Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, budgets illustrate the values of our nation. This year's budget reconciliation bill fails to live up to the values of the people I am privileged to represent in West Central Missouri.

The Republican budget opens the 2002 Farm Bill by reducing farm, rural development, and conservation programs; slashes Medicaid; diminishes financial aid programs for Missouri's college bound students; and denies low-income working families access to food and nutrition initiatives. These reductions in critical rural programs are recommended at the same time as Republicans push for more expansive tax cuts for the wealthiest in society.

Most of us in rural Missouri pride ourselves on being prudent with our money. We balance our checkbooks each month and do not dig too deep into debt. While running a family is much different than running a country, these common sense Show-Me State values ought to be replicated in Congress.

But instead, the Republicans are plunging our country deeper into debt by passing a budget that includes more tax cuts than spending cuts. The budget bill ignores our commitments to rebuild the Gulf Coast after Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma. It also fails to properly account for expected future supplemental spending requests for ongoing military operations.

Our nation's fiscal house is not in order and this bill does nothing to fix that. Congressional leaders and the President need to go back to the drawing board and meet in a bipartisan fashion to create a budget plan that more adequately balances the interests--and values--of the American people. When George H.W. Bush faced a similar budget crisis, he had the courage to create a bipartisan budget summit and to implement needed budget constraints. America is better for it, and I hope that our leaders today will follow that example.

Mr. Speaker, the Republican budget reconciliation bill should be defeated. Congress must do better at representing the interests of every American, not just the wealthy few. I stand ready to work with all my colleagues in a bipartisan fashion, ensuring that the budget we prepare truly represents the values of a caring nation.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 574, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 576 on H.R. 3770, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. I rise in support of the motion.

Mr. Speaker, I left the Armed Services Committee hearing a moment ago and I heard Command Sergeant Major Citola in a very eloquent discussion of the troops in Iraq say that we are a Nation of laws. It was heartening to hear that. Then the report from The Washington Post to which the gentleman from Wisconsin refers is a dagger in that thought.

Our men and women in uniform are serving with tremendous distinction around the world in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Horn of Africa, Korea, Germany, and many other places; and they deserve the best protection and support we can give them.

We in Congress are tasked with ensuring these troops and our veterans have all they need. They deserve the very best. Part of our job comes in providing them with the best equipment, training, and benefits. Another part is providing oversight of the policies of the administration. One of the questions that I had earlier was when the Armed Services Committee did not adopt a subcommittee on oversight or investigations.

Hearken back to the days when the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, David Jones, raised the issue that the Joint Chiefs of Staff is not working well and that there is a lack of jointness within our military. It was the committee on investigations under the gentleman from Alabama, Bill Nichols, that worked for some 4 years and came up with the landmark law that we now call Goldwater-Nichols. That was oversight.

By oversight, we must ensure that our military forces are employed appropriately; when there are problems, that they are investigated fairly and properly, as they were in Chairman Nichols' work.

I have supported calls for more vigorous investigations of the failure in prewar intelligence on weapons of mass destruction and for a likely post-war situation in Iraq. I have also supported a Truman-like commission to look at contracting problems in Iraq. Unfortunately, those efforts have not been undertaken; and they, sadly, fell on deaf ears.

In my own Armed Services Committee there have been many efforts that have been undertaken in a bipartisan manner. This is good. A noble example is our joint effort to ensure that more up-armored Humvees and other force protection equipment reached the field despite the failure to plan adequately for their needs. That is a very positive step we did. Yet even in our committee, we need to do better when it comes to oversight in key areas of our policy relating to Iraq and the war on terror. Notably, I feel there must be additional policy and additional oversight of our treatment of detainees in theaters around the world.

The question I have, Mr. Speaker, in regard to the article to which the gentleman from Wisconsin refers, was there any connection between what the allegations are by the CIA and the Department of Defense or anyone therein. That, I think, is a matter of oversight and one that we need to at least have a briefing or a hearing thereon.

Increased oversight will allow us both to understand the systematic causes of these cases of abuse, the right solutions to be enacted into law. That is our job. The Constitution charges the Congress with raising and maintaining the military; and you cannot raise and maintain unless you oversight, unless you understand the problems that we can cure by law. That is our job. And I think we could do a much, much better job.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might consume.

Mr. Chairman, I have long supported the base closure process as a way to eliminate excess infrastructure in the Department of Defense. This is an important and very noble goal. We need all of our resources to be devoted towards supporting our fighting men and women. This includes having the best and most efficient facilities.

For this reason, Mr. Chairman, I will today vote to uphold the list recommended by the BRAC Commission and against the resolution of disapproval.

Even though I support the BRAC, I would like to take this opportunity to comment on the process that was used in this round of BRAC. In the last three BRAC rounds, the Defense Department demonstrated that it could successfully close bases and reduce infrastructure through a measured and deliberative process.

In this round, however, neither the Department of Defense nor the BRAC Commission, in my opinion, has lived up to the high standards that we set for them. The execution of the process and the final outcome has suffered. The end result is that I doubt we will see another round of base closures due to missteps along the way.

This is it, Mr. Chairman. This is it for BRAC. But even with the BRAC shortfalls, I feel that the Congress created a law that we are obligated to follow. While it missed some opportunities, the commission made some closures that will benefit the Nation. There are some outstanding prospects for jointness included on the list.

I sincerely hope that the Department of Defense will work to maximize their effect, while it works to assist communities that will be affected by closures with redevelopment.

Mr. Chairman, we must vote upon the product that is before us and the good that it can do. This BRAC may not be perfect, but we must take the opportunity presented to us to streamline our military infrastructure.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I might point out to the gentleman that we in Congress did pass the basic BRAC law which we are following today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning with mixed emotions for our situation in Iraq. I am certainly pleased for the Iraqi people to see that it looks as if they have passed the constitutional referendum. The upcoming

December elections for the national assembly will be another important milestone for them as well as their nation.

At the same time, it is impossible not to reflect on the other milestone we reached today, the announcement of the 2,000th American casualty with the deaths of two Marines in Anbar province last week. All Americans mourn with their families and all that came before them. This announcement comes simultaneously with the coordinated bombings on two Baghdad hotels this morning by insurgents. We can see from this attack and other engagements with American forces that the insurgency continues. Defeating the insurgency will not happen with military force alone. And it will not happen by American hands alone. We know that the answer in Iraq lies in transitioning security responsibility to the Iraqis themselves. The administration has been saying this for some time.

The problem, from my perspective, is that the American and the Iraqi people, if they are going to stay with us until the Iraqi security forces are capable of taking over the job, must have a clear sense of progress. Iraqi security forces must be able to take the fight to the insurgents on their own and to inspire the confidence of the Iraqi people. Similarly, the American public must see that there is a connection between increasing capability of Iraqi security forces and a diminishing American commitment over time.

For this reason, I have proposed a clear formula that can be used by our military leaders and that can be explained to the Iraqi and American publics alike, that for every three Iraqi security force combat brigades rated level 1--or fully capable--an American brigade or unit of similar size, type, and mission should be strategically redeployed from Iraq. In terms of units, because a brigade is the smallest military unit able to support itself and fight independently, brigades should be the standard sized units used to measure Iraqi security force capability over time. Additionally, in terms of readiness standards, units rated at level 1 indicate that they have the capability to plan and fight independently, without any assistance from U.S. forces. In my view, 3 to 1 is the right measurement because an American brigade surpasses its Iraqi counterpart in both quantity of forces and in quality. I think this is a formula that makes sense, but beyond the numbers, it is important because it is a benchmark that is easy to understand and that sets reasonable, achievable standards for both our forces and the Iraqis.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I propose that we apply even more resources toward the training of Iraqi security forces to accelerate the effort. If more advisory teams would do the job faster, we should add them. All these advisory units should be staffed and equipped with our very best officers. Instead of staffing them in an ad-hoc manner, we should take those selected for command of U.S. units and assign them to advisory billets. These are the officers the services have determined to be their very best. Furthermore, we should make every effort to name next year's advisers today and get them in adviser and language schools now. We must make a combat adviser tour a highly career enhancing tour in the military.

Mr. Speaker, I believe like the President that we must leave an Iraq that is able to provide for its own security. Yet both to build the confidence of the Iraqis and to maintain the support of the American people, we must demonstrate a clear sense connection between increasing Iraqi capability and a diminishing need for American forces. This formula does that and I urge its serious consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following letter I wrote to the President dated October 20 of this year.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Armed Services,

Washington, DC, October 20, 2005.

The President,

The White House,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. President: The recent constitutional referendum,

where Iraqis were able to cast their vote in the absence of

large-scale violence, is an important milestone for the Iraqi

people. I commend our forces for the role they played in

helping to secure that vote.

I strongly believe that we share the goal of an Iraq able

to provide for its own security. At the same time, both the

American and the Iraqi people must have a clear sense of

progress, given that the challenges to Iraqi security remain

substantial. Iraqi security forces must be able to take the

fight to the insurgents on their own and to inspire the

confidence of the Iraqi people. Similarly, the American

public must see that there is a connection between increasing

capability of Iraqi security forces and a diminishing

American commitment over time.

The latest quarterly report from the Department of Defense

on ``Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq'' talks about

the ``criteria for withdrawing forces.'' While it discusses

the considerations that will be taken into account in any

redeployment and talks about ``when conditions permit handing

over security responsibilities,'' it is not specific nor does

it give any measurement that the Iraqi or American people can

use to see progress toward redeployment over time. If we

expect the American people to continue to support continued

deployments in Iraq, we should be able to explain the

connection between the improvement in Iraqi capability and

the reduced need for U.S. forces in Iraq over time more

clearly.

I believe that we should set a benchmark that is easy to

understand and that sets reasonable, achievable standards for

both our forces and the Iraqis. In terms of units, because a

brigade is the smallest military unit able to support itself

and fight independently, brigades should be the standard

sized units used to measure Iraqi security force capability

over time. Additionally, in terms of readiness standards,

units rated at ``Level 1'' indicate that they have the

capability to plan and fight independently, without any

assistance from U.S. forces. Therefore, I propose the

following formula: that for every three Iraqi security force

combat brigades rated ``Level 1''--or fully capable--an

American brigade or unit of similar size, type, and mission

should be strategically redeployed from Iraq.

In addition to setting a clear benchmark, we need to apply

even more resources toward the training of Iraqi security

forces to accelerate the effort. If more advisory teams would

do the job faster, we should add them. All of these advisory

units should be staffed and equipped with our very best

officers. Instead of staffing them in an ad-hoc manner, we

should take those selected for command of U.S. units and

assign them to advisory billets. These are the officers the

Services have determined to be their very best. Furthermore,

we should make every effort to name next year's advisors

today and get them in advisor and language schools now. We

must make a combat advisor tour a highly career enhancing

tour in the military.

Mr. President, I realize there are a variety of reasonable

ways to look at benchmarks for strategic redeployment, but I

think any of them must clearly link to the development of

Iraqi Security Force capability to the redeployment of

American forces in a way that both the American and the Iraqi

people can plainly see. That is why I think my method of

matching the redeployment of an American brigade for every

three Iraq brigades that reach Level 1 readiness has

particular merit.

I stand ready to assist in this critical effort and share

your pride in all that our fine troops have done in Iraq and

around the world.

Sincerely,

Ike Skelton,

Ranking Democrat.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the motion to instruct the conferees regarding the USDA spending bill offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro). The gentlewoman from Connecticut has been a diligent advocate for the Nation's farmers during her first year as ranking member on the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug of the Committee on Appropriations, and I am proud to have watched her work successfully on behalf of the agricultural interests of my home State of Missouri.

Mr. Speaker, this motion asks the conferees to recede to the Senate language that stops the United States Department of Agriculture from going forward with its plans to close the Farm Service Agency offices, an initiative they call FSA Tomorrow, during fiscal year 2006.

Now, while I join most of my colleagues from rural America in applauding the USDA for backing away from this proposal yesterday, Congress must make it crystal clear that the administration's plan is bad, bad for farmers, and that we will not fund FSA office-closings whatsoever. This is especially true since there has been nothing written in the law to prevent USDA from having a sudden change of heart and within the next 12 months closing the offices.

Mr. Speaker, the Gasoline for America's Security Act has a nice name, but it does little to help Missouri's farmers and rural commuters who are experiencing record high energy costs.

Motorists in Missouri and across the Nation are paying a premium for gasoline and diesel fuel, especially in the wake of severe weather in the Gulf of Mexico. Missouri's Fourth Congressional District is primarily rural, and residents rely heavily on transportation in going about their daily lives. This is especially true for farmers who are also facing additional costs for natural gas, propane, fertilizer, and pesticides.

As energy expenses have sky-rocketed over the past few weeks, many Missourians have expressed concern and skepticism about high prices and simultaneous reports of record oil industry profits.

In order to make sure consumers are being treated fairly, the Federal Trade Commission and the Justice Department should be given explicit authority to investigate collusion and price gouging within the oil industry. Penalties must have teeth and must be severe. And, importantly, the government must be guaranteed broader authority to look into potentially illegal behavior within other energy sectors, at least during times of national emergency.

The bill being considered by the House today contains scant assistance for the rural Americans I am privileged to represent. It will not lower their energy prices and it puts in place weak price gouging standards. It also does little to promote additional refining capacity, while gutting important environmental safeguards and creating additional corporate tax breaks.

Waiving environmental protections and offering federal tax breaks to oil companies will not entice them to build new oil refineries. While more refineries would certainly help produce more gasoline, oil companies have had the opportunity and financial capability for years to increase their refining capacity. Environmental regulations are not stopping them. Rather, the inability to build profitable refineries has led oil company executives away from constructing or resurrecting them.

An alternative to this bill is being offered by Mr. Stupak of Michigan and others. The Stupak bill would strengthen the hands of the Federal Trade Commission and the Justice Department, targeting price gouging across the energy spectrum. It would also help Americans who are struggling to deal with high gas prices and bracing for record home heating bills this winter, while creating a Strategic Refinery Reserve to provide additional gas supplies during energy shortages like the one we are currently facing.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the Republican bill and support the more wisely drafted alternative.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege today to introduce to my House colleagues our guest chaplain, Father Kevin Gormley, pastor of the St. Peter Catholic Church in Marshall, Missouri. Father Gormley was born in Ireland and studied for the priesthood at All Hallows College and Seminary in Dublin. Following his ordination in 1964, Father Gormley came to the United States. Since that time, he has spent 41 years serving in the parishes of Central Missouri where he is widely known, highly respected, and very much loved. Father Gormley became an American citizen in 1975. In July, 2000, he became the pastor of St. Peter Catholic Church in Marshall, Missouri where he currently serves and resides.

Father Gormley also serves as pastor of Holy Family Church, Sweet Springs, Missouri, and as the administrator of St. Peter School. Father Gormley also serves the community as a member of the Ministry of Alliance and as the Catholic Chaplain for the Marshall Habitation Center.

I thank Chaplain Coughlin for his kind invitation to Father Gormley to offer the opening prayer, and would like to thank Father Gormley for traveling to our Nation's capital to be with us today.

Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 499, had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, let me take this means to pay tribute to retiring General Richard Myers. General Myers became Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on October 1, 2001. Appointed to the position by President George W. Bush, as Chairman, General Myers serves as the principal military advisor to the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the National Security Council.

Born in Kansas City, Missouri, General Myers is a graduate of the Kansas State University, where he entered the Reserve Officer Training Corps program, and Auburn University where he earned an MBA. He entered the United States Air Force in 1965, beginning a distinguished career of service, including logging more than 4,100 flying hours, of which 600 were combat hours in the F-4, and operational and leadership positions in a variety of Air Force and Joint assignments.

General Myers' first major command came in November 1993, when he became head of U.S. Forces in Japan and the Fifth Air Force at the Yokota Air Force Base. This assignment was followed by service as Assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Commander, Pacific Air Forces, Hickam Air Force Base, Hawaii; Department of Defense manager, space transportation system contingency support at Peterson Air Force Base, Colorado; Commander, Air Force Space Command; and Commander in Chief, North American Aerospace Defense Command and U.S. Space Command. Prior to becoming Chairman, he served as Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a duty in which he served as Chairman of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council, Vice Chairman of the Defense Acquisition Board, and as a member of the National Security Council Deputies Committee and the Nuclear Weapons Council.

Mr. Speaker, the American people have been fortunate to have General Myers serving as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for the past four years. His fine character and dedication to service have resulted in a career of which he, his wife Mary Jo, and his three children can be proud. I know my fellow Members of the House of Representatives will join me in thanking him for his commitment to his country and in wishing him all the best in the years ahead.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to recognize the outstanding service of Robert L. Goldich, a Specialist in National Defense with the Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division of the Congressional Research Service. Mr. Goldich is retiring after 33 years at CRS. During this time, he has provided Members of Congress with perspective and analysis on a broad range of topics in military manpower and personnel policy, military history, Department of Defense organization, prisoner of war (POW) and missing in action (MIA) issues, and major aspects of overall U.S. defense policy.

During his career, Mr. Goldich excelled at working with Members of Congress and congressional staff on many issues. He is an expert on such issues as military retirement, military compensation and benefits, officer personnel management, military education and training; as well as the draft and all-volunteer force, military reserve components and the National Guard, and U.S. defense organization and management including the Goldwater-Nichols Act and the Reserve Officer Personnel Management Act. He received a CRS commendation for his service to Congress in 1987, and in 1991 he received a CRS meritorious award for his service to Congress during the Persian Gulf War. He is the second youngest person ever to graduate from the National War College.

Mr. Goldich also served twice as head of CRS's Military Manpower, Budget and Policy Management Section and was responsible for providing to Congress analytical capability on a variety of defense issues associated with the Department of Defense's budget and policy priorities. He received many accolades as a supervisor and lead with dedication, analytical skill, clear thinking, and fair-minded approach in working with members of the Section. In addition to his work for Congress, Mr. Goldich's outside professional activities are impressive. He was invited to participate in high level conferences, writing book reviews for the Army Center of Military History, and having longtime participatory memberships to the Inter-Agency Seminar Group and the Inter-University Seminar on Armed Forces and Society.

Mr. Speaker, please join me in thanking Mr. Goldich for his many years of service and his many contributions to congressional deliberations on defense related issues. I wish him and his family all the best in the days ahead.

Mr. Speaker, the Lexington, Missouri, Lions Club will celebrate its 75th anniversary by hosting a reception and dinner this weekend. As a Lexington Lions Club member since 1957, I know how much this organization has given to our community and I want to congratulate the Club on the achievement of this milestone.

The Lexington Lions Club was organized in 1930, with Warren Sherman Sr. serving as its first president. Members of the Club have been active in promoting the Lions organization throughout Missouri, sponsoring new clubs in the cities of Odessa, Wellington, Hardin, Richmond, Buckner, and Henrietta. The Club hosted the Missouri State Lions Convention in May 1936, and over the years, six members of the Lexington club have served as District Governors for the State of Missouri.

Over the last 75 years, the Lexington Lions Club has made countless contributions to the community, many of which focus on improving the lives of young people. The Club has sponsored Boy Scout Troop 318 for over 60 years and provides scholarship awards to Lexington High School graduates. The Club sponsors a band student at the Missouri Lions All- State Band and sponsors a student at Missouri Boys State. In addition to supporting participation in the Missouri Lions All-Star Football and Basketball programs, the Club purchased the basketball scoreboard for the Lexington High School.

The Lexington Lions Club has also worked on important community betterment projects. In the 1950s, the Club purchased property for Lions Club Park in Lexington. In August 1973, the Club donated 62 acres of land to be used as a park by the City of Lexington and donated grounds for the Little League baseball field and for the swimming pool. The Club donated 457 street markers for the City of Lexington and participates in the Adopt-A-Highway program.

Lions Clubs are recognized worldwide for their service to the blind and the visually impaired. The Lexington Lions Club provides sustaining financial support to the Missouri Lions Eye Research Foundation, the Leader Dog Program, and to the Lions Club International Foundation. As part of its mission to help others see, the Club provides eyeglasses to needy students and has collected many thousands of pairs of eyeglasses donated for those in need.

The men and women who serve their communities through membership in local service organizations contribute so much to their neighbors and epitomize the spirit of community that makes our Nation great. The Lexington Lions Club has achieved an enormous amount since its founding in 1930, and I know the members of this body join me in congratulating the Lexington Lions Club on its anniversary and wish the Club continued success in the years ahead.

Mr. Speaker, it is with deep sadness that I inform the House of the death of Mr. Thomas J. Walsh of Lee's Summit, Missouri.

Tom was born in Kansas City, Missouri, on October 3, 1932, son of Thomas E. Walsh and Clare E. Walsh. He attended Visitation Elementary School and Southwest High School. He received a bachelor's degree in political science from the University of Missouri where he was a member of Sigma Alpha Epsilon Social Fraternity. After graduation, he served in

the United States Army as an officer in the Field Artillery. Upon his discharge from the service, Tom attended Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, D.C., where he received his juris doctor in 1958 and was a member of Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity. While attending law school, Tom also worked in the office of Missouri Senator Stuart Symington.

Since 1958, Tom had been a member of both the D.C. Bar and the Missouri Bar and had maintained a full service law office in Lee's Summit, Missouri. During his years of practice, Tom served as attorney to the Jackson County Sheriff's Department, vice chairman of the Missouri Counsel of Criminal Justice, and as chairman of the Juvenile Justice Subcommittee. Tom was recognized in the inaugural edition of Who's Who in American Law, and in 1993, he was admitted to the United States Supreme Court Bar. He was a gubernatorial appointee to the Jackson County Board of Election Commissioners from 1993 to 2001. Tom also was the original chairman of my Skelton for Congress Committee.

In 1956, Tom was married to Ellen B. Walsh. They also are the proud parents of three children: Carolyn Walsh Heinz, David T. Walsh and Katherine Walsh.

Tom made many significant contributions to the community. He was a member of the Native Sons of Greater Kansas City, the Lee's Summit Optimist Club and the Lee's Summit Democratic Club.

Mr. Speaker, Tom was a valuable leader in his community who was respected by everyone who knew him. He was a dear friend of mine and will be missed by all. I know the members of the House will join me in extending heartfelt condolences to his family.