Ike Skelton

Mr. SKELTON

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

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SKELTON. All you have to do, Mr. Chairman, is read the amendment. This amendment does not preclude any effort of expending funds from the base Defense authorization appropriation. This merely makes sure that the moneys meant for Afghanistan, meant for Iraq, go to those soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen there. It is that simple. As my old law school professor once said: read it. What does it say?

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to sections 3 and 4 of House Resolution 403, and as the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, I request that during further consideration of H.R. 1585 in the Committee of the Whole and following consideration of amendment No. 38, the following amendments be considered in this order: amendments en bloc No. 2 and amendments numbered 20, 49, 31, 15 and 32.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments en bloc.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), a member of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to a member of the Armed Services Committee, my friend from Oklahoma (Mr. Boren).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my colleague and friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire).

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz).

Mr. SKELTON. Madam Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz) for the purpose of a colloquy.

Mr. SKELTON. I thank the gentleman for raising this important issue, and I assure the gentleman from Texas that I will assist him in achieving clarification of what appears to be an inherent depot maintenance function that affects the Army's and Marine Corps' ongoing equipment reset efforts.

Mr. SKELTON. These are all important questions, and I fully support the gentleman's efforts to review whether it is appropriate to transfer what appears to be an inherent depot function.

Mr. SKELTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I find myself in opposition to this amendment. A $764 million reduction has already been made in the Missile Defense Agency programs. An additional billion dollars would terminate or cancel long-term missile defense programs which I think would not be in the correct mode for the United States. This amendment simply goes too far. This amendment would effectively terminate most, if not all, of the Missile Defense Agency's longer term research and development programs. Given the dynamic security environment we find ourselves in today, I don't believe it is prudent to do this. I oppose this amendment because, quite frankly, the committee strikes the right balance in cutting the amount of $764 million, and it should stay as the committee recommended.

Mr. SKELTON. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman. I rise in opposition to this. A similar amendment was offered in committee and was defeated by a 34-24 vote. With the cuts that were correct, well thought out, on the committee level, our bill still authorizes $9.5 billion for missile defense programs. This committee's reallocation is just over 8 percent of the Missile Defense Agency's budget or $764 million to such programs as are necessary. For too long, the missile defense program's been focused on developing futuristic technologies rather than near-term capabilities. Our bill fully funds, or actually increases, funding for key near-term missile defense systems, and for this reason, I do oppose this amendment.

Mr. SKELTON. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. SKELTON. Some things are hard to understand. I think this is a very bad idea. By adopting this amendment, we are sending a message to the Iraqi people that we are there forever. We are sending a message to the American people we are going to be in Iraq forever. And what we are doing there is, at the end of the day, trying to create trust among the Iraqi people, and this is a major step backwards. The President has not affirmed one way or the other on this, and I think we in Congress should strongly say that we are not there permanently, that we are there to bring stability, that we are there to encourage the representative government that is struggling along; but we are not there as a permanent resident either on a base or otherwise. And this is a message amendment that is to the Iraqi people and to the American people, and it is just a downright unclear and bad idea. I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SKELTON. I yield 1 minute to my colleague and friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. SKELTON. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SKELTON. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. SKELTON. Madam Chairman, what this amendment says is this: Excuse me, Mr. And Mrs. Iraqi. Hey, we're here permanently. That's the message that this amendment sends. And I doubt if there are many households in Baghdad or Tikrit or anywhere else that will read this amendment. But they'll get the message, should this amendment pass. The message is, Mr. And Mrs. Iraqi, we're here forever. We can't do that. I oppose this amendment. Madam Chairman, I yield back my time.

Mr. SKELTON. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SKELTON. I think that the gentleman should be commended and complimented on working with us to finally get the language that was the real intent of the amendment, and that what it does is requires a report to Congress on specific items. It does not specify detainees to be transferred or any change such as that. So seeking information, I think, is basic to what we do as a country and what we do as a Congress. And I thank the gentleman very much for working with us to clarify this amendment, and appreciate you yielding.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment. This is just downright good law enforcement. You must understand that so many jurisdictions, so many States have videotaping of interrogations for the very reasons that you stated, to make sure that their rights were preserved, to make sure that they said what was said to have been said, and there is a taping that cannot be refuted. And you must remember that everyone is a potential defendant before a military commission. And what better evidence is there to present before a military commission, either for the defense or for the prosecution, than what was actually taped during interrogation? I think that we are just trying to catch up with other States that do this and require this. It is just good law enforcement. And I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments en bloc.