Ike Skelton

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Sisisky). (Mr. SISISKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Furse).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant). (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), our whip on the Democratic side.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes 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 must comment and say that I wholeheartedly agree with the comments of the chairman, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), regarding the outstanding young men and women that we have in uniform today. I would like the Record to show that I feel as strongly and I support those words of support for them. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for the President and our troops in this latest phase of the Iraqi crisis. I urge all Members to join me in voting for this resolution. It is extremely important that we be here today to support these actions and to support these young men and women who are in the Middle East doing their best to follow the orders of the Commander in Chief in putting an end to this Iraqi threat to the American interests and to the Iraqi neighbors. I urge all Members to join in this effort today. We, the representatives of the American people, need to express our full support of this measure. Mr. Speaker, last November the 14, the President called off an attack against Iraq at the very last minute while aircraft were in the air because Iraq promised to allow the United Nations Special Commission to do its job. The President's decision at that time was a tough call. Many individuals, including some of his closest security advisors, disagreed with the choice that he made. I, however, believed that he made the right decision and publicly supported his decision. I supported the decision because it allowed the United States to show the world that we would give Iraq one last chance. As George Robertson, the British Minister of Defense, said at the time, ``Even in the Wild West, when someone put up their hands, did you not shoot them?'' Almost 8 years ago, President George Bush ordered American military forces into action against Iraq. At that time I supported the decision. There was bipartisan support for the action that he took. Yesterday, 8 years later, President Clinton ordered American military forces into action against Iraq. I find myself once again in support of the decision of our President. We gave ample warning one month ago that if Saddam did not comply with the promises he made to the United Nations, that the consequences would be severe. In effect, our national credibility was on the line. Had the President not ordered the attack, many would have bitterly criticized him for not having followed through with the tough words he uttered just one month ago. Others in the world, in North Korea and Yugoslavia and elsewhere, would have come to the conclusion that the United States, though militarily strong, was lacking in will. As we proceed with this action, we should have a sustained bombing campaign that targets Saddam Hussein's centers of power, especially the revolutionary guard and his security services. We should also hit known chemical, biological and nuclear weapons sites. This effort will help contain Iraq, maybe even spark a coup, but will surely retard his effort to rebuild his ability to produce weapons of mass destruction. I also hope it will help encourage the internal opposition. There are no good options, but to have done nothing now would have been the worst of all options. Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly support the President in his decision. I wholeheartedly support those in uniform who are carrying out those orders today, the difficult orders. I respect their determination and their professionalism. They are the cream of the crop. And our heartfelt and best wishes go with them. This resolution will help let them know that we, the representatives of the people of America, are in their corner today and in the days ahead. (Mr. SPENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, let me take this opportunity to pay tribute to Higginsville, Missouri, resident, Rear Admiral Stanton Thompson (USNR), who recently put his life on the line to save two Concordia, Missouri, boys' lives. Recently, Admiral Thompson made the difference between life and death for two Lafayette County 10-year-old boys during a driving rain storm. Cameron Holsten and Gregory Kueck were playing in a ditch near downtown Concordia, with Cameron's twin brother, Kendall, when they were swept into a storm sewer by floodwaters. Working at a nearby drive-in restaurant, Thompson had no idea he was about to risk his life to save two others. Shortly after 5:30 p.m. on a Sunday evening, word came that the young boys were trapped in the raging waters in the storm drain below the restaurant. Without a second's thought, Thompson sprang into action and headed for the drain. He waded into the waist-deep pool in front of the drain gate, but was eventually forced to jump into the fast moving current. Thompson located the boys approximately 50 to 75 feet inside the tunnel. While their feet and legs dangled in the current, the boys hung on to small, wire-like rebar strap protruding from the wall of the tunnel. Thompson then made the decision to assist these young boys, and with the help of Concordia fire and rescue teams, he successfully brought Cameron and Gregory to safety one at a time. Mr. Speaker, Rear Admiral Stanton Thompson (USNR) is a true hero. I am sure that the members of the House will join me in paying tribute to this outstanding American who risked his life to save two young Missourians from drowning.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, it has been almost 10 years since the fall of 1988 when the Communist government of Poland agreed, under great popular pressure, to permit free elections, elections which ultimately led to the ``velvet revolution'' throughout eastern Europe. It has been 9 years since the historic fall of 1989, when the border between Hungary and western Europe opened and thousands of east Europeans first swept aside the Iron Curtain and then brought it crashing down. It has been 8 years since the two Germanys agreed to reunification and 7 years since the Soviet Union disintegrated. For the United States, the events of a decade ago were the beginning of the end of a long struggle, a struggle that was characterized by terrible sacrifices in Korea and Vietnam; by periods of great national confidence and occasional episodes of uncertainty; by debates in the halls of Congress that were sometimes historic and solemn and sometimes partisan and shrill; and above all by a widely shared sense of national purpose that endured despite occasionally bitter internal divisions. The constancy with which the United States carried out its global responsibilities over the long course of the Cold War is great testimony to the character of the American people and to the quality of the leaders who guided the Nation through those often trying times. In spite of the costs, in the face of great uncertainties and despite grave distractions, our Nation showed the ability to persevere. In doing so, we answered the great question about America that Winston Churchill once famously posed. ``Will you stay the course?'' he asked? ``Will you stay the course?'' The answer is, we did. Today we need to raise a similar question once again, but this time for ourselves and in a somewhat different form. Churchill's question ``Will you stay the course?'' implied that there might some day be an end to the struggle, as there was to the Cold War, though no one foresaw when and how it would come. Today the key question is perhaps more challenging because it is more open-ended. It is, ``Will we stay engaged?'' The term ``engagement'' has not yet captured as broad a range of support among political leaders and the public as those who coined it, early in the Clinton administration, evidently hoped it would. But neither did the notion of containment capture broad support until several years after it was articulated during the Truman administration. Some political leaders who later championed containment as the linchpin of our security initially criticized the notion as too passive and even timid. Engagement, while not yet widely embraced as a characterization of our basic global posture, seems to me to express quite well what we need to be about in the post-Cold War era, that we need to be engaged in the world, and that we need to be engaged with other nations in building and maintaining a stable international security system. Engagement will not be easy to sustain. It has become clear in recent years it will be as challenging to the United States to fully remain engaged in the post-Cold War era as it was to stay the course during the Cold War. We now know much more about the shape of the post-Cold War era than we did 8 or 4 or even 2 years ago. We know that we have not reached the end of history. We know that we face challenges to our security that in some ways are more daunting than those we faced during the Cold War. We know that it will often be difficult to reach domestic agreement on foreign affairs because legitimate, deeply held values will often be hard to reconcile. We know that we will have to risk grave dangers and pay a price to carry out our responsibilities, and because of the costs, it will sometimes be tempting to think that we would be more secure if we were more insulated from turmoil abroad. We know that we will have to struggle mightily not to allow domestic travails to divert us from the tasks that we must consistently pursue. We also know that our political system, which encourages open debate and which constantly challenges leaders to rise to the demands of the times, gives us the opportunity, if we are thoughtful and serious about our responsibilities, to see where our interests lie and to pursue our values effectively. Mr. Speaker, today I want to say a few things about engagement in the world, why it may sometimes be difficult to sustain, why it is nonetheless necessary, and, finally, how it has succeeded in bolstering our security. First, why engagement may be difficult to sustain. Just in the past few months, we have had a series of object lessons in the difficulties of international engagement. Last month our embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam were attacked by terrorists who have vowed to wage war against the United States as long as we are engaged in the Middle East. As President Clinton aptly put it, ``America is and will remain a target of terrorists precisely because we are leaders; because we act to advance peace, democracy and basic human values, because we're the most open society on earth; and because, as we have shown yet again, we take an uncompromising stand against terrorism.'' Mr. Speaker, both the President and the Secretary of State warned that the terrorist attacks in Africa and the U.S. retaliation will not be the end of our struggle. In an age of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons of mass destruction, the United States faces particularly grave dangers in its conflict with these forces. So engagement is difficult, first of all, because it entails costs and carries risks. To quail in the face of these risks would be far more damaging to our security than to confront them. But we should not underestimate the dangers we face. Engagement is also difficult because it requires us to make policy choices in which values we hold dear are troubling to reconcile. The recent debates in this Chamber over policy toward China illustrate this point forcefully. Many of my colleagues were critical of President Clinton's decision to go to China in the first place, and especially critical of the fact that the President would set foot in Tiananmen Square. All of us find China's human rights abuses, forced abortions, forced sterilization, religious and political repression and exploitation of prison labor to be abhorrent. For my part, I believe that U.S. security interests are well-served when we stand up for human rights. Tyranny has crumbled all over the globe in large part because of our active commitment to human rights and because we hold out an example of freedom that millions all over the world hope to emulate. Those who have criticized U.S. policy toward China do so out of deeply held convictions that are entirely legitimate. It is also true that we cannot sustain a policy of isolating China, and that such a policy would be self-defeating. As former Senator Sam Nunn pointed out in a speech last November, the United States and China have far more interests in common than not. The U.S. presence in Asia bolsters stability that is in China's interest. The U.S. defense of Middle East oil protects China's largest source of energy. We need China to play a constructive role in preventing war in Korea. We need China to be more cooperative in halting weapons proliferation. Both we and China will benefit if we can cooperate in building a framework for stability in former Soviet central Asia. As China develops, the entire world has an interest in encouraging China to pursue energy systems that are environmentally sound and to prevent the spread of communicable diseases. Constructive engagement with China, therefore, is essential, but it also challenges us to remain true to our fundamental beliefs in human rights. We need to emphasize our common interests with China, but because of our commitment to human freedom, we should not sell short the leverage we may have in encouraging greater liberty inside China. So engagement is difficult because we cannot easily reconcile our deeply held convictions about what is right and necessary in relations with other nations. Other recent events show that engagement with long-standing allies may also be turbulent at times. Many if not most of our allies have not, for example, wholeheartedly supported our efforts to enforce sanctions on nations that we believe guilty of sponsoring international terrorism or that we see as threats to the peace. The Clinton administration's decision to pursue a new tack in policy toward Iraq reflects in part the fact that some of our allies apparently do not place as high a priority as we do on halting weapons proliferation. In effect, we could not count on them to back us up in carrying out the U.N. enforcement regime as vigorously as we had been doing and as forcefully as many Members of Congress, including myself, would like. This is especially frustrating, because our allies rely much more on oil from the Persian Gulf than we do. For that matter, they have suffered from terrorism over the years more than we have. So here is a case in which we are doing the heavy lifting, and in the process deepening the enmity of anti-Western elements throughout the region, without being able to rely on the wholehearted support of allies who ultimately benefit most from our stabilizing efforts in the region. Engagement is difficult, therefore, because leadership itself is difficult, because allies do not always meet our expectations, because burdens are not fairly shared, because other nations seek to enjoy the fruits of our labor while shirking the cost, because foreign leaders do not always see things through the same lens as we do and sometimes may not have as much backbone as we would like. It is tempting in such cases to conclude that we should do less and let the consequences unfold as they will. But that would ultimately, Mr. Speaker, be self- defeating. The related difficulty of engagement is what might be called the paradox of burdensharing. In some cases our leadership role may require that we commit our resources, including our military forces, even in cases where our allies have more at stake than we do, because others cannot act decisively without us. The obvious example is Bosnia, in which our allies had forces on the ground for some years, but without being able to forge a peace agreement until we committed our own ground troops. A forceful, coordinated, diplomatic effort, backed up by military power, required our involvement. Here is the paradox: We generally think that burden sharing, that is getting the allies to do more, will reduce the weight we must bear. In fact, getting the allies to do more often requires that we do more as well. Engagement is difficult, therefore, because it means that we will sometimes become embroiled in undertakings overseas that, on the face of it, cost us more than our immediate interests appear to justify. The reason we must be engaged is that our overarching interest in building effective security cooperation with our allies requires us to do one thing, and that is exercise leadership. Engagement is also difficult for domestic political reasons. To be blunt, neither the President nor the Members of Congress get elected by promising to devote a great deal of time and attention to foreign affairs. Moreover, it is easy for those out of power to criticize allies, deplore China and Russia, deprecate the United Nations, condemn actions for being too costly, and denounce inaction for being too timid. Meanwhile those in positions of responsibility must make compromises, choose between alternatives that are often bad and less bad, take risks to get things done, and bear the criticism when initiatives fail. The world cannot be molded to our liking. It is politically difficult to persist, nonetheless, in the essential task of trying to shape it. Finally, engagement is difficult because it is financially expensive. In recent years it has been difficult to find the resources to meet obvious needs in defense and foreign affairs because of pressures to reduce the budget deficit. Now that the deficit has been brought under control, a part of the discussion of budget priorities ought to be how to restore a reasonable level of investment in meeting our international security requirements. Mr. Speaker, despite these difficulties, there is no alternative to continued, active U.S. engagement in the world. To me, the fundamental reason for engagement in the world is moral. I say this with a full appreciation of the fact that the very idea of laying out a moral basis for U.S. foreign policy makes some thoughtful people cringe. It will strike some here at home as a call for a degree of international activism that we cannot sustain, and it will strike many abroad as just another example of American arrogance. In fact, U.S. foreign policy must always have a moral basis to it, or it cannot be sustained. We persevered in the Cold War precisely because we felt it our responsibility as a nation to defend against tyranny. In the name of that moral mission, and it was a moral mission, we may sometimes have asked too much of ourselves, and particularly of our young sons and daughters in the military, but it was nonetheless a goal worthy of our people. Now we have a very different moral responsibility before us, which may be somewhat more difficult to express, but which I think is equally important. Our responsibility now is to use our unchallenged position of global leadership in a fashion that will make the universal hope for peace, prosperity and freedom as much as possible into the norm of international behavior. Let me be clear about one thing, the world will never be completely at peace, but it is possible that the coming century will be at least spared the global horrors that scourged the first half of the 20th century, perhaps the bloodiest period in human history. Today, the United States is the bulwark of a relatively secure international order in which small conflicts, though endemic and inevitable, will not decisively erode global stability. As such, our global engagement is also a means of preventing the growth of new powers that could, in time, constitute a threat to peace and evolve into the enemy that we do not now foresee. If the United States were not to try, at least, to use our current position of strength to help construct an era of relative peace and stability, it would be a moral failure of historic magnitude. More than that, to fail to exercise our strength in a fashion that builds global cooperation would also, in the long run, leave us weaker and more vulnerable to dangers from abroad. Indeed, perhaps the most striking feature of the U.S. position in the world right now is that it is an extraordinarily complex mixture both of strength and vulnerability. We are strong, obviously, because no single nation remotely matches our military power and economic vitality. We are strong, more importantly, because in almost all parts of the globe, other nations recognize that our leadership is essential to build and maintain a stable, peaceful and regional security environment. We are vulnerable, similarly, in some profoundly important ways. We live in a truly global society in which our prosperity and our security are affected by events in every part of the world, however seemingly remote. Our security depends on cooperation from other nations, including long-standing allies, long-time neutrals, and especially former enemies, in coping with global challenges ranging from weapons proliferation, to terrorism, to narcotics and international crime, to rogue states that threaten international order, to environmental degradation. We are vulnerable, paradoxically, because our leadership, which is our greatest strength, makes us a target for those who want to destroy regional order. The need for engagement follows both from our strength and from our vulnerability. We need to be engaged because only the United States can provide the leadership necessary to respond to global and regional challenges to stability and only the United States can foster the growth of regional security structures that will prevent future challenges from arising. We need to be engaged because our continued presence gives other nations confidence in our power and in our reliability and makes us the ally of choice if and when conflicts arise. We need to be engaged because only by actively shaping effective regional security systems can we create an environment in which nations that might otherwise challenge stability will instead perceive the community of interests with the United States and with our regional allies. We need to be engaged because only by recognizing and responding to the security concerns of other nations can we expect them to support our security interests and concerns. We need to be engaged because cooperation of other nations is essential to deter and defeat enemies who want to undermine global order. Mr. Speaker, since the end of the Cold War, we have learned many things. We have learned that the end of the Cold War did not mark the end of history. The fundamentally ideological struggle between Soviet- style communism and Western-style capitalism may have been resolved but the battle for human freedom continues against a host of other challenges. We have learned that we face quite different and much more varied threats than those we first imagined. In the wake of the Persian Gulf War, Iraq and Korea were regarded as the major, archetypal threats to regional and world security. Though they remain threats, the gravest danger they pose now appears to be through development of weapons of mass destruction, and a host of other, equally serious threats that have become apparent. Sophisticated terrorists with global capabilities directly threaten the U.S. homeland. Bitter ethnic conflicts have led to horrible bloodshed and may yet threaten regional stability in strategically important parts of the world. India and Pakistan have stepped onto the threshold of a nuclear arms race. Just over two years ago, China was trying to intimidate Taiwan with a show of military strength. Ballistic missile proliferation has accelerated. Stable economies in the East have crashed. The Russian economy has collapsed. In view of these largely unpredictable international developments, it is striking to me that debates we have had in the Congress about security issues in recent months do not seem to have evolved very much from the debates we had 4 or 5 years ago. We still seem to be mired in disputes over issues that we should have resolved long ago. Some traditional champions of a strong national defense still complain that the demands of engagement appear to divert attention away from our real national security interests. Engagement seems too multilateralist. It embroils us in regional conflicts that seem remote. It appears to put too much emphasis on peacekeeping or humanitarian missions that are costly and that are not obviously directly related to our vital security interests. It appears to emphasize arms control measures that impose constraints on our own defenses, while being difficult to enforce on others. Engagement requires building constructive relationships with former enemies, when no one can quite be sure that we are thereby strengthening a future regional or even global competitor. For others, who believe the world ought to be more peaceful and less militarized in the post-Cold War era, engagement has seemed to require too much U.S. military involvement in distant parts of the globe. It appears to justify military and other ties with regimes that are distasteful or worse. It seems to emphasize security matters at the expense of other interests, such as human rights, fair trade practices or environmental protection. It appears to some even to be a questionable rationale for continued high military spending in a world with no direct, obvious threats. Some of these concerns are entirely legitimate, I believe; some less so. Certainly they reflect some aspects of engagement that are difficult for many to embrace. But those who see themselves as proponents of a strong national defense and as advocates of assertive American power, should, I think, reconsider their position in view of the compelling evidence that engagement is essential to our military security. Similarly, those who see themselves as advocates of ``soft power,'' of preventing conflicts from arising by promoting multilateral cooperation, should understand that military engagement abroad is essential to build and enforce a more peaceful, cooperative world in which our other interests and values can flourish. Mr. Speaker, now that we are almost a decade into the post-Cold War era, we should try to draw some lessons from our experience. We should all try to review the events of recent years and reconsider our expectations about the nature of the world order, or disorder, it appears, that would arise. We should also then try to think through what we believe is needed to carry out our responsibilities as a nation. The fact that we have been engaged in many smaller scale military operations in recent years should lead us to rethink our attitudes toward such missions. As I just noted, some proponents of a strong defense have tended to regard certain missions at least as a diversion of resources away from our real national security needs. There has been, in some quarters, a tendency to denigrate peacekeeping or humanitarian missions, in particular, as somehow unworthy of our efforts. As one writer generally opposed to such operations put it a couple of years ago, superpowers do not do windows. In this quite widely shared view, the overriding responsibility of U.S. military forces is to prepare for major conflicts, other, lesser demands to divert our efforts away from this task and should be avoided. One conclusion is that the United States should seek to establish a division of responsibility with the allies, in which they engage in smaller-scale stability operations, while the United States remains the bulwark of global defense against larger threats. A variation on this theme is that the United States needs to focus much more on defense of the homeland in the face of new challenges to security. Though there is something of value to these views, and there is, I also think that they have become increasingly untenable over the past few years. The valuable points are two. First, it is in fact the case that smaller-scale operations demand more resources than military planners had assumed. The answer is not to forswear such operations, which I don't believe we can do, but rather to acknowledge the resource demands and meet those requirements. Second, it is important to be selective in making commitments and in using the military. Above all, we need to ensure a balance between the interests we have at stake and the commitments we are making. The problem with this criticism of smaller-scale operations is that our security increasingly depends on maintaining stability in key regions of the globe. The United States cannot, for good or ill, leave to others the responsibility to enforce stability. For one thing, as Bosnia shows, even our major allies cannot act effectively without our leadership. Moreover, we have a direct interest in maintaining stability even in distant parts of the globe because major regional threats to our security are likely to grow out of smaller regional conflicts if we do not prevent them from getting out of control. For that matter, if we expect to gain access to distant regions in the event of a major regional threat, then we have to be engaged with allies in the region in responding to lesser threats to their security. We could not have expected Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf states to rely on the United States to respond to Iraq's aggression in 1990 if we had not maintained close security ties with those nations for many, many years. Finally, in this era of global trade and communications, direct threats to the U.S. homeland will arise out of local conflicts that we might, in an earlier age, have dismissed as remote battles between exotic and unfamiliar peoples. Today, neither distance nor indifference can insulate us from such conflicts. Only our engagement in ream natural stability abroad can limit the threats we face. For those who still believe that the United States should further reduce its military capabilities, who think that military threats in the post-Cold War era are less demanding than the two major theater wars that we originally prepared for, and who believe that nonmilitary instruments of influence should be emphasized. I agree with that part of it. We should devote more resources to the nonmilitary aspects of engagement abroad. For the rest, all I can say is where have you been for the last 5 years? What we have discovered is that effective international engagement requires much more active and extensive U.S. military involvement abroad than many expected. In the wake of the Cold War, we decided to maintain a permanent military presence of about 100,000 troops both in Europe and in Asia. These deployments, in retrospect, hardly appear excessive. On the contrary, our forces in Europe, if anything, have been badly overworked. They have been involved in countless joint exercises with old and new allies and with former enemies that have been critically important in building a new, cooperative security order in Europe. They have been deployed repeatedly to hot spots throughout Europe and Africa. They have provided the bulk of U.S. forces in Bosnia, which has strained our resources in the region to the limit. In Asia, our continued strong presence has proven critically important. We have continued to deter conflict in Korea. In the spring of 1996, U.S. naval forces responded forcefully to Chinese threats against Taiwan. China's response was not to escalate the confrontation, but soberly and realistically, to seek a more cooperative relationship with United States, entirely, because of our demonstrated strength and resolve. Last year, the United States and Japan announced a new cooperative security agreement that reflects Japan's confidence that the U.S. commitment, and that will be a pillar of regional security in the future. While we anticipated keeping these forces in Europe in Asia, engagement has required much more. It has also entailed a constant, rotational presence in the Persian Gulf, a commitment which we now should recognize is on par with the commitments we have maintained in Europe and the Far East. It has involved military intervention in Haiti, an ongoing peacekeeping operation in Bosnia, and literally dozens of smaller-scale military operations, ranging from the humanitarian mission in Rwanda, to several noncombatant situation missions, to our recent strikes against terrorists in Afghanistan and Sudan. In Congress, we have debated these various commitments of military operations extensively. Some, perhaps most of us, have favored some activities and opposed others. But whatever position we take on particular instances of military involvement abroad, we should by now all be clear about one thing: as long as we are actively engaged abroad, the pace of military operations is likely to be much more demanding than any of us had imagined a few years ago. This, in turn, should lead us to reconsider the military posture that we adopted in the wake of the Cold War. To its credit, the Defense Department began to do that last year in the Quadrennial Defense Review or QDR. The QDR articulated a much broader statement of strategy than the earlier Bottom-Up Review of 1993 had been expressed, a vision that aptly reflected our subsequent experience in the post-Cold War era. The QDR had one failing, however. It did not adequately reassess projected resource requirements in view of the more demanding strategy that laid it out. Now, it appears, the leadership of the Defense Department has reconsidered budget needs, and I am confident that the President and the Congress will give full consideration to the requirements that have been identified. Mr. Speaker, the final point I want to make--and perhaps the most important thing we need to keep in mind--is that the U.S. policy of engagement, as practiced by Administrations of both parties since the end of the Cold War, has been a success. Yes, we have suffered some failures. No, we have not accomplished everything we might have hoped. Yes, we have made some mistakes. But failures, shortcomings, and mistakes are inevitable in international affairs--there has never been a government in history that has not run into such difficulties. The key tests are, first, whether we, as a country, have learned from our mistakes and, second, whether we remain resolved to persist despite the difficulties. The successes of engagement are many, though we don't often focus on them. Cooperation with Russia and constructive engagement with China may or may not succeed in the long run in avoiding a return to global competition in the future. For the present, Russia is struggling through an economic and political crisis that, unfortunately, we can do little to mitigate and that might, in the fairly near future, lead to some dangerous developments. Even so, in the years since the collapse of the Soviet Union, our policy has helped to prevent the widespread proliferation of Soviet nuclear weapons and other arms to rogue nations and terrorists. Russia has also cooperated with us, with some ups and downs, on regional security issues in Bosnia and the Persian Gulf. It is, in any case, far better to have Russia as a cooperative partner than the Soviet Union as a bitter enemy. Engagement with China has had its ups and downs, the nadir coming with the confrontation over Taiwan in 1996. Since then, however, China has endeavored, as we have, to improve relations. Time will tell how cooperative china will be in the future in preventing weapons proliferation and in continuing to keep North Korea in check. Engagement with China on security matters clearly holds out the best hope of building a long-term relationship that emphasizes shared interests, even as we still assert our concerns about human rights, more open trade, and peaceful resolution of disputes. We have not succeeded in halting the spread of weapons of mass destruction and other military technology--but it would be unrealistic to expect a halt to proliferation. We have slowed down proliferation, and we may be able to constrain it further in the future. Iraq is still in a position to pursue dangerous weapons technologies rapidly in the future unless allies join with us in enforcing U.N. resolutions vigorously. This is a battle we will likely have to fight for a long time. Iran is also making advances. Our sanctions on Iran have not, however, been wholly fruitless--the current government of Iran appears to be aware of the economic and other sacrifices the country has suffered because of the effectiveness of U.S.-sponsored sanctions. India and Pakistan have tested nuclear weapons--but both have felt under enough international pressure as a result of their policies that they are now talking, at least, about joining international non-proliferation agreements, including the Comprehensive Test Ban. So even though we may focus on breakdowns of multilateral constraints on technology transfers, the policy has still forced proliferators to pay a price. Our efforts to build effective structures of regional security have made real progress, though much remains to be done. In Europe, NATO has enlarged to include new members, and across much of the continent, military forces are engaged in extensive military-to-military contacts that bolster mutual confidence and security. Instability in the Balkans remains threatening, but allies are working together to address it. In Asia, the U.S.-Japan security relationship has grown stronger, China appears increasingly interested in security cooperation rather than confrontation, and most of the smaller nations in the region, while shaken by economic crises, see the United States as the ally of choice. In Latin America, though several nations are under assault from narco- terrorism, democracy remains ascendant, and U.S. military-to-military contacts have played an overwhelmingly positive role. In Africa, the United States has supported the first small steps toward development of regional security structures, though tragic conflicts continue. The Middle East and the Persian Gulf remain dangerously unstable, and only our presence can deter conflict. Engagement, in sum, is as centrally important to our security--and to the prospects for peace in the world--as containment was during the Cold War. Perhaps above all, the key issue is whether we will persist despite the fact that the struggle to maintain relative international peace will never be concluded. This is not a struggle we can see through to the end--it is, nonetheless, an effort that we as a nation must continue to make.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, being unable to attend the Special Order for retiring Congressman Lee Hamilton, I take this means to congratulate him for a highly successful career in the House of Representatives and for being a role model for those Members who follow. Lee has been a leader, both as chairman and ranking member of the International Relations Committee. His knowledge of America's efforts in this world has proven invaluable. His advice has been sought by other Members concerning our relations with other countries. His contributions to the field of foreign affairs will be sorely missed. But most of all, Lee Hamilton serves as a role model as an honorable, decent, hardworking, and knowledgeable Member of this House. I have admired him as an individual and I have respected him as a Member. I am proud to call him my friend. I wish all the best for Lee and his charming wife Nancy as they enter private life at the close of this session.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor Admiral T. Joseph Lopez, U.S. Navy, as he prepares to retire upon completion of 39 years of faithful service to our Nation. A native of Powellton, West Virginia, Admiral Lopez entered the United States Navy in September 1959, and was commissioned an Ensign via the Seaman-to-Admiral Program in December 1964. His educational background includes a Bachelor of Arts (Cum Laude) in International Relations, and a Master of Science in Personnel Management. Admiral Lopez is currently the only serving admiral who enlisted, was commissioned through the seaman to admiral program, and currently wears four stars. Upon commissioning, Admiral Lopez was assigned to U.S.S. Eugene A. Greene (DD 711), which deployed to both the Mediterranean Sea and the Gulf of Tonkin. He then attended the U.S. Naval Destroyer School in Newport, RI, immediately returning to sea as Weapons Officer onboard U.S.S. Lind (DD 703), which also deployed to Vietnam. Admiral Lopez received his first command in September 1969, when he assumed the duties as Commander, River Assault Division 153, which operated in the Mekong Delta in Vietnam and as part of a counter-offensive into Cambodia in May 1970. Admiral Lopez attended the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, CA, from 1970-73 and the Armed Forces Staff College in 1974. He was then assigned as Flag Secretary and Staff Officer for Commander, Cruiser- Destroyer Group Eight from 1974 to 1977. He was the Executive Officer onboard U.S.S. Truett (FF 1095) from October 1977 through March 1979. Upon completion of tours at the Naval Military Personnel Command and assignment as Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower, Reserve Affairs and Logistics), Admiral Lopez assumed command of U.S.S. Stump (DD 978) in September 1982, completing a Persian Gulf deployment in 1983. In November 1984, he was assigned as Special Assistant to the Chief of Naval Personnel (Flag Officer Matters). Commander, Destroyer Squadron 32, which deployed to the Mediterranean Sea, was Admiral Lopez' next command tour from February 1987 to March 1988. He followed this assignment with duties as Executive Assistant to the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations (Manpower, Personnel and Training) and Executive Assistant to the Vice Chief of Naval Operations. Admiral Lopez was designated Rear Admiral (Lower Half) in July 1989, and served as Deputy Director, Current Operations (J-3) on the Joint Staff. He served as Senior Military Assistant to the Secretary of Defense during the Persian Gulf Conflict and from July 1990 to July 1992. He commanded the United States Sixth Fleet and NATO's Striking and Support Forces, Southern Europe, homeported in Gaeta, Italy, from July 1992 to December 1993. He then served as Deputy Chief of Naval Operations (Resources, Warfare Requirements and Assessments) from December 1993 to July 1996. Admiral Lopez became Commander in Chief, U.S. Naval Forces, Europe (London, England) and Commander in Chief, Allied Forces, Southern Europe (Naples, Italy) on 31 July 1996, where he serves today. Additionally, he commanded the Peace Implementation Forces (IFOR) in Bosnia-Herzegovina from July 1996 to November 1996. He arrived in the middle of the IFOR deployment and almost immediately deployed to Bosnia to command the NATO forces in charge of enforcing the Dayton Peace Agreement. Admiral Lopez has been honored by the Governor of his home state as a ``Distinguished West Virginian,'' and as an ``Outstanding West Virginian'' by the President of Salem College. West Virginia Institute of Technology conferred upon him the honorary degree as Doctor of Humanities, and the Italian Heritage Festival, in 1989, selected him as ``West Virginia Man of the Year.'' Additionally, in June of 1997, the newly constructed Interstate 64 bridge spanning the Kanawha River near Charleston was named in his honor by the West Virginia State Legislature. A man of Joe Lopez's stature and vision is rare. He is an individual of uncommon character and professionalism. He will be missed by both his Navy and NATO colleagues. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to recognize him, and to thank him and his wife Vivian for their selfless service to our country.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to the attention of my colleagues the contributions of a great public servant, Marilyn Elrod, on the occasion of her retirement from the staff of the House of Representatives. On August 31st, after more than 29 years on the Hill, Marilyn retired from her position as the minority staff director of the House National Security Committee. She will be greatly missed. Marilyn, a native of Indiana, started her tenure on the Hill working for Representative Allard Lowenstein in June of 1969 after doing graduate work at American University. In November of 1970, Ronald V. Dellums of California was elected to Congress and before beginning his first term in the 91st Congress, Ron hired Marilyn as a military caseworker and legislative aide. From there she moved up to become the Legislative Director for Mr. Dellums, a position she held until 1983. In 1983, Ron Dellums assumed the chair of the Military Installations and Facilities Subcommittee of the then Armed Services Committee. He quickly had Ms. Elrod appointed to the staff of the Subcommittee where she worked for the next six years. There, she helped him shift the focus of the Subcommittee toward quality of life issues for military personnel. Increased attention to housing, child development centers, and bringing installations into line with Environmental Protection Agency guidelines were all part of the new emphasis in military construction funding. Appropriately, this focus continues today. Marilyn was assigned to be Mr. Dellums' staff person on the Research and Development Subcommittee in 1989 when he became chair of that Subcommittee. There she was a leader in the effort to have the Subcommittee make policy decisions about the military and economic viability of future weapon systems early in the process--during the research and development phase--rather than in the procurement phase where such decisions had so often been made in the past. Earlier scrutiny where a wasteful or ineffective program could be stopped or realigned means greater savings to the taxpayer. In the same vein, she worked with Mr. Dellums to lead the fight against the wastefulness of ``concurrent'' research, development and procurement. After ten years as Mr. Dellums' most trusted committee staff person, she made a bit of history. Ron Dellums was chosen by the Democratic Caucus to Chair the House Armed Serviced Committee--the first African American ever to do so--in January of 1993, and he immediately tapped Marilyn to be the first female staff director in the history of the Congress' four defense committees. He often told his colleagues how proud he was to have Marilyn with him to ``break the glass ceiling.'' Two years later, Marilyn continued as staff director to the minority of the National Security Committee when the Republican party took control of the House. For the past several months, I have been proud to have her stay on as my staff director subsequent to the retirement of my good friend and colleague Ron Dellums. Though she was eligible to leave when Mr. Dellums did, I consider it a personal favor that she stayed on and helped ease the transition to a new staff director with her valuable advice and by sharing the benefit of her institutional memory. As my colleagues and I know, having a staff person who is able to develop expertise quickly and thoroughly on a range of issues is extremely valuable. Ron Dellums knew that when Marilyn briefed him on any subject, he was getting the information and advice he needed to make competent legislative and political decisions. During her twelve years in his personal office, she was always the defense expert, but also became exceptionally knowledgeable on a variety of other subjects, especially health care legislation. But being an expert is not enough. Working with elected officials, a staff person has to have the confidence and capability to take the policy initiatives of the Representatives and work them without straying from the electoral mandate. Marilyn, though fully capable in her own right, never crossed the line by supplanting the rights of the Members to make the decisions. Marilyn Elrod was able to carve out a most impressive career on Capitol Hill. She started out on the bottom rung of the ladder as an entry-level administrative staff person in 1969 and, with all of the downward pressures that women have as they rise through an institution, advanced to become the staff director of the House Armed Services Committee. Being the first to accomplish such an achievement, she has set an example for others to emulate. When staff director of the Armed Services Committee and minority staff director of the National Security Committee, Marilyn displayed her incredible strength as an administrator and her mastery of the legislative process. She brought a management style to the Committee which was a combination of openness, fairness and consultation. It is part of the Dellums-Elrod legacy that a progressive, liberal ascended to be the head of the Armed Services Committee and led it with intelligence, vision and fairness. They rose to the occasion and discharged their leadership responsibilities to the institution. Marilyn Elrod is a person who understands the right and responsibility of an American to thoroughly investigate government policy and, using her influence as a staff person, would always try to craft the best legislative product. She did it with a sense of humor, a sense of duty and above all, a sense of patriotism. She is a dedicated American in the finest tradition, and this institution will greatly miss her.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, focusing public attention on the fight against terrorism is a continuing challenge. The threat of terrorism is an out-of-sight, out-of-mind type issue. When an incident occurs, such as a terrorist bombing or retaliatory action, interest and concern about terrorism quickly moves to the forefront. But usually after a few days or weeks, the terrorist threat tends to be forgotten by the media and the American public. Mr. Speaker, no matter what the state of public attention, the war against terrorism is ongoing. The capture of those who were involved in the bombings in Kenya and Tanzania was brought about by outstanding CIA and FBI efforts. Just recently, the FBI aided the Ugandan authorities in preventing the bombing of our embassy in Uganda's capital in Kampala. Here in Congress and across the country, we must be ever mindful of the terrorist threat. The threat is real and the threat will surface again. Federal agencies involved in the fight against terrorism must be supported and encouraged if we are to win this battle against terrorism. The Congress and the American people need to fully support this work as we look to the future.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, let me take this opportunity to pay tribute to Marine Corps Colonel Dennis K. Oberhelman, who is retiring from the military after 28 years of exceptional service to our nation. From 1996 to 1998, Col. Oberhelman served as Commanding Officer, Marine Corps Support Activity, Kansas City, Missouri. During this period of time, his leadership, innovative concepts, and farsighted planning were manifested in the overall effectiveness of Support Activity. He demonstrated outstanding skills in directing a quite diverse organization, from the command staff to the Marine Corps Regional Contracting Office, Family Services Center, and Housing Office. Col. Oberhelman ran a highly cohesive staff with a single focus on providing the best possible support to all Kansas City area military personnel as well as families living at Richards-Gebaur. Col. Oberhelman has been at the forefront of every major military- related challenge in the Kansas City area. He helped to devise a five year plan for Richards-Gebaur, and worked toward bringing 300 additional Marines to the former Air Force facility. In addition, he worked toward the establishment of a TRICARE Prime Site there. Col. Oberhelman has fostered good will within the Kansas City community, and he has developed a close working relationship with civic leaders and organizations. I am certain that Members of the House will join me in paying tribute to this outstanding American as he retires from active duty.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Missouri for yielding me this time and I wish to compliment the gentleman from Illinois on the bio-diesel provision to H.R. 4017. Let us do something that really makes sense, and this bill, this effort does just that. Among other things, it helps increase the market for farmers for soybeans. We need to do this as part of the Freedom to Farm Act, which phases out, as my colleagues know, the Federal payment to farmers. It helps expand and develop our rural economies. I ask my colleagues to please come with me in their mind's eye to the 4th Congressional District of Missouri and look at the acres and acres and fields and fields of soybeans. It adds as much as 7 cents to the value of a bushel of soybeans. But more than that, as the gentlewoman from Kansas City, Missouri, pointed out, the fact that there have been some environmental problems in the city that she represents, it helps clean the environment. Using bio-diesel can cut emissions of particulate matter and hydrocarbons in half. It provides fleet managers, as has already been mentioned by the gentleman from Illinois, with the flexibility to comply with Federal mandates and reduces their natural reliance on foreign oil. That is most important. Our addiction to foreign oil must be reduced. According to a 1996 Department of Agriculture study, a modest national market for bio-diesel of 50 to 100 million gallons a year could increase soybean producers' incomes in the State that I represent, the State of Missouri, by over $15 million annually. Since 1992, soybean producers have spent over $20 million in research and education to develop a bio-diesel industry. It is here, it makes sense, it makes absolute sense to adopt this, and I urge that this be a union unanimous vote in favor of this provision.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, the August 7 bombings outside U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania, were the latest crimes to be added to a growing list of terrorists attacks where Americans died brutally, without warning, and unnecessarily. These bombings join a list which includes the World Trade Center in New York City, Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, and the Federal Building in Oklahoma City. Our Nation did respond to the killing of 12 Americans and nearly 300 Kenyans and Tanzanians. Based on evidence that further attacks were planned, United States armed forces struck terrorist-related facilities in Afghanistan and Sudan, targeting one of the most active terrorist bases in the world and a factory involved in the production of materials for chemical weapons. Two suspects have been arrested and others are being pursued. But in this tragedy's aftermath, the U.S. must also learn from the incidents and take steps to ensure that our citizens and installations are protected in the future. Since June of 1997, I have released four reports prepared by the General Accounting Office (GAO) detailing U.S. efforts to combat terrorism. The first report, entitled, ``Combating Terrorism: Status of DOD Efforts to Protect its Forces Overseas,'' dealt with anti- terrorism. It concluded that uniform security standards were necessary to ensure the safety of Americans around the world. In September of 1997, GAO released a second report entitled, ``Combating Terrorism: Federal Agencies' Efforts to Implement National Security Policy and Strategy.'' This report focused on counter terrorism--those offensive measures for deterring, resolving, and managing terrorist acts. It outlined specific roles and responsibilities of the 40 Federal departments, agencies, and bureaus involved in counter terrorism, as well as their respective capabilities. ``Combating Terrorism: Spending on Governmentwide Programs Requires Better Management and Coordination'' was released in December of 1997. This third GAO report focused on total government-wide spending levels to combat terrorism. While it revealed that a significant amount of resources--more than $7 billion a year--were committed annually to combat terrorism, there were some deficiencies, including the absence of regular government-wide priorities, and the lack of an assessment process to coordinate and focus government efforts. Moreover, the report found that no government office or entity maintained the authority to enforce coordination. In its fourth report, ``Combating Terrorism: Threat and Risk Assessments Can Help Prioritize and Target Program Investments,'' GAO reviewed the implementation of the 1996 Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act, popularly known as the Defense Department's Nunn- Lugar-Domenici program. It recommended the adoption of a formal threat and risk assessment process to enhance state and local capabilities and suggested that the FBI lead this effort. These GAO reports marked the first attempt by any government agency to take a comprehensive look at federal activities to fight terrorism. While we learned a great deal from these reports, we still have a long way to go. As the work of the GAO has helped us discover, our approach may be fundamentally flawed: Too many different federal agencies and local governments possess existing or emerging capabilities for responding to a terrorist attack; there are uneven and nearly incompatible levels of expertise; and our efforts are complicated by duplication and poor communication. To put it simply, with so many agencies involved, the left hand may not know what the right hand is doing. We must have a unified strategy to fight terrorism--we cannot have agencies fighting turf battles. There has been some movement in the right direction to respond to the threat of terrorism. In May, the Administration announced the formation of ten regional rapid assessment teams. These teams are part of the Defense Department's overall effort to support local, state, and federal civil authorities in the event of an incident involving the use of weapons of mass destruction. Congress has included money in the Fiscal Year 1999 DOD Authorized bill for this program, which is coordinated through the National Guard. The Missouri National Guard will play a leading role as host to one of the ten regional terrorism response teams. The recent bombings are a terrible reminder that we must take the threat of terrorism seriously. We must realize that the struggle against terrorism will be protracted, and moreover, we must resist complacency--we must not too quickly forget the death and destruction that can be wreaked by fanatical extremists committed to waging war on the United States. America has battled terrorism for many years. We have acted to bring terrorists to justice, to penetrate their organizations, to disrupt their plans, and to isolate their sponsors. Nevertheless, it is a virtual certainty that American citizens and American facilities will be attacked again, and not just in the traditional terrorist ways. To a distressing extent, the information and components necessary to build nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons of mass destruction are increasingly and readily accessible. In addition, the dependence of our military services and critical civilian infrastructures on information technology has made us vulnerable to information warfare. This vulnerability requires vigilance and the development of protective and redundant systems so that we can maintain our decisive technological edge. If Congress and the Administration are willing to develop a unified strategy and commit adequate resources, we can prepare an effective defense against terrorism. First, we must give careful scrutiny to the United States counter-terrorism and anti-terrorism programs and policies. In addition, we must insist that our military, law enforcement, intelligence, and diplomatic forces are effectively arrayed, equipped, and trained, and that they are given the authority to take action against terrorists. Finally, we must ensure that both anti-terrorism and counter-terrorism efforts are comprehensive and efficient.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood), who is the ranking member on the Merchant Marine panel.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), who is such a strong supporter of national security, and who is also the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Military Installations and Facilities.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to our colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Sisisky), the ranking Democrat on the chairman's subcommittee and a very, very valuable member of our committee.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer my support on the conference report on H.R. 3616, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1999. There were numerous issues which the conference addressed. Many were easy to resolve; others provided more difficulty. Among the latter were funding for Bosnia, gender-integrated training, tritium production, restrictions on base closure, and export controls concerning commercial communication satellites and related items. With hard work and goodwill, the conferees worked up a report that reflected compromise on these issues between the two bodies. At the same time we took consideration of a number of concerns that Secretary of Defense Cohen expressed to Senators Thurmond and Levin and the gentleman from South Carolina (Chairman Spence) and to me concerning both bills when we met with him during the conference that we had with him in mid-July. As a result, I believe we have a good conference report, a good conference agreement, with which all of us, the House and the Senate and the administration, can be satisfied. This year we operated under the restrictions of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, thus a task of trying to address the many issues affecting the Armed Forces was more difficult to manage than in years past. However, we provided a pay raise, 3.6 percent, which is a half a percent more than the budget request, supported the department's request for a real increase in the procurement budget for modernization for the first time in 13 years, and authorized more than $250 million above the budget request for family housing and troop housing and child development centers. Members and the staff from both sides worked in a cooperative manner to shape a conference report that enjoys strong bipartisan support. All the conferees, Mr. Speaker, all of the conferees from the Committee on National Security in the House and the Armed Services Committee in the Senate signed the conference report. As one who believes that we need to provide for a sustained period of real growth in defense spending, I am encouraged by the reports that the Pentagon and the administration will seek to redress these shortfalls in fiscal year 2000 and hopefully in the future years. Mr. Speaker, I might point out, as I briefly mentioned a moment ago in debate on the rule, that back in March of 1996 I put forward a three-year defense budget before the Committee on the Budget. It added at that time additional funding for each of those three years. As a result of the limitations that the Committee on the Budget came forth with, we have been working under a constrained figure each of those three years. However, I am encouraged that as a result of our efforts, which really started right here, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), bless your heart, helped put together a letter, with most of the top row in our committee, urging the President to consider and also urging other House and Senate leaders to consider increasing the overall defense budget, which is sorely needed. Although the bill that is before us fails to address all of the readiness and quality of life and modernization shortfalls which exist, it is the best we could do, given the budget constraints, to train the quality of force that is the most important component of the military strength. I hope our colleagues will support this conference report, and I hope that in the days ahead we will find additional funding, and that it starts right here in the Congress. Let me add, Mr. Speaker, a special congratulations to my friend, the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) for his absolute commitment to having the work of the committee carried on in a bipartisan fashion. I personally appreciate it, and those of us on our side appreciate it as well. This bill is a reflection of that bipartisan spirit. It is with this in mind that I can fully support and urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote in favor of this. Members of the committee on both sides have worked hard since February to get us here today, many hearings, many briefings, many conferences. This is especially true with the subcommittee panel chairmen and the ranking members. And allow me to thank the staff. My goodness, we could not get along without them. I thank them for so ably assisting us. Their dedication, their expertise, is outstanding, and we appreciate their hard work. Let me conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that I note we will also be on this bill having the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McHale) voting for the last time. They have been truly dedicated members of this committee, the Committee on National Security. I want to thank them for their fine efforts over the years. They are wonderful Americans, outstanding and excellent representatives of the people who elected them. We wish them well in the days and years ahead. Their contributions to the work on this committee will long be remembered and their presence will be missed. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me comment on the words of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Sisisky). I especially appreciate his positive comments about the young men and young women that we have in uniform today. They are the finest in the world. It is our job to take care of them, and hopefully in the days and years ahead we can do a better job, because as Harry Truman said, the buck stops with us, in the Constitution. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz).