Ike Skelton

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, we pride ourselves in this body, I know my chairman and I pride ourselves, in working for and supporting the troops. But supporting the troops is more than a bumper sticker. We are the one body in the United States of America that can speak, and speak with authority, and make good things happen for those families and those soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. I hate to turn the news on in the morning, because I hear so many Americans have either been wounded or killed or both in the far reaches of Afghanistan and Iraq. Those St. Louis families, we are not going to take care of them. We are going to do it by insisting on a technical point of order on the appropriations bill. That is not right. So let us vote for this. I will support this suspension measure. I, of course, do so with reluctance because we could solve the problem so easily on the appropriations bill by just doing nothing.

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

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, he will insist on raising the point of order. Mr. Speaker, we just saw 24,000 military families getting their just housing delayed for a long time. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My recollection, during the earlier debate on the rule on the appropriation bill, was that my friend and my colleague and chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, during his very eloquent speech at that time, urged the gentleman from Iowa not to raise the point of order. So I ask this question, Mr. Speaker: In order for us to have 24,000 more family units under the privatization program, the only thing that has to happen under the appropriation bill would be for the gentleman from Iowa, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, not to raise a point of order. So I ask the gentleman from Iowa, will he insist on raising the point of order on the appropriation bill?

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. SKELTON. I thank the gentleman for agreeing with me.

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

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My fellow Missourian, Mark Twain, once said, ``The more you explain it to me, the more I don't understand it.'' I have no idea why we are considering this bill, because all the majority had to do was not raise a point of order on the appropriations bill. I do not want to say this is a cynical gesture, but it is. We are considering this bill because the majority is not serious about taking care of the troops and their families. 24,000 families will do without because the other bill will have a point of order raised on it. All they had to do on the other bill, the appropriations bill, was not to raise a point of order and 24,000 military families would have their housing in 2005. I appreciate the fact that our friends in the majority are taking the issue seriously, but it appears to me that this is going around Robin Hood's barn to do what could be simply done by not raising a point of order. While this stand-alone bill is fine on its merits, it is going to die in the Senate. It will go nowhere. What we wanted to do was raise the privatized housing cap in the Military Construction Appropriations Act. That is legislation that the Senate cannot ignore. And all we had to do was just not raise the point of order and those young families would have their housing. I cannot argue against the words of this measure, but we should not be deceived. This is a ruse to avoid dealing with the privatized cap on an issue in a must-do piece of legislation. The details of the cap issue have been discussed at length by others, and I raised the issue during the rule on the other appropriations bill. Let me just say that because the Committee on the Budget refused to accommodate bipartisan requests on both sides of the aisle by the Committee on Armed Services, the Defense authorization bill bowed to CBO scoring. As a result, we could not fix the problem until 2006. Consequently, 24,000 military families do without. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, this is not brain surgery. I for myself will vote against this rule, because to vote otherwise would be to vote against the wonderful troops and their families. I just cannot do that. Let me explain. At the start of fiscal year 2004, the services reported that almost half of the military families' houses were inadequate. We know that they deserve better. The Military Housing Privatization Initiative has an innovative way to address the problem, and when we started the program we made sure it would work. I am speaking for the troops and their families, and everybody ought to listen today as we speak. Nothing is more important than those young people, those young families that we are charged with raising and supporting. It is more than having a bumper sticker on your car that says, ``Support the troops.'' Right here today by voting against this rule that does away with the opportunity for a clear shot at additional housing is most important. So what we have to do is to allow this rule to be put back, that we have the opportunity to submit, as the committees intended to do but could not do for the year 2005, all because of the CBO scoring. We need not go into the complexities of the rule. We need not go into how it was drafted or the point of order that many of us are fearful will be raised. It boils down to whether we support the troops, not just by a bumper sticker, but whether we support them with our votes, because they deserve it so much.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, it is with deep sadness that I inform the House of the death of Colonel Edward Owsley of Fort Leonard Wood, MO. Colonel Owsley was born on March 13, 1913, in Marshall, MO. He joined the Missouri National Guard in 1931 and was called to active duty in 1940 at Camp Robinson, AR. He was commissioned as a Second Lieutenant of Infantry during World War II and served in the Far East Campaigns. He continued to serve after the war and retired in 1966 with the rank of Colonel. Since 1966, Colonel Owsley devoted his life to public service. He served 20 years as the executive vice president of the Rolla Area Chamber of Commerce and later as the group's ambassador. He was a former state president of the Association of the United States Army, on the board of the Community Development Corp., adviser to Lambda Chi fraternity and an Honorary Knight of St. Patrick. Mr. Speaker, I know my colleagues will join me in offering our deepest condolences to his two daughters, Linda Clift and Pat Jordan of Rolla, MO. Let us offer our gratitude for his many years of service to the United States of America.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. Let me close by saying at the end of the day we all need to pay tribute to those wonderful, wonderful young men and young women in uniform, whether they come from Missouri, Washington, Ohio, New York, Florida, or all across our country. They are professionals. They know what their duty is, and we certainly wish to salute them this evening as well as the families that support them and wish well for them and of course pray for them.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my friend, the gentleman from the State of Oregon. I now yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel). Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper). Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I am joined this evening by a number of colleagues interested in the safety of America and Americans, and concerned about the future of our military forces. We are speaking this evening because we have great reservations about the way America's national security policy is being conducted. Sixty years ago next month, the American Army was welcomed into Paris with cheers and flowers and cries of ``Vive les Americains!'' We had fought a dogged and grueling war against the forces of a cruel dictator. And from every window and rooftop, a liberated populace honored the foreigners who restored their freedom. Move forward 60 years to another war, another dictator, another country freed. To be sure, many Iraqis welcomed the American invasion and, for all the talk of coalition, this was an overwhelmingly American force. But those who welcomed our forces found they had to keep their voices low lest they become targets of those who rewarded their liberators with bombs and bullets. We should not accept the appearance of an ungrateful Nation at face value. But neither should we idealize the occupation of Iraq. It is increasingly clear that at a time when America should have focused its might on punishing those who, callously and in defiance of any known theology, attacked our country, and eliminating the threat they continued to pose, we allowed ourselves, Mr. Speaker, to be diverted. What we see on TV every night is not the war on terror. The war in Iraq; really, now, the peacekeeping mission in Iraq, is costly and bloody and largely irrelevant. Was Saddam Hussein unpleasant? Yes. Did he bode U.S. ill? Without a doubt. But going to war against Saddam Hussein, taking people and resources away from the search for Osama bin Laden and the destruction of al Qaeda, is like the football defense that goes after the runner while the quarterback sneaks the ball across the goal line. We fell for the fake. The real war on terror is the war to find and punish those who attacked this country and who would do so again. After nearly 3 years, their networks have been shattered, their organization has been bruised. But destroying such a strong and such a decentralized threat is very difficult. Any one man with a weapon of mass destruction is a superpower. The best we can do, militarily anyway, is to contain and keep the leadership incommunicado or on the run. That is the real war. Is America safer with Saddam Hussein out of power? Probably. But is America safer because of the Iraq war? No, it is not. Because of the way we entered that war and the way in which we have handled the aftermath, I believe that we have increased the chances of another attack and, sadly, another war. We have incited the anger of millions who previously did not much like the United States, but probably would have been willing to live and let live. We have become the villain of millions of glittering eyes, and we did it to ourselves. At the same time, we drove away stalwart friends whose company provided us with such strength. By forcing a political showdown on Iraq rather than focusing on the real war, the proven threat to all western civilization, we made our allies choose between the will of their people on the one hand and the relationship with the United States on the other, and it was unnecessary. After September 11, the leaders of countless nations expressed their support to our President. Not one, not one called to gloat or said that we deserved what we got. NATO invoked Article 5 for the first time ever to come to the collective defense of the United States. They were all on our side, in the real war. We chose to defy the will of the international community and take it upon ourselves to unilaterally enforce sanctions that were not solely America's to begin with. The Canadian Mounties cannot come to Lexington, Missouri to enforce Missouri law; that is the duty of the State of Missouri. Similarly, I do not believe it was right for the United States to act to enforce edicts that were not of our creation. That is why the United Nations was created. By taking it upon ourselves to literally become the world's policeman, we changed the view that many of our allies had of us. We became, in their view, not just a victim of a vicious attack, but a potential attacker ourselves. Let me be candid, Mr. Speaker. I and some of those who will speak later voted to give the President the authority to move Saddam Hussein out. We did that based on the information at the time, much of which has since fallen into question. The former Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, General Jack Keane, told the Committee on Armed Services last week, ``We were seduced by the Iraqi exiles.'' But regardless of underlying data, nowhere in our votes did we say to go it alone. Never did we say that Iraq should take focus away from the real war. At the same time, I twice wrote to the President and pointed out that ejecting Saddam is one thing, but we have to plan to manage the aftermath. That clearly did not happen. The peace has been managed far worse than the war, and it has been argued that the United States invasion was justified as an act of self- defense. Indeed, this administration changed the national security policy of our country to assert the right of the United States to preemptively attack anywhere we believe there might be a threat to our Nation. We have debated, and I am sure we will continue to debate, whether the policy of preemption is wise or in keeping with American values. But this much is clear. In order to preempt, in order to become an aggressor, in order to throw the first punch, we had better have clear, convincing and accurate intelligence that a real threat exists. As we are seeing in the case of Iraq, our intelligence system is not yet ready to meet that standard. Until it is, a doctrine of preemption puts America in the black hat before the world. Whatever happened to the Weinberger doctrine? Whatever happened to the Powell doctrine? Mr. Speaker, if a global black eye were the only consequence of our Iraqi adventure, it might be manageable. We could live with it. But to do that and to take energy and focus from finding the true villains of September the 11 and to enter into a war that was not clearly necessary and to strain local economies by calling up reserves, National Guard and even retired military to serve in that war and to drive a wedge in the alliance that kept peace for 60 years and to engage in a bloody and costly occupation and to stretch the American military forces to the breaking point and ultimately to inflame new generations to hate America, with all of that, I cannot see how America is in the end safer or better off because of this war. The Soviet Union tried to put America in this strategic situation for half a century. We did it to ourselves in just a year. On top of that, we have created a huge new burden for America's military. I recently wrote that we could have forces in Iraq for 50 years. When I asked the Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz whether we would be in Iraq for a good many years, he said this is entirely possible, and he added, ``I cannot tell you how long that's going to take.'' I and many who stand with me have tried to be supportive of our President and our policies. We stand foresquare with the troops under fire and grieve for the families of those who have been lost, who, Mr. Speaker, come disproportionately from rural America. We stand with them. We cannot stand with the failure to prosecute the real war against those who attacked and continue to threaten our country. We do not oppose having a strong military, and we do not oppose using it, but we do oppose squandering it. That is a question of priorities. Over $10 billion just this year on missile defense. Is the threat of foreign missiles the most serious one facing our country? Remember, this is not a defense against weapons of mass destruction. Those can be delivered in many ways. Missile defense addresses the delivery system with the highest cost and the lowest probability of being used against us. So why is it there that we spend the most? The administration is devoting hundreds of millions a year to develop fighter planes that push the envelope of technology and knowledge, bold innovation, the edge, but the true threats to our country from people who have no fighter airplanes, have no aircraft carriers and have no satellites. The war against terror is door to door and manpower-intensive, so spending all this money on other items should make us ask, where are our priorities? Soldiers make the war on terrorism work, more than any doctrine or any system. Yet, the most personnel-intensive services, the army and the Marine Corps, are last in line for funding from the Defense Department. Where are our priorities? Why, Mr. Speaker, are we not throwing America's might into the real war? Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, let me take this opportunity to pay tribute to Master Sergeant Benjamin R. McClellan upon his retirement from the United States Air Force. MSGT McClellan has served our Nation with honor and distinction for over 20 years, and his performance throughout his career has been characterized by the highest standards of professional ethics and commitment. He entered into the United States Air Force in December of 1983, and attended his basic training at Lackland Air Force Base, TX. He has served our country in many capacities through the years but has finished his career as the NCOIC of Wing Protocol for the 509th Bomb Wing at Whiteman Air Force Base, MO. MSGT Benjamin McClellan graduated summa cum laude from Friends University in Wichita, KS, with a Bachelor of Science Degree in Organizational Management and Leadership. He is currently completing his Masters of Business Administration from the University of Phoenix, Kansas City, MO. MSGT McClellan's awards include the Air Force Meritorious Medal with one oak leaf cluster, the Air Force Commendation Medal with two oak leaf clusters, the Air Force Achievement Medal with three oak leaf clusters, the Good Conduct Medal with five oak leaf clusters, the Military Outstanding Volunteer Service Medal, and the National Defense Service Medal. Mr. Speaker, I am certain that my colleagues will join me in wishing MSGT McClellan all the best. We thank him for over 20 years of service to the United States of America.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, in closing, let me thank the gentleman from South Carolina for his excellent contribution today, as well as his outstanding contributions in the committee. We are the grandest civilization ever known in the history of mankind. As the gentleman from South Carolina just mentioned, we are the best. We have the finest military, strongest economy, and all of us at this time should realize what we really need to have for success in this war, this guerrilla warfare in Iraq and the war against terrorist in Afghanistan. To begin with, we need additional troops. We must do our very best to make sure they have the equipment and the training and the munitions, but, more than that, we must let them know we support them with our words as well as with the deeds that we do here in Congress. And I would be remiss if I did not say that we should also say a special word of thanks to those wonderful families who support them, who are here at home hoping to hear from their loved one in Iraq or Afghanistan and praying for them every day. So, with that, Mr. Speaker, I say thank you to those who are in uniform today who are supporting this country in the most difficult way and especially to their families and all of the great love and support that they have.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from Florida. I might add that that is our job, the Committee on Armed Services and Congress, to have oversight of the military of the United States, to ask the tough questions, because we are the ones that give them the training, the education, the equipment, the materiel. That is what we do. If we do not ask the good, tough, honest, hard-hitting questions that come up from time to time, we are not doing our job. So I thank the gentleman for raising that issue. It is not a partisan matter; it is a matter of constitutional duty that we ask questions and learn so we can be of even more help to those in uniform. Mr. Speaker, I take great pleasure in yielding to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).