Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, let me take this means to honor the efforts of the Department of Missouri Veterans of Foreign Wars. In March 2003, this group launched the ``Hidden Heroes'' project to provide direct support to the families of deployed Missouri National Guardsmen and Reservists.

The ``Hidden Heroes'' program has made a real difference. In the first year of the program, families have been guests at dinners, banquets, and picnics. At the Christmas parties for the Air Force Reserve 442nd Whiteman Air Force Base and the Army National Guard 1139th MPs, hundreds of toys were provided to the children of those serving. The Department of Missouri Veterans of Foreign Wars has also provided concert and sporting event tickets to family members. The efforts have helped to lift the spirits of these families.

The ``Hidden Heroes'' program has also helped to provide these families with food and other household products. When National Guard and Reserve members are deployed, their family incomes often fall by fifty percent or more. The Armories across Missouri participating in this pantry program are alleviating some of the financial strain experienced by these families that have already given so much.

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Missouri Veterans of Foreign Wars have identified a need and are rallying resources to address it. I am sure my fellow Members will join me in thanking them for the service they continue to offer to this country.

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

Actually, this is a very, very important bill; and I speak in favor of it. As you know, we have two major, ongoing conflicts in the Middle East regarding the American forces. The first is a guerrilla warfare in Iraq and the second is going after the genesis and the home of the terrorists in Afghanistan that caused us so much and continues to cause us so much international terror.

I voted for the resolution regarding conflict in Iraq because I felt it was necessary, based upon the weapons of mass destruction allegation. We went in there; and, as a result of the very tremendous military field victory of our troops, we stayed. The ongoing guerrilla warfare has erupted which is an effort to do away with the stability and do away with transferring sovereignty to a stable, representative Iraq. The purpose of those are, whether they be Baathist or Fedayeen or jihadists or remnants of Afghanistan's al Qaeda, trying to destabilize that government. That is the purpose of guerrilla warfare. That is one war in and of itself.

The second in Afghanistan, the purpose there, of course, was going after those who have been causing terror to the United States for quite some time, beginning 1993 in the World Trade Center; 1996, the Khobar Towers bombing; in 1998, the simultaneous bombing of the embassies in Tanzania and Kenya; and then the boat bombing of the USS Cole in the harbor at Yemen; and, of course, September 11, 2001, came along, was the culmination. The terrorists home base is Afghanistan.

I think there should be separate ribbons for those separate conflicts, and I think this is very good. I compliment the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder) for introducing this. I thank the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons) for the strong support. I think it is the right thing to do. It should happen. So then when we see someone in uniform wearing either or both of these ribbons, we can recognize it and say thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume; and I rise in support of this bill, the ROTC and Military Recruiter Equal Access to Campus Act of 2004.

First, I want to recognize the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers) for his efforts to bring this measure to the floor, and we thank him for that. While some of my colleagues may oppose this bill, I believe it is important that Congress support efforts to ensure the military recruiters have equal access to all post-secondary institutions of higher learning, as well as law schools and graduate schools.

The propensity for young Americans to volunteer for military service, as well as public service in general, has been declining; and we need to ensure that our military is a reflection of our society, which means that military recruiters need access to all young men and women, including those who attend colleges as well as universities.

I want to take this opportunity to commend our Nation's military recruiters. Recruiting duty is not for the faint of heart. Recruiters often face long hours and demanding duty tracking down student contacts, meeting with prospective candidates, meeting with their families, traveling across the region to attend recruitment fairs and other related activities. To succeed, they must always be available wherever and whenever a prospective candidate may be. Recruiting is a serious, stressful, and vital job in the military; and only the best and brightest in these services are chosen in this capacity.

So we need to make every effort to ensure that military recruiters are successful in their job because it directly affects our national security. Tomorrow's military will be more high-tech, more sophisticated, and more demanding than today's. So we need to recruit bright and competent and knowledgeable people. We can only do this if our military recruiters get fair and complete access to our college campuses and to its students.

Thus, I urge my colleagues to support the bill and provide equal access for military recruiters.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

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

First, let me say I thank the gentleman from California for his kind and generous comments, who wore the uniform so well, not only brought distinction to himself but to our country, and we thank him for his service.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), who is a member of the Committee on Armed Services.

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

This bill attempts to correct a situation wherein a military ROTC recruiter seeking access would, in essence, be sent to the basement or to another building where corporations such as General Motors and the like recruiting would have the first floor and easy availability to the young Americans. So I do support this bill, and I intend to vote in favor thereof.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is with sadness that I inform the House of the death of Sgt. 1st Class Richard Steven Gottfried of Lake Ozark, Missouri. Sgt. Gottfried was killed when the Humvee he was riding in was hit by a bomb near Tikrit, Iraq.

In Sgt. Gottfried's family, miliary service was a tradition. His grandfather was a prisoner of war during World War II, his father was wounded in Vietnam, and his brother retired from the service. He was proud to serve his country, and he did so with courage and distinction.

Sgt. Gottfried was posthumously awarded the Bronze Star and the Purple Heart. But these medals were by no means the extent of the honor bestowed upon him. The more than 400 people who attended his funeral, the tears of pain and the sounds of laughter as friends and family remembered the good times they shared with Steven all commemorated a life of kindness and service to others.

Mr. Speaker, when Sgt. Gottfried was killed he was nearing 20 years of service to his country in the U.S. Army and was preparing to retire. I know the Members of the House will join me in extending heartfelt condolences to his wife, Mary Jo; his son, Eric; and his daughter, Ashley.

Mr. Chairman, I support strongly the Spratt resolution. Quite honestly, it is better on national defense than the resolution offered by the majority. Here are five reasons why.

First, the Spratt alternative matches the President's overall request for defense, dollar for dollar. As a matter of fact, the majority resolution falls $189 million short. When our troops are on the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan, Haiti and everywhere else in the world, I do not think we should cut a dime.

Second, the Spratt alternative saves the privatized housing initiative by

raising the cap on the program by $1.1 billion over 5 years. This is very important for our families. The majority resolution, as written, assumes no raise in the cap, so almost 50,000 military families that are supposed to get new privatized housing in the year 2005 and in the year 2006 will have to wait for adequate housing.

Although there was a discussion on the House Floor in which the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) promised to work with us to try to resolve the scoring issue, it is not there, and it does not count unless it is in the resolution. It is in the Spratt alternative.

Third, the Spratt alternative continues TRICARE for reservists, helping to ensure that all reservists have health care insurance. At a time when we are leaning more and more on our National Guard and Reserves, we must fund this program. The majority resolution lets the program lapse, leaving the families of our National Guardsmen and reservists without health care insurance.

Fourth, the Spratt resolution continues targeted pay raises for 3 more years. The majority resolution, like the President's budget, has zeroed out the initiative in the 2005 budget. These targeted pay raises for intelligence, for special operations, for computer experts, for those who have those specialized and critical skills that are needed to stay in, those targeted pay raises are out. They are in the Spratt alternative.

Finally, the Spratt alternative also keeps faith with those who have served our Nation in the past. It eliminates the Social Security offset to the Survivors Benefit program consistent with the bill H.R. 3763, a bill that enjoys broad bipartisan support. This offset hurts the widows of those who have served our Nation, and we owe it to those who served us to correct this inequity.

I support strongly the Spratt alternative as a better resolution.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, my understanding is, and I am sure I am correct, that there will be forthcoming a supplemental request. I am told it will be in the neighborhood of some $50 billion for the ongoing operations. So it would seem to me that we would be able, and much better under the Spratt proposal, to take this money and to make those corrections that we have in his resolution; and the operating will continue because of the upcoming supplemental which we will be voting on sometime this year.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my strong support for the budget resolution offered by my colleague and friend, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

Let me take this opportunity to commend him as well as the other members of his group that put together this resolution. It is far better on defense. Let me repeat that: this is far better, the Spratt resolution is far better on defense than that offered by the majority. The Spratt alternative matches the President's overall request dollar for dollar. The majority resolution, however, falls $189 million short. Now, that may not be much in the grand scheme of the budget; but when our troops are on the frontline in Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti and around the world, I do not think we should cut defense one single dime.

The majority resolution also does not do as good a job for the troops or for the families. The Spratt alternative lifts the privatized housing cap by $1.1 billion for 5 years, allowing this critical program to move forward. This is very important for those soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines, and their families. The majority resolution assumes no raise in this cap, so almost 50,000 military families that are supposed to get new privatized housing in the year 2005 and the following year will have to keep on waiting for adequate housing. That is shameful.

Now, I know there is talk about changing this, but I have seen no paper or amendment offered, to my knowledge, whatsoever in the budget that is offered by the majority; that stays in the shameful fashion that it is.

The Spratt alternative also continues TRICARE for Reservists, helping to ensure that all Reservists have health insurance. At a time when we are leaning on our Reservists more than ever, we must fund this program. The majority resolution, like the President's budget, lets the program lapse, leaving the families of Reservists without health insurance to just fend for themselves.

The Spratt alternative also remembers the widows of those who served our Nation. It eliminates the Social Security offset to the Survivors Benefit Program, consistent with a bill known as H.R. 3763, a bill that enjoys broad bipartisan support. The majority alternative sets up a hollow reserve fund, so eliminating the Social Security offset to the survivors benefit program will require cuts to other military retiree entitlements. That is an insult, Mr. Chairman, to our military retirees and to their survivors.

So, Mr. Chairman, the Spratt alternative is much better on defense than the majority resolution.

Mr. Speaker, it has come to my attention the ``THE'' Eagle Pride Band from

Calhoun, Missouri, has been selected to perform at the Indianapolis 500 in May. For the 26 students who participate in the band this honor is well deserved.

The students have been recognized for their combined talents, but they also deserve credit for efforts on behalf of those in need. A benefit concert held in the fall raised over $2,000 for needy families in Calhoun. In December 2001, following the terrorist attacks on Washington and New York City, the band put on a patriotic concert. Over 700 attended, and the contributions for relief efforts exceeded $4,000.

Continuing its tradition of excellence, in May the band will travel to Indiana to perform at the Indianapolis 500, participating in a parade, a prerace ceremony and at a special performance at the Indiana State Capitol.

Mr. Speaker, the students of ``THE'' Eagle Pride Band, under the direction of Brandon Harris, represent their school, their community, and their State with honor and distinction. I am certain that the Members of the House will join me in congratulating them on their accomplishments and thanking them for their dedication to helping others.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Frances Lyle. Mrs. Lyle, who recently celebrated her 82nd birthday, was nominated by her fellow employees at the Henry County Library in Clinton, Missouri, for the Missouri Older Worker Award. She subsequently received the regional State award.

As an employee of the Henry County Library for the past 5 years, Mrs. Lyle has proven to be an asset and a joy to work with. She has shown her ability to relate to patrons of all ages. In an effort to serve the senior citizens in the community, she writes book reviews for the local paper, focusing on older books in the library's collection. She serves as an invaluable resource for older patrons who have read all of the books by their favorite authors. She has also become a favorite of many of the younger patrons, telling stories to the teenagers who pass through the doors.

Mrs. Lyle has taken it upon herself to organize and manage the annual library book sale. This is a major fund-raising event for the library, with all proceeds going to children's programming. Mrs. Lyle's efforts have been successful enough to bring in a nationally recognized author or storyteller to visit with the local children each of the past 3 years.

In addition to her work in the library, Mrs. Lyle is also an active member of her church. She is very involved in missionary projects, collecting books and supplies for children overseas. She also collects books for the church's annual gift drive, a project that ensures needy children in the area a special Christmas. In addition, she lends her beautiful singing voice to the church choir.

Mr. Speaker, Frances Lyle's friends and colleagues believe she is worthy of recognition, and I agree. She serves as an example, not just of the value that older Americans have to our communities but for all of us who could do so much more for our neighbors and those in need. I am sure the other Members of the House will join me in thanking her for all that she does.

Mr. Speaker, I truly wish that I could support this rule. National security is a bipartisan, or actually a nonpartisan, issue. And when we commend the troops, all of us, all of us have a stake. Every congressional district has a stake in commending the troops.

As a matter of fact, small town and rural America have furnished 46 percent and 43 percent of the deaths in Afghanistan and in Iraq. So all of us, whether we are from small towns or large cities, have a stake in a resolution commending the troops, and we should have been consulted about it. I am sorry for that.

Now, more than that, while we commend the troops, I would also have, had I been consulted, recommended that we do our best to protect our troops by including more body armor and extra up-armored Humvees, of which we still do not have enough in Iraq. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I received from the United States Army a letter indicating that there are unfunded requirements for the extra up-armored Humvees and the body armor, which is so necessary.

I would also have recommended that we have complete, timely, and high-quality health care to treat the wounds and injuries for those who have served, and to recognize those who pay the sacrifice, whether it be in wounds, injuries, or, sadly, deaths.

I would also have recognized the contributions of and the sacrifices of the families of our servicemen and -women, particularly in the Guard and Reserve. I would have recognized the efforts to improve our intelligence gaps that our troops need and so that they be better protected in the future. And I would have recognized and recommended the sufficient up-front funding for our military operations so we can ensure the safety and well-being of our troops.

Mr. Speaker, I would also have included the fact that there should have been better planning for the postwar period. I sent two letters to the President, one on September 4, 2002, and another 2 days before the attack on Iraq, both of which I include in the Record.

Mr. Speaker, I think that all of us should have been at least brought to the table and all of us had an opportunity to write this resolution. I am so proud of our troops, whether they be from Missouri or Maine or wherever they are from. This is the best military our country has ever seen. And I think every Member of Congress, both sides of the aisle, should have had the opportunity to say thank you, we are proud of you, and God bless you.

Mr. Speaker, here follows the letters to which I referred earlier in my comments:

House of Representatives,

Committee on Armed Services,

Washington, DC, September 4, 2002.

The President,

The White House,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. President: Thank you for inviting me to the

briefing this morning. I share your concern about the

continuing threat posed by Saddam Hussein and his efforts to

produce weapons of mass destruction (WMD). I would like to

offer my assistance as the administration considers how to

deal with this threat.

Before Congress can authorize any military action that

might be part of the administration's plan, we must have

answers to more questions than were able to be raised at

today's meeting. Our constitutional duty requires us to

ensure that all implications of such action are considered in

advance. The case has not yet been fully made as to what the

threat is, why military force is an appropriate way of

addressing the threat, and why action must occur now. In

short, Congress and the American people must be clear on your

strategic vision before we can authorize a specific course of

action. I believe, like Clausewitz, that in strategy there is

an ``imperative . . . not to take the first step without

considering the last.''

Your strategy for dealing with Iraq must address the

fundamental questions of the threat, the method of acting,

and the timing. Furthermore, any strategy to eliminate Iraqi

WMD must also address several component issues, each of which

raises critical questions.

1. How to manage Iraq's transition to a stable post-Saddam

regime

As I mentioned to you this morning, this is a crucial

question for administration strategy to answer in advance of

any military action. I have no doubt that our military would

decisively defeat Iraq's forces and remove Saddam. But like

the proverbial dog chasing the car down the road, we must

consider what we would do after we caught it.

As Sun-Tzu said in the classic strategic treatise, The Art

of War, ``To win victory is

easy; to preserve its fruits, difficult.'' Military planners

and political leaders alike new this in World War II.

Planning for the occupation of Germany and Japan--two

economically viable, technologically sophisticated nations--

took place well in advance of the end of the war. The

extreme difficulty of occupying Iraq with its history of

autocratic rule, its balkanized ethnic tensions, and its

isolated economic system argues both for careful

consideration of the benefits and risks of undertaking

military action and for detailed advanced occupation

planning if such military action is approved.

Specifically, your strategy must consider the form of a

replacement regime and take seriously the possibility that

this regime might be rejected by the Iraqi people, leading to

civil unrest and even anarchy. The effort must be to craft a

stable regime that will be geopolitically preferable to

Saddam and will incorporate the disparate interests of all

groups within Iraq--Shi'a, Sunni, and Kurd. We must also plan

now for what to do with members of the Baath party that

continue to support Saddam and with the scientists and

engineers who have expertise born of the Iraqi WMD program.

All these efforts require careful planning and long-term

commitment of manpower and resources. The American people

must be clear about the amount of money and the number of

soldiers that will have to be devoted to this effort for many

years to come.

2. How to ensure the action in Iraq does not undermine

international support for the broader war on terrorism

In planning for military operations in Iraq, we cannot

ignore the lack of international support to date. Pre-emptive

action against Iraq is currently vocally opposed by many of

our allies and friends throughout the world and particularly

in the Middle East.

When we are seen as acting against the concerns of large

numbers of our friends, it calls into question the ``humble''

approach to international relations you espoused during the

presidential campaign. More than that, it has several

potentially damaging long-term consequences. First, it risks

losing the large number of partners needed to prosecute the

global war on terrorism. To ferret terrorists groups out of

their many hiding places, we must have broad allied support.

Second, it risks seriously damaging U.S. moral legitimacy,

potentially providing states like India and Pakistan with a

preemptive option that could drive long-standing conflicts

beyond containable bounds.

Finally and perhaps most dangerously, actions without broad

Arab support may inflame the sources of terrorism, causing

unrest and anger throughout the Muslim world. This dynamic

will be worse if Iraq attacks Israel--perhaps with weapons of

mass destruction--and draws them into the conflict. Iran,

which has the potential to seize a reformist path, may well

move away from the United States in the face of attacks that

could next be taken against them. Together, these dynamics

will make achieving peace in the Middle East more difficult

and may well provide the rationale for more terrorist attacks

against Americans.

These concerns do not make military action in Iraq

untenable. They do, however, highlight the depth and

importance of the issues to be addressed before we strike. We

need to ensure that in taking out Saddam, we don't win the

battle and lose the war.

3. How to ensure that the United States can execute this

operation successfully as well as its other military

missions

As you are well aware, Mr. President, the consideration of

military action against Iraq comes at a time when U.S. forces

are actively engaged throughout the world in a range of

missions. Given the operational pressures these forces

currently face, we must ask what the risks and trade-offs

will be of defeating Iraq, particularly if Iraqi forces mass

in Baghdad for urban operations. How many casualties must the

American people be prepared to take in a worst-case scenario?

What will the impact of sustained operations be on so-called

high-demand, low-density assets? What military operations

might we have to forego because of continued demands in Iraq?

Will we still be prepared for the range of other threats that

might emerge throughout the world? With little allied support

and contributions, will we still be able to maintain military

spending on transformational technologies and on sound

quality of life for our forces if we are bearing a huge

wartime cost alone? What will be the impact on the domestic

economy of these resources drains and of the long-term costs

of reconstructing Iraq? These questions must be answered

before any military action commences so that the American

people understand the risks and the sacrifices involved.

I ask these questions only to highlight the complexity of

the undertaking and the need for Congress, the American

people, and our friends around the world to understand

exactly what is at stake and why we must act now. Only such a

comprehensive strategic approach will ensure that we commit

U.S. troops consciously and with full knowledge of the range

of challenges we face--both in the initial campaign and in

the long aftermath to follow. Even a strategy that has

military action as its centerpiece will require great

diplomatic efforts to ensure its success. I look forward to

hearing the administration's answers and to working with you

to find the best course of action.

Sincerely,

Ike Skelton,

Ranking Democrat.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I would have thought it a mere courtesy of saying, Would the gentleman from Missouri like to read this over and add or make recommendations? I would love to have been there in order to support the gentleman from California.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the greatest asset our Nation has known, those heroes, and they are heroes, that we call on every time when we need courage and effectiveness on the battlefield, the incredible American soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines that reflect the best attributes of those who have served before them; and they are a wonderful reflection of America across our country. So we thank them and we honor them.

Like many Members, I have had the privilege of traveling to Iraq twice, this last time with our minority leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), and with the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes) from the Committee on Armed Services.

And what was clear is that our men and women are doing an extraordinary job in the most trying of circumstances. They are superbly trained, superbly led, and are just the finest force in the world. We owe them a great debt of gratitude.

We also owe the same to more than 550 families of those who have given the ultimate sacrifice to our Nation in Iraq. But what was also clear in my trips, there was no effective or realistic planning done for the aftermath of the military invasion of Iraq. We did a superb job on the battlefield; but since that time, sadly, as I warned the President in two letters, September 4, 2002, and then one a couple of days before the actual invasion, I feared the outcome and I warned the administration in these letters about what the potential consequences might be of getting the post-war wrong.

Sadly now, we are seeing those consequences come home to roost, and some of the issues that I raised in those letters are sadly coming to pass today.

While the Iraqis now have an interim constitution and we should congratulate them for that, it is no clearer now than it was back in November, when the timetable for transformation was laid out, who will take over on June 30. Now it looks like there will be no status of forces agreement negotiated before that time. Let me tell my colleagues, a status of forces agreement is very important because it can establish limitations. It could establish rules of engagement that make it more difficult for our forces to protect themselves.

Perhaps most dangerously we see more signs of ethnic and religious strife, raising the possibility of a civil war in Iraq. I truly hope that does not happen, but the tensions are growing, and there are insurgents and foreign fighters who have fanned those flames. Today's most deadly and tragic bombing of the hotel in Baghdad seems to be the only recent sign of this. We need to do a better job in planning. Everything we have worked to achieve in Iraq will be undermined if we do not figure out who we are turning sovereignty over to on June 30 and how to manage the transition in a way that avoids civil war.

These are dangerous times. This is not an easy day for our troops or for the leadership in our country, and that is why I raise these issues, Mr. Speaker. The security of the Iraqi people, the security of our troops, the stability in the region, and even our own national security depends on doing this right.

I will support this resolution because I support the men and women who are sacrificing daily, and I support those families who are fighting the insurgency in making Iraq secure, but I urge the administration to do the hard planning, to figure out quickly what will happen after June 30 to hold off a potential civil war, and we cannot have that.

We must not let last year's military victory become a long-term defeat because of more failures due to the tough planning ahead. June 30 is a date that must be taken very seriously by our country. We must make sure there is a stable Iraqi transition, and that it works; because if it does not work, if there is civil war, all of the sacrifices of those young men and women in uniform, whether wounded or killed, and the families that have grieved and shared their burdens with them, will have been in vain. We really, really cannot afford to have that.

So let us praise the troops. And every American should be proud of them as I am.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman, formerly from Missouri, now from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), the ranking member of our Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Guam (Mr. Bordallo).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

(Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

(Mr. LEVIN 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. Andrews).

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

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

Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the ranking member on the Committee on Government Reform.

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

National security is not only a bipartisan effort, it is truly a nonpartisan effort. On the Committee on Armed Services, under the chairmanship of the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), we do our very best to be bipartisan in nature. And, frankly, it concerns me a great deal that no Democrat was even asked to make a recommendation on what might or might not be in this resolution. I would have included several items including reference to the families. I would have included reference to those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice. I would have included a wish that the transition on June 30 be done correctly. And I would include that there should be increased international participation.

But I was not given that opportunity. Young men and young women from Democratic homes and from Republican homes and from Independent homes have paid the ultimate sacrifice. And I think it is incumbent upon everyone that offers such a serious resolution as this to give everybody an opportunity to make recommendations and to help write it.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I would relinquish to the next group that has jurisdiction for the next hour.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), my cousin, for introducing this resolution. And I appreciate the bipartisan support of the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson) who is presiding today, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney), and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), all of whom joined in becoming original cosponsors of the measure.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt was bigger than life when I was a youngster, and properly so, because he did such a wonderful job in leading America out of the worst Depression in our history and leading the United States toward victory against the Japanese and the Germans. Unfortunately, he died on April 12, 1945, and Missouri's Harry Truman, as you know, the Vice President, became President on that day.

We all know his legacy as a leader, a political leader, a wartime leader, and one who so many people looked up to for so long, the only President elected to four terms as President of the United States.

Let me touch on another subject as to why Franklin Delano Roosevelt is a true American hero. Should you come to my office in the Rayburn Building you will see in a prominent place a portrait, a signed portrait by the artist of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the unfinished portrait that was being made when he collapsed and died at his cabin known as the Little White House at Warm Springs, Georgia. Friends were present at the time when he was stricken and died within a few hours.

President Roosevelt's life and legacy has played a meaningful role in so many lives of untold citizens, far more than as President of the United States in his political leadership or as his world leadership, but it played a social role to those who contracted polio at a young age. And most people who have been so stricken were of a young age.

President Roosevelt established the March of Dimes in 1938 which caused Americans all across the country to send dimes to the White House or create their own March of Dimes fund. I remember very well being a Boy Scout, collecting the dimes on my main street in Lexington, Missouri, for the March of Dimes established by Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

And he established the foundation at Warm Springs, Georgia, not too far from Columbus. This was an old resort and he changed it into the most modern hospital for the treatment of those who had polio. I have personal experience knowing of that. Warm Springs, Georgia became the mecca for the research, for the treatment, and for surgery involving those who had polio for so very, very long. And the March of Dimes that he created helped establish research funding that could, and, fortunately it did, for all intents and purposes, research that found a cure or a prevention, I should say, to polio.

So, many young people, and I have had the opportunity to know them, created lives that were meaningful which otherwise would not have been possible, thanks to the Warm Springs Foundation established by Franklin Delano Roosevelt. It is rather interesting, he called the patients down there ``my kids.'' And as many Thanksgivings as he possibly could, he would go down and have Thanksgiving dinner with his kids. And that tradition lasted well past his passing from the scene.

The March of Dimes, the foundation at Warm Springs, Georgia, all of that enables others to participate in public life, to take their place as meaningful, hardworking citizens of the United States. But for Franklin Delano Roosevelt, that would not have happened. So it is not just during the Depression that he did such a masterful job in pulling this country out, it was not just the war effort until he passed away in April of 1945, but his contribution to treating and to helping find the cure for the prevention of polio, that is what makes Franklin Delano Roosevelt such an outstanding person in the history of our country.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

I would like to, if I may, bring up a recollection. When I was a teenager, I had the opportunity to go to the little White House at Warms Spring, Georgia, and there displayed is a copy of the undelivered address, now infamous undelivered speech, that Franklin Delano Roosevelt was to give on the following day, April 13, by radio, Thomas Jefferson's birthday.

Remember, those were very difficult times. We were involved in the Second World War, and it was a very hard time for our country; but I will never forget writing that speech down, and I copied it verbatim on a tablet with pencil, the final words of that undelivered address. The final words, ``Let us move forward, with strong and active faith,'' and I think those words would be well-emblazoned on what we say and what we do today. He added that the only limit to our realization of tomorrow will be our doubts of today. Let us move forward with strong and active faith.

So let us take a page not just from his life but take a page from that undelivered address, apply it to the challenges, and we have challenges of today, and move forward with strong and active faith.

Mr. Speaker, it has come to my attention that Dr. Helen Washburn will retire as President of Cottey College in Nevada, Missouri. Cottey College is a two-year, independent women's college that for the past 18 years has benefitted from the fine leadership of Dr. Washburn.

In her time at Cottey College, Dr. Washburn has been the most valuable of leaders. Seeing needs, she worked to address them and make the experience at Cottey of the highest quality. As an example, Dr. Washburn was instrumental in combating a trend that she observed of young women losing interest in math and sciences at a young age. In response, she created a summer science camp held on the Cottey campus. This camp was exclusively for young women. In addition, Dr. Washburn's long-range planning efforts resulted in an Associate of Science degree to compliment the Associate of Arts already offered.

Dr. Washburn's efforts to aid in the education of young women can be seen in other aspects of Cottey College. She led the campaign to construct the Rubie Burton Academic Center, a state-of-the-art academic facility that helps students keep up with the latest technology. The Center for Women's Leadership aids young women in becoming tomorrow's leaders. Most recently, under Dr. Washburn's leadership, Cottey College received ten-year continued accreditation with The Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools.

In recognition of the many accomplishments realized during her time as President of Cottey College, Dr. Washburn has been the recipient of many awards. For her efforts in creating an international community on campus, the French government named her an Officer in the National Order of Merit. In 2003, she was named Chief Executive Officer of the Year for District VI of the Council for the Advancement and Support of Education. In addition, the University of Idaho, from which she earned her bachelor's and master's degrees, presented her with the prestigious Silver and Gold award, an honor based on career achievement, and the University of Idaho Alumni Association inducted Dr. Washburn into its Hall of Fame.

There can be no greater testament to an educator than the accomplishments of her students. The many women who have passed through the halls of Cottey College under the leadership and direction of Dr. Washburn have proven to be a worthy and lasting legacy. And though Dr. Washburn will soon be leaving the Cottey campus, many more women in the years to come will benefit from her outstanding work during her 18 years as its President.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Members of the House will join me in honoring Dr. Helen Washburn for her years of service and in wishing her all the best in the days ahead.

Mr. Speaker, it has come to my attention that my good friend, Jimmy Luster, will retire as chief of police of El Dorado Springs, Missouri, after a lifetime of service to the various communities in which he has lived.

In 1970, Jimmy accepted the position of chief of police for Fairview Height, Illinois, where he established a completely operational police department for the newly incorporated city. By writing the rules, regulations and operational procedures, he laid a solid foundation for the department.

In 1976, Chief Luster left Illinois for Rogers, Arkansas, taking the position of chief of police in that community. He remained until 1978, when he moved to Missouri to serve the people of Cass County in the sheriff's department, supervising night operations.

From 1979 to 1988, Jimmy served as chief of police for the town of Belton, Missouri. During his time there, he proved instrumental in getting a new state-of-the-art police facility built.

Since 1992, the people of El Dorado Springs have had the good fortune to have Jimmy as their chief of police. His retirement brings to a close the career of a graduate of the FBI National Academy, the president of the Southwest Missouri Major Case Squad, a member of the International Association of Chiefs of Police and a fine and dedicated man.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Members of the House will join me in honoring Chief Luster for his years of service and in wishing him all the best in the days ahead.

Mr Speaker, one of the privileges of serving as a member of Congress is that you work with some amazing people. The halls of our buildings are filled with bright and energetic Americans, and every now and then among them a true hero.

By my definition, a hero is someone who would never use that word. Dudley Tademy, who is leaving the Armed Services Committee staff this week, fits that definition. But he fits anyone's definition of an honorable patriot.

Before Dudley came to Capitol Hill, before he took on the job of overseeing the military's readiness for the Armed Services Committee, before he was the assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Atomic Energy, before all of those achievements that would be enough credit for any man, he was thirty years a soldier. As Captain Tademy, he served in Vietnam, and what service that was.

Mr. Speaker, even those members not familiar with the details of that grueling war may have heard of Landing Zone X-Ray, and the la Drang Valley. They are familiar names, thanks to the book ``We Were Soldiers Once . . . and Young.'' That story, of how the 1st Cavalry Division (Airmobile) endured one of the most brutal engagements of that war, is also part of the story of Dudley Tademy. He was there. And as the fire support coordinator for the 3rd Brigade, he devised and directed the artillery plan that was central to holding the enemy at bay and creating an escape path for hundreds of overrun American soldiers. Across our country are men, their children, and grandchildren who would not be with us but for Dudley Tademy.

As he said of that time, ``It's our job to get the job done and get those kids home safe.'' He brought that same dedication and mission to his work with the Armed Services Committee--always putting the soldier first.

For the last ten years, he has carried a Herculean load on the committee staff. He oversees military readiness, now a $140 billion portfolio; all Department of Energy nuclear weapons related activities, another $16 billion annually; all Morale, Welfare, and Recreation programs--that's another $18 billion--and matters concerning two of my favorite subjects, organization of the Department of Defense and professional military education. That's more oversight responsibility in one man than some entire full committees on the Hill! And there's nobody you or I would trust more to carry those astounding tasks.

Nothing I or anyone can say here can do justice to Dudley Tademy's service, in uniform or after. Yet to speak with him, you would never guess at it. He is, in a word we don't use enough in Congress, humble. His gentle character and cheerful whistle belie a man of great discipline--still keeping up a daily physical training regimen, you'd never guess that he was older than most members. But he remains young in spirit, mentoring junior staff, and active in his church, where he counsels troubled youth.

Now he can begin to devote proper time to Audrey, who does so much to keep Dudley humble. And instead of serving sixty committee members, Dudley's priority will be six grandchildren, and I believe they already have him more fully scheduled than we ever did.

Best of all, we know that any time the Committee gets in a jam, we can call upon the inspiration of an American who has honored this Congress with his service. I salute Dudley Tademy, and know that all members will join me in gratitude for his company and devotion.

Mr. Speaker, it has come to my attention that the Helias High School Marching Crusaders from Jefferson City, Missouri, have earned first place honors in the SBC/Cotton Bowl's band competition.

Under the direction of Ray Cardwell, the students placed first for middle-sized schools in the field competition, parade and jazz band categories.

Mr. Speaker, the Helias High School Marching Crusaders represented their school and their State with honor and distinction. I am certain that the Members of the House will join me in congratulating them on their fine performance.