John McHugh

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to suggest that if we are talking about a targeted population here, perhaps a broad-based response is not the most efficacious we could adopt. Again, in the GAO 03-1004 report, 80 percent which obviously is an average that includes the 19-35, have coverage, which means 20 percent do not have coverage. So is this the best way to do it? In fact, GAO's final determinate was they seriously questioned this particular provision in the Senate bill, not referring to it specifically because it was not yet there, but questioning the provision of 24-hour-a-day, 7-day-a-week, 12-month-a-year coverage to Guard and Reservists not being the most appropriate response remains, whether it is 60 percent, 40 percent or 80 percent. However, as I mentioned, and as I said, I want to thank the ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for, as always, his compassion and his leadership and his concern. There is no Member in this House I respect more than the gentleman. We do need to make every effort we can to express our concern in our response to Guard and Reservists, so I would not urge Members to oppose this motion. We need to do the best job we can, in the context of the money we have available, and both the House and the other body are trying to work to that end in the defense authorization bill, and that is certainly, in large measure, led by the efforts of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton). I would urge my colleagues not to oppose this motion. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I rise to control the time in opposition.

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me say, I think it is fair to state from the outset that all of us in this distinguished body, the House of Representatives, are very strongly committed to ensuring an adequate, fair and really just level of compensation for those service members that my friend, and he is my friend and my colleague, from Texas, has so adequately and so appropriately mentioned, as they are bearing the leadership, as they are literally putting their lives in harm's way. Just yesterday, I had the very sad but high honor of attending a funeral for a 24-year-old specialist from my district, from the 10th Mountain Division who was killed in Afghanistan, and I think that any suggestion that this House would ever support any cut in diminution to the pay and to the support that we have been giving these troops would be a very, very wrong-headed suggestion. I do not believe any of us support that, and I know I certainly do not, and I commend the gentleman from Texas for bringing this forward. I have been to Iraq. I have seen the conditions firsthand. I have been to Uzbekistan. I have been to Afghanistan. I know what these young men and these young women and these brave men and women are going through, and certainly they are serving proudly and we must not, we should not and I feel very confidently that we will not allow these troops to suffer a loss of income and the history of how we have implemented these increases to the supplemental pay is the imminent danger pay and to the family separation pay is well-known, well-stated, and we do need to take action in the bill referred to in the gentleman's motion to instruct to ensure that there is no diminution of those pays and to that support. Having said that, there is a difference of approach. There is a difference as to how we focus this. The reality is, and I am stating this just for the record, Mr. Speaker, rather than to express any opposition to my friend's motion, is that under the Senate's proposal, we are not just dealing, for example, on family separation pay, with those who are in places like Bosnia and Kosovo, Afghanistan, the Philippines, Korea, Iraq. In fact, under the Senate's approach, if someone from my State of New York were deployed to one of the training centers for 30 days or more, they, too, would receive the separation pay, and it is the Department's position, given the difference in the cost of how the approach that they would prefer and how the approach the Senate prefers would be significant, about I believe $280 million, that that they wish to target it more precisely. I am persuaded by what the gentleman says and I am not going to ask a single Member of this House on either side of the aisle to oppose this motion. I, in fact, would encourage them to support it, if for no other reason than to significantly demonstrate the agreement that we all hold amongst ourselves that our brave men and women in combat and those facing these hardships should not suffer any diminution, but just for the House's knowledge, the Department has perhaps a position that none of us agree with but a few or none or all, but a position that does have some merit in these very difficult financial times when they want to target these. But I do want to say that as someone who has had, for the past two terms, the honor of serving as the chairman of first the Subcommittee on Military Personnel, and now the Subcommittee on Total Force, I will not support, and I believe I can speak for the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and all of the leadership of both the committee and the House, anything, anything that cuts by one cent the pay to our brave men and women who are serving in very dangerous places like Iraq and Afghanistan. So in the spirit of what the gentleman is trying to accomplish, I would urge my colleagues to support this motion, to vote for it and certainly to join us as we go forward in trying to ensure that the brave men and women who are serving us are fairly and adequately compensated. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, yield myself such time as I may consume. There are no Members in this House in whom I hold higher regard on issues of concern of military men and women and their families than the gentleman who just spoke, the distinguished ranking member. Certainly nothing he said here this evening would in any way change my attitude and my perspective. But I do think, again for the record, and in urging my colleagues still to vote for this motion, that another concern that the administration and the Department have expressed, and that I think at least merits our thoughts as we go forward, is that the Senate bill, as it is currently constructed and construed, actually treats two soldiers, to use one example, who are doing the exact same job, perhaps on the exact same patrol, whether it be in Sherkat in the mountains of Afghanistan, or be it on the streets of al Falusha, very, very differently. In the Senate bill, one member of that patrol would receive $75 added pay, the other would receive $250; and they are both exposed to the same danger. They are both exposed to the potential of the same fate. So I think we have got to remember that there are legitimate differences of opinion here. However, the objective that we all have and we all, I think, need to pursue is that of paying and compensating these brave men and women to the highest extent possible. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the gentleman for his comments. Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, so everyone understands, the House bill makes permanent the increases that the gentleman just mentioned for imminent danger pay from $150 to $225 and family separation pay from $100 to $250 a month. Not a single soldier, airmen, sailor, Marine, or even Coast Guard, if they happened to be deployed to that region, would ever lose a cent if they were assigned to Saudi, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan under the House bill either. There are some differences on the motion with respect to family separation pay and the application of imminent danger pay that I previously mentioned; but, again, none of us want to see those in direct harm's way lose that money. And I am very confident that under either bill that will not happen. I am very confident that under whatever agreement that comes out of this that that will not happen either. If we do not have an agreement by October 1, I feel absolutely certain we will either move a separate piece of legislation or do the conference committee agreement retroactively. So we are all on the same page there. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, again let me commend the gentleman for his concern. It is a concern that I have had an opportunity to work with and admire and benefit from during all of my years in Congress and certainly in our shared chairs of the Army caucus. The gentleman is doing good and important work here. For the record, I have been to Bosnia and Kosovo three times each, and things have gotten demonstrably better, but I do not think anybody would argue that is pleasant duty. I do think it is important to have the administration and the Department's position on the record here, and the gentleman gave an explanation of the reason and the construct behind the differentials were for a man on patrol, a single man would receive $75 in patrol to Crete or whatever, and the person next to him would receive $250, and it is by definition of the family, but the Department is making the argument that is, given the circumstances, too great a discrepancy and that under some of the constructs and legal definitions of what constitutes a family that if you are, for example, a single parent, noncustodial parent, nevertheless you have certain responsibilities and out of fairness, you do not get family separation pay. If you have a single soldier who is a substantial supporter of his elderly parents or her elderly parents, that does not meet the IRS definition technically of 50 percent support, you do not get family separation pay. So this is not just in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, an accounting measure by the Department to try to evade and avoid responsibility and equity in treating their soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and Coast Guardsmen differently or unfairly, but rather recognizing that definitions may not be as perfect as they should be. They want to make some changes in other pays that go equally to both categories of families as well as single to make sure that they all receive more. We can disagree with that. The House bill did not develop, it did not embody that position, but I do not think it is accurate or entirely fair, and I am not suggesting that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) did this, I do not think that their thoughts are really on point to suggest that the Department is being uncaring because I do not think that is their intent. Their intent is to more precisely target where the merit exists and to try to not what they feel, whether we agree or not is irrelevant, but what they feel is a discriminatory approach. Again, for the purposes of this House, for the purposes of the defense authorization bill, I think the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) makes some excellent points, and obviously those who spoke in support of him underscore those points. As the chairman of the subcommittee with the most direct responsibility, I do not disagree with one sentence, one paragraph, one period in any of those sentences, or certainly the motivation of the gentleman's instruction. In closing, I would urge my colleagues, as I have before, to join in support of the gentleman's motion. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall vote No. 376 I inadvertently cast a ``nay'' vote. I had intended to vote ``aye.'' Stated against:

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Chairman, very briefly, we deeply appreciate the consideration the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) has given to the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program and we know he understands the importance of this vital program. Many of us remain concerned, however, Mr. Chairman, about the direction as it is contained in this bill. As you know, prices this year for energy are up 30 percent for natural gas, 60 percent higher for heating oil, 25 percent higher for propane, and on and on and on. We certainly think that as the process continues, we need to look at this issue further, and we would, in spite of all your good efforts to this point, urge you to continue to recognize the impact that our Nation's current weakened economy and the high price of energy on low-income and fixed-income energy consumers is having. We would certainly hope that LIHEAP could be increased to avoid a crisis, and urge you respectfully, Mr. Chairman, a consistent supporter of this initiative, to consent to working toward that $2 billion in funding for LIHEAP as was agreed upon by the Senate.

Mr. McHUGH. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his consideration.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I want to thank my two colleagues and neighbors from the great State of Pennsylvania to the south for their hard work and leadership. It has been a pleasure to work with them. I want to echo their statements in support of the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), and the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the ranking member and other distinguished members. I think they have made this particular provision far better than the administration's original proposal. I am very sensitive and cognizant of the concerns that we just heard the subcommittee chairman voice. And clearly before we take the next step, we want to make sure we understand the full ramifications of what we are doing. Let me state a couple of things. First of all, I think there are few times in this Nation's history when this kind of initiative would be more inappropriate. Following September 11 the airline transportation industry was particularly challenged, and those in rural communities are especially under fiscal duress, 20 to 30 percent property tax increases in the making as we speak. Any added burden at this time, I think, would be particularly difficult to accommodate. The second is the question that the subcommittee chairman raised with respect to accrued savings. In my district I think we have a perfect example of where we have three communities that are partnered together in a single package. If this 10 percent cost share were to prevail, the one community that is the most efficient, the most effective, and has most to it would be affected by that 10 percent and would likely withdraw and the end percent, I would respectfully suggest, would actually be a greater outlay in subsidy by the Federal Government rather than savings. So I think the subcommittee chairman is right. We wanted to understand the full ramifications of this; and as we attempt to do that to conference and beyond, certainly, this is a very appropriate amendment. I thank the chairman and the subcommittee chairman and the ranking member for agreeing to it. Mr. CHAIRMAN, It is imperative that the House approve the amendment we offer here today. The cost-sharing provisions in the bill put at risk the very foundation of the Essential Air Service program. For those of us who have served in Congress for some time, it will be recalled that we have fought this battle to preserve air service to our rural communities many times. Each year, I join the fight to identify and enact funding to help maintain the program and, consequently, maintain air service to four--soon to be five--subsidized communities in Northern New York. As many of you are experiencing in your own States, budget deficits are running rampant and New York is no different; our counties and localities are suffering no less. I fear it will be an insurmountable burden for cash-strapped local governments already coping with property tax hikes in the 20-30 percent range. It is simply asking too much. This program is vitally important to our economy in rural America and I believe it is particularly important to continue fighting to see that it is fully funded. I have at least one community in the District I represent that is impacted by the cost-sharing provisions of this bill. Relying solely on mileage figures can be greatly misleading in determining the true distance and actual time when speaking about an area like Northern New York. Oftentimes snow can be found on the ground 8 months out of the year and the interstate highway that connects this EAS community and the small hub is all too frequently closed on a moment's notice due to service weather. While the suggested purpose of the cost-sharing provisions is to reduce the cost of the overall program, I question whether that will truly be the ultimate result. In my State, three of my EAS communities are served by one contract with one airline--a triple hit, if you will. The airline is paid on sum of money for serving three communities. If one of these communities is required to cost share, and is unable to do so, it will be knocked out of the program. What, then, happens to the subsidy determination of the other communities. The community no longer eligible has the highest enplanements of the three and, theoretically, the lower costs. Will the airline then require higher subsidies from the Federal Government to serve the two remaining communities? If so, the objective of saving Federal money won't be realized. I understand some believe that communities need to have this type of vested financial interest in the program so they will encourage usage of the service. I believe this, too, is an inaccurate representation. Rural EAS communities all across America already have a significant vested financial interest--through subsidization of their airport operations, capital investments, etc. It is true the cost-sharing provisions are not a requirement and there is a waiver provision. But be assured the Department of Transportation will make every effort to implement it. Otherwise, why make it an option? In closing, Mr. Chairman, let me say that I appreciate the Transportation Committee's commitment to the increase in the authorized funding level contained and to provide for an optional program that would allow interested communities to devise alternative transportation service for their residents, if they willingly choose to do so. That having been said, we must not cut off communities like those in Northern New York that have come to depend on this service. But that is exactly what will happen if cost-sharing is implemented. It is a slippery slope that I respectively suggest we do not want to go down. I strongly urge your support for, and passage of, the Peterson- McHugh-Shuster amendment to save the Essential Air Service program. The program is perhaps the singular most important asset to the economy recovery of our rural communities.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, my colleague on the Committee on Armed Services, for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman this is the 11th year in which I have had the great honor of serving on this very august, very important committee. And as happens every year, we obviously come to the floor with some disagreements, some perhaps that cause a great deal of controversy and a great deal of conflict amongst the various Members. But one thing that has been most heartening to me with respect to this committee has been the strong commitment on both sides of the aisle, both when my friends on the Democrat side were in the majority and now when the Republicans are in the majority, shared by both parties, and that is our interest, our primary commitment to the good, the welfare of the individuals throughout the various branches of the United States military, who, as has been seen so directly, particularly in recent months and years, fought the hard fight of freedom wherever the challenges arose. As someone who has had the distinct honor now for 3 years to serve first as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Personnel and now the Subcommittee on Total Force, I can say without equivocation that this bill is not just a good bill; it is absolutely essential to the continued welfare, to the continued interest of those brave men and women in uniform who wear the patch of the United States military. Because this is a bill that not only addresses the emerging lessons learned from the global war on terrorism and with the war in Iraq, but also it reflects the longstanding committee concerns about the inadequacy of military manpower and the damaging effect of excessive operations, both personnel and operations tempo. This bill reflects not just the Committee on Armed Services' belief in the need to be proactive in military personnel and policy matters, but also, I think, the belief of the entire United States population; and it acts to sustain the commitment and the professionalism of the men and women of America's magnificent all-volunteer armed services and, equally important, the families that support them and all of us. I would also say, Mr. Chairman, this bill contains legislative and funding initiatives that enhance the ability of the National Guard and Reserves to play their important role, to continue their integration as a vital irreplaceable part of the new total force that is the United States military. I would like to, Mr. Chairman, just highlight a couple of the initiatives that are contained in this legislation, many of which have been referenced by my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that are contained in the total force portion of this very important legislation. Active end strength increases of 6,240 above the requested levels, with the $291 million necessary to support those increases. We provide for growth in reserve component full-time support strength. Military pay raises that average 4.1 percent, continuing this Congress's, this government's commitment and recognition of the understanding that we need to do better by these brave men and women in terms of what we pay them. Reserve component pay and personnel policy enhancements that respond to the needs of the National Guard and Reserve personnel training in that total force. Continuation of war-time pays that were approved in fiscal year 2003 for members engaged in both Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. We have taken steps to open up the access to the commissaries and exchange benefits to better define and protect those important benefits and to also make them available on a more regular basis to reserve component members, those in vital portions of the total force concept. And we have provided a menu of health care improvements for the entire Department of Defense. This is a vitally important bill at one of the most critical junctures in our Nation's history. And I should say, Mr. Chairman, in closing, that none of these great outcomes is achieved in a vacuum. I want to pay particular words of appreciation to the ranking member on the subcommittee which I have the honor of chairing, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder), who has done just a great job in both leading and providing invaluable support and insight into our activities, and to all of the committee's staff on both sides of the aisle for their absolutely unwavering commitment to this initiative. This bill, at the end of the day, in spite of our disagreements as they may exist, needs to be supported. We need to continue our commitment to our great men and women in uniform who are protecting our freedoms each and every day.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, Congressman Chet Edwards and I take this opportunity today to honor General Eric K. Shinseki, the 34th Chief of Staff of the United States Army. As co-chairs of the House Army Caucus, Congressman Edwards and I have had the privilege of working with General Shinseki as he advanced and shaped the greatest land force in the history of the world--the United States Army. After more than 35 years service to the nation, General Shinseki will retire from the United States Army in June. Throughout his career, General Shinseki's actions have epitomized those of a soldier, leader, and consummate professional. Always mission-focused and soldier- centered, he upheld the Army's non-negotiable mission contract with the American people to fight and win the nation's wars, while never forgetting that it is the sacrifice and skill of the American soldier that makes those victories possible. General Eric K. Shinseki began his Army career after graduating from the United States Military Academy in 1965. He served two combat tours in the Republic of Vietnam. Despite receiving severe injuries while serving in Vietnam, General Shinseki went back into battle. Although he could have left the Army for other pursuits, General Shinseki remained on active duty out of his utmost respect for the young American soldier he encountered in Vietnam. General Shinseki excelled in command and staff assignments both in the continental United States and overseas. He commanded the 1st Cavalry Division at Fort Hood, Texas, became Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans at Headquarters Department of the Army, served as the Commanding General, United States Army Europe, Commander Allied Land Forces Central Europe; and Commander, NATO Stabilization Force in Bosnia-Herzegovina. In 1998, he assumed the duties as the 28th Vice Chief of Staff of the United States Army. On June 22, 1999, General Shinseki became the Chief of Staff of the United States Army. Since assuming that position, General Shinseki's commitment and leadership have contributed immeasurably to ensuring that America's Army is unmatched by any in our history in its skill and professionalism. Understanding the challenges posed by the 21st Century, General Shinseki began a transformation that will fundamentally reform the Army and position it for continuing excellence and achievement in the coming decades. Even while guiding the Army through this profound change, his leadership shaped this proud service's contributions and successes in the Global War on Terrorism, in Operation Noble Eagle--the defense of the American Homeland, in Operation Enduring Freedom--the attack on Al Qaeda's lair, and Operation Iraqi Freedom--the liberation of Iraq. He has melded one Army--active, National Guard and Reserve. Indeed, General Shinseki has successfully guided these monumental efforts and today leaves the Army, and the men and women who serve in it, in the very highest state of combat readiness. Mr. Speaker, the freedoms we cherish come at a price. Our nation has been fortunate to have men and women willing to come forward at times of crisis and challenge to pay that price. Among that number must be counted General Eric K. Shinseki. Through the sacrifices and dedication of Americans like him, our nation is able to continue upon the path of democracy and to strive for the betterment of mankind across the globe. It is with profound admiration and deep appreciation that we pay tribute to General Shinseki for all that he has done for the United States Army and this country. On behalf of a grateful nation, we thank General Eric K. Shinseki, the 34th Chief of Staff of the United States Army.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. The puns notwithstanding, I deeply appreciate his very kind comments, and, Mr. Speaker, I certainly welcome this chance in the next 5 minutes to add my words of great appreciation and approval to I think a very important piece of legislation and certainly one that I hope bodes well for the future, because we have before us here today a bipartisan agreement, as the ranking member so correctly stated, one that sets and bodes very well a brighter future for this full committee, and, I am hopeful, as someone who has had the honor and opportunity to delve into postal issues over the past several years, a fine start to continued bipartisan cooperation in terms of our continuing efforts to modernize the Postal Service in even broader measures. And I, too, deeply appreciate the great leadership, the very hard work of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), the chairman of the standing committee; the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the ranking member; and my long partner in these postal issues, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) for their very concerted effort to bring this very necessary and, as the ranking member and the chairman both said, very timely piece of legislation to the floor at this moment. Both the chairman and the ranking member, I think, have struck on the major points of importance her, very eloquently and very appropriately. But let me just highlight for a moment the very critical nature of what we are doing. Certainly to the Postal Service's future viability, its ability, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) said, to dedicate these savings that will accrue from what I hope the House is about to do here today toward all of those issues to ensure even better mail delivery service, to ensure their continued viability, to say to those some 800,000 dedicated Postal employees that we understand the great challenges that they face, that where the opportunities present themselves we are not just willing, but here through this bill apparently able to assist in that very worthy effort. But this is an important piece of economic development legislation as well, Mr. Speaker. Just as way of illustration, the Postal Service, the entire postal delivery sector today represents some $635 billion annually in direct economic activity in the production of mail and delivery services. Mail advertising alone generates some $725 billion in economic activity each and every year. And the parcels handled by the Postal industry, including all postal and parcel carriers, have a value exceeding $850 billion. A lot of us spend a lot of time, understandably and rightfully so, delving into the issue of what we can do to stimulate this economy, and this bill today in supporting those significant segments of our economic activity and our economic sector certainly would go a long way towards boosting the economic activities of this Nation as a whole into the future, and they certainly speak of the absolutely essential nature of this bill, S. 380. And my compliments to Ms. Collins and to Mr. Lieberman, our colleagues in the Senate, for their leadership and their great work. The gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) said it, and he is absolutely right. Time is of the essence. Without this initiative it is likely, in fact absolutely certain, the Postal Service would be forced to impose a potential rate increase in postage rates within a matter of weeks, and through this action we can forestall that, as has been said here repeatedly on the floor, until at least the fiscal year 2006 to help the Postal Service expand its declining mail volumes, to help it become even more viable into the future. And as the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and others have said, rarely do we have a chance on this floor to support a piece of legislation so uniformly supported by all the affected parties. The Postal Service, the administration, the postal unions, the very vital mail industry throughout this Nation all see this as the proper thing to do. I want to just say for the record, I understand and in large measure support what both the ranking member and the chairman have said with respect to the treatment of military pay. I think we do have to take a look at that. I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) for not clouding the issue at this particular moment, but there are others who have differing opinions, and I think we need to have a full discussion on that. So I urge the full support of the House on this bill.

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Let me express my appreciation, as well, to the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), for raising this issue. I think it is a very appropriate question, and it needs full and total debate, and also for having the diplomatic position of withdrawing it because of the problems. And I am certainly one who would support any measure that brings an added $18 billion or even more to the postal service and all the good that that could accrue. But I think it is important for the House to know as we set the stage here for future debate that, as the chairman said, the administration has serious concerns about this. And their argument is simply that if we are going to use the FERS model, which is indeed what applies here and accrues the nearly over-$70 billion in savings, that the FERS modeling should indeed be applied across the board, which under FERS does require military retirement to be paid by the agency instead of by the Federal Treasury. I should note as well, whether or not we agree with them, the OPM has, in meetings that all of us sat in on, our staffs, that if this provision were to be included, they would strongly recommend a veto which I think underscores again the gentleman from California's (Mr. Waxman) willingness to deal with this particular issue of the funding question and then get on to the equally important debate with respect to the military obligation. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank again the chairman and the ranking member for working this out. And certainly I am hopeful we can work with the administration to try to bring about an agreement that accrues to the most possible good for the postal service and its customers.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, as every Member of this body knows, we face a very unsettling time today. With war declared against Iraq, I fully recognize, respect, and share the concerns many people have about the crisis at hand throughout the Middle East and Central Asia. I view any conflict as a decision of the greatest consequence and an act that should be pursued only when all other possibilities have been fully exhausted. During my more than ten years as a Member of the House Armed Services Committee, I have had the opportunity to visit our brave military men and women in hostile environments from Haiti, to Bosnia, to Kuwait, to Afghanistan, and beyond. I have seen the devastation that armed conflict can impart and witnessed the pain of our wounded troops who gave so bravely and unselfishly of themselves in the service to our nation. I assure you these experiences profoundly affect how I view any decision to commit ourselves to battle, thus placing our troops in harm's way. With respect to military action against Iraq, I would hope we all agree that Saddam Hussein is evil personified and poses a serious threat to peace, both in the Middle East and throughout the world. As the United Nations inspectors verified prior to their forced expulsion in 1998, Iraq under Saddam Hussein has pursued a frightening program of chemical and biological weapons development coupled with an undeniable record of repeated aggression against its neighbors and the documented use of outlawed chemical weapons even on its own people. Saddam Hussein is one of the greatest threats to peace that the world has ever known. For the past 12 years, and through a total of 17 United Nations resolutions, Saddam Hussein has repeatedly defied international law and relentlessly pursued a program of developing and stockpiling weapons of mass destruction. Had we allowed Saddam Hussein to continue unchecked, there is every reason to believe his next act of aggression would have been of a nature and scope of unparalleled destruction. When the United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1441 on November 8 of last year, Saddam Hussein was given ``one last chance'' to comply with international law and fully disarm and destroy his weapons of mass destruction. Yet, Iraq failed to meet the requirements in substance of cooperative disarmament. In short, Saddam Hussein responded to the demands of the world community with defiance and deceit. With Saddam Hussein's shameful record as background, and the continued failure of Iraq to fully comply with the repeatedly affirmed requirements of disarming, on March 18th--consistent with the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002--President Bush informed Congress that further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone would not adequately protect our national security against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor likely lead to the enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions. The President informed the nation on the evening of March 19th that American and coalition forces had begun the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, free its people, and to defend the world from grave danger. Now that military action has commenced, I pray for our military personnel, for the liberation of the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein's tyranny, and for a world free from the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass murder. It is my sincere hope and desire that each and every American will stand behind our military personnel and their families during this difficult time. I think we can all agree that they deserve the respect and gratitude of the American people. An editorial recently published in my upstate New York congressional district directs readers to organizations involved in relief efforts. While the thrust of the editorial is an analysis of the efficacy of anti-war demonstrations, let me be clear that it is not my wish to suppress anyone's right to express him or herself. Instead, I want to share this editorial with my colleagues because I embrace the overall conclusion--that demonstrating support for our troops and contributing to relief efforts is something that each and every one of us can and should do, regardless of our feelings about the military operation. [From the Eagle Newspapers, March 26, 2003] Time For Protest Has Long Passed Even as our forces fight in Iraq, protesters in Upstate New York and elsewhere continue the futile banner waving that started months ago, when Saddam Hussein made it clear he would ignore United Nations mandates and President Bush quickened the march toward war. We make no suggestion that protestors shouldn't have a right to speak their minds, but protestors should realize that no sign, no chant, no assembled multitude will cease military action in Iraq. If the goal is to ensure the well- being of the Iraqi people, it's time to turn futile displays into real action. Several reputable organizations have been set up to aid in Iraqi relief efforts following the military strikes. The U.N. runs a Humanitarian Information Center for Iraq, which will help coordinate humanitarian efforts in that nation. Church World Service and World Vision are two Christian-based humanitarian organizations dedicating time and money to relief efforts. Support for our fighting forces is most important now. Our troops are following orders. Whether we approve or decry the actions of the Bush Administration, whether we believe one motivation over another, whether we think other countries' approval is important, we must honor the commitment of our troops. It's time to lay down the signs, the banners and the unproductive rhetoric and take action that can make a difference. For more information on relief organizations, visit www.agoodplacetostart.org, www.churchworldservice.org or www.worldvision.org. The Department of Defense website is another resource offering suggestions about how we can support our troops. It says: Thousands of Americans are asking what they can do to show their support for servicernembers, especially those serving overseas in this time of war. Below are Web sites for several organizations that are sponsoring programs for members of the Armed Forces overseas. While it would be inappropriate for the Department to endorse any specifically, servicemembers do value and appreciate such expressions of support: ``Gifts from the Homefront'' Certificates now allow you to send a gift certificate to a loved one, family member or dear friend associated with the military. These certificates are redeemable by Authorized Patrons of the PX/BX and are redeemable at all locations around the world including deployed areas. If you're looking for the perfect gift to give that special individual anytime and anywhere, then ``Gifts from the Homefront'' Certificates are the perfect choice, go to (http://www.aafes.com/docs/homefront.htm). Donate to ``Operation USO Care Package'' at (http:// www.usocares.org/home.htm). The Gift of Groceries program at (http:// www.commissaries.com/certificheek/index.htm) helps meet the family needs of our Guard and Reserve troops fighting the war on terrorism. Donate a calling card to help keep servicemembers in touch with their families at Operation Uplink at (http:// www.operationuplink.org). Send a greeting via e-mail through Operation Dear Abby at (http://anyservicemember.navy.mil) or (www.OperationDearAbby.net). Sign a virtual thank you card at the Defend America Web site at (http://www.defendamerica.mil/nmarn.html). The ``Stars and Stripes'' newspaper includes a daily ``Messages of Support'' section giving family and friends of deployed service members a chance to pass along greetings, announcements, and words of encouragement. Such messages (LIMITED TO 50 WORDS OR LESS) will be printed on a first- come, first-run basis. Messages may be sent to: (messages@stripes.com). Make a donation to one of the military relief societies: Army Emergency Relief at (http://www.aerhq.org) Navy/Marine Relief Society at (http://www.nmc.org) Air Force Aid Society at (http://www.afas.org) Coast Guard Mutual Assistance at (http://www.cgmahq.org). Support the American Red Cross Armed Forces Emergency Services at (http://www.redcross.org/services/afes). Purchase a Patriot Bond at (http://www.ustreas.gov). Volunteer at a VA Hospital to honor veterans who bore the lamp of freedom in past conflicts. Reach out to military families in your community, especially those with a loved one overseas. Please do not flood the military mail system with letters, cards, and gifts. Due to security concerns and transportation constraints, the Department cannot accept items to be mailed to ``Any Servicemember.'' Some people have tried to avoid this prohibition by sending large numbers of packages to an individual servicemember's address, which however well intentioned, clogs the mail and causes unnecessary delays. The support and generosity of the American people has touched the lives of many servicemembers, over 300,000 of whom are deployed overseas. Mr. Speaker, I trust my colleagues and my fellow Americans will find this information helpful. Showing our support for the men and women in uniform is the least we can do. After all, they are, at this very moment, putting their lives on the line to defend our freedom.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, as I have countless times before on the floor of this House, to talk about something very near and dear to my heart--Fort Drum and the brave men and women of the Army's 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry), the most frequently deployed division in the U.S. Army today. When I raise this topic, I take a particular amount of pride in reminding my colleagues that Fort Drum, which is the most modern military facility anywhere in the world, is situated within my upstate New York Congressional District. Since the early 1990s, soldiers from the 10th Mountain Division (LI) have participated in significant operations both at home and abroad, including Hurricane Andrew, the Northeast's Ice Storm of 1998, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and beyond. I have seen the men and women of the 10th Mountain Division (LI) in action. I have met many of the soldiers one-on-one and have been fortunate to speak with them during visits here at home and while the Division has been deployed around the globe. I am always impressed by their professionalism and the way they do their job without hesitation. The dedication, commitment, and heroism these men and women have is, perhaps, what is most remarkable about Fort Drum. Last week, people from across the country became familiar with Fort Drum as well. But sadly, our nation learned the importance of this Army post through news reports of a tragic helicopter crash that occurred during a training mission. We were all devastated on last Tuesday afternoon when we learned that a Black Hawk went down killing 11 soldiers and injuring two. Mr. Speaker, the soldiers who lost their lives on March 11, 2003 in the service of our nation are: Cpt. Christopher E. Britton, 27, from Ohio, assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 1st Battalion, 10th Aviation Regiment. Chief Warrant Officer 3 Kenneth L. Miller, 35, from California assigned to Bravo Company, 2nd Battalion, 10th Aviation Regiment. Staff Sgt. Brian Pavlich, 25, from Port Jervis, NY assigned to Charlie Company, 4th Battalion, 31st Infantry Regiment. Sgt. John L. Eichenlaub, Jr., 24, from South Williamsport, PA assigned to Charlie Company, 4th Battalion, 31st Infantry Regiment. Sgt. Joshua M. Harapko, 23, from Peoria, Axiz., assigned to Charlie Company, 4th Battalion, 31th Infantry Regiment. Spc. Lucas V. Tripp, 23, from Aurora, Colo., assigned to Bravo Company, 2nd Battalion, 10th Aviation Regiment. Spc. Barry M. Stephens, 20, from Pinson, Alabama, assigned to Bravo Company, 2nd Battalion, 10th Aviation Regiment. Pfc. Shawn A. Mayerscik, 22, from Oil City, PA, assigned to Charlie Company, 4th Battalion, 31st Infantry Regiment. Pfc. Tommy C. Young, 20, from Knoxville, Tenn. assigned to Charlie Company, 4th Battalion, 31st Infantry Regiment. Pfc. Stryder O. Stoutenburg, 18, from Missoula, Mont. assigned to Charlie Company, 4th Battalion, 31th Infantry Regiment. Pfc. Andrew D. Stevens, 20, from Rockingham, NH. assigned to Charlie Company, 4th Battalion, 31st Infantry Regiment. Mr. Speaker, those injured in the crash were: Spc. Dmitri Petrov and Spc. Edwin A. Mejia, both from Charlie Company, 4th Battalion, 31st Infantry Regiment. Mr. Speaker, we will continue to pray for these soldiers and their families during this difficult time. Our nation, the United States Army, and the people of Northern New York stand united with the families of the fallen and injured soldiers. While I know there are no words or deeds that can ever ease the pain and heavy burden the loved ones of these soldiers are experiencing, I want to pay tribute to those who have given their lives to the fullest measure as well as those soldiers injured in the line of duty. The North Country community has long viewed the soldiers stationed at Fort Drum as much more than just the defenders of our nation. They are our friends and neighbors. The outpouring of care and concern from area residents has been truly extraordinary. It is because we feel this loss, too. I want the injured soldiers and surviving families to know we share their grief and sorrow. The crash at Fort Drum was not the first introduction Americans have had with the Black Hawk helicopter. Mark Bowden's best-selling book and movie titled ``Black Hawk Down: A Story of Modern War'' was an account of the American military campaign on the streets of Mogadishu, Somalia when warlords there were wreaking havoc on their own people in 1993. As I have mentioned before, the 10th Mountain Division is the Army's most frequently deployed force, so it's not surprising that elements of the 10th played a significant role in that mission and were featured in the book's after-action report of the difficulties they faced. The title, ``Black Hawk Down'' comes from the ominous words that echoed from the radio transmissions almost as soon as the operation began. Whether we are talking about the Black Hawk that went down in Somalia nearly a decade ago, or the crash near Wheeler-Sack Airfield at Fort Drum, we know that things do not always go as planned in war or in warfighting training exercises. And now, as our Armed Forces face another military offensive overseas, the tragic accident at Fort Drum serves as a solemn reminder of the sacrifices our service men and women make on a daily basis. Whether it be in training or in battle, we do not always have the privilege of seeing their acts of heroism carried on CNN or in a motion picture. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues and all Americans to join me in paying tribute to these men. Let us also acknowledge the rest of the men and women in uniform and express our gratitude for their service to our nation. As they go forward with their assignments, both at home and abroad, they need our support and our prayers.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my support for the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act and the Aquatic Invasive Species Research Act that was reintroduced March 5, 2003. I want to first thank my colleagues, Mr. Ehlers and Mr. Gilchrest, for all of the hard work, initiative, and time that they and their staffs have invested in this much needed legislation. My district in Upstate New York is impacted, environmentally, economically, and socially, by the health and future viability of the Great Lakes. I know that New York State is only one of many states that directly feel the negative effects of invasive species. Aquatic invasive species are destroying the environment of the Great Lakes, damaging the Great Lakes fisheries, and costing taxpayers an estimated $138 billion annually. It is important that we set interim standards for balanced water treatment systems so that we can control and see a significant decline in the increasing threat posed by aquatic invasive species to our aquatic ecosystems and natural resources. These two pieces of comprehensive legislation would reduce the introduction of aquatic invasive species from ships and from other pathways through a variety of standards, research, and management programs. They complement one another in a variety of meaningful ways and I am hopeful that this body will be committed to moving these important pieces of legislation through the legislative process so that we, as a Congress, can properly address this problem. Aquatic invasive species is one of many reasons I have long stood in opposition to the Great Lakes Navigation System Review study that was recently funded in the Fiscal Year 2003 Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill. If expansion and dredging of the St. Lawrence Seaway were to occur, we would inevitably see the introduction of and exponential increase of aquatic invasive species. The reasons I voice my support today of the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act and the Aquatic Invasive Species Research are consistent and unwavering with the stand I have taken long before today on this incredibly important issue. I am committed to the discovery of methods, and to fully funding those methods, that would work to decrease, and I hope, one day, eradicate, invasive species of all kinds in the waters of our region.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. I thank the chairman for yielding, and I deeply appreciate the ranking member for yielding me some time as well. Mr. Speaker, it would be impossible for me to even begin to equal the eloquence of my colleagues who have spoken with such passion and such meaning over these past minutes with respect to the subject of this resolution. Our debt of gratitude certainly, as has been said time and time again, goes to the tremendous bipartisan leadership of two special individuals, two men in whom I hold so much admiration, the chairman the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and, of course, the ranking member the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton). This resolution in my mind, Mr. Speaker, would be warranted on any day of the week in any year you might choose. It is obviously particularly important now as we see the demands that we place upon these brave men and women increasingly grow each and every day. I too have had a chance to witness these incredible sacrifices. I had the honor just a few weeks ago to travel with a number of my colleagues throughout the European theater, meeting with the Reservists and Guardists and the active component and talked to the folks who too often we forget about, too often we take for granted and do not understand the sacrifices that they leave behind. The resolution speaks to it very eloquently: the hundreds upon hundreds of people already having given of their lives and by being wounded in combat, the dozens and dozens who have given their lives in its fullest measure, from the loss of life through the battle on terrorism, and yet never with a regret, never with anything more than pride and tears from their families. I think that this resolution, more than any others I have seen in many weeks on this floor, deserves the unanimous support of all of our colleagues; and I would certainly urge each and every one of the Members of this House to support it promptly here today. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this joint resolution and commend Chairman Hunter and Rep. Skelton for bringing it to the floor. Ever since the attack on the United States on September 11, 2001, the soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines of the U.S. military--be they active, National Guard, or reserve volunteers--have willingly gone into harm's way to carry out many courageous and successful operations against terrorism that have helped to make us at home safer and more secure. Threescore or more of our military people have died, and hundreds have been wounded or injured so far in this Global War on Terrorism, but all remain committed to seeing the mission through to the end. The fight against terrorism has added new missions to our Armed Forces that even prior to September 11th were greatly challenged. The 10th Mountain Division from Fort Drum in my district is a case in point. The deployment of division troops to the combat zone in Afghanistan had been matched by deployments of division units to Bosnia, Kosovo and the Sinai, as well as to homeland defense missions in the United States. As one 10th Division officer told the media: ``We like to say the sun never sets on the 10th Mountain Division patch. We are literally all over the map.'' During the 10th Mountain Division's deployment to Afghanistan, soldiers such as Staff Sergeant David A. Hruban, Staff Sergeant Randel Perez, Specialist Mark T. Henry, and Sergeant James Rissler of the Division's 1st Battalion, 87th Infantry, distinguished themselves in battle. Specialist Wayne Stanton, also of the Division's 1st Battalion, 87th Infantry, was wounded in the same battle and re-enlisted just last week, one year after being wounded, knowing full well that he may soon be redeployed to a combat zone. The heroism of these brave soldiers embodies the commitment and sacrifice of our military personnel. The ability of our military personnel to sustain the war is closely related to the willingness of their families, and in the case of reservists their employers, to continue making sacrifices. This resolution is an effort to recognize and acknowledge that sacrifice. Finally, Mr. Speaker, as we approach a possible war with Iraq, the Nation is about to ask our Armed Forces and their families for additional sacrifices. It is thus only right that all members support this joint resolution expressing our gratitude to those who are fighting for us, and reaffirming that Congress stands united with the President in the ongoing effort to defeat global terrorism.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, today I rise with a heavy heart, joining with the rest of the Nation in sorrow for the loss of the Columbia Shuttle and its seven heroic crew members. This tragedy, felt so deeply by all Americans, holds particular poignancy throughout my district. Both Payload Commander Michael Anderson and Pilot William McCool leave friends and family behind in New York's North Country. Michael Anderson was born along the Canadian border in Plattsburgh, NY, in 1959, as his father served at the former Plattsburgh Air Force Base. Less than 40 years later he would return as an Air Force officer himself, working to the rank of lieutenant colonel before joining the NASA astronaut program in 1995. Today, many men and women in Plattsburgh remember Michael fondly. Ricky Jenkins, a 71-year-old Vietnam War veteran who worked with Michael at the former Plattsburgh Air Force Base, said in the local newspaper soon after the shuttle's loss ``I was so very proud of him for doing what he was doing. He was a role model . . . I will never forget Michael.'' Hours after President Bush helped the astronauts' families celebrate their loved ones at a national service in Houston several weeks ago, the Plattsburgh community celebrated Michael's life in particular with their own candlelight vigil. A youth choir, Boy Scouts honor guard and presentation by Gov. George Pataki marked the celebration. Plattsburgh Mayor Dan Stewart spoke for the community earlier in the day. I share their sentiments here: ``This is our opportunity as the birthplace of a national hero to send our condolences. It's for them to know we are with heavy hearts in Plattsburgh.'' Less than 200 miles west of Plattsburgh, at the Army's Fort Drum base in Watertown, Warrant Officer Shawn McCool grieves for his brother, Columbia Pilot William McCool. Shawn McCool said his brother was one of his favorite people in the world, one of his greatest heroes. To the McCool family, and the families of all the astronauts we lost, I pledge that their loved ones' deaths are not in vain. Their enthusiasm and passion to explore the skies beyond us in the interest of mankind will always hold our deepest gratitude. And the space program their husbands, wives, mothers, fathers, sons and daughters died for will live on in their honor. As we begin to understand the circumstances surrounding Columbia's loss that Saturday morning over Texas, we must remember what NASA embodies. It was founded in 1958 to explore a new frontier, discover new heights and wonders in science. It is responsible for cutting-edge aeronautics research in a aerodynamics, wind shear, wind tunnels, flight testing and computer simulations. It has performed invaluable research on ways to dampen the effect of shock waves on transsonic aircraft. It has also launched a number of significant scientific probes that have explored the moon, the planets and other areas of our solar system. NASA has been responsible for the Hubble Space Telescope and other revolutionary space science spacecraft that enabled scientists to make a number of significant astronomical discoveries in our universe. I truly believe the lives the men and women of Columbia led, like the lives of those astronauts who went before them, exemplify the commitment that lies behind our nation's space program. In an e-mail transmission hours before the Columbia crew attempted to return home, Michael Anderson illustrated their passion with these words: ``It's kind of with mixed emotions that we get ready to come home. But we have enough fond memories to last us a lifetime.'' As the House Science Committee, led by my colleague and New York neighbor, Sherwood Boehlert, initiates its investigation, Congress pledges to focus on which policies may have contributed to this tragedy. We owe nothing less to those we now mourn, Michael Anderson, William McCool, Rick Husband, Laurel Clark, Kalphana Chawla, David Brown, and Illan Ramon.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I extend my great appreciation and admiration to the acting chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), and of course our full committee chairman, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), who has done such yeoman's tasks, as the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) just described so eloquently a few minutes ago, and to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder) for his support and his great work on this. Mr. Speaker, it is obvious from the conversations and statements that have been made here in recent minutes past that this evening's consideration of this particular conference report is surrounded by what I think is an understandable controversy on one issue, and that is of concurrent receipt. The discussions suggests that for the first time in more than 4 decades, passage of a defense conference report is not a foregone conclusion. And given where the Congress, the Nation, and most importantly our military personnel find themselves on this day in history, such a defeat would be a disastrous failure to fulfill our responsibilities at this fateful point in our history. I want the record to show that I consider myself a strong supporter of concurrent receipt. It is no secret that in recent years the House version of the defense bill has been silent on this issue. The realities of fully financing the provisions, some $45.8 billion over 10 years routinely cause us to forego any action whatsoever; and as such, veterans suffer. After having the honor of assuming the chairmanship of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel 2 years ago, I was surprised and very, very pleased to be able to work with both sides of the aisle, the leadership in the House on both sides of the aisle, as well as the bipartisan members of the Committee on the Budget, certainly led by the efforts of the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) for the first time ever to include some $17.8 billion over 10 years in the House budget resolution that led to our defense bill for the first time ever to provide full retirement and disability benefits to any veteran 60 percent or greater disabled. But like most every Member of this body, I considered that a positive initiative but really a minimum, a first step in correcting toward what we all feel is a very unfair policy. Unfortunately, there are certain realities in the legislative process that we cannot avoid, and that is it takes three parties to enact a provision into law: The House, the Senate, and the White House. The fact of the matter is that while this provision is not what many, if not all of us, wanted, certainly it is progress. It takes us a step in the right direction. To defer reaction and answering to our veterans' needs and not passing this bill would be a disastrous abdication of our responsibilities, particularly at this very, very tenuous time in our Nation's history. With all of the other good provisions, pay increase, military end strength, veterans and military health care systems cooperation, I think certainly we should stand forward and support this bill. I urge all of our colleagues to vote in the affirmative.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I particularly thank him for his leadership and deep sense of concern on this issue. Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the key question we should ask ourselves as Members of this House anytime we rise to ponder the proposal of legislation is simply, Is this bill needed? By now, as we have heard in the comments, far too many of us unfortunately have become personally acquainted with the tragic events surrounding the acts of domestic violence that occurred at Fort Bragg over this past summer. In a matter of days four military wives lost their lives and in a matter of days eight children lost a parent. Four of those children actually lost both parents. It is truly a tragic, tragic loss, one that certainly touched not only the Fort Bragg and Fayetteville communities but Army and military communities wherever they may be found. In response, again as we have heard, Mr. Speaker, on September 30 the Subcommittee on Military Personnel of the Committee on Armed Services traveled with five of its members to try to learn a bit more firsthand about this tragic series of events. I want to pay particular respect and thanks and appreciation to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes) who, along with the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre) who also joined us that day, represent the Cumberland County, Fort Bragg, and Fayetteville community; the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher), who has been a very early and very staunch proponent of addressing the demands of domestic violence in the military, who spoke so eloquently on this measure just moments ago; and also the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Jeff Miller), who traveled with us that day, giving up their personal time for this extracurricular event that all of them collectively felt was so demanding and so deserving of our attention. Simply put, today's military is a much different structure than it was even a few years ago. Particularly as a result of the volunteer force, we now have generally a much younger military, in this case of course a much younger Army, many more families than perhaps we have seen in the past. And when coupled with the fact that across military installations of all the services, some 70 percent of those families routinely live off base, we have found ourselves with a very, very difficult situation, that of addressing the concerns and demands of acts of domestic violence across the border of that specific military installation and the adjoining civilian community. The Members have heard about the loophole. I happen to have been here in 1994 when I think the Congress took a very necessary, very bold, and a very appropriate step in passage of the Violence Against Women Act; but it did, as the speaker heard, create I think an unintentional, certainly a very unnecessary and very unworthy loophole, that of enforcement of civilian protection orders as issued outside the bases and their applicability on those military installations. And in our discussions with the victims, particularly of military violence, a very emotional, nearly 3-hour meeting that we held with previous victims in the Fort Bragg community, one of the primary concerns we heard about was that lack of continuity, that lack of guidance and clear legal authority to enforce domestic protection orders that were secured within the civilian community on the military base. And this legislation is intended to be, I might add, a first step, a first step towards erasing those boundaries and those barriers that exist. The gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher), I think, very appropriately noted that this is not just a Fort Bragg problem, it is not just an Army problem. She noted it is a military problem. I would respectfully suggest, as she knows, and I am not correcting her by any means, that this is a societal problem; and when we have a circumstance as we do here where the societal approaches, the civilian approaches, to domestic violence are not coordinated adequately enough with the military community, people suffer; and as happened at Fort Bragg this past summer, people lose their lives. So we are intending to continue forward with this effort to initiate a series of legislative remedies to ensure that these kinds of circumstances are not allowed to go forward into the future, but for now I think this is a very, very appropriate step, a very, very important initial step toward protecting those who sadly are least in a position to protect themselves. So a final word of thanks to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher) for her leadership; to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes) and his deep, deep concern and for his initiative on bringing this measure to the floor at this moment; and to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Jeff Miller); and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre) for joining us that day and to I hope all of the Members of this House for their vote in support of this very, very worthy piece of legislation.

Mr. McHUGH. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and pointing out to the Nation that I am older. I appreciate that. I just wanted to very briefly say, first of all, I deeply from the bottom of my heart thank the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher) for her gracious comments and to state for the record two things: first of all, this Nation should know that she intended to go to Fort Bragg on her own if that was necessary. Fortunately for us who gained from her participation, we were able to put together a subcommittee visit; but her concern is unequaled, certainly unsurpassed with respect to the cherished feeling she has towards the military and, in this instance, towards those who are the victims of violence. I should also note, as she did, that we had more spouses show up that day than had been scheduled. It was a very tight schedule. It began at 6:30 in the morning with the first event that some of us were scheduled to do and went through until we left that early evening. She was very insistent and very appropriately so that we stay and listen to all of those spouses who again as she had noted had made the very painful decision to come and to share with us their stories that were so emotional. I have rarely, in my much older life including that recent birthday, spent a more moving, more emotional 3 hours. And thanks to her, we were able to hear all of them. So I just wanted to rise again and to underscore my deep admiration for her and to underscore as well the fact that military families have a real hero in the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher).

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida.