Walter Jones

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding me time. I want to say to my good friend from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), I generally agree with him on just about every vote we have; but on this one he is totally wrong. I want to take a different perspective. Not talking about the environmental issues, I must say to the gentleman from Oregon, I have great respect for you also, though I disagree, but Dr. Pilkey is an extremist. I do not have the time to get into why I feel he is an extremist, but he is. Let me very briefly say that what we are talking about is the economy of these beach areas, the people that pay taxes, the people that want to do for their families. That is really what it comes down to. Let me give you an example. In Dare County, which the gentleman made reference to earlier, the Corps of Engineers says for every $1 spent on beach renourishment in Dare County, it will return $1.90 cents to the Federal Government. So any time we can make those kinds of investments, we need to do that. We need to partnership with the people of this country that pay the taxes. So I want to say to the chairman and the ranking member, thank you very much for this effort. I want to close in saying, Mr. Chairman, that beaches are this country's economic engines. Four times as many people will visit beaches this year as will visit the national parks. That is telling you how important the beaches are to the American people.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, tonight, as my colleagues know, the first vote we had dealt with the issue of American scholars of Chinese ancestry being held in detention, and this was passed overwhelmingly by the House. Everyone supported calling on China to release these people. I had planned last week to come on the floor and talk about North Carolina because I am one who is very, very concerned about the fact as we begin very shortly to discuss and debate the appropriations for our United States military. Too many times I think we as a Nation fail to realize that this is a very unsafe world that we live in. When I think about China and the things that China is doing to build up their military, then I think I have a responsibility back in the third district of North Carolina, which I have the privilege to represent to talk to the people about my concerns as their elected representative. Tonight, I wanted to take just a couple minutes of my time to say to the House and to those throughout this Nation that China has definitely positioned itself, in my opinion, to be an adversary of this country. We know what happened with our reconnaissance plane that has been held by the Chinese for several months now, which I understand is being taken apart and soon will be shipped back to America. That plane was in international airspace. It should never have been challenged by the Chinese fighter, but it was; and, therefore, the pilot, the American pilot had to land in China. I wanted to make reference to this chart that I have in front of the podium tonight, which was in The Washington Times, February 29 of the year 2000. And it says ``China Warns U.S. of Missile Strike.'' Mr. Speaker, that to me is an arrogant statement and a very belligerent statement that China would be making towards the United States of America. This was when China was somewhat trying to threaten the Taiwanese Government by saying that we are going to fire missiles towards your country. I want to read one of the subtitles to this article. Again the title of the article by Bill Gertz is ``China Warns U.S. of Missile Strike''; and the subtitle says, ``It is not a wise move to be at war with a country such as China, a point which the U.S. policymakers know fairly well also.'' This, Mr. Speaker, was a quote of the Liberation Army Daily, the official newspaper of the Chinese People's Liberation Army. Again, I think that is a very threatening statement. I think it is a statement of belligerence. That, again, was long before our reconnaissance plane was forced down in China. Mr. Speaker, there is a book that I have finished reading that I think is an excellent book to inform the people of my district, the third district of North Carolina. It is called The China Threat. It is written by Bill Gertz. Bill Gertz writes for The Washington Times, and I think he is highly respected in certainly this city of Washington, this Nation, and throughout the world of his accuracy and his research. If people would get a chance to read this book, The China Threat, the subtitle, ``How the People's Republic targets America.'' I want to read you just one aspect that is contained in this book: ``An international Chinese military document exposes how Beijing is willing to launch a nuclear attack on the United States if America forces an attempt to defend Taiwan.'' I bring that point up again, Mr. Speaker, because you can see from this chart that Admiral Blair spoke to the House and Senate Committee on Armed Services back on March 28 of the year 2001, and the admiral warns of perilous buildup of Chinese missiles. The commander of U.S. forces in the Pacific told Congress today that China's ongoing missile buildup opposite Taiwan is destabilizing and leads to a U.S. response unless halted. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that those of us in the United States that will soon be debating the needs of our military that we remember and the American people remember that this is a very unsafe world that we live in. The only other chart I want to bring up, Mr. Speaker, was in The Washington Times just a few weeks ago. My colleagues can see this. It says, ``China Secretly Shipping Arms to Cuba.'' This was just a couple of weeks ago. Mr. Speaker, I believe it is important that, when we have a chance, those of us on the Committee on Armed Services, to talk here on the floor of the House as well as back in our district, that we need to remind the people of this country that there are those who do not appreciate our way of life and those who would like to challenge this country. So, Mr. Speaker, in closing, I do want to again say that it is always a privilege for me to represent the third district of North Carolina, the home of Camp Lejeune Marine Base, Cherry Point Marine Air Station, Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, and the Coast Guard. I have over 50,000 retirees in my district who have served this Nation, veterans and retirees. Mr. Speaker, with that, I will close. I will say in closing this is a great book for anyone that is concerned about the national security of this Nation, The China Threat by Bill Gertz.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor an outstanding public servant that has dedicated his adult life to serving his Nation as a United States Marine Corps Officer. Colonel Blake Robertson was first commissioned Second Lieutenant in the USMC Reserve in December of 1974. Since that time he has served in a variety of challenging command and staff assignments throughout the United States and overseas. His hard work and demonstrated excellence earned him steady promotions to the rank of Colonel. Throughout his career Col. Robertson has increasingly taken on more challenging and difficult tasks. In his last assignment, as the Direct Reporting Program Manager for the Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle, he was responsible for developing the Marine Corps' next generation assault amphibian. In this capacity he reported directly to the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research, Development and Acquisition) and was responsible for the management of the only Acquisition Category I major defense acquisition program unilaterally managed by the U.S. Marine Corps. He Col. Robertson provided a steadying hand in overcoming technical and programmatic challenges in achieving the program's cost, schedule and performance objectives. Given an austere budget and technically challenging task, he marshaled these scarce resources into the Marine Corps' and one of the Department of Defenses' finest Research and Development Programs. Col. Robertson has provided unfailing leadership in implementing new Department of Defense acquisition reforms and Integrated Product and Process Development Teams. These new and innovative business practices have been the vanguard for Defense Reform. Under his steadfast stewardship, the program earned high distinction and accolades such as the Packard Award for Excellence in Acquisition, the Defense Superior Management Award, Government Technology Leadership Award and numerous environmental awards. Now as Colonel Robertson retires from his beloved Corps, I ask the House to join me in wishing him ``fair-winds'' and ``following-seas'' as he pursues life's next challenges.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) was on the floor just a few minutes ago talking about missile defense systems and the need for missile defense systems. I would like to speak today about some of the activities of China selling military wares to Cuba. In my district, and I have the privilege to represent the third district of North Carolina, we have Camp Lejeune Marine Base, Cherry Point Marine Air Station, Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, and actually a Coast Guard base in Elizabeth City. I am proud to represent a district where there are so many men and women in uniform that are willing to die for this country; and certainly those who are retired, veterans and retirees, I thank them for their service. I am concerned that too many times we in this country take our freedoms for granted, and that is somewhat normal. But having a military district and being on the Committee on Armed Services, along with the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), I am concerned that too many times we, as Americans, take freedom for granted. This is a very unsafe world we live in. There is a need to spend money to rebuild the military to ensure that the freedoms that we enjoy and the national security of this Nation, that we are well protected. I want to bring up a couple of points. This is a Washington Times article from Wednesday, March 28, 2001. Admiral Blair was speaking to the Senate Committee on Armed Services, and he warns of perilous buildup of Chinese missiles. I want to read this quickly. Mr. Speaker, the commander of U.S. forces in the U.S. Pacific told Congress yesterday that ```China's ongoing missile buildup opposite Taiwan is destabilizing, and will lead to a U.S. response unless halted. Over the long term, the most destabilizing part of the Chinese buildup are the immediate-range and short-range ballistic missiles, the CSS-6's and 7's, of the type that were used in 1996 to find the waters north and south of Taiwan,' said Admiral Dennis Blair, the Pacific commander leader.'' I wanted to share that, Mr. Speaker, because again I think that we as a Congress understand our constitutional duties, and that is to ensure that we have a strong military. Tuesday of this week another one of our colleagues, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts), who is a veteran of the Vietnam War, came on the floor talking about China selling military materials to Cuba. I wanted to come to the floor with this enlargement of the Washington Times article that he made reference to that says China is secretly shipping arms to Cuba, and just again to say to my colleagues in the House as well as the Senate, soon we will be debating an emergency supplemental for our military. I think it is $5.8 billion, I wish it were closer to $9 billion, but we will debate that issue later. This is an unsafe world, and we must be sure that we are well prepared to defend the national security interests of this country because as we all went back on Memorial Day to pay homage to those who have given their life as well as to those who have served, we must always remember that freedom is not free; and to ensure that we have the freedoms that we enjoy, we must continue to invest, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) was saying, in a missile defense system. And I am saying today, as have many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) has been on the floor talking about this issue, he is the ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services, this year we must be sure that we work with a President who campaigned and said that we need to rebuild the military. Mr. Speaker, I thank the men and women in uniform; and I say respectfully, God bless America, and God bless those who served this Nation.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the proposed substitute to H.R. 1088. I believe the underlying bill that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and my colleagues from both sides of the fence worked so hard to bring to the floor is superior. Congress created a simple fee structure so that the SEC would be paid directly by the regulated securities community rather than the general taxpayer. The Securities and Exchange Commission accomplished this by imposing user fees on investors. The problem that we are faced with today results from the fact that the revenue we collect from these securities fees total over six times the amount of the SEC's annual budget. The excess fees go into the general revenue fund and are used to fund programs that have nothing to do with the original congressional intent of only covering the operating costs of the SEC. The proposed substitute does not fix the problem. Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill before us today, H.R. 1088, would return $14 billion over the next 10 years to American investors and those seeking access to our securities markets. For this reason, both the Americans for Tax Reform and National Taxpayers Union strongly endorse passage of H.R. 1088.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly), the sponsor of this legislation. (Mr. GALLEGLY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 640, introduced by the gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly), would adjust the boundary of the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation area by adding 3,700 acres of public and private lands to enhance a wildlife corridor and protect a key watershed between the Simi Hills and the Santa Monica Mountains across the 101 Freeway in Southern California. Most of the acreage that would be added to the National Recreation Area will be transferred from the Santa Monica Mountain Conservancy, a State agency, to the National Park Service. The balance of land will include developed residential areas from within the cities of Saratoga Hills and Agoura Hills, as well as land from the County of Los Angeles. Unlike many park units where lands within the authorized boundaries are almost entirely in Federal ownership, there exists an extremely complex mosaic of publicly- and privately-owned lands within the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area. The superintendent of the National Recreation Area assured members of the Committee on Resources that the National Park Service has not and will not regulate land use on private or non-Federal lands within the park boundary. The bill is supported by the majority and the minority and the administration. At the proper time, I urge an aye vote on this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 640) to adjust the boundaries of Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), the sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 37, introduced by the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), would amend the National Trails System Act to authorize the Secretary of Interior to study a number of specific routes and cutoff trails that may be suitable and appropriate for designation as components of the Oregon National Historic Trail; second, the California National Historic Trail; third, The Pony Express National Historic Trail; and, fourth, the Mormon Pioneer National Historic Trail. Since these four trails were established in the 1970s, dozens of additional routes and cutoffs have been identified that may qualify as integral parts of these trails. After determining that the additions or cutoff trails are suitable, the Secretary would designate the routes and cutoff trails as components of these four national trails. Mr. Speaker, no condemnation of private lands or Federal leases are to be contemplated for any of these routes to these trails. The bill is not controversial. It is supported by both the majority and the minority and the administration, and at the proper time I urge an aye vote on the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 37) to amend the National Trails System Act to update the feasibility and suitability studies of 4 national historic trails and provide for possible additions to such trails, as amended.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman).

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 1000, introduced by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), would authorize the Secretary of Interior to adjust the boundary of the William Howard Taft National Historic Site in Cincinnati, Ohio. This site commemorates the only man to serve as President and Chief Justice of the United States. Specifically, the legislation authorizes the Secretary to acquire a parcel of adjacent private property of less than one acre and exchange it for a parcel of National Park Service property of less than one acre located nearby. The transfer would be beneficial for the Taft site as it would allow the facility to sit on a more contiguous site and facilitate a more convenient parking facility. In addition, the legislation authorizes a boundary expansion of the historic site by allowing for the acquisition of an additional parcel of property adjacent to the Taft site. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is not controversial. It is supported by the majority and minority and the administration. At the proper time, I urge an ``aye'' vote on the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1000) to adjust the boundary of the William Howard Taft National Historic Site in the State of Ohio, to authorize an exchange of land in connection with the historic site, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act Reauthorization. I supported the vast majority of President Bush's original plan to `Leave no child behind' because it demanded accountability for results combined with greater freedom from Washington-knows-best regulations. However, the original bipartisan program of local control was gutted in committee and the resulting bill unwisely expands the size and scope of the federal role in education. The President's proposal to free states and school districts from thousands of burdensome federal regulations in exchange for a commitment for increased performance (also known as Straight A's), along with the proposal to allow low-income children attending failing schools to attend a private school were removed from the bill. The President's proposal to consolidate nearly 60 separate elementary and secondary education programs into flexible funding programs that states and local schools could use to meet their most pressing needs was also rejected. When they removed the pilot program for school choice, I realized that this bill would offer few new options for better scholastic opportunities for poor, inner city and rural children. If we can't offer the hope of a brighter future to the children who need it the most, then what have we accomplished? While I support flexibility in federal funds to local school districts and school choice to allow our children to escape failing schools, I could not endorse increased federal testing requirements. In 1994, Congress passed the Improving America's Schools Act that mandated states to annually test students in reading and math in at least one grade in each of three grade ranges (3-5, 6-9, and 10-12). Implementation of these tests was to begin in the 2000-2001 school year, with a possible one-year waiver. As of January 19, 2001, only 11 states have complied with this testing requirement, 14 have largely complied and applied for a one-year waiver, and 6, including North Carolina must make changes to come into compliance with this law. The remaining states are still not in compliance with this law. I could not in good conscience vote to add another layer of testing requirements onto states that have not been able to implement the first federal testing mandate enacted in 1994. It was a sad day for me to oppose a bill that originally showed such promise and innovation for the teaching and achievement of our nation's children. H.R. 1, the bill that emerged from committee increased the budget of the Department of Education, an agency that has already demonstrated its inability to account for the use of its funds. Additionally, it stripped even more local control and flexibility over the use of federal money. I cannot vote for a bill that continues the status quo by expanding the role of the federal government in local education and throws even more taxpayer money to an inefficient bureaucracy like the Department of Education. I believe that parents and local education officials including principals and teachers--not bureaucrats in Washington--know what is best for our children. If the original elements of choice, flexibility, and consolidation had remained in the bill, I could have and would have voted for it. But in its final form, the bill is nothing more than a burdensome, bureaucratic, big-government shell of its former self. I will continue to work for restoration of President Bush's balanced proposals, as this bill moves to negotiations to reconcile the House and Senate versions. Until that time, I feel that I have no choice but to do what is in the best interest of my district and the people of North Carolina by voting ``no'' on final passage of this particular education bill.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation aimed at improving the quality of life for our military personnel. Last Year, Congress began funding an important Department of Defense initiative to reduce the out-of-pocket housing costs for service members residing in off-base housing. That program envisioned decreasing the out-of-pocket costs from almost 18.9 percent of housing costs incurred by our servicemen and women in 2000 down to zero in 2005. The average E-6 will receive about $175 more a month in BAH by 2005, while the average E-4 will receive about $111 more, allowing them to seek better housing options. This is a great initiative that will have real benefits for almost 750,000 military personnel. However, I believe that we can and should do more. Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations Randall Yim recently testified before the House Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee that up to 60 percent of all DoD housing is substandard. Two-thirds of this inventory is over 30 years old and requires a substantial annual investment to meet the maintenance requirements. In the barracks, over 50 percent of the inventory is over 30 years old. While we are taking many steps to eliminate this substandard housing through increased funding and several privatization initiatives, it will still be 2010 before most services have eliminated their poor quality housing--2014 for at least one service. Our men and women in uniform risk their lives to protect the freedoms that we enjoy today. We owe it to those servicemen and women, and their families, to do everything we can to improve their living conditions. It is for that reason, that I am introducing this legislation today. The legislation is very simple. Rather than waiting five years to buy down the out-of-pocket housing costs of our military personnel, this legislation would reduce out-of-pockets to 7.5 percent by the end of 2002, and zero by the end of 2003. By more rapidly reducing the costs associated with living off-base, more of our military personnel will be able to move into quality housing for them and their families. I urge my colleague to join me in supporting this important legislation to improve the standard of living for those bravely serving in our Armed Forces.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I decided to come to the floor tonight to talk about the military readiness of our men and women in uniform. Last week, I happened to hear the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), who is a ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services, on the floor talking about this same issue that I am going to be talking about tonight. Then last night, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), who is chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Readiness, also came to the floor. I am a member of the Committee on Armed Services. I am also a member of the Subcommittee on Military Readiness. I just wanted to come on the floor to remind my colleagues, as well as this administration, that our men and women in uniform who are willing to give their lives for this country have a lot of need that we need to start addressing. I am very hopeful that the administration will soon be working with the Congress to submit an emergency supplemental. There is a dire need by our military. I certainly want to commend the Secretary of Defense. I think he was right in requesting this top-to-bottom review. But in addition to what he is doing, we also need to make sure that our men and women in uniform are ready to defend the national security interest of this country. What is beginning to happen is that the accounts are becoming very low of money, and they are beginning to have some serious problems. Let me give my colleagues a few examples on this. The Navy Flying Hour Program is short over $450 million for fiscal year 2001. Since the end of the Cold War, the average age of Air Force aircraft has risen 58 percent. The Army is more than $3 billion short of basic ammunition. Although improving, separate spare parts problems caused the mission-capable rates of both the AV-8B Harrier and the CH- 53 helicopter to drop below 40 percent last year. Mr. Speaker, in addition, the Coast Guard has projected a fiscal year 2001 shortfall reaching almost $100 million. Let me also share with my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, the military health care plan is expected to be $1.4 billion short in the same year. I wanted to be on the floor tonight because this is a very unsafe world that we live in. We certainly know about the unrest and the problems of the Middle East; but we also know that Iran, Iraq, and these countries are not friendly towards the American Government. In addition, I think of North Korea. In addition, China. All these countries that I mention are spending a great deal of their gross national product on building their military. So I wanted to come to the floor tonight to join the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), as well as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), and there are many others on both sides of the political aisle on the Committee on Armed Services that feel like I, as well as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), that we need to move forward now with this emergency supplemental. So I will tomorrow be sending my second letter. My first letter went to the President of the United States, asking him to please start the movement forward on this emergency supplemental for our military. I intend tomorrow to write a letter to Mitch Daniels, the OMB director, and say that we do not need to continue to wait, that we need to prepare this legislation, that we need to put this legislation in just as soon as we return after the Memorial Day recess. So, Mr. Speaker, I want to say to all the men and women in uniform that I thank them for their service to this Nation. May God bless them and may God bless America.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Readiness, for yielding to me. The gentleman is absolutely right. I have the privilege to represent the Third Congressional District of North Carolina, which is the home of Camp Lejeune Marine Base, Cherry Point Marine Air Station, New River Air Facility, and also Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, including the Coast Guard, they are all in my district, with a total of over 50,000 retired military and veterans combined. I will say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania that the gentleman is absolutely on target. I am very proud of the Bush administration. But during the campaign, Mr. Bush, the President of the United States, and the Vice President, talked about we need to rebuild the military; they are absolutely right. The gentleman knows better than anyone, and in a few minutes the gentleman will be talking about this subject, this is a very unsafe world that we live in. My concern is that if we do not move quickly on this emergency supplemental, the morale of the men and women in uniform, who are going to have to stop taking care of those planes, the helicopters, or prepare those ships for sailing, they are going to become a little bit discouraged. I do not want to see that happen, because I know the men and women in uniform that live in the Third District of North Carolina are pleased as they can be that George Bush is the President of the United States. All I am asking, respectfully, is the same thing that the gentleman is asking, please, Mr. President, let us move forward on that emergency supplemental for our military sooner rather than later. Mr. Speaker, with that, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding to me; and I look forward to hearing the rest of his hour.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more with what the gentleman from Pennsylvania just said. But I wanted to take just a couple of minutes of the gentleman's time, the gentleman's one hour tonight, to talk about the needs of our military as it relates to readiness. I want to first say that I enjoyed very much being with the gentleman today. The Subcommittee on Military Readiness, both Republicans and Democrats, joined the gentleman in Philadelphia today for a hearing on the V-22 Osprey. I thought that went extremely well. Towards the end of the hearing that the gentleman held in Philadelphia today, we were able to question those in charge, the Navy, the Marine Corps, and the Air Force, to ask them about the readiness needs of their pilots. Being a member of Subcommittee on Military Readiness, I am imploring and encouraging this administration to please come forward with an emergency supplemental for our men and women in uniform. I do not think we have the luxury of time. I would wish the gentleman, as the expert on this issue and I mean that most respectfully, I wish the gentleman would speak to my concern.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, this Sunday, May 20 marks the one-year anniversary of the inauguration of Chen Shui-bian as President of the Republic of China on Taiwan. It was the first peaceful transition of power in Chinese history and a day that will long be remembered by people and nations of the world who believe in and value democracy and all that it stands for. I honor President Chen for his many accomplishments in leading his country economically and politically. I admire the goals he has set for his government to increase the visibility of Taiwan on the world stage through trade and international organizations. And I applaud his efforts in extending the olive branch of peace across the Taiwan Straight to Mainland China. In a few short days President Chen will be traveling to Central America and during the course of that trip he will make a brief stop in New York. While his time in New York will be short it will be a major first step toward easing the Clinton Administration restrictions governing the ability of Taiwan leaders to travel freely between the United States and Taiwan. The United States and Taiwan have arisen from the desire to live freely, born from the hearts of the people who dwell within their borders. President Chen's leadership continues to advance the cause of freedom and democracy so it is with great honor that I salute President Chen Shui-bian and look forward to the continued strengthening of the relationship between the United States of America and the Republic of China on Taiwan.