Floor Statements

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. 2647, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010.

Rep. 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: $4,000,000

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.

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would improve Air Force operations and safety and save money by sharply reducing the cost of maintaining the existing outdated infrastructure.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, thank you very much. Tonight, I want to take my time and refer to an article written by Andrew Bacevich. This was in the American Conservative of May 18, 2009. The title is ``To Die for a Mystique,'' subtitled ``The lessons our leaders didn't learn from the Vietnam War. I'm going to read two or three paragraphs and then close from this article.

``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 United States' commitment.''

He further stated in the article, ``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, ``The dirty little secret to which few in Washington will own up is that the United States now faces the prospect of perpetual conflict. We find ourselves in the midst of what the Pentagon calls the `Long War,' a conflict global in scope (if largely concentrated in the Greater Middle East) and expected to outlast even General Palmer's `Twenty-Five Year War.' The present generation of senior civilians and officers have either forgotten or inverted the lessons of Vietnam, embracing open-ended war as an inescapable reality.''

Madam Speaker, I submit this entire article for the Record.

[From The American Conservative, May 18, 2009]

To Die for a Mystique

(By Andrew J. Bacevich)

In one of the most thoughtful Vietnam-era accounts written

by a senior military officer, Gen. 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.

Palmer's book, which he titled ``The Twenty-Five Year

War'', appeared in 1984. Today, exactly 25 years later, we

once again find ourselves mired in a ``protracted war of an

indeterminate nature with no foreseeable end to the U.S.

commitment.'' It's deja vu all over again. How to explain

this astonishing turn of events?

In the wake of Vietnam, the officer corps set out to

preclude any recurrence of protracted, indeterminate

conflict. The Armed Forces developed a new American way of

war, emphasizing advanced technology and superior skills. The

generals were by no means keen to put these new methods to

the test: their preference was for wars to be fought

infrequently and then only in pursuit of genuinely vital

interests. Yet when war did come, they intended to dispatch

any adversary promptly and economically, thereby protecting

the military from the possibility of public abandonment.

Finish the job quickly and go home: this defined the new

paradigm to which the lessons of Vietnam had given rise.

In 1991, Operation Desert Storm seemingly validated that

paradigm. Yet events since 9/11, in both Iraq and

Afghanistan, have now demolished it. Once again, as in

Vietnam, the enemy calls the tune, obliging American soldiers

to fight on his terms. Decision has become elusive. Costs

skyrocket and are ignored. The fighting drags on. As it does

so, the overall purpose of the undertaking--other than of

avoiding the humiliation of abject failure--becomes

increasingly difficult to discern.

The dirty little secret to which few in Washington will own

up is that the United States now faces the prospect of

perpetual conflict. We find ourselves in the midst of what

the Pentagon calls the ``Long War,'' a conflict global in

scope (if largely concentrated in the Greater Middle East)

and expected to outlast even General Palmer's ``Twenty-Five

Year War.'' The present generation of senior civilians and

officers have either forgotten or inverted the lessons of

Vietnam, embracing open-ended war as an inescapable reality.

To apply to the Long War the plaintive query that Gen.

David Petraeus once posed with regard to Iraq--``Tell me how

this ends''--the answer is clear: no one has the foggiest

idea. War has become like the changing phases of the moon.

It's part of everyday existence. For American soldiers there

is no end in sight.

Yet there is one notable difference between today and the

last time the United States found itself mired in a seemingly

endless war. During the Vietnam era, even as some young

Americans headed off to Indochina to fight in the jungles and

rice paddies, many other young Americans back on the home

front fought against the war itself. More than any other

event of the 1960s, the war created a climate of intense

political engagement. Today, in contrast, the civilian

contemporaries of those fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan have

largely tuned out the Long War. The predominant mood of the

country is not one of anger or anxiety but of dull

acceptance. Vietnam divided Americans; the Long War has

rendered them inert.

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.

When the citizen-soldier tradition collapsed under the

weight of Vietnam, the military rebuilt itself as a

professional force. The creation of this all-volunteer

military was widely hailed as a great success--well-trained

and highly motivated soldiers made the new American way of

war work. Only now are we beginning to glimpse the

shortcomings of this arrangement, chief among them the

fact that today's ``standing army'' exists at considerable

remove from the society it purports to defend. Americans

today profess to ``support the troops'' but that support

is a mile wide and an inch deep. It rarely translates into

serious or sustained public concern about whether those

same troops are being used wisely and well.

The upshot is that with the eighth anniversary of the Long

War upon us, fundamental questions about this enterprise

remain unasked. The contrast with Vietnam is striking: back

then the core questions may not have gotten straight answers,

but at least they got posed.

When testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations

Committee in April 1971, the young John Kerry famously--or

infamously, in the eyes of some--asked, ``How do you ask a

man to be the last man to die for a mistake?''

What exactly was that mistake? Well, there were many. Yet

the most fundamental lay in President Johnson's erroneous

conviction that the Republic of Vietnam constituted a vital

American security interest and that ensuring that country's

survival required direct and massive U.S. military

intervention.

Johnson erred in his estimation of South Vietnam's

importance. He compounded that error with a tragic failure of

imagination, persuading himself that once in, there was no

way out. The United States needed to stay the course in

Vietnam, regardless of the cost or consequences.

Now we are, in our own day and in our own way, repeating

LBJ's errors. In his 1971 Senate testimony, reflecting the

views of other Vietnam veterans who had turned against the

war in which they had fought, Kerry derisively remarked, ``we

are probably angriest

about all that we were told about Vietnam and about the

mystical war against communism.''

The larger struggle against communism commonly referred to

as the Cold War was both just and necessary. Yet the furies

evoked by irresponsible (or cowardly) politicians more

interested in partisan advantage than in advancing the common

good transformed the Cold War from an enterprise governed by

reason into one driven by fear. Beginning with McCarthyism

and the post-1945 Red Scare and continuing on through

phantasms such as the domino theory, bomber gap, missile gap,

and the putative threat to our survival posed by a two-bit

Cuban revolutionary, panic induced policies that were

reckless, wrong-headed, and unnecessary, with Vietnam being

just one particularly egregious example.

The mystical war against communism finds its counterpart in

the mystical war on terrorism. As in the 1960s, so too today:

mystification breeds misunderstanding and misjudgment. It

prevents us from seeing things as they are.

As a direct result, it leads us to exaggerate the

importance of places like Afghanistan and indeed to

exaggerate the jihadist threat, which falls well short of

being existential. It induces flights of fancy so that

otherwise sensible people conjure up visions of providing

clean water, functioning schools, and good governance to

Afghanistan's 40,000 villages, with expectations of thereby

winning Afghan hearts and minds. It causes people to ignore

considerations of cost. With the Long War already this

nation's second most expensive conflict, trailing only World

War II, and with the federal government projecting trillion-

dollar deficits for years to come, how much can we afford and

where is the money coming from?

For political reasons the Obama administration may have

banished the phrase ``global war on terror,'' yet the

conviction persists that the United States is called upon to

dominate or liberate or transform the Greater Middle East.

Methods may be shifting, with the emphasis on pacification

giving way to militarized nation-building. Priorities may be

changing, Af-Pak now supplanting Iraq as the main effort. But

by whatever name, the larger enterprise continues. 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 de-mystify 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.

I further read and want to close and then make a few comments with this. This is the last paragraph. Let me say about Andrew Bacevich, he, himself, was a Vietnam veteran. He, himself, was a veteran of Desert Storm. He, himself, taught at West Point. He lost a son in 2007, a young lieutenant who was killed in Iraq. So I think he brings great credibility to this article that he has written.

This is the last paragraph in the article. ``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.''

Madam Speaker, I bring this forward because my friend from Massachusetts, Jim McGovern, has put a bill in that would say simply to the Secretary of Defense: You need to come to the Congress and tell the Congress what the exit strategy is for Afghanistan. Some people would say end point.

Let me briefly explain, having an exit strategy and saying that to the Congress, you don't have to say in 2009, 2010, or 2015 or 2020, but tell the American people where we are going when we send our young men and boys and girls to die in Afghanistan without a plan, without benchmarks.

So, Madam Speaker, I don't know if Mr. McGovern's amendment has been approved for debate tomorrow on the Armed Services bill, but I want to thank Mr. McGovern for bringing this to the attention of the American people and the Congress, because we need to have benchmarks. We need to have an end point to the strategy in Afghanistan.

The military, I know, from marines down in my district, will tell you that our military is tired. They're worn out. They'll keep going back and forth, back and forth because they love this Nation and they love defending America. But we've got to be realistic about breaking the military, because we have got North Korea over here threatening. We've got the Chinese. We don't know what they might do. Yet we need to have a plan for victory in Afghanistan. We cannot do what the Bush administration did in Iraq and keep going on and on.

Madam Speaker, as I close, as I do every night on this floor, I have signed over 8,000 letters to families and extended families who have lost loved ones 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, 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 ask three times; God, please, God please, God, please continue to bless America.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to announce that 290 of my colleagues in the House from both parties have joined me as colleagues of cosponsors of H.R. 24--legislation to redesignate the Department of the Navy as the Department of the Navy and Marine Corps. I'm grateful for the widespread support for this change among my House colleagues, and I also thank Chairman Ike Skelton who will include the language of H.R. 24 in the National Defense Authorization Act markup tomorrow.

For the past 7 years, the language of this bill has been part of the House version of the National Defense Authorization Act. Each year, the full House of Representatives has supported this change. This year, I'm also 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.

Over the course of the Marine Corps history, including their present- day service in Afghanistan and Iraq, those three words, ``and Marine Corps,'' have been earned through blood and sacrifice. The Navy and Marine Corps have operated as one entity for more than two centuries, and H.R. 24 would allow the name of this department to illustrate that fight.

This legislation is not about changing the responsibilities of the Secretary of the Navy Department, reallocating resources, or altering missions. This change is all about respect and gratitude to the Marine Corps. As symbolic as this change might be, the Marine Corps has earned the right to be recognized in the Department's name. Over the past several years, this change has received support from three former Navy Secretaries, the Marine Corps League, Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Fleet Reserve Association, and many other individuals and groups.

In 2004, at a hearing before the House Armed Services Committee, Navy Admiral Stansfield Turner described his support for this change, and he said, ``I think this change in title enhances the prestige and pride of the people in the Marine Corps, and it does not necessarily take anything away from the Navy in that process. I am particularly impressed today . . . [by] the degree of cooperation between the armed services of our country.''

And Admiral Turner further stated, ``Emphasizing that this is a Navy- Marine Corps team is a very important part of keeping that kind of sight on the objective of teamwork in combat.''

Madam Speaker, the marines who are fighting today deserve this recognition.

In closing, I would like to show the change.

Madam Speaker, on this first poster was actually a letter that was sent by the Secretary of the Navy to a Marine wife who was killed. I certainly have taken out the name of the Marine Corps's wife's name, and I want to read this part to you and to those on the floor: On behalf of the Department of the Navy, please accept my very sincere condolences in the loss of your husband, Captain so-and-so, Marine.

Madam Speaker, the important part of reading this is this. If this bill becomes law, this fighting team will recognize this Marine family in this way: The Secretary of the Navy and Marine Corps. Dear Marine Corps family, On behalf of the Department of the Navy and Marine Corps. Madam Speaker, that's all that it does, but it's very important that the Marine Corps receive this recognition.

And before closing, Madam Speaker, as I do frequently, I ask God to please bless our many men and women in uniform, I ask God to 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. And, Madam Speaker, I ask three times, God, please, God, please, God, please continue to bless America.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this year Congress passed H.R. 1, better known as the economic stimulus package. Included in this package was a provision which modified the first-time homebuyers tax credit language that Congress passed last year. Under the new provision, a first-time homebuyer who purchased a home before December 1, 2009, would get a tax credit of $8,000, which can be fully retained by the homebuyer so long as the homebuyer does not sell the home for 36 months after purchase. If the home is sold prior to 36 months, the credit will have to be repaid.

Mr. Speaker, under this law, it is unlikely that U.S. servicepersons who buy their first homes will be able to use the first-time homebuyer tax credit like other American taxpayers. Because many of our military personnel serve at a duty station for only a few years at a time, those who buy a first home are often transferred and have to sell their first residence before the 36-month holding requirement is met.

I recently introduced legislation that would fix this problem by allowing our military men and women the flexibility they need to benefit from this tax credit. H.R. 2398, the Service Members First-Time Homebuyer Relief Act, would amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a member of the United States Armed Forces to retain the first- time homebuyer tax credit if they must sell their home within 36 months of purchase because the servicemember is, one, transferred to a new duty station; two, deployed overseas; or, three, required to reside in government quarters during that period.

I am very pleased that this legislation has received the support of the National Military Families Association. Their letter of support for this bill states, and I quote: ``Thank you for recognizing the mobile lifestyle of servicemembers and their families. H.R. 2398 waives the recapture of the first-time homebuyer's tax credit for servicemembers who are transferred to a different duty station or deployed overseas. Moves and deployments can be stressful for military families and H.R. 2398 helps alleviate a financial concern of military families.''

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I will submit the text of this letter for the Record.

National Military

Family Association,

May 28, 2009.

Hon. Walter B. Jones, Jr.,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Jones: The National Military Family

Association has long been an advocate for improving the

quality of life of our military family members, who

have sacrificed greatly in support of our Nation. We

appreciate your sponsorship of the ``Service Members First-

Time Homebuyer Relief Act of 2009.''

Thank you for recognizing the mobile lifestyle of service

members and their families. H.R. 2398 waives the recapture of

the first time homebuyer's tax credit for service members who

are transferred to a different duty station or deployed

overseas. Moves and deployments can be stressful for military

families and H.R. 2398 helps alleviate a financial concern of

military families.

We appreciate your on-going support of service members and

their family members. If you have any questions or need

further information, please contact Katie Savant in our

Government Relations Department at (703) 931-6632 or

KSavant@MilitaryFamily. org.

The National Military Family Association is the only

national organization whose sole focus is the military family

and whose goal is to influence the development and

implementation of policies that will improve the lives of the

families of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast

Guard, and the Commissioned Corps of the Public Health

Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration. For 40 years, its staff and volunteers,

comprised mostly of military family members, have built a

reputation for being the leading experts on military family

issues.

Sincerely,

Mary T. Scott,

Chairman, Board of Governors.

I hope my colleagues will become cosponsors of H.R. 2398 and join in helping our servicemembers gain the flexibility they need to benefit from the first-time homebuyer's tax credit.

I have also handed a letter explaining this issue to both Chairman Charlie Rangel and Ranking Member David Camp, and I hope they will join me in supporting our military families.

With that, Mr. Speaker, before I close, as I always do on the floor of the House, because we have young men and women in Afghanistan and Iraq, we have young men and women who are dying for this country, and young men and women who are losing limbs in those fights in Afghanistan and Iraq, so 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've given a child dying for freedom in Afghanistan and Iraq.

And three times, Mr. Speaker, I ask God to please bless America. I ask God to please bless America, and again, I ask God to please bless this great Nation known as America.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues in the House from both parties for joining me as cosponsors of H.R. 24, legislation to redesignate the Department of the Navy as the Department of the Navy and Marine Corps. As of today, this legislation has 278 bipartisan cosponsors.

For the past 7 years, the language of this bill has been part of the House version of the National Defense Authorization Act. Each year, the full House of Representatives has supported this change. This year, I am 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 am hopeful that this will be the year the Senate supports the House's position and joins in bringing proper respect to the fighting team of the Navy and Marine Corps.

The Navy and Marine Corps have operated as one entity for more than two centuries, and H.R. 24 would allow the name of their Department to illustrate this fact. This legislation is not about changing the responsibilities of the Secretary of the Department, reallocating resources between the Navy and Marine Corps or altering their missions. Redesignating the Department as the Department of the Navy and Marine Corps is a symbolic gesture, but it is important to the team.

Over the years, I have been encouraged by the overwhelming support for this change that I have received from so many members of the United States Armed Forces. Last month, I received a letter from retired Marine Colonel Giles Kyser, who kindly expressed his support for H.R. 24.

He wrote, ``As a combat commander of marines and sailors in Iraq, I submit that no one understands the parity of the two services better than the corpsmen and chaplains serving alongside `their marines.' I dare say, if you asked any one of those sailors to voice an opinion about the proposed change, most would wonder why our country took so long to take this simple action.''

The colonel further wrote, ``When President Truman considered disbanding the Marine Corps after World War II in 1946, then Commandant of the Marine Corps, Medal of Honor recipient Alexander Vandergrift brought the issue before the Congress of the United States. The general merely presented the Marine Corps' combat lineage and let those actions speak for themselves. After hearing the general's remarks, our congressional leaders did the right thing: not only preserving our Corps but ensuring its roles, missions; and even its size became part of the law of the land.''

The colonel further stated in his letter, ``The stroke of a pen, adding three words `and Marine Corps,' will complete General Vandergrift's action of some 63 years ago; will ensure our leaders, their staffs and their constituents clearly recognize the coequal status of the Marine Corps; and will ensure once and for all time the equality of our marines in the eyes of the Nation and its people.''

Madam Speaker, I submit the full text of Colonel Kyser's letter for the Record.

May 14, 2009.

Congressman Walter B. Jones

House of Representatives,

Rayburn Building, Washington, DC.

Congressman Jones, Per our discussions on 12 May I wanted

to pass on a few suggestions regarding your proposed Bill

(H.R. 24) ``To redesignate the Department of the Navy as the

Department of the Navy and Marine Corps.'' I believe your

initiative comes at a time in the history of our Nation and

of our Navy and Marine Corps when permanently establishing

the Marine Corps' parity as an equal service with the Army,

Navy, and Air Force constitutes an ethical and practical

imperative not only from the standpoint of history, but from

the standpoint of educating key leaders and their staffs.

Your efforts to-date clearly underscore why according the

Marine Corps equal status within the Department of Defense

constitutes the ``right thing to do.'' The contributions of

our Marines, written in blood across the globe during our

current contingency operations merit a change raising the

awareness of the Nation and its leaders regarding the role

our Marines play in their defense. Moreover, and if only as a

supporting argument, how many Americans truly at understand

that the sacrifices made since September 11 2001 by our

Marines always take place with Sailors at their side on the

battlefield? Those Sailors, who while at

their side, often provide either the immediate aid that saves

their lives, or the special comfort of a comrade during their

final moments on this earth. Such is the unshakable bond of

the Marines and Sailors who live at the tip of the spear,

where the measure of a man or woman's life is defined by

actions, and where moments of courage and compassion confer a

nobility that clearly compels equal recognition in the eyes

of the citizens they defend.

As a combat commander of Marines and Sailors in Iraq, I

submit that no one understands the parity of the two services

better than the Corpsmen and Chaplains serving alongside

``their Marines.'' I dare say that if you asked any one of

those Sailors to voice an opinion about the proposed change

that they would support the change with the same degree of

commitment they always show ``their Marines'' and, most would

wonder why our country took so long to take this simple

action.

After all is said and done, the substance of the proposed

change focuses us on the young men and women who willingly

gave the last full measure of devotion to this country. The

redesignation honors them and constitutes an ethical

imperative. * * * it is the right thing to do and we must do

it.

The second imperative revolves around a very practical

truth. In an environment where decisions taken find their

foundation in understanding the context of the issue, most

Americans, even those here in the rarefied air of Washington

DC, simply do not realize that the Department of the Navy

includes both the Navy and Marine Corps. The practical result

of that lack of knowledge finds very concrete expression in

the history of deliberation and budgets within the Department

of Defense. Many Congressional, White House, and even

Department of Defense staffers must constantly be reminded

that the Department of the Navy, and its total obligation

authority includes both the Navy and the Marine Corps in

order to avoid cutting away the muscle of the Corps as it

competes for funding. The Marine Corps' advertising efforts

and information campaign within the Capital Region help to

overcome the challenge, but why should the Marine Corps and

the Department of the Navy have to begin their efforts from a

position of informational weakness? Certainly, the stroke of

a pen changing the existing designation provides a

demonstrable first step in overcoming the positional deficit

plaguing the Corps since its inception some two hundred and

thirty-four years ago.

Indeed, when President Truman considered disbanding the

Marine Corps after World War II in 1946, then Commandant of

the Marine Corps, Medal of Honor recipient Alexander

Vandergrift brought the issue before the Congress of the

United States. The General merely presented the Marine Corps'

combat lineage and let those actions speak for themselves. He

refused to, in his words, come on ``bended knee'' to argue

the case for Marines and Sailors who served so bravely and

brilliantly in places like Tripoli, Montezuma, Belleau Wood,

Tarawa, and Iwo Jima. After hearing the General's remarks,

our Congressional Leaders did the right thing; not only

preserving our Corps, but ensuring its roles, missions, and

even its size became part of the law of the land.

It is time again for our Congressional Leaders to ``do the

right thing'' in a time when fiscal reality might again place

our Marines and the Sailors who serve with them at a

disadvantage born not from malice aforethought as was the

case in 1946, but born of a lack of education existing for

more than two hundred and thirty years. The stroke of a pen,

adding three words ``and Marine Corps'' will complete General

Vandegrift's action of some sixty-three years ago, will

ensure our leaders, their staffs, and their constituents

clearly recognize the co-equal status of the Marine Corps

and, will ensure once and for all time, the equality of our

Marines in the eyes of the Nation and its people. This is not

a request made from a ``bended knee.'' It is a request made

from the position of attention, facing forward, but not

forgetting the sacrifice of those Marines and Sailors of the

past. The change constitutes an ethical and practical

imperative and is ``the right thing to do.''

Very respectfully,

James Giles Kyser IV,

Colonel, U.S. Marine Corps (Retired).

Madam Speaker, the marines who are fighting today deserve this recognition--those living and fighting and those who have given their lives for this country.

I have beside me an actual copy of a letter that was sent to a marine family. This is the way it is today--the Secretary of the Navy with the Navy flag. ``Dear Marine Corps family, on behalf of the Department of the Navy, we extend our deepest sympathy in the loss of your loved one.''

Madam Speaker, if H.R. 24 and Senate 504 become the law of the land, it will be the way it should be to a family--to a Marine family who gave a life for this country. It will say the Secretary of the Navy and the Marine Corps, and it will have the Navy flag and the Marine flag. It will say, ``Dear Marine Corps family, on behalf of the Department of the Navy and the Marine Corps, please accept my sincere condolences on the loss of your loved one.''

This is all it is about--bringing the team together. It is time that the Marine Corps is recognized as part of the fighting team.

With that, Madam Speaker, before I yield back my time, I will ask God to please bless our men and women in Afghanistan and Iraq. I will ask God to, please, with his loving arms, hold the families who have given children, dying for freedom in Afghanistan and Iraq. I close three times by asking God: God, please, God, please, God, please continue to bless America.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Tanya Queiro, who was named the 2009 Military Spouse of the Year.

The honor is presented by USAA to an individual who embodies the best qualities of today's military spouse. USAA is a diversified financial services group of companies that serves the members of the United States military and their families. The award honors the sacrifices and selfless service of the more than 1 million military spouses who provide unwavering support to our Armed Services today and to those who have served in previous generations.

Tanya Queiro was chosen from more than 650 nominations submitted to ``Military Spouse'' magazine. The criteria used to select the winner include one's impact on community change, one's volunteerism, personal sacrifice, education, career pursuits, and other spouse-related efforts. During an awards ceremony in Washington, D.C., Mrs. Queiro was honored for her commitment to the troops, for the ongoing support of her active duty husband, Gunnery Sergeant Jose Queiro, for her volunteer work, and for the many contributions to her community.

Mrs. Queiro, herself, served as an active duty marine for more than 12 years. It was during this time that she met and married her husband, that she began raising her three children and that she began earning her bachelor's degree and also her master's degree. Now, in addition to raising her children--Jose, Marcus and Adrianna--and managing the house while her husband deploys, she works full time as a human resources specialist and is pursuing a doctorate degree in organization and management.

Mrs. Queiro has also managed to find the time to be extremely active in her community. She is a USDA New Leader Program graduate, an active Civilian Career Leadership Development participant and mentor, an American Military University Career mentor, and an Operation Noble Heart volunteer. She has volunteered as a Life Style, Insight, Networking, Knowledge, and Skills mentor, Onslow County Women's Shelter Victim Advocate, and Key Volunteer. As a lifetime member of the Women's Marine Association, Mrs. Queiro is dedicated to cementing the bond and comradery shared by those who have gone through the training to become United States Marines.

Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure of meeting Mrs. Queiro last week in my district office in Greenville, North Carolina. She is a resident of Jacksonville, North Carolina, which is part of my congressional district. Her outstanding record of achievement and of continued commitment to her husband, to her children, to the United States Marine Corps family, and to her community are truly inspiring. Once again, I extend my sincere congratulations to Mrs. Queiro for a well-deserved honor.

Mr. Speaker, before closing, as I do frequently on the floor of the House, 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, and I ask God three times: Please God, please God, please God, continue to bless America.

Madam Speaker, last week, Congressman Jim McGovern introduced H.R. 2404, legislation to require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to Congress, outlining the exit strategy for our United States military forces in Afghanistan.

I am an original cosponsor of this bill, which now has 78 cosponsors. I became a cosponsor of this bill because it has been nearly 8 years since the United States began its military operation in Afghanistan, and I am concerned that there is no clear strategy for victory or end point to our efforts in that country. Without focused and targeted objectives, adding more manpower to an effort in Afghanistan could cause the United States to go the way of many great armies and leave our troops in a never-ending, no-win situation.

I have heard from many Vietnam veterans who are concerned that Afghanistan could become the next Vietnam. For example, Andrew Bacevich is a West Point graduate, a retired colonel, a Vietnam and Gulf War veteran, and a professor of military history. He is also the father of a son who died in Iraq in 2007.

In an article published on May 18, 2009, in the American Conservative, entitled ``To Die for a Mystique: The Lessons our leaders didn't Learn from the Vietnam War,'' he wrote, ``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 United States commitment.'''

He further wrote, ``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.''

He further wrote, ``Today, in contrast, the civilian contemporaries of those fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan have largely tuned out the Long War. The predominant mood of the country is not one of anger or anxiety but of dull acceptance.'' . . .

`` 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.''

Madam Speaker, 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. I have spoken to many in the Army and in the Marine Corps who say that our Nation needs an end point to its war strategy. 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 on 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 are funneling support to the Taliban.

Our men and women in uniform deserve to have the President work with his military commanders and with the United States Congress to develop the best strategy for achieving our goals and for wrapping up our military commitment in Afghanistan. I hope that many of my colleagues in both parties will join me in cosponsoring Congressman McGovern's legislation, H.R. 2404.

Madam Speaker, before I close, as I do every night on this floor, I ask God to please bless our men and women in uniform. I ask God to 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 close by asking God to continue to bless America.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the proposed United States-Panama Free Trade Agreement.

It is very disappointing to see that the President intends to follow the broken trade agreement of the previous administration by pushing Congress to approve the Panama Free Trade Agreement.

We've had 15 years of the ``NAFTA-based'' trade model on which the Panama agreement is based, and the results are in. We now have a $127 billion annual trade deficit with Mexico and the other 15 nations with which we have free trade agreements. Since the passage of NAFTA, the United States has lost over 4.5 million manufacturing jobs, over 364,000 in my home State of North Carolina alone.

We're in the worst recession since the Great Depression. Unemployment is rising and may soon be over 10 percent. The last thing this country needs is another free trade agreement that will cause more good-paying American jobs to be outsourced. But sadly, that's exactly what the Panama agreement will do.

Why is that the case? One of the primary reasons is because the deal fails to level the playing field for U.S. producers. Let me give you one product as an example: seafood.

One of the biggest industries in my district is commercial fishing. The sector has been hammered by a flood of imports from overseas, including Panama. Panama's number one export to the United States is fish and seafood. They export over $100 million worth of fish and seafood to the United States each year. That's more than 50 times the amount that the United States exports to Panama. Their top exports include products that compete with seafood caught by North Carolina fishermen, including shrimp and yellow fin tuna.

With the Panamanians already having a huge advantage over United States fishermen in terms of balance of trade, one would think that the least that the United States negotiators could insist upon would be a level playing field so that our fishermen could have the same ability to access the Panamanian market as their fishermen have to our markets. Sadly, that is not the case.

According to the United States International Trade Administration, ``while 100 percent of U.S. imports from Panama will receive duty-free treatment immediately upon implementation of the agreement, only 82 percent of U.S. exports to Panama will receive duty-free treatment immediately upon implementation.'' Duties on most of the remaining 18 percent of U.S. exports to Panama would not be eliminated for 10 years.

Now, how is that a level playing field? The simple answer is it is not a level playing field, and the unfortunate result of provisions like this would be the loss of even more United States jobs.

Mr. Speaker, poorly negotiated trade deals with Panama are one of the main reasons our country finds its production base shriveling, our unemployment rolls rising, and our economy in shambles.

Passing this agreement is bad for America, especially at this perilous economic time, and I would encourage this administration to rethink its position before it asks Congress to approve this Panamanian trade agreement.

Mr. Speaker, with that, before I close, I do want to ask God to continue to bless our men and women in uniform in Afghanistan and Iraq. I want to 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 to give wisdom and strength to the President of the United States. And I ask God to continue to bless America.

Mr. Speaker, just last week, the House approved a $96.7 billion spending bill that provides funding for our military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. I joined many of my House colleagues in voting for this funding. Our men and women in uniform and troops in the field deserve the best training and equipment our Nation can provide.

While America's military personnel faithfully conduct their mission abroad, elected officials here in Washington should take seriously their responsibility to develop a viable, long-term strategy for these operations. I have always voiced my support for the United States military action to topple the Taliban in Afghanistan following the tragedy of September 11. Yet, nearly 8 years later, I am concerned that the United States has not articulated a clear strategy for victory or an end point to our efforts in that country.

Because of this concern, I join more than 70 Members of Congress in cosponsoring H.R. 2404, Congressman Jim McGovern's legislation to require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to Congress outlining the exit strategy for the United States military forces in Afghanistan. Without focus and targeted objectives, adding more manpower to our efforts in Afghanistan could cause the United States to go the way of many great armies and leave our troops in never-ending, no-win situations.

Many world leaders have noted that military action in Afghanistan alone is not going to free us of terrorism. Colonel Douglas McGregor, a veteran of Vietnam, put it well when he recently wrote for the Armed Forces Journal: ``When national military strategy fails to answer the question of purpose, method and end state, military power becomes an engine of destruction, not just for its intended enemies but for its supporting society and economy, too.''

The United States continues to devote its blood and treasure in Afghanistan while the Afghan Government has yet to purge itself of many who are funneling support to the Taliban. Meanwhile, here at home, money and manpower are needed to address our Nation's serious economic concerns and to protect our citizens from the violence at our southern border with

Mexico where drug wars are growing more dangerous every day. Given the problem our Nation faces at home, we need to make wise decisions about how we spend our money and military resources abroad.

Andrew Basevich is a West Point graduate, a retired Army colonel, a Vietnam and Gulf War veteran, a professor, and a military historian. Mr. Speaker, he is also the father of a son who gave his life in Iraq in 2007. In an article he wrote for the American Conservative, titled ``To Die for a Mystique: The Lessons our Leaders didn't Learn from the Vietnam War,'' I quote Mr. Basevich: ``Americans today profess to `support the troops,' but that support is a mile wide and an inch deep. It rarely translates into serious or sustained public concern about whether those same troops are being used wisely and well. With the long war already this Nation's second most expensive conflict, trailing only to World War II, and with the Federal Government projecting trillion- dollar deficits for years to come, how much can we afford, and where is the money coming from? 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.''

Mr. Speaker, again, that is from the father of a son who died in 2007 for this country. It is essential that the President work with his military commanders and with the Congress to develop the best strategy for achieving our goals and for wrapping up our military commitment in Afghanistan. I hope that many of my colleagues in both parties will join me in cosponsoring Congressman McGovern's legislation, H.R. 2404.

Before closing, 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, a child who has died for freedom in Afghanistan and Iraq. I close three times by asking God: Please, please, please, God. Continue to bless America.

Madam Speaker, almost 2 million American servicemembers have served our Nation in Afghanistan and Iraq. Unfortunately, many are returning home with symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injuries. An April 2008 study by the RAND Corporation found that nearly 20 percent of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans had symptoms of PTSD or major depression.

The study also found that many servicemembers do not seek treatment for psychological illnesses because they fear it will harm their careers. Of those who do seek help for PTSD or major depression, only about half receive treatment that researchers consider minimally adequate for their illness. If our government and the military fail to address problems associated with PTSD, the situation will only grow worse in future years.

Tragically, the worst cases can result in a servicemember causing harm to themselves or others. Most recently, a United States Army sergeant who had done at least three tours in Iraq had been charged with murdering five of his fellow servicemembers at Camp Liberty in Baghdad. A defense official confirmed that the sergeant had been a patient at the stress treatment center where the shooting occurred. When some servicemembers suffering from PTSD or TBI are not properly treated, they end up self-medicating or experiencing other changes in behavior. This can lead to serious legal issues and a threat of separation from their service without benefits or treatment.

One marine stationed at Camp Lejeune, in my district, fell victim to this problem and has been pending involuntary administrative separation due to misconduct. His fitness report shows that he was an outstanding marine prior to his deployments. His medical board report states, and I quote

the board, ``His service in the Marine Corps caused his PTSD and indirectly his incidents and legal problems. The Marine Corps' failure to treat him in the past and treat him appropriately has done nothing but worsen the problem.''

Madam Speaker, that is not my comment. That is the comment by the Navy doctors at Camp Lejeune. If this marine would be administratively separated from service, he would have no chance of being eligible for TRICARE benefits. He would have difficulty attaining a job, and it is unlikely that a university would accept him as a student. Luckily, the Marine Corps has decided to give this marine another chance, and he will be transferred to a naval hospital for PTSD treatment.

However, this is not an isolated problem. Many servicemembers may have already lost their benefits due to an administrative separation from the service. For this reason, I have introduced H.R. 1701, the PTSD/TBI Guaranteed Review for Heroes Act. This legislation attacks this issue from two angles. First, it creates a special review board at the Department of Defense for servicemembers who were less than honorably discharged. And secondly, the bill would mandate a physical evaluation board prior to an administrative separation proceeding if the servicemember has been diagnosed with PTSD or TBI by a medical authority.

Ultimately, this bill will help preserve the benefits of the servicemembers upon leaving service. H.R. 1701 has already been endorsed by the National Association for Uniformed Services, the National Military Family Association, the Military Officers Association of America, the Air Force Sergeants Association, Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Military Order of the Purple Heart, and the Marine Corps League.

Madam Speaker, this is a very impressive group of American service people who endorse this bill, H.R. 1701. I am grateful to have Congressman Gene Taylor as a lead cosponsor as well as Bill Pascrell and Todd Platts, both cochairmen of the Congressional Brain Injury Task Force. I hope that many of my House colleagues will join as cosponsors of this important legislation for our Nation's military heroes, and I look forward to working with the leadership of the House Armed Services Committee to advance this much-needed change.

And, Madam Speaker, before I leave, I have done this so many times over the past few years, I ask God to please bless our men and women in uniform, and ask God to please bless the families of our men and women in uniform, and ask God in His arms to hold the families who have given a child dying for freedom in Afghanistan and Iraq. And I close three times, Madam Speaker, by asking God, please God, please God, please God, continue to bless America.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I first would like to thank Chairman Frank and Mrs. Maloney for permitting me to bring this amendment to the floor. This amendment today reflects a personal story that I would like to tell in just a very few minutes.

A childhood friend of mine, Ben Monk, died of cancer in January. His brother, J.Y. Monk, is also a very close and dear friend of mine. As the estate executor, J.Y. Monk had a difficult time resolving the outstanding balance of Ben's account. He sent four separate letters to the credit card company, Capital One, requesting the account balance amount. He called Capital One on four different occasions. He repeatedly faxed and mailed Capital One his brother's death certificate and letters of testimony. He was never contacted in return and was unable to gain access to the account balance due. Meanwhile, Capital One was collecting very high interest payments on the account.

This was unacceptable. It is already difficult enough for families to take up the practical matter that must be dealt with soon after a loved one dies. They should not have to chase after creditors and get the runaround from poor customer service.

This amendment is very simple. It would require the Federal Reserve Board to establish regulations to allow estate administrators to resolve outstanding credit balances on credit card accounts in a timely manner. This amendment would allow a deceased person's estate to quickly settle their account and pay off the remaining debt.

According to the Congressional Research Service, there is no current standard for credit card companies to follow to wind down estates in a timely manner when a deceased person's estate is trying to be settled. This amendment would help estate administrators to quickly and without hassle be able to bring a resolution to the estate.

Again, I would like to thank the chairman and Mrs. Maloney. I would like to thank my side for permitting me to bring this to the floor of the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to close by thanking them again for this opportunity to bring this to the floor of the House, and I hope that the House will pass this amendment and also pass this bill. It's much needed.

I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise with sadness at the news that this administration intends to follow the broken trade agenda of the previous administration by pushing Congress to approve the United States-Panamanian Free Trade Agreement.

How many American jobs must be lost, how many businesses must be closed, how many towns across this Nation must be hollowed out before the government realizes that our trade policy is broken? We have had 15 years of the NAFTA-based trade model on which the Panamanian agreement is based, and the results are in: we now have a $127 billion annual trade deficit with Mexico and the other 15 nations with which we have free trade agreements. Since the passage of NAFTA, the United States has lost 4.5 million manufacturing jobs, over 364,000 in my home State of North Carolina alone.

We are in the worst recession since the Great Depression. Unemployment is rising and it may soon be over 10 percent. The last thing this country needs is another free trade agreement that will cause more good-paying American jobs to be outsourced.

Most of us would agree that America will not recover until we reduce our reliance on imports and produce more of what we consume right here at home. The insanity of this agreement is that it will do just the opposite. In fact, this agreement actually obligates U.S. taxpayers to fund a New Committee on Trade Capacity building, one of the primary goals of which, according to CRS, is to help Panamanian businesses in ``increasing exports to the United States.''

Well, isn't that nice? At a time when this government is running a $2 trillion annual deficit, this agreement will use U.S. taxpayers' money not to help U.S. companies but to help Panamanian companies take market share and jobs from domestic employers.

One last point, Madam Speaker. President Obama campaigned on and, in my opinion, carried several States because of his pledge to stop the incentives for companies to outsource jobs and dodge U.S. taxation by moving operations offshore to tax-haven jurisdictions like Panama. Unfortunately, this trade agreement would tear that pledge to pieces.

The reality is that Panama is known internationally as one of the leading tax havens in the world. Corporations from the United States and around the globe set up shop in Panama in order to dodge taxes in their home countries. Sadly, this agreement does nothing to stop that activity.

Madam Speaker, this agreement is bad for America, especially at this perilous economic time for our Nation, and I would encourage the administration to rethink its position before it asks Congress to approve it.

And with that, Madam Speaker, before I close, with our men and women fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, I ask God to please bless our men and women in uniform, and I ask God three times, God please, God please, God please continue to bless America.

Mr. Speaker, our Nation has asked many of its military personnel to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan and other parts of the world.

Unfortunately, many of these servicemembers are returning with symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder, known as PTSD, and traumatic brain injuries, known as TBI.

A 2008 study by the RAND Corporation found that nearly 20 percent of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans have symptoms of PTSD or major depression. This study also found that many servicemembers say they do not seek treatment for psychological illnesses because they feel it will harm their careers. When some servicemembers suffering from PTSD or TBI are not properly treated, they wind up self-medicating or experiencing changes in behavior that lead to serious legal issues and the threat of separation from their service without benefits or treatment.

One disturbing example involves a lance corporal who is stationed in my district at Camp Lejeune. The marine had been facing involuntary administrative separation due to misconduct. His fitness reports prove that he was an outstanding marine prior to his deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan.

His medical board reports, and it states, and I quote, ``His service in the Marine Corps caused his PTSD and, indirectly, his incidents/ legal problems. The Marine Corps' failure to treat him in the past and treat him appropriately has done nothing but worsen the problem.''

If this marine would be administratively separated from service, he will not have a chance to be eligible for TRICARE benefits. He would have difficulty obtaining a job, and it is unlikely that a university would accept him as a student.

Fortunately, the Marine Corps has decided to give this marine another chance, and he will be transferred to a naval hospital for PTSD treatment. However, this is not an isolated problem. Many servicemembers have already lost their benefits due to an administrative separation from their service.

For this reason, I have introduced H.R. 1701, the PTSD/TBI Guaranteed Review for Heroes Act. H.R. 1701 attacks the issue from two angles.

First, the bill creates a special review board at the Department of Defense for servicemembers who were less than honorably discharged. And, second, the bill would mandate a physical evaluation board prior to an administrative separation proceeding if the servicemember has been diagnosed with PTSD or TBI by medical authority. Ultimately, the legislation would help preserve the benefits of the servicemember upon leaving the service.

At a news conference last week, I was grateful to be joined by representatives from the National Association for Uniformed Services, the National Military Family Association and the Military Officers Association of America, who spoke in support of this legislation.

The Air Force Sergeants Association, Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Military Order of the Purple Heart and Marine Corps League have endorsed this bill. If our government and the military fail to address problems associated with PTSD, the situation will only grow worse in future years.

In 2007, President Obama and Vice President Biden joined Senator Kit Bond and others in writing President Bush about the need to ensure that any discharge a servicemember receives ``is

proper and provides for their subsequent care for all service-connected injuries, visible and invisible.''

Given his previous interest in the issue, I hope President Obama will make H.R. 1701 a priority for his administration.

I am very pleased to have Congressman Gene Taylor of Mississippi as lead cosponsor of the bill, as well as Congressman Bill Pascrell and Todd Platts, both cochairmen of the Congressional Brain Injury Task Force. I hope that many of my colleagues in the House will join us as cosponsors of this important legislation for our Nation's military heroes.

Before closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask God to please bless our men and women in uniform; I would like to ask God to please bless the families of our men and women of uniform; and, God, please bless the families who have given a child dying in Afghanistan and Iraq. And I close by asking God to continue to bless America.

I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for reintroducing this bill and moving it to the floor. Last year we passed this bill at the end of the session, and it went over to the Senate, and the Senate did not have enough time to move the bill.

It has been explained by Chairman Brady and Mr. McCarthy the importance of this bill. There are times in a person's public life that they don't think about the time that they might be called by God. And this happened to my father, as a matter of fact.

I am going to explain the story with my father, just bring it to an end from my standpoint of why I introduced this bill, to help other candidates who are running for office, to help incumbents, as both have said before me.

My father finished his 26 years in the United States House of Representatives in 1993, and he actually died that year, in the fall of that year. And as we found out, he was one of the last Members of Congress that could actually take the campaign account and use it for personal reasons.

As explained by the chairman, Mr. McCarthy, that has changed. Now those funds can be disbursed, given to a charity, can be given to a political party or whatever the individual decides to do.

Well, in my father's situation, the treasurer, a wonderful man, Tom Parrish, a lawyer who was handling my father's campaign account when my father passed, then the attorney in Farmville, North Carolina, where I am from, where my father was from, the attorney who was handling the estate called the treasurer and said we need to transfer those funds to Congressman Walter Jones, Sr.'s account. And the treasurer said, no, this cannot happen. By law, I am responsible for the disbursement and I, by law, cannot transfer the moneys. Anyway, it was resolved.

Now, as we know has been stated, that the campaign account, should a Member of Congress, the United States House or Senate pass on, then the Treasury would be responsible for disbursing those moneys. What this bill would do is allow that candidate or incumbent, sitting Member of the Congress, should that person be called by God, that then the family member that they designate will be able--or a friend, it could be a friend, but the family member would be able to be disburse those moneys knowing the wishes of that individual.

And I want to thank the chairman again, I want to thank Mr. McCarthy on the floor today. I think this is a bill that really will make it easy for a family should that Member die while he or she is serving in the United States House or Senate or be a candidate.

So, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you very much for moving this bill again. I am going to work the Senate if this should pass the House.

Mr. Speaker, America's colleges and universities are training the future leaders of our Nation. In an academic setting, all viewpoints on matters of public policy deserve the chance to be heard. This tradition of academic freedom must be protected.

Unfortunately, last week at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, students were denied the opportunity to hear a talk by former Congressman Tom Tancredo by protesters who interrupted his speech. Congressman Tancredo had been invited by the University of North Carolina Chapter of Youth for Western Civilization to speak on the topic of in-State tuition for illegal aliens, an issue that has been hotly debated in the State of North Carolina.

Campus police shut down the event after protesters who shouted accusations of racism shattered a window of the classroom where the talk was to be held.

Following the incident, I had the chance to speak with the University of North Carolina Chancellor Holden Thorp by telephone. Chancellor Thorp said he had called Congressman Tancredo to apologize for how he was treated during his visit to the campus. The chancellor also issued a public statement about the incident.

He said, and I quote, ``We expect protests about controversial subjects at Carolina. That's part of our culture. But we also pride ourselves on being a place where all points of view can be expressed and heard. There's a way to protest that respects free speech and allows people with opposing views to be heard. Here that's often meant that groups protesting a speaker have displayed signs or banners, silently expressing their opinions while the speaker had his or her say.''

That did not happen during Congressman Tancredo's visit.

I commend Chancellor Thorp for extending a personal apology to Congressman Tancredo and for publicly voicing his disappointment that a visitor to the campus was denied the opportunity to express his views.

On behalf of all taxpayers who support North Carolina's public universities and their system, I also would like to apologize to my former colleague, because it all comes down to one simple point: If our public universities cannot protect freedom of speech on their campuses, who will? While his opposition to in-State tuition benefits for illegal immigrants may be controversial to some, Congressman Tancredo is a respected and knowledgeable leader in the immigration reform movement.

It is a shame that those with dissenting viewpoints prevented others from hearing his comments. I hope disciplinary measures will be taken, as warranted, against any student or professor who participated in disrupting Congressman Tancredo's talk. It is my understanding that the school is working with the students and would like to invite Congressman Tancredo back to campus to speak. In fact, Mr. Speaker, former Congressman Virgil Goode, another opponent of illegal immigration, is already scheduled to speak at the school tomorrow, and I hope that his speech will be protected.

I hope the university will take steps to ensure that future student- sponsored discussions on the university campus at Chapel Hill do not get shut down by those with dissenting viewpoints. We have a right to agree and disagree in this country. But if we cannot protect that at a university, I don't know what the future holds, quite frankly.

Again, in closing, I thank the administrators at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill for working to protect the integrity of the university by allowing free speech to be exercised on their campus.

If our men and women in uniform or in Afghanistan and Iraq are trying to protect the freedom in those countries, then let's do what is possible to protect the freedom of different views at our universities and our colleges in America, because they are the future leaders of America, and they have a right to participate with those who agree and disagree.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I ask God to bless our men and women in uniform, and I ask God to please bless America.