Christopher Gibson

Mr. GIBSON

Mr. GIBSON. Mr. Chair, I deeply appreciate the support of the chairman and ranking member, and I respectfully request the support of the House on this amendment. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GIBSON. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the Parliamentarian and the chairman and the ranking member. Earlier this morning, I offered this amendment and it needed to be perfected. I greatly appreciate the staff and the work of the team here so that we could get this in a form to where it certainly meets muster. This is a very important amendment. Half a century ago, our Nation was embroiled in a war in Vietnam. It divided the Nation. But for our young men and women who went forward and fought on our behalf, their loyalties were never divided. They did everything that they could every day to serve our Nation in a very difficult circumstance. What developed over that time were soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who became sick. They were exposed to Agent Orange. This was part of that war. Our Nation had chosen to defoliate as a means of protecting troops with Agent Orange. But what we learned over time is that there was a direct link between exposure to Agent Orange and nine maladies, including cancer, diabetes and Parkinson's. This body, in 1991, recognizing this, came together with the President of the United States and enacted the Agent Orange Act of 1991. Unfortunately, in 2002, there was an overreach on the part of the executive that narrowed that interpretation. And since that time, Members here on both sides of the aisle have been fighting to ensure that our sailors who served just offshore in Vietnam got access to the health care that they desperately need. Mr. Chairman, over half of these sailors who were exposed are already in Heaven. They are gone now. And for those that are left here, time is of the essence. It is an urgent matter that we get this passed. Three hundred twenty of my colleagues agree with this on both sides of the aisle, and about half the Senate. So today, we offer this amendment to reassert our article I prerogatives to ensure that, for every serviceman and woman that goes forward, that they know that, regardless of the difficulty of the fight and the difficulty of the proposition and what it may mean for the politics here in America, we will never turn our back on our servicemen and -women. Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time. Announcement by the Chair

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

Mr. GIBSON. Mr. Chair, given the pledge of my dear friend from Pennsylvania to work to make sure that we have justice and that we can move forward and help these veterans, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. GIBSON. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say, I have the deepest respect for the chairman, a dear colleague and friend. But I have to say that I am astounded that we would talk about a point of order here when we are talking about our language. This is what we passed. What we saw is that the executive branch, with fiat, changed what it is that we passed. So I don't know how it is that we are legislating to their executive overreach. This is merely an amendment that goes back to our language. And it is not just me standing here today; 320 of our colleagues in the United States House of Representatives, on both sides of the aisle, believe that this needs to get done. And nearly half of the Senate, an exact companion, also believe that. Now, because of our friendship and because of the way that we have worked together, I just want to enter into a colloquy and get clarification from the chairman. What I think I heard him say moments ago is that, if I withdraw, he will work with us so that we can reassert our Article I powers and ensure that we have justice for these Vietnam veterans who deserve these benefits. Can I get that clarification from the chairman?

Mr. GIBSON. Mr. Chair, I am here this morning to bring forward an amendment that is for our sailors who fought in the Vietnam war. This is about ensuring they get the health care and the benefits that they have earned through their service in Vietnam. But in a broader sense, this is really about justice. This is about veterans who went forward and fought that war, a deeply unpopular war that divided our Nation. They were never asked about their political leanings or what their views were on the war. They simply did what they were ordered to do. They went forward and they gave their very best effort to serve us. In the process of that war, we used Agent Orange to defoliate. In the case of these sailors, serving just offshore in Vietnam, we had ships that were involved in resupply operations at the ports and at the harbor, and they were vulnerable. They were vulnerable because there was vegetation near the ports and the harbors. As our countermeasure to that, we defoliated to give standoff for those ships to protect them. But what we have learned over time, Mr. Chairman, is that that was poisoning our sailors, and anyone that was in close proximity. Now, and in fact in 1991, this body, along with the Senate and the President of the United States of America, enacted a law, the Agent Orange Act of 1991, that ensured that our veterans who were exposed to Agent Orange had access to the health care and the benefits that they had earned. Regrettably, in 2002, executive overreach led to a rule that narrowed the interpretation of our law. Now it is so that you have to have served on the ground in Vietnam or in the Riverine Navy to get access to this law and to these benefits. Mr. Chairman, the people's representatives never spoke on that. This is an issue we have dealt with time and again in this Chamber, both sides of the aisle, fighting back, fighting for our article I prerogatives. And this is very clear here. This body spoke. We said we had to try to make right what was wrong. So now we have about 90,000 sailors that don't have access to health care. Mr. Chairman, be advised and be assured that Members of this body fight every day for these veterans in a case-by-case basis, and we do win some of these, but we don't win all of them. It is just flatly wrong. Mr. Chairman, what this amendment does is really ensure that our article I prerogatives are secured. That we go back to the original language that we passed and the President signed. I would ask all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time. Point of Order

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

Mr. GIBSON

Mr. GIBSON. I thank the ranking member and appreciate his leadership. Mr. Chair, I am sure that the gentleman from Colorado has the best intentions. And, with respect, I ask him to withdraw the amendment because it is very problematic, as it is currently worded, prohibiting the reduction of energy consumption. I mean, this is important not only in terms of savings itself but, quite candidly, for saving lives. After four combat tours in Iraq, we found any way possible to reduce the amount of convoys to go forward into our most forward positions and outposts because we knew every time that we were on the road, we could be at risk; we could lose lives. I appreciate the effort to save money. And I think that if the gentleman withdraws the amendment and works with the committee, I am sure that we can find a way to move forward on that score. But, as Ms. Stefanik mentioned, her post at Fort Drum really is reliant on--or is certainly benefiting from this biomass endeavor that is right there at Fort Drum. So I want to thank Mr. Smith for yielding me the time, and I certainly respect to the gentleman who offered the amendment.

Mr. GIBSON

Mr. GIBSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill. I thank the chairman and the ranking member. I think we have made significant progress in restoring readiness to our Armed Forces and also a marked progress in reform, which is very necessary to our national security going forward. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my gratitude to the chairman and ranking member for including a bill that I drafted along with the help of so many others--Chairman Turner, Representative Walz of Minnesota-- that stops the drawdown of our Armed Forces. So critically important for restoring deterrents, peace through strength, is that we not give pink slips to the 67,000-plus troops that were heading in that direction in the next 2 years. This committee working together in a bipartisan way stopped that drawdown, and I think that is critically important. Related, I would say that the work that we are doing on the global response force, the GRF, is also critically important to deterrents. And I believe that ultimately it strengthens the hands of diplomats when we have the ability to strategically maneuver. I am appreciative of the resources and the oversight in this bill to strengthen the GRF. Finally, let me say how much I really appreciate the pay raise to the troops. After 29 years in uniform, I can't adequately describe how much I appreciate the sacrifices and the service of our servicemen and - women. Giving them this pay raise, I think, was critically important. I urge all my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. GIBSON

Mr. GIBSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Jane Ehrlich, who served for nearly two decades as Columbia Memorial Hospital's chief executive officer. Jane is this year's Columbia County Association's Distinguished Citizen Award recipient. She has always been passionate about the healthcare field and expanding access in Columbia and Greene Counties. From an early age, Jane knew she was called to the healthcare profession; tending to her dolls and pets as patients. By the age of 16, she was working in health care. Jane took advantage of a program that allowed high school juniors entering their senior year to work full-time as a nurse's aide and rotate through the hospital. Following nursing school, Jane worked as a clinical nurse in New York City and Boston. Eventually she was introduced to the administration side of healthcare, to which she took an interest. This led Jane to pursue an MBA with a major in Health Care Administration. Jane was ultimately offered the position of CEO at Columbia Memorial Hospital in 1994. At the time, the hospital was nearly bankrupt and was losing patients to other area facilities. Shortly after assuming the role, Jane brought the board of directors together and improved the hospital's financial stability and performance, made technological upgrades, and improved staff accommodations and morale. Through these successes, the surrounding community was presented with expanded care and access to vital medical services. By 1997, Jane's leadership put the hospital in the fiscal position to add a new unit called The Family Birthplace. This state of the art facility encouraged birth as a family experience and was shortly followed by the Kellner Wing. The Kellner Wing housed the Emergency Department and Surgical Services. These important expansions proved the hospital was poised for a bright future. Jane further worked to expand the hospital's physician network that focused on patient-centric care and a nearly fully integrated system. Mr. Speaker, Jane Ehrlich has distinguished herself throughout her remarkable twenty-plus-year career with Columbia Memorial Hospital where she has expanded care and choice in Upstate New York. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating her on her countless achievements during a remarkable career, thank her for what she did to expand healthcare access for my home county and the surrounding area, and wish her all the best in her retirement.

Mr. GIBSON

Mr. GIBSON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman. I want to thank her for her strong voice, and I want to thank her for the attention to detail that she puts into this. This is so critically important. It is very instrumental in the momentum that we have had--your great voice, your staff's hard work, and your hard work. We are going to continue to push forward with this with the POSTURE Act, and continue to make sure that the entire installation at Fort Bragg has the necessary resources to deliver and to get its mission done and to look after and take care of its servicemen and -women, those paratroopers, and also the families. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Knight). Representative Knight is also a veteran of our Armed Forces. He was born at Edwards Air Force Base in Antelope Valley, California. He served in the United States Army from 1985 to 1987. He was a track systems mechanic in Freiburg, Germany. When his tour ended, he served in the United States Army Reserve. His total military service spanned from 1985 to 1993. He is a member of the House Armed Services Committee. Also, within his district, he has Air Force Plant 42 and the Edwards Air Force Base.

Mr. GIBSON. I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Russell). What we heard, Madam Speaker, just moments ago here is what I mentioned at the outset. We were talking about the changed assumptions when the administration first made these decisions. Of course, they were working based on the 2012 Defense Strategic Guidance, the 2013 Strategic Choices and Management Review, and also the 2014 QDR. Madam Speaker, I think we just heard very persuasive argumentation how just in the last several years so much has changed and the reason why this Chamber is coming together in a bipartisan way to move forward on this POSTURE Act. Now, Madam Speaker, I want to turn to Representative Renee Ellmers. Renee is not on the Committee on Armed Services, but this lady works incredibly hard for our Nation and for our servicemen and -women. She studies all the time. I have had countless discussions with her. She is always wanting to know the details to make sure that the servicemen and -women who serve at Fort Bragg get all the resources that they need. She takes their combat readiness so very seriously because she knows that their lives are on the line there. Fort Bragg could not ask for a stronger advocate. I am very impressed and am very thankful for her support in going above and beyond, not being on the committee and jurisdiction, to be here tonight and, really, to make her voice be heard all throughout this land on why we need to get behind the POSTURE Act. So I will just say last before I turn it over to her that part of what I know that Representative Ellmers is working on is a very important supporting element for our land forces, the 440th, which is based out of Fort Bragg and Pope Army Air Base. I know from firsthand experience this is an incredible outfit. We are concerned about some decisions that are being taken here. I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Ellmers)

Mr. GIBSON. I thank the gentleman. Madam Speaker, you just heard, I think, in really compelling terms and you saw witness to why it is that we have the finest fighting force in the world. What separates us from the rest of the world is our noncommissioned officer corps. This is an incredible collection of professionals that provide advice, analysis, and recommendations. Really, I would put our noncommissioned officer corps up against any other noncommissioned officer corps in the world. I want to say, beyond that, he is a phenomenal Representative here in the U.S. House. I want to thank the gentleman for that tremendous testimony and for his great leadership. I now want to turn to another great warrior, Representative Steve Russell. Steve Russell is, Madam Speaker, an Airborne Ranger. He has served in airborne, light, and mechanized infantry assignments. His deployments include deployment to Kosovo, Kuwait, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Madam Speaker, in 2003, then-Lieutenant Colonel Steve Russell commanded the task force in Iraq that was instrumental in the hunt and capture of Saddam Hussein. He is in his first term. He is already off to an amazing start. He is a member of the Armed Services Committee. I yield to the gentleman from the State of Oklahoma, Mr. Steve Russell.

Mr. GIBSON. Lastly, Madam Speaker, the legislative strategy here is that we have been building out support. Our hope is that when the mark for the national security policy bill, which will be unveiled here in the next couple of weeks, that this bill will be included in the underlying bill because we think it is just so critically important that we get this done this year. Madam Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity to come together with my colleagues to talk about such an important issue for the American people. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GIBSON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I thank him for his service to our Nation, and also thank him for his great work on the House Armed Services Committee. He is truly making a difference, and his voice here tonight is very compelling and very significant. Madam Speaker, I am now going to recap and move to close. I appreciate very much the time in a busy schedule and colleagues here tonight. We are here tonight, again, for H.R. 4534, the POSTURE Act, which stops the Obama administration's drawdown of our land forces--our Army and our Marine Corps. As I mentioned, this is a bipartisan bill--myself and 52 others here in this Chamber, including 42 Republicans and 10 Democrats, led so ably by Sergeant Major Retired Representative Tim Walz, a Democrat from Minnesota. I also want to say that Chairman Turner was not able to be here today, but he has been instrumental in not only help craft this, but actually help build support for it for these past several months. As I mentioned, Madam Speaker, tonight you heard five points why it is so important that we put the POSTURE Act into law and that we stop this drawdown. In the first point we gave some historical figures and some context of where we are today. We know that at present our land forces are about at the same size that we were on the 11th of September of 2001. Of course, during the surge, we saw a ramp-up of our land forces, and now we have seen a resetting of that where we are about at 11th of September of 2001 levels. However, the plan now from the administration is to continue that drawdown all the way down to pre-World War II levels. That would be done by 2018. That takes an additional 67,000 troops out of the formations. Madam Speaker, we heard, I think, some very significant testimony tonight from some of the speakers. We know that we have senior leaders in our Armed Forces now that have described this as a very serious risk, very significant risk. And you also heard from Representative Walz when he talked about the Commission on the Future of the Army, which Representative Walz, a humble man, was actually the author for that, the brain for that. We are here today because of his work on that score. The results of that commission, I believe, Madam Speaker, really need to be paid attention to. It was here that not only were we able to get a better understanding of this risk, but also we helped bring together all components of the Army--the regular Army, the National Guard, and the Army Reserve. The Commission on the Future of the Army helped. I also want to reinforce how important leadership is--our Chief of Staff of the Army, our Secretary of the Army, our Acting Secretary of the Army right now. They have put a major priority on really pulling together everyone that serves in the Army. The same goes for our Secretary of the Navy and for our Commandant of the Marine Corps because this is truly a team effort all the way across. That commission helped chart the way forward. Madam Speaker, the General Accounting Office, the GAO's report that came out just last week, documented what our research has also shown over these several months. That is that there is just too much risk in continuing this drawdown to pre-World War II levels. That was point one. In point two, we talked about the assumptions--we heard from all the speakers. Particularly, Mr. Russell focused in on that--how much of the world has changed. We can understand why the administration brought forward an argument back initially, but so much has changed since that time. It is clear to all of us that we need to pay attention to that and to adopt the POSTURE Act. We also pointed out this evening that this is not like a light switch. It is not something that we can turn on and turn off. If we decide to move forward with the 67,000 troops, taking them out of the formations, we know that we are looking at 3 to 4 years just to get back to where we are today, Madam Speaker. That would, I think, really signal to our potential adversaries the wrong message. The fourth point is--and we heard from a couple of the speakers--how important it is that we have the right size formations because that impacts on how often they get sent over into the combat zone and how long they stay. All of this has impacts on families, it has impacts on traumatic brain injury potential, and also posttraumatic stress. That is certainly something that this Chamber is absolutely unified in doing everything we can to support our servicemen and -women. By enacting the POSTURE Act, we are also supporting our currently serving members and our veterans. The last point--and this has been really made very clear to us by all the leadership in both the Army and the Marine Corps--is how important it is that by preserving this end strength, it has to come with the necessary resources so that they are manned, equipped, and trained, and that we look towards the modernization of the force and look towards the future. We have heard from the Congressional Budget Office, the CBO. The CBO initially assesses this at $600 million. We understand that there may be a new assessment coming forward shortly. But as was also mentioned by Sergeant Major Walz, Representative Walz, our committee is also very keenly going through the budget, a budget of over $600 billion, when you look at the Department of Defense and Department of Energy, the Overseas Contingency Fund. We are looking for ways to make sure we do this in the best way possible for the taxpayer. Madam Speaker, I include for the Record a series of letters of support that we are getting from the Association of the United States Army, the National Guard Association, and the Reserve Officers Association. We deeply appreciate their support. Association of the United States Army, Arlington, Virginia, 3 March 2016. Hon. Chris Gibson, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Gibson: On behalf of the members of the Association of the United States Army (AUSA), I write to support your introduction of H.R. 4534, the ``Protecting Our Security Through Utilizing Right-Sized End- Strength Act of 2016'' or the ``POSTURE Act.'' At a time when our Army is confronting growing threats and increasing operational demands, it would be wise to pause the current budget-driven force reductions and allow the next administration time to assess land force capabilities and needs before determining troop levels, Under current plans, the Regular Army is expected to fall to 475,000 Soldiers by 1 October 2016, and then further decrease to 450,000 Soldiers by 1 October 2018. These same plans will also reduce the end strength of our Army National Guard and the Army Reserve. Such a reduction in our landpower capability does not make sense in a time of increased threats and global instability. While the POSTURE Act puts the brakes on budget-driven force reductions, the Army will also face negative consequences if the additional end strength is not funded. During a recent hearing on the Army's Fiscal Year 2017 budget, Army Chief of Staff GEN Mark Kinney told the Senate Appropriations Committee that stopping the drop in Army end strength without providing funding to cover the additional costs would undermine readiness and potentially result in a hollow Army. AUSA looks forward to working with you to advance the POSTURE Act, but urges you to consider ways to provide the additional resources to prepare our Army to face a dangerous and Increasingly unstable world. Sincerely, Gordon R. Sullivan, General, USA Retired.

Mr. GIBSON. Madam Speaker, tonight I am speaking to gain support for H.R. 4534. This is the POSTURE Act. It stops the administration's drawdown of our land forces, the United States Marine Corps and the United States Army. This is a bipartisan bill, myself and 52 others, 52 cosponsors, including 42 Republicans and 10 Democrats. I am proud to say that we are coming together to make sure that we keep our land forces strong. This is also a bicameral bill. The language of this bill has also been introduced in the United States Senate. Madam Speaker, the predicate here is a belief in peace through strength, a belief that what we want to do is deter potential adversaries; and to do that, we certainly need to restore our capability in our Armed Forces, deterrence really being capability and will. Tonight I am focused in on the POSTURE Act. Of course, Madam Speaker, the coauthors and I, we certainly share deep concern for the entire joint force, but today we are particularly focused in on the land forces. You will hear, across the evening here, five general points. They are: Number one, that the drawdown plan currently from the administration is planned to continue into 2018, for several more years here; and at the culmination of that, our land forces will actually be at pre-World War II levels. Given the very volatile, uncertain, ambiguous international environment that we live in, we believe, the authors, that this is very high risk; and, really, we want to change that and, essentially, preserve 67,000 troops in end strength in the United States Army and the United States Marine Corps. That is number one. The second point is the assumptions that were made, Madam Speaker, when the administration initially made the decision on the drawdown, we believe that those assumptions are no longer valid. There has been much change in the world in the last several years, and you will hear some of that this evening. The third point, which is very important, is that, with our land forces, this is not like a light switch where we can turn it on, turn it off, turn it back on. If we end up standing down these 67,000 troops, it could take 3 to 4 years to reconstitute that force level; and given the uncertainty we have in this international environment, we think that that is too much risk for us to take on. Madam Speaker, the fourth point, and here I will speak from my personal experience of 29 years in the military, is that this planned drawdown also has consequence for our servicemen and -women. It has, certainly, consequence in terms of the op tempo, the operational tempo, of how many deployments they will go on and for how long, the duration of those deployments. And also, we know the risk. The enemy's weapon of choice in this war is the improvised explosive device, and we know that that has led to significant challenge with traumatic brain injuries and also post- traumatic stress. Certainly, there is wide bipartisan support in this Chamber to care for our servicemen and -women and their families, and that is why these bipartisan authors are also very concerned about end strength. That is point 4. The fifth point is this: when we preserve this--because I believe we are gaining momentum and, ultimately, I like our chances; we are going to get this into law--it is very important that this end strength come with the necessary resources so that we do not hollow out this force. So, Madam Speaker, we are going to have a series of speakers now, my coauthors on the bill. I want to begin with my original coauthor, and he is the highest ranking enlisted man to ever serve in this Chamber. He is a great American hero, Tim Walz. He is a Democrat from Minnesota. In 1989, he earned the title of Nebraska Citizen Soldier of the Year. After deployment to Italy with his Guard unit, as part of Operation Enduring Freedom, Sergeant Major Walz retired from the Army National Guard and resumed teaching as a geography teacher and a football coach at Mankato West Senior High School. He is a member of the Armed Services Committee, and he is also a member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Walz), my good colleague and friend.

Mr. GIBSON. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include supporting material on the subject of this Special Order.

Mr. GIBSON

Mr. GIBSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the life of Sean Patrick French and the tremendous community organization that was started to honor his life on its 15th anniversary. Sean was an amazing kid, a friend to all, a community volunteer, honor roll student, and a record-breaking athlete at Chatham High School. His father has described him as someone who ``never walked anywhere.'' His mother has told a story about him running laps at age 8. At Chatham High School, he was a standout, both athletically and as a member of the school community. But tragically, at age 17, he lost his life as a passenger in a drunk driving crash on New Year's Day in 2002. Days after Sean's death, the Chatham High School community rallied around his family and organized a 100-person strong run from the high school to the memorial on Route 203. His family and friends, some of whom are with us in the gallery today, use this inspiration to preserve Sean's legacy. They asked themselves: What can we do as a community to help kids make better choices? And Sean's Run was born. This year, 2016, marks the 15th anniversary of Sean's Run and what has now expanded into a weekend-long series of events. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, as a member of this local community, Sean's Run has made a difference in our county and across the region. And as the father of three teenagers, I am personally grateful for the work of Sean's Run and what it has done to prevent similar tragedies and educate our community on the horrors of drinking and driving. Sean's Run has worked to prevent underage drinking, impaired driving, and for increased seatbelt use by teenagers. It has helped kids think about making smart decisions and the tragic consequences that can result when they don't. Sean's Run has grown each year--up to over 1,500 people in 2015--and the organization has become much more than an annual community 5K fundraiser and memorial. They regularly contribute to youth groups and community events to support anti-underage drinking and impaired driving programs and do pre-prom awareness events. Sean's Run has also dedicated portions of the weekend to honor others lost in the community, including Meghan's Mile, a mile-and-a-half youth race for children ages 12 and under. Meghan's Mile is named in honor of a friend of Sean's, Meghan Kraham, who helped found Sean's Run at age 16, but lost her life to cancer on August 18, 2007. Since 2002, Sean's Run has awarded almost $200,000 in grant and scholarship money. And since 2010, when I retired from the Army and returned to Columbia County, I have had the privilege to run in this 5K honoring Sean Patrick French. This year's event will pay tribute to Sean and others through bike races, the 5K, Meghan's Mile, a prevention expo, seatbelt education, and the presentation of the Love of Running, Section II Good Sport, and Sean Patrick French Memorial Scholarships. I am proud of the entire Sean's Run organization and the steps they have taken to prevent further tragedies such as this. Sean was a strong, smart, and caring young man whose legacy lives on through this organization every spring and throughout the year. It is my honor to host some of Sean's family and friends today, including Sean's parents, Mark and Cathy, and his brother Eric. To them, I say thank you. Thank you for turning this tragedy into something that helps our community, and please know that you have made a difference in the lives of so many families in our country and across New York State. I look forward to, once again, honoring your son's memory by participating in Sean's Run next weekend.

Mr. GIBSON

Mr. GIBSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Janet Mahoney for her accomplishments in over twenty years of service to The American Legion Auxiliary, Montgomery Unit No. 429 in Rhinebeck, NY. Janet is a recently retired dental hygienist, proud grandmother of eight grandchildren and also the widow of a Vietnam Veteran. She has always been passionate about Veterans, their families, and their communities. Throughout her selfless and tireless service in the American Legion Auxiliary, Janet has served on multiple committees and in many leadership positions at the local and state levels. Some of her positions include: three terms as Unit President, three terms as County President, and two terms each as District Vice President and District President. Janet has served at the State level since 2007 as the Education Chairman, Public Relations Chairman, Americanism Chairman, Vice- President and President. During her tenure of outstanding service at the State level, she was instrumental in the organization winning national awards for Department of New York Press Book, Best Overall Department Public Relations Program, The National Americanism Award, The National Children and Youth Award, and The National Veterans Affairs & Rehabilitation Award. In Janet's current capacity as New York American Legion Auxiliary President, she oversees multiple programs aimed at assisting Veterans as well as the communities of New York. One of her main priorities as President is raising money to support Vietnam Veterans impacted by Agent Orange. Janet is leading a statewide campaign, covering all 62 counties across New York, and has a goal to raise over $75,000.00. All funds raised in support of ``Changing the Legacy of Agent Orange'' will support Veterans with documented Agent Orange related medical needs. Funds will also support these Veteran's children with documented Agent Orange related medical needs. Mr. Speaker, Janet Mahoney has distinguished herself throughout her remarkable twenty plus year career in the New York American Legion Auxiliary where she has been an unwavering advocate for our Veterans, their families, and our communities. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating her on her countless achievements during a remarkable career.

Mr. GIBSON

Mr. GIBSON. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and colleague, Dr. Murphy, for organizing this Special Order, but also for his strong leadership in an area that is so important to all Americans. I also want to thank him for his service to our Nation. Indeed, I rise to give a voice for so many of my constituents who are calling on this House to strengthen Federal mental health policies. I think this is important not only in terms of these policy changes that we are talking about this evening, but, quite candidly, also about the mindset. I think we need to think about this issue area differently. Misconceptions out there, I hear this often from my constituents, how we need to change the way that we think. Too often we think of mental health as a permanent state, that individuals are either well or not well, when, in fact, what we have learned is that, over the course of our life, mental health is really a spectra. Sometimes we are flourishing, and sometimes we are challenged. For me, this is certainly a personal issue. My closest adviser is my beautiful wife, Mary Jo, who is a licensed clinical social worker. I get the benefit of her counsel on a regular basis. I also look to Dr. Murphy as somebody who has spent over 40 years in this field. I also want to thank Grace Napolitano, who is also a leader of the Mental Health Caucus. I have worked together with her as we push forward these very important initiatives. I want to say that I do think we have made some progress. In a moment here, I will talk about some of the details of that. I think that we are making some progress particularly with neuroses, anxiety, and to some degree, depression. But, candidly, we are not making progress at all with regard to policy when it comes to very severe mental health issues. In part, Dr. McDermott addressed this earlier. We know that, in the 1960s and the 1970s, there were a series of exposes, very severe issues that were going on in our psychiatric hospitals. Consequent to that we went through a process of deinstitutionalization. But we have learned that, when we did this and put nothing in behind it--and I certainly can understand a lot of abuses that were going on and understood the need to take action to roll back and to really make sure that we don't have those abuses. But what we have learned is that it was a mistake not to put policy in behind that. We see this all the time. It has been mentioned already this evening, the issues with homelessness, the issues with mass violence. Inasmuch as we know most with very severe mental illness are not violent, we also know that, when we have these very tragic events, that, at times, these are correlated with severe mental illness without Federal support, without any support. So that is part of the calling for this evening. The American people want to know: Is our Congress listening? We are listening. That is part of the reason why Doc has organized this tonight to express this to the American people, that we know this is a very important priority. I want to provide some overview of some of the actions we have taken. First of all, last year I was at the White House when the President of the United States signed into law the Clay Hunt suicide awareness and prevention bill. Corporal Clay Hunt was a great American hero. He served our country very honorably and courageously in Iraq and Afghanistan and lost his life to mental health disease. His family has taken up the standard and are working really hard to move us forward on that. This bill that the President signed into law last year--a very bipartisan bill--is going to help strengthen mental health support for our servicemen and -women and our veterans. Likewise, the James Zadroga 9/11 healthcare bill for our first responders also includes a provision in there that strengthens mental health. So we are supporting our veterans, and we are supporting our first responders. These are important bills that have been enacted into law. We have also passed in this House an important bill called the Female Veteran Suicide Prevention Act, and we are calling on the Senate to pick this up so that we can also send that to the President. While we have made progress in some of these areas, we have much more to do in so many other areas. I want to talk about the Mental Health in Schools Act. I think this is a very important and certainly a challenging period in the lives of Americans in the teenage years and so many emotions all going through. We need to provide support. What we have found in some pilot programs in New York is, when we have social workers in schools, this absolutely stems incidences of drug abuse and crime because we are dealing with this in the area where we really need that support: mental health. We have a bill that will address this that will scale that, and I hope that we can get more support here in the House. In addition to our teenagers, I also have a bill that helps with our senior citizens. It is a very simple bill. It basically just adjusts Medicare so that, for seniors looking for counseling, they will get that support. Finally, of course, the bill that we are all rallying around tonight, H.R. 2646, the Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act--I think we have heard about some of the important dimensions of this bill. I just want to highlight the fact that I think that this bill is going to help us with the very severely mentally ill, particularly those suffering from psychosis. We have heard tonight how we have a shortage of inpatient care. We have got to address this because, if we don't address it, we end up seeing it in the penal system. That is absolutely the wrong approach to this, and it is costing the taxpayers as well. So, in addition to that, we see more coordination among agencies and suicide awareness and prevention programs strengthened. So, Mr. Speaker, I will close with this. This is a very important issue, and the American people are counting on us to take action. I think we have got a series of bills that we can rally around-- bipartisan bills--that will truly make a positive difference. So let me end where I began and just thank Dr. Murphy for his great leadership and call upon my colleagues to support his bill and these other bills as we move forward.

Mr. GIBSON

Mr. GIBSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of an amendment I offered along with my fellow colleagues from New York, Representative Sean Patrick Maloney, John Katko, and Jerry Nadler. This amendment will improve the safety of bridges across New York State and, indeed, across the Nation. As you are aware, Mr. Chairman, our national bridges are in desperate need of repair. In New York, this is especially true. In 2015, the American Society of Civil Engineers graded New York's network of bridges as a dismal D-plus. New York ranks second worst in the Nation in functionally obsolete bridges and 12th worst when it comes to structurally deficient bridges. This is not an issue limited to New York. Across the Nation, more than one in nine bridges are graded as structurally deficient, and more than 84,000 functionally obsolete bridges are still in use. Mr. Chairman, our amendment does something positive and constructive about it by directing the DOT to develop a strategy to address structurally deficient and functionally obsolete bridges. Notably, these two categories require different policy solutions but too often they are treated the same. By requiring this strategy, we will allow for effective oversight by the people through their Representatives here in the U.S. House. I want to thank Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member DeFazio for their strong work in the committee. I urge support of this amendment so we can develop a strategy to address the quality of bridges across this Nation which will help keep our people safe and help strengthen our economy. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GIBSON

Mr. GIBSON. Thank you. I really want to express my gratitude to the gentlewoman. I thank her for leading tonight, putting this together. I also want to thank my colleagues that came out tonight to share their views and share their experiences. Mr. Speaker, this is a very critical topic we are talking about here today. The first function of government is to protect its people. Mr. Speaker, every single one of our service chiefs are on record, under oath in sworn testimony, saying that, if they do not get the additional resources that are provided in parts of this bill, that they will not be able to execute the national security strategy, that it will break our military. Mr. Speaker, this is at a time that we have Russian tanks in Syria. We have got a significant challenge from the Islamic State. We have got major issues with Iran. We are dealing with a very aggressive Putin in Eastern Europe. We have got a quixotic leader in North Korea and an ambiguous situation in China. Now is not the time to be taking a knee on our national security strategy. Now is not the time to be breaking our military. Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure it is clear just how partisan the President's actions are. The American people need to know just how partisan this action is. This process, our national security policy bill, is collaborative. In our committee, in the House Armed Services Committee, we hold hearings. It is fully collaborative. Both sides--Republicans and Democrats--get to come together, work on the issues, bring forward the questions, collaborate in that whole process of the hearing. Then we have a markup. We have a markup at the committee level. This markup lasts for, in some cases, over 12 hours. Every single person in that committee, regardless of party, is able to bring forward their ideas, to speak for their people, to offer their amendments, to have debate, and to have a vote on those amendments. As the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Austin Scott) mentioned, at the culmination of that process in the House Armed Services Committee, the vote in our committee was 60-2, a strong vote, a bipartisan vote. The representatives of the people of the United States voted to support our servicemen and -women and their families. The vote that was taken here on the floor of the House was a strong, bipartisan vote. Our colleagues over in the Senate, as was mentioned-- the vote on the conference was 70-27. Three individuals who are running for President of the United States who were not present expressed support for it. Seventy-three votes, almost three-quarters of the United States Senate, represented the will of those respective States that they were here to represent. It was a strong, bipartisan vote. We have a supermajority supporting this bill for our servicemen and - women and their families. The President of the United States, despite all that, vetoed this bill when it is so clear that every single one of our service chiefs have said that they need these additional resources or we will not be able to execute the national security strategy. Mr. Speaker, this is also very personal for me. I enlisted at the age of 17 as a private in the Infantry back in 1981. In my early years in the military, I was part of an effort to try to increase the readiness of our Armed Forces, and I saw those efforts working. I saw us continuing to build capability throughout the eighties and standing on the principle of peace through strength. We won the cold war without a major conflict. We put ourselves in the position, when we had conflict in 1990 in the Persian Gulf war, that we had a military with overmatch so that we were able to prevail in that conflict with as few casualties as was possible. Mr. Speaker, over time, in the 29 years that I served in the military, the other important facet of peace through strength is it forged trust with those who were willing to come forward and defend this Nation, trust that their leaders here in Washington, D.C.-- regardless of party--would always have their back, would ensure the resources necessary so that they could be fully equipped and trained, would be there for them, that their pay and benefits would always be there for them, and that, when they deployed forward, that the programs would be there to support their families. Mr. Speaker, that trust was really called into question today by our President, who, in a very partisan manner, vetoed an overwhelmingly bipartisan piece of legislation. I can't even begin to tell you how disappointed I am. Mr. Speaker, we will fight this. We are working now with our colleagues. We feel like we are in a strong position in the Senate to override this. We have more work to do here in the United States House. That work is ongoing. We need to enact this bill. Let me just end where I began and thank the gentlewoman for her leadership. I thank her for coming forward today to organize this, to really inspire us to come together to express so that the American people can know what happened today and how their representatives, in a bipartisan way, will rise to this challenge and make sure that we get this important national security policy bill into law.

Mr. GIBSON

Mr. GIBSON. I thank the chairman for yielding and for his leadership. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I am honored to be working with my colleagues John Delaney and Carlos Curbelo to offer this bipartisan amendment. This amendment adds another strategic dimension to this bill: support for clean energy and energy efficiencies. On our way to energy independence, it is critical that we support research and development for clean energy technologies. In New York, we are doing a lot of this work supporting important programs like the SunShot program, with the ambitious goal of driving down the total cost of photovoltaics to 9 cents per kilowatt hour, which would allow it to compete with any other energy source and democratize energy, transforming the way we produce, convey, and consume energy. With improved technologies, we will also see more proliferation of wind power, hydroelectric power, and biomass energy complementing all other traditional energy sources, including crude oil, adding up to a stronger America. Mr. Chairman, this is a country that can do hard things. We have proven that time and again. With the proper focus and investment, we will dominate the clean energy world market. And when we do, we will drive down energy costs; we will grow our economy, strengthen our national security, and conserve our environment. I urge support of this amendment. Let's take a robust and holistic approach to energy independence.

Mr. GIBSON

Mr. GIBSON. I thank the chairman. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a member of the Greatest Generation from my district in upstate New York. H.R. 1442 renames the post office in Kingston, New York, after Staff Sergeant Robert Dietz, who was awarded the Medal of Honor for his courageous actions during World War II. Sergeant Dietz hailed from Kingston, New York, a proud and historical city in New York's 19th Congressional District. In March of 1945, Sergeant Dietz led his squad on an attack of a heavily fortified German position while protecting a key bridge. Under heavy machine gun fire, Sergeant Dietz advanced forward, clearing enemy obstacles, providing a path for the men of his squad and platoon. This selfless act enabled the success of this attack, but in the process, Sergeant Dietz made the supreme sacrifice and was killed while valiantly leading his men. Last year I had several local veterans' service organizations reach out to me to rename the post office in Kingston for Sergeant Dietz. I thank these organizations, including the Kingston Veterans Association, William Forte, and Dan Joyce, for their leadership and for their support of this bill. I want to thank Chairman Chaffetz, Ranking Member Cummings, and the entire Oversight and Government Reform Committee for passing this bill earlier this year. I also want to thank the entire New York State delegation for its strong support of this bill. Mr. Speaker, today we pause to remember Sergeant Dietz and all of those men and women who have lost their lives in defense of our freedoms. I encourage all of my colleagues to support H.R. 1442.