Ike Skelton

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. SKELTON. At this time, I yield 1 minute to my friend and also a member of the Armed Services Committee, the gentlelady from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter).

Mr. SKELTON. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. SKELTON. I thank the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. SKELTON. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. In doing so, I want to reflect on the work that the subcommittees do in the Armed Services Committee. The gentlelady from California (Mrs. Tauscher) chairs the subcommittee that deals with this subject matter that Mr. Franks seeks to amend. Hearings, witnesses, briefings discussions, markups, all of that goes into the work product that this gentlelady's subcommittee did. And for us to second-guess on anything of this magnitude or on any subject that has been studied as thoroughly as this one has, and I compliment all the members of that subcommittee on the work that they did. I think it would be improper to do so, and I do oppose this amendment.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I also wish to compliment him on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, there was a lot of hard work that went into this, and what it would do is add the Clean Contracting Act of 2008 to national security and defense. It compiles provisions that have already passed the House or would extend acquisition reforms passed for the Department of Defense in prior authorization bills in identical form. It also adds a couple of new measures. This Waxman amendment complements last year's bill in which we extended several of the reforms beyond the Department of Defense, and it also included several bills that have already passed, such as the Contractors and Federal Spending Accountability Act offered by Representative Maloney, the Close the Contractor Fraud Loophole Act offered by Mr. Welch, and the Government Contractor Accountability Act offered by Mr. Chris Murphy. There's a lot of hard work that goes into this. And we are always going to have difficulties in the acquisition process and the contracting process. But this is a major step in that direction, and I favor it.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, this is really a reflection of constitutionality. This refers to any agreement that requires the United States to take action on behalf of an ally in the face of an attack. This is one that is an agreement that is a security agreement, and it requires either a treaty ratified by the United States Senate or a provision passed by the entire Congress of the United States. It's unclear, for instance, that if the Iraqis could repel any external invasion or address a serious internal threat without America that the United States could avoid being involved against its will in such a situation. Quite honestly, it is a requirement that the Constitution be followed. A security agreement, by the way, is different from a Status of Forces Agreement. I favor the amendment.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, this is first-year law school discussion. If you read the amendment offered by the gentlelady, it makes reference to 1212(a)(1)(a)(4). It applies only to this. I read that section: ``Any security agreement, arrangement, or assurance that obligates the United States to respond to internal or external threats against Iraq.'' That doesn't say a thing, not a blooming thing about Status of Forces Agreement. So that is what we are talking about. That is why a treaty is required or a consent of Congress.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I go back to the basics, and that is, read the amendment before you. This amendment asks that the Secretaries jointly establish and operate a temporary program to offer employment as translators, interpreters, et cetera. This is not a mandate in the words at all that are before us. Under this amendment, these Iraqis must have assisted our country in Iraq for at least a year and be here in the United States legally. As a practical matter, these are the Iraqis who have been brought to our country under the legislation offered by my good friend Duncan Hunter that was included in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2 years ago, which is good language. We are also not talking about a large number of people. We are talking about 760 people who have been brought to the United States. I think we can do something for them. I think a careful reading of the amendment will solve a lot of discussion today. Mr. Israel is right.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to H. Res. 1218, I offer amendments en bloc.

Mr. SKELTON. I yield 1 minute to my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

Mr. SKELTON. Let me ask. If the program were in bill language, the Pentagon request to reprogram could not be authorized by you and me. Is that correct?

Mr. SKELTON. I yield back on this en bloc amendment.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I urge the committee to adopt the amendments en bloc that have just been offered, all of which have been examined by both the majority and the minority. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SKELTON. Thank you.

Mr. SKELTON. I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentlelady from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. SKELTON. I yield 1 minute at this time to a friend, the gentlelady from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. SKELTON. I yield 1 minute to my friend, my colleague, the gentlelady from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

Mr. SKELTON. At this time, I yield 1 minute to a friend, a member of the Committee on Armed Services, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sestak).

Mr. SKELTON. Madam Chairman, I reserve the right to object, and I will not object. Madam Chairman, I think we should point out the fact that the base bill to which you just referred voids an executive order where the President said that any language in a project, in a program, report language, could not be put into force and effect and that it had to be in bill language. It sounds good, but in truth, in fact, what happens if that is the case, whatever is in bill language on a program or project, whatever the case may be, may not be reprogrammed. You're stuck with it. For instance, I signed, together with my friend Duncan Hunter, a reprogramming on Future Combat Systems within the last 3 or 4 weeks for well over $100 million, and it should have been. We did the right thing. And if the executive order were in full force and effect and if that had been in report language, it would all have been for naught and Mr. Hunter and I could not have agreed to that very, very important reprogramming which should have been done. So you're throwing the cat out with the kittle. Madam Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. SKELTON. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SKELTON. From time to time you and I are asked to authorize reprogramming that the Pentagon asked for; is that not correct?

Mr. SKELTON. I think back lo those many years ago to a time when I was prosecuting attorney of Lafayette County and had the opportunity to witness our sheriff, deputy sheriff or Missouri Highway Patrol interrogating people who were suspects of various different offenses, and I shudder to think what if we had contracted that out to someone who had not been fully trained on the one hand and who did not understand the law or the rules and regulations under which interrogations must be conducted. Fast forward to today and the interrogation of detainees. I think a governmental function that is as important as interrogating detainees should be a function of the government.

Mr. SKELTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let's really look at what we are talking about. It is important to note that the amendment allows the Secretary of Defense to classify videotapes. Under the existing rules--by the way, there are three theater internment facilities in Iraq and one in Afghanistan. Under those rules, one can only be held 14 days. But any interrogation between the time of capture and the time a person is entered in the theater internment facility does not have to be videotaped.