Ike Skelton

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis), who is a member of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, in closing, let me say that being tough on terrorists not only centers about a conviction, a judgment rendered on what they did, whether it be the death penalty, life imprisonment or a term of years but also centers upon the fact that there is certainty after a conviction; and the last thing I want to see coming out of this is for there to be a reversal on appeal which destroys certainty because of what we did in this law. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, let me take this opportunity to thank my friend from California for being such a gentleman and for his courtesy not just this year but through the years. We appreciate it very, very much and also his very thoughtful words a moment ago. Mr. Speaker, we thank Duncan Hunter very much. Leaving us is Lane Evans, a gentleman who was a marine and served here and is on the top row of our committee, ranking member for so long for the Veterans' Affairs Committee; and we say a fond farewell to him and thank him for his excellent service to the Nation. Joel Hefley, who, as the chairman has spoken so well of, has been such a good friend to all through the years. Jim Gibbons, who is going into other political pursuits, we certainly wish him well. Dr. Schwarz, Cynthia McKinney also will not be coming back. We wish them Godspeed in the days ahead. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the National Defense Authorization Act. It is, as you may know, named in honor of Senator John Warner, who is for the last time, under the rules of the Senate, chairing the Armed Services Committee. We thank him for his accomplishments with the Armed Services Committee as chairman. He is responsible in large measure for many of the compromises that were allowed under this bill. This is a good bill. It is good for America. It is good for the troops. It deserves our support. This wartime bill authorizes a total of $462.9 billion and, as was mentioned by the chairman a few moments ago, $70 billion authorization for a bridge fund supplemental, of which $20 billion is for the reset of the equipment lost or damaged in operations overseas. As many have heard me speak, I am terribly concerned about the readiness of our ground forces, our Army, our Marines; and this bill provides the critically needed downpayment to begin to set things right. Under the testimony of General Schoomaker, it is not only for the Army, some $17 billion needed this year, but 12 billion reset dollars for over the next several years apiece. And we know the Army and Marine Corps equipment is wearing out, and we do know that some units are coming back to little or no equipment whatsoever. That has a serious readiness challenge, particularly in the Army and the Marines. Our ground forces must be, in the days and years ahead, prepared to deal with sustained deployment not just in Iraq and Afghanistan but who knows what the future will hold. I have been blessed, Mr. Speaker, to represent the Fourth District of Missouri. This is my 30th year here in Congress. And during that 30 years, there have been 12 engagements in which American forces have been either deployed or used, some minor, some major. And if the future is anything like the past, we will have times when our forces will need to be prepared to be called on, to be used, if nothing else, to deter aggression or adventurism in the years ahead by other countries. And it is a serious matter to make sure that the reset comes to pass and that the readiness is corrected. Of course, the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan demand our immediate attention, but we cannot afford to lose sight of other security challenges that loom across the road. We are getting seven new ships for the Navy and recommend some $400 million for advanced procurement of a second VA-class submarine. We have a multiyear procurement contract for the F-22, and other aircraft is on the books for us to authorize and build. I am most pleased about what the bill does for our magnificent men and women in the Armed Forces and their families. The end strength for the Army and Marines has increased by 30,000 and 5,000, for the Army and Marines respectively. In addition, this year we are able to enact an initiative first proposed by the gentleman from Mississippi, Gene Taylor. This conference report expands the TRICARE Reserve Select to members of the Selected Reserves and terminates the current three-tier eligibility program. I am also particularly glad to note that there is a 1-year moratorium on increases on TRICARE and pharmacy fees. I had offered a similar amendment in committee, and I am pleased that that was included in the final product. I am proud to say that we are able to provide our servicemembers with a well-deserved 2.2 percent pay raise and a targeted pay raise for those mid-grade and senior noncommissioned officers and warrant officers who truly are the backbone of our military. These are just a few examples of why this is a critical bill at this critical time. Mr. Speaker, much has been said about Iraq. Much has been said about the fight against terrorism, which has the genesis in Afghanistan. But the bright spot in all of this is the young man and young woman who wear the American uniform. There is no way for us to say as eloquently as we should thank you for your service. And a special note of gratitude for the families of the young men and young women in uniform, to be called on for a year, one, two, three, and in some cases I know some SEALs that have been deployed four times for 7 months at a time. And there is no way really to say thank you well enough to the families that endure this: the spouses; the children; and in some cases, yes, the grandchildren, for which the chairman and I share a mutual interest. So let this bill be a tribute to their service, a thank you for their service, and a warm note of appreciation to the spouses and children of those magnificent warriors wearing the American uniform. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SKELTON. I really want to say a special personal thanks to you for the tremendous work you have done on our committee and in working with me in particular for helping Whiteman Air Force Base, Ft. Leonard Wood, Missouri, be what it is. I would be remiss if I did not just say a special note of gratitude to you, Joel Hefley.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz), the ranking member on Readiness.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder), the ranking member on the Personnel Subcommittee.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the hardworking gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), a member of the Projection and Terrorism Subcommittee.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, may I make an inquiry as to the time remaining for each side, please?

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Members have the right to revise and extend their remarks this evening.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), who is the ranking member of the Projection Subcommittee, a true friend of those who wear the uniform of our country.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, good things happen and we Members, of course, often take the credit, but truthfully the staff does so much work. We would be at a loss without them, so a special thanks to all of our staff. And it is special to note that Betty Gray of the Armed Services staff is now completing 30 years of service on our Armed Services staff. So a special thanks to her for her dedication. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Long Island, New York (Mr. Israel), who belongs to the Tactical Air and Projection Subcommittee and who has taken a great interest in professional military education.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the great Roman orator, Cicero, once said that the greatest of all virtues is gratitude, and I am filled with gratitude at this moment, Mr. Speaker, for our chairman Duncan Hunter, for the members of this committee, the ranking members, subcommittee chairmen, every member, as well as our hardworking and dedicated staff. I think it is also a moment like this when we are getting ready to pass a defense bill which fulfills the first duty of Members of Congress and of our government to protect the citizens of our country. A special note of gratitude and appreciation should go to those who wear the uniform of our country, to those who have worn the uniform of our country, to those who have sacrificed, and especially to those tremendously supportive families of those who serve in our various services. With that, a great moment of reflection and gratitude, Mr. Speaker, I say thank you. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. I hasten to correct you. The Democrats did have a proposal in the Armed Services Committee, as you well know. Please give us credit for offering that.

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

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, if you want to be tough on terrorists, pass a statute that will meet the scrutiny of the Supreme Court of our country. If you want to be tough on terrorists, let's not pass something that rushes to judgment and has legal loopholes that will reverse a conviction. Once a conviction occurs, you want it to stick. Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of practicing law a good number of years as a small town country lawyer, and part of that I was prosecuting attorney for Lafayette County, and I know what it is to obtain a hard-fought conviction of a criminal. And the specter that hangs over every prosecuting attorney on every case that is tried is a specter of that case being reversed on appeal. There are two manners by which a case may be reversed. One is, of course, something went wrong in the evidence or the instructions, something occurred during the trial, maybe even a comment by one of the counsel. The other is a constitutional question regarding the statute on which the defendant was convicted. That's what we deal with here. I am concerned that portions of the statute that you are attempting to pass will give an appellate court the opportunity to reverse the case and send it back. That bothers me. I had an amendment that would give an expedited procedure. It was not allowed. Mrs. Tauscher of California had an amendment regarding common article 3 of the Geneva Convention. Ms. Harman had one regarding interrogation techniques. Ms. Sanchez had one regarding appeals process. And Mr. Meehan had one regarding habeas corpus, and they were all turned down. I have in my possession a letter from the chief counsel to the commissions, Colonel Dwight H. Sullivan. And in this letter he points out just what I am talking about. We should have an expedited procedure, which my amendment would have given, so if there are flaws, and I think there are flaws in this statute, and he does, too, as I will point out, you should have it corrected and give this Congress an opportunity to correct it as quickly as possible. Department of Defense, Office of the Chief Defense Counsel, Washington, DC, September 26, 2006. Re Military Commission Act of 2006 Hon. Duncan Hunter, Hon. Ike Skelton, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Hunter and Ranking Member Skelton: I am writing to express my views on the desirability of requiring that the Federal courts provide expedited review of any new military commission system. I am the Chief Defense Counsel for the Office of Military Commissions and I am writing in that capacity. I do not purport to speak for the Administration, the Department of Defense, or any other entity. In December 2005, Congress adopted legislation to preclude habeas corpus relief for Guantanamo detainees. Of course, in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court interpreted that legislation as applying only to future habeas petitions and not to habeas cases that had already been filed. If the Supreme Court had ruled the other way--an outcome that the current version of the Military Commission Act of 2006 would achieve--the results would have been disastrous. In Hamdan, the Supreme Court declared that the old military commission system was ``illegal.'' Having been intimately familiar with the actual practice in the old military commission system, I agree with the Supreme Court that the old system would not have produced trials that were fair or that appeared to be fair. If the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 had been interpreted as applying retroactively, then I would be in Guantanamo Bay today for a military commission trial. The decision by the Supreme Court declaring the system illegal wouldn't have come for years. The result then would be to wipe out many convictions obtained at a cost of tens of millions of dollars. Thank goodness the Supreme, Court reviewed the military commission system when it did. Many aspects of the Military Commission Act of 2006 will be the subject of constitutional challenge. And whatever bill Congress passes will be the subject of judicial scrutiny. As Justice Kennedy noted in his crucial Hamdan concurrence, ``Because Congress has prescribed these limits, Congress can change them, requiring a new analysis consistent with the Constitution and other governing laws.'' Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 126 S. Ct. 2749, 2808 (2006) (Kennedy, J., concurring) (emphasis added). Consider, for example, the bill's approach to hearsay evidence conflicts with the most basic Anglo-American concept of the right to confront one's accuser. The bill appears to set up a system in which an individual can be convicted--and possibly sentenced to death--on the basis of mere written statements. It would allow an individual to be sentenced to death without ever having the opportunity to look his accuser in the eye and subject him to cross-examination. As Justice Scalia has written for the Supreme Court, our Founding Fathers adopted the Confrontation Clause in response to arguments that ``[n]othing can be more essential than the cross examining [of] witnesses, and generally before the triers of the facts in question. . . . [W]ritten evidence . . . [is] almost useless; it must be frequently taken ex parte, and but very seldom leads to the proper discovery of truth.'' Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 49 (2004) (quoting Richard Henry Lee, Letter IV by the Federal Farmer (Oct. 15, 1787), reprinted in 1 Bernard Schwartz, The Bill of Rights: A Documentary History 469, 473 (1971)). The military commission system established under this legislation is vulnerable to constitutional challenge along these lines, and many others. It is in everyone's interest to know sooner, rather than later, whether the new system is unconstitutional. If not, it is in everyone's interest to fix the legislation sooner rather than later. Instead of seeking to delay judicial assessment of the military commission system, Congress should expedite it. The Military Commissions Act should provide for a three-judge district court to immediately hear a challenge to the constitutionality of the new system. In the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107-155, 116 Stat. 81, Congress anticipated a constitutional challenge and set up a system to quickly resolve such a challenge. That approach succeeded spectacularly. See McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93 (2003). If the new military commission system is constitutionally permissible, allow it to proceed with the judiciary's imprimatur. If, as I believe, it is constitutionally deficient, then allow the judiciary to quickly identify its faults so that they can be corrected. But regardless of whether you agree with such an expedited approach, attempting to prevent the courts from, analyzing the new military commission system for years is the worst approach of all. I urge you to reject the portions of the Military Commission Act of 2006 that would deprive the federal courts of any ability to review the military commission system until after it has produced a final conviction. I would be happy to provide any additional information. The best way to contact me is by e-mail at sullivad@dodgc.osd.mil. Very Respectfully, Dwight H. Sullivan, Colonel, USMCR.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee). (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we need to be tough on the terrorists, but we also need to be tough with certainty. I oppose this legislation because it lacks the certainty that we require. As a former prosecuting attorney from yesteryear, Mr. Speaker, I remember the specter that hangs over every prosecutor's head after successfully prosecuting a criminal, and that specter is that the Supreme Court will reverse that hard-won conviction. I am terribly concerned that this is not tough enough because it does not bring about the certainty of a conviction being upheld and standing the scrutiny of our Supreme Court. This is a constitutional issue. The debate today will undoubtedly go down in the annals of our country as being one that stands out as a study in constitutional law and duty thereunder. Our duty as Members of Congress is to uphold the Constitution. That is what I intend to do in my speech and in my vote. But also it is our duty to pass legislation that is constitutional. I have serious questions as to whether this is constitutional or not. I received a letter from the Chief Counsel of the tribunals that exist, Colonel Dwight Sullivan, who said, ``If the new military commission system is constitutionally permissible, allow it to proceed with the judiciary's imprimatur. If, as I believe, it is constitutionally deficient, then allow the judiciary to quickly identify its faults so they can be corrected.'' I offered an amendment to the Rules Committee that would provide for expedited review by the court system, and it was turned down. What is so bad is that a case goes cold, witnesses disappear, witnesses die. It would be an absolute injustice for a despicable terrorist, once convicted, to have that conviction overturned, and you can't try it again. Some of these people are absolutely the worst of the worst. That is why we need certainty in the law, and that is what we do not have here. There are numerous constitutional challenges regarding this legislation. I will mention them: The provisions that strip the Federal courts of jurisdiction over habeas corpus. Second, article I of the Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws. That is what this creates. Third, it is questionable as to whether under article III of the Constitution the Supreme Court would uphold a system that purports to make the President the final arbiter of the Geneva Convention. Fourth, the provisions regarding coerced testimony may be challenged under three amendments to our Constitution. Fifth, the right to confront witnesses and evidence. It also, among other things, has legislation containing the broadest of hearsay rules. Sixth, the violation of the exceptions clause under article III. Seventh, the challenges on equal protection and other constitutional grounds. We want certainty, Mr. Speaker. We want these people, once tried, to be convicted and that conviction upheld. If we pass a law full well knowing that there are provisions in here that would allow them a get- out-of-jail-free card or to have a death sentence reversed, we are doing wrong. We are doing wrong according to our duty, and we are doing wrong in representing the people of our country. We need certainty as well as toughness. Without certainty, we will not be tough on these terrorists. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz). (Mr. ORTIZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), ranking member of the Intelligence Committee. (Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, in 1926, Sir Gerald Ellison published the book, ``Perils of Amateur Strategy,'' the subject of which was a disastrous British campaign at Gallipoli in 1915. Here we are, in 2006, and we find that the Bush administration is busy writing its sequel, ``Perils of Amateur Strategy II,'' about the misadventure of the American attempt in Iraq. The high hopes of bringing stability and democracy are fading, mainly because of strategic mistakes that were avoidable. These mistakes include the diplomatic failure to ensure passage for our troops through Turkey at an early phase of the war; disbanding the Iraqi army; failure to control the looting after the fall of Baghdad; the failure to secure the weapons caches; and of course the failure to use enough troops to successfully complete the mission. In addition thereto, Mr. Speaker, on another subject, I note the failure of this Congress to fully implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Mr. Speaker, we must not adjourn until we pass those recommendations into law, which will prepare us against future terrorist attacks.