Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, on June 25, 2009, I joined Congressman Jim McGovern in offering an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act. The amendment would have required the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to Congress which outlines an exit strategy for our Armed Forces in Afghanistan.

During the floor debate that day, I, along with other Members, talked about the history of Afghanistan and about the difficulties that other nations have had there--from Alexander the Great to England and Russia. As just one measure of the hazardous conditions facing our troops in Afghanistan, 99 American servicemembers have been killed in Afghanistan since June 25, 2009--the day we debated the amendment.

While I regret that the amendment was not approved, I still believe it is critical for the current administration to clearly articulate benchmarks for success and an end point to its war strategy in Afghanistan.

Last week, on September 1, 2009, conservative columnist George Will wrote an op-ed, titled ``Time to Get Out of Afghanistan.'' In it, he shares his insights on our Nation's current strategy in Afghanistan.

I submit the full text of this op-ed for the Record.

[From the Washington Post, Sept. 1, 2009]

Time to Get Out of Afghanistan

(By George F. Will)

``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!''

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.''

U.S. strategy--protecting the population--is increasingly

troop-intensive while Americans are increasingly impatient

about ``deteriorating'' (says Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of

the Joint Chiefs of Staff) conditions. The war already is

nearly 50 percent longer than the combined U.S. involvements

in two world wars, and NATO assistance is reluctant and often

risible.

The U.S. strategy is ``clear, hold and build.'' Clear?

Taliban forces can evaporate and then return, confident that

U.S. forces will forever be too few to hold gains. Hence

nation-building would be impossible even if we knew how, and

even if Afghanistan were not the second-worst place to try:

The Brookings Institution ranks Somalia as the only nation

with a weaker state.

Military historian Max Hastings says Kabul controls only

about a third of the country--``control'' is an elastic

concept--and `` `our' Afghans may prove no more viable than

were `our' Vietnamese, the Saigon regime.'' Just 4,000

Marines are contesting control of Helmand province, which is

the size of West Virginia. The New York Times reports a

Helmand official saying he has only ``police officers who

steal and a small group of Afghan soldiers who say they are

here for `vacation.' '' Afghanistan's $23 billion gross

domestic product is the size of Boise's. Counterinsurgency

doctrine teaches, not very helpfully, that development

depends on security, and that security depends on

development. Three-quarters of Afghanistan's poppy production

for opium comes from Helmand. In what should be called

Operation Sisyphus, U.S. officials are urging farmers to grow

other crops. Endive, perhaps?

Even though violence exploded across Iraq after, and partly

because of, three elections, Afghanistan's recent elections

were called ``crucial.'' To what? They came, they went, they

altered no fundamentals, all of which militate against

American ``success,'' whatever that might mean. Creation of

an effective central government? Afghanistan has never had

one. U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry hopes for a ``renewal of

trust'' of the Afghan people in the government, but the

Economist describes President Hamid Karzai's government--his

vice presidential running mate is a drug trafficker--as so

``inept, corrupt and predatory'' that people sometimes yearn

for restoration of the warlords, ``who were less venal and

less brutal than Mr. Karzai's lot.''

Mullen speaks of combating Afghanistan's ``culture of

poverty.'' But that took decades in just a few square miles

of the South Bronx. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the U.S.

commander in Afghanistan, thinks jobs programs and local

government services might entice many ``accidental

guerrillas'' to leave the Taliban. But before launching New

Deal 2.0 in Afghanistan, the Obama administration should ask

itself: If U.S. forces are there to prevent reestablishment

of al-Qaeda bases--evidently there are none now--must there

be nation-building invasions of Somalia, Yemen and other

sovereignty vacuums?

U.S. forces are being increased by 21,000, to 68,000,

bringing the coalition total to 110,000. About 9,000 are from

Britain, where support for the war is waning.

Counterinsurgency theory concerning the time and the ratio of

forces required to protect the population indicates that,

nationwide, Afghanistan would need hundreds of thousands of

coalition troops, perhaps for a decade or more. That is

inconceivable.

So, instead, forces should be substantially reduced to

serve a comprehensively revised policy: America should do

only what can be done from offshore, using intelligence,

drones, cruise missiles, airstrikes and small, potent Special

Forces units, concentrating on the porous 1,500-mile border

with Pakistan, a nation that actually matters.

Genius, said de Gaulle, recalling Bismarck's decision to

halt German forces short of Paris in 1870, sometimes consists

of knowing when to stop. Genius is not required to recognize

that in Afghanistan, when means now, before more American

valor, such as Allen's, is squandered.

I would like to highlight just a couple of Will's key points. He wrote, ``The war already is nearly 50 percent longer than the combined U.S. involvement in two world wars, and NATO assistance is reluctant.

``The U.S. strategy is `clear, hold and build.' Clear? Taliban forces can evaporate and then return, confident that U.S. forces will forever be too few to

hold gains. Hence nation-building would be impossible even if we knew how, and even if Afghanistan were not the second-worst place to try.''

Will further states, ``Counterinsurgency theory concerning the time and the ratio of forces required to protect the population indicates that, nationwide, Afghanistan would need hundreds of thousands of coalition troops, perhaps for a decade or more. That is inconceivable.''

Madam Speaker, on this same morning this op-ed was published, the retired Marine general Chuck Krulak, the 31st commandant of the Marine Corps, responded by writing an e-mail to Will.

Madam Speaker, I submit the full text of the e-mail for the Record.

September 1, 2009.

Subject: Afghanistan

Sir, I would imagine that your article, ``Time to Get Out

of Afghanistan'' will result in some ``incoming'' on your

Command Post. First and foremost, let me say that I am in

total agreement with your assessment. Simply put, no desired

end state has ever been clearly articulated and no strategy

formulated that would lead us to achieve even an ill defined

end state.

A few points:

1. The strategy of ``clear, hold and build'' would lead one

to believe that the US and its Allies are capable of

coordinating the elements of national power needed to affect

such a strategy. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Just getting DOS and DOD on the same page is difficult enough

. . . getting NGO's and nation building expertise into the

fight is simply a non-starter in a country as dysfunctional

as Afghanistan.

2. Your point about troop strength required to ``protect''

the population and carry out effective counterinsurgency

operations is spot on. Instead of a surge of 21,000 troops,

McChrystal would need a surge of hundreds of thousands. Not

only would our Nation not support such a surge but, MOST

distressing, the Military could not support such a surge. Not

only are our troops being run ragged but, equally important

and totally off most people's radar screens, our equipment is

being run ragged. At some point in time, the bill for that

equipment will come due and it will be a very large bill.

3. Typical of the 21st Century fight, we are fighting ideas

as well as warriors. You cannot defeat ideas with bullets . .

. you must defeat them with better ideas. For many reasons

such as the dysfunction found in the Karzai government, the

tribal nature of the country, the abject poverty of the

average citizen, the inextricable link to Pakistan, we have

been unable to come up with better ideas. We are

systematically destroying the poppy fields . . . the

country's major source of revenue. At the same time, we are

trying to encourage other agricultural efforts. This is one

of our ``better ideas''?? Sad as it is to say, we would do

better to buy the poppy crop ourselves . . . ridding the

world of a source of drugs and maintaining the Afghan

economy.

4. What in Afghanistan is deemed in our Nation's vital

interest? Seriously? Who is the enemy? Seriously? Is the

enemy of the United States the Taliban? Is the enemy al

Queda? We need to determine the answer to those questions

immediately. One would think we would have answered them

already but none of our actions to date would indicate that

we have.

Finally, your recommendation is sound. I would put

``hunter-killer teams'' along the borders and in suspected al

Queda strongholds. I would support them with intelligence,

logistics thru the use of parasail's, responsive airpower

(need to be close), armed and unarmed (fitted with cameras,

infrared, etc) drones, ``reach back'' capability for cruise

missiles, and other capability as needed. The H-K Teams

should be given minimal rules of engagement . . . when they

identify the bad guys, they need to be empowered to take them

out.

Again, don't be dismayed by the people who disagree with

you. There are many retired and active duty military who feel

you hit the bull's eye.

Semper Fidelis,

Chuck Krulak,

General, USMC (Ret),

31st Commandant of the Marine Corps.

In the e-mail General Krulak expressed his ``total agreement'' with Will's assessment and concluded, ``There are many retired and active- duty military who feel you hit the bull's eye.''

The general also wrote, ``Simply put, no desired end state has ever been as clearly articulated and no strategy formulated that would lead us to achieve even an ill-defined end state. Instead of a surge of 21,000 troops, McChrystal would need a surge of hundreds of thousands. The military could not support such a surge. You cannot defeat ideas with bullets. You must defeat them with better ideas.''

Madam Speaker, President Obama is in the midst of reviewing a report by the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal. It is expected that this review will determine whether or not the President decides to alter the number of U.S. troops to Afghanistan.

The men and women of our military who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan have done a magnificent job. Many have been deployed four and five times. Their desire to serve is greater than ever, but the stress placed on our all-volunteer forces and their families cannot continue forever. That's why it is so important for the current administration to articulate an end point to its war strategy rather than simply ordering another surge of troops.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week I was saddened to read an article in the Marine Corps Times with the heading ``7 July suicides push Corps to record pace.'' I will submit that article for the record.

The article states, ``At least seven Marines are believed to have killed themselves so far in July, putting the Corps on a record pace despite broad-based efforts introduced to reduce suicides.''

The Corps is on a pace for about 56 suicides in 2009, which would shatter a record set last year when the Corps lost 42 Marines to confirmed or suspected suicide. The article further states, ``Marine suicides have increased annually since 2006.''

[From the Marine Corps Times, July 30, 2009]

July Suicides Push Corps to Record Pace

(By Dan Lamothe, staff writer)

At least seven Marines are believed to have killed

themselves so far in July, officials said, putting the Corps

on a record pace despite broad-based efforts introduced to

reduce suicides.

The deaths come as the service rolls out a new suicide-

prevention program this week focused on getting sergeants and

corporals to take a more active role in watching for signs

that a Marine may be in danger of killing himself. Nine

Marines killed themselves in June, and 33 have done so this

year, said Maj. Carl Redding, a spokesman at Marine Corps

headquarters.

The statistics were discussed Monday at the Sergeants Major

Symposium, an annual meeting of the Corps' top enlisted

leaders in Washington. The 33 dead Marines put the Corps on

pace for about 56 suicides in 2009, shattering a record set

last year, when the Corps lost 42 Marines to confirmed or

suspect suicides.

``We're looking at all options to get a handle on this,''

said Sgt. Maj. Carlton Kent, the Corps' top enlisted adviser.

``We're trying to pinpoint what we can do, and we're going to

stay engaged until we find a fix for it.''

Marine suicides have increased annually since 2006, when 25

Marines killed themselves. Thirty-three Marines are believed

to have committed suicide in 2007, Marine officials said.

The recent numbers have alarmed Marine leadership,

prompting additional ``all-hands'' prevention training in

March that included videos made by commanders, a slideshow

outlining recent statistics and an overview of warning signs

shown by Marines at risk of killing themselves.

On Monday, senior enlisted leaders discussed a next wave of

suicide-prevention training that has been in the works for

months. Noncommissioned officers throughout the Corps will be

trained to watch for suicide signs more carefully, with

``master trainer'' sergeants who went through 3\1/2\ days of

training in July at Marine Corps Base Quantico, Va., now

fanning out across the service to teach NCOs how they can be

a better help to at-risk Marines.

The new training package will include a 30-minute video

featuring professional actors portraying Marines, and 11

documentary film clips featuring Marines who considered

killing themselves and survivors of Marines who did, the

Corps' senior enlisted leaders were told Monday. It will

focus in part on eliminating the stigma of reporting a Marine

who is considering suicide, officials said.

``Peer groups have to recognize the signs at ankle level,

not chest level,'' said Sgt. Maj. Michael Timmerman, the

senior enlisted adviser with the Personal and Family

Readiness Division at Marine Corps headquarters.

Kent said he wants NCOs to feel empowered to report that a

Marine in turmoil may be considering suicide, but he believes

senior enlisted leadership and officers also need to be

actively involved.

``We still have to provide the guidance, oversight and

support,'' he said of senior enlisted leadership. ``We have

to give [NCOs] the tools they need'' to prevent suicides.

Unfortunately, the Army has reported a similar increase in suicides. The suicide rate among Army soldiers hit its highest level in three decades in 2008 when there were 128 confirmed suicides.

Yesterday, at a hearing of the Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel, I was impressed with the comments by military leaders from each of the four services who described the steps they are taking to combat psychological stress among servicemembers. I was also pleased to read in the Marine Corps Times that the Corps has taken increased suicide rates seriously by rolling out a new suicide prevention program and implementing additional all-hands prevention training. However, I also believe that the policymakers in Washington have a role to play.

With Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune and Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point in my district, I am well aware of the strain that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have placed on our Nation's marines and their families. Military officials have speculated that repeat combat deployments and the toll these deployments have taken on servicemembers' marriages and families have contributed to increased suicide rates.

Mr. Speaker, I also believe that continuous war without a clearly defined goal is contributing to anxiety and depression among some of the members of our military.

In recent days, I have come to the House floor to talk about our Nation's military involvement in Afghanistan and the importance of knowing the end point to our war strategy. After nearly 8 years in Afghanistan, President Obama's order for a surge of additional troops will certainly lead to more killed and wounded, more frequent deployments and more stress on our military and their families. That is the price of war.

While American military personnel faithfully conduct their missions abroad, elected officials here in Washington also need to take seriously their responsibility to develop a viable, long-term strategy for these operations.

I have spoken to many in the Army and Marine Corps who say our Nation needs an end point to its war strategy. Many servicemembers have gone to Iraq and Afghanistan more than once, and their desire to serve this Nation is greater than ever, but the stress placed on our all-volunteer forces cannot continue forever.

That is why I will continue to urge the President to work with his military commanders and the Congress to articulate to our men and women in uniform what is to be achieved and to develop the best possible strategy for achieving our goals and wrapping up our military commitment in Afghanistan. I will also continue to work with my colleagues in Congress to ensure adequate funding for mental health programs for servicemembers and veterans.

Before closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Department of Defense and our military leaders who are doing everything possible to help servicemembers who suffer from anxiety and depression.

Mr. Speaker, as I do just about every night that I come to the floor of the House, I have to close this way, because I regret that I voted to send our troops to Iraq. I have signed over 8,000 letters to the families and extended families so that I could say to God, forgive me for making that decision.

So my close will be this. 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.

And, dear God, because America is in so much trouble, I will close three times by asking, God please, God please, God please continue to bless America.

Madam Speaker, last week on the House floor I mentioned a column that appeared July 19th, 2009, in the Raleigh News and Observer entitled, ``From Vietnam 1959 to Afghanistan 2009.'' The column was written by Joseph Galloway, a military journalist and coauthor of a book on Vietnam called ``We Were Soldiers Once . . . and Young.''

In his column, Galloway uses the history lessons of Vietnam as a cautionary tale to President Obama as he oversees America's military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Galloway describes a time during the war in Vietnam in 1965 when Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara presented Lyndon Baines Johnson, President, with a top secret memo. It indicated that the United States had reached a decision point, with two available options. The first option was to arrange diplomatic cover and pull out of South Vietnam. The second option was to increase the number of American troops by 200,000, bringing the total to more than 500,000 Americans on the ground.

Regarding this second option, McNamara stated, ``All we can possibly achieve is a military stalemate at a much higher level of violence.'' A couple of weeks later, Johnson assembled what he called the ``wise men'' for a brainstorming session on Vietnam; yet those who participated said there was no real decision of McNamara's option one.

From that time, when Johnson chose to escalate and continue the war until its conclusion 10 years later, Americans suffered 56,000 more casualties.

Madam Speaker, President Obama's administration has reached a similar decision point concerning Afghanistan. With regard to the Obama administration's escalation of troops in Afghanistan, Galloway states, ``Some smart veterans of both Iraq and Afghanistan, on the ground now or just back, say that at this rate we will inevitably lose the war in Afghanistan; that the situation on the ground now is far worse than Iraq was at its lowest point in 2006 and early 2007. They talk of a costly effort both in lives and national treasure that will stretch out past the Obama administration and maybe the two administrations after that.''

In his column, Galloway advises: ``Obama needs to call in the 'wise men and women' for a fish-or-cut-bait meeting. Let's hope that this time around, there's an absence of the arrogance and certainty of previous generations of advisers. Let's hope, too, that they will weigh very carefully all the costs of another decade or two of the war in Afghanistan.''

Madam Speaker, after nearly 8 years of U.S. military operations in Afghanistan, the President needs to outline a clear strategy for victory. I have spoken to many in the Army and Marine Corps who say our Nation needs an end point to its war strategy.

While America's military personnel faithfully conduct their missions abroad, elected officials here in Washington should take seriously their responsibility to develop a viable long-term strategy for these operations.

Many of these servicemembers have gone to Iraq and Afghanistan more than once, and their desire to serve this Nation is greater than ever. But the stress placed on our all-volunteer force and their families cannot continue forever.

While the United States continues to devote its blood and treasure in Afghanistan, the Afghan Government has yet to purge itself of many who funnel support for the Taliban.

Our men and women in uniform deserve to have the President work with his military commanders and the Congress to develop the best strategy for achieving our goals and wrapping up our military commitment in Afghanistan.

Madam Speaker, as I do every night that I have the opportunity and privilege to speak on the floor of the House, my heart aches. I have signed over 8,000 letters to families who have lost loved ones in Afghanistan and Iraq because I regret that I voted to give the President the authority to go into Iraq.

Madam Speaker, because of that, I want to close this way. 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 three times, Madam Speaker, because America needs the love of God, I close this way: 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 project funding I received as part of H.R. 3288, the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010:

Rep. Walter B. Jones

Project: To extend 10th Street from Dickinson Avenue to Stantonsburg Road in Greenville, NC

Recipient: North Carolina Department of Transportation

Account: Federal Highway Administration--Transportation & Community & System Preservation

Amount: $500,000

Explanation: The project will extend 10th Street from its current terminus at Dickinson Avenue to Stantonsburg Road at Memorial Drive. This will significantly reduce traffic congestion in the downtown Greenville area. It will also provide a major east-west thoroughfare to meet the demands of cross-city traffic, as well as a direct route from US-264 to downtown Greenville and East Carolina University (ECU). It will also provide a direct connection between ECU and its medical school. Congress recognized the importance of the 10th St. Connector by authorizing it for $7.1 million in SAFETEA-LU, P.L. 109-59.

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. 3183, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2010:

Rep. Walter B. Jones

Project: Beaufort Harbor, NC

Recipient: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers--Wilmington District

Account: Operations and Maintenance

Amount: $250,000

Explanation: The funding will allow for maintenance dredging of Bulkhead Channel, which is the main waterway entrance to the Town of Beaufort from the Morehead City Harbor Federal Navigation Project and the Atlantic Ocean. The Harbor is used annually by thousands of commercial fishing vessels, sport fishing vessels and recreational boaters, and its continued operation is critical to the regional economy.

Rep. Walter B. Jones

Project: Bogue Inlet, NC

Recipient: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers--Wilmington District

Account: Operations and Maintenance

Amount: $325,000

Explanation: The funding will allow for maintenance dredging of Bogue Inlet. The inlet is used by commercial and charter fishing vessels, recreational boaters and the U.S. Coast Guard. Without dredging, the inlet will shoal up and become impassable, with dangerous consequences for the local economy and the safety of watermen.

Rep. Walter B. Jones

Project: Manteo (Shallowbag Bay), NC

Recipient: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers--Wilmington District

Account: Operations and Maintenance

Amount: $3,945,000

Explanation: The funding will provide continued maintenance dredging of Oregon Inlet. Without dredging, the inlet channel would quickly become impassable to many of the Coast Guard and commercial and recreational fishing vessels that depend on it for access to the Atlantic Ocean, and the local economy would be hurt severely.

Rep. Walter B. Jones

Project: Morehead City Harbor, NC

Recipient: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers--Wilmington District

Account: Operations and Maintenance

Amount: $9,500,000

Explanation: The funding will be used to perform maintenance dredging to the minimum width within the entrance channel, which is critical for maintaining safe navigation for the commercial and recreational vessels that use the channel to access Morehead City Port. Dredged material would be placed along the adjacent shorelines of Ft. Macon St. Park and Atlantic Beach, which would protect communities from future storm events. The funds would also be used to continue the Dredged Material Management Plan, which is necessary in light of new information concerning the harbor maintenance project's impacts to adjacent coastal environments articulated in

the Corps' Section 111 report (2001) and a separate report prepared for Carteret County by an independent coastal engineering firm.

Rep. Walter B. Jones

Project: New River Inlet, NC

Recipient: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District

Account: Operations and Maintenance

Amount: $700,000

Explanation: The funding will be used to provide for continued maintenance dredging of New River Inlet, whish is the only waterway connecting New River to the Atlantic Ocean. The inlet is in the heart of Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base, and proper maintenance of the channel is essential to Marine Corps training and operations. It is also important to Eastern North Carolina's commercial fishermen and recreational boaters.

Mr. Speaker, on July 16 of 2009, I spoke on the House floor to

express my thanks to the United States Marine Corps for their help in exonerating the late Lieutenant Colonel John A. Brow and the late Major Brooks S. Gruber, who was a resident of Jacksonville, North Carolina. On April 8, 2000, these men were the Marine pilots of the MV-22 Osprey that crashed in Marana, Arizona. The mishap occurred during a training mission as part of a test phase to determine the aircraft's suitability for the Marine Corps. Seventeen other Marines were killed in the crash.

From that day until today, I've worked with many aviation experts in the Corps and outside the Corps who helped me reach the conclusion that these pilots were not at fault for the crash. Over the past 9 years, many times, both on TV and in the print media, inaccurate reports have spread misinformation by faulting the pilots and calling the crash as pilot error. That's why it's so important to set the record straight.

So in 2009, I asked the Marine Corps to include in the official military personnel files of Lieutenant Colonel Brow and Major Gruber a memo which exonerates them from any responsibility for the mishap. The memo includes 17 facts regarding the crash which were developed based on my review of official investigations and public records as well as extensive discussions with aviation experts.

The evidence shows that the fatal factor in the crash was the aircraft's lack of a vortex ring state warning system and the pilots' lack of critical training regarding the extreme dangers of VRS onset in the Osprey.

Mr. Speaker, Lieutenant Colonel Brow and Major Gruber and their families are dishonored by the assertions that the air crew were at fault for this fatal crash. That's why I am grateful that the Marine Corps has accepted the relevance of these facts, and on February 20 of 2009 they included my memo in the personnel files of these two Marines.

To finally bring this tragedy to a conclusion and to remove the stigma that has been unfairly attached to these two pilots, I have written the Navy to ask that they do the same thing as the Marine Corps did in doing the right thing by including this memo in the official safety investigation report of this mishap.

Mr. Speaker, I am entering into the record my letter to Rear Admiral A.J. Johnson, dated June 11 of 2009, which includes my request and the 17 facts about the crash.

As of this afternoon, I am very disappointed to say that I still have not received a response to this letter. Again, Mr. Speaker, the letter was dated June 11 of 2009. My request to the Navy is simple and the facts have not been disputed.

We have just over a week until the House adjourns for the August work period. I will have to consider pursuing other options if the Navy fails to approve my request. If necessary, I will ask that the crash investigation be reopened, and I will take legislative action to clear the names of these two pilots.

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely hope that the Navy will follow the example of the Marine Corps and help properly honor the sacrifice of these pilots who bravely gave their lives in service of this country.

And with that, Mr. Speaker, as I do frequently, I will ask God to please bless our men and women in uniform in Afghanistan and Iraq. I will ask God to bless the families of our men and women in uniform. I will ask God in His loving arms to hold the families who have given a child dying for freedom in Afghanistan or Iraq. And, Mr. Speaker, as I do in closing, three times I will ask God, please God, please God, please God, continue to bless America.

Congress of the United States,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, June 11, 2009.

Rear Admiral Arthur J. Johnson,

Commander, Naval Safety Center,

Norfolk, VA.

Dear Rear Admiral Johnson: Thank you for your response to

my letter of April 21, 2009. Notwithstanding your regulations

regarding the purpose of the Naval Aviation Mishap Safety

investigations, I am convinced that the Memorandum of the

Record (Memorandum) must be included in the AMB report and

JAGMAN investigation as a matter of public record.

Over the last several years, numerous articles and stories

referencing the April 8, 2000 crash of the V-22 Osprey have

incorrectly identified Lieutenant Colonel Brow and Major

Gruber as the cause of the accident and have brought

unmerited mental hardship on their families. I outlined two

of these incidents in my previous letter. As a reminder, the

press release issued by the Marine Corps attributed the

accident to the pilot's ``extremely rapid rate of descent.''

Statements such as this and the incomplete nature of the AMB

report and JAGMAN investigation have formed the basis for the

public's perception of the role of the pilots in this

unfortunate accident and must be supplemented with clarifying

language.

For example, the JAGMAN stated that the aircraft found

itself in vortex ring state (VRS) condition with no apparent

warning to the aircrew. It was not until after the accident

that Naval Air Systems Command called for a new flight

limitation, pilot procedures, and a cockpit warning system

for VRS. Clearly, the record must reflect this reality.

Your response stated that safety investigations ``are

conducted to determine root causes and identify corrective

actions, not to assign blame or document accountability.'' In

the case of the Osprey accident, the process of determining

root causes and identifying corrective actions led to

assigning blame to the pilot and co-pilot by outside

organizations because the role of VRS has not been given its

proper emphasis. If investigations undertaken after

completion of the accident report place the root cause of the

accident on other causes, there is reason to acknowledge that

and include such a finding in the AMB report and JAGMAN

investigation.

There were many subsequent investigations into the safety

of the Osprey and the dangers of VRS. Therefore, the process

of investigating this accident is not ``closed to outside

influences.'' Insights gained after the completion of an

accident report can appropriately be appended to an official

safety or investigative report.

Everyone can appreciate the desire to close an official

investigation. However, subsequent developments clearly

demonstrate that the accident report was incomplete. There is

a legitimate basis for correcting what was determined in

order to promote public justice and remove the stigma

attached to the pilot and co-pilot.

In discussions with experts within and outside of the

military, additions to closed investigations happen

frequently. If you do not agree to place the Memorandum in

the AMB report and JAGMAN investigation, I request that you

specifically identify whether any of the 17 facts contained

in the Memorandum are inaccurate. Inclusion of the Memorandum

in the Official Military Personnel Files of these brave

Marines is insufficient.

Thank you for your service to our nation. I look forward to

your response.

Sincerely,

Walter B. Jones,

Member of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, this past Sunday, I read a column in the Raleigh News and Observer, entitled ``From Vietnam 1959 to Afghanistan 2009.'' The column was written by Joseph Galloway, a military journalist and co-author of a book on Vietnam called, ``We Were Soldiers Once and Young.''

[From the News & Observer, July 19, 2009]

From Vietnam 1959 to Afghanistan 2009

(By Joseph L. Galloway, McClatchy-Tribune Information Services

Bayside, Texas.--It was just about half a century ago, on

the night of July 8, 1959, that the first two American

soldiers to die in the Vietnam War were slain when guerrillas

surrounded and shot up a small mess hall where half a dozen

advisers were watching a movie after dinner.

Master Sgt. Chester Ovnand of Copperas Cove, Texas, and

Maj. Dale Buis of Imperial Beach, Calif., would become the

first two names chiseled on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial--

the first of 58,220 Americans who died in Vietnam during the

next 16 years.

The deaths of Ovnand and Buis went largely unnoticed at the

time, simply a small beginning of what would become a huge

national tragedy.

Presidents from Harry Truman to Dwight Eisenhower to John

F. Kennedy to Lyndon B. Johnson to Richard M. Nixon to Gerald

R. Ford made decisions--some small and incremental, some

large and disastrous--in building us so costly and tragic a

war.

The national security handmaidens of those presidents,

especially those who served Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon and Ford,

were supposedly the best and brightest that Harvard and Yale

and Princeton could contribute.

Presidents right up to today's like to surround themselves

with such self-assured and certain men, men whose eagerness

to find war the answer to most problems often grows in direct

proportion to their lack of experience in uniform or combat.

This small history lesson can be read as a cautionary tale

to President Barack Obama's team as it oversees an

excruciating slow-motion end of one war, Iraq, and a pell-

mell rush to wade ever deeper into another one in the

mountains and deserts of remote and tribal Afghanistan.

The story grows out of a battle in the very beginning of

the American takeover of the war in South Vietnam in the fall

of 1965 when a defense secretary, Robert S. McNamara, counted

the bodies and the beans and offered his president two

directly opposing options.

In the wake of the Ia Drang Valley battles of November

1965--the first major collision between an experimental

airmobile division of the U.S. Army and regular soldiers in

division strength from the People's Army of North Vietnam--

President Johnson ordered McNamara to rush to Vietnam and

assess what had happened and what was going to happen.

Up till then, just more than 1,000 Americans, mostly

advisers and pilots, had been killed in Vietnam since Ovnand

and Buis. Then, in just five days 234 more Americans had been

killed and hundreds wounded in the Ia Drang. McNamara took

briefings from Gen. William Westmoreland, the top U.S.

commander in Vietnam, and from Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge

and assorted spy chiefs and diplomats. Then he flew to An Khe

in the Central Highlands and was briefed on the Ia Drang

battles by then Lt. Col. Hal Moore, who had commanded on the

ground in Landing Zone XRAY in the Ia Drang.

On the plane home to Washington, McNamara dictated a Top

Secret/Eyes Only memo to Johnson dated Nov. 30, 1965. In that

report he stated that the enemy had not only met but had

exceeded our escalation of the war and we had reached a

decision point. In his view there were two options:

Option One: We could arrange whatever diplomatic cover we

could arrange and pull out of South Vietnam.

Option Two: We could give Gen. Westmoreland the 200,000

more U.S. troops he was asking for, in which case by early

1967 we would have more than 500,000 Americans on the ground,

and they would be dying at the rate of 1,000 a month. (He was

wrong; the death toll would reach over 3,000 a month at the

height of the war). ``All we can possibly achieve (by this)

is a military stalemate at a much higher level of violence,''

McNamara wrote.

On Dec. 15, 1965, the president assembled what he called

the ``wise men'' for a brainstorming session on Vietnam. He

entered the Cabinet room holding McNamara's memo. He shook it

at McNamara and asked: ``Bob, you mean to tell me no matter

what I do, I can't win in Vietnam?'' McNamara nodded yes;

that was precisely what he meant.

The wise men sat in session for two days. Participants say

there was no real discussion of McNamara's Option One--it

would have sent the wrong message to our Cold War allies--and

at the end there was a unanimous vote in favor of Option

Two--escalating and continuing a war that our leaders knew we

could not win.

Remember. This was 1965, 10 years before the last

helicopter lifted off that roof in Saigon. It's a hell of a

lot easier to get sucked into a war or jump feet first into a

war than it is to get out of a war.

There's no question that Obama inherited these two wars,

Iraq and Afghanistan, from the Bush/Cheney administration.

But the buildup in Afghanistan and the change in strategy

belong to Obama and his version of the best and brightest.

The new administration has dictated an escalation from

30,000 U.S. troops to more than 60,000, and even before most

of them have actually arrived commanders on the ground are

already back asking for more, and why not? When you are a

hammer everything around you looks like a nail.

Some smart veterans of both Iraq and Afghanistan, on the

ground now or just back, say that at this rate we will

inevitably lose the war in Afghanistan; that the situation on

the ground now is far worse than Iraq was at its lowest point

in 2006 and early 2007. They talk of a costly effort both in

lives and national treasure that will stretch out past the

Obama administration and maybe the two administrations after

that.

Obama needs to call in the ``wise men and women'' for a

fish-or-cut bait meeting on his two ongoing wars. Let's hope

that this time around, there's an absence of the arrogance

and certainty of previous generations of advisers. Let's hope

that they choose to speed up the withdrawal of combat troops

from Iraq and get out before the Iraqi people and leaders

order us to leave. Let's hope, too, that they weigh very

carefully all the costs of another decade or two of war in

Afghanistan.

Failing that, they should at the very least begin an

immediate drive to increase the number of available beds in

military and Veterans Administration hospitals and to expand

Arlington National Cemetery and the national military

cemeteries nationwide.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the column's most salient point is its description of a time in 1965 when Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara presented President Lyndon Baines Johnson with a top secret memo. It indicated that the United States had reached a decision point with two available options. The first option was to arrange diplomatic cover and to pull out of South Vietnam. The second option was to increase the number of American troops by 200,000, bringing the total to more than 500,000 Americans on the ground.

Regarding this second option, Mr. McNamara stated, ``All we can possibly achieve is a military stalemate at a much higher level of violence.'' I want to repeat that.

Regarding the second option, Mr. McNamara stated, ``All we can possibly achieve is a military stalemate at a much higher level of violence.''

From that time when President Johnson chose to escalate and to continue the war until its conclusion, America suffered 56,000 more casualties.

Mr. Speaker, President Obama's administration has reached a similar decision point with regard to Afghanistan. Last month, on June 25 of 2009, I joined Congressman Jim McGovern in offering an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would have required the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to Congress which outlines an exit strategy for our Armed Forces in Afghanistan.

While I regret that this amendment was not approved, I still believe it's critical for the current administration to clearly articulate benchmarks for success and an end point to its war strategy in Afghanistan. The men and women of our military who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan have done a magnificent job. Many have been deployed four or five times.

Let's not forget, as General Petraeus has said, ``Afghanistan has been known over the years as the graveyard of empires. We cannot take that history lightly.''

That is why it is so important for this current administration to have an end point to its strategy in Afghanistan. This strategy must be articulated sooner rather than later so we can avoid going down the path of other failed empires, and so we can avoid the tragedy and the mistake of Vietnam, when elected officials in Washington never articulated an end point or an understanding of what was to be achieved.

Mr. Speaker, I have Camp Lejeune and Cherry Point Marine Air Station, Camp Lejeune being a Marine base, and I have Seymour Johnson Air Force Base. I've talked to many of all ranks in the Marine Corps. They're willing to go back and to go back again and again and again, but we're getting to the point where we're about to break our military. It is time that the new administration has an end point to whatever we're trying to achieve in Afghanistan.

With that, Mr. Speaker, before I close, as I do frequently on the floor, I tell you without pride that I've signed over 8,000 letters in the last 6 years because of my mistake in giving President Bush the authority to go into Iraq. So I close tonight 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, and I ask God, in his loving arms, to hold the families who have given a child dying for freedom in Afghanistan and Iraq. Mr. Speaker, I close by asking three times: God, please, God, please, God, please continue to bless America.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the outstanding individuals of the Old Guard located at Fort Myer, Virginia.

The 3rd United States Infantry, proudly nicknamed the Old Guard, has served our Nation since 1784, making it the oldest active duty infantry unit in the United States Army.

Since World War II, the Old Guard has served as the Army's official Honor Guard. Soldiers from the Old Guard protect Washington, D.C., escort the President, and conduct military ceremonies at the White House, Pentagon and national memorials in the capital, including funeral details and other special ceremonies at Arlington National Cemetery.

Last month, I had the pleasure of spending the morning at Arlington National Cemetery and seeing the inside workings of the Old Guard. One of their most recognized duties is to provide sentinel at the Tomb of the Unknowns. Since April the 6th of 1948, the Tomb of the Unknowns has been guarded 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, regardless of weather. The sentinels rotate walks every hour in the winter and at night and every half hour in the day during the summer. They are all volunteers and considered to be the best of the Old Guard. Each soldier must be in superb physical condition, hold an untarnished military record, and be between 5 foot 10 and 6 feet 4 inches tall with the proportionate weight and build.

During the trial phase, soldiers are required to memorize seven pages of Arlington National Cemetery history, and the knew sentinels learn the grave locations of nearly 300 veterans.

The sentinels' duty time not walking is spent in the Tomb Guard Quarters below the Memorial Amphitheater, where they study cemetery ``knowledge,'' clean their weapons, and help the rest of their relief prepare for the Changing of the Guard. The guards also train on their days off.

A portion of the Sentinels' Creed states: ``My dedication to this sacred duty is total and wholehearted. In the responsibility bestowed upon me never will I falter, and with dignity and perseverance my standard will remain perfection.''

Madam Speaker, it was a humbling experience to witness the sentinels' dedication and commitment to honoring all American servicemembers who are ``Known But to God.''

I encourage every American who visits our Nation's capital to stop by Arlington National Cemetery to pay tribute to the fallen military heroes of the past, and to witness the dedication of the Old Guard.

I also encourage my colleagues in Congress to make the time to visit Arlington National Cemetery and meet with the fine soldiers of the Old Guard. Their motivation and dedication to service should truly fill every American with pride.

And as I close, Madam Speaker, as I do many times on this floor, I ask God to please bless our men and women in uniform. I ask God in his loving arms to hold the families whose child has given their life for freedom in Afghanistan and Iraq. And I ask three times, God please, God please, God please continue to bless America.

Mr. Speaker, tonight I am on the floor to express my thanks to the United States Marine Corps. On April 8 of 2000, the late Lieutenant Colonel John A. Brow and the late Major Brooks S. Gruber of Jacksonville, North Carolina, were the marine pilots of an M-22 Osprey that crashed in Marana, Arizona. The mishap occurred during a training mission as part of a test phase to determine the aircraft's operational suitability for the Marine Corps. Seventeen other marines were killed in the crash.

From that day until tonight, I have worked with many aviation experts in the Corps and outside the Corps who have helped me reach the conclusion that these pilots were not at fault for this crash. Unfortunately, many inaccurate reports have characterized the cause of the mishap as ``pilot error.''

To set the record straight, in 2009, I asked the Marine Corps to include in the official military personnel files of Lieutenant Colonel Brow and of Major Gruber a memo which exonerates them from responsibility for the mishap. The memo includes 17 facts regarding the crash, which were developed based on my review of official investigations and public records, as well as from extensive discussions with aviation experts. The evidence shows that the fatal factors in the crash were the aircraft's lack of a vortex ring state warning system and the pilots' lack of critical training regarding the extreme dangers of VRS onset in the Osprey.

Lieutenant Colonel Brow and Major Gruber and their families are dishonored by the assertion that the aircrew was at fault for this fatal crash.

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful that the Marine Corps has accepted the relevance of these facts. On February 20 of 2009, they included my memo in the personnel files of these two marines.

To finally bring this tragedy to a conclusion and to remove the stigma that has been unfairly attached to these two pilots, I've asked the Navy to do the right thing, as the Marine Corps did the right thing, and include this memo in the official safety investigation report on this mishap.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I submit for the Record my letter to Rear Admiral Arthur J. Johnson, dated June 11, 2009, which includes my request and the 17 facts about the crash.

Congress of the United States,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, June 11, 2009.

Rear Admiral Arthur J. Johnson,

Commander, Naval Safety Center, 375 A Street, Norfolk, VA.

Dear Rear Admiral Johnson: Thank you for your response to

my letter of April 21, 2009. Notwithstanding your regulations

regarding the purpose of Naval Aviation Mishap Saftey

investigations, I am convinced that the Memorandum of the

Record (Memorandum) must be included in the AMB report and

JAGMAN investigation as a matter of public record.

Over the last several years, numerous articles and stories

referencing the April 8, 2000 crash of the V-22 Osprey have

incorrectly identified Lieutenant Colonel Brow and Major

Gruber as the cause of the accident and have brought

unmerited mental hardship on their families. I outlined two

of these incidents in my previous letter. As a reminder, the

press release issued by the Marine Corps attributed the

accident to the pilot's ``extremely rapid rate of descent.''

Statements such as this and the incomplete nature of the AMB

report and JAGMAN investigation have formed the basis for the

public's perception of the role of the pilots in this

unfortunate accident and must be supplemented with clarifying

language.

For example, the JAGMAN stated that the aircraft found

itself in vortex ring state (VRS) condition with no apparent

warning to the aircrew. It was not until after the accident

that Naval Air Systems Command called for a new flight

limitation, pilot procedures, and a cockpit warning system

for VRS. Clearly, the record must reflect this reality.

Your response stated that safety investigations ``are

conducted to determine root causes and identify corrective

actions, not to assign blame or document accountability.'' In

the case of the Osprey accident, the process of determining

root causes and identifying corrective actions led to

assigning blame to the pilot and co-pilot by outside

organizations because the role of VRS has not been given its

proper emphasis. If investigations undertaken after

completion of the accident report place the root cause of the

accident on other causes, there is reason to acknowledge that

and include such a finding in the AMB report and JAGMAN

investigation.

There were many subsequent investigations into the safety

of the Osprey and the dangers of VRS. Therefore, the process

of investigating this accident is not ``closed to outside

influences.'' Insights gained after the completion of an

accident report can appropriately be appended to an official

safety or investigative report.

Everyone can appreciate the desire to close an official

investigation. However, subsequent developments clearly

demonstrate that the accident report was incomplete. There is

a legitimate basis for correcting what was determined in

order to promote public justice and remove the stigma

attached to the pilot and co-pilot.

In discussions with experts within and outside of the

military, additions to closed investigations happen

frequently. If you do not agree to place the Memorandum in

the AMB report and JAGMAN investigation, I request that you

specifically identify whether any of the 17 facts contained

in the Memorandum are inaccurate. Inclusion of the Memorandum

in the Official Military Personnel Files of these brave

Marines is insufficient.

Thank you for your service to our nation. I look forward to

your response.

Sincerely,

Walter B. Jones,

Member of Congress

Enclosure.

Mr. Speaker, many Members of the House may have seen a recent Wall Street Journal article that documented how existing disclosure requirements allow many of the costs associated with congressional delegation trips overseas, known as CODELS, to go unreported.

Right now, when Members of Congress take foreign trips using commercial airlines, the costs are publicly disclosed in reports published in the Congressional Record. However, the costs of Members' foreign trips using military aircraft are not. In the past, Members of Congress have used military aircraft even when traveling to exotic locations that are readily served by commercial airlines. Press reports have indicated that the military even maintains a specially outfitted VIP fleet, operated out of Andrews Air Force Base, where aircraft can carry costs estimated at $10,000 per hour.

When a Member of Congress takes a taxpayer-funded trip overseas, taxpayers have a right to know how much of their hard-earned money is being spent on that travel. For this reason, I recently introduced H.R. 3036.

This legislation would direct the Department of Defense to provide a report on the costs incurred in taking a Member of Congress, an officer or an employee of Congress on a trip outside the United States. It would then require the Member of Congress to disclose those costs, and these costs would be publicly reported online.

Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that this bill would not apply to any trip for which the sole purpose would be to visit one or more U.S. military installations or to visit U.S. military personnel in a war zone, since there may be varied security reasons for not disclosing the costs of these trips.

With an ever-growing national debt and with our military budget stretched thin, it is more important than ever that Congress acts as a responsible steward of taxpayer dollars. Bringing sunshine to the costs of Members' foreign travel will help ensure taxpayer dollars are efficiently used.

I am pleased that this legislation has received the support of the National Taxpayers Union, of Eagle Forum and of Public Citizens Congress Watch. It has also been endorsed by the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste. Their letter of support for this bill states:

``Military aircraft is necessary when flying into war zones or U.S. military installations overseas; however, the military fleet is too often used to shuttle Members back and forth to locations served by commercial airliners. Members of Congress should be held accountable for every bill footed by taxpayers.''

Again, that statement that I just read is from a letter that the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste wrote to support this legislation. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I submit the text of this letter for the Record.

In closing, I hope my colleagues will become cosponsors of H.R. 3036, and will join in bringing transparency to the cost of foreign travel by Members of Congress.

Council for Citizens Against

Government Waste,

Washington, DC., June 29, 2009.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: Congressman Walter Jones (R-N.C.)

recently introduced H.R.

3036, a bill that would bring transparency to taxpayer-funded

overseas trips taken by members of Congress. On behalf of the

more than 1.2 million members and supporters of the Council

for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW), I urge you to

support this legislation.

The military maintains a specially outfitted VIP fleet out

of Andrews Air Force Base that can cost up to $10,000 per

hour to operate. Members of Congress often take advantage of

these military aircraft for overseas travel, even in

instances where commercial flights are readily available and

more cost-effective. The cost of commercial airline travel is

publicly disclosed, but the cost of travel on military-owned

jets is not provided.

H.R. 3036 would require the Secretary of Defense to

determine and disclose the cost of foreign trips for members

of Congress using military aircraft. These costs would then

be publicly reported online through the House Clerk's

website.

Military aircraft is necessary when flying into war zones

or U.S military installations overseas; however, the military

fleet is too often used to shuttle members to back and forth

to locations served by commercial airliners.

Members of Congress should be held accountable for every

bill footed by taxpayers. All votes on H.R. 3036 will be

among those considered in CCAGW's 2009 Congressional Ratings.

Sincerely,

Thomas A. Schatz,

President.

Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to report that 304 of my colleagues in the House, from both parties, have joined me as cosponsors of H.R. 24, legislation to redesignate the Department of the Navy to be known as the Department of the Navy and the Marine Corps.

I'm grateful to Chairman Ike Skelton, who included the language of H.R. 24 in the National Defense Authorization Act, which passed the full House last month. This is the eighth year in a row that language to properly recognize the Marine Corps has been included in the House version of the bill. Unfortunately, each year the language has been stripped in the Senate.

This year, I'm grateful to have the support of Senator Pat Roberts, a former Marine, who introduced the same bill in the Senate, S. 504. With his

help, I'm hopeful that this will be the year that the Senate supports the House position and joins in bringing proper respect to the fighting team of the Navy and Marine Corps.

Madam Speaker, some people might ask, Why is the change so important? Isn't renaming the Department just symbolic? What's in a name?

Well, Madam Speaker, the name of the Marine Corps represents more than two centuries of service alongside the Navy.

What's in a name? The flag raising at Iwo Jima. What's in a name? Scarlet and gold; honor, courage, and commitment; and Semper Fi. What's in a name? More than 1,000 Marines who have given their lives in serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As symbolic as a change in the name might be, this is a matter of respect and gratitude to the Marine Corps. The Marines do not serve beneath the Navy. They are one fighting team. That is, the Marine Corps and the Navy as coequal partners.

This legislation is not about changing the responsibilities of the Secretary of the Department, reallocating resources, or altering missions. General Carl Mundy, the 30th Commandant of the Marine Corps, summed up the need for this change when he said, ``This action will accurately align the Secretary's title with his present-day authority and responsibilities. As is, the title is confusing. It is inconsistent with the status of the four Armed Services in the Department of Defense. And it acknowledges only two-thirds of the uniformed servicemembers in the Department.''

Over the course of the Marine Corps' history, including their present-day service around the world, those three words, ``and Marine Corps,'' have been earned through blood and sacrifice.

When the Department of the Navy writes the families of Marines who have been killed, their families deserve to receive the letter from the Department of the Navy and Marine Corps.

Madam Speaker, the Marines fighting today deserve this recognition, and those who are part of the history of the Marine Corps deserve that recognition as well.

Madam Speaker, I want to close my comments by first saying to those in Iraq and Afghanistan, 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. And 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 close three times by asking God, please God; please God; please God, 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 3082--Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act, 2010.

Rep. Walter B. Jones

Project: Radar Approach Control (RAPCON) Complex at Seymour Johnson Air Force Base Phase 1

Recipient: Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, 1510 Wright Brothers Ave., Seymour Johnson AFB, NC 27531

Account: Military Construction, Air Force

Amount: $6,900,000

Explanation: The existing Radar Approach Control (RAPCON) Complex and Ground to Air Transmitter/Receiver (GATR) at Seymour Johnson Air Force Base are inadequately configured for today's mission and high-tech equipment. Replacing these facilities would improve Air Force operations and safety and save money by sharply reducing the cost of maintaining the existing outdated infrastructure.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in memory of Steve Streater, who passed away in Asheboro, North Carolina, on June 20, 2009, at the age of 50. I extend to all of his friends and family my deepest sympathy for their loss.

Many North Carolina residents will remember Steve as a University of North Carolina football hero, who helped lead the team to the 1980 Atlantic Coast Conference ACC title. What some might not know is that Steve was a star player in both baseball and football as a student at Sylva-Webster High School.

As a baseball pitcher, he set North Carolina High School Athletic Association baseball records that still stand today--with a reported 12 shutouts in a season, 23 wins in a season, and 61 career wins. He also had eight no-hitters.

Steve was a good student and like his brothers Eric and Jimmy, he went on to play football for a Division I college, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

At the University of North Carolina, Steve became the only ACC player in history to earn all-conference honors at two positions. He was a first-team punter and safety for the 1980 Tar Heels football team, the last to win an ACC championship.

During his senior season, he had five interceptions, including three in the season closer against Duke University. Steve was also the defensive Most Valuable Player of the 1980 Bluebonnet Bowl, with an interception that set up the winning touchdown against Texas.

Sadly, after his triumphant season, Steve's athletic career abruptly ended when he was involved in a freak car accident. In April of 1981, he was returning home from a tryout with the Washington Redskins. Hours after he agreed to sign a free agent contract, his car hit a slick spot, slid into an embankment, and was hit by another car. He suffered a back jury in that accident and was left paralyzed from the waist down for the remainder of his life. I remember that the Washington Redskins thought so much of Steve, they still paid his signing bonus after the injury.

Although Steve could no longer impress fans with his skills on the field, he made an even greater difference as he served as a role model for countless young people. From this tragedy, Steve became an inspiration to high school students throughout North Carolina. In addition to coaching, he was appointed State field coordinator for SADD, Students Against Drunk Driving, which launched in North Carolina in 1983. His car accident was not alcohol related, but in this role he was not only an inspiration to students, but to people like me.

While serving in the North Carolina General Assembly, I had the privilege and honor of introducing Steve several times when he spoke to student groups in my district. I am certain that he benefited from the love and support of his family and friends because, despite his accident, he never showed the pain of what he had lost.

Steve touched many of us young and old in such a positive way that his life will never be forgotten by those of us who had the privilege to know him. Steve Streater was an outstanding individual and he will be dearly missed.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 2996, the Department of the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2010:

Rep. Walter B. Jones

Project: Rural Water Technical Assistance, National Rural Water Association

Recipient: National Rural Water Association, 2915 South 13th Street, Duncan, OK 74544

Account: Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Programs and Management

Amount: $13,000,000

Explanation: The funding will be used to provide rural water technical assistance, including source water and ground water protection, to help small rural communities across the nation protect their drinking water quality and comply with federal mandates.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the McGovern amendment. When the previous administration was in office, many times Members on both sides of the aisle kept saying, Why isn't there an end point to the war in Iraq? Now, after 8 years in Afghanistan, the current administration must clearly articulate the benchmarks for success and the endpoint to its war strategy.

In my years in Congress, I have many opportunities to speak to military leaders. Time after time, time after time, I heard this: To have a successful war strategy, you must have an end point. An end point is an understanding of what has to be achieved.

General Petraeus recently said, Afghanistan has been known over the years as the graveyard of empires. We cannot take that history lightly.

Another voice who brings credibility to this position is Andrew Bacevich, a retired army colonel, Gulf War and Vietnam veteran, military historian, and the father of a son who died in Iraq in 2007. Bacevich has written that, Embarking on a protracted war with no foreseeable end to the U.S. commitment--lacking clearly defined and achievable objectives--risks forfeiting public support, thereby courting disaster.

This amendment does not set a date for leaving Afghanistan. It simply asks the Secretary of Defense to present a plan for success to Congress by the end of the year.

I would hope that the Members of Congress will look at this, and let's not repeat Vietnam. Our men and women in uniform have given and given and given. And it's time now to say that we have a definition of victory. And that's all Mr. McGovern's amendment is asking.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts.

I respect everyone's position and everyone's right, but I would like to say that To Die For a Mystique is an article written by Andrew Bacevich, who I quoted just a few minutes ago, subtitled The Lessons Our Leaders Didn't Learn From the Vietnam War. Here we are, extending an 8-year commitment of our troops in Afghanistan. What's going to happen 3 or 4 years from now if we're in the same situation? And then we're talking about a 12-, 14-16-year commitment.

Look at what the Russians did. They went there and spent 10 years and billions of dollars, and thousands of Russians were killed. Look at Alexander the Great. He tried to conquer Afghanistan. He failed. Look at what the British did, and they couldn't make it. We're not talking about a pull-out. We're just saying, have an end point to your war strategy that the American people will understand and really, more important than the American people, our military. They're tired. They're worn out. They will keep going. They go back five, six, seven, eight times. But ask a military family down at Camp LeJeune, You want to send your husband or wife back for the sixth time to Afghanistan? We're 8 years behind the fight because we never should have gone into Iraq. Let's not make the same mistake they made during the Vietnam era.

Thank you, Mr. McGovern, for introducing this amendment. On behalf of our country and our troops, thank you very much.