Neil Abercrombie

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, both the gentleman from Alaska and myself are shy and retiring types, and so it is often the case that we are mistaken for one another.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I yield to the gentleman, who has been working very hard to resolve this issue and for whom I have great respect as a result.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. If the gentleman would yield a moment further in that regard and in that context, I do think that the response to the gentleman's question is that the President, and my point to my colleague is, I wonder if he could corroborate or whether he would agree that the President, at least in my estimation, has said that this is wide open; that this does not have an end; that the calculations will be made on essentially an ad hoc basis; and that there is nothing that he can foresee at this moment that would lead us to the kind of exit strategy conclusions that the gentleman has raised.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. May I follow up in that context?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Today, as I am sure my colleagues will acknowledge, and not everyone who is observing us and listening tonight may be aware, we passed a defense appropriations bill from this House. If anything should reflect the concern of the administration with regard to the issues of resolving the consequences of our attack in Iraq, it should be contained in here. I have, for my colleagues' information, Mr. Speaker, referring to the House Action Reports, a Congressional Quarterly publication, a fact sheet edition published today on defense appropriations. In it, section 3 addresses military personnel. It includes things like a military pay raise and a civilian Defense Department pay raise. Active Duty personnel are listed at 1,388,100 in fiscal year 2004, equal to the President's request of 1,600 less than the current level. On Reserves, the bill sets a ceiling on Reserve personnel for a total of 863,300 in the next fiscal year, equal to the administration's request of 1,258 less than the 2003 level. Now, think about it. We now have 150,000 plus people committed in Iraq under the circumstances and conditions that have been discussed here tonight, personnel deployed throughout the world, not just in Afghanistan, but the Philippines, Yemen, and dozens of places, now possibly in Liberia, again under circumstances that are not clear as to where we are going, what we are doing, and who we are doing it with. The President says, ``Bring 'em on,'' but here is the congressional responsibility and obligation as manifested in the appropriations which follow on our authorizing personnel. And what we are saying is, is that the same deployments that have been taking place up until now, which have put such an enormous strain on the Guard and Reserves are going to continue. We are not adding a single person. We are not facing with any respect whatsoever the realities of what these deployments and the obligations attendant upon them will require of us. That is why we are here in the evening during these Special Orders trying to reach out to the American public to explain that we are not quiescent on this. We are not merely observers. We are trying to participate in a respectful and responsible way as Members of Congress. But we have to rouse the attention of the American people to let them know that we are failing those men and women in the armed services if we think for a moment that we are providing adequate support and foundation for what we expect of them.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel), if he could give an educated, speculative assessment of what would have taken place had this same circumstance occurred today during the Presidency of Mr. Clinton.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I want to assure our colleagues as well as those who may be observing and listening to us that we do not intend to make this a 1- or 2- or 3-time deal. This is not two or three Members of Congress off on some individual crusade. We are not here simply to recount those things with which we have a disagreement. What we feel very strongly about is what I believe is the views of the overwhelming majority of the people of the United States and most certainly those who have talked to me about that Members of Congress have not stepped up to the plate with regard to the discussion of these issues in illuminating what is at stake for this country, and that right now some of these corporation-controlled media networks and the organs of the executive government are controlling the message that is out there, and only free men and women, freely elected with the faith and trust of the electorate, the people have put us into these positions of trust here in the people's House. It is up to us with that kind of an obligation placed upon us by the people to speak out and to speak up, to speak forthrightly, to speak with as much knowledge as we can bring to bear, to exercise such judgment as we are able to bring to bear, and to keep the people of this country informed, and to let them know that we will not be silenced in this, that we are going to be back night after night after night, and that if we cannot get these issues discussed during the regular business of the day, then rest assured we will be here in the Special Orders that are given to us here in the people's House to make certain that the hammer of truth is going to come down on the anvil of inquiry that is required of a free people in a democratic society. We are going to return here again. We invite our colleagues to engage in this colloquy. We invite our colleagues to come forward and express their views. We invite our colleagues to come forth and make inquiry of one another so that we can be better informed ourselves, so that we do not have a circumstance that comes to fruition again in this Nation such as we experienced in Vietnam. If anything motivates me to be down here on this floor, I see parallels. I am not drawing analogies, but I see parallels, distinctly fearful parallels, to what took place in Vietnam in which we were urged to keep quiet, in which we were urged not to say anything for fear it would be called dissent, as if there was already an understanding as to what the correct position should be when it comes to issue of life and death as we face now in Iraq and other places where American troops are deployed. I believe it is an absolute necessity of democracy that we have the fullest and freest and the deepest and with the widest breadth of discussion that it is possible to have, and that is what we are going to be doing on this floor.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Would the gentleman allow me to venture perhaps an educated guess myself on that score? Because they were trying to establish a new doctrine for the United States of preemptive warfare. Not that citations might not have been made with regard to other military actions by the United States in previous times, perhaps up to and even including President Clinton's Presidency, but that there was to be established with this a new paradigm of preemption based on an imperial view of the world that the stamp of the United States must be placed upon the rest of the world. I would venture to further my question to the gentleman from Illinois, if President Clinton was in office today and this information was revealed today, what do you think the response of some of our colleagues might have been?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. If the gentleman would yield in turn, to follow up on my point in regard to our analysis, or rather not so much an analysis, I daresay, but our observation that these offhand remarks, these ad hoc remarks by the President, which take on the weight of policy, such as ``Bring 'em on,'' this kind of childish assessment of what constitutes the ground operations in Iraq, are now followed by an observation of the President that Mr. Taylor, the President in Liberia, has to go. Now, where he is going and how he is going and under what circumstances is not said. And the questions from the press, the press which is absent, which do not appear, at least as far as I can tell; now, whether or not people in the White House are so covetous of being in the White House that they do not dare ask the question that anybody with any journalistic bent worthy of the name would ask, just who is supposed to replace Mr. Taylor when he does go, wherever you think he should, provided you have got that far? Mr. Speaker, the reason I raise this issue and the reason I raise it in the present context is if you think we had no planning in Iraq, I can tell you now and tell the American people and tell my colleagues we do not have a clue or an idea of what we will do in Liberia in terms of who will replace Mr. Taylor and who will prevail when he leaves. Now, are we to send in not tens of thousands of, but perhaps hundreds of, American soldiers into a situation that we do not have the slightest idea, nor has there been any discussion in the Congress about what we are going to do, how, when or why we are going to do it, and what the circumstances will be upon the action taken. Now, I for one admonish all of us to take into account where we are now in Iraq and remember that we face exactly the same circumstances in terms of lack of forward-planning policy with regard to Liberia, and the consequences could be just as severe. The numbers might be different, but the situation is the same. We have an administration now that thinks that military action in and of itself constitutes political policy. Furthermore, support for the troops is then defined as being support for whatever political agenda they have. Now, that is what we are facing this evening. No one can say if only for the fact that we appear here on the floor tonight that due warning has not been given to the American public by Members serving in the Congress of the United States that we should have a full debate with respect to what we are going to do in Liberia, most particularly in the wake of what is taking place in Iraq, and that before any action is taken in Liberia, the will of the Congress has to be determined. I would hope that we take the most serious and sober view before we commit American troops in furtherance of a political agenda, and that political agenda is made manifest for the world to judge on the basis of action by American troops.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I do not think we would be speaking in a Chamber as we are tonight during Special Orders with, again, the press being absent. I will presume perhaps some of them are watching on C-SPAN. We would not have an empty Chamber. On the contrary, there would be a full-blown cry throughout the opposition to Mr. Clinton indicating that he should be brought to account or those around him who are giving advice should be brought to account. And I agree with the gentleman, that would be true.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, on that point, or on these series of points that are being made, for all intents and purposes, the only opportunity that the American people are going to have to have these questions explicated is on this floor during special orders, and I want to indicate, and I believe the three of us are agreed upon this, we are going to be back. Arnold Schwarzenegger is not the only one that is going to be back. We are going to be back here on this floor. We are going to be asking the questions. We are going to be making the observations. We are going to be putting forward for the American people the opportunity to hear a perspective that is not necessarily or likely to be enunciated in the press, most particularly in the controlled press. We are not going to see this on the evening news. We are not going to see this in the so- called Sunday talk shows. They have the usual suspects on generally when that comes about. So what I want to do this evening by way of establishing some of the premise is refer back again to the congressional delegation that we made May 23 through the 27 under the chairmanship of the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), my good friend, our good friend, our able chairman, someone dedicated to the defense of this country by any standard of measure. Of course, there are differences of opinion that we have in the Committee on Armed Services on which I am happy to be serving as to what the policies might or might not be with respect to the defense of the strategic interests of this Nation, but there is no difference between us on either our desire or our capabilities or our abilities to try to discern what the best course might be. That is precisely why we went. We did not go there to try and get into a contest with anybody on an ideological basis or party basis but rather to try to find out what was taking place. Maybe tonight will be the first time people will be able to hear anything about what was known as the Organization for Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance, which has now become the Coalition Provisional Authority. These are important because we started out one way with a former general, Jay Garner, who has now been removed all of the sudden within almost days, weeks, in terms of workdays, just days, has been removed, and why? Not because General Garner was thought to be a bad person or an inadequate administrator or did not have the proper motivation or understanding, but because the mission to which he had been assigned and the mission which he expected to carry out, namely, a reconstruction effort, somewhat perhaps akin to the aftermath of a natural disaster, a dam bursting or a hurricane or typhoon or something of that nature, turned out to be a typhoon of entirely a different kind, namely, that there was chaos; that there was an inability to provide even the most elemental of protection for those who would be doing the reconstruction; that there was not an understanding and foundation in the population in which this reconstruction was supposed to take place that this was a mutually agreed-upon activity. There were forces in the street that were, in fact, trying already to get the United States out of Iraq, and therefore, we had to have the intervention of a very competent and highly professional diplomat, Mr. Bremer, Mr. Paul Bremer, who came in and assumed the authority over what has become the Coalition Provisional Authority. What did he propose? When we went to Baghdad to talk with him, he had put together what I called an outline. Some people would call this a plan, but I think Mr. Bremer is an honest and forthright person. I was very impressed with his desire to speak directly to us on the questions that we posed and the observations that we made. He did not try to finesse anything. He did not try to make anything into something other than what he thought it was. He gave that clear impression, and I think that was agreed upon by all Members there, Democrats and Republicans, who were there. He came up with what could best be characterized as an outline, not a plan. A plan is something that we know how to implement, we know who is going to implement it, we know where it is going to be done. We did not know any of these things. We still do not know these things. We are making it up as we go along. This is not an accusation, as the gentleman indicates, against Mr. Bremer. On the contrary he is trying to put something together that was not planned for. This is one of the key elements that we have to think about here when we are talking about we can have authority as General Shinseki said when he retired as Army Chief of Staff on June 11, you can be assigned command authority but you have to earn leadership. The question here that has to be answered by the President, by the Department of Defense, by Mr. Rumsfeld and others is, are they really exercising the kind of leadership that we need in these circumstances? We cannot equate a political policy with patriotism. If you are trying to tell me, and this is where I draw the line here, if you are trying to tell me that I have to agree with somebody else's political policy or have my patriotism questioned or have my capacity to understand what the strategic interests of this Nation are, then you have crossed over the line, and what you are saying in effect is do not examine closely, do not analyze to any great degree the policies that I am putting forward because if you do then I will equate that with somehow being antipatriotic or against our troops. If we are putting the lives of young men and women and the United States Armed Forces on the line, then we have to have policies that are worthy of the commitment and dedication and professionalism of those young people. I got into electoral politics because we failed to do that in the Vietnam War because we decided then that we would equate military activity with political policy, and the military activity became the political policy. That is why we got to body counts in Vietnam to try and justify our insistence on being there militarily, and so we have to account for the key tasks to be completed here in the context of does this advance the interests of the United States at this juncture, pending some further inquiry as to how we got there in the first place. And I will tell you that while these, in and of themselves, these 10 points of Ambassador Bremer to be completed, are worthy in and of themselves, they do not answer the question about what will be the role of the United States over the next 5 to 10 years, at least a decade. And this is where General Shinseki's words become ringing in terms of his retirement and what he said at that retirement about command authority and earning leadership capacity. He said that there should be no confusion about the argument over what the military should be doing or not doing in this country and what its role is going to be in the post-attack phase in the context of the guerilla war that is now underway in Iraq. There should be no confusion as to the commitment of the United States military to civilian control. To raise these issues as to who was in charge is dysfunctional to the discussion. But he warned us, and these words are going to be prophetic, do not get involved in a 12-division policy with a 10-division army. And what he was saying here is, were we adequately prepared ahead of time? Did we do the kind of planning that was necessary in order to accomplish this task? And was that mission that was outlined adequately underlined and a foundation established that would enable us to say with authority that the interests of the United States in terms of its strategic position in the world and whether or not we were facing imminent danger was in fact at stake? Absent that, then we are in for serious trouble. Because that means we will be engaged in essentially an ad hoc operation perhaps for over a decade to come in Iraq, and we will pay a fearful price for that in the lives and bloodshed of our American military and upon the taxpayers of this country and upon the credibility of the United States with regard to world opinion.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I think that that is what fits into the premise that I am establishing here, that we need to have the press in that gallery paying attention to what is going on here on the floor because this is the only place right now that such a commission is going to take place. If someone wants to attribute partisan motives to what we are saying down here, they are going to do that anyway. I have to trust, as we all have to trust, that the people will make a decision as to whether what we are saying, why we are saying it, how we are saying it, where we are going, makes sense to them or not on the basis of ideology alone, as opposed to trying to get at what the truth of the situation is with respect to the national security interests of this Nation.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Whether they were Democrat or Republican.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Well, Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield to me on that point, Ambassador Bremer was very, very direct in his characterization of us being an occupying power. And this was not said with any kind of bravado. It was simply an announcement of the realities that were involved and what his obligations were and what his responsibilities were in Iraq as the director of the coalition provisional authority. And we ought to get something straight here about this. When we say coalition, we are talking about the United States of America. That is who is in charge here. When the Americans show up, then people mean business. I remember that from the Balkan situation before. And just by way of disclosure, on that I opposed President Clinton on that. So again I point out this has nothing to do with Democrats and Republicans, whether they are in the Presidency or not. This has to do with credibility in terms of whether or not the national interests are involved and to what degree they are involved. As a result, I think that we need to understand very clearly what Ambassador Bremer's dilemma is and what is he to do at this stage when contemplating how to advance civil society. Now let us talk about the practical consequences of this. There is a reason that young men and women are being killed or wounded almost daily in Iraq today. We have no civil authority in place. When those who criticize those of us who were aware of this attack taking place under the terms and conditions and time that it took place, when they complain about, well, are you now ready to admit that you lost; that somehow we won and you thought we were going to lose. As my colleague from Pennsylvania pointed out, I do not know of anyone, certainly not any responsible person in the Congress, and I cannot think of anybody in the Committee on Armed Services that thought for a moment that the United States military would not succeed. We only have to observe them in action, as we have as recently on this trip at the end of May, to see that the professionalism, the capacity, the capabilities of the United States military is unparalleled. That is not the question. The question is are the politicians and the politics behind the military activity up to the mark. That is what is at stake here. And that is why we have the situation in which these young people are being shot, are being wounded, are being put in harm's way every day. There is no civil authority there. We are trying to stand up a police force. Does that sound familiar? It should, because we have been trying to do it since the late 1990s in the Balkans; and we are still, despite much more favorable circumstances in, at best, a very tentative dilemma with respect to whether or not with the NATO troops and United States troops leaving that area, whether or not chaos will descend once again. I will assure my colleagues if we leave any time soon, there will be chaos of a nature that the Secretary of Defense calls untidy.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, that just goes to show that the interests of the United States at that time were deemed to be such that we could have that kind of diplomatic relationships with Saddam Hussein and the government in Iraq. The present Secretary of Defense was part of that, was in Iraq and trying to do business with Saddam Hussein. The question is what caused that change? Was it really in the interest of the United States in terms of our defense and imminent danger to the United States to attack Iraq? That is a question that needs to be answered because it is going to inform us and instruct us where we are going from here, whether it is Iran, Syria, North Korea, whether it is the kind of policies that are going to come forward on Iraq itself. This is the kind of thing that needs not just an emphasis but needs explanation. If we are going to have a policy worthy of the legacy of this Nation's triumph of democracy, we cannot simply assert it on behalf of other people, particularly in a place like Iraq which has never known it and whose entire history since World War I has been nothing but a division of the spoils among Western nations. Mr. Speaker, I simply want to indicate to my colleagues, and I hope that we will have a dialogue in the future, particularly with those who have different views as to where we should be going and what we have accomplished to this point, or what we have failed to accomplish to this point, because it is the only place that the American people are going to get any kind of a dialogue like that. That is what this House is all about. This is the people's House. You cannot appear on this floor except by way of election. You can be appointed to the United States Senate; you cannot be appointed to the House of Representatives. This is the people's House. We come up for election, as my wife says, every other year, not every 2 years. You can have a driver's license longer than you can have a license to be on this floor, and that is as it should be because it was the intention of the Founders of this Nation that the people in this country have the opportunity to decide who will represent them here against the House of Lords on the other side of the building. I would indicate that I will be coming back to the floor, and I hope to be joined by others because we do not intend to let this issue slide. We do not intend for anybody to get over this or get by it.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Not while we have the opportunity and obligation as Members of the House of Representatives to speak out on behalf of the people of this Nation.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. And that they are not under siege.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. One closing remark, I do not think the parents and families of the young people who have died make any differentiation between formal and informal. I think those deaths are devastating regardless of the timing associated with it.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much. In conjunction with the comments that the gentleman and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) have been making, I want to preface my remarks with the observation that part of the complaint that is being made across the country with respect to this attack on Iraq and the subsequent war which is now unfolding is that where are people speaking out on it? Well, we are here on Special Orders tonight. I think those who are observing our deliberations here on C-SPAN understand that the House is not formally meeting right now. I would think, I want to make it clear to those folks who are observing and listening to our deliberations here this evening, that we do not have the opportunity during the work day to be able to speak at length and in depth on this issue and the issues surrounding the attack on Iraq. We have the opportunities to ask questions and perhaps a followup or two in committee hearings, when we are able to get them, with respect to the defense budget or as we dealt with just recently having witnesses from the Department of Defense. Those are rather formal occasions, as they should be. Presentation is made by the Department of Defense or by the requisite executive agency, and so occasionally a dialogue back and forth. If C-SPAN is not there, for all intents and purposes, it does not exist. When we go home to our districts and they say, where are the people who are opposed to this or have differing views or want to establish a different perspective, it is important to understand that the mass media in this country is owned by a small number of conglomerate interests, many of whom are associated with the kind of thing that is taking place just today. I refer you to the Los Angeles Times, Monday, June 23, the business section: California firms lining up to capitalize on rebuilding of Iraq. Hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars involved in this opportunity. If you think for a moment that the national media is going to be covering the Special Orders, do you think we are going to appear even on ``Nightline,'' which is probably the most objective and the most far-reaching of those who want to get the news out, I think we are dreaming. Now, I look up right now and the galleries are right in front of us. For those of you who are across the country who are observing us and listening to us tonight, the galleries are empty. I suppose the news organizations might have to pay overtime, I am not sure, but there are no reporters volunteering their time because they are interested in what it is that we have to say. Now, I have come back from a trip with a congressional delegation, the first congressional delegation to get into Iraq, to go to Bagdad, to go to Kirkuk in the north, a bipartisan delegation; and I am referring to the gentleman from Pennsylvania's (Mr. Hoeffel) admonition and to the gentleman from Massachusetts' (Mr. Delahunt) suggestion about an independent commission to examine these issues, a nonpolitical review, if I remember what you said.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I and other Members are as anxious as everyone else in here and leadership on both sides to vote in an expeditious manner; but if that is going to take place, then the leadership has to see to it that we are able to get into these elevators and get downstairs and get over here. If it says ``Members Only'' during the time that the bells are ringing, then you have got to either put some signage up or get some people into the elevators that see to it that happens. I cannot see trying to kick people off the elevators who are citizens, trying to come see us, who operate in good faith, and we cannot get here to vote. Now if you are so anxious to get this thing done in 15 minutes or 17 or whatever it is, that is fine. I will do my best, as I am sure everybody else will; but, Mr. Speaker, you have got to see to it then that we are able to get to do this in the manner in which we are supposedly designated to do it. If you have elevators that are supposed to be for us during this time, then you are going to have to do things to see we can use them. I am not the only one who was disenabled from voting because I simply could not get down here. I could not get here fast enough because these elevators are stuck, and there are all kinds of people on them asking directions and you cannot get down here. If they are on the seventh floor in Longworth or end of the Cannon building, it is just not easy to do that in the 15 minutes, particularly when you are trying to kick people out of your office or get finished with what you have to get done in order to get over here to vote. I am just asking on behalf of not just myself but any Member that finds himself or herself in these circumstances. Had I been over here, I am sure I would have voted aye, depending on what the wisdom of my colleagues would have directed me to do in the interest of the national purpose.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, it is kind of an amazing thing that all of us are coming down to the floor with 1 minute or 2 minutes to try to summarize our feelings about Patsy. I could not possibly even begin to do that. Forty-three years of my life was involved with Patsy when I was a student and supporter of hers, and then as a colleague. To say that the people coming down to this floor loved Patsy, admired her and respected her, hardly does justice to those words. There will never, ever be another person on this floor like Patsy Mink. When the history of the House of Representatives is written, she will be in the pantheon of heroes, those who exemplify the People's House. If there was ever anyone who embodied what it was that made this country great, someone who came from immigrant circumstances to the highest echelons of government, and never forgot where she came from and who she was and what and who she represented, it was Patsy Mink. She was more than a friend and more than a colleague. She was a beacon to all of us who serve here hope to be. We all take our oath of office here to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, and we are only here because of the faith and trust of the people in our districts. Never, ever, has anyone upheld better that faith and trust that our constituents have given to us than Patsy Mink. Patsy, you live with us and you live in this House, the people's House, forever.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I indicated in my previous remarks that we were limited in our opportunities to be able to speak about Patsy and I thought perhaps that it might offer an opportunity had we been able to extend our time, and I want to say how much we appreciate that we have had this opportunity to have a few more minutes to do it. Not everyone may recognize the side of Patsy that was so familiar to us in Hawaii, because obviously we saw her as the dynamo of legislative activity here in Washington. But I think perhaps not everyone recognized or understood until they came to Hawaii and had the opportunity to see from whence Hawaii Patsy came as to what molded her as a person. For the young people that are here today observing the remarks here on the floor, they may not fully comprehend what it was to be female and Japanese-American and smart and have to try and come up. We take a lot of these things for granted. She was in fact the pioneer, not just in Hawaii but throughout the Nation, for indicating what could be accomplished with those kinds of strikes against her. She turned that adversity into accomplishment. For that reason, if for that reason alone, she stands as the standard for which every young woman and every young man who comes from humble circumstances can aspire. With Patsy Mink, you had someone who was not just a friend, not someone who was just a standard bearer, but you had someone who set the foundation for all those who came after.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, today, Representative Ed Case and I are introducing legislation to authorize certain Bureau of Reclamation activities that will have profound impacts on the future of Hawaii's economy. The legislation is a companion bill to one introduced in the Senate by Senator Daniel Akaka and Senator Dan Inouye. It will expand the scope of the Bureau of Reclamation water resources study authorized by the 105th Congress as well as authorize three specific projects needed to address Hawaii water needs. This law, the Hawaii Water Resources Act of 2000, included Hawaii in the Bureau's wastewater reclamation program and expanded its drought relief programs to include Hawaii. Although one of Hawaii's greatest assets is its tropical climate, there are vast areas where little rainfall occurs and conditions are very similar to that of the high arid regions of the mainland U.S. In addition, similar to current conditions in these U.S. areas, drought conditions have been occurring in most recent years. The most recent projection of the Honolulu Board of Water Supply indicates that the island of Oahu will exhaust the fresh water supplies of the island by the year 2018. Seventy-two percent of Hawaii's population lives on Oahu, so it is easy to imagine the cataclysmic consequences of ignoring the dire warnings that are being sounded. There are numerous efforts underway at both the State and local levels to begin addressing problems, such as substituting recycled water for potable water when appropriate, improving storage to preserve surface water, and implementing conservation technologies. Enactment of the legislation will help lead us to long-term solutions. There are, however, several projects ready for implementation that would begin to mitigate current and future conditions. Three of them would be authorized under the bill. Briefly, a desalinization facility would be built on Oahu, capable of producing 5 million gallons of potable water a day. Secondly, on the leeward side of the Big Island of Hawaii, a facility is to be built creating subsurface wetlands and an open surface wetland to treat effluent and generate useable water. The third project, in Lahaina, Maui, is to expand the existing recycled water distribution system so that numerous commercial users can substitute readily available recycled water appropriately where currently potable water is used. I look forward to working with my colleagues to help find solutions to water development, conservation, reuse and recycling in Hawaii.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, there is a bit of acrimony here, and I think we ought to reduce it. People have different views on this. I regret that my good friend from Washington says that we are not wanting to take up the question of the MTOPS and that that is an inadequate measure. I have here before me the GAO report on ``Export Controls: More Thorough Analysis Needed to Justify Changes in High Performance Computer Controls,'' in which it states quite specifically that the inadequacies of the report, that is to say, the President's report on this issue is compounded by the continued use of the flawed measured MTOPS. That is not what we are talking about. We are talking about whether or not this amendment would get done what the advocates say it will do. It will not. What it does is say give the President the opportunity to come up with a system. The reason this should be defeated is that those who wish to have a different kind of measure, those who wish to be able to sell these computers or its components in some other form need to come up with the alternative proposal and have it vetted through the Committee on Armed Services and other relevant committees, and then we will take it up and vote on it. This should be defeated because it is not ready to be passed.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, aloha. I delighted to see you today. Mr. Chairman, as the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Force, I have the distinct pleasure of working with my good friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon). I do not believe I see him on the floor at the moment. I see other good friends from the committee. I wanted to express my personal appreciation to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon). His impressive familiarity with the details of the numerous programs under our subcommittee purview is one of the major reasons we are considering a defense authorization that correctly addresses the hardware needs of the military. Our subcommittee held many in-depth, rigorous oversight hearings on a variety of programs, and I think our adherence to a sound process in this arena has served our committee, the Congress, and the Department of Defense very well. While we dealt with significant programs in all services, this bill explicitly recognizes the importance of a strong Army. The Army has had an uphill fight inside the Pentagon the last few years, and I think the recent war showed how capable they really are. I am especially pleased that our bill does no harm to the future Stryker Brigades and that the committee was able to come to an agreement about fencing off funding for the remaining brigades. We have struck a blow in a couple of cases for better program management. I am glad to see that the F-22 cut its cost. We fenced further money until its software works the way as it is promised. The Army's future combat system may be a good thing. It is hard to tell because its budget structure makes it hard to evaluate. We changed that structure so that everybody can see whether the future combat system will work. We are working on some very advanced systems in all the services. I believe we have struck the right balance between future forces and our legacy systems. In funding modernization of our heavy forces, this bill ensures that we do not sacrifice the real combat capability today for the promise of capability in the future. I would like to conclude and I would be remiss, Mr. Chairman, if I did not acknowledge the hard work and long hours put in by our committee staff on all levels. Mr. Chairman, I would like to close by again thanking the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and all the members of the various subcommittee with whom I have had the pleasure of working on this bill.