Ike Skelton

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment to title 2. This afternoon I had the opportunity to speak on the telephone to a friend of mine from Jefferson City, MO, Bob Hyder, who shared with me that 50 years ago today, as an American frogman, he went to the beaches of Iwo Jima to prepare that island for an attack by the American forces. Bob Hyder, besides being courageous, was fully trained, and ready, and competent at what he did. This evening I appear here in support of the finest in America, those who wear the uniform of the United States, the men and women who lay their lives on the line, if that be the case. Members should realize that I speak for a strong national defense. Members should realize, particularly my friends on the other side of the aisle, that I have not made myself overly popular in the White House as a result of a recent budget proposal which exceeds that of the administration by some $44 billion because in my opinion we need more funds for readiness for those in uniform. I speak on this amendment which would require that before there is an increase in spending for accelerated development and deployment of a national missile defense, the Secretary of Defense must certify to Congress, to us, that the armed forces are properly sized, equipped, and structured and fully ready; that is the readiness issue; to carry out assigned missions as required by the national military strategy. The national military strategy is set forth in the bottom-up review. It has been our strategy for at least 2 years, and we should understand fully what it is. The national military strategy calls for us having the capability to fight, to win 2 nearly simultaneous major regional conflicts such as a Desert Storm and a defense of South Korea. That is our national military strategy. That is why I have said before, and I say again, that we must do a better job in funding the young men and women to carry out this strategy for our country. What this amendment does limits the amount for the national military defense, as opposed to theater defense, to this same amount that was expended and authorized in 1995. That sum is $400 million. It keeps it at that level for 1 year. It is a very simple amendment. I think that we should understand that we need to put our funds into readiness and into the troops. I visited field commands, I have spoken with military personnel and their families from our country both here in the continental United States and abroad, and let me share with my colleagues that, although our nation possesses the most able military force in the world, our country is at a crossroads in readiness. We should not ignore these signs. We do so at the peril of the young man and young woman wearing the American uniform. Some units are reporting a C-3 in training. Exercises have been canceled. Quality of life has been degraded. The increased load of peacekeeping, humanitarian relief and forward presence have stretched our military so very thin. As we debate this tonight, young men and young women in uniform are in Guantanamo, Alaska, South Korea, Macedonia, Germany, elsewhere in this globe, standing tall for us. We should not degrade the readiness, the quality of life, the equipment and the modernization for them one iota. That is why we should keep, that is why we should keep, the figure at $400 million as a cap for 1 year. We need to do more for the readiness of our troops. I certainly hope, Mr. Chairman, that we will understand this issue and that we will ask that the Secretary of Defense certify to us that this national military strategy can be performed.

Mr. SKELTON. All it says, Mr. Chairman, is that the Secretary of Defense certify to us, to my colleagues and I, that the armed forces are properly sized, equipped and structured to carry out this national military strategy which is a major undertaking. This is not pie-in-the- sky. This is our strategy. It is our design for 2 years. It is being strained at the seams, and that is why we should pass this amendment, because it puts the troops first, it allows national missile defense research, it allows $400 million a year. Let us not take that money from readiness, from fixing the refrigerators and the roofs for the day care centers, for the equipment, for the backed-up backlogs of materiel for the spare parts shortage. That is why we are today. Consequently, I urge quite sincerely that we adopt this amendment, because it is reasonable, it is fair, and it stands tall for the troops of the United States of America. amendment offered by mr. spence to the amendment offered by mr. skelton

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, my good friend, and he is my good friend, the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence], the chairman, offered an amendment to mine which, as a result of the amendments of the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums], the substitute and perfecting amendments, brings us back for all intents and purposes on a vote on my amendment. Mr. Chairman, I understand there are those that do not wish to vote on my amendment, because it places those at the crossroads of choosing readiness for the troops or for national defense missiles. The choice is clear. We should look out for the troops. We should vote for my amendment or the substitute amendment of the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery] and the perfecting amendment of the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums], for that is the same as mine. Mr. Chairman, let us take up for those in uniform tonight as they stand guard for our interests.

Mr. SKELTON. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.

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

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I speak strongly in favor of the perfecting amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums]. It includes housing. What is more important than taking care of our troops? I think that is very, very important. I thank him for that perfecting amendment to the substitute amendment offered by the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery].

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I discussed this amendment, my amendment number 7 to title VI, with the gentleman from New York. He indicated it was acceptable. By inadvertence, Mr. Speaker, it was left off the list. I just learned a few moments ago it was left off the gentleman's list as well. Mr. Speaker, I will not need more than 60 seconds to present it tomorrow.

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

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I also will not object, but I did not hear the amendment which we have discussed which I intend to offer on the list.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, today I wish to pay tribute to Glen F. Toalson of Osceola, MO who recently passed away. Born in Osceola in 1920, Toalson served as mayor of his hometown from 1969 to 1979. Educated at Riverside Military Academy in Gainesville, GA from 1933 until 1938, Toalson went on to attend Washington and Lee University in Lexington, VA from 1938 to 1941. He served as an Army officer in World War II. After the war he became an independent insurance agent and subsequently an oil jobber. A devoted husband and father he is survived by two sons and three grandchildren. I urge my colleagues to join me in sending sympathy to his entire family.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, it has come to my attention the Versailles, MO, Chamber of Commerce will soon bestow the honor of citizen of the year on former Mayor Jim Scrivner. I want to use this opportunity to call the attention to my fellow Members of Congress to the outstanding record of public service demonstrated in the life of this citizen of Missouri. Jim Scrivner would have been considered successful if viewed only from the perspective of his business and lifelong career as an undertaker with three funeral homes in rural Missouri. He provided a home for his wife, Honey, and their daughters, and is respected in his community. Through the years he added an ambulance service to the business. It was not financially successful, but he subsidized the service to his neighbors and the surrounding area. The nearest hospital was 40 miles from his hometown and ambulance service was a necessity. In 1973, Jim Scrivner was elected mayor of Versailles. His term of office was marked by a series of progressive ventures. A new sewage plant, replacement of failed sewerlines in a large section of the town, new housing for low-income and elderly residents and development of a successful industrial park all were accomplished in his tenure as mayor. The people trusted his leadership to the extent that a 1-percent sales tax was passed to provide for funding for future city development. It is fitting and proper that the people of Versailles recognize Jim Scrivner and his years of service. In doing so they focus a spotlight on the life and career of an outstanding individual. He has been successful as a family man, a businessman, and as an elected official. I am proud to call him my friend and to take this opportunity to enter into the Congressional Record my agreement with and support for the decision to honor him. His record is one we should all note and seek to emulate.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. speaker, we are at a crossroads in American military preparedness. Since the Iron Curtain collapsed in 1989, the quantity and extent of U.S. military commitments abroad have stretched our forces thin. Today, there are signs of a serious weakening in troop training readiness. The Pentagon reports that key modernization programs have been interrupted to pay for current operations and an ailing base infrastructure. We have reduced our military too far and too fast. If we continue, by the end of the decade we won't have the military power to shape a peaceful and prosperous world. Without security, peace, and free trade, all Americans lose. The erosion in military preparedness disturbs many of our Nation's leaders. President Clinton recognized the shortfall in December when he added $2 billion to this year's defense budget. Several Members of Congress proposed staying at the fiscal year 1995 budget level, adjusted for inflation. That amount, about a $14 billion increase, would be a major step toward bolstering American military preparedness. Some critics argue that defense increases are not needed because today's world is less dangerous. They fail to remember that in 1994 the United States came close to armed conflict three times. In June, we deployed additional forces toward Korea to halt the production of nuclear weapons. In September, we sent 22,000 troops to Haiti to restore democracy and stop the flow of refugees to our shores. Then, in October, we responded to Saddam Hussein's move to imperil the world's oil supply. These occurred during ongoing American military commitments in the Sinai, Rwanda, Macedonia, Cuba, Bosnia, Turkey, Panama, Okinawa, and Western Europe. In 1993, the administration outlined our national security strategy in the Bottom-Up Review. It reasonably concluded America needed enough military forces to fight and win two major regional conflicts, nearly simultaneously. Our recent trials with North Korea, Haiti, and Iraq affirm this two-war strategy. But our experience under the Bottom-Up Review, now approaching 2 years, suggests that we cannot take our force structure any lower. Indeed, modest increases are needed. Events in 1994 revealed our military is on the verge of being over- committed. Our experience in the new security environment also teaches that the Bottom-Up Review incorrectly assumed we can withdraw troops from peacekeeping and humanitarian relief commitments to fight a major regional conflict. Disengagement inflicts high cost. Some critics, observing defense officials juggle resources among competing demands, suggest we've sacrified modernization for readiness and quality of life. They've got it wrong. A serious imbalance does exist, but it's because all three are underfunded. Simply put, we are not adequately funding our strategy that ensures American security. The shortfall is not large, but it is big enough to create disturbing imbalances in our current military posture. We cannot allow troop morale, training readiness, and force modernization to get out of balance. Common sense says we should eliminate this strategy-resource mismatch to restore our overall military preparedness. My defense plan for fiscal years 1995-99 which I propose today, provides a $44 billion increase to add force structure; pay for peacekeeping obligations; and correct the imbalance in readiness, modernization, and quality of life. With this prudent investment, we can eliminate an over-committed force structure. We can meet out military commitments abroad. We can restore a high level of readiness. We can provide an adequate quality of life for our deserving service personnel. And we can continued to modernize our forces to be prepared for future threats. It is right and it is affordable. The choice is clear--continued decline or prudent restoration of our military preparedness. Will the history books say that American service men and women who performed unselfishly Congress of the United States? Or, will the record show that the Congress chose to leave them unprepared for the difficult trials asked of them? Common sense says that a secure and prosperous America can afford adequate, fully trained, properly equipped, and highly prepared military forces.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, today I wish to honor a great Missourian, Paul F. Butherus. Last fall Paul Butherus was inducted into the Northwest Missouri State University's Athletic Hall of Fame. An athlete, official, and coach, Butherus began his athletic career at Maryville High School. During 1940-44, Butherus was a letter winner in football, basketball, track, and tennis. Before moving onto college, Butherus served in the U.S. Infantry from 1944-46, where he was awarded a Purple Heart in the Battle of Luzon. In his college years at Northwest Missouri State College from 1946-49, Butherus was a 3-year letter winner in football, basketball, and track. Butherus served as a teacher, coach, and athletic director from 1949- 83 at various high schools. From 1949-50 he was at Madrid High School in Iowa. Following his years in Iowa he returned to Plattsburg High School in Missouri until 1958. He then went to Wentworth Military Academy in Missouri where he was until 1983. I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing this talented athlete. I congratulate him on his lifetime accomplishments and contributions.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. I thank the gentleman very much.

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

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

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to momentarily withdraw the amendment, subject to its being offered in a few moments.

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

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment at this point which would state that the President may not include in a special message any rescission of more than $50 million of discretionary budget authority for any program, project, or activity within the major functional category for national defense. I also wish to thank the following gentlemen: The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon], the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Edwards], the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan], the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Laughlin], and the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump] for asking to be cosponsors of this amendment. A special thanks to my friend and colleague from Texas, that very bright, able young Texas, Chet Edwards, for his excellent work on this amendment. This deals with national defense, I speak for the young men and young women in uniform, so that what comes down from this legislature reflecting our constitutional duty may not be undone by someone who might in years or decades ahead sit in the White House and be against the military. Along that line, however, let me digress for a moment and compliment the President for an announcement he made just a few moments ago. He told our Nation that he is naming the aircraft carrier CVN-75, the U.S.S. Harry Truman, and the aircraft carrier CVN-76, the U.S.S. Ronald Reagan. I compliment him on those choices for the famous Missourian who stood so tall and so well as our President and the recent President, Ronald Reagan, who was a patriot and strong for national defense. Back to the amendment. This amendment, Mr. Chairman, reflects what we ought to think about when it comes to legislation and our own powers. This legislation reflects the purpose and the spirit of our Constitution. If you go into the Committee on National Security room, you will see in front of the podium a copy of the words from article I, section 8 of our Constitution that gives us, the Congress, not only the authority but the duty to raise and maintain the military and to establish rules therefor. It is our responsibility. This amendment keeps that responsibility here and does not allow the buck to be passed somewhere else. There are those who might say what about those special projects, those research projects that some might put into a defense bill? That is taken care of, and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Edwards] came through with this idea that we incorporate that anything under $50 million may be subject to the same veto message that anything else may be subject to in this legislation. Nothing is more important than the national defense of our Nation. Securing our borders, the vital interests of our country, nothing is better than that. I speak for the young men and young women, I speak for this Congress, because it is our constitutional duty to raise and maintain them. I intend for us to let the buck stop here, where it should.

Mr. SKELTON. I gladly yield to my friend, the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. SKELTON. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. SKELTON. I yield to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from California.

Mr. SKELTON. Absolutely, absolutely.

Mr. SKELTON. If the gentleman would listen to my response, the President would not be able to strike, under this legislation, anything in excess of $50 million, which would of course include the category of which the gentleman speaks, the very important B-2 stealth bomber.