Ike Skelton

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, it has come to my attention that the Flick Seed Company, Kingsville, MO, has received an Honorable Mention award from Region Seven of the Environmental Protection Agency. This is the second time in as many years that Flick Seed has been recognized for its environmental awareness. Since Steve Flick founded Flick Seed more than twenty years ago, he and his company have worked with state, municipal, and federal agencies, as well as private businesses to restore the original ecosystems that once covered Missouri and the rest of the Midwest. Steve is a graduate of the University of Missouri at Columbia and has put his agriculture degree to good use with the founding of Flick Seed Incorporated. Flick Seed has worked tirelessly to keep seed waste out of the landfills. They have done this by combining seed waste with office paper waste and creating pellets that are used in pellet burning stoves. This work has not only kept our landfills from becoming full of seed waste, but it has provided a unique and innovative form of renewable energy. I know that my fellow House members will join me in congratulating Flick Seed Company for its recognition by the Environmental Protection Agency.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, let me take this opportunity to honor General Donald Cook, United States Air Force, for his 36 years of dedicated service. During the past 36 years, General Cook has served in the Air Force with honor and distinction. He's a command pilot with over 3,300 hours. The general has commanded a flying training wing, two space wings, and the 20th Air Force--a real tribute to his leadership capabilities. General Cook has been the commander of Air Education and Training Command since December 9th, 2001. This command includes the Air Force Recruiting Service, two numbered air forces, Air University and consists of 15 wings, more than 66,000 active-duty members and 15,000 civilians. As commander of the Air Force University, General Cook was responsible for recruiting, training and educating Airmen to sustain the combat capability of the Air Force. On a personal note, I have known General Cook and his wife Diane for a number of years. They and their family members are outstanding Americans who have dedicated a great deal of time and energy to public service. General Cook worked in my office for a year, working with me to formulate legislation on professional military education. Through the years, I have seen Don grow into a superb military leader. I know the members of the House will join me in Honoring General Cook and in wishing his family and him all the best in the years to come.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak again about the dire situation in Iraq. A series of articles over the last week has drawn attention to two related issues, the slow training and improvement in quality of the Iraqi security forces, and the problems in recruitment in the American military, particularly in our Army that risk breaking our force. I fear, though, that without greater attention to these two problems, we are endangering not only our efforts in Iraq, but also our future military force. Mr. Speaker, Lieutenant General Dave Petraeus has had the mission of training the Iraqi security forces and turning them into the professional fighting force since last spring. He is a fine officer and a great leader. But, this is a mammoth task. And over a year, they have only produced three battalions, around 5,000 soldiers capable of conducting fully independent operations. This is disheartening. And then when we read stories like the ones in last week's Washington Post, of embedded American trainers describing the Iraqi trainers as preschoolers with guns, it is easy to think that American forces would have to stay in Iraq a long time to get those forces to the point where they can handle their security on their own. We have to speed up the process. Our NATO partners have promised to lend their efforts to training Iraqi security forces. They must get more engaged and soon. We have embedded trainers and transition teams with the Iraqis. We must commit even more trainees to the effort. If that means moving more Air Force and Navy personnel to Army billets to free them up for this mission, we need to do this. We need to accomplish this mission as quickly as possible because time is not on our side. Mr. Speaker, we are in a race against time. We are either going to lose the American people's support for this effort or break the Army. This month the Army's recruiting numbers are far below its goal, and it is an unmistakable trend. Although retention is holding, the toll is shaking the very foundation of American structure. Army marriages, broken under the strain of an unsustainable operations tempo are failing at an ever increasing rate. This is a sure sign of more troubles ahead. To meet a critical need in the short term, the Army has reduced quality standards on its accessions. It is retaining problematic recruits and has relaxed commissioning qualifications for its officers. Anybody with a sense of history can understand the inherent risk in these policies, and they strike me as unwise. Additionally, Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Army will soon approach Congress for authority to offer enlistment bonuses of up to $40,000. That is a huge sum. And while I support it, I am doubtful it will have the effect the Army is looking for. I wonder how long we can continue throwing money at this recruiting problem. I have always been a proud supporter of our troops. I have advocated pay raises for our service members and benefit increases for their families. I have done this for years. No one has been more consistent than I in calling for increased end strength, which I think would have alleviated many of these problems had they been enacted in a timely manner. I cannot fault the Army for using everything in its power to attack the manpower challenge, but it is not the Army's problem it is the Nation's problem. Yesterday I sent a letter to the Secretary of Defense laying out the problem, which I would like to place in the Record at this time. In this letter I urged the Secretary to develop a comprehensive vision of how the Department of Defense will approach the Army's crisis, and let him know that I would put out a call of my own to the youth of this Nation. We must not break the American support for our military. We must renew it by inspiring young people across our Nation to serve. We cannot inspire that service by appealing to action in Iraq alone; it is defending our Nation from future threats and keeping our military the strongest in the world that may inspire their best. Along with the enlistment bonuses, they need a national call to service from our leaders that inspires them to keep our Nation and our military strong beyond Iraq. That will see us through the current fight and help us deter any future threat. Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, June 13,2005. Hon. Donald L. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, The Pentagon, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Secretary: It is clear to me the most important key to our success in Iraq is the development of the Iraqi security forces, and the infrastructure that supports and sustains them. I know you share that assessment. However, I recently sat through a briefing by the Joint Staff on the subject, and while we are making progress, it is painfully slow indeed. We have no choice but to accelerate the training of Iraqi forces so that we can hand the mission off to them as soon as possible. It is a race against time: either the American people will sour on this war and demand our withdrawal prematurely, or the American Army will break. Iraq now represents a crisis that didn't exist when we began the war two years ago. Even as public support for the war ebbs lower and lower, the United States Army is on the brink of collapsing. Indeed, it may be that serious damage has been done to it already. In any case, it will not recover fully for years, and that is a national security threat we can ill afford. This month, the Army's recruiting numbers are far below its goal, and this is an unmistakable trend. Although retention is holding, the toll is shaking the very foundation of American social structure. Army marriages, broken under the strain of an unsustainable operations tempo, are failing at an ever increasing rate. That is a sure sign of more troubles ahead. To meet a critical need in !the short term, the Army has reduced quality standards on its accessions. It is retaining problematic recruits and relaxed commissioning qualifications for its officers. Anybody with a sense of history can understand the inherent risk in these policies, and they strike me as unwise. Additionally, I understand that the Army will soon approach Congress for authority to offer enlistment bonuses of up to $40,000. That is a huge sum, and while I support it, I am doubtful it will have the effect the Army is looking for. I wonder how long we can continue throwing money at this recruiting problem. It is not the expense, because we can pay the cost if we align our national priorities properly. Instead, it is about precedents and principles. This insurgency is essentially a war of ideologies and therefore one must ask: What message do we send to our enemy when they can recruit suicide bombers as fast as they need them but we cannot entice our young men and women to serve without large sums of cash up front? Mr. Secretary, as you know, I have always been a proud supporter of our troops; I have advocated pay raises for our service members and benefit increases their families for years. No one has been more consistent than I in calling for increased endstrength, which I think would have alleviated a many of these problems, had they been enacted in a timely manner. I cannot fault the Army for using everything in its power to attack this manpower challenge, but this is not the Army's problem. It is the nation's problem. I do not believe the youth of America is unwilling or incapable of serving their country for reasons other than a large bonus, but I think their country is not making a clear and compelling argument about why they should. Therefore, Mr. Secretary, I urge you to develop a comprehensive vision of how the Department of Defense will approach the Army's crisis. In the absence of a unifying national message urging young Americans to consider military service, I will develop my own, and I will not miss an opportunity to deliver it. Frankly, it is becoming easier for me to articulate why it is important that we not lose in Iraq than it is to describe why we must win. It is not just about the dangers of losing a nation with the potential for representative self-government after so many years of tyranny, or about allowing a viper's nest of terrorism to flourish in the heart of the Middle East. Those reasons are powerful geopolitical considerations, but there are other compelling reasons for America as well. Essentially, my message to these young people will be this: the issue is no longer just about what is good for the war in Iraq--this is about what is good for the long term health and security of our nation. While our nation's policies in Iraq have been poorly formulated at the strategic level by our civilian leadership--Congress included--the policy guidance has been superbly executed at lower levels by our military. Right now, the strength of our national effort is in the high quality of our military forces. We need high quality people to continue to step up to serve. If they will not, the military we built out of the ashes following the Vietnam war into the finest force in history will atrophy to the point where it will be unready to fight the next time it is called upon--whether that is responding to a terrorist attack, deterring a conflict on the Korean Peninsula or across the Taiwan Strait, or somewhere else we can't yet foresee. I sincerely hope that the Department of Defense will do everything it can to raise this issue to the forefront of the national consciousness. Mr. Secretary, before the war in Iraq began I sent the President two letters outlining my concerns about how the war was going to be conducted and how the aftermath would be handled. Sadly, many of my concerns regarding the aftermath have been realized. I was right then, and I am right now. The training of the Iraqi security forces must take on even greater urgency, and we must act to avoid the concerns I have described in this letter. Sincerely, Ike Skelton, Ranking Democrat.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in support of House concurrent resolution 47, which recognizes the establishment of the first free, public kindergarten in the United States located at College Point, Queens, New York. I am pleased to manage the time on this legislation, which is offered by my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) who represents College Point, Queens, here in the House of Representatives. The history of kindergarten in America has been colorful. Many areas of the country can claim credit for advancing education of our youth through kindergarten classes. From Wisconsin to Massachusetts to New York, many folks have had a hand in developing kindergarten. However, Queens, New York is home to the first free, public kindergarten class, and it is proper today, Madam Speaker, that we honor that achievement. Public kindergarten has played a meaningful role in the lives of many Americans, including the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), the author of this legislation, as well as me. For many children in Missouri, in New York, and throughout the countryside, kindergarten is the first place in which students interact with youth from many cultural backgrounds and where they learn about the world into which they were born. Kindergarten also reinforces and builds reading and math skills which are important tools for our children to have when advancing through the educational system. The establishment of the first free, public kindergarten in College Point, Queens, New York, has made our Nation stronger. I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), and I thank the House for considering this bill today.

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

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, it is an absolute privilege and thrill for me to take this opportunity to cosponsor this resolution. Madam Speaker, I am a Sigma Chi. My father was a Sigma Chi. My next younger brother is a Sigma Chi. And each of our three sons are Sigma Chis. So this moment, when we honor the fraternity of our choice on the occasion of the 150th anniversary, it has added meaning to me and to us. I also wish to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gerlach) for introducing this resolution, which is cosponsored by other Sigma Chis, the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Schwarz), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), as well as me. I also wish to thank the Education and Workforce Committee and the House leaderships for bringing this resolution to the House floor so very quickly. Sigma Chi Fraternity was established by its seven founders on commencement day at Miami University June 28, 1855. These seven young men broke away from the Delta Kappa Epsilon Fraternity to form ``an association for the development of the nobler powers of the mind, the finer feelings of the heart, and for the promotion of friendship and congeniality of feeling.'' In 1951, I had the opportunity to pledge this fraternity at the University of Missouri at Columbia, and from that time on I have been aware of the many outstanding members of our fraternity through the years, people like Andy Grabau, people like John Wayne, Larry McMullen, Ed Matheny, Herbert Shouse Jones, John Alden Tower, Governor James Blair and so many, many others. Sigma Chi currently has 202,600 active brothers in 219 active chapters at colleges and universities in two countries. It is one of the most highly respected and well-regarded national fraternities in the world. It also encompasses not just our country, but the country of Canada. Sigma Chi brothers continue to enrich and contribute to the quality of life in their communities. Perhaps tie something in regard to the House of Representatives to the people working together with their colleagues in which they learn of good character and fair ability and ambitious purposes, congenial dispositions, good morals, a high sense of honor and a deep sense of personal responsibility. All of this has added to our country. The history of Sigma Chi is long and interesting. Being founded in 1855 at Oxford, Ohio, it went through the War Between the States and went through the First World War where 103 brothers of the fraternity lost their lives and gave the full measure of devotion to World War I. It also went through the Second World War where so many members of the fraternity fought, some who died and some who were missing. One who received the Medal of Honor, a Captain Maurice Britt from Arkansas received such an honor. On a more personal level, the chapter to which I belong at the University of Missouri in Columbia was founded on September 26, 1896. At that time one of the founders, a former brigadier general in the Union Army, Benjamin Piatt Runkle, who, by the way, is buried over here at Arlington Cemetery, gave a speech to that crowd and to those new fraternity members. In that speech he spoke to them by saying, you are the offspring of the grandest civilization the world has ever seen. High places are vacant, and men filled with a fraternal spirit must take them. Go forward, faithful, patient, courageous and obedient, ever remembering that the hope of the Nation is in her young men, and that behind the great unknown stands God keeping watch over his own. And what Benjamin Piatt Runkle said on that day in September 1896 in Columbia, Missouri, is just as true today. So it is a real privilege and honor for me to cosponsor and represent this side of the aisle in honoring the Sigma Chi Fraternity on the occasion of its 150th anniversary, which will be celebrated on the 24th and 25th of this month in Cincinnati, Ohio. The Sigma Chi Fraternity: A Historical Perspective 1855--Sigma Chi Fraternity is founded at Miami University, Oxford, Ohio 1861--During the Civil War, 265 of the 432 total Sigma Chi membership (That's 60%) fight in the conflict. Of this number, 147 were in the Union forces, and 118 were with the Confederacy. 1861--``ln Hoc Signo Vinces,'' a secret motto since 1856, becomes the official public motto. 1870--The eighth Grand Chapter, held in Philadelphia, adopts blue and gold as the fraternity's colors. These colors are now standardized as Blue and Old Gold. 1881--The Fraternity's first magazine, ``The Sigma Chi'' is established under the supervision of the Theta Chapter at Gettysburg College, Pennsylvania. In 1926 it became ``The magazine of Sigma Chi.'' 1882--Delegates of the 14th Grand Chapter, held in Chicago, elect John S. McMillim, DePauw 1867, as the first Grand Consul. 1893--Honorary Sigma Chi, President Grover Cleveland, is initiated on January 26. He is the only Sigma Chi to have held the office of President of the United States. 1911--``The Sweetheart of Sigma Chi'' song was written in June for the 25th Anniversary Reunion of Alpha Pi Chapter at Albion College, Michigan. Byron D. Stokes, 1913, wrote the words in one afternoon in class. He then gave them to F. Dudleigh Vernor, 1914, who set them to music 1914--The Fraternity adds 103 Brothers to its Fraternity Gold Star Honor Roll for giving their last full measure of devotion during World War I. 1922--After 67 years as a national organization, Sigma Chi becomes international when it installs the Beta Omega Chapter at the University of Toronto on April 22. 1929--L.G. Balfour, Indiana 1907, establishes the Balfour Award, the highest undergraduate honor in the fraternity. The annual award recognizes the most outstanding graduating senior of each undergraduate chapter, province and International Fraternity of that Academic Year. 1929--Past Grand Consul George Ade, Purdue 1887, writes ``The Sigma Chi Creed'' 1935--The Fraternity creates the Significant Sig Award. This award would be presented at Grand Chapter to alumni whose achievements brought honor and prestige to the Fraternity. Seven Medals were presented at the 42nd Grand Chapter held in Chicago. 1942--Several thousand Sigs, stationed all over the world, serve in the Armed Forces during World War II. Congressional Medal of Honor winner Captain Maurice L. Britt, Arkansas, 1941, becomes the war's most decorated United States Officer. During the War the Fraternity lost 724 members, seven times as many as it lost in World War 1. 1948--Sigma Chi commences the Order of Constantine, the fraternity's highest honor, which is bestowed upon alumni members who have devoted long and distinguished service to Sigma Chi 1955--The Fraternity celebrates its Centennial in June 28 in Oxford, Ohio, as a part of the 50th Grand Chapter, which met in Cincinnati. 1971--The Grand Chapter marks the climax and resolution of the nearly 15 years of internal strife in the Fraternity over the proposed initiation of minority groups. Grand Chapter delegates voted to remove the restrictive passages in the Fraternity's Governing Laws, validating earlier actions of the Executive Committee and granting active chapters increased autonomy in membership selection. 1977--The Fraternity recorded its 150,000 initiate. 2001--Eleven Sigma Chis die in the September 11th terrorist attacks on the United States. 2005--Grand Consul Lee Beauchamp announces the Fraternity's zero tolerance policy for hazing, alcohol abuse, and substance abuse. The Executive Committee approves a new statement of Position on Academic Performance. Among other provisions, it requires members to attain a GPA of 2.5 out of 4.0 (or the equivalent), or a GPA that is above the campus' all-men's average, whichever is lower. 2005--Sigma Chi celebrates its 150th birthday with a grand celebration in Cincinnati. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, let me take this opportunity to announce the grand opening of Mid-Missouri Energy, Inc. Many Missourians have worked hard to create this farmer-owned ethanol production facility in Malta Bend, Missouri. Ground was broken on the facility on October 4, 2003, and the facility was opened for business on June 3, 2005. From the time I was young, I was taught that a farmer's livelihood depends on two things: the weather and the markets. With the opening of Mid-Missouri Energy, farmers will have an additional market for their corn and will be able to get more bang for their agricultural buck. Missouri farmers, especially those who make the Fourth District home, will now have a facility that allows them to capitalize on the growing renewable fuel opportunities across the nation. Ethanol production is not only beneficial to the farmers of America, but to the American public at large. Ethanol is a renewable energy resource that, when utilized most effectively, will reduce America's dependency on imported oil and decrease pollution. The ethanol production facility in Malto Bend will also benefit the rural economy. Farmers will not only have an additional market for their corn, but Mid-Missouri Energy will employ rural citizens and will have a far reaching, positive impact on the local economy. Mid-Missouri Energy's founding fathers, especially Ryland Utlaut and Don Arth, deserve credit for making Mid-Missouri Energy a reality. As Mid-Missouri Energy opens and begins to produce ethanol, I know that Members of Congress will join me in honoring their outstanding work.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume; and I thank the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Drake) for her support for this very, very important bill and thank her for her keen interest in professional military education. I rise today to support H.R. 1490, which would award a masters of science degree to the officers who complete the Joint Advanced Warfighting School at the Joint Forces Staff College. As the gentlewoman from Virginia noted, this bill will give the Department of Defense the authority to award graduates of the Joint Advanced Warfighting School their masters-level degrees. I also urge my colleagues to vote yes on this bill. It is important that Congress pass the bill and the President sign it so that we can present those men and women with the accolades that they have earned when the first class of that program graduates this coming Thursday at 9 o'clock in the morning. Madam Speaker, as my colleagues know, I have spent a great deal of my career promoting the need for a rigorous program of joint professional education. We have two missions as I see it: to fight the war that we are fighting today and to prepare for the next. It was the professional military education system that sustained the warfighting competency during the lean years between the First World War and Second World War. Men like General Troy Middleton, who went on to command an Army corps during the Battle of the Bulge, spent years and years in the school system studying the art and science of war. Warfare is becoming more complex at lower and lower levels, and our professional military education system must continue to evolve to develop the thinking warriors the future will require. The Joint Advanced Warfighting School, or JAWS as it is called, at the Joint Forces Staff College is a wonderful example of how joint professional military education has grown to meet the new and unique challenges military professionals face. This first class of JAWS has given its graduates the tools to be able to create campaign-quality concepts, employ all elements of national power, and succeed as joint force operational and strategic level planners as well and commanders. These graduates will populate the Joint Staff and Combatant commands with officers expert in the joint planning processes and capable of critical analysis in the application of all aspects of national power across the full range of military operations. The student of the JAWS program have spent the past year immersed in a rigorous course of study. They have completed a curriculum focused on ``high end'' operational art consisting of courses such as Foundations in Theory of War, Strategic Foundations, and Operational Art and Campaigning, all of which blend theory foundations and historical evidence to provide them with a developmental framework. They have honed their decision-making, problem-solving, and planning skills using seminar exercises, war games, as well as simulations. Additionally, the JAWS course included several field research trips. The students participated in a comprehensive historical staff ride to Gettysburg, for example. They also traveled here to Washington and spent a week with senior military and governmental policymakers as well as practitioners. Madam Speaker, I am sure my colleagues will agree that joint professional military education is so very important. Sir William Francis Butler put it very well when he said, years and years ago, ``The Nation that will insist on drawing a broad line of demarcation between the fighting man and the thinking man is liable to find its fighting done by fools and its thinking done by cowards.'' That is why I believe, Madam Speaker, that Congress should vote to support H.R. 1490 so we may recognize the students of the Joint Advanced Warfighting School with a degree they have properly earned. Madam Speaker, having no further speakers, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong opposition to the rule. To start with, the Committee on Rules made in order almost no amendments that were of importance to the Democrats, including my amendment on women in the military. Madam Speaker, in my opinion, the Committee on Rules has a duty to this institution and to each of us to create circumstances that will permit orderly consideration of legislation that is important to our country and also structured to the debate, so that we will have the opportunity to work our will on these important issues. Sadly, that is not the case. Let me start with the most important issue, women in the military. Not only did the Committee on Rules not make my amendment in order, which would have stricken horrendous language and established a study; and by the way, my amendment was bipartisan in nature, along with my colleague, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Military Personnel of the Committee on Armed Services; the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) from the other side of the aisle. It was not only not made in order, but a brand-new amendment by our colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), was filed, not in a very timely fashion, and which we did not see for the first time until last evening. His amendment, which creates a time mechanism wherein any MOS or specialty changes for women will be notified to the Congress, also establishes a study. Should that amendment pass, that wipes out the onerous language that is presently in the bill. This amendment, though, that the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) is offering, is camouflaged with other amendments, including a memorial to the USS Oklahoma and a veterans' preference amendment and one amendment dealing with missile defense. Further, it allows only 10 minutes of debate. I think that is wrong. It is not an overstatement to say that the action by the Committee on Rules is not living up to its responsibility. Let me give a bit of a history of the women in military. All of a sudden, with only hours' or a day's notice, an amendment was passed in the Subcommittee on Military Personnel of the House Committee on Armed Services. That amendment related to women in the military, and the military stated in a letter signed by Lieutenant General Campbell, and I will place it in the Record, that over 21,900 positions would have to be closed to women. To say it was wrong is an understatement. That was wiped out by a second amendment in full committee. The second amendment was one that froze the specialties and did not allow full expansion of specialties or MOS's for the women and, furthermore, it was an attempt to codify 1994 language from Secretary Les Aspin, but it did not include all of the elements. That is the bill right now. The new Hunter language, which I described a few moments ago, fortunately wipes that out. If the Hunter language passes, which is not necessarily artfully written, but if that passes, the women in the military can breathe easier. It is a victory for the women in the military and victory for national security. Every person that wears the uniform of the United States of America has the respect of every one of us in this body. We thank them for their service. The women are putting their hearts, their souls, their professionalism, their careers on the line every time they put the uniform on every day, and I think it is wrong to have come up and challenged these women in what they do for our country in this fashion. I would also like to mention that the rule failed to mention the Taylor amendment regarding TRICARE for Reservists. Department of the Army, Office of the Chief of Staff, Washington, DC, May 17, 2005. Hon. Ike Skelton, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Skelton: Sir, if the amendment to H.R. 1815, proposing to prohibit the assignment of female Soldiers to Forward Support Companies (FSC) addressed only FSCs in Heavy and Infantry Brigade Combat Teams and equivalent elements of Stryker Brigades, a total of 21, 925 spaces currently open for assignment to female Soldiers would be closed. We appreciate your interest in and support of our Soldiers as we continue to fight the Global War on Terrorism. Sincerely, James L. Campbell, Lieutenant General, U.S. Army, Director of the Army Staff.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz). (Mr. ORTIZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. SKELTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding time. Mr. Chairman, if there is anyone in this Chamber that understands the border and the business at the border, it is the former border patrol chief, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes). His expertise is beyond question. At a time when we are stretching our young people in uniform, particularly the United States Army, at a time when 40 percent of those in Iraq and Afghanistan are Reservists or National Guardsmen, at a time when we are having a difficult time in recruiting and problems rising in retention, we just cannot afford to put additional troops on the border. That is the purpose of the border patrol, and it is up to this body in other amendments and other bills to authorize and appropriate more border patrolmen for that necessary job.

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

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I stand in full support of this amendment. ROTC has been an integral part of college life for many, many, many decades in our country. Land grant colleges across the Nation are required to have ROTC, as they should. But I think those colleges and universities, institutions of higher learning, that have Federal funds flow into them for any number of reasons, any number of grants, for good purposes, of course, should also support the ROTC programs and allow recruiters free access to those that wish to inquire of and join the ROTC. ROTC is not just a proposition whereby someone may become an officer in the United States Army, Air Force, Navy or Marines. It also is a character builder for young people. They learn about obligations, about duty, about patriotism. I think ROTC has certainly played an important part in so many young lives in our country. Mr. Chairman, I certainly support this amendment, and I think it is wrong not to allow ROTC on such campuses.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez). (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, before I recognize the gentleman from Utah, let me say I wish to compliment my fellow Missourian on his amendment. The Guard and Reserve mean very much to us, and I think it is a major step in the right direction. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First let me thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), my friend and colleague, the chairman, for his leadership on this committee, for the by and large strong bipartisanship that we have had on this bill. I thank him and all the members on both sides of the aisle, the chairman, the subcommittee chairmen and ranking members. They have all worked so well and so hard. This is a $440 billion bill, and it means so very much for the national security of our country. So we again thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) for his participation, for his friendship and for being a strong colleague in national defense. I am pleased that this year's defense budget represents a real increase in defense spending over last year's level. The committee made good use of the money in recommending vital readiness, modernization, infrastructure improvements, which will keep our forces the best trained and best equipped in the world. At this point, Mr. Chairman, I feel that I must say that I am so very proud of every man and every woman who wears the uniform of the United States. It is up to us, in the Constitution, to provide and maintain them, and, that is, from all of us who serve on this committee, it is a labor of love. Those young men and young women putting their hearts and souls, their bodies, their careers on the line for our country. So the least we can do at this moment is say a special thanks to them by passing an excellent bill which does help them in their duties. I want to commend the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder), ranking member, and the gentleman from New York (Chairman Mr. McHugh) for increasing the Army and Marine Corps end-strength. I have been saying since 1995, Mr. Chairman, that we needed 40,000 more troops in the United States Army, and this year we are authorizing an additional 30,000 for the Army and an additional 4,000 for the United States Marines. However, they are paid for out of the supplemental that we are authorizing. Nevertheless, it is happening. It should be paid for out of the base bill, but it is happening because they are stretched, they are strained. I also want to commend the efforts to reform the purchase of Navy ships. If we are ever going to get to the point where we can afford to buy more than just a few ships a year, we are going to have to do things differently, and I think that buying the number of ships that we are doing, the additional three ships, is a major step in the right direction. I do, however, want to raise two matters of concern. The bill authorizes almost $50 billion in fiscal year 2006 supplemental appropriations for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. These funds are separate and apart from the $440-plus billion we are authorizing. My concern is that the conflicts for which we are authorizing this additional money are mature enough that their costs are foreseeable and could and should be included in the base bill. In my view, budgeting in this fashion has adverse consequences. Secondly, the ``emergency'' designation that goes along with supplemental appropriations hides the true extent of the Federal deficit. Although we may disagree on the practice of funding operations in the Iraq war and the Afghanistan conflict through supplemental appropriations, if we are going to go down this road, then we should not short-circuit the authorization process. And that is what we are doing. We are authorizing, as we should, rather than leave it up to the Committee on Appropriations; and I think that is a move in the right direction. Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me say a word about the Hunter amendment. This deals with the women in uniform. At the outset I must say I am proud of every man and woman who wears the uniform and the duty that they perform. In the Military Personnel Subcommittee, the amendment was adopted on a party-line vote, which had the effect of freezing out and causing to be closed some 21,950 positions. That was not a good move. That would be disruptive, not just to women; it would be disruptive to our national defense because so many of them are serving all over the globe in such superb fashion. In the full committee, another amendment was adopted that was an attempt to codify Secretary Les Aspin's 1994 women issue language. It was not full and complete, and there were some serious problems with that, and the United States Army opposed that. That is the way the bill is at this moment. I understand there is an amendment by the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) that will wipe that out and that will call for a special way of counting notification to Congress and call for a study. Should that pass, it will wipe out the onerous language that is there that is causing a great deal of concern not just with women in the uniform, but those others who work with them and for them. The process in this regard has been, I think, unfair to Democrats. So as a matter of fact, we have come out on the issue regarding women. If the new Hunter amendment is adopted, possibly those two amendments are behind us and we do not have to worry about their being concerned; and that is the major victory in this issue of personnel. I feel constrained to mention that the committee adopted an amendment that would have extended TRICARE coverage to Reservists. Unfortunately, the provision was technically defective, and the Committee on Rules had the opportunity to right that wrong, and they did not do so. So we look forward to discussing that at a later time. The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), I am sure, will address that situation. By and large, this is a good bill. We have worked hard on it. The subcommittees have worked hard on it. And so often we have serious problems, as we have with the issue regarding the women in uniform, but I do not want those issues to detract from the fact that this is a solid piece of legislation that helps fight the war against terrorism and helps fight against the insurgency in Iraq and also funds the men and women in the performance of their duties all over this globe. So I will say that we have a tremendous military that we should be very proud of. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans). (Mr. EVANS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan). (Mr. MEEHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder).