Ike Skelton

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First, let me say I thank the gentleman from California for his kind and generous comments, who wore the uniform so well, not only brought distinction to himself but to our country, and we thank him for his service. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This bill attempts to correct a situation wherein a military ROTC recruiter seeking access would, in essence, be sent to the basement or to another building where corporations such as General Motors and the like recruiting would have the first floor and easy availability to the young Americans. So I do support this bill, and I intend to vote in favor thereof.

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

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, it is with sadness that I inform the House of the death of Sgt. 1st Class Richard Steven Gottfried of Lake Ozark, Missouri. Sgt. Gottfried was killed when the Humvee he was riding in was hit by a bomb near Tikrit, Iraq. In Sgt. Gottfried's family, miliary service was a tradition. His grandfather was a prisoner of war during World War II, his father was wounded in Vietnam, and his brother retired from the service. He was proud to serve his country, and he did so with courage and distinction. Sgt. Gottfried was posthumously awarded the Bronze Star and the Purple Heart. But these medals were by no means the extent of the honor bestowed upon him. The more than 400 people who attended his funeral, the tears of pain and the sounds of laughter as friends and family remembered the good times they shared with Steven all commemorated a life of kindness and service to others. Mr. Speaker, when Sgt. Gottfried was killed he was nearing 20 years of service to his country in the U.S. Army and was preparing to retire. I know the Members of the House will join me in extending heartfelt condolences to his wife, Mary Jo; his son, Eric; and his daughter, Ashley.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I support strongly the Spratt resolution. Quite honestly, it is better on national defense than the resolution offered by the majority. Here are five reasons why. First, the Spratt alternative matches the President's overall request for defense, dollar for dollar. As a matter of fact, the majority resolution falls $189 million short. When our troops are on the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan, Haiti and everywhere else in the world, I do not think we should cut a dime. Second, the Spratt alternative saves the privatized housing initiative by raising the cap on the program by $1.1 billion over 5 years. This is very important for our families. The majority resolution, as written, assumes no raise in the cap, so almost 50,000 military families that are supposed to get new privatized housing in the year 2005 and in the year 2006 will have to wait for adequate housing. Although there was a discussion on the House Floor in which the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) promised to work with us to try to resolve the scoring issue, it is not there, and it does not count unless it is in the resolution. It is in the Spratt alternative. Third, the Spratt alternative continues TRICARE for reservists, helping to ensure that all reservists have health care insurance. At a time when we are leaning more and more on our National Guard and Reserves, we must fund this program. The majority resolution lets the program lapse, leaving the families of our National Guardsmen and reservists without health care insurance. Fourth, the Spratt resolution continues targeted pay raises for 3 more years. The majority resolution, like the President's budget, has zeroed out the initiative in the 2005 budget. These targeted pay raises for intelligence, for special operations, for computer experts, for those who have those specialized and critical skills that are needed to stay in, those targeted pay raises are out. They are in the Spratt alternative. Finally, the Spratt alternative also keeps faith with those who have served our Nation in the past. It eliminates the Social Security offset to the Survivors Benefit program consistent with the bill H.R. 3763, a bill that enjoys broad bipartisan support. This offset hurts the widows of those who have served our Nation, and we owe it to those who served us to correct this inequity. I support strongly the Spratt alternative as a better resolution.

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

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, my understanding is, and I am sure I am correct, that there will be forthcoming a supplemental request. I am told it will be in the neighborhood of some $50 billion for the ongoing operations. So it would seem to me that we would be able, and much better under the Spratt proposal, to take this money and to make those corrections that we have in his resolution; and the operating will continue because of the upcoming supplemental which we will be voting on sometime this year.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my strong support for the budget resolution offered by my colleague and friend, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt). Let me take this opportunity to commend him as well as the other members of his group that put together this resolution. It is far better on defense. Let me repeat that: this is far better, the Spratt resolution is far better on defense than that offered by the majority. The Spratt alternative matches the President's overall request dollar for dollar. The majority resolution, however, falls $189 million short. Now, that may not be much in the grand scheme of the budget; but when our troops are on the frontline in Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti and around the world, I do not think we should cut defense one single dime. The majority resolution also does not do as good a job for the troops or for the families. The Spratt alternative lifts the privatized housing cap by $1.1 billion for 5 years, allowing this critical program to move forward. This is very important for those soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines, and their families. The majority resolution assumes no raise in this cap, so almost 50,000 military families that are supposed to get new privatized housing in the year 2005 and the following year will have to keep on waiting for adequate housing. That is shameful. Now, I know there is talk about changing this, but I have seen no paper or amendment offered, to my knowledge, whatsoever in the budget that is offered by the majority; that stays in the shameful fashion that it is. The Spratt alternative also continues TRICARE for Reservists, helping to ensure that all Reservists have health insurance. At a time when we are leaning on our Reservists more than ever, we must fund this program. The majority resolution, like the President's budget, lets the program lapse, leaving the families of Reservists without health insurance to just fend for themselves. The Spratt alternative also remembers the widows of those who served our Nation. It eliminates the Social Security offset to the Survivors Benefit Program, consistent with a bill known as H.R. 3763, a bill that enjoys broad bipartisan support. The majority alternative sets up a hollow reserve fund, so eliminating the Social Security offset to the survivors benefit program will require cuts to other military retiree entitlements. That is an insult, Mr. Chairman, to our military retirees and to their survivors. So, Mr. Chairman, the Spratt alternative is much better on defense than the majority resolution.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, it has come to my attention the ``THE'' Eagle Pride Band from Calhoun, Missouri, has been selected to perform at the Indianapolis 500 in May. For the 26 students who participate in the band this honor is well deserved. The students have been recognized for their combined talents, but they also deserve credit for efforts on behalf of those in need. A benefit concert held in the fall raised over $2,000 for needy families in Calhoun. In December 2001, following the terrorist attacks on Washington and New York City, the band put on a patriotic concert. Over 700 attended, and the contributions for relief efforts exceeded $4,000. Continuing its tradition of excellence, in May the band will travel to Indiana to perform at the Indianapolis 500, participating in a parade, a prerace ceremony and at a special performance at the Indiana State Capitol. Mr. Speaker, the students of ``THE'' Eagle Pride Band, under the direction of Brandon Harris, represent their school, their community, and their State with honor and distinction. I am certain that the Members of the House will join me in congratulating them on their accomplishments and thanking them for their dedication to helping others.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin). (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the greatest asset our Nation has known, those heroes, and they are heroes, that we call on every time when we need courage and effectiveness on the battlefield, the incredible American soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines that reflect the best attributes of those who have served before them; and they are a wonderful reflection of America across our country. So we thank them and we honor them. Like many Members, I have had the privilege of traveling to Iraq twice, this last time with our minority leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), and with the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes) from the Committee on Armed Services. And what was clear is that our men and women are doing an extraordinary job in the most trying of circumstances. They are superbly trained, superbly led, and are just the finest force in the world. We owe them a great debt of gratitude. We also owe the same to more than 550 families of those who have given the ultimate sacrifice to our Nation in Iraq. But what was also clear in my trips, there was no effective or realistic planning done for the aftermath of the military invasion of Iraq. We did a superb job on the battlefield; but since that time, sadly, as I warned the President in two letters, September 4, 2002, and then one a couple of days before the actual invasion, I feared the outcome and I warned the administration in these letters about what the potential consequences might be of getting the post-war wrong. Sadly now, we are seeing those consequences come home to roost, and some of the issues that I raised in those letters are sadly coming to pass today. While the Iraqis now have an interim constitution and we should congratulate them for that, it is no clearer now than it was back in November, when the timetable for transformation was laid out, who will take over on June 30. Now it looks like there will be no status of forces agreement negotiated before that time. Let me tell my colleagues, a status of forces agreement is very important because it can establish limitations. It could establish rules of engagement that make it more difficult for our forces to protect themselves. Perhaps most dangerously we see more signs of ethnic and religious strife, raising the possibility of a civil war in Iraq. I truly hope that does not happen, but the tensions are growing, and there are insurgents and foreign fighters who have fanned those flames. Today's most deadly and tragic bombing of the hotel in Baghdad seems to be the only recent sign of this. We need to do a better job in planning. Everything we have worked to achieve in Iraq will be undermined if we do not figure out who we are turning sovereignty over to on June 30 and how to manage the transition in a way that avoids civil war. These are dangerous times. This is not an easy day for our troops or for the leadership in our country, and that is why I raise these issues, Mr. Speaker. The security of the Iraqi people, the security of our troops, the stability in the region, and even our own national security depends on doing this right. I will support this resolution because I support the men and women who are sacrificing daily, and I support those families who are fighting the insurgency in making Iraq secure, but I urge the administration to do the hard planning, to figure out quickly what will happen after June 30 to hold off a potential civil war, and we cannot have that. We must not let last year's military victory become a long-term defeat because of more failures due to the tough planning ahead. June 30 is a date that must be taken very seriously by our country. We must make sure there is a stable Iraqi transition, and that it works; because if it does not work, if there is civil war, all of the sacrifices of those young men and women in uniform, whether wounded or killed, and the families that have grieved and shared their burdens with them, will have been in vain. We really, really cannot afford to have that. So let us praise the troops. And every American should be proud of them as I am. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman, formerly from Missouri, now from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), the ranking member of our Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Guam (Mr. Bordallo).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green). (Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin). (Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler). (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I truly wish that I could support this rule. National security is a bipartisan, or actually a nonpartisan, issue. And when we commend the troops, all of us, all of us have a stake. Every congressional district has a stake in commending the troops. As a matter of fact, small town and rural America have furnished 46 percent and 43 percent of the deaths in Afghanistan and in Iraq. So all of us, whether we are from small towns or large cities, have a stake in a resolution commending the troops, and we should have been consulted about it. I am sorry for that. Now, more than that, while we commend the troops, I would also have, had I been consulted, recommended that we do our best to protect our troops by including more body armor and extra up-armored Humvees, of which we still do not have enough in Iraq. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I received from the United States Army a letter indicating that there are unfunded requirements for the extra up-armored Humvees and the body armor, which is so necessary. I would also have recommended that we have complete, timely, and high-quality health care to treat the wounds and injuries for those who have served, and to recognize those who pay the sacrifice, whether it be in wounds, injuries, or, sadly, deaths. I would also have recognized the contributions of and the sacrifices of the families of our servicemen and -women, particularly in the Guard and Reserve. I would have recognized the efforts to improve our intelligence gaps that our troops need and so that they be better protected in the future. And I would have recognized and recommended the sufficient up-front funding for our military operations so we can ensure the safety and well-being of our troops. Mr. Speaker, I would also have included the fact that there should have been better planning for the postwar period. I sent two letters to the President, one on September 4, 2002, and another 2 days before the attack on Iraq, both of which I include in the Record. Mr. Speaker, I think that all of us should have been at least brought to the table and all of us had an opportunity to write this resolution. I am so proud of our troops, whether they be from Missouri or Maine or wherever they are from. This is the best military our country has ever seen. And I think every Member of Congress, both sides of the aisle, should have had the opportunity to say thank you, we are proud of you, and God bless you. Mr. Speaker, here follows the letters to which I referred earlier in my comments: House of Representatives, Committee on Armed Services, Washington, DC, September 4, 2002. The President, The White House, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. President: Thank you for inviting me to the briefing this morning. I share your concern about the continuing threat posed by Saddam Hussein and his efforts to produce weapons of mass destruction (WMD). I would like to offer my assistance as the administration considers how to deal with this threat. Before Congress can authorize any military action that might be part of the administration's plan, we must have answers to more questions than were able to be raised at today's meeting. Our constitutional duty requires us to ensure that all implications of such action are considered in advance. The case has not yet been fully made as to what the threat is, why military force is an appropriate way of addressing the threat, and why action must occur now. In short, Congress and the American people must be clear on your strategic vision before we can authorize a specific course of action. I believe, like Clausewitz, that in strategy there is an ``imperative . . . not to take the first step without considering the last.'' Your strategy for dealing with Iraq must address the fundamental questions of the threat, the method of acting, and the timing. Furthermore, any strategy to eliminate Iraqi WMD must also address several component issues, each of which raises critical questions. 1. How to manage Iraq's transition to a stable post-Saddam regime As I mentioned to you this morning, this is a crucial question for administration strategy to answer in advance of any military action. I have no doubt that our military would decisively defeat Iraq's forces and remove Saddam. But like the proverbial dog chasing the car down the road, we must consider what we would do after we caught it. As Sun-Tzu said in the classic strategic treatise, The Art of War, ``To win victory is easy; to preserve its fruits, difficult.'' Military planners and political leaders alike new this in World War II. Planning for the occupation of Germany and Japan--two economically viable, technologically sophisticated nations-- took place well in advance of the end of the war. The extreme difficulty of occupying Iraq with its history of autocratic rule, its balkanized ethnic tensions, and its isolated economic system argues both for careful consideration of the benefits and risks of undertaking military action and for detailed advanced occupation planning if such military action is approved. Specifically, your strategy must consider the form of a replacement regime and take seriously the possibility that this regime might be rejected by the Iraqi people, leading to civil unrest and even anarchy. The effort must be to craft a stable regime that will be geopolitically preferable to Saddam and will incorporate the disparate interests of all groups within Iraq--Shi'a, Sunni, and Kurd. We must also plan now for what to do with members of the Baath party that continue to support Saddam and with the scientists and engineers who have expertise born of the Iraqi WMD program. All these efforts require careful planning and long-term commitment of manpower and resources. The American people must be clear about the amount of money and the number of soldiers that will have to be devoted to this effort for many years to come. 2. How to ensure the action in Iraq does not undermine international support for the broader war on terrorism In planning for military operations in Iraq, we cannot ignore the lack of international support to date. Pre-emptive action against Iraq is currently vocally opposed by many of our allies and friends throughout the world and particularly in the Middle East. When we are seen as acting against the concerns of large numbers of our friends, it calls into question the ``humble'' approach to international relations you espoused during the presidential campaign. More than that, it has several potentially damaging long-term consequences. First, it risks losing the large number of partners needed to prosecute the global war on terrorism. To ferret terrorists groups out of their many hiding places, we must have broad allied support. Second, it risks seriously damaging U.S. moral legitimacy, potentially providing states like India and Pakistan with a preemptive option that could drive long-standing conflicts beyond containable bounds. Finally and perhaps most dangerously, actions without broad Arab support may inflame the sources of terrorism, causing unrest and anger throughout the Muslim world. This dynamic will be worse if Iraq attacks Israel--perhaps with weapons of mass destruction--and draws them into the conflict. Iran, which has the potential to seize a reformist path, may well move away from the United States in the face of attacks that could next be taken against them. Together, these dynamics will make achieving peace in the Middle East more difficult and may well provide the rationale for more terrorist attacks against Americans. These concerns do not make military action in Iraq untenable. They do, however, highlight the depth and importance of the issues to be addressed before we strike. We need to ensure that in taking out Saddam, we don't win the battle and lose the war. 3. How to ensure that the United States can execute this operation successfully as well as its other military missions As you are well aware, Mr. President, the consideration of military action against Iraq comes at a time when U.S. forces are actively engaged throughout the world in a range of missions. Given the operational pressures these forces currently face, we must ask what the risks and trade-offs will be of defeating Iraq, particularly if Iraqi forces mass in Baghdad for urban operations. How many casualties must the American people be prepared to take in a worst-case scenario? What will the impact of sustained operations be on so-called high-demand, low-density assets? What military operations might we have to forego because of continued demands in Iraq? Will we still be prepared for the range of other threats that might emerge throughout the world? With little allied support and contributions, will we still be able to maintain military spending on transformational technologies and on sound quality of life for our forces if we are bearing a huge wartime cost alone? What will be the impact on the domestic economy of these resources drains and of the long-term costs of reconstructing Iraq? These questions must be answered before any military action commences so that the American people understand the risks and the sacrifices involved. I ask these questions only to highlight the complexity of the undertaking and the need for Congress, the American people, and our friends around the world to understand exactly what is at stake and why we must act now. Only such a comprehensive strategic approach will ensure that we commit U.S. troops consciously and with full knowledge of the range of challenges we face--both in the initial campaign and in the long aftermath to follow. Even a strategy that has military action as its centerpiece will require great diplomatic efforts to ensure its success. I look forward to hearing the administration's answers and to working with you to find the best course of action. Sincerely, Ike Skelton, Ranking Democrat.

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

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I would have thought it a mere courtesy of saying, Would the gentleman from Missouri like to read this over and add or make recommendations? I would love to have been there in order to support the gentleman from California.