Walter Jones

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, in 1947, with the National Security Act, the United States Congress clearly stated that we have four separate military services, the Army, the Air Force, the Navy and the Marine Corps. Too many times people, both in the military and outside the military, do not realize that we have four separate services. The Department of the Navy was created to be the department for two equal services acknowledged by law, the United States Marine Corps and the United States Navy. Both the Navy and the Marine Corps have proud heritages. In my service in Congress and in my seven terms on the Armed Services Committee, many times in hearings we hear the Navy admirals and the Marines generals stating for the Record, we are one team, we are one fighting team. Madam Speaker, it is time for the Marine Corps to be recognized as the other three services are recognized. As a great defender of freedom for America with H.R. 346, this is the fourth Congress that I have introduced legislation to change the name of the Department of the Navy to be the Department of the Navy and the Marine Corps. Madam Speaker, 121 of my colleagues last year cosponsored the bill. This year the bill is the same language. We are gaining large numbers from both parties who believe in the fairness of this legislation. I would like to share part of an editorial published last year in the Chicago Tribune, and I quote, ``No service branch shows more respect for tradition than the United States Marine Corps does, which makes it all the more ironic that tradition denies the corps an important show of respect: Equal billing with the other service branches.'' Madam Speaker, I submit for printing in the Record the entire editorial from the April 21, 2006, Chicago Tribune. [From the Chicago Tribune, Apr. 21, 2006] Step Up for the Marines No service branch shows more respect for tradition than the U.S. Marine Corps does, which makes it all the more ironic that tradition denies the corps an important show of respect: Equal billing with the other service branches. The Continental Congress ordered ``two Battalions of Marines'' to be raised in 1775 as landing forces for the Navy. The Marines have remained within the Navy on government organization charts ever since, even though the corps functions through wartime and peacetime as a separate branch in every other way. Like the Army, Navy and Air Force, the Marine Corps has its own command structure. Its commandant holds equal status with other members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, which happens to be chaired for the first time by a Marine, Gen. Peter Pace. Several Marine veterans and supporters have launched an online petition drive to support a bill proposed by Rep. Walter B. Jones. The North Carolina Republican, whose district includes Camp Lejeune, wants to fix the matter simply by changing the Department of Navy to the ``Department of the Navy and Marine Corps.'' Jones has twice passed similar measures in the House with bipartisan support, but the Senate was cool to them. Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner, a Virginia Republican, veteran and former Navy secretary, has promised ``fair consideration'' for the legislation. That's Senate- speak for a reluctance to commit. His reluctance seems to be rooted in a sense of tradition. But sometimes it's good to break with tradition. The War Department, for example, became the Defense Department after World War II. The Army Air Corps was elevated in 1941 to the Army Air Forces and in 1947 to the autonomous Air Force. 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. But sometimes it's good to break with tradition. The War Department, for example, became the Defense Department after World War II. The Army Air Corps was elevated in 1941 into the Army Air Force, and in 1947 to the autonomous Air Force. 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. Madam Speaker, I want to say more emphatically beside me is a poster, is a blow up of orders from the United States Navy to submit to the family of Michael Bitz, a Marine sergeant killed in Iraq. His family received a Silver Star for valor. He gave his life for this country. I have met his family, I have met his children, twins he will never know on earth because he died before they were born. You can see that the orders for Silver Star says at the top, the Secretary of the Navy, Washington D.C., and there is a Navy flag, but there is nothing about the Marine Corps about the heading. We took these orders and we want to show you how, if this bill should become law, how the fairness will show itself. If you take the orders for Michael Bitz, again, a marine who died for this country, his family received a Silver Star, and should this bill ever become law, this is what the orders will say: the Secretary of the Navy and Marine Corps, with the Navy flag and the Marine flag. Madam Speaker, before I close, this is only an issue of fairness. The Marine Corps has earned this distinction to stand with the other three services and be recognized as a separate service. With that, Madam Speaker, I ask God to please continue to bless our men and women in uniform. I ask God, in his loving arms, to hold the families who have given a child dying in Afghanistan or Iraq. And I close by asking God to please continue to bless America.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, in 1947, when the National Security Act became law, Congress declared that the Department of Defense consists of four distinct military services, the Army, the Air Force, the Navy and the Marine Corps. But the act spells out the mission of today's Marine Corps and clearly indicates that the Corps is a legal distinct military service within the Department of Navy; that is, the Marine Corps and the Navy are coequal partners. The Marines do not serve beneath the Navy, they are a team. There is not a subordinate relationship between the Chief of Naval Operations and the Commandant of the Marine Corps. They are equal partners of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and it is time the Department of Navy recognizes the equal status. Mr. Speaker, that is why I have again introduced legislation, H.R. 346, to change the name of the Department of the Navy to the Department of Navy and Marine Corps. I am encouraged that this change has been included in the House defense authorization bill for the past several years, but it has not been accepted by the Senate. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting the passage of this legislation, and I hope this year the House position will prevail in the Senate. This legislation is not about changing the responsibilities of the Secretary or reallocating resources, there is no cost to this change. Instead, it is about showing the Nation the true meaning of the department and recognizing the Marine Corps' extreme importance to our national security. When the President's top military adviser, General Peter Pace, is wearing the uniform of the Marine Corps, it is time to realize that change is long overdue. The Marines that are fighting today deserve this recognition. Sadly, in the past 4 years over 900 Marines have been killed while serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. When the Department of the Navy writes the families of Marines who have been killed, their families deserve to receive that letter from the Department of the Navy and the Marine Corps. Mr. Speaker, I have on the floor this afternoon an enhancement of the orders for the Silver Star for Sergeant Michael Bitz of the United States Marine Corps who was killed in the Iraq war for freedom. He was cited with a Silver Star received by his family after his death. I brought this to the floor to emphatically show the difference of what it is today and what it should be tomorrow. The first poster is an enlargement of the actual orders from the Secretary of Navy. And you can see the Secretary of the Navy, Washington, D.C., with the zip code and the Navy flag. Again, this was a Marine who died for this country. If you look at the second poster that is beside me, you will see what it can be if this bill becomes law and is accepted by the Senate and sent to the President for signing. The order should be a flag, the Navy flag, the Secretary of the Navy and Marine Corps with the Marine flag. Mr. Speaker, as I close, this is all about fairness and equality because there are four distinct services, the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps and the Air Force. I think it is only right and befitting that two great services that have such a tradition and a heritage be treated as partners, and that is what this legislation does, the Department of Navy and Marine Corps. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join us in this effort, and let's recognize two great services, the Navy and the Marine Corps, as partners and a team. With that, I ask God to please bless our men and women in uniform and their families. And I ask God to please hold in His loving arms the families who have lost a loved one dying for this country. And I ask God to continue to bless America

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, today is the 55th day of an injustice. This injustice began on January 17 of 2007 when two U.S. Border Patrol agents entered Federal prison. Agents Ramos and Compean were convicted last spring for shooting a Mexican drug smuggler who brought 743 pounds of marijuana across our border into Texas. These two agents were doing their job to protect the American people. They never should have been sent to prison. There are legitimate legal questions about how this prosecution was initiated and about how the prosecutors proceeded in this case. To prosecute the agents, the U.S. Attorney's Office granted immunity to a known drug smuggler. Homeland Security officials promised Members of Congress certain information about this case, but they could not provide the information. Reports have also indicated that the prosecutors may have withheld crucial evidence from the defense. The Drug Enforcement Agency reports revealed that the Mexican drug smuggler brought a second load of marijuana, 752 pounds, into the United States. But this information was kept from the jury and the public. Madam Speaker, over the past 6 months, dozens of Members of Congress have asked President Bush to listen to the American people and pardon these agents. I want the two agents and their families to know that we have not forgotten them and we will not forget them. Members of Congress will come to the floor to defend these agents, and we will continue to do so until they are pardoned. On February 7, 2007, Senator Diane Feinstein wrote Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy to request a committee investigation of this case. She wrote, and I quote the Senator: ``I strongly believe that the sentences in this case are too extreme given the criminal nature of the smuggler and his possession of large quantities of drugs and given the fact that he physically resisted at least one attempt by Agents Ramos and Compean to bring him into custody. ``In addition, to my knowledge, neither of the agents had prior convictions or any other aggravating circumstances to warrant particularly harsh treatment under the law. Yet these men were given sentences that some individuals who are convicted of murder would not receive.'' Madam Speaker, this is not a Republican or a Democratic issue, but it is an issue of fairness and justice. Chairman Leahy has already approved Senate hearings in this case. On February 23, 2007, I sent a letter to House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers asking for hearings on this case on the House side. I hope Congress will soon hold these hearings because it is time for justice to prevail over an injustice. Madam Speaker, before closing, I want to say to the White House and to the President, please listen to the American people. Please assure the American people that two agents who have done their best to help protect America will not be forgotten in prison, because they have no business being in prison. They should receive justice, not injustice.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the 50th anniversary school year of St. Egbert's Catholic School in Morehead City, North Carolina. The school has designated the theme of this important milestone: ``Celebrating 50 Years of Loving and Learning.'' St. Egbert's started its first year of operation in September 1956 with 46 children in grades kindergarten through four, and was officially dedicated in 1957. As a mission of St. Egbert's Catholic Church, the original teachers at St. Egbert's were a group of Spanish sisters known as the Daughters of Jesus. The original school, which was built for just $55,000, consisted of three classrooms and two other rooms that could be combined to serve as an auditorium. Since then, a second classroom wing has been added, as well as a computer lab. The school now serves grades kindergarten through eight. Many adults who once attended St. Egbert's have sent children to their alma mater, and now serve as dedicated parent volunteers at the school. Lesley Ferguson has served as St. Egbert's principal for 30 years, and was the first Catholic school principal in the Raleigh Diocese who was not a Catholic nun. Although St. Egbert's has grown and seen numerous changes over the past five decades, the school's philosophy and commitment to providing a quality education in a safe Christian environment remains unchanged. I congratulate the entire community of St. Egbert's Catholic School for reaching this tremendous milestone, and I wish the school many blessings and successes in the years ahead.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, in just a matter of weeks, thousands of Mexican trucks will stream across America's southern border and pour onto U.S. highways throughout the country. The U.S. Department of Transportation has given 100 Mexican trucking companies the green light to unleash an unlimited number of trucks onto the highways of America as part of a 1-year pilot program. Right now, Mexican trucks are only permitted to travel inside a 25- mile commercial zone along the U.S. border, but, soon, thousands of Mexican trucks will have full access to all the Nation's roads. Allowing low-paid drivers and substandard trucks to travel our Nation's roads will endanger the safety of American citizens. It will cost thousands of American jobs. As an extension of NAFTA, this program is just another example of U.S. trade policies that fail American workers. Before NAFTA, our Nation ran a trade surplus with Mexico. Now, the U.S. runs a $65 billion annual trade deficit with Mexico. The U.S. has lost 3 million manufacturing jobs in just the past 6 years. Launching this pilot program in the name of free trade is just one more example of how our government continues to give away American jobs. This program will not only hurt the economy but will put our national security at risk. The Department of Transportation claims that all of these Mexican trucks will be inspected by U.S. officials in Mexico and at the border, but, Mr. Speaker, less than 10 percent of all Mexican trucks entering the commercial zone are inspected now, only 10 percent. The U.S. cannot afford to send inspectors to Mexico when only a fraction of the hundreds of thousands of U.S. truck companies are inspected each year. With no guaranteed way to inspect the cargo of each and every truck, this program could easily aid terrorist activities, the entry of illegal drugs and illegal human smuggling. Mr. Speaker, for the sake of appeasing Mexico, our government is not protecting the national security of this country and the future of our economy. This program does nothing but endanger the safety of American citizens, and it is unacceptable. I hope the American people will continue to contact this administration to tell them of their outrage and disappointment. Mr. Speaker, before I close, this is from a heading in an eastern North Carolina paper that says, ``Bush Decision on Mexican Trucks Promotes Era.'' People are upset and mad. I want to read just very briefly, ``The news that Mexican trucks will be allowed to haul freight deep into the United States drew angry reaction Friday from labor leaders, safety advocates and Members of Congress.'' They said, ``Mexico has substandard trucks and low-paid drivers that will threaten national security, cost thousands of jobs and endanger motorists on the northern side of the Mexican border.'' Mr. Speaker, I hope that the people of this great Nation will listen to these discussions and debates by my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, because if we are concerned about national security, we should not allow these trucks to have free access to the roads of the American people.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, today is the 49th day since two U.S. Border Patrol Agents entered Federal prison. Agents Ramos and Compean were convicted last spring for shooting a Mexican drug smuggler who brought 743 pounds of marijuana across our borders into Texas. These agents never should have been sent to prison. There are legitimate legal questions about how this prosecution was initiated and how the prosecutor's office proceeded in this case. To prosecute the agents, the U.S. Attorney's Office granted immunity to the known drug smuggler. Homeland Security officials promised Members of Congress information about this case, then they could not provide the information. Recently, reports indicated that the prosecutors in this case may have withheld crucial evidence from the defense. Mr. Speaker, I am going to repeat that. Recently, reports indicated that the prosecutors in this case may have withheld crucial evidence from the defense. Drug Enforcement Agency reports have revealed that the Mexican drug smuggler brought a second load of marijuana, 752 pounds, into the United States. In fact, Mr. Speaker, this drug smuggler is not an American citizen, and he is suing the Border Patrol for $5 million. But, Mr. Speaker, the information I just mentioned, this information was kept from the jury and the public. Mr. Speaker, I have sent a letter to House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers asking for hearings on this case and, Mr. Speaker, other Members have made the same request of the chairman. And knowing the chairman to be a fair-minded person, I hope that he will hold hearings on this prosecutor in west Texas and how he looked into this case and brought this case to the jury, because, again, these Border Agents are heroes. They are not convicts; they are heroes. Over the past 6 months, dozens of Members of Congress have asked the President to pardon these agents. I myself have sent five letters to the President asking that he pardon these two agents. They are heroes of this country. They should not be in Federal prison. Mr. President, we are calling on you to listen to the American people and to the thousands of citizens who have petitioned you to pardon these men. It is time for justice to prevail over an injustice.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, today is the 48th day since a great injustice took place in this country. On January 17 of 2007, two U.S. Border Patrol agents entered Federal prison to begin serving 11- and 12-year sentences respectively. Agents Compean and Ramos were convicted last spring for shooting a Mexican drug smuggler who brought 743 pounds of marijuana across our border into Texas. The smuggler's van contained $1 million worth of marijuana. These agents never should have been prosecuted, but they are now handcuffed in Federal prison. The U.S. Attorney's Office granted immunity to the smuggler and prosecuted the agents almost exclusively on the testimony of an admitted drug smuggler who claimed he was unarmed. The drug smuggler received full medical care in El Paso, Texas, was permitted to return to Mexico, and is now suing the Border Patrol for $5 million for violating his civil rights. Mr. Speaker, he is not an American citizen. He is a criminal. Mr. Speaker, countless citizens and dozens of Members of Congress want to know why our government is on the wrong side of this case. Over the past 6 months, Members of Congress have repeatedly petitioned President Bush to pardon these agents. Since the agents' conviction, new details continue to emerge that call into question the prosecution and the outcome of this case. Recently, I sent a letter to the President detailing the troubling revelations that the prosecutors in this case may not have provided crucial evidence to the defense. This evidence includes a Homeland Security memo that states two supervisors at the scene knew about the shooting, but failed to report it. This contradicts the prosecution's claim that the agents knew they did something wrong and tried to cover up the shooting. Since then, Drug Enforcement Agency, DEA, reports have also revealed that the Mexican drug smuggler brought a second load of 752 pounds of marijuana, but the prosecutors succeeded in keeping this information sealed from the jury and the public. Citizens across this country and Members of Congress want to know why does the U.S. Attorney's Office in western Texas choose to go after law enforcement officers while protecting illegal aliens who commit crimes in this great Nation. Mr. Speaker, every day that these men remain behind bars is a travesty of justice. Because the President has so far refused to stand up for justice in this case, last month Agent Ramos was assaulted in prison. But, Mr. Speaker, the President has the power to immediately reverse this injustice by granting a pardon to these two innocent men. And, Mr. Speaker, before I close, I want to say that the American people have rallied behind these two Border agents who are heroes in this country, not criminals. And it is time that this White House wake up and listen to the American people.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, since I have been in Congress, America has presented this award on behalf of an extremely grateful Nation a total of 22 times, 13 of which were presented posthumously. Some recent heroes include Tibor ``Ted'' Rubin for actions in Korea, between 1950 and 1953. He received the award on September 23, 2005. Before that, the medal was awarded posthumously to the family of SFC Paul R. Smith on April 4 of 2005. For his actions in Iraq in 2003, bravely holding the enemy at bay so that the wounded could be safely carried out. Before that, the Medal of Honor was awarded posthumously to Army MSG Gary I. Gordon and SFC Randall D. Shughart for action in Somalia in 1993. Most recently, Cpl Jason Dunham, U.S. Marine Corps, was posthumously recognized with the Medal of Honor on Thursday, January 11, 2007 for sacrificing his life for his fellow Marines. Corporal Dunham bravely fought hand-to-hand with the enemy and selflessly hurled himself on a live grenade to protect fellow Marines. Just yesterday, President Bush awarded LTC Bruce P. Crandall the Medal of Honor in a White House ceremony. It was just this morning when several members of the DAV, Disabled American Veterans from my district, stated very simply, after meeting Colonel Crandall, and they said this was his comment when they said congratulations; thank you for what you did for our Nation. His comment was this, he just did what his country asked him to do. He was a volunteer. Throughout the history, there have been 19 double recipients who have twice received this high honor. Mr. Speaker, as this resolution so clearly states, the designation of a National Medal of Honor Day will raise the awareness of the American people regarding the significance and the meaning of the Medal of Honor, and help focus the effort on our national, State and local organizations striving to foster public appreciation and recognition of Medal of Honor recipients. Mr. Speaker, the Medal of Honor has touched the lives, directly or indirectly, of millions of Americans, but there are many more firsts or lone recipients of this award. For example: Douglas Munro was the only Coast Guard recipient. He was awarded the Medal of Honor for his actions at Point Cruz, Guadalcanal, on September 27 of 1942. Mary Walker was the only woman awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor at Bull Run on July 21 of 1861. Today, Mr. Speaker, there are four Medal of Honor recipients currently living in the State of North Carolina. Throughout its history, there have been 19 Medal of Honor recipients from my great state of North Carolina. Before I close, I would like to take just a couple of minutes, Mr. Speaker. There are many who have won this award, Medal of Honor, who are the heroes of this great Nation. One I would like to bring to mind is a friend of mine whose name is Walter Joseph Marm, Jr. I will not read the entire citation. I just want to read part of it before I close. Joe Marm, First Lieutenant, Army Company A, First Battalion, 7th Cavalry, 1st Cavalry Division (Airmobile). Place: Vicinity of la Drang Valley, Republic of Vietnam, 14 November 1965. Entered service at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Born 20 November 1941. And I want to read just two or three paragraphs from the citation, Mr. Speaker, as he received the Medal of Honor. Realizing that his platoon could not hold very long, and seeing four enemy soldiers moving into his position, he moved quickly under heavy fire and annihilated all four. Quickly, disregarding the intense fire directed at him and his platoon, he charged 30 meters across open ground and hurled grenades into the enemy position, killing some of the eight insurgents manning it. Although severely wounded, when his grenades were expended, armed with only a rifle, he continued the momentum of his assault on the position and killed the remainder of the enemy. Lieutenant Marm's selfless action reduced the fire on his platoon, broke the enemy assault, and rallied his unit to continue toward the accomplishments of this mission. Lieutenant Marm's gallantry on the battlefield and his extraordinary risk of his life are in the highest traditions of U.S. Army and reflect great credit upon himself and the Armed Forces of this country. With that, I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for this privilege to be part of this debate. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Skelton for giving me this great privilege of honoring these fine Americans. Today we join together in support of H. Con. Res. 47, as the United States House of Representatives, to honor what is arguably the most select group of Americans to ever wear the uniform of this great Nation. The Medal of Honor is this Nation's highest award bestowed on a member of the United States Armed Services who distinguishes himself or herself conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States. The Medal of Honor confers special privileges on its recipients, both by tradition and by law. By tradition, all other soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen, even higher ranking officers up to the President of the United States, initiate the salute of the Medal of Honor and its recipient. Mr. Speaker, I would like to discuss briefly the history of the Medal of Honor. The first award of the Medal of Honor was made March 25 of 1863 to Private Jacob Parrott and five others. Since then, there have been 3,463 Medals of Honor awarded for 3,456 separate acts of heroism performed by 3,443 individuals, including nine unknowns. Today there are 112 living recipients of the Medal of Honor, out of a population of more than 301 million Americans. Forty-six percent of the living earned their medals more than 50 years ago while serving in World War II, 36, or Korea, 15. There are 61 living who performed actions in Vietnam. The youngest recipient is Gordon R. Roberts, age 56. He was born June 14, 1950. He was 19 years old when he earned this high honor. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield to Dr. Burgess, the gentleman from Texas, for 4 minutes.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I am grateful to Chairman Skelton and Chairman Lantos for giving me the opportunity and the privilege to be part of this resolution, first of all, to thank our men and women in uniform for their service and, secondly, to question whether the sending of 20,000-plus troops to be policemen in Baghdad is the right thing or the wrong thing to do. I think this has been a great debate, no matter which side of the aisle you have been on or which position you have had. Madam Speaker, I want to say again, as I did 2 days ago, I know we cannot live in the past, but I will tell you, my heart has ached ever since I went to a Marine's funeral in April of 2003. Michael Bitz died a sergeant, a sergeant who left a wife and three children, twins that were born 2 weeks after he was deployed. He never saw them. At the funeral, the wife read the last letter word for word. She cried, and I cried too, by God. Then I started questioning. The intelligence given to the Congress and the American people, was it verified? Was it true? Then I started speaking out and asking for those who were on the inside, and I am going to read this to you today very quickly. General Gregory Newbold, Marine general, and as far as I am concerned, he is a hero because he gave up a third star because he could not sit there and see the manipulation of the intelligence to send our troops to Iraq, and I quote very quickly from an article that he wrote for Time magazine, April 9, 2006. ``Two senior military officers are known to have challenged Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on the planning of the Iraq War. Army General Eric Shinseki publicly dissented and found himself marginalized. Marine Lieutenant Greg Newbold, the Pentagon's top operations officer, voiced his objections internally and then retired, in part out of opposition to the war.'' I further read from his writing to Time magazine. ``From 2000 until October 2002, I was a Marine Corps lieutenant general and director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. After 9/11, I was a witness and therefore a party to the actions that led us to the invasion of Iraq, an unnecessary war. Inside the military family, I made no secret of my view that the zealots' rationale for war made no sense. And I think I was outspoken enough to make those senior to me uncomfortable. But I now regret that I did not more openly challenge those who were determined to invade a country whose actions were peripheral to the real threat, al Qaeda. I retired from the military 4 months before the invasion, in part because of my opposition to those who had used 9/11's tragedy to hijack our security policy.'' He further stated, ``To be sure, the Bush administration and senior military officials are not alone in their culpability. Members of Congress, from both parties, defaulted in fulfilling their constitutional responsibility for oversight.'' These are not my words. They are the words of two-star Marine General Gregory Newbold who gave up the third star because he could not stay and see what was happening to our military and to this country. Madam Speaker, I am proud to be part of this resolution. Debate has never hurt anyone. In fact, at the Armed Services meeting 2 weeks ago, a question was asked, either by my side or your side, Would this demoralize the troops? And General Pace and Secretary of Defense Gates said, no, it will not; they are smart, they understand. This is what freedom is all about is debate, disagreement, and discussion. Madam Speaker, our troops have done a magnificent job, and they cannot afford to continue to be policemen in a civil war. It is not fair and makes no sense at all. Seventy percent of the American people are opposed to this surge, and Madam Speaker, I want to read Retired Army Lieutenant General J. Garner, the first U.S. official in charge of postwar Baghdad. Madam Speaker, he said, ``I don't know that the Iraqi Government has ever demonstrated ability to lead the country, and we shouldn't be surprised. You'll never find, in my lifetime, one man that all the Iraqis will coalesce around. Iraqis are too divided among sectarian, ethnic, and tribal loyalties, and their loyalties are regional, not national.'' Let's pass this resolution, and God bless our men and women in uniform.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote a military expert, General John Abizaid, former commander of the U.S. Central Command, who said during a Senate Armed Services hearing on November 15, 2006, ``I believe that more American forces will prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future.'' General Abizaid is not in favor of this surge. He is a military expert. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey. And I apologize for my voice. Before I yield time, I want to take just a couple minutes and remind the House that, yes, we are here today to talk about resolution 63, but to remind the House that why we are in Iraq is the question. I want to start my comments by sharing with the House that I met with a real marine general hero that very few people on the floor know his name; his name is General Gregory Newbold. And I want to quote him from Time magazine, April 9, 2006, ``Why Iraq Was a Mistake.'' I will be brief. Two senior military officers are known to have challenged Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on the planning of the Iraq war. Army General Eric Shinseki publicly dissented and found himself marginalized. Marine Lieutenant General Greg Newbold, the Pentagon's top operations officer, voiced his objections internally and then retired, in part out of opposition to the war. Here, for the first time, General Newbold goes public with a full-throated critique. I want to quote this to the House from General Newbold. ``I was a witness and therefore a party to the action that led us to the invasion of Iraq, an unnecessary war. Inside the military family, I made no secret of my view that these zealots' rationale for war made no sense, and I think I was outspoken enough to make those senior to me uncomfortable. But I now regret that I did not more openly challenge those who were determined to invade a country whose actions were peripheral to the real threat, al Qaeda.'' I mention that, Mr. Speaker, because today this is an important debate. And, yes, my friends on the other side I respect and have great love and affection. But I remember in 1999, when we were on the floor as the majority party criticizing President Clinton for going into Bosnia, that was a nonbinding resolution. That is what the Congress is about: debate, disagreements, agreement, debate. That is our constitutional responsibility. Let me tell you what Karen Hughes, who was speaking for then-Governor Bush, who is now President Bush, said about the nonbinding resolution. This was in The Washington Post, March 27, 1999. I quote Mrs. Hughes speaking for Governor Bush at the time, criticizing President Clinton, and this is a quote. ``If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain that they have a clear mission, an achievable goal, and an exit strategy.'' With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina, my colleague and friend (Mr. Coble).

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this resolution is, first of all, to thank our men and women in uniform. They are absolutely magnificent. They are the real heroes of America, not the football players, not the basketball players, and not the baseball players. It is our men and women in uniform, and that is what H. Con. Res. 63 says. We appreciate you. We will be with you today, tomorrow, and in the future. The second part is that we are opposed to the surge. Let me read very quickly, before I introduce the next speaker, General Barry McCaffrey before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on January 18, 2007, and I quote General Barry McCaffrey, former commander of the Southern Command. He said, ``There the current administration is going to try to muscle this thing out in the next 24 months with an urban counterinsurgency plan that I personally believe, with all due respect, is a fool's errand.'' That is a military professional. A military professional. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank Chairman Skelton and Chairman Lantos for allowing me to be part of this resolution, H. Con. Res. 63. Also I want to thank the 10 Republicans who came to the floor to join me today to support this resolution. In closing, I want to again say this resolution is simple and to the point. The most important point is to say, Thank you, men and women in uniform; you are great, you are magnificent, we are behind you 100 percent. The second part deals with the surge. Two very quick stories. Six months ago Gene Taylor and I went to Walter Reed. We went into a room that we were carried into and saw a mother with tears in her eyes, a father, and we shook their hands. Then the Army colonel took us to the bed to speak to the Army sergeant who had been wounded in Iraq. We thanked him. We told him he was a hero. And he was just great. His fiancee was sitting at the end, at the foot of the bed. We met her. Then he said, I don't know if my opinion matters to you gentlemen. And we assured him it did matter. It mattered greatly. He said, well, let me share this with you. I have been to Iraq three times. He said, I don't care if you are there 5 years or 10 years, you cannot change the people. If you look at the history, he is probably right. But then after he said that you cannot change the people, Mr. Speaker, he pulled the sheets down from his waist and we saw that above his knees his two legs were gone. In his third tour in Iraq he lost his legs. I close by sharing this in this debate. I quoted five generals that have said in the last 6 months this surge will not work, it is not the right policy answer. I don't think anyone can say it any better than retired Army General Jay Garner, the first U.S. official in charge of postwar Baghdad. January 7, 2007. This is his quote. ``I don't know that the Iraqi Government has ever demonstrated an ability to lead the country, and we should not be surprised. You will never find in my lifetime one man that all of the Iraqis would coalesce around. Iraqis are too divided among sectarian, ethnic and tribal loyalties'' he said, ``and their loyalties are regional, not national.'' Mr. Speaker, as I close, and this is my close, let's pass this resolution. Let's work with the President to find an end point to the strategy, and let's not put our men and women in the middle of a civil war to make them referees. God bless America, and God bless our men and women in uniform. Please, God, continue to bless this country.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English).

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, the Members of this House take great pride in saying that this is the people's House. An AP poll on January 11, 2007, says 70 percent of the American people are opposed to the surge. With that, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller).

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time we have?

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, this resolution 63 is first to thank the troops for their service, and we all support them. The second part of the resolution is to oppose the surge. I quote a great military general, Colin Powell: ``I am not persuaded that another surge of troops into Baghdad for the purposes of suppressing the communitarian violence, this civil war, would work.'' He supports our position. He opposes the surge. That is Colin Powell. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul). (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad).

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, would you please tell us how much time is left?

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Before I introduce my friend from Maryland, I want to read a statement from Marine General Joseph Hoar, former Commandant of U.S. Central, when he appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations on January 18 of 2007. This Marine general said, and I quote, the proposed solution is to send more troops, and it will not work. The addition of 21,000 troops is too little and too late. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), himself a former Marine, always a Marine, who served during Vietnam and was wounded for this country.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette). (Mr. LaTOURETTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in sadness to note the recent passing of a dear friend and colleague, Charlie Norwood. I want to extend to his wife Gloria and her sons, and their family, my deepest sympathy for their loss. I know how much Charlie loved his wife Gloria and his family.? I join my colleagues today on the floor of the House to honor his service in the House of Representatives, and to honor his memory. Charlie and I came to Washington with the class of 1994. We were elected to Congress in the same year and we came with the class that was going to change the way Washington operates. In the seven terms that I have served with Charlie, I gained a lasting friendship and respect for Charlie. Charlie certainly made an impact on the House of Representatives. He always fought for the causes for which he believed, and many times we were on the same side. In the last year of his service, as he was battling illness, he always had a smile for me when I would speak to him. And I know that he had a smile for anyone that came to say hello. As a man of faith, I know that Charlie is in heaven. But for those of us who had the privilege to know him, we will miss him until we meet again. He was an outstanding Congressman, and he will be missed.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, tonight I won't take nearly the 5 minutes that I have allotted, but I and many Members of the House have been trying to help two border agents, Border Agent Campion, and Border Agent Ramos, who are now serving 1 to 11 years in Federal prison, the other for 12 years in Federal prison for shooting a drug smuggler. What makes this so sad, quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, is these men have had a wonderful record of serving the American people on the borders of this country, trying to help defend America from those who want to come to this country illegally, and especially those who have drugs or may be terrorists, quite frankly. But these two men were found guilty in a Federal court, and I am afraid that all the information that could have been used to help these two men not go to prison was under seal. That is a legal issue, and I won't speak to that, but I will say that I want the people to know tonight, my colleagues here in the House, that the drug smuggler who had a record of smuggling drugs from Mexico to America was the one that they shot when he was trying to escape after his van crashed with 743 pounds of marijuana. These men thought they were doing their duty for this country, and therefore they shot at this drug smuggler as he was leaving. The bullet actually went through the buttocks and went out, and according to the medical examiner that meant that he was turned like he was going to face them and possibly, if he had a weapon, fire at them. They thought he had a weapon. Mr. Speaker, the sad thing is that Agent Ramos 2 weeks ago was beaten in a Federal prison. These men, their lives are at stake, and we call upon the White House to look seriously at this case. We think there are legal questions as to the indictment and to the process itself. We would like for the White House and the Attorney General's office to look seriously at whether these men should at least be given some type of pardon while their hearings are being heard. But we are calling on the White House to please look seriously at giving these two men an opportunity for pardon, because I do not know how we can say to the American people that our law enforcement, who are trying to protect this country from those who are invading this country, whether they be from Canada and Mexico, and yet with our border agents do the best job they can under very, very difficult situations, then they end up spending 11 and 12 years in Federal prison. Again, in closing, and I will be closing, we are asking the administration to look carefully at the possibility of a pardon. There are many Members of the House, both Republican and Democrat, that are concerned about this case. In fact, today, Senator Feinstein from California, a Democrat, called upon Mr. Leahy, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, to look into this case. Mr. Speaker, with that, I will close by asking the President to please show the families of Mr. Compean and Mr. Ramos that justice does prevail in America if you are trying to defend the Constitution and defend the people of America.