Ike Skelton

Mr. SKELTON

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

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Madam Speaker, it is my sad duty to announce to this body the tragic death of Missouri's Governor, Mel Carnahan, who died along with his son Randy and an advisor, Chris Sifford, yesterday evening. Needless to say, I am heartbroken today. The sudden loss of a friend and Missouri's Governor, Mel Carnahan, pales in comparison to the loss being felt by his wife, Jean, and the rest of the family. Our sympathy and prayers go out to the families of both the Carnahans and the Siffords. Mel Carnahan was a public servant of the best sort. He was devoted to his family and he unselfishly gave his same devotion to the people of Missouri. All Missourians are fortunate that someone of Mel Carnahan's caliber and stature dedicated his life and career to making our State and our Nation a better place. Madam Speaker, Mel Carnahan was my friend for many, many years, and I can hardly measure right now how much I will miss him. As a model of friendship and service, however, he will always be with us. In an interview that was relayed on the radio earlier today, I heard Governor Carnahan say how proud he was of all he had accomplished as an elected official, but that he felt he had more to contribute. This kind of sentiment is an inspiration to those of us in public life today and those who will serve in the future. My wife, Suzie, joins me and I know all Members of this body join me in expressing deep sympathy to Jean Carnahan, to the Carnahan family, as well as to the Sifford family.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, it is with deep sadness that I inform the House of the death of Tom Graham, of Jefferson City, Missouri. He was 77. Tom, a son of Charles E. and Margaret Cuthbertson Graham, was born on October 14, 1922, in St. Louis. He attended Jefferson City public schools and was a recipient of the Distinguished Alumnus Award. He also attended the University of Missouri. After serving in the Army Air Corps during World War II, Tom practiced law in Jefferson City for 50 years. From 1951 to 1973, he was in the Missouri House of Representatives, serving three terms as Speaker of the House from 1961 to 1967. Tom was president of the National Legislative Conference from 1966 to 1967, and commissioner of the National Conference on Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. He was vice-chairman of the Missouri-New York World's Fair Commission. Tom was a member of the First Christian Church and a past member of the Jefferson Lodge 43, Ancient Free and Accepted Masons, Ancient and Accepted Orders of Nobles of the Mystic Shrine, Moolah Temple, St. Louis. He was a member of the Missouri Bar, Phi Gamma Delta social fraternity and Phi Delta Phi legal fraternity. Tom was also involved in many civic activities in Jefferson City. He was on the Board of Directors of the Jefferson City Chamber of Commerce and the Board of Trustees of Memorial Community Hospital. He served as president of the Cole County Chapter, University of Missouri Alumni Association, and the Cole County Bar Association. He was a merit badge counselor for the Boy Scouts of America. Tom married the late Christine Wood Graham on April 22, 1944. They were married for almost 54 years and had one son, Christopher Graham. Mr. Speaker, Tom Graham was my good friend and a great American. I know the Members of the House will join me in extending heartfelt condolences to his family.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, let me take this means to pay tribute to Lieutenant General Randolph W. House upon his retirement from the United States Army. General House has served our nation with honor and distinction for over 32 years, and his performance throughout his career has been characterized by the highest standards of professional ethics and commitment to soldiers. General House was commissioned a second lieutenant in 1968 upon completion of the Reserve Officers' Training Corps and graduation from Texas A&M University. During his military career, he completed the Infantry Officer Basic and Advanced Courses, the United States Army Command and General Staff College, and the National War College. General House's record of service is outstanding. Throughout his long and distinguished career, he has held numerous key command and staff positions, including the following: Helicopter Platoon Leader and Infantry Company Commander in South Vietnam; Armor Brigade Commander during Operation DESERT SHIELD/DESERT STORM; Division Commander of 1st Infantry Division; Senior Military Assistant to Secretary of Defense, Dr. William Perry; Commanding General, Eighth U.S. Army and Chief of Staff, United Nations Command/Combined Forces Command/U.S. Forces, South Korea; and Deputy Commander in Chief and Chief of Staff, U.S. Pacific Command. His assignments include Deputy Chief of Staff, 5th Infantry Division (Mechanized), Fort Polk, Louisiana; Commander, 1st Battalion, 61st Infantry, 5th Infantry Division (Mechanized), Fort Polk, Louisiana; Chief, Force Planning Integration Team, War Plans Division, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans, United States Army, Washington, DC. He has also held a variety of important command and staff positions to include Executive Assistant to the Vice Director and Director of the Joint Staff, The Joint Staff, Washington, DC; Commander, 2d Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, Texas and Saudi Arabia; Assistant Division Commander, 4th Infantry Division (Mechanized), Fort Carson, Colorado; Deputy Commandant, United States Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas; Commanding General, 1st Infantry Division (Mechanized), Fort Riley, Kansas; Senior Military Assistant to the Secretary of Defense, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Washington, DC; Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management, United States Army, Washington, DC; Commanding General, Eighth United States Army/Chief of Staff, United Nations Command/Combined Forces Command/United States Forces Korea. He culminated his career with his most recent duty as Deputy Commander in Chief/Chief of Staff, United States Pacific Command, Camp H.M. Smith, Hawaii. General House was awarded the Silver Star during actions by his brigade of the 1st Cavalry against elements of the Iraqi Republican Guards during DESERT STORM and received twenty-two Air Medals as a young helicopter pilot in the Republic of Vietnam. His other military awards and decorations include the Defense Distinguished Service Medal (with 2 Oak Leaf Clusters), Distinguished Service Medal, the Defense Superior Service Medal, the Legion of Merit (with 2 Oak Leaf Clusters), the Distinguished Flying Cross (with 3 Oak Leaf Clusters), the Soldier's Medal, the Bronze Star Medal (with Oak Leaf Cluster), the Army Commendation Medal (with Oak Leaf Cluster), the Combat Infantryman Badge, and the Ranger Tab. General House has positively impacted our Army and our Nation. His leadership, innovative ideas and operational knowledge left an indelible, mark on soldiers, family members, the units he commanded, the Department of the Army, the Department of Defense, and the American people. Through superb leadership and the care and concern he demonstrated to soldiers and their families, he developed warfighters that accomplished every mission. During war, he led from the front, always by example, earning the respect and admiration of every soldier. During peacetime, he promoted sound political and military relationships among unified and combined forces and enhanced the quality of life of United States personnel and their families. General House also worked to produce improved relations with a large number of countries within the Asia-Pacific region and to improve crisis and contingency planning. I would ask my colleagues to join me in wishing General House and his wife, Jeanie, all the best. We thank them for over 32 years of dedicated and unselfish service to the United States of America.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, earlier today the U.S.S. Cole, an Aegis destroyer, while being refueled in the enemy port of Aden was attacked by suicide terrorists. There were five sailors who lost their lives. One is missing. Approximately 30 have been injured. This is the latest crime to be added to the list of deadly terrorist attacks against our fellow countrymen. It is terrible that anyone would sink so low. I have great admiration for the professionalism of the crew of the U.S.S. Cole, tending to the wounded and taking care of their ship. We deplore the loss of American lives and my deepest sympathies and prayers go to the families and friends of the victims of this cowardly attack. Serving in the military is a dangerous profession. I want to recognize the selfless dedication of the American military personnel who risk personal safety in the service of our country. I want to be clear. The U.S. Government should seek retribution against those who are responsible for this attack against U.S. military personnel. We should do all that we can to ensure that our service members and citizens are protected in the future. It is impossible to predict with certainty where or when terrorists will strike. Today's events, however, are a terrible reminder that we must take the threat of terrorism seriously.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 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. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), who did so very much to further the health care issue along that is reflected in this legislation.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), who is in the forefront of the military retiree effort, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel. (Mr. ABERCROMBIE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), who is a member of our committee, the Committee on Armed Services, and also ranking member of the Committee on the Budget. (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood). (Mr. UNDERWOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Sisisky).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher), a member of our Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Pickett), who has chosen to leave this body, but leaves a tremendous record of service to our Nation.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 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 myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional requests for time. However, let me take this opportunity to, again, compliment the gentleman from South Carolina (Chairman Spence). This legislation is properly named for him. Thanks to all of those on the committee, those who have worked so hard in the bipartisan manner that we have. I just have to say, Mr. Speaker, that we have a marvelous staff. The long hours, the weekends, the days that they put in have helped glue together this outstanding piece of legislation. I take this opportunity to thank them. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report to accompany H.R. 4205, the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001. It is appropriate that this bill has been named in honor of our distinguished chairman, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence). I want to commend him for his leadership throughout the long and sometimes difficult deliberations on this legislation. We produced an excellent bill for national defense, and this conference report deserves the support of all the Members in the House. This conference report builds upon the President's budget proposal for defense and makes important improvements in military quality of life, readiness, and modernization programs. Moreover, this bill will keep the promise of lifetime health care for all military retirees. We have been working to make this the year of military health care, and I am proud of those Members of our committee on both sides of the aisle who worked so diligently to improve health care for our military retirees, as well as for the active duty service members and their families. I want to especially recognize the efforts of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) and the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), the chairman and ranking member of our Subcommittee on Military Personnel, and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), who has been a leader in this effort from the beginning. For military retirees, the conference report provides permanent medical coverage under TRICARE for military retirees over age 65; expands and makes permanent TRICARE Senior Prime, also known as Medicare Subvention, provided Congress approves a new agreement; establishes a permanent pharmacy benefit with access to the national mail order program and retail pharmacies; and reduces catastrophic expenses from $7,500 to $3,000 for retired TRICARE beneficiaries. Mr. Speaker, for active duty service members and their families, the conference report provides TRICARE Prime Remote to active duty family members; eliminates copayments for active duty family members in TRICARE Prime and TRICARE Prime Remote; phases in chiropractic care to active duty personnel; reimburses certain travel expenses for military families who must travel to a referred specialist; eliminates certain referral requirements for specialty care; and improves TRICARE claims processing and reduces costs. In addition to these health care improvements, I am pleased that the conference report includes increases in funding for the procurement of weapons, ammunition and equipment, for research and development, and for operations and maintenance. The conference report supports the important Army transformation initiative, recognizing the need for the Army to build a medium weight force that is capable of quickly deploying to a full spectrum of contingencies. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that this conference report includes authorization for the Energy Employees' Occupational Illness Compensation Program. This program will help compensate those thousands of workers who become ill from exposure to dangerous levels of radiation, beryllium, and other toxic substances while they worked in our Nation's nuclear weapons programs. These workers are the unsung heroes of our victory in the Cold War, and it is only appropriate that we acknowledge their sacrifice and compensate them for their illnesses. Mr. Speaker, this conference report is the result of cooperation and compromise between the House and the Senate and between Members of both sides of the aisle. It deserves strong bipartisan support, and I urge all Members to vote for the approval of this conference report, which is named appropriately so for our chairman, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence).

Mr. SKELTON

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

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) for his inquiry. Back home in Missouri we have the saying, two wrongs do not make a right. And the fact that they have been doing it, I think, because of the policy of the United States in the past, they have been violating that policy. Now, this does not apply to National Guard armories, because National Guard armories are State property. There are many places that are available, whether it be schools or private places, sometimes private homes. There are many places and one does not need a military installation to fulfill the opportunity for folks to vote. Let me say that there are four reasons that the Department of Defense opposes this legislation. There is a long-standing policy prohibiting the use of a military installation as polling sites for elections. This policy is based on sound public policy of maintaining strict separation between the military and the political process. Similarly, the law, 18 U.S.C. 593, subjects members of the armed forces to criminal penalties if they impose or attempt to impose any regulations for conducting any general or special election in the State different from those prescribed by law. I think that that is a situation where one may put someone in the armed forces in a very embarrassing and possibly a criminal violation. Further, the Department of Defense policy, if this were enacted, would reverse the policy by authorizing the use of military installations, and the Department strongly disagrees that it is appropriate for the fundamental political activity of voting to take place on locations that the Department of Defense strives to make politically neutral and nonpartisan. The proposed legislation would not effectively amend the criminal statutes. It leaves those alone and consequently would subject certain members of the armed forces to criminal violations. Further, the Department recognizes some installations have overlooked the Department's policy, as the gentleman has pointed out, on this issue in the past and that some military facilities have been used. In some cases short-term waivers of the policy have been granted, and I think there is a short period that a waiver has been established. But I think quite honestly we should not allow this situation where there have been a few folks in violation of this policy, to enlarge itself and become the norm. It bothers me a great deal. I just do not think that the military and the political process should get thrown together. Consequently, let us keep them separated. The military is far removed from the political ways of our country, as they should be. That is why I just, in all good conscience, cannot support this. At best, we have to have a hearing on this. I would like to have the opportunity to cross-examine those who propose it.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) for yielding me this time, and also let me thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) for bringing this bill up at this moment. Mr. Speaker, I am troubled by this legislative proposal. This breaks a long-standing American tradition; and I frankly cannot, will not support this legislation. Let me quote from the Department of Defense on this bill, and I think they are absolutely correct. The Department of Defense has a standing policy prohibiting the use of Federal, active military and reserve facilities as polling or voting places. The Department believes that the military should not be involved in any way in the electoral process, in order to avoid the possibility or the perception of voter coercion or intimidation by military personnel or a military presence, or the perception that the military has authority over the election process. Further, The principle that the military shall remain separated from the electoral process is reflected in existing laws imposing criminal penalties on commanders who station troops or armed men at any place where a special or general election is held, and on members of the armed forces who impose regulations on the conduct of such elections or otherwise interfere in any manner with an election officer's discharge of his duties. Let me give an example there if I may, Mr. Speaker. Polling places being held on a military installation such as Fort Leonard Wood in Missouri, military installations, bases or posts by their very nature have men and women under arms; and then, of course, near a polling place would consist of a criminal penalty, and I think that is asking too much of our military personnel to impose that type of restriction and threat on them of having violated a criminal statute. Further, the Department of Defense states that locating a polling place in military installations where a commander's authority is paramount is inconsistent with the Department of Defense policy, and it runs the risk of exposing military personnel to criminal sanctions, as I just mentioned. Now, let me point this out, Mr. Speaker: this is a controversial issue at best; and as such we have committees, we have a Committee on Armed Services that I am pleased to be the ranking member thereof and all of us on the committee take our jobs very seriously. I think that a measure such as this should have extensive hearings. Those in favor of it should appear before us and say why they feel as they do and those of us that oppose it will have the opportunity to ask questions and cross-examine the witnesses and hear witnesses who are opposed to it, including those from the Department of Defense. I think it is a violation at least of the process by which controversial legislation is handled in this wonderful body we call the House of Representatives. So consequently, I find that I must and do sincerely oppose this legislation. Mr. Speaker, at this point in the Record I would add a letter from the Department of Defense which outlines in detail their reasons, and there are four of them spelled out. General Counsel of the Department of Defense, Washington, DC, October 10, 2000. Hon. William M. Thomas, Chairman, Committee on Administration, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: This is in response to your request for the views of the Department of Defense on H.R. 5174, 106th Congress, a bill ``To amend titles 10 and 18, United States Code, and the Revised Statutes to remove the uncertainty regarding the authority of the Department of Defense to permit buildings on military installations and reserve component facilities to be used as polling places in Federal, State, and local elections for public office.'' The Department of Defense opposes this legislation. The Department has a longstanding policy prohibiting the use of military installations as polling sites for elections. This policy is based on sound public policy of maintaining strict separation between the military and the political process. The policy of separating the military and partisan politics is critically important to maintaining public support for and confidence in our Armed Forces, as well as maintaining good order and discipline within military ranks. The principle of separating the military from the political process is also reflected in two federal criminal statutes. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 592 provides that: [W]hoever, being an officer of the Army or Navy, or other person in the civil, military or naval service of the United States, orders, brings, keeps, or has under his authority or control any troops or armed men at any place where a general or special election is held, unless such force be necessary to repel armed enemies of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years or both. Similarly, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 593 subjects members of the Armed Forces to criminal penalties if they ``impose or attempt to impose any regulations for conducting any general or special election in a State, different from those prescribed by law,'' or ``interfere in any manner with an election officer's discharge of his duties.'' Placement of voting sites on military installations in which ``troops or armed men'' are likely to come into close contact with voters is fundamentally incompatible with the concept of maintaining separation between the military and politics. If enacted, H.R. 5174 would reverse Department of Defense policy by authorizing the use of military installations as polling places. We strongly disagree that it is appropriate for the fundamental political activity of voting to take place at locations that the Department of Defense strives to make politically neutral and nonpartisan. The proposed legislation also would not effectively amend the criminal statutes reference above to relieve military personnel from potential criminal liability. Specifically, the amendments to the criminal statutes proposed in section 1(c) of H.R. 5174 would only clarify that it is not a crime for polling places to be placed on military installations. It would not address at all the placement of troops or armed men at polling places. It would not be practical simply to prohibit military personnel from approaching or entering a polling place on a military installation during voting hours. The commander of a military installation must at all times have complete control over the facilities within his or her authority. It is possible that circumstances could arise that would require a commander to order military personnel to enter a building designated as a polling site if that building is located on a military installation. We believe it is therefore prudent to retain the prohibition on the use of military buildings as polling places. We recognize that some installations have overlooked the Department's policy on this issue in the past and that some military facilities have been used as polling places in some localities. In some cases, short-term waivers of the policy have been granted if an alternative location could not be identified in time to avoid disruption to an upcoming election. In such cases, local election officials have been advised to designate a new polling place as soon as possible. Furthermore, section 121 of the Military Construction Appropriation Act for Fiscal Year 2001 requires that military facilities that have been used as polling places over recent years must be permitted to be used as polling places for the November election. Enactment of H.R. 5174 is not necessary, therefore, to relieve any possible inconvenience to voters in the November election resulting from enforcement of the Department of Defense policy. Finally, we want to point out that our policy does not apply to National Guard armories or other Guard facilities. These buildings are subject to the control of state Governors through their Adjutant Generals, not the Department of Defense. The Office of Management and Budget advises that, from the standpoint of the Administration's program, there is no objection to the presentation of this report for consideration of the Committee. Sincerely, Douglas A. Dworkin.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I appreciate that statement. I keep going back to my old Missouri comment: Two wrongs do not make a right. I am very concerned that should this bill become law it would be permissive, and it would enlarge a practice that really should not have begun to begin with. So I do not think that we are doing anyone a service here. I think we are doing ourselves a disservice by mixing the military and the political process together. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for taking the bill up at this time.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, Lincoln University, in Jefferson City, Missouri, is an historic black college that has served Missouri and our nation well since the latter part of the 1800s. Today, it serves as a beacon of education for our state of Missouri. I am so very proud of the faculty, the students, and its extension service, which have put this university on the map. I am pleased to represent such an outstanding institution.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Conyers motion. Our Nation has seen far too many cases of violent criminal acts related to prejudice, bigotry, and intolerance. Recently, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has reported a significant number of cases involving violence directed against a member of a religious, ethnic, disabled, race-based, or gender-specific association. Statistics show that nearly 8,000 such acts of violence have occurred annually since 1994. Society cannot and should not tolerate the cowardly, mean-spirited, and hateful acts that we call hate crimes. Indeed, such hate-based acts have a deeper impact on society other than crimes. They are injurious to the community and are often committed by offenders affiliated with large, extended groups operating across State lines. From my own observation, having been with numerous people who have, unfortunately, sustained physical disability, I have witnessed the ugly face of discrimination. I personally know the pain resulting from malicious acts and bigotry as it relates to disabilities. I wish to stress this point. As a former State prosecuting attorney, I do not view this proposal lightly. Although the ability to prosecute crimes against individuals exists today, the Senate bill would provide prosecutors with more tools with which to fight crimes in which bias, prejudice, and discrimination are motivating factors. I urge my colleagues to support the Conyers motion to instruct.