Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, on September 12, 2009, the Honorable Emanuel Cleaver, Congressman from Missouri's Fifth Congressional District, sponsored a remarkable event at the Truman Library. This event was in honor of those who fought in the Vietnam War in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Well over 1,000 veterans attended. The Honorable Dennis Moore, Congressman from Kansas's Third Congressional District, spoke, and yours truly had an opportunity to deliver a message of gratitude to the Vietnam veterans present. The keynote speaker was Major General (Ret.) Robert H. Scales, former commandant of the U.S. Army War College. His address was very well received by the veterans in the audience. The address is as follows:

Mr. Skelton, Mr Cleaver, distinguished guests and, most

importantly, fellow veterans. What a great thrill it is see

my comrades in arms assembled here so many years after we

shared our experiences in war.

Let me give you the bottom line up front: I'm proud I

served in Vietnam. Like you I didn't kill innocents, I killed

the enemy; I didn't fight for big oil or for some lame

conspiracy I fought for a country I believed in and for the

buddies who kept me alive. Like you I was troubled that,

unlike my father, I didn't come back to a grateful nation. It

took a generation and another war, Desert Storm, for the

nation to come back to me.

Also like you I remember the war being 99 percent boredom

and one percent pure abject terror. But not all my memories

of Vietnam are terrible. There were times when I enjoyed my

service in combat. Such sentiment must seem strange to a

society today that has, thanks to our superb volunteer

military, been completely insulated from war. If they thought

about Vietnam at all our fellow citizens would imagine that

fifty years would have been sufficient to erase this

unpleasant war from our conscientiousness. Looking over this

assembly it's obvious that the memory lingers, and those of

us who fought in that war remember.

The question is why? If this war was so terrible why are we

here? It's my privilege

today to try to answer that question not only for you,

brother veterans, but maybe for a wider audience for whom,

fifty years on, Vietnam is as strangely distant as World War

One was to our generation.

Vietnam is seared in our memory for the same reason that

wars have lingered in the minds of soldiers for as long as

wars have been fought.

From Marathon to Mosul young men and now women have marched

off to war to learn that the cold fear of violent death and

the prospects of killing another human being heighten the

senses and sear these experiences deeply and irrevocably into

our souls and linger in the back recesses of our minds.

After Vietnam we may have gone on to thrilling lives or

dull; we might have found love or loneliness, success or

failure. But our experiences have stayed with us in brilliant

Technicolor and with a clarity undiminished by time. For

whatever primal reason war heightens the senses. When in

combat we see sharper, hear more clearly and develop a sixth

sense about everything around us.

Remember the sights? I recall sitting in the jungle one

bright moonlit night marveling on the beauty of Vietnam. How

lush and green it was; how attractive and gentle the people,

how stoic and unmoved they were amid the chaos that

surrounded them.

Do you remember the sounds? Where else could you stand

outside a bunker and listen to the cacophonous mix of Jimmy

Hendrix, Merle Haggard and Jefferson Airplane? Or how about

the sounds of incoming? Remember it wasn't a boom like in the

movies but a horrifying noise like a passing train followed

by a crack and the whistle of flying fragments. Remember the

smells? The sharpness of cordite, the choking stench of

rotting jungle and the tragic sweet smell of enemy dead. . .

.

I remember the touch, the wet, sticky sensation when I

touched one of my wounded soldiers one last time before the

medevac rushed him forever from our presence but not from my

memory, and the guilt I felt realizing that his pain was

caused by my inattention and my lack of experience.

Even taste is a sense that brings back memories. Remember

the end of the day after the log bird flew away leaving mail,

C rations and warm beer? Only the first sergeant had

sufficient gravitas to be allowed to turn the C ration cases

over so that all of us could reach in and pull out a box on

the unlabeled side hoping that it wasn't going to be ham and

lima beans again.

Look, forty years on I can forgive the guy who put powder

in our ammunition so foul that it caused our M-16s to jam.

I'm OK with helicopters that arrived late. I'm over artillery

landing too close and the occasional canceled air strike. But

I will never forgive the Pentagon bureaucrat who in an

incredibly lame moment thought that a soldier would open a

can of that green, greasy, gelatinous goo called ham and lima

beans and actually eat it.

But to paraphrase that iconic war hero of our generation,

Forrest Gump, ``Life is like a case of C Rations, you never

know what you're going to get.'' Because for every box of ham

and lima beans there was that rapturous moment when you would

turn over the box and discover the bacchanalian joy of

peaches and pound cake. It's all a metaphor for the surreal

nature of that war and its small pleasures . . . . those who

have never known war cannot believe that anyone can find

joy in hot beer and cold pound cake. But we can . . .

Another reason why Vietnam remains in our consciousness is

that the experience has made us better. Don't get me wrong.

I'm not arguing for war as a self-improvement course. And I

realize that war's trauma has damaged many of our fellow

veterans physically, psychologically and morally. But recent

research on Post Traumatic Stress Disorder by behavioral

scientists has unearthed a phenomenon familiar to most

veterans: that the trauma of war strengthens rather than

weakens us (They call it Post Traumatic Growth). We know that

a near death experience makes us better leaders by increasing

our self-reliance, resilience, self image, confidence and

ability to deal with adversity. Combat veterans tend to

approach the future wiser, more spiritual and content with an

amplified appreciation for life. We know this is true. It's

nice to see that the human scientists now agree.

I'm proud that our service left a legacy that has made

today's military better. Sadly Americans too often prefer to

fight wars with technology. Our experience in Vietnam taught

the nation the lesson that war is inherently a human not a

technological endeavor. Our experience is a distant whisper

in the ear of today's technology wizards that firepower is

not sufficient to win, that the enemy has a vote, that the

object of war should not be to kill the enemy but to win the

trust and allegiance of the people and that the ultimate

weapon in this kind of war is a superbly trained, motivated,

and equipped soldier who is tightly bonded to his buddies and

who trusts his leaders.

I've visited our young men and women in Iraq and

Afghanistan several times. On each visit I've seen first hand

the strong connection between our war and theirs. These are

worthy warriors who operate in a manner remarkably

reminiscent of the way we fought so many years ago.

The similarities are surreal. Close your eyes for a moment

and it all comes rushing back. . . . In Afghanistan I watched

soldiers from my old unit, the 101st Airborne Division, as

they conducted daily patrols from firebases constructed and

manned in a manner virtually the same as those we occupied

and fought from so many years ago. Every day these sky

soldiers trudge outside the wire and climb across impossible

terrain with the purpose as one sergeant put it ``to kill the

bad guys, protect the good guys and bring home as many of my

soldiers as I can.'' Your legacy is alive and well. You

should be proud.

The timeless connection between our generation and theirs

can be seen in the unity and fighting spirit of our soldiers

in Iraq and Afghanistan. Again and again, I get asked the

same old question from folks who watch soldiers in action on

television: why is their morale so high? Don't they know the

American people are getting fed up with these wars? Don't

they know Afghanistan is going badly? Often they come to me

incredulous about what they perceive as a misspent sense of

patriotism and loyalty.

I tell them time and again what every one of you sitting

here today, those of you who have seen the face of war,

understand: it's not really about loyalty. It's not about a

belief in some abstract notion concerning war aims or

national strategy. It's not even about winning or losing. On

those lonely firebases as we dug through C ration boxes and

drank hot beer we didn't argue the righteousness of our cause

or ponder the latest pronouncements from McNamara or Nixon or

Ho Chi Minh for that matter. Some of us might have trusted

our leaders or maybe not. We might have been well informed

and passionate about the protests at home or maybe not. We

might have groused about the rich and privileged who found a

way to avoid service but we probably didn't. We might have

volunteered for the war to stop the spread of global

communism or maybe we just had a failing semester and got

swept up in the draft.

In war young soldiers think about their buddies. They talk

about families, wives and girlfriends and relate to each

other through very personal confessions. For the most part

the military we served with in Vietnam did not come from the

social elite. We didn't have Harvard degrees or the pedigree

of political bluebloods. We were in large measure volunteers

and draftees from middle and lower class America. Just as in

Iraq today we came from every corner of our country to meet

in a beautiful yet harsh and forbidding place, a place that

we've seen and experienced but can never explain adequately

to those who were never there.

Soldiers suffer, fight and occasionally die for each other.

It's as simple as that. What brought us to fight in the

jungle was no different than the motive force that compels

young soldiers today to kick open a door in Ramadi with the

expectation that what lies on the other side is either an

innocent huddling with a child in her arms or a fanatic

insurgent yearning to buy his ticket to eternity by killing

the infidel. No difference. Patriotism and a paycheck may get

a soldier into the military but fear of letting his buddies

down gets a soldier to do something that might just as well

get him killed.

What makes a person successful in America today is a far

cry from what would have made him a success in the minds of

those assembled here today. Big bucks gained in law or real

estate, or big deals closed on the stock market made some of

our countrymen rich. But as they have grown older they now

realize that they have no buddies. There is no one who they

are willing to die for or who is willing to die for them.

William Manchester served as a Marine in the Pacific during

World War II and put the sentiment precisely right when he

wrote: ``Any man in combat who lacks comrades who will die

for him, or for whom he is willing to die is not a man at

all. He is truly damned.''

The Anglo Saxon heritage of buddy loyalty is long and

frightfully won. Almost six hundred years ago the English

king, Henry V, waited on a cold and muddy battlefield to face

a French army many times his size. Shakespeare captured the

ethos of that moment in his play Henry V. To be sure

Shakespeare wasn't there but he was there in spirit because

he understood the emotions that gripped and the bonds that

brought together both king and soldier. Henry didn't talk

about national strategy. He didn't try to justify faulty

intelligence or ill formed command decisions that put his

soldiers at such a terrible disadvantage. Instead, he talked

about what made English soldiers fight and what in all

probably would allow them to prevail the next day against

terrible odds. Remember this is a monarch talking to his men:

``This story shall the good man teach his son;

From this day ending to the ending of the world,

But we in it shall be remembered;

We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;

For he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my

brother;

And gentlemen in England (or America) now a-bed

Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,

And hold their manhood's cheap whiles any speaks

That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.''

You all here assembled inherit the spirit of St Crispin's

day. You know and understand the strength of comfort that

those whom you protect, those in America now abed, will never

know. You have lived a life of self awareness and personal

satisfaction that those who watched you from afar in this

country who ``hold their manhood cheap'' can only envy.

I don't care whether America honors or even remembers the

good service we performed in Vietnam. It doesn't bother me

that war is an image that America would rather ignore. It's

enough for me to have the privilege to be among you. It's

sufficient to talk to each of you about things we have seen

and kinships we have shared in the tough and heartless

crucible of war.

Some day we will all join those who are serving so

gallantly now and have preceded us on battlefields from

Gettysburg to Wanat. We will gather inside a firebase to open

a case of C rations with every box peaches and pound cake. We

will join with a band of brothers to recount the experience

of serving something greater than ourselves. I believe in my

very soul that the almightly reserves a corner of heaven,

probably around a perpetual lager where some day we can meet

and embrace... all of the band of brothers throughout the

ages to tell our stories while envious standers-by watch and

wonder how horrific and incendiary the crucible of violence

must have been to bring such a disparate assemblage so close

to the hand of God.

Until we meet there thank you for your service, thank you

for your sacrifice, God bless you all and God bless this

great

nation. . . .

Madam Speaker, let me take this opportunity to congratulate Mrs. Joyce Ernestine Westerhold, the Region 4 Outstanding Older Worker of the Year. As a homemaker, school teacher, and library assistant, Mrs. Westerhold has dedicated her life to serving others.

She began her career as a school teacher in 1948 and served the students of Missouri's public schools for a total of 26 years. While teaching various subjects in several public schools, Mrs. Westerhold remained active in the state teacher's organization and the Parent- Teachers Association.

After a distinguished teaching career, Mrs. Westerhold began working as a library assistant with University of Central Missouri. During her 24 years with the University's library system, her job was redesigned three times and she saw many technological changes. As the times changed, so did she.

While this award is in recognition of Mrs. Westerhold's 50 years of full-time employment as a teacher and library assistant, her work as a dedicated wife and mother cannot go unnoticed. She and her husband of 60 years have raised two lovely children.

Madam Speaker, Ernestine Westerhold has distinguished herself throughout her careers with Missouri public schools and the University of Central Missouri. I trust that the Members of the House will join me in congratulating her for this great contribution to Missouri and our country.

Madam Speaker, it is with sadness that I inform the House of the death of the Honorable Judge William Morian ``Bill'' Kimberlin, former Circuit Judge of the 17th Judicial Circuit of Missouri.

Judge Kimberlin was born in Garden City, Missouri, in 1915. After graduating from Garden City High School, he attended Central Methodist College in Fayette, Missouri where he received a music scholarship, majoring in Piano. An accomplished musician, he played a variety of instruments and was gifted with a rich baritone voice. After two years, Bill transferred to the University of Missouri School of Law. He was a loyal alumni and lifetime supporter of MU where his father, children, and grandchildren are also alumni. Judge Kimberlin was pleased to account that he was the first graduate to be awarded a diploma at the 100th anniversary commencement of the University of Missouri.

Upon graduation in 1939, he moved to Harrisonville, Missouri, where he practiced law with the firm Crouch & Crouch. His young legal career was interrupted by the onslaught of WWII where he served four years in the Army Air Corps. For his service in the Mediterranean and European Theatres, he was awarded the Bronze Star Medal for meritorious service and six campaign stars. Before going overseas, Judge Kimberlin met his future wife, Martha Bumby, on the dance floor of the Officers' Club while stationed in Orlando, Florida. The couple was married in 1946 and settled in Harrisonville.

A lifelong Democrat, Judge Kimberlin was elected Mayor of Harrisonville, served two terms as Prosecuting Attorney of Cass County, and served as the City Attorney of Harrisonville. He was elected five times to serve as Circuit Judge of the 17th Judicial Court of Missouri, and served for 29 years. In honor of his great service, a courtroom was named in his honor upon completion of the new Cass County Justice Center in 2004. He was also one of the twelve original committee members appointed by the Missouri Supreme Court to draft the Missouri Civil Approved Jury Instructions for use in all courts of the state and was appointed a Special Judge to sit for a term on the Missouri Supreme Court.

Judge Kimberlin was revered for always treating everyone with dignity and respect, both inside and outside of the courtroom. He dedicated his life to public service, donating much of his time to community organizations and serving on numerous boards and committees. Included were the First Christian Church, Ararat Shrines, American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Sons of the American Revolution, Cass Lodge #147 A.F. & A.M., Board of Directors of the Missouri Municipal League, district Chairmen of the Thunderbird District of the Kansas City Area Council of Boy Scouts of America, Phi Delta Phi Legal Fraternity, was past President of the Harrisonville Kiwanis and lieutenant-governor of the Division II Kiwanis. At the same time, he was an avid hunter and golfer. Most importantly, Judge Kimberlin was a devoted family man who enjoyed spending time with his wife Martha, his children, Marsha Peters and William Bruce Kimberlin, and two granddaughters, Lauren Kimberlin Peters and Lindsey Morlan Peters.

Madam Speaker, Judge William Kimberlin was an honorable Judge and respected leader in the community. I am certain that the members of the House will join me in extending their heartfelt condolences to his family and friends. He will be greatly missed.

Madam Speaker, let me take this opportunity to acknowledge the significant bipartisan accomplishments made by the 111th Congress for our veterans and their families. Our Armed Forces sacrifice a tremendous amount for this country. In light of such commitment and dedication to our nation, the House has worked feverishly to provide the resources and support America's warriors need before, during, and after their service.

In this Congress, one of the House Armed Services Committee's finest achievements was unanimously passing H.R. 2647, the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act. Designed to restore our military's readiness and improve the quality of life of our service members and their families, the bill would provide a 3.4 percent pay raise for service members, strengthen efforts to expand mental health care for troops, and improve military housing. On June 25, 2009, H.R. 2647 passed the full House by an overwhelming margin.

Additionally, the House has worked to ensure the health of our veterans and their families. Among other initiatives, we have approved legislation to expand and improve VA health care services for the 1.8 million women who have bravely served our country, voted to increase veterans' disability payments to reflect cost-of-living increases, and approved a bill I introduced that would expand military retirement and VA disability benefits to disabled military retirees with less than 20 years of service. In June, the House approved the Veterans Health Care Budget Reform and Transparency Act, authorizing Congress to approve veterans' medical care funding one year in advance to better anticipate and meet the demand for veterans' health care services. And, in February, the House approved my resolution designating 2009 as the ``Year of the Military Family'' to recognize the sacrifices and contributions of over two million military families.

The dedication of our men and women in uniform makes our nation strong and keeps us free; we cannot forget the debt we owe to those who serve so nobly. While there certainly remains work to be done, I am proud of the achievements this Congress has made on behalf of our nation's warriors and their families.

Mr. Speaker, 8 years ago on September 11, 2001, this Chamber was empty, the Capitol was evacuated, the Pentagon was burning, the Twin Towers in New York lay crumpled, and almost 3,000 of our citizens were dead. We can never forget them, and we should never forget what we owe them.

Today we will once again mourn the families and those that are fallen, and we express our deepest sympathy to their friends and their loved ones. This is only right, but it's not enough. We owe it to the victims, to their loved ones, to the survivors, to ourselves to make sure that those who carried out this awful attack are brought to justice and to ensure that they can never again attack and kill our people here at home.

For too long the war in Afghanistan was the forgotten war. Only recently have we refocused our attention on the war on al Qaeda and the Taliban who sheltered them as they carried out their plot to murder thousands of Americans.

We can debate the best way to prosecute the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban. For my part, the President has proposed a strategy for Afghanistan with which I agree. What we cannot do is walk away from the fight. We cannot allow the memory of this horrific event to be forgotten, and we cannot forget how important it is to bring those who caused it to justice.

Failing in Afghanistan brings clear and compelling dangers. Failing means the Taliban will once again control Afghanistan and permit their al Qaeda terrorist allies to operate from there. Failure means we let down those who died on 9/11. We can and we should consider how best to prosecute the war in Afghanistan. It's not a simple war, it's not an easy war. But for the first time, we have a real strategy. And for the first time, we are providing the resources needed for the fight. We have a new commander who is breathing new life into our effort, and now we must show that we have the resolve to give our men and women in uniform the time and resources they need to show progress in the fight against enemies who carried out this and supported the attacks of 9/11.

America was attacked on 9/11 by a ruthless, callous enemy. We cannot forget that. And we cannot walk away from the war in Afghanistan against them.

Madam Speaker, I rise to support of House Joint Resolution 44, which I introduced on April 29, 2009. This resolution honors the service and sacrifice of our Army's Noncommissioned Officers.

As the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, I am privileged to be joined here today by a number of my colleagues in the House to recognize the service, sacrifice, professionalism and commitment of all those who serve and have served our Nation as Noncommissioned Officers in the United States Army.

Our Nation's Noncommissioned Officers are unlike any other in the world. While many consider them the backbone of the force, I believe they are really the soul of the force. Not only do they provide the leadership, training and mentoring of junior enlisted personnel, but they also are responsible for the development and guidance of our junior officers as well. The responsibilities that an Army Noncommissioned Officer carries are vast, but they often carry out their responsibilities with little fanfare and official recognition. This resolution seeks to acknowledge their contributions, particularly over the last eight years of conflict.

The history of the Army Noncommissioned Officer began with the birth of the Continental Army in 1775. The first Sergeant Major of the Army was Sergeant Major Willion O. Wooldridge. Since then, there have been 13 Sergeant Majors of the Army, and the currently serving Sergeant Major is Kenneth 0. Preston. He is the highest ranking Noncommissioned Officer in the United States Army.

Army Noncommissioned Officers live by the NCO Creed, which was written in 1974, and adopted officially by the Army in 1985. The Creed reads:

No one is more professional than I. I am a Noncommissioned

Officer, a leader of soldiers. As a Noncommissioned Officer,

I realize that I am a member of a time honored corps, which

is known as ``The Backbone of the Army.'' I am proud of the

Corps of Noncommissioned Officers and will at all times

conduct myself so as to bring credit upon the Corps, the

Military Service and my country regardless of the situation

in which I find myself. I will not use my grade or position

to attain pleasure, profit or personal safety.

Competence is my watchword. My two basic responsibilities

will always be uppermost in my mind--accomplishment of my

mission and the welfare of my soldiers. I will strive to

remain technically and tactically proficient. I am aware of

my role as a Noncommissioned Officer. I will fulfill my

responsibilities inherent in that role. All soldiers are

entitled to outstanding leadership; I will provide that

leadership. I know my soldiers and I will always place their

needs above my own. I will communicate consistently with my

soldiers and never leave them uninformed. I will be fair and

impartial when recommending both rewards and punishments.

Officers of my unit will have maximum time to accomplish

their duties; they will not have to accomplish mine. I will

earn their respect and confidence as well as that of my

soldiers. I will be loyal to those with

whom I serve; seniors, peers and subordinates alike. I will

exercise initiatives by taking appropriate action in absence

of orders. I will not compromise my integrity, nor my moral

courage. I will not forget, nor will I allow my comrades to

forget that we are professionals, Noncommissioned Officers,

leaders!

The creed of the Noncommissioned Officer of the United States Army captures the essence of how these individuals live their daily lives. I am honored to have introduced this resolution and I urge my colleagues to join me in support of House Joint Resolution 44 to commend the service of the Army's Noncommissioned Officers.

Mr. Chairman, I intended to offer an amendment to provide funding for the Harry S. Truman Scholarship Foundation in the amount of $660,000. I decided not to offer that amendment today, but I wish to engage the chairman of the subcommittee in a colloquy regarding the importance of this foundation.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that it is in the best interest of our Nation to ensure that the leaders of tomorrow have access to the best educational opportunities available. For that reason, I have long been associated with the Harry S. Truman Scholarship Foundation, which awards scholarships for college students to attend graduate school in preparation for careers in government or elsewhere in public service.

The Truman Scholarship Foundation was established by Congress in 1975 as the Federal memorial to our 33rd President, Harry S. Truman. The foundation has been operating from the original appropriation and the interest from that amount since 1977; but as the cost of college has increased over the years, the foundation's assets have not grown accordingly to meet the needs of the students it serves.

So, Mr. Chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Serrano, I ask your assurance that you will seek to include funding for the Truman Foundation in conference with the other body.

I yield.

I certainly thank the gentleman, and I thank you for this opportunity to raise the issue on the floor.

Madam Speaker, let me take this time to honor a dedicated military educator, Lieutenant General Frances C. Wilson, who will be retiring as the President of the National Defense University, after having served this nation for 37 years in the United States Marine Corps.

Culminating with her appointment as President of the National Defense University in 2006, General Wilson has, throughout her career, focused on professional education while working tirelessly to create an educated and well-trained class of American warriors. She has completed seven advanced training courses, including Harvard's Senior Executive Course in National Security, and earned four Master degrees along with a Doctorate in Education. Through these impressive academic undertakings, General Wilson acquired the knowledge and skills needed to prepare America's future officers for the complex contemporary world.

Most impressively, General Wilson has relentlessly used her extensive education to increase the capabilities of our Armed Forces. She commanded the Fourth Recruit Training Battalion at Parris Island, directed the Manpower Management Division at Marine Corps Headquarters, and managed the military's Reserve forces while a member of the Reserve Force Policy Board. Through her leadership in these posts, General Wilson greatly advanced the professional development of the marines under her command and helped to mold a vibrant military education system.

As President of the National Defense University, General Wilson understood the critical need for National Security Professionals within the Executive Branch. She spearheaded the development of the National Security Education Consortium and, recognizing the importance of international cooperation, established educational partnerships with 79 nations, especially our NATO allies. Additionally, she added three Masters degrees to the University's curriculum while managing NDU's reaccredidation process. As a strong proponent of military education myself, I could not be more pleased with General Wilson's efforts or the many accolades she has received over her long career.

General Wilson's leadership has strengthened both the Marine Corps and the professional military education system. As a staunch believer in continuous education for professional soldiers, I am proud of her commitment to lifelong study and the development of America's warriors. I trust that Members of the House will join me in congratulating General Wilson for her contributions to the United States of America.

Madam Speaker, let me take this moment to recognize the Lafayette-Lexington Daughters of the American Revolution Chapter for creating the Susan Skelton Memorial Scholarship. The scholarship was created in memory of my late wife Susan Anding Skelton, honoring her dedication to higher education and Lafayette County.

Susie, a native Missourian, graduated with a bachelor's degree in education from the University of Missouri, Columbia in 1958. In 1976, she served as the first president of the 95th Congress group, the organization representing spouses of new Members of Congress. Susie also played a prominent role in the Congressional Club, serving as treasurer for 2 years and then as president. She was only the second Missourian to serve in that position. As president, she presided over one of the largest memberships in the history of the organization. Additionally, she was president and vice president of International Club III, an organization for spouses of Members of Congress and Ambassadors and was a member of the Congressional Families for Drug- Free Youth.

In Missouri, Susie served two consecutive terms as Regent of the Lafayette-Lexington Chapter D.A.R. She also served 4 years on the Democratic State Committee during the 1970s. In Lexington, she taught Sunday school, was a Cub Scout den mother, and a local first grade teacher. Susie was also active in Missouri University Alumni Association events in Lafayette County.

Our family friend, LaVeda Cross, was aware of Susie's great involvement in both Washington, DC, and Missouri. As a result, LaVeda and the Lafayette-Lexington D.A.R. Chapter have offered a collegiate scholarship to those individuals that embody the values of Susie. I appreciate the D.A.R. chapter for recognizing the achievements and contributions of Susie. The scholarship is open to any female student who is a permanent resident of Lafayette County and a graduate of one of the following schools: Concordia R-H, Lafayette County C-1, Lexington R-V, St. Paul's Lutheran, or Wellington-Napoleon R-IX and plans to attend college after graduation.

Madam Speaker, Susie was influential in Lafayette County and Washington, DC. I am honored that the D.A.R. has created this scholarship in her name. I know the Members of the House will join me in recognizing the Lafayette-Lexington D.A.R. Chapter for assisting hard-working young women in achieving a higher education.

I certainly thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, as a farm State Representative, I have said for quite some time that any climate change legislation approved by the House must take into consideration the unique needs of rural America, including those of farmers and rural electric cooperatives.

Since first being introduced, the climate change measure has improved a great deal, thanks in large part to the work of House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson and his negotiations with House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman.

I first approached this legislation with a great deal of skepticism. I have since been pleased that some, though not all, concerns of utilities, electric cooperatives, and farmers have been addressed in the version of the bill that is being considered today.

As this bill was being drafted, I have heard the views of Fourth District residents and have raised them with the House leaders. To be sure, the measure before us is not perfect, but it's a step in the right direction.

I think it's important that we move this bill forward. After we pass it in the House, the measure will receive additional refinement in the other body. I think that the congressional leadership and the administration understand the concerns of rural America, and I will keep working to ensure our point of view is more completely addressed in the final bill.

Truth be told, Congress has an obligation to enact energy reform this year, especially given that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, that is the EPA, is working right now to create tough, costly regulations on greenhouse gases emitted by livestock, farms, factories, and utilities. Without congressional action, the EPA will have free rein. That is unacceptable to me, and ought to be unacceptable to every farmer and business owner in Missouri.

Unlike the EPA proposal, the House bill would exempt livestock and farms from greenhouse gas regulation, and it would provide farmers an opportunity to potentially profit from their carbon-friendly farm practices by participating in the carbon market.

Also, for farmers, the legislation would correct a problem that has been lingering since enactment of the 2007 energy bill. For the next 5 years, it would prevent EPA from calculating indirect land use when determining how to implement our Nation's renewable fuel standard.

This is good news for ethanol and biodiesel production facilities and for the farmers who sell the goods to these facilities.

Energy reform is not just a matter of wanting to keep our air and planet clean, as worthy and important as those goals are. It's also a matter of national security.

In recent years, the Pentagon has taken a hard look at how climate change could have an impact on global security and stability.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I ask unanimous consent that during further consideration of H.R. 2647, pursuant to House Resolution 572, debate on amendment Nos. 3 and 9 each be extended to 20 minutes, and that amendment No. 2 be modified in the form that is now placed at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

At this time, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Adler) seeks recognition for a colloquy.

I thank the gentleman for his comments. And in response, I will tell the gentleman I will work with him, the committee of jurisdiction, and the relevant government agencies to resolve the issue and help the joint base transition.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Miller has a request for a colloquy at this time.

In response, I might tell you that, as the gentleman knows, our committee and I work tirelessly to protect the rights of servicemembers and their families; at the same time, I know it can be improved. I would be happy to work with this gentleman to address the issues that you have raised this morning.

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, the gentlelady from California (Mrs. Capps) seeks recognition for a colloquy.

I certainly thank the gentlelady for raising this important issue, and I assure her that I certainly share her concern for our Federal firefighters.

While protecting our national interests in military installations, nuclear facilities, VA hospitals, and other Federal facilities, Federal firefighters are routinely exposed to toxic substances, biohazards, temperature extremes, and stress. I would be pleased to continue working with the gentlelady on this important issue.

The gentlelady knows that I certainly share her admiration and appreciation for our Federal firefighters, and I thank her for her dedication.

The amendment before us is one that is technical in nature and seeks to clarify several technical misstatements and problems that arose in the drafting of the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I respectfully disagree with this amendment, and I respectfully oppose it. This amendment sends exactly the wrong message, focusing on an exit strategy

which may well reinforce the perception among the Afghans that we're not committed to protecting them from the Taliban and al Qaeda.

Mr. Chairman, we have a new commander on the ground. We've added tens of thousands of troops. We're adding hundreds of civilian experts. We should not undermine those efforts. Commanders make a difference. As you know, we have General McChrystal who has replaced General McKiernan in Afghanistan. History shows that new commanders make a big difference. Let's give General McChrystal the opportunity to show what American troops, American civilians, the State Department and others can do. History shows that. President Lincoln replaced General McClellan, General Burnside, General Hooker, General Meade and finally ended up with a man by the name of Grant. General Auchinleck was replaced by Bernard Montgomery, and the great Battle of El Alamein came to pass.

Let's give General McChrystal the opportunity. Further let me add, Mr. Chairman, this amendment is intended to get the administration to lay out its strategy; but section 1217 of our bill already requires the administration to lay out goals, to lay out timelines and conduct regular assessments. That's the way General McChrystal should be judged. Let's do that.

I do oppose this amendment very respectfully.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. The Western Hemisphere Institute has much to be proud of, including an enviable curriculum and dedicated support staff. Returning to a policy of public disclosure of student names and instructors will remove one of the lingering doubts about this school. It's come a long way, and I am very proud of what it does. I am a strong supporter of that school. Publicly revealing the names does not discourage attendance.

According to statistics provided by the Department of Defense to the Center For International Policy for fiscal years 2001 through 2006, Latin American and Caribbean countries provided, on the average, more students to this institution, to this school during the time that WHINSEC made the names of students and instructors publicly available than when the institute refused to provide such information.

There is no real reason to withhold those names. We should be proud of what we do there. We want them to return to their country to be proud of their studies there.

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to H. Res. 572, I offer amendments en bloc entitled No. 1.

Mr. Chairman, I urge the committee to adopt the amendments en bloc, all of which have been examined by both the majority and the minority.

At this time I yield 3 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 1 minute to my friend, a member of the Armed Services Committee, the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter).

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Georgia desires to have a colloquy at this point, Mr. Kingston.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to respond to the gentleman from Georgia. He has a long record of support and advocacy for Fort Stewart and our Nation's Armed Forces, and I

am pleased to inform that gentleman that language has been included in this bill to direct the Secretary of Defense to carefully consider the economic impact of this policy change on local communities and to provide to the Congress information about the Department's efforts to mitigate the negative effects. This includes a report on any new enduring missions planned for the bases affected, including a summary of the Department's plans to lessen the economic hardship or investment loss.

I would be happy to work with the gentleman and the Secretary of Defense, of course, to consider how to address the negative impact of recent basing decisions on the local communities that so strongly support our troops.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend, a member of the Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Nye) for 1 minute.

I yield to the gentleman.

We will have to check, just a moment.

That is correct.

I yield the balance of my time to the to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Perriello).

Mr. Chairman, since we have no additional requests, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment, a sense of Congress honoring Congressman John McHugh.

John McHugh is an outstanding American, an outstanding Member of Congress, the former ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee. He has served the people of America in this capacity selflessly and with distinction, and it is our opportunity now to express gratitude as a Congress and as a nation for his efforts.

He has represented New York's 23rd Congressional District since 1993. His district includes northern New York, including Fort Drum. He has been a public servant now for some 40 years, having served in the local, the State and Federal levels of our government. He is a highly respected leader on national defense and has been a staunch advocate for America's military personnel and their families.

As chairman and subsequently ranking member of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel on our Armed Services Committee, John McHugh has shared my desire to increase the end-strength for the Army and the Marines, enhance military pay, and began efforts to eliminate concurrent receipt to allow the payment of both veterans disability and military retired pay.

Given his background and his experience, the President nominated John McHugh to serve as Secretary of the Army on June 2nd of this year. It is a tribute to his accomplishments in national defense on behalf of the servicemen and women and their families.

It is a pleasure to honor him in this manner. It is a pleasure to have served with him. We will, of course, miss him, his brightness, his humor and his quick wit, and his dedication to our Armed Forces. We wish him the very best as he serves as the Secretary of the Army.

I can only say this, Mr. Chairman, that the Army will be in good hands with John McHugh. We thank him for his service here and look forward to working with him in his new capacity.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Secretary Gates announced a series of changes in the missile defense program and so testified. I wish to compliment the gentlelady from California (Mrs. Tauscher), the chairman of the subcommittee that covered this subject, for the excellent work that she and the subcommittee did regarding missile defense. They got it right. They increased funding for theater missile defense programs by $900 million. They capped the deployment for long-range missile defense interceptors in Alaska at 30 as opposed to the 44 previously planned. Right now, there are 26 currently deployed. And they cancelled the Multiple Kill Vehicle program, the Kinetic Energy Interceptor program, and the second Airborne Laser prototype aircraft because they were not working.

Consequently, they did it right by allowing and authorizing $9.3 billion for missile defense programs overall. I oppose the amendment. We did it right.

I rise in opposition to this amendment.

I had a law school professor by the name of Fratcher, and every once in awhile during discussion in the class he would say, ``Read it. What does it say?''

We read this amendment--which I know the authors seek to ensure congressional insight into the budget process and the Quadrennial Defense Review, and those are very worthy goals, but unfortunately, reading this amendment in the way it is drafted will overwhelm the Pentagon and harm critical Department of Defense efforts. They won't have time to do much more than comply with this amendment. It is drafted in such a way that it just couldn't be done. And I am sad that a worthy goal is being thwarted by the improper drafting thereof.

The Department of Defense routinely enters into such agreements to protect the privacy of servicemembers and, of course, to protect sensitive information. As a result, the amendment would require several reports on thousands of nondisclosed agreements. For instance, casework for wounded warriors, health care quality assurance processes, criminal and administrative investigations, accident investigations, contract source selections, accepting proprietary data from private industry, other business transactions that require confidential treatment until concluded.

The amendment will result in the reporting of thousands of transactions to Congress, each requiring an individual report containing large volumes of information and justification. Due to the administrative burden and the chilling effect of this amendment, the Department of Defense may be forced to reduce efforts to assist wounded warriors and otherwise help servicemembers solve their problems.

I commend them for their worthy goal, but in the lesson taught me by my professor, Mr. Fratcher, reading it just makes it impossible for the Department of Defense to comply with it.

So, consequently, I seriously am strongly opposed to this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

The bill that we sent to the Senate and subsequently sent to the President for his signature is supposed to mean exactly what it says. It's in English language, it's clear, and we expect the Department of Defense to follow it to the letter, and those we direct duties to, to fulfill those duties correctly. And to send them a message that cannot be fulfilled, sadly, that this amendment requires, is just wrong.

So, consequently, I oppose this and hope that it will not pass.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to H. Res. 572, I offer amendments en bloc entitled No. 2.

Mr. Chairman, I urge the committee to adopt the amendments en bloc, all of which have been examined by both the majority and minority.

I yield 2 minutes to my friend, who is on the Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Kratovil).

At this time I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes).

I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).

(Mr. WEINER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, this is an excellent series of amendments that we have placed en bloc, and I want to express my appreciation not only to the staff but to the minority, to the ranking member on the work that they have done, agreeing to these amendments and making this effort today move forward very, very smoothly.

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to section 4 of House Resolution 572, I request that following consideration of amendments en bloc No. 4 that amendment No. 20 be considered.

Parliamentary inquiry.

What was the ruling on the previous recommendation?

I thank the Chair.

Amendment No. 24 Offered by Mr. Cummings

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. There may be a requirement to redraft part of it at a future date, but I think the purpose and the intent are correct.

Piracy is here. It's an age-old problem. From the Marines' hymn the phrase ``to the shores of Tripoli,'' that was a successful antipiracy effort on behalf of the United States Marines.

We have to do our very best to protect America, American vessels, Americans that are sailing the ships, and particularly the government cargo that's on them. So I applaud Mr. Cummings for making this substantial step in the right direction in combating piracy.

Mr. Chairman, as a former prosecuting attorney, I speak in favor of this amendment.

It serves two purposes. First, it protects our men and women in uniform who are conducting interrogations of detainees from frivolous claims of alleged abuse or coercion. Second, the videotapes will act as a deterrent for private contractors or other agencies who are conducting interrogations of the Department of Defense detainees from straying from those requirements of the Army field manual in the treatment of detainees. It is a way to ensure that it is done right. And when you have a correctly conducted interrogation, in all probability the results will be positive. I certainly think this is a major step in the right direction. Videotaping is good.

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to H. Res. 572, I offer amendments en bloc entitled No. 3.

Mr. Chairman, I urge the committee to adopt the amendments en bloc, all of which have been examined by the majority and the minority.

Mr. Chairman, I understand that the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis) wishes to propose a colloquy, and I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman for raising this issue. It's fair to say that much has happened since the law was adopted back in 1993, and I propose that the committee will continue to engage in a deliberative process to hear perspectives from all sides of the debate, but particularly to understand the perspectives of the civilian and military leadership of the Department of Defense and the perspectives of ordinary servicemembers.

If we conclude that repeal is the appropriate course, the success of the change will hinge on our full understanding of the implications of the change and the development of a law and policy that will preserve the readiness and morale of our military forces. Certainly hearings will be at the heart of the committee's effort to determine those necessary facts.

Our Military Personnel Subcommittee has already held one hearing with outside experts. We will clearly need to hear the perspectives of the Department of Defense as well. Since the civilian leadership responsible for personnel matters within the Office of the Secretary of Defense has not yet been announced, I don't believe it would be appropriate to begin a formal reassessment process until the new Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness has been allowed to settle into the position. But the committee will continue to hold hearings.

Mr. Chairman, let me flash back to a previous amendment, the Akin-Forbes amendment. I just received a letter from the Assistant Secretary of Defense, dated today, regarding that amendment, which reads in part, While the Department supports transparency in government, we find the amendment as written directing the Secretary of Defense to submit a report on every employee covered under a nondisclosure agreement as overly burdensome and counterproductive in meeting the security challenges of today.

I yield 1 minute to my friend, my colleague, also a member of the Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

At this time, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Walz).

I certainly thank the gentleman for that. I yield 1 minute to my friend, a very special lady, the Chair of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development and FDA, the gentlelady from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

May I inquire, Mr. Chairman, the time remaining, please.

At this time, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. McMahon).

I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney)

Mr. Chairman, we have no more speakers on this en bloc amendment. I yield back.

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to H. Res. 572, I offer amendments en bloc entitled No. 4.

Mr. Chairman, I urge the committee to adopt the amendments en bloc, all of which have been examined by both the majority and the minority.

At this time, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Griffith).

I yield one minute to the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Castor).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, a member of the Armed Services Committee, the gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo).

Let me take this opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to recognize several of our staff who, after wonderful service, are going on to new challenges in their careers:

Loren Dealy, who will handle communications for the Office of Legislative Affairs at the Department of Defense; Frank Rose who is off to work on strategic weapons and missile defense issues at the State Department; Bill Natter, who recently left to be the Deputy Under Secretary of the Navy; Sasha Rogers, who is off to get a master's of public policy; Christine Lamb, who is off to get an MBA; and Ben Glerum, who will be working on a law degree.

In addition, I wish to recognize those unsung heroes who allow our staff to put together a bill of this enormous size and complexity. Those staff members who are called staff assistants: Andrew Tabler, Zach Steacy, Liz Drummond, Megan Putnam, Rose Ellen Kim, Caterina Dutto, Kathleen Kelly, Mary Kate Cunningham, Scott Bousom, Trey Howard, Cindi Howard, Derek Scott and Katy Bloomberg all deserve a special thanks.

And I also want to thank Joe Hichen for a long effort with us, as well as Alicia Haley. Without their hard work, coordination, and patience, we would not be as successful as we are today.

A final thanks to the team in the Office of Legislative Counsel led by Sherry Chriss, and the Parliamentarians who provide such excellent support. We thank them, and we are very grateful for their hard work.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, let me say a special word of thanks to our ranking member, Buck McKeon. As we welcome you and you are off and running, you are doing an excellent job, and we thank you for your first-class efforts in making this come to pass. You've done wonderfully, and we should all be very grateful to you.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman. And I stand in support of the Connolly amendment to section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act, which provides an exception for certain generally available fuels while retaining the greenhouse gas emission standard that 526 sets for new alternative fuels.

Let me, Mr. Chairman, say a word of thanks. We have thanked the staff, under the leadership of Erin Conaton. They have just done so very, very well. And we thank the members, Buck McKeon, who is doing so well, and the subcommittee chairmen and the ranking members all made their excellent statements. But there is one group we need to give a special thanks to, and that's the young men and young women in uniform as well as the civilian employees of the Department of Defense. They are very special, and we are appreciative and very grateful for their efforts.

I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, this is one of the most interesting motions to recommit I have ever seen. In truth, in fact, in looking it over, which is a multipage motion, it is an effort to rewrite the work of two subcommittees within the Armed Services Committee, the Strategic Forces Subcommittee and the Air and Land Subcommittee.

And we have already, a few moments ago, discussed at length on this floor a good part of this, which is the missile defense area, which we gave $9.3 billion toward. But what I really find interesting in this is that the budget will cut the cleanup for radioactive waste and special materials in half.

At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Mrs. Tauscher), the subcommittee chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Hawaii, the chairman of the Air and Land Subcommittee, Mr. Abercrombie.

How much time is remaining, please?

I thank the gentlelady. I thank the gentleman. This is a bad motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.