[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 96 (Tuesday, July 13, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H5622-H5627]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        SUPPORT AMERICA'S TROOPS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gingrey). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, in families there are always very special 
occasions. Before I enter into my special order this evening, I wish to 
announce that in our family we have had a wonderful addition this past 
Saturday afternoon, July 10. Abigail Anding Skelton was born over here 
in Maryland. She is absolutely a gorgeous young lady, and we are very 
happy for her, her wonderful parents, her cousins and aunts and uncles, 
as well as grandparents.
  Mr. Speaker, as Americans review the facts and decide whether it was 
prudent and necessary for the President to send American troops to 
invade Iraq, let me remind my colleagues and the citizens across our 
country that it is possible to respectfully disagree with the President 
and still strongly support our troops.
  I believe that all House Democrats support our men and women in 
uniform and are committed to ensuring that they have the tools they 
need to succeed in Iraq and Afghanistan, wherever they may be serving 
in the defense of our country.
  Over 466,000 service members are currently deployed to 120 countries 
around the world, and nearly half of those are serving and doing so in 
dangerous and often deadly conditions in the Middle East. While the 
majority of the troops deployed are on active duty, nearly 30 percent 
are citizen-soldiers from the National Guard, as well as the Reserve, 
who volunteered to serve our Nation. These men and women have 
volunteered to leave behind their families, their loved ones, jobs and 
communities to defend the freedoms that we hold so dear.
  Over 150,000 Reservists and National Guardsmen are currently 
deployed, which is nearly 18 percent of the total Reserve force. Since 
September 11, over 215,600 Reservists and Guardsmen have served their 
Nation both at home and abroad. Not since the first Persian Gulf War 
have so many served under such arduous conditions for so long.
  While 18 percent may not seem very high, let me put it in a bit 
different perspective. Over 40 percent of the

[[Page H5623]]

Army National Guard has been mobilized and close to 46 percent of the 
Army Reserve has been called to active duty. The Marine Corps Reserve 
has seen 61 percent of its forces back in uniform full-time. Let me 
tell you that the Coast Guard Reserve has tapped nearly all of its 
Reservists; 99 percent have been recalled to active duty.
  Why is it important that so many of our citizen-soldiers have been 
activated? Because I want people to know that our Nation has been 
committed to military action that is taxing both active duty and 
Reserve troops to the limit.
  This is not just my personal opinion. General Richard Cody, the 
Army's Vice Chief of Staff, last week testified before the Committee on 
Armed Services, and I said, ``Are we stretched thin with our active and 
Reserve component forces right now?''
  ``Absolutely.'' Those are the words of General Cody.
  Beyond General Cody, I want to relate a personal story. I recently 
spoke with the spouse of an activated National Guardsman. She described 
how her husband was still in Iraq and had been extended beyond one year 
per the agreement when he was called. She flat stated to me that at the 
end of his enlistment, he was going to get out of the military.
  Mr. Speaker, we simply cannot afford to lose these good people from 
our military, and I worry about the nature and extent of our 
commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan and what they will cause our 
service members to do, maybe leave and cause others not to reenlist.
  We have the finest military in history, we really do, and we simply 
cannot afford to squander it. Now we have recently learned that the 
Army is deploying to Iraq the opposition forces from the National 
Training Center at Fort Irwin, California, and the Joint Readiness 
Training Center at Fort Polk, Louisiana.
  What makes the deployment of these forces particularly alarming is 
these are the troops that train our everyday forces that are getting 
ready to deploy to Iraq. We are deploying the trainers, a measure of 
last resort. That shows just how much we have stretched our forces to 
the limit.
  More importantly, I worry about the consequences. The troops that we 
send in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan may not have the training 
they need to succeed and to survive.
  Mr. Speaker, as many in this House know, I have been advocating an 
end strength increase, more troops, particularly for the Army, since 
1995, when our committee first received testimony that the Army could 
use an additional 40,000 troops. What troubles me is that the 
administration continues to oppose an increase in the end strength for 
the Army and the Marine Corps.
  Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, both the House and the Senate defense 
authorization bills include provisions for additional end strength, and 
I am committed to a conference outcome that makes this a reality. I 
know that other Democrats on the committee share this goal with me.
  Just 3 years ago, the President addressed the soldiers of the 3rd 
Infantry Division at Fort Stewart, Georgia. He told them that they were 
overdeployed and needed more support. Since then, the members of the 
3rd Infantry Division have been deployed to Kuwait for training 
exercises for nearly a year, only to be extended for the war in Iraq. 
After spending nearly a year in the desert, they came back to Fort 
Stewart, only to undergo a significant structural transformation. 
Recently members of the 3rd Infantry learned that they will be 
returning to Iraq for perhaps another year's deployment.
  If the 3rd Infantry Division was already overdeployed in 2001, how 
can we honestly look these men and women in the eye and ask them to 
continue these levels of deployment, with no help in sight? To do so 
risks breaking faith with our troops and destroying the world's finest 
Army. That is not the way that a Nation should treat its troops or the 
families.
  The increased operational demands in the military are clear. They 
will continue for some time in the future. In fact, Deputy Secretary of 
Defense Paul Wolfowitz recently told our committee that we could have a 
substantial military presence in Iraq for years. Assuming he is right, 
we need to do something now to make sure that our operational 
commitments do not overstretch our military to the breaking point.
  What I think we should do is support our troops by ensuring that we 
have the additional manpower necessary to carry out the missions we ask 
of them. This is one way we can show support for our troops and 
recognize the sacrifices that they have made in the war on terrorism. I 
am personally committed to seeing that we have enough troops to do the 
job that our country asks of them.
  I now yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez) 
for comments she might make.
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking 
member of the House Committee on Armed Services for taking this hour to 
discuss what Democrats in particular have been doing for our troops.
  The gentleman was so good in outlining the fact that our troops are 
now in over 120 countries in the world. We have about 161,000 troops 
deployed in Iraq and Kuwait. Almost 40 percent of those are Reservists 
and National Guardsmen. The fact of the matter is there has been stop-
loss in these troops, which means that somebody who is ready to go out 
and has indicated that they are leaving the Armed Services are stopped 
from leaving because we need them to continue to serve.
  Just recently, about 10 days ago, this administration said that it 
would call in the Individual Ready Reserve. Those are people who have 
already gotten out and are into their full-time lives and now are asked 
to continue back in.
  So we really are at the risk of breaking the force. Too many tours, 
our families are hurting, they do not see their loved ones. Especially 
if you are a National Guardsman or Reservist and you have got your 
regular life going on, and all of a sudden you are plucked up and sent 
somewhere 6 months, then it turns into 12 months, then 18 months, and 
your family suffers because you may not get the same paycheck that you 
did in civilian life.
  I know that Democrats on the committee, one of the things we have 
been doing something to try to make up that gap, so financially 
speaking, our families are made whole. Unfortunately, that is not 
included in this bill that goes to conference.
  One thing that is included, however, is more troops to be trained for 
the future. We have 30,000 new positions that we have put into the bill 
for the Army and 10,000 new positions for the Marines. But, again, it 
takes time. That is over 3 years. It takes time to train these new 
members of the force to go and help us do the work that we have asked 
them to do.
  There are so many things that we have actually done. Initially when 
we deployed into Iraq, not everybody had body armor, for example. I 
know in my own area, in Costa Mesa, California, we have one of the 
premier companies that makes ceramic armor, and we are working three 
shifts, seven days a week in the factory to try to get the armor to our 
people out in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  I guess the last thing I would like to say is that our families, the 
families of the military, are hurting. I have been able now to go over 
to Korea and to Afghanistan and to Iraq and to Germany to see our 
families, and they ask, for how long? How much? Why do you bring my 
family member and take him back 2 weeks later? How long will he serve 
there? How long will she serve there? Why do you put them in Iraq for 6 
months, and then tell them it is another 4 months, and pretty soon it 
is a year, and then you bring them back and you put them into 
Afghanistan.
  So one of the things we are trying to do is make sure that the 
Pentagon and this administration makes better schedules, begins to plan 
better for our troops and for our families.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just like to take the time to thank the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for taking this time.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island 
(Mr. Langevin).
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
Missouri for organizing this special order and for yielding. I 
appreciate his leadership on the Committee on

[[Page H5624]]

Armed Services, and I am certainly proud to serve with him on that 
distinguished committee.
  Tonight, Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues to express our support and 
appreciation for our men and women in uniform who are doing an amazing 
job in Iraq, Afghanistan and throughout the world. The House Committee 
on Armed Services and this Congress have stood squarely behind them in 
their efforts and have endeavored to provide them with the resources 
and equipment they need to continue to be successful in the global war 
on terrorism.
  As we travel through our districts, we encounter countless stories of 
appreciation of our men and women in uniform. However, their service 
often entails sacrifice. We hear from the families who spend extended 
periods of time away from their loved ones and often experience 
financial difficulties. We hear from employers who agree to rehire 
employees upon their return, but who struggle to fill the gaps until 
then.

                              {time}  2015

  We hear from representatives of our cities and towns who note that 
many of their first responders have been called up as part of the 
National Guard and Reserve. Our troops and all those in their lives are 
willing to make sacrifices for the defense of our Nation, but we must 
do our share to ease the burden wherever we can.
  Last week, the Committee on Armed Services held a hearing on the next 
force rotation plans for Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring 
Freedom. I am concerned that in an effort to meet needed troop levels, 
we will be employing strategies that will have adverse effects on our 
military in the long term. For example, despite widespread agreement 
that our National Guard and Reserve are shouldering a significant 
portion of the effort, we will actually be increasing their 
participation rates in the third rotation of Operation Iraqi Freedom to 
43 percent of total forces, as compared to 25 percent in the initial 
deployments. Additionally, we are also calling up 5,600 members of the 
Individual Ready Reserve whose areas of expertise are sorely needed in 
Iraq.
  I am concerned that such efforts, while allowing us to meet the needs 
of the coming year, will ultimately harm our military through lower 
recruiting and retention rates, particularly among the Guard and 
Reserve. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) has led the charge 
for an increase in end-strength of our Armed Forces, and I look forward 
to working with him and the administration toward this vital goal.
  At this time I would like to pay a special tribute to all of those 
who have made the ultimate sacrifice for their country. Rhode Island 
has mourned the loss of seven troops in Operation Iraqi Freedom, most 
recently Lance Corporal John J. Van Gyzen, IV, a brave Marine who 
served with dignity and honor. I join his family and the people of 
Rhode Island in mourning this great loss.
  On Monday, July 5, Lance Corporal Van Gyzen was killed by enemy fire 
during combat operations in the Al Anbar province of Iraq. Raised in 
Foster and West Warwick, Rhode Island, he later moved to Massachusetts 
and graduated from Dighton-Rehoboth High School in 2001, where he was a 
member of the track and field team. He followed in the footsteps of his 
grandfather, who served in the Navy in World War II, and enlisted in 
the Marines in October 2001. After completing boot camp at Parris 
Island, he joined K Company, Third Battalion, seventh Marine Regiment, 
as a rifleman. Those who knew him well recalled his sense of humor, his 
love of the outdoors, and his dedication to his family. I extend my 
deepest condolences to his parents, John and Dorothy; his stepmother, 
Jane; and his sisters, Bethany, Jessica, and Angel.
  His loss causes us all to reflect on the bravery demonstrated by our 
men and women in uniform as they carry out their obligations in the 
face of great danger. When their Nation called them to duty to preserve 
freedom, liberty, and the security of their neighbors, they answered 
without hesitation. We remember those who have fallen, not only as 
soldiers but also as patriots who made the ultimate sacrifice for their 
country. May we keep them and their loved ones in our thoughts and 
prayers as they struggle to endure this difficult period and mourn the 
heroes America has lost.
  Finally, let us all continue to hope for the safe return of all of 
our troops serving throughout the world and remember how truly 
fortunate and grateful we are for their service.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Rhode Island, 
the distinguished gentleman, a member of the Committee on Armed 
Services, for his remarks.
  I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek).
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me this time. It is such an honor to be here on the floor once again 
with the great men and women of the Committee on Armed Services to get 
an opportunity to address the United States House of Representatives 
and also the American people.
  First of all, I would like to say that I am both proud and humbled by 
what our troops have been able to accomplish under the circumstances. I 
also think that it is in proper order for us to give them uplift in a 
time that this very Congress, the other body, released a report, 
intelligence report showing that the intelligence, that there is a very 
strong possibility that it was manipulated, manipulated to the point 
that many Members of this House, many Members of the other body, and 
the public, were led to believe that the circumstances were imminent as 
it relates to the threat to the United States of America, and that we 
had to forthwith go to war in Iraq with a preemptive strike.
  I also think that the troops need uplift of the fact that the report, 
through the Department of Defense, said 25 percent of American lives 
could have been saved if we were prepared; not the troops, but this 
administration, with body Army and up-armor for their Humvees and 
vehicles.
  I think they also need uplift to know that Democrats and some 
Republicans in this House are fighting for hearings to make sure that 
we have some level of accountability at the highest levels of the 
Defense Department and the administration, because we have men and 
women that have sacrificed not only their lives, but also many have 
sacrificed their freedom to be with their families.
  I do not blame it on the troops, and I would not say that it is the 
troops' responsibility or fault about what is going on with the 
insurgency right now in Iraq. The troops will fight for 20 years if 
this country needs them to fight for 20 years. I think the bigger 
question comes down to in this democracy that we have, since we are 
traveling throughout the world trying to create new democracies and 
trying to create civilized governments, that there has to be some 
checks and balances, and it does not serve me any pleasure to say that 
right now in this effort in Iraq, I do not think the checks and 
balances are there.
  I am glad that we were leader enough to come to the floor tonight to 
be able to share with the American people that we want our troops to 
know that there are Members of the Congress who will ask the ``yes, 
but'' question, that will ask the tough questions about equipment, that 
will ask the tough questions about intelligence and the fact that 
something happened between the CIA, what the Congress was told, and the 
role that the Bush administration played in it. This is not in any way 
being partisan; it is just laying the facts out the way we see them.
  We also want the troops to know and their families to know that we 
want the situation to get to the point to where other countries will 
assist in Iraq, will assist in Afghanistan, and operations can get 
better, so hopefully Reservists and National Guardsmen that put their 
name on the dotted line, said they were willing to serve their country, 
that they will be able to come home in the very near future to be able 
to make a son or daughter's birthday, or to be able to see their 
families or loved ones or significant others.
  Mr. Speaker, I think also it is very important for us to share with 
troop families that those of us in the Congress, I believe everyone in 
the Congress, that we feel for those wives and husbands and children 
when they are getting up to go to school in the morning, when they are 
getting ready to

[[Page H5625]]

now, this summer, to go to summer camp, and it goes over the TV. I have 
families in my district, they turn the TV off. I have one constituent 
who has two sons in the theater right now in Iraq, and they do not even 
watch the TV in the morning because they do not want to start the day 
off knowing that two or five or six troops were killed overnight, and 
they do not know if someone in a military uniform is going to knock on 
their door and tell them that it was their son, her son. I would say 
that there are Americans that cringe when they hear that, because it is 
quite personal.
  So I want to say to those families that we appreciate their service. 
I want to say to those families that we will get to the bottom and the 
top of bad intelligence. We will make sure that our troops have what 
they need to have. But we need the opportunity to do so.
  I implore, Mr. Speaker, as I close, the Republican leadership within 
our committee, the Republican leadership in this House, to allow the 
House Committee on Armed Services to do its work, to be able to have 
the witnesses that we need to have to ask the tough questions, to be 
able to know how much this effort in Iraq and also the lack of effort 
as it relates to, we just had a hearing on Afghanistan and the poppy 
plants being harvested earlier that is funding the Taliban to fight 
against our American troops, and it is the number one threat to this 
country and did have a connection to 9/11; asking those tough questions 
to people that had made the decision, not someone five tiers down 
within the Department of Defense, but at the very top of the Department 
of Defense, because the country's reputation is on the line.
  Every veteran that suited up and went into war, need it be World War 
II, Korea, the Gulf War I, need it be when individuals went into 
theater in Granada, anytime that we got ourselves together in Vietnam, 
making sure that those veterans know that the rest of the world, we 
appreciate their service and that we will not allow individuals, 
because they want to make sure that other individuals do not take fault 
for what has taken place thus far with bad intelligence, going to war, 
not for the reasons why the country was told, and also losing so many 
lives in that process.
  So I am proud that we are here. I hope that we can come to the floor 
even more. I hope that the American people understand that there are 
Members on this. And I do not want to even put partisanship on this, 
because I know that there are Republicans who feel the way that we feel 
on this floor, and we want to make sure that those voices rise to the 
top. For those individuals who may be standing in the door of oversight 
by this Congress, I hope that they do not take personally our quest and 
our need to be able to address some of the issues that are facing the 
needs of our troops in theater.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the gentleman 
from Florida. I might add that that is our job, the Committee on Armed 
Services and Congress, to have oversight of the military of the United 
States, to ask the tough questions, because we are the ones that give 
them the training, the education, the equipment, the materiel. That is 
what we do. If we do not ask the good, tough, honest, hard-hitting 
questions that come up from time to time, we are not doing our job.
  So I thank the gentleman for raising that issue. It is not a partisan 
matter; it is a matter of constitutional duty that we ask questions and 
learn so we can be of even more help to those in uniform.
  Mr. Speaker, I take great pleasure in yielding to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
further thank him for scheduling this Special Order.
  Mr. Speaker, our Armed Forces won an impressive victory in Iraq, but 
the Pentagon was poorly prepared for the aftermath. Three big 
assumptions proved wrong: one, that the Iraqi people would welcome us 
as liberators; two, that oil would soon pay for Iraqi's rebuilding; 
and, three, that we have plenty of troops, weapons, and equipment for 
the postwar situation.
  American troops were left to tackle tasks that they were not trained 
to handle, but let me tell my colleagues, they rose to the challenge. 
While the situation is still ours to win or lose, it would be far, far 
worse if it were not for their can-do attitudes and their courage. They 
are doing their best and have been doing their best to stabilize a God-
forsaken country and put Iraq back in working order, and they are doing 
it under extremely difficult circumstances with all too little credit 
or attention given to their successes.
  No one in the Bush administration thought that now, nearly 14 months 
after the end of major hostilities in Iraq, that we would have 161,600 
U.S. troops deployed in Operation Iraqi Freedom, 130,800 in Iraq, and 
21,800 in Kuwait. We are about to embark on the third rotation of 
troops for the war in Iraq, which so far has involved the movement of 
277,000 troops. Currently, Guardsmen and Reservists account for 40 
percent of the Iraqi Freedom force; and following the upcoming 
rotation, the Reserve component will make up 43 percent. These are men 
and women who leave their jobs and businesses, their farms, not to 
mention their families, and serve tours longer than any of them ever 
expected.
  In the first Persian Gulf War, the question was whether the total 
force would work, whether active and Reserve forces could fight and 
maneuver side by side. In this war, there is no question. Without the 
Guard and Reserve, our active duty troops could hardly deploy.
  Whether active duty or Reserve, our troops face a daunting challenge. 
Security in Iraq is so bad that thousands of troops unfortunately, but 
probably, will have to stay for a long time to come to prevent this 
country from falling into a fractious, bloody civil war.

                              {time}  2030

  How did this happen? Poor assumptions, poor vision, poor planning. 
Ignoring State Department warnings, the Iraqi army was disbanded in May 
of 2003. With no other security forces on hand, U.S. military was left 
to confront, almost alone, an Iraqi insurgency and a crime rate that 
grew worse throughout the year, waged in part by soldiers of the 
disbanded army and in part by criminals who were released from prison.
  The Army's Chief of Staff, Eric Shinseki, warned us that several 
hundred thousand troops would be needed to police post-war Iraq. What 
did he base that upon? Firsthand experience as the commander in chief 
of our multilateral force in Bosnia and Kosovo, several hundred 
thousand troops. Pentagon officials dismissed it the next day as wildly 
off the mark, fixing the figure closer to a hundred thousand. General 
Shinseki has been vindicated by what has happened.
  Last August, our troops began training a new Iraqi army, a light 
infantry force of about 40,000 to be ready by this October, 2004. As of 
today, 7,000 to 9,000 have been trained, and when these troops are 
trained, it will still be far, far short of what is needed to maintain 
Iraqi security.
  The situation in Iraq, unfortunately, differs dramatically from the 
rosy picture that was painted for us by expatriates before the war. 
During an interview with Meet the Press March 16, 2003, our Vice 
President, Mr. Cheney, insisted that our troops would be welcomed as 
liberators. When asked what if we are viewed as conquerors instead, he 
said, ``Well, I don't think it's likely to unfold that way, because I 
really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators.''
  What was his source? Well, he said, ``I've talked with a lot of 
Iraqis in the last several months myself, had them over to the White 
House.'' While some Iraqis did greet our troops as liberators with open 
arms, many did not, and aliens like Abu Musab Zarqawi took advantage of 
open borders and infiltrated Iraq to begin waging guerilla war.
  Since the Pentagon underestimated the number of troops required after 
the end of hostilities, we were not prepared to prevent looting or to 
guard hundreds of weapons dumps spread throughout the country. So the 
looting destroyed key components of the Iraqi infrastructure, and 
stolen munitions are being used today in attacks on coalition troops 
and Iraqi civilians.
  Because this violence was not anticipated, thousands of troops were 
sent to Iraq without adequate body armor and without up-armored 
vehicles. They were to be greeted as liberators, but, in

[[Page H5626]]

Iraq, 882 have been killed so far, and 5,394 have been wounded. In 
Afghanistan, meanwhile, 130 have been killed, 332 have been wounded.
  Our troops are the best-trained, the best-equipped, the best 
professionals, the finest fighting force the world has ever seen. More 
than 300,000 of them have served in Iraq during Operation Iraqi 
Freedom, and over 40,000 have taken part in the conflict in 
Afghanistan, and despite blunders from above, the can-do determination 
of our men and our women in uniform never ceases to amaze me.
  I traveled to Iraq late last summer, and I met with the Coalition 
Provisional Authority, with the Iraqi Governing Council, with U.S. 
commanders and with our troops. North of Baghdad in Mosul, the 101st 
Airborne Division was in charge. Its able commander, General Petraeus, 
calls this region the most viable region in Iraq, and he never missed a 
chance to salute his own troops.
  He told us privately, ``I've seen our young soldiers endure 
tremendous hardship, overcome huge challenges, fight a tenacious, 
determined and even suicidal enemy, and demonstrate incredible 
innovativeness and compassion. It's just extraordinary,'' General 
Petraeus said.
  The first 30 days of an occupation, everybody knows, are critical. 
General Petraeus spent the first 30 days training local security 
forces, fueling the economy by use of his commander's funds to create 
local jobs and to befriend Iraqis. In the 101st, troops were often 
dual-hatted as warfighters and peacekeepers, carrying a rifle in one 
hand and a wrench in the other, putting down insurgency on one front 
and winning hearts and minds on the other.
  Let me give you another snapshot. Consider the 1st Infantry Division. 
Soldiers from the 1st Division delivered medical supplies, textbooks 
and journals to the Tikrit Hospital, the hometown of Saddam Hussein, 
and Tikrit University Medical School in particular. They delivered 150 
boxes of textbooks donated by medical schools and medical students in 
the United States.
  Prior to this restocking, the university has had to use photocopies 
from medical students and medical texts. Our contribution raised the 
library at that school to 50,000 volumes.
  Another snapshot. Let me read a portion of an article by James Lacey, 
and I read it because there has been so much copy devoted to what is 
going wrong there, so much copy about the violence there and about the 
hopelessness of the situation, we really do need to look from time to 
time at the success stories and at the remarkable and aspiring examples 
of our troops.
  Here is what Lacey, who was embedded with the 101st Airborne 
Division, wrote. ``Bravery inspires men, but brains and quick thinking 
win wars. In one particularly tense moment, a company of U.S. soldiers 
were preparing to guard the Mosque of Ali, one of the most sacred 
Muslim sites, when agitators in what had been a friendly crowd started 
shouting that they were going to storm the mosque. In an instant, the 
Iraqis began to chant and a riot seemed imminent. A couple of nervous 
soldiers slid their weapons into fire mode, and I thought we were only 
moments away from a slaughter. These soldiers had just fought an all-
night battle. They were exhausted, tense, and prepared to crush any 
riot with violence of their own. But they were also professionals, and 
so when their battalion commander, Lieutenant Colonel Chris Hughes, 
ordered them to take a knee, point their weapons to the ground and 
start smiling, that is exactly what they did. Calm returned. By placing 
his men in the most nonthreatening posture possible, Hughes had sapped 
the crowd of its aggression. Quick thinking and iron discipline 
reversed an ugly situation and averted disaster.''
  Since then, Lacey writes, I have often wondered how we created an 
army of men who could fight with ruthless savagery all night and then 
respond so easily to an order to smile and relax your weapons.
  Mr. Speaker, pride in our troops is not a partisan issue. Democrats 
and Republicans alike support our military personnel. For our troops, 
this is tough, dangerous duty. And though morale is satisfactory, as 
General Cody acknowledged in the New York Times just a week ago, the 
Army, among others, because they are doing most of the heavy lifting 
now, is absolutely stretched thin. That is why when the supplemental 
providing $87 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan came before Congress, I 
proposed a package for the troops. Surely we could find a niche 
somewhere in an $87 supplemental for the troops and their families.
  I proposed that we increase imminent danger pay, separation pay, that 
we give them R&R tickets that would take them all the way home and not 
to their last duty base. I proposed extra funding for family 
assistance, because it is grossly underfunded.
  I am sorry to say it, but the Republican leaders of the House would 
not let my package be offered on the House floor. Parts of it, 
fortunately, ended up in the conference report.
  In May, when we had the defense authorization bill before us, I 
offered another amendment to that bill to ensure that every sailor, 
every soldier, every airman and marine in the combat zone has $250,000 
minimum life insurance paid for by the government itself and to fund 
several force protection measures, including the test and evaluation of 
new technologies that would neutralize these horrible devices called 
improvised electronic devices, roadside bombs, that have killed and 
maimed so many, I offered some money to boost that particular research. 
Once again, my amendment was not even made in order to be debated, at 
least debated on the House floor.
  As costs mount, in lives and dollars, it is natural to second guess, 
but one lesson I hope we have learned is that the U.S. cannot go it 
alone in a policy that leaves American troops taking all the risk and 
American taxpayers paying all of the costs.
  Our country, the United States of America, may be the world's largest 
economy and the world's only superpower, but we stretch ourselves 
dangerously thin by taking on commitments like Iraq with only a motley 
band of allies to share the burden.
  The cost of the first Gulf War came to $80 billion in today's money. 
Our allies picked up $60 billion through cash contributions. $16 
billion was provided us in kind, petroleum and food and other things, 
mainly by Persian Gulf countries. That left us $4 billion out of pocket 
for an $80 billion war. This war so far has cost us $125 billion and 
counting, because largely we decided to do it on our own, with only the 
United Kingdom as a paying, fully participating partner.
  I may disagree with the administration over aspects of this war, and 
particularly going it alone, not building a broad-based coalition to 
support whatever we have done, but I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, in 
closing, that I stand second to none in supporting our troops.
  Because of that and because I recognize how stretched we are, I am 
all for an increase in Army end strength of at least 30,000 and in 
Marine end strength at least by 9,000.
  But, you know, Mr. Chairman, the test of our support is not what we 
see but whether or not we pass legislation that backs up what we say, 
that gives our troops the tools they need to execute their mission 
successfully and gives their families the resources they need to have 
peace of mind and security. We owe them no less, for they make this 
country the land of the free and the home of the brave.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, in closing, let me thank the gentleman from 
South Carolina for his excellent contribution today, as well as his 
outstanding contributions in the committee. We are the grandest 
civilization ever known in the history of mankind. As the gentleman 
from South Carolina just mentioned, we are the best. We have the finest 
military, strongest economy, and all of us at this time should realize 
what we really need to have for success in this war, this guerrilla 
warfare in Iraq and the war against terrorist in Afghanistan.
  To begin with, we need additional troops. We must do our very best to 
make sure they have the equipment and the training and the munitions, 
but, more than that, we must let them know we support them with our 
words as well as with the deeds that we do here in Congress. And I 
would be remiss if I did not say that we should also say a special word 
of thanks to those wonderful families who support them, who are here at 
home hoping to

[[Page H5627]]

hear from their loved one in Iraq or Afghanistan and praying for them 
every day.
  So, with that, Mr. Speaker, I say thank you to those who are in 
uniform today who are supporting this country in the most difficult way 
and especially to their families and all of the great love and support 
that they have.

                          ____________________