Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I am extremely pleased to cosponsor this amendment with my friend and my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern). We have sponsored a number of amendments over the last several years to take dollars from the American military assistance to Colombia, and I do not do this action because I am unsympathetic to President Uribe and what he is trying to accomplish. I think he is sincerely working to break the stranglehold that drug cartels and insurgency groups have on his nation. But the message sent by cutting this funding, those messages need to reach the Colombian people, this administration and his administration.

It is true, Mr. Chairman, that more is asked of the American soldier that is sent to Colombia than Colombia asks of its own soldiers. This bothers me to no end.

The Colombian people need to take concerted and consistent steps to help provide for their long-term security. That means providing for a sustained financial base.

Our administration needs to come forward with a long-term strategy for American military involvement in Colombia. Many in this House are worried about the creeping nature of our expanding mission in Colombia, known as mission creep. We need to know what role the American troops will play and for what period of time.

Having this knowledge is even more critically important as we face a long-term commitment. Our troops have the possibility of continued work in North Korea, Liberia, not to mention Iraq. We do not have enough troops to go around the world wearing them out.

We need to increase our end strength, but we have needed to do that for a while. We also need to look carefully at all of our commitments and the decisions.

So I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment. It does not eliminate all funding for Colombia, nor does it touch the critical programs like IMET, which is developing a more professional military in Colombia.

I said a moment ago that more is asked of the American soldier that is down there helping them fight the rebels than they ask of their own soldiers. Every soldier in the American Army has at least a high school education or its equivalent or they cannot join. If anyone has a high school education in Colombia, they are exempt from their military conscription. If they come from wealthy families, if they have a high school education, they do not have to serve; but Americans down there to train them and trying to help beat back the rebels are more highly educated and are putting themselves on the line, when they in Colombia do not ask the same as we ask of our soldiers who are there to help them.

Mr. Chairman, I resent this. I resent this very much. If they want our continued help, they should prove it by having a conscription law that cuts across all classes and all education. So I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment. It will not injure the programs that are important whatsoever, and it will cause them in Colombia, as well as our administration, to take a good hard look at what is necessary to win in Colombia.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the outstanding service to our Nation of Rear Admiral Stephen R. Pietropaoli, the Navy's Chief of Information, who will retire later this year. Rear Admiral Pietropaoli's career has worn the cloth of the Nation for over 26 years, during which time he has distinguished himself as a sailor, a leader, and a trusted advisor to many senior Navy and DOD senior military and civilian officials.

Throughout his career, Rear Admiral Pietropaoli has excelled in numerous positions of great responsibility. Whether he was ``driving ships'' as a surface warfare officer; guiding and leading midshipmen as a teacher at the Naval ROTC program at the University of Pennsylvania; responding to media queries as the lead spokesman at the Navy's National News Desk; or providing thoughtful and wise public affairs advice and counsel as the public affairs officer to the Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of the Navy, Rear Admiral Pietropaoli has always been widely recognized as the most trusted and respected military officer, national security expert and public affairs professional.

It was during his tour of duty at the Joint Chiefs of Staff where his stellar reputation was further solidified. Rear Admiral Pietropaoli served as the sole communications strategist and public affairs advisor for two Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during operations in Bosnia and Kosovo. While working for Generals Shalikashvili and Shelton, Rear Admiral Pietropaoli developed messages for countless media briefings, congressional appearances and international trips. During this time, the Department of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the military services used these messages to work successfully with the Congress to provide the largest pay raise in 20 years and to restore retirement benefits for service members that serve 20 years in the military.

In his final assignment as the Navy's Chief of Information, Rear Admiral Pietropaoli led a global team of 500 active duty, reserve and civilian public professionals. His personal leadership and actions gave the American public an extraordinary understanding of the sacrifices and contributions of our Sailors and Marines, and the capabilities of U.S. Naval forces in times of peace and war. His vision, leadership and dedication have raised the Department of the Navy's numerous worldwide public affairs operations to unprecedented levels of success. Without question, no other leader in the U.S. Navy had a greater impact on garnering departmental, congressional, and public support for key Navy issues and programs than Rear Admiral Pietropaoli.

Whether coordinating Navy Public Affairs efforts following the attacks of September 11th, communicating the Navy's role in Operation ENDURING FREEDOM in Afghanistan and the Philippines and Operation IRAQI FREEDOM, or discussing Navy's support for homeland defense and Operation NOBLE EAGLE, Rear Admiral Pietropaoli orchestrated unprecedented media access to naval information and operations giving American and international audiences a clear picture of the readiness, dedication and contributions our Sailors made to national security.

During his tenure as CHINFO, Rear Admiral Pietropaoli also demonstrated unparalleled expertise in all facets of Navy Public Affairs community management; active duty and reserve, officer, enlisted, and civilian alike. His knowledge of public affairs requirements across the spectrum of military operations, combined with his keen sense of an individual's strengths, ensured the right person was sent to the right job at the right time. Joint commanders augmenting their public affairs staffs during military operations routinely sought Rear Admiral Pietropaoli's well trained public affairs specialists. He has led the consolidation effort over various enlisted ratings into the public affairs family of ratings, ensuring better career management for all those who work in the public affairs arena. He has also championed efforts by the Secretary of the Navy to study and implement a civilian community management plan, becoming the sponsor for those in the public affairs and related series.

There is no question that Rear Admiral Pietropaoli is the top communications professional in the U.S. military today. His unparalleled leadership and zeal for excellence will have a positive impact on the Navy Public Affairs Community for decades. He will be missed.

In a Navy where many people come and go, Rear Admiral Pietropaoli is a symbol of commitment and dedication from which many of us could learn. I congratulate him on his retirement and thank him for his nearly three decades of honorable service to the Navy and country.

On behalf of the U.S. Congress, I offer my congratulations to Rear Admiral Pietropaoli and wish him the best of luck as he and his wife, Dawn, and their two sons, Daniel and Matthew, begin this new and exciting chapter of their lives. Fair winds and following seas!

Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from California for the purpose of explaining this request.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

While there are many reasons to support this motion, let me say that one key reason for supporting it is that the provisions contained in section 3111 of the House bill are largely the same legislation adopted by this body in the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 which, of course, was last year's defense bill.

The House adopted that legislation after considerable and very careful deliberations and on a bipartisan basis led by the gentleman from South Carolina. We authorized research but retained the prohibition on development activities that could lead to the production of a destabilizing and unnecessary new low-yield nuclear weapon. We also described permissible activities necessary to address the safety and reliability of those issues.

Mr. Speaker, being a student of history, the war in Iraq and Desert Storm some 12 years ago now have taught us that stealth technology, standoff capability and precision munitions are the key to future warfare. New conventional technologies have changed the way we fight and, if anything, will

allow us to become less reliant on low-yield tactical nuclear weapons.

The House position on low-yield nuclear weapons makes sense. I urge my colleagues to support the motion to instruct conferees.

Mr. Speaker, it has come to my attention that Vice Admiral Paul G. Gaffney II, is retiring after a long and exceptionally distinguished career.

Admiral Gaffney's outstanding service to the Nation has been marked by meritorious service in increasingly demanding command positions, culminating as the President of the National Defense University. He has demonstrated strong and inspiring leadership, unsurpassed executive ability, and an untiring dedication to the spirit and mission of the United States Navy.

Admiral Gaffney is a 1968 graduate of the United States Naval Academy. He is also a graduate of Catholic University with a master's degree in Ocean Engineering. He completed an MBA at Jacksonville University and was a student and advanced research fellow at the Naval War College graduating with highest distinction.

His distinguished career has spanned 3 decades and includes duty at sea, overseas and ashore in executive and command positions. His duties have included tours as Operations Officer, USS Whippoorwill, in Japan; Advisor to the Vietnamese Navy Combat Hydrographic Survey Team; Executive Assistant to the Oceanographic Unit for conducting hydrographic surveys in the Republic of Indonesia; Military Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs; Commanding Officer of the Naval Oceanography Command Facility, Jacksonville, FL; Assistant Chief of Naval Research in Washington, DC; Commanding Officer of the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, DC; and Command, Naval Meteorology and Oceanography Command.

Admiral Gaffney's awards and decorations include the Distinguished Service Medal, Defense Superior Service Medal, Legion of Merit (four awards), Bronze Star (with ``V''), and the Naval War College's J. William Middendorf Prize for Strategic Research.

Mr. Speaker, I know the Members of the House will join me in paying tribute to Admiral Paul G. Gaffney II, for his outstanding commitment to the United States Navy and the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege to deliver a few remarks at the opening ceremony of the new Korean War exhibit at the Truman Presidential Museum and Library in Independence, Missouri. My remarks are set forth as follows:

Conflict and Consequence: The Korean War and its Unsettled Legacy

Thank you for inviting me to be with you today for the

opening ceremonies of this important new exhibit at the

Truman Library. I am humbled to be here, particularly as we

honor those who served our country so nobly during the Korean

conflict.

This library is a monument to the legacy and achievements

of Harry S. Truman and we are blessed to have this renowned

resource here in Independence. The Truman Library, and all of

our Presidential libraries, are dedicated to the preservation

of our nation's historical heritage, as repositories of

Presidential papers and memorabilia. As far as I'm concerned,

the mission of this Library--particularly its educational

function--has never been more important, and the exhibit the

Library opens to the public today is especially timely.

I have to admit, and I'm sure this will come as no surprise

to anyone, that I am very sentimental about one of the

artifacts on display in this exhibition. You see, my father,

Ike Skelton III, was an attorney in Lafayette County and

became a friend of Truman's when they met on September 17,

1928. The occasion was the dedication of the Pioneer Mother

Statue--the Madonna of the Trail--located in my hometown of

Lexington, Missouri.

They kept up this acquaintance, corresponding periodically,

so it seems right in character that my father, a fellow

veteran of World War One who served on the USS Missouri, sent

a telegram to President Truman after the President decided to

fire General Douglas MacArthur, letting him know that he

agreed with the decision and pledging his continued support

and that of Truman's friends in Lafayette County.

This momentous decision--reaffirming the supremacy of

civilian control of the military--is full of the drama that

makes our history fascinating. And I hope that for others who

see this document, this personal note to the President from

one of his Missouri friends, it will be meaningful as well.

I know that with the library professionals and historians

in the audience I am preaching to the choir, but I am a big

believer in the power of history, as was Harry Truman. Truman

was an avid reader and student of history. My friend, the

late Congressman Fred Schwengel, told me about meeting

Senator Truman in 1935 while Schwengel was a college student

in Missouri. Truman advised him that to be a good American,

``...you should know your history.''

That story is consistent with my experience. I well

remember taking a group of grade school students to visit the

Truman Library in 1963, and though President Truman was of

advanced age, he spoke to them in the library auditorium

about American history and the Constitution. He wanted young

people to learn as much as they could about America.

I do my best to encourage people, particularly young

people, to study history. I have embarked on a school visit

program I call ``History Matters'', which gives me the chance

to talk about the importance of history whenever I visit

schools. I also recently issued a 50-book national security

reading list, which is heavy on biographies and histories,

including the books I recommend to Members of Congress,

military officers, and anyone interested in learning about

character, leadership, and military art.

Why do I believe it is so important to keep up our efforts

to promote a broad knowledge of history? Let me share this

with you for a little perspective. The college student

interns who are working in my office this summer were only

about 8 years old in 1989 when we witnessed the end of the

Cold War with the fall of the Berlin Wall. This major event,

as well as the many other significant events and crisis

points of the Cold War, are far-removed from them. By no

fault of their own, they did not experience these events the

way many of us did.

It took 50 years of national commitment to see the collapse

of communism in the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc. But in

spite of the cessation of hostilities in Korea in 1953, U.S.

troops still deploy to South Korea to deter invasion from the

North. The totalitarian regime of North Korea continues to

rattle sabers and threaten not only the future of peace on

the peninsula but peace in the region and the world.

Today's college students have lived long enough to

experience missile threats from North Korea, including

nuclear threats. In spite of the prosperity of the South, and

in spite of the passage of more than 50 years, many of the

issues splitting the Korean Peninsula are still with us. This

exhibit, which

opens today, will be of invaluable help to all of us, but

particularly our young people, to understand where we have

been and where we are today.

For the last several years, we have recognized and

commemorated many of the significant events and milestones of

the 20th century. Sometimes when we look back on the past, we

tend to remember ``the good old days'' and think that day-to-

day life in America is much more difficult now than it was

before. Without a doubt, our country today, in the infancy of

the 21st Century, faces significant challenges. But it does

us good to remember that the circumstances and state of the

world presented to Truman during his Presidency were

extraordinarily daunting.

Like the Presidents who came before and after him, Truman

was burdened with the loneliness that goes along with being

the Chief Executive. But President Truman's character ensured

that he did not shy away from difficult, often politically

unpopular, decisions. He once said, ``Do your duty and

history will do you justice.''

America had endured the Great Depression. Along with our

allies, America fought a long and costly war against fascism.

Although there was an understandable euphoria following

victory in World War II, the state of the world prompted

Truman to move away from America's established pattern of

peacetime isolationism in order to assist European economic

recovery through the Marshall Plan and to protect Western

Europe under the umbrella of the North Atlantic Treaty

Organization. Almost immediately, Harry Truman was forced to

confront the reality of the Cold War, and the struggle of the

U.S. and other western democracies was on to stop the spread

of communism.

Truman had the courage to stand up to the communist

aggression that marked the beginning of the Cold War. The

Truman Doctrine made clear that the United States would not

stand idly by in the face of communist aggression in Greece,

Turkey, and elsewhere. Truman's commitment to the democratic

rights of free people was clear as the U.S. provided

essential supplies to the people of Berlin during the Soviet

blockade.

And fifty-three years ago, President Harry S. Truman made

the agonizing decision to use American troops to lead the

United Nation's resistance to the communist invasion of South

Korea. Over the next three years, more than 54,000 Americans

paid the ultimate price, with over 33,000 killed in action.

Over 110,000 Americans were wounded or missing in action. In

addition, over 228,000 South Korean soldiers and untold

numbers of civilians gave their lives.

These stark statistics serve as a reminder to all of us

that the slogan ``freedom is not free'' is more than just a

few words. The sacrifices of thousands of American service

members purchased the freedom that South Koreans enjoy to

this day, a freedom that our military continues to protect.

In many respects, our participation in the Korean conflict

has served as model for the way our military operates today.

Korea was the first multilateral United Nations operation,

and it has become the longest standing peacekeeping operation

in modern times. The unfortunate experience of Task Force

Smith has taught us the paramount importance of sending

forces into battle only when they are adequately trained and

equipped. We have also learned that units cannot be thrown

piecemeal into battle but must be engaged in a coordinated

fashion with air and sea power and with overwhelming force.

The lessons of the Korean War, taught at such great cost,

have served us well in the conflicts in which we have

participated since then, from Viet Nam to the Persian Gulf

War to Bosnia, Kosovo, and the War on Terrorism.

As much as we may be inclined to remember the leaders who

ultimately brought us victory in the Korean War--Truman,

MacArthur, Acheson, Walker, and Ridgway--it is really the men

and women who served so bravely to whom we pay tribute.

Without their selfless dedication, valor, and perseverance,

the people of South Korea would not be living in a free

and prosperous society.

To the veterans of the Korean conflict--those who are with

us today, those who never returned home, and those who we

have lost in the years since--we say thank you. Each of you

who lost friends or family members who died during this

conflict understand that their loss creates a void that can

never be filled. Three of my close friends--a high school

classmate, a Boy Scout buddy, and a friend from Wentworth

Military Academy Junior College--were killed in Korea. You

were the ones who carried out the orders of the Commander-In-

Chief, President Truman, who drew a line in the sand. This

line was held by your blood, sweat, and tears. You gave of

your youth to stop the spread of communism. I maintain that

these fledgling efforts, these supreme sacrifices, were the

foundation of our victory in the Cold War, some 50 years

later.

I know that you must feel a special kinship with our men

and women who today are serving in Operation Enduring Freedom

and Operation Iraqi Freedom. You, perhaps as much as anyone,

understand the hardship of fighting a war, a continent away

from home, a war to ensure the survival of a nation and a way

of life. What they are doing today will set the stage for the

next 50 years, and I suspect that, like the Cold War, it may

well be 50 years before we know for sure whether we have won

the War Against Terrorism and brought peace and stability to

the Middle East in the wake of the Iraq War.

We would all do well to live by Truman's advice, ``Do your

duty, and history will do you justice.'' The tough decisions

made by Truman earned the praise of British Prime Minister

Winston Churchill who said to Truman, ``You, more than any

other man, have saved Western civilization.'' History has

indeed done justice and given evidence to Truman's wisdom,

strength, and vision. May what we learn from the past enable

us to do our duty today as well.

God bless.

Mr. Speaker, today I join my colleagues as we pay tribute to our friend, Bob Stump of Arizona. I was deeply saddened to learn of his passing last weekend. I join my colleagues in extending our deepest sympathy to Bob's wife, Nancy, his children, and his entire family.

Bob Stump was my first friend in Congress. Almost 26 years ago, two newly-elected Members of Congress sat down next to each other at an organizational caucus for the 95th Congress, and formed a friendship that has endured and grown through the years. You have to understand that when we met, Bob Stump and I thought we were pretty important. After all, we had both served in the State Legislatures of Arizona and Missouri--as Senators. But we both adjusted and came to love the House of Representatives.

It should be no surprise that I liked Bob from the first time I met him. I could tell immediately that he was a person of character and integrity. He was a true son of the old Southwest:

Strong, yet gentle.

Tough, yet compassionate.

Fiercely independent, yet unfailingly loyal.

He was born in Phoenix in 1927, just 15 years after Arizona joined the Union as the 48th State. He was only 16 when he demonstrated the love of country and the patriotism that would characterize his life in public service. He left high school to join the Navy in 1943, and before his 20th birthday, he had served in combat in World War II. It was no doubt during this time that Bob acquired his life-long respect for the men and women who serve our Nation in uniform. This respect became a commitment, and the commitment became the hallmark of Bob's service here in Congress. As Chairman of both the Armed Services Committee and the Veterans Committee, he worked tirelessly on behalf of our men and women in uniform and our veterans.

No one has done more to ensure that our military and their families have decent pay and benefits, the best equipment and training, and quality housing and facilities. No one has done more to ensure that our Nation honors its commitments to its veterans.

Only last October, Bob's portrait was unveiled at the Armed Services Committee and placed up on the wall where it belongs--among the other great leaders who have chaired the Committee through the years. I feel blessed that I had the opportunity to work closely with Bob during the past two years in my role as Ranking Member of the House Armed Services Committee. As Chairman, he was respectful of others, fair, and honorable. Knowing him as I do, I would have expected no less. On most issues which Congress has faced over these many years, we agreed. On those rare occasions where we did not agree, our disagreement never got in the way of our friendship, and for that I am grateful.

Mr. Speaker, let me take this means to congratulate the Central Missouri State University (CMSU) Baseball Team on their NCAA- Division II Baseball Championship.

With the leadership of Coach Brad Hill, ``MIAA Coach of the Year,'' the CMSU Mules defeated Tampa 11 to 4 in the championship game to claim its second national title. The Mules ended the season 51-7, their fourth straight season with 50 or more wins.

The Mules also were led by the dedication of its six seniors: Rob Bergin, Boomer Berry,

Eric Horner, Brandon Pugh, Brian Shewmaker, and Matt Whitney. Three members of the CMSU team made the NCAA-Division II All-Tournament Team: Zach Norman, Danny Guidry, and Danny Powers.

Mr. Speaker, this outstanding team has played a wonderful season of baseball and has made the people of Missouri proud. I know that the Members of the House will join me in congratulating them on their NCAA- Division II Baseball Championship.

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

As a stalwart supporter of our troops and as cosponsor of House Concurrent Resolution 177, I am pleased to join my colleague and my friend, the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), in support of this bill.

This resolution commends and expresses the Nation's sincere appreciation to the men and women in uniform and our allies who served and are serving in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. It also recognizes the outstanding contributions of the Department of Defense civilian employees and civil and defense contractors who have contributed tremendously to the success of these operations. And it urges communities across the country to honor and welcome home these brave and courageous patriots.

Today we have an all-volunteer force that proudly stands watch over the Nation's interests both here and abroad. Over 1.4 million active duty service members and an additional 875,000 citizen soldiers, National Guardsmen and Reservists, part-time volunteers, comprise the finest, best-trained fighting force the world has ever seen.

Let me say I am especially proud of the men and women in uniform from my home State of Missouri. Over 289,000 Guardsmen and Reservists have been activated since September 11, 2001, and nearly 220,000 have been called to active duty for Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. And as these fine young men and women return home, I urge my colleagues to visit an active duty base, Reserve center or National Guard armory and spend some time with these dedicated individuals to thank them and their families for their commitment and for their sacrifice. I promise you will never forget the experience of meeting these fine men and women. I know my visits to bases in Missouri always make a lasting impression on me.

When we send our fathers and our mothers and our sons and daughters, sisters and brothers, aunts, uncles, cousins in defense of this Nation, we are reminded that the price of freedom is not free.

I would also like to commend our Nation's civil servants and contractors who provide support to our service members. Americans may be surprised to learn that there are also civil service and civilian contractors serving overseas in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Our Nation also calls upon its dedicated and committed civil service personnel and contractors to support those serving in a combat zone. Their contributions were also important to the success of these operations, and they too deserve our recognition and our respect for their service to our Nation's security.

While those in uniform volunteer to make these sacrifices, their families are the ones that must shoulder these burdens as well. Anxiety, frustration,

sadness, anger, pride, happiness, satisfaction, understanding, and reassurance are all feelings that military families must face during the months of separation. Hundreds of babies have been born while a parent was deployed to Afghanistan or to Iraq. Tragically, some will never know their parent who died while serving.

Yet, time continues on, missed birthdays, proms, graduations, holidays; the loss of a loved one is normal hardship that military families endure. Military families endure much hardship and sacrifice, and to that end, they too serve.

Reservists and National Guardsmen and their families often face similar problems when called to active duty. But Reservists and National guardsmen are also dependent on support from their employer. Thousands of employers across the country have gone the extra step and provided additional support in a number of ways. That includes paying the difference between civilian pay and military pay when an employee is activated, and continuing health care coverage for families that are left behind. Without the support of our Nation's employers, Reservists and National Guardsmen would not be able to volunteer to defend this Nation.

I believe that it is of paramount importance to support the troops, the men and women in uniform who are literally putting their lives on the line for our country. More than 200 service members have died since the global war on terrorism began, and over 700 have been wounded or injured, and eight were held as prisoners of war. These individuals and their families have sacrificed for our freedom, and our thoughts and our prayers are truly with them. The Nation will not forget the price they paid to defend our country and the freedoms we all enjoy.

While there are no words that can adequately express the Nation's appreciation for their sacrifice, our sympathies and our prayers go out to these families.

It does not take too many hours of watching our troops in action on television to know that they are demonstrating acts of personal sacrifice and heroism on a daily basis. We have an obligation to let them know that we appreciate and admire their contribution to our national security.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), who is one of the original cosponsors of this legislation together with the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to first say that this resolution has no political agenda. We are here merely to say ``thank you.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

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

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

It is good to hear Members such, as our friend from New York (Mr. Rangel), the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), all veterans, speaking so well today for the young men and young women in the armed services. We appreciate it and their words so very, very much.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, a great Roman orator once said that gratitude is the greatest of all virtues, and that is what this resolution does; no more, no less. It expresses gratitude, appreciation and thankfulness to those young men and women in uniform, to those civilian employees who back them up, as well as civilian contractors. It is our way of saying thank you from the Congress of the United States. They are the pride of our country, and we wish to express our deep and sincere appreciation to them through this means.

Mr. Speaker, even before we were a nation, we had our flags. Different from today's to be sure. But serving the same purpose--symbols of unity, and of our hopes, achievements, glory, and high resolve.

Brave New England patriots faced down British regulars at a place called Bunker Hill under the Continental Flag which prominently featured a pine tree.

``Don't Tread on Me,'' said the colonists in the South, and a coiled rattlesnake on their flag reinforced that message.

The Grand Union Flag went to sea with John Paul Jones and marched under George Washington in the early days of our Revolution. By combining the British Union Jack with thirteen red and white stripes it reflected the thinking of the colonists during that time: allegiance to the Crown, but willing to fight for their rights as Englishmen.

That thinking had changed, however, by July 4, 1776. The Declaration of Independence--``That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States''--set us on a new course, from which there was no turning back. It was a realization that a people could not at once fight against the king and at the same time profess their loyalty to him. And, it meant that the new United States would need a national flag.

On June 14, 1777--the day we now celebrate as Flag Day--the Continental Congress adopted the following brief resolution: ``Resolved, that the flag of the thirteen United States be thirteen stripes, alternate red and white: that the union be thirteen stars, white in a blue field, representing a new constellation.''

It is now believed that Francis Hopkinson, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, designed the first national flag that legend attributes to Betsy Ross. For his services, he submitted Congress a bill for nine dollars. Of course, government in 1777 was not really much different from government today. Hopkinson never got paid.

So, we had a national flag, the ``Stars and Stripes.'' In 1792, the first version with thirteen stars in a circle appeared. In 1795, the flag was changed to recognize the entry of Vermont and Kentucky into the Union with the addition of two stars and two stripes. This flag of fifteen stars and fifteen stripes figured in many stirring episodes. It was the first flag to be flown over a fortress of the Old World when it was raised at Tripoli in 1805. It was flown at the Battle of Lake Erie and by Andrew Jackson at New Orleans. And it was flown at our young nation's most inspiring moment.

In 1812, our nation had declared war on Great Britain because of British seizure of neutral U.S. trading vessels, and the impressment of American seamen into service on British ships. The British, preoccupied with Napoleon, were not amused. They were even less amused when we sent forth speedy privateers to seize their merchant ships and to frustrate their heavily gunned men-of-war.

In 1814, with Napoleon exiled to the island of Elba, the British determined to put the upstart former colonists in their place. They dispatched a 50-ship expeditionary force--veteran soldiers and sailors from the world's strongest military power. Up the Chesapeake Bay they came, and on August 24 and 25, 1814, they burned Washington. Their next target: Baltimore--third largest city in the U.S., a rich trading center, and home to many of the fleet privateers that had humiliated the proud Royal Navy.

As the British moved on Baltimore, one thing blocked their way--Fort McHenry, whose guns dominated the channels leading into Baltimore Harbor. Unless they could get past the fort, the British Navy could not support its ground forces whose advance on the city had been stalled.

So, at dawn on September 13, a 25-hour bombardment began. At the same time, a 35-year-old American lawyer was being held on board a British ship pending the end of the battle. Francis Scott Key watched the ``rockets red glare'' and ``the bombs bursting in air'' through the night. At the first light of dawn, Key was relieved to see that Fort McHenry's giant flag--30 feet by 42 feet--``The Star Spangled Banner''--did indeed still wave over ``the land of the free and the home of the brave.'' Inspired by the sight, he took pen in hand and gave us what would become our National Anthem.

The burning of Washington and the victory at Ft. McHenry united our young nation like nothing before had done. We emerged from the War of 1812, with a new national identity, confidence, and patriotism, a recovering economy, and a place in the world. And we continued to grow--to the valleys of the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers and beyond with new states joining the union and the number of stars in that field of blue growing.

Less than 50 years after the end of the War of 1812, our flag would face one of its greatest challenges. As our nation was split asunder in a great civil war, and its ability to endure as one hung in the balance, courage related to the flag often spelled the difference between victory and defeat.

Missionary Ridge, Tennessee, November, 1863. A key link between the east and west for the Confederacy. Confederate troops entrenched along a 400-foot-high, seven-mile-long summit. Sixty Union regiments under General George Thomas attacked positions at the foot of the ridge, and then, unexpectedly, surged up the slope. Flag bearers led the way. When one fell, another stepped forward to grab the colors, and the advanced continued. A young First Lieutenant--not yet 20 years old--caught the flag of the 24th Wisconsin as it was about to fall, and carried it to the crest. Arthur MacArthur's bravery earned him a battlefield promotion to major and the Medal of Honor that day. Many of you here today may have served under his son, Douglas, in the Pacific or Korea. In all, seven flag bearers won the Medal of Honor at Missionary Ridge. At day's end, the flags of 60 Union regiments lined the summit.

The War ended and the Union was preserved. And the flag proved as inspiring in peace as it was in war. In 1868, a former Union Army Sergeant, Gilbert Bates, set out to carry the Stars and Stripes from Vicksburg, Mississippi, to Washington, D.C., to prove to friends back in Wisconsin that we were once again one nation. Crowds cheered him at every town and village as he marched through the heart of the Old Confederacy. Ironically, and maybe today we could say prophetically, Sergeant Bates and his flag encountered real hostility and opposition only in our nation's capital.

Westward we moved, behind the flag. Across the Wide Missouri, and along the South Platte to the Rockies, and beyond to Oregon and California. South to Santa Fe and the Rio Grande--conquering a wilderness, settling a continent, and fulfilling our destiny. New stars added to the flag and more people to enjoy the blessings of liberty it embodies: people in the new lands, and immigrants from the Old World-- the ``huddled masses yearning to breathe free.''

Our flag went to foreign shores. Up San Juan Hill with Teddy Roosevelt in the Spanish American War ending four centuries of Spanish colonialism in the New World. At Veracruz, on the Gulf coast of Mexico, its honor was defended by brave sailors and marines. ``Over there'' it went with a Missourian, General John Pershing, in the ``War To End All Wars.''

Our flag was tattered, but not lowered at Pearl Harbor. And we rallied behind it, lifted it higher. We took it ashore at Normandy, and across the Rhine with Eisenhower, Bradley, and Patton, and Hitler's ``Thousand Year Reich,'' the worst tyranny the world has yet known, crumbled at its advance. Across the South Pacific it went, island by island. In 1944, the most dramatic flag raising in American history, on a rocky Pacific island called Iwo Jima. When the sun rose the next day on that flag atop Mount Suribachi, the sun of Japanese Imperialism began to set.

The flag was with us: In Korea helping to preserve democracy for half of a divided nation. In Vietnam, where brave American POWs fashioned handmade flags to defy their captors. It went to the moon with the astronauts of Apollo 11.

Yes, our flag has stood by us--leading us, inspiring us, sustaining us--in all of our national endeavors, in war and in peace, for over 200 years.

Now, sadly, it seems that some people don't want to stand by our flag. The Supreme Court has said that it is all right to desecrate our flag, to burn it even, in the name of free speech. ``Government,'' says the Court, ``may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.''

I agree that everyone in this country has the right to make his views known on any issue, no matter how irrational, how wrong, or how unpopular those views might be. But does that mean that every form of conduct is permissible as a means of exercising rights guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution? I say no. And I say so as a student of law and of history. The framers of the Bill of Rights used words carefully to convey a precise meaning. The First Amendment to the Constitution says ``Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, . . .'' It says nothing about ``expression.''

Legal precedent and common sense tells us that there can be limits on conduct which are not inconsistent with First Amendment rights. Consider some extreme examples: Would anyone, even the Supreme Court, contend that we must permit human sacrifice under the guise of free exercise of religion? Would someone be allowed to blow up the Lincoln Memorial to express a political view?

Flag burning does not merit First Amendment protection. It is conduct that is offensive and provocative to the overwhelming majority of Americans. Moreover, it is unnecessary. Any point of view that can be expressed by flag burning can be better expressed in a manner that is reasoned, rational and more effective in communicating an idea or attempting to persuade others.

We have a great system of government, and one reason it is so great is that if you disagree with a government action, even a decision of the highest court in the land, you can work to change it.

Therefore, I support legislation being considered by the House of Representatives today that will create a Constitutional Amendment that will allow Congress and the States to ban flag burning and other similar forms of flag desecration. The process of changing the Constitution is not fast and easy. The framers wanted to make amending the Constitution a difficult, deliberative process.

I am confident that a Constitutional Amendment can be passed. But if it fails, or if it stalls, we can move in other areas. We can redraft and enact new flag desecration statutes that attempt to meet the Court's objections to the Texas statute. If those new statutes won't pass muster, we'll enact new ones.

We can do still more. Our children must be taught to respect the flag not only in our schools, but by our example. We must instruct them to display it and use it properly and salute it appropriately. We must encourage our children and every future generation to value the freedoms we enjoy and to stand tall and proud when they say, ``I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America . . .'' We must instill in them a strong sense of the heritage embodied in our flag, and the pride of being an American. Finally, we must ensure that they continue to recognize and honor the great sacrifices made by previous generations of Americans, many of whom gave ``the last full measure of devotion'' so that we could live free.

The poet Edgar A. Guest said it best when he penned:

The Boy and the Flag

I want my boy to love his home, his Mother, yes, and me:

I want him, wheresoe'er he'll roam, With us in thought to be.

I want him to love what is fine, Nor let his standards drag,

But, Oh! I want this boy of mine To love This country's flag!

Let me take a moment and put a few things in perspective. As much as the Supreme Court decision has disappointed me, it is in the final analysis no real threat to our nation. Our flag stands for too much to be brought down by matches lit by those who would desecrate it. Its glory cannot be diminished by a U.S. Supreme Court ruling. It cannot be threatened by any enemy, foreign or domestic. If they step on it, write on it, tear it to shreds, even burn it to ashes, we'll just raise it up again, and it'll fly higher and more gloriously than ever before.

A few years ago, we had a flag day ceremony in the House of Representatives. County-western singer Johnny Cash recited these lyrics that he had written:

Ragged Old Flag

(By Johnny Cash)

I walked through a county courthouse square

On a park bench an old man was sitting there

I said, ``Your old courthouse is kinda run down.''

He said, ``Naw, it'll do for our little town.''

I said, ``Your old flag pole is leaned a little bit,''

And that's a ragged old flag you got hanging on it.''

He said, ``Have a seat.'' And I sat down.

``Is this the first time you've been to our little town?''

I said, ``I think it is.'' He said, ``I don't like to brag,

But we're kind of proud of that ragged old flag.''

``You see, we got a little hole in that flag there

When Washington took it across the Delaware

And it got powder burned the night Francis Scott Key

Sat up watching it, writing `Say Can you see'

It got a bad rip in New Orleans

With Packingham and Jackson pulling at its seams

And it almost fell at the Alamo,

Beside the Texas flag, but, she waved on though

She got cut with a sword at Chancellorsville

And she got cut again at Shiloh Hill

There was Robert E. Lee, Beauregard and Bragg

The South wind blew hard on that Ragged Old Flag

On Flanders field in World War One

She got a big hole from a Bertha gun

She turned blood red in world War Two,

She hung limp and low by the time it was through

She was in Korea and Viet Nam

She went where she was sent by he Uncle Sam

She waved from our ships upon the briny foam

And now they've about quit waving her back here at home

In her own good land she's been abused

She's been burned, dishonored, denied, refused

And now the government for which she stands

Is scandalized throughout the land

And she's getting threadbare and she's wearing thin

But she's in good shape for the shape she's in

Cause she's been through the fire before

And I believe she can take a whole lot more

So we raise her up every morning

Bring her down slow every night

We don't let her touch the ground

And we fold her up right.

On second thought, . . . I do like to brag,

Cause I'm mighty proud of that ragged Old Flag.''

Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support H.J. Res. 4 and to give Old Glory the respect it deserves.

Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity today to honor General Eric K. Shinseki, the 34th Chief of Staff of the United States Army. I have had the privilege of working with General Shinseki over these past 4 years, as he set forth a vision, and then followed with a plan of execution, that will culminate in a complete Transformation of the premier land force in the world today--The United States Army.

General Eric K. Shinseki is a soldier General, a soldier's soldier. He began his Army career after graduating from the United States Military Academy in 1965. He served two combat tours in the Republic of Vietnam. I should note that this officer has been carried off the battlefield on the backs of soldiers. It is because of these soldiers, that he has served so long, and with so much distinction. Despite receiving serious wounds in battle, General Shinseki remained on active duty out of his utmost respect for the young, American soldier he encountered in Vietnam. While he may not have been aware at that time, the experience he garnered under the tutelage of non-commissioned officers as a new officer instilled the discipline and direction that would ultimately place him as The Army's ``point man''. General Shinseki excelled at every level, in command and in staff positions, both in the continental United States and overseas. He commanded the 1st Cavalry Division at Fort Hood, Texas, became Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans at Headquarters Department of the Army, served as the Commanding General, United States Army Europe, Commander Allied Land Forces Central Europe; and Commander, NATO Stabilization Force in Bosnia-Herzegovina. In 1998, he assumed the duties as the 28th Vice Chief of Staff of the United States Army.

On June 22, 1999, General Shinseki became the Chief of Staff of the United States Army. Since assuming that position, General Shinseki's commitment and leadership have contributed immeasurably to ensuring that America's Army is unmatched by any in our history in its skill and professionalism. General Shinseki began a transformation that will fundamentally reform the Army and position it for continuing excellence and achievement in the coming decades. The path of Transformation is one that is filled with challenges, and unexpected events. While he was charting a course for the Army's Transformation, General Shinseki was charged with ensuring The Army was again prepared to go in to battle. At the onset, the Global War on Terrorism began to consume assets. Quickly on the heels of this, was Operation Noble Eagle--the defense of the American Homeland, in Operation Enduring Freedom--the attack on AI Qaeda's lair, and Operation Iraqi Freedom--the liberation of Iraq. These events served as a galvanizing catalyst to General Shinseki's vision for Transformation. The Army was now one Army, at war and transforming. Whether active, National Guard, or Reserve, it is one Army. Throughout all this, General Shinseki has provided a steady hand that as a result leaves the Army, and its men and women, in one of the highest states of readiness ever.

After more than 35 years service to the nation, General Shinseki will retire from the United States Army this month. Throughout that entire period, General Shinseki's actions have epitomized those of a soldier, leader, and consummate professional. Always mission-focused and soldier-centered, he upheld the Army's non-negotiable mission contract with the American people to fight and win the nation's wars, while never forgetting that it is the sacrifice and skill of the American soldier that makes those victories possible.

Mr. Speaker, the Constitution of this great country charges this body to raise and support Armies. The Transformation that is underway in our Army is one that is steeped in history, and fraught with vision. While we are charged to raise an Army, it is an officer of such caliber as General Shinseki's, who will ensure its training, its readiness, its ability to answer when the country calls. As we have witnessed since September 11, 2001, the freedoms we enjoy, come at a price. Our nation has been fortunate to have men and women willing to come forward at times of crisis and challenge to pay that price. We now add another name to that distinguished list; General Eric K. Shinseki. It is through dedication, and the selfless devotion to duty of Americans like him, that our nation is able to continue upon the path of democracy. To provide global response and assistance when and where needed. It is with profound admiration and deep appreciation that I pay tribute to General Shinseki for all that he has done for the United States Army and this country. To General Eric K. Shinseki, the 34th Chief of Staff of The United States Army, on behalf of this Congress, and of a grateful nation, Thank you for your service.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule.

When I testified before the Committee on Rules, Mr. Speaker, I specifically asked that committee for several major amendments, Democratic amendments, and that they be made in order. The first was the Cooper amendment dealing with civil service changes, which would establish a bill of rights for civilian workers within that department. The second, the Spratt amendment, on cooperative threat reduction, which, by the way, Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States requested. The third, the Taylor amendment on base closure. We should have a full and fair debate on that. And the Dingell-Rahall amendment on the environment. The dean of the House, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), was not given that amendment. As a matter of fact, none of those four amendments were made in order. That is, Mr. Speaker, simply wrong.

Regardless of how Members might feel on the substance of amendments, it is wrong that a major substantive policy amendment is kept from debate. That should not happen. It should be allowed. It should be debated fully on this floor. This is a deliberative body, and many have said the most deliberative body in the whole world. Yet, Mr. Speaker, we cannot debate key issues that come before us. This is not a full debate. It deserves that. We in this institution do not deserve this disservice, and I cannot agree, sadly, with this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record my op-ed article entitled ``Overhaul Without Oversight'' from the Washington Post dated May 21.

[From the Washington Post, May 21, 2003]

Overhaul Without Oversight

(By Ike Skelton)

I believe history will show that the swiftness of America's

military victory in Iraq was due in large part to the in-

depth training of our officers in strategy and plans and to

the military's application of that training in the

operational plans developed in the months before the war.

Many people, including the Secretary of Defense, had detailed

lists of what could go wrong. We avoided those outcomes,

partly thanks to luck but mostly because of deliberate

military planning that sought out and compensated for

potential risks and unintended consequences.

Last month, as Congress was departing for a two-week

recess, the Defense Department submitted a 200-page draft

``transformation'' bill that requests extensive new

authorities. It is not an understatement to say that this

bill, taken as a whole, is the most sweeping defense reform

legislation proposed since the Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986,

which changed both the structure and the policies governing

our military. The only thing that is obvious and consistent

throughout the 50 provisions included in this bill is the

aggregation of power sought for the Department of Defense,

removing the legal restrictions and congressional oversight

that should safeguard against any abuses, however

unintentional. This approach is a rush to judgment that will

affect vast numbers of people and, in many cases, will

enshrine bad policy in law.

Major reassignments of constitutional authority such as

this demand the same sort of thoughtful foresight as a war

plan. In fact, the Goldwater-Nichols legislation took

Congress four years to pass. The armed services committees of

both houses of Congress held dozens of hearings and spent

months drafting a comprehensive and bipartisan bill. We did

this because the scope of the legislation was broad, the

potentially unforeseen implications were numerous and the

impact on the lives of all those who serve this nation was

enormous.

The House of Representatives is to consider and vote on a

defense authorization bill today that has much to commend it.

It will authorize $400 billion to ensure that our forces

remain the best trained and best equipped in the world. But

it will also include large pieces of the transformation

package--even though the committee has held fewer than five

hearings, and most of those with less than a week's notice.

Without the time to investigate and ask the tough questions,

we do not know what the implications of these changes are.

And so we, unlike Gen. Tommy Franks in Iraq, cannot build a

plan to avoid the worst outcomes.

The proposed legislation makes sweeping changes to both

military and civilian personnel systems. On the civilian

side, the Defense Department wants unfettered freedom to hire

and fire its nearly 700,000 employees. Congress had a long,

contentious debate over similar personnel proposals when

creating the Department of Homeland Security. That

legislation is barely being implemented now, and there has

been no opportunity to evaluate its results. The Defense

Department wants changes that are even more dramatic,

including, just as one example, the repeal of laws preventing

nepotism. What justification based on our national security

or sound management principles can justify that? What message

does this send to the hundreds of thousands who have

dedicated their careers to the service of this nation? And

why do such changes need to be rushed through now, when a

successful military campaign has shown that the existing

system works?

The department also is requesting extensive exemptions from

a host of environmental laws that have helped safeguard the

long-term health of our communities and of the global

environment. As a solidly pro-military member of Congress, I

believe the readiness and exceptional training of our troops

are of paramount importance and should be taken into account

in our environmental laws. But the Defense Department has not

yet made use of the legal remedies that already exist to

accommodate military readiness. Operations in Iraq showed the

exquisite capability of the U.S. military trained under the

current system. Changing the law at this point has not been

shown to be needed for military readiness, but it will

certainly undermine the legal structure that ensures the

nation's environmental health.

The Constitution establishes Congress as a counterweight to

executive authority for good reasons--to guard against the

excessive aggregation of any administration's power and to

ask critical questions that allow better policy and better

law to be made. When we in Congress are doing our jobs well,

we ask what every American should want to know: Why is this

necessary and what are the downsides of taking this action?

Without the ability to question and consider fully the

implications of what we do, we abandon the planning needed to

protect our nation's security and to protect those who serve

their nation. We would not accept that of the officers

planning a military campaign. We should not accept it from

our political leaders either.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

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

Mr. Chairman, may I make the same inquiry. How much time do we have left?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman; and she can be assured that we will work very hard to keep the provisions in the bill.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me urge the passage of the en bloc amendments and thank the chairman so very much for his courtesy in working with this side of the aisle and making all of these happen. I think it is an excellent series of amendments.

Mr. Speaker, today I wish to pay tribute to an exceptional officer in the United States Air Force, an individual that a great many of us have come to know personally over the past few years--Major General Leroy Barnidge, Jr. General Barnidge, who currently serves as Director of the Air Force Office of Legislative Liaison, will retire after 32 years of honorable active duty Air Force service. During his time in Washington, and especially with regard to his work here on Capitol Hill, General Barnidge personified the Air Force core values of integrity, selfless service and excellence in the many missions the Air Force performs in support of our national security. Many Members and staff have enjoyed the opportunity to meet with him on a variety of Air Force issues and came to deeply appreciate his character and many talents. Today it is my privilege to recognize some of General Barnidge's many accomplishments, and to commend his superb service he provided the Air Force, the Congress and our Nation.

General Barnidge was commissioned through the ROTC program in 1971. His career has spanned a variety of operations and maintenance assignments, including major command and Joint Staff billets. He is experienced in aircrew operations, flight line maintenance and combat support activities. The General has also performed major command staff and executive support functions, as well as duties as a force planner and division chief in the Joint Staff. He has commanded a combat crew training squadron, a logistics group, an operations group, a B-1B bomb wing and the B-2 wing at Whiteman Air Force Base, MO. General Barnidge also completed the Program for Senior Officials in National Security at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, and Seminar XXI, Foreign Political and International Relations, at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He received special recognition in 1999 as the winner of the Air Combat Command Moller Trophy, recognizing him as the best Wing Commander among 28 other commanders. General Barnidge has amassed over 2,900 hours in the T-37, T-38, OV-10, B-52G, B-1B, and B-2 aircraft.

Throughout his distinguished career, General Barnidge exceptional leadership skills were always evident to both superiors and subordinates as he repeatedly proved himself in numerous select command positions.

In his years of working with the Congress, General Barnidge provided a clear and credible voice for the Air Force while representing its many programs on the Hill, consistently providing accurate, concise and timely information. His integrity, professionalism, and expertise enabled him to develop and maintain an exceptional rapport between the Air Force and the Congress. The key to his success, I believe, was his deep understanding of Congressional processes and priorities and his unflinching advocacy of the programs essential to the Air Force and to our nation. I am greatly appreciative of General Barnidge's 32-year service to his nation and offer my sincere wishes for a happy and prosperous retirement. On behalf of the Congress and the country, I thank General Barnidge, his wife Sandy, and his entire family for the commitment and sacrifices that they have made throughout his honorable military career. These family sacrifices demonstrate their commitment to our nation and their contributions do not go unnoticed. I know I speak for all of my colleagues in expressing my heartfelt appreciation to General Barnidge for a job well done. He is a credit to both the Air Force and the United States. We wish our friend God-speed in his retirement.

Mr. Speaker, let me take this means to bring to your attention an article that was written by Jeff Joiner and appeared in the May 2003 addition of Rural Missouri magazine. The article, ``Where's Harry'', gives a brief history of President Harry S. Truman's life from his birth in Lamar, MO, until his death in Independence, MO. It also explains the various places you can learn about the history of President Truman, most notably the Truman Library in Independence, MO.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to share this article with the rest of the chamber.''

Where's Harry?

a tour of western missouri offers a glimpse at harry truman's life and

the rural background that shaped one of the 20th century's most

important leaders

(By Jeff Joiner)

The voice of Harry S Truman welcomes a group of children as

they step into the Oval Office. Of course the office is a

reproduction and Truman's voice recorded but the kids, on a

tour of the Truman Presidential Museum and Library in

Independence, instantly recognize the most famous office in

the world. Truman's Oval Office, decorated as it was when he

occupied it from 1945 until 1953, contains one artifact the

kids find most interesting, a television with a tiny screen

set in a large wooden cabinet. A tour guide tells the group

Truman was the first president to have a TV in the Oval

Office.

A visit to the Truman Library in Independence is a reminder

of some of the most volatile history of the 20th century. As

president, Truman witnessed the end of World War II and the

beginning of the rebuilding of Europe and Japan. But he also

faced the expansion of communism, which led to confrontation

in Berlin and the bloody Korean War, and devised a policy to

contain communism known as the Truman Doctrine. Often loudly

criticized for unpopular decisions, like firing Gen. Douglas

MacArthur, Truman dealt with his heavy responsibilities

straight on, without flinching or laying blame.

Many historians credit Truman's plainspoken manner and

upfront ``The Buck Stops Here'' frankness to his rural

upbringing. Born in Lamar and raised on the family farm near

Grandview, Truman came from humble beginnings. And once his

presidency was finished, he and wife, Bess, returned to their

home at 219 North Delaware in Independence where they lived

only a few blocks from where Truman's political career began

in the Jackson County Courthouse 30 years earlier.

A real understanding of Truman and how he faced the

problems of post-World War II America can't be appreciated

without looking at where the man came from. Fortunately for

travelers Truman's home state offers many places to see and

touch the history that shaped the president.

a birthplace in lamar

Truman was born May 8, 1884 in a small, white frame house

in Lamar where he and his parents lived for 11 months before

moving to Harrisonville and later Grandview to the north. On

the day his first child was born, John Truman planted an

Austrian pine tree and today, 119 years later, that tree

still lives in the front yard of the house, which has been

the Harry S Truman Birthplace State Historic Site since

1959. The house, managed by the Missouri Department of

Natural Resources, recreates a typical midwestern American

home at the dawn of the 20th century.

Truman was the first person to sign the guest book on the

day the historic site was dedicated and typical of his down-

to-earth style, he wrote, ``Harry Truman, Independence, Mo.,

retired farmer.''

a life begun on a farm

The Truman family eventually moved to a 600-acre farm near

Grandview in 1887 where they lived for three years before

moving to Independence. Harry Truman often worked on the farm

as a youngster and was responsible for the operation after

his father's death in 1914 until he joined the military three

years later. An Army captain, Truman led an artillery battery

during World War I.

What today is called the Truman Farm Home is part of the

Harry S Truman National Historic Site administered by the

National Park Service, which includes the Truman Home 30

miles away in Independence. A shopping complex called Truman

Corners now surrounds what's left of the family farm, which

includes 5 acres of land and the farmhouse, which is not open

to the public. The farm is located near the intersection of

Highway 71 and Blue Ridge Boulevard.

the summer white house in independence

The centerpiece of the Truman National Historic Site is the

home that Harry and Bess occupied as a young married couple

in 1919. Though he lived for many years in Washington, D.C.,

first as a United States senator, vice president and then

33rd president of the United States, Truman always considered

the house in Independence home. Even during his presidency it

was known as the Summer White House.

Following the inauguration of Dwight Eisenhower as

president in 1954, Harry and Bess returned to Independence

where he was occupied with the planning and construction of

his presidential library. Until late in life, Truman was

known for taking long walks around Independence, a fact

commemorated by the city on its street signs in the Truman

Historic District which feature a silhouette of the former

president, cane in hand, walking.

Truman lived in the house on Delaware until just before his

death on Dec. 26, 1972 at the age of 88. Bess continued to

live in their home for another decade and died there. In her

will she left the home to the United States and it was

dedicated as a national historic site in 1983.

The Truman Home, located on the corner of Truman Road and

Delaware Street, is open for tours by National Park Service

rangers. Tickets can be purchased at the site visitor's

center on Main Street in downtown Independence.

a library worthy of a president

The crown jewel of Truman's Missouri is the presidential

library which documents in letters and historic papers his

legacy as the first president to step into the dark waters of

the Cold War, a period that continued until the collapse of

the communist government of the United States' chief

adversary, the Soviet Union, in 1991.

The library details in a series of exhibits Truman's

political rise and his presidency including his whistle stop

train campaign and upset re-election in 1948. It also

documents the dark, early history of the Cold War. A painful

reminder of that era is the Purple Heart medal and angry

letter sent to Truman by the father of a U.S. soldier killed

in Korea. The medal and letter were found in Truman's desk in

his office after his death.

Other Truman historic spots include the Jackson County

Courthouse in Independence which maintains the office and

courtroom of Presiding County Court Judge Truman and the Elms

Hotel in nearby Excelsor Springs where the president holed up

during election night in November 1948 when he, and most of

the nation's press, expected Thomas Dewey to defeat him.

By visiting any number of spots in Missouri frequented by

the ``Man from Independence,'' people can appreciate how a

simple, rural beginning shaped world history.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for giving me the opportunity to rise in strong, but reluctant, opposition to this rule.

By and large this is a good bill. It puts forward the opportunity for the United States military to continue research and development, procurement, training, attracting the bright young men and women who serve, and to continue to educate them along the way to think strategically, operationally, and tactically. Yet I find that this particular rule is shutting out some amendments that I thoroughly believe should be made in order. I hope that the Committee on Rules, on the second look, in the second rule that it will adopt, will hear our recommendations from the committee hearing yesterday and take us quite seriously.

Let me further state, though, that it is a pleasure working with the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter). And I thank him for his hard work, for his dedication, for his strong feeling for the military, and for his sincerity. I think that we should let it be known that he is a strong advocate for our national security.

This is a big bill, Mr. Speaker. It authorizes almost $400 billion for the Department of Defense and energy. This bill is over 600 pages long. The Congress has a constitutional duty, as you know, to raise and defend the military in law. I had highlighted three major issues when I testified before the Committee on Rules. The first are the changes in the civil service system. That has not been ruled upon yet. Revising our environmental laws. That has been addressed in a manager's amendment here, as I understand it. And our nuclear weapons policy has not been fully faced in this first rule.

On the face, amendments made in order by this first rule seem uncontroversial. However, I do take issue with amendment No. 73. This is a mere 10-minute alleged technical amendment that literally corrects spelling errors. But tacked on to that is the amendment that changes the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Regardless how Members might feel about the substance, it is not only unacceptable; but, quite honestly, it is outrageous.

This is not the full debate that this House deserves on major policy changes. It is not right to cram changes to our environmental laws into technical amendments. It is not right to not make in order a major Democrat amendment on the environmental provisions, the Dingell-Rahall amendment, and not give us the full time and full debate. Ten minutes, that is all we are given.

I certainly hope, Mr. Speaker, that in the second look, the second rule, that the Committee on Rules must come forward with it, it will allow us to more fully debate and fully discuss all the issues that I have put forward to them in my testimony yesterday.