Ike Skelton

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. SKELTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Concurrent Resolution 419, which recognizes the efforts of the State of New York to establish the National Purple Heart Hall of Honor. And, I recognize the gentlewoman from New York, Mrs. Sue Kelly, the sponsor of this measure for her efforts. One might wonder why the state of New York is leading the effort to establish a center that focuses on the history and importance of this honored military award. The reason is simple, in the summer of 1782, during the Revolutionary War; General George Washington devised two new badges, one of which was the Badge of Military Merit, which we know today as the Purple Heart. General Washington at the time wrote ``. . . whenever any singularly meritorious action is performed, the author of it shall be permitted to wear on his facings over the left breast, the figure of a heart in purple cloth, or silk, edged with narrow lace or binding.'' Three soldiers are known to have received the original honor badge, Sergeant Daniel Bissell of the 2nd Connecticut Regiment of the Continental Line, Sergeant William Brown of the 5th Connectivity Regiment of the Continental Line, and Sergeant Elijah Churchill of the 2nd Continental Dragoons, also a Connecticut regiment. However, after the Revolution, the award feels into disuse and was not proposed for use again until after World War I. In 1927, Army Chief of Staff General Charles P. Summerall directed that proposed legislation be sent to Congress to revive the Badge of Military Merit. However, it was not until 1931, when General Summerall's successor, General Douglas MacArthur pushed forward the idea to reinstitute the badge. It was on the 200th anniversary of George Washington's birth, February 22, 1932, that the War Department announced General Order No. 3, which established the Purple Heart. In 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt extended the award to the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard, and established a uniform application of standards in the Army and Navy. President Harry S. Truman retroactively extended the eligibility for the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard back to April 5, 1917, and in 1962, President John F. Kennedy extended eligibility to any ``civilian national of the United States, who while serving under competent authority in any capacity with an armed force . . ., has been, or may hereafter be, wounded'' to qualify for the Purple Heart. Mr. Speaker, the Purple Heart has an illustrious career and it is recognition of the enemy-related injuries a service member sustains. Today, there are more than 800,000 members of the Armed Forces who have been awarded the Purple Heart. The State of New York has been working to establish a National Purple Heart Hall of Honor at the New Windsor Cantonment in New Windsor, New York to provide a permanent place of remembrance of the service and sacrifices made by men and women in uniform throughout our nation's history. This resolution before us recognizes the efforts of the State of New York, and encourages the education and information on the history and importance of this distinguished combat award. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I fully endorse, and I know Members in this Chamber do, the National Purple Heart Hall of Honor, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to join my colleagues today in recognition of National Historically Black Colleges and Universities Week. Missouri's Fourth Congressional District is the home of Lincoln University, located in Jefferson City, Missouri. Yesterday, I was fortunate to have the opportunity to meet with Dr. Carolyn Mahoney, the President of Lincoln University, during her visit to Washington, DC. Like all HBCUs, Lincoln University has a proud history. The school was founded in 1966 by soldiers of the 62nd and 65th Colored Infantries who established Lincoln Institute for African Americans interested in continuing their education. Today, Lincoln University has the most diverse population of colleges and universities in the state of Missouri. U.S. News and World Report ranks Lincoln University as fourth in the Midwest for campus diversity and seventh in the Midwest for its international student population. Although the University has many outstanding academic programs, I have been particularly impressed with Lincoln University's Cooperative Extension and Research programs, which provide valuable outreach to under served populations. I am also very proud of the University's ROTC programs, which train tomorrow's military leaders and continue Lincoln University's military heritage. I look forward to participating in the Blue Tiger Battalion's Veterans' Day commemorations this November, just as I have done for more years than I can remember. Lincoln also hosts an outstanding public radio station, KJLU-FM. In April 2006, KJLU was named the Black College Radio Station of the Year at the 28th Annual Black College Radio and Television Conference in Atlanta, Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am certain that the Members of the House will join me in congratulating the students and staff of Lincoln University for their accomplishments and in wishing them the best as we celebrate National Historically Black Colleges and Universities Week.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman, my good friend from California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize September 11 as a national day of mourning, to commemorate and honor America's 5-year-long national sacrifice, and to warn of clear and present danger in the days ahead. Our Nation will never forget the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. Nearly 3,000 innocent Americans perished in that day, and the lives of many thousands more were forever changed. The tools and the national power were mobilized to bring justice to those responsible. To each and all experiencing personal loss, we honor and we pay respect. To each and all responding to the call of duty, we extend a note of appreciation. Their sacrifice in our Nation's initial response led to a successful military strike against terror strongholds in Afghanistan. As we all agreed, it was an impressive operational display of technological might. It was swift and it was right, and it enjoyed widespread support among the world's family and nations. In short, it was a step toward a more safe and secure environment for Americans. Mr. Speaker, in the past 5 years, much of the initial gain has been squandered. We have failed to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. We found ourselves bogged down in a costly war in Iraq that detracts from our pursuit of those responsible for attacking American soil. We are also facing a resurgence in Afghanistan. Our Nation is engaged in two wars, the first against terrorism; and the second, a war of choice to effect a regime change in Iraq, has dragged us into a sectarian clash on the verge of civil war. The war on terrorism rightfully continues, and by all account remains a war of necessity. In contrast, the war in Iraq was initiated with faulty intelligence, without proper planning and aftermath, that is, after the initial strike planning has created for our Nation a strategic risk. More than 40 percent of Army and Marine Corps ground equipment is committed to the combat theater. That equipment is wearing out, according to experts, nine times faster than the normal rate. Not one Army combat brigade in the continental United States is fully ready for its wartime mission. Simply put, the war in Iraq has sapped our strategic base and threatens to break our Army. Regrettably, our Nation is not safer than it was on September 10, 5 years ago. Because this war of choice has tapped our resources, our Nation's ability to confront future security challenges, it is less than it was only 5 years ago. That is a sad commentary, but sadly true. As we commemorate the heroes of September 11 and beyond, let us not forget the solemn oath to protect and defend this Nation and to protect and defend our Constitution. Let us not forget our responsibility to take every step necessary to make America stronger, not weaker, than before. And let us never forget our duty to prevent the occurrence of another similar tragedy. We must have the best, we must have the most capable military to meet any threat that faces this wonderful Nation. If we fail in this endeavor, then we will surely have failed to honor the memory of those who have fallen

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, on July 5, 1950, near the city of Osan in South Korea, North Korean forces faced a battalion of American soldiers who had been sent to stop the Korean advance. This battalion of 406 soldiers was undermanned, under-trained and poorly equipped. These soldiers fought a 7-hour battle that ended in retreat, and with 150 American infantrymen killed, wounded or missing. This battalion was known as Task Force Smith, and its failure was due to a lack of readiness on the part of our military after World War II. Today, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that the low readiness levels of the Army and the Marine Corps are going to once again endanger our troops. Mr. Speaker, I have spoken about readiness problems before. And it continues to concern me as this situation worsens. Let me be blunt. Our ground forces and their reserves face a crisis with manpower and equipment shortages and will be challenged to complete their missions should they be called to respond to an emergency. Mr. Speaker, I have used the word ``readiness'' many times before. But I feel it necessary to clearly define its meaning. Readiness describes the condition of our military forces. It is a measure of how well they are manned, trained and equipped to complete the full range of missions necessary to defend our Nation. This is why the falling readiness levels of our Army and our Marine Corps are so disturbing. They indicate that we may not be able to defend our Nation's interests wherever they may face challenges. The most striking example of this problem is with equipment. Over 40 percent of the Army and Marine Corps ground equipment is now deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan. It is wearing out as much as nine times faster than normal. Only 3 years in Iraq has placed as much as 27 years of wear on our equipment, forcing the Department of Defense to cannibalize the equipment of non-deployed units and the National Guard. This cannibalization of equipment has left the Army without a single combat brigade in the Continental United States ready for all of their war-time missions. Simply put, the war in Iraq is sapping our strategic base and leaving us with a broken Army. The Armed Services Committee is nearing agreement to add $20 billion to the Defense Authorization Act for next year to try to help fix this grave situation. This will help, but the Department's readiness problems are too large to be fixed by a one-time investment. Together, the Army and Marine Corps need an astounding $29 billion in 2007 to repair or replace equipment damaged in Iraq and Afghanistan. The amount is only part of the overall bill that represents a snapshot in time of a problem that is large and continues to grow. The problem has developed over time due to mismanagement and a failure on the part of the administration to adequately plan for Iraq. It cannot be solved overnight. Congress can continue to provide band- aids for readiness shortfalls by funding through supplementals, but the Army and Marine Corps are limping along. They cannot keep pace with falling readiness levels. The only way to truly solve this problem is for the administration to commit to fully funding the needs of the Department of Defense. This country is at war. Americans have a right to expect the administration to realistically budget for national defense. The stakes are high. Mr. Speaker, we cannot afford another Task Force Smith.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, Iraq. A good number of people are confused when the name of that country is mentioned. Let's be clear. Our country is engaged in two wars. The first is the war against terrorism, which has its genesis in Afghanistan with tentacles reaching throughout the world. The terrorist group known as al Qaeda, headed by a man named Osama bin Laden, originated in Afghanistan and was protected by the former Afghan Taliban government. After the September 11, 2001, attacks on our country, which were sponsored by bin Laden's al Qaeda, our military forces struck the Taliban government and the al Qaeda strongholds in Afghanistan. Our military forces, along with allied and NATO forces, remain fighting the remnants of al Qaeda and the Taliban with the assistance of the Afghan National Army. The attack by our military in the ongoing conflict was a war of necessity. The second war, our attack on Saddam Hussein's Iraq originated because of the alleged threat of weapons of mass destruction against America and our interests. This is a war of choice. After soundly defeating the military in open battle, our occupation of that troubled country came about without proper planning or resources. Massive looting was allowed. The Iraqi Army was disbanded, without giving former soldiers paychecks and shovels, which caused many to turn against the American occupation. There were insufficient troop numbers to provide a successful military occupation and reconstruction. Former Sunni Muslim Baathist regime elements formed the basis of a growing insurgency against the occupation forces. They were joined by foreign fighters, mainly al Qaeda, and numerous criminals who were recently released from prison by Saddam Hussein shortly before the conflict started. In more recent days, a new source of violence has erupted in Iraq, sectarian religious violence with Shia and Sunni elements killing each other. According to a recent Pentagon report, sectarian bloodshed has pushed violence in Iraq to its highest level in more than 2 years. Preventing full-scale civil war is now the most urgent mission of the U.S. troops in that country. Thus, this is the status of the Iraq war, which is a separate and distinct war from that against the terrorists. The enemy in each conflict has different goals. The al Qaeda terrorist group wishes to establish a Muslim caliphate throughout the entire Middle East. The Iraqi insurgents' goal is to cause the existing Iraqi government to fail and to establish Sunni dominance in Iraq. The Sunni Arab insurgency remains strong and viable. The sectarian violence overlays this initial struggle with the sectarian leaders such as Muqtada al-Sadr in the wings of the Shiite groups. On September 4, 2002, and again on March 18, 2003, before we invaded Iraq, I wrote the President warning of the instability in the months following the initial coalition victory. Sadly, my warnings were of Cassandra-esque value. They were not heeded by the administration. So there we are, two conflicts, two wars, and the two should not be confused. There are those who attempt to fuzz the two conflicts together as the war on terror, but the wars are truly separate and distinct. With the help of NATO troops, we made significant gains in Afghanistan, but these are in danger of being overturned if we relax our focus. The picture is not so rosy in Iraq, which calls for a different policy and a different approach to bring about stability and representative government. The recent Pentagon report is not encouraging.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Madam Speaker, it has been said that politics is the art of compromise. Today, the House is debating a bill that would designate a number of National Heritage Areas throughout the United States, including the Freedom's Frontier National Heritage Area in western Missouri and eastern Kansas. That portion of the bill, which was drafted by my good friend from Kansas, Congressman Jim Ryun, is the product of much negotiation and compromise, and I am pleased to lend my support to it. As a student of history, I believe it is part of our government's responsibility to promote history education and to provide opportunities for the American people to learn about our nation's rich past. Doing so is critical to forming a more perfect union and to ensuring we do not repeat the mistakes of yesteryear. The people of Missouri and Kansas have contributed a great deal to our nation. In many ways, the border region has mirrored the finest and darkest days in American history. From the bloody border conflicts that set the stage for the Civil War to our mutual struggle to expand the definition of freedom, Missourians and Kansans have played a role in this history. In fact, two great leaders from this region, Harry S Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower, descendants of pioneers, found common purpose on the larger stage of world history and led the wartorn nations of the 20th century toward the fulfillment of democracy's promise. The creation of the Freedom's Frontier National Heritage Area will allow local and state historical groups and governments to more easily tell our interesting regional story. It will encourage collaborative planning on historical projects and provide important federal resource opportunities for historical preservation. I am pleased to have worked with Mr. Ryun on this bill and am especially grateful he agreed to a number of my suggested changes to his original legislation. The final work product will mean good things for the people of our great states and for the history of our country. The people of Missouri and Kansas have faced many challenges through the years, and our relationship has not always been as pleasant as it is today. But, through friendship and compromise, we will now more easily be able to explain our regional history in a way that is acceptable to both Missourians and Kansans.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, after the tragedies of September 2001, the United States Congress created the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, commonly called the 9-11 Commission. This independent, bipartisan body was charged with preparing a complete account of the circumstances surrounding the attacks and with recommending policy changes designed to prevent future attacks. I have a great deal of respect for the individuals who served on this commission and for their final work product. America is in the midst of fighting a long, complex war against terrorism that must be fought with unconventional tools. The 9-11 Commission recognizes the unique nature of our conflict and has recommended that the United States engage Middle Eastern nations economically in order to foster development and reforms in that troubled part of the world. Economic openness requires bilateral compromise and gives America an opportunity to positively influence the region. And, importantly, economic reforms and political liberties tend to be linked. In the Middle East, the Congress has approved trade pacts with Israel, Jordan, Morocco, and Bahrain. I have supported them because I feel they are critical to enhancing our economic ties to the region. Today, we are considering an agreement with Oman, and after careful consideration, I have decided to support this legislation as well. Oman is a small, oil-exporting nation located on the Arabian peninsula at the mouth of the Persian Gulf. It is strategically important to the United States and has played a meaningful role in our efforts to defeat terrorism. As Oman's oil reserves diminish, its government has been working to liberalize and diversify its trade beyond oil and gas. America's economic partnership with Oman carries with it great promise. Boosting our economic partnership with that country will enhance our national security standing in a strategically critical area and will open doors to agricultural trade. The agreement will lower tariffs on U.S. agricultural commodities and products, thereby putting our Nation in a better position to increase exports and compete with other nations for market share. After full implementation, U.S. agricultural exports could reach $225 million or more. No trade deal is ever perfect. Clearly, some improvements could be made in the bill, especially with regard to labor protection and human rights. But, as I studied the Oman Free Trade Agreement and heard from national security, agriculture, labor, and business leaders, I became convinced that this trade agreement is critical to U.S. national security and to Missouri's rural economy. In the days leading up to today's debate on the Oman Free Trade Agreement, there has been much talk about port security. Despite the rhetoric surrounding this issue, a nonpartisan legal analysis from the Congressional Research Service has shown that Congress retains its ability to determine the national security interests of our country and to prevent port operations if need be. The CRS analysis is set forth below, as is a letter from the Secretary of the Treasury on this issue: Congressional Research Service, Washington, DC, July 18, 2006. memorandum Subject: Legal Issues Related to the Proposed Oman Free Trade Agreement and Port Security. From: Todd B. Tatelman, Legislative Attorney, American Law Division. This memorandum is in response to requests for a legal analysis of three arguments that have been advanced in opposition to the proposed Oman Free Trade Agreement (FTA). Each of the arguments relate to issues surrounding port security and, specifically, the ability of Omani companies or companies incorporated in Oman to perform ``landside aspects of port activities'' in the United States. This memorandum provides a legal analysis of three questions: First, whether the proposed Oman FTA allows Omani companies or companies incorporated in Oman to perform ``landside aspects of port activities'' at U.S. ports, especially in light of the dispute over Dubai Ports World's attempt at establishing similar business operations at various ports in the United States. Second, whether the proposed Oman FTA provides some type of advance clearance to Omani companies that wish to begin landside port operations in the United States. Finally, this memorandum provides a legal analysis with respect to the possibility of a third-country company (e.g., Dubai Ports World or similarly-situated foreign entity), establishing a minimal presence within Oman for the sole purpose of taking advantage of the benefits provided by the provisions of the proposed FTA. One argument that has been raised against the proposed Oman FTA appears to stem specifically from language contained in Annex II of the Agreement. The argument generally asserts that the proposed Oman FTA provides a new right to both Omani-owned companies and companies based in Oman that will allow them to perform ``landside aspects of port operations'' at U.S. ports. Upon close inspection of the language in Annex II, however, it appears that this claim is misleading because it appears that Omani companies are already presently able to perform these services. Currently, there are no U.S. laws that prevent either an Omani-owned company (state controlled) or any other foreign-owned company (regardless of whether the company is state-owned or privately owned) from contracting with port owners to perform ``landside aspects of port activities'' in the United States. In other words, if an Omani company (either state or privately owned) wants to engage in contract negotiations with port owners to provide for the types of services envisioned in Annex II, there is no U.S. law that would expressly prevent them from receiving said contracts. Annex II of the proposed Oman FTA allows the parties to list ``the specific sectors, subsectors, or activities for which that Party may maintain existing, or adopt new or more restrictive, measures'' that are not in conformity with the various obligations imposed by the Agreement, such as National Treatment (Articles 10.3 or 11.2), Most-Favored Nation (Articles 10.4 or 11.3), and Market Access (Article 11.4). With respect to the Transportation Sector, the U.S. Schedule to Annex II lists 12 types of measures that the United States has specifically reserved the right to either maintain or adopt new more restrictive measures. These 12 types of measures generally reflect the current restrictions placed on foreign investment and/or ownership of maritime assets by U.S. domestic law. Phrased another way, the United States has reserved the right to maintain our existing legal restrictions with respect to those aspects of maritime transportation in which we already have limitations, as well as adopt new measures in these categories that may be more restrictive. Additionally, the U.S. Schedule indicates that we do not include in our reservations either ``vessel construction and repair'' or the ``landside aspects of port activities.'' The noninclusion of these measures in our schedule merely indicates that the U.S. government is not reserving the right to impose a future restrictive measure with respect to ``landside aspects of port activities.'' It does not appear possible to interpret this language as granting any type of new business opportunity to Oman or Omani based companies. Moreover, with respect to ``landside aspects of port activities'' the language in Annex II specifically states that the promised treatment ``is conditional upon obtaining comparable market access in these sectors from Oman.'' As a result of this language, it appears that the proposed Oman FTA does not grant any new opportunities for business investment to Oman that do not already exist, nor does it allow Oman to establish ``landside aspects of port activities'' unless it is determined that comparable market access is provided to U.S. companies in Oman. Indeed, it may be possible to argue that the language in Annex II in fact potentially limits the opening of U.S. markets with respect to ``landside aspects of port activities'' because it imposes a comparable access requirement that does not currently exist under domestic law. Another argument raised in opposition to the proposed Oman FTA is that it provides a type of ``pre-clearance'' to businesses in Oman with respect to ``landside aspects of port activities.'' It is unclear at this time precisely what the term ``pre-clearance'' means in this context. For the purposes of the memorandum, however, we will assume that this language refers to the national security review conducted by Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). CFIUS, as you may know, was the executive branch entity responsible for reviewing national security and other implications of the Dubai Ports World transaction. U.S. law permits the President, at his discretion, to investigate the national security implications of ``mergers, acquisitions, and takeovers . . . by or with foreign persons which could result in foreign control of persons engaged in interstate commerce in the United States.'' In addition, domestic law requires the President to conduct an investigation ``in any instance in which an entity controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government seeks to engage in any merger, acquisition, or takeover which could result in control of a person engaged in interstate commerce in the United States that could affect the national security of the United States.'' The President, by Executive Order, has delegated the responsibility for these investigations to

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, let me take this means to recognize RADM Terry L. ``T'' McCreary on the occasion of his retirement as the Navy's Chief of Information after 28 years of dedicated service to our Navy and the Nation. Before becoming a public affairs officer, Admiral McCreary joined the Navy as a surface warfare officer. His service to our Nation has taken him around the globe during some of the most important military operations in our recent history. As a junior officer, he completed several deployments in the Pacific Fleet onboard the USS O'Brien (DD 975). He also served on the staff of the Seventh Fleet, based in Japan, and with the Fifth Fleet in the Persian Gulf. I first came to know Admiral McCreary during Operation Desert Storm, when he served as the public affairs officer for the battleship USS Missouri (BB 63) in the Persian Gulf. He is a student of history and a scholar, but is remarkable for his candor and insight, traits that have served him and the Navy well during his career. Admiral McCreary has excelled in positions of leadership in the joint force. He served with skill as the public affairs officer for the U.S. Pacific Command, and also as the Special Assistant for Public Affairs to both GENs Hugh Shelton and Richard Myers in their capacity as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, he was instrumental in accurately depicting the work and sacrifices of our men and women in uniform. He oversaw the plan to embed journalists with our forces in Iraq to bring the news from the front directly to the American people. Rear Admiral McCreary assumed the duties as the Navy's Chief of Information in July 2003. He has provided sound counsel to the Secretary of the Navy and the Chief of Naval Operations and has ably directed the 3,500 sailors and civilian communication professionals under his care. He has skillfully built a sound foundation for the future of strategic communications in the Navy. With his intimate knowledge of public affairs across the spectrum of military operations, his advice has been sought by officials both inside and outside of government. Admiral McCreary has been the right person, in the right job, at the right time for the U.S. Navy. I know Rear Admiral McCreary's contributions to our Nation will continue. As he retires, I want to offer him and his wife, Jopat, my personal appreciation for their service and wish them well as they begin this new phase of their lives together.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 5 minutes.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I want to contrast two statements for you to set the stage on what we are dealing with regarding the United States Army. ``Help is on the way.'' That is what President Bush said to our military during the 2000 campaign when they were in pretty good shape. And ``No.'' That is what General Schoomaker, the chief of staff of the Army, answered when I asked him if he was comfortable with the readiness levels of the nondeployed Army units here in the United States. Let me put it in very clear terms. Our Army is in a crisis. Our forces are fighting valiantly in Iraq and Afghanistan. But the strain of that continued effort has put our preparedness to deter or to fight somewhere else, if we must, at strategic risk. The crises in North Korea, Iran, the Middle East, show how quickly things can change and how they can go wrong. We must be prepared. And right now the Army is not. President Bush, during the 2000 campaign, strongly criticized the Clinton administration because two divisions were below their appropriate readiness ratings. He said, ``If called upon by the Commander in Chief today, two entire divisions of the Army would have to report `not ready for duty, sir.' '' Today nearly every combat brigade located within the United States would report that they are not ready for duty. They are at the lowest levels of readiness. Most nondeployed units in the active Army are reporting that they are not able to complete the expected wartime missions. The exact numbers, of course, are classified. Army readiness for units not in Iraq has steadily declined and has fallen to levels that will limit our ability to project ground forces. Every nondeployed National Guard combat brigade in the Army is reported at the lowest level of readiness. Forty percent of the Army's ground equipment is deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. The army has depleted its prepositioned overseas war stocks of equipment. The Army is so strapped for equipment, they are planning on downloading prepositioned ships loaded with combat equipment to help fill shortages. Mr. Speaker, the Army has lost over 1,000 wheeled vehicles, over 100 armored vehicles, and 100 helicopters since the start of the war in Iraq. Guard units in the U.S. are suffering severe equipment shortages which will affect their ability to respond to emergencies in their home States, such as Katrina. Equipment readiness is suffering as the priority for repair, parts and equipment is only toward the combat theater. The Army is now having a crisis funding its installations at home because of poor planning and the lack of support from the administration. The recent supplemental funding resolution increased the installation budgets by $722 million, but the Army is still short $530 million to meet minimum support levels through the remainder of the fiscal year. Each installation is being forced to find ways to cut their operating budgets. These cuts are affecting vital training and family support, which further degrades the Army's readiness posture. Over $290 billion has been spent in Iraq, with no end in sight. The Army requested more money in the recent supplemental, but the President's Office of Management and Budget cut $4.9 billion from the Army's request for the 2006 war supplemental before sending it over here to Congress. During the 2000 election, the current administration told our military, help is on the way. That is clearly not the case. The administration has failed to request the funds needed for the defense of this Nation. We must give the Army what it needs. The Army will need sustained funds, $17.5 billion this year alone, to start getting well. We cannot shortchange them. We must provide a new direction for the Army, with sustained equipment and manpower, so that we can project power to protect America, wherever and whenever necessary. That is exactly what we must be prepared to do.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, it has come to my attention that a distinguished career has come to an end. LTG Michael M. Dunn is retiring from the U.S. Air Force. Lieutenant General Dunn received his Bachelor of Science degree in astrodynamics from the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, CO, in 1972. After graduating fourth in his class in June 1972, General Dunn flew the F-106 at Castle Air Force Base, CA. Following various duties in Washington, DC, Florida, and Alabama, he transitioned to the F-15, which he flew in the Far East. He is a command pilot with more than 2,500 flying hours. In 1976, he went to the Squadron Officer School and later received his Master of Science degree in systems management at the University of Southern California in 1981. In 1983, he attended the Air Command and Staff College in Maxwell AFB, AL, and three years later attended the Air War College. In 1989, Lieutenant General Dunn attended the Industrial College of the Armed Forces in Fort Lesley J. McNair, Washington, DC. Lieutenant General Dunn commanded the 1st Operations Group at Langley Air Force Base, VA. He was the Senior Military Fellow and is currently a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. He has served in four joint tours, including the Headquarters U.S. European Command, the Office of the Deputy Secretary of Defense, the Headquarters United Nations Command and U.S. Forces Korea, and the Joint Staff. In Korea, he was the lead negotiator with the North Korean Army at P'anmunjom. Most recently, Lieutenant General Dunn served as president of National Defense University. He has provided strong leadership, coordinating the several schools with the National Defense University. During his tenure, the professional military education of our military made great strides forward. Lieutenant General Dunn's awards and decorations include the Defense Distinguished Service Medal, with oak leaf cluster, Defense Superior Service Medal, Legion of Merit, Meritorious Service Medal, with three oak leaf clusters, and Air Force Commendation Medal, with two oak leaf clusters. Throughout his career, LTG Michael M. Dunn has served the Nation well. I am certain that my colleagues will join me in wishing Lieutenant General Dunn all the best in all the days ahead.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, it has come to my attention that a distinguished career at the Naval Postgraduate School will soon come to an end. Mr. Richard Elster has announced his official retirement after 37 years of service. After receiving his bachelor's degree from the University of Minnesota in 1962, Richard pursued his M.S. in Industrial Relations, and his PhD in Industrial Psychology. By 1967, Richard had finished with school and become a project scientist at Litton Industries. Dr. Elster became associated with the Naval Postgraduate School in 1969 when he joined the faculty as an assistant professor. During his tenure, he served as an associate professor, professor, Chairman of the Department of Administrative Sciences, Dean of Instruction, and the Provost and Academic Dean. Throughout his career at Naval Postgraduate School, Dr. Elster served in several high ranking Pentagon positions. Starting in 1975, he served as special advisor to the Secretary of Defense for manpower and reserve affairs. Dr. Elster also held positions as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Manpower, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Manpower and Reserve Affairs, and Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Resource Management and Support. Dr. Elster was recognized for meritorious civilian service as Provost and Academic Dean at the Naval Postgraduate School, from July 1995 to December 2005. Because of his leadership, the Naval Postgraduate School attained unprecedented stature in the defense establishment and the academic community. It was recognized in 2005 with the highest score for military value of all Department of Defense education commands by the Education and Training Joint Cross Service Group. The Naval Postgraduate School is respected as a world class research university due in part to Dr. Elster's leadership, strategic vision, and devotion to public service. Much of the academic work of the school's students and faculty responds directly to real world defense mission needs. As Dr. Richard S. Elster prepares for retirement, I know the Members of the House will join me in expressing appreciation for his dedication to the Naval Postgraduate School and will wish him well in all the days ahead.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, ``Help is on the way.'' That was the promise this administration made to our country and to our servicemembers before the election in 2002. And look what it has come to mean. The Army cannot pay its utility bills, defense workers are on the unemployment lines, and equipment readiness is slipping to historic lows. So I ask, exactly who is being helped? I am sure that the administration will blame the Army's money problems on the war. There is no doubt that the $350 billion excursion into Iraq has placed stress on the Army as well as the other services. But this Congress has continually provided these supplemental funds the administration has requested to wage the war, and has even increased the defense budget by 19 percent since 2001. So I ask, how can it be that the Army is closing or curtailing the family support programs and laying off employees? The answer is clear. The administration is not requesting sufficient funds to provide for the national defense beyond the war in Iraq. This Congress has already provided $166 billion to the Army in 2006. That is $2 billion more than the administration requested. Obviously it is not enough. Because I am hearing of reports in the media about bases like Fort Sam Houston where the utility bills have not been paid since March. The Army knows it has a problem. They even requested more money, but the President's Office of Management and Budget cut $4.9 billion from the Army's request for the 2006 war supplemental before it was presented to Congress. So now the Army is trying to pinch pennies by closing libraries, reducing trash pickup, closing dining facilities, and reducing support for vital training activities. This is a move that is certain to damage morale and sends the wrong message to our troops. This is not the way to reward the courage and sacrifice of our soldiers and their families. Several weeks ago, I spoke here on the floor about the dismal readiness posture of the Army's equipment. Readiness rates for equipment have fallen so far that I fear that they will now present a strategic risk to our ability to respond to contingencies beyond our current commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition to this problem, the Army is now laying off engineers working on some of the high priority modernization programs in order to pay bills elsewhere in the Army. The needs of the current and future Army are being neglected. As a candidate in 1999, President Bush said that ``The previous administration wanted to command great forces without supporting them, to launch today's new causes with little thought of tomorrow's consequences.'' Unfortunately, it appears that the words now apply to his own administration. He is failing to request the funds the military needs to fight the war on terror, the war in Iraq, and also remain ready to defend the Nation if other needs arise. This country is at war. Americans have a right to expect the administration to realistically budget for national defense. That is not happening, and every day it continues to put this country at greater risk.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. I thank the Speaker for recognizing me this evening. I wish to speak tonight about the United States military. I have the privilege of serving as the ranking member on the Armed Services Committee here in the House of Representatives. I wish to speak about mortgaging the future of our military. In particular, I want to talk about the Army, the United States Army. That wonderful institution that has contributed so much to American freedom, has meant so much to us historically, and yet I feel that I must discuss and tell my colleagues this evening about the future of our military and how it is being strained in so many respects. I want to talk about two of the elements of military. In particular, I want to talk about the Army. This is true also of the Marine Corps, but I will discuss mostly the Army. The continuous deployment in Iraq hurts our military personnel and their families by straining the recruiting and retention; it damages our readiness for our mission skills outside those required for Iraq. As we all know, we have lost some 2,529 servicemembers killed in Iraq. We have over 18,000 wounded, with near 8,500 of those unable to return to duty. Regarding the active duty of the United States Army, over 14 percent of the Army active duty force is currently deployed in Iraq. The quality of recruits has fallen in the United States Army, as greater numbers of high school dropouts and other category IV recruits, the lowest level of recruit, have been increasing. Additionally, the number of soldiers who score below the 50th percentile in the Armed Forces Qualification Test has been increasing. For the past several years, the Army has reduced the minimum time-in- grade requirements for promotion to captain from 24 months to 18 months. It takes 38 months for a lieutenant to become a captain compared to 42 months just 2 years ago. One hundred percent of the Army's available active duty combat brigades have served at least a 12-month tour in Iraq or Afghanistan. At least 50 percent of those combat brigades have completed their second tour in Iraq or Afghanistan. Regarding the Selected Reserves, more than 20 percent of those currently deployed in Iraq are members of the Selected Reserves. That is the Guard and the Reserves. Over 39 percent of the Selected Reserves have been mobilized since September 11. Nearly 20 percent of those mobilized have been deployed two or more times. In fact, 13,800 members of the Selected Reserves have had three deployments, and 10,400 have been deployed more than three times. Currently, 45 percent of the Selected Reserves mobilized are deployed. Ninety-seven percent of the National Guard's combat and special operation battalions have been mobilized since September 11. The average tour of duty for National Guard members is 342 days. Regarding recruiting and retention, by 2007, the Army projects that it will be short 3,500 active duty officers, primarily captains and majors. The percentage of officers leaving the Army has been increasing since 2004. Approximately 3,500 airmen are currently performing Army missions, and the Navy is also being asked to assume greater responsibilities in the Iraq theatre. While the majority of the service components are currently meeting their recruitment goals, last year five components failed to meet their enlistment accession goals. The Army began the fiscal year 2006 with a delayed entry program of 12 percent, which is a 5 percent reduction from fiscal year 2005, and it is significantly below the 46 percent that was at the beginning of fiscal year 2003. The cost of recruiting has increased tremendously in fiscal year 2005. Active and Reserve components spent $3 billion on recruiting programs. The cost of retention has increased as well in fiscal year 2005. Active and Reserve components spent $1.5 billion on retention bonuses, this compared to $885 million spent in fiscal year 2004. Next, let us discuss the equipment issues. Equipment readiness is falling, and Iraq seems to be a black hole for all available equipment. Forty percent of the Army and Marine Corps ground equipment is deployed to Iraq. Equipment in Iraq is wearing out two to nine times the peacetime rate. Some equipment has added as much as 27 years' worth of wear and tear in the last 3 years. A Humvee designed for 14 years of operation needs overhaul or replacement in just 3 years. Additional armor added to protect troops is causing accelerated aging and has increased the number of rollover accidents. The Army has lost over 100 helicopters since 9/11. Many of those lost helicopters have not been replaced. It took 4 years to replace the first helicopter that was lost in 2001. The Army has lost over 100 tanks and armored vehicles and over 1,000 vehicles since the start of the war. Readiness trends for active units are falling, and nondeployed units are severely degraded. Nearly all of the nondeployed Army units are suffering degraded readiness, with unprecedented numbers of units reporting at the lowest levels of mission capability. Units preparing to deploy for Iraq are being issued equipment. In many cases this equipment arrives right before deployment. This limits the training opportunities for units returning to combat. Regarding their pre-positioned equipment, let us speak about that. Much of it is no longer pre-positioned. Pre-positioned equipment stocks have been seriously depleted to support the war in Iraq. Nearly 40 percent of the Marine Corps positioned to afloat ships have been downloaded. The Army plans to download one of the two afloat brigades to supply more equipment to Iraq. These afloat brigades are used to rapidly provide heavy combat equipment to contingency missions. Afloat brigades reduce deployment time from months to days. This plan is accepting significant strategic risk that will affect force protection capability. Let us speak about the National Guard equipment. The National Guard only has about 34 percent of its equipment on hand, down from 75 percent of its requirement in 2001. The missing equipment that has been left in Iraq is transferred to units deploying to Iraq. According to the National Guard, reserve equipment for fiscal year 2007, the Army National Guard has been directed to transfer more than 75,000 pieces of equipment valued at $1.7 billion to the Army to support Operation Iraqi Freedom. There is no plan to replace these items. This lack of equipment at home hinders the Guard's ability to train and adversely affects their ability to be comparable with active component units. Examples of shortages, the North Carolina 30th Brigade Combat Team returned from Iraq in 2005. The unit had left 229 HUMVEES or 73 percent of its predeployment inventory of those vehicles in Iraq. Regarding repairing all of this damage, it is costly. The Army has at least a $36 billion bill to repair and replace equipment. In fiscal year 2006, the Army will spend $13.5 billion this year to repair and replace battle damage and losses from Iraq. This isn't a full accounting of all losses, because some items such as helicopters, cannot be replaced because they are no longer in production. The Army estimates that $17 billion will be required for 2007. If the war in Iraq ended today, the Army would require 2 years of supplemental appropriations for somewhere between $24 and $36 billion. Unfortunately, it will take much more than 2 years to repair or replace that equipment. The Army will not be made whole again for many years. General Hagee of the Marine Corps reported that it has taken 2 years to produce replacement light armored vehicles from placement of the order until delivery. Army modernization and transformation has slowed due to funding pressures of the war in Iraq. Depots are not operating at full capacity. They are capable of producing 57 million hours of direct labor but are currently estimated at providing about 19 million hours of labor. According to the Army's Tank and Automotive Command, the Army cannot afford to do full overhauls on its ground equipment and has made a decision to perform reduced scope repairs. By the way, the Marine Corps has incurred a bill of some $12 billion to date to reset its equipment. In 2006, 19 brigade combat teams will return from Iraq. Their equipment is some 600 combat vehicles, 30,000 wheeled vehicles and 615 aircraft, and they will require 24 million hours of direct labor or repair. This will be quite a challenge for the Army, considering that the Army has still not repaired all of the vehicles deployed to Operation Iraqi Freedom, which returned home in 2004. By the way, the Marine Corps has determined that equipment deployed to air has suffered such significant damage and wear and tear and that 80 percent of it will need to be replaced. Regarding the budget pressures affecting everything in the Department of Defense, it goes to make up for budget shortfalls. The Army reduced its base operation support budget. Some of the cuts, such as cuts to childcare facilities, directly affect military quality of life and make it more difficult for already stressed military families to get by. The Navy only partially funded its deployed steaming days in the President's budget. The budget included a request for only 36 of the 51 required steaming days for Navy ships, a shortfall of $120 billion. The Navy ship program was underfunded. The shipping program was underfunded by the President's budget request by $119 million this year, bringing the total deferred maintenance bill for Navy ships to $240 million. Army modernization is being slowed. The Air Force's fleet of aircraft is aging, and we are not replacing them fast enough. The average age for Air Force aircraft is over 23 years. Some aircraft are over 50 years old. Would one feel safe to be in a 50-year-old commercial airplane? Do we feel we want to have a 50-year-old plane defending our Nation? Regarding readiness ratings, they continued to fall. Very few nondeployed units here in the continental United States are rated fully mission capable. Readiness in Iraq remains high, but it is coming on the back of the reset of the Army and Marine Corps. Units in the continental United States are short of equipment having to get additional parts and are sending additional equipment into the fight. Units are training for Iraq without all of their required equipment. They are getting well only upon arrival in Iraq. Readiness within the force services is poor across the board, and it continues to trend down. Mostly, this is due to the equipment as well as personnel issues. When asked if he was comfortable with the readiness of the Army outside of Iraq and Afghanistan, General Schoomaker, the Chief of Staff of the Army, replied no. Why do I make these comments? Because, under the Constitution of the United States, it is up to us to raise and maintain the military, the wonderful military of the United States. I spoke mostly, of course, this evening about the Army, the United States Army, that magnificent institution whose history is that of protecting freedom; and so much glory is due to those that wore the uniform from the days of our Revolution down to today, and I am so proud of them. But we in Congress need to take heed of the personnel challenges. We need to take heed of the equipment challenges. We need to do so, and I bring this to the attention of this body, because it is the right thing to do for our country and for the wonderful military and those who wear the uniform of our country.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Concurrent Resolution 440, 109th Congress, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I announce to our colleagues today that a gentleman, a veteran from Vietnam, a member of the Armed Services Committee, is receiving an extraordinary honor tomorrow. Tomorrow afternoon, the gentleman from Georgia, Congressman Jim Marshall, will be inducted into the United States Army Rangers Hall of Fame, and we are very proud of that. Announcement by the Chairman

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask to speak out of order for 5 minutes.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, before I make my remarks about the readiness of the Army and Marine Corps equipment, I would like you to share my thoughts on the recently released information of a possible plan for troop redeployment in Iraq. Let me say I am incensed that General Casey's recommendations to the President and Secretary Rumsfeld for possible force redeployments in the coming months were leaked by someone in the administration to The New York Times. The options presented to the President for the success of our operation there should not be on the front page of a major paper. Such a leak does not benefit considered deliberation of military operatives. It can only serve a political purpose. Members of the Congress overseeing the Department of Defense should have been kept informed of our senior military commander's best thinking in an appropriate forum. That said, I am pleased to hear that the Iraqis and the American people may be able to begin to see a correlation between increasing numbers and capability of Iraqi battalions and some reduction in American combat power. This is something that I have suggested for some time. This apparent consideration of options could not come at a better time, given the poor readiness posture of the Army and Marine Corps equipment. Over the last several years, we have seen readiness rates plummet as the operation tempo in Iraq has climbed. Readiness rates for equipment have fallen so far, so far that I fear that now they present a strategic risk to our ability to respond to contingencies we may have faced beyond our current commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mr. Speaker, nearly 40 percent of the Army and Marine Corps ground equipment is deployed to the Central Command theater. That equipment is suffering terribly due to battle losses and damage and increased operations and harsh climate. Since the start of the war, the Army has lost over 1,000 wheeled vehicles and nearly 100 armored vehicles. Increased usage and the weight from extra armor are wearing out equipment in Iraq up to nine times the peacetime rate. That means that some equipment has added the equivalent of 27 years worth of wear since the start of the war in Iraq. To keep this equipment serviceable, the Army and Marines have had to expend extraordinary effort. To their credit, the readiness rates for equipment deployed to Central Command remains high, with spare equipment and repair parts flowing quickly to the fight. Unfortunately, theater readiness has come at the expense of equipment here in the continental United States. Readiness reporting from non- deployed Army units shows that equipment readiness continues to fall, with very few continental United States units rated as fully mission- capable. These low mission-capable rates disturb me greatly, as they are an indicator of a military under stress. Non-deployed units are our strategic base. They are the units we will call if a crisis emerges. Looking at these readiness rates, I truly wonder if our military will be able to answer the call should it come. The cost of all this repair and maintenance is enormous, with the Army spending $13.5 billion in 2006 alone. General Schoomaker, in his testimony before the Armed Services Committee today, said that the Army will require an astounding $17 billion next year to reset equipment damaged or destroyed by the war in Iraq. Even more disturbing is that the largest bill for the reset will not come due until after combat operations end. At that point, future budget pressure may make it difficult to forward the reset, leaving us with significant shortfalls of equipment to fill a transforming military. This Congress has a responsibility to provide for our force for the battles that they are in today and for those that they may have to fight tomorrow. To do that and to budget responsibly, we must know the true and full cost of the bill that will come due. Mr. Speaker, the Army and Marine Corps have been involved in prolonged combat under the harshest of conditions. The combat has taken an enormous toll on troops and their equipment. Yes, we have strategic interests in Iraq, but we also have strategic interests around the world that we must be prepared to defend. We cannot allow the war in Iraq to destroy our ability to fight and win in other contingencies. Our Army and Marine Corps must have what they need to fight and win.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, let me take this means to recognize the Sacred Heart High School baseball team from Sedalia, MO, on winning the Class 1 State championship. With their 11-4 win against Stoutland, the Sacred Heart baseball team won the first State championship in the school's 61-year history and the Kaysinger Conference's first team championship on June 1. The team has worked diligently and provided many hours of hard work and dedication to achieve such a great accomplishment. Mr. Speaker, the Sacred Heart baseball team and their coaches can be very proud of this accomplishment. I know the Members of the House will join me in congratulating them for winning the Class 1 championship.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, it has come to my attention that a long and exceptionally distinguished career in education has come to a close. Ray Sutherland retired from his position after 31 years last spring. A graduate from Central Missouri State University, Mr. Sutherland has been highly respected in his many years of teaching and administrative duties. Mr. Sutherland is well known for his sense of humor and ability to maintain good relationships with all of his students. During his career, he was admired by his students and has treated all before him with the same sense of justice and respect. In 1971, Mr. Sutherland graduated from Higginsville High School. After graduating from Central Missouri State University in 1975, he began teaching Industrial Arts at Higginsville High School. In 1990, he was named Principal of Lafayette County C-1 Middle School. Mr. Speaker, I wish Ray Sutherland all the best as he moves on to the next step in his life. I know the Members of the House will join me in wishing him all the best in the days ahead.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, it is with deep sadness that I inform the House of the death of Mr. James Lee Rackers of Jefferson City, MO. Mr. Rackers was born in Jefferson City, on December 27, 1933, son of Lee and Helen Heislen Rackers. He attended Central Missouri State University and graduated from Lincoln University in 1956, with a Bachelor of Science degree in Secondary School Education. He earned his masters in Secondary School Administration from the University of Missouri-Columbia. He was united in marriage to Nancy Brettschneider on November 24, 1955. They were blessed with four wonderful children, three sons and one daughter. Mr. Rackers began his career teaching at Helias High School in the fall of 1956. He was the head basketball and track coach and assistant football coach. He was the Athletic Director from 1966 until 1967, when he became Assistant Principal. In 1971 Jim became the first lay principal at a Catholic secondary school in Missouri. Jim was principal until 1992, when he became Helias' first Chief Administrator. In 1997 he became the first Director of Development for Helias High School and Executive Director of the Helias Foundations. On May 1, 1998, the newly constructed Field House was named the James L. Rackers Field House in honor of his years of dedication and loyalty to Helias High School. Along with his successful career, Mr. Rackers was an active member of St. Peter Catholic Church and was also a member of numerous professional and community organizations. Mr. Rackers was a member in the National Association of Secondary School Principals, Missouri Association of Secondary School Principals, North Central Association, National Catholic Education Association, Committee on Accredited Schools Non-Public, and the Missouri Council for American Private Education. He received numerous awards; including the 1991 Communicator of the Year Award from the Public Relations Society of America, 1997 Immaculate Conception Outstanding Alumni Award, 1997 Certificate of Appreciation for outstanding services to students in Support of Vocational Education at Nichols Career Center, and 25 year Silver Service Award of the Missouri Association of Secondary School Principals. Mr. Speaker, James Lee Rackers was a valuable leader in all aspects of his life. He was a genuine human being who would do anything for anyone. I know the Members of the House will join me in extending heartfelt condolences to his family: his wife, Nancy; his three sons, Dennis, John, and Timothy; his daughter Maureen; and all of his grandchildren.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Armed Services Committee, through the years I have had the opportunity to visit and watch those in uniform as they trained, as they sailed aboard ship. I have visited with them in difficult places through the years, most recently in Iraq and Afghanistan. I must tell you how immensely proud I am of those young men and young women who wear the uniform of the United States. We asked for a debate on the issue of Iraq. We were led to believe that we would be debating and discussing at length the issue of Iraq. Then the resolution was put forward for us, which we are discussing today, which is a shotgun blast all across the Middle East and its problems and terrorism, and a footnote is Iran. So we should be discussing the future of our young people as they proceed in Iraq, not everywhere else, because the issue we thought was before us was that. I must tell you that I take a back seat to no one in providing for the troops, the young people in uniform and their families, because their families are so very, very important. Having members of my family in uniform, I understand the importance thereof. Sadly, this is not about Iraq. Last year this Congress drafted, and the President signed into law, words that said calendar year 2006 should be a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with Iraqi security forces taking the lead for the security of a free and sovereign Iraq, thereby creating the conditions for the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq. That is what we should be discussing. It should be narrow, intellectual discussion, a serious discussion about that country and its future, full sovereignty transition to their government and how it is being stood up, how their security forces and Iraqi police forces are being stood up, and how we are training them and also creating conditions for the phased redeployment of American forces from that country. That is the law of the land, signed by the President, passed by this Congress. That is in conflict with the resolution before us. As we say back home, they have done gee and haw together very well. But the law of the land is what we should be discussing today and all the parts thereof. But what concerns me most of all is at the end of the day, what about the future of our military? Our forces will come out of this effort seriously strained, both in personnel and in equipment. The equipment in Iraq is wearing out two to nine times the peace time rate. Some equipment has added as much as 27 years' worth of wear and tear in the last 3 years in Iraq. We must continue to fund defense requirements to meet unpredictable future security needs.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie). (Mr. ABERCROMBIE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)