Ike Skelton

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt). (Mr. HOLT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, at the request of the Democratic leader, I submit for the Record a letter from various religious organizations dated September 27. September 27, 2006. Dear Representative: We are writing to strongly encourage you to reject the ``compromise'' Military Commissions Act of 2006 and to vote no on final passage of the bill. More than anything else, the bill compromises America's commitment to fairness and the rule of law. For the last five years the United States has repeatedly operated in a manner that betrays our nation's commitment to law. The U.S. has held prisoners in secret prisons without any due process or even access to the Red Cross and has placed other prisoners in Guantanamo Bay in a transparent effort to avoid judicial oversight and the application of U.S. treaty obligations. The federal government has operated under legal theories which dozens of former senior officers have warned endanger U.S. personnel in the field and has produced legal interpretations of the meaning of ``torture'' and ``cruel, inhuman and degrading'' treatment which had to be abandoned when revealed to the public. Interrogation practices were approved by the Department of Defense which former Bush Administration appointee and General Counsel of the Navy Alberto Mora described as ``clearly abusive, and * * * clearly contrary to everything we were ever taught about American values.'' According to media reports the CIA has used a variety of interrogation techniques which the United States has previously prosecuted as war crimes and routinely denounces as torture when they are used by other governments. Instead of finally coming to grips with this situation and creating a framework for detaining, interrogating and prosecuting alleged terrorists which comports with the best traditions of American justice, the proposed legislation will mostly perpetuate the current problems. Worse, it would seek to eliminate any accountability for violations of the law in the past and prevent future judicial oversight. While we appreciate the efforts various members of Congress have made to address these problems, the ``compromise'' falls far short of an acceptable outcome. The serious problems with this legislation are many and this letter will not attempt to catalogue them all. Indeed, because the legislation has only just been made available, many of the serious flaws in this long, complex bill are only now coming to light. For instance, the bill contains a new, very expansive definition of enemy combatant. This definition violates traditional understandings of the laws of war and runs directly counter to Pres. Bush's pledge to develop a common understanding of such issues with U.S. allies. Because the proposed definition of combatant is so broad, the language may also have potential consequences for U.S. civilians. For instance, it may mean that adversaries of the United States will use the definition to define civilian employees and contractors providing support to U.S. combat forces, such as providing food, to be ``combatants'' and therefore legitimate subjects for attack. Yet, there has been no opportunity to consider and debate the implications of this definition, or other parts of the bill such as the definitions of rape and sexual abuse. We strongly oppose the provisions in the bill that strip individuals who are detained by the United States of the ability to challenge the factual and legal basis of their detention. Habeas corpus is necessary to avoid wrongful deprivations of liberty and to ensure that executive detentions are not grounded in torture or other abuse. We are deeply concerned that many provisions in the bill will cast serious doubt on the fairness of the military commission proceedings and undermine the credibility of the convictions as a result. For instance, we are deeply concerned about the provisions that permit the use of evidence obtained through coercion. Provisions in the bill which purport to permit a defendant to see all of the evidence against him also appear to contain serious flaws. We believe that any good faith interpretation of the definitions of ``cruel, inhuman and degrading'' treatment in the bill would prohibit abusive interrogation techniques such as waterboarding, hypothermia, prolonged sleep deprivation, stress positions, assaults, threats and other similar techniques because they clearly cause serious mental and physical suffering. However, given the history of the last few years we also believe that the Congress must take additional steps to remove any chance that the provisions of the bill could be exploited to justify using these and similar techniques in the future. Again, this letter is not an attempt to catalogue all of the flaws in the legislation. There is no reason why this legislation needs to be rushed to passage. In particular, there is no substantive reason why this legislation should be packaged together with legislation unrelated to military commissions or interrogation in an effort to rush the bill through the Congress. Trials of the alleged ``high value'' detainees are reportedly years away from beginning. We urge the Congress to take more time to consider the implications of this legislation for the safety of American personnel, for U.S. efforts to build strong alliances in the effort to defeat terrorists and for the traditional U.S. commitment to the rule of law. Unless these serious problems are corrected, we urge you to vote no. Sincerely, Physicians for Human Rights; Center for National Security Studies; Amnesty International U.S.A.; Human Rights Watch; Human Rights First; American Civil Liberties Union; Open Society Policy Center; Center for American Progress Action Fund; The Episcopal Church; Jewish Council for Public Affairs; Presbyterian Church (USA), Washington Office; Maine Council of Churches; Pennsylvania Council of Churches; Wisconsin Council of Churches; Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law School; Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Center for Human Rights; Center for Constitutional Rights; The Bill of Rights Defense Committee; Unitarian Universalist Service Committee; Leadership Conference of Women Religious; Center for Human Rights and Global Justice, NYU School of Law; The Shalom Center; Washington Region Religious Campaign Against Torture; The Center for Justice and Accountability; Center of Concern; Justice, Peace & Integrity of Creation Missionary Oblates; Rabbis for Human Rights--North America; Humanist Chaplaincy at Harvard University; No2Torture. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran). Mr. MORAN of Virginia . I thank my good friend, an inspirational leader on the Armed Services Committee. I oppose this bill. It would send a message to the world that the United States can disregard international treaties and law and, instead, do as it pleases. For generations, we have been the beacon to guide the actions of other nations. If we descend from the high moral ground, we are, in effect, losing ground to the terrorists. Secretary of State Colin Powell was so accurate when he said, part of this war on terrorism is an ideological and political struggle. Our moral posture is our best weapon to prevail in that struggle. Mr. Speaker, this is not a good bill. Since the inception of the Geneva Conventions 60 years ago, no other country in the world has tried to undermine and negate its provisons its spirit as this bill would. For enemy combatants, the bill eliminates the right of habeas corpus. This is a right enshrined in our Constitution that may be abandoned only, and I quote, ``when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.'' The elimination of habeas is not just illegal, it is flat out wrong. The purpose of habeas corpus is simple. It is to avoid injustice, to avoid the detention by government of any individual that is erroneous, unwarranted, or in violation of law. This purpose and the values from which it stems do not distinguish among individuals or circumstances. They seek to avoid any injustice to any detained individuals. All Americans want to hold terrorists accountable, but if we try to redefine the nature of torture, whisk people into secret detention facilities and use secret evidence to convict them in special courts, our actions do, in fact, embolden our enemies more than any extremist rhetoric could ever do. This bill needs to be defeated.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the amount of time remaining?

Mr. SKELTON. May I inquire, Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman choose to close?

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, this is a day in constitutional history that will stand out like Mars at perihelion. We want tough, but we also want certainty in any conviction that comes from this tribunal; and I am fearful, Mr. Speaker, that this legislation is an invitation for reversal by the Supreme Court. We want to be tough on those despicable people, but we also want a conviction to withstand the scrutiny of our Supreme Court and our judicial process. Mr. Speaker, I yield back.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. SKELTON. I am, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, it is our obligation in this body to fix the deficiencies in this system in order to bring terrorists to justice. My motion to recommit with instructions would add two important elements to the bill that address this basic concern. First, it would require an expedited constitutional review of the entire matter. That is what we need. Second, it would require reauthorization of these military commissions after 3 years. Expedited judicial review is a well-known way to improve legislation for which legal challenges can be anticipated, and we can be sure that the military commissions system created by this bill will be subject to change. We can provide for expedited review of civil actions challenging the legality of this act by creating a three-judge panel of the D.C. District Court that would hear the actions. The U.S. Supreme Court would then review a judgment or review an order of the panel on an expedited basis. This type of provision is routinely placed in novel legislation. It was part of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill, part of the Voting Rights Act, and part of the Communications Decency Act. The motion to recommit would also require that Congress reauthorize these military commissions after 3 years and would allow any action before a military commission begun before 2010 to go forward, but it would require an educated debate on reauthorizing this system after we have had some real-world experience with this new judicial process. There is ample precedent for requiring reauthorization for controversial measures passed in a hurry in times of conflict. Most recently, Mr. Speaker, the PATRIOT Act contained reauthorization, or sunset, provisions. And taken together, Mr. Speaker, these two provisions will significantly improve the flawed legislation that we have before us today. We need not only to be tough. We need to be certain. And my motion to recommit would make this more certain that those despicable terrorists would be brought to justice.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, it has come to my attention that a number of officials from Barton County, Missouri, are retiring this year after serving the public for a number of years. I have had the privilege of representing Barton County in the United States Congress on two occasions. Barton County lies in the southwestern part of the Fourth Congressional District. Its county seat of Lamar is the birthplace of President Harry S. Truman, and the people who live there today personify the same common sense, hard working, Show-Me State values that made President Truman an outstanding president and global leader. I am honored to represent these fine Missourians in the United States Congress and to have had the privilege to work with many of these outstanding public officials. Presiding Commissioner Gerald Miller was born in Idaho but moved to Missouri as a child. He graduated from Lamar High School in 1958 and has been active in the community since that time. Since 1999, Mr. Miller has served as Presiding Commissioner and has worked tirelessly to improve the communities he represents. He is a member of the Lamar Metro Club, the Abou Ben Adhem Shrine, and the Lamar Masonic Lodge. He is a successful businessman who is married to Brenda Rinehart--and has two sons, Mark and Matt. County Clerk Bonda Rawlings is a lifelong resident of Barton County. She graduated from Lamar High School in 1971 and has dedicated much of her life to bettering her community. Since 1983, she has served as the Barton County Clerk and has been a leader in the State Association of County Clerks, serving as president in 1996. While working full time, she is also a member of the Barton County Chamber of Commerce, the Lamar Art League, the Barton County Historical Society, the Truman Area Transportation System, and the Lamar High School Booster Club. In all of these organizations, Mrs. Rawlings has held a leadership position. Bonda is married to Bill Rawlings and has two sons, Stan and Steve. Circuit Clerk Jerry Moyer has spent his adult life serving the City of Lamar and is a graduate of Golden City High School. In 1976, he graduated from the College of the Ozarks with a degree in criminal justice administration. Mr. Moyer has served as the Clerk of the Circuit Court in Barton County since 1983 and has been a leader among his colleagues, serving as president of the Circuit Clerk and Recorders Association in 1994. Mr. Moyer previously served as Deputy Sheriff, a police officer, and a Deputy Juvenile Officer. He is active in the First Assembly of God Church, the Lamar Rotary Club, and the Freedom Singers gospel choir. Jerry Moyer is married to Jena Moyer and has a daughter named Tiffany. Recorder of Deeds Jean Keithly has lived in Barton County all her life and is a graduate of Lamar High School. From 1984 to 2003, she served as the Deputy Recorder of Deeds in Barton County. In 2003, she became the first elected Recorder of Deeds in Barton County since 1935, when the office had been combined with the Circuit Clerk's office. Mrs. Keithly has been an active member of the Recorder's Association of Missouri for 22 years. She is a long-time member of the Hopewell Cumberland Presbyterian Church and has been an outstanding charitable volunteer. Mrs. Keithly is married to Bob Keithly and has two children, Michael and Teresa. Deputy Assessor Dna Mullinax has lived in Golden City, Missouri, for the past 41 years and has worked at the Barton County Courthouse since 1983. Throughout her tenure, she has capably worked through many changes within her office and was especially instrumental in assigning emergency 911 addresses to rural Barton County homes. In 1998, Mrs. Mullinax received the ``Employee of the Year'' award, which was presented by the Lamar Rotary Club. She and her Husband, Rusty, have a shared family of seven children and ten grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, these five individuals represent the outstanding Missourians who live and work within Missouri's Fourth Congressional District. As they each prepare to spend time with their families and enjoy retirement, I know that my colleagues will join me in wishing them well.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, let me take this means to recognize the people of Fort Leonard Wood and Pulaski County, Missouri, for their commitment to improving the quality of life for military personnel. In a recent study conducted by Expansion Management magazine and the Office of the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Military Communities and Family Policy, Fort Leonard Wood and Pulaski County ranked third among 126 civilian communities in the quality of life that they provide to military families. The ``2006 Military Communities of Excellence'' study compared the quality of life among these civilian communities in areas that include: public schools, housing affordability, standard of living, recreation and leisure, health care, crime and safety, spouse employment opportunities, continuing educational opportunities, affordable childcare, traffic and commuting, commercial air service, and Department of Defense Quality of Life legislative issues. It is also worth noting that Pulaski County placed third in the ``Top 10 Metros Overall Quality of Life, Communities with Military Populations over 20,000''. Mr. Speaker, Fort Leonard Wood and Pulaski County, Missouri have dedicated valuable resources and time to earn this recognition. I know the Members of House will join me in recognizing this outstanding achievement.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, not long ago the Missouri legislature passed a law just like the one that we are considering today for the State of Missouri. Since I don't drive, I needed a nondriver's license identification card. I went in to the Lafayette County license bureau, waited like all the others for 45 minutes to see the very nice young lady, and I told her that I needed a government, State of Missouri- issued nondriver's license identification card. She said, ``I know you.'' Of course, she did. I produced the voting card identification card that I always carry with me. It has my picture, United States House of Representatives, the Honorable Ike Skelton, Member of Congress, Missouri Fourth District, No. 190465, and has a facsimile of my signature, 109th Congress, January 2005-2007. She said that ought to do it, but let me call the Jefferson City Department of Revenue and check. She did, and they said, no, that is not enough identification for me. I would have to go get either a passport or a birth certificate. As I was running out of time, I thanked her, and I would come back at a later moment. Thus, I was turned down trying to get a Department of Revenue nondriver's license voter identification card. A month later, just a few days ago with my passport, which was up here in Washington in my safe, I waited in line and did get my voter nondriver's license identification card. So I am pleased to tell you that I can vote in November. I also should tell you that in recent days the law that was passed by the Missouri legislature was held to be unconstitutional by the trial judge in Jefferson City, Missouri. This law, if allowed to stand in our State, or on a Federal level, will disenfranchise some very nice people, particularly senior citizens who walk in without a photo ID or driver's license. I just thought I would share my personal experience with my friends and colleagues here in the House.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, let me take this means to recognize Command Sergeant Major James Harold Cheney, United States Army, as he completes a distinguished tour of duty in the United States Army. Command Sergeant Major (CSM) James H. Cheney entered the United States Army on September 8, 1976, at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Since joining the U.S. Army, CSM Cheney has completed tours of duty at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri (on five occasions); Fort Rucker, Alabama; Camp Indian, Korea; Fort Lewis, Washington; Schofield Barracks, Hawaii; Fort Bragg, North Carolina; and Vilseck, Germany. Throughout his military career, CSM Cheney has served the White House Communications Agency where he was the NCOIC of the fabrications department and the Office of the Chief of Engineers at the Pentagon where he fulfilled the responsibilities as the Office of the Chief of Engineer Sergeant Major. Additionally, CSM Cheney has been recognized for his service to the United States Army having held every Noncommissioned Officer leadership position culminating as the United States Army Garrison, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, Garrison Command Sergeant Major. Highly respected within the Army leadership, CSM Cheney has been awarded the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, the Armed Forces Service Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, and the Good Conduct Medal. CSM Cheney has also received the Drill Sergeant Badge, the Jungle Expert Badge, the Army Staff Badge, and the Presidential Service Badge. The aforementioned awards and decorations are just a few of the many that CSM Cheney has been given. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor for me to pay tribute to Command Sergeant Major James H. Cheney. I know my colleagues join me in thanking him for his service to his country and in wishing him well as he concludes his tour of duty with the United States Army.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, thank you. I am very concerned about Iraq. Very concerned. The weather vane of the Iraqi fight has shifted clearly to the Iraqis. It is theirs to win or lose. General John Abizaid stated yesterday, ``It's very, very clear that in order to win in Iraq, the Iraqis have to assume more and more responsibility.'' Last week, there were two developments in Iraq that I feel need to be highlighted. First, the Marine Corps' chief of intelligence in Iraq has reportedly described the situation in the Sunni-dominated Anbar province as ``politically'' lost to al Qaeda. The second is the plan to secure Baghdad from the insurgents by encircling it with, for lack of a better word, a moat. The idea of a moat went out of style in the middle ages. Both of these reports paint a less than rosy picture of how we are faring in this war that has already cost so much in blood and treasure. These two developments indicate that our level of effort is insufficient to maintain control of the country. On the basis of these and other reports, some analysts determined that the solution to our problems in Baghdad and the Anbar province is to send more troops to Iraq. This might sound like a plausible course of action except for the fundamental problem that there are no more units to send to Iraq. Oh, certainly we can surge units forward into combat, but there is no way we can sustain that increase for any significant period of time. The administration's poor planning and poor strategic choices in Iraq have depleted our military of equipment and manpower. Iraq has become a black hole, sapping our strategic base of resources. The readiness situation has become so bad that our nondeployed combat brigades report that if called today, they may not be fully ready to complete all of their wartime missions. The fact that our ground force readiness has fallen to such a dangerous level risks emboldening our enemies both in Iraq and elsewhere in the world. We must act now to reverse this decline. Certainly spending more money on Army and Marine Corps readiness will help. The Congress has provided additional funds to reset Army and Marine Corps equipment. But even with that increased funding, it will take some time for our units to get healthy again. I also strongly urge the administration to submit a budget that realistically reflects the services' needs. But unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, additional money will not be enough. We do not have the luxury of staying the course. The conflict in Iraq has depleted our ground forces and placed this country at strategic risk. We must start making significant progress in Iraq now, and the best way to do it is by transitioning the responsibility for Iraqi security to the Iraqis. I urge the administration to redouble its efforts to train and equip the Iraqi security forces.