Ike Skelton

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), who is also a member of the Committee on National Security.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the minority leader of this House.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend from Texas allowing me to speak. The tribute that we have witnessed this evening on the floor of the House of Representatives has never been equal. I took out an hour special order that was used. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) took out an hour which was used. We are very grateful to our friend from Texas for allowing us to have a few more words of tribute honoring Ron Dellums. This gentleman will be sorely missed. But I tell you, Ron Dellums, that this tribute that we have participated in and witnessed this evening hopefully in days and years ahead will warm your heart to know of the friendship, the respect and the affection with which we hold you. We wish you the very, very best in the days to come. Just the other day you received a distinguished service medal from the Secretary of Defense. He told a story about how Bishop Tutu was honored. And he spoke about how the words ``thank you'' sound so little but yet mean so much. So let me say to my friend, thank you.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I wish to take a moment today to speak about a man of distinguished civic service and professional integrity. Missouri's ``Mr. Democrat,'' James C. ``Jimmy'' Kirkpatrick, former Missouri Secretary of State, recently passed away at the age of 92. A native of Braymer, MO, Kirkpatrick graduated from Northeast High School in Kansas City and Central Missouri State University in Warrensburg, MO. After studying journalism at the University of Missouri, Kirkpatrick became interested in the news business. From 1954 to 1974, Kirkpatrick owned and operated several Missouri newspapers. He started his career at the Warrensburg Daily Star-Journal and rose to be editor of that newspaper. Later, he became editor of the Jefferson City News-Tribune, then purchased the weekly Windsor Review and later the weekly Lamar Democrat, in the town of Harry S. Truman's birth. While editing the Jefferson City newspaper, Kirkpatrick was approached by then-Governor Forrest Smith to write a newspaper column and speeches for Missouri's chief executive. That is what really got him interested in politics, which became his legacy. Jimmy Kirkpatrick first ran for statewide office in 1960, when he lost his bid to become Missouri Secretary of State to rising Democrat star Warren Hearnes. He won the job four years later, in 1964, when Hearnes was elected governor. Kirkpatrick was re-elected to his post as Secretary of State until his retirement in 1985. During his tenure, he received 8.4 million votes, making him Missouri's greatest statewide vote-getter since statehood. In his twenty year tenure, Kirkpatrick made over 1900 speeches which kept him very close to the constituents about which he cared so deeply. In 1985, Kirkpatrick retired to Warrensburg, MO, whereupon he became the statehouse's most familiar booster of Central Missouri State University. In fact, he served for 12 years on the university's Board of Regents, including ten years as its president. Kirkpatrick was also a guest lecturer at CMSU in history, government, political science, and journalism classes. The university recently honored Kirkpatrick by naming its new library after him. Kirkpatrick's first wife, Jessamine Elizabeth Young, passed away in 1985 after a 58-year marriage. He is survived by his second wife, Doris, one son, three grandchildren, four great-grandchildren, and three stepchildren. Mr. Speaker, Jimmy Kirkpatrick displayed honor and integrity throughout his civic career. His admiration for and dedication to the people of Missouri is unprecedented, and I am certain that the Members of the House will join me in honoring the legacy of Missouri's own ``Mr. Democrat.''

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to say a special word in tribute to the late William R. (Bill) Lyles, a former circuit clerk for Pettis County, Missouri. A native of Sedalia, MO, Lyles graduated from Smith-Cotton High School in 1943. After high school, he served his nation in the United States Army, fighting in both World War II and the Korean War. In between his military service, Lyles became a small businessman, operating Lyles Cleaners from August 1947 to 1964. In 1966, Mr. Lyles was elected circuit clerk of Pettis County, MO. He was re-elected to that post until his retirement on January 1, 1995. As a lifelong civic leader, Bill Lyles made it his mission to participate in many community activities. He was a member of the First United Methodist Church, American Legion Post No. 16, Veterans of Foreign Wars Post No. 2591, Sedalia Lodge No. 236 AF&AM, Missouri Circuit Clerks Association, Missouri Child Support Association, Association of Retired Missouri State Employees, and the Pettis County Democrat Club. He was also a charter member of the Sedalia Chapter of Missouri Jaycees. Lyles is survived by his wife Davijean, three sons, two daughters, one brother, and six grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, Bill Lyles' military and public service makes him a role model for young civil leaders, and his closeness within the Sedalia community will be greatly missed.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, let me take this opportunity to congratulate the gentlewoman from North Carolina for a matter of paying attention to people she represents and trying to heal their financial reverses as a result of serving our Nation as Members of the National Guard. She not only helps them, but helps National Guardsmen all over the country. We thank the gentlewoman, from Missouri National Guardsmen, and, I know as well, from other Members across our country. I have had, Mr. Speaker, the opportunity to visit with American National Guardsmen in Europe, in Germany, in Bosnia and in Hungary. They serve well, and they serve ably. In the process they are giving up a great deal. They are away from their homes, they are away from their work, they are away from their family, and they are serving as honorably as anyone in uniform. For us not to pass this piece of legislation that makes them whole financially and on reimbursement for items they necessarily had to purchase in Europe would be a mistake. So I wholeheartedly support the effort of the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton], and the gentleman from California, as well as the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I can only hope that when the dust settles out of all of this, that wonderful United States Marine Corps, that great Army that we have, as well as the outstanding Navy and the Air Force that we have, will continue to work together in a joint atmosphere without rancor, without grudges, and let this be water that goes down the river. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SKELTON. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha].

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McHale].

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Missourian Mark Twain once said that a person should live so that if someone says something bad about him, no one would believe it. That is the way I think the U.S. Marine Corps finds themselves today. I do not think anyone can say anything bad about the Marine Corps that would be believed. It is an honorable, wonderful part of our national defense. But I think we should pause and take a deep breath on this matter, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure that this resolution will pass, but let us take a quick gander at the letter that Sara E. Lister, assistant secretary of the Army for manpower and reserve affairs, wrote to General C.C. Krulak, the Commandant of the Marine Corps. This is a letter of apology, and I will put it in toto in the Record, but let me read it and share with this body some words therefrom. ``Dear General Krulak: This letter is in reference to a quotation attributed to me during a panel discussion sponsored by the U.S. Military and Post-Cold War Society Project of the John M. Olin Institute for Strategic Studies, Harvard University. ``I apologize to the Marine Corps and all current and former Marines for my remarks. It is unfortunate that my remarks were taken out of context. The issue under consideration was in relationship between civilian military segments of our society. In that context, we were asked to comment upon 14 scholarly papers discussing various aspects of that topic. I discussed several of the papers, including an interesting piece which was focused on the Marine Corps as an example of possible disconnects between society and the military. My point, ineptly put, was that all the services had different relationships with civilian society based in part on their culture, the size of their force, and their mission. My use of the word ``extremism'' was inappropriate and wrong. ``I regret that the use of this term during an academic discussion has generated a controversy that does not represent my views or those of the Army. I am well aware of the close and mutually supportive relationship between the Army and Marine Corps, both in war and in peace. ``Again, my remarks were not intended to denigrate the Marine Corps in any way. It is unfortunate that they were misplaced. The Marine Corps has a proud and honorable tradition of service to our country. Sincerely, Sarah E. Lister, Assistant Secretary of the Army.'' I will put this in the Record, and I read it for the purpose to show that Sara Lister has done her best in her position as an individual to express her regret and apologize, and I feel certain, Mr. Speaker, that the Commandant of the Marine Corps will accept this apology and move on. Mr. Speaker, I have spent a great deal of my efforts within the Armed Services Committee, now the Committee on National Security, working with the various services, urging them, through legislation and discussion, to create a joint atmosphere of working with each other so that the Marines work with the Army, the Navy works with the Air Force, and all of the different variations thereof. This is a total force, and it is unfortunate that Ms. Lister's comments created this issue, and I hope that as a result of this discussion here on the floor we can put this behind us and be proud of our Marine Corps, be proud of our Army, be proud of our Navy, be proud of our Air Force, and urge them to continue to do the wonderful work that they do in protecting freedom and the interests of our country. It is with this in mind that I make these comments, and hopefully we can, Mr. Speaker, put this issue behind us and let it be water going on down the river. The letter in its entirety is as follows: Department of the Army, Office of the Assistant Secretary, Manpower and Reserve Affairs, Washington, DC, November 13, 1997. Gen. C. C. Krulak, Commandant of the Marine Corps, Washington, DC. Dear General Krulak: This letter is in reference to a quotation attributed to me during a panel discussion sponsored by the U.S. Military and Post-Cold War Society Project of the John M. Olin Institute for Strategic Studies (Harvard University). I apologize to the Marine Corps and all current and former Marines for my remarks. It is unfortunate that my remarks were taken out of context. The issue under consideration was the relationship between civilian and military segments of our society; in that context, we were asked to comment upon 14 scholarly papers discussing various aspects of that topic. I discussed several of the papers, including an interesting piece which was focused on the Marine Corps as an example of possible disconnects between society and the military. My point--ineptly put--was that all the services had different relationships with civilian society, based in part on their culture, the size of their force and their mission. My use of the word ``extremism'' was inappropriate and wrong. I regret that the use of this term during an academic discussion has generated a controversy that does not represent my views or those of the Army. I am well aware of the close and mutually supportive relationship between the Army and the Marine Corps, both in war and in peace. Again, my remarks were not intended to denigrate the Marine Corps in any way. It is unfortunate that they were misinterpreted. The Marine Corps has a proud and honorable tradition of service to our country. Sincerely, Sara E. Lister, Assistant Secretary of the Army.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the ranking member giving me some time this morning. The conference report before us does more for military intelligence programs and activities than the President requested. While these increases are small, I believe they reflect the fact that as the size of the Armed Forces decreases, the need for timely and reliable intelligence becomes more critical. Our military commanders cannot do their jobs, both in terms of the achievement of their objectives and the safeguarding of the lives of our service men and women without intelligence of the highest quality. We simply cannot manage safely the planned drawdown of the Defense Department without the kind of investments made by this bill. I want to congratulate the chairman and congratulate the ranking Democrat for the work they have done to make sure that our military personnel have the support that they need in this important area. I intend to continue to do what I can to make sure that we do not slight the future investments that will need to be made to ensure that our battlefield commanders have the information necessary to achieve rapid dominance so that any armed conflict results in a decisive victory for our forces. I believe we have taken important steps toward that end in this conference report. Much more, Mr. Speaker, needs to be done, particularly in the areas of information warfare and aerial reconnaissance. These are among the areas to which I hope the committee will devote particular attention in the next year. It is a pleasure to serve on this committee. I salute both the chairman, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], and the ranking Democrat, the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] for their dedicated and bipartisan work. I also want to give particular thanks to all of the staff who have devoted untold hours to producing this conference report.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, let me join my friend from Texas in complimenting the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] and our ranking member the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey]. I represent a district that has Whiteman Air Force Base and Fort Leonard Wood, both of whom are areas that are heavily impacted by the Federal Government, the Federal reservations, and impact aid is so important for those children. We have to take care of the families of the people in uniform and this is a wonderful way to do it. So I join my friend from Texas [Mr. Edwards] in complimenting them and thanking this committee for the effort.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, the lead story on the radio last evening was the fact that there will be a Federal investigation into the Union Pacific because of its merger and the fact that the employees of Union Pacific are under such stress and fatigue because of the downsizing. Let me point out that, as a result of testimony and actually visiting with young people in uniform of all services, there are stretches and strains and fatigue. The veterans of America understand this. The military retirees of America understand this. The parents of the young people understand this. So let us not forget those young people today who are in uniform defending America's interest regardless of whether they be here in the continental United States or ashore somewhere else, the stresses and strains under which they exist. Let us give them a word of encouragement, a word of thanks. Because they are a national treasure.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, in the analysis that followed World War I, it was clear to many American military experts that we suffered unacceptably high casualties due in no small part to the lack of a well-trained reserve force. With this in mind, Congress enacted the National Defense Act of 1920 which created, among other things, a 200,000 member Officers Reserve Corps. On October 2, 1922, the Reserve Officers Association of the United States was organized at the suggestion of General of the Army, John J. Pershing. General Pershing charged the ROA with the responsibility to recruit the corps, develop public support for it, and petition Congress to appropriate adequate funds to train these citizen service members. One of my State's most prominent citizens, President Harry S Truman, a junior officer during World War I, was an original, charter organizer of the ROA. In the 75 years since its founding the ROA has more than met the challenges given to it by General Pershing. At the beginning of World War II, 115,000 members of the Reserve Officers Corps were trained and available for instant service, helping us avoid the hectic days of 1917, when there was no adequate reservoir of officers to draw upon. Since that time, reservists have been involved in all of our conflicts, including the 267,000 that were recalled for Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm, and the 14,000 that have served in IFOR and SFOR in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Throughout all of these years, the ROA has been active--supporting initiatives to strengthen our Nation's military, and opposing efforts to undermine America's preparedness. It has helped stop dangerous and ill-advised cuts in our Nation's reserve forces. It has fought for and won improvements in the pay and benefits of all of our Armed Forces-- measures which have been vital to us in recruiting and retaining a quality force. Today, the ROA is a strong, vibrant, and well-respected association of 90,000 members, 68 percent of whom are life members. It is an organization whose integrity and credibility meet the highest standards. Because of my deep respect for the ROA and its work, I was deeply honored to receive its Minute Man of the Year Award in 1995. Mr. Speaker, I know that all of our colleagues in the House will join me in congratulating the Reserve Officers Association of the United States on its 75th anniversary, and in wishing it all the best in its future endeavors.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Madam Speaker, I compliment the chairman of the committee and the ranking member of the committee, as well as other Members, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Rodriguez], the gentleman from New York [Mr. Quinn], and the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bachus], for their efforts in this regard. Madam Speaker, imagine yourself a member of a family who has a loved one, a veteran who has passed on, who is buried in a national cemetery, either in Arlington or another national cemetery such as the one we have, one of three we have in Missouri. Also imagine that in a plot nearby, a convicted mass murderer, a veteran, is buried. What would the reaction of you or the family be? Anguish? Disappointment? This law, that hopefully will pass and be on the books, covers that loophole. I testified before the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs concerning this issue. I recommended then that the present law be changed to prohibit convicted murderers and terrorists from being buried in national cemeteries. The current law prohibits burial in national cemeteries of veterans who have been convicted of certain crimes. However, the law has a loophole which needs to be closed. The existing law does not prohibit veterans who use weapons of mass destruction against property or persons of the Federal Government or murder of a Federal law enforcement officer or the crime of terrorism from being buried in national cemeteries. This, of course, was brought to my attention as a result of the mass murder of 168 Americans in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995, and the subsequent conviction of a man who happened to be a veteran. Missouri, Madam Speaker, has three national cemeteries, Jefferson City National Cemetery, the Springfield National Cemetery, and Jefferson Barracks National Cemetery, the latter of which is in St. Louis. We should reserve our national cemeteries for individuals who served and sacrificed for love of country, those who in later life would be role models for those who follow them as members of the armed services or as veterans. The honor that accompanies burial in a national cemetery is a guarded treasure. The men and women who faced unparalleled adversity while serving their country deserve a patriotic and esteemed burial. It is with these thoughts in mind that I not only compliment the committee, the chairman and ranking member and those who worked on it, but I endorse it wholeheartedly and urge its passage.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, the morning prayer was delivered by Rev. Everett Hannon, who is the minister of the Second Baptist Church in my hometown of Lexington, MO. Reverend Hannon is a native of Lexington and currently resides in nearby Warrensburg, MO, with his wife Carol and their two children, Andrea and LeAndrea. Reverend Hannon is the eldest son of Marjorie and Everett Hannon, Sr. He received his theology degree from the Central Bible College in Kansas City, MO. He has been the pastor of the Second Baptist Church for 10 years, and he is well known for his excellent sermons and devotion to the members of his congregation. Reverend Hannon also provides civic leadership in the community. In addition to his church duties, he serves as the moderator of the Central District Missionary Baptist Association and the auditor of the Missouri State Missionary Baptist Congress. I am pleased that this outstanding Missouri minister could be with us today, and I know the Members of this body join me in thanking Reverend Hannon for his opening prayer.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, today I want to congratulate Col. William D. McGill II, who will retire from the U.S. Army on October 30, 1997, after a long and distinguished career of service to our Nation spanning nearly 30 years. Colonel McGill enlisted in the Army in 1967, shortly after graduating from the North Carolina State University at Raleigh. He successfully completed Officer Candidate School and was commissioned a second lieutenant of armor in the U.S. Army Reserve on October 20, 1968. Over the course of his career, Colonel McGill served in a variety of exceptionally challenging troop and staff assignments in Vietnam, Korea, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and the United States. After completing aviation training at Hunter Army Airfield, GA, Dan McGill deployed to the Republic of Vietnam where he served as a Cobra gunship section commander and as the Headquarters Company Executive Officer in the Mekong Delta for 15 months. For his achievements during combat then- Lieutenant McGill was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross and 37 awards of the Air Medal. After completing his combat tour, Dan then served with the Army's elite 82d Airborne Division for the next 3 years. After attending the Armor Officer Advance Course, Dan returned to Fort Bragg, where he once again served with the 82d. He had the distinction of commanding two different cavalry troops for a total of 3 years. The length of Dan McGill's command time is a reflection of his extraordinary ability to lead soldiers. Colonel McGill's potential for increased responsibility was rewarded with selection for and attendance at the Army Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, KS. Dan continued his service in a series of challenging assignments following his graduation from Fort Leavenworth. First, he spent 2 years in South Korea in a joint assignment as a personnel officer and then he returned to the United States to serve in the Pentagon as a staff officer in the Office of the Chief of Legislative Liaison. Dan McGill then had the distinction of being selected for battalion command and returned to Fort Bragg to serve as the commander of the 1st Squadron, 17th Cavalry, in the 82d Airborne Division. This cavalry squadron is the eyes and ears of the All-American Division. Through sustained superior performance Colonel McGill once again proved he had an unsurpassed ability to lead the world's finest soldiers. He commanded in magnificent fashion. After graduation from the Army War College, Colonel McGill served on the III Corps Staff until he once again assumed his natural role of a leader of soldiers. He assumed command of the 1st Cavalry Division's Aviation Brigade at Fort Hood, TX. Dan performed magnificently as a brigade commander and during this time served our Nation in combat for a second time, in the Persian Gulf. Following the brigade command, Col. McGill returned to Korea to serve as the Chief of Staff of 8th U.S. Army. He culminated his service to the Nation as military deputy to the Army's Chief of Legislative Liaison and as the staff director of the Vietnam Commando's Commission. Colonel Dan McGill has distinguished himself as a leader during a remarkable career of service to our Nation. He has continuously displayed the professionalism, integrity, and dependability our country has come to expect from its Army officers. He has answered the call of service unwaveringly and our heartfelt appreciation and best wishes for the future go with him as he prepares for his next endeavor.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, recently the aircraft carrier Nimitz sailed into the Persian Gulf ahead of its scheduled rotation. The purpose of the deployment was to warn Iran and Iraq against sending aircraft into the no-fly zone that the United Nations has mandated in southern Iraq since the end of the Persian Gulf War. Two weeks earlier, Iran defied the ban and sent aircraft into Iraq to attack sites that anti-Iranian insurgent groups were using to stage raids. Iraq, in turn, was threatening to put up its own aircraft to defend its sovereignty against any further Iranian attacks. A strong word of U.S. caution, backed up by a show of military strength in the region, was necessary to keep Saddam Hussein in his box and to deter further Iranian adventurism. Apparently, despite vocal protests from both sides, the mission has been accomplished since there have been no more egregious violations of the no-fly zone. Mr. Speaker, such a use of U.S. military power to enforce stability in a tense part of the globe is not an isolated case. Just a year and a half ago the United States sent the Nimitz into the Taiwan Straits in response to China's threatening missile tests at the time of the Taiwanese election. In recent months, the United States has carried on a large peacekeeping operation in Bosnia and a smaller mission in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia; continued to guard against illegal arms shipments into the former Yugoslavia; sent forces to evacuate noncombatants from Zaire and Sierra Leone; supplied airlift for African peacekeeping troops in Liberia; sent forces to demine areas in Namibia; continued to provide humanitarian assistance to Kurdish evacuees from northern Iraq; and engaged in counternarcotics operations in South America. Except for Bosnia, which appears destined to remain in the headlines for the foreseeable future, most of these operations get no more than an occasional article on the back page of the Washington Post. Many ongoing activities, perhaps equally important in bolstering international stability, do not even get that much attention unless something goes wrong, activities like support for mine clearing in Namibia, which was the mission of personnel who were tragically lost when their aircraft crashed on its return flight a few weeks ago. Today, the U.S. military is carrying out scores of what have come to be called ``engagement missions,'' joint exercises with foreign military forces, humanitarian operations of various kinds, port visits by U.S. ships, officer exchanges, sharing of intelligence, and many, many other activities. Collectively, all of these activities come at a high cost both in money and in the demands on the U.S. military personnel around the globe. The benefits of these missions, however, are far greater than their costs. As my fellow Missourian Harry Truman once said, ``We must be prepared to pay the price for peace or surely we will pay the price of war.'' Today the price of peace is this: That the United States must continue to play the leading role in building and maintaining international stability. In order to fulfill that responsibility, the Nation must maintain substantial, well-trained, well-equipped military forces capable of engaging in military actions across the entire spectrum of missions from delivering humanitarian supplies, to showing the flag, to peace enforcement operations that may be as intense as a major theater war. Unfortunately, I do not think that the need for the United States to play this role and to maintain sufficient military strength to do it is fully understood either in this Congress or among the public as a whole. Moreover, I do not think that either the Clinton administration or the Bush administration has done a particularly good job of explaining the missions of U.S. military forces in the post-Cold War world. Today, I want to address one of the principal reasons for maintaining U.S. military strength, that global instability will present dire threats to American interests unless the United States actively addresses it. Since the end of the Cold War, many people have questioned the need for the United States to maintain strong military forces and to preserve its military abroad. Now that the Soviet Union is gone, they say, where is the enemy? And why do we need to spend so much money on defense when no single powerful foe or group of foes can easily be identified? My answer is that there is indeed an enemy and it may be more insidious than ever precisely because it is so difficult to perceive clearly. The enemy is instability and requires as much vigilance as any more conventional foe has ever required. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by drawing a simple lesson from the recent events in the Persian Gulf and from my last year's stare-down with China. In the Persian Gulf, the rules are clear. Both Iran and Iraq know that a no-fly zone remains in place south of the 33rd parallel and that any military aircraft flying into the area may be shot down without warning. In Asia, the formula for addressing the status of Taiwan that has been accepted by the United States and others for many years is to say that both the government of Beijing and the government of Taipei regard Taiwan as part of China and that the status of Taiwan will not be resolved by force. The rules with regard to Taiwan, therefore, are also clear. China has undertaken not to use force, and the United States has not supported Taiwan's independence. Even though the rules are clear in the Persian Gulf and in Taiwan, however, recent events illustrate a simple point--that in international affairs, the rules are not self-enforcing. On the contrary, without constant, direct U.S. attention and leadership, the forces of disorder--always testing the limits--would eventually prevail. In the Persian Gulf, Iran and Iraq would soon drive the region into chaos and hope to benefit from the disruption of oil supplies to the rest of the world. In Asia, China would prefer to have a free hand to dominate the region, which is not a prescription for peace. Peace and stability are not the natural order of things. On the contrary, instability will always rise, like entropy in the realm of physics, unless energy is constantly applied to preserve order. This lesson is an obvious one--and the use of the Nimitz to support U.S. security objectives is a clear and evident example of the importance of U.S. military power. But U.S. military power is also important in a host of other, less apparent ways. Consider, for example, the implications of the recent U.S. agreement with Japan on defense cooperation. What is important about the agreement is not in the details--how Japan will provide support for U.S. military operations, whether Japan can opt out of supporting U.S. forces in certain cases, whether more should have been agreed on issues like missiles defense, and so on. What is most important is the fact of the agreement itself. The agreement reaffirms the fact that Japan sees its security relationship with the United States as the bulwark of a secure international order in Asia even after the Cold War has ended. That the Clinton Administration was able to reach this agreement with Japan is, it seems to me, a triumph for American security of no small order. It came after several years of conflict with Japan over trade issues, during a time when China is beginning to flex muscles and is starting to build up its military capability, and in the face of grave doubts around the world that the United States would maintain its international leadership. Any or all of those factors could have led Japan to conclude that the security treaty with the United States was too weak a pillar on which to continue to rest its security policy. The agreement was the result of several years of effort on the part of senior officials in the Defense Department and in the Department of State, beginning with the so-called ``Nye report'' of 1995, named after former Assistant Secretary of Defense Joseph Nye, which forcefully reasserted the U.S. security interested in Asia and promised a continued, large and powerful U.S. military presence in the region. I believe that the new U.S.-Japan security cooperation agreement is a cornerstone of stability in Asia precisely because it binds the United States and Japan together more closely. It means that Japan will not feel itself forced to develop an independent military capacity that would be threatening to others in the region. It means that North Korea will be discouraged from thinking that it can divide South Korea's allies. It means that China will have less reason to believe that it can use military strength to build a position of dominance of the in the Region. It means that for other nations in the region, the United States will remain, for the foreseeable future, the ally of choice in determining whom to support if tensions rise over any number of issues. As a result, a great deal has been accomplished to prevent instability in the region from growing. All of this, it seems to me, has been achieved only because the United States made its commitment to the region so clear, both in the words of the Nye report and in the substance of the continued U.S. military presence in the region. Contrast the positive Japanese view of its alliance with the United States with the attitude of France, another key ally. The French for many years have been of the view that the United States will eventually turn away from its active leadership in international security affairs and leave Europe to the Europeans. I believe that judgment is wrong, but it appears nonetheless to guide French foreign policy, and the result has often been troublesome. Most recently, for example, the French have backed away from their commitment to rejoin the NATO military command structure because they object to continued U.S. command of the NATO southern region. More distressing to me is that President Chirac has made recent trips to China and to Russia in which he has said that France's interests and the interests of other nations would be served by the evolution of a multipolar world in which France would maintain close bilateral ties with other coequal powers. This is, of course, a very thinly veiled criticism of a unipolar world presumably dominated by the United States. Fortunately, other major U.S. allies in Europe understand that the United States is not a domineering, lone, superpower, but rather the bulwark of an international effort in which the realm of peace and prosperity can grow and the realm of conflict and impoverishment can be contained. Most importantly, other allies also believe that the United States will continue to play a leadership role in building and maintaining a new post-Cold War security system throughout Europe and will be active in the rest of the world as well. The key to preventing destabilizing conflicts in Europe and elsewhere is to maintain a system of alliances in which the United States is inextricably involved. And in order to maintain such alliances, the United States must continually show the allies that it is resolved to stay involved and to maintain its military capabilities. In emphasizing the critically important role that U.S. military strength plays in promoting stability, I am not, of course, suggesting that the United States can or should try to respond to every conflict around the world. As every president in recent years has affirmed, we are not a global policeman. It is important, however, first, that we understand how instability even in remote parts of the world may threaten our security and, second, that we continue to devote sufficient resources to defense to continue our active leadership role. For much of it history, the United States thought of itself as being insulated from conflicts abroad by our favored geographical position as a rich continental nation protected by wide oceans. The one permanent goal of U.S. policy was to ensure freedom of navigation. The twentieth century, however, has brought our relative isolation to an end. Ever since Pearl Harbor, Americans have understood that our security cannot be separated from the security and stability of key regions overseas. In recent years, every major development in technology, communications, transportation, and even in culture has served to shrink the globe still further. Today, the security of America is affected, directly or indirectly, by all kinds of developments overseas. We understand, of course, that stability in Europe, East Asia, and the oil producing areas of the Middle East is critical to our security and our economic well-being. Many, many areas of the globe that we once considered of only remote interest, however, are becoming increasingly important as well. North Africa is a case in point. With the World Trade Center bombing, terrorism fostered by religious extremism in North Africa came directly to the United States. Moreover, we have struggled for years with the threats posed by the Government of Libya and now by the extremists in charge in the Sudan as well. The same Islamic extremists as in Sudan murdered the late Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and continue to threaten President Hosni Mubarak and destabilize Egypt. The combination of poverty, explosive population growth, and ideological warfare that is plaguing the southern rim of the Mediterranean, therefore, is not something we can safely ignore. Instability in that part of the world will inevitably affect the prosperity and the safety of Americans unless its consequences are addressed. A secure and economically advanced North Africa would be a great boon to Europe and to the rest of the world, while a North Africa descending into chaos will threaten us all. What we can do to resolve the horrible civil war in Algeria may be limited. We are working with our allies to help broker peace, and we should continue to do so. Most importantly, we must continue to be engaged with Egypt and other critically important, friendly nations in the area to help bolster their security. In an even more distant part of the world, Central Asia, U.S. interests are also more and more obviously at stake. Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, and Kazakhstan have inherited some of the largest as yet unexploited reserves of gas and oil in the world. For these emerging nations, such resources may be a source of wealth that can spur economic growth and bring full integration into the world community. But such resources may also occasion internal conflict and incite external exploitation. Our principal goal is to ensure that the resources of the area are not dominated by a hostile power and that access is free and open. Thus, the United States clearly has an interest in promoting peace in the region, in strengthening the fragile governments of the area, and in building regional security. Much of the work to be done is diplomatic and economic in nature, but a military component is important as well. Military-to-military ties are potentially of immense value. Recently, the United States Central Command carried out a joint exercise with Kazakh armed forces that received a great deal of positive attention in the area. Most importantly, U.S. leadership is critical in building the institutional framework which will bind the emerging nations of the region to the prosperous, secure part of the world. All of these nations have participated in the North Atlantic Cooperation Council, the Partnership for Peace, and the strengthening Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. The United States had the vision and the international stature to forge these new institutions, and only continued U.S. military engagement in such organizations can keep them vital. Finally, U.S. interests are affected by developments in distant parts of the world because of the global nature of challenges ranging from the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and weapons delivery systems, to terrorism, to information sabotage and warfare, to the narcotics trade and other international criminal activities. There are no simple technological fixes to any of these problems that will allow the United States the luxury of disengagement from potentially messy conflicts throughout the world. The main cause of proliferation lies in regional conflicts which lead both would-be aggressors and threatened victims to seek security by gaining access to advanced weapons. Terrorism is, in large part, an outgrowth of local conflicts and social disintegration. Threats to information security may come from many sources, including systematic efforts to disrupt western economies by rogue states or by small non-state groups. Narco-terrorism has undermined democracy in parts of Latin America. Colombia is close to collapse. If it goes, several nations may follow--for example, Venezuela, which provides the U.S. three million barrels of oil daily. International criminal activity is a threat of free economic activity in large parts of the world, and it may damage U.S. security by undermining economic stability in many newly emerging nations. While none of these challenges can be decisively defeated by a swift military strike, U.S. economic, political, and military engagement throughout the world is essential to combat the most serious threats. I am concerned, however, that we may, over time, fail to maintain the level of engagement that is necessary. Two potential failures, in particular, worry me. One is a failure of understanding. Too often the debate about U.S. military spending and about the role of U.S. military forces in the world seems to me to miss the key point. As I said earlier, many of my colleagues too easily dismiss concerns about the state of our armed forces simply by asking ``who is the enemy?'' Others oversimplify the debate by pointing out that the United States now spends vastly more on the military than various combinations of potential foes. Both of these arguments are entirely beside the point. Today, instability is the enemy, and it is a very dangerous and pernicious enemy. As a result, how much we need to spend on the military is not a function of how much or how little others spend. Our defense requirements are determined by the strategy we need to follow to cope with a world full of uncertainty and danger. We need sufficient forces, fully engaged around the world, to prevent conflict with arising where possible, to deter conflict if it appears about to break out, and to prevail if conflict does arise. If this costs more than North Korea or Libya spends on the military, it should not be surprising. Another failure of understanding is to argue that the United States should no longer have to play as active a leadership role as it did during the Cold War. Many of my colleagues argue that the allies should be required to bear a larger part of the burden of ensuring international security, especially in responding to regional conflicts that require peacekeeping forces or a constant military presence. Some say that the United States should focus on preparing for large scale regional conflicts and should leave smaller scale operations to others. My view is precisely the opposite--that the United States may have to play a more active leadership role than ever now that threats to international security are more ambiguous. As I explained earlier in this speech, the reasons ought to be apparent-- only the United States has the ability to project power sufficient to deter threats to the peace in regions like the Persian Gulf or the Taiwan straits; only the promise of continued, active U.S. military engagement in key regions will gain cooperation from major allies and maintain the U.S. position as the ally of choice when conflicts arise; U.S. security interests are directly threatened by challenges even in distant parts of the globe, and only U.S. leadership can build the institutional framework needed to bring stability; and new global challenges across a wide spectrum threaten the United States in ways that require direct involvement. Let me make one other point to those who are concerned about burdensharing. I agree that we should expect allies to contribute fully and fairly in maintaining international stability. But I also believe that only American leadership can ensure effective allied cooperation. In Bosnia, for example, the allies were willing to commit forces for several years, but without bringing about a peace settlement. Only when the United States became directly involved was a resolution achieved. Moreover, no other nation could design the architecture of a new regional security order as the United States has done in Europe and is working to do in Asia. In a way, there is a paradox to burdensharing-- if we want the allies to do more, then we probably have to do more too. The final failure with which I am concerned is a failure to provide adequate resources. I began this speech by making note of the role the aircraft carrier Nimitz has played in deterring conflicts. Today, we are running on the very edge of sufficiency in the number of carriers we keep in the force. We no longer maintain a permanent carrier presence in the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean--instead, we swing carriers periodically from one area to the other, and we surge into a region if circumstances require. At best, this is barely adequate. I am concerned that long-term budget pressures will erode the size of the Navy to a level that will not allow even the current amount of coverage. Even if we do not reduce the number of carriers, we are reducing the number of other ships in the Navy--within five years, we will be down to 300 ships, substantially below the level of about 330 that the Clinton Administration said was needed when it first came into office, and the currently planned pace of shipbuilding will support no more than a 200 ship fleet in the long run. Our military presence in Asia--a presence that gave Japan confidence enough to revitalize the alliance--will be in danger. Moreover, throughout this statement, I have emphasized, time and again, the value of U.S. military engagement all around the world. But one outcome of the Pentagon's recent Quadrennial Defense Review--the ``QDR''--was to acknowledge the strain that the current high pace of military operations is placing on our troops, especially on those based abroad in Europe and elsewhere. As one way to reduce the strain, the QDR called for a limit on the number of ``engagement'' exercises that the regional military commanders had earlier been free to undertake. I am not arguing that this is the wrong thing to do--on the contrary, I strongly support the Defense Department's efforts to reduce the pressure on military personnel. But the need to limit such exercises points to the simple fact that the size of the force today is, at best, barely adequate to meet peacetime requirements while preparing for major regional conflicts. Defense budget constraints, I fear, will force further cuts in the size of the force in the future, with a devastating effect on our ability to cope with instability around the world. Mr. Speaker, today the United States has an opportunity to promote a more peaceful, stable world than those of us who lived through the troubling middle years of the 20th Century would ever have thought possible. To do so, however, requires constant vigilance and permanent U.S. engagement abroad. The world will never be entirely at peace. With continued American leadership, however, the threats to peace can be contained, and the realm of peace and prosperity can grow. This requires that the citizens of the United States and the Members of this Congress understand that instability is the enemy and that sufficient resources are needed to combat it.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues in the Congress to join me in paying tribute to Douglas K. Rush, a truly outstanding Naval officer and attorney from St. Louis, MO. After 29 years of exemplary active and reserve service in the U.S. Navy, Captain Rush is retiring from the military. Doug Rush, a veteran of the Vietnam war and Operation Desert Storm, began his military career in 1968 as a cadet in the U.S. Naval Academy. Following his graduation in 1972, Mr. Rush served in the U.S. Navy through the end of the Vietnam war until 1978. Following his active duty tenure, Mr. Rush joined the Navy Reserves, where he served for 13 years. In 1991, Operation Desert Storm summoned Mr. Rush's reserve unit to active duty, and once again, he was called to serve his country in a foreign war. At the conclusion of Operation Desert Storm, Mr. Rush returned to reserve duty, whereupon he retired in May of this year. Mr. Rush not only began an outstanding military career at the Naval Academy, but his education there laid the foundation for an outstanding civilian career. Earning a bachelor of science in military and political science from Annapolis in 1972, he went on to study at St. Louis University School of Law. In 1981, Mr. Rush graduated cum laude, earning a juris doctor degree. Mr. Rush worked at the Armstrong, Teasdale, Schiafly, and Davis firm first as a law student, then as an associate upon his graduation. He eventually became a partner and the assistant chairman of the Transportation Law Department. He remained with this firm until 1993, when he joined the Law Offices of C. Marshall Friedman. As a member of this firm, Mr. Rush specializes in trial cases on behalf of injured railroad workers. Mr. Rush also serves the community of St. Louis as a civic leader. He served for approximately 6 years on the St. Louis School Board, and was elected president of that organization. As a member of the school board, he lobbied for desegregation programs, and concentrated on efforts to raise achievement levels in the St. Louis public schools. Mr. Rush has received awards for his civic achievements, including the Outstanding Civic Leader Award, given by the St. Louis Junior Chamber of Commerce and the Government Achievement Award, given by the East- West Gateway Coordinating Council. Doug also has served as a trustee of the city of St. Louis Mental Health Board since 1992. Today, we honor his service to this country, and we also honor Douglas Rush for his outstanding civilian achievements in the field of law and the community of St. Louis, MO. I wish him well in the days ahead.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise to encourage support for this conference report. Not long ago, there were nine men from the 305th Air Mobility Wing recently reported missing and last seen in the skies over the south Atlantic. For reasons unknown, these crew members aboard the Air Force C-141, in route from Windhoek Airfield, Namibia, to Ascension Island, never fully completed their assigned mission of providing de-mining assistance to the Namibian people. After delivering Army personnel and mine-clearing equipment, their arrival at Ascension never materialized. Evidence indicates a mid-air collision. People from five nations spent several weeks looking for them. I ask all of the Members to look at this bill in light of those who wear the uniform, who are committed, who are courageous, and, sadly, from time to time, lose their lives. I ask all Members to look at this bill, because it does help those personnel and their families. It increases the personnel pay, it raises military construction levels for housing and barracks and command centers. It augments health and child care and other family oriented benefits to improve the quality of life. It adds nearly $3.6 billion for important procurement programs such as air traffic collision avoidance systems. Mr. Speaker, we must do our very best for the young men and young women in uniform, day in and day out, wherever they are, whether it be at Fort Hood, Fort Leavenworth, Fort Leonard Wood, Whiteman Air Force Base, Norfolk, VA, or whether it be in Namibia, Bosnia, Europe or Japan, they are performing their duties, defending our interests and defending our liberty. I urge the Members of this House to support this bill, because it does so much for the young men and young women in uniform.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I wish to congratulate and pay tribute to Archie D. Barrett, who recently retired from his position as Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army, Manpower and Reserve Affairs, Mr. Barrett served our Nation for 44 years, as an Air Force fighter pilot, a member of the professional staff of the Armed Services Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives, and finally in his most recent position where he was the principal advisor to the Assistant Secretary of the Army on all Department of the Army policy and activities pertaining to manpower and force structure. Archie D. Barrett was born in Paris, TX, on August 13, 1935. Following graduation from high school, he accepted an appointment to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. He graduated from West Point in 1957, and was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the U.S. Air Force. During his distinguished 24 year career in the Air Force, Mr. Barrett served in a variety of assignments, including an assignment as an F-4 fighter pilot in Southeast Asia during the Vietnam conflict. Along the way, he earned both a masters and a doctorate from Harvard University. He retired as a colonel in 1981. After retiring from the Air Force, Arch began 13 years of service as a professional staff member of the then House Armed Services Committee. He served on both the Subcommittee on Investigations and the Subcommittee on Military Forces and Personnel, where his responsibilities included participation in the investigation of the terrorist bombing of the Marine headquarters in Lebanon. I worked very closely with him when I chaired the panel on military education of the House Armed Services Committee. His thorough knowledge of the defense education system helped the panel formulate needed reforms in this area. Arch Barrett will be best remembered in Congress for his work on the hearings and legislative proposals on defense reorganization, culminating in the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986. It was my privilege to work with Arch on this issue, and his expertise on Department of Defense organization proved invaluable to Congress and the Nation. Indeed, his book on this subject, ``Reappraising Defense Organizational,'' was published in 1983. It is not overstating it to say that this legislation, which helped win the gulf war, would not have become law without the tireless and devoted efforts of Arch Barrett. Mr. Speaker, Archie D. Barrett is a national treasure. Although he is retiring from the Government, I am sure that he has many more productive years of service ahead of him, and that we will be able to call upon his wise counsel when needed. I know the Members of the House will join me in extending our heartfelt gratitude and best wishes in the years ahead to Arch and his family--his wife Miriam, who joins him in retirement from her position in the office of our colleague Martin Olav Sabo, and his three children, Julie Ann Heady, Cynthia Dawn Barrett, and Archie Don, Jr.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to say a special word in tribute to David H. Goldstein, who has served as executive director of the Jewish Community Relations Bureau/American Jewish Committee of Greater Kansas City since 1972. Goldstein, an expert in community relations, is celebrating his 25th anniversary as executive director. A native of Cleveland, OH, Goldstein began his career in public relations by earning a bachelor's degree in sociology from Case Western Reserve University and a master's degree in education from Butler University. After college, Goldstein went to work for the Anti- Defamation League of B'nai B'rith in New England. He then took a post at the Jewish Community Relation Council in Indianapolis. While at that job, Goldstein designed one of the earliest Head Start programs. Head Start is a program designed to prepare underprivileged children for school, and Goldstein became its first director in Indianapolis. Later, Goldstein went on to direct a Head Start program in Washington, DC, and then to work in fair housing at the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development before coming to Kansas City to head the JCRB. While at his post in Kansas City, Goldstein has helped coordinate a working relationship between the Jewish community and the community at large. Other major areas of Goldstein's involvement have centered around fostering good relations with the African-American community, fighting anti-Semitism, and working for freedom for Soviet Jewry. Goldstein is a member of the board of directors of the Kansas City chapter of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and a life member of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. He has served on the boards of the American Civil Liberties Union and the Urban League, and was cochairperson of the Kansas City, MO Human Rights Commission. Mr. Speaker, for 25 years David H. Goldstein has served the people of the Kansas City area with pride and honesty. I am certain that the Members of the House will join me in paying tribute to this great American.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill. So often agriculture and so often rural America gets overlooked in the whole scheme of things. This bill does an excellent job. I compliment the chairman and the ranking member on the bipartisan approach to this. The fact that it is agreed upon and is noncontroversial speaks well for the way agriculture is being treated, rural development is being handled, and as well as the agriculture research, which is so very, very important for the agriculture community, which in turn is important to all of America.