but i would like to say that to die for a mystique is an article written by andrew who i quote add few minutes ago. subtitle, the lessons our leaders didn't learn from the vietnam war. . here we are extending an eight-year commitment of our troops in afghanistan. what's going to happen three or four years from now if we are in the same situation and then we're talking about a 12, 14, 16-year commitment? look at what the russians did. they spent 10 years and billions of dollars and thousands of russians killed. look at alexander the great. he tried to conquer afghanistan. he failed. look at what the british did, and they couldn't make it. so all we are saying is, we are not talking about a pullout. we are saying have an end point

to your war strategy that the marn people will understand and more -- american people will understand and more important, our military. they're tired. they're worn out. they'll keep going. they'll go back five, six, seven, eight times. but ask a military family down at camp lejeune. do you want to send your husband back or wife back for the sixth time to afghanistan? we are eight years behind the fight because we should have never gone inside iraq. let's not make the same mistake they made during the vietnam era. thank you, mr. mcgovern, for introducing this amendment. thank you on behalf of the american people and our troops. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. mckeon: mr. chairman, i yield now to the chairman of the armed services committee, the gentleman from missouri, chairman skelton, two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. skelton: mr. chairman, i respectfully disagree with this amendment, and i respectfully oppose it. this amendment sends exactly the wrong message, focusing on

an exit strategy which may well reinforce a perception among the afghans that we are not committed to protecting them from the taliban and al qaeda. mr. chairman, we have a new commander on the ground. we've added tens of thousands of jobs. we're adding hundreds of civilian experts. we should not undermine those efforts. commanders make a difference. as you know, we have general mcchrystal, who has replaced general mckernan in afghanistan. history shows that new commanders make a big difference. let's give general mcchrystal the opportunity to show what american troops and american civilians, state department and others can do. history shows that. president lincoln replaced a

general, general immediate and finally ended up -- general meade and finally ended up with a name by the name of grant. one was replaced by bernard montgomery in the great battle came to pass. let's give general mcchrystal the opportunity. further, let me add, mr. clarme, this amendment is intended -- mr. chairman, this amendment is intended to make the administration lay out its strategy. but we already have the administration to lay out their goals, their timelines and conduct regular assessments. that's the way that general mcchrystal should be judged. let's do that. i do oppose this amendment very respectfully. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair will note that the

gentleman from massachusetts has 1 3/4 remaining. and the gentleman from california has 3 twaurts minutes remaining. mr. mcgovern: i'll let the gentleman proceed. mr. mckeon: mr. speaker, i'm happy to yield at this time to a young man who joined the marine core the day after 9/11, served two tours in iraq and one in afghanistan, the gentleman from california, who is a member of the armed services committee now, one minute. mr. hunter. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. hunter: i thank the ranking member and i'd like to associate i myself with the chairman's remarks on this issue. i think i'm the only one on the floor here who's actually served in afghanistan. i served twice in iraq as a united states marine and i would have to respectfully oppose this amendment. and the reason is this.

the best exit strategy is to actually win. that's the best exit strategy. to go in there, win the fight, kill out al qaeda, kill taliban, have the state department work with the local afghan people, then we can leave after we have success over there. that's how we won in iraq. we won in iraq once we stopped worrying about losing. we had the surge, and now we're successful in iraq. that's what we need in afghanistan. the way that we're going to lose afghanistan is if we start focusing on how we're going to pull out successfully. well, we need to do is win, win hard and win strong and then we can all come home. i'd have to -- mr. mckeon: i yield the gentleman 30 seconds. mr. duncan: i thank the ranking member from california. i will yield back and respectfully oppose this amendment as a united states marine, as a united states congressman and representing

all of our men and women in uniform fighting for all of us. let's win and get the job done and then we can come home. thank you. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: mr. chairman, i yield myself the balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. mckeon: thank you, mr. chairman. i think mr. hunter stated it very clearly. the exit strategy should be to win and then bring our forces home. it was stated earlier that general petraeus made a statement that afghanistan has been known over the years as a graveyard of empires. we cannot take that history lightly. that was part of the speech that he made. i'd like to say some other things that he mention approximated in that same speech. we have a hugely important interest in ensuring that afghanistan does not once again become a sanctuary for transnational terrorists. and to compliment and capitalized on the increased

military resources, more civilian assets, adequate financial resources, close civil military cooperation and comprehensive approach that encompasses regional states will be necessary. our objectives are of enormous importance. we all need to summon the will and the resources necessary to make the most of it. it was just a couple of years ago when we were having a similar debate when we were being told by some that we needed to get out of iraq, that we were losing, that there was no way we could win, and general petraeus was called to lead the surge. and now he's telling us how we can win in afghanistan. mr. chairman, i think now is not the time to be retreating. now is not the time when we're sending 20,000 troops that are ready to embark on this surge to win to help the people of afghanistan and preserve our national interests there. now is the time to let the

forces know that we support them, we support their mission, we want them to be successful and return home safely. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. chairman, i yield myself the remaining time. mr. chairman, everyone acknowledges that there is no military solution in afghanistan, only a political solution. but we are putting billions of dollars into building up our military presence without a clear vision of how to bring our troops home, an exit strategy for lack of a better term. every military mission has a beginning, a middle, a time of transition and an end, but i have yet to see that vision articulated in any document, speech or briefing. we are not asking for an immediate withdrawal. we are not talking about cutting or running or restreeting, just a plan. if there is no military solution for afghanistan, then please, just tell us how we will know when our military contribution to the political solution has ended. requiring an outline for how our military operations ought to proceed in afghanistan so

that congress can effectively wave the level of investment, both human and financial, is called doing our job. something this body neglected to do throughout the past eight years. i welcome the reports, the time frames, the matrices included in h.r. 247. but we have failed to look at what the administration articulated for itself. i promised our constituents that i would never send our men and women into war without a clear vision and how to bring them home safely to their families and their loved ones. i am sticking to that promise. please support the mcgovern-jones-pingree amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: -- the chair: all time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.

mr. mcgovern: mr. chairman, i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 18 will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 4 printed in house report 111-182. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? mr. mcgovern: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in house report 111-182 offered by mr. mcgovern of massachusetts. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 572, the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, and a member opposed, will control five minutes each. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself 1 1/2 minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. mcgovern: mr. chairman, this amendment is identical to the amendment approved by the house last year.

its purpose is quite simple. for over 40 years the names of students and instructors at the former u.s. army school of the americas and now the western hemisphere institute for security cooperation were available to the public. all you had to do was make a phone call, write a letter, file a request and the names were provided. suddenly in august of 2006 the names became classified. the on reason cited by the defense department for denying the names was the list includes personal information. but nothing about the request had changed. no one had asked for new information and certainly none of a personal nature. so for the past three years the names of graduates and instructors have remained secret, well, almost secret. names constantly pop up in p.r. materials, sometimes with a public, but the public -- sometimes with a photo, but the public denied access. not once has there been a whisper that they were targets. those were pretty turbulent years with civil wars in

central america, drug lords, drug cartels and not a hint that attending the school was dangerous. the school is supposed to be a model for transparency, accountability and respect for civil society and human rights. what signal does the school send to its latin american counterparts about our democratic values when it denies access to information that has been available for decades? vote to restore public access to this institution. vote for this amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. mcgovern: i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to this amendment and yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mckeon: mr. chairman, i rise in strong opposition to this amendment. while my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle will argue that disclosing the personal information of the students and instructors at whinsec is in the name of transparency and good oversight, what they're

actually suggesting is that the united states does not respect the privacy of foreign citizens. and more specifically our allies in the western hemisphere who are invited to attend the u.s. military schools. what concerns me is that this amendment expresses winsec -- exposes the students and instructors, which includes u.s. citizens, to hostile personal hazards such as identity theft and surveillance, intimidation or attack from foreign intelligence, security and terrorist organizations. in terms of oversight, congress already receives the information. we just received a copy of the attendees for 2008, and we were able to keep our partners and their families safe. i think it's important to recognize that winsec is an important tool for strengthening security cooperation with our key allies in the western hemisphere. this includes our mexico neighbor to the south. the school provides training to mexican land forces in the spanish language and builds their capacity to prevail in the fight against drug

trafficking, organized crime and other transnational threats. such training and cooperation is critical to our homeland security. it baffles me that given the narco fight on our border some of my colleagues think that now is the right time to our past -- to expose our past, current and future partners and deprive them with the safety and security. i will oppose this amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the gentleman from missouri, mr. skelton. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. skelton: i rise in support of this amendment. the western hemisphere institute has much to be proud of including the curriculum and the dedicated support staff and returning to a policy of public disclosure of students and instructors will remove one of the lingering doubts about this school.

it's come a long way. i am very proud of what it does. i am a strong supporter of that school. publicly revealing the names does not discourage attendants, according to statistics provided by the department of defense to the center for international policy for fiscal years 2001 through 2006, latin american and caribbean countries provided on the average more students to this institution, to this school during the time that the school made the names of students and instructors publicly available than when the institute refused to provide such information. . there is no reason to withhold those names. we should be proud of what we do there. we want them to return to their country to be proud of their studies there. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: at this time i yield to the gentleman from georgia, mr. gingrey, three minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. gingrey: mr. chairman, even though my former rules

committee colleague and i couldn't disagree more when it comes to whisc, he is my good friend and i always look forward to our spirited debates. predictably i rise to take issue with his amendment. the the gentleman has stated today and in the past the whisc students and instructors is always made available but since 2005 disclosure and transparency has been lacking. to be clear, mr. chairman, the department of defense has provided to congress the names, country of origin, rank, courses, and dates of all students and instructors at whisc for the year since 2005. since we already know exactly who is attending whisc, i'm led to wonder, mr. chairman, what is the mcgovern amendment trying to accomplish? unfortunately i believe that the release of personal information has less to do with transparency and more to do with the efforts to shut whisc down. something that this congress has repeatedly rejected. if transparency is the issue,

mr. chairman, whisc is opened to visitors every working day and invites people to sit in class, talk with the students, talk with the faculty, and review instructional material. this is perhaps the most open transparent and welcoming organization in the department of defense. mr. mcgovern has also stated in the past that from time to time whisc p.r. materials including pictures of students and instructors, so why the need to protect the identities of the attendees? while this may be true, these are not materials that end up in the mailboxes of narcotraffickers and drug lords in central and south america. however these criminals do search the internet for the names of law enforcement personnel who stand in their way. i would also note there is a big difference between the voluntary and involuntary publishing of the names of the whisc participants. obviously an attendee who is an undercover counterdrug officer will be more ret sent to have his or -- reticent to have his

or her name posted on a website than someone who has since become a high ranking public official. mr. chairman, every member of this body should know that whisc is an invaluable tool for military to military cooperation between us, the united states, and latin america, and is a vital means for strengthening the security cooperation in the rion. publicizing the names of the students in their home countries could very well lead to hostile attention from nations, organizations, and individuals that may wish to do harm to the u.s., its friends, and allies. such publication could serve as a disincentive to central, south america, and mexican, yes, mexican students, who would otherwise want to attend whisc and could discourage nations from sending their students to the school. it would undercut the effectiveness of whisc as a tool for building hemisphere security cooperation and communicate in the democratic values and respect for human rights we espouse. if our ability to influence the

democratic trajectory of the region were diminished it would be countries like venezuela and china who would fill the void. mr. mckeon: yield an additional minute. mr. gingrey: i therefore believe this amendment could do more harm than good. all my colleagues to oppose it. thank you, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from california only had 15 seconds left. the gentleman from california now has no time left. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: how much time do i have remaining? the chair: the gentleman has 2 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. mcgovern: i yield one minute to the gentleman from georgia who represents whisc in his district, mr. bishop. the chair: how much time? mr. mcgovern: one minute. mr. bishop: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i want the members of this house to know that i represent the area where whisc is located, fort benning, georgia. i represented formerly the school of americas. i have been involved in this debate year in and year out. i have been here, this is my 17th year, the all encompassing

question is whether or not whisc or its predecessor trained terrorists and murderers who did harm. that's an issue, but create transparency we want to make sure that this amendment passes so that people on both sides of the issue can get the facts. and transparency and knowing who goes to the school, who teaches at the school, what the curriculum is, having that be transparent is all we want to do. the facts will speak for themselfment i support whisc. it's one of the greatest tools our country has for democracy in our hemisphere. it's a good opportunity for us to make friends, keep friends, and to cooperate. but we want to make sure there is no misunderstanding. i join with the chairman in supporting this amendment and ask my colleagues to do the same. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is

recognized for a minute and a half. mr. mcgovern: my friend from georgia, mr. gingrey, talked about the fact that the names were being released by whisc. the fact he didn't mention is they are being released to us in a classified form so no one in the public can see them. it is not unique for this information to be made public. other army, air force, and navy military schools and training programs still provide the public with the names of latin american students. i have a pile here. each one asserts the needs of the public interest outweigh any consideration for prifecy. i believe standing up for transparency, accountability, and our own democratic values strengthens our national security and u.s.-latin american relations. the danger comes when transparency are viewed as detrimental. the house approved this amendment last year. it should approve it again. the co-sponsors of this amendment do not agree on the fate of the whisc, but we all agree we need to restore public access to these names. look at this list, mr. chairman. all blacked out. does this look like

transparency? is this democracy at work? is this the model we want latin american countries to copy? the names were covered for decades until august, 2006. openness was the norm. now it's secrecy. i i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and restore public access, transparency, accountability, it is the right thing to do. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair will correct itself. the gentleman from california has 15 seconds remaining. mr. mckeon: mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 15 seconds. mr. mckeyon: -- mr. mckeon: i yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from california, mr. hunter. mr. hunter: if you release the names of these foreign special operators at whisc, you are literally encouraging their murder. the men and women fighting for justice in central and south america, if you rye lease those names, they -- release those

names, they will have their attempted murder. mr. mcgov: -- mr. mcgovern: would the gentleman yield? that's not true. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. all time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment -- mr. mckeon: i ask for the yeas and nays. recorded vote. the chair: the gentleman asks for a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 , further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri rise? mr. skelton: mursuent -- pursuant to h.res. 572, i offer

amendments en bloc in title number one. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment en bloc. the chair: amendments en bloc printed in house report number 111-182, consisting of amendments numbered 5, 6, 8 , 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 26, 29, 45, 61, 63, and 64 offered by mr. skelton of missouri. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 572, the gentleman from missouri, mr. skelton, and the gentleman from california, mr. mckeon, each will control 10 minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from missouri, mr. skelton. mr. skelton: i urge the committee to adopt the

amendments en bloc all of which have been examined by both the majority and minority. at this time i yield three minutes to my friend, the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you. i appreciate the gentleman's courtesy as i appreciate his hiredship in an area that has been of concerner for me for a long time. the disappointing and widespread environmental legacy of the department of defense, because in every state communities must deal with former training grounds, contaminated with live bombs, leftover shells, leaking chemicals. i have a map here. every single state, every territory of the united states. and it is an ongoing problem. in june in florida, fishermen hauled aboard a life guided missile. on the 22nd of may a farmer plowing his field overturned a live rocket. i will enter in the record a chart just for the last two months of things around the country. we need to be more serious about it and i appreciate the committee's help first of all

in focusing with the department of defense, requiring the secretary to report clearly the funding levels requested for the program. we have a new administration. we hope there will be a new commitment to work on this with additional transparency where much more likely to at least know where we are. it's also time for the military to be proactive and reduce the amount of munitions generated in the first place. i'm pleased they have agreed to another amendment offered by my friend ms. brown-waite from florida to require the department of defense to think strategyically about way -- strategicically to lessen the ways about environmental health and consequences. specifically the development of lifecycle accounting for munition, review of live fire practice, and recommend ways to reduce the cost and incidents of unexploded ordnance. -- or thin nance -- ordinance. saving money, resource, having safer american lives -- lands,

and more successful operations abroad. just a few volleys of a standard rocket system with a 5% failure rate generates thousands of unexploded ordnance. training lands here at home, it complicates our missions approved. consider the flight of civilian populations in iraq and afghanistan. the millions who will rebuild their lives amidst of munitions wreckage left over the last six years of combat. this is a problem at home, in the united states, this is a problem abroad. it is time for us to face up to it. i appreciate the committee's leadership in helping zero in on it. i hope we can do a better job because it will save money while it saves lives at home and abroad. i thank you. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: i yield at this time to the gentlelady from florida, one minute, ms. brown-waite. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. brown-waite: thank you. mr. chairman, i rise in support

of my amendment to the national defense authorization funding which is included en bloc one. i thank chairman skelton and also ranking member mckeon for allowing this amendment to be included. in 2005 the department of army authorized the creation of the combat action badge to provide special recognition to soldiers who personally engage the enemy during combat operations. this is a very honorable distinction. however, the award limits eligibility for this badge to those soldiers that served after september 18, 2001. overlooking the thousands of veterans who have made similar sacrifices in previous wars. my amendment corrects this error by expanding eligibility to include those soldiers who served since december 7, 1941. in accordance with the wishes of veterans who may be eligible for this badge, the cost of it would be born by the individuals not the military.

therefore not only does this award recognize veterans who engage the enemy in combat, but it does so at no additional cost to the army. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from missouri. mr. skelton: at this time i yield one minute to my friend, a member of the armed services committee, the gentlelady from new hampshire, ms. shea-porter. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. shea-porter: i thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment would ban the use of open air burn pits overseas after 12 months. such a dangerous waste disposal method should only be used temporarily while permanent and safe alternatives is developed. the amendment specifically prohibits the burning of medical and hazardous waste or solid waste containing plastic in open air pits. the burning much such waste produces chemicals that have proven toxic to humans and es