Ike Skelton

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity today to honor General Eric K. Shinseki, the 34th Chief of Staff of the United States Army. I have had the privilege of working with General Shinseki over these past 4 years, as he set forth a vision, and then followed with a plan of execution, that will culminate in a complete Transformation of the premier land force in the world today--The United States Army. General Eric K. Shinseki is a soldier General, a soldier's soldier. He began his Army career after graduating from the United States Military Academy in 1965. He served two combat tours in the Republic of Vietnam. I should note that this officer has been carried off the battlefield on the backs of soldiers. It is because of these soldiers, that he has served so long, and with so much distinction. Despite receiving serious wounds in battle, General Shinseki remained on active duty out of his utmost respect for the young, American soldier he encountered in Vietnam. While he may not have been aware at that time, the experience he garnered under the tutelage of non-commissioned officers as a new officer instilled the discipline and direction that would ultimately place him as The Army's ``point man''. General Shinseki excelled at every level, in command and in staff positions, both in the continental United States and overseas. He commanded the 1st Cavalry Division at Fort Hood, Texas, became Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans at Headquarters Department of the Army, served as the Commanding General, United States Army Europe, Commander Allied Land Forces Central Europe; and Commander, NATO Stabilization Force in Bosnia-Herzegovina. In 1998, he assumed the duties as the 28th Vice Chief of Staff of the United States Army. On June 22, 1999, General Shinseki became the Chief of Staff of the United States Army. Since assuming that position, General Shinseki's commitment and leadership have contributed immeasurably to ensuring that America's Army is unmatched by any in our history in its skill and professionalism. General Shinseki began a transformation that will fundamentally reform the Army and position it for continuing excellence and achievement in the coming decades. The path of Transformation is one that is filled with challenges, and unexpected events. While he was charting a course for the Army's Transformation, General Shinseki was charged with ensuring The Army was again prepared to go in to battle. At the onset, the Global War on Terrorism began to consume assets. Quickly on the heels of this, was Operation Noble Eagle--the defense of the American Homeland, in Operation Enduring Freedom--the attack on AI Qaeda's lair, and Operation Iraqi Freedom--the liberation of Iraq. These events served as a galvanizing catalyst to General Shinseki's vision for Transformation. The Army was now one Army, at war and transforming. Whether active, National Guard, or Reserve, it is one Army. Throughout all this, General Shinseki has provided a steady hand that as a result leaves the Army, and its men and women, in one of the highest states of readiness ever. After more than 35 years service to the nation, General Shinseki will retire from the United States Army this month. Throughout that entire period, General Shinseki's actions have epitomized those of a soldier, leader, and consummate professional. Always mission-focused and soldier-centered, he upheld the Army's non-negotiable mission contract with the American people to fight and win the nation's wars, while never forgetting that it is the sacrifice and skill of the American soldier that makes those victories possible. Mr. Speaker, the Constitution of this great country charges this body to raise and support Armies. The Transformation that is underway in our Army is one that is steeped in history, and fraught with vision. While we are charged to raise an Army, it is an officer of such caliber as General Shinseki's, who will ensure its training, its readiness, its ability to answer when the country calls. As we have witnessed since September 11, 2001, the freedoms we enjoy, come at a price. Our nation has been fortunate to have men and women willing to come forward at times of crisis and challenge to pay that price. We now add another name to that distinguished list; General Eric K. Shinseki. It is through dedication, and the selfless devotion to duty of Americans like him, that our nation is able to continue upon the path of democracy. To provide global response and assistance when and where needed. It is with profound admiration and deep appreciation that I pay tribute to General Shinseki for all that he has done for the United States Army and this country. To General Eric K. Shinseki, the 34th Chief of Staff of The United States Army, on behalf of this Congress, and of a grateful nation, Thank you for your service.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt). (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, may I make the same inquiry. How much time do we have left?

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me urge the passage of the en bloc amendments and thank the chairman so very much for his courtesy in working with this side of the aisle and making all of these happen. I think it is an excellent series of amendments.

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

Mr. SKELTON. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman; and she can be assured that we will work very hard to keep the provisions in the bill.

Mr. SKELTON. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. When I testified before the Committee on Rules, Mr. Speaker, I specifically asked that committee for several major amendments, Democratic amendments, and that they be made in order. The first was the Cooper amendment dealing with civil service changes, which would establish a bill of rights for civilian workers within that department. The second, the Spratt amendment, on cooperative threat reduction, which, by the way, Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States requested. The third, the Taylor amendment on base closure. We should have a full and fair debate on that. And the Dingell-Rahall amendment on the environment. The dean of the House, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), was not given that amendment. As a matter of fact, none of those four amendments were made in order. That is, Mr. Speaker, simply wrong. Regardless of how Members might feel on the substance of amendments, it is wrong that a major substantive policy amendment is kept from debate. That should not happen. It should be allowed. It should be debated fully on this floor. This is a deliberative body, and many have said the most deliberative body in the whole world. Yet, Mr. Speaker, we cannot debate key issues that come before us. This is not a full debate. It deserves that. We in this institution do not deserve this disservice, and I cannot agree, sadly, with this rule.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record my op-ed article entitled ``Overhaul Without Oversight'' from the Washington Post dated May 21. [From the Washington Post, May 21, 2003] Overhaul Without Oversight (By Ike Skelton) I believe history will show that the swiftness of America's military victory in Iraq was due in large part to the in- depth training of our officers in strategy and plans and to the military's application of that training in the operational plans developed in the months before the war. Many people, including the Secretary of Defense, had detailed lists of what could go wrong. We avoided those outcomes, partly thanks to luck but mostly because of deliberate military planning that sought out and compensated for potential risks and unintended consequences. Last month, as Congress was departing for a two-week recess, the Defense Department submitted a 200-page draft ``transformation'' bill that requests extensive new authorities. It is not an understatement to say that this bill, taken as a whole, is the most sweeping defense reform legislation proposed since the Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986, which changed both the structure and the policies governing our military. The only thing that is obvious and consistent throughout the 50 provisions included in this bill is the aggregation of power sought for the Department of Defense, removing the legal restrictions and congressional oversight that should safeguard against any abuses, however unintentional. This approach is a rush to judgment that will affect vast numbers of people and, in many cases, will enshrine bad policy in law. Major reassignments of constitutional authority such as this demand the same sort of thoughtful foresight as a war plan. In fact, the Goldwater-Nichols legislation took Congress four years to pass. The armed services committees of both houses of Congress held dozens of hearings and spent months drafting a comprehensive and bipartisan bill. We did this because the scope of the legislation was broad, the potentially unforeseen implications were numerous and the impact on the lives of all those who serve this nation was enormous. The House of Representatives is to consider and vote on a defense authorization bill today that has much to commend it. It will authorize $400 billion to ensure that our forces remain the best trained and best equipped in the world. But it will also include large pieces of the transformation package--even though the committee has held fewer than five hearings, and most of those with less than a week's notice. Without the time to investigate and ask the tough questions, we do not know what the implications of these changes are. And so we, unlike Gen. Tommy Franks in Iraq, cannot build a plan to avoid the worst outcomes. The proposed legislation makes sweeping changes to both military and civilian personnel systems. On the civilian side, the Defense Department wants unfettered freedom to hire and fire its nearly 700,000 employees. Congress had a long, contentious debate over similar personnel proposals when creating the Department of Homeland Security. That legislation is barely being implemented now, and there has been no opportunity to evaluate its results. The Defense Department wants changes that are even more dramatic, including, just as one example, the repeal of laws preventing nepotism. What justification based on our national security or sound management principles can justify that? What message does this send to the hundreds of thousands who have dedicated their careers to the service of this nation? And why do such changes need to be rushed through now, when a successful military campaign has shown that the existing system works? The department also is requesting extensive exemptions from a host of environmental laws that have helped safeguard the long-term health of our communities and of the global environment. As a solidly pro-military member of Congress, I believe the readiness and exceptional training of our troops are of paramount importance and should be taken into account in our environmental laws. But the Defense Department has not yet made use of the legal remedies that already exist to accommodate military readiness. Operations in Iraq showed the exquisite capability of the U.S. military trained under the current system. Changing the law at this point has not been shown to be needed for military readiness, but it will certainly undermine the legal structure that ensures the nation's environmental health. The Constitution establishes Congress as a counterweight to executive authority for good reasons--to guard against the excessive aggregation of any administration's power and to ask critical questions that allow better policy and better law to be made. When we in Congress are doing our jobs well, we ask what every American should want to know: Why is this necessary and what are the downsides of taking this action? Without the ability to question and consider fully the implications of what we do, we abandon the planning needed to protect our nation's security and to protect those who serve their nation. We would not accept that of the officers planning a military campaign. We should not accept it from our political leaders either.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Guam (Mr. Bordallo), a member of the Committee on Armed Services.

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

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I know of no opposition to the amendment. I personally endorse it and support it. Times have changed. Situations have changed. But I think one fact that is very important is the fact that NATO is an ongoing, successful organization, and it has recently expanded, and we should take advantage of that expansion and the friendship that is growing as a result of the new members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. This amendment requires a reevaluation of the current posture of American forces in Europe. It is designed only for the American forces, and it calls for a reevaluation. I think there are a number of things we could and should consider. To begin with, I think it is important for us to remember that stationing troops in Germany is a very positive thing and that we should not rush to judgment just to move troops from Germany. But having said that, I think it is a good idea to take a look at the eastern countries. Poland, our chairman mentioned, and to their great credit, side by side, they have their special forces there, theirs with ours, in Iraq. Consequently, I think we should take advantage of that new-found friendship and that new-found military cooperation with that country and, of course, others in the region that are new to the NATO organizations. Consider the entire picture, not being prejudiced one way or the other, but, A, take advantage of the new friends and those that are willing to help us; B, remember our old obligations and the admonitions of some that we should keep a strong footprint in Germany. With that, I fully agree with the chairman's amendment, and I intend to support it, and I thank him for offering it at this time. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I take this opportunity to speak against this amendment. I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) for his commitment to our national defense and for his position of strengthening our law enforcement community. He comes from a great background and understands this issue better than anyone in this body. Among all the reasons the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) gives to oppose this amendment, the one I feel strongly about is the overstretching of our troops. I am convinced that we are stretching the young men and young women far past their capacity; and to put them on the border where we have border patrols who are doing an excellent job there I think is just gilding the lily and pushing it too far. We have American troops all over the world; and I see that some of them, frankly, are getting worn out. National Guard and Reserves are called up and this would only exacerbate a very difficult situation. The Northern Command exists to support the request from civil authorities, but our troops should not substitute for our police. And I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me this time.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the minority whip.

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

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and it appears in this bill regarding the additional research and development funding for future system or systems of advanced Stealth techniques, I think it is certainly on the right track.