Ike Skelton

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, if the walls could talk, at least twice in this century these walls have heard those familiar strains of isolationism, of America should not get involved with serious problems elsewhere that do not have a direct interest on our country; and they do in this instance. The stability of Europe, the stability of the Balkans, economically, culturally, morally, is important to the United States of America. Oh, if these walls could talk, they would say, we have heard this before. It is also kind of like the song we used to sing at Boy Scout camp lo those many years ago, and let the rest of the world go by. We cannot, Mr. Chairman, let the rest of the world go by. This is a very, very important piece of legislation. The purpose of this legislation is to take care of the troops. This is the year of the troops. We must in this Congress reflect what is good and best about us in looking after those young men and young women in uniform. That is what this bill is all about. The battle on this issue was fought the other day. It has no business here. I certainly hope that we can put this to rest, defeat it soundly and move on and take care of the young men and young women, the troops of whom we are so fond.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, on April 19, 1999, I had the opportunity to address the United States Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, Colorado. I spoke about the priority of peace as the profession of the United States military. My speech to that group is set forth as follows: Many of you, I am sure, have been to the headquarters of the Strategic Command at Offutt Air Force base in Nebraska. Some of you, I know, will soon be joining that fine organization. The motto of the strategic command, which was for many years that of its predecessor, the strategic air command, is a simple, but profound statement: ``Peace is our profession.'' That statement expresses very well the purpose of the U.S. military. The United States does not maintain military power because it seeks to expand its rule or dominate other nations--the purpose of U.S. military power--and the reason for the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps--is to secure the peace. ``Peace is our Profession'' was especially well-chosen as a motto for the strategic air command. I know that every one of your predecessors who climbed into the cockpit of a SAC bomber had to be aware of the awesome fact that loaded on board were weapons of more destructive power than had ever been unleashed in all the wars of history that had gone before. SAC was--and the strategic command remains--the steward of the most terrible military force ever created. Because of that, it was always critically important to keep the purpose of such awful power foremost in mind--to preserve peace by remaining able to make war, for it was none other than George Washington who said, ``There is nothing so likely to produce peace as to be well prepared to meet an enemy.'' I believe the old SAC motto remains just as relevant and appropriate today as it was during the height of the cold war. But I have to say, in the wake of our experience since the cold war ended, that peace isn't quite what many people thought it would be. Sir Michael Rose, the British general who commanded UN forces in Bosnia before the Dayton agreement, put it well in the title of his recent book, which he calls ``Fighting for Peace.'' In our ambiguous, complicated, demanding global environment, it is critically important that you, who are entering into the profession of arms, consider very carefully what it means to say ``Peace is our profession.'' It is important first of all because you must understand, in your hearts as in your minds, both the great difficulty and great value of what you are doing, even when many of your fellow citizens may not always appreciate your efforts as well as they should. Peace is difficult. It is difficult above all because it is not, as some people seem to think, the natural state of things. Peace does not just happen. Peace is not the comfortable, old rocker on the porch we would like to sink into after a hard day's work. Peace is much more like the progress of Ulysses, who sailed through storm-lashed seas only to find at each new landfall a different challenge-- whether a treacherous temptation luring him from his path or an ever more devious and powerful foe. The short history of the post-cold war era shows us one thing very clearly--that peace can only be maintained when those with the strength to do so accept their responsibility as much as possible to resist aggression, to define the rules of international order, and to enforce those rules when necessary. Peace is something that must be built anew in ever changing circumstances by the labor, the will, and sometimes the blood of each generation. We are only beginning to see what challenges will face your generation. I hope and pray that those challenges will be, in some ways, at least, less fearsome than those your predecessors faced. God forbid we should ever again have to send our finest young people into the mechanized killing fields of the great world wars of the past century. The spread of weapons of mass destruction, therefore, makes me shudder--it is all the more important that your labor be applied to keep such awful implements from ever being used. The great and unique challenge you face, it seems to me, is in the insidious nature of the enemy before you. In the world wars, in the cold war, in the Persian Gulf War, even in Korea and Vietnam, the enemy was apparent. Today, I think, the enemy is harder to define. Through no less dangerous, it is in some ways more difficult to grapple with because it is so difficult to see clearly. Admiral Joseph Lopez, who recently retired after serving as Commander of Allied Forces in Southern Europe, has said very wisely that ``Instability is the Enemy.'' That is a good way of defining it, above all because it serves to emphasize the importance of our military engagement, in all kinds of ways, with other nations around the world. But to understand that doesn't make it any easier to cope with. One problem, obviously, is that instability is everywhere. So in trying to cope with it as best we can, we are working you and your colleagues much too hard. I have argued long and loudly that we need to stop doing that. For their part, your leaders in the Air Force are working diligently to reorganize the force in a way that will make things better. Even so, I can't promise you that the task of maintaining this troubled peace will be much easier in the future. An even more difficult problem arises from the fact some instability is more dangerous than other instability. The question we all struggle with is this: How do we decide when instability is sufficiently dangerous to our long-term interests to justify putting the best of our young men and women--that is, you--at risk? Let me tell you that no one in a position of responsibility in this Nation takes that question lightly. We have a lot of frivolous and needlessly partisan debates in Washington. But when it comes to a debate over your lives--over whether to tell you to risk your lives to defend our nation--The Congress engages the issues seriously and solemnly. We, and the President, may not always make the right decision--but God knows, we all try to. The difficulty for you is that there are legitimate, deeply held differences of view on whether and when our interests and our principles are sufficiently at stake to justify putting your lives on the line in Kosovo or Kuwait or Korea. When the enemy is as ambiguous as instability, it is, I am afraid, too likely that your leaders will sometimes sound an uncertain trumpet. And that may lead some of you very soon-- and perhaps every one of you sooner or later--to question whether the demands we are making on you are justifiable. For to affirm, in this historical era, that peace is your profession, will very likely require you to face some very profound questions about your commitment to duty and to country. I hope that all of you will elect to stay and serve as long and as well as you are able. Let me recall for you that your predecessors have also had to face difficult personal questions. After the war in Vietnam, I know that many professional service members--at all grades--felt abandoned if not betrayed by their country. Some left the service--but many stayed, and those who stayed managed, in the end, to rebuild the American military into a force that is the best we have ever had. Inevitably you are going to face demands that will challenge your commitment. I hope you will understand that the task you are engaged in--to keep the peace--is as important to your country as the duty asked of any soldier, sailor, marine or airman who has gone before. There is one other reason why I think you need to consider carefully what it means to say ``Peace is our Profession.'' You are part of a society in which your fellow citizens are often very assertive of their rights. Veterans are not immune to that sentiment, by the way. But that is entirely appropriate--that is, in part, what America is all about. I was taught something, however, that becomes more brilliantly clear to me with every passing year. I was taught that with rights come responsibilities. When your forebears lifted into the air in a bomber armed with weapons that could wreak a holocaust, they were accepting a grave responsibility. When you say, ``Peace is our Profession,'' you are embracing a vocation in which you are going to bear a much larger share of the responsibilities than almost all of your fellow citizens. The need for you to act responsibly has already been impressed upon you in many ways in this great institution. You have been held to standards of personal conduct much more stringent than those required of others of your age--or, for that matter, of your elected leaders. Let me tell you that such demands for personal responsibility, for having integrity in your personal lives, will feel as light as a single snowflake the first time you are responsible for protecting the lives of others. Responsibility is demanded in your profession because, at some time, so much will be at stake in the decisions you make. I'm not telling you this because I am worried that you will not rise to the occasion. On the contrary, I believe that you are part of a military organization that will make you ready to do your duty well, when you are called upon. I am telling you this because I am concerned, instead, that your sense of responsibility, your sense of duty, your sense of honor will, at times, make you feel somehow cut off from the society you serve. I want to tell you that you cannot and must not let that happen. You are a critical part of American society. You are the bulwark of this society. American society cannot carry on as a free, independent, diverse, rich society without you. But neither can you succeed without the support of the American people. You have to work at maintaining that support as vigorously as you work at any other part of your profession. Sometimes that will not be so easy. Peace is your profession. The paradox is that the more successful you are at your profession--the more peace you bring to our country-- the less you are likely to be appreciated for what you do. The famous British poet, Rudyard Kipling, wrote a poem entitled ``Tommy'' about the treatment of soldiers in time of peace. It is written from the point of view of a British infantryman, dressed in his red coat, who was refused a pint of beer at a ``Public House,'' and he complains ``For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' ``Chuck him out, the brute!'' But its ``Saviour of 'is country,'' when the Guns begin to shoot.'' In time of war, we band together as a Nation. In time of peace--even in time of a very troubled and difficult peace-- many of our fellow citizens focus on other things. It is your job to let them do that. It is your job not to let them forget you even as they focus on other things. A great many thoughtful, well-informed people are concerned these days about what they perceive as a growing gap between military and civilian society in the United States. I, too, worry about that. Let me be clear about this. I don't worry that the military will somehow become a renegade force, or that military leaders will defy civilian leadership. That is not a real concern to me. All of you have been imbued with the importance of civilian control of the military as part of your very souls. You have joined the military to protect our great, free society, not to try, futilely, to control it. I don't believe any group or institution can control it. I worry, rather, that if you feel yourselves to be cut off from society, to be abandoned by it, to feel it's failings as somehow alienating--then your alienation will become a self- fulfilling reality. You will not do what is needed to ensure continued public understanding of your role and continued public support of your vital mission. American society, for good or ill--mostly for the good--is absorbed in other things than ensuring the peace. Americans make you responsible for that great task. You have to tell them about it. You cannot afford to feel that your great responsibility makes you somehow unique or somehow deserving of support. You are deserving of support. But you have to reach out to your fellow citizens to let them know that. How should you do that? Partly it is a matter of attitude. Don't let yourself feel cut off. Don't let yourself feel different. Don't let your ingrained sense of duty make you feel unappreciated and unhonored. If you seek public support, you will get it. I think you should be taught that it is part of your duty as an officer in the U.S. Air Force to keep in constant touch with the community in which you grew up. When you go home, you should call up the president of the local Lions club or the Rotary club and say ``Congressman Skelton told me I ought to give you a call and let you know where I am and what I'm doing in my military service.'' You will get a great response. Your community wants to support you. Your community wants to know that you are there for them. Your community wants you to continue to be a part of it. Your community wants to understand what it is to say, ``Peace is our Profession.'' It is part of your profession to contribute to their understanding. As you progress through your military career, it is my sincere hope that you will not only fulfill your fondest dreams, but that you will, by your service, provide the peace for our country that will allow your fellow American citizens to pursue their dreams. Thank you for the opportunity to address you today. God bless.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the minority leader. (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman). (Mr. ROTHMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood). (Mr. UNDERWOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I had a law school professor that in difficult discussions in class, he would say, ``Read it.'' I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that every Member read the bill that is before them. This is not a bill that prohibits the use of ground troops. This is a bill that prohibits the use of ground elements, a far broader, more difficult-to- define definition. Look at this through the eyes of a sergeant stationed in Albania, working on helicopters as a mechanic; look at it through his eyes. Does this term, does this prohibition of ground elements, include helicopters because it is an air-to-ground weapon system? What is that sergeant going to think of what Congress is doing? Even if not, what if a helicopter lands in Kosovo for whatever reason; does it then become a ground element if they engage in a firefight, therefore illegal under this bill? Are the rescue operations which are permitted under this bill limited to those who are in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia as a result of their operations only? What if troops, Mr. Speaker, of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia cross the border into Albania, or into Macedonia, and capture U.S. personnel? And that happened. Would a rescue operation then be prohibited if we saw them a hundred yards away and we could bring them back? That would be illegal under this bill. Is hot pursuit of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia troops prohibited by this? Do they have a safe haven? Remember the argument, the discussions, in the Korean War that there was a sanctuary north, north of the Yalu River? This is creating a sanctuary for those troops who could cause harm to the sergeant and his men and women who serve under him. We cannot allow this bill to pass. This is not a prohibition of ground troops; this is a prohibition of a much broader definition.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of practicing law some 20 years, of helping debate definitions in court, and I can read a proposed statute. ``Ground elements'' is all inclusive. It disallows preparation, it disallows hot pursuit, it disallows so many things other than just ground forces. If we are talking about ground forces, why does the bill not say that? Why does it not limit it to ground troops or ground forces? It does not do that.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich). (Mr. KUCINICH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder).

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

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner). (Mr. TANNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I wish to point out that my friend, the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler) a few moments ago stated that this was language inserted and written by the legislative counsel, and that they knew what they were doing. The language in this bill, since it was first initiated, has been a moving target. We cannot allow it to go forward with the uncertainty of this language, the uncertainty of this bill, and I very, very sadly, because she is a friend, I very sadly have to object.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to close, and to mention briefly that the President sent a letter to the Speaker dated April 28, part of which reads as follows: ``However, were I to change my policy with regard to introduction of ground forces, I can assure you that I would fully consult with the Congress.'' That should put an end to that. Let me tell the Members what this legislation does. If this is passed, this legislation would prohibit any preemptive attack by American forces based on an intelligence assessment of an impending attack by enemy forces. It would prohibit American forces from pursuing attacking enemy forces following an enemy incursion across international borders. It would prohibit the rescue of any non-U.S. headquarters personnel. It would prohibit the rescue or support of any non-U.S. personnel from a nongovernmental agency. It would prohibit the rescue of any military personnel from Albania, Bulgaria, Macedonia, or Romania. It would also prohibit the rescue of peacekeeping forces in a peacekeeping role in a permissive environment. Again, I say, read this. This bill, with the language thereof, has been a moving target. We cannot allow this to pass. If a bill should come up at a time that is proper, based upon what the President says, that is what we should debate at that time. This is out of time. This improper bill is poorly written. I certainly urge a no vote thereof. Amendment Offered by Mrs. Fowler

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, one of the truest sayings is that ``second place does not count on the battlefield.'' We are engaged in a conflict to bring the Europeans' last dictator into light. It has to be a victory for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. It has to be a victory for the United States to bring Milosevic to the table, to do what is right by the refugees, to get them back to their home, to make sure there is autonomy for these people. But more than that, it is a matter of credibility for NATO and for the United States. If the world perceives NATO, led by our country, not winning and not being successful in this effort, NATO will then become a paper-debating society. That we cannot have.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. I thank the gentleman so much.

Mr. SKELTON. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding time to me. As the ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services, Mr. Speaker, I recognize the dedication of our men and women in uniform and the personal sacrifices that they make to protect our national security and to ensure international stability. American servicemen and women serving in the Yugoslav area are engaging in difficult and dangerous missions as good and loyal Americans. It is our duty to show our appreciation for their unselfish actions by removing some of the financial burdens of combat service. As we did for the troops serving in the Persian Gulf, we must take measures to exempt the hazardous pay of U.S. troops and U.S. service personnel serving in Yugoslavia and that area from income tax. I urge Members' support for this legislation. I might also add that recently I had the opportunity to visit with our men and women in Aviano Air Base, and also the air base in Ramstein, Germany. I came away with the impression that these are outstanding young Americans. They are working hard, long hours. They are very, very professional in their duty. I am proud of what they are doing to ensure the success of this effort. We also have men flying out of Knob Noster, Missouri, Whiteman Air Force Base on a very regular basis, a 31-hour round trip to and from the combat zone, unloading their bombs and their precision bombs from the B-2s and then returning back to the Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the ranking member a question. In light of the fact that the pilots of the B-2 bombers that fly out of Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri, enter the combat zone, unload their bombs, and return without stopping, is it the intent of this legislation that they be covered?

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity several days ago to accompany with several other Members of this House and some Members from the other body with Secretary Bill Cohen, the Secretary of Defense, to Brussels and Mons and Aviano and Ramstein, involving the Yugoslav conflict. What I want to say this evening is that I have the highest regard and great praise for the young men and young women in uniform that we saw, in particular at Aviano Air Base, with the pilots, the ground troops, with the personnel, and again at Ramstein where we saw those pilots, and the ground crews and the loaders who are putting the cargo for the refugees onto those airplanes. They are professional, they are working hard, they are dedicated, and every man and woman in this country should be very proud of those in uniform who are doing their duty as they have been given their duty by their superior officers. Mr. Speaker, I have high praise for them, and I congratulate them on the wonderful job that they are doing for America.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I address this body with a great deal of sadness, because last night, by a vote of 224 to 1, we pledged to support the troops. Today's budget breaks that pledge. On this spot last night I asked Members to support the troops not just at that time but for all times, not only during deployment but during times of training and growing. Someone was not listening when the budget was put together. The priority should be, is, as far as I am concerned, and will always be to take care of the troops; to take care of the young men and take care of the young women who go in harm's way for our country. This budget does not take into consideration or allow monies for the recommended and promised pay raise or change in reform of the retirement system. We have to do that. We must do that. We cannot break our word, we cannot break our faith and trust in those young people. We must reject this budget because it does not do what we have promised. Despite some claims that the Republican budget funds the pay raise, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) said it would not. I am pleased, however, that this morning, Mr. Chairman, the senior leadership of the House Committee on Armed Services, in a hearing, reiterated its strong support. Several of us spoke on both sides of the aisle in support of a military pay raise, and cleared up the confusion by the remarks of the chairman of the Committee on the Budget. Mr. Chairman, this budget does not do it for the troops.