Ike Skelton

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would appreciate if the gentleman would tell me what this does that is not already applicable under the existing law.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to add a word or two. Out of this early general debate this evening, it does appear that there is a bipartisan consensus in favor of doing better for our national security. It is a matter of resources. It is a matter of spending. In this good bill, we have, as has been said, we have done well with what we had, but I think there is that growing understanding that we need to place national security at the top of the list, and I hope that this debate has brought the attention to the other Members of this body as well as to those others who are interested. I have a couple of other messages, Mr. Chairman. One is to the, if they were here in front of me, parents of the young men and young women in uniform. I would tell them that they should be so very, very proud of what their family members are doing. They are professionals. They are dedicated. Their operational tempo at times is horrendous, and yet they are doing what their Nation is calling upon them to do without complaining as committed young Americans. So I would tell them, Mr. Chairman, that I and all of us on this committee thank them for their efforts. Mr. Chairman, if the young people in uniform were sitting here watching us this evening, I would have a message for them as well. My message to them would be to stay the course. If they are in the Navy, steady as you go, because they are so very, very important to the future of our country, to the national security of our country, to where we are as the world leader bringing stability to the various corners of this globe. I would tell them not to get discouraged. I would tell them that sooner or later they will write some brilliant pages in the history books of this country. Those would be my two messages, Mr. Chairman. I am proud of the young folks in uniform. I hope they stay the course, not to get discouraged but to know how so very, very important they are. I again thank the members of this committee, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), the Chairman. This has been an absolute thrill for me to be the ranking member on this committee, and I appreciate the courtesies that he has extended to me personally and that the entire committee has extended to those of us on this side of the aisle. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, Members of the House, I rise to offer my support and make the following observations on H.R. 3616, the National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 1999. Allow me, first, to congratulate the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) for his commitment to having the work on the committee carried on in a bipartisan fashion, as was reflected as such in this bill. Not only did he and I work together on a number of issues, but the staff that worked for the minority had numerous occasions to work with the staff on the majority to influence and improve the overall product of this bill. Overall, this truly was a bipartisan effort and can be best summarized by the overwhelming support that the bill received in the committee, 50 votes for with only one against. This will also be the last time, Mr. Chairman, that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McHale) will participate in these deliberations. I want to thank them for their fine work over the years and their contributions to the work in this committee. Their presence will certainly be missed. As we begin consideration of this bill, let me underline the point that this year we are operating under the restrictions of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. The totals on defense were agreed to by both executive and legislative branches last summer. As a result, the overall total for the defense budget today, $270 billion in budget authority, which we handle on our committee, is as much a reflection of congressional priorities as it is of executive priorities. As a result of that agreement, the task of trying to address the many issues affecting the Armed Forces has become much more difficult to manage this year than in past years. Over the past 3 years, the committee and this Congress added funds to defense. We did not have that option this year and worked within the confines of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Let me try to set the scene a bit as we consider this defense bill. The fallen Berlin wall in 1989 and the subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union 2 years later brought with it the end of the Cold War. It also brought with it the opportunity to substantially reduce both the size of our Armed Forces and reduce the burden of defense expenditures on our Nation. In 1989, we had over 2.1 million active duty service members in an Army of 18 divisions, a Navy of over 540 ships, and an Air Force of 24 fighter wing equivalents. Today, the military is about 1.4 million active duty service members in an Army of 10 divisions, a Navy with 315 ships, and an Air Force with 20 fighter wing equivalents. The percentage of Gross Domestic Product, the GDP, devoted to defense in 1989 was 5.7 percent. For the current fiscal year, we are spending 3.2 percent of the Gross Domestic Product on defense. Next year will be 3.1 percent, the smallest share we will have spent on defense since 1941 when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. I cite these figures simply to highlight the point that, with the end of the Cold War, we made substantial reductions in both the size of our Armed Forces and the burden of defense spending. It was proper to do both. Since the end of the Cold War, we have had five different reviews of our defense structure. Our current defense strategy is a subset of our national security strategy. As described in the Quadrennial Defense Review, our defense strategy calls for shaping the international environment in ways favorable to United States interests, responding to the full spectrum of crises when it is in our interest to do so, and preparing now for an uncertain future. In short, Mr. Chairman, we are trying to deal with the problems of today in anticipating the needs of tomorrow. It is the right strategy to have at a time of change and uncertainty. However, as we have reduced the size of our forces since 1989, we have also increased the pace of our military deployments. This is serious. An Army cut almost 40 percent since 1988 has experienced a 300 percent increase in its operational pace. An Air Force that has undergone similar personnel reductions has experienced a fourfold increase in its operational pace. Each of the services is struggling with a task of adjusting the size, composition, mission of its forces to deal with the implications of operating in this more demanding post-Cold War environment. Our Armed Forces today are ready. However, if we keep up the current pace of operations and deployments, we may not be ready 5 years from now. Let me just say again, I believe we were right to reduce our forces and defense spending when the Cold War came to an end. I also believe we are right to have a defense strategy that promotes our involvement in the world. But I believe that we may have reduced the size of our forces and the size of the defense budget a little too much. I believe we have a mismatch between the demanding goals we have set for ourselves and the resources we are willing to spend to obtain those goals. That is why, about a month ago, senior committee leaders of both parties wrote the President and senior leaders in this Congress that the current strategy required increased defense spending. Because of the changed economic conditions in which we find ourselves, I believe we should place an increase in defense spending on the national agenda. I believe that we can increase defense spending without having to reduce domestic spending; that we can increase defense spending and also reduce the national debt; that we can increase defense spending by also saving Social Security. But we will also have to arrive at a new national consensus to do so. The world is still a complex, ever-changing, and dangerous place. In many ways, yesterday's solutions have spawned today's problems. The challenges we face are numerous: the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the intentions and actions of rogue states, the threat of terrorism, the possible emergence of China as a hostile power in the 21st century, the uncertain future of Russia, drug trafficking, the security of our information systems, regional hot spots, and last, but not least, humanitarian crises. We have an opportunity to promote a more peaceful, prosperous, and stable world than those of us who lived through the troubling middle years of this century would ever have thought possible. However, we must be vigilant and remain engaged abroad. An important part of that engagement effort is a properly sized, trained, equipped, and ready military to protect our national interests. As we consider this bill, I hope my colleagues will keep these concerns in mind. Despite the constraints of the Balanced Budget Act, I believe we have fashioned a pretty good bill. We have provided a pay raise of 3.6 percent, half a percent more than the Department of Defense requested, supported the Department's requested real increase in the procurement budget for modernization, and maintained strong support for the cooperative threat reduction program, which is very important, to accelerate the dismantlement of former Soviet strategic offensive arms that threaten our country. One important matter that I want to highlight concerns a report the committee has requested by the Department on Counterterrorism and Defense against the use by terrorists of weapons of mass destruction on United States territory. Since 1994, Congress has expressed increasing concern about this threat. It is a very difficult, complex issue requiring Federal, State, local efforts, and coordination. Our effort is simply one more step to try to deal with the issue in a comprehensive fashion. Much work has been done in this area, and much more needs to be done. My concern is that we do so in a well-planned, well-coordinated effort at the State, Federal, and local levels. In addition to the report, I will cosponsor, Mr. Chairman, an amendment with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) addressing this important anti- and counterterrorism issue. In a defense bill recommending $270.8 billion in budget authority, there were, of course, issues of contention. The decision to include two recommendations of the Kassebaum-Baker panel on gender-integrated training stirred one of the most substantive debates at both the subcommittee and full committee mark-up sessions. I did not support including those recommended in our bill. As one who believes that we need to provide for a sustained period of real growth in defense spending, I believe that we undermine our case by funding unnecessary programs and weapons. In our bill, we have added seven C-130s that were neither requested by the Pentagon in its budget request nor even placed on the services' unfunded requirements list. At the same time, we did not fully fund the administration's request for the F-18 E/Fs, which the Navy has told us is their number one requirement. Despite these flaws, overall, this is a good bill. I will defer to other members of the committee on both sides to discuss the many important initiatives found in this bill. They have worked hard, and I compliment all of the members of the committee. Those on our side of the aisle have been very, very cooperative, and they have worked very hard. This is especially true of the subcommittee and panel chairman and ranking members. Allow me to thank the staff who so ably assist us. Their dedication and expertise and capacity for hard work, Mr. Chairman, cannot be underestimated.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Sisisky).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield five minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Pickett).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez). (Mr. Rodriguez asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, let me take this opportunity to say a few words in tribute to an outstanding teacher, Dr. Marjorie Slavens, who after nearly 40 years in the teaching profession, has decided to retire. Dr. Slavens, who has been blind since a small child, has dedicated her life to teaching others. She is a Phi Beta Kappa from the University of Missouri at Columbia--holding both Bachelor of Arts and Master of Arts degrees. She earned her PH.D. from St. Louis University in St. Louis, MO. After graduating, Dr. Slavens began teaching Spanish in the Department of Modern Languages at Rockford College in Rockford, IL, and continued at this post for 33 years. During this period, student workers proudly assisted Dr. Slavens by taking attendance and proctoring tests, and tape-recording examinations for Slavens to grade. Dr. Slavens's unique teaching style has earned recognition. In 1987, Dr. Slavens received the Illinois Lieutenant Governor's Award for service to the foreign language teaching profession. The college also appointed her Director of Advising, and she published Rockford College's first Academic Advising Handbook. In 1989, she was awarded the Mary Ashby Cheek Award that recognized her as an Honorary Alumni of the college. In 1991, a committee composed of faculty, staff, and students selected Dr. Slavens to receive the Sears Foundation Award for teaching excellence and campus leadership. Mr. Speaker, I am certain that the Members of the House will join me in congratulating Dr. Marjorie Slavens on a spectacular teaching career. As she prepares for her retirement and the enjoyment therein, Dr. Slavens will undoubtedly take pride in her legacy as one of the nation's most special educators.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3694. I have a rather unique position and opportunity. As ranking member of the Committee on National Security and as a member of this Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I can personally testify to the importance of intelligence to our military commanders in the field, to our troops who are daily supporting our peacekeeping efforts in places like Iraq, in Macedonia and to our pilots in the Iraqi no-fly-zone. Cicero once said that gratitude is the greatest of all virtues. I am not sure we say thank you enough to the members of the intelligence community. What they do so often is not known. Yet it pays off in knowledge to the commanders in chief in the field, to the President, to the Secretary of Defense, to the Secretary of State, and, of course, to this body. Intelligence is critical to successful operations and to the safety of our men and women in uniform. Intelligence also plays a crucial role in the Joint Chiefs of Staff's plan for the 21st century, Dominant Battlespace Awareness, which hinges on our intelligence investment. Critical to the Joint Chiefs' plan, as well as to daily air, sea, and ground operations, are the mapping products created by the National Imagery and Mapping Agency. Although I support this bill, I am frankly concerned with the reductions in the operations and maintenance funds for the National Imagery and Mapping Agency. I think the cuts are unjustified and excessive. I fear that they will have an unacceptable impact on the production of products for the unified commands and for the State Department peacekeeping negotiations. I am also concerned that these cuts will result in the unwarranted elimination of jobs from an agency that does not have sufficient staffing to meet military requirements today.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend and my colleague from Pennsylvania taking out this special order, for in my opinion it is one of the most important special orders in which we will participate. So I compliment the gentleman for his foresight in doing this. Mr. Speaker, in your eye, come with me this past January and helicopter with me with three other Members of Congress from the base camp near Skopje, Macedonia, out to one of the far outposts of Americans keeping watch to see that the potential enemies or potential encroachers will not come into that sad and unhappy country. And come with me as we shake hands with those soldiers after they do their formal inspection of arms for me as the chairman of the small delegation, and stand there while I talk to this young Springfield, Missouri, soldier on what he is doing; see the pride in his eyes; talk to him about how well he likes what he is doing, how he enjoys the Army and the challenges. And yet he is thinking of the folks back home and his family. He is there for 6 months, it is going to be a long 6 months for him, but yet he is doing what he intended to do when he joined the Army. Now a few months earlier, come with me, Mr. Speaker, and see a United States aircraft carrier as it prepares to leave for 6 months in the Mediterranean, in the Adriatic, then the Persian Gulf. See those families, those young sailors, men and women, climbing aboard that aircraft carrier giving that 3-year-old son a hug. See them wave as the ship is towed out into the harbor by those tugs, and know that those young families that are waving goodbye to the loved ones will not see them for 6 months, and yet you can see pride not only in the sailors that are leaving but in the men and women and the children who are waving farewell. That is who I wish to speak about tonight, the young men, the young women in all colors of American uniforms, the fine people that they are. And I can say without any hesitation to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) that they are the finest that we have ever had, and yet the ironic and sad situation in which we find ourselves is that we are not able to support them as they should be. That is sad. That is real sad because they are quality young people, and they are doing their job for America. We have serious problems overseas. The question is asked, where is the enemy? The enemy, my colleagues, is instability. We are the only superpower in this world. We are the ones whose presence, whose leadership, has brought peace and stability, some places more than others, but we are looked to for that military leadership. And we cannot do it in the future unless we keep that young soldier from Springfield or those young sailors aboard that aircraft carrier happy, challenged, and that we take care of their families. Oh, we talk about a number of pieces of hardware, and they are important. We talk about modernization; that is very important. I speak about those young people today that need the support of the people in this Congress. Recently I sent a letter, with all of the ranking Democrats and Republicans, regarding this very issue: the need for increased spending for our national security. It is no light thing; it is no small thing. If we could only have a predictable percentage of the gross national product, this committee on which I serve, this Congress in which I serve, and the administration which executes what we order here could have some stability, some planning capability. The young people who are in would know that they have a future, that they might want to stay for 20, 25 or 30 years without the fear of reduction in force. These are the things of which I speak. Mr. Speaker, why is there a problem today? I am convinced there is a problem today because there is a gap, sadly, Mr. Speaker, a growing gap, between civilian America and military America. When the draft was in force, nearly every family had some experience with someone wearing a uniform. Well, the draft ended, as my colleagues know, back in 1973, as it should have, because we went to an all-volunteer force, and it works. It works extremely well. Quality young people, quality leaders, excellent military education, really proud of them. Yet, because of the fewer and fewer young people coming from fewer and fewer families across our country, those who normally in the olden days would write their Member of Congress to please look after little Johnny because he is on a submarine in the Pacific; please look after Lucy, my daughter, as she serves at Lackland Air Force Base; please look after my Marine son who is a guard in an embassy in what used to be the old Soviet sphere; we do not get that support, we do not get those letters, because there are fewer and fewer American families that have that experience. I know their heart is with the young people in uniform, but out of sight, out of mind. There are fewer people to write us, and we in this Chamber are creatures of those we represent in whose shoes we stand, and if they are not contacting us because there are not that many that have families that are serving in uniform, consequently, it is off our screen as well as theirs. It is this gap between civilian America and military America that concerns me. Well, Mr. Speaker, we have to do something. I will do my best. I know the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) is doing his best. And I compliment our chairman, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) for his efforts. Others will speak on this issue. I know the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) will join in this matter. I thank the gentleman for bringing this to the attention of the American people. One last thing, Mr. Speaker. I do not want, and I will repeat, I do not want this discussion tonight, as serious as it is and the fact that it should convince people across our country of the need for additional resources to take care of the young people and to take care of our national security, but I do not want this to dampen the spirits of the young people who are in uniform. I say to them, Mr. Speaker, we need them; we need them now more than ever. We need them not just in numbers, but we need their quality. So wherever we are, whether we are a Member of Congress, whether they are neighbors of ours back in Missouri, or wherever we are from, let us say a good word to the young person that is wearing the uniform; let us tell them we are proud of them, stay the course, because sooner or later they will be called upon to defend the American flag and the American interests. Again, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon).

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I wish to say a few words in tribute to John Ryland Edwards, a superb soldier and educator, who is retiring after 22 years of service to Wentworth Military Academy. Born in Lexington, MO, John Edwards graduated from the University of Missouri with a BS in Education. In 1955, he became a teacher and coach at Henrietta, MO, High School, but joined the United States Army one year later. From 1956 to 1976, Mr. Edwards served his country in the U.S. Army while stationed in Texas, Alaska, Colorado, Indiana, Washington, DC, Vietnam, and Okinawa. During his tenure in the Army, he worked as an Adjutant General Corps Sports Director, an Assistant Army Service Officer, a Special Service Officer, an Administrative Officer, a Recreational Services Officer, an Adjutant General, the Director of Armed Forces Professional Entertainment Office, Army Project Officer for the Presidential Reception honoring Vietnam veterans, Director of U.S. Army Sports Program, Officer in Charge of U.S. Armed Forces basketball team, and the Army Representative to the 1976 Olympics. John Edwards retired from active duty in 1976, with the Legion of Merit award, a Bronze Star, Meritorious Service Medal (with Oak Leaf Cluster), Air Medal, Army Commendation Medal (with two Oak Leaf Clusters), National Defense Service Medal, Vietnam Service Medal, and the Vietnam Campaign Medal. Following his active duty career, John Edwards moved back to his hometown of Lexington, MO, to serve at Wentworth Military Academy. During his 22-year tenure at Wentworth, John served as Operations Officer, Special Events Coordinator, Project Officer, Athletic Director and basketball coach, Alumni Director, Adult Education Director, and Interim Superintendent. John has provided superior leadership at Wentworth, and has worked with every department on campus. He served as the man behind the scenes who made every event work with precision. In addition to his military career, John Edwards has participated in many community activities. He is a member of the Lexington, MO, Lions Club, Lafayette Regional Health Center Board of Trustees, Lexington Area Chamber of Commerce Board (serving as President for one term), Lafayette County Health Department Board, and Member of Turners. He has received the Melvin Jones Fellow Award and Lion of the Year Award, as well as the Lexington Outstanding Leadership Award. Mr. Speaker, I am certain that my colleagues will join me in paying tribute to John Ryland Edwards, an outstanding Missourian. His career in the United States Army and at Wentworth Military Academy, combined with superb community service, make him a role model for young military and civic leaders.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, April 23, 1998, I testified before the Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal Justice; Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. On this occasion, I discussed a series of reports, prepared at my request by the General Accounting Office (GAO). These reports detail the United States' substantial efforts to combat terrorism. I share my remarks with the Members of the House. Testimony Before the Subcommittee on National, International Affairs, and Criminal Justice Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, April 23, 1998 Chairman Hastert, members of the subcommittee, it gives me great pleasure to appear before you today. I appreciate the opportunity not only to speak about an important issue to our nation but also to bring attention to a substantial body of work produced by the General Accounting Office (GAO). This ``work in progress''--to date, a series of four report--will eventually produce the most comprehensive overview of our nation's effort to combat terrorism. As Chairman Hastert knows all too well, this is a daunting task. Without his leadership and effort, we would have a far more vague picture of our government's activities. Let me briefly review these recent findings. First, GAO released a July 1997 report entitled, ``Combating Terrorism: Status of DoD Efforts to Protect Its Forces Overseas.'' Dealing with Anti-terrorism, this report concluded that uniform security standards were necessary to assure the safety of Americans around the world. Second, GAO released a September 1997 report entitled, ``Combating Terrorism: Federal Agencies' Efforts to Implement National Security Policy and Strategy.'' Focused on Counterterrorism--or those offensive measures for deterring, resolving, and managing terrorist acts--this second report represents the first comprehensive examination of federal activities to combat terrorism. It pointed out that more than 40 federal departments, agencies, and bureaus, are involved in this activity. It also outlined specific roles and responsibilities of federal agencies, as well as their respective capabilities. GAO released its third report in December of 1997. Focused on total government-wide spending levels to combat terrorism, this product--and the process leading up to its publication-- closely tracked with congressional interest in the subject. As many of you know, during floor consideration of the fiscal year (FY) 1998 Defense Authorization Bill, an amendment--my amendment--was accepted to require the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to disclose overall spending levels directed against terrorism. Known as Section 1051 and taken together with GAO's third report, enough evidence surfaced to offer both encouragement and concern. Although it seemed that a significant amount of resources were annually committed to combat terrorism, the following inefficiencies were exposed: No regular government-wide collection and review of funding data existed; No apparent government-wide priorities were established; No assessment process existed to coordinate and focus government efforts; and No government office or entity maintained the authority to enforce coordination. As a result, the third report recommended that the National Security Council (NSC), OMB, the departments, and agency heads--such as the State Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)--build upon the new statutory requirement embodied in Section 1051. I am also pleased to report that this remains an annual obligation, requiring by March of each year an annual overview of government-wide efforts to combat terrorism around the globe. Finally, at the request of Chairman Hastert and myself, GAO has recently released its fourth and latest product on the subject, entitled ``Combating Terrorism: Threat and Risk Assessments Can Help Prioritize and Target Investments.'' Again, enough evidence has been provided to question the federal government's level of funding. This last report-- responsible for reviewing the implementation of the Nunn- Lugar-Domenici domestic response program--hopefully will assist with the establishment of consistent national standards and priorities. The Threat Mr. Chairman, members of the committee: In your mind's eye, join me and imagine what it was like in 1995 for the Senior Airman at a remote location in a foreign land, relaxing after a long, hot, stressful day in the Arabian desert; Imagine, too, what it was like in 1996 for the federal employee beginning the day in Oklahoma, pouring coffee, grabbing a breakfast snack, and preparing for morning briefings; Imagine what it was like in 1993 for Americans-- businesswomen, diplomats, tourists, visitors--milling innocently about in the heart of New York City, one of our nation's busiest locations; Imagine, if you can, what it was like for these individuals before these three locations became infamous for the catastrophic events that followed. To a person, none expected anything but completion of an average day; yet all experienced a jolt, a shock, a sense of horror, as chaos and bedlam brought an abrupt halt to their respective routines. The bombing victims at Khobar Towers in Saudia Arabia were trained military professionals in a foreign land. The bombing victims at the Oklahoma City Federal Building and the World Trade Center, were average American citizens--civilians--at home in their communities, totally unprepared for the violence they were forced to experience. Despite the different circumstances, all three events share in common one unavoidable, tell-tale truth: Americans died brutally, without warning, unnecessarily, and in a manner that will almost certainly be imitated in the future. In 1995 and 1996, about one-fourth of all international terrorist acts were against U.S. targets; and although the number of terrorist incidents both worldwide and in the United States has declined in recent years, the level of violence and lethality of attacks has increased. Violent events in the past, may encourage further attempts to strike America in places such as our own yards, back home in our districts, and other places where attacks might be least expected. Enemies of the United States, I fear, have adopted effective methods and means to strike against America. Surely, enemies to America--both foreign and domestic-- recognize the military capabilities of the United States. It is hard to ignore our successes throughout history and around the globe; it is difficult not to marvel at our technological advancements; and it is nearly impossible to overlook our massive military might at sea, in the air, and on the ground. Our naval, air, ground, and Marine forces remain superior and unmatched in today's world. Further, enemies to America--both foreign and domestic-- almost certainly recognize the capabilities of our domestic law enforcement and emergency response officials. The Federal Bureau of Investigations, or FBI, the U.S. Secret Service, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), U.S. Customs, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) are highly respected worldwide. Their standards currently set those of the international community. But what of the point at which the responsibilities of these two communities intersect? Do our domestic law enforcement capabilities effectively coordinate with those of the Department of Defense? In the case of another incident on American soil, are Defense Department officials prepared to effectively support local officials? Are existing programs-- such as the Emergency Response Assistance program, the Rapid Response Information System, and the Nunn-Lugar-Domenici ``First Responder Training'' program--adequately funded to handle a future incident, particularly one involving a weapon of mass destruction (WMD) such as a biological or chemical agent, or nuclear device? We better be sure. Is the threat real? I believe wholeheartedly that it is. Are we in danger of overstating the threat? I am not sure. But, let me share with you something about which there is no doubt. I implore you to consider two lists, one based on capabilities, the other based on alleged activities. I ask you first to consider the list of nations around the globe known to either possess or nearly possess the capability to produce chemical and biological weapons--you are, of course, familiar with the unclassified list: North Korea, China, India, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Russia. Second, I ask you to consider the group of nations singled out by the State Department for engaging in state- sponsored terrorism. Again, you are familiar with the list's membership: Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria. Finally, I ask you to look at the correlation between these lists and ask you to decide. Are you willing to risk the potential consequences of not being prepared? The Response To properly prepare for potential terrorist acts we must set forth with a political commitment to attain both efficiency and adequate resource levels across the entire federal government. The recent past offers a bit of optimism. A relatively high level of Congressional support has existed: The 1994 National Defense Authorization Act expressed a sense of Congress that the President should strengthen federal interagency response planning for early detection and warning of--and response to--potential use of chemical or biological agents and weapons. The Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 required the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Energy to submit to Congress a joint report on military and civil defense response plans. The 1997 National Defense Authorization Act required the President to take immediate action to enhance the capability of the Federal Government to prevent and respond to terrorist incidents involving WMD and to provide enhanced support to improve both the response and deterrent capabilities of state and local emergency response agencies. More than $50 million in assistance was authorized. And just this past year, the budget request for the Defense Department included $49.5 million for support of the domestic emergency preparedness program. The resulting 1998 authorization provided for this request as well as an additional $10 million for equipment for the Marine's Chemical-Biological Incident Response Force and $10 million to support development of a domestic/biological counter- terrorism mission for the National Guard. But I am concerned about our nation's ability over the next few years to attain efficiency or to sustain such a commitment. The Defense Department rightly assumes a supportive role during a terrorist incident within the United States, leaving the Department of Justice the primary responsibility for response and coordination. Yet even a role supportive in nature has come at a great cost--in both manpower and dollars. Much of the highly specialized expertise resides in DoD; and most of the highly-trained individuals necessary for such tasks are also from the Department of Defense. Unfortunately--for them, for their families, and for our nation--these same individuals are often needed elsewhere, in overseas contingencies around the world. In these strict budgetary times, support and training assistance to domestic authorities is placing Defense personnel under a terrible strain. This year's budgetary constraint is particularly tight and I have not received information to cause me to believe that anything might be different in the near future. This is not to say there aren't several matters to provide encouragement, such as the recent announcement to authorize 10 Rapid Assessment and Initial Detection (RAID) teams within the Guard and Reserve components. Indeed, the collocation of these teams with FEMA regional offices just might provide the necessary ``bridge'' between federal and state officials and spawn better coordination. Yet, I am aware of the Defense Department's budgetary struggle to meet existing requirements and must assume that this new effort might also find itself at risk of receiving inadequate resources. We should look closely at this recommendation before committing a large sum of our precious--and increasingly scarce--financial resources. And we should recognize that this resource pool is declining further now that FEMA has recently decided to withdraw itself from any lead-agency role. Without its assistance, the Defense Department must now find additional, previously unanticipated budget authority over the next 4 years to support this requirement. As the work of GAO has helped us discover, our approach may be fundamentally flawed: perhaps too many different federal agencies and local governments possess existing or emerging capabilities for responding to a WMD attack; uneven and nearly incompatible levels of expertise often exists; duplication and poor communication may complicate our effort; and public complacency may threaten to weaken our overall capability. To be sure, if I must leave only one message today, let it be this: coordination problems may exist; but these problems pale in comparison with the potential problems resulting from public complacency. Mr. Chairman, there is a Chinese proverb that states, ``May you live in interesting times.'' We should be thankful that we do. We also live during challenging times. At a time of budget cuts, force drawdowns, streamlining, and reductions in military personnel endstrength levels, we are faced with a familiar threat that is growing in importance. To counter the terrorist threat--to provide as much safety to Americans at home and abroad--we may need to not only strengthen and reinforce existing capabilities but legislate additional resources. If we fail in this calling, we may face another day when--without warning--an innocent American again falls victim to such evil.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, today I wish to pay tribute to a fine Missouri legislator, former State Representative Ralph Hedrick, who recently passed away at the age of 72. Born in Sedalia, MO, on May 9, 1925, Ralph Hedrick spent his life contributing to the State of Missouri as a public servant and to our nation as a sailor in the Navy. Mr. Hedrick attended schools in Sedalia and Appleton City, MO, before serving in the United States Navy in World War II. During the war, he served on the U.S.S. Virginia, seeing active duty in the Pacific. For his honorable service, he was awarded the Pacific Area Campaign Medal (4 stars), the Philippine Liberation Medal (2 stars), the World War II Victory Medal, and the American Area Campaign Medal. Ralph Hedrick began his public service career as the Southern District Judge of the Bates County Court. However, his political career started much earlier, when he passed out campaign cards for Harry S. Truman's senatorial race in 1933. Ralph was elected to the Missouri House of Representatives in 1970 and served a total of 18 years. During his tenure, he represented districts 111, 116, and 123. Ralph Hedrick enjoyed working for and with people, and as a State Representative, he became very popular because of his respectfulness and honesty. Mr. Speaker, I am certain that the Members of the House will join me in paying tribute to Ralph Hedrick, an outstanding Missourian.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I take this opportunity to pay tribute to an outstanding public servant and teacher, Pamela May, who recently passed away at the age of 44. Pam May, who was born August 4, 1953, in Nevada, MO, dedicated her life to public service and education. In 1997, she was appointed the Camden County auditor by Gov. Mel Carnahan, and from 1992 to 1997 Pam served as the Camdenton Third Ward Alderman. She also served as a Camden County Commissioner. Mrs. May also served on the Child Advocacy Council, the Citizens Advisory Committee for the Camden County Jail, and the Governor's Total Transportation Committee. She was a member of the Camdenton Rotary Club and was former president of the Camdenton Chamber of Commerce. In addition to her public service contributions, Pam May devoted her life to teaching Missouri youngsters. She was a teacher for 10 years in the Camdenton School District, and she began working in the Parents as Teachers program in 1986-87. She was also a part-time teacher in the Lake Area Vocational School's Child Care Management program. Mrs. May later became child care coordinator for the Camdenton R-3 School District, and wrote a grant to open the district's child care center. Pam May is survived by her husband, Ralph, two sons, a daughter, her parents, a brother, and two sisters. Mr. Speaker, I am certain that the Members of the House will join me in celebrating the life of this great Missouri public servant and educator. Pamela May's strong sense of community and compassion for the youth of our country make her a role model for all Americans. We will truly miss her.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I wish to take a moment to speak about a man of distinguished civil service and professional integrity. The Honorable James R. ``Jim'' Strong, former Missouri State Representative and State Senator, recently passed away at the age of 77. A native of Marshfield, MO, and a lifelong resident of the Jefferson City, MO, area, Strong graduated from Jefferson City High School in 1939. After studying at Jefferson City Junior College, Strong served in the United States Navy and was abroad the USS Phoenix at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. He served in the South Pacific for the remainder of World War II. After the war, Jim Strong became the co-founder of Strong Brothers Millwork and Lumber Company, and later co-owned other lumber companies. He also was involved in office and commercial real estate rental and was a cattle farmer for many years. He served on the Jefferson City Council from 1969 to 1972, and was elected to the Missouri House of Representatives in 1973. In 1982, Strong was elected to the Missouri Senate, and he was re-elected in 1986. He retired from public service in 1990. In addition to his contributions as a public servant, Jim Strong participated in many community activities. He was a member and elder of the First Presbyterian Church and also held memberships or offices in the VFW Post 1003, American Legion Post 5, Pearl Harbor Survivors Association, Cole County Fair Association, Cole County Fair and Horse Show, Salvation Army Advisory Board, Jefferson City Chamber of Commerce, Jefferson City Jay Booster Club, Cole County Historical Society, Capital City Council of the Arts, Memorial Community Hospital Board of Governors, St. Mary's Health Center Advisory Board, Cole County Republican Club, Pachyderm Club, Conservation Federation of Missouri, Cole County Association for Mental Health, Cole County Volunteer Fire Department, Jefferson City United Way, Cole County Extension Service, Lions Club, Jefferson City Rotary Club, Jefferson City Jaycees, Jaycee Cole County Fair Association, Mayor's Bond Issue Advisory Board, and Jefferson City Planning and Zoning Committee. Jim is survived by his wife, Sue, one son, two daughters, two sisters, one brother, eight grandchildren, and two great-grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, Jim Strong was a true gentleman, and he displayed honesty and integrity throughout his public service career. I am certain that the Members of the House will join me in paying tribute to the fine Missouri legislator.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, today I wish to say a special word of tribute to Dorothy ``Dottie'' Mae Vansandt, the former Cass County, Missouri, Public Administrator, who passed away recently at the age of 75. Dottie Vansandt was an important civic leader in Cass County, Missouri. She served as the county's public administrator from 1977 to 1992 and devoted her time to various community organizations. She was a member of the United Methodist Church in Harrisonville, MO, and served as a board member for the Cassco Area Workshop. She also served as a member of the Bayard Chapter No. 179 Order of the Eastern Star. In addition, Dottie was a member of the Cass County Central Democratic Committee, the Cass County Women's Democrat Club, and was a Shrine Circus Mom. In 1993, Dottie was honored as the Cass County Democrat Woman of the Year. Mrs. Vansandt is survived by a son, a daughter, a stepdaughter, eight grandchildren, and seven great-grandchildren. Mr. Speaker. Dottie Vansandt's public services makes her a role model for young civil leaders. I am certain that the Members of the House will join me in honoring this Missourian who will be missed by all who knew her.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, it pains me to talk about the situation in which we find ourselves. Our colleague from New York pointed out a few moments ago the underfunding of the defense budget, and I agree; of our overcommitting our troops, and I agree. But that is not the issue before us today. The issue before us today is whether we truly recognize an emergency, as has been so recognized by the White House and has been so recognized by the Senate, or whether this is to be an offset against other items in the budget. The rule before us authorizes us to take up a bill that allows offsets. I think, Mr. Speaker, that is a mistake. This is a matter of process. It is a matter of doing it right. Though 80 percent of the bill's appropriations are for military programs, all of the measures are offsets in the domestic programs. I think there should be no offsets, whether they come from the military or whether they come from the domestic. This is an emergency. We do not plan on hurricanes. We do not plan on tornadoes. We do not plan on floods. We do not plan on those international crises, such as Bosnia and Iraq. And yet, this is not treated as an emergency. This bill rescinds money from the low-income rental housing assistance, from the airport program, from the National Community Service Program, from bilingual education. Should this bill pass in this forum, it is a sure invitation for a presidential veto, an invitation that I am sure will not be refused.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, let us clarify the issue before us today. We are not here to correct the overdeployment of our military troops or the underfunding of our military troops. The issue before us today is whether this is an emergency as prescribed by the budget law or whether it is one that is not and calls for an offset. Mr. Chairman, I wish I could rise in support of this bill, the emergency supplemental appropriation bill for fiscal year 1998. Unfortunately, the bill in its current configuration falls short in terms of timing, process and interpretation. First there is a matter of timing. Once again this body has reacted slowly to an emergency situation, with consequences that will affect our fellow citizens both here at home and overseas. And yet, while the other body has essentially passed a bill to deal with these measures, we are still debating the matter in this body, and the result is that by the time we begin our 2-week spring recess we will not have completed this important work. Second, there is a matter of process. Though 80 percent of the bill's appropriations are for military programs, all of the measure's offsets are in domestic programs. This is a sure invitation for a presidential veto, and I am sure that the President will accept that invitation. As many know, the other body has not offset, I will repeat, has not offset its version of the supplemental with spending cuts. It has accepted the emergency designation for the supplemental, as it should have. I can envision a scenario where the other body would offer to accept offsets, but with a condition that those offsets come from the military appropriation accounts. What a disaster that would be. Third, there is a matter of interpretation. I voted for last year's Balanced Budget Act. I believe we made great progress in the past 8 years to get our Nation's finances in order. The 1993 bill which I supported; last year, the Balanced Budget Act which I supported; and this year we see a surplus possibly of $8 million, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the first surplus since 1969. While provisions under the Budget Act will allow us to fund genuine emergencies, the other body has chosen to use those provisions. That is what we should do. Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen wrote earlier this month that if the Department of Defense were required to provide offsets from within the DOD budget, the effect on DOD programs would prove calamitous. I have seen the same thing for the domestic side. That has been well thought out. It is a matter of accepting what is reality. A rose by any other name is still a rose; an emergency by any other name is still an emergency. I think that in this present form it is very difficult for us to support, and I will not support this bill.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to recognize a fellow Missourian, Mr. William L. Culver, for his contributions to culture and history. In February 1998, Bill Culver participated in a C-SPAN contest that outlined the travels of Alexis de Tocqueville. He captured in art the essence of Tocqueville's travels in search of American democracy and was recognized as a top 10 national prize winner. He is an avid C- SPAN watcher and has faithfully shared his caricatures with this organization. Bill Culver has been interested in art since he was a small child. He grew up in Northwest Missouri, attended the University of Missouri Law School, and successfully practiced law for many years. Bill now spends time doing what he enjoys most--writing and illustrating children's books. Also, he teaches part time at Columbia College at the Lake of the Ozarks. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Bill Culver on this award and wish him good luck as he continues to illustrate art and developing legacies for future generations to enjoy.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. But not the Committee on National Security. I have no recollection of it. I think I would, had it come before that committee.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, this did not come before the Committee on National Security whatsoever, did it?

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, out of whose budget does this come, if I may ask?