Ike Skelton

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich). (Mr. KUCINICH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SKELTON. If the gentleman will yield, yes, this part of the Senate bill became part thereof as a result of the majority chairman of their Senate committee.

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

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, the Senate of the United States passed a section to which I would like to have as a centerpiece in my motion to instruct conferees to adopt. By a vote of 82-9 the Senate adopted this amendment which was offered by the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. I do not understand why some people do not want to learn the truth. That is what this is. It is an attempt to have a provision that allows us in the Congress of the United States, both the House and the Senate, under the provisions of this language to learn the truth. We do not want to learn things from the front page of a newspaper. We want to learn things as they should be properly reported to us from the White House which this motion to instruct would require. It is that simple. The other side seems to wish to confuse the issue which causes me to scratch my head as to why they oppose this motion to instruct. It is clear-cut. A huge majority of the Senators, both parties, voted in favor thereof in the Senate. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of my motion to instruct, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Madam Speaker, the PATRIOT Act has been an important law enforcement tool in the years following the dastardly terrorist attacks on our country, and taken as a whole, the bill has enhanced our national security. The United States and our allies are fighting a war like no other. It is an unconventional war that must be met with unconventional tools used by law enforcement professionals to protect the American people from those who would do us harm. The PATRIOT Act provides federal officers greater powers to trace and intercept terrorists' communications for law enforcement and foreign intelligence purposes. It reinforces federal anti-money laundering laws and regulations in an effort to deny terrorists the resources necessary for future attacks. It tightens laws pertaining to seaport security. And, it creates several new federal crimes, such as laws outlawing terrorists' attacks on mass transit and increases penalties for many other violations of the law. As is true of any law that empowers the government to collect security-related information domestically, evaluating the PATRIOT Act requires us to weigh a wide range of competing interests, like the ability of our government to detect and thwart terrorist attacks and the constitutional rights of the American people. Of course, proper oversight of the PATRIOT Act by Congress is essential to guaranteeing our constitutional rights are not trampled. Important for Missouri, the PATRIOT Act Conference Report also includes bipartisan language that helps fight the scourge of methamphetamine abuse in America. This drug epidemic has been especially hard on rural areas. The bill bans over-the-counter sales of cold medicines that contain ingredients commonly used to make methamphetamine, allowing the sale only from locked cabinets or behind the counter. It limits the monthly amount any individual could purchase, requires individuals to present photo identification in order to purchase such medicines, and requires stores to keep personal information about these customers for at least 2 years after the purchase of these medicines. The bill also allows judges to impose strict sentences for those who possess pseudoephedrine with the intent to distribute it for methamphetamine creation. I urge my colleagues to support reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, let me take this means to share my support for H.R. 452, a bill introduced by my good friend and Missouri colleague, Congressman Lacy Clay. I was pleased to cosponsor this legislation, which would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study the feasibility of including the St. Louis Soldiers' Memorial Military Museum as a part of the National Park System. Through the years, the people of St. Louis and the surrounding area have visited the St. Louis Soldiers' Memorial to pay tribute to the selfless sacrifices of our men and women in uniform. Originally constructed to honor Americans who lost their lives during the first World War, the monument was dedicated by President Franklin Roosevelt in 1936 and opened to the public in 1938. Since that time, the memorial has held a unique place in the history of our state and our country. As such, it seems fitting that Congress authorize the Interior Secretary to determine whether the St. Louis Soldiers' Memorial should be included in America's inventory of national monuments. I hope my colleagues agree and will support this sensible legislation offered by the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Clay.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for this Special Order and for giving me the opportunity to say a word or two about my friend John Dingell. John Dingell is a friend, a colleague, a gentleman of great knowledge, stature. And at the end of the day, he is known as a pillar of this institution. Fifty years of service to the Nation as a Member of this body. That is wonderful. It is interesting, having the thrill of a spouse, a wife, who is such a companion to me, I know full well that so much credit goes to the wife of John Dingell, Debbie Dingell, because she has devoted her life to making this institution better and our country a better place to live. So along with John Dingell, tonight, we salute Debbie. In 1944, at the age of 18, John joined the United States Army. He became a second lieutenant and received orders to take part in the first wave of a planned invasion of Japan in November of 1945. He has been reported to have said that Harry Truman saved his life by using the weapon that he had at hand to end the war with Japan. He finished the military service in the fall of 1946, studied chemistry and law at Georgetown before working as a forest ranger, prosecuting attorney and a lawyer. When his father passed away while still a Member of this Congress, John was elected to that open seat at the age of 29. He has served Michigan, our country, and this body ever since. Mr. Speaker, this is an institution of relationships, those who have knowledge, those who have studied this subject and those who understand the word ``friendship.'' If you want something done or something passed, one must have the knowledge and the stature and the respect of others before something becomes law. That is the way this institution works. It is a wonderful, wonderful American way of doing things. John Dingell is the master of all. He understands the subject matter, he studies it, he speaks well, but, most of all, all of us look to him as a friend. So we are pleased to salute him tonight as the dean of the House, as a role model for those who will follow in the days and years to come. I can honestly say that each of us who has had the privilege of serving in Congress with John Dingell says it is a true highlight in our life to do so.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, it is with deep sadness that I inform the House of the death of Vice Admiral Arthur K. Cebrowski, USN, Ret. Admiral Cebrowski was born in Passaic, NJ. He graduated from Villanova University in 1964. He received a master's degree in Computer Systems Management from the Naval Post Graduate School and attended the Naval War College. In 1964, he entered the Navy through the Reserve Officers Training Corps. He was a naval aviator and commanded Fighter Squadron 41 and Air Wing 8. He commanded the assault ship USS Guam, the aircraft carrier USS Midway and the USS America Battle Group. He had combat experience in Vietnam and Desert Storm. His joint assignments included service as the director, Command, Control, Communications and Computers, J-6, Joint Staff. He also had served in the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations as director of space, information warfare, and command and control. Admiral Cebrowski retired from the Navy on October 1, 2001, after serving as the president of the Naval War College in Newport, RI. On November 26, 2001, Admiral Cebrowski was appointed to the position of director, Office of Force Transformation. Mr. Speaker, Admiral Cebrowski was a valuable leader in the U.S. Navy and our country. I know the Members of the House will join me in extending heartfelt condolences to his family.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, it is with sadness that I inform the House of the death of Dr. David Henson of Jefferson City, Missouri. Dr. Henson grew up in Orlando, Florida. He attended Florida A&M University where he received a B.S. degree in Biology in 1961. In 1968, he earned a M.Sc.Ed. degree in Chemistry from Tuskegee University. In 1972, Dr. Henson received his Ph.D. degree in Biochemistry from the University of Iowa. For more than two decades Dr. Henson made significant contributions to the field of higher education. Most notably, he was the Acting Chairperson, Department of Biochemistry, Assistant Dean of Student Affairs, and Associate Professor of Biochemistry at Howard University College of Medicine; Dean of Student Affairs, Associate Dean of Yale College, Lecturer in Molecular Biophysics and Biochemistry and Fellow in Timothy Dwight College at Yale University; Provost and Professor of Chemistry at the Broward Campus of Florida Atlantic University and Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Services/Student Support Services at the University of Colorado at Boulder. Dr. Henson also served as President and Professor of Chemistry at Alabama A&M University in Huntsville, Alabama, and as Vice President of Student Services at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana. On July 2, 1997, Dr. Henson became the seventeenth President of Lincoln University, Jefferson City, Missouri. Under his leadership Lincoln University experienced unprecedented growth and renewal. Dr. Henson also was involved in the Jefferson City community. He served on the Board of Directors for the Jefferson City Chamber of Commerce, was a member of the Jefferson City Leadership Forum and the Rotary Club of Jefferson City. Dr. Henson was a member of Sigma XI Honorary Society, Beta Kappa Chi Scientific Honorary Society, Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc., and an Honorary Member of Kappa Kappa Psi Band Organization. Dr. Henson received the ``African Americans Who Make a Difference Award'', the Howard University College of Medicine Student Council's Award for ``Excellence in Teaching'', the George Washington Carver Research Foundation Student Award, and an American Council on Education Fellowship. Mr. Speaker, Dr. Henson was a valuable leader in his community and was respected by everyone who knew him. He will be missed by all. I know the members of the House will join me in extending heartfelt condolences to his family.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. In the rush to the floor, the resolution before us, any country lawyer across the country could say it is flawed in the way it is written. It makes no reference whatsoever to the redeployment. It is a sad mistake when you rush to judgment to get something to the floor. One thing that really concerns me a great deal is our friend, our colleague, the recipient of the Bronze Star, two Purple Hearts from Vietnam, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) being attacked as he has. I remember in 1978 Congressman Sonny Montgomery who led a group of us to Vietnam to bring back remains of those who had died in combat. I remember the reverence with which the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) treated those 14 coffins of his former colleagues who were killed in action in Vietnam. I have seen in the 29 years I have been in Congress his supporting our troops, supporting under the Constitution our duty to raise and maintain those wonderful young people who protect our freedoms. He has a resolution. He introduced it. He represents the people of Pennsylvania. I admire his assessment of the war. We disagree on the outcome. I have a proposal myself. I sent a letter to the President on October 20 setting forth, the only person that has set a formula, for three Iraqi brigades of level number one, one American brigade may be redeployed. It is interesting to note that there has been no hearing on this resolution, no hearing on similar issues that are of utmost importance to our country. Now, though mistakes have been made, and they have, such as allowing the looting and disbanding the Iraqi Army rather than giving them a pick and shovel and a small paycheck, and as a result many of them became insurgents against the Americans, no one here as spoken of the success that is needed in Iraq. If we are not successful, if the Iraqi military is not successful, Iraq will be a snake pit for terrorists, every bit as bad as the Taliban had in Afghanistan, and lo and behold the problems it may raise in stability for Jordan and Saudi Arabia. It is important that we have success. But it is also important that we have fair and full debate. It is important that we have hearings in the Committee on Armed Services on issues such as this, which we have not had. Hearings yes, but not on the war issues as we need them discussed in a full hearing with proper witnesses as we can ask questions of them. At least, Mr. Speaker, let me say that we have wonderful young people in uniform representing us in Iraq and Afghanistan and across the globe. I am so proud of them. I am so proud of what they do in bringing the fight to a successful conclusion. And the issue of redeployment, whether I agree with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) or not, and I do not, because my formula I think is the best and I have had positive results in my home State with positive unsolicited newspaper articles saying that it was a good and reasonable method of redeployment, we must do our best to have success there and proper redeployment of our troops from Iraq.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, budgets illustrate the values of our nation. This year's budget reconciliation bill fails to live up to the values of the people I am privileged to represent in West Central Missouri. The Republican budget opens the 2002 Farm Bill by reducing farm, rural development, and conservation programs; slashes Medicaid; diminishes financial aid programs for Missouri's college bound students; and denies low-income working families access to food and nutrition initiatives. These reductions in critical rural programs are recommended at the same time as Republicans push for more expansive tax cuts for the wealthiest in society. Most of us in rural Missouri pride ourselves on being prudent with our money. We balance our checkbooks each month and do not dig too deep into debt. While running a family is much different than running a country, these common sense Show-Me State values ought to be replicated in Congress. But instead, the Republicans are plunging our country deeper into debt by passing a budget that includes more tax cuts than spending cuts. The budget bill ignores our commitments to rebuild the Gulf Coast after Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma. It also fails to properly account for expected future supplemental spending requests for ongoing military operations. Our nation's fiscal house is not in order and this bill does nothing to fix that. Congressional leaders and the President need to go back to the drawing board and meet in a bipartisan fashion to create a budget plan that more adequately balances the interests--and values--of the American people. When George H.W. Bush faced a similar budget crisis, he had the courage to create a bipartisan budget summit and to implement needed budget constraints. America is better for it, and I hope that our leaders today will follow that example. Mr. Speaker, the Republican budget reconciliation bill should be defeated. Congress must do better at representing the interests of every American, not just the wealthy few. I stand ready to work with all my colleagues in a bipartisan fashion, ensuring that the budget we prepare truly represents the values of a caring nation.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 574, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 576 on H.R. 3770, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. I rise in support of the motion. Mr. Speaker, I left the Armed Services Committee hearing a moment ago and I heard Command Sergeant Major Citola in a very eloquent discussion of the troops in Iraq say that we are a Nation of laws. It was heartening to hear that. Then the report from The Washington Post to which the gentleman from Wisconsin refers is a dagger in that thought. Our men and women in uniform are serving with tremendous distinction around the world in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Horn of Africa, Korea, Germany, and many other places; and they deserve the best protection and support we can give them. We in Congress are tasked with ensuring these troops and our veterans have all they need. They deserve the very best. Part of our job comes in providing them with the best equipment, training, and benefits. Another part is providing oversight of the policies of the administration. One of the questions that I had earlier was when the Armed Services Committee did not adopt a subcommittee on oversight or investigations. Hearken back to the days when the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, David Jones, raised the issue that the Joint Chiefs of Staff is not working well and that there is a lack of jointness within our military. It was the committee on investigations under the gentleman from Alabama, Bill Nichols, that worked for some 4 years and came up with the landmark law that we now call Goldwater-Nichols. That was oversight. By oversight, we must ensure that our military forces are employed appropriately; when there are problems, that they are investigated fairly and properly, as they were in Chairman Nichols' work. I have supported calls for more vigorous investigations of the failure in prewar intelligence on weapons of mass destruction and for a likely post-war situation in Iraq. I have also supported a Truman-like commission to look at contracting problems in Iraq. Unfortunately, those efforts have not been undertaken; and they, sadly, fell on deaf ears. In my own Armed Services Committee there have been many efforts that have been undertaken in a bipartisan manner. This is good. A noble example is our joint effort to ensure that more up-armored Humvees and other force protection equipment reached the field despite the failure to plan adequately for their needs. That is a very positive step we did. Yet even in our committee, we need to do better when it comes to oversight in key areas of our policy relating to Iraq and the war on terror. Notably, I feel there must be additional policy and additional oversight of our treatment of detainees in theaters around the world. The question I have, Mr. Speaker, in regard to the article to which the gentleman from Wisconsin refers, was there any connection between what the allegations are by the CIA and the Department of Defense or anyone therein. That, I think, is a matter of oversight and one that we need to at least have a briefing or a hearing thereon. Increased oversight will allow us both to understand the systematic causes of these cases of abuse, the right solutions to be enacted into law. That is our job. The Constitution charges the Congress with raising and maintaining the military; and you cannot raise and maintain unless you oversight, unless you understand the problems that we can cure by law. That is our job. And I think we could do a much, much better job.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

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

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I might point out to the gentleman that we in Congress did pass the basic BRAC law which we are following today.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

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

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might consume. Mr. Chairman, I have long supported the base closure process as a way to eliminate excess infrastructure in the Department of Defense. This is an important and very noble goal. We need all of our resources to be devoted towards supporting our fighting men and women. This includes having the best and most efficient facilities. For this reason, Mr. Chairman, I will today vote to uphold the list recommended by the BRAC Commission and against the resolution of disapproval. Even though I support the BRAC, I would like to take this opportunity to comment on the process that was used in this round of BRAC. In the last three BRAC rounds, the Defense Department demonstrated that it could successfully close bases and reduce infrastructure through a measured and deliberative process. In this round, however, neither the Department of Defense nor the BRAC Commission, in my opinion, has lived up to the high standards that we set for them. The execution of the process and the final outcome has suffered. The end result is that I doubt we will see another round of base closures due to missteps along the way. This is it, Mr. Chairman. This is it for BRAC. But even with the BRAC shortfalls, I feel that the Congress created a law that we are obligated to follow. While it missed some opportunities, the commission made some closures that will benefit the Nation. There are some outstanding prospects for jointness included on the list. I sincerely hope that the Department of Defense will work to maximize their effect, while it works to assist communities that will be affected by closures with redevelopment. Mr. Chairman, we must vote upon the product that is before us and the good that it can do. This BRAC may not be perfect, but we must take the opportunity presented to us to streamline our military infrastructure. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning with mixed emotions for our situation in Iraq. I am certainly pleased for the Iraqi people to see that it looks as if they have passed the constitutional referendum. The upcoming December elections for the national assembly will be another important milestone for them as well as their nation. At the same time, it is impossible not to reflect on the other milestone we reached today, the announcement of the 2,000th American casualty with the deaths of two Marines in Anbar province last week. All Americans mourn with their families and all that came before them. This announcement comes simultaneously with the coordinated bombings on two Baghdad hotels this morning by insurgents. We can see from this attack and other engagements with American forces that the insurgency continues. Defeating the insurgency will not happen with military force alone. And it will not happen by American hands alone. We know that the answer in Iraq lies in transitioning security responsibility to the Iraqis themselves. The administration has been saying this for some time. The problem, from my perspective, is that the American and the Iraqi people, if they are going to stay with us until the Iraqi security forces are capable of taking over the job, must have a clear sense of progress. Iraqi security forces must be able to take the fight to the insurgents on their own and to inspire the confidence of the Iraqi people. Similarly, the American public must see that there is a connection between increasing capability of Iraqi security forces and a diminishing American commitment over time. For this reason, I have proposed a clear formula that can be used by our military leaders and that can be explained to the Iraqi and American publics alike, that for every three Iraqi security force combat brigades rated level 1--or fully capable--an American brigade or unit of similar size, type, and mission should be strategically redeployed from Iraq. In terms of units, because a brigade is the smallest military unit able to support itself and fight independently, brigades should be the standard sized units used to measure Iraqi security force capability over time. Additionally, in terms of readiness standards, units rated at level 1 indicate that they have the capability to plan and fight independently, without any assistance from U.S. forces. In my view, 3 to 1 is the right measurement because an American brigade surpasses its Iraqi counterpart in both quantity of forces and in quality. I think this is a formula that makes sense, but beyond the numbers, it is important because it is a benchmark that is easy to understand and that sets reasonable, achievable standards for both our forces and the Iraqis. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I propose that we apply even more resources toward the training of Iraqi security forces to accelerate the effort. If more advisory teams would do the job faster, we should add them. All these advisory units should be staffed and equipped with our very best officers. Instead of staffing them in an ad-hoc manner, we should take those selected for command of U.S. units and assign them to advisory billets. These are the officers the services have determined to be their very best. Furthermore, we should make every effort to name next year's advisers today and get them in adviser and language schools now. We must make a combat adviser tour a highly career enhancing tour in the military. Mr. Speaker, I believe like the President that we must leave an Iraq that is able to provide for its own security. Yet both to build the confidence of the Iraqis and to maintain the support of the American people, we must demonstrate a clear sense connection between increasing Iraqi capability and a diminishing need for American forces. This formula does that and I urge its serious consideration. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following letter I wrote to the President dated October 20 of this year. House of Representatives, Committee on Armed Services, Washington, DC, October 20, 2005. The President, The White House, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. President: The recent constitutional referendum, where Iraqis were able to cast their vote in the absence of large-scale violence, is an important milestone for the Iraqi people. I commend our forces for the role they played in helping to secure that vote. I strongly believe that we share the goal of an Iraq able to provide for its own security. At the same time, both the American and the Iraqi people must have a clear sense of progress, given that the challenges to Iraqi security remain substantial. Iraqi security forces must be able to take the fight to the insurgents on their own and to inspire the confidence of the Iraqi people. Similarly, the American public must see that there is a connection between increasing capability of Iraqi security forces and a diminishing American commitment over time. The latest quarterly report from the Department of Defense on ``Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq'' talks about the ``criteria for withdrawing forces.'' While it discusses the considerations that will be taken into account in any redeployment and talks about ``when conditions permit handing over security responsibilities,'' it is not specific nor does it give any measurement that the Iraqi or American people can use to see progress toward redeployment over time. If we expect the American people to continue to support continued deployments in Iraq, we should be able to explain the connection between the improvement in Iraqi capability and the reduced need for U.S. forces in Iraq over time more clearly. I believe that we should set a benchmark that is easy to understand and that sets reasonable, achievable standards for both our forces and the Iraqis. In terms of units, because a brigade is the smallest military unit able to support itself and fight independently, brigades should be the standard sized units used to measure Iraqi security force capability over time. Additionally, in terms of readiness standards, units rated at ``Level 1'' indicate that they have the capability to plan and fight independently, without any assistance from U.S. forces. Therefore, I propose the following formula: that for every three Iraqi security force combat brigades rated ``Level 1''--or fully capable--an American brigade or unit of similar size, type, and mission should be strategically redeployed from Iraq. In addition to setting a clear benchmark, we need to apply even more resources toward the training of Iraqi security forces to accelerate the effort. If more advisory teams would do the job faster, we should add them. All of these advisory units should be staffed and equipped with our very best officers. Instead of staffing them in an ad-hoc manner, we should take those selected for command of U.S. units and assign them to advisory billets. These are the officers the Services have determined to be their very best. Furthermore, we should make every effort to name next year's advisors today and get them in advisor and language schools now. We must make a combat advisor tour a highly career enhancing tour in the military. Mr. President, I realize there are a variety of reasonable ways to look at benchmarks for strategic redeployment, but I think any of them must clearly link to the development of Iraqi Security Force capability to the redeployment of American forces in a way that both the American and the Iraqi people can plainly see. That is why I think my method of matching the redeployment of an American brigade for every three Iraq brigades that reach Level 1 readiness has particular merit. I stand ready to assist in this critical effort and share your pride in all that our fine troops have done in Iraq and around the world. Sincerely, Ike Skelton, Ranking Democrat.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the motion to instruct the conferees regarding the USDA spending bill offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro). The gentlewoman from Connecticut has been a diligent advocate for the Nation's farmers during her first year as ranking member on the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug of the Committee on Appropriations, and I am proud to have watched her work successfully on behalf of the agricultural interests of my home State of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, this motion asks the conferees to recede to the Senate language that stops the United States Department of Agriculture from going forward with its plans to close the Farm Service Agency offices, an initiative they call FSA Tomorrow, during fiscal year 2006. Now, while I join most of my colleagues from rural America in applauding the USDA for backing away from this proposal yesterday, Congress must make it crystal clear that the administration's plan is bad, bad for farmers, and that we will not fund FSA office-closings whatsoever. This is especially true since there has been nothing written in the law to prevent USDA from having a sudden change of heart and within the next 12 months closing the offices.