Walter Jones

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, I'm back on the floor again to talk about bringing our troops home from Afghanistan. I had the privilege and the honor to be at Walter Reed in Bethesda on Tuesday, and I talked to so many of our young men and women who have lost legs and other parts of their body and just continue to wonder why in the world the leadership of the House does not join together and call on Mr. Obama to bring our troops home before 2014-2015. Mr. Speaker, I'm holding up right now from The Wall Street Journal a rather lengthy article that says, ``Afghan Opium Output Surges.'' That is real encouraging; our young men and women walking the roads of Afghanistan, getting their legs blown off, and yet the drugs in Afghanistan are surging. That's great news, I guess, for the dealers. Mr. Speaker, in addition to that, on October 5 in a poll, it says one in three vets see Iraq-Afghanistan wars as a waste. And I read: ``A new opinion survey says one in three U.S. veterans of the post-9/11 military believe the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are not worth fighting. Most of the vets polled by the Pew Research Center also think that after 10 years of combat, America should be focusing less on foreign affairs and more on its own problems.'' I'm pleased to see Ms. Woolsey from California on the floor because she has joined many of us in the Republican Party and her Democratic Party in continuing to grow the opposition to staying in Afghanistan until 2014-2015. Well, you might say, You keep saying 2014-2015. So I want to make reference to testimony of former Defense Secretary Gates. This was on February 16, 2011, and it reads: ``By the end of this calendar year, we expect there to be less than 100,000 troops to be deployed in both of the major post-9/11 combat theatres, virtually all of those forces in Afghanistan. ``That is why we believe that beginning in fiscal year 2015''--Mr. Speaker, I'm going to read that one more time: ``That is why we believe that beginning in fiscal year 2015, the United States can, with minimal risk, begin reducing Army active-duty end strength by 27,000 and the Marine Corps by somewhere between 15,000 and 20,000. These projections assume that the number of troops in Afghanistan will be significantly reduced by the end of 2014, in accordance with the President's strategy. If our assumptions prove incorrect, there's plenty of time to adjust the time and schedule of this change.'' Mr. Speaker, what that means is the end of 2014 becomes 2015; 2015 becomes 2016. I have a poster here that ran in the Greensboro paper in a Sunday edition. They had put in their paper a letter from Jim McGovern and me calling on the President to bring our troops home before 2014. The title says, Mr. Speaker, ``Get Out.'' And the soldiers are bringing a flag-draped coffin off a plane. I don't know how much longer we have to continue to spend $10 billion a month to prop up a crook named Karzai. I just made reference to a Wall Street Journal article that opium surges. It's a corrupt country. It's never going to change. We might as well just face the fact that we won, bin Laden is dead, al Qaeda has been dispersed all over the world, and it's time to bring them home. Mr. Speaker, with that, I'm going to be handing out to anyone that comes to my office a picture of marines carrying a flag-draped coffin, and I say call on the leadership all the way to the White House, to the House, to the Senate, and ask them to bring our people home. With that, Mr. Speaker, I will ask God to please bless our men and woman in uniform. God, please bless the families of our men and women in uniform. God, in Your loving arms, hold the families who have given a child dying for freedom in Afghanistan and Iraq. And I will close by asking God to please bless the House and Senate. I will ask God to give wisdom, strength, and courage to the President. And three times I will ask, God please, God please, God please bless America. [From the Associated Press, Oct. 5, 2011] Poll: 1 in 3 Vets Sees Iraq, Afghan Wars as Wastes Washington.--A new opinion survey says one in three U.S. veterans of the post-9/11 military believes the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are not worth fighting. Most of the vets polled by the Pew Research Center also think that after 10 years of combat America should be focusing less on foreign affairs and more on its own problems.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Madam Speaker, I would like to insert into the Record two letters opposing the Korean free trade agreement, one from the American Manufacturing Trade Action Coalition and another from the United States Industrial Fabrics Institute. American Manufacturing Trade Action Coalition, October 7, 2011. AMTAC Urges ``No'' Vote on KORUS Dear Member of Congress: The American Manufacturing Trade Action Coalition (AMTAC) urges you to vote NO on the U.S.- South Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS). The agreement was submitted to Congress on October 3, and a vote is expected in both the House and Senate on Wednesday, October 12. AMTAC strongly opposes KORUS for three main reasons: the agreement is flawed in concept; the terms of the agreement are unfavorable to key industries such as textiles; and, the textile and apparel provisions in the agreement are unlikely to be adequately enforced. These problems are why as many as an estimated 40,000 U.S. jobs are expected to be lost in the first seven years after implementation just as a result of textile concerns with the agreement. If Congress is serious about creating jobs, passing trade- law enforcement measures like the stalled anti-currency manipulation legislation, strengthening our ``buy American'' laws, and eliminating trade distortions caused by foreign border-adjusted taxes should be targeted instead. (1) KORUS Is a Continuation of a Job-Destroying U.S. Trade Policy KORUS replicates a fatal flaw contained in almost every free trade agreement (FTA) that the United States has implemented: our FTA partners can (and do) sell more to us than we to them. During the lifetime or our existing FTAs, the United States has run a cumulative $2.1 trillion deficit with our trade partners. This flaw drives up the U.S. production shortfall manifested in our trade and current account deficits that have destroyed so many middle-class American jobs. The disparity in market opportunities is immense for several reasons. South Korea's population is less than one- sixth of the United States. Its GDP of $986.3 billion is less than 7 percent of the U.S. GDP of $14.6 trillion in 2010. Despite the South Korean economy's smaller size, it is an export superpower in many important industries such as autos, electronics, and textiles. With respect to textiles, South Korean has a highly sophisticated, vertically integrated industry that is a world-class manufacturer of even the most technical products. In 2010, South Korea was America's 8th largest supplier of textiles and apparel by volume. For just yarns and fabrics, the largest component of the U.S. industry, South Korea is America's 2nd largest source of imports. In addition, South Korea has a long history of unfair trading practices. Currently, there are 16 antidumping and countervailing duty orders in place against U.S. imports of goods from South Korea. Moreover, despite its obligations under the World Trade Organization (WTO), South Korea has been hostile to imports. It has raised non-tariff barriers for those goods where there is sizeable Korean production, autos being the prime example. We would also note that while KORUS will give South Korean goods duty-free entry into the U.S. market, U.S. exports to South Korea will still be subjected to a 10 percent Value Added Tax (VAT). Through their VAT system, South Korea will be allowed to maintain what amounts to a permanent 10 percent tariff on U.S. exports to their market. Moreover, South Korea has complete freedom to raise their VAT rate above the current 10 percent at any point in the future. It was a major error on the part of our negotiators not to address this inequity as part of KORUS, as border taxes are another persistent example of foreign practices that place domestic companies at a competitive disadvantage. Finally, the agreement is geographically disadvantageous to the United States. South Korea faces roughly the same logistical challenges as its other Asian competition when it exports to the United States. In contrast, the United States must ship its exports of manufactured goods several thousand miles across the Pacific Ocean to a market where our competitors in China and Japan are right next door. The disparity in market opportunity is one reason why the United States ran a $10 billion trade deficit with South Korea in 2010. Of that total, the U.S. ran a $10.6 billion deficit in motor vehicles and motor vehicle parts and a $600 million deficit in textiles and apparel. It is also why the U.S. textile industry and some other sectors expect few export opportunities for their products under KORUS. In the face of these unfavorable factors, KORUS will eliminate U.S. tariffs on 95 percent of current trade in industrial products within three years of implementation of the agreement while not guaranteeing reciprocal U.S. access to the South Korean market for key industrial products such as autos and textiles. With South Korea's current capabilities as a major producer and exporter of industrial products, its close proximity to China, and its traditional hostility to imports, KORUS will hurt U.S. manufacturers and exacerbate our trade deficit. No wonder the Economic Policy Institute predicts the KORUS agreement will increase the total U.S. trade deficit with South Korea by about $16.7 billion annually and displace approximately 159,000 American jobs within the first seven years after it takes effect. (2) KORUS'S Textile Chapter Hurts U.S. Textile Manufacturers The United States International Trade Commission (USITC) estimates that U.S. textile and apparel output will decline by the largest percentage of any sector as a result of KORUS and cites expected increases in U.S. imports from South Korea as the driving factor. According to the U.S. International Trade Commission's initial analysis of entering into an agreement with South Korea, ``The largest gains for Korean exports to the United States are anticipated in textiles, apparel, and leather goods, and other manufacturing (e.g., chemicals and allied products, electronics, and transportation).'' Various studies cited in the 2007 USITC report on KORUS uniformly predict declines in U.S. textile and apparel output ranging from 0.4 to 1.5 percent. AMTAC estimates that 9,300 to 12,300 U.S. textile and apparel manufacturing jobs are expected to be lost in the first seven years after implementation as result of flaws in the textile chapter of KORUS. Moreover, because U.S. government figures show that approximately three additional jobs are lost to the U.S. economy for each textile job that is eliminated, the total estimated job loss climbs to nearly 40,000. It is also important to note that these figures do not account for job losses as a result of a likely surge in illegal Chinese transshipments via South Korea, which we expect to be significant. One highly sensitive market where South Korea competes head-to-head with U.S. producers in the U.S. market is in industrial textiles, a sector with employment of more than 25,000. U.S. industrial textile manufacturers are particularly concerned about this agreement and its impact on the extended domestic supply chain for coated and laminated membranes used in industrial and military applications such as fuel cells, oil booms, rapidly deployable shelters/tents, radar attenuating covers, safety and protective gear, and many more advanced applications, including automotive fabrics. Many companies participating in this supply chain also support the military needs of our warfighters. Their ability to innovate and responsively supply the military is dependent on an overall healthy domestic market and industry. Our principal concerns with the text include (1) accelerated tariff phase-outs that do not give U.S. producers time to adjust, (2) non-reciprocal tariff phase-outs that favor the South Korean textile industry in key products, and (3) exclusion of certain textile components from the rule of origin. The aforementioned reasons and others are why, as the auto provisions of KORUS were being reopened, AMTAC and other industry associations made a request to the Obama administration in August 2010 that they also reopen the textile and apparel chapter of the agreement to fix the problems therein. Textile concerns, however, were never raised with South Korea and these damaging provisions remain unchanged. Problematic Accelerated Tariff Phase-Outs Contrary to the precedent established in the NAFTA, 86 percent of textile and apparel product lines are duty free immediately under KORUS and an additional 10 percent will be duty free on January 1 of Year 5 of the agreement. This is the first time a large number of sensitive products from a country with a large, sophisticated textile industry have received immediate access to the U.S. market. Tariff phase- outs for sensitive products have traditionally been a key part of trade agreements in order to give companies time to adjust business models and minimize large-scale potential job displacement. For example, South Korea exports of polyester fiberfill have entered the United States under anti- dumping orders for the past 15 years. This dumping case passed two sunset reviews, the last of which was successfully completed prior to the end of the KORUS negotiations. Nevertheless, KORUS immediately removes the U.S. duty on polyester fiberfill, defeating the purpose of the anti-dumping rule and defying logic of equitable trade negotiations. In the U.S. technical textile market, South Korea has emerged as the number one exporter of advanced textile reinforcements, and this sensitive tariff line is scheduled for immediate tariff phase out. U.S. industrial textile producers have already lost significant market share to South Korean manufacturers, and this FTA will do significant harm to the industrial textile industry and greatly diminish the sustainability of our fragile domestic supply base. Socks are another sensitive product where most tariff lines go to zero immediately. South Korea was the 6th largest exporter of socks to the United States in 2010 by volume, shipping more than 152 million pair. Non-Reciprocal Tariff Phase-Outs The agreement also provides South Korea with a more generous and expedited tariff elimination schedule than what is afforded U.S. producers and exporters for certain products. One example is para-aramid fiber, which is used to produce tough, flame-retardant fabrics for industrial and military applications including body armor. Under KORUS, South Korea will be allowed to export aramids to the United States with immediate duty free treatment. U.S. producers do not get duty free access to the Korean market as South Korea is allowed to phase out its tariff to be duty free on January 1 of Year 5. This puts U.S. manufacturers at a direct disadvantage. Job-Destroying Loopholes in Rule-of-Origin The rule of origin is a critical element of any free trade agreement because it defines which products qualify for preferential treatment and whether countries not party to the agreement will receive benefits. The KORUS contains a ``yarn forward'' rule of origin. While we support a basic yarn forward rule, certain specific exemptions to the product origin rules under KORUS are very problematic. In essence, the rule applies only to the component that determines the tariff classification of the apparel or home furnishing good (in other words, the main or essential fabric) plus certain visible lining fabrics. Applying origin rules in this manner means that key component yarns, threads and fabrics are not adequately covered under the rule of origin and therefore do not have to be of U.S. or South Korean origin. This conflicts with the majority of our recent agreements including CAFTA-DR, Peru, Colombia and Panama which apply the yarn forward rule beyond just the essential character fabric. Under KORUS, components including sewing thread, pocketing and narrow fabrics, all of which are in plentiful supply from U.S. producers, are allowed to come from anywhere. This allows third parties, such as China, to benefit without making any market concessions of their own. Domestic producers of these types of component yarns and fabrics provide thousands of U.S. jobs, which will be put into jeopardy if KORUS is implemented. (3) High Likelihood of Massive Customs Fraud Due to Inadequate Enforcement Provisons In addition to the flaws in the textile chapter of KORUS, there is strong evidence that Customs' ability to enforce this agreement will be ineffective. Due to South Korea's history of transshipment paired with significant cross-border investment with China, upgraded customs enforcement provisions are essential to prevent large-scale customs fraud under KORUS. China already exports nearly $4 billion annually in textiles and apparel to South Korea, and South Korea was labeled by U.S. Customs as a major transshipment point for Chinese exporters when quotas were in place. Instead of strengthening enforcement, however, the customs language in KORUS was significantly weakened compared to other high risk agreements such as the Singapore PTA. Key enforcement provisions that were dropped under KORUS include the ability for U.S. Customs to (1) seize goods from repeat offenders, (2) reduce South Korea's access if it does not enforce the rules of the agreement, and (3) deny fraudulent companies import privileges for several years. The substandard customs provisions in the KORUS leave the U.S. textile industry and its workers vulnerable to large- scale illegal imports from China through South Korea. As a result, the industry fully expects Chinese textile exporters to be a primary beneficiary of KORUS. In addition to its direct threat to the U.S. market, the specter of increased illegal transshipments likely to be generated by KORUS represents a significant attack on the hemispheric textile production structure encouraged by U.S. policy for the past three decades. The KORUS threatens to damage the Western Hemisphere because South Korea's textile and apparel exports are expected to surge and displace orders currently being sourced in the region. When finished product orders are lost by manufacturers in the Western Hemisphere, U.S. mills also lose the orders for the yarns and fabrics that go into garments and made-up articles. The potential loss of business is enormous. As a result of trade preference programs and the NAFTA/CAFTA/Peru FTAs, nearly two million textile and apparel workers in those regions produce garments, home furnishings, and the textile components incorporated into those products. The U.S. textile and apparel industry is a critical link in the supply chain. We export more than $12 billion a year to our preferential partners in the Western Hemisphere, predominantly in components such as yarns, threads, and fabrics. This trade accounts for more than 60 percent of total U.S. textile and apparel exports.

Mr. JONES. I thank the gentleman for the time. Every time a President, Democrat or Republican, asks Congress to approve a trade deal, they give us these wild optimistic projections for how many jobs these deals are going to create. Sadly, this administration is no different. President Obama has suggested that the Korea free trade agreement will create 70,000 new jobs. The record shows just how wrong that claim is. In the 1990s, President Clinton suggested that NAFTA would create over 200,000 jobs. Well, here's the reality: Since NAFTA passed in December 1993, America has lost 5.15 million jobs. Lost 5.15 million manufacturing jobs. And 384,000 of these jobs were lost in my home State of North Carolina. In 2005 President Bush claimed that CAFTA was a ``pro-jobs bill'' that would stem the tide of U.S. manufacturing job losses. But since CAFTA passed in September of 2005, America has lost 2.4 million manufacturing jobs. Here we have roughly 9.1 percent unemployment in this country, due in no small part to the Washington elite jamming these job-destroying trade agreements down our throats. Americans do not want more ``free trade.'' A recent NBC-Wall Street Journal poll showed that 69 percent of the American people believe that free trade has cost American jobs. The poll shows that 61 percent of Tea Party supporters believe that trade agreements have hurt this Nation. It's time we started listening to the will of the American people and doing what is in the best interests of the American people, not in the best interests of the foreign nationals who desperately want to take our jobs. Madam Speaker, I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will show their true American colors and vote ``no,'' ``no,'' and ``no'' on these three trade agreements.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I had the privilege and the humbling experience of going to Walter Reed at Bethesda. It is a magnificent medical complex, and our young men and women deserve to have that kind of treatment. I was so impressed. In visiting the wounded and thanking them for their service, I encountered a 22-year-old lance corporal who was wounded during his second tour of duty in Afghanistan. Standing there in his room with his mother, he asked me why are we still in Afghanistan. I looked at his mother and I looked in his face and I said, I don't know. I said there are a few of us in the House trying to get our troops back home before the 2014-2015 deadline. Mr. Speaker, I have beside me a photograph of a triple amputee, a soldier, with his wife, who has lost both legs and an arm. Yesterday I noted to the doctor who was escorting me around that I saw more double amputees than ever before. I saw some down in the rehab center, and I saw those in their rooms that have not gotten to that point yet because of their severe wounds. He said, Congressman, the number of double amputees is going up every week, every month, and it will continue to go up. My question to the leadership of the House: Why don't you speak out, both parties, and call on Mr. Obama to bring our troops home before 2015? It's kind of ironic. I represent the Third District of North Carolina and we got hit pretty hard, like most of the States all of the way up to Vermont, by the hurricane. It was so ironic last week that we passed a continuing resolution that had $2.65 billion for FEMA to help those who have experienced disasters like wildfires in Texas to tornadoes to hurricanes--$2.65 billion--but yet we found $118 billion to spend in Afghanistan and Iraq. Where does that equal itself out? The American people get shortchanged while we send $118 billion to Afghanistan and Iraq. It makes no sense. That's why it's so ironic that the American people have given all of us in Congress an 18 percent approval rating. And here we will be passing trade bills today to send jobs overseas. That'll be great. The American people are tired and fed up. But what bothers me more than anything are those young men and women over at Walter Reed who are 20, 22, 25. I met a gunnery sergeant who's in his early thirties, both legs gone, trying to learn to walk. I hope that the leadership in the House and Senate will join Jim McGovern and many of us in both parties who are speaking out about getting our troops home before 2014-2015. And, Mr. Speaker, I want to say to those people who are protesting Wall Street, whether I agree with you or not, you have a right to protest. Join us in protesting the war in Afghanistan. We are beginning the 11th year. And as the 22-year- old lance corporal said to me, Why are we still there? I couldn't answer him. I don't know. I don't know. Karzai gets $10 billion a month, and the people who've lost so much in the hurricanes and tornadoes, they get a measly pittance to what Karzai gets. Please, American people, join us and put pressure on the House and Senate, and let's bring our troops home. Mr. Speaker, my close is this: I ask God to please bless our men and women in uniform. I ask God to please bless the families of our men and women in uniform. I ask God in His loving arms to hold the families who have given a child dying for freedom in Afghanistan and Iraq. I ask God to bless the House and Senate that we will do what is right in the eyes of God for his people today and his people tomorrow. And I ask God to give wisdom, strength, and courage to President Obama that he will do what is right in the eyes of God for God's people today and God's people tomorrow. And three times I will ask from the bottom of my heart, God please, God please, God please continue to bless America. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Madam Speaker, I think you will note today that from both sides, the Democratic side and Republican side, there will be those of us who come to the floor to speak about bringing our troops home from Afghanistan. Friday of this week will be 10 years since we committed our troops to Afghanistan. I would like to quote from Andrew Bacevich, in an article 2 years ago, and the title, ``To Die for a Mystique": ``To apply to the Long War, the plaintive query that General 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.'' Madam Speaker, that also applies to Afghanistan. Ten years later, so many have died, so many have been wounded. I say to the House with humility and regret that I have signed over 10,400 letters to the immediate and extended families of the fallen from both Iraq and Afghanistan. Obviously, the majority of letters now are to the families of those who have been killed in Afghanistan. Poll after poll has shown that the American people in large percentages want our troops home now. This number of people continues to grow as the number of dead and wounded increases. Madam Speaker, beside me is a poster of a young Army couple where the husband has lost both legs and an arm. How many more have to give their lives, their minds, and their bodies for a corrupt Afghan leader named Karzai? I encourage the people of this country to put pressure on Congress, especially the Republican leadership, by calling their Members of Congress and telling them to bring our troops home before the 2015 deadline. Why do I say 2015? I will quote Secretary Gates as he appeared before the Armed Services Committee in February of this year. Secretary Gates: ``That is why we believe that beginning in fiscal year 2015, the United States can, with minimal risk, begin reducing Army active duty end strength by 27,000 and the Marine Corps by somewhere between 15,000 and 20,000. These projections assume that the number of troops in Afghanistan would be significantly reduced by the end of 2014''--by the end of 2014--``in accordance with President Obama's strategy.'' Madam Speaker, the problem there is that 2014 becomes 2015, 2015 becomes 2016. How many more have to die? How many more have to lose legs and arms and try to live the rest of their lives in that kind of situation? Madam Speaker, I learned just recently that the Chinese are in Afghanistan buying copper, and this soldier told me that his unit was notified that the Chinese needed protection. How crazy is crazy? And our young men and women are over there walking the roads of Afghanistan. American people, join those of us in Congress in both parties. Let's bring them home now, not 2015. Madam Speaker, as I always close on the floor and I will close again today, I ask God to please bless our men and women in uniform. I ask God to please bless the families of our men and women in uniform. I ask God in His loving arms to hold the families who have given a child dying for freedom in Afghanistan and Iraq. I ask God to please bless the House and Senate that we will do what is right in the eyes of God for His people. And I will ask God to give wisdom, strength, and courage to President Obama that he will do what is right in the eyes of God for God's people. And I close by asking three times, God please, God please, God please continue to bless America.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, this Friday will be the 10th anniversary of our troops being committed to Afghanistan. This commitment by the previous administration and Congress was justified because bin Laden and al Qaeda were responsible for 9/11. But now bin Laden is dead; al Qaeda is disbursed all around the world. Beside me is a poster of an honor guard carrying a flag-draped coffin off a plane at Dover Air Force Base. To accompany the photo, I will read into the Record an editorial from Bob Schieffer titled ``The Real Cost of War'': [I was in an airport lounge the other day when I saw a woman across the way. Why I kept staring, I don't know. Maybe it was just that she seemed so sad. And then I understood. And I looked away, hoping she had not seen me stare. Because in her lap was an American flag, neatly folded into a triangle and placed in a clear plastic case, a flag folded the way it always is when it is given to a soldier's family as the soldier's coffin is lowered into the grave. I figured her to be a soldier's mother, and I couldn't help but wonder what memories that flag evoked as she held it there. Did it remind her of the first time she had seen her child in the delivery room, or was it the memory of seeing him go off to school that first day, or when he brought home the prize from the science fair, or maybe made the touchdown, or gave her the first Valentine when he wrote out, ``Mommy, I love you.'' I keep thinking about all the talk in Washington about the high cost of defense and how we have to cut the Pentagon budget before it bankrupts the country. But as I watched that woman, budgets seemed to be such a small part of all of it. No, the real cost of war is not what we pay in dollars and cents. The real cost is what we take from a mother who is left with just a memory and a neatly folded flag in a clear plastic case.] This was over a year ago, and I want to thank Bob Schieffer. I don't think it can be said better than what he said that day, which I just read into the Record. Why this Congress continues to complain about budgets and cuts and deficits and debts, and our young men and women are walking the roads of Afghanistan, getting their legs blown off and getting killed, and we sit here in Congress and don't bring it up as an issue. I want to thank my friends on both sides of the aisle and the Republicans on this side of the aisle who are trying to say to Mr. Obama, No, don't leave them there until 2014. Karzai is a crook. He is a corrupt leader. You are spending $10 billion a month in Afghanistan, and you can't even audit the books in Afghanistan. And kids are dying. Yet right here in America, we are cutting programs for children to get a pint of milk in school; and we are saying to a senior citizen, No sandwich at the senior citizens center because we can't afford it. But, Mr. Karzai, we will send you $10 billion. Mr. Speaker, it's borrowed money. It's not even Uncle Sam's money. It's probably Uncle Chang's money. But more importantly than the money is what Bob Schieffer said: It's the pain of war. And this Congress needs to come together and say to Mr. Obama, Let's bring them home this year, next year, but not wait until 2014, 2015. Mr. Speaker, I will close, as I always do on the floor of the House, please, God, bless our men and women in uniform. Please, God, bless the families of our men and women in uniform. Please, God, in your loving arms, hold the families who have given a child dying for freedom in Afghanistan and Iraq. I ask God to bless the House and the Senate that we will do what is right in the eyes of God for its people. I ask God to give wisdom, strength, and courage to President Obama, that he will do what is right in the eyes of God's people. And I will say three times, God please, God please, God please continue to bless America.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Thank you, Madam Speaker. You know, Madam Speaker, it is so ironic that the American people are hurting in many, many ways, including those in my district from Hurricane Irene which did damage all of the way up to Vermont, the fires in Texas, and tornadoes, and yet we can't come together as two different parties to find agreement to increase the funding for FEMA so they can help victims of these disasters, and yet we can find $10 billion a month to send to a corrupt leader in Afghanistan so that he can wear his robes and his caps and American kids can die and lose their legs and arms. I do not understand why this Congress and the President of the United States do not understand that it's time to bring our troops home. The American people are hurting in many, many ways, and the folly of the last day here in Washington where we cannot come together to increase the funding for FEMA is absolutely unacceptable-- unacceptable--to the people of this country. I was listening to C-SPAN coming in today, and it was just really somewhat ironic that the people are so angry with Congress, both parties actually, and cannot figure out why we are not doing what's necessary to fix the economy and create jobs to fix the infrastructure that my friend from Oregon just talked about. Oh, yes, but we can still find $10 billion a month for Mr. Karzai. Let's fix his roads in Afghanistan. Let's train his people to be troops and policemen. Madam Speaker, that brings me to this poster I brought down to the floor today. Two little girls, Stephanie and Eden, their daddy, Sergeant Kevin Balduf, a United States marine stationed in Camp Lejeune, which is in my district, and Colonel Palmer, stationed at Cherry Point Marine Air Station, which is in my district, were sent to Afghanistan to train Afghans to be policemen. One night, they were having dinner, the trainees, the colonel, and the sergeant, and one trainee pulled out a pistol and killed both of them. What is ironic is the day before Sergeant Balduf and Colonel Palmer were killed, Sergeant Balduf emailed his wife, Amy, and said: I don't trust them. I don't trust them. I don't trust any of them. So these two little girls are standing at their daddy's funeral at Arlington. And you can see in their faces, Madam Speaker, a look of pain and a look of misunderstanding of what has happened. They don't understand what has happened. So, Madam Speaker, I hope we in Congress will find the will to encourage President Obama to bring our troops home, because Secretary Gates has already said and been recorded that we will be there until 2015. How many young Americans have to die in the next 4 years to prop up a corrupt government? It makes no sense. I hope the American people will rally behind those of us in both parties who want to bring our troops home, and let's get them home before 2015. Madam Speaker, I close this way, the way I always do: God, please bless our men and women in uniform; God, please bless the families of our men and women in uniform; God, in Your loving arms hold the families who have given a child dying for freedom in Afghanistan and Iraq; God, please bless the House and Senate that we will do what is right in God's eyes for God's people; and I will ask God to give wisdom, strength, and courage to President Obama that he will do what is right in the eyes of God for God's people. And three times I will say, God, please, God, please, God, please continue to bless America.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to honor Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer, Military Intelligence Corps, for his twenty-five years of service as a field intelligence operative aid more than three decades of service to the nation in both the Army National Guard and Army Reserve. Col. Shaffer's extensive career started in January 1981, while still in high school, when he enlisted in the Ohio Army National Guard. He went on to graduate from Wright State University in 1986. And this year, 2011, Col. Shaffer was chosen as their College of Liberal Arts Alumnus of the Year. Col. Shaffer's storied career has been distinguished by his willingness and ability to work at the cutting edge of our nation's intelligence community. He has successfully endeavored to adapt new technology and use these capabilities to ensure the protection of the American people. It is likely that most of Lt. Col. Shaffer's work will never be fully recognized--but I can assure you it is appreciated by me and the American people. During his initial years of service, he deployed to Germany during REFORGER 85 to conduct anti-terrorism operations against the Red Army Faction, RAF, and other German based terrorism groups. He was also assigned to the Army's New York City Resident Office during a critical period when foreign terrorists were targeting the United States. In 1988 he attended training at ``The Farm'' where he graduated first in his class of the Military Operations Training Course, MOTC, at Camp Perry, VA. He was promoted to Captain in 1990 and was brought to active duty by the Army for the first Gulf War in 1991 where he worked to develop a key classified program named STARWATCHER B. After the conclusion of the first Gulf War, he was appointed to serve as the chief of the Army's global clandestine HUMINT collection program, and ran specific the Special Access Program, SAP, operation, unclassified nickname: CAROLINA MORNING, which netted highly significant information that was critical to the national leadership during the 1990s. He was the senior HUMINT advisor to the J2/Senior Intelligence Officer of Joint Interagency Task Force East, JIATF-E. JIATF-E conducted counter-drug operations in the Transit Zone between Columbia and the United States southern border. During this tour he was successful in integrating highly specialized hybrid technology/human intelligence operations to obtain high value intelligence information to support the operational forces. In 1995, Tony transitioned to Defense Intelligence Agency, DIA, as part of the consolidation of all Service, Army, Navy, Air Force, and USMC, controlled HUMINT into the Department of Defense. He created and directed Task Force STRATUS IVY--a one-of-a-kind special mission task force that harnessed the skills of officers from the National Security Agency, NSA, Army Intelligence and Defense Intelligence Agency that conducted direct support to Department of Defense, Special Operations Command and other non-DoD agencies. After his promotion to Major, due to his highly sought after skills, he was assigned to serve at both the HUMINT Support Element, HSE, at both Special Operations Command, SOCOM, and the Joint Special Operations Command, JSOC. He also served as a team leader of classified element that provided direct support to the Director of Operations of Defense HUMINT Service, DHS. During this period of his career he participated in multiple highly classified operations--the most notable, a project known as ABLE DANGER--the controversial counterterrorism operation that was designed to detect, degrade and counter Al Qaeda capabilities that was successful in detecting Al Qaeda cells operating within the United States before the 9/11 attacks. He had two peacetime overseas deployments--the first to Thailand where he was attached to the III Marine Expeditionary Force, MEF, to attend Exercise COBRA GOLD 1991; the second to New Zealand with attachment to the New Zealand Defense Force for Joint Warrior Interoperability Demonstration in mid 2001. Just after the 9/11 attacks, in December 2001, he was returned to active duty for a 30-month period, during which he commanded a DIA operating base and had two successful combat tours to Afghanistan. He commanded Field Operating Base, FOB, Alpha, a joint DIA/CIA brigade equivalent unit conducting classified collection and special operations support regarding terrorists just after the 9/11 attacks. During his two undercover combat tours in Afghanistan, he participated in the search for senior Al Qaeda leadership in Afghanistan and is credited for helping to break the back of the Taliban's first attempt to return to power in Afghanistan. Col. Shaffer received the Bronze Star Medal, BSM, for performance as an Operations Officer of the HUMINT Support Detachment in Afghanistan supporting CJTF 180 and CJFT 121. After promotion to lieutenant colonel in 2005, he was attached to Navy's premier counterterrorism think-tank, DEEP BLUE at the Pentagon where he worked on key situational awareness and counterterrorism technology and tools. In 2005 to 2006, Tony worked with the U.S. Congress and testified on multiple issues that relate to the 9/11 terrorist attacks and intelligence failures. In 2006 he was assigned to and commanded the Special Troops Battalion, STB, of the 9th Theater Support Command, Ft. Belvoir, VA. He was then, in 2007, selected to serve as the G6/Senior Information Officer, Anti-Terrorism Officer and Public Affairs Officer of the 94th Division, Force Sustainment, Ft Lee, VA--the 94th Division was re- activated in 2008 and was one of Gen George Patton's key divisions that participated in the Battle of the Bulge, Ardennes, in 1944-45. He remained with the 94th Division until he reached his mandatory retirement date, MRD, in July of 2011. He continues to serve this great nation through his work at the Center for Advanced Defense Studies where, as a Senior Fellow, he continues to influence national defense strategy and policy through research and advocacy of critical national security issues. Over these three decades Lt. Col. Shaffer has served with distinction and unmatched willingness to conduct high risk operations, while always recognizing the ethical and moral responsibly of his office. Lt. Col. Shaffer's keen operational judgment and dynamic leadership has contributed substantially to the development of critical national level intelligence capabilities--many of which remain in operation today. His influence over national defense and security is indelible and significant--his service has constantly worked to identify threats and then develop capability to protect the American people. He consistently worked to influence national intelligence policy and capabilities to insure the security of the American people and has done so in keeping with the highest traditions of the U.S. Army. On behalf of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I would like to recognize Col. Shaffer's outstanding accomplishments, courageous attitude and past and present devotion to this nation. I wish to congratulate him, his wife Rina, and sons Alexander and Ryan on the completion of long and distinguished career.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, like all my colleagues, I was home during the August break, accepting opportunities to speak at civic clubs, at town forums, and I did speak to a couple of military retiree groups. Every time that I would make the statement that it is time to bring our troops home from Afghanistan--Mr. Speaker, I'm not an excellent speaker, I'm not even a good speaker, but I got applause, strong applause, from every one of those groups that I just named. They agree with me and many of my colleagues, one being on the floor today, Jim McGovern from Massachusetts, that it's time to bring an end to our involvement in Afghanistan. The amount of loss of lives is just astounding. And I have beside me a poster that depicts the pain of war. This lady and her little girl are accepting a folded flag off the coffin of her husband and the little girl's daddy. And the little girl is looking up like ``I don't know what's happening.'' The wife is crying. How many more families have to cry? How many children have to say, ``I don't know my daddy; I didn't know my daddy because I was so young when he died''? The President is asking for a jobs program. I think he's doing the right thing. Yet we're spending $10 billion a month in Afghanistan to prop up a corrupt leader. It makes no sense. It doesn't make any sense to the American people, and it makes no sense to many of us in the House, both Republican and Democrat. I understand from the newspapers that there's a conversation now going on between the United States and Afghanistan which would provide so-called ``strategic partnership agreement'' between the two, America and Afghanistan, and this means that we could keep approximately 35,000 to 40,000 troops past 2014, 2015. This does not make any sense. I hope that this is not true, but I'm afraid that it is true. And something else that bothers me about this conversation is that it will not be called a treaty because, if it's called a treaty, it has to come to Congress and be approved by Congress. This, again, takes away the voice of the American people, especially on this issue of Afghanistan, when the American people, in large numbers in all the latest polls, are saying get out, get out, get out. History has proven that Afghanistan will never be anything more than what it is today. Great nations have tried in the past to try to create a national government in Afghanistan, and it never happened. Here we are going to spend $10 billion a month, $120 billion a year, to rebuild Afghanistan, and we don't even have the money to rebuild America. I hope that the Congress will join those of us, again, Mr. McGovern and myself and many others I could name in the House, that want to bring our troops home. It brings me back to an article written by Andrew Bacevich. He was a Vietnam veteran himself. His son was killed in Iraq. And he wrote an article in the American Conservative about 2 years ago called ``To Die for a Mystique,'' talking about Afghanistan. Mr. Speaker, I hope that we will continue to bring forward on the floor of the House the issue of Afghanistan. It's not right to those families. It's not right to our military. Many of them have had five, six, seven deployments. They're tired. They're worn out. They've done their job. Bin Laden is dead. Al Qaeda has been moved out of Afghanistan. It is time to bring them home and rebuild America and help our veterans find jobs. I want to thank the President for mentioning that yesterday. We've got to help our veterans find jobs. Mr. Speaker, I'm going to close now as I always do because it comes from my heart. I've signed over 10,374 letters since we went into Iraq. That was a mistake on my part to give President Bush the authority to go into a war that never had to be fought. 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. I ask God, in His loving arms, to hold the families who've given a child dying for freedom in Afghanistan and Iraq. I ask God to please bless the House and Senate that we will do what is right in the eyes of God for God's people. I ask God to give wisdom, strength, and courage to President Obama, that he will do what is right in the eyes of God for God's people. And I will say three times, God, please, God, please, God, please continue to bless America.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, I am proud today to rise to honor Ms. Sylvia S. Schwab, House Congressional Liaison Officer, Office of Legislative Affairs, United States Marine Corps, for her decades of service on Capitol Hill and twelve years as an invaluable Civilian Marine. Ms. Schwab is an alumna of Mary Washington College, and has undertaken graduate studies in social work at the Catholic University of America. Ms. Schwab's personal decorations include twenty-five years of outstanding performance and monetary awards as well as numerous letters of appreciation and training completion certificates. Ms. Schwab was a valued staffer to Representative Tom Bevill (D-4-AL), who served in this body for 30 years. Representative Tom Bevill (D-4-AL) and my father, Representative Walter B. Jones, Sr. (D-1-NC), both served together in Congress for many years and were close and personal friends. Ms. Schwab brought her unique experience and perspective to numerous roles, including Senior Legislative Assistant/Director of Casework and Deputy Chief of Staff/Constituent Relations Director. Since that time, Ms. Schwab has served with distinction as Special Assistant to the Chief of Legislative Affairs, Office of the Secretary of the Navy, as Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Manpower and Reserve Affairs, and as Special Legislative Liaison, Office of Legislative Affairs, Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps. As House Congressional Liaison Officer, Ms. Schwab has served four Commandants and five Legislative Assistants, providing her mastery skills and knowledge to the Marine Corps environment. She brought with her a keen insight into the inner workings of the House of Representatives. Ms. Schwab's two decades of experience on Capitol Hill and at Marine Corps Headquarters have provided her with the ability to capitalize on long-standing relationships with congressional staff members to ensure that the Marine Corps message was being delivered and received in a manner that ensured open and effective communication between Congressional Staff and the Marine Corps. Ms. Schwab represented the Marine Corps on all Marine-related matters and guided the Marine Corps' most difficult and challenging legislative initiatives with great success. Through direct interaction with Members of Congress, and their staffs, she ensured that the Marine Corps requirements were widely known and understood, thereby guaranteeing the best possible support. Examples of her success include the procurement of the MV-22 Osprey, the acquisition of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles and wide-ranging Congressional support for the establishment of the Wounded Warrior regiment. Ms. Schwab's uncompromising professionalism, astute judgment and strong interpersonal skills contributed substantially to the development of many Marine Corps plans, programs, policies, and activities. She consistently worked to reinforce the Marine Corps policies and ensured that the guidance was widely disseminated to influential, keeping with the highest traditions of the Marine Corps and the United States Naval Service. I had a long professional relationship with Ms. Schwab and always found her to be the consummate professional. It was a pleasure to serve with her. It is for these outstanding personal qualities, dedication to service, and exceptional performance both on Capitol Hill and with the United States Marine Corps that we express to her our heartfelt pride and best wishes in her surely successful future endeavors.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. On Tuesday, the House passed H.R. 2560, the Cut, Cap, and Balance bill. I was amazed by the $120 billion approved to fund the war on terror. I, like many of my colleagues, agree that we must continue to fight terrorism, but I do not understand why we are funding the civil war in Afghanistan. I do not understand why Members of Congress want to spend $10 billion a month in Afghanistan when our people back home are struggling. I can assure you the American people do not understand it either. In June a poll was conducted by the Pew Research Center where 56 percent of the American people polled said bring our troops home now, not later. Mr. Speaker, I brought back the picture of Eden and Stephanie Balduf. Their father, Sergeant Kevin Balduf, and Lieutenant Colonel Benjamin Palmer died. And that continues to haunt me, and the way they died continues to haunt me. That's the reason I wanted to bring this picture down here again. They were given the task to train Afghans to be policemen. The two were shot and murdered by one of the trainees. What really haunts me is the email Sergeant Balduf sent to his wife the day before he was shot and killed. And I quote the email: ``I don't trust them. I don't trust them for anything, not for anything at all.'' Why in the world do we continue to send our young men and women overseas to get themselves blown up, shot, and murdered by people they are trying to train? These little girls are standing at their daddy's funeral at Arlington Cemetery. Mr. Speaker, that brings me to the last email I received from a retired marine general. I called him about 20 months ago and I said, I made a mistake on Iraq. I don't want to make one on Afghanistan. Will you advise me? He said, Yes, I will. Let me read the one that just ties in to this issue of this sergeant and this marine colonel being murdered by a trainee in Afghanistan. The general said: ``Get real with `training' an army and police force. All we are doing is training eventual new members of the Taliban.'' He further stated: ``Trainers are doing a wonderful job, but we don't have the time to `make' an army or police force in Afghanistan.'' The general closed his email to me by saying this: ``Every day someone dies.'' It is time to bring our troops home from Afghanistan. How many more children have to cry at a mom or dad's grave site because their mother or daddy went to Afghanistan to prop up a corrupt leader named Karzai that we send $10 billion a month to? I hope no other children have to cry like Eden and Stephanie. That brings me to my close, Mr. Speaker. Several weeks ago, Eugene Robinson in his editorial titled, ``Afghan Strategy: Let's Go,'' wrote, ``We wanted to kill or capture Osama bin Laden, and we did. Even so, say the hawks, we have to stay in Afghanistan because of the dangerous instability across the border in nuclear-armed Pakistan. But does anyone believe the war in Afghanistan has made Pakistan more stable?'' No, it has not. In fact, it's more fragile now than it's ever been. ``The threat from Afghanistan is gone. Bring the troops home.'' Eugene Robinson is not a conservative. We see him on TV all the time. And I will say that he nailed it with this editorial: The threat from Afghanistan is gone. Bring them home. Mr. Speaker, as I close always on the floor of the House, for these little girls who have lost their father and all the children who have lost their fathers and moms over in Afghanistan and Iraq, I ask God to please bless our men and women in uniform; I ask God to please bless the families of our men and women in uniform. I ask God, in his loving arms, to hold the families that have given a child dying for freedom in Afghanistan and Iraq. I ask God to please bless the House and Senate, that we will do what is right in the eyes of God for His people. I ask God to give strength, wisdom, and courage to Mr. Obama that he will do what is right in the eyes of God for his people. And I will say three times, God, please, God, please, God, please continue to bless America.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, I am once again on the floor of the House with a picture of children who have lost a loved one in Afghanistan. Eden and Stephanie Balduf, shown here at Arlington Cemetery, lost their father, Sergeant Kevin Balduf, on May 12 of this year. Sergeant Balduf, who was stationed at Camp Lejeune Marine Base, and Lieutenant Colonel Benjamin Palmer, stationed at Cherry Point Marine Base, were sent with the mission to train Afghan citizens to become police. The men had just sat down to dinner when a rogue trainee opened fire, killing both men. In an e-mail to his wife the day before he died, Sergeant Balduf said: ``I don't trust them. I don't trust them for anything, not for anything at all.'' This brings me to a quote from AC Snow's recent column in the Raleigh News and Observer, titled, ``Time to Bring Them Home. Let Them Live.'' Mr. Snow is a well-known and respected correspondent in North Carolina. ``It seems we never run out of wars. It is as if one small country after another sends out engraved invitations reading: `We're having a war. Please come.' ``And Uncle Sam goes, lugging borrowed billions and thousands of young men and women to sacrifice on the altar of so-called `freedom' or `nation-building.' '' Mr. Speaker, I go back to the two little girls in this picture. How many more children will be at the graveside of a loved one? How many more will have to know the pain of war? I further quote from AC Snow's article, which is quoted from the play Les Miserables: ``He is young. He is only a boy. You can take. You can give. Let him be. Let him live. Bring him home. Bring him home. It's way past time to stop playing politics with the lives of America's youth. Bring them home. Let them live, not just 30,000 of them--all of them.'' I agree with Mr. Snow and many others across this Nation who are calling for our troops to come home. Bin Laden is dead, and there are fewer than 30 al Qaeda remaining in Afghanistan, according to intelligence reports. We have done our job. We have won. It is time to bring them home. The reason I continue to come down here on the floor is because of a statement former Secretary of Defense Bob Gates made before the Armed Services Committee in February, and I sit on that committee: ``That is why we believe that, beginning in fiscal year 2015, the United States can, with minimal risk, begin reducing Army active duty end strength by 27,000 and the Marine Corps by somewhere between 15,000 and 20,000. These projections assume that the number of troops in Afghanistan would be significantly reduced by the end of 2014, in accordance with the President's strategy.'' I share this because I believe we are still in a black hole even with the President withdrawing 10,000 troops this year. Let's not wait until 2014 or 2015. Let's not bring any more pain to our military families. Our job is done. Let's bring them home. Mr. Speaker, before closing, one more time, on the faces of these little girls is the face of pain, of a daddy they will never grow up to know. It is time to bring them home, Mr. Speaker. It is time to bring them home. On behalf of Eden and Stephanie and all the children across this country who have lost loved ones, may God bless you and your families. May God bless our men and women in uniform, and may God continue to bless America.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, I plan to come to the floor at least once, maybe twice a week until we get our troops home from Afghanistan. I do that because I have the privilege to represent the Third District of North Carolina, the home of Camp Lejeune Marine Base, Cherry Point Marine Air Station, and Seymour Johnson Air Force Base. I have been privileged, since I didn't serve, to have great relationships with active duty and retired marines in the district. I want to share with this House, Mr. Speaker, that we continue to support a corrupt leader and a corrupt government. Just recently, the half brother of Mr. Karzai, Wali Karzai, was murdered in Afghanistan. This only reinforces the fact that Afghanistan is in a fragile situation at every level of their government. It is in chaos, quite frankly. Just this week, I spoke with a Marine colonel who has been to Afghanistan three times. He was in my office on Tuesday, and he shared the same sentiments as the retired Marine general who has been advising me for 20 months. Recently, I emailed the general and I said, Please give me your ideas of what Mr. Obama has proposed in bringing 10,000 of our troops out in July and then another 23,000 next year, 2012. This is what he emailed back to me, Mr. Speaker, and I read: ``I think the timeline is too long. I think he needs to increase the number of troops coming out of country, more and quicker.'' Another point he made in his email is: ``Get real with `training' an army and police force. All we are doing is training eventual new members of the Taliban. Trainers are doing a wonderful job, but we don't have the time to `make' an army.'' And, Mr. Speaker, then it was kind of sad the way he closed: Every day somebody from our country dies--a marine, a soldier, an airman, Navy, whatever. Mr. Speaker, I bring posters to the floor--I have probably 12 now that I want to bring to the floor every time that I speak--to remind the House that there is pain in war. The wife to my left on the poster is in tears. The little girl, who is about 2 years of age, she doesn't understand why this Army officer is kneeling before her with a folded flag. Yet I would say to the little girl: When you grow older and you're old enough to know, your daddy was a real hero, Sergeant Jeffrey Sherer, who gave his life for this country. Mr. Speaker, that leads me to share with the House an editorial that was written about 4 weeks ago by Eugene Robinson, and the title is, ``Afghan Strategy: Let's Go.'' And I want to read from his editorial: ``Slender threads of hope are nice, but they do not constitute a plan. Nor do they justify continuing to pour American lives and resources into the bottomless pit of Afghanistan. The threat from Afghanistan is gone. Bring the troops home.'' This, again, is an editorial from Eugene Robinson. Mr. Speaker, with our Nation in such a financial crisis, the people of the Third District of North Carolina, which I represent, ask me many times when I'm home on the weekends: Why are we still in Afghanistan? Why are we still spending $10 billion a month to prop up a corrupt leader and there's no future in Afghanistan? We're not going to change history. History has always said to these great nations like America: You go into Afghanistan, you're never going to change anything. The Congress needs to join those of us on both sides of the aisle when we debate trying to bring our troops home from Afghanistan. Mr. Speaker, before I close, again I want to make reference to the wife in tears and the little girl looking up at the Army officer wondering, Why are you giving me this flag? Young lady, your daddy was a hero. I close, Mr. Speaker, by saying to God, please bless our men and women in uniform. God, please bless the families of our men and women in uniform. God, please, in Your loving arms, hold the families who have given a child dying for freedom in Afghanistan and Iraq. God, please bless the House and Senate, that we will do what is right. God, please give wisdom, strength, and courage to President Obama, that he will do what is right. And three times, God please, God please, God please continue to bless America.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Madam Speaker, on the floor today I think America and all of us in Congress are certainly concerned about the debt ceiling issue and what we are going to do and how we are going to be able to resolve it. But like many of my colleagues on the Democratic side, I am here today to talk about the war in Afghanistan. Madam Speaker, I have beside me a really profound photograph of a wife in tears and a little girl sitting on her knee, who is too young to understand that her father, United States Army Sergeant Jeffrey Sherer, is laid under the flag that is now folded, being presented to the wife. This is the pain of war, and I do say to Ms. Woolsey, thank you very much for what you have done to try to wake up the Congress and the American people. Ten billion dollars a month going to Afghanistan. We can't even fix the bridges, we can't fix the roads, we are cutting children's programs, we are cutting senior programs. And yet Mr. Karzai, who is known as a corrupt leader of Afghanistan, is going to get his $10 billion a month while these programs that we are going to cut are going to be denied $10 billion a month. It doesn't make any sense, Madam Speaker. That brings me to an article written by A.C. Snow. He is well-known in North Carolina, where I am from, for his writings in The News and Observer, which is a State paper in Raleigh, North Carolina. This past July 4th, his article was titled ``Time to Bring Them Home, Let Them Live.'' ``Time to Bring Them Home, Let Them Live.'' Let this little girl's father live. Obviously, he will not live. He's dead. But how about the next little girl or little boy, or the wife and, in some cases, the husband? Let me share with the House from A.C. Snow's writing, ``Time to Bring Them Home, Let Them Live'': ``It seems we never run out of wars. It is as if one small country after another sends out engraved invitations reading: `We're having a war. Please come.' And Uncle Sam goes, lugging borrowed billions and thousands of young men and women to sacrifice on the altar of so-called freedom or `nation building.' '' Snow closes his comments by quoting lyrics from ``Les Miserables'': ``He is young. He is only a boy. You can take, you can give, Let him be, Let him live. Bring him home, Bring him home.'' Snow further writes, ``It's way past time to stop playing politics with the lives of America's youth. Bring them home. Let them live. Not just 30,000 of them. All of them.'' Madam Speaker, I sit here day after day, in committees and on the floor of the House, listening to debate, sometimes being part of the debate. I just hope that the American people will understand that in this discussion at the White House with the leadership of the House and the leadership of the Senate, we could save $100 billion. That's what it costs per year to be in Afghanistan. Madam Speaker, I have Camp Lejeune Marine Base in my district. I have over 60,000 retired military. I listen to them. No, I did not serve, but I listen to those who are serving and those who did serve. And like my colleagues, I go to Walter Reed, I go to Bethesda. I see the broken bodies, the amputated legs, the paralyzed; and I have written over 10,300 letters to families like Sergeant Sherer's to say to the families, I regret that I voted to send our kids into Iraq. It was a lie that got us there, and we never should have gone. So I join my colleagues in both parties to do my part to say let's bring them home from Afghanistan. Let's bring them home before 2014 or 2015. And, Madam Speaker, may God bless our men and women in uniform, and may God bless America.

Mr. JONES

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

Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, I join in this effort. I tell you, without any pride but with humility, that this past weekend I signed 31 letters to families and extended families who have lost loved ones in Afghanistan and in Iraq. At this time I have signed over 10,374 letters because of my mistake in voting to send our kids to Iraq, which was an unnecessary war with misinformation led by the previous administration. So I join my colleagues today on both sides of the aisle, and I thank those who offered this amendment. This past weekend I decided to email my adviser, who is a former commandant of the Marine Corps, and said, What do you think about President Obama's plans? I will read just two short points to you: ``I think the time is too long. I think he needs to increase the number of troops coming out of the country more and quicker.'' And his last point: ``Get real with training and army and police force. All we are doing is training eventual new members of the Taliban. Trainers are doing a wonderful job, but we don't have the time to make an army. Every day someone dies. Every day an American dies or gets his or her legs blown off.'' Mr. Chairman, to the left of me is a poster that was in the Raleigh, North Carolina, paper. Too many times, as we debate and there are eloquent speakers on the floor of the House, but we don't see any faces. We don't see any broken arms or legs. Here is a young lady holding a little baby in her arms, and the little baby is looking at the officer who is presenting her with a draped flag. How often does this happen throughout America? We never see it. It is time to bring our troops home. They have done everything they were asked to do by President Bush, to get al Qaeda, who was responsible for 9/11, to get bin Laden. We have done all of that. We have done everything we can do. And as my friend from Massachusetts said, $10 billion a month and we can't fix the schools, we can't fix the roads here in North Carolina and throughout America. I'm from North Carolina. I know what's happening to my State. I know what's happening to the other States. Mr. Chairman, it is time to bring them home. We don't need any more babies coming to their moms and dads and saying, when is daddy coming home? When is mother coming home? And they are being told they are not coming home. They are gone. They have given their lives for America. We have done enough for Afghanistan. It has a corrupt leader and a corrupt government, and we need to come home. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, Monday I had the honor and the humbling experience of visiting Walter Reed Hospital. I met three young men that all three have lost both legs above the knees. And actually, one of them I engaged about Afghanistan, and he, with his wife there with him, believes that we have done just about all we can do, and certainly he has done more than that: he has given his legs for this country. That leads me to wanting to read just a paragraph of an editorial by Eugene Robinson that was in the North Carolina papers, and the title of his column is ``Afghan Strategy: Lets Go.'' And I will read the last paragraph of his column: ``We wanted to depose the Taliban regime, and we did. We wanted to install a new government that answers to its constituents at the polls, and we did. We wanted to smash al Qaeda's infrastructure of training camps and safe havens, and we did. We wanted to kill or capture Osama bin Laden, and we did. Even so, say the hawks, we have to stay in Afghanistan because of the dangerous instability across the border in nuclear-armed Pakistan. But does anyone believe the war in Afghanistan has made Pakistan more stable?'' Mr. Robinson, you're right, it is not more stable because we are in Afghanistan. Perhaps it is useful to have a United States military presence in the region. This could be accomplished, however, with a lot fewer than 100,000 troops; and they would not be scattered across the Afghan countryside engaged in a dubious attempt at nation-building. The threat from Afghanistan is gone. Bring the troops home. Mr. Speaker, I don't know what the President will say tonight, and I wish the President well. But Mr. Gates has been saying all weekend--and he did testify before the Armed Services Committee in February and said it would be the latter part of 2014, maybe 2015, before we start bringing a substantial number of our troops home. Mr. Speaker, I say to the House of Representatives, both parties, let's come together and join in the McGovern-Jones bill, and let's start bringing our troops home and say to the President we don't need to be there until 2014-2015. As Eugene Robinson says, we're not going to change anything. History has proven you will never change Afghanistan. They don't want to change themselves. Quite frankly, the Taliban are Afghan people; it's a civil war. And, Mr. Speaker, as I have done before, I have the poster that has a flag-draped coffin being carried by the Air Force at Dover Air Force Base. Mr. President, you're a very smart man. You can call the shots on this war in Afghanistan. Say to the American people tonight that we will be home before 2014-2015. Mr. Speaker, I say in closing, may God bless our men and women in uniform. May God bless the families of our men and women in uniform. May God, in his loving arms, hold the families who have given a child dying for freedom in Afghanistan and Iraq. And I ask God to bless the House and the Senate, that we will do what is right in the eyes of God for his people here in America. And I ask God to give wisdom, strength, and courage to the President of the United States, that he will do what is right in the eyes of God for his people. And I close three times: God please, God please, God please continue to bless America.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, national syndicated columnist Eugene Robinson recently wrote a piece titled, ``Afghan Strategy: Let's Go.'' It appeared in the June 11 Raleigh News and Observer. I would like to share some of Mr. Robinson's thoughts with the House. He began his column with this: ``Slender threads of hope are nice but do not constitute a plan. Nor do they justify continuing to pour American lives and resources into the bottomless pit of Afghanistan.'' And he closed this column with these words: ``We wanted to kill or capture Osama bin Laden, and we did. Even so, say the hawks, we have to stay in Afghanistan because of the dangerous instability across the border in nuclear-armed Pakistan. But does anyone believe the war in Afghanistan has made Pakistan more stable?'' Mr. Speaker, these are not my words, again. These are the words of Eugene Robinson who's nationally known and respected, and he is a liberal. He's not a conservative. But the point he's making is exactly right. How many more young men and women have to give their life for a corrupt leader? I would like to ask my colleagues on both sides to join Jim McGovern of Massachusetts--I am a cosponsor of this bill. It's H.R. 1735, the Afghan Exit and Accountability Act. It gives a parameter to the President as to how we need to start bringing our troops out of Afghanistan before 2014 or 2015. I look at this young man's face, Mr. Speaker. His name is Tyler Jordan. His father was killed in Iraq. I look at him and he represents all the children in America who are crying because their moms and dads are coming back dead. Many are coming back without arms and legs. So Tyler represents children in America who have their family, loved ones over in Afghanistan. It's time to bring them home, Mr. Speaker. And then the other poster has the flag-draped coffin--they call it a transfer case--coming into Dover Air Force Base. How many more families in this country have to look at the flag-draped coffin of their loved one? Mr. Speaker, that's why I hope both sides will join Mr. McGovern and myself in H.R. 1735 because Mr. Gates has already said we will be in Afghanistan until 2014 and 2015. That's what Eugene Robinson is saying: How many more have to die in the next 3 or 4 years for a corrupt leader named Karzai that we're paying $8 billion a month to and we're cutting programs in America for children and senior citizens? Mr. Speaker, again, I want to make reference to Tyler Jordan and his pain. I want to remember the flag-draped coffin and think how many moms and dads are having to be at the funeral home receiving the flag-draped coffin and, in many cases, cannot even look at their loved ones because they were killed in a horrendous way. So, Mr. Speaker, I hope the American people will get behind H.R. 1735 and call their Members of Congress and ask them to join us in bringing our troops home before 2014. Mr. Speaker, before I close, as I do all the time in my district and on the floor of the House, I will ask God to please bless our men and women in uniform. I will ask God to please bless the families of our men and women in uniform. I will ask God in His loving arms to hold the families who have given a child dying for freedom in Afghanistan and Iraq. And I will ask God to please bless the House and Senate that we will do what is right in the eyes of God for God's people here in America. And I will ask God to bless Mr. Obama, the President, that he will have the wisdom, the strength, and the courage to do what is right for the American people. And I will close by asking three times: God please, God please, God please continue to bless America. [From the News and Observer, Jun. 11, 2011] Afghan Strategy: Let's Go (By Eugene Robinson) Washington, DC.--Slender threads of hope are nice but do not constitute a plan. Nor do they justify continuing to pour American lives and resources into the bottomless pit of Afghanistan. Ryan Crocker, the veteran diplomat nominated by President Barack Obama to be the next U.S. ambassador in Kabul, gave a realistic assessment of the war in testimony Wednesday before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Here I am using ``realistic'' as a synonym for ``bleak.'' Making progress is hard, Crocker said; but not hopeless. Not hopeless. What on Earth are we doing? We have more than 100,000 troops in Afghanistan risking life and limb at a cost of $10 billion a month, to pursue ill-defined goals whose achievement can be imagined, but just barley? The hawks tell us that now, more than ever, we must stay the course--that finally, after Obama nearly tripled U.S. troop levels, we are winning. I want to be fair to this argument, so let me quote Crocker's explanation at length: ``What we've seen with the additional forces and the effort to carry the fight into enemy strongholds is, I think, tangible progress in security on the ground in the South and the West. This has to transition--and again, we're seeing a transition of seven provinces an districts to Afghan control--to sustainable Afghan control. So I think you can already see what we're trying to do--in province by province, district by district, establish the conditions where the Afghan government can take over and hold ground.'' Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., a Vietnam veteran and former secretary of the Navy, pointed out the obvious flaw in this province-by-province strategy. ``International terrorism--and guerrilla warfare in general--is intrinsically mobile,'' he said. ``So securing one particular area . . . doesn't necessarily guarantee that you have reduced the capability of those kinds of forces. They are mobile; they move.'' It would require far more than 100,000 U.S. troops to securely occupy the entire country. As Webb pointed out, this means we can end up ``playing whack-a-mole'' as the enemy pops back up in areas that have already been pacified. If our intention, as Crocker said, is to leave behind ``governance that is good enough to ensure that the country doesn't degenerate back into a safe haven for al-Qaida,'' then there are two possibilities: Either we'll never cross the goal line, or we already have. According to Obama's timetable, all U.S. troops are supposed to be out of Afghanistan by 2014. Will the deeply corrupt, frustratingly erratic Afghan government be ``good enough'' three years from now? Will Afghan society have banished the poverty, illiteracy and distrust of central authority that inevitably sap legitimacy from any regime in Kabul? Will the Afghan military, whatever its capabilities, blindly pursue U.S. objectives? Or will the country's civilian and military leaders determine their self-interest and act accordingly? The fact is that in 2014 there will be no guarantees. Perhaps we will believe it incrementally less likely that the Taliban could regain power and invite al-Qaida back. But that small increment of security does not justify the blood and treasure that we will expend now and then. I take a different view. We should declare victory and leave. We wanted to depose the Taliban regime, and we did. We wanted to install a new government that answers to its constituents at the polls, and we did. We wanted to smash al- Qaida's infrastructure of training camps and safe havens, and we did. We wanted to kill or capture Osama bin Laden, and we did. Even so, say the hawks, we have to stay in Afghanistan because of the dangerous instability across the border in nuclear-armed Pakistan. But does anyone believe the war in Afghanistan has made Pakistan more stable? Perhaps it is useful to have a U.S. military presence in the region. This could be accomplished, however, with a lot fewer than 100,000 troops--and they wouldn't be scattered across the Afghan countryside, engaged in a dubious attempt at nation-building. The threat from Afghanistan is gone. Bring the troops home.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for introducing this resolution. It is just so ironic that on May 26, a CNN poll found that the majority of the American people, 55 percent, believe Congress, not the President, should have final authority for deciding whether the United States should continue its military mission in Libya. Yes, American people, you are exactly right, and that is why we need to support Mr. Kucinich's resolution. It has been amazing to me that I have heard so much debate today about NATO's feelings--NATO's feelings. Well, how about the feelings of the American people? How about the people that pay the taxes in this country, how about their feelings? Isn't it time their feelings come first? That is why I sincerely believe, and I wanted to be on the floor today because--and I thank Mr. Boehner, the Speaker of the House, for presenting a resolution, but that does not do it. That does not do it. The Constitution says that Mr. Kucinich is right with this resolution. The American people say that he is right with this resolution. The American people are calling on the Congress to meet their constitutional duties and to vote for this resolution. Madam Speaker, before I close, I want to say again to Mr. Kucinich, thank you for taking the lead on this. This should actually be the only resolution we are voting on, but let's show the American people that we believe in the Constitution and let's support Mr. Kucinich's resolution.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, like most of my colleagues in the House, on Memorial Day I had the privilege to speak to two different groups down in the Third District of North Carolina, which I represent. One of the events comes to mind down in Beaufort, North Carolina. There were well over 150 people there--most of them obviously were veterans or family of veterans, and a couple of families whose loved ones didn't come home from previous wars. That brings me to the point that last week Jim McGovern and I offered an amendment to create a formula to bring our troops home from Afghanistan, and I want to thank the 26 Republicans who voted for that amendment. We came within six votes of creating a formula for the President to bring our troops home before 2015. Mr. Speaker, at these two events down in my district, I had veterans line up when I finished to come up to say, ``We agree with you on your position to bring our troops home from Afghanistan.'' And even at one event I got a very strong applause when I mentioned the McGovern-Jones amendment and how close we came to create a formula to bring our troops home. Mr. Speaker, they said to me, well, why did we go into Afghanistan? Bin Laden, he was responsible for 9/11, he's dead now. Al Qaeda, which had a large presence back in 2003, 2004 in Afghanistan, is now diminished. Now these are the veterans talking to me. I'm not a veteran. But my statement was, you're right. Our country is financially broke, we've spent over $8 billion, we can't pay our bills, and yet Mr. Karzai--who's corrupt to begin with, the leader of Afghanistan--we always seem to find $8 billion a month to send to him. It makes no sense. So Mr. McGovern and I and people on my side and his side, we're going to continue to work to create an atmosphere and environment to encourage President Obama not to wait until 2015. That's exactly what Secretary Gates said to the Armed Services Committee, on which I serve: ``In February of 2015, we will start bringing home our troops.'' Well, then, Mr. Speaker, how many more will have to die, lose their legs and their arms in the next 4 years? It's only 2011, and we're talking about 2015? I can tell you our military has won the war many, many times. As you can see, this is a paper not even in my district, Greensboro, North Carolina, where Mr. Howard Coble is from. This is an editorial a few weeks ago and it says, ``Get Out,'' and there's a flag-draped coffin/ transfer case being carried off the plane by soldiers or airmen. So it is time that this Congress come together in a bipartisan way and bring our troops home. I see the families down at Camp Lejeune, which is in my district. I talk to them. I listen to them. They think they have done their job. They think it's time to come home. So, Mr. Speaker, as I do all the time on the floor of the House when I'm 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 dying for freedom in Afghanistan and Iraq. I ask God to please bless the House and Senate that we will do what is right in the eyes of God for His people in this great Nation. I will ask God to give wisdom, strength, and courage to Mr. Obama that he will do what is right in the eyes of God for this great Nation. And I will ask three times: God please, God please, God please continue to bless America.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, like most of my colleagues, I had the opportunity to speak to a number of veteran groups on Memorial Day in my district. As always, I was very humbled when I stand before those who have fought for this Nation and the families whose loved ones did not come back from wars. I would like the House to know that when I talked about the McGovern- Jones amendment to get our troops out of Afghanistan, the statement received very strong applause, showing the very strong support of the veterans of the Third District for getting our troops home from Afghanistan. After my comments, I had many of these veterans come up individually who wanted to talk to me, expressing their support and telling me that they agree with McGovern and myself. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the 26 Republicans who voted in favor of the McGovern-Jones amendment last week. I believe we came within 11 votes of passage. Mr. McGovern and I will continue to fight until there's a definite plan to bring our troops home before 2015. Bin Laden is gone, and there is zero al Qaeda presence in Afghanistan. We have done our job. In closing, I would like to quote Leslie Gelb from his May 9 article in The Wall Street Journal: ``Afghanistan is no longer a war about vital American security interests. It is about the failure of America's political elites to face two plain facts: The al Qaeda terrorist threat is no longer centered in that ancient battleground, and the battle against the Taliban is mainly for Afghans themselves.'' Mr. Speaker, I have with me, as I have many times--the true cost of war is those who die, and those who lose their arms and legs, and those who are paralyzed and blind for the rest of their life. Beside me is a very, very frank picture of war. It is an Air Force honor guard at Dover Air Force Base with the officer in charge saluting the transfer case that is covered with the American flag. I would say, Mr. Speaker, to both parties, how many more have to die in the next 4 or 5 years before we as a Nation and we as a Congress wake up to the fact that Karzai is a corrupt leader? He has a corrupt government. We are spending $8.2 billion a month to prop him up. And yet, Mr. Speaker, on this floor of this House, I've been part of many, many debates where people are saying, well, we've got to cut the senior citizens, we can't keep their programs going; we've got to cut the children so they can't get milk in the morning at school. We make sure that Karzai gets his $8.2 billion every month in Afghanistan for what we can't even account for. Mr. Speaker, Mr. McGovern and I will again this summer have an amendment on the floor to bring our troops home from Afghanistan. And I will say to the moms, the dads, the wives, and the husbands who have lost loved ones in Afghanistan, you have won the war. The war is over. Bin Laden is dead, and al Qaeda does not exist in Afghanistan anymore. So, Mr. Speaker, before I close, as I do always on the floor, as I look at this poster with the flag-draped coffin, I will ask God to please bless our men and women in uniform. I will ask God to please bless the families of our men and women in uniform. I will ask God, in His loving arms, to hold the families who have given a child dying for freedom in Afghanistan and Iraq. I will ask God to please bless the House and Senate, that we will do what is right in the eyes of God for His people and this great Nation. I will ask God to please give wisdom, strength, and courage to President Obama, that he will do what is right in the eyes of God for this Nation. And I will say three times, God please, God please, God please continue to bless America.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, on May 9 this year in an article in The Wall Street Journal--the title is ``Mission Accomplished''--the article stated al Qaeda is no longer based there in Afghanistan and the Taliban must be beaten by Afghans themselves. This is why it is the right time to support the McGovern amendment. It's a reasonable, balanced plan to bring our troops home from Afghanistan. Mr. Chairman, 2 weeks ago Lieutenant Colonel Benjamin Palmer and Sergeant Kevin Balduf, two Marines from my district, were shot and murdered by an Afghan officer while trying to train the Afghans. Here are these two great men, fathers, trying to train the Afghans, and somebody within the training area kills them, murders them. Yes, let's keep staying there. It's all worthwhile. Mr. Chairman, the reason this amendment is so important is because Secretary Gates back in February at the Armed Services Committee made this statement. I am going to paraphrase it. That is why we believe that beginning in 2015--2015--the United States can, with minimal risk, begin reducing active duty end strength. 2015. To quote the retired Marine Corps general that I respect so much, and I didn't serve in the military, and I quote him, ``What do we say to the mother and father, the wife, of the last Marine or soldier killed to support a corrupt government and a corrupt leader?'' The American people are tired and fed up. But let me say more importantly than the American people are our military; they are tired and fed up. The wife of this sergeant who was murdered trying to train the Afghans, he had emailed her the day before. And I read the email. ``I don't trust them. I don't trust them for anything. Not for anything at all.'' And he died the next day, leaving two little girls. God bless our men and women in uniform. Support the McGovern amendment.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of striking section 1034. I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan for this time. I was so concerned about this provision that I contacted a professor that I know very well, Jules Lobel, a noted constitutional professor at the University of Pittsburgh. And at my request, he has examined this provision and has provided me the following analysis. Again, I cannot give all the analysis because of limited time, but I want to read this point to you: ``Section 1034 authorization for the President to use force against any group or individual that he determines is associated with al Qaeda or the Taliban is overbroad and could potentially permit a President to expansively use force against terrorist groups around the world. Under international law, you cannot kill someone anywhere in the world simply because of their association with an entity against which you are at war, although under certain circumstances, you can detain them, if captured. This authorization is too vague and expansive.'' I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will look at this very carefully and join us in trying to strike this provision. Again, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for this time. Section 1034 is mixing up two different things--detention authority and the authorization to use force--and could therefore authorize something which the Administration has not yet claimed the power to do. The Administration's March 13 filing in court recognized this distinction, and explicitly limited that filing to its authority to detain people at Guantanamo: ``This position is limited to the authority upon which the Government is relying to detain the persons now being held at Guantanamo Bay. It is not, at this point, meant to define the contours of authority for military operations generally, or detention in other contexts.'' But the new authorization, with the Chairman's remarks, takes a government position that was ``limited'' to the authority to detain persons at Guantanamo, and uses it ``to define the contours of authority for military operations generally'', which has potentially expansive and unforeseen consequences in the future. Congress should not be authorizing war against all groups vaguely ``associated'' with Al Qaeda anywhere in the world, even if, in certain circumstances we can detain persons captured in battle who are associated with the enemy, or persons who are detained by other nations and transferred to us. Moreover, the Administration's detention authority over persons detained at Guantanamo is subject to habeas review by federal courts. Therefore, a person who the government claims is ``associated'' with the enemy in such a manner as to justify detention, can challenge the government claim in court. However, a Presidential use of force against associated forces around the world would not likely be subject to judicial review, and therefore Congress could be authorizing essentially unfettered Executive discretion in using force against unnamed and undefined people or groups worldwide, under standards that the Administration has thus far not clearly defined. Second, even were the provision limited to detention, it would still be problematic. The Obama Administration's claim to detention authority is more limited in some respects than Bush Administration's was, and that some judges of the D.C. Circuit would allow. But there remain disputes over the breadth of the government's power to detain people as enemy combatants who are captured outside of any battlefield or are detained because they are ``supporting'' or ``associated'' with the enemy. The Supreme Court has not yet decided these issues. This bill seems to affirm the Obama Administration's and D.C. Circuit view, and apply it to detainees more generally, although it adds vagueness because the chairman says that ``this affirmation is not intended to limit or alter the President's existing authority pursuant to the AUMF''. In sum, my main point is that section 1034 is flawed because it is codifies a detention-specific standard to apply to the use of force more generally, including the targeting people living in other nations, with potentially expansive and unforeseen consequences in the future. Congress should be limiting the President's authority to engage in this limitless, undefined war--not affirming and potentially expanding it.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark and pay tribute to the opening of the North Carolina a Veterans' Park. As the Representative of the Third District of North Carolina, I bear the heavy burden of watching Marines, Sailors, Soldiers, Airmen and Coast Guardsmen deploy from Camp Lejeune, Marine Corps Air Station, New River, Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point and Seymour Johnson Air Force Base to protect our Nation's freedoms. I have and continue to support their efforts through legislation and advocacy on their behalf. Even before our Nation was founded, North Carolinians have answered the call of duty to their Communities, State and Country and continue to answer the call in response to terror, tyranny and disaster. On July 4, 2011, the 235th celebration of our independence, the City of Fayetteville will unveil the North Carolina Veterans' Park to celebrate all North Carolina members of the Armed Forces, who continue to sacrifice their today for our tomorrow. The park is located in Fayetteville, home to Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base, from which brave men and women deploy to place themselves in harm's way to defend our way of life. The City and the designers of the park have commemorated each phase of service; leaving civilian life and swearing the oath to protect the Constitution, to the time spent serving; to the time that they separate from active or reserve service, when the warrior returns to civilian life. The dedication and devotion of the citizens of the Tar Heel State are etched in the annals of this great Nation. North Carolinians are feared by their enemies, trusted by their allies and revered by those they serve. The opening of this park is a fitting tribute to all those who have served, are serving, will serve or have a loved one who has served. I congratulate the City of Fayetteville for the building and dedication of this fine tribute.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Miss Abby Keene. She is freshman at Southern Wayne High School in Dudley, NC. Abby is currently an active member of the Southern Wayne High School FFA and is currently working with training a goat for the goat exhibition and show. She is preparing for a land judging contest in which she will be a judge. Prior to her diagnosis she was a cheerleader, softball player and dancer. In the fall of 2009 after a routine exam by their family doctor, Abby was found to have an enlarged spleen. Further test revealed that she suffers from a rare liver disease named Primary Sclerosing Cholangitit (PSC). PSC is a liver disease of the bile ducts and is very rare in children and even more rare to be diagnosed in a female. The only known treatment is a transplant and she is currently on a waiting list for a transplant at Children's Hospital in Pittsburgh, PA. Abby's mother Deon has teamed up with COTA (Children's Organ Transplant Association) along with friends, neighbors, local churches, fire department/rescue units, Grantham Grange, Southern Wayne High School FFA, and other local civic groups to raise $50,000 for Abby to receive a transplant. On May 14, 2011, Eureka Christian Church is hosting a BBQ lunch and dinner, followed by an auction of donated items. Abby is hoping to return to her active roles upon completion of her liver transplant. Mr. Speaker, today, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Miss Abby Keene and wish her the best in her upcoming future.