Walter Jones

Mr. JONES

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

Mr. JONES. Yes. Congressman Kagen, I want to thank you for giving me a chance to be a small part of this debate tonight. I'm glad its a bipartisan support. Yes, I have Camp Lejeune Marine Base in my district; Cherry Point Marine Air Station; and also Seymour Johnson Air Force Base. I want to take just a few minutes; a very few. I wanted to share with this debate tonight that this is not--as Mr. McGovern said, this is an American issue. It's not a Democrat or Republican, it's not a liberal or conservative. But let me start with two conservatives. This was written by George Will, a nationally syndicated column of September 1, 2009. George Will, ``Time to Get Out of Afghanistan.'' `` `Yesterday,' reads the e-mail from Allen, a marine in Afghanistan, `I gave blood because a marine, while out on patrol, stepped on a (mine's) pressure plate and lost both legs.' Then `another marine with a bullet wound to the head was brought in. Both marines died this morning.' `I'm sorry about the drama,' writes Allen, an enthusiastic infantryman willing to die `so that each of you may grow old.' He says: `I put everything in God's hands.' And: `Semper fi!' '' George Will further writes, ``Allen and others of America's finest are also in Washington's hands. This city should keep faith with them by rapidly reversing the trajectory of America's involvement in Afghanistan, where, says the Dutch commander of coalition forces in a southern province, walking through the region is `like walking through the Old Testament.''' Let me read from another conservative, Peggy Noonan. This was written on October 10 in The Wall Street Journal. ``So far, oddly, most of the debate over Afghanistan has taken place among journalists and foreign- policy professionals. All power to them: They've been fighting it out on op-ed pages and in journals for months now, in many cases with a moral seriousness, good faith, and sense of protectiveness toward the interests of the United States that is, actually, moving. But nobody elected them. We need a truly national debate.'' Those two articles, I wanted to read those parts because I want to thank you, Congressmen Kagen, McGovern, and Ron Paul and myself, Walter Jones, for being here tonight, for this reason: Mr. McGovern is exactly right, you're right, so is Mr. Paul. This is a debate that needs to take place in the daytime with 435 Members of Congress, because our men and women in uniform will go to their death for this country, but they're worn out. There are four and five deployments to Afghanistan and Iraq. And if we don't meet our constitutional responsibility--and I agree with Mr. Paul, we should declare war, but we don't do that any more. We just pass these resolutions to give the authority to the President. The time has come for the Congress to act on behalf of the American people and, more important, to act on behalf of our troops that we are about to break. The last point. Today, I wrote Mr. Obama a note and thanked him for taking time to look carefully at what the options should be. And I want to say as a conservative Republican, again, thank you, Mr. Obama, for taking the time, because our boys and girls, our young men and women, they deserve the right decision as it relates to Afghanistan. Thank you.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Madam Speaker, I submit for the Record an editorial by David Broder, Friday, November 13, and the title is ``Half Done on Health Reform.'' Madam Speaker, I'm reading from this editorial some points that I would like to share with the House tonight: ``At least a dozen health and budget experts have filled the Web and airwaves with warnings that the House bill simply postpones the cost controls needed to finance the vast expansion of insurance coverage and Medicare benefits envisaged by its sponsors. ``One of them speaks with special authority: David Walker, the former head of the Government Accountability Office, the auditing and investigating arm of Congress, told me in an interview on Wednesday that the lawmakers are `punting on the tough choices rather than making sure they can deliver on the promises they're making.' ``In a speech delivered less than 48 hours after the House acted, Walker, now president of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, laid out the tests that buttress his conclusion. ``Acknowledging that `clearly we need radical reconstructive surgery to make our health care system effective, affordable, and sustainable', Walker cautioned that `what we should not do is merely tack new programs onto a system that is fundamentally flawed and rapidly driving the national budget into ruin.' '' I further read from the editorial: ``A separate Lewin Group study of the Finance Committee bill from which Majority Leader Harry Reid is working on in the Senate shows it is almost as much of a fiscal failure as the House bill. ``Walker, a close observer and former employee of Congress, calls that assumption `totally unrealistic.' In reading his analysis and the comments of the many others who have appraised the House handiwork, it becomes clear that unless something intervenes, Congress is headed toward repeating a familiar pattern. Just as it did under Republican control in the George W. Bush years when it passed but did not pay for a Medicare prescription drug benefit, it is about to hand out the goodies and leave it to the next generation to pick up the bill.'' Madam Speaker, before closing, as I always do on the floor because my heart aches for those who have given their lives in Afghanistan and Iraq and those who have been wounded, I ask God to please bless our men and women in uniform. I ask God to please bless the families of our men and women in uniform. I ask God in His loving arms to hold the families who have given a child dying for freedom in Afghanistan and Iraq. And I ask God to please bless the House and Senate, that we would do what is right in the eyes of God. And I ask God to give strength, wisdom, and courage to the President of the United States that he will do what is right in the eyes of God for this country. I close three times by asking God please, God please, God please continue to bless America. [From the Washington Post, Nov. 13, 2009] Half Done on Health Reform (By David S. Broder) While House Democrats spent the week congratulating themselves for squeezing out the midnight passage of their version of health-care reform, neutral observers were reminding them: You've left the job half done. Having watched Hillary and Bill Clinton try and fail even to bring their version of health reform to a vote, I can certainly join in saluting Speaker Nancy Pelosi, her leadership team and the Obama White House for maneuvering the 1,990-page behemoth to harbor. But, as many sympathetic voices have been telling them: Unless you find more realistic ways of paying for the promises included in the bill, you are simply setting up the public for more frustration--and yourselves for a political backlash. At least a dozen health and budget experts have filled the Web and the airwaves with warnings that the House bill simply postpones the cost controls needed to finance the vast expansion of insurance coverage and Medicaid benefits envisaged by its sponsors. One of them speaks with special authority: David Walker, the former head of the Government Accountability Office--the auditing and investigative arm of Congress--told me in an interview on Wednesday that the lawmakers are ``punting on the tough choices, rather than making sure they can deliver on the promises they're making.'' In a speech delivered less than 48 hours after the House acted, Walker, now president of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, laid out the tests that buttress his conclusion. Acknowledging that ``clearly, we need radical reconstructive surgery to make our health-care system effective, affordable and sustainable,'' Walker cautioned that ``what we should not do is merely tack new programs onto a system that is fundamentally flawed''--and rapidly driving the national budget into ruin. He proposes a four-part test of fiscal responsibility for any health reform plan: ``First, the reform should pay for itself over 10 years. Second, it should not add to deficits beyond 10 years. Third, it should significantly reduce the tens of trillions of dollars in unfunded health promises that we already have. Fourth, it should bend down--not up--the total health-care cost curve as a percentage of'' gross domestic product. An analysis by the Lewin Group shows that the Energy and Commerce Committee bill that was the basic blueprint for the House measure comes close to meeting the first of those tests and fails the other three, according to Walker, ``by a wide margin.'' A separate Lewin Group study of the Finance Committee bill from which Majority Leader Harry Reid is working on the Senate legislation shows it is almost as much of a fiscal failure. It fails the fourth test, falls short on the third, and passes the first two only by assuming that future Congresses will force reductions in reimbursements to doctors and hospitals that lawmakers in the past have refused to impose. Walker, a close observer and former employee of Congress, calls that assumption ``totally unrealistic.'' In reading his analysis--and the comments of the many others who have appraised the House's handiwork--it becomes clear that unless something intervenes, Congress is headed toward repeating a familiar pattern. Just as it did under Republican control in the George W. Bush years, when it passed but did not pay for a Medicare prescription drug benefit, it is about to hand out the goodies and leave it to the next generation to pick up the bill. The Senate could still reduce the damage. If it began to move away from the fee-for-service payment system that rewards doctors and hospitals on the quantity of procedures they perform, rather than on the results of the treatment, that would help. If it reduced the biggest single loophole in the revenue system--the tax-exempt status of employer- provided health benefits--that would help a lot. Otherwise, while congratulating one another for an overdue piece of social legislation, lawmakers could end up condemning our children to a far worse financial future than they deserve.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, tonight I would like to read the words of Bob Schieffer. I watched his show, ``Face the Nation,'' last Sunday, and I was very impressed with his editorial. His editorial is as follows: ``As the President tries to develop a new strategy in Afghanistan, I wonder if this is the real lesson that we've learned in Afghanistan so far: that nation-building, like charity, probably begins at home (at least the way we seem to be going about it in Afghanistan.) ``Now, don't get me wrong, terrorism poses a threat to America's national security, but is trying to build a Western-style nation in Afghanistan by funneling money to its leaders really the best way to combat terrorism? ``I guess what set me off was that story about how we've secretly put the President of Afghanistan's brother on the CIA payroll. He's the one who's supposed to be mixed up in the drug trade. The idea was that, by doing that, he'll help us pave the way to building a democracy there. Now, that's good work if you can get it, but I don't see how that is making us safer. ``Whatever the size of the military force the President decides on for Afghanistan, I think he needs to be paying more attention to where the money is going for the non-military spending there. Incredibly, no one really seems to know.'' Mr. Schieffer further stated: ``To judge by what we've gotten from it so far, we'd be much better off with some nation-building back home. Our infrastructure is already a mess. We could start at the Oakland Bay Bridge where a 5,000-pound part of the top fell off into the traffic below. That would certainly make us safer for sure. ``In Afghanistan, we're having to relearn what we should have already known--that we can help others but we can't do it for them, and when we have to pay others to help themselves, I don't see how that helps anyone but the guy getting paid.'' Again, that is from the editorial comments of Bob Schieffer this past Sunday on ``Face the Nation.'' Mr. Speaker, I want to say, in addition to what Mr. Schieffer said, I want to thank the President for taking his time and fully trying to understand the options and the trials facing our country in Afghanistan. Our men and women in uniform are very brave, they have done a great job for this country for the last 9 years, and yet we must be sure that we have a goal that can be achieved. And we must have a full definition of victory if we continue to send more troops into Afghanistan. With that, Mr. Speaker, before I close, as I do each and every night on the floor, I ask God to please bless our men and women in uniform. I ask God to please bless the families of our men and women in uniform. I ask God, in his loving arms, to hold the families who have given a child dying for freedom in Afghanistan and Iraq. And I ask God to bless the House and Senate. I ask God to give wisdom, strength and courage to the President of the United States. And I will ask three times, God please, God please, God please continue to bless America.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, I want to start by reading from the October 27 front page of the Washington Post: U.S. Official Resigns Over Afghan War. ``When Matthew Hoh joined the Foreign Service early this year, he was exactly the kind of smart civil-military hybrid the administration was looking for to help expand its development efforts in Afghanistan.'' Mr. Speaker, I want to say to Captain Hoh, retired marine, thank you for having the courage to speak out and to speak out on what you believe is the right policy for this Nation in Afghanistan. I want to read parts of a letter that he wrote to Ambassador Nancy Powell when he resigned his position: ``I have served 6 of the previous 10 years in service to our country overseas, to include deployment as a U.S. Marine officer and a Department of Defense civilian in the Euphrates and Tigris River valleys of Iraq in 2004-2005 and 2006-2007. I did not enter into this position lightly or with any undue expectations nor did I believe my assignment would be without sacrifice, hardship or difficulty. However, in the course of my 5 months of service in Afghanistan, in both Regional Commands East and South, I have lost understanding of and confidence in the strategic purposes of the United States' presence in Afghanistan. I have doubts and reservations about our current strategy and planned future strategy, but my resignation is based not upon how we are pursuing this war, but why and to what end. To put simply: I fail to see the value or the worth in continued U.S. casualties or expenditures of resources in support of the Afghan Government in what is, truly, a 35-year old civil war.'' He further writes in the letter to Ambassador Powell, Mr. Speaker: ``This fall will mark the eighth year of U.S. combat, governance and development operations within Afghanistan. Next fall, the United States' occupation will equal in length the Soviet Union's own physical involvement in Afghanistan. Like the Soviets, we continue to secure and bolster a failing state, while encouraging an ideology and system of government unknown and unwanted by its people.'' Mr. Speaker, I want to again say to Captain Matthew Hoh, this took courage for you to speak out, as it took courage for you to fight for this country in Iraq. I hope that our colleagues here on the floor of the House will debate this issue, not only about tomorrow, what are we trying to accomplish in Afghanistan, but in the years ahead, what are we trying to accomplish? Mr. Speaker, with that, before I close, as I always do, I will ask God to please bless our men and women in uniform; I ask God to please bless the families of our men and women in uniform; I ask God in His loving arms to hold the families who have given a child dying for freedom in Afghanistan and Iraq; I will ask God to please bless the House and Senate that we will do what is right in the eyes of God; and I will ask God to give wisdom, strength and courage to the President of the United States that he will do what is right. And three times, Mr. Speaker, I will ask God, please, God; please, God; please, God, continue to bless America.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, tonight I want to read a few paragraphs from an article written by Andrew Bacevich. It was in the American Conservative in May of this year, and the title is ``To Die For a Mystique: The lessons our leaders did not learn from the Vietnam War.'' ``In one of the most thoughtful Vietnam-era accounts written by a senior military officer, General Bruce Palmer once observed, `With respect to Vietnam, our leaders should have known that the American people would not stand still for a protracted war of an indeterminate nature with no foreseeable end to the U.S. commitment.' ``General Palmer thereby distilled into a single sentence the central lesson of Vietnam: to embark upon an open-ended war lacking clearly defined and achievable objectives was to forfeit public support, thereby courting disaster. The implications were clear: never again.'' I further read from the article, ``To Die For a Mystique.'' ``To cite General Palmer's formulation, the citizens of this country at present do appear willing to `stand still' when considering the prospect of war that goes on and on. While there are many explanations for why Americans have disengaged from the Long War, the most important, in my view, is that so few of us have any immediate personal stake in that conflict.'' Again, that was from the book written by General Bruce Palmer. Mr. Speaker, I further read from this article. This is the close. ``The President who vows to `change the way Washington works' has not yet exhibited the imagination needed to conceive of an alternative to the project that his predecessor began. ``The urgent need is to demystify that project, which was from the outset a misguided one. Just as in the 1960s we possessed neither the wisdom nor the means needed to determine the fate of Southeast Asia, so today we possess neither the wisdom nor the means necessary to determine the fate of the Greater Middle East. To persist in efforts to do so--as the Obama administration appears intent on doing in Afghanistan--will simply replicate on an even greater scale mistakes like those that Bruce Palmer and John Kerry once rightly decried.'' Mr. Speaker, I read this for this reason: I want to first say to the President, thank you for taking the time and thank you for being very careful in making your decision as to what our future plans are for Afghanistan. And, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to read this because Andrew Bacevich knows better than anyone. He fought in Vietnam for this country. He later became a professor at West Point. And during the Iraq war, he buried his son, a lieutenant, who was a graduate of West Point who was killed for this country. So I think we need to be very careful as we move forward, and I want to again say to the President, please take your time, make the right decisions for this country. I have the privilege of having Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base in my country. I have gotten to know a lot of marines, both active duty and retired. I recently spoke to a general that I cannot name because I don't have his permission, but if I did, he would be well known to the Marine Corps. He said to me 3 weeks ago, Please tell your colleagues on both sides of the aisle to move very carefully, to have a full, understood plan and a defined plan as to what we're supposed to accomplish in Afghanistan. Again, this general fought in Vietnam for this country. So with that, Mr. Speaker, I will close as I always do by asking God to please bless our men and women in uniform. I ask God to please bless the families of our men and women in uniform. I ask God, in His loving arms, to hold the families who have given a child dying for freedom in Afghanistan and Iraq. I will ask God to bless the House and Senate, that we will do what is right. I will ask God to give wisdom, strength and courage to the President of the United States, that he will do what is right in the eyes of God. And three times I will ask, God please, God please, God please continue to bless America.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Madam Speaker, it is a sad day in America when our chaplains in the military cannot pray according to their faiths and consciences. Our troops are risking their lives in dangerous countries to protect the religious freedoms of others, but our own military does not always permit that our military chaplains can pray according to his or her faith. For this reason, I have introduced H.R. 268, which is a bill to ensure that every military chaplain has the prerogative to close a prayer outside of a religious service according to the dictates of the chaplain's own conscience. I have spoken with many, many chaplains who have served in conflicts from Vietnam to Desert Storm, and there never was any restriction on chaplains and on how they prayed until the mid-1990s. This suppression of religious freedom, the very principle on which this country was founded, is a pervasive problem that is affecting every branch of our Armed Forces and that is affecting chaplains of every denomination. As of 2008, 76 percent of the chaplains were Protestant, 9 percent Catholic, 1 percent Jewish, and 14.1 percent were of some other faith. About 5 years ago, I was introduced to the case of Army Captain Chaplain Jonathan Stertzbach, an independent Baptist by training. Chaplain Stertzbach was called to perform a memorial service for a fallen soldier. In that division, he had to e-mail his prayer to the divisional chaplain. In the prayer, the divisional chaplain struck through the words ``Jesus Christ.'' He sent back the prayer with the strike-through of ``Jesus Christ'' to Jonathan Stertzbach. Chaplain Stertzbach went to the company commander, and asked permission not to pray. The company commander says, Why not? He says, Because I've been ordered not to close my prayer as I see fit, based on my conscience, and knowing that the deceased soldier had attended his chapel, a Christian chapel. So the company commander said to Chaplain Stertzbach, You will pray, and you will pray as you see fit. He did, and he closed his prayer in the name of his Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ. From that, the divisional chaplain removed Chaplain Stertzbach from his chapel. In 2005, when I heard this story, I wrote a letter to Lieutenant General Stanley Green, the inspector general of the United States Army, and I asked for an investigation into this case involving Chaplain Stertzbach. I am pleased to say, Madam Speaker, that Chaplain Stertzbach was returned to his chapel. The inspector general found that he should never have been removed. Madam Speaker, very briefly, I just want to read the bill, which is so simple. This is what it says: to ensure that every military chaplain has the prerogative to close a prayer outside of a religious service according to the dictates of the chaplain's own conscience. Madam Speaker, this is a sad day in America. I would be on this floor for a Jewish rabbi. I would be on this floor for a Muslim who happened to be a chaplain in the military. I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will look at this bill, because all it says is that you can close your prayer based on your heart, based on the dictates of your faith outside the church on base, even over the body of a dead soldier. Madam Speaker, as I close, I want to make it clear, because I see my friend on the floor who is of the Muslim faith, that I would be on this floor tonight for a Muslim chaplain who was told that he, an imam, could not close a prayer based on their faith. Madam Speaker, I close by asking God to please bless our men and women in uniform. I ask God to please bless the families of our men and women in our uniform. I ask God in His loving arms to hold the families who have given a child dying for freedom in Afghanistan and Iraq. Madam Speaker, I ask God to give wisdom, strength and courage to the President of the United States. And I ask three times, God, please, God, please, God, please continue to bless America. February 6, 2005. Department of the Army, The Inspector General, 1700 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC. Dear LTG Stanley Green: It has come to my attention that in all branches of the military it is increasingly difficult for chaplains to pray in adherence to their faith. I have read reports, received letters, and seen documentation which verifies that suppression of religious freedom throughout our Armed Forces is a pervasive problem, affecting military chaplains from all denominations and religions. Of particular concern is an incident involving Army Captain Chaplain Jonathon Stertzbach of the 3-6 FA HHB in Iraq. I am writing to request that the Army Inspector General investigate whether Chaplain Stertzbach was illegally removed from his chapel. This chaplain who is serving our troops in harm's way in Iraq was asked by another unit, whose chaplain had to return home to start chemotherapy after cancer was discovered, to serve the spiritual needs of the unit's soldiers in weekly movement to an undisclosed FOB (Forward Operating Base) as well as his own battalion. During one of the missions, tragically, one of the soldiers was killed in action. The unit's Commanding Officer asked this chaplain to perform the memorial ceremony because he had bravely served the soldiers, and gone to the risk of convoying to the FOB (Forward Operating Base) weekly. Before the memorial ceremony, the chaplain submitted two prayers and a meditation for the Division Chaplain and his direct supervising chaplain to review and was approved. The Brigade Chaplain, having just arrived from Fort Drum, attempted to remove the chaplain from administering the prayers of the memorial ceremony because he concluded his prayer in the name of Jesus Christ in a public forum. The chaplain, adhering to his conscience and faith tradition, said he would not strike the words Jesus Christ. The unit's Commanding Officer intervened, explaining that Chaplain Stertzbach volunteered to serve a different unit outside of his assigned unit and placed his life in harm's way to provide for the needs of the unit's soldiers. The Commanding Officer instructed that Chaplain Stertzbach would pray according to his faith tradition and the prayers that he had already submitted. The Brigade Chaplain told him to qualify his prayer at the beginning with ``Please pray according to your faith tradition, as I pray according to mine'' and then close the prayer with ``in thy name we pray, and in Jesus' name I pray.'' Chaplain Stertzbach delivered the memorial meditation and prayers for the fallen hero, but still followed orders with the `qualifier' remaining in place. After the incident, Chaplain Stertzbach's story reached the media. The Chaplain was directly contacted by the Washington Times and referenced in a Washington Times January story. Chaplain Stertzbach's incident was not printed, but he was quoted as saying the following: ``You need to allow people to pray according to their faith group. Many faith groups do not pray in general and generic terms. . . . For Christian groups, the name of Jesus is from where all the power comes.'' I believe Chaplain Stertzbach answered questions fairly, accurately, and within his legal rights. Consequently, his answers to the media and the incident surrounding the memorial ceremony resulted in Chaplain Stertzbach's removal from his chapel. I am concerned that Chaplain Stertzbach was removed without justification. Again, I am requesting that you investigate this incident and provide an explanation. Sincerely, Walter B. Jones, Member of Congress.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Madam Speaker, I would like to share with the House tonight some writings from the October 16, 2009, CNNMoney.com. The title is, ``U.S. Deficit Biggest Since 1945.'' ``The Obama administration on Friday said the government ran a $1.42 trillion deficit in fiscal year 2009. That made it the worst year on record since World War II, according to data from the Treasury and the White House Office of Management and Budget. Tax receipts for the year fell 16.6 percent overall, while spending soared 18.2 percent. Consequently, the annual deficit rose 212 percent to the record dollar amount of $1.42 trillion, from $455 billion a year earlier.'' I continue to read from this article: ``As a result, the country is very near to breaching its so-called ``debt ceiling,'' currently set at $12.1 trillion. Lawmakers, however, are expected to vote to raise that ceiling this fall.'' I further share with the House: ``In August, the OMB projected a 10-year deficit of $9 trillion, assuming President Obama's 2010 budget proposals are put in place. A deficit of that magnitude means the debt held by the public would approach 82 percent of gross domestic product. That's double the 41 percent recorded in 2008. ``The 10-year forecast as well as the longer-term outlook are considered unsustainable. The GAO further cautioned that the yawning deficit problems should be addressed sooner rather than later. The longer action to deal with the Nation's long-term fiscal outlook is delayed, the larger the change will need to be, increasing the likelihood that they will be disruptive and destabilizing.'' Madam Speaker, I wanted to share that tonight with the House because whether you be a Republican, which I am, or a Democrat, this country needs to understand that no longer can it take care of the world, because we can't even take care of our own Nation. I want to make reference just briefly to a book that I read a couple of years ago that I would recommend to each Member of Congress. And if I could buy it for each Member of Congress, I would, but I cannot. It is called ``Day of Reckoning'' by Pat Buchanan. The book ``Day of Reckoning'' reminds America what has happened to other great nations, whether it be England, Spain or France. These nations went down the road where they believed in building empires around the world and making everybody be like they are. They all collapsed in a matter of years. Rome is probably the best example of a nation that felt that it could go and create other entities around the world, and they failed, as well. So, Madam Speaker, in closing, I would like to ask unanimous consent to put the entire article from CNNMoney.com into the Record.

Mr. JONES. Madam Speaker, I thank you very much. And I hope that we in Congress, as we debate not only the health bill, but other bills, determine how we're going to pay for it. Is it fair for our grandchildren to pick up the debt of those of us today who are irresponsible to our responsibility of maintaining a frugal government? And with that, Madam Speaker, as I always do, I want to ask God to please bless our men and women in uniform. I want to ask God in His loving arms to hold the families who have given a child dying for freedom in Afghanistan and Iraq. And Madam Speaker, I want to ask God to please give wisdom, strength and courage to the President of the United States. And I ask three times, God please, God please, God please continue to bless America. [From CNNMoney.com, Oct. 16, 2009] U.S. Deficit Biggest Since 1945 Obama administration closes the books on fiscal 2009: Falling revenue plus soaring spending leads to a $1.42 trillion deficit (By Jeanne Sahadi) The Obama administration on Friday said the government ran a $1.42 trillion deficit in fiscal year 2009. That made it the worst year on record since World War II, according to data from the Treasury and the White House Office of Management and Budget. Tax receipts for the year fell 16.6% overall, while spending soared 18.2%. The rising unemployment, the economic slowdown and the extraordinary measures taken by lawmakers to stem the economic meltdown that hit in fall 2008. Consequently, the annual deficit rose 212% to the record dollar amount of $1.42 trillion, from $455 billion a year earlier. As a share of the economy, the deficit accounted for 10% of gross domestic product, up from 3.2% in 2008. As breathtaking as that may be, it's still not in the same stratosphere as the 1945 deficit, which hit 21% of GDP. Perfect deficit cocktail mix Fiscal year 2009, which ended Sept. 30, had all the right ingredients for a recordbreaking deficit. While tax revenue overall took a big hit, corporate receipts led the way, falling 55%. Individual income tax revenue fell 20%. At the same time spending jumped in large part because of the various economic and financial rescue measures undertaken. The Treasury and the OMB noted that the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program and the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, not all of which has been used, accounted for 24% of the deficit total. As a result, the country is very near to breaching its so- called debt ceiling, currently set at $12.1 trillion. Lawmakers, however, are expected to vote to raise that ceiling this fall. At the end of September, the country's total debt--which is an accumulation of all annual deficits to date plus other obligations--stood at $11.9 trillion. The long-term view In August, the OMB projected a 10-year deficit of $9 trillion, assuming President Obama's 2010 budget proposals are put in place. A deficit of that magnitude means the debt held by the public would approach 82% of gross domestic product. That's double the 41% recorded in 2008. Most budget experts blanch at the thought, especially given that the country's fiscal future was already a source of concern before the economic crisis because of expected shortfalls over time in funding for Medicare and Social Security. The financial and economic meltdowns of the past year have accelerated the strain on federal coffers. So much so that now the 10- year forecast as well as the longer-term outlook are considered unsustainable, according to deficit experts William Gale and Alan Auerbach. In a report this week, the Government Accountability Office noted that the deficits born from the financial crisis are not the biggest crux of the problem. ``While a lot of attention has been given to the recent fiscal deterioration, the federal government faces even larger fiscal challenges that will persist long after the return of financial stability and economic growth,'' the GAO said. The GAO further cautioned that the yawning deficit problems should be addressed sooner rather than later. ``The longer action to deal with the nation's long-term fiscal outlook is delayed, the larger the changes will need to be, increasing the likelihood that they will be disruptive and destabilizing.'' The Obama administration is promising to put a plan in place to lessen the deficit when the economy recovers. ``It was critical that we acted to bring the economy back from the brink earlier this year. As we move from rescue to recovery, the president recognizes that we need to put the nation back on a fiscally sustainable path,'' said OMB director Peter Orszag in a statement. ``As part of the FY2011 budget policy process, we are considering proposals to put our country back on firm fiscal footing.''

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Madam Speaker, in each Congress since 2001, I have introduced legislation aimed at giving the Marine Corps the recognition it deserves as one of the official branches of the military. This year I introduced H.R. 24, a bill to redesignate the Department of the Navy as the Department of the Navy and Marine Corps. With much support, 309 Members of the House joined me in this effort. The language was passed earlier this year by the House as part of the House version of H.R. 2647, this year's National Defense Authorization Act. I must say that I am very pleased and honored by the group of people that have supported this legislation. The Fleet Reserve Association, the VFW, the National Marine League and the Marine Corps Parents have been so busy urging their Senators to support this bill, and I want to thank them for their hard work. Madam Speaker, I have been contacted by many members of the Marine Corps and Navy that support this bill and agree that this is all about the fighting team, the team named the Navy and Marine Corps. In this year's conference with the Senate, I had a Senator say to me that he had never received a letter from a marine supporting this bill. Madam Speaker, I would like to read you a letter that a former Marine Corps general wrote to this particular Senator at the beginning of this month: ``I am writing to ask for your support in passing H.R. 24 and S.R. 501, which have been referred to the Committee on Armed Services and would redesignate the Department of the Navy as the Department of the Navy and Marine Corps. ``For many years I have been an advocate of the Navy and Marine Corps team and believe this team is without parallel in any of the Armed Forces in the world. I proudly served alongside my Navy brothers-in- arms in both peace and conflict for 40 years. I would not recommend any action that I feel would belittle either partner of the team. ``Changing the name of the Department as proposed by this legislation would not demean the Navy, but would recognize marines as full partners in this team and would be a strong boost to their morale. In fact, the Department and the Secretary represent both services, the Navy and the Marine Corps, and this legislation would provide a name that mirrors the fact. ``Thank you for your consideration and for your continued and valuable service to our Nation.'' After 8 disappointing years, I hope one day the Senate will join me in supporting and bringing proper respect and acknowledgment to the fighting team of the Navy and Marine Corps. I want the supporters of this bill to know that there will be a tomorrow. I'm not going anywhere. And I will continue to fight until the Marine Corps gets the acknowledgment it deserves. In closing, I want to thank the many House Members who have supported this legislation for 8 years, and I want to close by asking God to please bless our men and women in uniform. I want to ask God to bless the families of our men and women in uniform. I want to ask God in his loving arms to hold the families who have given a child dying for freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan. And I close by three times and most sincerely asking God: God please, God please, God please continue to bless America.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you and both sides for bringing this legislation to the floor today, the Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act. I got a call last January from a wife of a marine. The marine had been to Iraq twice. And she called me and said, Congressman, we cannot participate in this fine program that's been presented by the Congress of the United States. She said, My husband is getting ready to go back for his third tour. Is there something you can do to help our family? I went ahead and wrote a letter to Mr. Rangel and asked him to please, as this session started, to please consider making this necessary change so that our military and their families could take part in this wonderful program of first-time buyers where they get a benefit of $8,000. I want to say to the lady, thank you for the service that you and your husband are giving to this country. And to all those in uniform, thank you for your service. And for those that might benefit from this wonderful bill that's on the floor today, and the families that will benefit, I say to both sides, the Democrats and the Republicans, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Camp, and all the members of Ways and Means, thank you for bringing this bill to the floor of the House.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding project funding I received as part of H.R. 3293, the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010: Rep. Walter B. Jones Project: Metabolic Institute Recipient: East Carolina University Account: Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA)--Health Facilities and Services Amount: $222,000 Explanation: The funding will allow the Metabolic Institute at East Carolina University to develop a clinical research center and laboratory to advance the Metabolic Institute's study of new technology and medical treatments for obesity and diabetes. Diabetes is an epidemic: diabetes is the sixth leading cause of death in the U.S., afflicts more than 7 percent of the population, and cost our economy about $174 billion in 2007 alone, according to the American Diabetes Association. The Metabolic Institute will continue to build on East Carolina University's pioneer metabolic advancements, including the Greenville Gastric Bypass, to explore the question of why diabetes disappears in four out of five patients with the disease after they undergo gastric bypass surgery.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Diane Lynch, a great North Carolinian and a great educator, upon the occasion of her August 31st retirement from the Public School System in my State. All of us in Congress know, or should know, that educating our youth is key to insuring a prosperous future. Diane Lynch, of the Moss Hill Community of Kinston, North Carolina, dedicated her entire working life--some thirty-six years--to the ideal of imparting the very best education possible to young people. For Diane, educating young people was an imperative that she fulfilled tirelessly every day, even when doing so was sometimes thankless and unappreciated. Diane Lynch is an example to all of us of the power of personal commitment. Her professionalism, dedication, perseverance and love served very well, not only her students and co- workers, but also the hundreds of families whose lives she touched and improved. Starting as a teacher in 1973, and then rising to Assistant Principal, then Principal and finally to Associate Superintendent, Diane's career spanned thirty-six years. Her energy and love of education will be sorely missed. Congratulations to Diane Lynch for her long and valuable service. Madam Speaker I ask that an article about Diane Lynch's retirement, which appeared in the August 18, 2009 edition of the Kinston Daily Free Press be submitted in its entirety. [From the Kinston Daily Free Press] Saying goodbye (By Chris Lavender) Diane Lynch, long-time teacher and principal and current associate superintendent of Lenoir County Schools, will soon say goodbye to a career she has developed for the past 36 years. Lynch will retire from the school district Aug. 31, after making a decision this summer to walk away. Lenoir County Schools Superintendent Terry Cline announced Tuesday that Lynch had decided to retire. The announcement was made during a Lenoir County Schools opening ceremony for staff held at Kinston High School. A majority of those in attendance weren't aware Lynch was stepping down, Cline said. Cline said the school board members were notified last Thursday of Lynch's retirement plan. On Monday, the school district's senior central staff and principals were notified. Lynch said there was no specific reason she decided to retire this month. ``It's just the right time,'' she said. Lynch said she plans to stay active in the school district until her final day. Lenoir County schools open for students Tuesday. She said she plans to visit several schools during opening week. Cline said he was reluctant to accept Lynch's retirement because of her value to the school district. ``I am happy for her but it's a sad day for Lenoir County Schools,'' Cline said. ``I can't replace her because she is a very special lady.'' Cline said he hasn't decided yet if the school district will hire an interim or full-time associate superintendent. A decision will come in the next few months. Cline said. Lynch began her career during 1973 with Wayne County Schools, where she taught elementary school. After several years there, she continued her career at Moss Hill Elementary School in Lenoir County. She taught at Moss Hill for nine years. Lynch later became assistant principal at La Grange Elementary School and then principal at Northwest Elementary School for 13 years. For the past three years, Lynch has served as associate superintendent. During her career, Lynch said she strived to help students excel and reach their goals. The personal connections she made with her students will last forever, she said. ``I am always satisfied when I see my former students in the community and we talk about good times,'' Lynch said. ``I was always fair and consistent and worked to earn the respect of my co-workers.'' Lynch said she doesn't know what she will do during her retirement. She said she is looking forward to a break from the daily grind. ``I'm going to rest for a few months,'' Lynch said. During their five years together, Cline said he developed a strong working relationship with Lynch. ``We cried and laughed together,'' Cline said. ``There were things that I told her that I didn't tell my wife because I didn't want to get my wife involved in the politics. Superintendents have very lonely positions.'' Lynch acknowledged she had a great working relationship with Cline. She thanked him for working to make Lenoir County Schools a better place for students.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, this year, I introduced H.R. 268, a bill to make sure that our military chaplains of all faiths and religions are able to close a prayer in any way they see fit. America was built on religious freedom, and that is why I am truly disturbed by a letter that was sent to Secretary Gates from the Freedom from Religion Foundation. This organization has taken exception to the fact that while speaking on the anniversary of D-day in France, U.S. Military Chaplain Thomas MacGregor closed a prayer in the name of Jesus Christ. This is just another example of how this country's Judeo- Christian values have been under assault. As I think my colleagues know, I am a man that respects all faiths, whether it be Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and I would be just as upset if a chaplain from a non-Christian religion came under the same attack. I respect the rights of nonbelievers just as I respect the rights of believers. It is a sad day in America when a military chaplain is criticized for closing his prayer in a way that is true to his faith. In closing, with our young men and women fighting for religious freedom for people overseas, it is our duty to protect our own military chaplains and respect the faith of each of them. Mr. Speaker, before I close, I do this frequently on the floor of the House because my heart aches for those over in Afghanistan and Iraq. I ask God to please bless our men and women in uniform. I ask God to please bless the families of our men and women in uniform. I ask God, in His loving arms, to hold the families who have given a child dying for freedom in Afghanistan and Iraq. And I ask God to please bless the President of the United States with wisdom, strength and courage to do what is right for America. And I close three times, God please, God please, God please continue to bless America.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Madam Speaker, in each Congress since 2001, I have introduced legislation aimed at giving the Marine Corps the recognition it deserves as one of the official branches of the military. This year, I introduced H.R. 24, a bill to redesignate the Department of the Navy as the Department of the Navy and Marine Corps. Then the Secretary of the Navy would be the Secretary of the Navy and the Marine Corps. On June 25, 2009, the language of H.R. 24 was passed by the House as part of H.R. 2647, the House version of this year's National Defense Authorization Act. In a matter of days, Members of the Senate and House Armed Services Committee will meet to work out a final version of this bill, and the language of H.R. 24 will become law if the Senate agrees to the House position. Right now, Madam Speaker, the Senate is opposed to this language. With the help of Senator Pat Roberts, a former marine who introduced S. 504, a companion bill in the Senate, and the bill's 308 cosponsors in the House, I'm hopeful that this will be the year the Senate will support the House position and the Marine Corps will be recognized as an equal partner of the United States Navy and Marine Corps team. During my 15 years in Congress, whenever a chief of naval operations or commandant of the Marine Corps has come to testify before the House Armed Services Committee, I have heard that the Navy and the Marine Corps are ``one fighting team.'' If this is true, then why should not the team bear the name of Navy and Marine Corps? Changing the name of the Department of the Navy to the Department of the Navy and Marine Corps is a symbolic gesture, but it is important to the team. This change has received support from at least three former Navy Secretaries, the Marine Corps League, Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Fleet Reserve Association, MarineParents.com, and many other individuals and groups. As a Chicago Tribune editorial titled, ``Step up for the Marines,'' noted: ``The Marines have not asked for complete autonomy. Nothing structurally needs to change in their relationship with the Navy, which has served both branches well. The Corps only asks for recognition. Having served their Nation proudly and courageously since colonial days, the leathernecks have earned a promotion.'' In closing, Madam Speaker, I would like to show what this change could mean to the members of the United States Marine Corps, including the 41,000 marines and nearly 3,000 sailors stationed in my district at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune. On August 19, 2009, in the Jacksonville Daily News, an article titled ``Navy Secretary Visits Local Troops'' described Secretary Mabus' recent visit with Camp Lejeune marines and sailors deployed to Iraq. It was touching to read about the Secretary's visit to see firsthand the terrific work of the United States Navy and Marine Corps team in Iraq. Yet I couldn't help but think the team's unity would be better illustrated if the title could have read, ``Secretary of the Navy and Marine Corps Visits Local Troops.'' Madam Speaker, right now I'm going to show that this is the actual news release. It says, Secretary of the Navy visits local troops, and it talks about the marines in Iraq and the Navy. If this should ever become law, what it would have said: ``Navy and Marine Corps Secretary Visits Local Troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.'' Madam Speaker, before I close, I regret that the Senate does not see the importance of giving this recognition to the Marine Corps. So if I can close by saying this, as I do every night on the floor, God, please bless our men and women in uniform. God, please bless the families of our men and women in uniform. God, in your loving arms, hold the families who have given a child dying for freedom in Afghanistan and Iraq. Dear God, I ask you to please bless the President of the United States with the wisdom and courage that he will do what's right for this country. And three times I will ask, God please, God please, God please continue to bless America.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of HR 3326, Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2010. Republican Walter B. Jones Project: U.S. Navy Cancer Vaccine Program Recipient: OncBioMune, LLC, 17050 Medical Drive, 4th Floor, Baton Rouge, LA 70816 Account: Research & Development, Navy Amount: $3,000,000 Explanation: The U.S. Navy Cancer Vaccine Program was initiated in 2005 and was the first cancer vaccine program conducted at the Naval Health Research Center. It has received congressional appropriations beginning in FY06. Currently, U.S. military health authorities estimate that in the past year alone, $42 million was spent on direct health care costs in the military healthcare system related to prostate cancer. Continued development of the vaccine through this project will save the lives of military personnel suffering from cancer as well as reduce health care costs in the military healthcare system. Repulican Walter B. Jones Project: North Carolina Counter Drug Task Force Growth Recipient: North Carolina National Guard, 4105 Reedy Creek Road, Raleigh, NC 27607 Account: Drug Interdiction And Counter-Drug Activities, Defense Amount: $1,000,000 Explanation: The National Guard Counter-Drug Program conducts a full spectrum campaign that bridges the gap between and among DoD and Non- DoD institutions in the fight against illicit drugs and transnational threats to the Homeland. The program includes support for analysis and interdiction support, law enforcement training and anti-drug education and awareness. Currently, the North Carolina National Guard is unable to fully support drug-law enforcement agencies in the State because the program funding has not maintained pace with inflation and pay increases. This appropriation will fund additional manpower and equipment to support the Drug Demand Reduction program, DEA case loads, and the Marijuana Eradication Program.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Madam Speaker, on June 25, 2009, I joined Congressman Jim McGovern in offering an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act. The amendment would have required the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to Congress which outlines an exit strategy for our Armed Forces in Afghanistan. During the floor debate that day, I, along with other Members, talked about the history of Afghanistan and about the difficulties that other nations have had there--from Alexander the Great to England and Russia. As just one measure of the hazardous conditions facing our troops in Afghanistan, 99 American servicemembers have been killed in Afghanistan since June 25, 2009--the day we debated the amendment. While I regret that the amendment was not approved, I still believe it is critical for the current administration to clearly articulate benchmarks for success and an end point to its war strategy in Afghanistan. Last week, on September 1, 2009, conservative columnist George Will wrote an op-ed, titled ``Time to Get Out of Afghanistan.'' In it, he shares his insights on our Nation's current strategy in Afghanistan. I submit the full text of this op-ed for the Record. [From the Washington Post, Sept. 1, 2009] Time to Get Out of Afghanistan (By George F. Will) ``Yesterday,'' reads the e-mail from Allen, a Marine in Afghanistan, ``I gave blood because a Marine, while out on patrol, stepped on a [mine's] pressure plate and lost both legs.'' Then ``another Marine with a bullet wound to the head was brought in. Both Marines died this morning.'' ``I'm sorry about the drama,'' writes Allen, an enthusiastic infantryman willing to die ``so that each of you may grow old.'' He says: ``I put everything in God's hands.'' And: ``Semper Fi!'' Allen and others of America's finest are also in Washington's hands. This city should keep faith with them by rapidly reversing the trajectory of America's involvement in Afghanistan, where, says the Dutch commander of coalition forces in a southern province, walking through the region is ``like walking through the Old Testament.'' U.S. strategy--protecting the population--is increasingly troop-intensive while Americans are increasingly impatient about ``deteriorating'' (says Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) conditions. The war already is nearly 50 percent longer than the combined U.S. involvements in two world wars, and NATO assistance is reluctant and often risible. The U.S. strategy is ``clear, hold and build.'' Clear? Taliban forces can evaporate and then return, confident that U.S. forces will forever be too few to hold gains. Hence nation-building would be impossible even if we knew how, and even if Afghanistan were not the second-worst place to try: The Brookings Institution ranks Somalia as the only nation with a weaker state. Military historian Max Hastings says Kabul controls only about a third of the country--``control'' is an elastic concept--and `` `our' Afghans may prove no more viable than were `our' Vietnamese, the Saigon regime.'' Just 4,000 Marines are contesting control of Helmand province, which is the size of West Virginia. The New York Times reports a Helmand official saying he has only ``police officers who steal and a small group of Afghan soldiers who say they are here for `vacation.' '' Afghanistan's $23 billion gross domestic product is the size of Boise's. Counterinsurgency doctrine teaches, not very helpfully, that development depends on security, and that security depends on development. Three-quarters of Afghanistan's poppy production for opium comes from Helmand. In what should be called Operation Sisyphus, U.S. officials are urging farmers to grow other crops. Endive, perhaps? Even though violence exploded across Iraq after, and partly because of, three elections, Afghanistan's recent elections were called ``crucial.'' To what? They came, they went, they altered no fundamentals, all of which militate against American ``success,'' whatever that might mean. Creation of an effective central government? Afghanistan has never had one. U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry hopes for a ``renewal of trust'' of the Afghan people in the government, but the Economist describes President Hamid Karzai's government--his vice presidential running mate is a drug trafficker--as so ``inept, corrupt and predatory'' that people sometimes yearn for restoration of the warlords, ``who were less venal and less brutal than Mr. Karzai's lot.'' Mullen speaks of combating Afghanistan's ``culture of poverty.'' But that took decades in just a few square miles of the South Bronx. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, thinks jobs programs and local government services might entice many ``accidental guerrillas'' to leave the Taliban. But before launching New Deal 2.0 in Afghanistan, the Obama administration should ask itself: If U.S. forces are there to prevent reestablishment of al-Qaeda bases--evidently there are none now--must there be nation-building invasions of Somalia, Yemen and other sovereignty vacuums? U.S. forces are being increased by 21,000, to 68,000, bringing the coalition total to 110,000. About 9,000 are from Britain, where support for the war is waning. Counterinsurgency theory concerning the time and the ratio of forces required to protect the population indicates that, nationwide, Afghanistan would need hundreds of thousands of coalition troops, perhaps for a decade or more. That is inconceivable. So, instead, forces should be substantially reduced to serve a comprehensively revised policy: America should do only what can be done from offshore, using intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, airstrikes and small, potent Special Forces units, concentrating on the porous 1,500-mile border with Pakistan, a nation that actually matters. Genius, said de Gaulle, recalling Bismarck's decision to halt German forces short of Paris in 1870, sometimes consists of knowing when to stop. Genius is not required to recognize that in Afghanistan, when means now, before more American valor, such as Allen's, is squandered. I would like to highlight just a couple of Will's key points. He wrote, ``The war already is nearly 50 percent longer than the combined U.S. involvement in two world wars, and NATO assistance is reluctant. ``The U.S. strategy is `clear, hold and build.' Clear? Taliban forces can evaporate and then return, confident that U.S. forces will forever be too few to hold gains. Hence nation-building would be impossible even if we knew how, and even if Afghanistan were not the second-worst place to try.'' Will further states, ``Counterinsurgency theory concerning the time and the ratio of forces required to protect the population indicates that, nationwide, Afghanistan would need hundreds of thousands of coalition troops, perhaps for a decade or more. That is inconceivable.'' Madam Speaker, on this same morning this op-ed was published, the retired Marine general Chuck Krulak, the 31st commandant of the Marine Corps, responded by writing an e-mail to Will. Madam Speaker, I submit the full text of the e-mail for the Record. September 1, 2009. Subject: Afghanistan Sir, I would imagine that your article, ``Time to Get Out of Afghanistan'' will result in some ``incoming'' on your Command Post. First and foremost, let me say that I am in total agreement with your assessment. Simply put, no desired end state has ever been clearly articulated and no strategy formulated that would lead us to achieve even an ill defined end state. A few points: 1. The strategy of ``clear, hold and build'' would lead one to believe that the US and its Allies are capable of coordinating the elements of national power needed to affect such a strategy. Nothing could be further from the truth. Just getting DOS and DOD on the same page is difficult enough . . . getting NGO's and nation building expertise into the fight is simply a non-starter in a country as dysfunctional as Afghanistan. 2. Your point about troop strength required to ``protect'' the population and carry out effective counterinsurgency operations is spot on. Instead of a surge of 21,000 troops, McChrystal would need a surge of hundreds of thousands. Not only would our Nation not support such a surge but, MOST distressing, the Military could not support such a surge. Not only are our troops being run ragged but, equally important and totally off most people's radar screens, our equipment is being run ragged. At some point in time, the bill for that equipment will come due and it will be a very large bill. 3. Typical of the 21st Century fight, we are fighting ideas as well as warriors. You cannot defeat ideas with bullets . . . you must defeat them with better ideas. For many reasons such as the dysfunction found in the Karzai government, the tribal nature of the country, the abject poverty of the average citizen, the inextricable link to Pakistan, we have been unable to come up with better ideas. We are systematically destroying the poppy fields . . . the country's major source of revenue. At the same time, we are trying to encourage other agricultural efforts. This is one of our ``better ideas''?? Sad as it is to say, we would do better to buy the poppy crop ourselves . . . ridding the world of a source of drugs and maintaining the Afghan economy. 4. What in Afghanistan is deemed in our Nation's vital interest? Seriously? Who is the enemy? Seriously? Is the enemy of the United States the Taliban? Is the enemy al Queda? We need to determine the answer to those questions immediately. One would think we would have answered them already but none of our actions to date would indicate that we have. Finally, your recommendation is sound. I would put ``hunter-killer teams'' along the borders and in suspected al Queda strongholds. I would support them with intelligence, logistics thru the use of parasail's, responsive airpower (need to be close), armed and unarmed (fitted with cameras, infrared, etc) drones, ``reach back'' capability for cruise missiles, and other capability as needed. The H-K Teams should be given minimal rules of engagement . . . when they identify the bad guys, they need to be empowered to take them out. Again, don't be dismayed by the people who disagree with you. There are many retired and active duty military who feel you hit the bull's eye. Semper Fidelis, Chuck Krulak, General, USMC (Ret), 31st Commandant of the Marine Corps. In the e-mail General Krulak expressed his ``total agreement'' with Will's assessment and concluded, ``There are many retired and active- duty military who feel you hit the bull's eye.'' The general also wrote, ``Simply put, no desired end state has ever been as clearly articulated and no strategy formulated that would lead us to achieve even an ill-defined end state. Instead of a surge of 21,000 troops, McChrystal would need a surge of hundreds of thousands. The military could not support such a surge. You cannot defeat ideas with bullets. You must defeat them with better ideas.'' Madam Speaker, President Obama is in the midst of reviewing a report by the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal. It is expected that this review will determine whether or not the President decides to alter the number of U.S. troops to Afghanistan. The men and women of our military who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan have done a magnificent job. Many have been deployed four and five times. Their desire to serve is greater than ever, but the stress placed on our all-volunteer forces and their families cannot continue forever. That's why it is so important for the current administration to articulate an end point to its war strategy rather than simply ordering another surge of troops. With that, Madam Speaker, I close by asking God to please bless our men and women in uniform. I ask God to please bless the families who have given a child dying for freedom in Afghanistan and Iraq. And I close by asking God, please, God, please, God, please continue to bless America.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, earlier this week I was saddened to read an article in the Marine Corps Times with the heading ``7 July suicides push Corps to record pace.'' I will submit that article for the record. The article states, ``At least seven Marines are believed to have killed themselves so far in July, putting the Corps on a record pace despite broad-based efforts introduced to reduce suicides.'' The Corps is on a pace for about 56 suicides in 2009, which would shatter a record set last year when the Corps lost 42 Marines to confirmed or suspected suicide. The article further states, ``Marine suicides have increased annually since 2006.'' [From the Marine Corps Times, July 30, 2009] July Suicides Push Corps to Record Pace (By Dan Lamothe, staff writer) At least seven Marines are believed to have killed themselves so far in July, officials said, putting the Corps on a record pace despite broad-based efforts introduced to reduce suicides. The deaths come as the service rolls out a new suicide- prevention program this week focused on getting sergeants and corporals to take a more active role in watching for signs that a Marine may be in danger of killing himself. Nine Marines killed themselves in June, and 33 have done so this year, said Maj. Carl Redding, a spokesman at Marine Corps headquarters. The statistics were discussed Monday at the Sergeants Major Symposium, an annual meeting of the Corps' top enlisted leaders in Washington. The 33 dead Marines put the Corps on pace for about 56 suicides in 2009, shattering a record set last year, when the Corps lost 42 Marines to confirmed or suspect suicides. ``We're looking at all options to get a handle on this,'' said Sgt. Maj. Carlton Kent, the Corps' top enlisted adviser. ``We're trying to pinpoint what we can do, and we're going to stay engaged until we find a fix for it.'' Marine suicides have increased annually since 2006, when 25 Marines killed themselves. Thirty-three Marines are believed to have committed suicide in 2007, Marine officials said. The recent numbers have alarmed Marine leadership, prompting additional ``all-hands'' prevention training in March that included videos made by commanders, a slideshow outlining recent statistics and an overview of warning signs shown by Marines at risk of killing themselves. On Monday, senior enlisted leaders discussed a next wave of suicide-prevention training that has been in the works for months. Noncommissioned officers throughout the Corps will be trained to watch for suicide signs more carefully, with ``master trainer'' sergeants who went through 3\1/2\ days of training in July at Marine Corps Base Quantico, Va., now fanning out across the service to teach NCOs how they can be a better help to at-risk Marines. The new training package will include a 30-minute video featuring professional actors portraying Marines, and 11 documentary film clips featuring Marines who considered killing themselves and survivors of Marines who did, the Corps' senior enlisted leaders were told Monday. It will focus in part on eliminating the stigma of reporting a Marine who is considering suicide, officials said. ``Peer groups have to recognize the signs at ankle level, not chest level,'' said Sgt. Maj. Michael Timmerman, the senior enlisted adviser with the Personal and Family Readiness Division at Marine Corps headquarters. Kent said he wants NCOs to feel empowered to report that a Marine in turmoil may be considering suicide, but he believes senior enlisted leadership and officers also need to be actively involved. ``We still have to provide the guidance, oversight and support,'' he said of senior enlisted leadership. ``We have to give [NCOs] the tools they need'' to prevent suicides. Unfortunately, the Army has reported a similar increase in suicides. The suicide rate among Army soldiers hit its highest level in three decades in 2008 when there were 128 confirmed suicides. Yesterday, at a hearing of the Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel, I was impressed with the comments by military leaders from each of the four services who described the steps they are taking to combat psychological stress among servicemembers. I was also pleased to read in the Marine Corps Times that the Corps has taken increased suicide rates seriously by rolling out a new suicide prevention program and implementing additional all-hands prevention training. However, I also believe that the policymakers in Washington have a role to play. With Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune and Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point in my district, I am well aware of the strain that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have placed on our Nation's marines and their families. Military officials have speculated that repeat combat deployments and the toll these deployments have taken on servicemembers' marriages and families have contributed to increased suicide rates. Mr. Speaker, I also believe that continuous war without a clearly defined goal is contributing to anxiety and depression among some of the members of our military. In recent days, I have come to the House floor to talk about our Nation's military involvement in Afghanistan and the importance of knowing the end point to our war strategy. After nearly 8 years in Afghanistan, President Obama's order for a surge of additional troops will certainly lead to more killed and wounded, more frequent deployments and more stress on our military and their families. That is the price of war. While American military personnel faithfully conduct their missions abroad, elected officials here in Washington also need to take seriously their responsibility to develop a viable, long-term strategy for these operations. I have spoken to many in the Army and Marine Corps who say our Nation needs an end point to its war strategy. Many servicemembers have gone to Iraq and Afghanistan more than once, and their desire to serve this Nation is greater than ever, but the stress placed on our all-volunteer forces cannot continue forever. That is why I will continue to urge the President to work with his military commanders and the Congress to articulate to our men and women in uniform what is to be achieved and to develop the best possible strategy for achieving our goals and wrapping up our military commitment in Afghanistan. I will also continue to work with my colleagues in Congress to ensure adequate funding for mental health programs for servicemembers and veterans. Before closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Department of Defense and our military leaders who are doing everything possible to help servicemembers who suffer from anxiety and depression. Mr. Speaker, as I do just about every night that I come to the floor of the House, I have to close this way, because I regret that I voted to send our troops to Iraq. I have signed over 8,000 letters to the families and extended families so that I could say to God, forgive me for making that decision. So my close will be this. God, please bless our men and women in uniform. God, please bless the families of our men and women in uniform. God, in Your loving arms, hold the families who have given a child dying for freedom in Afghanistan and Iraq. And, dear God, because America is in so much trouble, I will close three times by asking, God please, God please, God please continue to bless America.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Madam Speaker, last week on the House floor I mentioned a column that appeared July 19th, 2009, in the Raleigh News and Observer entitled, ``From Vietnam 1959 to Afghanistan 2009.'' The column was written by Joseph Galloway, a military journalist and coauthor of a book on Vietnam called ``We Were Soldiers Once . . . and Young.'' In his column, Galloway uses the history lessons of Vietnam as a cautionary tale to President Obama as he oversees America's military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. Galloway describes a time during the war in Vietnam in 1965 when Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara presented Lyndon Baines Johnson, President, with a top secret memo. It indicated that the United States had reached a decision point, with two available options. The first option was to arrange diplomatic cover and pull out of South Vietnam. The second option was to increase the number of American troops by 200,000, bringing the total to more than 500,000 Americans on the ground. Regarding this second option, McNamara stated, ``All we can possibly achieve is a military stalemate at a much higher level of violence.'' A couple of weeks later, Johnson assembled what he called the ``wise men'' for a brainstorming session on Vietnam; yet those who participated said there was no real decision of McNamara's option one. From that time, when Johnson chose to escalate and continue the war until its conclusion 10 years later, Americans suffered 56,000 more casualties. Madam Speaker, President Obama's administration has reached a similar decision point concerning Afghanistan. With regard to the Obama administration's escalation of troops in Afghanistan, Galloway states, ``Some smart veterans of both Iraq and Afghanistan, on the ground now or just back, say that at this rate we will inevitably lose the war in Afghanistan; that the situation on the ground now is far worse than Iraq was at its lowest point in 2006 and early 2007. They talk of a costly effort both in lives and national treasure that will stretch out past the Obama administration and maybe the two administrations after that.'' In his column, Galloway advises: ``Obama needs to call in the 'wise men and women' for a fish-or-cut-bait meeting. Let's hope that this time around, there's an absence of the arrogance and certainty of previous generations of advisers. Let's hope, too, that they will weigh very carefully all the costs of another decade or two of the war in Afghanistan.'' Madam Speaker, after nearly 8 years of U.S. military operations in Afghanistan, the President needs to outline a clear strategy for victory. I have spoken to many in the Army and Marine Corps who say our Nation needs an end point to its war strategy. While America's military personnel faithfully conduct their missions abroad, elected officials here in Washington should take seriously their responsibility to develop a viable long-term strategy for these operations. Many of these servicemembers have gone to Iraq and Afghanistan more than once, and their desire to serve this Nation is greater than ever. But the stress placed on our all-volunteer force and their families cannot continue forever. While the United States continues to devote its blood and treasure in Afghanistan, the Afghan Government has yet to purge itself of many who funnel support for the Taliban. Our men and women in uniform deserve to have the President work with his military commanders and the Congress to develop the best strategy for achieving our goals and wrapping up our military commitment in Afghanistan. Madam Speaker, as I do every night that I have the opportunity and privilege to speak on the floor of the House, my heart aches. I have signed over 8,000 letters to families who have lost loved ones in Afghanistan and Iraq because I regret that I voted to give the President the authority to go into Iraq. Madam Speaker, because of that, I want to close this way. I ask God to please bless our men and women in uniform. I ask God to please bless the families of our men and women in uniform. I ask God in His loving arms to hold the families who have given a child dying for freedom in Afghanistan and Iraq. And three times, Madam Speaker, because America needs the love of God, I close this way: God please, God please, God please continue to bless America.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding project funding I received as part of H.R. 3183, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2010: Rep. Walter B. Jones Project: Beaufort Harbor, NC Recipient: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers--Wilmington District Account: Operations and Maintenance Amount: $250,000 Explanation: The funding will allow for maintenance dredging of Bulkhead Channel, which is the main waterway entrance to the Town of Beaufort from the Morehead City Harbor Federal Navigation Project and the Atlantic Ocean. The Harbor is used annually by thousands of commercial fishing vessels, sport fishing vessels and recreational boaters, and its continued operation is critical to the regional economy. Rep. Walter B. Jones Project: Bogue Inlet, NC Recipient: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers--Wilmington District Account: Operations and Maintenance Amount: $325,000 Explanation: The funding will allow for maintenance dredging of Bogue Inlet. The inlet is used by commercial and charter fishing vessels, recreational boaters and the U.S. Coast Guard. Without dredging, the inlet will shoal up and become impassable, with dangerous consequences for the local economy and the safety of watermen. Rep. Walter B. Jones Project: Manteo (Shallowbag Bay), NC Recipient: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers--Wilmington District Account: Operations and Maintenance Amount: $3,945,000 Explanation: The funding will provide continued maintenance dredging of Oregon Inlet. Without dredging, the inlet channel would quickly become impassable to many of the Coast Guard and commercial and recreational fishing vessels that depend on it for access to the Atlantic Ocean, and the local economy would be hurt severely. Rep. Walter B. Jones Project: Morehead City Harbor, NC Recipient: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers--Wilmington District Account: Operations and Maintenance Amount: $9,500,000 Explanation: The funding will be used to perform maintenance dredging to the minimum width within the entrance channel, which is critical for maintaining safe navigation for the commercial and recreational vessels that use the channel to access Morehead City Port. Dredged material would be placed along the adjacent shorelines of Ft. Macon St. Park and Atlantic Beach, which would protect communities from future storm events. The funds would also be used to continue the Dredged Material Management Plan, which is necessary in light of new information concerning the harbor maintenance project's impacts to adjacent coastal environments articulated in the Corps' Section 111 report (2001) and a separate report prepared for Carteret County by an independent coastal engineering firm. Rep. Walter B. Jones Project: New River Inlet, NC Recipient: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District Account: Operations and Maintenance Amount: $700,000 Explanation: The funding will be used to provide for continued maintenance dredging of New River Inlet, whish is the only waterway connecting New River to the Atlantic Ocean. The inlet is in the heart of Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base, and proper maintenance of the channel is essential to Marine Corps training and operations. It is also important to Eastern North Carolina's commercial fishermen and recreational boaters.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding project funding I received as part of H.R. 3288, the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010: Rep. Walter B. Jones Project: To extend 10th Street from Dickinson Avenue to Stantonsburg Road in Greenville, NC Recipient: North Carolina Department of Transportation Account: Federal Highway Administration--Transportation & Community & System Preservation Amount: $500,000 Explanation: The project will extend 10th Street from its current terminus at Dickinson Avenue to Stantonsburg Road at Memorial Drive. This will significantly reduce traffic congestion in the downtown Greenville area. It will also provide a major east-west thoroughfare to meet the demands of cross-city traffic, as well as a direct route from US-264 to downtown Greenville and East Carolina University (ECU). It will also provide a direct connection between ECU and its medical school. Congress recognized the importance of the 10th St. Connector by authorizing it for $7.1 million in SAFETEA-LU, P.L. 109-59.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, on July 16 of 2009, I spoke on the House floor to express my thanks to the United States Marine Corps for their help in exonerating the late Lieutenant Colonel John A. Brow and the late Major Brooks S. Gruber, who was a resident of Jacksonville, North Carolina. On April 8, 2000, these men were the Marine pilots of the MV-22 Osprey that crashed in Marana, Arizona. The mishap occurred during a training mission as part of a test phase to determine the aircraft's suitability for the Marine Corps. Seventeen other Marines were killed in the crash. From that day until today, I've worked with many aviation experts in the Corps and outside the Corps who helped me reach the conclusion that these pilots were not at fault for the crash. Over the past 9 years, many times, both on TV and in the print media, inaccurate reports have spread misinformation by faulting the pilots and calling the crash as pilot error. That's why it's so important to set the record straight. So in 2009, I asked the Marine Corps to include in the official military personnel files of Lieutenant Colonel Brow and Major Gruber a memo which exonerates them from any responsibility for the mishap. The memo includes 17 facts regarding the crash which were developed based on my review of official investigations and public records as well as extensive discussions with aviation experts. The evidence shows that the fatal factor in the crash was the aircraft's lack of a vortex ring state warning system and the pilots' lack of critical training regarding the extreme dangers of VRS onset in the Osprey. Mr. Speaker, Lieutenant Colonel Brow and Major Gruber and their families are dishonored by the assertions that the air crew were at fault for this fatal crash. That's why I am grateful that the Marine Corps has accepted the relevance of these facts, and on February 20 of 2009 they included my memo in the personnel files of these two Marines. To finally bring this tragedy to a conclusion and to remove the stigma that has been unfairly attached to these two pilots, I have written the Navy to ask that they do the same thing as the Marine Corps did in doing the right thing by including this memo in the official safety investigation report of this mishap. Mr. Speaker, I am entering into the record my letter to Rear Admiral A.J. Johnson, dated June 11 of 2009, which includes my request and the 17 facts about the crash. As of this afternoon, I am very disappointed to say that I still have not received a response to this letter. Again, Mr. Speaker, the letter was dated June 11 of 2009. My request to the Navy is simple and the facts have not been disputed. We have just over a week until the House adjourns for the August work period. I will have to consider pursuing other options if the Navy fails to approve my request. If necessary, I will ask that the crash investigation be reopened, and I will take legislative action to clear the names of these two pilots. Mr. Speaker, I sincerely hope that the Navy will follow the example of the Marine Corps and help properly honor the sacrifice of these pilots who bravely gave their lives in service of this country. And with that, Mr. Speaker, as I do frequently, I will ask God to please bless our men and women in uniform in Afghanistan and Iraq. I will ask God to bless the families of our men and women in uniform. I will ask God in His loving arms to hold the families who have given a child dying for freedom in Afghanistan or Iraq. And, Mr. Speaker, as I do in closing, three times I will ask God, please God, please God, please God, continue to bless America. Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, June 11, 2009. Rear Admiral Arthur J. Johnson, Commander, Naval Safety Center, Norfolk, VA. Dear Rear Admiral Johnson: Thank you for your response to my letter of April 21, 2009. Notwithstanding your regulations regarding the purpose of the Naval Aviation Mishap Safety investigations, I am convinced that the Memorandum of the Record (Memorandum) must be included in the AMB report and JAGMAN investigation as a matter of public record. Over the last several years, numerous articles and stories referencing the April 8, 2000 crash of the V-22 Osprey have incorrectly identified Lieutenant Colonel Brow and Major Gruber as the cause of the accident and have brought unmerited mental hardship on their families. I outlined two of these incidents in my previous letter. As a reminder, the press release issued by the Marine Corps attributed the accident to the pilot's ``extremely rapid rate of descent.'' Statements such as this and the incomplete nature of the AMB report and JAGMAN investigation have formed the basis for the public's perception of the role of the pilots in this unfortunate accident and must be supplemented with clarifying language. For example, the JAGMAN stated that the aircraft found itself in vortex ring state (VRS) condition with no apparent warning to the aircrew. It was not until after the accident that Naval Air Systems Command called for a new flight limitation, pilot procedures, and a cockpit warning system for VRS. Clearly, the record must reflect this reality. Your response stated that safety investigations ``are conducted to determine root causes and identify corrective actions, not to assign blame or document accountability.'' In the case of the Osprey accident, the process of determining root causes and identifying corrective actions led to assigning blame to the pilot and co-pilot by outside organizations because the role of VRS has not been given its proper emphasis. If investigations undertaken after completion of the accident report place the root cause of the accident on other causes, there is reason to acknowledge that and include such a finding in the AMB report and JAGMAN investigation. There were many subsequent investigations into the safety of the Osprey and the dangers of VRS. Therefore, the process of investigating this accident is not ``closed to outside influences.'' Insights gained after the completion of an accident report can appropriately be appended to an official safety or investigative report. Everyone can appreciate the desire to close an official investigation. However, subsequent developments clearly demonstrate that the accident report was incomplete. There is a legitimate basis for correcting what was determined in order to promote public justice and remove the stigma attached to the pilot and co-pilot. In discussions with experts within and outside of the military, additions to closed investigations happen frequently. If you do not agree to place the Memorandum in the AMB report and JAGMAN investigation, I request that you specifically identify whether any of the 17 facts contained in the Memorandum are inaccurate. Inclusion of the Memorandum in the Official Military Personnel Files of these brave Marines is insufficient. Thank you for your service to our nation. I look forward to your response. Sincerely, Walter B. Jones, Member of Congress.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, this past Sunday, I read a column in the Raleigh News and Observer, entitled ``From Vietnam 1959 to Afghanistan 2009.'' The column was written by Joseph Galloway, a military journalist and co-author of a book on Vietnam called, ``We Were Soldiers Once and Young.'' [From the News & Observer, July 19, 2009] From Vietnam 1959 to Afghanistan 2009 (By Joseph L. Galloway, McClatchy-Tribune Information Services Bayside, Texas.--It was just about half a century ago, on the night of July 8, 1959, that the first two American soldiers to die in the Vietnam War were slain when guerrillas surrounded and shot up a small mess hall where half a dozen advisers were watching a movie after dinner. Master Sgt. Chester Ovnand of Copperas Cove, Texas, and Maj. Dale Buis of Imperial Beach, Calif., would become the first two names chiseled on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial-- the first of 58,220 Americans who died in Vietnam during the next 16 years. The deaths of Ovnand and Buis went largely unnoticed at the time, simply a small beginning of what would become a huge national tragedy. Presidents from Harry Truman to Dwight Eisenhower to John F. Kennedy to Lyndon B. Johnson to Richard M. Nixon to Gerald R. Ford made decisions--some small and incremental, some large and disastrous--in building us so costly and tragic a war. The national security handmaidens of those presidents, especially those who served Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon and Ford, were supposedly the best and brightest that Harvard and Yale and Princeton could contribute. Presidents right up to today's like to surround themselves with such self-assured and certain men, men whose eagerness to find war the answer to most problems often grows in direct proportion to their lack of experience in uniform or combat. This small history lesson can be read as a cautionary tale to President Barack Obama's team as it oversees an excruciating slow-motion end of one war, Iraq, and a pell- mell rush to wade ever deeper into another one in the mountains and deserts of remote and tribal Afghanistan. The story grows out of a battle in the very beginning of the American takeover of the war in South Vietnam in the fall of 1965 when a defense secretary, Robert S. McNamara, counted the bodies and the beans and offered his president two directly opposing options. In the wake of the Ia Drang Valley battles of November 1965--the first major collision between an experimental airmobile division of the U.S. Army and regular soldiers in division strength from the People's Army of North Vietnam-- President Johnson ordered McNamara to rush to Vietnam and assess what had happened and what was going to happen. Up till then, just more than 1,000 Americans, mostly advisers and pilots, had been killed in Vietnam since Ovnand and Buis. Then, in just five days 234 more Americans had been killed and hundreds wounded in the Ia Drang. McNamara took briefings from Gen. William Westmoreland, the top U.S. commander in Vietnam, and from Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge and assorted spy chiefs and diplomats. Then he flew to An Khe in the Central Highlands and was briefed on the Ia Drang battles by then Lt. Col. Hal Moore, who had commanded on the ground in Landing Zone XRAY in the Ia Drang. On the plane home to Washington, McNamara dictated a Top Secret/Eyes Only memo to Johnson dated Nov. 30, 1965. In that report he stated that the enemy had not only met but had exceeded our escalation of the war and we had reached a decision point. In his view there were two options: Option One: We could arrange whatever diplomatic cover we could arrange and pull out of South Vietnam. Option Two: We could give Gen. Westmoreland the 200,000 more U.S. troops he was asking for, in which case by early 1967 we would have more than 500,000 Americans on the ground, and they would be dying at the rate of 1,000 a month. (He was wrong; the death toll would reach over 3,000 a month at the height of the war). ``All we can possibly achieve (by this) is a military stalemate at a much higher level of violence,'' McNamara wrote. On Dec. 15, 1965, the president assembled what he called the ``wise men'' for a brainstorming session on Vietnam. He entered the Cabinet room holding McNamara's memo. He shook it at McNamara and asked: ``Bob, you mean to tell me no matter what I do, I can't win in Vietnam?'' McNamara nodded yes; that was precisely what he meant. The wise men sat in session for two days. Participants say there was no real discussion of McNamara's Option One--it would have sent the wrong message to our Cold War allies--and at the end there was a unanimous vote in favor of Option Two--escalating and continuing a war that our leaders knew we could not win. Remember. This was 1965, 10 years before the last helicopter lifted off that roof in Saigon. It's a hell of a lot easier to get sucked into a war or jump feet first into a war than it is to get out of a war. There's no question that Obama inherited these two wars, Iraq and Afghanistan, from the Bush/Cheney administration. But the buildup in Afghanistan and the change in strategy belong to Obama and his version of the best and brightest. The new administration has dictated an escalation from 30,000 U.S. troops to more than 60,000, and even before most of them have actually arrived commanders on the ground are already back asking for more, and why not? When you are a hammer everything around you looks like a nail. Some smart veterans of both Iraq and Afghanistan, on the ground now or just back, say that at this rate we will inevitably lose the war in Afghanistan; that the situation on the ground now is far worse than Iraq was at its lowest point in 2006 and early 2007. They talk of a costly effort both in lives and national treasure that will stretch out past the Obama administration and maybe the two administrations after that. Obama needs to call in the ``wise men and women'' for a fish-or-cut bait meeting on his two ongoing wars. Let's hope that this time around, there's an absence of the arrogance and certainty of previous generations of advisers. Let's hope that they choose to speed up the withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq and get out before the Iraqi people and leaders order us to leave. Let's hope, too, that they weigh very carefully all the costs of another decade or two of war in Afghanistan. Failing that, they should at the very least begin an immediate drive to increase the number of available beds in military and Veterans Administration hospitals and to expand Arlington National Cemetery and the national military cemeteries nationwide. Mr. Speaker, perhaps the column's most salient point is its description of a time in 1965 when Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara presented President Lyndon Baines Johnson with a top secret memo. It indicated that the United States had reached a decision point with two available options. The first option was to arrange diplomatic cover and to pull out of South Vietnam. The second option was to increase the number of American troops by 200,000, bringing the total to more than 500,000 Americans on the ground. Regarding this second option, Mr. McNamara stated, ``All we can possibly achieve is a military stalemate at a much higher level of violence.'' I want to repeat that. Regarding the second option, Mr. McNamara stated, ``All we can possibly achieve is a military stalemate at a much higher level of violence.'' From that time when President Johnson chose to escalate and to continue the war until its conclusion, America suffered 56,000 more casualties. Mr. Speaker, President Obama's administration has reached a similar decision point with regard to Afghanistan. Last month, on June 25 of 2009, I joined Congressman Jim McGovern in offering an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would have required the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to Congress which outlines an exit strategy for our Armed Forces in Afghanistan. While I regret that this amendment was not approved, I still believe it's critical for the current administration to clearly articulate benchmarks for success and an end point to its war strategy in Afghanistan. The men and women of our military who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan have done a magnificent job. Many have been deployed four or five times. Let's not forget, as General Petraeus has said, ``Afghanistan has been known over the years as the graveyard of empires. We cannot take that history lightly.'' That is why it is so important for this current administration to have an end point to its strategy in Afghanistan. This strategy must be articulated sooner rather than later so we can avoid going down the path of other failed empires, and so we can avoid the tragedy and the mistake of Vietnam, when elected officials in Washington never articulated an end point or an understanding of what was to be achieved. Mr. Speaker, I have Camp Lejeune and Cherry Point Marine Air Station, Camp Lejeune being a Marine base, and I have Seymour Johnson Air Force Base. I've talked to many of all ranks in the Marine Corps. They're willing to go back and to go back again and again and again, but we're getting to the point where we're about to break our military. It is time that the new administration has an end point to whatever we're trying to achieve in Afghanistan. With that, Mr. Speaker, before I close, as I do frequently on the floor, I tell you without pride that I've signed over 8,000 letters in the last 6 years because of my mistake in giving President Bush the authority to go into Iraq. So I close tonight by asking God to please bless our men and women in uniform. I ask God to please bless the families of our men and women in uniform, and I ask God, in his loving arms, to hold the families who have given a child dying for freedom in Afghanistan and Iraq. Mr. Speaker, I close by asking three times: God, please, God, please, God, please continue to bless America.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the outstanding individuals of the Old Guard located at Fort Myer, Virginia. The 3rd United States Infantry, proudly nicknamed the Old Guard, has served our Nation since 1784, making it the oldest active duty infantry unit in the United States Army. Since World War II, the Old Guard has served as the Army's official Honor Guard. Soldiers from the Old Guard protect Washington, D.C., escort the President, and conduct military ceremonies at the White House, Pentagon and national memorials in the capital, including funeral details and other special ceremonies at Arlington National Cemetery. Last month, I had the pleasure of spending the morning at Arlington National Cemetery and seeing the inside workings of the Old Guard. One of their most recognized duties is to provide sentinel at the Tomb of the Unknowns. Since April the 6th of 1948, the Tomb of the Unknowns has been guarded 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, regardless of weather. The sentinels rotate walks every hour in the winter and at night and every half hour in the day during the summer. They are all volunteers and considered to be the best of the Old Guard. Each soldier must be in superb physical condition, hold an untarnished military record, and be between 5 foot 10 and 6 feet 4 inches tall with the proportionate weight and build. During the trial phase, soldiers are required to memorize seven pages of Arlington National Cemetery history, and the knew sentinels learn the grave locations of nearly 300 veterans. The sentinels' duty time not walking is spent in the Tomb Guard Quarters below the Memorial Amphitheater, where they study cemetery ``knowledge,'' clean their weapons, and help the rest of their relief prepare for the Changing of the Guard. The guards also train on their days off. A portion of the Sentinels' Creed states: ``My dedication to this sacred duty is total and wholehearted. In the responsibility bestowed upon me never will I falter, and with dignity and perseverance my standard will remain perfection.'' Madam Speaker, it was a humbling experience to witness the sentinels' dedication and commitment to honoring all American servicemembers who are ``Known But to God.'' I encourage every American who visits our Nation's capital to stop by Arlington National Cemetery to pay tribute to the fallen military heroes of the past, and to witness the dedication of the Old Guard. I also encourage my colleagues in Congress to make the time to visit Arlington National Cemetery and meet with the fine soldiers of the Old Guard. Their motivation and dedication to service should truly fill every American with pride. And as I close, Madam Speaker, as I do many times on this floor, I ask God to please bless our men and women in uniform. I ask God in his loving arms to hold the families whose child has given their life for freedom in Afghanistan and Iraq. And I ask three times, God please, God please, God please continue to bless America.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, tonight I am on the floor to express my thanks to the United States Marine Corps. On April 8 of 2000, the late Lieutenant Colonel John A. Brow and the late Major Brooks S. Gruber of Jacksonville, North Carolina, were the marine pilots of an M-22 Osprey that crashed in Marana, Arizona. The mishap occurred during a training mission as part of a test phase to determine the aircraft's operational suitability for the Marine Corps. Seventeen other marines were killed in the crash. From that day until tonight, I have worked with many aviation experts in the Corps and outside the Corps who have helped me reach the conclusion that these pilots were not at fault for this crash. Unfortunately, many inaccurate reports have characterized the cause of the mishap as ``pilot error.'' To set the record straight, in 2009, I asked the Marine Corps to include in the official military personnel files of Lieutenant Colonel Brow and of Major Gruber a memo which exonerates them from responsibility for the mishap. The memo includes 17 facts regarding the crash, which were developed based on my review of official investigations and public records, as well as from extensive discussions with aviation experts. The evidence shows that the fatal factors in the crash were the aircraft's lack of a vortex ring state warning system and the pilots' lack of critical training regarding the extreme dangers of VRS onset in the Osprey. Lieutenant Colonel Brow and Major Gruber and their families are dishonored by the assertion that the aircrew was at fault for this fatal crash. Mr. Speaker, I am grateful that the Marine Corps has accepted the relevance of these facts. On February 20 of 2009, they included my memo in the personnel files of these two marines. To finally bring this tragedy to a conclusion and to remove the stigma that has been unfairly attached to these two pilots, I've asked the Navy to do the right thing, as the Marine Corps did the right thing, and include this memo in the official safety investigation report on this mishap. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I submit for the Record my letter to Rear Admiral Arthur J. Johnson, dated June 11, 2009, which includes my request and the 17 facts about the crash. Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, June 11, 2009. Rear Admiral Arthur J. Johnson, Commander, Naval Safety Center, 375 A Street, Norfolk, VA. Dear Rear Admiral Johnson: Thank you for your response to my letter of April 21, 2009. Notwithstanding your regulations regarding the purpose of Naval Aviation Mishap Saftey investigations, I am convinced that the Memorandum of the Record (Memorandum) must be included in the AMB report and JAGMAN investigation as a matter of public record. Over the last several years, numerous articles and stories referencing the April 8, 2000 crash of the V-22 Osprey have incorrectly identified Lieutenant Colonel Brow and Major Gruber as the cause of the accident and have brought unmerited mental hardship on their families. I outlined two of these incidents in my previous letter. As a reminder, the press release issued by the Marine Corps attributed the accident to the pilot's ``extremely rapid rate of descent.'' Statements such as this and the incomplete nature of the AMB report and JAGMAN investigation have formed the basis for the public's perception of the role of the pilots in this unfortunate accident and must be supplemented with clarifying language. For example, the JAGMAN stated that the aircraft found itself in vortex ring state (VRS) condition with no apparent warning to the aircrew. It was not until after the accident that Naval Air Systems Command called for a new flight limitation, pilot procedures, and a cockpit warning system for VRS. Clearly, the record must reflect this reality. Your response stated that safety investigations ``are conducted to determine root causes and identify corrective actions, not to assign blame or document accountability.'' In the case of the Osprey accident, the process of determining root causes and identifying corrective actions led to assigning blame to the pilot and co-pilot by outside organizations because the role of VRS has not been given its proper emphasis. If investigations undertaken after completion of the accident report place the root cause of the accident on other causes, there is reason to acknowledge that and include such a finding in the AMB report and JAGMAN investigation. There were many subsequent investigations into the safety of the Osprey and the dangers of VRS. Therefore, the process of investigating this accident is not ``closed to outside influences.'' Insights gained after the completion of an accident report can appropriately be appended to an official safety or investigative report. Everyone can appreciate the desire to close an official investigation. However, subsequent developments clearly demonstrate that the accident report was incomplete. There is a legitimate basis for correcting what was determined in order to promote public justice and remove the stigma attached to the pilot and co-pilot. In discussions with experts within and outside of the military, additions to closed investigations happen frequently. If you do not agree to place the Memorandum in the AMB report and JAGMAN investigation, I request that you specifically identify whether any of the 17 facts contained in the Memorandum are inaccurate. Inclusion of the Memorandum in the Official Military Personnel Files of these brave Marines is insufficient. Thank you for your service to our nation. I look forward to your response. Sincerely, Walter B. Jones, Member of Congress Enclosure.