Ike Skelton

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to Don Faurot, a legendary figure in University of Missouri athletics, who died on October 19, 1995. He was 93. Don Faurot, who coached the Tigers football team from 1935 through 1956, was credited with creating the split-T formation at Missouri in 1941. He was 101-79-10 in his coaching career. Coach Faurot's 1939 team won his first Big Six title and the Tigers' first trip to the Orange Bowl. As an 8-year-old boy, I was present in Miami, FL, when his M.U. team played Georgia Tech. Missouri's football stadium is named for him. Through the years, he had continued to attend every Missouri home game. Coach Faurot, who set the cornerstone for the Missouri football program that exists today, was even more respected for the integrity he brought to the game. ``If everybody in collegiate athletics was a Don Faurot,'' Big Ten Commissioner Wayne Duke once said, ``then collegiate athletics would be what it is supposed to be.'' Don Faurot was born in Mountain Grove, MO, on June 23, 1902. Despite losing the first two fingers on his right hand in a boyhood farming accident, he was a 145-pound fullback at Missouri in 1923 and 1924, and played basketball and baseball. He took over the football program at Missouri in 1935 after coaching 9 years at Kirksville State Teachers College, now Northeast Missouri State University. At Kirksville, his teams went 26-0 from 1923-32, the best small college record in the country. When he returned to Missouri, he took over a team that had won just two games in 3 years and the athletic program was $500,000 in debt. Under Faurot's direction, though, the Tigers won three conference titles and went to four bowl games. When he retired as athletic director in 1967, the program was in the black and the stadium's seating capacity had doubled to more than 50,000. This despite rigorously adhering to recruiting policies and relying primarily on homegrown players. ``If you lose with home-state boys, that's bad,'' he said. ``But if you lose with out-of-state boys, that's terrible. If you win with imported athletes, that's good. If you win with your own, that's great.'' A member of football's National Hall of Fame and the Missouri Sports Hall of Fame, Faurot remained active in his later years as talent procurer and coach for the Blue-Gray game in Montgomery, AL, and as executive secretary of the Missouri Senior Golf Assocation. In 1972, Coach Faurot received what probably ranked as his greatest personal honor when the Missouri football stadium was officially named Faurot Field. In 1926, Don Faurot, an agricultural student at Missouri, helped lay sod for the field, then known as Memorial Stadium. Coach Faurot is survived by his wife, Mary, of Columbia, three daughters, seven grandchildren, and a brother, Fred, of Columbia.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and I compliment him, the chairman of this committee. I compliment the ranking member, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums]. I thank and congratulate the gentleman who is the chairman of the subcommittee on which I have the privilege of being the ranking member, the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter], for the excellent work that we have done; to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan], on whose subcommittee I serve, for his persistence on the MIA issue. This is a good bill. It is not just because it includes good language for the B-2 that it takes a step forward. But we have spent a great part of this week talking about supporting the troops. This bill supports the troops. It gives them a pay raise. It helps with their family allowance. It supports the families better. It adds to the figure that was going down regarding maintenance and training. Mr. Speaker, we have the finest military ever known in this country. This bill will help keep us a very, very strong and fine military for those arduous duties that are expected of these fine young men and women.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise with a heavy heart to announce that our country has lost a great soldier and friend, General Maxwell Reid Thurman. General Thurman, a soldier whose career spanned more than 37 years, died on December 1, 1995, at Walter Reed Army Medical Center after a 5-year struggle with leukemia. General Thurman was a principal architect of the all-volunteer Army and served as the Commander-in Chief of United States Southern Command during Operation Just Cause in December 1989. He learned that he had an aggressive form of leukemia in July 1990, and retired from the Army 8 months later in March, 1991. Born in High Point, NC, General Thurman attended North Carolina State University, graduating with a degree in Chemical Engineering in 1953. While at North Carolina State, he enrolled in the Reserve Officer Training Corps and was commissioned an officer in the Ordnance Corps. Early in his career, General Thurman applied for, and received, a regular army commission in the field artillery. His professional military education included attendance at the ordnance and field artillery basic courses, the field artillery advanced course, the Army Command and General Staff College, and the Army War College. General Thurman held a variety of staff and command positions, both in Europe and the United States. In Europe, he commanded light artillery and rocket units with the 11th Airborne Division, and he saw service in the 1958 Lebanon Crisis. He served in Vietnam, first as an intelligence advisor, and later as commander, 2d battalion, 35th field artillery, during the Tet Offensive. Returning to the United States, he commanded the 82d Airborne Division Artillery. Other assignments included duty as an instructor at the U.S. Military Academy, the Army Field Artillery School, and the Army Training and Doctrine Command. In 1979, General Thurman was assigned as the Commanding General of the U.S. Recruiting Command. It was during this assignment that he helped shaped the post-Vietnam Army and helped transform it into the high quality, ready-to-flight force we have today. Under his leadership, General Thurman advertised the Army as a place where men and women with lots of drive and potential could be all that they could be, not a safe haven for underachievers. This is still the Army's basic recruiting slogan: ``Be All That You Can Be.'' Promoted to the rank of lieutenant general in 1981, General Thurman became the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel for the U.S. Army. In 1983 he was promoted to full general and appointed Vice Chief of Staff of the Army. He assumed command of the U.S. Training and Doctrine Command at Fort Monroe, VA in 1987. During these years it was largely through General Thurman's inspiration and leadership that the Army's new recruiting and training programs were implemented and the modern, volunteer professional Army fully came into existence. In September 1989, General Thurman was named Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Southern Command, responsible for all American military national security policy and strategy in the region. It was under his leadership that the United States prepared and launched Operation ``Just Cause'' in Panama, which successfully removed dictator Manuel Noriega, and helped restore democracy to that strategic nation. General Thurman held numerous awards and honors. His U.S. military decorations include two awards of the Defense Distinguished Service Medal; two Distinguished Service Medals; two Legions of Merit; the Bronze Star Medal with Valor Device (with Oak Leaf Cluster); four Air Medals; Meritorious Service Medals; Army Commendation Medals; and the Joint Service Achievement Medal. Additionally, General Thurman was decorated by the Governments of France, Germany, and Venezuela. He was a master parachutist and held the Army General Staff and the Joint Chiefs of Staff identification badges. Since his retirement, General Thurman has been a Senior Fellow of the Association of the United States Army's Institute of Land Warfare and an executive-in-residence at North Carolina State University. General Thurman also served on the President's Commission on Women in the Armed Forces and the President's Commission on Panama. In 1992, he received the North Carolina Award for Public Service for a native North Carolinian living outside the State. In 1995, General Thurman was awarded an honorary doctor of humane letters degree from North Carolina State University. Mr. Speaker, General Thurman was the epitome of selfless service to nation. He was always enthusiastic, and unstoppable tinkerer, sometimes abrasive, and yet humorous and warm when the pressure was off. He was a leader who truly made a difference, and his legacy can be found in the magnificent men and women who make up our trained and ready Army. He has our thanks--he served our Nation well. We will truly miss his leadership and friendship.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate hearing my friend, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Hastings], and his spirited comments a few moments ago. I would point out a phrase that he used: ``No war is risk free.'' Mr. Speaker, this is not a war. We are told that our troops are being sent there as peacekeepers, but I am afraid and I will explain this further in debate on the general bill and during the amendments, why this is not an evenhanded, impartial peacekeeping operation, and how it may very well end up in a very high-risk situation as far as our troops are concerned. I would also point out that the bill that the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Buyer] and I put forth, and on which there will be a vote later this evening, is based upon hearings that we had in the Committee on National Security. We had numerous hearings there. What is in there, we took from the hearings the testimony and combined it into this bill that we have put forth as number 302. I also wish to point out that early on November 11, I set forth some eight conditions under which we could deploy troops to the country of Bosnia. I gave full expression of my concern in those eight conditions as of that moment. I tell this body, Mr. Speaker, that six of those conditions have been met, two have not been met. As a result, I have chosen to be a principal cosponsor with my friend, the gentleman from Indiana, and I hope that when we reach that, that there will be a sizeable, sizeable vote in favor of it. I also will vote for this rule.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I feel constrained to speak against this in light of the fact that the last vote passed and it passed overwhelmingly. If this should happen to pass, we would have the most mixed message going out to America possible. These are nice words. Paraphrasing them, they are pabulum. But we support the troops more than adequately in the previous resolution. We stated more correctly when we speak of their courage and of their professionalism in the previous resolution. This one would have no effect except to confuse the people we represent and of course confuse those wonderful troops that are going to be in Bosnia. I am constrained, Mr. Speaker, to vote against this.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman, does he agree with me that there has been no credible answer or response to my raising the issue of arming and training the Bosnian Moslems, which puts our troops at risk?

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I intend to vote against the Dornan bill. I do so because I feel to support it would be a vote in favor of cutting our troops off at the knees. They are on their way. They are going to be there. Mr. Speaker, in a later moment I will explain, in great detail, problems that I have with the U.S. policy, but this is not the time nor the moment to do that. I will explain why we should vote for the Buyer- Skelton resolution, which will put this entire matter in perspective.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, it has been said the more emotion, the less reason. Emotion reigns. The cry is, stop the bloodshed. Fine. But it should be done right, not in a way that defies common sense and puts our troops at a high and unacceptable risk. On November 11 I set forth eight conditions under which American forces could go to Bosnia. Two of those conditions have not been met by the U.S. policy. One, there is no clear and understandable exit plan or policy. This gives me great concern that we could find ourselves stuck like flies stuck to flypaper. Second, the United States has formally guaranteed to arm and train the Bosnian Moslems. The United States has formally agreed to coordinate the arming and the training of these Moslem forces. This policy defies common sense, because it will cause U.S. troops to be viewed as favoring one side over the other. It will destroy our impartiality and puts our troops in danger. The Americans will be seen as the enemy by the Serbs; the Moslems will expect a wink and a favor, and when they do not get it, they will be angry. This policy causes our troops to become targets of anger and vengeance. This policy of arming and training Bosnian Moslems, even though through a third party but guaranteed and supervised by us, concerns me. There are three points to be considered. First, already there exits a parity between the warring factions, the Serbs on the one hand and the Croat-Moslem federation on the other. Note the recent battlefield successes by the federation. Secondly, our allies and our military leaders in this country are not in favor of arming and training the Moslem forces. The French and British in particular are against it. In order to have peacekeeping work, there must be trust. Trust of the former belligerents, of the impartiality of the peacekeepers. This trust and confidence will not exist so long as our government pursues the policy of supervising the arming and training of the Moslems. The U.S. field manual regarding peacekeeping states peacekeeping requires an impartial evenhanded approach. I have raised this issue with the President. Mr. Speaker, we are sending our troops into Bosnia and putting them into an atmosphere of hostility. Serbian President Milosevic told the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Ramstad] and the gentlewoman from Missouri [Mrs. Danner] the following: ``Provisions to equip and train Bosnian Muslims are not part of the Dayton agreements. Such an effort would not be evenhanded and would be a mistake for the U.S.'' He went on to say, ``I would ask the U.S. to reconsider the equip and train effort, as it will have no positive effect and be a waste of money. It will establish the wrong psychology in the area, preparing for war instead of preparing for peace.'' Mr. Speaker, the only resolution before us to address this issue of the United States arming and training the Moslems is the Buyer-Skelton measure. It calls for the United States, in all respects, to be impartial. This present U.S. policy is placing our soldiers into the snake pit of the Balkans and angering half of the snakes. Our troops deserve to be put in an atmosphere that they expect, that of impartiality, as evenhanded peacekeepers; an atmosphere where all the warring sides will see the soldiers wearing American flags as truly impartial, where the warring sides will not see Americans as enemies and put targets on their backs. Mr. Speaker, this policy is putting the American corporal, who is trying to settle a problem between a Serb soldier and a Moslem soldier, in an impossible and dangerous position. I urge a strong vote for the Buyer-Skelton measure.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, a leading Missouri citizen, the mayor of Lebanon, and a good friend, Kenneth Cowan, died October 17, 1995. He was 79 years of age. During his tenure as mayor, Cowan led the city of Lebanon into an era of major growth. He was known for his vision and devotion to duty. Cowan had served on the city council during the administration of mayor Wallace Earp. Earp resigned on April 18, 1977, and Cowan was elected mayor in a special election on June 7, 1977. He was re-elected to office in 1980, 1984, 1988 and 1992. He was born in Richland, Missouri where he graduated from high school. He attended Southwest Missouri State University in Springfield and served in the U.S. Air Force during World War II. Cowan entered into public service in Richland in 1948 when he was elected to the city council. He served in that capacity 10 years. He moved to Lebanon in 1958 and bought Burley's Department Store, which he operated until he was elected mayor. During his years in office, he received the support of Lebanon voters on key issues including a sales tax, transportation sales tax, and a capital improvements sales tax. Mayor Cowan set a high standard for public service. His ability to lead and to get things done for his community should inspire those who follow. The people of Lebanon have lost an exceptional leader, and I have lost a friend.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, Friday evening, the Vice President was on ABC News ``Nightline.'' In his comments, the Vice President stated that the task of bringing peace to Bosnia would be done at a minimal risk to American troops. This would be true, but for one provision to which the administration has signed up: namely, the guaranteeing and coordinating of the arming and training of one of the belligerents. According to testimony by Secretary of State Warren Christopher, our Government policy is supervising--that is, guaranteeing and coordinating--the arming and training of Bosnian Moslem forces. This is a flawed and dangerous policy. It gives the appearance that we favor one side of this bitter internal struggle over another. It makes our Government appear to be a combatant. We cannot be both a combatant and a peacekeeper. This policy of arming and training Bosnian Moslems--even through a third party, but guaranteed and supervised by us--concerns me greatly. Three points are to be considered: First, already, there exists a parity between the warring factions, the Serbs on the one hand and the Croat-Moslem Federation on the other. Note the recent battlefield successes by the Federation. Further, the Moslems have been receiving arms by way of Croatia for some time. Second, our allies are not in favor of arming and training the Moslem forces. The French and British, in particular, are against it. This was pointed out in news reports Thursday morning. Third, the arming and training of the Moslem forces, quoting the Vice President: ``we are going to see that it happens * * * we commit to making sure that is going to happen.'' Mr. Speaker, this is a flawed policy. The Vice President concedes that it would be wrong for the American troops to directly arm and train the [[Page H 13873]] Bosnian Moslems, as it would destroy the even-handedness and perception of even-handedness of our troops in the field. I say that the United States guaranteeing and coordinating this effort is just as bad. Having America in charge of this effort--having other countries or other persons contracted to do the job--still destroys the even-handedness and perception of even-handedness of our Americans in uniform. This policy has red, white, and blue stamped all over it. This policy paints each American soldier with a bulls'-eye target. In order for peacekeeping to work, there must be trust--trust of the former belligerents in the impartiality of the peacekeepers. This trust and confidence will not exist so long as our Government pursues the policy of supervising the arming and training of the Moslems. It is one thing, in the words of Secretary of Defense William Perry, to ``be the meanest dog in town.'' It is another not to have to fight at all. The U.S. Army Field Manual, regarding peacekeeping, states: ``Peacekeeping requires an impartial, even-handed approach.'' Our National Security Committee heard testimony from retired generals and others who stressed the need for peacekeepers to be neutral, to be even-handed. Soon, our American soldiers, some 20,000 of them, will arrive in Bosnia as peacekeepers between the three warring sides: the Croats, the Bosnian Serbs, and the Bosnian Moslems. A few weeks ago, in a White House meeting, Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbot told me of plans for the U.S. Government to arm and train the Bosnian Moslems. Being concerned with this policy, I wrote a letter to the President on October 31, criticizing this stance. After the peace agreement was signed, I wrote another letter on November 22. After I, along with several others, criticized this plan--which would clearly put our troops in danger by destroying their required impartiality--a new plan to arm and train then appeared. This new arrangement is one of farming out, contracting out, laundering out the task to third parties. There is nothing in the Dayton peace agreement, initialed by the three belligerents, that requires the United States to arm and train anyone. This slightly altered policy still violates the required impartiality of the United States, and that lack of impartiality will be transferred to our soldiers serving as peacekeepers. Ordinary military risk is one thing; inviting vengeance against our troops is another. Those who came up with this wrong-headed policy should learn the wisdom of the Missouri Ozarks: ``Those who aid my enemy become my enemy.'' The Serbs will look upon American troops as enemies and the Moslems will expect favors. Bosnia is a snake pit of anger, hatred, and vengeance. We are putting our troops in a snake pit while we are angering half the snakes. This policy could well be a death warrant for scores of American men and women in uniform. Taking sides in previous peacekeeping efforts--1983 in Beirut and 1993 in Mogadishu--brought tragedy to Americans in uniform. We should learn from the past. The President agreed to furnish 20,000 troops for peacekeeping--not 20,000 targets for vengeance. Remember, this is the Balkans, the scene of centuries of hate, centuries of killing, and centuries of vengeance. I, for one, see no reason for American troops to be made victims of vengeance because of this wrong-headed policy of arming and training the Moslems. As a matter of fact, our troops have not been forewarned of the additional security risk that our policy could bring. On December 1, I wrote the Secretary of Defense a letter, urging his Department to issue memorandums to the soldiers to be on extra alert, as this policy puts them at higher risk. I understand the need for America to assume a leadership role in the world. I understand the need for America to be the leader of NATO. But I do not understand why American troops will be inserted into this war- torn country as both peacekeepers and combatants. The credibility of American soldiers as impartial peacekeepers will be lost. I urge this administration to abandon this policy, as it will undoubtedly bring needless loss of life and injury to our fine troops in Bosnia. I include for the Record my letters dated October 31, November 22, and December 1. Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, October 31, 1995. The President, The White House, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. President: Please know that I very much want to help you in supporting the promising Bosnian peace initiative. However, I have great concerns about the effort to equip and train the Bosnian Muslims, especially while U.S. troops are operating in Bosnia. I believe the ``equip and train'' effort corrupts the implementation force (IFOR) as a neutral peace force, and needlessly places the lives of American troops at risk. The effort will cause America to be perceived as a party to the conflict in the eyes of the Bosnian Serbs, their friends, and their allies. There will be no avoiding it, even if an attempt is made to keep the effort separate from IFOR. The message received in the region will be clear: American troops are not in Bosnia to implement a peace agreement, but rather to protect the Bosnian Muslims. The purpose of the ``equip and train'' effort is to establish military parity. However, given what has happened in Bosnia over the last three months, I question the assertion that a military imbalance exists. On the contrary, I suggest a regional military balance has existed for sometime. Furthermore, I sense that the warring factions have grown weary of prolonging the fight. We are walking down the dangerous path toward an arms race in Bosnia just at the time when American troops will attempt to bring peace to an area suffering from a savage war. Will not the Russians respond to the cries of their ethnic cousins, the Bosnian Serbs, who fear being driven from their homes in the future by a menacing Bosnian Muslim force? Our effort to equip and train Bosnian Muslims could bring more war to the region. No matter how we try to separate it from IFOR, the effort to equip and train will have ``RED, WHITE, AND BLUE'' written all over it. This would jeopardize the safety of U.S. forces. The Serb partisans will have an incentive to make American troops pay the price, and American troops will become the object of Serb anger and acts of vengeance. Therefore, I believe that we should defer any effort to equip and train until IFOR departs the country. My suggestion keeps faith with the Bosnian Muslims without needlessly jeopardizing the lives of American troops. Again, Mr. President, I want to help you bring peace to Bosnia. But I would find it difficult to support U.S. participation in IFOR should we embark on the dangerous path of equipping and training Bosnians Muslims. Sincerely, Ike Skelton, Member of Congress.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, there is an old saying, the more emotion the less reason. Today I call for reason and I call for defeating this rule and put an end to the discussion of a very difficult issue whose time has not come. I do not speak today of sending troops. I am not yet convinced that that is the case. I have serious reservations. As a matter of fact, I have told the administration that I have eight specific conditions before I would even consider it, not the least of which is whether there will be training of the Moslems and equipment and ammunition given to them. What we are doing today is completely out of context. It is untimely. It is premature. Let us look at the history of this body. This body, when it comes to foreign affairs, matters of national security, other countries, we have stopped at the water's edge and spoken through the administration, whoever the President may be. Both sides of the aisle have spoken together, worked with the administration and said to all people from other countries, we are Americans. We believe in cooperation; we believe in working together. We speak with one voice. I was here. I had the first 2 hours of the debate in my control on the resolution to send the troops to the gulf. That was a bipartisan effort. As a matter of fact, the President, at that time a Republican, requested of this Democratic-controlled Congress that we not take up the issue prematurely. We did not. This rule should be voted down so we may not prematurely take this issue up. We must do this in reasoned manner and in a timely manner. Let us not rush to judgment. Let us do what is right for our country. Let us do what is right for foreign affairs. Let us do what is right for the Americans.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill. The subcommittee has done a superb job, and I appreciate them bringing it back, and hopefully in a much more acceptable version than the one that unfortunately was sent back several days ago. Under the Constitution, this Congress is charged with raising and maintaining the military. I have over the past several years worked to put together a budget that would meet the needs of our military in future years. It is difficult. This year I was successful in putting one together. I testified before the Committee on the Budget, and I concluded that we needed, over the next 5 years, an additional $44 billion over the administration recommendation. That figure, given by the Committee on the Budget, was at or near what I recommended. This bill takes care of the soldiers and the sailors and the airmen and the marines; it gives them adequate pay, it helps take care of their families and their needs, and you have to keep those young people in the military. It takes a long time to grow a good staff sergeant, a long time to grow a major, a long time to grow a chief petty officer, a long time to grow a letter commander. Then we look at what we are asking them to work with. A very aging bomber fleet, other airplanes that no longer are produced, trucks, equipment that is mundane, but yet is old and is wearing out. We need to keep our forces the strongest in this world. This bill helps to do that. We noticed in the paper just the other day where the Pentagon says there are going to be some $60 billion short on just procurement over the next several years. We must proceed along this line and fully fund the military and take care of our troops.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Mexico for yielding time to me. First, let me commend my friend, my colleague, the gentleman from southeast Missouri [Mr. Emerson], for this piece of legislation. But let me tell Members, it is a shame. It is a shame, Mr. Speaker, that this has to be done. The National Park Service, using good judgment, in its bureaucracy should have let the horses stay where they have been for some 60 years. And now they say, the only way they are going to stay, to our friend, the gentleman from southeast Missouri [Mr. Emerson], is to get legislation passed. To his credit, he is doing it. I certainly hope we will pass it here in the House unanimously. I certainly hope that the U.S. Senate will follow suit. There is such a thing as tradition in this country. There is such a thing as seeing things as they were in yesteryear in this country. We want tourists to come to Missouri. We want tourists to come to this country. We want them to see what happens, what has been around, what makes Americans Americans and Missouri Missouri. And the people understand that who live in our State. The Missouri Wild Horse League is going to work with the National Park Service under this bill, no expense to the Federal Government. Shame on the bureaucracy and the National Park Service. Let us get this done. And hooray and congratulations to our friend, Bill Emerson, from the State of Missouri.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding this time. Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear, I do hope at the right time to help the President in his Commander-in-Chief duties. But this issue, as it comes before us now, is a fuzzy issue, and, of course, if I were to write this less resolution, I would write it a bit differently. But we have before us a proposal for the NATO forces to participate in so- called peacekeeping in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the United States forces would be part of it. I thoroughly agree that the Congress of the United States should be part of this decision, and I hope we can have a full and fair debate at the time. But as we look at it as of this moment, there are so many unanswered questions, I feel I must vote for this resolution. We must look forward as we ask these questions, what will the agreement say? What is our mission to be as troops? Will they be peacekeepers or peacemakers? What will the rules of engagement be? When can we say we have a successful mission? Will the peacekeepers, if we are as peacekeepers, be evenhanded to enforce the peace against both the Serbs and the Muslims? Will the rules of engagement apply to both? And the most serious unanswered question, Mr. Speaker, that I have in my own mind, is whether at the same time we are there as peacekeepers, we will also be having American troops training, equipping, and arming the Muslims?

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, today I pay tribute to the Missouri National Guard in recognition of their great feat of transporting tons of military equipment from the Port of Balboa on the Pacific side of the Panama Canal to Jefferson City, MO. The following is the fact sheet for the project: Seagoing Barges Move Military Equipment from the Port of Balboa, Panama Late 1994.--The Missouri National Guard, in cooperation with the 102nd Army Reserve Command, ships over 340 pieces of military equipment to Panama for a Jan.-May 1995 exercise that was part of the ongoing nation building program in the US Southern Command theater. The equipment ranged from giant earthscrapers to light trucks, collected at Fort Leonard Wood and Camp Crowder, MO and loaded onto railcars and shipped to Beaumont, TX. It was unloaded there and then loaded onto a ship for the trip to Panama. Four high dollar items, UH-1 ``Huey'' helicopters, were flown by C-5 ``Galaxy'' from Whiteman AFB to avoid potential rail movement and transloading damage. February, 1995.--Changes at Fort Leonard Wood made it impossible to plan on the fort as a return site. Regardless, the gear had to eventually come to National Guard headquarters along the Missouri River in central Missouri for maintenance after five months in Panama, and there is no rail yard there. Guard officials begin discussing barge movement with military transportation and sealift planners. The idea of shipment by seagoing barge became a plan and a contract was let. June, 1995.--At the port of Balboa on the Pacific side of Panama two 400 by 100 foot barges are loaded with all equipment, including the helicopters (protected by plastic shrink wrap), towed through the canal and up to the Gulf of Mexico to New Orleans, then pushed up the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers and in mid-July unloaded at a temporary wharf less than half mile from the Guard's maintenance shops. The helicopters are unwrapped and flown straight from the barge deck two miles to their maintenance facility. The Results.--With four handlings en route to Panama, there was damage to numerous items of equipment, including significant damage to vehicle windshields. With the equipment handled only twice on the return (by its ``owners'' both times) damage was almost zero. Personnel injury risk exposure was cut in half, and the offload was completed in the Missouri River bottoms with daytime highs in the mid to upper 90s without a single injury or heat casualty among the soldiers. The move demonstrated the ability of an inland location to serve as a power projection platform for direct overseas movement or receipt of equipment in situations where seagoing barges can be used effectively as a means of filling shortfalls in current lift capability. The move avoided the costs associated with intermediate transloading operations, including avoiding personnel injury risk exposures and potentially significant equipment damage.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, today I pay tribute to a great American, a great Army officer, a great Missourian, and a great soldier. This month Jerry Harrison will complete over 32 years of dedicated service to our country. As a soldier, leader, and finally as a trusted advisor to the Secretary of the Army and the Chief of Staff of the Army he has provided dedicated and distinguished service. Today as we honor his retirement, Jerry Harrison serves as the Army's Chief of Legislative Liaison. This is the capstone of a remarkable career which started in 1959 when he entered the U.S. Military Academy at West Point and where he was commissioned as a second lieutenant of field artillery in 1963. Over the course of the past three decades, he served in a variety of exceptionally challenging troop and staff assignments in the United States, Germany, Korea, and Vietnam. As a leader, he has commanded at the battery, battalion, and brigade levels, culminating in his command of the U.S. Army Laboratory Command. As a staff officer and commander, he saw duty in many tough and challenging positions, validating the confidence the Army placed in his demonstrated abilities. He commanded the 1st Battalion 29th Field Artillery at Fort Carson, Colorado, followed by a staff assignment as Chief, High Technology Test Division, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans. His skills were recognized when he was chosen for higher command and served as the Division Artillery Commander, 2nd Infantry Division, Camp Stanley, Korea. This was followed by a tour with the Deputy Chief of Staff for Research, Development, and Acquisition as the Deputy Director. His selection to Brigadier General led him to Fort Sill, Oklahoma where he served as the Assistant Commandant of the Field Artillery School, followed by an assignment as the Chief of Staff, Army Materiel Command. Upon his selection for promotion to Major General, he was given command of the U.S. Army Laboratory Command. Since January 1992, he has served with distinction as the Chief, Army Legislative Liaison. During his tour as the Chief, Army Legislative Liaison, he shepherded the Army's relationship with Congress wielding a deft and skillful touch during a period of tremendous change. Throughout this period, Jerry Harrison ably assisted the Army's senior leadership in its dealings with Members of the Congress and helped them to understand the needs of America's Army as it transformed itself from a forward deployed force to a power projection force. Drawing on this years of experience he skillfully charted the way for an enhanced understanding of the Army's role in the legislative process and for telling the Army story. His [[Page E 1980]] leadership resulted in cohesive legislative strategies, well-prepared Army leaders, and a coherent Army message. Jerry Harrison's career reflects a commitment to our Nation, characterized by dedicated selfless service, love for soldiers, and a commitment to excellence. Major General Jerry C. Harrison, the consummate professional, whose performance in over three decades of service, in peace as well as in war, personified those traits of courage, competency, and integrity that our Nation has come to expect from its Army officers. On behalf of the Congress of the United States and the people of this great Nation, I offer our heartfelt appreciation and best wishes for a soldier who served his country so admirably.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. SKELTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report on S. 895, the Small Business Lending Enhancement Act of 1995. The main purpose of this legislation is to adjust the fees and guaranty levels of two Small Business Administration loan programs-- steps I reluctantly agree to in order to make the insufficient appropriation level accorded these programs go as far as possible in meeting the credit needs of the small business community. Under current fee and percentage guarantee schedules, the SBA would only be able to approve a small percentage of the loan applications it anticipates receiving in the next fiscal year, given appropriation projections. Yes, reducing the percentage of an SBA loan which the Federal Government guarantees and raising the fees charged to the borrower and lender will lower the cost of the program to the Federal Government, but another price will be paid in the process. Smaller loans will be more expensive for the borrower and may mean that some small businesses will not be able to turn to this lender of last resort, the SBA Guaranty Program. These changes will also make the loans less profitable for lenders, which may mean that fewer of them will be willing to participate in this program and the options available to the small business person will lessen in this way also. [[Page H 9712]] However, given the budget dollars we had to work with, there were no alternatives to fee increases and lower guarantees. I am also very disappointed that, although I believe there was fairly broad and bipartisan support for it, we were not able to agree on keeping the Export Working Capital Program at a guarantee rate of 90 percent. After years of talking about the need to improve export assistance for small businesses and eliminate duplicate services, just last year the Congress approved an agreement worked out between the SBA and the Export-Import Bank wherein the SBA would guarantee export loans up to $750,000 at 90 percent and the Ex-Im Bank guarantee larger loans at 90 percent. We have now reduced the percentage the SBA will guarantee, making the loan seem riskier to lenders, many of whom are new to export financing and already extremely cautious about getting involved. I fear that in reducing the percentage guarantee of an export loan, we are truly hurting small businesses that are trying to export-- a short-sighted move in light of the importance of trade to our economy and the balance of trade figures which we regularly decry. I am pleased the conference report contains the Senate language charging the guarantee fee on the guaranteed amount, not the gross amount of the loan. In my view, the Government is simply not entitled to charge a fee on that portion of a loan which it is not guaranteeing and on which, therefore, it has no exposure. I am also happy that the legislation extends for 2 years the pilot Preferred Surety Bond Program. This program is desirable not only because it can be a quick and efficient means of getting funds to qualified borrowers, but also because it will inevitably be increasingly important to the SBA and small contractors that we delegate authority for program delivery to outside parties as a means of compensating for SBA personnel cutbacks. In closing, I would like to congratulate my colleague, Chairman Meyers, on successfully guiding her first conference report to the floor. We enjoyed a cooperative working relationship throughout the process and I stand here in support of the final product. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I speak for the young men and young women in uniform today. I speak for this Department of Defense appropriations bill. I think that this bill makes a major step in the right direction to help restore the needed dollars that have been slowly slipping away through the years. I say to my colleagues that we have the finest young men and women in uniform that we have ever had. I know this by personal observation, by meeting with them, by speaking with them at their posts, at their bases, here in this country and, yes, in other parts of the world. It is up to us, under the Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 8, to support the military, the Armed Forces. That is what we are doing today. If we fail to do so properly today, shame on us because we will be letting those young men and those young women down who we have a constitutional duty to support. This is a step in the right direction. I am pleased because it is a strong bill for our forces. The bill only increases Department of Defense spending over 1995 by $1.7 billion. It does cut O&M, but it still remains over the President's recommendation. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I had my own military budget which was in excess of this that I had been working on for quite some time. If this does not meet my expectations of what we need, this is still a very, very dangerous and uncertain world in the kaleidoscope of history and what is to come in the future. We must remain strong, and this bill is a step in that right direction, though it does have compromises in it, and frankly I personally would have more dollars than it has. To be sure, Mr. Speaker, there are philosophical differences in this bill, and, if I had my druthers, I would add funding to parts of it, and I might cut in other areas. But we must make sure that we keep the young men and young women strong, that we have enough ammunition for them, that we take care of their families, that we pay them properly, which is so important, and that we do all that we can to stand behind them in the arduous days ahead. The gentleman from Pennsylvania spoke about the possibility of our troops going into Bosnia. Of course I think we should have a very substantial and substantive debate on that issue right here in this hall, right here in this Chamber. But if that does come to pass, we want them to be well equipped, we want them to be well maintained, we want them to be well trained. If we do not pass this bill, there is a dire consequence that might come to pass, and that is they will not be ready, they will not be supplied with proper maintenance, ammunition, and they might not be well trained. Something has been said about the pro-life issue on this bill, and for the first time in the conference report there is positive language, positive language in the area of pro-life. I am personally pro-life, and I think that those managers on our part should be complimented for taking that step, but, if my colleagues really want to be pro-life, let us provide enough funding for the young men and young women who are to go into harm's way so that they will have the adequate training, the adequate maintenance, and the adequate equipment to protect themselves, and to do their duty, and to do their job, arduous and difficult as that duty is. That is our job, to stand behind them. Mr. Speaker, let us fulfill our constitutional duty. Being the superpower [[Page H 9702]] in this world, we must do this. We must pass this bill. I compliment the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young] for an excellent job on this. I compliment the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha], the ranking Democrat, for a fine job on this, and I have worked with him lo these many years. I will support this bill. It is a giant step in the right direction, and I hope this House will pass it overwhelmingly.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution, in favor of the Base Closure Commission recommendations. Mr. Speaker, this is not an easy process. It is often painful. But, Mr. Speaker, it is a very necessary process for us to go through. We like to point out that we have a wonderful military, and the military [[Page H 8693]] did its job during the cold war. It was necessary during that era to have an extremely large and strong multibased, multipost military within our country. We won the cold war, and to those who are losing installations in their area, they nevertheless should take pride in the fact that they did their job. The men and women, civilian, military, at those particular posts, installations, did an excellent job in protecting freedom through the years. But this process is one that I have watched. I had the opportunity to testify in front of the Base Closure Commission. I found them to be fair. I found them to listen. I found them to read and understand the facts. They also visited the various installations throughout the country. Mr. Speaker, I hope that this body will give a strong vote of support for the Base Closure Commission, voting against this resolution, because this is the only process available to save money so that we will have those dollars to modernize our military; to take care of the needs, the family needs, the family housing; to make sure we do not cut our military too small. Mr. Speaker, these Base Closure Commission savings will help us do that.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, if I may respond to our chairman of the subcommittee, and by the way, the gentleman does an excellent job and I appreciate it, and I am glad that the subcommittee reviewed this issue, because I am deeply concerned that one thing will lead to another and if there are not proper restrictions, if there is not proper language, we could very well find ourselves involved where we do not intend ourselves to be involved.

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

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I bring this issue to the floor of this House because it involves the potential problem of American military forces being where Americans do not want them to be. Mr. Chairman, I realize that there are negotiations ongoing at the present time, and I realize that this is a sensitive area of discussion, though I am convinced that I am right, and I will use my few moments on this floor to speak of this issue. This amendment which I offered states that none of the funds provided in this act may be obligated or expended for the provision by the United States of military training for military forces of the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina. We all know that the measure known as the Dole amendment passed. What the future of that will be after a veto I cannot say. But I do know that the lifting of the embargo would allow the Bosnia and Herzegovina Government to purchase arms and undoubtedly purchase many of them from us. They are not artillery oriented. They are infantry strong. The Bosnian Serbs are artillery strong, and these weapons that the Moslem Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina would purchase obviously would require people to train them and teach them how to use them. The question is who would that be? If they buy arms from us, undoubtedly it would be members of our military force, and this is what concerns me. These Bosnian and Herzegovinan Moslem soldiers will not be coming to Fort Sill, OK, to be learning how to shoot artillery. It will be done in country, in all probability trained by American soldiers. This concerns me a great deal. Now, Mr. Chairman, because there are sensitive negotiations going on at this time, I raise this issue so that the Members of this body will understand my deep concern. I say to my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, that the Balkans are not worth the life of one American soldier. This lifting of the embargo, unless my amendment would prevail, it allows Americans to go in and train, and if some of that does not work, they might become advisers, and then we see Vietnam all over again. Because of the sensitivity of this and the negotiations at this time, subject to the opportunity at a future date to offer this issue and debate it fully, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment because of the concerns for the sensitivity of the various negotiations that are ongoing.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I speak today to keep this House of Representatives from making a mistake. This House made a mistake in the past. In 1939 it sent a message when it failed to spend those dollars necessary to upgrade the harbor at Guam, telling the Japanese Empire that we would not defend the Pacific. If we turn down additional B-2's and adopt this amendment, we will be sending a message that deterrence does not count. We will be sending a message that we will not take the best advantage of our technological superiority and put it into the defense of our wonderful Nation. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment. Today's debate will shape the future not only of our United States Air Force, but of our national defense. It is a debate affecting American air doctrine and a debate about our ability to meet the basic requirements of our national military strategy. Additional B-2's are important for modernizing our aging fleet, and it is aging; maintaining our technological edge, for which America has always been in the forefront; and maintaining within the Air Force an ability to project force against an enemy from a great distance. Our Nation's strategic position is unique. The national military strategy requires our Armed Forces to prepare for nearly two simultaneous major regional contingencies, and we should keep in mind that we came within a gnat's eyelash, a gnat's eyelash, of conflict three times last year: in Haiti, in North Korea, and again with Saddam Hussein. Mr. Chairman, an effective long range bomber force is essential to meet the requirements of our strategy. We must continue this line. Over the past 70 years, air power has lifted from our soldiers and sailors the burden of maintaining peace, alone; this is an additional weapons system of deterrence. The gulf war ushered in a new chapter of air power. As the deep strike mission complemented our air forces at sea and on the ground, a new level of performance was reached. In the first 48 hours of Desert Storm, American air power crippled Iraqi air defense, wrecked major command centers, destroyed military communications, prevented Saddam Hussein from broadcasting by radio or television. This was done by the stealth technology. What this B-2 does is add stealth technology to long-range capability. It is a necessary step for our country.