[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 4645-4646]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                   HOUSE DEMOCRATS SUPPORT OUR TROOPS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) is recognized 
during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I would like to start off by thanking 
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), our leader on the House 
Committee on Armed Services, for his very thoughtful remarks.
  I too rise this morning, Mr. Speaker, to talk about how House 
Democrats feel about our national security. My colleague, the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), talked about how Democrats are unanimous 
in supporting our men and women in uniform. I wholeheartedly agree with 
that. The gentleman from Missouri also

[[Page 4646]]

made the point that we are perilously close to breaking the force, and 
I agree with that observation too, and that is what I would like to 
focus on here this morning.
  Extended global deployment is straining our forces. Fifteen hundred 
American troops have been killed in Iraq so far, despite the 
President's claim a year ago that our mission was accomplished. The 
implications of these decisions and these remarks is that our 
recruiting is suffering. The Marine Corps missed its recruiting goal 
for January. The Army missed its goal for January and February. Items 
not funded in the Marine Corps request include $13.9 million for 
recruiting.
  It also goes without saying that the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is 
using up our equipment at an accelerated rate. Current projections are 
that it would take the Army at least 2 years to recapitalize its 
current equipment. Unfunded requirements include: In the Army, $443 
million for small arms; $544 million for the Stryker armored vehicle. 
The Marine Corps list includes $145 million for ammunition; $104 
million for light armored vehicles.
  Mr. Speaker, these are the very things that our troops need most in 
Iraq and Afghanistan, yet they have been relegated to the Services' 
unfunded priority list.
  The Air Force, Mr. Speaker, is projecting a $3 billion deficit in its 
operations and maintenance budget for fiscal year 2006. Navy leaders 
directed their regional commands to absorb a $300 million reduction in 
base operating funds as a result of the war costs. The Army's shortfall 
in base operating support is projected to be $1.2 billion.
  Mr. Speaker, forcing the military services to absorb costs of this 
magnitude is important for several reasons. The budget request for our 
military services is not adequate for war and general operation. We are 
about to pass a 2005 supplemental and we will need a 2006 supplemental.
  Democrats believe the administration should be honest with the 
American people about the real cost of the war. Is the administration 
doing everything it can to address equipment shortages, personal 
protective gear and the armored vehicles for the troops? Figures in 
this budget suggest that the Department of Defense may be robbing Peter 
to pay Paul.
  Does the administration have a plan for success in Iraq and to pay 
the costs of this war? Repeated supplementals is no way to go about 
doing this country's business. We would not have to make such difficult 
decisions with regard to our troops' safety if Republicans had not 
insisted on tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.
  Administration witnesses have not been able to tell us what the 
benchmarks for success are in Iraq. They do not know when Iraqis can 
protect themselves. They cannot describe how they intend to integrate 
the Sunni, Shia, and Kurd factions into those security forces. They 
cannot describe the new government's plan to ensure inclusion of these 
groups into the body politic. They cannot tell us when essential 
services will be fully restored. They cannot tell us how much Iraqi oil 
revenue is helping to pay the cost of providing security in Iraq, which 
was promised to us before we went into this war. It has been 2 years 
since we invaded Iraq, and we should, by now, have a strategy for 
success.
  House Democrats support our troops. We work to ensure they have the 
equipment and training and to ensure that they succeed in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. We support taking care of their families here in the 
States while they are deployed. We cannot do that in a smart, cost 
effective way that protects the taxpayers without a plan for success in 
Iraq and honest budgeting for the military departments here at home.
  We also need to mention the veterans. The pending budget resolution 
proposes $798 million in cuts to mandatory programs. It is 
unconscionable, I say to my colleague from Missouri, that we are going 
to have all these troops coming back to the United States and not have 
the veterans benefits that they need, deserve, and that they have 
earned.

                          ____________________