Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, on December 17 of last year, Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri celebrated the 10th anniversary of the arrival of the B-2 Bomber. I had the privilege of addressing the luncheon on that day. My speech to those attending is as follows:

There are high moments in one's life. I experienced one

such moment 10 years ago when the first B-2, the Spirit of

Missouri, arrived here at Whiteman Air Force Base.

Today we commemorate both the 10th anniversary of the B-2

Bomber mission at Whiteman and the 100th anniversary of man's

first powered flight by the Wright Brothers. What an amazing

parallel that 2 men, Wilbur and Orville Wright, began the

saga of flight 100 years ago, and today the most powerful

military weapon in the world, the B-2, is manned by only 2

airmen.

It seems like airplanes have always been a great part of my

life and make up some of my fondest memories. I imagine there

are quite a few people in this room who feel the same way. I

will never forget one particular warm, autumn day in my

hometown of Lexington. I was 11 years of age, and I was with

my buddies on the north side of Franklin Avenue, across from

my home, when I heard and saw the Army Air Corps C-47s

pulling gliders above us.

I knew then that the Army Air Corps had a base near Sedalia

where these planes were located. I later learned that those

pilots were training for the June 6, 1944, D-Day invasion of

Normandy. In my wildest dreams, I could never have imagined

that years after seeing those planes fly over Lexington, I

would be a part of making that Sedalia Army Air Field, now

known as Whiteman, the most modern bomber base in the world.

My very first job was at the old Lexington Airport, which

was located across the Missouri River. My duties included

washing the Piper Cubs and Aeroncas and periodically raking

the dirt floors of the hangars. I well remember a WAAF, a

member of the Women's Auxiliary Air Force, ferrying a Culver

Cadet airplane which landed at Lexington Airport to refuel.

On the right seat of this airplane, which had a 27-foot

wingspread, there was a large set of radio equipment. This

massive equipment allowed the plane to serve as a drone,

pulling targets for the Army Air Corps pilots to practice

shooting. Thinking back, I recall that the small airplane was

so heavy that the WAAF pilot could not get airborne until her

third takeoff attempt on the short grass airfield. Without a

doubt, aeronautical technology has come a long way since that

time.

This military installation has a rich history in the

security of our country. As the Sedalia Army Air Field, it

trained the C-47 pilots to fly the gliders for the Normandy

invasion. Later, as Whiteman Air Force Base, it was the home

of a B-47 wing.

At the height of the Cold War, the base became a Minuteman

I and II missile installation. Knowing that the missile

mission would be phased out eventually, I urged the Air Force

to put a B-1 Bomber Wing at Whiteman in 1982, but a Texas

base was chosen to house the B-1 instead. It was later that

year when I first received a classified briefing on the bat-

winged bomber which was being contemplated by the Air Force.

Subsequently, the legislative battle to authorize and build

the Stealth Bomber was long and arduous, first authorizing 15

bombers, then another 5, then 1 more. During this time, I

quietly urged the Air Force to consider Whiteman Air Force

Base as the first base for this new weapons system.

In early December 1986, Secretary of Defense Casper

Weinberger invited me to his office and told me that he had

decided to place this new airplane at Whiteman Air Force

Base. Since I had worked so hard to make this happen, the

Secretary asked if I would be interested in making the

announcement. At a press conference in Knob Noster on January

5, 1987, I had the honor of announcing that Whiteman Air

Force Base would be the home of the newest and most advanced

bomber in America's fleet, the Stealth Bomber. Then, Major

General, now retired General Jim McCarthy deserves great

credit for helping formulate the decision to put the wing

here.

Shortly after that announcement, the Air Force officially

named the new Stealth Bomber the B-2. And you know the

history from that moment on. Then Brigadier General, later

Lieutenant General Ron Marcotte oversaw the formulation of

the B-2 Wing here at Whiteman.

Since the B-2 has been here for ten years, and people are

fairly accustomed to seeing the aircraft, there might be a

temptation to start considering it as old hat. But let me

take this opportunity to remind you how exceptional this

aircraft is, because you are looking at a significant piece

of aviation history.

First, there was the airplane.

Then, in the First World War, aerial combat.

Then, in the Second World War, radar to see through clouds

and find attackers at great distances.

Then an airplane that disappeared from radar.

The B-2 wasn't the first jet, or the first flying wing, or

the first stealthy airplane, or the first capable of spanning

the globe. But it was the first stealthy jet airplane able to

go anywhere.

The B-2 changed the calculation from the number of planes

per target to the number of targets per plane. It

fundamentally changed the equation of offense versus defense.

It is, in one respect, the summation of the 20th century's

technological advances. It could not stay aloft without

computers. It stays invisible because of advanced materials.

And the airplane and munitions know their precise location

thanks to satellites.

To be sure, the Wright Flyer, wood and canvas, didn't have

much of a radar signature. And it was quiet. And a 12-second

flight is a lot easier than 24 hours.

24 hours. That's the other way the B-2 is the culmination

of its century. The 20th century was, in so many ways, the

American century. It's when our country reached its full

flower, as a nation, as an economic force, as a political

power. There is no more vivid expression of that than this

airplane, which can leave here, project American power

anywhere on the face of the globe, and return without

landing. Winston Churchill called the United States the

world's indispensable nation. The B-2's capabilities make

the aircraft this indispensable nation's most sovereign

instrument.

But before you say, wait a minute, this is an instrument of

war--should we really celebrate it? It's a good question. Let

me answer it this way. This airplane is a humanitarian

advance. Yes, it exists to intimidate, and if necessary to

destroy. But if we accept conflict as inevitable, as history

suggests it is, I ask you--is it better to flatten a city to

hit a single strategic target? That's what we have had to do

through most of my lifetime and that of the airplane--rain

down as many bombs as possible and hope one hits. Or is it

better to save the civilians and just disable the target? If

war is necessary, this airplane lets us separate its effects

from the civilians with whom we have no quarrel.

During the legislative battle to build the B-2, there were

a number of outspoken critics. That criticism continued even

after all 21 planes arrived at Whiteman. But since their

first combat deployments--first during 1999's NATO-led

Operation Allied Force campaign in Yugoslavia, then during

Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, and most recently

during Operation Iraqi Freedom--those critics have

disappeared. But it is more than the airplane and JDAM bombs.

It is the men and women here at Whiteman--the maintenance

crews, the bomb handlers, and of course the pilots--who made

this chapter in American military history so very

extraordinary.

When the first B-2 arrived at Whiteman in December 17,

1993, on the 90th anniversary of man's first powered flight

by the Wright Brothers, it was the fulfillment of a dream.

There are any number of reasons why Whiteman Air Force Base

was the logical choice as the home of the B-2, but I believe

the most important reason is the strong support and

patriotism shown by the entire community for generations. And

the Pentagon knows this. I certainly do.

Through the years, people throughout the area--on the

streets, at civic organizations, in the Whiteman Community

Council, in schools, and wherever I go--have given me words

of encouragement about the progress of the B-2 mission at

Whiteman. I doubt if any Member of Congress has ever had such

strong support by the people he represents as I have had in

this historic challenge.

The people of this area have been strong supporters of each

mission assigned here. The Missourians of today are as

steadfast in their support as in yesteryear. Since the day of

the announcement that the B-2 would be located here, the

people of Missouri have taken the B-2, and all those who

support its mission, to their hearts.

With the B-2 mission firmly established at Whiteman, this

base not only has a bright future ahead, but I believe it is

also the premier Air Force Base in the nation. The B-2

mission ensures that Whiteman will continue to be a vital

part of our national security establishment for decades to

come, even though the installation's previous major

mission, the Minuteman Missiles, were removed and silos

destroyed following the end of the Cold War.

And now that the B-2s have undertaken their first combat

deployments--with pinpoint bombing in Kosovo, Afghanistan,

and Iraq--those who fly and maintain this aircraft have more

than proven the usefulness of this weapons system and

demonstrated the foresight of those who imagined the

potential of a long range bomber that could take off from

rural Missouri and fly half-way around the world and back.

So today we Americans have cause to celebrate an American

invention--the airplane and the technologically complex

airplane we call the B-2. As long as there are those skilled

aeronautical engineers whose designs keep American air power

on the cutting edge, and as long as we have dedicated Air

Force men and women who crew and serve these craft, America

will continue to be the bastion of freedom and a secure land.

We know how far the first 100 years of aviation has taken

us. But what will the next 100 years bring? Let me make a few

predictions. In 100 years, planes will fly faster, fly

farther, and probably fly on their own. Whiteman Air Force

Base, which in 100 years will still be the premier Air Force

base in the world, will be home to pilotless, hypersonic,

stealthy bombers, able to reach any point on the globe within

hours. And in 100 years, the people whose hard work and

dedication make these amazing technologies come to life will

be as inspiring to their fellow Americans as their

predecessors amaze and inspire us today.

I'm sure that over the last 10 years quite a few eleven-

year-olds in Lexington, and throughout the state, have looked

toward the sky and caught a glimpse of an airplane--not an

army transport airplane pulling a glider, but the most modern

bomber in the world, the B-2. Like those Army Air Corps

planes of an earlier age, its home is located near Sedalia.

This plane flies for the same purpose as the planes I saw in

1943--to preserve freedom. The airplanes have changed--but

the mission remains the same.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my reflections on a trip I recently took with the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), leader, and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes) to Iraq and Afghanistan. I think it is important to publicly discuss the situation in those countries because events there have implications for all of us here in our country, as well as for the future of our foreign policy.

We are less than 5 months from the planned transfer of sovereignty to a new Iraqi government. Yet it seems clear from talking to many groups in Iraq that the administration's proposed deadline for the transfer of power is unrealistic. Commanders we talked to indicated it would be logistically difficult, if not impossible, to conduct an election before July 1. There is no census. There are no registered voters. The likelihood of fraud would be great, and I think there is a strong likelihood that the United Nations representatives now in Iraq will reach the same conclusions. By the same token, Shia religious leaders in Iraq do not support the caucus system for choosing a new government that the administration has advocated.

Finally, I do not think we can transfer sovereignty to a new Iraqi government until the rules of engagement for our forces are agreed upon. We simply cannot afford to have restrictions on the ability of our forces to pursue terrorists and to protect themselves.

Simply put, we must handle the transition right, even if it means rethinking our original timeline. The outcome must be a government with legitimacy, a process that prevents civil war from erupting, and rules of engagement that leave our forces free to continue to fight against the insurgents.

A second related conclusion from my trip is that it is clear that whatever new government assumes power must not be seen as a puppet of the United States Government or it will lack legitimacy. One way to help build that legitimacy is to get NATO involved in helping to establish security and provide stability in Iraq, as they are already doing constructively in Afghanistan. NATO involvement will reinforce the perception that it is the international community, not just the United States, that wants a new representative government in Iraq to succeed. Bringing NATO troops to Iraq to supplement our forces will also likely reduce the number of American military casualties, something I know we are all concerned about.

My third conclusion about Iraq is that we are in a guerilla war there. It is not really terrorism because I do not think the attacks against Iraqi citizens and our forces are aimed just at terrorism. Their purpose is to prevent the installation of a new, stable regime and to expel our forces, a classic goal of guerrilla warfare.

I also want to mention Afghanistan. The simple truth is we are shortchanging our effort to establish a viable Federal government and rebuild the country of Afghanistan. I understand that, on the face of it, Afghanistan is not as strategically as important as Iraq, but our efforts there are critical.

Mr. Bin Laden and other leaders of al Qaeda and the leadership of the former Taliban regime remain at large. In the near term, the United States must bring renewed attention to our offensive operations there to flush those forces out. Over the long term, we need to ensure that a terrorist harboring the regime never again gains hold. If we poured half as many people and resources into Afghanistan as we have into Iraq, I think that country would be well on the way to recovering from the 20-plus years of warfare that have plagued that country.

With few natural resources, little infrastructure, and a long history of tribalism, Afghanistan has a long way to go. I do not think we are making progress as fast as we need to in order for the Karzai government to survive in the long term. Simply put, we need to do more in Afghanistan.

My final observation concerns our great men and women in uniform. They are doing a fantastic job under the most trying circumstances. They are living under the most arduous of conditions, and are literally putting their lives on the line every day. They are superbly trained, superbly led, and they are the finest force the world and our country have ever seen. We owe them a deep debt of gratitude. As we go into this budget cycle, we owe it to them to provide them everything they need in order to succeed, in Iraq as well as Afghanistan.

Mr. Speaker, it is with deep sadness that I inform the House of the death of the Honorable Elmo B. Hunter of Kansas City, MO.

Judge Hunter earned his law degree from the University of Missouri in 1938. He went on to post-graduate work at the University of Michigan. Judge Hunter served his country in World War II with the United States Army, working in military intelligence. When he came home he joined the law firm of Sabree, Shook, Hardy & Hunter in Kansas City.

Judge Hunter served on the bench as a state circuit judge from 1951 to 1957 and moved on to serve as a state appeals judge in that year. He remained in this post until 1965, when President Lyndon Johnson appointed him to the federal bench.

In recognition for his service, Judge Hunter was awarded the Edward J. Devitt Distinguished Service to Justice Award in 1987. He was also the recipient of the American Judicature Society's Distinguished Service Award and served as the society's chairman and president. In 1991, the American Judicature Society saw fit to found the Elmo B. Hunter Citizens Center for Judicial Selection. The center researches nonpartisan, merit-based judicial selections, sponsors national forums, monitors state judicial reform projects and educates international visitors on the U.S. judicial selection process.

Mr. Speaker, Elmo Hunter was a valuable member of the judiciary and a credit to his profession. I know the Members of the House will join me in extending heartfelt condolences to his family: his wife, Shirley; his daughter Nancy; and all of his grandchildren and great- grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, last year I stood in this well and called on my colleagues to support an increase in the Nation's military end strength, the number of people in our uniformed services. I am pleased that my colleagues rose to the challenge and recognized the increased pressures that have been placed on our servicemembers. As a result, Congress last year authorized an increase in end strength of 2,400 soldiers for the Army and 300 airmen for the Air Force.

Unfortunately, this increase is just a small down payment on what the services, particularly the Army, need in order to meet today's increased operational tempo. Nearly a decade ago, Congress heard from the Army leadership about the need for an increase in end strength. The then Army Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, General Ted Stroup, testified before the Committee on Armed Services that the Army needed 25,000 more soldiers to meet ongoing operational needs. Our ongoing operations in Afghanistan and Iraq have only made the need for additional troops more imperative. I think we need an additional 40,000-person end strength increase in the Army alone, not to mention the other services.

Many servicemembers who were sent to Afghanistan to search for Osama bin Laden and defeat the al Qaeda went home after their tours only to be told to pack their bags because they were going to Iraq for a year. Brigades from the 10th Mountain Division and from the 101st Airborne Division were sent to Afghanistan. They returned home for a relatively short duration, and then they were sent to Iraq to prosecute Operation Iraqi Freedom. If we continue these back-to-back deployments, we will literally break the force. That is something we as a Nation can ill afford to let happen.

And now our military is about to embark on the largest troop rotation in the history of our country. I wish I could say that the replacement troops will be fresh, but the hard truth is that many of them will be returning to Iraq for consecutive tours. If we had enough people in the military, back-to-back tours in Iraq would not be necessary. It is important for everyone to understand that in the new force rotation into Iraq, National Guardsmen and Reservists will comprise about 40 percent of the force there.

We are using the National Guard and Reserve as never before, and we have to be careful not to put such strains on these citizen soldiers that they leave in droves or that recruiting suffers.

I was in Missouri recently and met with one wife of a National Guardsman now serving in Iraq. She told me when her husband returns from overseas he will be getting out of the National Guard and as many as one-third of folks in her husband's unit will be too.

This may be anecdotal evidence of what is going on in our Reserve components, but it is certainly cause for concern. The increased demands being placed upon our troops in uniform call into question the ability of our forces to meet its commitments in other parts of the world. If conflict erupted on the Korean peninsula while these brigades are in southwest Asia, our ability to respond quickly would likely be compromised.

Recently, Lieutenant General John Riggs, a senior Army officer, stated that the Army must be substantially increased to meet its global commitments. Yet the Secretary of Defense continues to maintain that the services have enough end strength already to meet their responsibilities and that the increased demands on the troops is only a spike or temporary increase. As a result, my expectation is that the President's budget will not include any permanent end strength increase but will permit only temporary overages associated with our current deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Department of Defense believes that additional servicemembers are not needed because we proved that our troops can vastly overpower an enemy with speed agility and power in war. The problem is that we are no longer in that type of war. We are rebuilding a Nation from the ground up. That kind of undertaking takes people. And right now we simply do not have enough.

There is simply no substitute for having boots on the ground. To get the job done right I am pleased that a number of my colleagues have recognized the importance of increasing end strength. A number of them have written to the President and the Secretary of Defense calling for an increase in end strength. Others like the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher) have introduced legislation to this effect.

We must, we can, and we will in this Congress pass an authorization bill authorizing for appropriation additional end strength for the United States Army as well as the other services.

Mr. Speaker, the House is meeting today--69 days after the beginning of the fiscal year--to debate H.R. 2673, a colossal $328 billion spending bill that includes 7 of the 13 annual appropriations measures for fiscal year 2004.

The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Young, and the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Obey, have worked diligently this year to pass the annual spending bills one-by-one. However, as it became apparent that the Congress could not approve these measures individually, congressional leaders began working to fit them together into one catch-all bill, like the pieces of a $328 billion puzzle. Unfortunately, the pieces of this puzzle are not fitting together in a way that benefits the American people.

I will oppose H.R. 2673 because it breaks promises Congress made regarding education, it cuts necessary Federal funds for State and local law enforcement, and fails to extend unemployment benefits for thousands of Missouri workers who are currently out of work this holiday season.

Education remains a top priority of the people of Missouri. When I am back home, I frequently visit schools to meet with students and teachers. At nearly every location, teachers and administrators inform me of the difficulties they have when it comes to unfunded Federal mandates burdening their districts. School districts throughout the Show-Me State and the Nation are experiencing tough times as the poor economic conditions and the fiscal choices made by this Congress are leading to decreased revenue for schools. The professionals who teach our children and grandchildren deserve to have the resources they need to get the job done. When the Congress approves legislation authorizing specific legislative initiatives, we ought to fully fund them.

H.R. 2673 provides $7.8 billion less than Congress promised in the No Child Left Behind Act and falls 45 percent short in special education funding promised under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) reauthorization bill that passed earlier this year. It also freezes Pell Grant awards at a time when State universities are drastically increasing tuition costs and underfunds by 18 percent the funds necessary for Impact Aid. H.R. 2673 also establishes a private school voucher program for students who live in the District of Columbia, moving Congress a step closer to abandoning our historical commitment to public schools and establishing the first Federal subsidies for getting a private school education.

As a former prosecuting attorney and juvenile officer, I have worked closely with law enforcement officials. Law enforcement personnel play a critical role in protecting Missouri communities from the scourge of methamphetamine abuse and other crimes and from the threats posed by terrorism. Congress has a duty to provide adequate funding for those who protect us in our hometowns. Under H.R. 2673, State and local law enforcement is funded at $500 million below last year's levels.

As the holidays approach, millions of Americans are still facing unemployment. While economic news has indicated that the numbers of jobless Americans decreasing, Congress must work to extend unemployment benefits to those who are not so fortunate. Time and again, we have worked in a bipartisan manner to assist unemployed Americans. I am disappointed that the House leadership has failed in this regard, especially at this time of year.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2673 shortchanges teachers and students, law enforcement personnel, and unemployed Missourians. Appropriations bills should speak to our priorities as a nation. I cannot support this measure that sets our country on a course of misplaced priorities.

Mr. Speaker, Major General Robert Shirkey, USA, Retired, delivered the following address at a Veterans' Day Memorial Service at the Liberty Memorial in Kansas City, MO. This is an excellent address by a highly decorated veteran of World War II and the Korean War. His speech is set forth as follows:

Major General Shirkey, USA, Ret., Veterans' Day Observance, Liberty

Memorial Kansas City, MO--November 11, 2003

I am an American--Let me tell you why:

Years ago persons from Ireland, Norway, Poland, Germany,

and other locations, hugged their families for the last time

and left their ancestral homes. These people boarded old,

crowded ships to sail to America, leaving behind everything

and everyone they knew in search of only one thing: Freedom.

These people crossed the ocean with the determination to

stand firm in their new home and fight for the freedom which

had been denied them for centuries. America was born from a

union of courage and passion for freedom. This is my

heritage.

My ancestors, under a new flag, represented a country that

came to be known as the United States of America.

One Irishman, O'Sharkey, went through the Revolutionary

War. As indentured servants from Norway, my grandmother's

family worked out the $36.00 passage to become Americans. A

Polish girl in Poznan, Poland, saved the life of a Prussian

soldier being chased by Germans by hiding him in a haystack

during the Prussian Revolution of 1848. He returned after

peace was declared, married her and together with his parents

migrated to the United States. He also then

served with the 27th Wisconsin Cavalry during the Civil

War. Another part of my heritage who served with the South

during that long war was General Wade Hampton. These men

were the Privates, Captains, Majors, Colonels and

Generals. When the Revolutionary and Civil Wars were over,

they were once again free.

They had paid the price with their lives, bloodshed,

hardship and poverty. One of my ancestors, a second cousin,

still lies in France, having paid the supreme sacrifice on

September 27, 1918, for such freedom.

I am an American--Let me tell you why:

My patriotism can neither be contained nor displayed within

the span of four (4) designated days every year. When I look

at my country's flag, I see not only the Revolutionary War

and Civil War, but ancestors who fought against injustice. I

also see my ancestors who were on opposite sides of the

Battle of the Wilderness, Chickamauga, and others. They

smelled the gunpowder and heard the roar of musketry. Some of

these men would never see another beautiful sunset, yet in

each of their eyes were these same dreams of freedom and

independence and a willingness to fight to the death for what

they believed in.

Lest we forget: For those who have fought for it, freedom

has a taste the protected will never know. As General

Pershing said at this Memorial dedication:

``. . . there are many forces trying to destroy this

freedom, so band together and dedicate yourselves to

protecting that freedom you have so valiantly won on the

battlefield.''

Never forget that the Ancient Romans sought freedom from

responsibility and, as a consequence, lost all freedom.

My flag has flown over ancestors and fellow soldiers in

distant parts of the world who were slain giving all their

tomorrows for our todays. My flag flew over my best friend's

hastily dug grave at Legaspi, Luzon, following his untimely

death April 15, 1945. He gave his life to save five wounded

comrades by crawling up under machine gun fire. An attempt to

save a sixth man was rewarded with death. For my symbolic

flag he knew he was expected to die. Like many others, my

life was spared by the controversial atomic bomb. I came home

carrying my flag. My best friend came wrapped in my country's

flag. My flag went to Viet Nam and returned with some of my

dear friends wrapped in it. My flag is the same flag that

belongs to victims of the Bataan Death March as well as

survivors. The attitude of those men is epitomized in the

gallows humor of war correspondent Frank Hewlett which still

echos amongst the jungle foliage:

``We're the battling bastards of Bataan.

No mamma, no papa, no Uncle Sam.

No uncles, no aunts, no nephews.

No nieces, no pills, no planes, no artillery pieces.

And nobody gives a damn.''

These are the men who have carried my flag. Later, in

fighting on Luzon, I walked that hallowed ground on Bataan. I

saw the refuse of war and the fox holes-many of which had

been dug with bayonets. In the words of William Lindsay

White, author of They Were Expendable, ``Where do we get such

men?''

Tribute on this day is paid to those fellow Americans who

served in the Korean War, which ended fifty years ago. Over

one hundred thousand men were wounded; fifty-six thousand two

hundred forty six killed; nine thousand were captured; three

thousand five hundred eight were repatriated; six thousand

died as a result of criminal acts of the enemy. By the peace

agreement in 1953, not one of the enemy was prosecuted. The

odds of death of those of us in the front lines in Korea were

one in nine. By contrast the odds were one in eighteen in

World War II and in Viet Nam the odds were one in twenty-

three, a striking example of the dangers in Korea.

I fought through the Pacific War with one of the more noted

Infantry Units the 158th RCT ``Bushmasters.'' We were

comprised of twenty-two Indian tribes, Hispanics, Chinese,

Japanese and men from thirty-eight different states. General

MacArthur opined that ``no greater combat team has ever

deployed for battle.'' Little known is the fact that Indians

were finally given the right to vote in 1946. Strangely

enough, not one black soldier was in our Infantry units!

I am an American--Let me tell you why:

To those Korean Veterans present and those of you who may

read or hear what I have to say today, I want you to know as

one soldier to another, we fought not for glory, for there

was none, not for loot, for there was none. No crusading zeal

drove us on. Our homeland was not threatened. Our countrymen

at home made no comparable sacrifice. We fought and endured,

while not understanding the geopolitics of that distant war

and at a time when thousands of our fellow countrymen said we

were engaged in a senseless war. We kept on much as we did in

World War II. The real answer as to why we--the living and

the dead--did this lies deep in the tissue of the substance

which keeps America from becoming unstuck. It has to do with

our parents, teachers, 4-H Clubs, Scouts,

neighborhood centers, and belonging to a team; an

implicit, unreasoned belief in our country and a natural

belief in ourselves. To those present, to those now

living, I bow to your patriotism. Many like myself were

asked to again serve our country. I left behind two sons,

one six months old and one three years old. Forty-eight

hours after leaving Kansas City, I was again in the Korean

front-lines.

Let me say now, for all to hear and know, as a rifle

company commander of one hundred fifty to two hundred men, I

personally led one of the first integrated companies in

Korea. The twenty to twenty-five black soldiers I led served

with honor, distinction and bravery. We cry the same salty

tears and bleed the same red blood. Equally important, in our

hour of need on the battle field, we do not care who rescues

us or carries our stretcher. I shall never forget Lovell Page

who gave his life at the Inje River. His beautiful smile is

etched in my memory and will be throughout eternity.

These are the men who have carried my flag.

That same flag gave comfort and hope to those who endured

horrors including war camp. It is the same flag the men and

women carry who came home crippled and maimed so that the

social class into which I was born would not determine the

limits of my potential.

It is the flag that is seared into my memory as it lay

draped over my dearest friends coffins while the echos of

Taps were carried Heavenward on a windy day. It is the same

flag that will someday drape over my coffin. I trust that you

are as proud of that flag as I am. Protect it well. Protect

it as I have.

Forty-Five million of us have served our Nation since 1776.

We have never, ever, let our nation down. We took the Hill!!

I quote the last stanza of the poem by Billy Rose, which

reflects the dedication of every American in their commitment

to serve their country.

``I am the unknown soldier and maybe I died in vain, but if

I were alive and my country called, I'd do it all over again.

While I fought with and along side of the elite American Army

troops, lest we forget, I should like to pay tribute to the

troops of the twenty-one nations that comprised the United

Nations forces in Korea. The undaunted courage and bravery of

the Turks, British and Ethiopians, to mention a few that I

witnessed, shall forever be with me. Likewise, the bravery of

Republic of Korea soldiers like Chung Mun Joe, who served in

my company, will never be forgotten as they fought for the

freedom we Americans almost take for granted. To those who

have not served and to those who never will, I quote Prophet

Micah, as is etched in stone on the North side of this

Monument, that all God requires of us is that ``we should do

justly, love mercy and walk humbly with thy God.''

You now see that:

I am an American--I have told you why.

In closing, I quote the Unknown Confederate Soldier's

words:

``I asked God for strength that I might achieve; I was made

weak that I might learn humbly to obey.

I asked for health that I might do great things; I was given

infirmity that I might do better things.

I asked for riches that I might be happy; I was given poverty

that I might be wise.

I asked for power that I might have the praise of men; I was

given weakness that I might feel the need of God.

I asked for all things that I might enjoy life; I was given

life that I might enjoy all things.

I got nothing I asked for, but everything that I had hoped

for, almost despite myself.

My unspoken prayers were answered. I am, among all men,

richly blessed.''

I am indeed an American.

Mr. Speaker, there is no truer indication of a nation's priorities than the investment it makes in the health of its citizens, particularly our senior citizens. Medicare was created nearly 40 years ago with a basic fundamental principle in mind: health care coverage should be guaranteed, affordable, and equitable to all seniors. Throughout the time I have been privileged to serve in Congress, I have worked to make sure Medicare remains strong for those currently benefitting from its coverage and for those who will rely upon its benefits in the years ahead. As a member of the Rural Health Care Coalition, I was pleased when the administration and congressional leadership announced earlier this year that providing a prescription drug program within the reliable Medicare system was a high priority for the 108th Congress. However, it has become clear throughout the year that efforts to provide a meaningful prescription drug benefit within Medicare were being undermined by a systematic attempt to destroy the Medicare program. I am disappointed that the bill before us today, H.R. 1, does just that, undermining the very foundation of Medicare while creating a confusing and inadequate prescription drug coverage program for rural Missouri's seniors.

As I visit with seniors throughout Missouri's Fourth Congressional District, it remains clear that they depend on Medicare for their health care. They understand Medicare and trust it cannot be taken from them. Medicare is part of a health care contract with the senior citizens who brought this Nation out of the Depression, fought in our wars, and paid into the Medicare trust fund so they would have health coverage when they need it most. Unfortunately, H.R. 1 seeks to destroy the Medicare system on which these Americans have depended for nearly 40 years. Under this bill, in just six short years, millions of senior citizens in America could be coerced out of Medicare and into private insurance plans that generally don't do business in rural America. While the drafters of this measure explain that these private plans are simply a demonstration project and seniors don't have to participate if they don't want to, once the door is open to privatizing this vital government program, I am afraid it will not be closed.

It is also troubling that if these so-called demonstration projects take root around the nation as H.R. 1 prescribes, seniors within Missouri could be paying very different prices for the exact same health care benefit. It would create a very confusing situation, where folks in Versailles could pay more than citizens of Blue Springs or Lamar for their health care needs. Show-Me State seniors trust Medicare because they know that everyone participating in this program will pay the same rate for their health care insurance no matter where they reside. H.R. 1 undermines this fundamental principle, which could create even more disparity in the health care coverage of rural Missourians.

In addition to undercutting Medicare, I am concerned that the prescription drug portion of H.R. 1 will negatively impact seniors living in rural Missouri. This measure would require Medicare beneficiaries who wish to receive the new prescription drug benefit to enroll in private drug plans which rarely operate in rural America. These plans would be run by large insurance companies that would likely charge different premiums for the same prescription drugs. As an added benefit to large insurance companies, H.R. 1 would provide them with a $12 billion taxpayer subsidy while creating a $2,800 gap in prescription drug coverage for seniors. According to an article published in The Wall Street Journal on November 18, 2003, ``for the drug industry, the legislation is good news, at least in the short run.'' This is just plain wrong.

For rural Missourians, H.R. 1 would also impose an assets test on low-income seniors who earn below 150 percent of the federal poverty level. Seniors whose income falls within this financial threshold may be forced to either pay additional prescription drug costs if their assets--their car, their farm equipment, or their acreage, for example--total $10,000 per individual or $20,000 per couple, or sell their possessions to get cheaper pills. Many seniors in rural areas rely solely on their Social Security checks to get by each month and they should not be forced to sell their belongings or their property to qualify for a more comprehensive drug benefit.

While I am dismayed that the leadership of this Congress would work to dismantle Medicare through this legislation, I am pleased that conferees were able to address Medicare reimbursement rates for rural doctors and hospitals. Through the years, I have worked with my colleagues in the Congressional Rural Caucus to boost reimbursements to those who provide health care in rural America. In fact, time and time again on the House floor, I have voted to instruct the conferees writing the Medicare bill to abandon divisive ideas of privatization in order to provide more adequate reimbursement to rural providers. Unfortunately, these motions were defeated each time.

Mr. Speaker, senior citizens throughout Missouri understand and trust Medicare. They have worked all their lives, paid their taxes, and contributed to a system that takes care of their health care needs. Medicare is a contract with our seniors that should not be broken. That is why I will oppose H.R. 1 and urge all my colleagues to do the same.

In the days ahead, I look forward to working with my colleagues in a bipartisan manner to provide senior citizens with a real prescription drug benefit that strengthens Medicare.

Mr. Speaker, throughout the time I have been privileged to serve in the House of Representatives, I have been honored to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do what is right for rural America. Today, the House is considering H.R. 6, its first comprehensive energy policy legislation in more than a decade. This measure will provide farm families and rural areas with an important economic boost and will recognize the unique role rural electric cooperatives play in delivering power to rural Americans. I am pleased to support this bill.

H.R. 6 is good for rural Missouri. The conference report includes a long sought after Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) that will gradually increase the contribution of ethanol (made from corn) and biodiesel (made from soybeans) to America's fuel supply to 5 billion gallons in 2012. The bill also includes a federal phase down and ban of the gasoline additive known as MTBE. Although I am disappointed that liability protections were included in the bill for this cancer-causing additive, I am pleased that the conference report phases MTBE out of existence over a period of time.

H.R. 6 provides important renewable fuel tax provisions for ethanol and biodiesel. The conference report modifies the small ethanol

producer tax credit to enable farmer-owned cooperatives, like Mid Missouri Energy, Inc., an ethanol production facility under construction near Malta Bend, Missouri, to pass along the credit to their farmer owners. The bill contains the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC) provision, which will continue the tax credit for ethanol, create a tax credit for biodiesel, and will keep the Highway Trust Fund whole. Importantly, the measure creates a new tax incentive for biodiesel that will stimulate production of both soybeans and other agricultural products. No longer will biodiesel be treated as a luxury product, but one that vehicle owners throughout America will embrace as a clean-burning renewable fuel.

For corn and soybean farmers, H.R. 6 could well be the best piece of legislation in decades. The renewable fuels embraced by this legislation are produced from crops that rise out of Show-Me State fields, and Congress' commitment to the production of more renewable fuels will act as a significant economic stimulus for rural Missouri. This comprehensive bill will also decrease U.S. reliance on foreign energy sources and create jobs.

I am also pleased that H.R. 6 recognizes the unique role rural electric cooperatives play in providing power to those who live throughout the countryside. Electric cooperatives have a long and distinguished history in our country. They provide private ownership to consumers of their electric utility and operate at-cost. This type of ownership has been very successful in rural Missouri where population densities and revenues are low. It has also immunized electric cooperatives from the price gouging, market manipulation, and corporate malfeasance activities that have emerged in the energy industry over the past few years.

Mr. Speaker, the comprehensive energy bill before us today is good for rural America, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) for presenting it this morning.

This was a difficult bill, and shortly we will talk about some bumps along the way. But, Mr. Speaker, we are at war. We must do our very best, and I think we have done a good job as it relates to the troops of the United States of America. They are superb. They are doing a good job. We must pay respect to them legislatively as well as to their families legislatively, and I think we have done that by the various items. The family separation allowance, the combat pay, the pay raise and all of these personnel items that we touched upon is our way of saying thanks for a good job well done.

So I support this rule. In the process I want to express my deep appreciation to everyone in uniform and to those families who support those in uniform. And, sadly, we have lost some and I hope that this is some consolation that we continue to support the American men and women who are wearing the uniform of the United States of America.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill, the National Defense Authorization Act. I will explain the reasons why, but I first want to compliment my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter). This was the gentleman's inaugural voyage as chairman of the Committee on Armed Services and the seas were far from smooth. Many of the issues we faced were particularly difficult. I applaud the gentleman's leadership in recognizing that the totality of the bill is more important, especially when our country is at war in Iraq.

I do want to raise several issues of caution about process, however. First, the conference process has not been totally inclusive. Many issues, three in particular, civil service reform, concurrent receipt, and Air Force tanker leasing have been decided without substantive Democratic consultation. Second, there were few conference meetings that involved all the conferees or even all the House conferees. Finally, it is highly undesirable to consider a conference report on a large and highly complex defense bill in just a few hours after the conference report has been filed. It is not possible for Members to make best judgments about voting on this bill when there has not been adequate time after it has been filed.

The fact that we are considering this bill today, however, reflects the commitment of the Committee on Armed Services members that we must provide for the men and women of our military when they are sacrificing in so many ways to defend our country and our issues. They are depending on us. We will not let them down. And we are at war.

I want to highlight just a few issues that cause me to support this bill. The bill includes a 4.1 percent pay raise for the troops. The bill provides an increase in imminent-danger pay. It provides for family separation allowance, which will directly benefit our servicemen and -women who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan and other dangerous spots away from their homes. The conference report further authorizes TRICARE coverage in the military health care system for our National Guardsmen and for our Reservists who played such a vital role against terrorism.

Finally, very, very important, this bill includes increasing the Army's size 2,400 additional soldiers. That is so terribly important because the troops are so strained at this time, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) knows that so well as chairman of the subcommittee.

We need the pay raise. We need the special pay to compensate and help retain those who have those special skills. Our bases need the military construction and family housing authorizations. We need to authorize the money for military operations, for flying hours and steaming days and tank miles, to allow our troops to be the best trained and prepared in the world.

I want to mention concurrent receipt. Overwhelming majorities of both Houses clearly support providing this benefit to all disabled retirees. Nevertheless, the conference agreement, which would provide this benefit to those at least 50 percent disabled, is a significant step in the right direction. There will, however, be a motion to recommit regarding this issue, and I hope people will support it.

I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, that we were able to reach agreements on many difficult issues, but I know many of my colleagues will not be happy with some of the substantive outcomes. The conference agreements concerning low yield nuclear weapons, civil service reform, and changing environmental laws are particularly problematic, and I point those out.

Now, perhaps more than any time in the last decade, however, Mr. Speaker, it is essential that the House take action to provide for our men and women in uniform. This vote will not only be seen in Kabul or Baghdad but also Diego Garcia, Fort Irwin, Norfolk, Fort Leonard Wood, Whiteman Air Force Base. We need to send a message to the American public, and to our adversaries and allies, that we as a Congress are prepared to give our men and women in uniform the support, the strong support and protection that they deserve.

So I urge my colleagues to vote for this conference report.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder.)

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the minority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud).

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

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Who has the right to close?

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

Let me take a moment, Mr. Speaker. This is deadly serious business that we are about. We are providing for the troops, those who wear the uniform of the United States of America as provided by the Constitution of the United States. This is of the highest calling of our Congress. No, all the provisions in this bill do not meet with my approval wholeheartedly or with others'. But on the other hand there is so much in this bill that takes care of the troops, their families, their needs, their capability of waging war, and we are at war, Mr. Speaker.

With that in mind, I hope that every person in this Chamber, despite the misgivings of some provisions, will support this bill with the understanding that in so doing, a vote for this bill is a vote of confidence and appreciation for those who are wearing the uniform and those families at home in whose prayers those young soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines are.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Marshall).

Mr. Speaker, let me first thank my friend and colleague from Maryland for the honor of addressing the House at this moment. I much appreciate it.

Mr. Speaker, recent press reports have indicated that the administration is planning to begin the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq in the spring of 2004. Based on recent visits to my congressional district in Missouri, I believe such a move would be very politically popular. Overwhelmingly, the

people want our troops brought home as rapidly as possible. I, too, want to bring them home.

However, if we have learned anything from recent history in Baghdad, it is that poor planning for the occupation has contributed to the dangerous and confused situation in which we find ourselves. I was concerned about planning for the occupation last year. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I wrote to the President on two occasions, first on September 4, 2002, and second, on the eve of the war, on March 18, 2003. My letters detailed the potential problems our forces might encounter during the postconflict occupation of Iraq, and I submit copies of those letters for the Record.

Committee on Armed Services,

House of Representatives,

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 about 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.

How To Manage Iraq's Transition to a Stable Post-Saddam Regime

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

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

knew 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.

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 terrorist 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.

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 resource 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, it has come to my attention that my good friend, Charles E. (Charlie) Kruse, President of the Missouri Farm Bureau Federation, has been named as the next recipient of the Distinguished Eagle Scout Award. As an Eagle Scout myself, let me take this means to pay tribute to Charlie for reaching this important milestone.

The Distinguished Eagle Scout Award (DESA) was established in 1969. It is granted to Eagle Scouts who received the Eagle Scout rank 25 or more years ago and who have distinguished themselves in their professional life and in their communities on a voluntary basis. The award is granted by the National Eagle Scout Association upon nomination by a local council and selection by a committee of nationally prominent DESA recipients.

In his personal and professional life, Charlie Kruse has established himself as a true role model for patriotic Americans. His life work has far exceeded the guidelines established for receiving this respected award. He has served the American people and the residents of Missouri in the military, as a member of the Governor's cabinet, on the Missouri University Board of Curators, and on many national commissions and boards. He has also worked to enhance the prosperity of his community through church and volunteer activities.

Charlie currently serves as President of the Missouri Farm Bureau Federation. In his role, he represents over 100,000 Missourians and provides Members of Congress from the Show-Me State with useful information about what farmers and ranchers are saying about U.S. agricultural policy. Farm Bureau's advice is critical to shaping a national agricultural agenda in a way that benefits Missourians, and I appreciate hearing from Charlie and all Farm Bureau members.

Mr. Speaker, I know that all my House colleagues will join me in paying tribute to Charlie Kruse as he receives the Distinguished Eagle Scout Award. He truly deserves this recognition.

Mr. Speaker, it is the constitutional job of the Congress of the United States to maintain and support the armed services of our country. I stand here in support of this resolution tonight because of that constitutional duty. And I know there have been many bits of discussion about the pros and cons of the line items in this bill. And I know that there are clouds that hang over the question of intelligence as to our initial decision going into Iraq. And I know there are clouds that hang over the decision-making process as to our going in.

But the American troops are there. It is our duty to support them so that they may be victorious in this very arduous and difficult, unique and never-seen-before challenge that Americans in uniform have had.

I had the opportunity about a month ago to visit with young folks in uniform, actually of all services, in and around Iraq, to look at their faces and know that each one of them whether they came from small towns or inner cities or some from suburbs of America, that they knew their duty, that they were good soldiers, that they wore the American uniform proudly, and that they had a mission to accomplish.

For us tonight, we have a mission to accomplish and that mission is to support this resolution. We have no other choice.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this, and my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), for his hard work in seeing to it this bill gets here; and I thank as well our friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson).

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill, and I thank those who have offered it and have cosponsored it. The bill before us increases the death gratuity from $6,000 to $12,000; but more important, it would provide that the entire payment be tax free.

Congress first established the benefit for death back in 1908, and there is a long history of this. As a result of increasing the benefit from $3,000 to $6,000, and the way the law was written at the time, part of that remained taxable. We are now increasing this to $12,000 and making it all nontaxable.

About a month ago, I went to Iraq. I had the opportunity to see some young men and young women in uniform doing their duty. It is arduous and difficult, and I felt very proud of them. Whether they had a star on their shoulder or whether they be buck privates, they were doing masterful jobs, for which they were well trained. They are the cream of the crop of our youth in this country. We thank them for that.

Three days our group spent in Iraq, flying in and out of Baghdad from Kuwait. We had to spend the night in Kuwait, for security reasons, we were told. The second night, Sunday night, we flew from Baghdad back to Iraq, and

in the C-130 airplane there was with us a body bag carrying the body of a young soldier. It caused me to stop and think that these young Americans are literally putting their lives on the line, and the best thing we can do is to show gratitude and appreciation.

Cicero once said that gratitude was the greatest of all virtues, and I think that he was right. So how do we do that today? We do it with this bill, introduced by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi), the gentleman from New York (Mr. McNulty), and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson). This shows gratitude to those unfortunate families that lose a loved one, and it is a good thing that we can do.

I wholeheartedly support it, both the increase and the tax benefit therefrom, because gratitude is the greatest of all virtues and this is one small way we can express it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support my colleagues, Mr. Renzi and Mr. McGovern, in their efforts to provide a tax-free, increased death gratuity payment to survivors of deceased service members. The bill before us would increase the death gratuity payment from $6,000 to $12,000, but more importantly, it would provide that the entire payment be tax free.

Congress first established the death gratuity payment in 1908. At the time, it provided six months pay to the survivors of deceased service members. The death gratuity was necessary because there was no government life insurance program and career personnel often could not obtain or afford adequate commercial life insurance. The death gratuity payment was used to provide immediate financial assistance to families of deceased military members to meet immediate expenses.

The death gratuity program was repealed in 1917 when Congress established the predecessor to the current Dependency and Indemnity Compensation Program. However, only two years later, Congress would restore this important benefit. Over time as inflation and pay increases eroded the principle of a six-month pay payment, all survivors regardless of rank began to receive the higher payment of $3,000.

The maximum $3,000 tax-free benefit would not see a notable increase until 1991, as our Nation sent its sons and daughters in uniform to war in the Persian Gulf conflict. Congress, recognizing the sacrifices that our military families were experiencing, doubled the death gratuity payment from $3,000 to $6,000. Unfortunately, the additional increase of $3,000 was determined to be a taxable benefit.

Today, over 120,000 American troops are back in the Persian Gulf to help liberate the Iraqi people. Since the start of the Iraq conflict, over 229 service members have given their lives in combat and another 127 have been killed in the line of duty. In addition, 31 service members have lost their lives in combat in Afghanistan in Operation Enduring Freedom, and 58 Armed Forces personnel have been killed in service to their Nation.

We have a moral obligation to provide assistance to these families and help them through this difficult time. Increasing the death gratuity to $12,000 for these military families, and those who may lose their service member in the war against terrorism, will provide immediate financial assistance to families in those first turbulent and stressful weeks.

As my colleagues are aware, the conferees to the defense authorization bill are also considering a conference provision that would increase the death gratuity to $12,000 for survivors of deceased service members.

While I am relatively confident that provision will be accepted by the conferees, what is really needed is to make this payment tax-free. Which is why I am pleased that my colleagues from the Ways and Means Committee are here today to help ensure that the death gratuity payments paid to military families are tax-free. These families should not have to worry that this additional money, provided to them in a time of need, may end up being a financial hardship at the end of the year.

I urge my colleagues to recognize the sacrifices and dedication of those who serve in uniform, and support this effort to provide these families the additional financial resources to help them during a heartbreaking and distressing time.

Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, October 12, 2003, a memorial service was held on the campus of Wentworth Military Academy in Lexington, MO. Retired Lieutenant Colonel Jim Ahrens presided. This service paid tribute to the many Wentworth Alumni who served in the military and paid the ultimate sacrifice. I commend the remarks of Lieutenant Colonel Ahrens to this body.

Text for Memorial Service

Invocation: Let us pray

Almighty and most merciful God. Look with favor upon us

gathered here this morning--in thy presence--on this sacred

ground, and inspire our hearts and minds as we lovingly

celebrate the deeds of Wentworth Cadets, old boys, whose

sacrifices--blood, sweat, and tears--made in the name of

freedom and human dignity--shall stand forever as the

foundation stones of our great nation. Bless us now, O God,

that our thoughts, desires and deeds throughout this memorial

service may be inspired by You according to Your holy name.

Amen.

Introductory statement

Friends: We gather here on this historic ground--this

sacred ground--Cadet Corps, old boys and their families,

Wentworth staff, faculty and friends--we gather here near the

Memorial Chapel, its entrance guarded by the Mooney

Memorial--just down this tree shaded hill from the doughboy

and the Hall of Honor--to remember, to honor and to return

thanks for Wentworth cadets who made the supreme sacrifice.

We gather to lovingly remember Wentworth old boys who gave

their lives in the service of their country. Today we are

particularly mindful of the vets we single them out now for

honor because, like other Wentworth old boys, they fought and

served and some died courageously. It is now their time--

their turn--for special recognition.

How thankful we are for their dedication, their loyalty,

perseverance--for their patriotism. How thankful we are for

their sacrifices made in the line of duty--in times of

terrible trial and tribulation--crisis--peril--times of

grievous suffering--times of war.

Alumni from Wentworth have served in eight conflicts and

have sacrificed their lives in six of them.

41 served in the Spanish American war and two died.

3 are known to have served in the Philippine Insurrection

and one parished.

At least 552 served in WW I and fourteen died, including

one faculty member.

At least 813 served in WW II and 87 died, including another

faculty member.

213 served in Korea and nine paid with their lives.

We don't know exactly how many served in the Vietnam

conflict, but we know that eleven made the supreme sacrifice.

Approximately 30 served in the first Gulf War that we know

of and apparently all returned at the end of the conflict.

Many are serving, as we speak, in the second Gulf War, which

includes the War on Terror.

These men gave their lives for all of us in this country.

Because of the closeness of our alumni it seems as if they

became a part of all of our lives and we all feel their loss.

What we have to day is a heritage that is made all the more

rich by what they gave for us.

Today we honor all who have given their lives. There is no

doubt that their example has served as an inspiration for all

of us to do what we can do to end conflict, but we all know

equally well that we could be called upon to make the supreme

sacrifice for our country and fellow humankind. We must also

remember those Wentworth faculty, staff, cadets and

acquaintances who are no longer with us as well as those who

have died in the past year

Memorial prayer

Let us pray. Almighty God, bless now our memories of

Wentworth cadets--and their loved ones who waited patiently

behind--bless our memories of old boys who made the supreme

sacrifice--old boys who march no more in our ranks--who

answer no more reveille roll call--who stand no more on the

Quadrangle for sunset retreat.

Bless, oh God, our remembrance of them that the spirit of

their heroism--their dreams of a better life in a world at

peace their sacrifices for us--may inspire us here on this

Wentworth campus, and wherever we go, to live together in

brotherly love--according to your golden rule. May their

memory live on--heartening and inspiring--teaching us the

meaning of heroism, patriotism--brotherly love. And, O God,

inspire us so we may never take for granted or forget our

Wentworth heroes. May we be inspired in the days and weeks to

come to walk a little slower by this Huey helicopter and the

doughboy--to walk a little slower by the Mooney memorial, and

in our hearts do an ``eyes right and render a smart hand

salute--as we pay our respects to our fallen comrades--

Wentworth cadets who made the supreme sacrifice. Amen

Mr. Speaker, The Bicentennial of the Lewis and Clark Expedition is being commemorated between 2003 and 2006. As we celebrate the Bicentennial, the famous expedition evokes pride and awe in countless Americans who reflect on its achievements. While most Americans have some knowledge of the expedition, relatively few recognize that it was an Army endeavor. It was not an accident that President Jefferson turned to the Army for the mission. President Jefferson chose the Army for his Corps of Discovery because it was the ``right tool'' for the arduous job. Frontier soldiers possessed the toughness, teamwork, discipline and training appropriate to the challenge of exploring the newly acquired lands. Most importantly, Meriwether Lewis and William Clark were outstanding officers and leaders who had previously served the Army with distinction.

Today, the route followed by the Lewis and Clark Expedition lies within eight Corps districts. By virtue of its stewardship role for the Nation's rivers and its Army heritage of exploring and mapping the western United States, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will play a key leadership role in the observance of the Bicentennial. Of the more than 5,000 miles of trail from Pittsburgh to the Pacific Ocean, the Corps directly or indirectly manages nearly 4,700 river miles. Corps management activities include navigation channel maintenance, levee maintenance, environmental permitting responsibilities, and operation of the reservoirs and locks/dams. Because the Corps manages more of the trail than any other governmental entity, and it is the largest Federal provider of outdoor recreation opportunities in the country, the Corps will play an important role during the Bicentennial Commemoration.

The Commemoration officially began in January 2003 at Monticello and will retrace the original expedition across the United States and back. There are 17 Signature events planned and organized under the guidance of the Lewis and Clark bicentennial Council. The Corps of Engineers will support these Signature events by participating in the Federal interagency project called Corps of Discovery II--200 Years to the Future, which is a traveling exhibition and classroom, providing educational programs for school children, and manning displays and exhibits.

The overall goal of the Corps' participation in the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial Commemoration is to accommodate the anticipated increased visitation, ensure a safe visitor experience, and provide information on the Expedition, the Army, and the Corps--all with minimal impact on the environment. To reach this goal, the Corps is working to upgrade sanitary facilities, visitor centers and campgrounds. The Chief of Engineers has emphasized that park facilities should be in good condition to support the additional visitation and visitor expectations, particularly those facilities that are on the Lewis and Clark trail or within 50 miles of a signature event. To reach the ``safe visitor experience'' objective, the Corps will provide water safety information specific to reservoirs and rivers along the Lewis and Clark route, including locking and portage procedures, the identification of hazardous areas, fueling areas, and the location of boat ramps. The Corps is also cooperating with other Federal, State and local enforcement, safety and emergency agencies to provide the essential public safety services along the route. The Corps will provide information to the public during the Bicentennial to educate about the expedition and the contribution of the Army to the success of the expedition. The legacy of the expedition is also an important story, including the role the Corps of Engineers played in exploration and development of the waterways that opened the west to river travel and the continuing role of the Corps in developing, managing, and protecting the Nation's water resources.

The Corps is also a partner and sponsor of the Ft. Leavenworth re- enactors who will attend many of the Signature events and portray the Lewis and Clark expedition as an Army reconnaissance mission. The Corps is the sponsor of numerous educational products including a discovery box educational kit which is used by Corps park rangers to educate school children about the Lewis and Clark Expedition as a military expedition. Other educational products that we have partnered in include an interagency brochure, car audio tours, a training academy for educators, exhibits and a film that will be marketed to public television. Lewis and Clark began the legacy of Army exploration of the American West which led to the Corps long tradition of service to our customers--the American public.