Ike Skelton

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we are here discussing a resolution to commend the American military forces. This is as it should be. We have also discussed and heard words explaining why we are leading the NATO forces in doing what we are doing, for humanitarian purposes, for purposes of keeping NATO strong, for purposes of keeping the Balkans from erupting onto a wider war or conflict. Let us talk about the troops for a minute. Let us talk about those young men and those young women who day in and day out wear the uniform of our country. Let us think of them not just tonight, let us think of them at other times, not just our committee but all of us, regardless of the committee on which we serve. They are the cream of the crop. They are the seed corn of the future of American democracy, the young men, young women who raise their right hand and swear to uphold the Constitution and do their duty. That is the bottom line of young America. I am so proud of them. Here they are being called upon to fulfill a very dangerous mission, yes. They are those in the air forces of our country, the Air Force, Marines, Navy. But I am sure that all men and women in the military are in our thoughts and prayers tonight. As fewer and fewer people wear the uniform, fewer and fewer sons and daughters and grandsons and nephews and nieces, there seems to be a growing gap between American civilians and between those who defend our freedoms. Let us not just think of those in our United States forces this evening, let us think of them at other times. Let us think of them at the times we debate the budget, when we discuss what we should do for their pay, for their barracks, for their families, for their housing, for their housing allowances. We want to do better for them than we have in the past. In a democracy, it is often difficult to show appreciation for those in the military. Rudyard Kipling, the poet laureate of Great Britain many years ago, penned a poem entitled ``Tommy,'' reflecting the fact that the soldier, the Redcoat, was out of sight, out of mind, until there was trouble at hand. He penned and wrote, ``It is Tommy this and Tommy that, and throw him out, the brute, but it is `Savior of our country' when the guns begin to shoot.'' Let us keep the young people of our forces, whether they be in Fort Leonard Wood, Whiteman Air Force Base, any post or base throughout this world, in our thoughts, in our minds, in our prayers, and in our votes on this floor when it comes to supporting them, not just tonight by this vote, but by votes and debate and help in the days ahead.

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

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

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

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

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution that is before us, a resolution that supports the members of the United States armed forces who are engaged in military operations in Yugoslavia. They are not by themselves. This is part of a NATO force. Nineteen nations have banded together to urge and cause Milosevic of Yugoslavia to come to the table and do what is right for international peace. Fourteen of the 19 nations are operating today in one way or another in supporting this effort. I support our troops engaged in this. I support those brave airmen and those who support them on the ground. On a more personal note, I am privileged to represent Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri, which sent several B-2s as part of this mission. I am told by sources in the Pentagon that they did well and that they are returning back to Whiteman Air Force Base unscathed. This is an important measure. This is important not only for us in this House of Representatives to support and recognize the professionalism and dedication and patriotism of those airmen and those involved in this operation, but I support what we are doing there. The Balkans are a tinderbox. World War I started there. The United States is a leader in NATO, and NATO has as its goal and task to bring and keep peace and stability in Europe. There is a great deal at stake: the stability of Europe, the possibility of a wider war, refugees in the hundreds of thousands, eventual involvement not only of NATO but of other allies, such as Greece and Turkey, if violence in Kosovo spreads to the surrounding countries. There are no easy choices in this, but I support the President's decision of this very, very difficult and dangerous mission. And though it is difficult and though it is dangerous, it is the only alternative open to us. I applaud those in uniform, and I hope that the people in America, all across the land, will understand and thank those for their dedication, their professionalism, their patriotism, for they are doing a great deal in the effort to bring peace to a very unhappy part of the world. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, it has come to my attention that James E. Cado of Lexington, MO, passed away on February 4, 1999. Born November 27, 1936 in Lexington, MO, the son of Henry and Minnie Margaret (Rostine) Cado, Mr. Cado married Janet Lee Dickmeyer on December 27, 1958. He was a graduate of Wentworth Military Academy Junior College in Lexington and a 1959 graduate of the University of Missouri. He received his Masters in Mathematics degree in 1964 from Central Missouri State University, Warrensburg, MO. Mr. Cado, a friend of mine through the years, was a good role model who gave encouragement to many students. He was a teacher for 35 years at Lexington R-5 School District, retiring in 1994. He was also a member of the United Methodist Church, Lexington, and the Missouri Teacher Association. Mr. Speaker, I know the Members of the House will join me in extending heartfelt condolences to his wife, Janet; one son, Mark; one daughter, Lee Ann O'Brien; two sisters, two grandsons and two granddaughters.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, today I wish to recognize a truly outstanding naval officer, Captain Dale O. Snodgrass, U.S. Navy. Captain Snodgrass will soon be completing his assignment as the Director of the Navy Liaison Office to the House of Representatives, which will also bring to a close a long and distinguished career in the U.S. Navy. It is a pleasure for me to recognize just a few of his many outstanding achievements. A native of Long Island, New York, Captain Snodgrass graduated from the University of Minnesota and was commissioned an Ensign in August 1972. He was designated a naval Aviator in December 1973. He reported to Fighter Squadron 124 as one of the first two newly winged Aviators selected for F-14 training. After being the first non-fleet experienced Aviator to carrier qualify the F-14, he reported to Fighter Squadron 142 in January 1975. Completing his tour in May 1978, he reported to Fighter Squadron 101, the F-14 Training Squadron, as a Fight Instructor and Landing Signal Officer. Following his Instructor tour, he reported to Carrier Air Wing 8 as the Senior Landing Signal Officer. After a 2 year tour in Air Wing 8, he reported to Fighter Squadron 43 as an Adversary Instructor, serving as Operations Officer. Returning to the Fleet in January 1985, Captain Snodgrass served in Fighter Squadron 143 as Operations and Maintenance Officer. In 1986 Captain Snodgrass was selected as the Navy's ``Fighter Pilot of the Year'' and ``Top Cat of the Year.'' Reporting to Fighter Squadron 101 in January 1988, he served as the Executive Officer until May 1988. Captain Snodrgrass subsequently joined Fighter Squadron 33 as Executive Officer later the same month. He assumed command of Fighter Squadron 33 in September 1989, while embarked in the USS America (CV 66) in the Red Sea. Upon completion of his sixth deployment, he led his squadron through an accelerated training cycle that culminated with combat operations in support of ``DESERT STORM.'' His Commanding Officer's tour ended with yet another underway Change of Command in the Red Sea in February 1991. Captain Snodgrass then reported to the USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71) as Navigator. Assuming additional duties as Battle Group Navigator, he planned coordinated and safely executed Battle Group navigation and transit in the Red Sea, Mediterranean, Atlantic, and Caribbean. His Navigation Department and Staff was subsequently selected for the U.S. Atlantic Fleet's Navigation award for 1992. Transferring in March 1993, he reported to the Chief of Naval Operations for Air Warfare as Head, Aviation Manpower, Undergraduate Flight Training and Trainer Aircraft sections. In September 1994, Captain Snodgrass reported as Commander, Fighter Wing, U.S. Atlantic Fleet. Under his command, TOMCAT precision strike and single citing of the entire community as NAS Oceana became a reality. His tour as Commodore ended with a Change of Command in January 1997. In February 1997, Captain Snodgrass relocated to Washington, DC, as Director, Navy Liaison, U.S. House of Representatives. Mr. Speaker, Dale Snodgrass has made many sacrifices during his 26 year naval career. Dale has spent a significant amount of time away from his family to support the vital role our naval forces play in ensuring the security of our great Nation. Captain Snodgrass, a great credit to the U.S. Navy and the country he so proudly served, will retire on 23 March 1999 and move to St. Augustine, Florida. As he now prepares to depart the Navy for new challenges ahead, I call upon my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to wish him every success, as well as fair winds and following seas, always.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, we should update ourselves; update ourselves on the facts, update ourselves on the arguments. Conditions change. The Rumsfeld Commission report, which was a bipartisan report, tells us of the threat. We had a very thorough briefing this morning in this room. The North Korean missile launch across Japan this last August is a fact that we need to consider. Current intelligence estimates from the intelligence community of our country tell us that we need to update our thoughts. That is why the arguments of today must be updated. We are not giving this debate in yesteryear. According to the Congressional Budget Office, this bill will not increase missile defense costs a penny, it will not compel a national missile defense architecture that is incompatible with the ABM Treaty, it does not mandate a deployment date or condition. We must, we must, pass this bill.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4, a bill to declare it the policy of the United States to deploy a national missile defense. Many of my colleagues know me as a strong advocate for a strong national defense, maybe even doctrinaire when it comes to taking care of our troops. Fair enough. As my colleagues should also know, my support does not extend to all things defense, nor is it without qualification. Today's topic, national missile defense, is a case in point. For some 15 years, I have been concerned that various proposals for deploying a national missile defense system were unjustified and too expensive. Further, I believe that any effort to do so would siphon needed resources from what I considered to be higher priority defense needs. Thus, I have not been among the voices advocating deployment of a national missile defense system. Instead, while others have been speaking passionately on the subject over the years, I have been listening. I am persuaded by the facts from current intelligence estimates and the events of the past year, Mr. Speaker, that the technology needed to develop an ICBM capable of delivering a warhead of mass destruction against large portions of the United States is today in the hands of at least one so-called ``rogue'' actor. Worse, much of the needed technology has been demonstrated. And, as my good friend and former colleague, Ron Dellums, would say, ``I can see lightning and I can hear thunder.'' Accordingly, I now believe it is not only possible, but probable, that significant portions of the United States will be threatened by ICBM delivered warheads of mass destruction sometime before the year 2005; time the administration now says it needs to deploy a suitable, limited national missile defense system. I also believe that $6.6 billion included in the administration's fiscal year 2000 future years defense plan for national missile defense deployment related activities recognizes this threat development and tacitly acknowledges that the administration also views the ultimate deployment of a limited national defense missile system as inevitable. Mr. Speaker, the issue is not just about a national missile defense system, nor can it be. To successfully defend America from an ICBM delivered threat, we need to act on a potential threat of a missile over its entire life; not just the last 15 minutes to do so. Priority must be given to our first line of defense: Aid and diplomacy, counterproliferation programs, and arms control agreements. Although not perfect, these programs work and are relatively cheap. More importantly, by reducing or preventing the number and sophistication of ICBMs that might threaten us, they make national missile defense system technically feasible. Deterrence also works, and since these forces already exist, it is the logical second line of defense. Finally, I now think deployment of a limited national defense system, as a third and final line of defense, is as advisable as it is inevitable. At the same time, however, I believe we must guard against the national missile defense program that undercuts the first and second lines of defense. This brings us to H.R. 4, a simple declaration that we are committed to ultimately deploying a national missile defense, period. It is an opportunity to move past the philosophical debate that has divided us, to move past who is and who is not willing to defend America. Therefore, I must admit to my disappointment with the administration for considering this legislation to be unnecessary and withholding their support on that basis. Nevertheless, it is significant that its concerns do not rise to the level of a veto threat. Thus, I would ask my colleagues to keep this fact in mind during deliberations here today. In my opinion, H.R. 4 does not go beyond the administration's program for a limited national missile defense in any way. According to the Congressional Budget Office, H.R. 4 will not increase missile defense costs one cent. More importantly, it does not compel a national missile defense system architecture that is incompatible with the ABM Treaty. Equally important, Mr. Speaker, it does not mandate a deployment date or condition. Thus, it does not generate a rush to failure by calling for deployment of an inadequately tested or ineffectual system. The new realty is that a lot has changed since the strategic defense initiative debate was joined some 16 years ago. A lot has changed since last year, and yesterday's truths are no more. So I ask my colleagues to approach H.R. 4 with an open mind, try to consider it as a good- faith effort to establish a bipartisan consensus, and I will repeat this, a bipartisan consensus on defending America. That is what I believe it is. Mr. Speaker, our most distinguished colleagues on the subject of missile defense, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), two respected Members who have in the past been disagreeing on this issue, have joined together in a significant collaboration to provide us with a rare and distinct opportunity to rise above our differences and move the national missile defense debate forward on a less philosophical and less partisan basis. For the good of the country and for the good of this institution, I believe in the strongest possible terms that we should seize this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, and pass H.R. 4. I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and I want to thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for coming together to write and draft H.R. 4 and provide us with this historic opportunity. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) be recognized to manage, at the end of my statement, the balance of the time on our side.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Madam Speaker, today I join the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) in paying tribute to the late James C. Kirkpatrick. The memory of Jim Kirkpatrick will be honored this week with the dedication of a library named for him at Central Missouri State University in Warrensburg, Missouri. This is certainly a fitting tribute to a great Missourian who served our neighbors so well through the years as Missouri's Secretary of State. Actually, I inherited my friendship with Jim Kirkpatrick, as he was a close friend of my father's through the years. Back in 1932, when my father ran for Attorney General, Jim Kirkpatrick, then editor of the Windsor newspaper, endorsed him. When I served in the Missouri State Senate, I had close contact with Jim Kirkpatrick, who was then serving as Secretary of State. Filing for election and reelection with him was always a memorable occasion. America is always in need of role models for those who enter public service. Jim Kirkpatrick was such a role model, putting the people's business first, running an efficient office, and having a warm greeting for all with whom he came in contact. He was a model of integrity. We all miss Jim Kirkpatrick, but his name and his example will live on with the building being named in his memory at CMSU.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that, on line 1, where it says strike and insert section 3 in the original, it be changed to add section 4.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I speak against the rule. I will vote against the rule. I am deeply concerned that taking this matter up now in the midst of negotiations between the opposing parties, the Kosovars and Milosevic's people, will cause great harm and great damage to the negotiating process. Should what we do today cause there to be no agreement, we would have lost, Europe would have lost and there will be continued bloodshed and anguish in Kosovo. I think it is wrong to take this up now. It is untimely. It is improper to do so. Secondly, as it was mentioned by my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), I am the ranking member on the Committee on Armed Services. This deals with the military of the United States of America. We in our committee should have had the opportunity to have had a hearing to find out what troops, under what conditions and if there is a possibility of saving some other deployments because we are short on troops today. These are questions that we in our committee should have had the opportunity to ask, a full and fair hearing in the Committee on Armed Services, which we did not have. Thirdly, I would like to mention that I also have an amendment, should this rule carry, which I hope in all sincerity it does not. I will have an amendment that requires that there be an agreement between the parties before any American troops are allowed to go into Kosovo. That is the bottom line. Right now, bringing up this resolution is improper and uncalled for because it could very well change the agreement, cause there not to be an agreement and cause confusion in that part of the Balkans. I wish that everyone could have been with me to witness the four- starred German general who is the second in command at NATO a few weeks ago when I asked him why is it important that America be involved in Europe and in NATO? His answer was a full and complete one, which said it is important that America be there. I think that if America should be there, we should have the opportunity to do it the right way, the right time and under the right resolution and the right vote.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Our colleague from Illinois posed the question, is NATO worth it? Absolutely. NATO is worth it. First, we should understand those pages of history that point out that World War I started in the Balkans, and if NATO in its role in keeping peace in Europe can be fulfilled, it will be necessary for NATO to do a peacekeeping mission in Kosovo. Second, in answer to the gentleman's question, is NATO worth it, history also tells us that we have had more years of continuous peace in Europe since the days of the Roman Empire. NATO not only is worth it, it works, and the United States of America is the leader of NATO. Tomorrow in Independence, Missouri, at the Truman Library, with the Secretary of State present as well as other noted Americans, the 50th anniversary of NATO will be celebrated. Today, by this vote, we will declare whether NATO is worth it, whether NATO is to fulfill its goal and mission in the days and years ahead. I agree with the resolution. I might also say that I have an amendment which I do not see how anyone could vote against. Later in the day, my amendment to this resolution will be to the effect that there should be no troops deployed until there is an agreement and a subsequent vote. But the bottom line is, NATO, Mr. Chairman, is worth it.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SKELTON. It is the one that says Section 4. Section 4.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, the amendment is very clear.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, there shall be no deployment of American personnel peacekeeping forces unless there is an agreement reached between the parties in question in Kosovo, and, number two, that such deployment must be approved by Congress.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, then that is fine. I thought it would be 4. Then it will be 5, and I so request.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, that is not correct. I am merely changing a 3 to a 5. It is in conflict with no other section.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I think that it speaks for itself. It is in addition thereto. It is in conflict with no other section.