nation academically and culturally.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say we did the best we could do with the amount of money we have available.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman should take full credit. He is the one who asked and the one that recognized it, and we are certainly glad for the Subcommittee on Foreign Operation, Export Financing and Related Programs; but he is the guy that made sure that this got in there.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

I want to assure the gentlewoman from California I agree with her on the point and appreciate her intention in raising this issue, and I want to assure the gentlewoman that as the bill moves forward we will be mindful of this issue and work with her and her staff to do everything we can to help.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, there is no one who has worked harder on this issue than the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer). The committee is very aware of it, and we put report language in to make sure to try and go in the direction the gentleman tried to. We made a slight increase in the amount of money available. We know it is a massive problem. This committee has been in the forefront of trying to address this problem. We appreciate the gentleman's concern. He has brought it to our attention over and over again, and we are doing the best we can.

We know some of the things the gentleman pointed out, we put into the language to say we have got to get it straightened out. So we appreciate the gentleman's hard work and dedication in trying to solve this very difficult problem.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, we have $409 million in this program. I think it is premature what she asks here. But if the gentlewoman would withdraw her amendment, we will certainly take it into consideration and try to work something out here because there is no question it could be a

problem in the future, and I think what she is addressing is a very important issue. But I think it would be premature, and I hate to see her turned down when we have got $409 million there.

If the gentlewoman would withdraw the amendment, I assure her we will do everything we can to work something out in relation to what she is trying to do, which would be to put $15 million into Iran in case it comes up, or Iraq. I do not anticipate it is going to come up on Iraq, but certainly Iran.

And North Korea, absolutely.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I would just say to the gentleman, we are trying to figure out exactly what he wants to do because no one has been more on the forefront of this particular issue than he has. We want to help him. We understand it. We know how serious it is. We have done this in a number of different places. If this will clear 8 million acres, we certainly want to help.

If the gentleman will withdraw his amendment, we will find a way to take care of his 8 million acres.

I would hope we would be able to work this out. I do not know if we will add to the $204 million, but we certainly can take this $5 million if the gentleman thinks it is this important. He has been involved in this for so long. We will try to work it out. Otherwise, we go to a vote, and whether you win or not, I do not know; but the point is, we will try to work it out.

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

words, and I yield to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Wait a minute. The gentleman says it is a little project. This is a project you are advocating. This is not a little project. It is a project you are advocating. It is $5 million.

We want to help.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, we know she has been at the forefront of this issue. We know that so many service people have been affected by the fact they have been overseas, and then they come home, and in the bill last year we said when they come home, each person has to be counseled. We found that they have not been counseled. The gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) has some language, which the chairman accepted, in mental health and the same type of thing. What the gentlewoman is trying to do we agree with completely. If the gentlewoman will withdraw her amendment, we will do everything we can to make sure this gets done.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, we certainly appreciate what she is saying. We will take a look at it in conference, and I hope that the gentlewoman would withdraw this amendment, but we will certainly take a look at it.

I see exactly what she is talking about and we have that problem. Sometimes we put humanitarian aid, and we do not have the resources to get it to the people who really need it, and al Qaeda and the terrorists actually use the money to their benefit. So I appreciate what she is saying, and we will certainly take a look at this in conference.

Mr. Chairman, we have no problem with the amendments.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I have to oppose this amendment. It has just come up at the last minute. As technical as it is, and the gentleman talked to me about it and I looked at it, and all of us are trying to do the same thing: make sure that we do some reform, but that we do not go too far. I think Gordon England is the right one to look at this thing. I know the Defense Department is very nervous about the direction they were going at first, and I am afraid this bill will be vetoed if it has this language in it.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will further yield, I do not doubt they are, and I appreciate their recommendation; but this is the wrong approach to it. It just goes a little too far. I think we need to work on this kind of thing together. And at the last minute, it just makes it hard for us to accept something like this. So I would hope we defeat this amendment and try to work something out later on.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, we will make sure there is enough money to take care of those airplanes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 250th anniversary of the French and Indian War and the commemorative activities planned to revisit this important time in our Country's history.

As a former soldier, I believe that remembering and recognizing the bravery and courage of those who fought before us is essential to keeping history alive and fully appreciating the freedom we now enjoy. Today, our troops are faced with the conflict in Iraq. As we commemorate the 250th anniversary of the French and Indian War, let us remember that it is through the bravery of the young men in Iraq that there will be a new country, new government, and new opportunities, much like the result of the French and Indian War 250 years ago.

Beginning in 1754, the French and Indian War changed everything. The political climate during and after the war directly resulted in the American Revolution and the creation of the United States as an independent nation. The war also gave America its first introduction to George Washington, the beginning of a friendship that would help to build this great Nation.

Laura Fisher, the Executive Director of the French and Indian War 250, Inc., along with former Pennsylvania First Lady Michele Ridge, National Co-Chair of the French and Indian War Advisory Committee, and Chuck Queenan, Chairman of the Board of the French and Indian War 250, Inc., have helped to build the national commemoration of the French and Indian War from a regional event to a multi-state initiative that spans a twenty-state area from Maine to South Carolina.

Official commemoration activities began in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, April 16-18, 2004, at the historic Point Park. The Point was the site of Fort Duquesne, later Fort Pitt, and one of the most sought after locations thanks to the accessibility of the Ohio, Allegheny, and Monongahela Rivers.

The next several years will commemorate the anniversary through large-scale re-enactments at historic sites, exhibitions of rare historical artifacts, educational symposia and a major public television series, and I encourage my colleagues and their constituents to participate in remembering some of the most important milestones and sacrifices made leading to America's founding.

The National Governor's Association meeting held recently in Washington, D.C., was a great victory for the French and Indian War 250th Anniversary as several of the nation's governors reaffirmed their support of the importance of the commemoration by signing their name to the French and Indian War Memorandum of Understanding. I applaud Governor Ed Rendell of my state of Pennsylvania, and all the Governors who have pledged their continued commitment to developing programs to attract and educate visitors about the rich heritage and contribution that each state made during this era of conflict.

Governors who signed the Memorandum of Understanding have pledged to continue working to create French and Indian War trails, new marketing strategies to inform the public of this exciting initiative and educational programs to aid teachers in the classroom.

In commemoration of the French and Indian War's 250th anniversary celebration and the Memorandum of Understanding regarding the importance of this celebration and the importance of recognizing the sacrifices made in battle, I respectfully request that the French and Indian War Memorandum of Understanding be printed in the Congressional Record. I thank the Speaker and I yield the floor.

Memorandum of understanding between the State of Connecticut, the State of Delaware, the State of Illinois, the State of Indiana, the State of Maine, the State of Maryland, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the State of Michigan, the State of New Hampshire, the State of New Jersey, the State of New York, the State of North Carolina, the State of Ohio, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the State of Rhode Island, the State of South Carolina, the State of Tennessee, the State of Vermont, the Commonwealth of Virginia, the State of West Virginia, and War for Empire, Inc d/b/a French and Indian War 250, Inc.

The following represents an understanding between the State of Connecticut, the State of Delaware, the State of Illinois, the State of Indiana, the State of Maine, the State of Maryland, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the State of Michigan, the State of New Hampshire, the State of New Jersey, the State of New York, the State of North Carolina, the State of Ohio, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the State of Rhode Island, the State of South Carolina, the State of Tennessee, the State of Vermont, the Commonwealth of Virginia, the State of West Virginia (hereinafter ``the States'') and War for Empire, Inc., d/b/a French and Indian War 250, Inc. (hereinafter ``French and Indian War 250'').

Whereas, the States represent the geographical area in which the French and Indian War historical sites are located and French and Indian War 250 represents the official commemoration of the 250th anniversary of the French and Indian War.

Whereas, the 250th anniversary of the French and Indian War is fast approaching, spanning the years from 2004 to 2010, and the opportunity exists to connect the unparalleled collection of historic sites in these States.

Whereas, by developing a common storyline, educational materials and marketing strategies, these important, but mostly rural, sites in the States will be given new visibility.

Wheareas, the occasion of this major anniversary will serve as a springboard in the States for tourism, education and economic development as we develop new programs and projects to attract visitors, educate the general public about the lasting importance of this conflict, and elevate this regional story to national prominence.

Whereas, commemorative plans revolve around four basic goals: to improve and connect the battle sites, both regionally and nationally; to create programming to attract visitors and educate the public; to stage commemorative events nationwide over the life of

the anniversary period; and to elevate the visibility and significance of the commemoration.

Whereas, connecting battle sites, located in the States, from the spread of the war through southwestern Pennsylvania to its neighboring colonies and related sites from Pontiac's Rebellion, which occurred on the frontier as the immediate aftermath of the war, gives greater context for a new understanding of the critical role played in this era by Native American nations.

Whereas, the States' large network of battle sites from the French and Indian War can offer visitors a living historical storyline. The National Park Service has already begun programmatic efforts at several sites, including the well-known national battlefield Fort Necessity, and is supportive of the efforts to link these activities to the French and Indian War commemoration.

Whereas, it is important to translate the story into specific exhibit and public presentation strategies, including development of a shared logo, brochures and marketing plans to reach new audiences with targeted and effective messaging.

Whereas, a major centerpiece of the celebration will be a four-hour public television special, aimed at a broad general audience and aired as a national prime time television event. The reach and lasting effect of this national television event can be extended with cutting-edge technological tools to reach teachers and students nationwide with curricula and other related materials.

Whereas, Parkman Prize winning historian Fred Anderson is authoring an heavily illustrated popular book based on the film, which will also encourage new interest in the States' sites.

Whereas, the States will enjoy tourism opportunities through regional and multi-state tour and thematic guides that will be distributed at the 40-plus National Park Service Revolutionary War/18th century sites. Also, a new national French and Indian War thematic trail will be developed, linking the States and their sites.

Whereas, a national calendar of commemorations, reenactments and public programming in the States will generate and sustain interest for the life of the anniversary period. A national media strategy will be developed, including a press tour, to reach diverse markets.

Now therefore, the States and French and Indian War 250 have established a working relationship and agree in good faith to work together to focus on the commemoration of the 250th anniversary of the French and Indian War and commence the aforementioned activities as of February 22, 2004 and continue these activities until 2010 or terminated by any party.

In witness whereof, the State of Connecticut, the State of Delaware, the State of Illinois, the State of Indiana, the State of Maine, the State of Maryland, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the State of Michigan, the State of New Hampshire, the State of New Jersey, the State of New York, the State of North Carolina, the State of Ohio, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the State of Rhode Island, the State of South Carolina, the State of Tennessee, the State of Vermont, the Commonwealth of Virginia, the State of West Virginia and French and Indian War 250 have evidenced their good faith intent of the undersigned to work toward the goals herein enumerated.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the life of an extraordinary individual, Mr. Robert Eberly Sr., of Uniontown, Pennsylvania.

As with all great humanitarians, it is impossible to fully assess the impact Robert Eberly's life has had on his community and our country. A true gentleman and tireless philanthropist, known for his grace and humility as well as his passion for bettering the lives of others, Robert Eberly's generosity is legendary not only in Pennsylvania but across the country.

Bob often said that others worked just as hard as he did, but were not as fortunate because of circumstances beyond their control. Guided by this basic belief, he donated tens of millions of dollars to support education and economic development.

Robert Eberly was a man of incomparable energy and was actively involved in many of the projects he funded. Though he could have resided anywhere in the world, his heart and home remained in Fayette County, Pennsylvania where his father, a coal miner, raised him on the importance of education. His desire to help the economically depressed region in the wake of the downsizing of the steel and coal industry led him to found Fay-Penn Economic Development Council to support economic development in his home county.

He believed that education is a key to economic development--that the two are intertwined. He therefore donated heavily to colleges and universities throughout Pennsylvania as well as across the United States to promote education in the sciences and to make education accessible to those who could least afford it.

Robert Eberly passed away yesterday at the age of 85. He will be remembered for the example of true character he set for everyone who knew him as well as for the profound legacy of his work. His was a life well spent in the effort to help others. He will be missed by all whose lives he touched--and we will never know all of them.

Mr. Chairman, it is hard to add anything to what the chairman said, but I have found over the years it has cost us more in many cases to close these bases than we have saved. But in this particular case, I think we have got a different problem. About a year ago, General Jones of NATO and the Supreme Allied Commander said to me, we will realign the troops in Europe. Secretary Rumsfeld not long ago spent some time talking to me about the realignment in Europe and in the United States. For us to start to look at base closing before they get the realignment done would be a real mistake. I think it would be counterproductive.

In the first place, we do not know when these troops come back. We are

going to increase the size of the forces. We have already increased the Army by 30,000. They want to increase the brigades by about 25 percent. All those things have to be stationed someplace. Until they get the global strategy, the global footprints set up, I do not think there is any way we should make a decision like this.

When it comes to savings, we spent in the Presidio, they talk about how much money we will save when we close the base. We spent $100 million in cleaning up that base afterwards. In Southern California, we spent almost $100 million cleaning up the base.

We have ammunition depots, ammunition targets where we spend. The Navy Yard in Philadelphia, they figure to clean it up it would cost $1 billion. So it leaves a hole in Philadelphia where if you do not clean it up, you lose the jobs; and in addition to that you spend an awful lot of extra money.

I think as all the chiefs say in the letter dated 18 November 2004, this is not the time to do a BRAC. Naturalization of our domestic infrastructure as conducted by BRAC must closely follow the global posture review. I agree with that. I would urge Members to vote against this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I share with my colleagues the news that a distinguished Veteran and longtime friend, Bill Maurer, has passed away. I submit the following announcement:

William W. ``Bill'' Maurer, 72, of Fort Collins died Tuesday, April 13, 2004, at Poudre Valley Hospital. He passed peacefully with his family members at his side.

While in the Wyoming National Guard he rose from the rank of private to sergeant first class and was ultimately commissioned as a second lieutenant in 1953. He was called to active duty in the, Army in mid 1953 and attended the Artillery Basic Officers Course at Fort Sill, Okla., and then joined the 37th Infantry Division at Fort Polk, La.

He married Joyce Marie Huntzinger in Douglas on Dec. 28, 1953. They were blessed with two children, Deborah Ruth and David William. During their marriage, Bill and Joyce traveled to many duty assignments around the world with tours of duty in Fort Polk, La.; Fort Sill, Okla.; Fort Riley, Kan.; Germany; Fort Leavenworth, Kan.; and Washington, D.C. During his military career Bill commanded the 5th Battalion, 29th Artillery in the Republic of Vietnam and the 1st Infantry Division Artillery at Fort Riley. He also was a graduate of the Army Command and General Staff College and the U.S. Army War College. During his military career he served in many high-level positions that included tours of duty as an Army liaison officer to the U.S. Senate, deputy chief of legislative liaison, Office, Secretary of the Army and deputy secretary of defense -legislative affairs. He retired from the Army on June 30, 1979, with more than 30 years of service at the rank of brigadier general. His military decorations include the Silver Star, one OLC; Legion of Merit, one OLC; Defense Superior Service Medal, the Soldiers Medal, the Bronze Star Medal for valor, one OLC; the Purple Heart medal, one OLC; the Meritorious Service Medal, two OLC; the Air Medal for valor, 12 OLC; and the Army Commendation Medal, three OLC, and numerous foreign and service awards.

After his retirement he joined Chrysler Corporation as director of the Washington office of the Chrysler Defense subsidiary. In 1981 Chrysler Defense was purchased by General Dynamics Corporation, he assumed new duties in the General Dynamics Washington Corporate Office as manager of legislative affairs. In 1984 he was promoted to corporate director of legislative affairs and later became corporate vice president for congressional relations in 1991. He retired from General Dynamics in March 1994, and Bill and Joyce relocated to their retirement home in Fort Collins, where he still remained active as a consultant to General Dynamics.

He was a 43-year member of the American Legion, a life member of the Retired Officers Association, the Reserve Officers Association and the Army War College Alumni Association.

Bill was a generous, caring man who will be missed by all who knew him. He was a wonderful husband, father and grandfather.

Bill is survived by his daughter, Debbie Prentiss; his son-in-law, Paul; grandsons, Jason and Steven Prentiss of Fort Collins; his son, David Maurer of Fort Collins; and his brother, Richard C. Maurer of Manassas, Va.

Bill was preceded in death by his beloved wife, Joyce of 48 years; and his parents, Richard and Lenore Maurer.

Mr. Speaker, I am indignant, I am insulted, and I am embarrassed that no one came to me and asked me about this resolution. Nobody said, Do you have any input? Nobody has supported this war. The gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and I put a bill on this floor that only 16 people voted against. And I am embarrassed that my colleague would come up with a partisan resolution saying whatever was said without any consultation to the Democrats, particularly me, who has voted so strongly for the defense of this country.

I go home and people criticize me for my position on the war. One fellow said to me, Never in history have so many been misled by so few. And, unfortunately, he was talking about me. He believed that I had misled him. I believed there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. I believed there was imminent danger to this country. And the reason we go to war is because there is a core danger to our national security. We do not go to war because they drained the swamps in Iraq.

I do not think anybody needs to question the Congress who supports the troops in Iraq or anyplace else. We voted continuously and overwhelmingly for the troops. We have tried to make sure they had what they needed, even though there were mistakes made in the original deployment.

There were many shortages that we saw. And we made sure when we went over there, a number of us went over there, we found those shortages, reported them to the Department of Defense; and we started to rectify those shortages.

We know there were changes that before our subcommittee an Under Secretary of Defense came forward and said this war will cost nothing. This war will be paid for by the oil revenues of the Iraqis. We know that in the last war our allies came up with $60 billion. We know that this time we have come up with $150 billion to pay for this war from the United States. We are paying much of the expense of the allies in this war.

This is not the time to divide the country. We are talking about we have got the lowest level of support internationally than we have ever had. All the polls indicate that overseas we are discredited. We are discredited because they do not believe what we say.

It is hard to comprehend. I read not long ago where Dean Acheson went to France and he went to France to talk about the Cuban missile crisis. And when he went to France, he said, I have got proof. He talked to President de Gaulle, and President de Gaulle was not one of our best supporters. He said, I have got photos here which will show you that we have missiles in Cuba. This was during the missile crisis. President de Gaulle said, I do not need to see those photos. I will take the word of the President of the United States.

Now, that is the problem we face. We need to come together. I hope that this resolution will be withdrawn and that we will change a few words in it that would make it unified for the whole country.

For instance, is it safer today in Spain? Is it safer in the Middle East? These are the things that I worry about. Just by putting something on paper you cannot say it is safe. It is just like the President, I am sure he thought the war was over when he said the war is over. I am sure when he made the announcement he thought the war was over, but that does not make it over. And putting it on paper does not mean that we are out of this with this conflict.

We need the support of allies. We need the support, the solid support of this Congress. This is a long-term fight. I had members of the State Department over before with me in my office and they were telling me about the transition. This is going to be a very, very difficult transition. I do not say it was a shotgun wedding, but I would say we put together something where it is going to be very difficult to get the Iraqi people to agree when you have the divisions that you have in Iraq.

So we are going to need everybody's support, not only in Congress; but we are going to need the people of the world's support because it is such a difficult issue for us to face.

I am in it for the long run. Any money that they need, any equipment

they need, anything they need, I am going to be there in front, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and I, and all the rest of the committee and all the rest of the Members of Congress. Because everybody wants to support the troops. But you put it on paper, it does not mean that the troops are safer.

Now, I had two young women come to my office. Both of them had lost their husbands. One had two children, one had one child. I have lost six from my district. And they are from a very poor family. And they came in and they went to Walter Reed and they took gifts out to the wounded at Walter Reed.

Many of us have been out there. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) has been out there; the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) has been out there. All of us have been out to Walter Reed. And this one young woman, 22 years old with a child said, You know, I got married, I got pregnant. Then my husband was deployed and I had a baby. He was killed and I had a baby. She said, I should not have to live my whole life in one year.

We support the troops. All of us support the troops. But we cannot get up here and divide the Nation at this time. This should be a bipartisan resolution. And I would hope we will be able to work that out so that everyone can vote for a resolution that shows this great country is united.