Ike Skelton

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt). (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill, the National Defense Authorization Act. I will explain the reasons why, but I first want to compliment my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter). This was the gentleman's inaugural voyage as chairman of the Committee on Armed Services and the seas were far from smooth. Many of the issues we faced were particularly difficult. I applaud the gentleman's leadership in recognizing that the totality of the bill is more important, especially when our country is at war in Iraq. I do want to raise several issues of caution about process, however. First, the conference process has not been totally inclusive. Many issues, three in particular, civil service reform, concurrent receipt, and Air Force tanker leasing have been decided without substantive Democratic consultation. Second, there were few conference meetings that involved all the conferees or even all the House conferees. Finally, it is highly undesirable to consider a conference report on a large and highly complex defense bill in just a few hours after the conference report has been filed. It is not possible for Members to make best judgments about voting on this bill when there has not been adequate time after it has been filed. The fact that we are considering this bill today, however, reflects the commitment of the Committee on Armed Services members that we must provide for the men and women of our military when they are sacrificing in so many ways to defend our country and our issues. They are depending on us. We will not let them down. And we are at war. I want to highlight just a few issues that cause me to support this bill. The bill includes a 4.1 percent pay raise for the troops. The bill provides an increase in imminent-danger pay. It provides for family separation allowance, which will directly benefit our servicemen and -women who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan and other dangerous spots away from their homes. The conference report further authorizes TRICARE coverage in the military health care system for our National Guardsmen and for our Reservists who played such a vital role against terrorism. Finally, very, very important, this bill includes increasing the Army's size 2,400 additional soldiers. That is so terribly important because the troops are so strained at this time, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) knows that so well as chairman of the subcommittee. We need the pay raise. We need the special pay to compensate and help retain those who have those special skills. Our bases need the military construction and family housing authorizations. We need to authorize the money for military operations, for flying hours and steaming days and tank miles, to allow our troops to be the best trained and prepared in the world. I want to mention concurrent receipt. Overwhelming majorities of both Houses clearly support providing this benefit to all disabled retirees. Nevertheless, the conference agreement, which would provide this benefit to those at least 50 percent disabled, is a significant step in the right direction. There will, however, be a motion to recommit regarding this issue, and I hope people will support it. I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, that we were able to reach agreements on many difficult issues, but I know many of my colleagues will not be happy with some of the substantive outcomes. The conference agreements concerning low yield nuclear weapons, civil service reform, and changing environmental laws are particularly problematic, and I point those out. Now, perhaps more than any time in the last decade, however, Mr. Speaker, it is essential that the House take action to provide for our men and women in uniform. This vote will not only be seen in Kabul or Baghdad but also Diego Garcia, Fort Irwin, Norfolk, Fort Leonard Wood, Whiteman Air Force Base. We need to send a message to the American public, and to our adversaries and allies, that we as a Congress are prepared to give our men and women in uniform the support, the strong support and protection that they deserve. So I urge my colleagues to vote for this conference report. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) for presenting it this morning. This was a difficult bill, and shortly we will talk about some bumps along the way. But, Mr. Speaker, we are at war. We must do our very best, and I think we have done a good job as it relates to the troops of the United States of America. They are superb. They are doing a good job. We must pay respect to them legislatively as well as to their families legislatively, and I think we have done that by the various items. The family separation allowance, the combat pay, the pay raise and all of these personnel items that we touched upon is our way of saying thanks for a good job well done. So I support this rule. In the process I want to express my deep appreciation to everyone in uniform and to those families who support those in uniform. And, sadly, we have lost some and I hope that this is some consolation that we continue to support the American men and women who are wearing the uniform of the United States of America.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud).

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

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the minority leader.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, let me first thank my friend and colleague from Maryland for the honor of addressing the House at this moment. I much appreciate it. Mr. Speaker, recent press reports have indicated that the administration is planning to begin the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq in the spring of 2004. Based on recent visits to my congressional district in Missouri, I believe such a move would be very politically popular. Overwhelmingly, the people want our troops brought home as rapidly as possible. I, too, want to bring them home. However, if we have learned anything from recent history in Baghdad, it is that poor planning for the occupation has contributed to the dangerous and confused situation in which we find ourselves. I was concerned about planning for the occupation last year. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I wrote to the President on two occasions, first on September 4, 2002, and second, on the eve of the war, on March 18, 2003. My letters detailed the potential problems our forces might encounter during the postconflict occupation of Iraq, and I submit copies of those letters for the Record. Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, September 4, 2002. The President, The White House, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. President: Thank you for inviting me to the briefing this morning. I share your concern about the continuing threat posed by Saddam Hussein and his efforts to produce weapons of mass destruction (WMD). I would like to offer my assistance as the administration considers how to deal with this threat. Before Congress can authorize any military action that might be part of the administration's plan, we must have answers to more questions than were about to be raised at today's meeting. Our constitutional duty requires us to ensure that all implications of such action are considered in advance. The case has not yet been fully made as to what the threat is, why military force is an appropriate way of addressing the threat, and why action must occur now. In short, Congress and the American people must be clear on your strategic vision before we can authorize a specific course of action. I believe, like Clausewitz, that in strategy there is an ``imperative . . . not to take the first step without considering the last.'' Your strategy for dealing with Iraq must address the fundamental questions of the threat, the method of acting, and the timing. Furthermore, any strategy to eliminate Iraqi WMD must also address several component issues, each of which raises critical questions. How To Manage Iraq's Transition to a Stable Post-Saddam Regime As I mentioned to you this morning, this is a critical question for administration strategy to answer in advance of any military action. I have no doubt that our military would decisively defeat Iraq's forces and remove Saddam. But like the proverbial dog chasing the car down the road, we must consider what we would do after we caught it. As Sun-Tzu said in the classic strategic treatise, The Art of War, ``To win victory is easy; to preserve its fruits, difficult,'' Military planners and political leaders alike knew this in World War II. Planning for the occupation of Germany and Japan--two economically viable, technologically sophisticated nations--took place well in advance of the end of the war. The extreme difficulty of occupying Iraq with its history of autocratic rule, its balkanized ethnic tensions, and its isolated economic system argues both for careful consideration of the benefits and risks of undertaking military action and for detailed advanced occupation planning if such military action is approved. Specifically, your strategy must consider the form of a replacement regime and take seriously the possibility that this regime might be rejected by the Iraqi people, leading to civil unrest and even anarchy. The effort must be to craft a stable regime that will be geopolitically preferable to Saddam and will incorporate the disparate interests of all groups within Iraq--Shi'a, Sunni, and Kurd. We must also plan now for what to do with members of the Baath party that continue to support Saddam and with the scientists and engineers who have expertise born of the Iraqi WMD program. All these efforts require careful planning and long-term commitment of manpower and resources. The American people must be clear about the amount of money and the number of soldiers that will have to be devoted to this effort for many years to come. How to Ensure the Action in Iraq Does Not undermine International Support for the Broader War on Terrorism In planning for military operations in Iraq, we cannot ignore the lack of international support to date. Pre-emptive action against Iraq is currently vocally opposed by many of our allies and friends throughout the world and particularly in the Middle East. When we are seen as acting against the concerns of large numbers of our friends, it calls into question the ``humble'' approach to international relations you espoused during the presidential campaign. More than that, it has several potentially damaging long-term consequences. First, it risks losing the large number of partners needed to prosecute the global war on terrorism. To ferret terrorist groups out of their many hiding places, we must have broad allied support. Second, it risks seriously damaging U.S. moral legitimacy, potentially providing states like India and Pakistan with a preemptive option that could drive long-standing conflicts beyond containable bounds. Finally and perhaps most dangerously, actions without broad Arab support may inflame the sources of terrorism, causing unrest and anger throughout the Muslim world. This dynamic will be worse if Iraq attacks Israel--perhaps with weapons of mass destruction--and draws them into the conflict. Iran, which has the potential to seize a reformist path, may well move away from the United States in the face of attacks that could next be taken against them. Together, these dynamics will make achieving peace in the Middle East more difficult and may well provide the rationale for more terrorist attacks against Americans. These concerns do not make military action in Iraq untenable. They do, however, highlight the depth and importance of the issues to be addressed before we strike. We need to ensure that in taking out Saddam, we don't win the battle and lose the war. How to Ensure That the United States Can Execute This Operation Successfully as Well as its Other Military Missions As you are well aware, Mr. President, the consideration of military action against Iraq comes at a time when U.S. forces are actively engaged throughout the world in a range of missions. Given the operational pressures these forces currently face, we must ask what the risks and trade-offs will be of defeating Iraq, particularly if Iraqi forces mass in Baghdad for urban operations. How many casualties must the American people be prepared to take in a worst-case scenario? What will the impact of sustained operations be on so-called high-demand, low-density assets? What military operations might we have to forego because of continued demands in Iraq? Will we still be prepared for the range of other threats that might emerge throughout the world? With little allied support and contributions, will we still be able to maintain military spending on transformational technologies and on sound quality of life for our forces if we are bearing a huge wartime cost alone? What will be the impact on the domestic economy of these resource drains and of the long-term costs of reconstructing Iraq? These questions must be answered before any military action commences so that the American people understand the risks and the sacrifices involved. I ask these questions only to highlight the complexity of the undertaking and the need for Congress, the American people, and our friends around the world to understand exactly what is at stake and why we must act now. Only such a comprehensive strategic approach will ensure that we commit U.S. troops consciously and with full knowledge of the range of challenges we face--both in the initial campaign and in the long aftermath to follow. Even a strategy that has military action as its centerpiece will require great diplomatic efforts to ensure its success. I look forward to hearing the administration's answers and to working with you to find the best course of action. Sincerely, Ike Skelton, Ranking Democrat.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, it has come to my attention that my good friend, Charles E. (Charlie) Kruse, President of the Missouri Farm Bureau Federation, has been named as the next recipient of the Distinguished Eagle Scout Award. As an Eagle Scout myself, let me take this means to pay tribute to Charlie for reaching this important milestone. The Distinguished Eagle Scout Award (DESA) was established in 1969. It is granted to Eagle Scouts who received the Eagle Scout rank 25 or more years ago and who have distinguished themselves in their professional life and in their communities on a voluntary basis. The award is granted by the National Eagle Scout Association upon nomination by a local council and selection by a committee of nationally prominent DESA recipients. In his personal and professional life, Charlie Kruse has established himself as a true role model for patriotic Americans. His life work has far exceeded the guidelines established for receiving this respected award. He has served the American people and the residents of Missouri in the military, as a member of the Governor's cabinet, on the Missouri University Board of Curators, and on many national commissions and boards. He has also worked to enhance the prosperity of his community through church and volunteer activities. Charlie currently serves as President of the Missouri Farm Bureau Federation. In his role, he represents over 100,000 Missourians and provides Members of Congress from the Show-Me State with useful information about what farmers and ranchers are saying about U.S. agricultural policy. Farm Bureau's advice is critical to shaping a national agricultural agenda in a way that benefits Missourians, and I appreciate hearing from Charlie and all Farm Bureau members. Mr. Speaker, I know that all my House colleagues will join me in paying tribute to Charlie Kruse as he receives the Distinguished Eagle Scout Award. He truly deserves this recognition.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, it is the constitutional job of the Congress of the United States to maintain and support the armed services of our country. I stand here in support of this resolution tonight because of that constitutional duty. And I know there have been many bits of discussion about the pros and cons of the line items in this bill. And I know that there are clouds that hang over the question of intelligence as to our initial decision going into Iraq. And I know there are clouds that hang over the decision-making process as to our going in. But the American troops are there. It is our duty to support them so that they may be victorious in this very arduous and difficult, unique and never-seen-before challenge that Americans in uniform have had. I had the opportunity about a month ago to visit with young folks in uniform, actually of all services, in and around Iraq, to look at their faces and know that each one of them whether they came from small towns or inner cities or some from suburbs of America, that they knew their duty, that they were good soldiers, that they wore the American uniform proudly, and that they had a mission to accomplish. For us tonight, we have a mission to accomplish and that mission is to support this resolution. We have no other choice.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this, and my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), for his hard work in seeing to it this bill gets here; and I thank as well our friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson). Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill, and I thank those who have offered it and have cosponsored it. The bill before us increases the death gratuity from $6,000 to $12,000; but more important, it would provide that the entire payment be tax free. Congress first established the benefit for death back in 1908, and there is a long history of this. As a result of increasing the benefit from $3,000 to $6,000, and the way the law was written at the time, part of that remained taxable. We are now increasing this to $12,000 and making it all nontaxable. About a month ago, I went to Iraq. I had the opportunity to see some young men and young women in uniform doing their duty. It is arduous and difficult, and I felt very proud of them. Whether they had a star on their shoulder or whether they be buck privates, they were doing masterful jobs, for which they were well trained. They are the cream of the crop of our youth in this country. We thank them for that. Three days our group spent in Iraq, flying in and out of Baghdad from Kuwait. We had to spend the night in Kuwait, for security reasons, we were told. The second night, Sunday night, we flew from Baghdad back to Iraq, and in the C-130 airplane there was with us a body bag carrying the body of a young soldier. It caused me to stop and think that these young Americans are literally putting their lives on the line, and the best thing we can do is to show gratitude and appreciation. Cicero once said that gratitude was the greatest of all virtues, and I think that he was right. So how do we do that today? We do it with this bill, introduced by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi), the gentleman from New York (Mr. McNulty), and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson). This shows gratitude to those unfortunate families that lose a loved one, and it is a good thing that we can do. I wholeheartedly support it, both the increase and the tax benefit therefrom, because gratitude is the greatest of all virtues and this is one small way we can express it. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support my colleagues, Mr. Renzi and Mr. McGovern, in their efforts to provide a tax-free, increased death gratuity payment to survivors of deceased service members. The bill before us would increase the death gratuity payment from $6,000 to $12,000, but more importantly, it would provide that the entire payment be tax free. Congress first established the death gratuity payment in 1908. At the time, it provided six months pay to the survivors of deceased service members. The death gratuity was necessary because there was no government life insurance program and career personnel often could not obtain or afford adequate commercial life insurance. The death gratuity payment was used to provide immediate financial assistance to families of deceased military members to meet immediate expenses. The death gratuity program was repealed in 1917 when Congress established the predecessor to the current Dependency and Indemnity Compensation Program. However, only two years later, Congress would restore this important benefit. Over time as inflation and pay increases eroded the principle of a six-month pay payment, all survivors regardless of rank began to receive the higher payment of $3,000. The maximum $3,000 tax-free benefit would not see a notable increase until 1991, as our Nation sent its sons and daughters in uniform to war in the Persian Gulf conflict. Congress, recognizing the sacrifices that our military families were experiencing, doubled the death gratuity payment from $3,000 to $6,000. Unfortunately, the additional increase of $3,000 was determined to be a taxable benefit. Today, over 120,000 American troops are back in the Persian Gulf to help liberate the Iraqi people. Since the start of the Iraq conflict, over 229 service members have given their lives in combat and another 127 have been killed in the line of duty. In addition, 31 service members have lost their lives in combat in Afghanistan in Operation Enduring Freedom, and 58 Armed Forces personnel have been killed in service to their Nation. We have a moral obligation to provide assistance to these families and help them through this difficult time. Increasing the death gratuity to $12,000 for these military families, and those who may lose their service member in the war against terrorism, will provide immediate financial assistance to families in those first turbulent and stressful weeks. As my colleagues are aware, the conferees to the defense authorization bill are also considering a conference provision that would increase the death gratuity to $12,000 for survivors of deceased service members. While I am relatively confident that provision will be accepted by the conferees, what is really needed is to make this payment tax-free. Which is why I am pleased that my colleagues from the Ways and Means Committee are here today to help ensure that the death gratuity payments paid to military families are tax-free. These families should not have to worry that this additional money, provided to them in a time of need, may end up being a financial hardship at the end of the year. I urge my colleagues to recognize the sacrifices and dedication of those who serve in uniform, and support this effort to provide these families the additional financial resources to help them during a heartbreaking and distressing time.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, October 12, 2003, a memorial service was held on the campus of Wentworth Military Academy in Lexington, MO. Retired Lieutenant Colonel Jim Ahrens presided. This service paid tribute to the many Wentworth Alumni who served in the military and paid the ultimate sacrifice. I commend the remarks of Lieutenant Colonel Ahrens to this body. Text for Memorial Service Invocation: Let us pray Almighty and most merciful God. Look with favor upon us gathered here this morning--in thy presence--on this sacred ground, and inspire our hearts and minds as we lovingly celebrate the deeds of Wentworth Cadets, old boys, whose sacrifices--blood, sweat, and tears--made in the name of freedom and human dignity--shall stand forever as the foundation stones of our great nation. Bless us now, O God, that our thoughts, desires and deeds throughout this memorial service may be inspired by You according to Your holy name. Amen. Introductory statement Friends: We gather here on this historic ground--this sacred ground--Cadet Corps, old boys and their families, Wentworth staff, faculty and friends--we gather here near the Memorial Chapel, its entrance guarded by the Mooney Memorial--just down this tree shaded hill from the doughboy and the Hall of Honor--to remember, to honor and to return thanks for Wentworth cadets who made the supreme sacrifice. We gather to lovingly remember Wentworth old boys who gave their lives in the service of their country. Today we are particularly mindful of the vets we single them out now for honor because, like other Wentworth old boys, they fought and served and some died courageously. It is now their time-- their turn--for special recognition. How thankful we are for their dedication, their loyalty, perseverance--for their patriotism. How thankful we are for their sacrifices made in the line of duty--in times of terrible trial and tribulation--crisis--peril--times of grievous suffering--times of war. Alumni from Wentworth have served in eight conflicts and have sacrificed their lives in six of them. 41 served in the Spanish American war and two died. 3 are known to have served in the Philippine Insurrection and one parished. At least 552 served in WW I and fourteen died, including one faculty member. At least 813 served in WW II and 87 died, including another faculty member. 213 served in Korea and nine paid with their lives. We don't know exactly how many served in the Vietnam conflict, but we know that eleven made the supreme sacrifice. Approximately 30 served in the first Gulf War that we know of and apparently all returned at the end of the conflict. Many are serving, as we speak, in the second Gulf War, which includes the War on Terror. These men gave their lives for all of us in this country. Because of the closeness of our alumni it seems as if they became a part of all of our lives and we all feel their loss. What we have to day is a heritage that is made all the more rich by what they gave for us. Today we honor all who have given their lives. There is no doubt that their example has served as an inspiration for all of us to do what we can do to end conflict, but we all know equally well that we could be called upon to make the supreme sacrifice for our country and fellow humankind. We must also remember those Wentworth faculty, staff, cadets and acquaintances who are no longer with us as well as those who have died in the past year Memorial prayer Let us pray. Almighty God, bless now our memories of Wentworth cadets--and their loved ones who waited patiently behind--bless our memories of old boys who made the supreme sacrifice--old boys who march no more in our ranks--who answer no more reveille roll call--who stand no more on the Quadrangle for sunset retreat. Bless, oh God, our remembrance of them that the spirit of their heroism--their dreams of a better life in a world at peace their sacrifices for us--may inspire us here on this Wentworth campus, and wherever we go, to live together in brotherly love--according to your golden rule. May their memory live on--heartening and inspiring--teaching us the meaning of heroism, patriotism--brotherly love. And, O God, inspire us so we may never take for granted or forget our Wentworth heroes. May we be inspired in the days and weeks to come to walk a little slower by this Huey helicopter and the doughboy--to walk a little slower by the Mooney memorial, and in our hearts do an ``eyes right and render a smart hand salute--as we pay our respects to our fallen comrades-- Wentworth cadets who made the supreme sacrifice. Amen

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, The Bicentennial of the Lewis and Clark Expedition is being commemorated between 2003 and 2006. As we celebrate the Bicentennial, the famous expedition evokes pride and awe in countless Americans who reflect on its achievements. While most Americans have some knowledge of the expedition, relatively few recognize that it was an Army endeavor. It was not an accident that President Jefferson turned to the Army for the mission. President Jefferson chose the Army for his Corps of Discovery because it was the ``right tool'' for the arduous job. Frontier soldiers possessed the toughness, teamwork, discipline and training appropriate to the challenge of exploring the newly acquired lands. Most importantly, Meriwether Lewis and William Clark were outstanding officers and leaders who had previously served the Army with distinction. Today, the route followed by the Lewis and Clark Expedition lies within eight Corps districts. By virtue of its stewardship role for the Nation's rivers and its Army heritage of exploring and mapping the western United States, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will play a key leadership role in the observance of the Bicentennial. Of the more than 5,000 miles of trail from Pittsburgh to the Pacific Ocean, the Corps directly or indirectly manages nearly 4,700 river miles. Corps management activities include navigation channel maintenance, levee maintenance, environmental permitting responsibilities, and operation of the reservoirs and locks/dams. Because the Corps manages more of the trail than any other governmental entity, and it is the largest Federal provider of outdoor recreation opportunities in the country, the Corps will play an important role during the Bicentennial Commemoration. The Commemoration officially began in January 2003 at Monticello and will retrace the original expedition across the United States and back. There are 17 Signature events planned and organized under the guidance of the Lewis and Clark bicentennial Council. The Corps of Engineers will support these Signature events by participating in the Federal interagency project called Corps of Discovery II--200 Years to the Future, which is a traveling exhibition and classroom, providing educational programs for school children, and manning displays and exhibits. The overall goal of the Corps' participation in the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial Commemoration is to accommodate the anticipated increased visitation, ensure a safe visitor experience, and provide information on the Expedition, the Army, and the Corps--all with minimal impact on the environment. To reach this goal, the Corps is working to upgrade sanitary facilities, visitor centers and campgrounds. The Chief of Engineers has emphasized that park facilities should be in good condition to support the additional visitation and visitor expectations, particularly those facilities that are on the Lewis and Clark trail or within 50 miles of a signature event. To reach the ``safe visitor experience'' objective, the Corps will provide water safety information specific to reservoirs and rivers along the Lewis and Clark route, including locking and portage procedures, the identification of hazardous areas, fueling areas, and the location of boat ramps. The Corps is also cooperating with other Federal, State and local enforcement, safety and emergency agencies to provide the essential public safety services along the route. The Corps will provide information to the public during the Bicentennial to educate about the expedition and the contribution of the Army to the success of the expedition. The legacy of the expedition is also an important story, including the role the Corps of Engineers played in exploration and development of the waterways that opened the west to river travel and the continuing role of the Corps in developing, managing, and protecting the Nation's water resources. The Corps is also a partner and sponsor of the Ft. Leavenworth re- enactors who will attend many of the Signature events and portray the Lewis and Clark expedition as an Army reconnaissance mission. The Corps is the sponsor of numerous educational products including a discovery box educational kit which is used by Corps park rangers to educate school children about the Lewis and Clark Expedition as a military expedition. Other educational products that we have partnered in include an interagency brochure, car audio tours, a training academy for educators, exhibits and a film that will be marketed to public television. Lewis and Clark began the legacy of Army exploration of the American West which led to the Corps long tradition of service to our customers--the American public.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, on October 26, 2003, a memorial service in honor of Army Specialist Joshua Neusche will be held at the Camden County Courthouse Square in Camdenton, Missouri. On this occasion, participants will dedicate a tree and marker on the courthouse lawn to the memory of one of our neighbors, a young man whose life was tragically cut short while he served his fellow Americans by wearing the uniform of a citizen soldier. Spc. Josh Neusche of Montreal, Missouri, was a member of the Missouri Army National Guard's 203rd Engineer Battalion from Joplin. He deployed to Iraq with his unit in May 2003. During this deployment, Spc. Neusche became seriously ill and passed away on July 12, 2003. By all accounts, he was an outstanding young man and a favorite among his friends. Josh graduated from Camdenton High School in 2002. A participant in a number of extracurricular activities, Josh played in the Laker Band and the Pep Band, ran for the award winning track and cross country teams, was elected 2002 Prom King, tutored children in the A+ Program, and volunteered with the Big Brothers and Big Sisters in Camdenton. He was a member of the Buffalo Prairie Baptist Church in Montreal, Missouri. Prior to his Guard activation, Josh attended Southwest Missouri State University while holding a full-time job and finding time to volunteer at the Boys' Club in Springfield, Missouri. He inspired loyalty and affection from his friends, as evidenced by the fact that the members of his unit took up a collection after Josh became ill which allowed his family to visit him in the hospital in Germany. In wartime, the very best young people our country produces are asked to risk and possibly lose their lives in order to advance our national interests. In peacetime, serving as an airman, sailor, soldier, or marine also requires a great deal of hard work and sacrifice. Whether in war or in peace, those sacrifices are particularly difficult for the service members' families. We can only imagine the pain felt by Josh's family--particularly by his mother, Cindy, his father, Mark, and his brother, Jake--as they have been forced to deal with his untimely death and this sudden, unexpected loss. Our deepest sympathy goes out to his entire family and circle of friends. Our nation owes a debt of gratitude to Spc. Neusche for his service to our country. We also owe more than we can ever repay to Josh's family, who raised this young man and instilled in him the values that enabled him to succeed as an American soldier. On behalf of my fellow Missourians and my fellow Americans, I thank the Neusche family for their selfless contribution and immeasurable sacrifice.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, throughout my years of service, I have spent considerable time learning and understanding the complexities of our Nation's national security programs, and in particular our military personnel policies. It is with this experience and appreciation that I rise to share with my colleagues my deep concerns regarding the Nation's military end strength. In February 1991, this Nation joined with our allies and went to war in the Persian Gulf. American service members were sent to the Middle East to help restore liberty and freedom to the citizens of Kuwait. The defense authorization bill for fiscal year 1991, provided the Army an end-strength of 702,170, the Navy 570,500, the Marine Corps 193,735, and the Air Force 510,000. When we went to war in 1991, the Army had 12 divisions, the Navy had 529 ships and the Air Force had 165 air wings. The fall of the Berlin Wall, the end of the Cold War, and the successful prosecution of the first Persian Gulf War all led to the demand and belief that our country should and needed to reduce its military end-strength. The pressure for a ``peace dividend'' became the popular call. By 1996, we had reduced Army end strength to 495,000, a reduction of over 207,000. The Navy was cut to 428,340, the Marine Corps downsized to 174,000, and the Air Force lost 129,000 for an end-strength of 388,200. The ``peace dividend'' was fast becoming a reality--in 5 years the military end-strength had been reduced by more than a half million. However, the world has remained far from peaceful. The end of the Cold War has brought its own challenges--nearly 100,000 American forces have been called to serve in Bosnia and Kosovo, and thousands of National Guardsmen and Reserves are still being called to serve today. The United States has also sent our men and women in uniform to other operations around the world, including humanitarian assistance missions to Somalia and Haiti, drug interdiction operations in South America, and training government troops opposed to insurgents in the Philippines. Unfortunately, as the number of military operations has increased, there has also continued to be a slow and steady decrease in the size of our military. But starting in 1995, the harsh reality of the worldwide operational burden on our forces led to calls for more forces. In 1995, Army Lieutenant General Ted Stroup, then Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, testified that the Army's active end strength should be 520,000, not the 495,000 that was requested in the 1996 budget request. Army Chief of Staff, General Eric Shinseki, reiterated that position during a hearing before the Armed Services Committee in July 2001. He told us that the Army needs a force of 520,000 people. However, instead of proposing to increase military end-strength, the Bush administration has sought to gain greater efficiencies in the current force. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld directed the services to find ways to convert military positions that were not on the tip of the spear to civilian positions or private contractor jobs. The services also have been conducting reviews of their own to find ways to convert non-combat units to units with missions more relevant to actually fighting wars in order to relieve the burden on the front line forces now deployed around the world. While I agree that we need to support more efficient use of the force, the administration's solution to our operational dilemma is wrong, shortsighted and self-defeating. Failing to increase our end strength will only increase the pressure on our current force. There is simply no substitute for having enough people to do the job--``boots on the ground'' in military parlance and all the organizational efficiency in the world is no substitute. It is said that history often repeats itself. Our Nation has historically reduced the number of men and women in uniform following major conflicts, such as World War I, World War II, Vietnam, Korea, and the Cold War. As a result of this historical phenomenon, we had a relatively small force by historical standards when we were violently attacked by terrorists on September 11, 2001. In the days since then, hundreds of thousands of National Guard and Reservists have been called to active duty to provide security at our Nation's airports, bridges, nuclear power plants, and other important facilities. Thousands of men and women in uniform were sent to Afghanistan to remove terrorists and their supporters in Operation Enduring Freedom. And, in March of this year, Armed Forces personnel were sent to invade Iraq and remove a cruel and ruthless dictator from power, and are likely to be in Iraq for years to come. The message from these events is clear--because there are not enough troops to meet our worldwide military obligations, troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and even those guarding against terrorism inside the United States, face longer call ups, deployments and hardships than would be required if we had a larger force. We simply need more people in our military to do the job right! On September 23, 1999, then presidential candidate Bush stated, ``Frustration is up, as families are separated and strained. Morale is down. Recruitment is more difficult. And many of our best people in the military are headed for civilian life.'' Just four short years later, I say the same words to the President. Frustration is up, and families have been separated and strained more today than at any other time in recent history. Morale is declining. Although military recruiting is now satisfactory, many military leaders have expressed their fear that retention and recruiting will decline as troops rotate back home. The time has come for Congress to ensure that our Nation has the military manpower that it needs to successfully execute the missions we ask our brave service men and women to perform. We need to increase our military end-strength, particularly in the Army, now. We need to ensure that the all volunteer force will continue to work as well as it has for the last 30 years. And that will only happen if we have enough people in uniform.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, let me commend the chairman and the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations for bringing to the floor this supplemental appropriations bill. This $86.7 billion supplemental will help improve the quality of life for our servicemembers currently serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. I am pleased that the committee chose to continue to increase the imminent danger pay for those who continue to face danger on the front lines. The supplemental also supports a continued increase in the family separation allowance, which will help separated families cope with the cost increases associated with the deployments. The bill also continues the authorization of per diem travel funding for family members whose servicemember may be ill or injured as a result of the activity or duty; and it would allow the Department of Defense to provide for a per diem to allow the servicemembers to purchase civilian clothing as well. The bill would improve the security of our forces in Iraq and in Afghanistan, with $251 million being provided to purchase additional special armor plates. These special armor plates are in short supply in Iraq. As a matter of fact, we were told they were 37,000 short. Increased funding has been provided for modern hydration systems, for clearing unexploded ordnance, for spare parts, and other necessary field equipment. Now, Mr. Speaker, despite these improvements, I believe more could have been done. For instance, the increase in imminent danger pay and family separation allowance increases should be permanent. Next September, servicemembers and their families should not have to wonder again and hope that Congress will do the right thing and extend the increases for another fiscal year. Additional funds should also have been provided to support the growing number of family assistance centers that are needed, particularly for the Guard and for the Reserve. In addition, supplemental funding could have been provided to enhance the transitional services for our injured servicemembers for whom continued military service will not be possible. These are just a few examples of the additional improvements that could have been included in this bill but are not. Mr. Speaker, I commend the chairman and the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee for bringing to the floor this supplemental appropriations bill for military and reconstruction activities in Iraq and Afghanistan. This $86.7 billion supplemental will help improve the quality of life for the service members currently serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, as well as for their families. I am pleased that the committee chose to continue the increase in imminent danger pay for those who continue to face danger on the front lines. The supplemental also supports a continued increase in the family separation allowance, which will help separated families cope with the costs increases associated with deployments away from home. Both increases would be effective for the entire 2004 fiscal year. The bill would also continue the authorization of per diem travel funding for family members whose service member may be ill or inured as a result of service on active duty, and would also allow the Department of Defense to provide a clothing per diem allowance with which service members could purchase civilian clothing while recuperating from their injuries. The bill would also improve the security of our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan; $251 million has been provided to purchase additional special armor plate inserts--the armored protective plates that are in such short supply in Iraq. Increased funding has also been provided for modern hydration systems, for clearing unexploded ordnance, for spare parts and for other necessary field equipment. Despite these improvements, I believe more could be done. For example, the increase in imminent danger pay and family separation allowance increases should be permanent. Next September, service members and their families should not have to wonder and hope that Congress will do the right thing and extend the increases from one fiscal year to the next. Additional funds also should have been provided to support the growing number of family assistance centers that are needed, particularly for the Guard and Reserves. The majority of National Guard and Reserve families do not live near a military base and has difficulty accessing the family support programs that are provided by the services. Additional funds for family support programs would have been helpful. In addition, supplemental funding could have been provided to enhance the transitional services for our injured service members for who continued military service will not be possible. Providing more case managers, who provide direct assistance to recovering service members, would help smooth the transition. Creating additional social workers to work with the service member and the Department of Veterans Affairs for follow on health care services and disability compensation would also improve transitional services and help prevent these vulnerable service members from suffering undue hardships. These are just a few examples of additional improvements that could and should have been included in this bill. While I understand the difficulties the chairman faced in bringing forward a bill that would be acceptable, I believe that the committee should have made a better effort to include the amendment offered by the ranking member, Mr. Obey, which included a number of these quality of life improvements that I have previously mentioned. As such, I hope that my colleagues will support those amendments that seek to improve the protection of our troops and the quality of life for themselves and their families.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to MG Arnold Punaro, United Stated Marine Corps Reserve, on the occasion of his retirement. Major General Punaro has served our Marine Corps and our Nation for more than 35 years. A native of the great state of Georgia, Major General Punaro grew up in the town of Macon, and graduated from Mount de Sales Academy. He then chose to focus on higher education, earning a Bachelor of Science degree in English from Spring Hill College in Mobile, Alabama. He would later earn Masters degrees at the University of Georgia and also Georgetown University. Like many fine, Southern gentlemen before him, he answered the call to duty and joined the Marine Corps, serving as a platoon commander in Vietnam where he was decorated for heroism and wounded in combat. In 1973, after completing his active duty tour, Major General Punaro transferred to the Marine Corps Reserve, and continued to dedicate himself to the service of our country, working in the U.S. Senate for Senator Sam Nunn on national security matters for 24 years. In his work with the Senate Armed Services Committee as Staff Director of the Senate Armed Services Committee, he was involved in the formulation of all major defense legislation and the oversight and review of all major defense activities for over two decades. This included the Defense Officer Personnel Management Act and its Reserve counterpart, the Goldwater-Nichols Defense Reorganization Act, the Acquisition Streamlining Act, personnel transition provisions, special operations reforms, and all pay and benefits matters. Major General Punaro also remained actively involved in numerous Reserve organizations, including a tour on active duty in Operation Desert Shield and an extended tour on active duty as the Commander of Joint task Force Provide Promise (Forward) in command of U.S. Forces serving in the former Yugoslavia. Throughout his career, both civilian and military, MG Arnold Punaro dedicated himself to improving our national security. He serves as a member of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's newly formed Defense Business Board and is also a Senior Associate at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C. He serves on the adjunct faculty at the Marine Corps University and on the Secretary of Defense Reserve Forces Policy Board. As a general officer, he has spent 5 years in command, focusing on increased operational readiness and the integration of reserve forces into the total force Marine Corps. Always keeping the welfare of his Marines at the forefront of his efforts, Major General Punaro spearheaded several programs that directly benefited the quality of life for our service members. Major General Punaro was recently mobilized on active duty, serving concurrently as a Special Assistant to the Commander, U.S. European Command and as Director of Reserve Affairs Division where he oversaw the largest mobilization in the history of the Marine Corps. In support of the Global War on Terrorism, more than 22,000 Reserve Marines were called to duty. More than 75 percent of those were deployed into theater, where they served with distinction. His dedication to the defense of our country, as a young man in Vietnam to his actions with the Senate together with his continued service with the Marine Corps Reserve, has been a lifelong endeavor. We have been fortunate to have such a high caliber marine officer in support of our nation. Throughout his distinguished career, Major General Punaro has demonstrated uncompromising character, discerning wisdom, and a sincere, profound sense of duty to his country, and his Corps. On behalf of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I would like to recognize Major General Punaro's accomplishments and his devoted service to the Nation. Congratulations to him, his wife Jan and their four children, 2LT Joe Punaro (USMC), Julie, Meghan, and Daniel on the completion of a long and distinguished career. I wish them all the best as they continue to live life beyond our country's beloved Corps.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, let me take this means to pay tribute to the Lafayette County Health Department which is celebrating its 50th Anniversary on October 9, 2003. The Lafayette County Health Department has proudly served the residents of Lafayette County since 1953. In that year, a sixteen member County Health Steering Committee was appointed to analyze various health problems in Lafayette County. In 1957, the steering committee recommended hiring the first county health nurse, Catherine Boedeker Winfrey. It was also in 1957 that the county started receiving public health funds. With the funds, the Lafayette County Health Department started massive polio immunization clinics and started to dispense tuberculosis medicines. They also provided dressings to cancer patients and provided classes in home nursing, first aid, babysitting, and civil defense. Hearing and vision screening were started in the county's schools. The Lafayette County Health Department became the lead agency in coordinating disaster plans for the county. In 1963, immunization services were expanded to include the prevention of diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, and the smallpox diseases. The Lafayette County Health Department implemented Maternal Child Health programs to educate the public about prenatal and infant health issues in 1967. Mass immunizations for rubella were available in 1970, the same year that family planning services were offered for the first time. In 1973, child health conferences were started. This program offered free well child check-ups as well as other programs to promote healthy children. Through the 1980's and 1990's the Lafayette County Health Department continued its many services. In 1980, the department added Environmental Sanitarian services to offer inspections of food establishments and public sanitation outlets. In 2000, the department developed a Mentoring Moms program for mothers in the county. Mr. Speaker, the Lafayette County Health Department has provided valuable public health services to the people of Lafayette County for the past 50 years. I hope that the other Members of the House will join me in thanking them for their wonderful years of service.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the dedication, public service and patriotism that personified the Naval career of Admiral Robert J. Natter, United States Navy. Admiral Natter is currently serving as the Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command and Commander, U.S. Atlantic Fleet, and he will soon retire from the Navy after more than 37 years of distinguished service wearing the uniform of our Nation. I have had the pleasure to know the Natter family for nearly 16 years and have personally worked with the Admiral on a variety of important issues affecting the Navy and the U.S. military, so it is with great pride and admiration that I honor a dear friend as he begins the next chapter of his life. I first met Bob in 1981 when he was a commander. I hired him as a military fellow on my staff and assigned him to work all of my legislative issues on the Armed Services Committee. I was impressed with how quickly Bob became an expert at the complicated legislative and budget processes. In hindsight, it is clear to me that the Navy afforded Commander Natter this position because they knew he was flag officer material, and this professional development opportunity would serve Bob and the Navy well. It did. During the years following the 1991 Tailhook Convention, the Navy was struggling to repair its reputation. At this critical time Rear Admiral Natter was assigned as Chief of Legislative Affairs. His wartime and operational experience gave him instant credibility. But it was Admiral Natter's knowledge of Washington and the Hill along with his candor, confidence and demeanor that helped navigate the Navy through those rough waters and rebuild and restore the Navy's reputation. A native of Trussville, Alabama, Admiral Natter grew up in a family of true American patriots. One of nine children, seven boys and two girls, all seven sons joined the military as six naval officers and one Air Force officer. After enlisting in the Naval Reserve, Bob Natter chose the Naval Academy as his commissioning source graduating in 1967. After a few tours at sea, he was sent to Vietnam for duty on riverboat patrols where he learned first hand the harsh realities of war. While serving as the Officer in Charge of a Naval Special Warfare detachment, Lieutenant Natter was seriously injured when his special operations team came under attack. He then earned both the Purple Heart and Silver Star for his heroic actions. His experiences in Vietnam instilled in him the true meaning of leadership, strengthened his desire to serve, and solidified his reputation as a strong leader and most capable warrior. Throughout his career, Admiral Natter held many positions of great responsibility including command of USS Chandler (DDG 996), USS Antietam (CG 54), and Commander of the United States Seventh Fleet. In June 2000, Admiral Natter assumed duties as Commander, U.S. Atlantic Fleet where he was charged with providing fully trained, combat ready forces to support United States and NATO commanders in regions of conflict throughout the world. On September 11, 2001, the world changed. As America prepared to go to war, I for one, was pleased to know that Admiral Natter was leading the Atlantic Fleet's 160,000 Sailors and Marines, 162 ships and 1,200 aircraft, as well as 18 major shore stations providing training, maintenance and logistics support. Then on October 1, 2001, Admiral Natter was assigned additional responsibility as the first Commander of the newly established U.S. Fleet Forces Command, which is responsible for manning, equipping and training all Atlantic and Pacific Fleet ships and aircraft squadrons. His strong and dynamic leadership inspired Atlantic Fleet Sailors, officers, and civilians to perform their best and contribute their utmost during a time of unprecedented military action that resulted in the overwhelming success in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Admiral Natter's was truly an amazing career that was recognized by numerous personal awards and decorations. In addition to the Silver Star and Purple Heart, Admiral Natter's personal decorations include three awards of the Distinguished Service Medal, the Defense Superior Service Medal, five awards of the Legion of Merit, the Bronze Star Medal with Combat V, two awards of the Meritorious Service Medal, the Navy Commendation Medal with Combat V, and the Navy Achievement Medal with Combat V. He was also a distinguished graduate of the U.S. Naval War College, and he earned Masters Degrees in Business Management and International Relations. And, he was honored as the fifth recipient of the Naval War College's annual Distinguished Graduate Leadership Award. His career clearly speaks for itself. Admiral Natter personifies the Navy's core values: Honor, Courage, and Commitment. But, what his bio doesn't tell you is that through it all, Bob was, above all, a family man. He is a loving husband to his beautiful wife Claudia, and a dedicated father to his three children Kelly, Courtney and Kendall. Anyone that knows Bob, knows that he lives for his family and his children are truly the ``glimmer in Dad's eye.'' Admiral Natter is a family man, a patriot, a hero, and a superb naval officer who, throughout his naval career, led with courage and integrity. His leadership and performance in peacetime and war were instrumental in the success of the Navy and outstanding support for naval forces throughout the world. Thanks to his inspirational leadership and selfless dedication to duty, our Navy has remained second to none. So, as Admiral Natter moves into retirement with Claudia, our Nation and Navy owe him a debt of gratitude for his superb service. I wish him fair winds and following seas as he concludes his distinguished career.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, let me take this means to congratulate Missouri corn producers and the people of Mid-Missouri Energy, Inc., who have tirelessly worked to form a farmer-owned ethanol production facility in Malta Bend, Missouri. Folks from this cooperative will break ground on their new plant on October 4, 2003. Farmers in Missouri and throughout the nation are working in fields right now to harvest their corn for the year. Many of these producers have experienced tough economic times over the past several years and prolonged drought in the Midwest is making things difficult again this year. In order to make their yields more valuable, corn growers have sought to enhance the value added nature of their commodity. Ethanol, which is a renewable fuel that comes from corn, is an important value added product for farmers and its production means a great deal to those of us who live in middle America. Mid-Missouri Energy, Inc., was created to maximize the return on investment to its investors by adding value to Show-Me State corn production, to create economic development in central Missouri, and to foster a positive environment among its employees. The men and women who make up this cooperative are hard working Missourians who have committed their time and money to the success of the new ethanol production plant. I especially applaud the efforts of Mid-Missouri Energy Chairman Ryland Utlaut of Alma, Missouri, for his dedicated efforts. As farmers break ground on this new ethanol production facility, I know that Members of Congress will join me in honoring the outstanding work of Mid-Missouri Energy, Inc.