Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

(Mr. ABERCROMBIE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I do not believe, if the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) would corroborate here, that there is going to be opposition to this amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Well, he has not heard me speak yet.

Mr. Chairman, the sheer weight of logic plus our considerable mutual charm I think has some hope in that direction.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in favor of this amendment. Please allow me to say two things before I proceed. First, I want to express my gratitude to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) and to the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) and their committee staffs. Believe me, a lot of work went into this in the midst of all of the other pressures of various other items that were before them. This means a great deal.

In every one of these bills, particularly in this energy bill, people have things to which they are deeply committed, including my good friend, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), with respect to both the philosophy involved and what the consequences might be from any given item.

Now, in the great scheme of things, this might not seem like a lot to a lot of people, but for those of us who understand what it is, if we can actually grow our own renewable energy with sugarcane in the form of biomass can actually provide by being converted to ethanol. That is why this is here.

I am not certain, and the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Case) will speak shortly about it too, as to whether there are larger, logistical issues involved or political issues. But I can tell my colleagues this: Whatever arguments there are out there about whether sufficient time or funds are being committed to renewable energy, alternative energy, this is something that we can do. And this is something where we are getting support from the oil and gas companies in Texas, in Louisiana.

Hawaii and Florida can join in, because we are growing sugarcane, sugarcane can become ethanol, ethanol can help reduce the dependency on oil and gas. And we can work with the oil and gas companies to see to it that we have blends that will allow us to reduce our dependency on foreign oil, on foreign sources. That is what this is about.

We can grow our own energy in Hawaii if we get the chance to do this. And the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) have recognized this. They are going to give us the chance, and if this works, I am in contact with people, for example, like at Southern University in Louisiana, just speaking with them tonight, with the idea that perhaps we can take the sugarcane industry, and instead of always having to be in the position of having to defend ourselves against wage slavery around the rest of the world, that we will be able to have good jobs, good income in the United States of America, and be growing our own energy.

That is what this is about, and that is why I ask for the support of my colleagues on this.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

I will do that, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, this is a very, very big opportunity and challenge for us that I think we will be able to meet.

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

If the gentleman will yield, I will be happy to bring in prickly pears.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) yield his remaining time to me?

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

Might I just say for the edification of my good friend, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), that when you take those two cans of Coke that you are talking about, just tell me whether the Diet Coke is cheaper than the other one that has sugar in it. I do not think so. You are not saving any money that way. That is not going to work.

But I would be happy some other time perhaps to have a full blown discussion about this at another point.

Chairman Dreier, Ranking Member Slaughter and the Members

of the Committee on Rules. I offer this amendment to H.R. 6

with the hope of reducing our nation's reliance on oil and

advancing our efforts in Hawaii to become more energy self-

sufficient. This is philosophically consistent with other

provisions of H.R. 6 encouraging energy production.

My amendment authorizes a 3-year demonstration program for

the production of ethanol from sugar cane in Hawaii.

Specifically, $8.0 million would fund a $1.00 per gallon

payment to refiners and 8.0 million gallons of ethanol fuel.

This pilot program would parallel the existing corn program

to show that the process can be applicable to cane sugar and

can be replicated on a larger scale.

Nationally, the sugar cane industry is currently

formulating a program to process 700,000 tons of cane sugar

into ethanol. With a large domestic surplus of sugar, and the

possibility of additional imported sugar being allowed into

the domestic market through free trade agreements, a program

of such size would stabilize domestic markets and produce a

significant volume of ethanol.

This pilot project will provide invaluable insight on

problems that may arise with a national program. The State of

Hawaii has passed a law that goes into effect on April 1,

2006, mandating a 10 percent ethanol blend for gasoline

consumption in the state. Oil refineries are building ethanol

storage and blending facilities in anticipation of meeting

the requirement. Locally produced ethanol would be less

expensive than importing the estimated 45 million gallons of

ethanol needed to fulfill the 10 percent requirement.

Because of the relatively low domestic price of sugar,

Hawaii producers for some time been considering and now

planning ethanol production from the cane sugar that would

otherwise have gone into the domestic sugar market. The State

of Hawaii is prepared to take advantage of this within

months. However, this amendment is also supported by the

other sugar cane growers who would like to identify any

problems that might result from the large scale production of

sugar cane ethanol.

This amendment was developed after the House Energy and

Commerce Committee completed its markup but the amendment has

been signed off by the majority side of the Energy Committee.

I urge my colleagues to allow floor debate on this

demonstration project and rule this amendment in order. Thank

you very mush for your consideration.

Mr. Chairman, I yield my remaining time to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Case).

Offered By: Mr. Abercrombie

Amendment No. 2: In title II, subtitle A, add at the end

the following new section:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend my deepest congratulations to the American Medical Women's Association, AMWA, on the occasion of its 90th birthday year celebration.

Throughout this century, AMWA has been indefatigable in its efforts to advance women in medicine and to promote women's health. As the leading multidisciplinary association of women in medicine in our country, AMWA has encouraged and honored excellence in the fields of medicine, healthcare and science through a wide array of scholarships, grants, and awards, as well as diverse educational programs for physicians, medical students and the general public.

AMWA's Local Legends program is a partnership with the National Institutes of Health's National Library of Medicine and the NIH Office of Women's Health Research. This past year, I was fortunate enough to nominate Dr. Marian E. Melish and Dr. Cynthia Goto, two outstanding physicians from the state of Hawaii. Dr. Melish is a Professor of Pediatrics, Tropical Medicine and Medical Microbiology at the John A Burns School of Medicine of the University of Hawaii. She is also Chief of the Infectious Disease Division of the Department of Pediatrics and Medical Director of Infection Control at the Kapiolani Medical Center. Dr. Goto is a second generation OB-GYN practitioner. Her father, Dr. George Goto, was the champion of women's reproductive rights in the nation and in Hawaii in the 1960s. Dr. Cynthia Goto continues that tradition through her work to connect Hawaii's public health services with clinical care for women and infants. Her efforts have resulted in an ongoing collaboration between Hawaii's OB-GYNs, the Healthy Mothers Healthy Babies Coalition and the March of Dimes.

AMWA has distinguished itself through support of numerous charitable programs, particularly focusing on the needs of disproportionately disadvantaged women and their families. For 75 years, AMWA's American Women's Hospitals Service, AWHS, clinics in the U.S. and abroad have provided desperately needed care to the medically underserved. In addition, hundreds of medical students and residents have received remarkable healthcare training in these and other remote clinics worldwide through AMWA's AWHS travel stipends.

AMWA's advocacy on behalf of women's health and research, especially bringing underaddressed concerns to the national agenda, has made AMWA a leading voice for the care of women and their children. Again, I wish to commend and congratulate AMWA for making a positive and enduring contribution to the healthcare of the communities and our country.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud today to introduce the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, also known as the Akaka Bill. This legislation is supported by the Hawaii State Legislature, Governor Linda Lingle, numerous Native Hawaiian organizations and a variety of other ethnic and Native American groups. This bill represents another step in the reconciliation process between Native Hawaiians and the U.S. federal government.

On January 17, 1893, the government of the Kingdom of Hawaii was overthrown by a group of American citizens, who acted with the support of U.S. Minister John Stephens and a contingent of U.S. Marines from the U.S.S.

Boston. One hundred years later, a resolution extending an apology on behalf of the United States to Native Hawaiians for the illegal overthrow of the Native Hawaiian government and calling for a reconciliation of the relationship between the United States and Native Hawaiians was enacted into law.

This measure continues the reconciliation process by establishing a procedure through which a Native Hawaiian governing entity could achieve federal recognition if it chooses to do so. This recognition would extend the policy of self-governance and self determination currently extended to American Indians and Alaska Natives. It also protects existing Native Hawaiian programs and begins to address the claims of the Native Hawaiian people. This bill does not authorize Native Hawaiians to conduct gaming.

This legislation is critical to the future of the State of Hawaii. Most importantly, Native Hawaiians deserve the right to decide their future and chart their own destiny. It is time their inherent rights are restored.

I urge my colleagues to resolve these longstanding issues with the Native Hawaiians and support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, due to official travel today with the House Armed Services Committee, I was unable to cast my vote on the challenge to the Electoral College tabulation of votes for President and Vice President of the United States. Had I been present, I would have voted to sustain the objection to the Ohio electoral votes.

Stated against:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor my late colleague Robert T. Matsui. While his life was cut tragically short, his many achievements and contributions to our Nation will serve as a constant reminder of his hard work, integrity, and determination to advocate for those who were not able to fight for themselves.

Elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1978, Bob served the people of Sacramento for 14 terms focusing on the city's public safety by bringing adequate flood protection to his hometown. He also served as a senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means, covering an array of policy issues such as preserving Social Security for future generations, as well as having adequate basic healthcare rights for children. Most recently he served as chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee leading the Democratic Party's congressional effort for the 2004 cycle.

When he was 6 months old, Bob, a third-generation Japanese American, and his family were taken from their home in Sacramento and interned at the Tule Lake Camp after Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor in 1942. He carried this experience with him throughout his life. In 1988, he helped steer the Japanese-American Redress Act through Congress, in which the government formally apologized for the World War II internment program and offered compensation to victims. This experience helped shape his strong belief that every American is entitled to basic civil rights despite their ethnicity.

Bob was also a member of the Executive Committee of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus. Because of his many achievements and contributions, he was and always will be a role model to the more than eleven million Americans of Asian and Pacific Islander descent in our country.

His presence and driving force will certainly be missed. However, his legacy will live on through the people of Sacramento, the Asian Pacific Islander American community and our Nation as a whole. I offer my deepest condolences to his wife, Doris, son, Brian, daughter-in-law, Amy and granddaughter, Anna. We will miss you, Bob. All Hawaii sends with you on your final journey our deepest and most loving Aloha.

Mr. Speaker, I want to wish everybody aloha here. Can we get a smile on everybody's face? Aloha. I invite everybody all out to Honolulu. As long as we are spending money, why not come out to Honolulu and enjoy it while they have the opportunity?

Let us face it. The only reason that we are not out there right now is that the Democrats did not take over. If I were chairing one of the committees, we would have an excuse to bring everybody along. We could have a discussion out there on the beach.

Somebody asked me today, What are we doing down there during this lame duck session? I said, We are organizing our delusions. That is what we are doing, organizing our delusions.

I just spoke to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), and I said, You are engaged in a non sequitur here, the fact that you can point to somebody and say you did something real bad for a long time and so now we have an excuse to keep on doing it.

That is not an answer. If we are going to do right by the American people, starting tonight, as the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) said, it is always time to start doing the right thing. And tonight we ought to start by doing it by passing the Stenholm motion and acting responsible towards the people who sent us here.

Aloha, Mr. Speaker. Have a wonderful holiday.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman mentioned the main road from Baghdad and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) indicated earlier tonight that we have been holding this Iraq Watch special order for some period of months now. Those who have listened to us before may recall that I have mentioned in the past that I was privileged to be in the first delegation of American Congress Members who were able to get into Iraq, leave the Baghdad airport and go into what is now the Green Zone in May after the initial attack on Baghdad.

We were there in late May on the day that Ambassador Bremer took the reins of control from General Garner. Forgive me for going over some past ground, but, unfortunately, what is being cited by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) and by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) tonight requires this for a very simple reason.

When we hear of standing up or creating this Army, creating these forces, that was the goal that was stated to us the very first day that Ambassador Bremer was there, supposedly based on the work that General Garner was supposed to be doing up to that time. And we continue to have reports in the presses as if this is something suddenly just discovered.

On that day, we sat at the table with Ambassador Bremer and General Garner. I recall very clearly saying to

them, we have just been down this road from the airport, the international airport in Baghdad here, and I said to them. You are going to need 10,000 soldiers just to guard that highway. I said. It is a strip of tar going from the airport in the middle of a desert into Baghdad. This is not the Big Dig up in Boston or entering metropolitan Atlanta. This is not finding your way around Philadelphia or New York. This is a strip of tar from another big strip of tar where planes land into Baghdad. I said, there are no lights. There is no possibility of being able to stop people planting mines or coming up with shoulder- held rocket grenade launchers, explosive propellants of all kinds.

And now here we are nearing the end of 2004, and you cannot even go on that road today. This is a debacle. This is a disaster. This is taking place right now in circumstances in which we are observing generals saying to their troops, witnessed by embedded reporters with television cameras, drawing the analogy to Hue in Vietnam.

I am old enough to have been involved in the discussions that took place during the 1960s with what we were doing in Vietnam with a half a million soldiers and an indigenous Army fighting with the South Vietnamese that could fight, that was trained and was equipped. And the analogy was Hue in Vietnam. Fallujah is going to be like Hue. Hue was a disaster for us. A few more wins like that, and we are completely undone.

What we forget is the actual military activity that took place had nothing to do with the war in the sense of whether or not we would be successful politically or militarily. The actual circumstances of the combat and the capabilities of the soldiers, all of which have been cited by us over and over again, that is not the issue. The competency of the American soldier is not the issue. The willingness of the American soldier to fight or the bravery, the professionalism, that is not the issue as such. Whether they are equipped properly, of course, that is an issue for us, but the political reality is this is an unmitigated disaster. We are setting the foundation and groundwork, if you will, for decades, if not centuries, of opposition to us as a result of what is going on right now.

You need only go to look at how it is characterized around the country. I was visiting with my mother in Florida, and I have been to Massachusetts. I have gone all over the country. The Palm Beach Post, the Providence Journal, how is it characterized? Here is what the Providence Journal said on Monday, November 15.

``The absence of insurgent bodies in Fallujah has remained an enduring mystery.'' It is no mystery. This is a guerilla fight.

In the same paper:

``But much of the city lay in smoking ruins. Isolated bands of rebels still harassed American and Iraqi soldiers.'' Rebels against what? ``The military victory appeared to be nearly overshadowed by insurgent violence elsewhere, particularly in the northern city of Mosul.''

Again quoting:

``The Governor of Mosul province, saying he had lost faith in local security forces, called in thousands of Kurdish militiamen for the first time to quell the insurgent uprising there.''

Today a hearing was held on the staffing requirements, the personnel requirements for the Guard and the Reserve, testimony at the Committee on Armed Services today. Happy faces, it was characterized to me by a Republican Member here tonight, a stalwart member of the committee. And I reiterate again with respect to the many times we have appeared on the floor, this is not a Republican versus Democratic issue. The Committee on Armed Services tries not to operate in that kind of a context. We try to operate on the basis of the security interests of the United States. One of our colleagues said to us, ``They put on happy faces today.'' What the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) has just quoted, what these other two of my colleagues here have been quoting is that we are living in a fantasy. I was asked by a former Member today, What are you doing over at the Capitol? I said, We're organizing our delusions. We are in the midst of organizing our delusions.

I would yield with one observation, though, as has been stated by our colleagues here tonight. The thing that I most regret about coming back this evening is that shortly we will be taking leave of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel). He is the founder of this opportunity that the rest of us have seized upon week after week. He has been the guiding light and the inspiration for this. I deeply regret that he will not be here next year because, unfortunately, I am afraid we are going to have to be here next year. But I can tell him that the fire that he has lit in us and in others who have come here will not go out, and we will try to carry on the legacy that he has established for us to live up to.

Not a bit.

In that context, then, you have indicated, yes, a Marshall Plan might be in order, but that

presumes that the fighting has ended. The fighting has not ended. It is nowhere near ending. You cannot make an investment in somewhere, where again I will quote, most of the city lay in smoking ruins.

Another quote: ``Tanks and armored vehicles, their turret guns blazing in all directions, finished the sweep through the city.'' We are destroying everything in our path. And then the only thing that I see is that, well, we will be responsible, the United States is going to have to be responsible for the rebuilding. Who? Another Halliburton? Another series of projects to be laid out? You cannot guarantee that the people who are going to do the building will be safe.

So all of this is a fantasy. It is a delusion, that somehow we are going to succeed with this. My final point on that is that it is the military itself then at that point that will have difficulties because we are not going to be able to recruit. Despite the happy face that has been put on this, the Reserves are falling behind in their recruitment and retention. The Guard is falling behind in their recruitment and retention, and those strains and those stresses are going to become more apparent in the days and months to come, and the stress and strain in the days and months to come will manifest itself in the inability of the United States to have the kinds of deployments under the circumstances that would be most ideal to maximize the efficiency of the Armed Forces.

It is not that they will not try. It is not that they will not do their best. It is not that they will not give their all. It is that we will be letting them down in the first place by requiring something of them that actually is against the protocols and the standards that we have set up in order to have the best possible military capacity.

Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, we may be here a few more days than we expected, and I for one am quite concerned about what is taking place and

would be interested in coming back if the time is available to us before we leave.

Mr. Speaker, great interest has been generated by the publication of a document from the 11th of February 2003 entitled ``Topical Agenda''. It involves the Department of Defense Personnel and Readiness Undersecretary and the Selective Service System and its Acting Director.

This document appears on the web site of ``Rock the Vote''. The interest is intense because of the content of the agenda. It involves a review of selective service major policy issues since 1973; a synopsis of Department of Defense Policy regarding the draft and a detailed proposal for the renewal of the draft and conditions attendant to it.

The participation of the Department of Defense in the discussion associated with the agenda has been confirmed by the Secretary of Defense. The DOD contention is that the meeting on the agenda was for purposes of discussion only and that it took place off Pentagon premises. Obviously, the location of the discussion and the origination of the agenda for discussion purposes is immaterial to the issue at hand. The point is the Department of Defense from the Secretary on down has vigorously denied that any such discussions have ever taken place let alone been contemplated. This document shows that a detailed proposal for a new draft involving men and for the first time women has been under consideration and discussion by the Department of Defense. It also clearly indicates that consideration has been given to drafting not only for military needs but for purposes associated with the Department of Homeland Security. In addition it proposes that the draft age be extended from 18 to 34. It includes a proposition that a ``self- declaration'' of skill sets be required of all potential draftees to be periodically updated until the age of 35.

It is not enough for the Department of Defense to say it rejects the proposal and its findings. Saying ``no'' doesn't make it so. Denials that any such consideration has even been given let alone presently extent ring hollow in the wake of the implications of this agenda and the Department of Defense's participation in discussing it.

Given the broad and deep concern of the public about the draft and the possibility of its being reinstituted it is imperative that the public be enabled to see, understand and analyze what the Department of Defense has had under consideration. The public, of course, can draw its own conclusions. The ``Agenda'' report follows.

Topical Agenda

DoD Participants: Hon. Charles S. Abell, Principal Deputy

Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness; Mr.

William Carr, Acting Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for

Military Personnel Policy; Colonel David Kopanski, Deputy

Director, Accession Policy.

SSS Participants: Mr. Lewis C. Brodsky. Acting Director of

Selective Service; Mr. Richard S. Ftahavan, Director of

Public & Congressional Affairs.

1. Review 30-year time-line--SSS major policy issues

A. Draft ends in 1973; Agency placed in ``Deep Standby''

from 1976 to 1980. Ninety-eight ``record-keepers'' remain to

SSS, part-time Reserve Officers kept on board, but no

registration, no Board Members.

B. 1980--Cold War continues. President Carter decides to

revitalize SSS after Soviets invade Afghanistan and MOBEXs

indicate need. No draft, but resumes registration program for

men. Wants to include women but Congress says no. 10,000

Board Members appointed and trained. DoD sets preparedness

goal for SSS: ``Be ready to provide first draftees to MEPS at

M+13 and 100,000 by M+30.''

C. 1988--Congress reacts to military medical shortages

(``war stoppers''). Language inserted in the Defense

Authorization Act telling SSS to develop a ``structure''

which would allow the registration and induction of health

care personnel in an emergency. DoD identifies more than 60

health care specialities to include in the SSS Health Care,

Personnel Delivery System (HCPDS). Planning calls for first

HCPDS draftees by M+42. HCPDS becomes a paper and computer

exercise lasting many years.

D. 1989-1991--End of Cold War, Desert Storm, no draft, and

SSS remains in standby status with flat-lined annual budgets.

E. 1893 and 1994--Detractors in the Congress challenge need

for continuing to fund SSS and peacetime registration.

Section 647(b), FY 1993 DOD Authorization Act requires

SECDEF, in concert with SSS, to report on continuation of

peacetime registration. This was accomplished, registration

is retained, and an interagency task force review was formed,

led by the NSC. Conclusion is announced by President

Clinton: preserve SSS and peacetime registration in

current standby status for three reasons.

1. A hedge against underestimating the number of soldiers,

needed to fight a future war;

2. A symbol of national resolve to potential adversaries;

and,

3. A link between the all-volunteer Armed Forces and

society-at-large.

Clinton also instructs SSS to increase operational

efficiency. Instructs DoD to update MOB requirements for SSS,

re-examine timelines, and review arguments for and against

continuing to exclude women from registration.

F. 1994--Defense issues new ``post-Cold War'' guidance to

SSS: ``provide first untrained draftee to MEPS at M+193;

first Health Care draftee at M+222,'' DoD reaffirms that it

is not necessary to register or draft women (for a

conventional draft of untrained manpower) because they are

prohibited by policy from serving in ground combat

assignments. SSS recognizes women may have to be included in

a health care draft.

G. 1998--DoD Health Affairs says health care personnel

would be needed earlier than M+222 in a future conflict.

Guidance changed to M+90. Today, HCPDS can be implemented,

but ability to meet M+90 time frame is doubtful. Program not

fully tested and compliance aspects still not complete.

H. 1995 through 2000--Anti-SSS Members of Congress almost

successful in eliminating SSS through the appropriations

process. SSS undergoes structure and program reductions to

make ends meet. Readiness suffers.

I. 2000 and 2001--DoD and SSS plan and implement joint

mailing project to increase peacetime relevancy of SSS and

improve timeliness and address accuracy of DoD recruiting

direct mail campaigns.

J. 2002 and 2003--Administration says use of draft not an

option for war on terrorism or potential war with Iraq. Rep.

Rangel and Sen. Hollings introduce bills (H.R. 163 and S. 69)

call for reinstituting a draft for military and national

service. SECDEF adamant and vocal against using the draft for

any immediate or likely contingency. Most recently, Reps.

Paul, DeFazio and Frank introduce H.R. 487, calling for

repeal of the Military Selective Service Act and an end to

the SSS within six months of the bill becoming law.

Synopsis: With known shortages of military personnel with

certain critical skills, and with the need for the nation to

be capable of responding to domestic emergencies as a part of

Homeland Security planning, changes should be made in the

Selective Service System's registration program and primary

mission.

Situation: Currently, and in accordance with the Military

Selective Service Act (MSSA) [50 U.S.C., App. 451 et seq.),

the Selective Service System (SSS) collects and maintains

personal information from all U.S. male citizens and resident

aliens. Under this process, each man is required to ``present

himself for and submit to registration'' upon reaching age

18. The methods by which a man can register with Selective

Service include the Internet, mail-back postcard, checking a

box on other government forms, and through the driver's

license applications process in many states. The collected

data is retained in an active computer file until the man

reaches age 26 and is no longer draft eligible. It consists

of the man's name, address, Social Security number, and date

of birth. Currently, 91 percent of all men, ages 18 through

25, are registered, enabling the SSS to conduct a timely,

fair, and equitable draft in the event the Congress and the

President decide to reinstate conscription during a crisis.

However, the Secretary of Defense and Department of Defense

manpower officials have stated recently that a draft will not

be necessary for any foreseeable crisis. They assume that

sufficient fighting capability exists in today's ``all-

volunteer'' active and reserve Armed Forces for likely

contingencies, making a conventional draft of untrained

manpower somewhat obsolete. Yet, Defense manpower officials

concede there are critical shortages of military personnel

with certain skills, such as medical personnel, linguists,

computer network engineers, etc. The costs of attracting and

retaining such personnel for military service could be

prohibitive, leading some officials to conclude that while a

conventional draft may never be needed, a draft of men and

women possessing these critical skills may be warranted in a

future crisis, if too few volunteer.

Proposal: In line with today's needs, the SSS' structure,

programs and activities should be re-engineered toward

maintaining a national inventory of American men and (for the

first time) women, ages 18 through 34, with an added focus on

identifying individuals with critical skills.

An interagency task force should examine the feasibility of

this proposal which would require amendments to the MSSA,

expansion of the current registration program, and inclusion

of women. In addition to the basic identifying information

collected in the current program, the expanded and revised

program would require all registrants to indicate whether

they have been trained in, possess, and professionally

practice, one or more

skills critical to national security or community health

and safety. This could take the form of an initial ``self-

declaration'' as a part of the registration process. Men

and women would enter on the SSS registration form a

multi-digit number representing their specific critical

skill (e.g., similar to military occupationa1 specialty or

Armed Forces Specialty Code with Skill Identifier), taken

from a lengthy list of skills to be compiled and published

by the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security.

Individuals proficient in more than one critical skill

would list the practiced skill in which they have the

greatest degree of experience and competency. They would

also be required to update reported information as

necessary until they reach age 35. This unique data base

would provide the military (and national, state, and

municipal government agencies) with immediately available

links to vital human resources . . . in effect, a single,

most accurate and complete, national inventory of young

Americans with special skills.

While the data base's ``worst-case'' use might be to draft

such personnel into military or homeland security assignments

during a national mobilization, its very practical peacetime

use could be to support recruiting and direct marketing

campaigns aimed at encouraging skilled personnel to volunteer

for community or military service opportunities, and to

consider applying for hard-to-fill public sector jobs. Local

government agencies could also tap this data base to locate

nearby specialists for help with domestic crises and

emergency situations.

With the changes described above, SSS programs would be

modified to serve the contemporary needs of several

customers: Department of Defense; Department of Homeland

Security (FEMA. U.S. Border Patrol, U.S. Customs, INS).

Corporation for National Service, Public Health Service, and

other federal and state agencies seeking personnel with

critical skills for national security or community service

assignments. The SSS would thus play a more vital, relevant,

and immediate role in shoring up America's strength and

readiness in peace and war.

II. Are today's SSS capabilities in sync with DoD needs?

A. Is there a need to preserve the capability of conducting

a draft of untrained manpower? If so, is the time frame still

Mr. Chairman, I only have 30 seconds here, and this is all I ask of all the Members: Let us not confuse trafficking with terrorism. I understand how they can be concerned about that and why they are trying to do their best. Nobody gainsays them that. But in the process, we are destroying the opportunity or standing the chance of destroying the opportunity to make the necessary differentiations, especially where trafficking is concerned.

There are over 50,000, by the State Department's estimation, people who are essentially made slaves today in the United States, who are trafficked, and they could display exactly the same sense of demeanor and the other characteristics that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) has been discussing, and the other persons who are opposed to it.

Please give the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) an opportunity with this amendment so we can make certain that we do not make that confusion.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 163, a bill to re-instate the draft. I oppose the draft and do not want to see it brought back.

I added my name to this bill in order to promote an open, honest public discussion of the personnel crisis facing our military today, and in that sense I welcome today's vote. It is unfortunate, however, that H.R. 163 is being brought to the floor with only a few hours notice, depriving the American public of the extended exploration this problem deserves.

It is not a coincidence that today's vote is taking place as public uneasiness is rising with regard to the draft. It is obvious to everyone that the demands of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are narrowing the Administration's options. Our regular divisions and brigades are stretched to the limit. The Reserve and National Guard are being drawn upon to the point where they now comprise nearly half of all U.S. troops in Iraq. Stop loss is the order of the day, holding servicemen and women in uniform past their discharge dates. We're even dipping into the Individual Ready Reserve, calling up people who have completed not only their active duty obligations, but their active reserve obligations as well. Under these circumstances, the growing suspicions of the Administration's intentions in regard to a draft are well-founded.

In fact, I have found confirmation of those suspicions. KITV television news of Honolulu reported last night on a February 11, 2003, Selective Service System document which was provided to me recently and which I have shared with several of my colleagues. Judging from its contents, it appears to be a memo prepared for a meeting between the Acting Director of the Selective Service, the Principal Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, and other senior Defense and Selective Service officials. The document takes note of critical shortages of military personnel with certain skills and raises the idea of drafting them to alleviate the shortages.

Features of this ``bring back the draft'' memo include:

--Draft registration for women as well as men;

--Registration of all citizens and resident aliens between the ages of 18 and 34;

--Require registrants to submit periodic updates of their skills and education up to the age of 35;

--Draftees would be sent not only into the military, but also to the Department of Homeland Security, state, and municipal government agencies; and

--Suggests the House and Senate Armed Services Committees be asked to pass legislation to bring back this expanded draft.

The public deserves the chance to fully consider and discuss these radical ideas and participate meaningfully in any decision to adopt such drastic steps to address the very real personnel needs of our military forces stemming from the demands of multiple deployments to Iraq, Afghanistan, and beyond. Bringing H.R. 163 to the floor for a vote without hearings, without warning, deprives the Nation and the Congress of an opportunity for that full consideration and discussion.

Right now we have a back door draft, euphemistically called stop loss orders, that keeps troops in uniform even after their enlistments are over. At the same time, we are putting our National Guard and Reserve under intolerable strain, keeping them on active duty far longer than they or their families could have anticipated.

One of the most frustrating aspects of these problems is that they were foreseeable. General Eric Shinseki, then Army Chief of Staff, accurately predicted we would need far more troops than the Administration was willing to commit to occupy Iraq. He was publicly condemned by the Administration for telling the truth. I voted against the Iraq war because, among other reasons, it was clear the Administration was unwilling to send enough troops to pacify that country after the initial military attack. Paul Bremer, the former chief of the Coalition Provisional Authority, just confirmed that fact in a speech yesterday.

If we are to meet this troop strength crisis, a serious and open discussion needs to take place involving the public, elected leaders, and senior national security officials. The Administration wants to operate in secret in order to hide that discussion from the public. Bringing H.R. 163 to the floor for a vote is a partial victory for public discussion, a reflection of the public's insistent concern over the issue. On the other hand, the furtive way in which it was brought to the floor is a partial victory for those who want to keep the issue in the shadows.

We have been dealing with this matter for years in the Armed Services Committee. During the 14 years that I have served on the Committee, the questions have never been as urgent as they are now:

--What happens if a quick victory in Iraq is elusive, and we remain there for years to come?

--What troop strength levels and mix of active, National Guard, and Reserves will be needed in the coming years?

--Can the all-volunteer military keep its ranks filled?

--If not, what options does the nation have?

--How can we get better pay, benefits, and quality of life improvements to attract and retain enough troops and their families?

As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I work on a daily basis with my colleagues and military leaders in the search for answers. It is a long and often difficult process. Its worth is measured in improvements in the lives of our fighting men and women, their families, and our veterans.

I was proud to vote for badly needed equipment like Humvee armor protection and stronger body armor for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. I have championed better military family housing for troops based in my home state of Hawaii and around the globe. I was one of the authors of the Tricare for Life bill, which provides military retirees with the health coverage they were promised when they enlisted.

What solutions are offered by those who want to pretend we don't face a military personnel crisis? Do they support the Administration's covert moves--despite public denials--to restart the draft? What do they have to say about the stop loss orders that deny thousands of troops and their families the post-service opportunities they were led to expect? How do they propose to deal with our over-reliance on the National Guard and Reserves, which are already strained to the limit? Most importantly, will they discuss these issues fully and openly, or do they want them decided in secret?

Madam Speaker, in accordance with a leave of absence approved earlier today, I was unavoidably absent from the House. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows:

Rollcall: 490, Previous Question on the rule for S. 878, ``no''; 491, Rule for consideration of S. 878, ``no''; 492, Simpson Amendment to S. 878, ``no''; 493, Motion to recommit S. 878 with instructions, ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3479, the Brown Tree Snake Control and Eradication Act of 2004. This measure will not only ensure continued security for Hawaii and Guam, but the entire Pacific region.

The Hawai'i Biological Survey has documented that an average of 177 alien species arrive in the State of Hawai'i each year. Out of all the possible alien plants and animals that could make their way to the Hawaiian Islands, one of the most feared is the brown tree snake.

The brown tree snake arrived in Guam on military materiel transport from the Solomon Islands after World War II. Because Guam has no natural predator for the brown tree snake, the snakes have been able to flourish and have been recorded as high as 10,000 snakes per acre. The brown tree snake is blamed for the extinction of 9 out of 11 bird species native to Guam. These snakes also cause frequent and costly power outages and are known to bite humans. Like Guam, Hawaii has no native snakes and no natural predators for snakes. Only one pregnant brown tree snake needs to reach Hawaii in order for the State to experience the same catastrophic consequences as Guam.

Wildlife Services under the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service in the Department of Agriculture provides brown tree snake control on Guam by inspecting outgoing military and civilian cargo and providing trapping services at Guam's ports. These services interdict 6,000 to 7,000 snakes annually and have proved to be very successful in keeping the brown tree snake out of Hawaii.

For the past 10 years, the funding for these services has remained fixed. The program was able to make up for inflation and increasing costs by stopgap measures that have enabled them to continue services. However, this is no longer possible. Unforeseen vehicle repair or replacement costs, critical travel associated with program delivery, required training for staff, increased costs of operations and growing containment responsibilities are forcing significant reductions in operations. Compounding the problem, Wildlife Services has been informed by Anderson Air Force Base that it will have to begin to pay for in-kind services that have been provided to the program at no cost since 1994. To compensate for this additional unanticipated financial burden, further reductions in staffing are anticipated in early fiscal year 2005.

H.R. 3479 would begin to resolve these problems by recognizing the seriousness of the threat posed by the brown tree snake. This legislation authorizes the Departments of Agriculture and Interior to fund brown tree snake interdiction and control efforts and provide grants for these efforts. Just as important, this measure would support research efforts to control and eventually eradicate this harmful species from Guam. Current funding does not allow for in depth research that could lead to less labor intensive solutions than the current bait and trap method. This legislation also requires the establishment of pre-departure quarantine protocols for persons and cargo traveling from Guam. This will ensure that this species is not able to spread to other Pacific destinations.

Madam Speaker, this legislation is being considered at a crucial point in time. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and thank Chairman Pombo and Ranking Member Rahall for their continued efforts to address the problems of the distant Pacific. I would also like to thank Congresswoman Bordallo and her staff. Without the effort of all of these parties, this legislation would not be before the House today.

Mr. Speaker, one observes today the discussions taking place in the press by members of the Armed Services with respect to whether or not political considerations are involved in whether we can attack or not attack, whether we retreat or do not retreat, whether we engage in collaborative activity with insurgents with regard to the possible upcoming elections, or whether we regard them as criminals to be taken and prosecuted, perhaps even shot and killed.

Those issues do not know a Democratic or a Republican origin. Those young soldiers, and some not so young soldiers from the Guard and Reserve, are not making distinctions between Republican oratory and Democratic accusations with respect to this election. This issue has to be decided on November 2. The people of this Nation have to come to a conclusion electorally as to whether or not they want the present direction to go on or whether they want to move in a new direction.

I contend and I tell Members this as a member of the Committee on Armed Services, a committee on which we do our level best to subsumed and submerge our partisan differences, yes,

they come forward, I am not going to pretend otherwise or be so naive to think that can always happen, but the plain fact of the matter is when it comes to our votes, we try to figure out what is in the best interests of this Nation and what is in the best interests of the Armed Services. The question arises publicly now as to whether or not our armed forces have to pay first allegiance to political considerations.

Whether one is a Democrat or a Republican, Democrats and Republicans voted for the resolution that constantly comes up with respect to whether one supports the war or does not support the war. That is no longer an issue. The issue is the direction it has taken since the war commenced, and that is where I feel we have to make a break. This is what has to be decided November 2. We have to make a fundamental decision as to whether we are going to let the chaos and the destruction taking place today continue, the brunt of that chaos and destruction having to be borne by members of the Armed Services.

That is the issue that I raised with respect to November 2. Let us face it. No matter who you are in this country, a vote is going to take place on November 2. That man

has to answer and his boss, the President of the United States, has to answer for why in Afghanistan today there is no governmental entity at all other than that which exists under the direct protection of what amounts to a praetorian guard of the United States in Kabul. The rest of the country is under the sway of warlords and the Taliban is resurging, the Taliban is resurging and more opium is being grown, more dope is being sold, more financing for the Taliban is taking place than ever before.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, July 19, 2004, because of the leave of absence, I was unable to vote on legislation. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows:

Rollcall 391: To promote freedom and democracy in Vietnam, ``yes.''

Rollcall 392: Concerning the importance of the distribution of food to hungry or malnourished children around the world, ``yes.''

Rollcall 393: Northern Uganda Crisis Response Act, ``yes.''