Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, let me take this opportunity to thank my friend from California for being such a gentleman and for his courtesy not just this year but through the years. We appreciate it very, very much and also his very thoughtful words a moment ago. Mr. Speaker, we thank Duncan Hunter very much.

Leaving us is Lane Evans, a gentleman who was a marine and served here and is on the top row of our committee, ranking member for so long for the Veterans' Affairs Committee; and we say a fond farewell to him and thank him for his excellent service to the Nation.

Joel Hefley, who, as the chairman has spoken so well of, has been such a good friend to all through the years. Jim Gibbons, who is going into other political pursuits, we certainly wish him well. Dr. Schwarz, Cynthia McKinney also will not be coming back. We wish them Godspeed in the days ahead.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the National Defense Authorization Act. It is, as you may know, named in honor of Senator John Warner, who is for the last time, under the rules of the Senate, chairing the Armed Services Committee. We thank him for his accomplishments with the Armed Services Committee as chairman. He is responsible in large measure for many of the compromises that were allowed under this bill.

This is a good bill. It is good for America. It is good for the troops. It deserves our support. This wartime bill authorizes a total of $462.9 billion and, as was mentioned by the chairman a few moments ago, $70 billion authorization for a bridge fund supplemental, of which $20 billion is for the reset of the equipment lost or damaged in operations overseas.

As many have heard me speak, I am terribly concerned about the readiness of our ground forces, our Army, our Marines; and this bill provides the critically needed downpayment to begin to set things right.

Under the testimony of General Schoomaker, it is not only for the Army, some $17 billion needed this year, but 12 billion reset dollars for over the next several years apiece. And we know the Army and Marine Corps equipment is wearing out, and we do know that some units are coming back to little or no equipment whatsoever. That has a serious readiness challenge, particularly in the Army and the Marines. Our ground forces must be, in the days and years ahead, prepared to deal with sustained deployment not just in Iraq and Afghanistan but who knows what the future will hold.

I have been blessed, Mr. Speaker, to represent the Fourth District of Missouri. This is my 30th year here in Congress. And during that 30 years, there have been 12 engagements in which American forces have been either deployed or used, some minor, some major. And if the future is anything like the past, we will have times when our forces will need to be prepared to be called on, to be used, if nothing else, to deter aggression or adventurism in the years ahead by other countries. And it is a serious matter to make sure that the reset comes to pass and that the readiness is corrected.

Of course, the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan demand our immediate attention, but we cannot afford to lose sight of other security challenges that loom across the road.

We are getting seven new ships for the Navy and recommend some $400 million for advanced procurement of a second VA-class submarine. We have a multiyear procurement contract for the F-22, and other aircraft is on the books for us to authorize and build.

I am most pleased about what the bill does for our magnificent men and women in the Armed Forces and their families. The end strength for the Army and Marines has increased by 30,000 and 5,000, for the Army and Marines respectively. In addition, this year we are able to enact an initiative

first proposed by the gentleman from Mississippi, Gene Taylor. This conference report expands the TRICARE Reserve Select to members of the Selected Reserves and terminates the current three-tier eligibility program. I am also particularly glad to note that there is a 1-year moratorium on increases on TRICARE and pharmacy fees. I had offered a similar amendment in committee, and I am pleased that that was included in the final product.

I am proud to say that we are able to provide our servicemembers with a well-deserved 2.2 percent pay raise and a targeted pay raise for those mid-grade and senior noncommissioned officers and warrant officers who truly are the backbone of our military.

These are just a few examples of why this is a critical bill at this critical time.

Mr. Speaker, much has been said about Iraq. Much has been said about the fight against terrorism, which has the genesis in Afghanistan. But the bright spot in all of this is the young man and young woman who wear the American uniform. There is no way for us to say as eloquently as we should thank you for your service. And a special note of gratitude for the families of the young men and young women in uniform, to be called on for a year, one, two, three, and in some cases I know some SEALs that have been deployed four times for 7 months at a time. And there is no way really to say thank you well enough to the families that endure this: the spouses; the children; and in some cases, yes, the grandchildren, for which the chairman and I share a mutual interest.

So let this bill be a tribute to their service, a thank you for their service, and a warm note of appreciation to the spouses and children of those magnificent warriors wearing the American uniform.

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I really want to say a special personal thanks to you for the tremendous work you have done on our committee and in working with me in particular for helping Whiteman Air Force Base, Ft. Leonard Wood, Missouri, be what it is. I would be remiss if I did not just say a special note of gratitude to you, Joel Hefley.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz), the ranking member on Readiness.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from El Paso, Texas (Mr. Reyes), who is also the ranking member of the Strategic Subcommittee on the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the hardworking gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), a member of the Projection and Terrorism Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder), the ranking member on the Personnel Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, may I make an inquiry as to the time remaining for each side, please?

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Members have the right to revise and extend their remarks this evening.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), who is the ranking member of the Projection Subcommittee, a true friend of those who wear the uniform of our country.

Mr. Speaker, good things happen and we Members, of course, often take the credit, but truthfully the staff does so much work. We would be at a loss without them, so a special thanks to all of our staff.

And it is special to note that Betty Gray of the Armed Services staff is now completing 30 years of service on our Armed Services staff. So a special thanks to her for her dedication.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Long Island, New York (Mr. Israel), who belongs to the Tactical Air and Projection Subcommittee and who has taken a great interest in professional military education.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

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

Mr. Speaker, the great Roman orator, Cicero, once said that the greatest of all virtues is gratitude, and I am filled with gratitude at this moment, Mr. Speaker, for our chairman Duncan Hunter, for the members of this committee, the ranking members, subcommittee chairmen, every member, as well as our hardworking and dedicated staff.

I think it is also a moment like this when we are getting ready to pass a defense bill which fulfills the first duty of Members of Congress and of our government to protect the citizens of our country.

A special note of gratitude and appreciation should go to those who wear the uniform of our country, to those who have worn the uniform of our country, to those who have sacrificed, and especially to those tremendously supportive families of those who serve in our various services.

With that, a great moment of reflection and gratitude, Mr. Speaker, I say thank you.

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

Mr. Speaker, in 1926, Sir Gerald Ellison published the book, ``Perils of Amateur Strategy,'' the subject of which was a disastrous British campaign at Gallipoli in 1915. Here we are, in 2006, and we find that the Bush administration is busy writing its sequel, ``Perils of Amateur Strategy II,'' about the misadventure of the American attempt in Iraq. The high hopes of bringing stability and democracy are fading, mainly because of strategic mistakes that were avoidable.

These mistakes include the diplomatic failure to ensure passage for our troops through Turkey at an early phase of the war; disbanding the Iraqi army; failure to control the looting after the fall of Baghdad; the failure to secure the weapons caches; and of course the failure to use enough troops to successfully complete the mission.

In addition thereto, Mr. Speaker, on another subject, I note the failure of this Congress to fully implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Mr. Speaker, we must not adjourn until we pass those recommendations into law, which will prepare us against future terrorist attacks.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I hasten to correct you. The Democrats did have a proposal in the Armed Services Committee, as you well know. Please give us credit for offering that.

Mr. Speaker, if you want to be tough on terrorists, pass a statute that will meet the scrutiny of the Supreme Court of our country. If you want to be tough on terrorists, let's not pass something that rushes to judgment and has legal loopholes that will reverse a conviction. Once a conviction occurs, you want it to stick.

Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of practicing law a good number of years as a small town country lawyer, and part of that I was prosecuting attorney for Lafayette County, and I know what it is to obtain a hard-fought conviction of a criminal. And the specter that hangs over every prosecuting attorney on every case that is tried is a specter of that case being reversed on appeal.

There are two manners by which a case may be reversed. One is, of course, something went wrong in the evidence or the instructions, something occurred during the trial, maybe even a comment by one of the counsel. The other is a constitutional question regarding the statute on which the defendant was convicted. That's what we deal with here.

I am concerned that portions of the statute that you are attempting to pass will give an appellate court the opportunity to reverse the case and send it back. That bothers me.

I had an amendment that would give an expedited procedure. It was not allowed. Mrs. Tauscher of California had an amendment regarding common article 3 of the Geneva Convention. Ms. Harman had one regarding interrogation techniques. Ms. Sanchez had one regarding appeals process. And Mr. Meehan had one regarding habeas corpus, and they were all turned down.

I have in my possession a letter from the chief counsel to the commissions, Colonel Dwight H. Sullivan. And in this letter he points out just what I am talking about. We should have an expedited procedure, which my amendment would have given, so if there are flaws, and I think there are flaws in this statute, and he does, too, as I will point out, you should have it corrected and give this Congress an opportunity to correct it as quickly as possible.

Department of Defense,

Office of the Chief Defense Counsel,

Washington, DC, September 26, 2006.

Re Military Commission Act of 2006

Hon. Duncan Hunter,

Hon. Ike Skelton,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Hunter and Ranking Member Skelton: I am

writing to express my views on the desirability of requiring

that the Federal courts provide expedited review of any new

military commission system. I am the Chief Defense Counsel

for the Office of Military Commissions and I am writing in

that capacity. I do not purport to speak for the

Administration, the Department of Defense, or any other

entity.

In December 2005, Congress adopted legislation to preclude

habeas corpus relief for Guantanamo detainees. Of course, in

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court interpreted that

legislation as applying only to future habeas petitions and

not to habeas cases that had already been filed. If the

Supreme Court had ruled the other way--an

outcome that the current version of the Military Commission

Act of 2006 would achieve--the results would have been

disastrous.

In Hamdan, the Supreme Court declared that the old military

commission system was ``illegal.'' Having been intimately

familiar with the actual practice in the old military

commission system, I agree with the Supreme Court that the

old system would not have produced trials that were fair or

that appeared to be fair. If the Detainee Treatment Act of

2005 had been interpreted as applying retroactively, then I

would be in Guantanamo Bay today for a military commission

trial. The decision by the Supreme Court declaring the system

illegal wouldn't have come for years. The result then would

be to wipe out many convictions obtained at a cost of tens of

millions of dollars. Thank goodness the Supreme, Court

reviewed the military commission system when it did.

Many aspects of the Military Commission Act of 2006 will be

the subject of constitutional challenge. And whatever bill

Congress passes will be the subject of judicial scrutiny. As

Justice Kennedy noted in his crucial Hamdan concurrence,

``Because Congress has prescribed these limits, Congress can

change them, requiring a new analysis consistent with the

Constitution and other governing laws.'' Hamdan v. Rumsfeld,

126 S. Ct. 2749, 2808 (2006) (Kennedy, J., concurring)

(emphasis added).

Consider, for example, the bill's approach to hearsay

evidence conflicts with the most basic Anglo-American concept

of the right to confront one's accuser. The bill appears to

set up a system in which an individual can be convicted--and

possibly sentenced to death--on the basis of mere written

statements. It would allow an individual to be sentenced to

death without ever having the opportunity to look his accuser

in the eye and subject him to cross-examination. As Justice

Scalia has written for the Supreme Court, our Founding

Fathers adopted the Confrontation Clause in response to

arguments that ``[n]othing can be more essential than the

cross examining [of] witnesses, and generally before the

triers of the facts in question. . . . [W]ritten evidence . .

. [is] almost useless; it must be frequently taken ex parte,

and but very seldom leads to the proper discovery of truth.''

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 49 (2004) (quoting

Richard Henry Lee, Letter IV by the Federal Farmer (Oct. 15,

1787), reprinted in 1 Bernard Schwartz, The Bill of Rights: A

Documentary History 469, 473 (1971)). The military commission

system established under this legislation is vulnerable to

constitutional challenge along these lines, and many others.

It is in everyone's interest to know sooner, rather than

later, whether the new system is unconstitutional. If not, it

is in everyone's interest to fix the legislation sooner

rather than later.

Instead of seeking to delay judicial assessment of the

military commission system, Congress should expedite it. The

Military Commissions Act should provide for a three-judge

district court to immediately hear a challenge to the

constitutionality of the new system. In the Bipartisan

Campaign Reform Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107-155, 116 Stat. 81,

Congress anticipated a constitutional challenge and set up a

system to quickly resolve such a challenge. That approach

succeeded spectacularly. See McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93

(2003). If the new military commission system is

constitutionally permissible, allow it to proceed with the

judiciary's imprimatur. If, as I believe, it is

constitutionally deficient, then allow the judiciary to

quickly identify its faults so that they can be corrected.

But regardless of whether you agree with such an expedited

approach, attempting to prevent the courts from, analyzing

the new military commission system for years is the worst

approach of all. I urge you to reject the portions of the

Military Commission Act of 2006 that would deprive the

federal courts of any ability to review the military

commission system until after it has produced a final

conviction.

I would be happy to provide any additional information. The

best way to contact me is by e-mail at

[email protected].

Very Respectfully,

Dwight H. Sullivan,

Colonel, USMCR.

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

Mr. Speaker, we need to be tough on the terrorists, but we also need to be tough with certainty. I oppose this legislation because it lacks the certainty that we require.

As a former prosecuting attorney from yesteryear, Mr. Speaker, I remember the specter that hangs over every prosecutor's head after successfully prosecuting a criminal, and that specter is that the Supreme Court will reverse that hard-won conviction.

I am terribly concerned that this is not tough enough because it does not bring about the certainty of a conviction being upheld and standing the scrutiny of our Supreme Court.

This is a constitutional issue. The debate today will undoubtedly go down in the annals of our country as being one that stands out as a study in constitutional law and duty thereunder. Our duty as Members of Congress is to uphold the Constitution. That is what I intend to do in my speech and in my vote.

But also it is our duty to pass legislation that is constitutional. I have serious questions as to whether this is constitutional or not.

I received a letter from the Chief Counsel of the tribunals that exist, Colonel Dwight Sullivan, who said, ``If the new military commission system is constitutionally permissible, allow it to proceed with the judiciary's imprimatur. If, as I believe, it is constitutionally deficient, then allow the judiciary to quickly identify its faults so they can be corrected.''

I offered an amendment to the Rules Committee that would provide for expedited review by the court system, and it was turned down.

What is so bad is that a case goes cold, witnesses disappear, witnesses die. It would be an absolute injustice for a despicable terrorist, once convicted, to have that conviction overturned, and you can't try it again. Some of these people are absolutely the worst of the worst. That is why we need certainty in the law, and that is what we do not have here.

There are numerous constitutional challenges regarding this legislation. I will mention them:

The provisions that strip the Federal courts of jurisdiction over habeas corpus.

Second, article I of the Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws. That is what this creates.

Third, it is questionable as to whether under article III of the Constitution the Supreme Court would uphold a system that purports to make the President the final arbiter of the Geneva Convention.

Fourth, the provisions regarding coerced testimony may be challenged under three amendments to our Constitution.

Fifth, the right to confront witnesses and evidence. It also, among other things, has legislation containing the broadest of hearsay rules.

Sixth, the violation of the exceptions clause under article III.

Seventh, the challenges on equal protection and other constitutional grounds.

We want certainty, Mr. Speaker. We want these people, once tried, to be convicted and that conviction upheld. If we pass a law full well knowing that there are provisions in here that would allow them a get- out-of-jail-free card or to have a death sentence reversed, we are doing wrong. We are doing wrong according to our duty, and we are doing wrong in representing the people of our country.

We need certainty as well as toughness. Without certainty, we will not be tough on these terrorists.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), ranking member of the Intelligence Committee.

(Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

Mr. Speaker, at the request of the Democratic leader, I submit for the Record a letter from various religious organizations dated September 27.

September 27, 2006.

Dear Representative: We are writing to strongly encourage

you to reject the ``compromise'' Military Commissions Act of

2006 and to vote no on final passage of the bill. More than

anything else, the bill compromises America's commitment to

fairness and the rule of law.

For the last five years the United States has repeatedly

operated in a manner that betrays our nation's commitment to

law. The U.S. has held prisoners in secret prisons without

any due process or even access to the Red Cross and has

placed other prisoners in Guantanamo Bay in a transparent

effort to avoid judicial oversight and the application of

U.S. treaty obligations. The federal government has operated

under legal theories which dozens of former senior officers

have warned endanger U.S. personnel in the field and has

produced legal interpretations of the meaning of ``torture''

and ``cruel, inhuman and degrading'' treatment which had to

be abandoned when revealed to the public. Interrogation

practices were approved by the Department of Defense which

former Bush Administration appointee and General Counsel of

the Navy Alberto Mora described as ``clearly abusive, and * *

* clearly contrary to everything we were ever taught about

American values.'' According to media reports the CIA has

used a variety of interrogation techniques which the United

States has previously prosecuted as war crimes and routinely

denounces as torture when they are used by other governments.

Instead of finally coming to grips with this situation and

creating a framework for detaining, interrogating and

prosecuting alleged terrorists which comports with the best

traditions of American justice, the proposed legislation will

mostly perpetuate the current problems. Worse, it would seek

to eliminate any accountability for violations of the law in

the past and prevent future judicial oversight. While we

appreciate the efforts various members of Congress have made

to address these problems, the ``compromise'' falls far short

of an acceptable outcome.

The serious problems with this legislation are many and

this letter will not attempt to catalogue them all. Indeed,

because the legislation has only just been made available,

many of the serious flaws in this long, complex bill are only

now coming to light. For instance, the bill contains a new,

very expansive definition of enemy combatant. This definition

violates traditional understandings of the laws of war and

runs directly counter to Pres. Bush's pledge to develop a

common understanding of such issues with U.S. allies. Because

the proposed definition of combatant is so broad, the

language may also have potential consequences for U.S.

civilians. For instance, it may mean that adversaries of the

United States will use the definition to define civilian

employees and contractors providing support to U.S. combat

forces, such as providing food, to be ``combatants'' and

therefore legitimate subjects for attack. Yet, there has been

no opportunity to consider and debate the implications of

this definition, or other parts of the bill such as the

definitions of rape and sexual abuse.

We strongly oppose the provisions in the bill that strip

individuals who are detained by the United States of the

ability to challenge the factual and legal basis of their

detention. Habeas corpus is necessary to avoid wrongful

deprivations of liberty and to ensure that executive

detentions are not grounded in torture or other abuse.

We are deeply concerned that many provisions in the bill

will cast serious doubt on the fairness of the military

commission proceedings and undermine the credibility of the

convictions as a result. For instance, we are deeply

concerned about the provisions that permit the use of

evidence obtained through coercion. Provisions in the bill

which purport to permit a defendant to see all of the

evidence against him also appear to contain serious flaws.

We believe that any good faith interpretation of the

definitions of ``cruel, inhuman and degrading'' treatment in

the bill would prohibit abusive interrogation techniques such

as waterboarding, hypothermia, prolonged sleep deprivation,

stress positions, assaults, threats and other similar

techniques because they clearly cause serious mental and

physical suffering. However, given the history of the last

few years we also believe that the Congress must take

additional steps to remove any chance that the provisions of

the bill could be exploited to justify using these and

similar techniques in the future.

Again, this letter is not an attempt to catalogue all of

the flaws in the legislation. There is no reason why this

legislation needs to be rushed to passage. In particular,

there is no substantive reason why this legislation should be

packaged together with legislation unrelated to military

commissions or interrogation in an effort to rush the bill

through the Congress. Trials of the alleged ``high value''

detainees are reportedly years away from beginning. We urge

the Congress to take more time to consider the implications

of this legislation for the safety of American personnel, for

U.S. efforts to build strong alliances in the effort to

defeat terrorists and for the traditional U.S. commitment to

the rule of law. Unless these serious problems are corrected,

we urge you to vote no.

Sincerely,

Physicians for Human Rights; Center for National Security

Studies; Amnesty International U.S.A.; Human Rights

Watch; Human Rights First; American Civil Liberties

Union; Open Society Policy Center; Center for American

Progress Action Fund; The Episcopal Church; Jewish

Council for Public Affairs; Presbyterian Church (USA),

Washington Office; Maine Council of Churches;

Pennsylvania Council of Churches; Wisconsin Council of

Churches; Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law School;

Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Center for Human Rights;

Center for Constitutional Rights; The Bill of Rights

Defense Committee; Unitarian Universalist Service

Committee; Leadership Conference of Women Religious;

Center for Human Rights and Global Justice, NYU School

of Law; The Shalom Center; Washington Region Religious

Campaign Against Torture; The Center for Justice and

Accountability; Center of Concern; Justice, Peace &

Integrity of Creation Missionary Oblates; Rabbis for

Human Rights--North America; Humanist Chaplaincy at

Harvard University; No2Torture.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. MORAN of Virginia . I thank my good friend, an inspirational leader on the Armed Services Committee.

I oppose this bill. It would send a message to the world that the United States can disregard international treaties and law and, instead, do as it pleases. For generations, we have been the beacon to guide the actions of other nations. If we descend from the high moral ground, we are, in effect, losing ground to the terrorists.

Secretary of State Colin Powell was so accurate when he said, part of this war on terrorism is an ideological and political struggle. Our moral posture is our best weapon to prevail in that struggle.

Mr. Speaker, this is not a good bill. Since the inception of the Geneva Conventions 60 years ago, no other country in the world has tried to undermine and negate its provisons its spirit as this bill would.

For enemy combatants, the bill eliminates the right of habeas corpus. This is a right enshrined in our Constitution that may be abandoned only, and I quote, ``when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.'' The elimination of habeas is not just illegal, it is flat out wrong.

The purpose of habeas corpus is simple. It is to avoid injustice, to avoid the detention by government of any individual that is erroneous, unwarranted, or in violation of law. This purpose and the values from which it stems do not distinguish among individuals or circumstances. They seek to avoid any injustice to any detained individuals.

All Americans want to hold terrorists accountable, but if we try to redefine the nature of torture, whisk people into secret detention facilities and use secret evidence to convict them in special courts, our actions do, in fact, embolden our enemies more than any extremist rhetoric could ever do.

This bill needs to be defeated.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the amount of time remaining?

May I inquire, Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman choose to close?

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).

Mr. Speaker, this is a day in constitutional history that will stand out like Mars at perihelion. We want tough, but we also want certainty in any conviction that comes from this tribunal; and I am fearful, Mr. Speaker, that this legislation is an invitation for reversal by the Supreme Court.

We want to be tough on those despicable people, but we also want a conviction to withstand the scrutiny of our Supreme Court and our judicial process.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

I am, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is our obligation in this body to fix the deficiencies in this system in order to bring terrorists to justice. My motion to recommit with instructions would add two important elements to the bill that address this basic concern. First, it would require an expedited constitutional review of the entire matter. That is what we need. Second, it would require reauthorization of these military commissions after 3 years.

Expedited judicial review is a well-known way to improve legislation for which legal challenges can be anticipated, and we can be sure that the military commissions system created by this bill will be subject to change. We can provide for expedited review of civil actions challenging the legality of this act by creating a three-judge panel of the D.C. District Court that would hear the actions. The U.S. Supreme Court would then review a judgment or review an order of the panel on an expedited basis.

This type of provision is routinely placed in novel legislation. It was part of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill, part of the Voting Rights Act, and part of the Communications Decency Act.

The motion to recommit would also require that Congress reauthorize these military commissions after 3 years and would allow any action before a military commission begun before 2010 to go forward, but it would require an educated debate on reauthorizing this system after we have had some real-world experience with this new judicial process.

There is ample precedent for requiring reauthorization for controversial measures passed in a hurry in times of conflict. Most recently, Mr. Speaker, the PATRIOT Act contained reauthorization, or sunset, provisions. And taken together, Mr. Speaker, these two provisions will significantly improve the flawed legislation that we have before us today.

We need not only to be tough. We need to be certain. And my motion to recommit would make this more certain that those despicable terrorists would be brought to justice.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, it has come to my attention that a number of officials from Barton County, Missouri, are retiring this year after serving the public for a number of years.

I have had the privilege of representing Barton County in the United States Congress on two occasions. Barton County lies in the southwestern part of the Fourth Congressional District. Its county seat of Lamar is the birthplace of President Harry S. Truman, and the people who live there today personify the same common sense, hard working, Show-Me State values that made President Truman an outstanding president and global leader. I am honored to represent these fine Missourians in the United States Congress and to have had the privilege to work with many of these outstanding public officials.

Presiding Commissioner Gerald Miller was born in Idaho but moved to Missouri as a child. He graduated from Lamar High School in 1958 and has been active in the community since that time. Since 1999, Mr. Miller has served as Presiding Commissioner and has worked tirelessly to improve the communities he represents. He is a member of the Lamar Metro Club, the Abou Ben Adhem Shrine, and the Lamar Masonic Lodge. He is a successful businessman who is married to Brenda Rinehart--and has two sons, Mark and Matt.

County Clerk Bonda Rawlings is a lifelong resident of Barton County. She graduated from Lamar High School in 1971 and has dedicated much of her life to bettering her community. Since 1983, she has served as the Barton County Clerk and has been a leader in the State Association of County Clerks, serving as president in 1996. While working full time, she is also a member of the Barton County Chamber of Commerce, the Lamar Art League, the Barton County Historical Society, the Truman Area Transportation System, and the Lamar High School Booster Club. In all of these organizations, Mrs. Rawlings has held a leadership position. Bonda is married to Bill Rawlings and has two sons, Stan and Steve.

Circuit Clerk Jerry Moyer has spent his adult life serving the City of Lamar and is a graduate of Golden City High School. In 1976, he graduated from the College of the Ozarks with a degree in criminal justice administration. Mr. Moyer has served as the Clerk of the Circuit Court in Barton County since 1983 and has been a leader among his colleagues, serving as president of the Circuit Clerk and Recorders Association in 1994. Mr. Moyer previously served as Deputy Sheriff, a police officer, and a Deputy Juvenile Officer. He is active in the First Assembly of God Church, the Lamar Rotary Club, and the Freedom Singers gospel choir. Jerry Moyer is married to Jena Moyer and has a daughter named Tiffany.

Recorder of Deeds Jean Keithly has lived in Barton County all her life and is a graduate of Lamar High School. From 1984 to 2003, she served as the Deputy Recorder of Deeds in Barton County. In 2003, she became the first elected Recorder of Deeds in Barton County since 1935, when the office had been combined with the Circuit Clerk's office. Mrs. Keithly has been an active member of the Recorder's Association of Missouri for 22 years. She is a long-time member of the Hopewell Cumberland Presbyterian Church and has been an outstanding charitable volunteer. Mrs. Keithly is married to Bob Keithly and has two children, Michael and Teresa.

Deputy Assessor Dna Mullinax has lived in Golden City, Missouri, for the past 41 years and has worked at the Barton County Courthouse since 1983. Throughout her tenure, she has capably worked through many changes within her office and was especially instrumental in assigning emergency 911 addresses to rural Barton County homes. In 1998, Mrs. Mullinax received the ``Employee of the Year'' award, which was presented by the Lamar Rotary Club. She and her Husband, Rusty, have a shared family of seven children and ten grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, these five individuals represent the outstanding Missourians who live and work within Missouri's Fourth Congressional District. As they each prepare to spend time with their families and enjoy retirement, I know that my colleagues will join me in wishing them well.

Mr. Speaker, let me take this means to recognize the people of Fort Leonard Wood and Pulaski County, Missouri, for their commitment to improving the quality of life for military personnel.

In a recent study conducted by Expansion Management magazine and the Office of the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Military Communities and Family Policy, Fort Leonard Wood and Pulaski County ranked third among 126 civilian communities in the quality of life that they provide to military families. The ``2006 Military Communities of Excellence'' study compared the quality of life among these civilian communities in areas that include: public schools, housing affordability, standard of living, recreation and leisure, health care, crime and safety, spouse employment opportunities, continuing educational opportunities, affordable childcare, traffic and commuting, commercial air service, and Department of Defense Quality of Life legislative issues. It is also worth noting that Pulaski County placed third in the ``Top 10 Metros Overall Quality of Life, Communities with Military Populations over 20,000''.

Mr. Speaker, Fort Leonard Wood and Pulaski County, Missouri have dedicated valuable resources and time to earn this recognition. I know the Members of House will join me in recognizing this outstanding achievement.

Mr. Speaker, not long ago the Missouri legislature passed a law just like the one that we are considering today for the State of Missouri. Since I don't drive, I needed a nondriver's license identification card. I went in to the Lafayette County license bureau, waited like all the others for 45 minutes to see the very nice young lady, and I told her that I needed a government, State of Missouri- issued nondriver's license identification card.

She said, ``I know you.'' Of course, she did. I produced the voting card identification card that I always carry with me. It has my picture, United States House of Representatives, the Honorable Ike Skelton, Member of Congress, Missouri Fourth District, No. 190465, and has a facsimile of my signature, 109th Congress, January 2005-2007.

She said that ought to do it, but let me call the Jefferson City Department of Revenue and check. She did, and they said, no, that is not enough identification for me. I would have to go get either a passport or a birth certificate. As I was running out of time, I thanked her, and I would come back at a later moment. Thus, I was turned down trying to get a Department of Revenue nondriver's license voter identification card.

A month later, just a few days ago with my passport, which was up here in Washington in my safe, I waited in line and did get my voter nondriver's license identification card. So I am pleased to tell you that I can vote in November.

I also should tell you that in recent days the law that was passed by the Missouri legislature was held to be unconstitutional by the trial judge in Jefferson City, Missouri. This law, if allowed to stand in our State, or on a Federal level, will disenfranchise some very nice people, particularly senior citizens who walk in without a photo ID or driver's license. I just thought I would share my personal experience with my friends and colleagues here in the House.

Mr. Speaker, let me take this means to recognize Command Sergeant Major James Harold Cheney, United States Army, as he completes a distinguished tour of duty in the United States Army.

Command Sergeant Major (CSM) James H. Cheney entered the United States Army on September 8, 1976, at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Since joining the U.S. Army, CSM Cheney has completed tours of duty at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri (on five occasions); Fort Rucker, Alabama; Camp Indian, Korea; Fort Lewis, Washington; Schofield Barracks, Hawaii; Fort Bragg, North Carolina; and Vilseck, Germany. Throughout his military career, CSM Cheney has served the White House Communications Agency where he was the NCOIC of the fabrications department and the Office of the Chief of Engineers at the Pentagon where he fulfilled the responsibilities as the Office of the Chief of Engineer Sergeant Major.

Additionally, CSM Cheney has been recognized for his service to the United States Army having held every Noncommissioned Officer leadership position culminating as the United States Army Garrison, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, Garrison Command Sergeant Major.

Highly respected within the Army leadership, CSM Cheney has been awarded the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, the Armed Forces Service Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, and the Good Conduct Medal. CSM Cheney has also received the Drill Sergeant Badge, the Jungle Expert Badge, the Army Staff Badge, and the Presidential Service Badge. The aforementioned awards and decorations are just a few of the many that CSM Cheney has been given.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honor for me to pay tribute to Command Sergeant Major James H. Cheney. I know my colleagues join me in thanking him for his service to his country and in wishing him well as he concludes his tour of duty with the United States Army.

Mr. Speaker, thank you.

I am very concerned about Iraq. Very concerned. The weather vane of the Iraqi fight has shifted clearly to the Iraqis. It is theirs to win or lose. General John Abizaid stated yesterday, ``It's very, very clear that in order to win in Iraq, the Iraqis have to assume more and more responsibility.''

Last week, there were two developments in Iraq that I feel need to be highlighted. First, the Marine Corps' chief of intelligence in Iraq has reportedly described the situation in the Sunni-dominated Anbar province as ``politically'' lost to al Qaeda. The second is the plan to secure Baghdad from the insurgents by encircling it with, for lack of a better word, a moat. The idea of a moat went out of style in the middle ages. Both of these reports paint a less than rosy picture of how we are faring in this war that has already cost so much in blood and treasure. These two developments indicate that our level of effort is insufficient to maintain control of the country.

On the basis of these and other reports, some analysts determined that the solution to our problems in Baghdad and the Anbar province is to send more troops to Iraq. This might sound like a plausible course of action except for the fundamental problem that there are no more units to send to Iraq. Oh, certainly we can surge units forward into combat, but there is no way we can sustain that increase for any significant period of time. The administration's poor planning and poor strategic choices in Iraq have depleted our military of equipment and manpower. Iraq has become a black hole, sapping our strategic base of resources. The readiness situation has become so bad that our nondeployed combat brigades report that if called today, they may not be fully ready to complete all of their wartime missions.

The fact that our ground force readiness has fallen to such a dangerous level risks emboldening our enemies both in Iraq and elsewhere in the world. We must act now to reverse this decline. Certainly spending more money on Army and Marine Corps readiness will help. The Congress has provided additional funds to reset Army and Marine Corps equipment. But even with that increased funding, it will take some time for our units to get healthy again. I also strongly urge the administration to submit a budget that realistically reflects the services' needs.

But unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, additional money will not be enough. We do not have the luxury of staying the course. The conflict in Iraq has depleted our ground forces and placed this country at strategic risk. We must start making significant progress in Iraq now, and the best way to do it is by transitioning the responsibility for Iraqi security to the Iraqis. I urge the administration to redouble its efforts to train and equip the Iraqi security forces.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Concurrent Resolution 419, which recognizes the efforts of the State of New York to establish the National Purple Heart Hall of Honor.

And, I recognize the gentlewoman from New York, Mrs. Sue Kelly, the sponsor of this measure for her efforts. One might wonder why the state of New York is leading the effort to establish a center that focuses on the history and importance of this honored military award. The reason is simple, in the summer of 1782, during the Revolutionary War; General George Washington devised two new badges, one of which was the Badge of Military Merit, which we know today as the Purple Heart.

General Washington at the time wrote ``. . . whenever any singularly meritorious action is performed, the author of it shall be permitted to wear on his facings over the left breast, the figure of a heart in purple cloth, or silk, edged with narrow lace or binding.'' Three soldiers are known to have received the original honor badge, Sergeant Daniel Bissell of the 2nd Connecticut Regiment of the Continental Line, Sergeant William Brown of the 5th Connectivity Regiment of the Continental Line, and Sergeant Elijah Churchill of the 2nd Continental Dragoons, also a Connecticut regiment. However, after the Revolution, the award feels into disuse and was not proposed for use again until after World War I.

In 1927, Army Chief of Staff General Charles P. Summerall directed that proposed legislation be sent to Congress to revive the Badge of Military Merit. However, it was not until 1931, when General Summerall's successor, General Douglas MacArthur pushed forward the idea to reinstitute the badge. It was on the 200th anniversary of George Washington's birth, February 22, 1932, that the War Department announced General Order No. 3, which established the Purple Heart.

In 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt extended the award to the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard, and established a uniform application of standards in the Army and Navy. President Harry S. Truman retroactively extended the eligibility for the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard back to April 5, 1917, and in 1962, President John F. Kennedy extended eligibility to any ``civilian national of the United States, who while serving under competent authority in any capacity with an armed force . . ., has been, or may hereafter be, wounded'' to qualify for the Purple Heart.

Mr. Speaker, the Purple Heart has an illustrious career and it is recognition of the enemy-related injuries a service member sustains. Today, there are more than 800,000 members of the Armed Forces who have been awarded the Purple Heart. The State of New York has been working to establish a National Purple Heart Hall of Honor at the New Windsor Cantonment in New Windsor, New York to provide a permanent place of remembrance of the service and sacrifices made by men and women in uniform throughout our nation's history. This resolution before us recognizes the efforts of the State of New York, and encourages the education and information on the history and importance of this distinguished combat award.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to join my colleagues today in recognition of National Historically Black Colleges and Universities Week.

Missouri's Fourth Congressional District is the home of Lincoln University, located in Jefferson City, Missouri. Yesterday, I was fortunate to have the opportunity to meet with Dr. Carolyn Mahoney, the President of Lincoln University, during her visit to Washington, DC.

Like all HBCUs, Lincoln University has a proud history. The school was founded in 1966 by soldiers of the 62nd and 65th Colored Infantries who established Lincoln Institute for African Americans interested in continuing their education. Today, Lincoln University has the most diverse population of colleges and universities in the state of Missouri. U.S. News and World Report ranks Lincoln University as fourth in the Midwest for campus diversity and seventh in the Midwest for its international student population.

Although the University has many outstanding academic programs, I have been particularly impressed with Lincoln University's Cooperative Extension and Research programs, which provide valuable outreach to under served populations. I am also very proud of the University's ROTC programs, which train tomorrow's military leaders and continue Lincoln University's military heritage. I look forward to participating in the Blue Tiger Battalion's Veterans' Day commemorations this November, just as I have done for more years than I can remember. Lincoln also hosts an outstanding public radio station, KJLU-FM. In April 2006, KJLU was named the Black College Radio Station of the Year at the 28th Annual Black College Radio and Television Conference in Atlanta, Georgia.

Mr. Speaker, I am certain that the Members of the House will join me in congratulating the students and staff of Lincoln University for their accomplishments and in wishing them the best as we celebrate National Historically Black Colleges and Universities Week.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman, my good friend from California.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize September 11 as a national day of mourning, to commemorate and honor America's 5-year-long national sacrifice, and to warn of clear and present danger in the days ahead.

Our Nation will never forget the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. Nearly 3,000 innocent Americans perished in that day, and the lives of many thousands more were forever changed. The tools and the national power were mobilized to bring justice to those responsible.

To each and all experiencing personal loss, we honor and we pay respect. To each and all responding to the call of duty, we extend a note of appreciation. Their sacrifice in our Nation's initial response led to a successful military strike against terror strongholds in Afghanistan. As we all agreed, it was an impressive operational display of technological might. It was swift and it was right, and it enjoyed widespread support among the world's family and nations. In short, it was a step toward a more safe and secure environment for Americans.

Mr. Speaker, in the past 5 years, much of the initial gain has been squandered. We have failed to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. We found ourselves bogged down in a costly war in Iraq that detracts from our pursuit of those responsible for attacking American soil. We are also facing a resurgence in Afghanistan.

Our Nation is engaged in two wars, the first against terrorism; and the second, a war of choice to effect a regime change in Iraq, has dragged us into a sectarian clash on the verge of civil war. The war on terrorism rightfully continues, and by all account remains a war of necessity. In contrast, the war in Iraq was initiated with faulty intelligence, without proper planning and aftermath, that is, after the initial strike planning has created for our Nation a strategic risk.

More than 40 percent of Army and Marine Corps ground equipment is committed to the combat theater. That equipment is wearing out, according to experts, nine times faster than the normal rate. Not one Army combat brigade in the continental United States is fully ready for its wartime mission.

Simply put, the war in Iraq has sapped our strategic base and threatens to break our Army. Regrettably, our Nation is not safer than it was on September 10, 5 years ago. Because this war of choice has tapped our resources, our Nation's ability to confront future security challenges, it is less than it was only 5 years ago. That is a sad commentary, but sadly true.

As we commemorate the heroes of September 11 and beyond, let us not forget the solemn oath to protect and defend this Nation and to protect and defend our Constitution. Let us not forget our responsibility to take every step necessary to make America stronger, not weaker, than before. And let us never forget our duty to prevent the occurrence of another similar tragedy. We must have the best, we must have the most capable military to meet any threat that faces this wonderful Nation. If we fail in this endeavor, then we will surely have failed to honor the memory of those who have fallen

Mr. Speaker, on July 5, 1950, near the city of Osan in South Korea, North Korean forces faced a battalion of American soldiers who had been sent to stop the Korean advance. This battalion of 406 soldiers was undermanned, under-trained and poorly equipped. These soldiers fought a 7-hour battle that ended in retreat, and with 150 American infantrymen killed, wounded or missing.

This battalion was known as Task Force Smith, and its failure was due to a lack of readiness on the part of our military after World War II. Today, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that the low readiness levels of the Army and the Marine Corps are going to once again endanger our troops.

Mr. Speaker, I have spoken about readiness problems before. And it continues to concern me as this situation worsens. Let me be blunt. Our ground forces and their reserves face a crisis with manpower and equipment shortages and will be challenged to complete their missions should they be called to respond to an emergency.

Mr. Speaker, I have used the word ``readiness'' many times before. But I feel it necessary to clearly define its meaning. Readiness describes the condition of our military forces. It is a measure of how well they are manned, trained and equipped to complete the full range of missions necessary to defend our Nation.

This is why the falling readiness levels of our Army and our Marine Corps are so disturbing. They indicate that we may not be able to defend our Nation's interests wherever they may face challenges. The most striking example of this problem is with equipment. Over 40 percent of the Army and Marine Corps ground equipment is now deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan. It is wearing out as much as nine times faster than normal. Only 3 years in Iraq has placed as much as 27 years of wear on our equipment, forcing the Department of Defense to cannibalize the equipment of non-deployed units and the National Guard.

This cannibalization of equipment has left the Army without a single combat brigade in the Continental United States ready for all of their war-time missions.

Simply put, the war in Iraq is sapping our strategic base and leaving us with a broken Army. The Armed Services Committee is nearing agreement to add $20 billion to the Defense Authorization Act for next year to try to help fix this grave situation.

This will help, but the Department's readiness problems are too large to be fixed by a one-time investment. Together, the Army and Marine Corps need an astounding $29 billion in 2007 to repair or replace equipment damaged in Iraq and Afghanistan. The amount is only part of the overall bill that represents a snapshot in time of a problem that is large and continues to grow.

The problem has developed over time due to mismanagement and a failure on the part of the administration to adequately plan for Iraq. It cannot be solved overnight. Congress can continue to provide band- aids for readiness shortfalls by funding through supplementals, but the Army and Marine Corps are limping along. They cannot keep pace with falling readiness levels.

The only way to truly solve this problem is for the administration to commit to fully funding the needs of the Department of Defense. This country is at war. Americans have a right to expect the administration to realistically budget for national defense. The stakes are high. Mr. Speaker, we cannot afford another Task Force Smith.

Mr. Speaker, Iraq. A good number of people are confused when the name of that country is mentioned.

Let's be clear. Our country is engaged in two wars. The first is the war against terrorism, which has its genesis in Afghanistan with tentacles reaching throughout the world.

The terrorist group known as al Qaeda, headed by a man named Osama bin Laden, originated in Afghanistan and was protected by the former Afghan Taliban government. After the September 11, 2001, attacks on our country, which were sponsored by bin Laden's al Qaeda, our military forces struck the Taliban government and the al Qaeda strongholds in Afghanistan. Our military forces, along with allied and NATO forces, remain fighting the remnants of al Qaeda and the Taliban with the assistance of the Afghan National Army.

The attack by our military in the ongoing conflict was a war of necessity. The second war, our attack on Saddam Hussein's Iraq originated because of the alleged threat of weapons of mass destruction against America and our interests. This is a war of choice. After soundly defeating the military in open battle, our occupation of that troubled country came about without proper planning or resources.

Massive looting was allowed. The Iraqi Army was disbanded, without giving former soldiers paychecks and shovels, which caused many to turn against the American occupation. There were insufficient troop numbers to provide a successful military occupation and reconstruction.

Former Sunni Muslim Baathist regime elements formed the basis of a growing insurgency against the occupation forces. They were joined by foreign fighters, mainly al Qaeda, and numerous criminals who were recently released from prison by Saddam Hussein shortly before the conflict started.

In more recent days, a new source of violence has erupted in Iraq, sectarian religious violence with Shia and Sunni elements killing each other. According to a recent Pentagon report, sectarian bloodshed has pushed violence in Iraq to its highest level in more than 2 years. Preventing full-scale civil war is now the most urgent mission of the U.S. troops in that country.

Thus, this is the status of the Iraq war, which is a separate and distinct

war from that against the terrorists. The enemy in each conflict has different goals. The al Qaeda terrorist group wishes to establish a Muslim caliphate throughout the entire Middle East. The Iraqi insurgents' goal is to cause the existing Iraqi government to fail and to establish Sunni dominance in Iraq.

The Sunni Arab insurgency remains strong and viable. The sectarian violence overlays this initial struggle with the sectarian leaders such as Muqtada al-Sadr in the wings of the Shiite groups. On September 4, 2002, and again on March 18, 2003, before we invaded Iraq, I wrote the President warning of the instability in the months following the initial coalition victory.

Sadly, my warnings were of Cassandra-esque value. They were not heeded by the administration. So there we are, two conflicts, two wars, and the two should not be confused.

There are those who attempt to fuzz the two conflicts together as the war on terror, but the wars are truly separate and distinct. With the help of NATO troops, we made significant gains in Afghanistan, but these are in danger of being overturned if we relax our focus.

The picture is not so rosy in Iraq, which calls for a different policy and a different approach to bring about stability and representative government. The recent Pentagon report is not encouraging.

Madam Speaker, it has been said that politics is the art of compromise.

Today, the House is debating a bill that would designate a number of National Heritage Areas throughout the United States, including the Freedom's Frontier National Heritage Area in western Missouri and eastern Kansas. That portion of the bill, which was drafted by my good friend from Kansas, Congressman Jim Ryun, is the product of much negotiation and compromise, and I am pleased to lend my support to it.

As a student of history, I believe it is part of our government's responsibility to promote history education and to provide opportunities for the American people to learn about our nation's rich past. Doing so is critical to forming a more perfect union and to ensuring we do not repeat the mistakes of yesteryear.

The people of Missouri and Kansas have contributed a great deal to our nation. In many ways, the border region has mirrored the finest and darkest days in American history. From the bloody border conflicts that set the stage for the Civil War to our mutual struggle to expand the definition of freedom, Missourians and Kansans have played a role in this

history. In fact, two great leaders from this region, Harry S Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower, descendants of pioneers, found common purpose on the larger stage of world history and led the wartorn nations of the 20th century toward the fulfillment of democracy's promise.

The creation of the Freedom's Frontier National Heritage Area will allow local and state historical groups and governments to more easily tell our interesting regional story. It will encourage collaborative planning on historical projects and provide important federal resource opportunities for historical preservation.

I am pleased to have worked with Mr. Ryun on this bill and am especially grateful he agreed to a number of my suggested changes to his original legislation. The final work product will mean good things for the people of our great states and for the history of our country.

The people of Missouri and Kansas have faced many challenges through the years, and our relationship has not always been as pleasant as it is today. But, through friendship and compromise, we will now more easily be able to explain our regional history in a way that is acceptable to both Missourians and Kansans.