Sam Farr

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, maybe other Members of the California delegation would like to speak, but we will set a special time for that. I just want to thank the leadership, the Speaker of the House, and the President of the Senate for already lowering the flags on the Hill on all of our Federal buildings out of respect for the memory of George Brown. We will dearly miss him. We will appoint at the appropriate time a memorial service here on the floor. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 252) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and I rise as chair of the California Democratic delegation, and I am sure my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) will also ask to be recognized as the Chair of the Republican delegation.

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment which affects the national wildlife refuges. These are set aside by Congress as special habitats for wildlife conservation; and, since 1903, when President Theodore Roosevelt first established one to protect wildlife, we have set aside 517 wildlife conservation refuges. These are areas that are part of our national heritage where people go to see wildlife. In some cases, we even allow regulated hunting on certain refuges, but nobody has been aware that we allow commercial and recreational trapping to occur. Look at these photos. A Golden Eagle and a Red Fox. Does this look like recreational activity that our wildlife refuges tax dollars should go to? I do not think so. The American people have said no to trapping or using steel-jawed traps. According to a May, 1999, poll, 84 percent of Americans oppose the use of steel-jawed traps in national wildlife refuges, and yet we allow them to occur. Eighty-eight countries have banned them altogether. Four States, Arizona, California, Colorado and Massachusetts, have totally banned the use, but the only way we can ban the use of steel-jawed traps and neck snares on Federal lands is for Congress to pass an act. Now, the underlying bill is a great bill, and the chairman of the committee and the ranking member have done a tremendous job, and this amendment in no way reflects on that. This is an amendment that only sets a prohibition on using steel-jawed traps and neck snares for commercial and hunting purposes. Let me repeat that again. It only prohibits this cruel and inhumane use of this trap to painfully kill animals for profit. Imagine using steel-jawed traps for recreational hunting. That does not fit with me at all. Using this device to hunt would be like using land mines to hunt. It makes no sense, which is probably why recreational trapping is already banned in 446 of the 517 national wildlife refuges in this country. The amendment does not stop trapping. It allows trapping. It merely bans two devices. It bans the steel-jawed traps for commercial purposes and neck snares. Trappers can use other devices. They can still trap with Conibear traps, with foot-snare traps, with box traps, with cage traps. So I ask Members of this august body to join me in stopping the recreational torture in our national wildlife refuges. Please vote for this amendment which is very narrowly drafted. Just three years ago, Sidney Yates, the distinguished and former long-serving chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, expressed concerns about the use of steel-jawed leghold traps on National Wildlife Refuges. A long time opponent of the use of these traps and cosponsor of legislation to bar their use, former Representative Yates was instrumental in securing report language, with the consent of the distinguished chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, Mr. Regula, in the FY 1997 Interior Appropriations measure, requesting that the Fish and Wildlife Service create a task force to examine the humaneness of the leghold trap and assess the prevalence of trapping on refuge lands and waters. Regrettably, the Service did not follow through on several of Congress's directives expressed in the report language. To my knowledge, there was no task force created and no assessment of the humaneness of this barbaric and indiscriminate trap, which has been outlawed throughout he world because it is so cruel. Nonetheless, the Service did send questionnaires to managers of nearly 500 refuges and queried them on the extent of trapping activity. The report noted that there were approximately 467 trapping programs on 280 refuges; thus, more than half of the refuges had some form of trapping. Trapping on refuges occurs for a number of reasons--for predator control to conserve endangered species or waterfowl, for facilities protection, for commercial fur trapping, for recreation, for subsistence, and for other purposes. In conducting these programs, trappers use a wide variety of traps, from box and cage live traps to killing traps such as steel jawed traps, neck and foot snares, and Conibear traps. According to the report ``[e]ighty-five percent of the mammal trapping programs on refuges were conducted primarily for wildlife and facilities management reasons. The remaining 15% occurred primarily to provide recreational, commercial, or subsistence opportunities to the public.'' The Farr amendment would not have an impact on wildlife and facilities management programs, subsistence programs or research programs. Thus, the amendment would affect less than 15% of the trapping programs on the refuges. It is a narrowly crafted amendment to combat an egregious commercial abuse of the refuge system. It does not ban trapping, so critics who claim this is a purely anti-trapping amendment would be overstating their case. It is extraordinarily incongruous to allow the commercial and recreational killing or our wildlife with barbaric traps on lands called ``refuges.'' Surely, they cannot honestly be called refuges for wildlife if wildlife are killed by these means. Americans do now want their tax dollars used to administer trapping programs that feature steel jawed devices and neck snares. My amendment seeks to stop the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from misusing its funds for these purposes. The amendment will pose no threat to wildlife and no difficulty to wildlife managers. These traps have been banned in 88 countries throughout the world; surely these countries cope with their occasional wildlife conflicts without resorting to the use of steel traps. What's more, a large number of states, including states with numerous wildlife refuges, like my own state of California, bar the use of these traps. July last year, I was proud to support a ballot measure that was overwhelmingly adopted by California voters that barred the use of leghold traps, except in cases of public health or safety or the protection of endangered species. This amendment carried in almost all parts of the state, as have similar ballot initiatives in Arizona, Colorado, and Massachusetts. Other major refuge states, such as Florida and New Jersey, have also banned the leghold traps. Wildlife living on National Refuges in these states are not victimized by steel traps. The steel jawed leghold trap has been banned in so many jurisdictions because it is inhumane and indiscriminate. It has been declared inhumane by the American Veterinary Medical Association, the World Veterinary Organization, the American Animal Hospital Association, and The Humane Society of the United States. These traps are designed to slam closed and grip tightly an animals' leg or other body part. Lacerations, broken bones, joint dislocations and gangrene can result. Additional injuries result as the animal struggles to free himself, sometimes twisting or chewing off a leg or breaking teeth from gnawing at the metal jaws. Trapped animals can suffer from thirst and starvation and from exposure to the elements or predators. An animal may be in a trap for several days before a trapper checks it--with the interminable period in the trap severely compounding the animal's misery. The steel jawed leghold trap is indiscriminate. Any animal unlucky enough to stumble across a trap will be victimized by it. In addition to catching ``target'' animals, traps catch non-target, or trash, animals, such as family pets, eagles, and other protected species. National Wildlife Refuges should not allow commercial and recreational trapping with inhumane traps. Refuges are the only category of lands specifically set aside for the protection and benefit of wildlife. It is unacceptable that there is recreational and commercial killing of wildlife on refuges with inhumane traps. A May 1999 poll conducted by Peter Hart Research of a national sample of 1100 Americans revealed that 84 percent of respondents oppose the use of steel-jawed leghold traps on national wildlife refuges. Please support this amendment and restore compassion and fiscal responsibility to our National Wildlife Refuge System.

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I want to ask my colleagues, look around us. Look at the room we are in and think about how much art has touched our lives, our daily lives. Art is our flag. Art is this Chamber. Around this Chamber is sculptured relief of 23 law givers who represent the humanities which we are trying to support. This whole Capitol, the Nation's Capitol, is filled with art. It is one of the most attractive tourist places in America. The engine of America's creativity is based in our arts and centered in our humanities. America's technology and leading technological advances are based on creativity. Fortune 500 companies support the National Endowment for the Arts because they know that, if we are going to be the engine of creativity in the world, we are going to have to nurture our schools and our children and the populous of this great Nation in understanding how to express themselves in art form. We need to remain the center of creativity, and we are only going to do that by nurturing the arts. We can do it in two forms. We can do it by private sector contributions, and we can do it by public sector contributions. This issue is about public sector contributions. Why is that so important? Because there needs to be a leader in being able to determine how to best invest one's monies. That is why so many of the Fortune 500 companies support the National Endowment for the Arts because they put up corporate money to match that. And they want the leadership of the National Endowment to point out the direction that money ought to go. So we need to increase and keep that funding. Frankly, the amount of money we put into the National Endowment for the Arts for the function it serves is absolutely embarrassing for this country. Many other countries in the world put more money into art creativity than this Nation does. So I ask my colleagues, join us in supporting this amendment. I challenge my colleagues to think about it in their own lives. Think about it, whether my colleagues are walking around this Capitol, whether they are watching their children at play, about how this Nation was founded, and see the important role that arts and humanities play in the everyday theater of our own lives. Support funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. Support America. Make it stronger.

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, we have passed it in California State lands. But remember that this also allows the trappers that the gentleman just talked about to use all of the other tools of trapping.

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 3.

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I do not know if the gentleman read the amendment. Because it makes exception for all the purposes the gentleman indicated. It only bans the commercial use of steel-jawed traps for recreational hunting. It allows all the kinds of management techniques that are necessary to protect endangered species and so on. The amendment specifically excepts all of those things. It excepts research, subsistence, conservation, or facilities protection.

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to note the passing of a prominent American citizen, George W. ``Will'' Gahagan, who died in Carmel, California on December 8, 1998 at the age of 86. Will was a man of broad interests, and notable achievements. He was well-educated, graduating in 1949 from Dartmouth, and worked as a newspaper reporter, federal public relations officer and foreign press liaison officer at the 1945 inaugural United Nations conference in San Francisco. Will attended Harvard during his graduate years, and in 1957 received his master's degree from Stanford University. During his Dartmouth years he met the poet Robert Frost, who was on the faculty, and later founded the California Friends of Robert Frost, non-profit organization that helped establish Frost Plaza in San Francisco, Mr. Frost's birthplace. Will was an educator as much as he was a student. He taught English for 15 years at high schools, including Tularcitos, Junipero Serra High School and Santa Catalina School in Monterey. He also taught at an international school in Rome. His students benefited greatly from his tuteledge and enthusiasm for learning. Will's contributions to Monterey County were as far-reaching as his range of interests. He wrote a column ``Word Wise`` for the Monterey Herald, produced and hosted a foreign affairs television program in Salinas, and wrote a guidebook about the Monterey Peninsula. He worked with many local organizations including the Carmel Foundation, the World Affairs Council, the Carmel City Planning Commission and the Carmel Library. Will helped create the Dennis the Menace Playground in Monterey, and helped raise $250,000 for the Robinson Jeffers Tor House in Carmel. He was a member of the senior and super-senior national tennis teams, successfully competing in tournaments in Canada and Europe. Will has been inducted into the Dartmouth College Athletic Hall of Fame. No list of accomplishment can represent the generosity of spirit, the vitality, and the intelligence that Will demonstrated every day. Will is to be remembered as an exemplary human being. He is survived by his wife Lorna; his sons Michael and Mark; his daughters Tappy and Lissa; his brother John; and, seven grandchildren. He will be sorely missed by all who had the privilege of knowing him.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, in an area where we often have political debate, this is one where we have bipartisan unanimity. And I appreciate it. I rise today on behalf of the citizens of the central coast of California to condemn the despicable arson attacks on the three synagogues in our State's capital in Sacramento. This was unquestionably an act of domestic terrorism, one that strikes at the very heart of America's founding principles, the principles of freedom and tolerance toward all. The destruction of these houses of worship, which should be safe havens, free of violence, was truly an act of cowards. While this tremendously sad loss for congregations affects us, we have to look at the citizens of Sacramento and the reactions of those citizens that have proven that the perpetrators will never, never succeed in their mission to terrify and silence the Jewish community. I have been heartened to watch the people of all religions and ethnicities come together to rebuild the synagogues, at the same time, really to rebuild the community spirit and our spirit as a Nation. Let us make it clear that this act has not torn this community apart but has united and energized them to preserve our fundamental right to freedom of religion. I honor their effort. On behalf of the constituents, I urge all law enforcement agencies involved to work together and to bring the criminals to swift justice.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this usurpation of local control. We have 183 local firearm laws in California.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, a bright and shining moment to better protect our children from gun violence was within our reach and we failed to grasp the brass ring. We failed to enact modest gun safety measures that many of our states have already enacted. In my own state of California we have a 10 day waiting period to purchase any firearm. 19 states have enacted their own waiting periods to purchase a handgun or a permit to purchase a firearm. Why are we afraid to be as bold as our own state legislators. Two months ago, following the Columbine High School shooting in Colorado, the California General Assembly passed a one-gun-month law for California, and the California Senate is expected to approve it. If California approves the measure, it will become the fourth and largest state to curb gun trafficking through this common sense measure. I urge my colleagues to support the Democratic substitute--a common sense measure--to protect our children from gun violence.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give notice to my colleagues that I am introducing three pieces of legislation to help protect sensitive California lands. The first bill is the California Coastal Rocks and Islands Wilderness Act of 1999. I am pleased to be able to offer this bill with bipartisan support and want to thank my colleagues, Messrs. Gallegly, Waxman, Campbell, Stark, Bilbray, Ms. Eshoo and Mrs. Capps for joining me in this effort. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to recognize the ecological significance of the tens of thousands of small rocks, islands and pinnacles off the California coast, by designating them as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System. These small islands and rocks provide important resting sites for California sea lions, Steller's sea lions, elephant seals and harbor seals, as well as providing a narrow flight lane in the Pacific Flyway. An estimated 200,000 breeding seabirds of 13 different species use these rocks and islands for feeding, perching, nesting and shelter. Birds that use these areas include three threatened and endangered species: the brown pelican, the least tern and the peregrine falcon. The Wilderness designation afforded by this act would apply to all rocks, islands and pinnacles off the California coast from the Oregon border to the U.S. Mexico border, which are currently under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). This includes nearly all of the federally-owned lands above the mean high tide and within three geographical miles off the coast. The designation would afford the highest protected status and highlight the ecological importance of all of the small rocks, islands and pinnacles off the California coast, which together comprise approximately 7,000 square acres. Adding these areas would also further the Wilderness Act's goal of including unique, ecologically representative areas to the System. Rocks and islands which are already patented or reserved for marine navigational aids, National Monuments, or state parks will not be affected by the legislation. I am pleased to be able to introduce this bill and look forward to its swift passage, so that these unique areas of California's ecosystem can be preserved and protected for generations to come. Mr. Speaker, the second piece of legislation that I am introducing today is the ``Pinnacles National Monument Boundary Adjustment Act of 1999''. This legislation transfers land that is currently under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management to the National Park Service at the Pinnacles National Monument in California. This ``no cost'' land exchange will also designate the additional land acquired by the National Park Service as a component of the National Wilderness Preservation System. I would like to point out that this will not change the current management practices that have been conducted by the Bureau of Land Management. Finally, this legislation authorizes the Secretary to acquire additional lands depicted on the map through purchase, donation, or a combination thereof. Mr. Speaker, the third piece of legislation that I am introducing will require the National Park Service to conduct a feasibility study regarding options for the protection and expanded visitor enjoyment of nationally significant natural and cultural resources at Fort Hunter Liggett, California. Under BRAC several historic buildings are now being transferred to the National Park Service from the United States Army. In addition, other cultural sites, cultural landscapes, buildings, and the natural resources of the entire 165,000 acre fort area merit evaluation for future protection and visitor enjoyment, either in concern with military activities or in the event of future military downsizing. Fort Hunter Liggett and the surrounding areas have a deep and storied history. Serving as hunting grounds, for more than 10,000 years, archaeologists have found artifacts throughout the San Antonio Valley and the Santa Lucia Mountains. In 1771, construction began on Mission San Antonio, the third mission established in California which is a working inholding that can still be visited. To quote Wendell Berry ``To cherish what remains of the Earth and to foster its renewal is our only legitimate hope of survival,'' Mr. Speaker, I urge you and our colleagues to join me in supporting these three pieces of legislation that will help to protect our coasts, lands and history. If we lose this opportunity we will not get another chance once damage has occurred.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I just have a question for those of us traveling from the West Coast. Is there any possibility that those votes on Tuesday could be rolled until 5 o'clock? If we leave the West Coast first thing early Tuesday morning, the first plane gets in 4 p.m., and we can be on the floor by 5:00. It would be very helpful.

Mr. FARR of California. So the gentleman does not think the votes could be rolled?

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I want to ask America to wake up. Watch what is going on here on the floor of Congress. America has seen that we cannot pass effective gun reform in this Congress because we are wedded to the NRA. Well, I want you to do something about it. I want you to wake up your mayors, city councils, county supervisors, wake up your school boards, wake up your State legislators, because they can do what we cannot do. They can pass laws regulating gun business. Mr. Speaker, 67 cities and dozens of counties in California have adopted 183 local firearm regulations, local firearm regulations. The State legislature has passed every single law that Congress has rejected. California regulates guns; other counties, cities and school districts regulate, and so can yours. So local governments can do what Congress has refused to do. Wake up, America. Get all of the politicians involved in this. Take this issue home, and give it to your local legislators and make those laws in your own city.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, it is a travesty that our society tolerates the death of 13 children every single day by guns. I just don't understand why we aren't outraged and ashamed. The gun violence provisions purposed by the Republican leadership prove they don't ``gets it.'' One of my local communities 3,000 miles away ``gets it.'' They recognizes that ``a mere reduction in the availability of guns and ammunition would decrease the lethality and injury associated with violence.'' The Senate ``gets it.'' They passed some modest gun safety measures: to require mandatory background checks of buyers at gun shows to prohibit juveniles from privately purchasing assault weapons banning the importation of large ammunition clips requiring the sale of a gun lock or storage box with each gun restricting unlicensed sales at gun shows. One of my local sheriffs ``gets it.'' He said yesterday, ``There needs to be tangible change around the issues of gun use and ownership. In my opinion the Senate language is not unreasonable. But instead of encouraging responsible gun safety measures, the House leadership has proposed weakening the Senate provisions by watering down the background checks at gun shows. In 1997 an ATF study traced firearms used in youth crimes in one of my communities and found that most of the weapons were bought from gun traffickers and small dealers. Without adequate background checks, we can't prevent guns from getting into the hands of gun traffickers and being sold to juvenile offenders. While I recognize the rights of law abiding citizens to purchase guns for hunting and collecting, as a parent I have to ask myself ``how many more children have to die because of gun violence before ``enough is enough.''

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, sex, drugs and rock and roll were condemned thirty years ago and here we are today talking about trying to legislate morality when we should really be talking about are education and prevention programs to stop youth violence. I want to show my colleagues what one of my communities has done * * * the City of Salinas has just published their Strategic Framework to reduce youth violence in their community. It is the result of a community collaborative planning process involving core group members from the schools, social services, faith community, education, health and law enforcement, and the private sector. The intent of the Strategic Framework is to provide a snapshot of community assets and needs, and to chart out the kinds of long-term efforts needed to prevent and reduce violence. I want to quote from the Mayor's letter, ``The root causes of violence are varied and complex * * * We can no longer afford a fragmented and uncoordinated approach to youth violence. This community needs to create multi-disciplinary partnerships, which share resources and transcend the compartmentalization and organizational limitations of the status quo.'' Salinas' ``Framework for Violence Prevention'' is really a ``one size fits all'' approach that any community in the country can follow to find their own solutions for youth violence. If we truly want to have an impact on reducing youth violence, I urge my colleagues to work with their local communities to initiate the kind of grass-roots assessment that Salinas did because we won't find the solutions to youth violence here in Washington.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I was honored recently to have our friend and colleague, Ike Skelton, visit my district in California. This gentleman, the Ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, is known to all of us as a man of intensity but earnestness, a man of determination but flexibility, a man of integrity above all else. Congressman Skelton was visiting the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, the Navy's premier school for advanced technical, engineering, and strategic education. He was there to address the student body of the challenges they face as military leaders in an increasingly complex geopolitical world community. While at the school, he was presented with an Honorary Degree of Doctor of Military Sciences. I was so impressed with the lecture Mr. Skelton presented and the citation by the NPS Provost, Richard Elster, of Mr. Skelton's achievements, I feel compelled to share them with this body. I urge everyone to take the time to read these remarks and consider their meaning, especially as we struggle here with foreign affairs and military and defense questions in a troubled world. Remarks Accompanying Award of Degree of Doctor of Military Sciences to the Honorable Ike Skelton (Made by NPS Provost, Richard Elster) Under the authority vested by law and with the concurrence of the Secretary of the Navy and the Chief of Naval Operations, the Naval Postgraduate School is pleased to award the Degree of Doctor of Military Sciences to the Honorable Ike Skelton, Representative of the Fourth District of the State of Missouri to the Congress of the United States. Representative Skelton understands the relationship between the nation's security and the maintenance of strong, robust armed forces. He has consistently, and effectively, used every means at his disposal to ensure that the national security policy of the United States recognizes the preeminent role of the armed forces and that the Congress provides resources to the Department of Defense and the military departments accordingly. Representative Skelton's regard for the military extends far beyond national security imperatives to genuine, heart- felt concern for the well being of every man and woman in uniform. He understands the fundamental relationship between maintaining the most powerful Armed Forces the world has ever known and the education, training, talent, and morale of the individuals who comprise those forces. As Chairman of the Military Personnel and Forces Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee, he systematically advanced initiatives to improve the quality of life and opportunities of military personnel. He supported military pay increases and sought to secure acceptance of the principle that military compensation should be comparable to that of the private sector. He oversaw improvements in military health care and attempted to secure a uniform benefit for all eligible personnel, both active duty and retired. In addition, he offered the amendment that repealed the combat exclusion for women on Navy ships. Representative Skelton has also demonstrated that a true friend of the armed forces will recognize problems and insist that they be corrected even in the face of strong objections from the civilian and military leadership of the Department of Defense. In the early 1980s, he became convinced that the structure of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and combatant commands was fundamentally flawed. He was one of a handful of legislators who drafted the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986. Consequently, history will record that he was instrumental in framing one of the three most significant laws relating to national security since the American Revolution. As chairman of the Panel on Military Education, Representative Skelton contributed immeasurably to improvements in professional military education. His panel found that the officer corps needs more military strategists and that every officer should understand strategy. An avid student of history, Representative Skelton insisted that staff and war colleges strengthen and expand the study of military history and other subjects related to the development of strategic thinking. Under his leadership, the Panel also effected curriculum changes that greatly enhanced joint military education and raised the academic standards of the schools. Representative Skelton continues to exercise great influence over the direction of military education. He has recognized the compelling need for the officer corps to be capable of meeting the challenges resulting from the myriad technological changes that are altering the way wars will be fought in the future. In early 1998, he called upon the Naval Postgraduate School to develop a new paradigm for professional military education, one that would integrate technical and traditional subjects into a single coherent professional military education course of studies. Representative Skelton has made other significant contributions to national security too numerous to detail. Years before the current crisis, he urged that additional attention and resources be devoted to recruiting. He has consistently advocated better utilization of the reserve components. He has advanced original proposals for modifying the force structure of the services to meet the challenges of the post-Cold War period. In summary, Representative Skelton has made seminal contributions to military affairs in the latter quarter of the Twentieth Century. He epitomizes the ideal linkage that should exist between Americans and their Armed Forces in a democratic republic animated by a strong tradition of civilian control of the military. It is an honor to award an honorary doctorate to an American of such singular distinction. Congratulations Mr. Skelton.