Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I follow the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and I do share his frustration as well. Mine is a little different, though. It is the cost of war in Afghanistan. My concern is, as the President has decided to send 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan, I join my colleagues in both parties, and Barbara Lee from California, in saying that we should debate this policy on the floor of the House.

I am one that is very upset that this Nation, since World War II, we never declare war anymore, we just pass resolutions on the floor and we give the President, whether it be a Republican or Democrat, the authority to make decisions to go ahead and send troops into certain areas.

I do agree with Mr. Obama, the war should have always been Afghanistan and we should not have gone into Iraq, but that is history now. The problem is we are 9 years after we went into Afghanistan and now we are trying to catch up for the 8 years we spent in Iraq.

Down in Camp Lejeune, which is in my district, the Third District of North Carolina, the day that Mr. Obama made the announcement that we would send 30,000 more troops to combat in Afghanistan, I want to read, Madam Speaker, just a few comments that were in the Jacksonville paper--again, that is the home paper for Jacksonville, North Carolina and, again, the home of Camp Lejeune Marine Base.

``With White House officials saying that President Obama will order about 30,000 more troops, including a brigade of marines from Camp Lejeune, into combat in Afghanistan, local military are reacting to the news with skepticism and concern.''

Further down in the article, it says:

Marine Sergeant Doug Copeland, who is scheduled to deploy with his 1st Battalion, 8th Marines in October, said he approved of the troop surge as a means to assist troops already on the ground, but believed a date for leaving the country was coming too late. ``We should have dealt with Afghanistan in the first place,'' Copeland said. ``We've already been in this war for 7 or 8 years. We've got to call it quits. Our country needs to focus on our country now.''

That is exactly what Mr. DeFazio was saying. This country is in bad financial shape, we are losing jobs every day, and what we need to do is concentrate on this country itself.

I will read just another comment, Madam Speaker:

``HM2 Cagney Noland, a corpsman currently with Combat Logistics Regiment 27, said he doubted the proposed timeline would see troops out of Afghanistan.''

Madam Speaker, the number of our troops with PTSD, with TBI, and with mental depression and anxiety is growing each and every day. Again, I have gotten to know many of the marines down at Camp Lejeune, from privates all the way up to generals. They will go and fight for this country, they want to do everything they can to defend this country and they will give their life, but we need to take into consideration the stress that we are putting on these troops.

There is another article I want to make brief reference to that was in the New York Times on December 3 by Nicholas Kristof. It's called, ``Johnson, Gorbachev, Obama.'' It is about the Vietnam War, it is about the Russians involved in Afghanistan, and now Mr. Obama's decision.

I am not trying to second-guess the President. He's got a very difficult job, and I wish him well. In fact, I was one of the few Republicans that thanked him for taking his time before he decided what the solution should be or what the strategy should be for Afghanistan. But Madam Speaker, I think that we as a Congress should debate the policy.

I said this just a moment ago, and I would like to say it again, I joined Barbara Lee in a letter to the Speaker of the House asking the Speaker of the House to please let us debate the policy of what we should be doing in Afghanistan before we pass any type of supplemental to financially support the troops. So, therefore, it is my hope that maybe in January or February of 2010 we will be granted a debate on the floor, whether it be for sending more troops to Afghanistan or fewer troops to Afghanistan, and we will come closer to meeting our constitutional responsibility than we have done, truthfully, since World War II.

Madam Speaker, I would like to close as I always do. I have signed over 8,000 letters to families and extended families in this country because I regret that I ever voted to give President Bush the authority to send troops to Iraq. That is my pain that I've lived with, and writing the letters and signing the letters to the families is my way of saying I'm sorry that I did not meet my constitutional responsibility and vote my conscience on the floor of this House.

With that, Madam Speaker, I would like to close these brief comments by asking God to please bless our men and women in uniform, ask God to please bless the families of our men and women in uniform, and ask God to please, in his loving arms, hold the families who have given a child dying for freedom in Afghanistan and Iraq. I would like to ask God to please give the House and Senate strength to do what is right for the next generation. I would like to ask God to give strength and wisdom and courage to the President of the United States. And I close by asking three times, God please, God please, God please continue to bless America.

Yes. Congressman Kagen, I want to thank you for giving me a chance to be a small part of this debate tonight. I'm glad its a bipartisan support. Yes, I have Camp Lejeune Marine Base in my district; Cherry Point Marine Air Station; and also Seymour Johnson Air Force Base.

I want to take just a few minutes; a very few. I wanted to share with this debate tonight that this is not--as Mr. McGovern said, this is an American issue. It's not a Democrat or Republican, it's not a liberal or conservative. But let me start with two conservatives.

This was written by George Will, a nationally syndicated column of September 1, 2009. George Will, ``Time to Get Out of Afghanistan.''

`` `Yesterday,' reads the e-mail from Allen, a marine in Afghanistan, `I gave blood because a marine, while out on patrol, stepped on a (mine's) pressure plate and lost both legs.' Then `another marine with a bullet wound to the head was brought in. Both marines died this morning.'

`I'm sorry about the drama,' writes Allen, an enthusiastic infantryman willing to die `so that each of you may grow old.' He says: `I put everything in God's hands.' And: `Semper fi!' ''

George Will further writes, ``Allen and others of America's finest are also in Washington's hands. This city should keep faith with them by rapidly reversing the trajectory of America's involvement in Afghanistan, where, says the Dutch commander of coalition forces in a southern province, walking through the region is `like walking through the Old Testament.'''

Let me read from another conservative, Peggy Noonan. This was written on October 10 in The Wall Street Journal. ``So far, oddly, most of the debate over Afghanistan has taken place among journalists and foreign- policy professionals. All power to them: They've been fighting it out on op-ed pages and in journals for months now, in many cases with a moral seriousness, good faith, and sense of protectiveness toward the interests of the United States that is, actually, moving. But nobody elected them. We need a truly national debate.''

Those two articles, I wanted to read those parts because I want to thank you, Congressmen Kagen, McGovern, and Ron Paul and myself, Walter Jones, for being here tonight, for this reason: Mr. McGovern is exactly right, you're right, so is Mr. Paul. This is a debate that needs to take place in the daytime with 435 Members of Congress, because our men and women in uniform will go to their death for this country, but they're worn out. There are four and five deployments to Afghanistan and Iraq. And if we don't meet our constitutional responsibility--and I agree with Mr. Paul, we should declare war, but we don't do that any more. We just pass these resolutions to give the authority to the President. The time has come for the Congress to act on behalf of the American people and, more important, to act on behalf of our troops that we are about to break.

The last point. Today, I wrote Mr. Obama a note and thanked him for taking time to look carefully at what the options should be. And I want to say as a conservative Republican, again, thank you, Mr. Obama, for taking the time, because our boys and girls, our young men and women, they deserve the right decision as it relates to Afghanistan. Thank you.

Congressman, thank you very much for yielding. I will be brief.

I think what's been said by Mr. McGovern, you, as well as Congressman Paul, is that Congress needs to meet its responsibility to debate these issues. That's why I want to read from the former commandant of the Marine Corps who e-mailed me this information. I just want to read one brief paragraph.

``With all due respect to the `COIN experts,' to execute the clear, hold and build strategy being put forth will require far more than the 40,000 to 80,000 more troops being discussed. No one who knows anything about counterinsurgency would argue that fact. I can

promise you, our troops are so overextended right now that they couldn't produce the numbers needed . . . and the equipment would not be available.''

One other point. I am certainly skipping around but trying to pick out something that would be of interest to this debate. ``Finally, Afghanistan is not Iraq . . . or Vietnam . . . or Iran. It is totally different!

``This is a country (notice I don't dignify it with the term `nation') that is totally tribal in nature. It has no real government. You cannot even imagine it as a nation-state that can be dealt with and considered an ally.''

This, again, is why we are frustrated, the four of us tonight on the floor. We have seen the pain, the hurt. You've talked about it; Jim's talked about it; Ron's talked about it; I've talked about it. This country owes it to the families of our military to debate this on the floor of the House with 435 here on the floor of the House to be part of the debate or we're not meeting our responsibility to the men and women in uniform.

I yield back.

I will be brief. I know time is getting limited. I want to thank you, Mr. McGovern and Mr. Paul for being here tonight because I've seen the pain as you mentioned earlier of PTSD, of TBI. I have seen the families when a marine came back and who needed counseling, and before it was all said and done, he killed his wife. We do not need to put these men and women under this pressure unless we know what we are trying to achieve and the end point. We need to have this debate. We will figure out some resolution that the four of us and other Members of Congress can force this House to come forward and have this debate.

Thank you for letting me be a small part of tonight.

Madam Speaker, I submit for the Record an editorial by David Broder, Friday, November 13, and the title is ``Half Done on Health Reform.''

Madam Speaker, I'm reading from this editorial some points that I would like to share with the House tonight:

``At least a dozen health and budget experts have filled the Web and airwaves with warnings that the House bill simply postpones the cost controls needed to finance the vast expansion of insurance coverage and Medicare benefits envisaged by its sponsors.

``One of them speaks with special authority: David Walker, the former head of the Government Accountability Office, the auditing and investigating arm of Congress, told me in an interview on Wednesday that the lawmakers are `punting on the tough choices rather than making sure they can deliver on the promises they're making.'

``In a speech delivered less than 48 hours after the House acted, Walker, now president of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, laid out the tests that buttress his conclusion.

``Acknowledging that `clearly we need radical reconstructive surgery to make our health care system effective, affordable, and sustainable', Walker cautioned that `what we should not do is merely tack new programs onto a system that is fundamentally flawed and rapidly driving the national budget into ruin.' ''

I further read from the editorial: ``A separate Lewin Group study of the Finance Committee bill from which Majority Leader Harry Reid is working on in the Senate shows it is almost as much of a fiscal failure as the House bill.

``Walker, a close observer and former employee of Congress, calls that assumption `totally unrealistic.' In reading his analysis and the comments of the many others who have appraised the House handiwork, it becomes clear that unless something intervenes, Congress is headed toward repeating a familiar pattern. Just as it did under Republican control in the George W. Bush years when it passed but did not pay for a Medicare prescription drug benefit, it is about to hand out the goodies

and leave it to the next generation to pick up the bill.''

Madam Speaker, before closing, as I always do on the floor because my heart aches for those who have given their lives in Afghanistan and Iraq and those who have been wounded, I ask God to please bless our men and women in uniform. I ask God to please bless the families of our men and women in uniform. I ask God in His loving arms to hold the families who have given a child dying for freedom in Afghanistan and Iraq. And I ask God to please bless the House and Senate, that we would do what is right in the eyes of God. And I ask God to give strength, wisdom, and courage to the President of the United States that he will do what is right in the eyes of God for this country.

I close three times by asking God please, God please, God please continue to bless America.

[From the Washington Post, Nov. 13, 2009]

Half Done on Health Reform

(By David S. Broder)

While House Democrats spent the week congratulating

themselves for squeezing out the midnight passage of their

version of health-care reform, neutral observers were

reminding them: You've left the job half done.

Having watched Hillary and Bill Clinton try and fail even

to bring their version of health reform to a vote, I can

certainly join in saluting Speaker Nancy Pelosi, her

leadership team and the Obama White House for maneuvering the

1,990-page behemoth to harbor.

But, as many sympathetic voices have been telling them:

Unless you find more realistic ways of paying for the

promises included in the bill, you are simply setting up the

public for more frustration--and yourselves for a political

backlash.

At least a dozen health and budget experts have filled the

Web and the airwaves with warnings that the House bill simply

postpones the cost controls needed to finance the vast

expansion of insurance coverage and Medicaid benefits

envisaged by its sponsors.

One of them speaks with special authority: David Walker,

the former head of the Government Accountability Office--the

auditing and investigative arm of Congress--told me in an

interview on Wednesday that the lawmakers are ``punting on

the tough choices, rather than making sure they can deliver

on the promises they're making.''

In a speech delivered less than 48 hours after the House

acted, Walker, now president of the Peter G. Peterson

Foundation, laid out the tests that buttress his conclusion.

Acknowledging that ``clearly, we need radical

reconstructive surgery to make our health-care system

effective, affordable and sustainable,'' Walker cautioned

that ``what we should not do is merely tack new programs onto

a system that is fundamentally flawed''--and rapidly driving

the national budget into ruin.

He proposes a four-part test of fiscal responsibility for

any health reform plan: ``First, the reform should pay for

itself over 10 years. Second, it should not add to deficits

beyond 10 years. Third, it should significantly reduce the

tens of trillions of dollars in unfunded health promises that

we already have. Fourth, it should bend down--not up--the

total health-care cost curve as a percentage of'' gross

domestic product.

An analysis by the Lewin Group shows that the Energy and

Commerce Committee bill that was the basic blueprint for the

House measure comes close to meeting the first of those tests

and fails the other three, according to Walker, ``by a wide

margin.''

A separate Lewin Group study of the Finance Committee bill

from which Majority Leader Harry Reid is working on the

Senate legislation shows it is almost as much of a fiscal

failure. It fails the fourth test, falls short on the third,

and passes the first two only by assuming that future

Congresses will force reductions in reimbursements to doctors

and hospitals that lawmakers in the past have refused to

impose.

Walker, a close observer and former employee of Congress,

calls that assumption ``totally unrealistic.''

In reading his analysis--and the comments of the many

others who have appraised the House's handiwork--it becomes

clear that unless something intervenes, Congress is headed

toward repeating a familiar pattern. Just as it did under

Republican control in the George W. Bush years, when it

passed but did not pay for a Medicare prescription drug

benefit, it is about to hand out the goodies and leave it to

the next generation to pick up the bill.

The Senate could still reduce the damage. If it began to

move away from the fee-for-service payment system that

rewards doctors and hospitals on the quantity of procedures

they perform, rather than on the results of the treatment,

that would help. If it reduced the biggest single loophole in

the revenue system--the tax-exempt status of employer-

provided health benefits--that would help a lot.

Otherwise, while congratulating one another for an overdue

piece of social legislation, lawmakers could end up

condemning our children to a far worse financial future than

they deserve.

Mr. Speaker, tonight I would like to read the words of Bob Schieffer. I watched his show, ``Face the Nation,'' last Sunday, and I was very impressed with his editorial.

His editorial is as follows: ``As the President tries to develop a new strategy in Afghanistan, I wonder if this is the real lesson that we've learned in Afghanistan so far: that nation-building, like charity, probably begins at home (at least the way we seem to be going about it in Afghanistan.)

``Now, don't get me wrong, terrorism poses a threat to America's national security, but is trying to build a Western-style nation in Afghanistan by funneling money to its leaders really the best way to combat terrorism?

``I guess what set me off was that story about how we've secretly put the President of Afghanistan's brother on the CIA payroll. He's the one who's supposed to be mixed up in the drug trade. The idea was that, by doing that, he'll help us pave the way to building a democracy there. Now, that's good work if you can get it, but I don't see how that is making us safer.

``Whatever the size of the military force the President decides on for Afghanistan, I think he needs to be paying more attention to where the money is going for the non-military spending there. Incredibly, no one really seems to know.''

Mr. Schieffer further stated: ``To judge by what we've gotten from it so far, we'd be much better off with some nation-building back home. Our infrastructure is already a mess. We could start at the Oakland Bay Bridge where a 5,000-pound part of the top fell off into the traffic below. That would certainly make us safer for sure.

``In Afghanistan, we're having to relearn what we should have already known--that we can help others but we can't do it for them, and when we have to pay others to help themselves, I don't see how that helps anyone but the guy getting paid.''

Again, that is from the editorial comments of Bob Schieffer this past Sunday on ``Face the Nation.''

Mr. Speaker, I want to say, in addition to what Mr. Schieffer said, I want to thank the President for taking his time and fully trying to understand the options and the trials facing our country in Afghanistan. Our men and women in uniform are very brave, they have done a great job for this country for the last 9 years, and yet we must be sure that we have a goal that can be achieved. And we must have a full definition of victory if we continue to send more troops into Afghanistan.

With that, Mr. Speaker, before I close, as I do each and every night on the floor, I ask God to please bless our men and women in uniform. I ask God to please bless the families of our men and women in uniform. I ask God, in his loving arms, to hold the families who have given a child dying for freedom in Afghanistan and Iraq. And I ask God to bless the House and Senate. I ask God to give wisdom, strength and courage to the President of the United States. And I will ask three times, God please, God please, God please continue to bless America.

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by reading from the October 27 front page of the Washington Post: U.S. Official Resigns Over Afghan War.

``When Matthew Hoh joined the Foreign Service early this year, he was exactly the kind of smart civil-military hybrid the administration was looking for to help expand its development efforts in Afghanistan.''

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to Captain Hoh, retired marine, thank you for having the courage to speak out and to speak out on what you believe is the right policy for this Nation in Afghanistan.

I want to read parts of a letter that he wrote to Ambassador Nancy Powell when he resigned his position:

``I have served 6 of the previous 10 years in service to our country overseas, to include deployment as a U.S. Marine officer and a Department of Defense civilian in the Euphrates and Tigris River valleys of Iraq in 2004-2005 and 2006-2007. I did not enter into this position lightly or with any undue expectations nor did I believe my assignment would be without sacrifice, hardship or difficulty. However, in the course of my 5 months of service in Afghanistan, in both Regional Commands East and South, I have lost understanding of and confidence in the strategic purposes of the United States' presence in Afghanistan. I have doubts and reservations about our current strategy and planned future strategy, but my resignation is based not upon how we are pursuing this war, but why and to what end. To put simply: I fail to see the value or the worth in continued U.S. casualties or expenditures of resources in support of the Afghan Government in what is, truly, a 35-year old civil war.''

He further writes in the letter to Ambassador Powell, Mr. Speaker:

``This fall will mark the eighth year of U.S. combat, governance and development operations within Afghanistan.

Next fall, the United States' occupation will equal in length the Soviet Union's own physical involvement in Afghanistan. Like the Soviets, we continue to secure and bolster a failing state, while encouraging an ideology and system of government unknown and unwanted by its people.''

Mr. Speaker, I want to again say to Captain Matthew Hoh, this took courage for you to speak out, as it took courage for you to fight for this country in Iraq. I hope that our colleagues here on the floor of the House will debate this issue, not only about tomorrow, what are we trying to accomplish in Afghanistan, but in the years ahead, what are we trying to accomplish?

Mr. Speaker, with that, before I close, as I always do, I will ask God to please bless our men and women in uniform; I ask God to please bless the families of our men and women in uniform; I ask God in His loving arms to hold the families who have given a child dying for freedom in Afghanistan and Iraq; I will ask God to please bless the House and Senate that we will do what is right in the eyes of God; and I will ask God to give wisdom, strength and courage to the President of the United States that he will do what is right. And three times, Mr. Speaker, I will ask God, please, God; please, God; please, God, continue to bless America.

Mr. Speaker, tonight I want to read a few paragraphs from an article written by Andrew Bacevich. It was in the American Conservative in May of this year, and the title is ``To Die For a Mystique: The lessons our leaders did not learn from the Vietnam War.''

``In one of the most thoughtful Vietnam-era accounts written by a senior military officer, General Bruce Palmer once observed, `With respect to Vietnam, our leaders should have known that the American people would not stand still for a protracted war of an indeterminate nature with no foreseeable end to the U.S. commitment.'

``General Palmer thereby distilled into a single sentence the central lesson of Vietnam: to embark upon an open-ended war lacking clearly defined and achievable objectives was to forfeit public support, thereby courting disaster. The implications were clear: never again.''

I further read from the article, ``To Die For a Mystique.''

``To cite General Palmer's formulation, the citizens of this country at present do appear willing to `stand still' when considering the prospect of war that goes on and on. While there are many explanations for why Americans have disengaged from the Long War, the most important, in my view, is that so few of us have any immediate personal stake in that conflict.''

Again, that was from the book written by General Bruce Palmer.

Mr. Speaker, I further read from this article. This is the close. ``The President who vows to `change the way Washington works' has not yet exhibited the imagination needed to conceive of an alternative to the project that his predecessor began.

``The urgent need is to demystify that project, which was from the outset a misguided one. Just as in the 1960s we possessed neither the wisdom nor the means needed to determine the fate of Southeast Asia, so today we possess neither the wisdom nor the means necessary to determine the fate of the Greater Middle East. To persist in efforts to do so--as the Obama administration appears intent on doing in Afghanistan--will simply replicate on an even greater scale mistakes like those that Bruce Palmer and John Kerry once rightly decried.''

Mr. Speaker, I read this for this reason: I want to first say to the President, thank you for taking the time and thank you for being very careful in making your decision as to what our future plans are for Afghanistan. And, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to read this because Andrew Bacevich knows better than anyone. He fought in Vietnam for this country. He later became a professor at West Point. And during the Iraq war, he buried his son, a lieutenant, who was a graduate of West Point who was killed for this country. So I think we need to be very careful as we move forward, and I want to again say to the President, please take your time, make the right decisions for this country.

I have the privilege of having Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base in my country. I have gotten to know a lot of marines, both active duty and retired. I recently spoke to a general that I cannot name because I don't have his permission, but if I did, he would be well known to the Marine Corps.

He said to me 3 weeks ago, Please tell your colleagues on both sides of the aisle to move very carefully, to have a full, understood plan and a defined plan as to what we're supposed to accomplish in Afghanistan. Again, this general fought in Vietnam for this country.

So with that, Mr. Speaker, I will close as I always do by asking God to please bless our men and women in uniform. I ask God to please bless the families of our men and women in uniform. I ask God, in His loving arms, to hold the families who have given a child dying for freedom in Afghanistan and Iraq. I will ask God to bless the House and Senate, that we will do what is right. I will ask God to give wisdom, strength and courage to the President of the United States, that he will do what is right in the eyes of God. And three times I will ask, God please, God please, God please continue to bless America.

Madam Speaker, it is a sad day in America when our chaplains in the military cannot pray according to their faiths and consciences. Our troops are risking their lives in dangerous countries to protect the religious freedoms of others, but our own military does not always permit that our military chaplains can pray according to his or her faith.

For this reason, I have introduced H.R. 268, which is a bill to ensure that every military chaplain has the prerogative to close a prayer outside of a religious service according to the dictates of the chaplain's own conscience.

I have spoken with many, many chaplains who have served in conflicts from Vietnam to Desert Storm, and there never was any restriction on chaplains and on how they prayed until the mid-1990s. This suppression of religious freedom, the very principle on which this country was founded, is a pervasive problem that is affecting every branch of our Armed Forces and that is affecting chaplains of every denomination. As of 2008, 76 percent of the chaplains were Protestant, 9 percent Catholic, 1 percent Jewish, and 14.1 percent were of some other faith.

About 5 years ago, I was introduced to the case of Army Captain Chaplain

Jonathan Stertzbach, an independent Baptist by training. Chaplain Stertzbach was called to perform a memorial service for a fallen soldier. In that division, he had to e-mail his prayer to the divisional chaplain. In the prayer, the divisional chaplain struck through the words ``Jesus Christ.'' He sent back the prayer with the strike-through of ``Jesus Christ'' to Jonathan Stertzbach. Chaplain Stertzbach went to the company commander, and asked permission not to pray.

The company commander says, Why not?

He says, Because I've been ordered not to close my prayer as I see fit, based on my conscience, and knowing that the deceased soldier had attended his chapel, a Christian chapel.

So the company commander said to Chaplain Stertzbach, You will pray, and you will pray as you see fit.

He did, and he closed his prayer in the name of his Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ. From that, the divisional chaplain removed Chaplain Stertzbach from his chapel.

In 2005, when I heard this story, I wrote a letter to Lieutenant General Stanley Green, the inspector general of the United States Army, and I asked for an investigation into this case involving Chaplain Stertzbach. I am pleased to say, Madam Speaker, that Chaplain Stertzbach was returned to his chapel. The inspector general found that he should never have been removed.

Madam Speaker, very briefly, I just want to read the bill, which is so simple. This is what it says: to ensure that every military chaplain has the prerogative to close a prayer outside of a religious service according to the dictates of the chaplain's own conscience.

Madam Speaker, this is a sad day in America. I would be on this floor for a Jewish rabbi. I would be on this floor for a Muslim who happened to be a chaplain in the military. I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will look at this bill, because all it says is that you can close your prayer based on your heart, based on the dictates of your faith outside the church on base, even over the body of a dead soldier.

Madam Speaker, as I close, I want to make it clear, because I see my friend on the floor who is of the Muslim faith, that I would be on this floor tonight for a Muslim chaplain who was told that he, an imam, could not close a prayer based on their faith.

Madam Speaker, I close by asking God to please bless our men and women in uniform. I ask God to please bless the families of our men and women in our uniform. I ask God in His loving arms to hold the families who have given a child dying for freedom in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Madam Speaker, I ask God to give wisdom, strength and courage to the President of the United States. And I ask three times, God, please, God, please, God, please continue to bless America.

February 6, 2005.

Department of the Army,

The Inspector General, 1700 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC.

Dear LTG Stanley Green: It has come to my attention that in

all branches of the military it is increasingly difficult for

chaplains to pray in adherence to their faith. I have read

reports, received letters, and seen documentation which

verifies that suppression of religious freedom throughout our

Armed Forces is a pervasive problem, affecting military

chaplains from all denominations and religions. Of particular

concern is an incident involving Army Captain Chaplain

Jonathon Stertzbach of the 3-6 FA HHB in Iraq. I am writing

to request that the Army Inspector General investigate

whether Chaplain Stertzbach was illegally removed from his

chapel.

This chaplain who is serving our troops in harm's way in

Iraq was asked by another unit, whose chaplain had to return

home to start chemotherapy after cancer was discovered, to

serve the spiritual needs of the unit's soldiers in weekly

movement to an undisclosed FOB (Forward Operating Base) as

well as his own battalion. During one of the missions,

tragically, one of the soldiers was killed in action. The

unit's Commanding Officer asked this chaplain to perform the

memorial ceremony because he had bravely served the soldiers,

and gone to the risk of convoying to the FOB (Forward

Operating Base) weekly.

Before the memorial ceremony, the chaplain submitted two

prayers and a meditation for the Division Chaplain and his

direct supervising chaplain to review and was approved. The

Brigade Chaplain, having just arrived from Fort Drum,

attempted to remove the chaplain from administering the

prayers of the memorial ceremony because he concluded his

prayer in the name of Jesus Christ in a public forum. The

chaplain, adhering to his conscience and faith tradition,

said he would not strike the words Jesus Christ.

The unit's Commanding Officer intervened, explaining that

Chaplain Stertzbach volunteered to serve a different unit

outside of his assigned unit and placed his life in harm's

way to provide for the needs of the unit's soldiers. The

Commanding Officer instructed that Chaplain Stertzbach would

pray according to his faith tradition and the prayers that he

had already submitted. The Brigade Chaplain told him to

qualify his prayer at the beginning with ``Please pray

according to your faith tradition, as I pray according to

mine'' and then close the prayer with ``in thy name we pray,

and in Jesus' name I pray.'' Chaplain Stertzbach delivered

the memorial meditation and prayers for the fallen hero, but

still followed orders with the `qualifier' remaining in

place.

After the incident, Chaplain Stertzbach's story reached the

media. The Chaplain was directly contacted by the Washington

Times and referenced in a Washington Times January story.

Chaplain Stertzbach's incident was not printed, but he was

quoted as saying the following:

``You need to allow people to pray according to their faith

group. Many faith groups do not pray in general and generic

terms. . . . For Christian groups, the name of Jesus is from

where all the power comes.''

I believe Chaplain Stertzbach answered questions fairly,

accurately, and within his legal rights. Consequently, his

answers to the media and the incident surrounding the

memorial ceremony resulted in Chaplain Stertzbach's removal

from his chapel.

I am concerned that Chaplain Stertzbach was removed without

justification. Again, I am requesting that you investigate

this incident and provide an explanation.

Sincerely,

Walter B. Jones,

Member of Congress.

Madam Speaker, I would like to share with the House tonight some writings from the October 16, 2009, CNNMoney.com. The title is, ``U.S. Deficit Biggest Since 1945.''

``The Obama administration on Friday said the government ran a $1.42 trillion deficit in fiscal year 2009. That made it the worst year on record since World War II, according to data from the Treasury and the White House Office of Management and Budget. Tax

receipts for the year fell 16.6 percent overall, while spending soared 18.2 percent. Consequently, the annual deficit rose 212 percent to the record dollar amount of $1.42 trillion, from $455 billion a year earlier.''

I continue to read from this article:

``As a result, the country is very near to breaching its so-called ``debt ceiling,'' currently set at $12.1 trillion. Lawmakers, however, are expected to vote to raise that ceiling this fall.''

I further share with the House:

``In August, the OMB projected a 10-year deficit of $9 trillion, assuming President Obama's 2010 budget proposals are put in place. A deficit of that magnitude means the debt held by the public would approach 82 percent of gross domestic product. That's double the 41 percent recorded in 2008.

``The 10-year forecast as well as the longer-term outlook are considered unsustainable. The GAO further cautioned that the yawning deficit problems should be addressed sooner rather than later. The longer action to deal with the Nation's long-term fiscal outlook is delayed, the larger the change will need to be, increasing the likelihood that they will be disruptive and destabilizing.''

Madam Speaker, I wanted to share that tonight with the House because whether you be a Republican, which I am, or a Democrat, this country needs to understand that no longer can it take care of the world, because we can't even take care of our own Nation.

I want to make reference just briefly to a book that I read a couple of years ago that I would recommend to each Member of Congress. And if I could buy it for each Member of Congress, I would, but I cannot. It is called ``Day of Reckoning'' by Pat Buchanan. The book ``Day of Reckoning'' reminds America what has happened to other great nations, whether it be England, Spain or France. These nations went down the road where they believed in building empires around the world and making everybody be like they are. They all collapsed in a matter of years. Rome is probably the best example of a nation that felt that it could go and create other entities around the world, and they failed, as well.

So, Madam Speaker, in closing, I would like to ask unanimous consent to put the entire article from CNNMoney.com into the Record.

Madam Speaker, I thank you very much. And I hope that we in Congress, as we debate not only the health bill, but other bills, determine how we're going to pay for it. Is it fair for our grandchildren to pick up the debt of those of us today who are irresponsible to our responsibility of maintaining a frugal government?

And with that, Madam Speaker, as I always do, I want to ask God to please bless our men and women in uniform. I want to ask God in His loving arms to hold the families who have given a child dying for freedom in Afghanistan and Iraq. And Madam Speaker, I want to ask God to please give wisdom, strength and courage to the President of the United States. And I ask three times, God please, God please, God please continue to bless America.

[From CNNMoney.com, Oct. 16, 2009]

U.S. Deficit Biggest Since 1945

Obama administration closes the books on fiscal 2009: Falling revenue

plus soaring spending leads to a $1.42 trillion deficit

(By Jeanne Sahadi)

The Obama administration on Friday said the government ran

a $1.42 trillion deficit in fiscal year 2009.

That made it the worst year on record since World War II,

according to data from the Treasury and the White House

Office of Management and Budget.

Tax receipts for the year fell 16.6% overall, while

spending soared 18.2%. The rising unemployment, the economic

slowdown and the extraordinary measures taken by lawmakers to

stem the economic meltdown that hit in fall 2008.

Consequently, the annual deficit rose 212% to the record

dollar amount of $1.42 trillion, from $455 billion a year

earlier.

As a share of the economy, the deficit accounted for 10% of

gross domestic product, up from 3.2% in 2008. As breathtaking

as that may be, it's still not in the same stratosphere as

the 1945 deficit, which hit 21% of GDP.

Perfect deficit cocktail mix

Fiscal year 2009, which ended Sept. 30, had all the right

ingredients for a recordbreaking deficit.

While tax revenue overall took a big hit, corporate

receipts led the way, falling 55%. Individual income tax

revenue fell 20%.

At the same time spending jumped in large part because of

the various economic and financial rescue measures

undertaken. The Treasury and the OMB noted that the $700

billion Troubled Asset Relief Program and the $787 billion

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, not all of which has

been used, accounted for 24% of the deficit total.

As a result, the country is very near to breaching its so-

called debt ceiling, currently set at $12.1 trillion.

Lawmakers, however, are expected to vote to raise that

ceiling this fall.

At the end of September, the country's total debt--which is

an accumulation of all annual deficits to date plus other

obligations--stood at $11.9 trillion.

The long-term view

In August, the OMB projected a 10-year deficit of $9

trillion, assuming President Obama's 2010 budget proposals

are put in place.

A deficit of that magnitude means the debt held by the

public would approach 82% of gross domestic product. That's

double the 41% recorded in 2008.

Most budget experts blanch at the thought, especially given

that the country's fiscal future was already a source of

concern before the economic crisis because of expected

shortfalls over time in funding for Medicare and Social

Security.

The financial and economic meltdowns of the past year have

accelerated the strain on federal coffers. So much so that

now the 10- year forecast as well as the longer-term outlook

are considered unsustainable, according to deficit experts

William Gale and Alan Auerbach.

In a report this week, the Government Accountability Office

noted that the deficits born from the financial crisis are

not the biggest crux of the problem.

``While a lot of attention has been given to the recent

fiscal deterioration, the federal government faces even

larger fiscal challenges that will persist long after the

return of financial stability and economic growth,'' the GAO

said.

The GAO further cautioned that the yawning deficit problems

should be addressed sooner rather than later.

``The longer action to deal with the nation's long-term

fiscal outlook is delayed, the larger the changes will need

to be, increasing the likelihood that they will be disruptive

and destabilizing.''

The Obama administration is promising to put a plan in

place to lessen the deficit when the economy recovers.

``It was critical that we acted to bring the economy back

from the brink earlier this year. As we move from rescue to

recovery, the president recognizes that we need to put the

nation back on a fiscally sustainable path,'' said OMB

director Peter Orszag in a statement. ``As part of the FY2011

budget policy process, we are considering proposals to put

our country back on firm fiscal footing.''

Madam Speaker, in each Congress since 2001, I have introduced legislation aimed at giving the Marine Corps the recognition it deserves as one of the official branches of the military. This year I introduced H.R. 24, a bill to redesignate the Department of the Navy as the Department of the Navy and Marine Corps. With much support, 309 Members of the House joined me in this effort. The language was passed earlier this year by the House as part of the House version of H.R. 2647, this year's National Defense Authorization Act.

I must say that I am very pleased and honored by the group of people that have supported this legislation. The Fleet Reserve Association, the VFW, the National Marine League and the Marine Corps Parents have been so busy urging their Senators to support this bill, and I want to thank them for their hard work.

Madam Speaker, I have been contacted by many members of the Marine Corps and Navy that support this bill and agree that this is all about the fighting team, the team named the Navy and Marine Corps. In this year's conference with the Senate, I had a Senator say to me that he had never received a letter from a marine supporting this bill.

Madam Speaker, I would like to read you a letter that a former Marine Corps general wrote to this particular Senator at the beginning of this month: ``I am writing to ask for your support in passing H.R. 24 and S.R. 501, which have been referred to the Committee on Armed Services and would redesignate the Department of the Navy as the Department of the Navy and Marine Corps.

``For many years I have been an advocate of the Navy and Marine Corps team and believe this team is without parallel in any of the Armed Forces in the world. I proudly served alongside my Navy brothers-in- arms in both peace and conflict for 40 years. I would not recommend any action that I feel would belittle either partner of the team.

``Changing the name of the Department as proposed by this legislation would not demean the Navy, but would recognize marines as full partners in this team and would be a strong boost to their morale. In fact, the Department and the Secretary represent both services, the Navy and the Marine Corps, and this legislation would provide a name that mirrors the fact.

``Thank you for your consideration and for your continued and valuable service to our Nation.''

After 8 disappointing years, I hope one day the Senate will join me in supporting and bringing proper respect and acknowledgment to the fighting team of the Navy and Marine Corps. I want the supporters of this bill to

know that there will be a tomorrow. I'm not going anywhere. And I will continue to fight until the Marine Corps gets the acknowledgment it deserves.

In closing, I want to thank the many House Members who have supported this legislation for 8 years, and I want to close by asking God to please bless our men and women in uniform. I want to ask God to bless the families of our men and women in uniform. I want to ask God in his loving arms to hold the families who have given a child dying for freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan. And I close by three times and most sincerely asking God: God please, God please, God please continue to bless America.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you and both sides for bringing this legislation to the floor today, the Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act. I got a call last January from a wife of a marine. The marine had been to Iraq twice. And she called me and said, Congressman, we cannot participate in this fine program that's been presented by the Congress of the United States. She said, My husband is getting ready to go back for his third tour. Is there something you can do to help our family?

I went ahead and wrote a letter to Mr. Rangel and asked him to please, as this session started, to please consider making this necessary change so that our military and their families could take part in this wonderful program of first-time buyers where they get a benefit of $8,000.

I want to say to the lady, thank you for the service that you and your husband are giving to this country. And to all those in uniform, thank you for your service. And for those that might benefit from this wonderful bill that's on the floor today, and the families that will benefit, I say to both sides, the Democrats and the Republicans, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Camp, and all the members of Ways and Means, thank you for bringing this bill to the floor of the House.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding project funding I received as part of H.R. 3293, the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010:

Rep. Walter B. Jones

Project: Metabolic Institute

Recipient: East Carolina University

Account: Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA)--Health Facilities and Services

Amount: $222,000

Explanation: The funding will allow the Metabolic Institute at East Carolina University to develop a clinical research center and laboratory to advance the Metabolic Institute's study of new technology and medical treatments for obesity and diabetes. Diabetes is an epidemic: diabetes is the sixth leading cause of death in the U.S., afflicts more than 7 percent of the population, and cost our economy about $174 billion in 2007 alone, according to the American Diabetes Association. The Metabolic Institute will continue to build on East Carolina University's pioneer metabolic advancements, including the Greenville Gastric Bypass, to explore the question of why diabetes disappears in four out of five patients with the disease after they undergo gastric bypass surgery.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Diane Lynch, a great North Carolinian and a great educator, upon the occasion of her August 31st retirement from the Public School System in my State.

All of us in Congress know, or should know, that educating our youth is key to insuring a prosperous future. Diane Lynch, of the Moss Hill Community of Kinston, North Carolina, dedicated her entire working life--some thirty-six years--to the ideal of imparting the very best education possible to young people.

For Diane, educating young people was an imperative that she fulfilled tirelessly every day, even when doing so was sometimes thankless and unappreciated. Diane Lynch is an example to all of us of the power of personal commitment. Her professionalism, dedication, perseverance and love served very well, not only her students and co- workers, but also the hundreds of families whose lives she touched and improved.

Starting as a teacher in 1973, and then rising to Assistant Principal, then Principal and finally to Associate Superintendent, Diane's career spanned thirty-six years. Her energy and love of education will be sorely missed.

Congratulations to Diane Lynch for her long and valuable service.

Madam Speaker I ask that an article about Diane Lynch's retirement, which appeared in the August 18, 2009 edition of the Kinston Daily Free Press be submitted in its entirety.

[From the Kinston Daily Free Press]

Saying goodbye

(By Chris Lavender)

Diane Lynch, long-time teacher and principal and current

associate superintendent of Lenoir County Schools, will soon

say goodbye to a career she has developed for the past 36

years.

Lynch will retire from the school district Aug. 31, after

making a decision this summer to walk away. Lenoir County

Schools Superintendent Terry Cline announced Tuesday that

Lynch had decided to retire.

The announcement was made during a Lenoir County Schools

opening ceremony for staff held at Kinston High School. A

majority of those in attendance weren't aware Lynch was

stepping down, Cline said.

Cline said the school board members were notified last

Thursday of Lynch's retirement plan. On Monday, the school

district's senior central staff and principals were notified.

Lynch said there was no specific reason she decided to retire

this month.

``It's just the right time,'' she said.

Lynch said she plans to stay active in the school district

until her final day. Lenoir County schools open for students

Tuesday. She said she plans to visit several schools during

opening week.

Cline said he was reluctant to accept Lynch's retirement

because of her value to the school district.

``I am happy for her but it's a sad day for Lenoir County

Schools,'' Cline said. ``I can't replace her because she is a

very special lady.''

Cline said he hasn't decided yet if the school district

will hire an interim or full-time associate superintendent. A

decision will come in the next few months. Cline said.

Lynch began her career during 1973 with Wayne County

Schools, where she taught elementary school. After several

years there, she continued her career at Moss Hill Elementary

School in Lenoir County. She taught at Moss Hill for nine

years.

Lynch later became assistant principal at La Grange

Elementary School and then principal at Northwest Elementary

School for 13 years. For the past three years, Lynch has

served as associate superintendent.

During her career, Lynch said she strived to help students

excel and reach their goals. The personal connections she

made with her students will last forever, she said.

``I am always satisfied when I see my former students in

the community and we talk about good times,'' Lynch said. ``I

was always fair and consistent and worked to earn the respect

of my co-workers.''

Lynch said she doesn't know what she will do during her

retirement. She said she is looking forward to a break from

the daily grind.

``I'm going to rest for a few months,'' Lynch said.

During their five years together, Cline said he developed a

strong working relationship with Lynch.

``We cried and laughed together,'' Cline said. ``There were

things that I told her that I didn't tell my wife because I

didn't want to get my wife involved in the politics.

Superintendents have very lonely positions.''

Lynch acknowledged she had a great working relationship

with Cline. She thanked him for working to make Lenoir County

Schools a better place for students.

Mr. Speaker, this year, I introduced H.R. 268, a bill to make sure that our military chaplains of all faiths and religions are able to close a prayer in any way they see fit.

America was built on religious freedom, and that is why I am truly disturbed by a letter that was sent to Secretary Gates from the Freedom from Religion Foundation. This organization has taken exception to the fact that while speaking on the anniversary of D-day in France, U.S. Military Chaplain Thomas MacGregor closed a prayer in the name of Jesus Christ. This is just another example of how this country's Judeo- Christian values have been under assault.

As I think my colleagues know, I am a man that respects all faiths, whether it be Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and I would be just as upset if a chaplain from a non-Christian religion came under the same attack. I respect the rights of nonbelievers just as I respect the rights of believers.

It is a sad day in America when a military chaplain is criticized for closing his prayer in a way that is true to his faith.

In closing, with our young men and women fighting for religious freedom for people overseas, it is our duty to protect our own military chaplains and respect the faith of each of them.

Mr. Speaker, before I close, I do this frequently on the floor of the House because my heart aches for those over in Afghanistan and Iraq. I ask God to please bless our men and women in uniform. I ask God to please bless the families of our men and women in uniform. I ask God, in His loving arms, to hold the families who have given a child dying for freedom in Afghanistan and Iraq. And I ask God to please bless the President of the United States with wisdom, strength and courage to do what is right for America. And I close three times, God please, God please, God please continue to bless America.

Madam Speaker, in each Congress since 2001, I have introduced legislation aimed at giving the Marine Corps the recognition it deserves as one of the official branches of the military. This year, I introduced H.R. 24, a bill to redesignate the Department of the Navy as the Department of the Navy and Marine Corps. Then the Secretary of the Navy would be the Secretary of the Navy and the Marine Corps.

On June 25, 2009, the language of H.R. 24 was passed by the House as part of H.R. 2647, the House version of this year's National Defense Authorization Act.

In a matter of days, Members of the Senate and House Armed Services Committee will meet to work out a final version of this bill, and the language of H.R. 24 will become law if the Senate agrees to the House position. Right now, Madam Speaker, the Senate is opposed to this language.

With the help of Senator Pat Roberts, a former marine who introduced S. 504, a companion bill in the Senate, and the bill's 308 cosponsors in the House, I'm hopeful that this will be the year the Senate will support the House position and the Marine Corps will be recognized as an equal partner of the United States Navy and Marine Corps team.

During my 15 years in Congress, whenever a chief of naval operations or commandant of the Marine Corps has come to testify before the House Armed Services Committee, I have heard that the Navy and the Marine Corps are ``one fighting team.'' If this is true, then why should not the team bear the name of Navy and Marine Corps?

Changing the name of the Department of the Navy to the Department of the Navy and Marine Corps is a symbolic gesture, but it is important to the team. This change has received support from at least three former Navy Secretaries, the Marine Corps League, Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Fleet Reserve Association, MarineParents.com, and many other individuals and groups.

As a Chicago Tribune editorial titled, ``Step up for the Marines,'' noted: ``The Marines have not asked for complete autonomy. Nothing structurally needs to change in their relationship with the Navy, which has served both branches well. The Corps only asks for recognition. Having served their Nation proudly and courageously since colonial days, the leathernecks have earned a promotion.''

In closing, Madam Speaker, I would like to show what this change could mean to the members of the United States Marine Corps, including the 41,000 marines and nearly 3,000 sailors stationed in my district at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune. On August 19, 2009, in the Jacksonville Daily News, an article titled ``Navy Secretary Visits Local Troops'' described Secretary Mabus' recent visit with Camp Lejeune marines and sailors deployed to Iraq. It was touching to read about the Secretary's visit to see firsthand the terrific work of the United States Navy and Marine Corps team in Iraq. Yet I couldn't help but think the team's unity would be better illustrated if the title could have read, ``Secretary of the Navy and Marine Corps Visits Local Troops.''

Madam Speaker, right now I'm going to show that this is the actual news release. It says, Secretary of the Navy visits local troops, and it talks about the marines in Iraq and the Navy. If this should ever become law, what it would have said: ``Navy and Marine Corps Secretary Visits Local Troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.''

Madam Speaker, before I close, I regret that the Senate does not see the importance of giving this recognition to the Marine Corps. So if I can close by saying this, as I do every night on the floor, God, please bless our men and women in uniform. God, please bless the families of our men and women in uniform. God, in your loving arms, hold the families who have given a child dying for freedom in Afghanistan and Iraq. Dear God, I ask you to please bless the President of the United States with the wisdom and courage that he will do what's right for this country. And three times I will ask, God please, God please, God please continue to bless America.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of HR 3326, Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2010.

Republican Walter B. Jones

Project: U.S. Navy Cancer Vaccine Program

Recipient: OncBioMune, LLC, 17050 Medical Drive, 4th Floor, Baton Rouge, LA 70816

Account: Research & Development, Navy

Amount: $3,000,000

Explanation: The U.S. Navy Cancer Vaccine Program was initiated in 2005 and was the first cancer vaccine program conducted at the Naval Health Research Center. It has received congressional appropriations beginning in FY06. Currently, U.S. military health authorities estimate that in the past year alone, $42 million was spent on direct health care costs in the military healthcare system related to prostate cancer. Continued development of the vaccine through this project will save the lives of military personnel suffering from cancer as well as reduce health care costs in the military healthcare system.

Repulican Walter B. Jones

Project: North Carolina Counter Drug Task Force Growth

Recipient: North Carolina National Guard, 4105 Reedy Creek Road, Raleigh, NC 27607

Account: Drug Interdiction And Counter-Drug Activities, Defense

Amount: $1,000,000

Explanation: The National Guard Counter-Drug Program conducts a full spectrum campaign that bridges the gap between and among DoD and Non- DoD institutions in the fight against illicit drugs and transnational threats to the Homeland. The program includes support for analysis and interdiction support, law enforcement training and anti-drug education and awareness. Currently, the North Carolina National Guard is unable to fully support drug-law enforcement agencies in the State because the program funding has not maintained pace with inflation and pay increases. This appropriation will fund additional manpower and equipment to support the Drug Demand Reduction program, DEA case loads, and the Marijuana Eradication Program.