Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I spoke on this a year or two ago, and not much has happened except more time has passed since this land was taken from this Tribe.

I represent 21 Tribes in my congressional district. I believe that when I come to the floor, people look and say, well, you are always representing Tribal issues. I represent the issues that became an issue when Ulysses S. Grant recognized what he had done wrong to Tribes. We began the process over 100 years ago of turning around that challenge.

As the ranking member mentioned, in 1934, we passed significant legislation. Much has happened since that time. One of the things that has happened is, here on the House floor, we talk about CBO scoring. I want to touch on that today, which I didn't do a year ago.

CBO says this has a cost. Yes, when we move land into trust, when we move it into Federal ownership, it loses property tax so there is a small cost. This is not a cost objected to by my county or any of the surrounding cities.

The Native American Tribes in my district have more than compensated the community from the revenues they earn, and they have been good stewards. This land failed to even qualify as a landfill over decades.

This is land that, to many, would be considered not usable. It has water challenges that the Tribe will be spending time and money making sure that they prevent the runoff, that they preserve.

They have antiquity on this site. They will be investing in that.

Yes, a few Members, mostly in my own party, last year failed to vote for this because they said: Well, it is an unfunded mandate. It costs a little money.

Yes, it costs money to transfer things into Federal hands because we lose a little bit of revenue, but over 100 years ago--far over that; actually, during the Spanish time--this land was taken from a people, and there was no compensation.

As we put it back, I would ask each of the Members who considered not voting for it a year ago to reconsider, to consider that every piece of every objection, other than that small one, has been taken care of.

The Tribe will be a better steward of the land than it is now. The land will be better preserved and will be used in a way that-- certainly, if you can't qualify as a landfill, it is not exactly the land everybody is looking for.

The reality is the Pala Band has taken what they have earned over the years in agriculture and from their gaming concession and are putting it back into their ancestral land.

I have another Tribe that we are working on that is trying to simply get their graveyard back into trust. We will have the same challenge. They will say: But the graveyard might have an economic cost when it goes into Federal land.

Madam Speaker, I expect this bill to pass--it passed in the last Congress--but I would hope that all my colleagues would look very carefully and say not all transfers are the same. None of them are the same as naming a post office, although naming a post office after a fallen hero is not without its own merit.

Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman and ranking member. I hope that my thoughts, in addition to the kind words said by both sides, will convince us to be united this year. This is an important piece of legislation for a people who have done everything we have asked them to do and more.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of the life and public service exemplified by former Congressman James Thomas Kolbe.

With deep sadness, we mourn the loss of Congressman Jim Kolbe, who passed away on December 3, 2022 after a dedicated career of service to the Congress, his community, and his beloved Arizona.

A teenage Senate Page, Kolbe graduated from Northwestern University with a bachelor's degree in political science in 1965 and received a master's degree from the Stanford Graduate School of Business in 1967. He entered the Navy that year and served in combat duty on gunboats in the Mekong Delta during the Vietnam War for which he was awarded the Congressional Medal for Valor. After working as a Special Assistant to the Governor of Illinois, in 1976 he was elected to the first of his 3 terms as a member of the Arizona State Senate. 1984 saw his first election to the House of Representatives and Arizona's Fifth Congressional District. He represented his constituents with true distinction, a creative and conscientious legislator who consistently reached across the aisle and worked closely with colleagues across the political spectrum. A fierce champion of free trade and free markets, Pima County and Southern Arizona could always count on Jim Kolbe.

I extend sincere condolences to his spouse, Hector Alfonso, his family, and loved ones. I am grateful to have served with a public servant and public leader like Jim Kolbe. He will be missed.

Mr. Speaker, on January 20, 2023, the Secretary of the U.S. Navy will present Escondido, California resident and retired Navy Captain E. Royce Williams the Navy Cross--an appropriate recognition and award upgrade that was more than 70 years in the making. On November 18, 1952, Williams engaged and won the greatest overwater aerial dogfight ever--although for decades, it was officially declared by the Pentagon as having never happened.

Fortunately, the incredible story of Royce Williams is now being told--and the Forgotten Hero of the Forgotten War is forgotten no longer. This is history every American should know.

On that day in 1952, Captain Williams and 3 additional American pilots--flying the F9F-5 Panther--engaged 7 Soviet MiGs in a fierce dogfight over the Sea of Japan and the coast of North Korea. During the combat, 2 of the American planes were forced to disengage due to mechanical failures while the other pursued Williams' first downed enemy plane. Opting not to turn away and inevitably endanger his fellow pilots and the entire crew of his carrier, Williams instead turned and faced the remaining 6 Soviet aircraft alone.

Against all but impossible odds, and because of his skill, daring, and indomitable courage, only 2 MiGs returned to base. Williams shot down the others.

The stakes could not have been higher. If Williams had not prevailed, his fellow pilots and the sailors aboard his carrier could have been lost and the history of the Korean War and even the Cold War would be very different.

His plane sustained 263 holes and a foot-long gash--but the only injury Williams sustained was a bloody neck chafed by his gear.

He piloted his heavily damaged plane and returned to the carrier USS Oriskany, where, unable to slow his descent, he landed dead center of the runway but at 170 knots and miraculously engaged the number 3 wire.

Because of the implications of a ``hot'' engagement in 1952 between the United States and the Soviet Union, official records credited Williams with only a single kill, 1 damaged enemy, and he was awarded the Silver Star. The true account of his actions was classified, and Williams was asked--and agreed--to alter his story for the public and keep the true account secret.

Convinced this was a story that needed to be told, Operation Just Reward was formed by Royce Williams' determined friends and fellow pilots: Doniphan B. Shelton, RADM, USN (Ret.), Greg ``Chaser'' Keithley, Peter Rolf Ohnstad, Tammy Sande, Ed ``Dragon'' Riley, Kim A. Merrill, Chuck Sweeney, Steve Lewandowski, Chris Yates, and Howard Darter. I am honored to have been invited to join this campaign on behalf of history's true account of America's true Top Gun--and for Royce Williams to gain this recognition that he has not sought, but so richly deserves.

Mr. Speaker, I don't just rise in opposition to this bill, and I don't want to appear angry, but as a veteran who served both as an enlisted man and as an officer from 1970 until nearly 1990, I know what it is like to get an honorable discharge--not once but twice.

As an officer, I oversaw courts-martial. I know what it takes to get a bad conduct discharge. Shame on those who would write a bill and then refuse to allow a change that would at least prohibit those who are being discharged with bad conduct discharges.

Let's understand. Other than honorable is a nice term. Dishonorable is a

clear term. If you murder your commanding officer, you get a dishonorable discharge. If you just try to, you will probably get a bad conduct discharge. If you are caught dealing vast amounts of drugs or you are an MS-13 person who lied to get into the military and you have gone AWOL, you might even get a general, but you certainly are going to get nothing worse than a bad conduct discharge.

The fact that this bill allows people with a bad conduct discharge, people who have been convicted of clear felonies, to gain and retain citizenship in the United States is reprehensible.

Let's understand something else. In times of peace, after 6 months of honorable service, you can apply and get your green card and get your citizenship. We have people who have served less than 2 years who get sworn in as U.S. citizens. So we are not even talking about people who wanted to be citizens and at the first opportunity chose to do that.

We are talking about people who didn't, who, now that they have been sent out of the United States--many of them, by the way, after their service for other crimes they committed--they now want to be able to come back here and be vindicated as though they did something right.

Military service is, in fact, an honorable event. And those who serve honorably, we want to make sure are paid with all of the thank yous, including citizenship for themselves and their family. This bill doesn't do it.

For all of us who are veterans, shame on those who would confuse honorable service, when, in fact, this bill allows those who have committed a felony, bad-conduct-discharged individuals, to retain their U.S. opportunity, one which has never been the case and shouldn't be the case. If you commit the crimes, you should not be an American--you didn't serve honorably.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, 5 minutes is not enough to go through each and every item that is wrong with this bill, so I am going to try to summarize, and some of it may be redundant.

The authors of this bill are the authors of at least three bills. They are the authors of very different bills, and, ultimately, we should be having a vote on three or more bills, as we did in committee.

You might ask, well, why aren't we? Usually, I don't want to talk about procedure, but there is a reason. They are trying to cram this thing and get a few more votes by putting a bill that is not objectionable with bills that are very objectionable.

A bill that doesn't grab more power with one that empowers two agencies that are under review for good cause. One of them has been trying to seize this very power. As we speak, the Federal Trade Commission has done virtually nothing to protect consumers in the areas it has jurisdiction on. They constantly say we don't have enough money for the job we already have. But they want to be able to control both before, during, and after mergers and acquisitions. They actually want to be able to and are trying to undo mergers that already have occurred.

So yes, there is an agency that is power hungry. Predominantly, my friends on the other side of the aisle want to give them money. Maybe not money in this bill because we are not appropriators, but it is still $140 million, and it will keep coming, and it will grow that agency.

I am going to ask the American people something here today, Mr. Speaker.

Have you received a call about your extended warranty?

Have you received a robocall from somebody you don't know, and it gets through on your personal phone or your cell phone?

Of course, you have. So has every American.

The Federal Trade Commission has an absolute obligation to seek that out and to prosecute that. And they are funded to do it, and they haven't done it. But, no, they want to get into mergers.

And my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and some on my side of the aisle, hate a couple of Big Tech companies for their leftist leanings or whatever, on my side. And on the other side, I guess, because they are profitable. They hate them so much that they look past two truths.

One of them is--big tech, medium tech, small tech--they have made us the envy of the world, and we have delivered to the rest of the world a better set of economies when they adopt those very technologies.

And you ask, why do those technologies get adopted? Well, one of the reasons is a startup can be funded because they know they may have an exit that isn't even a normal one. It is going to be an exit by having one of these big companies buy them. Many companies' actual plan is to build something that is going to be bought by some large tech. And yet, we are considering changing the basis for mergers and acquisitions so that might no longer be possible.

Innovation could dry up. I was an innovator; I know what it is like as a small startup company to try to get those funds. And you know what, those funds come if they believe not that you might make a living and be around, but that your company might become valuable, that your idea might explode into the marketplace.

The American people see through this. Big tech, medium tech, and small tech. By the way, most of the Big Tech companies, none of them were around 50 years ago, and most of them weren't around 25 years ago. The fact is this is new tech that they are attacking. These are new technologies, and they are playing into the very hands of the people they claim to defend.

If you want to stifle innovation, vote for this. And by the way, going back to that first one, Mr. Speaker, why are we voting on three bills? The reason is they are trying to trick Members of Congress into voting. Please, vote ``no.'' Vote ``no'' because this is a bad set of multiple bills, and I intend on making sure it never gets through the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time.

Mr. Speaker, 2 minutes is not enough time to describe the fog of war. Two minutes is not enough time to describe a level of heroism that occurred more than half a century ago over the waters of North Korea.

But today, one of the amendments en bloc will, in fact, recognize for the Congressional Medal of Honor the unsung hero of that war. Royce Williams, who took on six MiGs of superior capability all by himself, and defended the entire fleet on behalf of himself, came home to his aircraft carrier with over 200 holes in his aircraft, landed it at almost twice the speed that aircraft would be able to land, and his record was impounded in secrecy and classified for decades.

Only now, after the Soviet Union fell, can we begin to understand his heroism and his success.

Today, on behalf of all the members of the San Diego delegation of both parties who support this amendment, on behalf of the more than 100 flag officers who have signed on recommending that he receive the Medal of Honor, I am proud to say that it has been ruled in order, and I thank all those involved in bringing it to the floor.

Madam Speaker, listening to the initial debate here, you would believe that there was a legitimate difference of opinion here on the floor about protecting the Justices. Clearly, there was no such difference in the U.S. Senate. What there is, though, is a story that I think needs to be told.

When I authored this legislation a month ago, I knew that we had support in the Senate, and I knew that we would have support in the House. The first thing I did was I called up the most senior member of the Judiciary Committee on the other side of the aisle and said to him that I believe we should do this. He agreed. Not checking with staff, he agreed to this simple bill of protecting those who would be intimidated and those who would be threatened and those whose lives could not be replaced in a timely fashion without changing the outcome of the Court. And that was it; I had my cosponsor.

A day later, mysteriously, another bill, very different, was dropped in the hopper by the Speaker's staff. It was done so without a Republican cosponsor, without a call to the ranking member who stands here today. That was done because they wanted to play message with it. They wanted to delay, and the Speaker has delayed for a month.

Madam Speaker, 18 U.S.C. 1507 is not a suggestion that you prevent intimidation of the Court. It is a law. It is a law that the President of the United States has sworn to uphold and, through his Attorney General, has not, has negated the responsibility.

This legislation is not only essential to protect against another assassination attempt of a Justice or their family, but it is even more important because this administration, as we speak, is not obeying the law that they have sworn to obey, one that the Attorney General is required to. So, it is a double-edged sword that I come with today.

Democrats took 30 days and waited a week after the attempted assassination of a Supreme Court Justice before they would bring a commonsense, noncontroversial piece of legislation to the floor. I applaud all of those who will vote for it today, and I suspect that it will be voted for unanimously here on the floor.

But justice delayed, or protection of our Justice delayed, could have led to the death of a Justice and, even as we speak, still could.

Let's pass it. Let's pass it without further controversy. And let's never again do something as shameful as ignore the law and delay protection of people who are being intimidated.

Madam Speaker, to say I yield myself such time as I may consume is too short to recap these 2 days of the assault on the Second Amendment.

I will only say, in closing, that it might seem reasonable in this bill--these five or six or seven different bills cobbled together--it might seem reasonable that each of them makes sense.

I ask you, when we changed the Constitution to give an 18-year-old the right to vote, if we simply said today that we have changed our mind, we want to make it 21, don't worry about the Constitution. Wouldn't there be people saying that is ridiculous? Of course, they would.

If we said the First Amendment gives you a right that should not be abridged, and suddenly we say, but we are going to have prior restraint because you might do or say something wrong, we would say that is ridiculous.

Madam Speaker, today this affront on the Second Amendment is, in fact, ridiculous. Each piece may seem reasonable, but not in light of the significance of something enshrined in our Constitution, which is being systematically attacked by the other side.

Today, we are defending the Second Amendment in a way we have not had to in a generation. We stand here not because there aren't some elements that seem reasonable in this legislation, but because at the end of the day, our friends on the other side of the aisle who are not willing to support laws that are on the books being enforced and are not willing to stand behind the law enforcement community that would like to enforce those, they are affronting and trying to undo the Second Amendment without a constitutional change.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Border Patrol Agent David Blanco Ramirez.

Mr. Ramirez served in the U.S. Border Patrol for 18 years. While serving in the San Diego Sector's Intelligence Unit during the migrant surge in September 2021, Agent Ramirez passed away in the line of duty.

Mr. Ramirez was born and raised in Chula Vista, California. In 1993, he enlisted in the National Guard, beginning his long career of protecting our country.

In 2003, Mr. Ramirez joined the Border Patrol's San Diego sector, located near his hometown. After 18 years of service for the CBP's forensic office, Agent Ramirez succumbed in 2021 to COVID-19 complications. He contracted the disease working in the 2021 surge in illegal aliens during our country's unprecedented border crisis.

He is survived by his loving wife Rosemary, who has served the San Diego community as a teacher's assistant to children with special needs, as well as his three sons, his eldest following in his father's footsteps and rising to the rank of lst Lieutenant in the U.S. National Guard.

We owe a debt beyond words to David Blanco Ramirez and his family. I am proud to rise today to honor his service to our nation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleagues in what I believe will be unanimous support for the continued promotion of works useful to humanity. This pilot program, after 10 years, has proven to be not only a good one but one that continues to be necessary.

In 1790, when President Washington evaluated and signed the first patent, he did so in a matter of a few weeks from submission. It was an expectation that a timely patent was, in fact, critical. That first patent improved the production of potash, often used in fertilizer.

The fact is, over the years, our ability to quickly evaluate patents has, in fact, not continued to keep pace. So, when you have something like these humanitarian offerings, the fact that we are able to, at least in these cases and for known inventors, reward them with an accelerated consideration as part of their continued work, I think that is the kind of an award that means a great deal when it is the advancement of items of humanitarian interest and need.

My colleague from New York did a wonderful job of talking about some of those inventions. We could go on for hours about what inventive genius has come from this and other incentives.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for this renewal and, lastly, to recognize that the one area that America leads in is innovation. This body has a continued obligation to do everything it can to promote that innovation, including the modernization and the improvement of the Patent and Trademark Office.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I join with the chairman in support of all of the changes that were added in the Senate, they were thoughtful, and I believe not just appropriate but necessary.

I don't want to pile on the same statements made already because they were accurate and I agree with them. Rather, because there has been fairly public pushback from some members of the Article III court that we are meddling in their business, I have given it a lot of thought and discussed it with a number of scholars.

I think the American people need to understand that the executive branch does not have the authority to pass laws, and the judicial branch does not have the ability to pass laws. When it comes to establishing laws for transparency reporting and the American people's right to know, there is, in fact, only one body that can initiate and send for the President's signature statutes of transparency and accountability.

So even though this is a 1978 law being modified, the fact that there is pushback from a branch saying that under separation of powers we are somehow meddling by substantially harmonizing what the executive branch and this branch do to make sure the American people have confidence in what we own that might, in fact, be influencing what we do. It seems to be one of those areas in which I believe the American people, properly explained, would fully support.

For that reason, I would hope that as this bill becomes law that the members of the court would recognize we had no choice. Faced with clear examples--even one being too much--of a judge who had holdings and simultaneously affected the value of those holdings while either owning them or trading them or both, we had no choice but to recognize that that absence of transparency was critical.

I want to simply close by saying that this is likely not to lead to a lot more recusals. This is certainly going to lead to the kind of information that attorneys need to have on behalf of their clients when they are working through a case.

If you know that a judge or his spouse or her spouse owns something, why wouldn't you be aware of that when you have a case involving that company? If you know that they own a substantial amount of a sister company, one that is not involved in the litigation, but in fact, could benefit by an adverse decision, the attorneys for both sides should know that.

We are just not dealing in the failure to recuse here. Reporting transparency, in fact, empowers both sides to know the lay of the land that might be very meaningful in a case. Yes, there will be some that see that and ask for recusals. I trust that judges who, after the fact when these 130 cases were reported, some of the judges said they didn't know about it, they didn't know they had it, or they didn't know their spouse had these holdings. That may very well be true. Some of them said they didn't know they were supposed to report. That may be true.

But when this is implemented we will be in a position to say, of course the public knew, and empowering the public on this not private information because ultimately we are public officials. I am a public official, the chairman is a public official, the Speaker is a public official, and so are those honored to serve as magistrates, bankruptcy judges, and Article III judges.

I hope that this minor change will represent a major step for us in bringing back the confidence of the American people that they do not have to blindly go into a case not knowing whether the heavy hand of the law might be weighing against them without their knowledge.

Mr. Speaker, it seems like only yesterday I was speaking on this subject.

This is an important step. I know that we will have broad bipartisan support on it. I hope that we will have not just acceptance but an embracement by the judges who now will be reporting and providing more information to the public that the public has--and particularly litigants--have every right to know before they go before that judge.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chair for his help in shepherding this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in celebration of Vietnam Veterans Day.

For too long, the veterans of the Vietnam War did not receive the recognition or appreciation of a grateful Nation that their service warranted and their commitment earned.

With the adoption of March 29 as National Vietnam Veterans Day, we take another step to rectify that. Every year going forward, we will now honor those who answered the call of their country, left home for faraway lands, and held the line in what was then America's longest war.

Abraham Lincoln said: ``The soldier puts his life at stake, and often yields it up in his country's cause. The highest merit, then is due to the soldier.'' These words and this special day honor the service, sacrifice, and steadfast spirit of the more than nine million Americans who made and kept an oath to stand strong for freedom around the world . . . and to ensure the success and survival of liberty.

In 2020, I was proud to host Vietnam Veteran recognition ceremonies throughout the 50th District of California. Here, veterans, family members and the community gathered to salute more than 300 veterans and express our gratitude for their efforts.

We owe a debt beyond words to these veterans who wore the Nation's uniform, many of whom went halfway around the world, set records for courage and commitment, and served with indomitable courage. I am proud to rise today to commemorate Vietnam Veterans Day for these courageous veterans and their service to our Nation.

Madam Speaker, Don Young has 50 years of stories, and I will tell you just one in 20 seconds.

Madam Speaker, Don Young, faced with a young Member wanting to affect bypass mail in Alaska, could have dressed me down and told me over his dead body. Instead, he directed me to go to Alaska to see how bypass mail was done in the post office there. He sent me to an Aleutian Island, sent me to a few other appropriate places, and changed my view of why we have bypass mail.

That is the Don Young I will remember.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, rise in opposition to this postal reform bill not because it does nothing good but because it doesn't do enough.

The post office is a constitutionally authorized yet failed organization. It has failed to make a profit. It has failed to properly serve the American people, and everyone who has a mailbox knows it.

I am pleased that this body and the ranking member are tackling postal issues, but this is not sufficient reform. Unfortunately, for that reason, I cannot support this bill.

The problems with the post office are clear and longstanding. Congress established the post office to be a self-supporting organization, and from the time it received a $100 billion-line of credit, it has simply used credit to cover its losses.

I could agree that prepayment would not be necessary if they were meeting their responsibility on a pay-as-you-go basis to be profitable and to make those reforms. In fact, in 2020, under the CARES Act, Congress provided $10 billion in emergency funding, and yet in 2020 they lost $18 billion and are on course over the next 18 months to lose $22 billion. The fact is they haven't made a profit since 2006 as they are mandated.

The truth is the post office isn't lacking liquidity. It is bankrupt, and nothing in this bill will make the post office truly solvent. It simply wipes out and wipes away debts and shifts the burden on to taxpayers. The bill forgives $46 billion in debts owed by the Postal Service forcing the taxpayers to pay it.

Years ago, when I offered real reform, reform that would save on a constant basis real money, 6, 7, $8 billion a year, those reforms, because they lowered total labor, were unacceptable to the post office even if they were through attrition.

I do support some of the changes, and I do support the Post Master's attempt to modernize the post office, but without teeth in the actual organizational reforms, the post office will continue

to lose money, and for that reason I cannot yet support this bill.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The passion with which you speak is the passion that the American people feel right now. One of the things that you said in the mandate that particularly I have seen for the men and women in uniform, for my chief warrant officer, who after 23 years is being forced out, for my Lutheran minister, who has 16 years and they will not accept his religious exemption--what I am seeing, though, that I think the American people need to understand is, it is not going to change the number of people who are vaccinated.

Firing somebody simply means they go from being an employed person to an unemployed person, a productive person to somebody less productive. We are literally making, as you and I speak, our military less productive at a time in which the Russians are at the Ukrainian border prepared to snuff out a democracy.

So your passion is the passion of the American people. You must continue for the next 14 days. We cannot fund this kind of a power play, particularly when, as you said so eloquently, it doesn't reduce the spread of the virus. It is dubious as to whether it actually reduces the impact when you get it. And lastly, if you don't get it, what they do is they choose to fire you, fire our first responders, fire our military people, and it is not going to change anything. Because if somebody believes it is either unhealthy for them, or for religious reasons doesn't want to, firing them isn't going to change it.

What it is going to change is it is demoralizing our military, it is demoralizing our police, and it is creating a situation in my own district in which our hospitals are saying that they cannot treat the patients. But the reason they can't treat them is people are sitting at home, and they are sitting at home, even if they are vaccinated, because it isn't working.

So keep it up. I just wanted to come to the floor and say nobody could be more proud of what you are doing and more in belief that these are dubious how they're working. The vaccine now has become more about a religion of power than anything else, and I want you to just know that you have the entire Republican Conference behind you.

Not only do I agree, but I just want to share something about this body.

You know, you and I get into elevators and sometimes our colleagues get out of the elevator, particularly if we are not wearing a mask. One of those people, one of my dear friends, Sara Jacobs had two shots, the booster, she always wears two masks and she is extremely careful. And she is at home with a positive on this virus.

So one of the things that we just have to ask ourselves is, Are we mandating to the United States military, where there is a 99 percent vaccination rate, are we throwing out 1 percent because it is going to make a difference? Or are we throwing out 1 percent based on some theory that an order is an order from the Commander in Chief, even if it no longer makes any medical sense whatsoever?

So keep it up. Fight for our men and women in uniform, and you will have us at your side. I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.