John Murtha

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I keep hearing people say that we have got to give this a chance. For 4 years we have given this a chance. For 4 years we have had our troops overseas. Here is the problem that we face. Every time that we give them a chance, they disappear. For instance, they said that the Iraqis are going to lead this surge. Let me tell you, 50 percent of the Iraqis in the units aren't showing up. So the Americans have to take over. We have to pay the bill. The Europeans, this is just as important to the Europeans as it is to us, and the Europeans benefit from the oil that comes from Iraq, yet they are not really participating to any significant amount, versus the first war where they participated significantly. George Bush I got a coalition together. The problem we have with what is going on, this is not General Petraeus' war, this is the administration's war. This administration has put us in a position where the military has to actually violate their own guidelines in order to get troops to Iraq. I knew over an a year ago we didn't have the numbers of troops we needed to sustain this deployment, and the surge makes it worse. The worst thing we can do is send troops, and if you vote against this, you are going to vote for sending troops into war without being fully mission-capable, without the training and equipment they need, and that is absolutely unacceptable. I note to the Congress and I note to the people sitting on that side who worked so hard to fund the military, we put $70 billion in last time that the administration did not even ask for. We have 36,000 additional troops in here for the overall picture. So if you vote against this, you are voting against those 36,000 troops, for the total number of troops that need to be not deployed, but need to be available to be deployed. Our reserves are in desperate shape. Our Strategic Reserve, when we started this war with C-1, they are now in the lowest state of readiness. They couldn't be deployed. Only two divisions would be deployed. So we have a lot of work to do. And I say to the Members, you are voting against supporting the troops if you vote against the money that goes to the troops and the money that has already been sent or is going to be sent. They are going to run out in April, and we need to get this bill through. Mr. Speaker, I urge the Members on both sides of the aisle to vote for this legislation. Mr. LEWIS OF California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett).

Mr. MURTHA. Let me tell you what is in this bill and what you are voting against. There is $1.7 billion of this bill request for military health care. If you vote against this bill, you are denying our troops $1.7 billion. There is $450 million for post-traumatic stress. There is $450 million for brain injury care. It is insufficient, but that is the money we put in the bill; $62 million for amputee care at Walter Reed, $20 million to fix up Walter Reed. That is what is in this bill for health care. If you vote against this bill, the military families will be denied $17 million to help prevent child-spouse abuse. The bill increases accountability over contractors. When I was in Iraq a month and a half ago, the contractors were falling all over each other. GAO and the inspector general of Iraq said to us, help us get this under control. I asked or one of the Members in the subcommittee asked the GAO what we could do to help. And I asked the Under Secretary of Defense: How many contractors do you have in Iraq? He couldn't tell me. He said, we will tell you within a week. We still haven't heard, and that has been over a month ago. We have had 11 hearings, and we are going to have 35 more hearings before this year is over. We are going to hold the Department of Defense accountable for the money that they are spending and the strategy that they are using. This bill bans permanent bases in Iraq. This bill bans torture in Iraq. We have sent troops to Iraq that were not trained in their specific MOSs, and that is exactly why Abu Ghraib happened. We had people that were untrained, National Guard members who were untrained who went into that prison, didn't know how to handle it, and it caused a natural disaster, a public relations disaster. The way the military is doing the job, and there is nobody that regards the military higher than I do. Nobody is more inspired by the troops that I have talked to and I have seen. But let me tell you something. With the type of tactics that they have to use, by knocking down doors and by using overwhelming force, it makes enemies. That is the problem we have, and we are not winning the hearts and minds of the people when we do that. Let me talk about the readiness of our troops. Every unit in the United States, except two National Guard units, went into this war with the highest state of readiness. Now, there are only two units in the United States that are at the highest state of readiness. This provides money to take care of that. If you vote against that, you are voting against money to take care of readiness for our strategic reserve. Let me tell you what General Craddock says. General Craddock is the European commander, the NATO commander, American commander. Listen to what I am saying. This is what General Craddock says: ``We have very little capacity left after we source the global force pool, if you will, for these ongoing European Command missions. Our ability to do that now is limited because we don't have the forces available since they are in the rotation to the other missions.'' He is saying what I have been saying for a year and a half. This is a failed policy wrapped in illusion. We do not have the troops. We do not have a strategic reserve to be able to react to a future national threat to this great country. The troops can only do so much. This bill includes $1.4 billion for new armored vehicles. If you vote against this, you are voting against the new armored vehicles which we need so badly. We put an extra $313 million above what the Defense Department requested for those vehicles. That is the V-shaped vehicles which resist the IEDs. If you vote against this bill, you will be denying the troops better protection and better equipment. The bill also includes billions to reset the forces. What I have been saying is the equipment, somebody said the other day, well, they train on old equipment. Well, why does that mean anything? Those of you who have been in the military knows what it means. It means when you go into combat, you do not have the type of equipment you need. You are risking the lives of these people by training on inadequate equipment. We have two units that will not go to the desert because they have to rush them out over to Iraq. It is not the military's fault. The administration has forced the military to break their own guidelines in order to send troops over to supply this surge and to sustain this deployment. Finally, we are saying in this bill, you cannot send troops back into battle unless they have the appropriate training, they are fully trained, mission capable. Is there anybody that is going to vote against that? If you vote against this bill, you vote against that. If you vote against this bill, you vote against sending troops back in less than a year at home. That is unacceptable. You can sit here and say we are fighting this war, oh, yes, you can sit here in Washington and say you are fighting this war. But let me tell you something, those young people sometimes went back three and four times; their families are suffering. These are not 140,000 people. These are each individuals with families and relatives that are bearing the brunt of this fighting that are sent back. This bill forces the administration to live up to the guidelines they have set for their military and not to extend them. A psychologist told us in a hearing that if you spend 3 months in combat that there is a good chance you will start to develop PTSD three months in this intensive combat in Baghdad. Now, you can sit here and talk about us fighting this war on terrorism. We put an extra billion dollars for Afghanistan in this bill so we could fight terrorism where it started in Afghanistan. That is where it started. Let me tell you something. We set benchmarks. We set benchmarks because it has not worked. Every time something happens over there, what he says is, well, we will send American troops; we will send American troops back before they have their time at home. We will extend American troops. The Iraqis have to start to bear this responsibility for themselves, and that is why we are putting it in the bill. The American people in the last election sent a message. They said we want the Iraqis to solve their own problems in Iraq. The Americans have borne the brunt. We are spending $8.4 billion a month, $2 billion to get people and equipment and supplies over to Iraq, $2 billion a month, 8,000 miles away. I will tell you what hurts the troops; I will tell you what hurts them. It hurts them when they extend it beyond 13 months or the marines, beyond 7 months. What hurts the troops, if you send the troops back before they have a year at home. That is what hurts the morale of the troops. I am the person that found the 44,000 shortage of body armor in the initial invasion of Iraq. We had troops in danger because they did not have the equipment they needed. We cannot send troops back into combat without equipment and fully being trained. Let me just say this in the end. My grandfather's Civil War hat is in my office. He lost his arm in the Civil War fighting for the North, some of you Southerners here. My great-grandmother lived to be 96. I was 6-years-old when she died. She said you are on this Earth to make a difference. We are going to make a difference with this bill. We are going to bring those troops home. We are going to start changing the direction of this great country. Mr. Speaker and distinguished Members of this body, the United States currently has 145,000 troops on the ground in Iraq and over half a trillion dollars has been expended in the war. More than 3,200 of our sons and daughters have lost their lives and close to 25,000 have been wounded; hundreds with amputated limbs and thousands with traumatic brain injuries. The Pentagon reports that the Iraqi Security Forces have grown in number, reaching their goal of 325,000 trained and equipped. The Iraqis have a Constitution and have held national elections. These milestones have been met, yet lack of security and stability continues. The war in Iraq has been plagued by mischaracterization based on unrealistic optimism instead of realism. Reality dictates that conditions on the ground are simply moving in the wrong direction. There are limits to military power. There is no U.S. military solution to Iraq's civil war. It is up to the Iraqis. Beginning in May 2005, after two years of mischaracterizations and misrepresentations by this Administration, the Defense Appropriations subcommittee required the Department of Defense to submit quarterly reports to Congress on the facts necessary to measure stability and security in Iraq. Since July 2005, we have received these reports. They are dismal and demonstrate a clear lack of progress in vital areas of concern. Electricity, oil production, employment and potable water remain at woeful levels. The average weekly attacks have grown from 430 in July 2005 to well over 1000 today. In fact, attacks throughout the country have increased 10 percent over the last 4 months. Iraqi casualties have increased from 63 per day in October 2005 to over 125 per day. Recent polls show that more than six in 10 Iraqis now say their lives are going badly, double the percentage who said so in late 2005. Sixty- nine percent of the Iraqis surveyed said the presence of U.S. forces in the country makes the overall security situation worse. In January 2006, 47 percent of Iraqis approved of attacks on U.S.-led forces. When the same polling question was asked just 8 months later, 61 percent of Iraqis approved of attacks on U.S-led forces. The support of the American public continues to erode and there is little confidence in the current strategy. Today less than 30 percent of Americans approve of the way the President is handling the war, and only 11 percent support the President's plan to increase troop levels in Iraq. A February 2006 poll showed that 72 percent of American troops serving in Iraq believed the U.S. should exit Iraq within the year and 42 percent said their mission was unclear. Wars cannot be won with slogans. There must be a clear and reachable plan and a defined way to measure the success of that plan. The President says he has a new plan for a way forward in Iraq. General Peter Schoomaker, Chief of the United States Army, said in a recent hearing that in order for a plan to be effective we ``have to be able to measure the purpose.'' But the President sets forth a plan with no defined matrices for measuring progress and no consequences if progress is not made. This new plan is simply more of the same open ended commitment in Iraq that has not worked. A new strategy that is based on redeployment rather than further U.S. military engagement, and one that is centered on handing Iraq back to the Iraqis, is what is needed. I do not believe that Iraq will make the political progress necessary for its security and stability until U.S. forces redeploy. In order to achieve stability in Iraq and the Region, I recommend: (1) The redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq (2) The execution of a robust diplomatic effort and the restoration of our international credibility (3) The repairing of our military readiness and the rebuilding of our strategic reserve to face future threats. Redeployment of U.S. Forces from Iraq To achieve stability and security in Iraq, I believe we first must have a responsible phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq. General William Odom (U.S. Army, Retired) recently testified, ``We are pursuing the wrong war.'' Stability and security in the Region should be our overarching strategy, not a ``victory in Iraq.'' I agree with General Odom and believe that Regional Stability can only be accomplished through the redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq. Who wants us to stay in Iraq? In my opinion, Iran and Al Qaeda, because we intensify the very radical extremism we claim to be fighting against, while at the same time depleting our financial and human resources. As long as the U.S. military continues to occupy Iraq, there will be no real security. Maintaining U.S. troop strength in Iraq or adding to the strength in specified areas, has not proven effective in the past nor do I believe it will work in the future. The Iraq war cannot be won by the U.S. military, predominantly because of the way our military operates. They use overwhelming force, which I advocate to save American lives, but it is counter to winning the hearts and minds of the people. How to Re-deploy I recommend the phased redeployment of U.S. forces, first from Saddam's palaces, then from the green zone. Next, from the prime real estate of Iraq's major cities, out of the factories and universities, and finally out of the country all together. We need to give communities back to the Iraqis so they can begin to self govern, begin economic recovery and return to some type of normality. I recommend the adoption of a U.S. policy that encourages and rewards reconstruction and regional investment and one that is dictated and administered not by the United States, but by the Iraqis themselves. Restoration of International Credibility I believe that a responsible redeployment from Iraq is the first step necessary in restoring our tarnished international credibility. Since the U.S. invasion of Iraq, our international credibility, even among allies, has plummeted. Stability in Iraq is important not only to the United States, but it is important to the Region and to the entire world. The BBC recently released a poll showing that nearly three- quarters of those polled in 25 countries disapprove of U.S. policies toward Iraq. More than two-thirds said the U.S. military presence in the Middle East does more harm than good. Just 29 percent of respondents said the United States has a general positive influence in the world, down from 40 percent two years ago. How do we Restore our International Credibility In order to restore international credibility, I believe it is necessary for the U.S. to completely denounce any aspirations of building permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq; I believe we should shut down the Guantanamo detention facility; and we must bulldoze the Abu Ghraib prison. We must clearly articulate and demonstrate a policy of ``no torture, no exceptions'' and directly engage countries in the region with dialogue instead of directives. This includes allies as well as our perceived adversaries. Repairing of our Military Readiness and Rebuilding our Strategic Reserve to Face Future Threats Our annual Defense spending budget is currently in excess of $450 billion. Above this amount, we are spending $8.4 billion dollars a month in the war in Iraq and yet our strategic reserve is in desperate shape. While we are fighting an asymmetric threat in the short term, we have weakened our ability to respond to what I believe is a grave long term conventional and nuclear threat. At the beginning of the Iraq war, 80 percent of ALL Army units and almost 100 percent of active combat units were rated at the highest state of readiness. Today, virtually all of our active-duty combat units at home and ALL of our guard units are at the lowest state of readiness, primarily due to equipment shortages resulting from repeated and extended deployments to Iraq. In recent testimony given by a high ranking Pentagon official it was reported that our country is threatened because we lack readiness at home. Our Army has no strategic reserve, and while it is true that the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Air Force can be used to project power, there is a limit to what they can achieve. Overall, our military remains capable of projecting power, but we must also be able to sustain that projection, and in this regard there is no replacement for boots on the ground. How do we Repair Readiness and Rebuild our Strategic Reserve We must make it a national priority to re-strengthen our military and to repair readiness. I advocate an increase in overall troop strength. The current authorized level is below what I believe is needed to maintain an optimal military. In recent testimony to the Defense Subcommittee that I chair, the Army and Marine Corps Commanders testified that they could not continue to sustain the current deployment practices without an adverse effect on the health and well- being of service members and their families. For decades, the Army operated on a deployment policy that for every one year of deployment, two years were spent at home. This was considered optimal for re-training, re-equipping and re-constituting. Without relief, the Army will be forced to extend deployments to Iraq to over one year in country and will be forced to send troops back with less than one year at home. The Army reported that a 9-month deployment was preferable. Medical experts testified that in intensive combat, deployments of over 3 months increased the likelihood for service members to develop post traumatic stress disorders. A recent report by the Harvard University School of Government put the total cost of providing medical care and disability benefits to veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan at $350 to $700 billion. We must invest in the health and well being of our service members by providing for the right amount of troops and for appropriate deployment and rotation cycles. Our military equipment inventories are unacceptably low. The Services report that at least $100 billion more is needed to get them back to ready state. In doing so, we must not neglect investment in military technologies of the future. While we remain bogged down in Iraq, the size and sophistication of other militaries are growing. We must not lose our capability to deter future threats. Let me conclude by saying historically, whether it was India, Algeria or Afghanistan, foreign occupations do not work, and in fact incite civil unrest. Our military remains the greatest military in the world, but there are limits to its ability to control a population that considers them occupiers. I have said this before and I continue to say that there are essentially only two plans. One is to continue an occupation that has not worked and that has shown no progress toward stabilization. The other, which I advocate, is to end the occupation of Iraq, redeploy and re-strengthen our military and turn Iraq over to the Iraqis. The Waters-Boehner Coalition (By Scott Lilly, Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress) The U.S. House of Representatives is an unusual place and politics makes strange bedfellows. But the coalition to block funding for U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and improve the deplorable state of medical care for our returning veterans is one for the record books. Led by House Minority Leader John Boehner on the right and Los Angeles Congresswoman Maxine Waters on the left, the coalition is striving to put together enough votes to block passage of the $124 billion spending package expected to go to the House Floor on Friday. Boehner, hoping to get nearly all House Republicans to vote against the measure, contends: . . . there is only one way to do the right thing: fully- fund the troops without strings attached . . . Setting timelines is no different than handing the enemy our war plan itself. It serves as a road map for the terrorists to plot maneuvers against American men and women in uniform. Micromanaging the war from Capitol is, by any standard or definition, a recipe for disaster. Boehner also opposes ``incomprehensible spending'' on ``unrelated, non-emergency'' items not requested by the White House. This includes among other things, $2.8 billion to address the health care problems confronting returning veterans--funds to address the problems at Walter Reed; improve treatment of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and Traumatic Brain Injury; speed the processing of veteran requests for entry into the VA medical system and clean up the $550 million maintenance backlog at VA health facilities. Boehner also objects to more than $3 billion in unrequested funds to cope with other military needs, primarily correcting the shortfall in the readiness of military units being sent into combat. Waters reaches the same conclusion as Boehner based on an entirely different assessment of the facts: Not only did the American public speak loudly and clearly last Nov. 7, but poll after poll reinforces the message that Americans want their troops home now. The president's supplemental request is just what the word ``supplemental'' implies--additional funds to expand and continue this war. I believe that there is enough money available in the pipeline to fund a planned exit. I will vote against the supplemental unless the additional funds are used to fully fund the safe, secure and timely withdrawal of our troops by Dec. 31 Boehner wants no strings attached and Waters not only wants strings, but shorter and stronger strings. Boehner does not like the pressure that the bill places on the President to bring an end to the U.S. military presence in Iraq and Waters does not want to end U.S. presence through pressure but rather mandate it by law. As a result both want to defeat money needed for fuel, ammunition, spare parts and medical care for those presently in harms way. Both also in my judgment misread the mood of the American people and are wrong on the best course for the country. The American people overwhelmingly oppose the war but they even more overwhelmingly oppose anything that would put the brave men and women we have called into service at greater risk. No war in American history has ended as the result of a legislative fiat. Even Vietnam, which is the closest parallel, was ended because of political pressure rather than legislative direction. The right way to end our presence in Iraq is for the Executive and Legislative branches of our government to reach an accommodation on Iraq policy. The Bush Administration needs Congress to support its military and foreign policy objectives and the language in the Supplemental now pending sends a clear message that such support will be contingent upon a plan for an ordered withdrawal--a withdrawal that protects our troops and American interests in the region. But what Waters and her supporters seem to fail to recognize is that the Congress needs the White House. That may be hard for some to accept but extracting U.S. forces from the violence now besieging much of Iraq will be a complex and hazardous process. It will take the best planners that the Defense Department can find; it will take strong leadership on the part of commanders and hard choices in terms of both military and political priorities. Equally important it will take extensive diplomatic consultation on both a regional and global basis. None of those things can be accomplished by the Congress. It is not the way our government was designed and it is not the way it works. If the two branches cannot reach accommodation there will be hell to pay and those who have already been asked to pay the most will be forced to pay again. The language contained in the supplemental demands that the Iraqi government meet certain bench marks and provided those benchmarks are achieved, begins redeployment of American forces in March of next year. It also requires that if the White House believes that it must violate long standing Pentagon policies on the readiness of military units sent into combat, the length of deployments into combat zones and the length of time between deployments the President must fully explain why he is ordering a violation of those policies. This is very strong pressure on a President that is very strong willed. It is the beginning of a process which will either bring the two powerful branches of our government together in mutual accommodation or push the country closer to a Constitutional crisis. It is the first step in a process that will either fortunately or unfortunately continue all year. Following the Friday House vote on the Supplemental, that legislation will come before the Senate and the final version will be crafted in a conference committee in April and presented to both houses for final approval by the end of that month. Within weeks the House will begin deliberation on the Fiscal 2008 Defense Appropriation which will remain under various stages of consideration until September. There will be numerous opportunities for Congress to strengthen its demands with respect to Iraq and for the Administration to respond. What opponents of the War cannot do at this juncture is overplay their hand and slow the growth of public sentiment and political pressure against the current Iraq policy and its supporters. Boehner is also playing a high risk game. He is putting the Congressional wing of his party on record as opposing measures to require that the troops are well trained and well equipped before they are sent into deadly conflict. He is opposing funds his own President says the troops need now and he is opposing medical care for the troops once they return. Simultaneously, he is saying that the Congress should not apply pressure to the White House for a new strategy to pull us out of Iraq. That is a position that is not only opposed by nearly all Democrats but by an overwhelming majority of independents and a substantial share of Republicans. It is not a particularly smart way to redefine the Republican Party in the wake of the drubbing his part took in last fall's elections. The supplemental is not perfect. There is probably no one who supports every provision. But there is much that is good in the bill and begins the process by which the Congress and the White House can come together on a solution that is best for the country. It is not as simple or straight forward as many would like but it is the process that our founding fathers bestowed on us and it is the only approach that can bring an ordered end to this catastrophic engagement.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, let me explain what is in this bill for the Members. We have $4 billion over the amount requested by the President. The President requested a total of $12.1 billion for military personnel pay and benefits. The committee recommends increasing the funds for those programs by $1.4 billion. The committee adds $1.4 billion to cover the full cost of housing allowance for military members in fiscal year 2007; $2.3 billion to cover the full cost of fielding an additional 36,000 Army troops. If everybody here remembers, we added 30,000 troops in the supplemental, which the White House did not ask for, argued about, and which the Defense Department did not want. And yet now we are short of troops, and they are trying to blame the Congress for being short of troops. We also added money for 9,000 additional marines. The committee recommends $52.5 billion for military operations, $2.2 billion over the President's request. In addition to fully funding the request for military operations, the committee proposes an additional $2.5 billion to address training and equipping shortfalls in forces not deployed. We will set up a Reserve Readiness fund. The committee recommends adding funds for the war in Afghanistan, $1 billion. That is where the original war started, and that is what you vote against if you vote against this bill. $5.9 billion for the Afghanistan Security Forces fund, $3.8 billion for the Iraq Security Forces fund, and a total of $2.4 billion is recommended for the joint IED task force. The recommendations propose an increase of $17 million for DOD's Family Advocacy program. In other words, all of us hear, when we go talk with the families, the problems that they have. We add $17 million for that particular fund. We have three significant reductions. We reduce some of the buys of hardware which we think ought to be in the base bill. The committee bill recommends a total of $24.8 billion for equipment purchases, a slight decrease to the President's request of $86 million. The committees proposed an allocation of $1.4 billion to purchase what they call MRAP vehicles, that is, the vehicles with the V shape, which we need so badly. And that is what you are voting against if you vote against this bill: $311 million above the request of the White House. For Army procurement accounts the committee approves a total of $15 billion: $994 million for tactical radios, $2.2 billion for tactical trucks, $867 million for up-armored Humvees, $636 million for Bradley fighting vehicle upgrades. And that is what you are voting against if you vote against this bill. The committee bill includes $192 million not requested for three additional F/A-18s. We take care of the SEABEEs, something they have talked about that have been decimated by this war, and we put equipment in for the SEABEEs. The committee is recommending reductions to several high-profile programs requested by the President. We deny funding for two Joint Strike Fighter airplanes because they ought to be in the base bill, and we will talk about that depending on what they authorize. The President requested a total of $1.4 billion for research and development. The committee recommends a total of $1 billion. Working capital funds: the committee bill provides a total of $1.3 billion for working capital. Now let me talk about defense health programs. We just saw what we went through with Walter Reed. Bill Young, who was chairman of the committee, and I went out to Walter Reed all the time. I had no idea, as most Members didn't, about what was going on at Walter Reed. And it really gets to me that every time we went out there, we asked them if you needed any help and they always told us everything is all right. We put more money in any way because we knew there would be some problems come about because of the fact that they were under BRAC. The committee decided unanimously to eliminate the closing of Walter Reed, especially during the time of war. We put $1.7 billion above the budget request. The additional funding is for $450 million for post-traumatic stress. And that is not near enough, folks. That is not near enough. We figure there are going to be 65,000 military people who come back that are going to have post-traumatic stress. And that is what you are voting against if you vote against this bill. We put $450 million in for traumatic brain injury care and research; $730 million to cover the funding shortfall created by Congress' having disapproved the Department's proposal to increase the health insurance premiums. And I am for that, but we didn't fund it. But we fund it in this bill, and that is what you vote against if you vote against this bill. We put $62 million in for amputee care. Let me tell you something about amputee care. I went out to the amputee center in Brooks. Private industry put up a place in 18 months; $58 million they raised to put an amputee center up. We have been working on an amputee center at Walter Reed. It took us 3 years and it is still not built. Jerry Lewis, Bill Young, and myself, and it is still not done yet. We are putting in $12 million for caregivers. The nurses called. They said, We have got a real problem here. We see these wounded. We see the people coming home all the time. It affects us mentally. It affects us emotionally. It affects us psychologically. We need help. So we put $12 million in; $6 million for Landstuhl, where they get the worst casualties; $2 million for Walter Reed; $2 million for Brooks; and $2 million for the hospital in California. We put in $14.8 million for burn care. I want to tell you something, Members. You can go to all the hospitals. When you go to the burn care centers, you see the results of this war. We go to the hospitals. All of us go to the hospitals quite often. And let me tell you the burn centers are the worst when you go. Now, we also took out 5 percent on contracting. Now, why did we do that? We did that because contractors are falling all over themselves and we asked the GAO and we asked the Inspector General of Iraq, How many contractors do you have? They couldn't tell us. They said, Help us find out how many contractors we have. So we asked the Under Secretary of Defense. He couldn't tell us. He said, I will let you know in a week. He still hasn't told us. So we took 5 percent out. They will tell us now how many contractors they have. And we fenced 10 percent. So that is $800 million for the 5 percent and then $1.6 billion for the contractors to come out. So that is $2.1 billion we have taken out for the contractors. We put in for CERP, which is a program in which there is $456 million provided under operations and maintenance for the commanders. No permanent bases we said over and over again. We put in no torture, which has caused us so much problem when they didn't have the people trained when they were in Abu Ghraib. Contracting oversight. We have a death gratuity amendment. Military attorneys, we put some money in for military attorneys. Meeting readiness guidelines: let me tell you what we do to meet readiness guidelines. When you talk to these families, they need a year at home before they are redeployed. Is there anybody that thinks we should send these folks back before they have a year at home? Is there anybody that thinks we should extend them when they have 13 months in country? Is there anybody who thinks we should send troops into combat who aren't trained and ready? Is there anybody here? We put benchmarks in for the Iraqi Government, as the chairman of the committee explained, because we need to give them the incentive. We need them to have some benchmarks so they understand that they have to get this done. Every time something happens, and this is a problem we have, every time something happens, we step in. They started out, they said, with 80 percent of the people in the Iraqi units deployed in Iraq. Now it is 50 percent. Where are they? They are on leave. They deserted. They are not there. So who makes up the difference? Our troops are the ones making up the difference. We have to force the Iraqis to make up the difference. Why are we even thinking about forcing the military to break their own guidelines because of this surge? Because of the fact they can't sustain the deployment. So the administration has decided, we are going to have to send people back with less than a year at home. We are going to send people back that aren't trained and ready? That is unacceptable. That is unacceptable to every single Member of Congress. We have an obligation to the taxpayer under the Constitution to take care of defense. We have an obligation to have oversight and auditing and accountability. We have had 14 hearings so far. We will have at least 40 more hearings before we have the base bill. I am going to put you on notice right now, the supplemental, the 2008 supplemental, is not going to come up with the base bill. The 2008 supplemental is going to be held, because we are going to see if there is going to be progress in this country before we bring up the 2008 supplemental. We are going to see if what they say is true. We are going to find out if this administration is giving us the facts. We have said to them under the Moran amendment, you have to tell us how much oil production there is. Oil production is below prewar level. Electricity production is below prewar level. Unemployment is 60 percent. Incidents have doubled since I spoke out here a year-and-a-half ago. Doubled. There are now 1,200 a week. And when I say ``incidents,'' I am talking about 140,000 troops deployed to Iraq, individually. I heard Elizabeth Edwards the other day talk about breast cancer, before she knew it had come back, and she said to me, there is 40,000 people that have breast cancer every year, but it is one at a time. What we are talking about are troops, 140,000 troops, one at a time; 140,000 troops with families; 140,000 troops that have wives and husbands and mothers and fathers that have to suffer during these deployments. When you go to the hospital, you see figures. Don't think when you say you see 2,500 people who have been killed, 3,000 have been killed or 25,000 have been wounded. It is individuals that have been wounded, individuals that have been killed, and those families are suffering. We have to put some benchmarks so the Iraqis, they have civil war, we have to put benchmarks in this bill so the Iraqis start to do it themselves, and the Americans aren't forced to make up the difference, but they do it themselves.

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, let me say to the Members what hurts our troops. I found our troops, 44,000, without body armor. I found our troops with a shortage of jammers. I found our troops with a shortage of up- armored Humvees. I find our troops now, because of the policy, having to go back to Iraq before they have a year at home. I find our troops now because of the policy of this White House having to extend troops that have been there 13 months, and I find our troops having to go into combat untrained or not trained as well as they should, not going to the desert where they have this tremendous training area, going right into Iraq. That is what hurts our troops. That is what hurts the morale of the troops when you send them without training, without the additional training they need, without the equipment they need and without the resources they need. We are putting in the resources. If you vote against this bill, you are voting against the resources they need to go into combat.

Mr. MURTHA. One of the Members said, how many less Iraqis have been killed? I don't know how many less Iraqis we killed. I know 62 individual American soldiers or marines have been killed this last month. I want to say about equipment, I have got a chart here with the Army National Guard. Every single National Guard unit in this Nation, all 50 States, doesn't have the Humvees they need. Every State, they don't have the 7-ton trucks they need. Every State, they don't have other equipment, the equipment they need for jammers and so forth. When you say they are training on equipment and are not fully trained, they don't have the equipment to train on. This bill provides that. When you vote against this bill, you are voting against the extra money to fix that problem.

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, in Kosovo we had 30,000 sorties. We never lost one person to combat in Kosovo. Let me read the figures for you in 2001. All active duty Army divisions were rated highest readiness level. Do you know what they are today? Almost all are rated lowest level. Every National Guard unit today is rated the lowest level. Mr. Speaker, we could not deploy our ground forces overseas for any threat. Our national security has been significantly increased because the depletion of our strategic reserve, our national strategic reserve. We got a problem here. We are trying to fix the problem. If you vote against this, you are voting against helping us to restore the equipment that we have lost in this country.

Mr. MURTHA. I will yield.

Mr. MURTHA. I take my time back.

Mr. MURTHA. Let me just say to the gentleman from California, when President Clinton was President, Bush as a candidate was running against him. He said, look, you are not ready to go to war. He said, two entire divisions of the Army would not have had to report until they are ready. Let me tell you what it would be today. Almost no division in the United States is ready to report for duty if we had to send them out someplace else to a national threat. That is the difference today. Today we are trying to fix this. Today we put money in the bill to fix this.

Mr. MURTHA. Yes.

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

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize the accomplishments of Special Agent James G. Macfarlane, currently the Deputy Inspector General and Deputy Assistant Director for the Office of Inspections of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, NCIS. He will retire on March 1, 2007, after more than 23 years of service to our great Nation. Jim began his career as a special agent with the then Naval Investigative Service in 1983 as a general crimes investigator at Portsmouth, VA. Special Agent Macfarlane was then selected as the Special Agent Afloat aboard the USS John F. Kennedy (CV-67) in June 1985. While serving aboard the JFK, Jim helped arrange law enforcement and force protection support required as the JFK was selected to participate in the rededication of the Statue of Liberty and the first naval ``OPSAIL'' celebration in New York City. In 1986, Jim was selected as the Representational Resident Agent (RRA) at the Naval Investigative Service resident Unit in Misawa, Japan. In 1989, Jim was reassigned to NCIS Headquarters and worked in the Offensive Counterintelligence Operations Division, where he served with distinction for 5 years. During this time, SA Macfarlane was selected to attend Strategic Arms Reduction Training and deployed to Votkinsk, Russia, for 3 weeks in 1992 as the inspection team's CI specialist. In January 1994, Jim was selected to attend the Military Operations Training Course. In May 1994, he was reassigned as senior special agent working counterintelligence cases in Okinawa, Japan. In 1996, Jim was selected as a Supervisory Special Agent (SSA) and began his first supervisory assignment at the NCIS Washington DC Field office where he provided Counterintelligence support to Navy special access programs. In 1997, Jim established the NCIS office at the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren, VA, where he was cited by DoD for setting the standard in providing Counterintelligence support to Navy Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RTD&E) programs. In 1999, Jim returned to the Washington DC field office, where he became the SSA for all offensive CI activities. In 2000, he was selected as the SSA for the Office of Special Projects and in August 2001, Jim was promoted to GS-14 and selected as the Assistant Special Agent-in-Charge (ASAC), NCIS Middle East Field Office, in Manama Bahrain. Jim served as the sole ASAC during a period of great national interest and military activity, supporting both OPERATIONS ENDURING FREEDOM and IRAQI FREEDOM. Jim brought great credit upon himself and the NCIS during his tenure in the Middle East and was awarded the Superior Civilian Service Award. In July 2003, Jim was promoted to GS-15 and assigned as the Senior NCIS Representative to Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC). For his significant efforts at HQMC, he was awarded the Marine Corps' Meritorious Civilian Service Award. In 2005, Jim was selected for his current position as the Deputy Inspector General. I wish to express my gratitude to Special Agent MacFarlane for his many years of distinguished service to this country.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I hope as I see those pages fluttering over there it is not an indication that we are going to have a long debate. I hope for the record that we are not going to see that. We worked assiduously for 6 months to get this bill together. It is the tightest, toughest bill I have ever seen in the 25 years I have been on this committee. We sure don't want a lot of rhetoric to elucidate on what happened here. So I am prepared to yield back my time.

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

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 25th anniversary of a community service organization in my congressional district. Housed in Tanneryville, a suburban area near the city of Johnstown, PA, Peniel Residential Drug and Alcohol Treatment Center is a successful comprehensive treatment program that offers help to both men and women 18 years of age and older who are suffering from the effects of substance abuse. Through the use of an individualized treatment plan, each client has his or her needs addressed on a personal level for the length of the treatment period, which is between 12 and 18 months. The aim and driving force behind the Peniel program is to help people overcome their addictions and learn how to live effective and productive lives as contributing members of their communities. Treating roughly 45 patients at a time on a revolving basis, Peniel has helped hundreds of people break the chains of drug and alcohol addiction through a religious, community-centered program. One of the best and most gratifying by-products of the program is the considerable number of graduates who now call the Johnstown area their home, having successfully integrated back into society as business owners and community leaders leading a healthy life. In addition to equipping each resident with the ability to maintain his or her sobriety, Peniel empowers clients to manage their immediate environment and to have a positive influence in their homes, churches and communities following completion of the program. Again, I offer my congratulations to Peniel for reaching the milestone of its 25th anniversary. I am confident that, with such excellent programs, the organization will continue to be a vital asset to the region for another 25 years and beyond.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate a good friend whom most of us have the pleasure to know, Mrs. Bill Young, or as she prefers to be known to our wounded troops, simply ``Beverly.'' Beverly has been recognized by the United States Marine Corps for her extraordinary commitment to our wounded troops with The Dickey Chapelle Award. This annual award recognizes civilians who have given extraordinary contribution to the Corps. It is named in honor of the memory of the late Dickey Chapelle, an American correspondent who was killed while covering the actions of Marine infantrymen engaged in combat against enemy forces during the Vietnam war. Mr. Speaker, this is a well-deserved honor. Beverly and her husband, my friend and colleague, Chairman C.W. ``Bill'' Young, of Florida, have quietly shown a level of sincere, personal compassion and devotion to our fighting men and women that is not often seen in Washington. They do it without fanfare or seeking recognition in a way that reminds me of the greatness of the American spirit. The men and women who fight for this country have an uncanny ability to overcome extraordinary odds, both on the battlefield and in life. However, when they are lying in a hospital bed in excruciating pain from terrible, debilitating injuries, there simply is no more difficult personal challenge in this world than trying to recover, physically and mentally. To Beverly Young, each and every one of them is her child. If she could, I have no doubt she would go into battle with them. Instead, she must content herself with fighting for them in the hospital wards and the bureaucratic halls of Washington as a volunteer. In truth, ``content'' is probably the wrong word. Beverly has never been patient when seeing to it that the troops are receiving what they need and has no qualms about making her feelings known when she sees a problem where they are concerned. She takes action in a way that immediately gets attention and results. As a former drill sergeant myself, it strikes me that she would have made a good one. Affectionately known as ``The Hurricane'' in the halls of Bethesda and Walter Reed hospitals, she says and does whatever it takes to see that the troops have their needs taken care of. This includes everything from chewing out staff to writing to the President. In neither case does she mince words. One soldier who was slipping into a catatonic state from so much pain medication credits her with saving his life, literally. She did this by walking out on the experts who were discussing putting him in a psychiatric ward, running into his room and yelling in his ear that he must fight to get better or she and the Commandant would ``kick his ass.'' The soldier promptly ``snapped to,'' and is now back home working in Idaho. When she got wind that the rules about soldiers receiving donations were being tightened at some bureaucratic level in the Pentagon, she shot off a letter to President Bush expressing her outrage and demanding immediate attention to correct the grievance to her beloved troops. She has impacted the lives of the troops in countless ways, from prompting major policy changes through her vocal advocacy to the generous gift of her personal time one-on-one with the wounded. Beverly is not an occasional visitor; she is there constantly for these young men and women and their families, becoming as familiar to them as anyone else they encounter during their stay. She is fiercely protective of them. She is not formal or aloof; she insists that the troops call her Beverly. She vastly prefers spending time in the company of these wounded heroes to attending stiff official Washington functions. She will hold their hand for hours when they have no one else to be with them. She feeds them, brings them contraband, slips cash to their families from her own pocket, and hits up everyone she knows, including her own doctor, for all types of donations, whether in-kind or monetary. She LISTENS to each and every one of them to find out what they need and if they don't have it, she goes and gets it, whatever it is, from whoever she has to get it from, and brings it to them. She and Bill regularly take them out to dinner. And perhaps most importantly of all, she sits with them and tells them how much they are loved. This, Mr. Speaker, is no small contribution to this country. I know of no one who has given more time and energy to making sure these young men and women know that someone cares about each and every one of them and that they can make it through this horrific experience of being wounded in battle. With her intense, unique, passionate style and commitment, Beverly has earned the respect of everyone she meets, military and civilian, politician and bureaucrat. I have no doubt in my mind that Beverly Young has made a tremendous impact in the lives of our service men and women. This country is a better place for her example. So, Mr. Speaker, today I come to the People's House to recognize and congratulate Mrs. Beverly Young for her selfless service to our brave young men and women who courageously defend this country. Congratulations, Beverly, and thank you.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. I will be glad to yield.

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

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

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

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

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I want to assure the gentlewoman from Texas that both the chairman and I have done everything we can to make sure that the pay is comparable with the civilian sector. In the past it was usually opposite. And what we are concerned about in the amendment you were going to offer was where it came from. So we are going to work something out. If there is an increase in the civilian pay, you can be assured that the Defense Department will get the same increase.

Mr. MURTHA

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

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