John Murtha

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 250th anniversary of the French and Indian War and the commemorative activities planned to revisit this important time in our Country's history. As a former soldier, I believe that remembering and recognizing the bravery and courage of those who fought before us is essential to keeping history alive and fully appreciating the freedom we now enjoy. Today, our troops are faced with the conflict in Iraq. As we commemorate the 250th anniversary of the French and Indian War, let us remember that it is through the bravery of the young men in Iraq that there will be a new country, new government, and new opportunities, much like the result of the French and Indian War 250 years ago. Beginning in 1754, the French and Indian War changed everything. The political climate during and after the war directly resulted in the American Revolution and the creation of the United States as an independent nation. The war also gave America its first introduction to George Washington, the beginning of a friendship that would help to build this great Nation. Laura Fisher, the Executive Director of the French and Indian War 250, Inc., along with former Pennsylvania First Lady Michele Ridge, National Co-Chair of the French and Indian War Advisory Committee, and Chuck Queenan, Chairman of the Board of the French and Indian War 250, Inc., have helped to build the national commemoration of the French and Indian War from a regional event to a multi-state initiative that spans a twenty-state area from Maine to South Carolina. Official commemoration activities began in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, April 16-18, 2004, at the historic Point Park. The Point was the site of Fort Duquesne, later Fort Pitt, and one of the most sought after locations thanks to the accessibility of the Ohio, Allegheny, and Monongahela Rivers. The next several years will commemorate the anniversary through large-scale re-enactments at historic sites, exhibitions of rare historical artifacts, educational symposia and a major public television series, and I encourage my colleagues and their constituents to participate in remembering some of the most important milestones and sacrifices made leading to America's founding. The National Governor's Association meeting held recently in Washington, D.C., was a great victory for the French and Indian War 250th Anniversary as several of the nation's governors reaffirmed their support of the importance of the commemoration by signing their name to the French and Indian War Memorandum of Understanding. I applaud Governor Ed Rendell of my state of Pennsylvania, and all the Governors who have pledged their continued commitment to developing programs to attract and educate visitors about the rich heritage and contribution that each state made during this era of conflict. Governors who signed the Memorandum of Understanding have pledged to continue working to create French and Indian War trails, new marketing strategies to inform the public of this exciting initiative and educational programs to aid teachers in the classroom. In commemoration of the French and Indian War's 250th anniversary celebration and the Memorandum of Understanding regarding the importance of this celebration and the importance of recognizing the sacrifices made in battle, I respectfully request that the French and Indian War Memorandum of Understanding be printed in the Congressional Record. I thank the Speaker and I yield the floor. Memorandum of understanding between the State of Connecticut, the State of Delaware, the State of Illinois, the State of Indiana, the State of Maine, the State of Maryland, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the State of Michigan, the State of New Hampshire, the State of New Jersey, the State of New York, the State of North Carolina, the State of Ohio, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the State of Rhode Island, the State of South Carolina, the State of Tennessee, the State of Vermont, the Commonwealth of Virginia, the State of West Virginia, and War for Empire, Inc d/b/a French and Indian War 250, Inc. The following represents an understanding between the State of Connecticut, the State of Delaware, the State of Illinois, the State of Indiana, the State of Maine, the State of Maryland, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the State of Michigan, the State of New Hampshire, the State of New Jersey, the State of New York, the State of North Carolina, the State of Ohio, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the State of Rhode Island, the State of South Carolina, the State of Tennessee, the State of Vermont, the Commonwealth of Virginia, the State of West Virginia (hereinafter ``the States'') and War for Empire, Inc., d/b/a French and Indian War 250, Inc. (hereinafter ``French and Indian War 250''). Whereas, the States represent the geographical area in which the French and Indian War historical sites are located and French and Indian War 250 represents the official commemoration of the 250th anniversary of the French and Indian War. Whereas, the 250th anniversary of the French and Indian War is fast approaching, spanning the years from 2004 to 2010, and the opportunity exists to connect the unparalleled collection of historic sites in these States. Whereas, by developing a common storyline, educational materials and marketing strategies, these important, but mostly rural, sites in the States will be given new visibility. Wheareas, the occasion of this major anniversary will serve as a springboard in the States for tourism, education and economic development as we develop new programs and projects to attract visitors, educate the general public about the lasting importance of this conflict, and elevate this regional story to national prominence. Whereas, commemorative plans revolve around four basic goals: to improve and connect the battle sites, both regionally and nationally; to create programming to attract visitors and educate the public; to stage commemorative events nationwide over the life of the anniversary period; and to elevate the visibility and significance of the commemoration. Whereas, connecting battle sites, located in the States, from the spread of the war through southwestern Pennsylvania to its neighboring colonies and related sites from Pontiac's Rebellion, which occurred on the frontier as the immediate aftermath of the war, gives greater context for a new understanding of the critical role played in this era by Native American nations. Whereas, the States' large network of battle sites from the French and Indian War can offer visitors a living historical storyline. The National Park Service has already begun programmatic efforts at several sites, including the well-known national battlefield Fort Necessity, and is supportive of the efforts to link these activities to the French and Indian War commemoration. Whereas, it is important to translate the story into specific exhibit and public presentation strategies, including development of a shared logo, brochures and marketing plans to reach new audiences with targeted and effective messaging. Whereas, a major centerpiece of the celebration will be a four-hour public television special, aimed at a broad general audience and aired as a national prime time television event. The reach and lasting effect of this national television event can be extended with cutting-edge technological tools to reach teachers and students nationwide with curricula and other related materials. Whereas, Parkman Prize winning historian Fred Anderson is authoring an heavily illustrated popular book based on the film, which will also encourage new interest in the States' sites. Whereas, the States will enjoy tourism opportunities through regional and multi-state tour and thematic guides that will be distributed at the 40-plus National Park Service Revolutionary War/18th century sites. Also, a new national French and Indian War thematic trail will be developed, linking the States and their sites. Whereas, a national calendar of commemorations, reenactments and public programming in the States will generate and sustain interest for the life of the anniversary period. A national media strategy will be developed, including a press tour, to reach diverse markets. Now therefore, the States and French and Indian War 250 have established a working relationship and agree in good faith to work together to focus on the commemoration of the 250th anniversary of the French and Indian War and commence the aforementioned activities as of February 22, 2004 and continue these activities until 2010 or terminated by any party. In witness whereof, the State of Connecticut, the State of Delaware, the State of Illinois, the State of Indiana, the State of Maine, the State of Maryland, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the State of Michigan, the State of New Hampshire, the State of New Jersey, the State of New York, the State of North Carolina, the State of Ohio, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the State of Rhode Island, the State of South Carolina, the State of Tennessee, the State of Vermont, the Commonwealth of Virginia, the State of West Virginia and French and Indian War 250 have evidenced their good faith intent of the undersigned to work toward the goals herein enumerated.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the life of an extraordinary individual, Mr. Robert Eberly Sr., of Uniontown, Pennsylvania. As with all great humanitarians, it is impossible to fully assess the impact Robert Eberly's life has had on his community and our country. A true gentleman and tireless philanthropist, known for his grace and humility as well as his passion for bettering the lives of others, Robert Eberly's generosity is legendary not only in Pennsylvania but across the country. Bob often said that others worked just as hard as he did, but were not as fortunate because of circumstances beyond their control. Guided by this basic belief, he donated tens of millions of dollars to support education and economic development. Robert Eberly was a man of incomparable energy and was actively involved in many of the projects he funded. Though he could have resided anywhere in the world, his heart and home remained in Fayette County, Pennsylvania where his father, a coal miner, raised him on the importance of education. His desire to help the economically depressed region in the wake of the downsizing of the steel and coal industry led him to found Fay-Penn Economic Development Council to support economic development in his home county. He believed that education is a key to economic development--that the two are intertwined. He therefore donated heavily to colleges and universities throughout Pennsylvania as well as across the United States to promote education in the sciences and to make education accessible to those who could least afford it. Robert Eberly passed away yesterday at the age of 85. He will be remembered for the example of true character he set for everyone who knew him as well as for the profound legacy of his work. His was a life well spent in the effort to help others. He will be missed by all whose lives he touched--and we will never know all of them.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, it is hard to add anything to what the chairman said, but I have found over the years it has cost us more in many cases to close these bases than we have saved. But in this particular case, I think we have got a different problem. About a year ago, General Jones of NATO and the Supreme Allied Commander said to me, we will realign the troops in Europe. Secretary Rumsfeld not long ago spent some time talking to me about the realignment in Europe and in the United States. For us to start to look at base closing before they get the realignment done would be a real mistake. I think it would be counterproductive. In the first place, we do not know when these troops come back. We are going to increase the size of the forces. We have already increased the Army by 30,000. They want to increase the brigades by about 25 percent. All those things have to be stationed someplace. Until they get the global strategy, the global footprints set up, I do not think there is any way we should make a decision like this. When it comes to savings, we spent in the Presidio, they talk about how much money we will save when we close the base. We spent $100 million in cleaning up that base afterwards. In Southern California, we spent almost $100 million cleaning up the base. We have ammunition depots, ammunition targets where we spend. The Navy Yard in Philadelphia, they figure to clean it up it would cost $1 billion. So it leaves a hole in Philadelphia where if you do not clean it up, you lose the jobs; and in addition to that you spend an awful lot of extra money. I think as all the chiefs say in the letter dated 18 November 2004, this is not the time to do a BRAC. Naturalization of our domestic infrastructure as conducted by BRAC must closely follow the global posture review. I agree with that. I would urge Members to vote against this amendment.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I share with my colleagues the news that a distinguished Veteran and longtime friend, Bill Maurer, has passed away. I submit the following announcement: William W. ``Bill'' Maurer, 72, of Fort Collins died Tuesday, April 13, 2004, at Poudre Valley Hospital. He passed peacefully with his family members at his side. While in the Wyoming National Guard he rose from the rank of private to sergeant first class and was ultimately commissioned as a second lieutenant in 1953. He was called to active duty in the, Army in mid 1953 and attended the Artillery Basic Officers Course at Fort Sill, Okla., and then joined the 37th Infantry Division at Fort Polk, La. He married Joyce Marie Huntzinger in Douglas on Dec. 28, 1953. They were blessed with two children, Deborah Ruth and David William. During their marriage, Bill and Joyce traveled to many duty assignments around the world with tours of duty in Fort Polk, La.; Fort Sill, Okla.; Fort Riley, Kan.; Germany; Fort Leavenworth, Kan.; and Washington, D.C. During his military career Bill commanded the 5th Battalion, 29th Artillery in the Republic of Vietnam and the 1st Infantry Division Artillery at Fort Riley. He also was a graduate of the Army Command and General Staff College and the U.S. Army War College. During his military career he served in many high-level positions that included tours of duty as an Army liaison officer to the U.S. Senate, deputy chief of legislative liaison, Office, Secretary of the Army and deputy secretary of defense -legislative affairs. He retired from the Army on June 30, 1979, with more than 30 years of service at the rank of brigadier general. His military decorations include the Silver Star, one OLC; Legion of Merit, one OLC; Defense Superior Service Medal, the Soldiers Medal, the Bronze Star Medal for valor, one OLC; the Purple Heart medal, one OLC; the Meritorious Service Medal, two OLC; the Air Medal for valor, 12 OLC; and the Army Commendation Medal, three OLC, and numerous foreign and service awards. After his retirement he joined Chrysler Corporation as director of the Washington office of the Chrysler Defense subsidiary. In 1981 Chrysler Defense was purchased by General Dynamics Corporation, he assumed new duties in the General Dynamics Washington Corporate Office as manager of legislative affairs. In 1984 he was promoted to corporate director of legislative affairs and later became corporate vice president for congressional relations in 1991. He retired from General Dynamics in March 1994, and Bill and Joyce relocated to their retirement home in Fort Collins, where he still remained active as a consultant to General Dynamics. He was a 43-year member of the American Legion, a life member of the Retired Officers Association, the Reserve Officers Association and the Army War College Alumni Association. Bill was a generous, caring man who will be missed by all who knew him. He was a wonderful husband, father and grandfather. Bill is survived by his daughter, Debbie Prentiss; his son-in-law, Paul; grandsons, Jason and Steven Prentiss of Fort Collins; his son, David Maurer of Fort Collins; and his brother, Richard C. Maurer of Manassas, Va. Bill was preceded in death by his beloved wife, Joyce of 48 years; and his parents, Richard and Lenore Maurer.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I just want to lay some groundwork for some comments I will make later. I am concerned in the first place, as I said before, that no one on this side was consulted about this resolution. I am embarrassed, I am indignant that they did not consult me. This looks like an innocuous resolution, but when it says it is safer today than before Saddam Hussein was captured, I believe we are putting on paper something that is not true. It is like some of the things that were said, and I said, before this war started. I said there were weapons of mass destruction. I said that Saddam Hussein was a danger to the world. We do not go to war unless there is a core national security interest, and now we are trying to justify why we went to war by some of the things that are in this resolution. There is no question that a number of people were killed. Thousands of people were killed. There is no question that Saddam Hussein was a despot. There is no question about a brutal regime. But in this one list, they say that in 1988, 5,000 people were killed, Kurdish citizens were killed. Well, we went to war in 1991. President Bush once said, and he was one of the best foreign policy Presidents we have ever had, he said, I am not going into Iraq because I do not want to occupy Iraq because that would be a problem. He said that in his book, and he said, I do not want to reconstruct Iraq. We have spent $150 billion in Iraq today. We had testimony before our committee right before the war started by the Under Secretary of Defense who said it will not cost us a penny, the oil revenues from Iraq will pay for this war. Well, $150 billion later we are still paying for it. When Members say it is safer, it makes me nervous because we are exaggerating, as we have during this whole thing. And I blame myself as much as anyone else. A constituent of mine said to me, he said, never in history have so many been misled by so few, and he was talking to me. He was saying I misled him. I believed there were weapons of mass destruction. I believed there was an imminent danger, but it turns out that I was wrong. What we have to look at now is we need bipartisanship now to win long term. This is a long-term problem. I have voted for every appropriation, I have supported every President when it comes to foreign policy, but this resolution, just because it says on paper it is safer, does not mean it is safer throughout the world. Today we had an incident where there was a bombing in Baghdad where the bomb took out as wide as a street, 30 or 40 feet wide and 30 or 40 feet deep. We had the Spanish problem where they killed a couple hundred people and wounded 2,000. So worldwide, and it says here the world is safer. The world is not safer today than it was before they captured Saddam Hussein. I have a list of countries where they do not think it is safer. Those countries, Canada, France, Italy, Germany, Spain, all of them believe there is an increased terrorism threat in the world. The reason I am saying this is we have to depend on those countries. We have to be honest and upfront, and when we say it is safer today, we are not being upfront. It is not safer. It may be down the road. This is not the time, in my estimation, for us to make statements like that. There will come a time if we persist, and I am going to be there the whole way, but I am just concerned that we are making a statement which just exacerbates the very problem that we have. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) for a unanimous consent request. (Mr. FARR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) for a unanimous consent request. (Mr. TIERNEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished Democratic leader. (Ms. PELOSI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks and include extraneous material.)

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We did not go to war in World War II because of Dachau. We went to war because they attacked us, because our national security was in danger. And we went to war in Iraq because there were weapons of mass destruction, I thought. There were al Qaeda connections, I thought. We did not go to war because these people were killed. George Bush one, the first George Bush, knew there were mass graves. And he did not go into Iraq and he said, I do not want to rebuild Iraq; I do not want to occupy Iraq. And one Under Secretary of Defense said to our subcommittee it will not cost us a cent. It has cost us $150 billion to fight in Iraq and to rebuild Iraq. So we are trying to revisit history. I mean, we cannot change it. We went to war because we thought we were threatened. These things were terrible things. We are glad to get rid of Saddam Hussein. That is not the point. We cannot revisit and change history. So I feel very strongly. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The President of the United States has said there is no connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. The director of intelligence has said there is no connection. Secretary of State Colin Powell has said there is no connection. You may think there is a connection. We are revisiting history when we start to talk about all the things the gentleman is talking about. We went to war because there were weapons of mass destruction. We went to war because there was connection with al Qaeda. We did not go to war because of this. Many of these incidents happened when George Bush I was President and he said, ``I'm not going to go into Iraq because I don't want to rebuild Iraq.'' The cost to this Nation, the Under Secretary of Defense said, will be nothing. He said, ``We'll pay for it with their oil.'' $150 billion later we are still paying, and we will pay for a long time. I am in this for the long haul, but when I see a partisan resolution which was brought up without any input from me or any other Democrat, and you call us partisan? This does not make any sense. Why did anybody not come to us and say, change a few words, change some in the preamble and we will have a resolution we can support. I appreciate what the gentleman is saying. There is nobody that has supported Presidents more than I have, but I just get upset when something comes across this way. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), a Korean War veteran. (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I went to Austin with the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) after the President was elected but before he was inaugurated, and I sat at his table, and I said to him, Mr. President, you do not have to worry about missile defense, you have got to worry about terrorism and you have got to worry about nuclear proliferation. Then I came back, we went to committee, and under the leadership of the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) we moved $1.4 billion out of missile defense and put it into counterterrorism on September 11, 2001. We could not finish our markup that day because of what happened. One of the planes went down in my district. That was the start of the war against terrorism because those passengers in that plane took a stand. They got up and fought that plane to the ground. The plane was probably coming towards the Capitol of the United States. The reason that I am so upset about this resolution, not only because they did not consult any of us, but because the terrorists worked with a calendar and we work with a clock. This is going to be a long war. We have been discredited worldwide with our intelligence. I told the story before. When Dean Acheson, former Secretary of State at the time, went to meet with President de Gaulle to show him the evidence of the Cuban missiles in Cuba, and he offered to show him photographs, he said, I do not need to see the photographs, I will take the word of the President of the United States. We have been discredited because our intelligence was faulty. I believed there was weapons of mass destruction. I believed that there was an al Qaeda connection. None of this has turned out to be true. A constituent of mine said in pointing to me, he said, Never in history have so many been misled by so few. I said, You mean me? He said, I mean you, Mr. Murtha. He said to me, Before I voted on the resolution and before we went to war, he told me, I have confidence in your vote; I have confidence we should go to war and put our soldiers in harm's way because I know you have the inside and you know the truth. Well, let me tell my colleagues, the preamble to this paper is what makes me so upset. We are trying to justify what we did. Look, no question about Saddam Hussein being a bad guy, but that is not why we went to war. If we took the preamble and we put that as a resolution, there would not have been a resolution. When they ask me if you would have voted for this resolution if you know what you know, I said there would not have been a resolution because the resolution would not have come up because there was no threat to our national course, national security. This is going to be a long war, and I am going to be right there. I am going to be voting for something that means something. I am going to be voting for the money, for the troops, for all the things they need. The gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and I stand shoulder to shoulder. Only 16 people voted against our defense bill. I do not think that many voted against the authorization bill of the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton). So we are for the defense of this country, but we should not mislead the people. I have said over and over again, do not be overly optimistic. This is going to be a long haul. And if we are overly optimistic and we tell the American public and the international community and they lose faiths in us, we cannot win this war on terrorism. We have to have the support of the American public, which has dropped dramatically. And if you tell them the cost, it drops below 50 percent. Internationally they do not support us because they do not believe many of the things that we say now, and we have to have them if we are going to win this war on terrorism. So I would ask the Members to be careful with the charges that they are making in this resolution. And I would hope the Members understand that all of us support the troops. All of us want to do everything we can; and when it comes to the money, we will be there. So I would ask all the Members to vote for the recommital motion and let us make a slight change in this resolution so that we can pass it overwhelmingly.

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request. (Mrs. DAVIS of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I am indignant, I am insulted, and I am embarrassed that no one came to me and asked me about this resolution. Nobody said, Do you have any input? Nobody has supported this war. The gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and I put a bill on this floor that only 16 people voted against. And I am embarrassed that my colleague would come up with a partisan resolution saying whatever was said without any consultation to the Democrats, particularly me, who has voted so strongly for the defense of this country. I go home and people criticize me for my position on the war. One fellow said to me, Never in history have so many been misled by so few. And, unfortunately, he was talking about me. He believed that I had misled him. I believed there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. I believed there was imminent danger to this country. And the reason we go to war is because there is a core danger to our national security. We do not go to war because they drained the swamps in Iraq. I do not think anybody needs to question the Congress who supports the troops in Iraq or anyplace else. We voted continuously and overwhelmingly for the troops. We have tried to make sure they had what they needed, even though there were mistakes made in the original deployment. There were many shortages that we saw. And we made sure when we went over there, a number of us went over there, we found those shortages, reported them to the Department of Defense; and we started to rectify those shortages. We know there were changes that before our subcommittee an Under Secretary of Defense came forward and said this war will cost nothing. This war will be paid for by the oil revenues of the Iraqis. We know that in the last war our allies came up with $60 billion. We know that this time we have come up with $150 billion to pay for this war from the United States. We are paying much of the expense of the allies in this war. This is not the time to divide the country. We are talking about we have got the lowest level of support internationally than we have ever had. All the polls indicate that overseas we are discredited. We are discredited because they do not believe what we say. It is hard to comprehend. I read not long ago where Dean Acheson went to France and he went to France to talk about the Cuban missile crisis. And when he went to France, he said, I have got proof. He talked to President de Gaulle, and President de Gaulle was not one of our best supporters. He said, I have got photos here which will show you that we have missiles in Cuba. This was during the missile crisis. President de Gaulle said, I do not need to see those photos. I will take the word of the President of the United States. Now, that is the problem we face. We need to come together. I hope that this resolution will be withdrawn and that we will change a few words in it that would make it unified for the whole country. For instance, is it safer today in Spain? Is it safer in the Middle East? These are the things that I worry about. Just by putting something on paper you cannot say it is safe. It is just like the President, I am sure he thought the war was over when he said the war is over. I am sure when he made the announcement he thought the war was over, but that does not make it over. And putting it on paper does not mean that we are out of this with this conflict. We need the support of allies. We need the support, the solid support of this Congress. This is a long-term fight. I had members of the State Department over before with me in my office and they were telling me about the transition. This is going to be a very, very difficult transition. I do not say it was a shotgun wedding, but I would say we put together something where it is going to be very difficult to get the Iraqi people to agree when you have the divisions that you have in Iraq. So we are going to need everybody's support, not only in Congress; but we are going to need the people of the world's support because it is such a difficult issue for us to face. I am in it for the long run. Any money that they need, any equipment they need, anything they need, I am going to be there in front, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and I, and all the rest of the committee and all the rest of the Members of Congress. Because everybody wants to support the troops. But you put it on paper, it does not mean that the troops are safer. Now, I had two young women come to my office. Both of them had lost their husbands. One had two children, one had one child. I have lost six from my district. And they are from a very poor family. And they came in and they went to Walter Reed and they took gifts out to the wounded at Walter Reed. Many of us have been out there. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) has been out there; the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) has been out there. All of us have been out to Walter Reed. And this one young woman, 22 years old with a child said, You know, I got married, I got pregnant. Then my husband was deployed and I had a baby. He was killed and I had a baby. She said, I should not have to live my whole life in one year. We support the troops. All of us support the troops. But we cannot get up here and divide the Nation at this time. This should be a bipartisan resolution. And I would hope we will be able to work that out so that everyone can vote for a resolution that shows this great country is united.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to share with you and my colleagues a tribute to a lady from southwestern Pennsylvania who has made a difference in the lives of countless veterans. When Linda West was in junior high school in Uniontown, in Pennsylvania's 12th Congressional District, she began visiting the homes of housebound veterans as part of a community-service project. This effort marked the beginning of a mission that would lead a coalition of veterans and community organizations in Las Vegas, NV, to honor her with a Lifetime Achievement Award last December. As a student at the University of Cincinnati, Linda worked with veterans in Uniontown during semester and summer breaks. After graduation, she relocated to Las Vegas and formed new relationships with veterans there to match those she had found so rewarding in Uniontown. She visited veterans in hospitals, delivered food to their homes, assisted with burials and arranged honor guards. In recognition of her efforts, the Chapel of Four Chaplains more than 20 years ago confirmed her as an assistant Nevada State chaplain, the first female lay clergy in the organization. She receives no pay or reimbursement for expenses. She is a national service officer of Veterans of the Vietnam War, where she has helped veterans with their medical, spiritual and health- care benefits needs for more than 15 years. When necessary, she has practiced suicide intervention with these veterans, especially those suffering from the effects of Agent Orange. She worked with a Vietnam veteran to ensure passage of the first increase in Nevada's veterans' property tax exemption in the 48 years since the bill was passed in 1953. The legislation, including added benefits for veterans who were more than 60 percent disabled as a result of their service, was intended as a thank-you to the State's veterans but had become nearly meaningless over the years. She also worked with a veteran to derail legislation that would have ended the teaching of American Government and history in Nevada's public schools, instead adding a mandate for the teaching of the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence. Here in the 12th Congressional District, we're grateful to Uniontown native Linda West Myers for the generous contributions she has made to our Nation's veterans.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, it is with both pleasure and sadness that I rise today to recognize Jay S. Pifer, who is planning his retirement on December 1st after more than 40 years with Allegheny Energy. Jay has been a good friend to Pennsylvania and an outstanding corporate leader. I am pleased to recognize some of his achievements here today, but I must say that he will be greatly missed. Jay is a native of Pennsylvania, graduated from Ridgway Area High School, and has degrees from both Penn State University and Clarion State University. He has received numerous awards including Penn State's Outstanding Engineering Alumni and the University's Alumni Fellow Award. He began his career at Allegheny as a college student. He was named interim President and CEO at Allegheny Energy before being named Chief Operating Officer in June. He has worked in almost every department in the company including sales, marketing, engineering, customer service, accounting and management. In fact, Jay has performed admirably at almost every job in the company. He has held a number of leadership positions, including President of its Allegheny Power energy delivery subsidiary--which supplies power throughout Western Pennsylvania, and in Maryland, West Virginia, Virginia, and Ohio. During a time of recent financial challenges for Allegheny, Jay played a leading role in preserving the company. Through it all--and some very difficult weather from ice storms to Hurricane Isabel-- Allegheny Power was recognized by J.D. Power and Associates as the second best company in customer satisfaction in the East and 10th best in the Nation. This is an honor of which Jay is justifiably proud. Jay also has been involved in many civic and community activities, dedicating himself to education, economic development, and conservation efforts in Western Pennsylvania and her neighboring states. He serves on the boards of the United Way and the Business Roundtables of Pennsylvania and West Virginia. His many other honors include membership on the Advisory Board of Penn State University and the University of Pittsburgh at Greensburg, honorary chair of the NAACP, director of the Westmoreland Trust, and membership in the Western Pennsylvania Conservancy. He is an ordained Lay Pastor in the United Methodist Church and has long been associated with the Boy Scouts of America. He currently serves on the Advisory Board of the Northeast Region of the Boy Scouts. His accomplishments are really too numerous to mention, but I wish Jay well in his retirement and thank him for his tireless commitment to Allegheny Energy and Pennsylvania.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time once again, I know the chairman wanted to extend this, but I just wanted to needle him a bit about doing this every week.

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the chairman a question. Why are we only doing this for a week? We are going to have to do this whole thing in another week? We get up here with all this debate, but could the gentleman tell me why? He knows we are not going to get done in a week; he knows it will take until Thanksgiving. Why are we only doing this for a week? Can the gentleman tell me?

Mr. MURTHA. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I just do not understand. We know it is going to take longer. I do not understand why we would be forced to go through this same administrative procedure every week. We know we are going to pass the CR. I just do not understand. Are we controlling this from the appropriation side, or is this above our pay grade?