Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I am joined this evening by a number of colleagues interested in the safety of America and Americans, and concerned about the future of our military forces. We are speaking this evening because we have great reservations about the way America's national security policy is being conducted.

Sixty years ago next month, the American Army was welcomed into Paris with cheers and flowers and cries of ``Vive les Americains!'' We had fought a dogged and grueling war against the forces of a cruel dictator. And from every window and rooftop, a liberated populace honored the foreigners who restored their freedom.

Move forward 60 years to another war, another dictator, another country freed. To be sure, many Iraqis welcomed the American invasion and, for all the talk of coalition, this was an overwhelmingly American force. But those who welcomed our forces found they had to keep their voices low lest they become targets of those who rewarded their liberators with bombs and bullets.

We should not accept the appearance of an ungrateful Nation at face value. But neither should we idealize the occupation of Iraq.

It is increasingly clear that at a time when America should have focused its might on punishing those who, callously and in defiance of any known theology, attacked our country, and eliminating the threat they continued to pose, we allowed ourselves, Mr. Speaker, to be diverted.

What we see on TV every night is not the war on terror. The war in Iraq; really, now, the peacekeeping mission in Iraq, is costly and bloody and largely irrelevant. Was Saddam Hussein unpleasant? Yes. Did he bode U.S. ill? Without a doubt. But going to war against Saddam Hussein, taking people and resources away from the search for Osama bin Laden and the destruction of al Qaeda, is like the football defense that goes after the runner while the quarterback sneaks the ball across the goal line. We fell for the fake.

The real war on terror is the war to find and punish those who attacked this country and who would do so again. After nearly 3 years, their networks have been shattered, their organization has been bruised. But destroying such a strong and such a decentralized threat is very difficult. Any one man with a weapon of mass destruction is a superpower. The best we can do, militarily anyway, is to contain and keep the leadership incommunicado or on the run. That is the real war.

Is America safer with Saddam Hussein out of power? Probably. But is America safer because of the Iraq war? No, it is not. Because of the way we entered that war and the way in which we have handled the aftermath, I believe that we have increased the chances of another attack and, sadly, another war. We have incited the anger of millions who previously did not much like the United States, but probably would have been willing to live and let live. We have become the villain of millions of glittering eyes, and we did it to ourselves.

At the same time, we drove away stalwart friends whose company provided us with such strength. By forcing a political showdown on Iraq rather than focusing on the real war, the proven threat to all western civilization, we made our allies choose between the will of their people on the one hand and the relationship with the United States on the other, and it was unnecessary.

After September 11, the leaders of countless nations expressed their support to our President. Not one, not one called to gloat or said that we deserved what we got. NATO invoked Article 5 for the first time ever to come to the collective defense of the United States. They were all on our side, in the real war.

We chose to defy the will of the international community and take it upon ourselves to unilaterally enforce sanctions that were not solely America's to begin with. The Canadian Mounties cannot come to Lexington, Missouri to enforce Missouri law; that is the duty of the State of Missouri. Similarly, I do not believe it was right for the United States to act to enforce edicts that were not of our creation. That is why the United Nations was created. By taking it upon ourselves to literally become the world's policeman, we changed the view that many of our allies had of us. We became, in their view, not just a victim of a vicious attack, but a potential attacker ourselves.

Let me be candid, Mr. Speaker. I and some of those who will speak later voted to give the President the authority to move Saddam Hussein out. We did that based on the information at the time, much of which has since fallen into question. The former Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, General Jack Keane, told the Committee on Armed Services last week, ``We were seduced by the Iraqi exiles.''

But regardless of underlying data, nowhere in our votes did we say to go it alone. Never did we say that Iraq should take focus away from the real war. At the same time, I twice wrote to the President and pointed out that ejecting Saddam is one thing, but we have to plan to manage the aftermath. That clearly did not happen.

The peace has been managed far worse than the war, and it has been argued that the United States invasion was justified as an act of self- defense. Indeed, this administration changed the national security policy of our country to assert the right of the United States to preemptively attack anywhere we believe there might be a threat to our Nation.

We have debated, and I am sure we will continue to debate, whether the

policy of preemption is wise or in keeping with American values. But this much is clear. In order to preempt, in order to become an aggressor, in order to throw the first punch, we had better have clear, convincing and accurate intelligence that a real threat exists.

As we are seeing in the case of Iraq, our intelligence system is not yet ready to meet that standard. Until it is, a doctrine of preemption puts America in the black hat before the world. Whatever happened to the Weinberger doctrine? Whatever happened to the Powell doctrine?

Mr. Speaker, if a global black eye were the only consequence of our Iraqi adventure, it might be manageable. We could live with it. But to do that and to take energy and focus from finding the true villains of September the 11 and to enter into a war that was not clearly necessary and to strain local economies by calling up reserves, National Guard and even retired military to serve in that war and to drive a wedge in the alliance that kept peace for 60 years and to engage in a bloody and costly occupation and to stretch the American military forces to the breaking point and ultimately to inflame new generations to hate America, with all of that, I cannot see how America is in the end safer or better off because of this war.

The Soviet Union tried to put America in this strategic situation for half a century. We did it to ourselves in just a year. On top of that, we have created a huge new burden for America's military. I recently wrote that we could have forces in Iraq for 50 years. When I asked the Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz whether we would be in Iraq for a good many years, he said this is entirely possible, and he added, ``I cannot tell you how long that's going to take.''

I and many who stand with me have tried to be supportive of our President and our policies. We stand foresquare with the troops under fire and grieve for the families of those who have been lost, who, Mr. Speaker, come disproportionately from rural America. We stand with them. We cannot stand with the failure to prosecute the real war against those who attacked and continue to threaten our country. We do not oppose having a strong military, and we do not oppose using it, but we do oppose squandering it.

That is a question of priorities. Over $10 billion just this year on missile defense. Is the threat of foreign missiles the most serious one facing our country? Remember, this is not a defense against weapons of mass destruction. Those can be delivered in many ways. Missile defense addresses the delivery system with the highest cost and the lowest probability of being used against us. So why is it there that we spend the most?

The administration is devoting hundreds of millions a year to develop fighter planes that push the envelope of technology and knowledge, bold innovation, the edge, but the true threats to our country from people who have no fighter airplanes, have no aircraft carriers and have no satellites.

The war against terror is door to door and manpower-intensive, so spending all this money on other items should make us ask, where are our priorities?

Soldiers make the war on terrorism work, more than any doctrine or any system. Yet, the most personnel-intensive services, the army and the Marine Corps, are last in line for funding from the Defense Department. Where are our priorities? Why, Mr. Speaker, are we not throwing America's might into the real war?

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel). Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, let me thank my friend, the gentleman from the State of Oregon.

I now yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. Let me close by saying at the end of the day we all need to pay tribute to those wonderful, wonderful young men and young women in uniform, whether they come from Missouri, Washington, Ohio, New York, Florida, or all across our country. They are professionals. They know what their duty is, and we certainly wish to salute them this evening as well as the families that support them and wish well for them and of course pray for them.

Mr. Speaker, let me take this opportunity to pay tribute to Master Sergeant Benjamin R. McClellan upon his retirement from the United States Air Force.

MSGT McClellan has served our Nation with honor and distinction for over 20 years, and his performance throughout his career has been characterized by the highest standards of professional ethics and commitment. He entered into the United States Air Force in December of 1983, and attended his basic training at Lackland Air Force Base, TX. He has served our country in many capacities through the years but has finished his career as the NCOIC of Wing Protocol for the 509th Bomb Wing at Whiteman Air Force Base, MO.

MSGT Benjamin McClellan graduated summa cum laude from Friends University in Wichita, KS, with a Bachelor of Science Degree in Organizational Management and Leadership. He is currently completing his Masters of Business Administration from the University of Phoenix, Kansas City, MO.

MSGT McClellan's awards include the Air Force Meritorious Medal with one oak leaf cluster, the Air Force Commendation Medal with two oak leaf clusters, the Air Force Achievement Medal with three oak leaf clusters, the Good Conduct Medal with five oak leaf clusters, the Military Outstanding Volunteer Service Medal, and the National Defense Service Medal.

Mr. Speaker, I am certain that my colleagues will join me in wishing MSGT McClellan all the best. We thank him for over 20 years of service to the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the gentlewoman and wish to point out the fact that during the War Between the States the Presidential election continued on.

Mr. Speaker, in families there are always very special occasions. Before I enter into my special order this evening, I wish to announce that in our family we have had a wonderful addition this past Saturday afternoon, July 10. Abigail Anding Skelton was born over here in Maryland. She is absolutely a gorgeous young lady, and we are very happy for her, her wonderful parents, her cousins and aunts and uncles, as well as grandparents.

Mr. Speaker, as Americans review the facts and decide whether it was prudent and necessary for the President to send American troops to invade Iraq, let me remind my colleagues and the citizens across our country that it is possible to respectfully disagree with the President and still strongly support our troops.

I believe that all House Democrats support our men and women in uniform and are committed to ensuring that they have the tools they need to succeed in Iraq and Afghanistan, wherever they may be serving in the defense of our country.

Over 466,000 service members are currently deployed to 120 countries around the world, and nearly half of those are serving and doing so in dangerous and often deadly conditions in the Middle East. While the majority of the troops deployed are on active duty, nearly 30 percent are citizen-soldiers from the National Guard, as well as the Reserve, who volunteered to serve our Nation. These men and women have volunteered to leave behind their families, their loved ones, jobs and communities to defend the freedoms that we hold so dear.

Over 150,000 Reservists and National Guardsmen are currently deployed, which is nearly 18 percent of the total Reserve force. Since September 11, over 215,600 Reservists and Guardsmen have served their Nation both at home and abroad. Not since the first Persian Gulf War have so many served under such arduous conditions for so long.

While 18 percent may not seem very high, let me put it in a bit different perspective. Over 40 percent of the

Army National Guard has been mobilized and close to 46 percent of the Army Reserve has been called to active duty. The Marine Corps Reserve has seen 61 percent of its forces back in uniform full-time. Let me tell you that the Coast Guard Reserve has tapped nearly all of its Reservists; 99 percent have been recalled to active duty.

Why is it important that so many of our citizen-soldiers have been activated? Because I want people to know that our Nation has been committed to military action that is taxing both active duty and Reserve troops to the limit.

This is not just my personal opinion. General Richard Cody, the Army's Vice Chief of Staff, last week testified before the Committee on Armed Services, and I said, ``Are we stretched thin with our active and Reserve component forces right now?''

``Absolutely.'' Those are the words of General Cody.

Beyond General Cody, I want to relate a personal story. I recently spoke with the spouse of an activated National Guardsman. She described how her husband was still in Iraq and had been extended beyond one year per the agreement when he was called. She flat stated to me that at the end of his enlistment, he was going to get out of the military.

Mr. Speaker, we simply cannot afford to lose these good people from our military, and I worry about the nature and extent of our commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan and what they will cause our service members to do, maybe leave and cause others not to reenlist.

We have the finest military in history, we really do, and we simply cannot afford to squander it. Now we have recently learned that the Army is deploying to Iraq the opposition forces from the National Training Center at Fort Irwin, California, and the Joint Readiness Training Center at Fort Polk, Louisiana.

What makes the deployment of these forces particularly alarming is these are the troops that train our everyday forces that are getting ready to deploy to Iraq. We are deploying the trainers, a measure of last resort. That shows just how much we have stretched our forces to the limit.

More importantly, I worry about the consequences. The troops that we send in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan may not have the training they need to succeed and to survive.

Mr. Speaker, as many in this House know, I have been advocating an end strength increase, more troops, particularly for the Army, since 1995, when our committee first received testimony that the Army could use an additional 40,000 troops. What troubles me is that the administration continues to oppose an increase in the end strength for the Army and the Marine Corps.

Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, both the House and the Senate defense authorization bills include provisions for additional end strength, and I am committed to a conference outcome that makes this a reality. I know that other Democrats on the committee share this goal with me.

Just 3 years ago, the President addressed the soldiers of the 3rd Infantry Division at Fort Stewart, Georgia. He told them that they were overdeployed and needed more support. Since then, the members of the 3rd Infantry Division have been deployed to Kuwait for training exercises for nearly a year, only to be extended for the war in Iraq. After spending nearly a year in the desert, they came back to Fort Stewart, only to undergo a significant structural transformation. Recently members of the 3rd Infantry learned that they will be returning to Iraq for perhaps another year's deployment.

If the 3rd Infantry Division was already overdeployed in 2001, how can we honestly look these men and women in the eye and ask them to continue these levels of deployment, with no help in sight? To do so risks breaking faith with our troops and destroying the world's finest Army. That is not the way that a Nation should treat its troops or the families.

The increased operational demands in the military are clear. They will continue for some time in the future. In fact, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz recently told our committee that we could have a substantial military presence in Iraq for years. Assuming he is right, we need to do something now to make sure that our operational commitments do not overstretch our military to the breaking point.

What I think we should do is support our troops by ensuring that we have the additional manpower necessary to carry out the missions we ask of them. This is one way we can show support for our troops and recognize the sacrifices that they have made in the war on terrorism. I am personally committed to seeing that we have enough troops to do the job that our country asks of them.

I now yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez) for comments she might make.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Rhode Island, the distinguished gentleman, a member of the Committee on Armed Services, for his remarks.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek).

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from Florida. I might add that that is our job, the Committee on Armed Services and Congress, to have oversight of the military of the United States, to ask the tough questions, because we are the ones that give them the training, the education, the equipment, the materiel. That is what we do. If we do not ask the good, tough, honest, hard-hitting questions that come up from time to time, we are not doing our job.

So I thank the gentleman for raising that issue. It is not a partisan matter; it is a matter of constitutional duty that we ask questions and learn so we can be of even more help to those in uniform.

Mr. Speaker, I take great pleasure in yielding to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

Mr. Speaker, in closing, let me thank the gentleman from South Carolina for his excellent contribution today, as well as his outstanding contributions in the committee. We are the grandest civilization ever known in the history of mankind. As the gentleman from South Carolina just mentioned, we are the best. We have the finest military, strongest economy, and all of us at this time should realize what we really need to have for success in this war, this guerrilla warfare in Iraq and the war against terrorist in Afghanistan.

To begin with, we need additional troops. We must do our very best to make sure they have the equipment and the training and the munitions, but, more than that, we must let them know we support them with our words as well as with the deeds that we do here in Congress. And I would be remiss if I did not say that we should also say a special word of thanks to those wonderful families who support them, who are here at home hoping to

hear from their loved one in Iraq or Afghanistan and praying for them every day.

So, with that, Mr. Speaker, I say thank you to those who are in uniform today who are supporting this country in the most difficult way and especially to their families and all of the great love and support that they have.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to follow my friend from California (Mr. Hunter) in supporting this resolution. And I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) for cosponsoring this, and I am a cosponsor along with you.

June 30 should be a proud day for the Iraqi people, but one for which they are continuing to pay a heavy price. Today's coordinated bloody attacks demonstrate how much of a challenge they still face.

We congratulate the interim Iraqi government on the upcoming assumption of sovereignty. This is a great step, a real step toward a permanent government elected by the Iraqi people. I sincerely hope it works. Lasting peace and political progress will only come when Iraq is secure. This will remain an ongoing partnership between American forces and Iraqis for a long time.

I commend our troops; I commend their families. They have given so much and are feeling the real meaning of sacrifice every day. Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz confirmed to our Committee on Armed Services this week that our troops could be in Iraq for years.

We need a plan for our partnership with the Iraqis, to move the security of their country to them as soon as they are ready. Until then, I commend this resolution for its reiteration of the full authority of the U.S. commanders in Iraq over American forces. That is so important. I feel strongly that we should have a status of forces agreement. Without it, we need at least a clear statement that our commanders can do what they must do to protect our troops and accomplish their mission.

I join my colleagues in congratulating the Iraqi people. I urge strong support for this resolution.

Mr. Chairman, this is an important bill. It provides for the programs and activities in our national intelligence agencies. As the attacks of September 11, 2001, and the war in Iraq have taught us, timely and accurate intelligence is so vitally important in both protecting our country domestically as well as enabling us to act militarily.

I view this bill from the perspective of having served on the Committee on Armed Services for over 25 years, and also as a former member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Year in and year out, both of the bills from the Committee on Armed Services as well as Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence historically passed the House with broad bipartisan support.

That is why I am troubled by the path the intelligence authorization bill has taken this year. I cannot remember the last time an intelligence bill passed out of committee on a party line vote or when amendments offered in committee were all voted down on a party line. I am also disappointed that the Committee on Rules only made in order one Democratic amendment.

What is all the more disappointing is that apparently the reason for the posture of this bill is that the majority has been unwilling to provide as much funding for counterterrorism activities as intelligence agencies have told the committee they need. I would remind my colleagues that we are now in a war against terrorism. I would think that we should make sure that all the funding goes into the counterterrorist area.

So although this bill may provide an overall increase in funding, which is a positive note for these intelligence activities, the details really are important. It is unfortunate we cannot increase the budget in the places that need to have it the most; and though I will favor this bill, I must express my disappointment, my deep disappointment at the shortage in this area.

Mr. Speaker, let me take this opportunity to pay tribute to retiring Chief Master Sergeant Eddie E. Chitwood, the Chief Enlisted Manager of the 509th Maintenance Operations Squadron at Whiteman Air Force Base, for his service to our Nation.

CMSgt Chitwood's time in the USAF has been marked with many accomplishments through the years. He has excelled both in his 16 years as an Aircraft Maintenance Technician and in his 11 years in the field of Airlift Aerospace Maintenance. He attended both the Airman Leadership School at Luke Air Force Base and the Tactical Airlift Command NCO Academy, earning the title of Distinguished Graduate from each. During his time at Whiteman Air Force Base he received many other distinctions including: the Operations Group Warfighter Award, a 509th Bomb Wing SNCO of the Quarter, and the 509th Bomb Wing 1999 Lance P. Sijan Award for Leadership. His popularity and leadership have been clearly reflected by his election to the post of Whiteman Top Three Enlisted Organization president in 2001 and Whiteman Chief's Group Vice-President.

As CMSgt Chitwood and his wife Elizabeth prepare to spend more time volunteering and serving on various community organizations, I know the Members of the House will join me in expressing appreciation for his dedication and service to our great Nation.

Mr. Speaker, it has come to my attention that Lieutenant General Robert B. Flowers, Chief of Engineers and Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, will retire on July 1 after 35 years of dedicated and meritorious service to our nation.

LTG Flowers followed his father into the Army after being commissioned from the Virginia Military Institute in 1969. Since that time he has led at every level of command, culminating in his current role as Chief of Engineers and Commanding General of the United States Army Corps of Engineers. Prior to his selection as Chief of Engineers in October 2000, he served as Commanding General of the Maneuver Support Center at Fort Leonard Wood in Missouri, home to the Army's engineer school. In this post, General Flowers helped produce and train our nation's engineer soldiers, units and leaders.

Throughout his career, General Flowers effectively trained and led engineer soldiers around the globe. During Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm he commanded an expanded, ten battalion brigade and led more than 7,700 soldiers into battle in Iraq. Among his many other distinguished assignments include Assistant Division Commander of the 2nd Infantry Division in Korea; Commander of the Army Corps of Engineers 12-state Mississippi Valley Division; Deputy Chief of Staff for Engineering U.S. Army Europe in Bosnia and President of the Mississippi River Commission, which develops and implements plans to improve navigation and safety, prevent floods, and promote and facilitate commerce and trade on the river.

In his current role as Chief of Engineers and Commanding General of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, he is the Army Chief of Staff's senior advisor on engineer issues. Simultaneously, he leads the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and its more than 35,000 soldiers and civilians. During a critical time in America's history, General Flowers led the Army Corps of Engineers' support to the Nation. Following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, General Flowers ensured the immediate and significant support given to recovery operations at the Pentagon and in New York City.

Mr. Speaker, under the leadership of General Flowers, the Corps of Engineers continues to play a vital role in the War on Terror and support reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. His efforts have resulted in lasting and significant impacts to our nation and the Armed Forces. I know my fellow Members of the House will join me in thanking him for his years of dedication and selfless service and wishing him all the best in the years to come.

Mr. Speaker, it has come to my attention that Brigadier General Stephen J. Curry will retire from the Army on June 28. BG Curry is currently serving as the Commandant of the United States Army Military Police School at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.

BG Curry's first major duty assignment came in October, 1972. He was assigned Tank Platoon Leader, B. Company, 6th Battalion, 32d Armor, 4th Infantry Division, at Fort Carson, Colorado. He stayed at Fort Carson through October, 1974, by which time he had attained the rank of 1st Lieutenant.

In 1978, then-Captain Curry attended the Military Police Officer Advanced Course at Fort McClellan, Alabama. Upon completion of the course he was assigned to Germany as Commander, 615th Military Police Company, 793d Military Police Battalion, VII Corps, United States Army Europe and Seventh Army.

Captain Curry continued his professional military education from August, 1982, through June, 1983, at the United States Army Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. He followed this with a promotion to Major and consecutive duties at Fort Hood, Texas. In 1986, he moved to Washington, DC, to serve as Personnel Staff Officer for the United States Army Military Police Operations Agency. He went on to serve as Military Assistant in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations and Logistics, during which time he was promoted to Lieutenant Colonel. He than went on to serve in Operation Desert Shield, Operation Desert Storm, and, as a Colonel, Operation Joint Endeavor.

Mr. Speaker, Stephen Curry was promoted to Brigadier General in August, 2000. His retirement ends the career of a recipient of the Legion of Merit, Bronze Star, Meritorious Service Medal, Army Commendation Medal, Army

Achievement Medal, and the Army Staff Identification Badge. I know my fellow Members of the House will join me in thanking him for his many years of service to his country and wish him all the best in the years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I have the sad duty to inform the House of the death of Captain Cevie Due of the Richmond Police Department. Captain Due was killed in a head-on collision while traveling with his wife, Linda, through Jackson County, MO.

Captain Due was dedicated to public service. In order to set a good example he taught the D.A.R.E. program in the Richmond school district, a duty he performed since 1992. He was also involved with Community 2000, Ray County Coalition, and other agencies that benefit the children of his community. Along with his wife, Captain Due was in charge of Trick or Treat Street, which provided a safe environment for the children on Halloween. Captain Due was also a dedicated foster parent. He was a member of the Missouri Foster Parent Association and served 60 children in-home.

Captain Due served the people of his community in the Richmond Police Department since 1973. He held the positions of Patrol Officer, Corporal of Patrol, Sergeant of Patrol, Lieutenant of Police, Commander of Investigative Unit, Press Release Officer, member of the Missouri Rural Case Squad, and Reserve Deputy in the Ray County Sheriff's Department. Captain Due was honored as Police Officer of the Year in 1974 and 1989 and was named Who's Who in State Law Enforcement in 1988.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to serving his community Cevie Due served his country in the U.S. Navy from 1964 to 1969 as a 3rd Class Yeoman. He served in Vietnam from 1965 to 1966. His dedication to public service should be an example to us all. I know my fellow Members of the House will join me in extending condolences to his family and friends.

Mr. Speaker, it is with sadness that I inform the House of the death of Spc. Michael Curtis Campbell of Marshfield, MO. Spc. Campbell was killed when his combat patrol was attacked with an improvised explosive device and small arms fire near Samarra, Iraq.

Spc. Campbell chose to serve his country early. Upon graduating from St. Paul's Lutheran High School in Concordia, MO, in 1988, he entered the United States Navy where he spent four years, serving during Operation Desert Storm.

As a member of the National Guard, Spc. Campbell was called to serve following the September 11th terrorist attacks. He was first tasked with hauling debris from the remains of the World Trade Center. He was assigned to Headquarters Troop, 1st Squadron, 4th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Infantry Division, in Schweinfurt, Germany. He arrived in Germany in December, 2003, and left for Iraq in February of this year.

Mr. Speaker, Spc. Michael Campbell answered the call to service when his country needed him most. I know the Members of the House will join me in offering condolences to his friends and family.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder) for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to support this resolution honoring the Tuskegee Airmen and their valuable contribution to the United States of America.

During the Second World War, the Army Air Force, as it was then known, and now, of course, known as the United States Air Force, played a vital role in achieving allied victory, particularly in Europe. With their superior aviation skills and with courage in the face of danger, the men who flew for the Army Air Force demonstrated the true meaning of honor.

While World War II was being fought to provide human dignity and freedom to millions of people there on the European continent, here at home there were millions of people prevented on a daily basis from exercising full freedom and full equality.

The Tuskegee Airmen were the first to break that cycle in the military and to emerge as highly qualified pilots in the United States. They proved that race does not matter, they proved that where you come from does not matter, and it does not matter whether anyone else thinks you are capable. The only thing that matters is that you devote yourself to your talents and let history take it from there, and that is just what happened. As a matter of fact, the Tuskegee Airmen, in escorting bombers on to the European continent, never lost a bomber that they were escorting; and they were sought after by the bomber pilots because of their tremendous record and tremendous skill.

The Tuskegee Airmen led the way in opening doors for people from all races and all walks of life to follow their dreams of aviation and military service. Of course, I am very pleased that it was our own Missourian, Harry S. Truman, who integrated the Armed Forces in 1948 after this very positive effort by the Tuskegee Airmen during the Second World War.

As highly skilled pilots, the Tuskegee Airmen made great contributions to the fields of military air as well as space technology. The Nation owes these men a debt of gratitude for having the courage to stand up for something in which they believed and for forcing the rest of the Nation to look past its prejudices and truly appreciate the skills and loyalty with which they served our Nation. I am honored to stand here today and support this important resolution.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, on two occasions I had the honor of being with Tuskegee Airmen. The first was a dinner where I was the Speaker at an event at then Richards Gebaur Air Force Base south of Kansas City, where Tuskegee Airmen from all across the country were honored; and another time at Ramstein Air Force Base, where a leader of that group was honored at a luncheon. So it is with great pride that I am here to speak in favor of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder), for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my strong support for this resolution authorizing and recognizing the 60th anniversary of the Allied landing at Normandy, France, during the Second World War. By supporting this resolution, we not only encourage Americans everywhere to honor the heroic deeds and the sacrifices made by the brave Allied troops on June 6, 1944, but we also take a moment to remember our personal debt to what is now known as the Greatest Generation.

Dedication to duty, love of freedom, these things drove these courageous men to undertake and accomplish a task that seemed impossible. Such a comprehensive operation was unheard of at the time, and these men knew the risks involved. On that day, June 6, 1944, when the beaches of Normandy were stormed in the face of intense opposition, over 6,500 American soldiers made the ultimate sacrifice so that true freedom could be restored to millions of people across the European continent.

It is interesting to note that I have two good friends who were there: Dr. Tommy McDonald from Marshfield, Missouri, a sniper on that day, a recipient of the Silver Star, wounded three times; Frank Luce, from my hometown of Lexington, who not only was at Normandy but he had three tanks shot out from under him and was the recipient of the Bronze Star and the Purple Heart.

Mr. Speaker, this last Saturday I had the opportunity to have lunch with many American Legion veterans at Higginsville, Missouri, and any number of them were at day 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 at Normandy beach head. It was an honor and a privilege to meet with them and to thank them for their duty.

June 6, 1944, was a pivotal day. At the time, it was almost impossible to understand the full impact it would have, but here we are. Sixty years of reflection have shown that after the success of that landing, the tide of the war swung in favor of the Allies, and Adolf Hitler began his ultimate demise. Allied victory in World War II preserved freedom and humanity for millions of people and for every generation since.

On this day, we honor one generation of heroes. But as we do so, we cannot help but take a moment to remember that there is another generation making its mark right now in the middle of the deserts in the Middle East. Hundreds of thousands of men and women are currently serving overseas with the same dedication, the same love of freedom that made the landing at Normandy such a remarkable moment in history. Whether the year is 1944 or the year 2004, these individuals deserve our respect, and they deserve our gratitude.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to support this resolution, and I commend its authors for bringing it before us today.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the Tauscher amendment. Let us talk common sense on this issue. The key to neutralizing hard and deeply buried bunkers is solid and accurate and detailed intelligence. So let us remember. Remember the political fallout when we accidentally bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade? We should remember that. Imagine the fallout literally and figuratively if we were to use a nuclear weapon to take out a bunker and we got the location wrong. No President would authorize the use of a nuclear weapon on a bunker without having solid rock intelligence on it. We need to have strong intelligence, and this should not go forward.

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

Mr. Chairman, I happen to agree with the en bloc amendments put forward by the chairman. We have examined them thoroughly and discussed them thoroughly. I think they are certainly worthy of passing.

However, if I may comment on other amendments, much has been said, Mr. Chairman, about the contractor situation in Iraq and Afghanistan. I would like at this moment to make reference to two amendments that were adopted in the committee that were passed out onto the floor, and I would like to make reference to them now, two outstanding amendments.

The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper) had an amendment that requires the chairman or ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services, the Secretary of Defense to provide copies of contract documents within 14 days to the committee, and it also allows greater transparency in the contracting system, particularly when we have been having so many problems in Iraq and elsewhere. This is critical to our oversight responsibility, and I compliment the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper).

There was another amendment that was adopted in the committee that we should make reference to today offered by the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), which requires guidance previously recommended by the GAO on how to manage contractors that support deployed forces.

It requires report and contractor oversight, rules of engagement in Iraq, and requires better information gathering on how many security contractors are in Iraq. It directly responds to concerns raised in a letter that I sent to the Secretary of Defense on April 2.

We are on top, I think, as a result of these two amendments by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper) and the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), to make sure that we are tending to the deep concern we have about the contractor use and the contractor hiring in those two countries.

I do agree with the chairman on the en bloc amendments.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield, for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request, to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

(Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), a member of the Committee on Armed Services and ranking member of the Committee on the Budget.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. Chairman, we have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, in 1939, this body took action refusing to upgrade and arm the harbor in Guam. The Japanese Empire took that action as being in a position of not wanting to defend in the Pacific. We all know what happened later in 1941.

This amendment is a dangerous amendment. The State Department of the United States of America is against it. It says that the proposed amendment interferes with the President's constitutional authority to conduct the Nation's foreign affairs.

It would not enhance Taiwan's security. We already have an effective mechanism for ensuring Taiwan's security. It is called the Taiwan Relations Act passed in 1979.

Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of this House, at a hearing and a briefing just a few days ago before the Committee on Armed Services, said that the two most dangerous areas in the world are Pakistan and the Taiwan Straits. He said that is a very dangerous area, and I understand what he said, because if we are not careful, we can send a terrible message to Taiwan.

Read this amendment. Let me tell my colleagues what it says. It shall include exchanges focused on the following, especially as they relate to defending Taiwan against potential submarine attack and potential missile attack, threat analysis, military doctrine, force planning, logistical support, intelligence collection and analysis, operational tactics, techniques and procedures.

My goodness, we are inviting a conflict, I think, very, very well. We are making a severe step in that direction. I oppose the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule; I rise in strong opposition to the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorely distressed over this rule. The base bill that our Committee on Armed Services worked on and put out is a pretty good bill. We have done some good things, particularly for the troops. But I raise the question as to why in the world the Committee on Rules, at my request to have 6 hours of debate, 3 hours on each side on a $422 billion bill, has limited it to 2 hours, 1 hour on each side. Is the Committee on Rules majority afraid of debate?

Specifically, there are several issues we need to debate. This is the crucible of democracy; young men, young women in uniform, all across this world, all across the globe, standing firm for democracy and decency and what we stand for. And we are limited in our debate time?

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that they limit us. We should discuss the cost of the war in Iraq; the cost of the war in Afghanistan; the role of contractors. This is a serious role that has arisen recently and that needs to be discussed on the floor of this House.

The issue of the Iraqi prisoner detainee abuse, which has flooded the world news media, needs to be talked about from both sides of the aisle; and the transition to a new government in Iraq, on June 30, which we really have no idea what it will look like, needs a discussion and a thorough airing here in this Chamber. These are important issues, and we are limited to 1 hour on each side to discuss them.

I am sorry that has happened. Two hours is not nearly enough. It does the young men and young women in uniform a disservice, it does democracy in this Chamber a disservice.

Mr. Speaker, I also pointed out four amendments that I wished to be made in order, and only one was approved by the Committee on Rules. I studied the amendments; and, as ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services, I thought I spoke with some knowledge.

These are serious, thoughtful amendments which, I believe, deserve full and extended debate on the House floor. These issue areas and the amendments to which I refer are:

Sanchez amendment to modify the Uniform Code of Military Justice to bring it into conformity with modern criminal sexual assault statutes;

Cooper/Ryan amendment authorizing a total of $67 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan;

Spratt amendment on increasing pay for our troops and their quality of life by making targeted cuts in missile defense programs; and

Tauscher amendment on Department of Energy nuclear weapons policy.

Only one of these, the Tauscher amendment, was made in order. This is simply unacceptable. These are serious amendments that try to deal responsibly with complex issues. They reflect broadly held views by members on this side. A meaningful debate on these issues would reflect well on the House and would serve the country well. The failure to make them in order is disappointing, unfair and reflects badly on the House. It is an outrage!

If the previous question is defeated, the House will have the chance to at least partially redress this wrong by considering the Spratt amendment, which will directly benefit the troops.

I strongly urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question and to vote ``no'' on the rule.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I just learned I can address the Chamber an additional 2 minutes a few minutes from now.

Let me, say on a positive side, I think it is a good thing we are doing, adding to the end strength of the troops. I am not sure if America fully knows, the understanding that we have some 4,000 coming out of Korea toward the Iraqi situation.

Mr. Speaker, my friend from New Jersey makes reference to 9 hours of debate when, in truth, in fact, we have 2 hours of general debate on this issue.

I recommended to the Committee on Rules four major amendments. I stated the amendments from our committee, and I do not make recommendations lightly; and when I do, I hope the Committee on Rules would take them seriously. Most important is one that deals with quality of life for the soldiers and the troops and their families.

The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) had a proposed amendment that would increase pay, increase quality of life. It targeted cuts towards the missile defense program which is being boosted up by well over $1 billion. What more can be said.

The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez) had a proposed amendment to modify the Uniform Code of Military Justice, bringing this law into conformity with the Federal criminal sexual assault statutes. That was passed 18 years ago by this Congress. Now there are some 18 years of appellate history that can be used, and yet that was denied.

The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) had an amendment authorizing a total of $67 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, when in truth and fact, the Committee on Rules set aside a reserve sum of some $50 billion meeting the Cooper/Ryan proposal by more than half.

The gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher), thank goodness they allowed an amendment that she has on the Department of Energy nuclear weapons policy.

These are important amendments, important not just to the future of our country, not just important to our policy, important to those who wear the uniform, important to their families, where we are going. It is important, I think, that we vote down this rule and come back with a better one.