Ike Skelton

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I might point out, Mr. Chairman, that I take a back seat to no one regarding fighting the scourge of illegal drugs. And being a former prosecuting attorney, I know full well the scourge of that problem. However, Mr. Chairman, the American taxpayers have spent over $4.7 billion on the Andean Counterdrug Initiative since the year 2000. Despite that commitment, the production in that country is higher now than ever. We need to ensure we are spending money wisely. We must ensure we are addressing the root causes of the drug problem in Colombia. Let me point out that the committee provides $545 million for this program and we are diverting, by way of this amendment, a very good amendment, only $30 million, which, by the way, if you subtract carefully, still leaves more than the President recommended for this program. I am glad that we have been able to support President Uribe and the Colombian military against guerrilla groups, but I still question the stability of our military efforts in that country. And I think we are also working our special operation forces very, very hard during this time of war elsewhere. It has been a long time since the House Armed Services Committee has seriously focused any attention on the security changes in Latin America. We ought to take our congressional oversight role seriously. We should hold hearings, give full consideration to American policy in this critical part of the world. If we are not careful, the gathering storm in Latin America could come back to bite us in years to come. This amendment, which I support, sends a clear message to Colombian and other Andean countries that while the American people will support their governments to a point, the financial assistance is not unlimited and should not go unchecked. Colombia must decrease coca production and better account for human rights concerns. This amendment transfers $30 million out of the Andean Counterdrug Initiative account to humanitarian assistance in the Sudan and in Darfur, which is highly needed and necessary, in my opinion, and it still leaves more money than what the President recommended for this antidrug program in the Andean area.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, show-me State motorists, like all consumers, closely follow gasoline prices, and with good reason. They have experienced dramatic increases and wide fluctuations in gas prices over the past several years, spending millions of dollars more on gasoline than they had anticipated. Rural Americans, who rely heavily on transportation in going about their daily lives, are being hit particularly hard by the high cost of gasoline. This is especially true for farmers, many of whom are already operating at a loss this year. It is imperative that Congress work to address our nation's energy needs through a comprehensive and proactive strategy that makes it easier to promote alternative energy sources, to stop price gouging, to increase production by expanding refining capacity, and to rollback billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies to oil companies that are making record profits. The refinery permitting bill before the House today contains scant assistance for the rural Missourians I am privileged to represent. It would not lower their energy costs nor assure our nation's energy security. Rather, it would change the permitting process for refineries and would require the President to designate closed military bases for consideration as locations for new refineries. Designating closed military bases for refineries seems to make little if any sense at all. I can't believe that we have used up all the possible locations available for placing refineries and must now resort to giving federal land grants to the oil companies to encourage them to build new capacity. Closed bases are not abandoned land. In nearly every case, the communities that surround these former installations have reuse plans for these bases to benefit the local community. If they want to place a refinery on a closed base, let them make that determination. Unfortunately, changing permitting rules and offering federal land to oil companies will not entice them to build new oil refineries. While more refineries would certainly help produce more gasoline, oil companies have had the opportunity and financial capability for years to increase their refining capacity. Permitting rules are not stopping them, nor is there a lack of available locations for new refineries. Rather, the inability to build profitable refineries has led oil company executives away from constructing or resurrecting them. The energy problems we are facing today must be addressed with meaningful, comprehensive legislation. House Democrats have been active in this regard, pressing for increases in the use of alternative fuel produced from the corn and soybeans grown in Missouri's fields. Democrats have also been pushing for passage of anti-price gouging legislation since the energy markets were impacted by Hurricane Katrina. I have supported alternate legislation that would strengthen the hands of the Federal Trade Commission and the Justice Department, targeting price gouging across the energy spectrum. It would also help Americans who are struggling to deal with high gas prices and bracing for record home heating and air conditioning bills, while creating a Strategic Refinery Reserve to provide additional gas supplies during energy spikes like the one we are currently facing. Unfortunately, this more wisely drafted alternative has not even been allowed as an amendment to this bill.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and gentlewoman from New York and friend and gentleman from Iowa for their support on this bill. Mr. Speaker, several years ago, I hosted a small breakfast for the well-known historian Stephen Ambrose, and I asked him what it was that made America so great. Now, I fully expected him to mention the westward movement of American pioneer families in the 1800s. Instead, Mr. Ambrose replied, ``Look at Russia. They have abundant natural resources and a hearty workforce. But they never had a George Washington, a John Adams and a Thomas Jefferson. It was Thomas Jefferson who had the wisdom and the foresight to appoint Merriweather Lewis and William Clark to explore the Louisiana Territory.'' I am pleased that we are considering this legislation that will continue to honor the historic achievements of Lewis and Clark, and I want to thank my good friend, Jo Ann Emerson, for introducing the bill; and I appreciate the support of Financial Services Committee Chairman Mike Oxley and Ranking Member Barney Frank. This bill will designate the National Council of the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial and the Missouri Historical Society as beneficiaries of proceeds from the sale of the Lewis and Clark commemorative coin. These nonprofit organizations have raised nearly $5 million to conduct Lewis and Clark Bicentennial promotional activities. They will use funds from the sale of the coin to further historic investments in the Lewis and Clark Heritage Trail and to promote additional Lewis and Clark bicentennial celebrations. This legislation has been endorsed by the National Council of the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial and the Lewis and Clark Trail Heritage Foundation, which includes representation from all the States along the Missouri River basin. It is with a note of interest, Mr. Speaker, that the Missouri River flows right by my hometown of Lexington, Missouri, and as Lewis and Clark went up that river in that historic year 1804, they went by the bluffs which now contain my hometown of Lexington, Missouri. So it is special to those of us that do live along the river that we continue to honor the work, the courage of Lewis and Clark on their very, very courageous journey.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Let us assume there is an infantry company first sergeant sitting here in our midst today and our friends on the other side would be trying to explain to him about the particulars of emergency spending, of points of order and parliamentary procedure. But the infantry company first sergeant would say, but what about my being able to train the troops better? What about being able to train them in emergency urban warfare, or in sharpshooting better or having better barracks conditions so that they will stay in the Army and not consider getting out? How would one explain to that infantry company first sergeant the complexities of what we are facing on this floor and the needs of those wonderful soldiers? Mr. Chairman, I speak for those soldiers. We need them. We need them to be highly trained, well taken care of, and to try to explain things away on points of order and whether something fits within the ``emergency spending'' category would be foreign to him because all he knows, he wants to train his troops so they can fight in Afghanistan, Iraq and the war against terror. That is what is important to this country. That is what is important to the soldiers. I am proud of them. I would like to say all of us in this room speak for them, but unfortunately, we are faced with a parliamentary situation that I could not explain to that first sergeant.

Mr. SKELTON. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin, my friend.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, for several years now, the budgets brought before this Congress have not adequately represented the interests of the American people. Rather than approach budgeting in a bipartisan fashion, Republicans have consistently chosen to gild the lily, electing to enact large tax cuts while simultaneously failing to reign in government spending. These actions by today's leaders have passed a tremendous financial burden on to future generations of Americans. The Republicans' Fiscal Year 2007 budget is no better. It makes the deficit worse, offers no plan to bring the budget back to balance, and adds to the growing weight of the national debt. The budget also makes harmful cuts to critical services for working families--including education, veterans' services, and health care. In contrast, the Democratic budget plan proposed by Mr. Spratt of South Carolina would reach balance in 2012, has smaller deficits, accumulates less debt, and repeals the House rule providing for automatic debt ceiling increases. It also would reject the Republican budget's cuts to domestic priorities and reinstate pay-as-you-go rules that helped spur the budget surpluses of the 1990s. I come from Missouri--the ``Show-Me State.'' If the leaders in Congress and at the White House want to be fiscally responsible, they ought to show Missourians and the rest of the American people they mean business by rejecting the failed budget policies of the past and by immediately convening a bipartisan budget summit. President George H.W. Bush did this during a similarly challenging time and America is better for it.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, let me take this means to congratulate the 4-Life Project in Lexington, Missouri. On May 12, 2006, the 4-Life Project will receive the Bishop John J. Sullivan Award by the Catholic Charities of Kansas City-St. Joseph. The award, the Catholic Charities' most distinguished honor, is given to individuals or organizations whose deeds, character, leadership, and accomplishments best exemplify the mission of the Catholic Charities. The 4-Life Project consists of 4 programs critical to the Lafayette County area: the Margaret Gray Senior Center, the Rodgers-Lafayette Community Health Center, the Lexington School District Preschool, and Vocational Childcare Training Program. The Senior Center opened on February 15, 2006. It provides a wide array of home and community based services for persons 60 and over, including on-site and home delivered meals, computer classes, and a new program called ProjectEnhance, which assists seniors with ongoing health and wellness issues. The Rodgers- Lafayette Community Health Center opened on January 15, 2006, and provides comprehensive medical care, including dental and mental health care. The Lexington School District Preschool and the Vocational Childcare Training Program provides the area with a much needed total early childhood center. Mr. Speaker, I am certain that the Members of the House will join me in congratulating the staff of the 4-Life Project for their accomplishments and in thanking them for their contributions to the community.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, my fellow Missourian, Mark Twain, once said, ``The more you explain it to me, the more I don't understand it.'' And that is where we are on this rule; in particular not allowing some amendments, including my amendment which would be very helpful to the families of those in uniform, to be in order. Thus, I rise in strong opposition to the rule. Let me speak about my amendment first. It reduces the copay of the servicemembers and their families for prescription drugs. Currently, there is a $3 copay charge for generic drugs and a $9 copay for name- brand drugs. Under the bill, it zeros out mail-order orders, which is fine in some cases, but increases the generic drugs to $6, and increases name brand to $16. You have to say that is not a lot, but if you are a corporal with three children that get sick and you have to multiply the $16 times one or two or three times when you have serious illness in your family, it is going to cost an awful lot more. That is why it is important that we do our very best to take care of the troops. This is not brain surgery. This is helping the troops in some small, positive, decent way. And, you know, this amendment was not made in order. I have to compliment the bipartisanship of the base bill. I am proud of it. Chairman Hunter did a good job in working on that, and we worked our will on some of the amendments, including the one I offered. It only lost by two votes, 28 for it and 30 against it. What is wrong with taking that measure up on the floor of the House of Representatives and letting us work our will for the troops, for the young people, particularly for that private first class, that sergeant, that corporal that might have a family that needs help? You say, well, they can do it by mail order. If your child is really sick or has the flu or it is over a long weekend, you are not going to get anything by mail order. You are going to go down to the drugstore and you are going to pay through the nose, just as this bill is requiring. All we want to do is help the young folks; this is a way we can do it. And if the amendment is voted down, the will of the House has worked its way. I would do my best to convince every Member of this body to vote for it. So I think what we need to do is to go back to the Rules Committee and ask them to allow the Skelton amendment to be made in order. There are other amendments that should have been looked at. Mr. Israel has one that deals with chaplains that is very, very evenhanded. Mr. Hoyer has one, as well as Mr. Udall and Mr. McGovern and some other Members, regarding energy, that should be looked at. But I speak mainly in favor of my proposal. Rather than charging additional money to these young troops should they have a sick child or a sick spouse, let us reduce it back to where it was. That is not difficult. In the process say, hey, thank you for the job you are doing rather than let us stick you for a few more dollars to pay to the drug companies. That is not right. That is not right. That is not the way we want to treat these young folks. Let us do all we can to help them. And this is one way. Let us at least vote on it. I will speak in favor of it. I would hope that many people on the other side of the aisle would not only speak for it, but would vote for it. It is a good amendment. I dare you to put it on the calendar for us to vote. That is what we need to do so we can say fully and fairly to the young folks, we have done our best for you.

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

Mr. SKELTON. I commend the gentleman for his effort. I can think of no faith that would disagree with the wording that you have proposed. I think it is just too bad that it was not allowed to be put in order, because I think it would have received more than a substantial vote in this House.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this en bloc amendment, and I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff). (Mr. SCHIFF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca). (Mr. BACA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me say I support this second en bloc series of amendments on behalf of my colleagues, in particular Mr. Ryan and Ms. Slaughter, who have amendments within this en bloc package. Mr. Ryan's amendment in this adds money for High Altitude Airship, and it moves it to the Air Force. Ms. Slaughter's amendment includes the number of disciplinary actions as part of the annual report on sexual assaults within the military. Those as well as the others, Mr. Chabot's and Mr. Davis' amendments, do meet with our support and approval and I intend to support them, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

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

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I claim time on this and I would add that I support it. I compliment the gentleman from Pennsylvania, and I certainly think it is an excellent amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

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

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I certainly applaud your addition to your amendment. Sonny Montgomery was such a good friend when I first came to the House of Representatives. He, of course, was a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, gave guidance and advice; and I had the opportunity to be on the Personnel Subcommittee when his bill, later known as the Sonny Montgomery GI bill, came through, and I had the opportunity to work on an amendment at the subcommittee level, as a matter of fact. He was a true gentleman's gentleman, a real inspiration to those of us that worked with him, a credit to the House, a credit to the military, a credit to the National Guard, most of all a credit to our Nation. So it is certainly fitting and proper that you should name this measure after G.V. ``Sonny'' Montgomery.

Mr. SKELTON. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SKELTON. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).

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

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney), a member of the subcommittee.