Ike Skelton

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, since we have no additional requests, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment, a sense of Congress honoring Congressman John McHugh.

Mr. SKELTON. John McHugh is an outstanding American, an outstanding Member of Congress, the former ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee. He has served the people of America in this capacity selflessly and with distinction, and it is our opportunity now to express gratitude as a Congress and as a nation for his efforts. He has represented New York's 23rd Congressional District since 1993. His district includes northern New York, including Fort Drum. He has been a public servant now for some 40 years, having served in the local, the State and Federal levels of our government. He is a highly respected leader on national defense and has been a staunch advocate for America's military personnel and their families. As chairman and subsequently ranking member of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel on our Armed Services Committee, John McHugh has shared my desire to increase the end-strength for the Army and the Marines, enhance military pay, and began efforts to eliminate concurrent receipt to allow the payment of both veterans disability and military retired pay. Given his background and his experience, the President nominated John McHugh to serve as Secretary of the Army on June 2nd of this year. It is a tribute to his accomplishments in national defense on behalf of the servicemen and women and their families. It is a pleasure to honor him in this manner. It is a pleasure to have served with him. We will, of course, miss him, his brightness, his humor and his quick wit, and his dedication to our Armed Forces. We wish him the very best as he serves as the Secretary of the Army. I can only say this, Mr. Chairman, that the Army will be in good hands with John McHugh. We thank him for his service here and look forward to working with him in his new capacity. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. I rise in opposition to this amendment. Secretary Gates announced a series of changes in the missile defense program and so testified. I wish to compliment the gentlelady from California (Mrs. Tauscher), the chairman of the subcommittee that covered this subject, for the excellent work that she and the subcommittee did regarding missile defense. They got it right. They increased funding for theater missile defense programs by $900 million. They capped the deployment for long-range missile defense interceptors in Alaska at 30 as opposed to the 44 previously planned. Right now, there are 26 currently deployed. And they cancelled the Multiple Kill Vehicle program, the Kinetic Energy Interceptor program, and the second Airborne Laser prototype aircraft because they were not working. Consequently, they did it right by allowing and authorizing $9.3 billion for missile defense programs overall. I oppose the amendment. We did it right.

Mr. SKELTON. I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. SKELTON. I had a law school professor by the name of Fratcher, and every once in awhile during discussion in the class he would say, ``Read it. What does it say?'' We read this amendment--which I know the authors seek to ensure congressional insight into the budget process and the Quadrennial Defense Review, and those are very worthy goals, but unfortunately, reading this amendment in the way it is drafted will overwhelm the Pentagon and harm critical Department of Defense efforts. They won't have time to do much more than comply with this amendment. It is drafted in such a way that it just couldn't be done. And I am sad that a worthy goal is being thwarted by the improper drafting thereof. The Department of Defense routinely enters into such agreements to protect the privacy of servicemembers and, of course, to protect sensitive information. As a result, the amendment would require several reports on thousands of nondisclosed agreements. For instance, casework for wounded warriors, health care quality assurance processes, criminal and administrative investigations, accident investigations, contract source selections, accepting proprietary data from private industry, other business transactions that require confidential treatment until concluded. The amendment will result in the reporting of thousands of transactions to Congress, each requiring an individual report containing large volumes of information and justification. Due to the administrative burden and the chilling effect of this amendment, the Department of Defense may be forced to reduce efforts to assist wounded warriors and otherwise help servicemembers solve their problems. I commend them for their worthy goal, but in the lesson taught me by my professor, Mr. Fratcher, reading it just makes it impossible for the Department of Defense to comply with it. So, consequently, I seriously am strongly opposed to this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SKELTON. I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

Mr. SKELTON. The bill that we sent to the Senate and subsequently sent to the President for his signature is supposed to mean exactly what it says. It's in English language, it's clear, and we expect the Department of Defense to follow it to the letter, and those we direct duties to, to fulfill those duties correctly. And to send them a message that cannot be fulfilled, sadly, that this amendment requires, is just wrong. So, consequently, I oppose this and hope that it will not pass. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to H. Res. 572, I offer amendments en bloc entitled No. 2.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I urge the committee to adopt the amendments en bloc, all of which have been examined by both the majority and minority. I yield 2 minutes to my friend, who is on the Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Kratovil).

Mr. SKELTON. At this time I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes).

Mr. SKELTON. I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner). (Mr. WEINER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, this is an excellent series of amendments that we have placed en bloc, and I want to express my appreciation not only to the staff but to the minority, to the ranking member on the work that they have done, agreeing to these amendments and making this effort today move forward very, very smoothly.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to section 4 of House Resolution 572, I request that following consideration of amendments en bloc No. 4 that amendment No. 20 be considered.

Mr. SKELTON. Parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. SKELTON. What was the ruling on the previous recommendation?

Mr. SKELTON. I thank the Chair. Amendment No. 24 Offered by Mr. Cummings

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. There may be a requirement to redraft part of it at a future date, but I think the purpose and the intent are correct. Piracy is here. It's an age-old problem. From the Marines' hymn the phrase ``to the shores of Tripoli,'' that was a successful antipiracy effort on behalf of the United States Marines. We have to do our very best to protect America, American vessels, Americans that are sailing the ships, and particularly the government cargo that's on them. So I applaud Mr. Cummings for making this substantial step in the right direction in combating piracy.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, as a former prosecuting attorney, I speak in favor of this amendment. It serves two purposes. First, it protects our men and women in uniform who are conducting interrogations of detainees from frivolous claims of alleged abuse or coercion. Second, the videotapes will act as a deterrent for private contractors or other agencies who are conducting interrogations of the Department of Defense detainees from straying from those requirements of the Army field manual in the treatment of detainees. It is a way to ensure that it is done right. And when you have a correctly conducted interrogation, in all probability the results will be positive. I certainly think this is a major step in the right direction. Videotaping is good.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to H. Res. 572, I offer amendments en bloc entitled No. 3.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I urge the committee to adopt the amendments en bloc, all of which have been examined by the majority and the minority. Mr. Chairman, I understand that the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis) wishes to propose a colloquy, and I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman.

Mr. SKELTON. I thank the gentleman for raising this issue. It's fair to say that much has happened since the law was adopted back in 1993, and I propose that the committee will continue to engage in a deliberative process to hear perspectives from all sides of the debate, but particularly to understand the perspectives of the civilian and military leadership of the Department of Defense and the perspectives of ordinary servicemembers. If we conclude that repeal is the appropriate course, the success of the change will hinge on our full understanding of the implications of the change and the development of a law and policy that will preserve the readiness and morale of our military forces. Certainly hearings will be at the heart of the committee's effort to determine those necessary facts.

Mr. SKELTON. Our Military Personnel Subcommittee has already held one hearing with outside experts. We will clearly need to hear the perspectives of the Department of Defense as well. Since the civilian leadership responsible for personnel matters within the Office of the Secretary of Defense has not yet been announced, I don't believe it would be appropriate to begin a formal reassessment process until the new Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness has been allowed to settle into the position. But the committee will continue to hold hearings.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, let me flash back to a previous amendment, the Akin-Forbes amendment. I just received a letter from the Assistant Secretary of Defense, dated today, regarding that amendment, which reads in part, While the Department supports transparency in government, we find the amendment as written directing the Secretary of Defense to submit a report on every employee covered under a nondisclosure agreement as overly burdensome and counterproductive in meeting the security challenges of today. I yield 1 minute to my friend, my colleague, also a member of the Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

Mr. SKELTON. At this time, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Walz).